"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[benedictus2]

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).

Thank you . I try to squeeze in a post or two during my lunch break and getting into detail is sometimes difficult due to the time constraints.

I hope my clarification on post 803 helped.

Peace!

 

[benedictus2]

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),

How can sin remit sin?

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.

If God allowed animals to die in man’s place and the blood represents atonement, then why did Christ have to come?

Does animal blood has the ability to remit sin?

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?

If the animals died in their place then why did they die in the end. If the animals died in their place, then why did they have to continue killing animals?

They sinned, the wages of sin is death, without the shedding of blood their is no forgiveness of sins.
That is true but the shedding of animal blood does not have the ability to forgive sins so why shed it?

That was the only way their sins could be forgiven. This is basic elementary knowledge of God’s salvation plan for all mankind.

So now you are saying that the people in the OT were forgiven their sins because of the shedding of animal blood?

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.

We don’t know but there is no way you can link this to sacrifice. As I said, you are pulling at straws here.

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!

Because THEY DID NOT GET RID OF THEIR SIN period. Forgiveness of sins came only with Christ’s sacrifice.

If animal sacrifices were capable of remitting sin, then there was no need for Christ to come. We could have continued killing animals and that would have been that.

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?

Read the verses before that then you will understood what it means. Your whole problem is your penchant for chopping up verses. Read the entire entire passage.

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

Okay, if Christ’s death was for the forgiveness of sins, then that must mean all sins of all men?

If that is the case, whethere I believe in Christ or not my sins are already forgiven since He has already shed His blood fo the forgivenss of sins. With me so far?

If this is so, then no one need do anything, even believe in Christ because they are already forgiven. UNLESS, even though it is true that He has died for us all, we still need to AVAIL of that forgivenss.
My question to you is, how do YOU avail of that forgivenss?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

'…in the latter times thou shalt return to the Lord thy God, and shalt hear his voice ’ (Douay-Rheims Bible, Deut 4:30)

‘I delight to do Your will, O my God, and Your law is within my heart’ (Ps 40:8)
(The heading for this Psalm in the New King James Bible, ‘Faith persevering in trial.’)

All our salvation depends on listening to His voice, and being obedient,
‘The Lord thy God will raise up to thee a prophet of thy nation and of thy brethren like unto me: him thou shalt hear’ (Douay-Rheims Bible, Deut 18:15)

Bloodshed goes deeper than outward appearance.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by ryanoniel
In the interpretive tradition of the Church there is a deeper conferral of the Spirit through the imposition of hands (which is linked to the sacrament of Confirmation). Confirmation follows Baptism and it is an integral part of Christian initiation. In this story, the deacon (Philip) can baptize, but it belongs to the the first century equivalent of bishop (Peter and John) to bestow a fuller measure of the Spirit on the baptized by the laying of hands.

Hi ryan, when you say that there is a deaper conferral of the Spirit, there’s no Scripture to support that interpretation. There’s two baptisms per Jesus in Acts 1:5, He states, “For John baptized with “water”. but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. The latter is the one baptism that unites us in the body of Christ. Now John says exactly the same thing in Mat 3:11,“I baptize you with “water” for REPENTANCE. But after me will come one who is morepowerful than I---- He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with FIRE.” Let’s go the Acts 2:1, When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. v2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. v3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of FIRE that separated and came to rest on each of them v4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them.”-----John said that Jesus would baptize with H.S. and FIRE, Jesus said in a few days they will be baptize with the H.S. and tongues of FIRE came onto them. ------Now here’s your problem, John says he baptizes for REPENTANCE, but you claim it’s a baptism that confers the Holy Spirit. As a result, you now have two baptisms doing the same thing. In order for you to solve that problem, you now have to come up with deeper conferral of the H.S.(confirmation) which has no Scripture support for it. And besides that, when the baptism of the H.S. in FIRE came upon them, they spoke in tongues, As did Cornelius’ group and the disciples that Paul laid hands on. When you were Confirmed did you speak in tongues?

In the case of Paul and Acts 19, he is the first century equivalent of Bishop so he gives the Ephesians proper Christian baptism and then immediately Confirms them

Ananias in Acts 9:17, was no Bishop, he laid hands on Saul/Paul and He was healed and filled with the Holy Spirit. Then Paul was “water” baptized for repentance. He had much to repent about knowing his past actions.

 

[adriancombe]

I’m not assuming anything. Start reading Acts 8 from v12 where they get “water” baptized and continue to read. In v16,it states, “because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus v17 Then Peter and John placed their on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” ED O.

Interesting, however, it does not say what you said. It says the Spirit had not yet fallen upon them. It says they received the Spirit - but not that they had not yet received it. That may seem an obvious implication to you - but it is far from conclusive.

*Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Act 8:17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.*

For instance, at the ends of John’s Gospel, the Apostles receive the Holy Spirit directly from Jesus:

Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

But still He felt it necessary to send them to Jerusalem to be clothed in the Holy Spirit:

Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

And at Pentecost, the Spirit sat upon them (event though they had already received the Holy Spirit back in John’s Gospel) - similar language to what you see in Acts 8 when the Apostles laid hands on the Samaritans:

*Act 2:1 ¶ And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.*

 

[ryanoneil]

As a result, you now have two baptisms doing the same thing. In order for you to solve that problem, you now have to come up with deeper conferral of the H.S.(confirmation) which has no Scripture support for it. And besides that, when the baptism of the H.S. in FIRE came upon them, they spoke in tongues, As did Cornelius’ group and the disciples that Paul laid hands on. When you were Confirmed did you speak in tongues?

adriancombe did a wonderful job addressing your issue. No I did not speak in tongues at Confirmation. The Holy Spirit did not give me that gift.

There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit. . . But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes (1 Cor 12:4; 11)

Ananias in Acts 9:17, was no Bishop, he laid hands on Saul/Paul and He was healed and filled with the Holy Spirit. Then Paul was “water” baptized for repentance. He had much to repent about knowing his past actions.

Ananias was the Bishop of Damascus.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Benedictus2
The world didn’t start with the New Testament. It started with Adam & Eve. Rom 5:12,” When Adam sinned, sin entered the entire human race. His sin spread death throughout all the world, so everything began to grow old and die. As a result, God had a substitutionary plan in mind in order to rescue the human race. This is how He did it. Leviticus 17:11, states, “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.” To make it simple to understand, God’s salvation plan for ALL mankind is twofold. ( 1 ) Substitutionary death. In the O. T. instead of people dying for their sins, animals were substituted. In the N. T. Jesus died in our place ( 2 ) Blood is used for atonement to forgive sins. In the O. T. animals Blood . In the N. T. Jesus’ Blood used to forgive sins.

Starting with Adam & Eve, when they sinned they covered themselves with fig leaves. Gen 3:7. God then covered them with animal’s skins Gen. 3:21. WHY? Animals died in their place and blood for atonement. As we continue, Cane brought some fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord, Abel brought fat portions from his flock. God rejected Cane’s offering but accepted Abel’s offering Gen 4:3. WHY? Abel killed an animal/blood. God continues, in Moses’ time, God established a priestly system where they killed the animals and sprinkled the blood on the altar for the peoples sins. Only once a year was the High Priest allowed to entered a special room separated by a curtain, Holy of Hollies and sprinkled blood for the atonement for his and the peoples sins. He was replaced when he died.

We continue into the N. T. Jesus is our Lamb and His Blood Mat 26:28, Jesus speaks, “This is my Blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” At the moment that Jesus died, the curtain of the temple was torn from top to the bottom, indicating that the animal system expired Mat 27:51. This is the result of what Jesus did Heb 9:24-28, “For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; (Holy of Hollies) he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. V25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy room once a year with blood that is not His own. V26 Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of Himself. V27 Just as man is destined to die once , and after that to face judgment, v28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and He will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.”

Heb 10:19, states, “Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the Blood of Jesus, v20 by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, His body, v21 and since we have a High Priest over the house of God, v22 Let us draw near to God. Heb 9:22 states, “without the shedding of Blood there is no forgiveness of sins. “ Rev 1:5 states, He freed us from our sins by His Blood…

The above is God’s salvation plan for all creation, and nowhere in the above does it say that “water” baptism forgives sins. ED O.

 

[panevino]

I’m not assuming anything. Start reading Acts 8 from v12 where they get “water” baptized and continue to read. In v16,it states, “because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus v17 Then Peter and John placed their on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.” ED O.

Hi Ed
take it easy on me, with this post, but I think xxxx was trying to ask u why had they not recieved HS at thier belief (hope I’m not wrong but I thought that was your prerequisite for HS)
so something must be happening here…
My understanding is that they were born of water and spirit
in the Christian baptism, howvere the Pentecostal HS action is what is refered to here
via the seperate act of laying of hands ie: gifts - speak new languages or interpret or heal etc…(which Catholics call confirmation)
I think for adults sometimes baptism/confirmation are done together.
Obviously the apostles were baptized at some stage b4 Pentecost
so they were born of water and spirit at baptism/belief and then got HS/gifts at Pentecost.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by adriancombe
Interesting, however, it does not say what you said. It says the Spirit had not yet fallen upon them. It says they received the Spirit - but not that they had not yet received it. That may seem an obvious implication to you - but it is far from conclusive.

*Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Act 8:17 Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.*

For instance, at the ends of John’s Gospel, the Apostles receive the Holy Spirit directly from Jesus:

Jhn 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

But still He felt it necessary to send them to Jerusalem to be clothed in the Holy Spirit:

Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.

