"Catholics Reject John Chapter Three"

[Bob4BVM]

Ed,
This will go in circles forever, obviously…
Have you considered the opinion of an authority outside yourself to help interpret scripture ?
Best one I can think of is the original compiler of the Bible you are quoting- the RCC !

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Ed,
This will go in circles forever, obviously…
Have you considered the opinion of an authority outside yourself to help interpret scripture ?
Best one I can think of is the original compiler of the Bible you are quoting- the RCC !

Bob, what proof do you have the Bible was compiled by the Roman Catholic Church, other than the word ‘catholic’? In the beginning all Christendom was known as catholic because it was universal. To imply this makes it ‘Roman Catholic’ is conjecture, Roman refers to the Roman rite of liturgy not to Christianity.

Eastern and Western Christianity did not divide until the 6th century. By then the Bible had become standardized.
Throughout the epistles there is mention of other seedbeds of Christianity in development.

Vatican 2 was of the belief there was salvation outside the “Roman Catholic Church.”

 

[panevino]

Hi panevino, I thought that you were different than the rest, and that is, everytime the words “water” or anything connected to “water” it automatically means "baptism or “holy”. -------Here’s a few more that you missed, Gen 1:20, Lev 11:9 , Duet 14:9, Jer 2:13 & 17:13, Zec 14:8, Rev 7:17, Rev 8:10 ect, ect… Answer me! John 7:37-38, “if anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. v38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of LIVING WATER will flow from within Him.” Does this mean that a trail of water will be following me where ever I go? ED O.

i know, i know…

its not that I think it automatically water always means ‘baptism’
but all these direct/explicit links of water to life/saving/baptism/holy
are so much more convincing when applied to jesus words in john 3:5
than the denominations that say no
jesus did not mean literal water he meant
birth from flesh/womb (based on the verses that describe a sea of people)

and I am not convinced about the flesh in john 3:6 as a back up for this interpretation.
(ie: as i’v asked b4 - wouldn’t it of been easier for him to say in john 3:5 born of flesh and spirit)

i definately see john 3:6 is all about the conflict between a person struggles in ways of flesh and spirit that is expressed in other verses including jesus.

Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

john 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

gal 6:8 … For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Bob4BVM
Ed,
This will go in circles forever, obviously…
Have you considered the opinion of an authority outside yourself to help interpret scripture ?

Hi Bob, I’ll answer your question with a question. When you read the daily newspaper or any book do you go to your magisterium and have them explain to you what you have just read?------ With all the Bible versions available today and comentaries, isn’t that sufficient enough material teach you to understand what you have just read.---- But here’s my source John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth."----- Here’s another source Mat 4:4 Jesus speaks, “It is written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.” -----Listen to Paul Rom 15:14, " I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowlege and competent to instruct one another." -----Paul speaks again 2 Cor 1:13, " For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand." ----- 1 John 2:27, “As for you, the anointing you received from Him (Holy Spirit) remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.”------2Tim 3:16," All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteouness. v17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." ------Am I supposed to disobey Scripture? Further more, what I’ve been stating is NOT my PERSONAL interpretation as you imply! .

Best one I can think of is the original compiler of the Bible you are quoting- the RCC !

Bob I’m sorry to say, but the compiler of the Bible RCC waited for more than 300 years to do it. For more than 300 years the born again believers had copies of the original letters. Listen to Paul Col 4:16," After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.-----Look what Paul states in 1 Thes 5:27, " I CHARGE you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers." ------ You see! Paul was no dummy, he already fought the corruption that came into the church, so he made darn sure that everything he wrote was available to all the churches. And he wrote most of the New Testament. ED.O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by panevino
i know, i know…

its not that I think it automatically water always means ‘baptism’
but all these direct/explicit links of water to life/saving/baptism/holy
are so much more convincing when applied to jesus words in john 3:5
than the denominations that say no
jesus did not mean literal water he meant
birth from flesh/womb (based on the verses that describe a sea of people)

and I am not convinced about the flesh in john 3:6 as a back up for this interpretation.
(ie: as i’v asked b4 - wouldn’t it of been easier for him to say in john 3:5 born of flesh and spirit)

