"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[benedictus2]

Why would anyone need the magisterium to tell them what the Bibles so clearly states about divorce. Since so many Catholics left the church and disregarded what you call sound doctrine on divorce, it appears that the magisterium changed their minds and now call it annullment. Same thing different name.

Nope. Not the same thing. Annulment means that the marriage was never valid. Divorce means that the marriage was valid.

And no the Bible is not really all that clear, otherwise we will not be having this debate atl all over one verse in one chapter of the Bible. If the Bible is so clear, there would not be 33,000 different denominations.

You hit the nail right on the head. Most or a good many Catholics don’t read the Bible, I hardly think that’s Jesus’ aproved method or 2Tim 3:16’s method of studying God’s Word.

From the beginning of Christianity, the Word of God was supposed to be proclaimed NOT read although technological advancenment is a good thing and it is really good that we can individually now read the Bible. The Christians for 1500 years never read the Bible. How they came to know about the Gospel is through the Mass, during the Liturgy of the Word.

I’m sure with Sunday school teachings and the Holy Spirit anointed pastor’s preaching is more in line with what Paul taught in 1Cor 14:26-40. Yes! We do very well.

Sunday school is a poor substitute for the mass. And I must say that self-appointed pastors are not all the versed in the Bible either. Most of them will evade and completely ignore passages that are Catholic becuase from a Protestant perspective they have no way of explaining them. I mean just look at your two scriptural references above, not one of them referred to the Gospels.

The Bible tells me so 2 Tim 3:16,

But that is circular reasoning. And by the way, 2 Tim 316 does not say that the Bible is infallible.

How do you know that the Pope infallible, someone told you so.

The Pope is not infallible in all things but only in matters of doctrine. And we know this because CHRIST SAID SO. And I know that I can trust God to tell me the truth. So whatever Christ said must be so.

If I told you that I used to be Santa Claus would you believe me?

If I can find evidence for it I will.

The Catholic church WROTE the Bible? That’s news to me!

Wonderful. Now you’ve learned something new. And something very important. But let me do a correction, it is the NT not the OT that the Catholic Church wrote.

Did they write the O.T. too?

Technically no, that was an error in my terminology.

Hw about all the letters that Paul wrote? If they WROTE the Bible why would they have to determine which books should included.

One thing you forget is that at the birth of the Church, there was only one Church, the Catholic Church. And yes, Paul was Catholic .

So why did they have to determine which belonged to the canon? Because since there was only one Church and every one was Catholic but some were writing their own gospels and epistles, so the church had to determine which ones were actually faithful to Apostolic Tradition. Those that are not in line with Apostolic Tradition were left out of the canon.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2:

You have probably not extended your thinking this far but by agreeing that the Bible is infallible, you are actually agreeing that the Catholic Church is infallible

You mean it’s something like a cat chasing its tail in a circle? Benedictus2 this post seems kinda silly, don’t you think. God Bless ED O.

No this post is not silly. Actually this is the kind of logical thinking that evades some protestants or perhaps they just do not want to deal with it because it is too close to the truth.

I will dig up something I posted regarding this some time ago and re-post it here.

 

[EdOsiecki]

To All who’s watching this thread. let’s get back to John 3:3-5 . Are we born again by water baptism? The born of water is that physical or what? On my post 701 I explain in detail the method God used from creation concerning man’ redemption, which very clearly shows nothing at all about “water” baptism to be born again or from above. So really is doesn’t matter whether the born of water in John 3:5 physical or not, because it has nothing to do with redemption. Why am I not being challenged for what I posted on 701?ED O.

 

[panevino]

To All who’s watching this thread. let’s get back to John 3:3-5 . Are we born again by water baptism? The born of water is that physical or what? On my post 701 I explain in detail the method God used from creation concerning man’ redemption, which very clearly shows nothing at all about “water” baptism to be born again or from above. So really is doesn’t matter whether the born of water in John 3:5 physical or not, because it has nothing to do with redemption. Why am I not being challenged for what I posted on 701?ED O.

