"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

‘The word baptism which means washing is not used in those verses. The first use of the word in that chapter occurs at verse 22. This is where the chapter should have been divided into two chapters, because the second half is about baptism’ (Geometer)**

Dear Geometer**, according to whom? Jn 3:3 ‘Jesus answered and said to him: unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’
A verse speaking of our Divine adoption (through baptism), a participation in the Divine nature. Baptism infuses into our souls the life of grace that Christ won for us by his death and Resurrection.
Jn 3:5 ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’
By these words Our Lord has declared the necessity of baptism.

Jn 3:22 ‘After these things Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judea: and there he abode with them, and baptised’
Jn 4:2 ‘Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples’

The Chapter should have been divided. By whom?

‘I do not know why you have asked these questions’(Geometer)

This is a forum, and forums encourage debate.

I quoted from the Douay-Rheims.

 

[benedictus2]

Here is my follow up response to yesterday’s post

B2 : 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.

MY RESPONSE: He states, “wrong” but does not say why. In his next sentence doesn’t he know that?

Because if you view it in this way : God punished His Son in place of us, makes God an unjust God who punishes the guiltless in place of the guilty. That makes God a divine child abuser.

Benedictus2: 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

MY RESPONSE: He says Jews don’t kill animals Then in his next sentence they do??? He then tells me that I misunderstand animal sacrifice. Then repeats almost word for word what I told him about animal sacrifice on post 701

If you will learn to read my posts a little bit better we will not get into this merry go round.
Notice the highlighted bit above. I did not say they do not kill, I said they do not believe in killing. There is a difference there.

But since they need to eat then they do kill animals. So since they have to kill the animal, then what they do is offer up the blood which in their belief contains that creatures spirit back to God. And this is not even remotely the same as your post in 701.

B2: I am sorry but this exegesis is so way off the mark I can’t even begin to start…

MY RESPONSE: Because he knows very well that what I say here is truth and he has NO answer when it comes to the truth

I did not think this section worth replying to because it borders on the ridiculous. Clothing Adam and Even in animal skin has no bearing on animal sacrifices and shedding blood for sacrifice. You are pulling at straws here.

Benedictus2: 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.

MY RESPONSE: He says it’s only my interpretation of these verses that he has a problem with but doesn’t tell me his supposedly correct interpretation of them.

Actually you did not provide any interpretation at all for these verses but used them to support your theory above it so that means the theory above it is your exegesis on these verses.

And your exgesis provided prior to this dump I have already answered.

 

[benedictus2]

Ed’s quote
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-

Benedictus2 : Indeed we have been redeemed, justified and freed from sin by Baptism by the merit of His death and resurrection.

MY RESPONSE: He doesn’t tell me why Jesus never included “water baptism” in his statement if it supposed to forgive sins.

Because this statement has nothing to do with baptism but all to do with the Eucharist. Which of course you do not believe in either.

This is what happens when a person is left to interpret the Bible solely by him/her self. You get into this absurd correlations.

As for providing support that baptism washes away our sins, that has been given before.

Ed’s quote

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

Benedictus2: 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.

MY RESPONSE: I very well know that Circumcision was not meant to forgive sins. My point here is, how did the Jews then deal with what the Catholic church claims that “water” baptism forgives original sin, when the Jews never “water” baptized .ED O.

If you very well know that circumcision was not meant to forgive sins, then why bring that up in relation to forgiving sins? You are getting totally confused in your thinking here.
Of course the Jews never water baptized. That came with Jesus. Forgiveness of sins did not come until Jesus came.

 

[benedictus2]

So we don’t get off this thread, since you seemed to be such an expert would you then explain it to me per private message.

Will PM you on the weekend. Just doing this during lunchtime and internet is rather slow.

Can you PROVE to me that it’s your denomination and only your denomination that will make it and all the rest of us will be doomed to hell. Also Eph 1:13 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 quaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’ possession to the praise of his glory.” -----Tell me, does this verse excludes everyone from going to heaven except Catholics? ED O.

Aaah, but I never said that only Catholics would go to heaven. You confuse the issue.

You have to learn to stop misreading what we have written and putting all sorts of spin on it.

The Catholic Church is the church that Christ established upon Peter. This you can verify if you go through history. But it does not mean that everyone else will be damned. The Catholic Church never ever taught this.

As a matter of fact, if you study and think about your theology in greater depth (assuming you believe in Calvinist predestination) you will find that Catholic theology is much more inclusive and allows for the possibility of everyone being saved.