Let me ask you? If Jesus ment “water” baptism, Wouldn’t He have said so? And then in v6 He would continue to explain to Nicodemus what “water” baptism is all about? Nowhere in the following verses does Jesus do so.So how in the world would Nicodemus know anything about “water” baptism since the Jews never baptized. Besides there’s nothing in the water in baptism that changes a man’s heart, which then changes man’s spirit. Acts 2:37 When the people heard this, ( what? the gospel that Peter just preached), they were cut to heart! It’s the heart of man that needs to be changed,which changes one’s spirit. Your problem is that you try to make a dogma from one Scripture, but there’s many Scriptures that then contradicts your interpretation. What is one to do ignore all of the other Scriptures?

Read this then tell me am I saved or not? Yes or No. ( 1 ) Rom 3:23, We acknowledge that we have sinned (and ask God’s forgiveness.) ( 2 ) Rom 2:23, the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life throught Jesus Christ our Lord. ( 3 ) Rom 10:13, Anyone who calls upon the Lord will be saved ( we have to ask God to come into our life). ( 4 ) For if you tell others with your own mouth that Jesus Christ is your Lord and believe in your own heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved, v10 For it is by believing in his heart that a man becomes right with God; and with his mouth he tells others of his faith, confirming his salvation. PLEASE NOTE! It’s the changing of one’s heart that changes his spirit. This is where Eph 1:13 comes into play. That is I’m sealed with promise of the Holy Spirit. And now per John 1:12, I’m a child of God.

definately see john 3:6 is all about the conflict between a person struggles in ways of flesh and spirit that is expressed in other verses including jesus.

Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

john 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

gal 6:8 … For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting

This has nothing to do with our discussion. ED O.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Ed there’s an ancient form of reading Scripture in the Catholic Church may be of interest: Lectio Divina

From what you write I can also see a touch of Scholasticism (the method used by St Thomas Aquinas)

There’s also a personal involvement (Pope Benedict reads Scripture this way).

In private reflection in the Catholic Church Scriptural interpretation is open to personal interpretation.

 

[krakee]

Hi Bob, I’ll answer your question with a question. When you read the daily newspaper or any book do you go to your magisterium and have them explain to you what you have just read?

If the newspaper claimed to be the inspired Word of God then yes, I would take it to the Church Jesus established to know for sure… wouldn’t you?

With all the Bible versions available today and comentaries, isn’t that sufficient enough material teach you to understand what you have just read.

I’m guessing that’s enough for you? Don’t you want to know for sure? Luckily Jesus told us, in the Bible, who to turn to:

Matthew 18:17-18 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Notice it didn’t say read the many different versions of the Bible using the many different commentaries.

But here’s my source John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth."----- Here’s another source Mat 4:4 Jesus speaks, “It is written: Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”

Amen my brother. Here’s a question for you. Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

Listen to Paul Rom 15:14, " I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowlege and competent to instruct one another."

Take another look at that Ed. Notice he’s telling them to instruct… not to read. Who is he authorizing to instruct? Why didn’t he say hand out Bibles so everyone can read for themselves?

Paul speaks again 2 Cor 1:13, " For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand."

Why then did he tell certain people to instruct if it’s all written so nicely for us? And why then is there so much controversy of what the words mean? This tread currently has 876 posts about the meaning of 1 singe verse in Scripture.

1 John 2:27, “As for you, the anointing you received from Him (Holy Spirit) remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.”

I’ll ask again. Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture? By what authority do you believe this Book is the inspired Word of God?

2Tim 3:16," All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteouness. v17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."------Am I supposed to disobey Scripture?

Let’s see what he’s specifically talking about by looking at the previous verse:

15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

What Sciptures were available to him “from childhood”? Do you believe only in the Old Testament as what was being referred to here? I highly doubt that. Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

Further more, what I’ve been stating is NOT my PERSONAL interpretation as you imply!