I made an attempt in post 626 and 709.
though may not cover exactly what your after.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Benedictus2
Nope. Not the same thing. Annulment means that the marriage was never valid. Divorce means that the marriage was valid And no the Bible is not really all that clear, otherwise we will not be having this debate atl all over one verse in one chapter of the Bible. If the Bible is so clear, there would not be 33,000 different denominations

Benedictus2, I don’t want to get off the point of this thread, but here’s something for you to think about. You say that annulment means that the marriage was never valid. Then what happens to the kids? Do they just vanish. How do they explain how they got here? About the 33,000 denominations, I’m glad to hear that the numbers came down somewhat, it used to be 40,000. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino
made an attempt in post 626 and 709.
though may not cover exactly what your after

Hi panevino, Rom 10:13, states,“Anyone who CALLS UPON the Lord will be SAVED.------John 1:11-13, states,” He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. v12 But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, v13 who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God. Now the side commentary of The New Catholic Bible states: Believers in Jesus become children of God not through any of the three natural causes mentioned but through God who is the IMMEDIATE cause of the new spiritual life" And when you read Eph 1:13 It further explains it. So 'Water" Baptism is not the source of regeneration (born again).

 

[zach_dunn]

Benedictus2, I don’t want to get off the point of this thread, but here’s something for you to think about. You say that annulment means that the marriage was never valid. Then what happens to the kids? Do they just vanish. How do they explain how they got here?

What? Do you seriously think about these things before you type them? “Do the just vanish?” Ed, it is possible to have kids outside of wedlock, it’s against God’s laws to do so, but it’s possible, I thought we all learned this in 7th grade.

About the 33,000 denominations, I’m glad to hear that the numbers came down somewhat, it used to be 40,000. ED O.

You miss the point of him saying this, there aren’t supposed to be denominations, they are BAD. It could be only five or only two, that doesn’t mean it’s ok, it doesn’t become more acceptable the fewer denominations there are, there is one faith not 33,000, not 40,000, not 5 and not 2, just one.

 

[zach_dunn]

To All who’s watching this thread. let’s get back to John 3:3-5 . Are we born again by water baptism? The born of water is that physical or what? On my post 701 I explain in detail the method God used from creation concerning man’ redemption, which very clearly shows nothing at all about “water” baptism to be born again or from above. So really is doesn’t matter whether the born of water in John 3:5 physical or not, because it has nothing to do with redemption. Why am I not being challenged for what I posted on 701?ED O.

Typical, when people start making sense we have to “get back” to the topic, you were just fine with it until recently. Despite this, I’ll answer your post number 701:

TO SUMMARIZE: Nowhere in the entire Bible are sins forgiven by any other means accept through BLOOD. ED O.

False, see Acts 2:38, 1 Cor 6:11, Tit 3:5.

You usually ignore my posts so I won’t expect you to answer this one, Ed.

 

[panevino]

Hi panevino, Rom 10:13, states,“Anyone who CALLS UPON the Lord will be SAVED.------John 1:11-13, states,” He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. v12 But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, v13 who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God. Now the side commentary of The New Catholic Bible states: Believers in Jesus become children of God not through any of the three natural causes mentioned but through God who is the IMMEDIATE cause of the new spiritual life" And when you read Eph 1:13 It further explains it. So 'Water" Baptism is not the source of regeneration (born again).

but isn’t simply quoting rom 10:13 alone dangerous, when you also have the versus that say we need to believe and be baptised(mark 16:15-16). and there is that verse that says we must be born of water and spirit(john 3:5). (I know you dont accept water as i do here, but for me I cant jump to your side of fence on the water parralels you quote) and then there are the versus that clearly show a water christian baptism… 1 Peter 3:20
of I’d say that the rom10:13 has to be taken as a general comment read in conjuction with the ‘bellieveand baptise’ verseus and the ‘baptism now saves’ 1 Peter 3:20 versus, reading it alone makes the bible contracdict itself, doesn’t it. I mean unless you believe that christian baptism simply beilief alone … not the way i see it as a combination of opening heart with water baptism…(then ofcourse perserveing in my life…etc…)

same as above for eph1:13, then there are also those definitions of the word believe that Nathan has discussed, that makes sense to me.

I dont see incorporation of water baptism as part of salvation as belittleing jesus sacrafice on the cross or making it in vain. if the baptism is made with belief in heart of recipient then the baptism is salvific with the water (born of water and spirit)

 

[zach_dunn]

The New Catholic Bible states: Believers in Jesus become children of God not through any of the three natural causes mentioned but through God who is the IMMEDIATE cause of the new spiritual life" And when you read Eph 1:13 It further explains it. So 'Water" Baptism is not the source of regeneration (born again).

The natural causes are contrasted with baptism in John, the natural causes are “of the flesh” while baptism is of “water and the Spirit” which is different from the flesh [Jn 3:5-7].