I don’t know what protestant thinking you adhere too but these can get very narrow indeed.

 

[Bob4BVM]

Because this statement has nothing to do with baptism but all to do with the Eucharist. Which of course you do not believe in either.

This is what happens when a person is left to interpret the Bible solely by him/her self. You get into this absurd correlations.

As for providing support that baptism washes away our sins, that has been given before.

If you very well know that circumcision was not meant to forgive sins, then why bring that up in relation to forgiving sins? You are getting totally confused in your thinking here.
Of course the Jews never water baptized. That came with Jesus. Forgiveness of sins did not come until Jesus came.

absurd correlations ?
Why, I thought that was what this thread was all about !
Ed, you may wonder why we continue to pound away at this with you.
It is because we who have a veritable feast before us are greatly saddened by a world where so many have gone so far adrift, that they won’t even sit down and eat with us, tho they are starving.
…“taste, and see.”

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Benedictus2
response to yesterday’s post
Because if you view it in this way : God punished His Son in place of us, makes God an unjust God who punishes the guiltless in place of the guilty. That makes God a divine child abuser

Call it whatever you want, but Christ died in our place 2Cor5:21,“For our sake He (God) made Him (Jesus) to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

I you wll learn to read my posts a little bit better we will not get into this merry go round
above. I did not say they do not kill, I said they do not believe in killing. There is a difference there

Yah! What’s the difference they still killed animals didn’t they?

But since they need to eat then they do kill animals. So since they have to kill the animal, then what they do is offer up the blood which in their belief contains that creatures spirit back to God. And this is not even remotely the same as your post in 701

You must have missed what I had posted on 701. Here I’ll re-post it. 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 makes atonement for one’s life."

I did not think this section worth replying to because it borders on the ridiculous. Clothing Adam and Even in animal skin has no bearing on animal sacrifices and shedding blood for sacrifice. You are pulling at straws here.

Since Adam & Eve covered themselves with leaves, why then did God re-clothed them with animals skins? It’s not as ridiculous as you may think, It supports the above Lev 17:11. If it’s so rudiculous, you tell me why were they then covered with skins?

Actually you did not provide any interpretation at all for these verses but used them to support your theory above it so that means the theory above it is your exegesis

All the verses that I had posted were self explanatory, Rev 1:5," To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His Blood." What type of an interpretation do you need for a verse such as this? ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Benedictus 2
Because this statement has nothing to do with baptism but all to do with the Eucharist. Which of course you do not believe in either.
This is what happens when a person is left to interpret the Bible solely by him/her self. You get into this absurd correlations.

Has nothing to do with baptism? Mat 26:28,“This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

As for providing support that baptism washes away our sins, that has been given before

Are you then saying that there’s two methods of forgiving sins ( 1 ) Jesus’ Blood ( 2 ) “water” baptism ?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Benedictus2
Aaah, but I never said that only Catholics would go to heaven. You confuse the issue.
You have to learn to stop misreading what we have written and putting all sorts of spin on it.

Okay! I’ll try to do better.

The Catholic Church is the church that Christ established upon Peter. This you can verify if you go through history.

How about all those churches that are listed in the Bible, did Peter established them all? What did Paul do?

But it does not mean that everyone else will be damned. The Catholic Church never ever taught this

Wow! I’m glad of that,

As a matter of fact, if you study and think about your theology in greater depth (assuming you believe in Calvinist predestination) you will find that Catholic theology is much more inclusive and allows for the possibility of everyone being saved

Yes, that is what I know and that’s what troubles me. The word Catholic means, universal, Jews, Muslims,etc. all can be saved if they love God according to the Catholic encyclopedia and I believe #841 of the Catholic Catechism. (but then that contradicts Rom 9:7) That would include I suppose suicide bombers, they died in Allah’s name. Am I wrong? ED O.

 

[bluelake]

Nathan, I’m waiting for your response. Don’t give up when I trash you. ED O.

Why do you think catholics reject Jn.3? all christians are born again when they accept Jesus as their Savior.
Are you born again?

God bless,
bluelake

 

[benedictus2]

Call it whatever you want, but Christ died in our place 2Cor5:21,“For our sake He (God) made Him (Jesus) to be sin who did not know sin, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

Okay I won’t debate this point because I don’t know exactly how you understand this. Merely citing this verse does not exactly explain how you understand it.

Yah! What’s the difference they still killed animals didn’t they?