Is this also your answer to are an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

Bob I’m sorry to say, but the compiler of the Bible RCC waited for more than 300 years to do it. For more than 300 years the born again believers had copies of the original letters.

Oh they had copies alright. And these copies included way more books than we have today. So tell me, why is the Gospel of Peter not being read today? How about the Gospel of Thomas or the Protoevangelium of James? Why is the book of James considered inspired but not these? Who finally used their authority, given by Jesus, to decide these matters? The list of inspired books was not included in these copies by the way.

Listen to Paul Col 4:16," After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.-----Look what Paul states in 1 Thes 5:27, " I CHARGE you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers." ------ You see! Paul was no dummy, he already fought the corruption that came into the church, so he made darn sure that everything he wrote was available to all the churches. And he wrote most of the New Testament. ED.O.

And what is it Paul had them do… Read it to the people. So what if a Catholic priest read John chapter 3 to you, would you believe him?

God Bless.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Benedictus 2
Exactly! The apostles did not speak some garbled un-intelligible gibberish. They actually spoke languages that others understood so they can spread the gospel

Benedictus 2, whether you realize it or not you are speaking against the Holy Spirit. 1 Cor 14:2 states, “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one UNDERSTANDS him; he utters mysteries with the spirit.”----This very clearly contradicts what you say!-----1Cor 14:14 Paul speaks," For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is UNFRUITFUL." v15 “So what shall I do? I will pray in my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind.”

This is actually seen as a reversal of the Tower of Bable experience

You obviously haven’t received the gift of tongues. So how then can you be such an expert on this subject. What you say here has no Scripture reference.

A foreign missionary in China recounted something similar when he was sent there. He said he does not know how they were able to evangelize considering they did not know Chinese and those they were preaching to knew no English and yet they all understood each other

By this statement I assume that you mean tongues has to understood in a vernacular language. What do you make of this: 1 Cor 13:1, “If I speak in tongues of men and of ANGELS,----” Do you happen to know the language of all the angels? ED O.

 

[panevino]

Let me ask you? If Jesus ment “water” baptism, Wouldn’t He have said so?

as u know I believe he did when he said water in v3:5, imean have u considered Verses such as
john 13:4-10 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 7Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”
8“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”
Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me he was definately using water here.

And then in v6 He would continue to explain to Nicodemus what “water” baptism is all about? Nowhere in the following verses does Jesus do so.

disagree , I seE. The discussion on flesh/spirit as the idea of the replacement of the corrupt nature of the ways of the flesh with the spirit at baptism. Hence my references in my last post where ways of flesh and spirit are put against eachother.

Ie: Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

So how in the world would Nicodemus know anything about “water” baptism since the Jews never baptized.

um . John. And then water/spirit shown when johnbaptised Jesus. Though I know u don’t buy that

Besides there’s nothing in the water in baptism that changes a man’s heart, which then changes man’s spirit.

agree need faith Above all for fruits as in scripture and reflected in CCC

Acts 2:37 When the people heard this, ( what? the gospel that Peter just preached), they were cut to heart! It’s the heart of man that needs to be changed,which changes one’s spirit.

agree with u but also Disagree in leaving out or reinterpreting water in John 3:5 but as u know catholic church recognizes that god is not bound by This. In the above verse Jesus makes it pretty clear that the act of washing is quite important in that instance.

Your problem is that you try to make a dogma from one Scripture, but there’s many Scriptures that then contradicts your interpretation. What is one to do ignore all of the other Scriptures?

hard isn’t it I want to write the same thing to you. Wish the apostles had put together a biblical dictionary of sorts rather than letters. Thing is I agree with u about the power of belief, and that it can save without water, but if one is able to and willing and aware of what Jesus says in jihn3:5 I can’t ignore need of water or reject it. Particularly when there a verse like john 13:4-10 floating around. And others