Baptism is not the source of regeneration? What do you make of this:

Titus 3:5
“5 [H]e saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.”

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Steve
Ed, my friend…I think you might be exposing the extent of your confusion regarding Church teaching, here. You might want to look more closely at the concepts of divorce vs. annulment.

Hi Steve, I’m glad that I have at least one friend on this thread. I know that there’s a difference between divorce and annulment. That’s only in theory. But on another thread on this forum, I explained what took place in my brother’s and my life concerning divorce. That’s reality. Also the statistics of annulments show otherwise, more in line with the number of divorces.

Actually Ed, if you explore the history of the Church, starting in Acts and working your way forward to around 1450 A.D., it’s the only method really used. God’s written Word has pretty much always been read aloud and heard by the faithful, as opposed to individually read by those faithful.

Steve you are 100% correct! But here’s what you fail to observe. There was no printing press, bibles were scarce. When the printing press was invented just about the same time of the reformation, Bibles became available. People began to read for themselves. But this is what baffles me, why did Pope Paul the IV place the Bible on the index of forbidden books and the ban was not lifted until 1964? My source of this information comes from Public Broadcasting Station “The Secrets in the Inquisition”
.

Ed, what is the difference between believing a book which claims within it’s written text that a good portion of itself (not all of it) is inspired…vs. an institution which claims inspiration? Do you really accept the Bible’s inspiration solely from the fact that “it says so” within it’s pages? Fact is, whether we believe it or not, we are informed about the Bible’s inspiration from Church Tradition, not from a verse or two from within it

.I understand what you mean. But it’s like which came first the chicken or the egg. One must make a choice believe in one or the other. I’m relying on scholars who claim that there are over 1000 early manuscripts. How can anyone really rely upon tradition. It’s not verifiable, it’s my understanding that there’s not even one tradition that can be trace back to any of the apostles. Anything that’s not recorded or written down gets lost. Compare Acts 9:17-19 the actual event that took place with Saul to his account of what took place in Acts 22:12-16.

No, the Church started at Pentecost. Paul was Catholic from the moment of his conversion. Because NT Scripture was not canonized for nearly 300 years after the writers of it passed away.

Yes! but the people had copies of the original manuscripts that were being used for 300 years. Many places in the Bible Paul speaks of making sure everyone reads his letters. Paul was very sharp. He knew of the perversion that was already taking place in his days, so he made sure that all of his works were wrtten down. Even Peter speaks about Paul’s letters are at times hard to understand.

post 687 when you get a chance, Ed. No rush, I know you’re juggling multiple issues on here, and I’m at the back of the line. When you can. Thanks, brother

Steve I will get to it as soon as I can. Right now it’s 3:00 A.M. I’m going to bed. It’s good to hear from you . God Bless! ED O.

 

[benedictus2]

If this is what Ed really meant and really believes, wouldn’t he being saying that his own belief or faith is what atones for his sins? Wouldn’t it be saying something he does is what really atones for his sins? I get this conclusion from the wording, if it is taken literally, it would mean that people that don’t believe don’t have their sins atoned for, but that’s completely false . . . so what’s up Ed?

I get the same conclusion too . Very good point.

 

[zach_dunn]

I get the same conclusion too . Very good point.

Unfortunately, Ed thus far has refused to answer any of my posts, it’s getting maddening! :banghead:

 

[benedictus2]

Since you asked here is another reply to this post. I have already replied before so had already “challenged” your thinking.

God’s salvation plan for ALL mankind is twofold. (a) Substitutionary death

Wrong. It is not substitutionary death although it could be misinterpreted in that way.

For one thing, please explain how Christ’s dying would cause us to live. I would very much like to hear your take on this one.

(b) Blood for atonement (a) Instead of people dying because of sin, in the O. T. animals were substituted.

The blood of the animals were not sacrified as a reparation for sin. The Jews had a very high respect for life. They do not believe in killing even animals.

In Jewish belief, in the blood is the life (spirit) of the creature. So what they do is they drain the blood from the animal and offer that blood (which is its life) back to God.
You misunderstand animal sacrifice completely

In the N. T. Jesus is substituted. (b) in the O. T. animal’s blood for atonement, N. T. Jesus’ Blood does so.

AS FOLLOWS: Adam & Eve were re-clothed from leaves to with animal’s skins. WHY? Animals died/blood. From Moses’ time Animals died/blood 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.”

I am sorry but this exegesis is so way off the mark I can’t even begin to start…

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. 9:22, “Without the shedding of blood there is NO FORGIVENESS of sins.” 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.”