And at Pentecost, the Spirit sat upon them (event though they had already received the Holy Spirit back in John’s Gospel) - similar language to what you see in Acts 8 when the Apostles laid hands on the Samaritans:

*Act 2:1 ¶ And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

Act 2:2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

Act 2:3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance *You are quoting much of what I said, the only difference is that you are using a different Bible version. My quotes are in parentheses, which means I’m copying exactly like the Bible states. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino
Hi Ed
take it easy on me, with this post, but I think xxxx was trying to ask u why had they not recieved HS at thier belief (hope I’m not wrong but I thought that was your prerequisite for HS)
so something must be happening here…
My understanding is that they were born of water and spirit
in the Christian baptism, howvere the Pentecostal HS action is what is refered to here
via the seperate act of laying of hands ie: gifts - speak new languages or interpret or heal etc…(which Catholics call confirmation)
I think for adults sometimes baptism/confirmation are done together.
Obviously the apostles were baptized at some stage b4 Pentecost
so they were born of water and spirit at baptism/belief and then got HS/gifts at Pentecost

Hi panevino, it’s 4:00 A.M. and I got to get to bed but please read my post 818. Let’s start there first. ED.O.

 

[adriancombe]

You are quoting much of what I said, the only difference is that you are using a different Bible version. My quotes are in parentheses, which means I’m copying exactly like the Bible states. ED O.

I am not sure which of us is more tired

I certainly did not see you quote John 20 before. But with 800+ posts…

Anyway, I also quoted directly, and I used the KJV from blueletterbible.org

It sounds like you are conceding the Samaritans could have received the Holy Spirit in baptism but I am not sure.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by ryanoniel
adriancombe did a wonderful job addressing your issue. No I did not speak in tongues at Confirmation. The Holy Spirit did not give me that gift.

**There are different kinds of spiritual gifts but the same Spirit. . . But one and the same Spirit produces all of these, distributing them individually to each person as he wishes (1 Cor 12:4; 11

Ananias was the Bishop of Damascus **
Hi Ryan, you state that you haven’t received the gift of tongues. I have two questions ( 1 ) In all the years that you have been a Catholic, have you ever known anyone who has been confirmed that could speak in tongues? Priests and Nuns included? ( 2 ) Is Jesus kidding when He states in Mark 16:17, “And these signs will accompany those who BELIEVE: In My name they will drive out demons, they will speak in new tongues----?” What is your response? ED O.

P.S. From where did you get the information that Ananias was a Bishop in Damascus?

 

[panevino]

Ed,
have u seen any in any denomination recieve gift of new tounges ie: speaking a new language to spread word to diff country? Beside the HS tounge that is not clearly understandable to general public.?
I am not being sarcastic here…

 

[panevino]

Hi Ryan, you state that you haven’t received the gift of tongues. I have two questions ( 1 ) In all the years that you have been a Catholic, have you ever known anyone who has been confirmed that could speak in tongues? Priests and Nuns included? ( 2 ) Is Jesus kidding when He states in Mark 16:17, “And these signs will accompany those who BELIEVE: In My name they will drive out demons, they will speak in new tongues----?” What is your response? ED O.

P.S. From where did you get the information that Ananias was a Bishop in Damascus?

Is it not possible that Jesus is referriing to the list of gifts that will be provided to those that believe, ratheer that each that believe will recieve each and every gift. Particularly when that is clearly stated In The 1Cor 12:4- verse.

 

[adriancombe]

In all the years that you have been a Catholic, have you ever known anyone who has been confirmed that could speak in tongues? Priests and Nuns included?

The only person in modern times that I would say certainly had this gift is (Saint) Padre Pio of Pietrelcina.

 

[panevino]

Ed,
what is ur understanding of acts 19:3-6
why did they need to be baptized in name of Jesus after it was discovered that they were baptized by John.
And then they also had laying of hands

thanks

 

[geometer]

Hello again,

I haven’t been following this thread, but since everyone get there religious ideas from Paul, have you considered Titus chapter 3?

If you haven’t I am sure you all can divide that up and argue another 800 posts…

enjoy

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Panevino
Is it not possible that Jesus is referriing to the list of gifts that will be provided to those that believe, ratheer that each that believe will recieve each and every gift. Particularly when that is clearly stated In The 1Cor 12:4- verse

Panevivo my friend, why are you associating the Holy Spirit with the gifts per 1 Cor 12? Here’s your problem. You believe that you receive the Holy Spirit at “water” baptism, so you then associate the Holy Spirit, laying of hands, with the gifts at confirmation. That makes two Holy Spirits and confirmation is not in the Bible. I’ll let Jesus explain to you what’s it all about per John 14:25-26, " All this I have spoken while still with you. v26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." Jesus says nothing about gifts here. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino
Ed,
what is ur understanding of acts 19:3-6
why did they need to be baptized in name of Jesus after it was discovered that they were baptized by John.
And then they also had laying of hands

Paul already explained it in v 4. He said John’s “water” baptism was a baptism of REPENTANCE. He wanted them to receive the Holy Spirit so He then laid hands on them and they received. That’s what I’ve been saying all the time, John “water” baptism does NOT bring on the Holy Spirit. Paul says it twice, John and Jesus both say the same . ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino,
have u seen any in any denomination recieve gift of new tounges ie: speaking a new language to spread word to diff country? Beside the HS tounge that is not clearly understandable to general public.?
I am not being sarcastic here

I most certainly have. I’m curious what do you mean by spreading the word to various countries? At times the gift is very understanable to the general public, ED O.