Read this then tell me am I saved or not? Yes or No. ( 1 ) Rom 3:23, We acknowledge that we have sinned (and ask God’s forgiveness.) ( 2 ) Rom 2:23, the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life throught Jesus Christ our Lord. ( 3 ) Rom 10:13, Anyone who calls upon the Lord will be saved ( we have to ask God to come into our life). ( 4 ) For if you tell others with your own mouth that Jesus Christ is your Lord and believe in your own heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved, v10 For it is by believing in his heart that a man becomes right with God; and with his mouth he tells others of his faith, confirming his salvation. PLEASE NOTE! It’s the changing of one’s heart that changes his spirit. This is where Eph 1:13 comes into play. That is I’m sealed with promise of the Holy Spirit. And now per John 1:12, I’m a child of God.

your line of question is the same I had 4 u when I showed u the words/actions in confirmation.

My answer is yes, and then u need to continue in god in ur life and reconcile sin etc…
Others will ask things like was water baptism ( which I understand u do but only 4sign of repentance) in name of F,S&HS etc…
I think the deal is as soon as u understand a certain thing of faith and then reject it u are in trouble. Ie if all of a sudden some one convinced u in ur heart that Jesus meant water when he said water and u said aw forget it …

This has nothing to do with our discussion. ED O.

disagree- as above

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by krakee
If the newspaper claimed to be the inspired Word of God then yes, I would take it to the Church Jesus established to know for sure… wouldn’t you?

NO! why should I. Does God tell us to do that, Is your magisteruim higher than the Holy Spirit that dwells within a born again believer?

I’m guessing that’s enough for you? Don’t you want to know for sure? Luckily Jesus told us, in the Bible, who to turn to:

Matthew 18:17-18 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.
18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven./ The born again believers are the church. Mat 18:17 is speaking of a man being sinned against, it has nothing to do with our discussion here.

Notice it didn’t say read the many different versions of the Bible using the many different commentaries.

Let me ask you a question? When you read the Bible, after each reading do you go to the preist and having him confirmed to you what you have read is true? If you don’t then don’t so naive.

Amen my brother. Here’s a question for you. Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

My Bible is infallible since it’s been written. It took your pope until 1850 A,D. before your Pope decided he was infallible.

Take another look at that Ed. Notice he’s telling them to instruct… not to read. Who is he authorizing to instruct? Why didn’t he say hand out Bibles so everyone can read for themselves?

You take another look! How can one teach unless he first reads? The reason they didn’t hand out Bibles is because there was no printing press at that time and all the letters were hand copied. I thought you would have known that.

Why then did he tell certain people to instruct if it’s all written so nicely for us? And why then is there so much controversy of what the words mean? This tread currently has 876 posts about the meaning of 1 singe verse in Scripture.

You are correct! When one verse of Scripture could have a double meaning, it’s then very important to have other Scriptures clarify the exact meaning.

I’ll ask again. Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture? By what authority do you believe this Book is the inspired Word of God?

The authority of the Holy Spirit. Let me make it clear, what I state here is NOT my PERSONAL interpretation.

Let’s see what he’s specifically talking about by looking at the previous verse:

15 and that from childhood

you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.If it’s good enough fot Timothy, it’s good enough for me to! That’s why we are supoosed to read the Scriptures for correction etc.

What Sciptures were available to him “from childhood”? Do you believe only in the Old Testament as what was being referred to here? I highly doubt that. Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

Let me ask you a question? 1 Peter 1:23 tells me, " For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of (name removed by moderator)erishable, through the living and enduring word of God."------- 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." ------- Also John 1:12, states,“Yet to all who receieved him, to those who believed in his name, He gave the right to become children of God.” v 13 “children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will but born of God.” -------You tell me if I believe the above, am I saved? YES or NO!

Oh they had copies alright. And these copies included way more books than we have today. So tell me, why is the Gospel of Peter not being read today? How about the Gospel of Thomas or the Protoevangelium of James? Why is the book of James considered inspired but not these? Who finally used their authority, given by Jesus, to decide these matters? The list of inspired books was not included in these copies by the way

.Read what WilCox wrote on post 873. He does a very good job of explaining all about this.

And what is it Paul had them do… Read it to the people. So what if a Catholic priest read John chapter 3 to you, would you believe him?