And I never said they didn’t.

You must have missed what I had posted on 701. Here I’ll re-post it. 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 makes atonement for one’s life."

Apologies for that. I completely missed that line.

Since Adam & Eve covered themselves with leaves, why then did God re-clothed them with animals skins? It’s not as ridiculous as you may think, It supports the above Lev 17:11. If it’s so rudiculous, you tell me why were they then covered with skins?

We don’t know why they were re-clothed in animal skin but there is no support for equating it with animal sacrifice.

The only thing we can deduce is that they were given something more lasting than leaves to show God’s care for them inspite of their sin.

All the verses that I had posted were self explanatory, Rev 1:5," To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His Blood." What type of an interpretation do you need for a verse such as this? ED O.

What do you understand by that verse. How does Jesus’s blood free us from sin? What are the means by which we avail of the redemption that Jesus’s blood has merited for us?

 

[benedictus2]

Has nothing to do with baptism? Mat 26:28,“This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

I suggest you read the rest fo that chapter. The reason you come up with this ridiculous linkages is because you chop up the passages.

So here is the rest of that passage"

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

So tell me Ed, have you drank Jesus’s blood so that you will be forgiven of your sins?

Are you then saying that there’s two methods of forgiving sins ( 1 ) Jesus’ Blood ( 2 ) “water” baptism ?

No. Water baptism is the means by which we AVAIL of the forgiveness that Jesus’s blood brings.
In your case how do you avail of that forgiveness that Jesus’s blood brings? You said before by merely believing. But Jesus was quite clear that you must believe and be baptized. You need both.

 

[Bob4BVM]

I suggest you read the rest fo that chapter. The reason you come up with this ridiculous linkages is because you chop up the passages.

So here is the rest of that passage"

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

So tell me Ed, have you drank Jesus’s blood so that you will be forgiven of your sins?
No. Water baptism is the means by which we AVAIL of the forgiveness that Jesus’s blood brings.
In your case how do you avail of that forgiveness that Jesus’s blood brings? You said before by merely believing. But Jesus was quite clear that you must believe and be baptized. You need both.

Very GOOD benedictus !
What we have here is a very bad case of IMWISUIDWIT * .
So typical of those who just take parts of verses to prove something, never the whole meaning of the whole story.
Your comment about 'have you drank Jesus’s blood ’ hits the nail on the head for many i have debated with, I’ll have to remember that one.
Thanks for your post.

( * It Means What It Says, Unless I Don’t Want It To )

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The Catholic Church is the church that Christ established upon Peter. This you can verify if you go through history. But it does not mean that everyone else will be damned. The Catholic Church never ever taught this.
As a matter of fact, if you study and think about your theology in greater depth (assuming you believe in Calvinist predestination) you will find that Catholic theology is much more inclusive and allows for the possibility of everyone being saved.
I don’t know what protestant thinking you adhere too but these can get very narrow indeed.

Benedictus2, please explain. Greater clarification needed here, you tend to give the impression of a Catholic doctrine of relativism and indifferentism, universalism and pelagianism. In summary, a Catholic Church which is meaningless (and this goes against your character.)
You were probably a little “chronologically challenged” (pushed for time) when you posted.

 

[SteveGC]

Benedictus2, please explain. Greater clarification needed here, you tend to give the impression of a Catholic doctrine of relativism and indifferentism, universalism and pelagianism. In summary, a Catholic Church which is meaningless (and this goes against your character.)
You were probably a little “chronologically challenged” (pushed for time) when you posted.

I think she’s simply making a point that, comparitively speaking, The Church is less exclusive than the Calvinist position regarding the potentiality of salvation outside of orthodoxy. The Church does go to great lengths to affirm that God, while purposefully united to His One Church, is not confined by Her, can work outside of sacraments, and possesses infinite Mercy toward those genuinely seeking Him…allowing for the potentiality of salvation for those that do not receive revelation of Christ. Keyword is potentiality…as it recognizes God’s sovereign power, the mystery of His Mercy, and submits to His will be done.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

I think she’s simply making a point that, comparitively speaking, The Church is less exclusive than the Calvinist position regarding the potentiality of salvation outside of orthodoxy. The Church does go to great lengths to affirm that God, while purposefully united to His One Church, is not confined by Her, can work outside of sacraments, and possesses infinite Mercy toward those genuinely seeking Him…allowing for the potentiality of salvation for those that do not receive revelation of Christ. Keyword is potentiality…as it recognizes God’s sovereign power, the mystery of His Mercy, and submits to His will be done.