We have no issue with the verses above.Only with your interpretation of them. Yes indeed we have been washed clean by His blood. We never ever said other wise. We have always said that what enables the water to cleans us is by virtue of death and ressurection.

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-

Indeed we have been redeemed, justified and freed from sin by Baptism by the merit of His death and resurrection.

In the O. T. they had original sins too, where they baptized? NO! They entered the community by circumcision.

Aaah this is where you are wrong. Circumsion was not meant to remove original sin. Circumcisioin is a sign of God’s covenant but it was never meant to be a forgiveness for sins. Forgiveness of sins came only with Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

Unfortunately, Ed thus far has refused to answer any of my posts, it’s getting maddening! :banghead:

Stop it. That will hurt

 

[ryanoneil]

I’ve asked you for the Scripture that shows by 'water" baptism the Holy Spirit is, as you say, is “infused” and you never came up with one and then finally admitted there isn’t any. ED O.

Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of WATER AND SPIRIT. (John 3:5)

CCC 694 Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit’s action in Baptism, since after the invocation of the Holy Spirit it becomes the efficacious sacramental sign of new birth: just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water, so the water of Baptism truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit. As “by one Spirit we were all baptized,” so we are also “made to drink of one Spirit.” Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified as its source and welling up in us to eternal life.

**but whoever drinks the water I shall give will never thirst; the water I shall give will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." (John 4:14)

Whoever believes in me, as scripture says: ‘Rivers of living water will flow from within him.’" He said this in reference to the Spirit that those who came to believe in him were to receive. There was, of course, no Spirit yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified. (John 7:38-39)

For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:13)

but one soldier thrust his lance into his side, and immediately blood and water flowed out. (John 19:34)

the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are of one accord. (1 John 5:8)**

 

[ryanoneil]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1217

In Baptism we use your gift of water, which you have made a rich symbol of the grace you give us in this sacrament.

1218 Since the beginning of the world, water, so humble and wonderful a creature, has been the source of life and fruitfulness. Sacred Scripture sees it as “overshadowed” by the Spirit of God (Gen 1:2)

At the very dawn of creation your Spirit breathed on the waters, making them the wellspring of all holiness.

1219 The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water” (1 Pet 3:20)

The waters of the great flood you made a sign of the waters of Baptism, that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.

1220 If water springing up from the earth symbolizes life, the water of the sea is a symbol of death and so can represent the mystery of the cross. By this symbolism Baptism signifies communion with Christ’s death.

1221 But above all, the crossing of the Red Sea, literally the liberation of Israel from the slavery of Egypt, announces the liberation wrought by Baptism:

You freed the children of Abraham from the slavery of Pharaoh, bringing them dry-shod through the waters of the Red Sea, to be an image of the people set free in Baptism.

1222 Finally, Baptism is prefigured in the crossing of the Jordan River by which the People of God received the gift of the land promised to Abraham’s descendants, an image of eternal life. The promise of this blessed inheritance is fulfilled in the New Covenant.

 

[ryanoneil]

1226 From the very day of Pentecost the Church has celebrated and administered holy Baptism. Indeed St. Peter declares to the crowd astounded by his preaching: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) The apostles and their collaborators offer Baptism to anyone who believed in Jesus: Jews, the God-fearing, pagans. (Acts 2:41; 8:12-13;10:48; 16:15) Always, Baptism is seen as connected with faith: **“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household,” **St. Paul declared to his jailer in Philippi. And the narrative continues, the jailer **“was baptized at once, with all his family.” **(Acts 16:31-34)

1227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ’s death, is buried with him, and rises with him:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:12)

The baptized have “put on Christ.” (Gal 3:27) Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies. (1 Cor 6:11; 12:13)

1228 Hence Baptism is a bath of water in which the “imperishable seed” of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect. (1 Pet 1:23; Eph 5:26) St. Augustine says of Baptism: “The word is brought to the material element, and it becomes a sacrament.”

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

’If anyone says that true and natural water is not necessary for baptism and therefore reduces to some sort of metaphor the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: ‘Unless one is born of water and the Spirit’ (Jn 3:5) anathema sit" (The General Council of Trent, 7th Session, Canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, 1547)

 

[geometer]

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1217

1219 The Church has seen in Noah’s ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it “a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water” (1 Pet 3:20)

The waters of the great flood you made a sign of the waters of Baptism, that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.

But everyone who was baptized in the water of the flood died…