No! because there are too many Scriptures that refutes the Catholic interpretation of John 3:5. ED O.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Dear Ed, thank you for the complement

Ed,what do you consider the Catholic interpretation of John 3:5?

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Panevino
as u know I believe he did when he said water in v3:5, imean have u considered Verses such as
john 13:4-10 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” 7Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”
8“No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”
Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me he was definately using water here.

Hi panevino, John 13:4-10, there’s no question that water is being used here, but again that doesn’t mean “water” baptism. What Jesus means is that (Peter) will know later of the humility that Jesus will endure at the crucifixion. One has to humble themselves to wash someone’s feet. ------ Read this; 1 Cor 6:11, “And that is what some of you were, But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Now does the word “washed” here mean “water” baptism? NO! Here one is washed by the Spirit of God.----- I’m tired and will go to bed. it’s too late for me to comment on the rest of your post. God Bless! ED O.

 

[panevino]

Hi panevino, John 13:4-10, there’s no question that water is being used here, but again that doesn’t mean “water” baptism. What Jesus means is that (Peter) will know later of the humility that Jesus will endure at the crucifixion. One has to humble themselves to wash someone’s feet. ------ Read this; 1 Cor 6:11, “And that is what some of you were, But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Now does the word “washed” here mean “water” baptism? NO! Here one is washed by the Spirit of God.----- I’m tired and will go to bed. it’s too late for me to comment on the rest of your post. God Bless! ED O.

Ed, I know that the exchange b/w Jesus & Peter is not baptism
what I am trying to say is given all of these extremely plain alliances of water with saving/life/baptismof John/ water cleansing inOT, etc etc… Etc …There is no way that I ccan then turn around and say no Jesus did not mean water in john3:5 when he said water
but meant physical birth.
Sorry Ed
I love ur denominations view , I have a lot of respect for it and see the beauty in the theology. But I see the above clearly and I see the beaauty in it also.
Beauty is nothing - it’s faith that’s most important
u have my agreement on that.

 

[EdOsiecki]

My response to Benedictus2 post 837concerning the gift of speaking in tongues.

Originally Posted by EdOsiecki 
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.

RESPONSE BY BENEDICTUS 2

What is the point of the gibberish if it cannot be understood?

MY RESPONSE;
Unless you understand every language on heaven and earth, isn’t it blasphemy of the Holy Spirit by calling tongues as you mention here above?

QUOTE BY BENEDICTUS2
Furthermore, if it requires someone else to interpret it, how do we know that the interpreter is not merely making up his interpretation?

MY RESPONSE:
God, through the speaking in tongues has guided the early church and it worked very well then and also for the next 2000 yrs. Who are you to question God? 1 Cor 12: 10, the gift “to another discerning of spirits.” That’s how they know it’s of God.

QUOTE BY BENEDICTUS 2
Isn’t it rather suspicious that the speaker himself does not know what she is blabbering about and cannot even definitively say that what the interpreter is saying is true?

MY RESPONSE
Again you are referring to the Holy Spirit in a blasphemy way. Read 1 Cor 14:2, “For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.—Paul says” For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. ( which means he doesn’t understand) v15 So what shall I do? I will pray with my Spirit, but I will also pray with my mind.”----Paul didn’t seem to have any problem why should you.

QUOTE BY BENEDICTUS 2
The gifts of the Spirit are meant to increase faith, hope and love so as to bring about the kingdom of God. How is unintelligible gibberish supposed to do that?

MY RESPONSE
How do you know that speaking in tongues are to increase faith, hope and love, when you obviously never experienced that gift. Again you are referring to the gift of tongues in a blasphemy way.

QUOTE BY BENEDICTUS 2
Even supposing that there really is such a gift, Paul does not exactly endorse it. On the other hand he emphasizes the gifts the build the church.

MY RESPONSE
“Even supposing that there is such a gift” Are you kidding? “Paul does not exactly endorse it?” Are you kidding? 1 Cor 14:18 Paul speaks, “ I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” According to Paul there most certainly is such a gift. ED O.