Peace be with you Steve, I’m not on the attack. Encouraging her to keep up her usual standard (I take pleasure in reading her posts)
I agree with you - if a person lacks culpable ignorance, how can they be held guilty? But this belongs to another thread, probably my fault in going off at a tangent here. I think it’s well debated in that thread.
Sometimes our threads tend to get tangled.

 

[SteveGC]

Peace be with you Steve, I’m not on the attack. Encouraging her to keep up her usual standard (I take pleasure in reading her posts)
I agree with you - if a person lacks culpable ignorance, how can they be held guilty? But this belongs to another thread, probably my fault in going off at a tangent here. I think it’s well debated in that thread.
Sometimes our threads tend to get tangled.

No, I know you’re not on the attack. Peace be with you also. I think it’s productive for us to check one another, confirm each other in our understanding, and ensure we are collectively representing the Church in the most faithful way possible. Your inquisition toward her post is well received, and I’m sure she would appreciate it. God Bless.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Benedictus2
Okay I won’t debate this point because I don’t know exactly how you understand this. Merely citing this verse does not exactly explain how you understand it

What kind of an answer is that? This verse is very self explanatory just as it stands. 2Cor 5:21," For He (God) hath made Him (Christ) to be sin for us (remission based upon His substitutionary death), who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (imputation),That’s easy enough to understand!----- Now you give me your interpretation, if it’s other than mine.

And I never said they didn’t.

I never said that you didn’t either. What I said was in the O.T. God allowed animals to die in man’s place and the blood which represents life was poured out on the altar for the forgiveness of man’s sins. Exactly like in the N.T. Jesus our Lamb died in our place and His Blood which represents life is what forgives our sins and gives us eternal life…

Apologies for that. I completely missed that line

I accept your apology!

We don’t know why they were re-clothed in animal skin but there is no support for equating it with animal sacrifice

You don’t seem to understand the Leviticus 17:11 Scripture,which is, God allowed animals to die in man’s place and the Blood which represents life is poured out for man’s sins. The same theme carries through in the N.T. with Jesus. Since in Adam’s and Eve’s time, the law of Leviticus hasn’t been established until the time of Moses, God personally gave them the same option as the rest of the world. The animals died in their place, and the blood which represents life was pour out for their sins. How else could they have been saved? They sinned, the wages of sin is death, without the shedding of blood their is no forgiveness of sins. That was the only way their sins could be forgiven. This is basic elementary knowledge of God’s salvation plan for all mankind. For what other reason would the reclothing of them even be mentioned? Gen3:7 they covered themselves with fig leaves. Gen3:21, "The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

The only thing we can deduce is that they were given something more lasting than leaves to show God’s care for them inspite of their sin

Benedictus2 Sin! Sin! Sin! How did get ride of their Sin! To say that God gave them more lasting garments is asinine. They could have done that for themselves!

What do you understand by that verse. How does Jesus’s blood free us from sin?

Exactly what Jesus said Mat 26:28, “This is my Blood of the New Covenant which is poured out for many for the Forgiveness of sins.” In plain English that means when we sin, and confess our sin, His Blood atoned for that sin. Done with! Zero! Zilch! What other explanation do you need?

What are the means by which we avail of the redemption that Jesus’s blood has merited for us

Restate your question so that I can understand what your asking?
ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Bob4BVM
Very GOOD benedictus !
What we have here is a very bad case of IMWISUIDWIT * .
So typical of those who just take parts of verses to prove something, never the whole meaning of the whole story.
Your comment about 'have you drank Jesus’s blood ’ hits the nail on the head for many i have debated with, I’ll have to remember that one.
Thanks for your post.

BALONEY! When we believe the gospel, that is what forgives our sins, We are Saved! 1Cor 15:2-4 and Eph 1:13. We then get “water” baptized to show our repentance, Mat 3:11 and 1Pet 3;21 pledge of good conscience. I have Scripture to prove what I state, you have nothing! Except being a cheerleader for Beneductus 2 ED O.

 

[panevino]

Hi Ed,

have you seen my post
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5923395&postcount=749

if you have some time, i’d like to read your response.

also
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5918695&postcount=720

if you have the time can you put together a stonger argument for dividing “water and spirit” in john 3:5

 

[panevino]

Ed
also have been keen to read your response to “tounges”
and what I said in response to u in
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5914977&postcount=685
thanks