 

[EdOsiecki]

Posted by Kevin Wilcox
Dear Ed, thank you for the complement

Ed,what do you consider the Catholic interpretation of John 3:5 ?

Hi Kevin,
Here’s my, as well as, other Protestant’s interpretation of John 3:5 is as follows: — (A) in verse 3 Jesus tells Nicodemus one must be born again in order to see God’s Kingdom. —(B) Nicodemus asks a question, how can he re-enter his mother’s womb? Thinking of physical birth.— (C) Jesus knowing that, explains; “—. Except a man be born of water* (physical) and of the Spirit (spirit), he cannot enter God’s kingdom. — (D) Jesus in v6 reiterates v5 “That which born of the flesh** (water/physical) is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.— (E) in v7 Jesus knows that Nicodemus is still puzzled said, “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” — (F) in v8 Jesus further explains by comparing the spirit to the wind which can’t be seen, but that‘s part of man that has to be changed (born again.) — (G) in v9 Nicodemus still doesn’t understand, when he said, “how can these things be?”— (H) v10 Jesus tells Nicodemus being a teacher he should know about these things. Their dialog ends.

Catholic’s interpretation of John 3:5 is as follows:— (A) in verse 3 Jesus tells Nicodemus one must be born again in order to see God’s kingdom. — (B) Nicodemus asks a question. How can he re-enter his mother’s womb? Thinking of physical birth. — (C) Jesus knowing that, explains; “----Except a man be born of water (baptism) and of the Spirit (spirit). He cannot enter God’s kingdom.” If the born of water means baptism then verses 6 through 10 are irrelevant because vs6-10 do not further explain water baptism? They don’t fit the chronology of this episode. In v5 if the water means baptism then in v6 Jesus should have explained all about being baptized since Nicodemus knows nothing about baptism. In addition, nowhere in this whole episode does Jesus ever explain anything at all about baptism to Nicodemus.

Catholics believe that somehow through “water” baptism the Holy Spirit is infused. But there’s no Scripture to support that claim. Eph 1:13, 1 Cor 6:11, Acts 10:44 & 19:5, all contradicts that claim. No actual water is mentioned in any of them yet the Holy Spirit is.

• Water is a metaphor alluding to people per Ps 144:7, Isa 8:6-7, Jer 47:2 and Rev 17:15, which very clearly states, Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, ----- are peoples multitudes, nations and languages.” The reason that Catholics believe the “born of water” means baptism, is because they were told that, Catholic catechism #1263 teaches it and if they have a Catholic Duoay/Rhiems Bible it misquotes Jesus’ statement from “born of water” to “born again of water”. According to #1263 one is reborn by “water” baptism and all sins are forgiven which contradicts Heb 9:22, “whitout the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” Some on thread believe since Jesus was “water” baptized, the Holy Spirit is somehow infused through baptism. However; there is no Scripture to support that claim. And in Mat 3:16 the Holy Spirit like a dove descended upon Jesus after He came out of the water.

** To be technical, flesh is the largest organ of one’s body which contains mostly water. 70 to 80% of water. ED O.

 

[krakee]

Ed,

Thank you my new forum friend for taking time to respond to me. I know you have plenty of posts to juggle.

NO! why should I. Does God tell us to do that, Is your magisteruim higher than the Holy Spirit that dwells within a born again believer?

There are a few things it seems you’re one question implies. 1-The Holy Spirit does not dwell within the Magesterium. 2-The Holy Spirit is not in me since I would trust the Magesterium therefore I’m not a born again believer. 3-You are a born again believer therefore the Holy Spirit dwells within you.

Are you saying I should take my matters to you instead… at least until I’m a proper born again believer? I sure hope all the born again believers come to the same Truth. What happens if they don’t? Besides we can find the answer to your question in Timothy.

1 Timothy 3:15 …I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Apparently the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth, so no there is no problem asking the Church about a particular issue.

The born again believers are the church. Mat 18:17 is speaking of a man being sinned against, it has nothing to do with our discussion here.

Oh but it does. This has everything to do with authority. You’re trying to discredit the teaching authority of Jesus’ Chruch, let’s not blow this off and just try to forget about it. First off the Greek word here is hamartano which means 1-to be without a share in; 2-to miss the mark; 3-to err, be mistaken; 4-to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong; 5-to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin.

Ed, one of us here, if not both, has indeed missed the mark… has been mistaken. The question I’m bringing up is where does the Bible tell us to turn to when we encounter a situation such as this? Who has the authority? I’m guessing you would say Ed because he’s a born again believer but where does the Bible, Ed’s sole rule of faith, tell us to go?

The Church.

And who is the Church? Matthew 16:18-19 - 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

There are those words again… binding and loosing. And what about those keys? This sounds an awful lot like the establishment of authority… as given by Jesus Christ Himself. Trace it back to Isaiah 22:19-25 and you’ll see Jesus is using the exact wording that was used as the passing on of authority. Everyone standing around at that time knew exactly what He was talking about. So tell me Ed, if Matthew 18:17 is speaking of born again believers, which you claim to be, then what is the last thing you bound on earth that is also now bound in heaven because of your God given authority as mentioned in verse 18? What about the last thing you loosed that was previously bound in heaven but now loosed because of your authority?

Let me ask you a question? When you read the Bible, after each reading do you go to the preist and having him confirmed to you what you have read is true? If you don’t then don’t so naive.

One thing you might not be aware of is the Church doesn’t go through each verse of the Bible and tell us officially how to interpret it. I’m pretty sure you understand there are many levels of meanings that can be taken out of various verses. What the Church does, however, is take the basic principles of the Faith as passed down from the Apostles and teach on them using certain verses of Scripture. After knowing the essentials we are free to interpret Scripture as we are lead by the Holy Spirit… keeping in mind the essential Truth that was passed down to us.

If you recall I was originally responding to what you said about the various versions of the Bible, along with the various commentaries being sufficient enough to teach us. I hope you don’t pick up and start using a Jehovah’s Witness Bible and commentary to teach yourself, you’ll be lead far away from the Truth my friend. Trace history, you’ll be lead to the True Church.

My Bible is infallible since it’s been written. It took your pope until 1850 A,D. before your Pope decided he was infallible.

Yes, your bible is infallible, but you didn’t answer the question, are YOU an infallible interpreter of Scripture. And one thing you might not understand, the Pope was always infallible only on matters of faith and morals. This Truth was never questioned until 1850 at which point it had to be defined. That’s how the Church develops. Truth is always Truth whether or not Ed is aware it is Truth. Is an oak tree not an oak tree in it’s tiniest form as a seed? It takes time to develop into it’s fully grown self but it was always the same oak tree, unchanged, throughout it’s entire life span whether or not you knew or could see it was an oak tree.

You take another look! How can one teach unless he first reads? The reason they didn’t hand out Bibles is because there was no printing press at that time and all the letters were hand copied. I thought you would have known that.

But I have read the Bible Ed, does that mean I can teach you? Afterall, I am a born again believer in which the Holy Spirit dwells. Will you believe me when I instruct you about the Gospel?

You are correct! When one verse of Scripture could have a double meaning, it’s then very important to have other Scriptures clarify the exact meaning.

And what happens when 2 born again believers come up with 2 conflicting interpretations? Who is correct?

 

[krakee]

Quote:
Krakee: I’ll ask again. Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture? By what authority do you believe this Book is the inspired Word of God?

Ed: The authority of the Holy Spirit. Let me make it clear, what I state here is NOT my PERSONAL interpretation.

Since you didn’t answer the first question I’m guessing by saying the Holy Spirit is your authority, you’re implying that you ARE an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Please clarify and answer the first question. Since the explanations you are giving go into much more depth than the Words found in Scripture, are you saying that the Holy Spirit whispered these words in your ear since you say they are not your personal interpretations. Answer the question already. Are you, Ed, an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Yes or No.

Besides, you didn’t actually answer my second question either. I asked by what authority do you believe this BOOK to be the inspired Word of God. Is this possibly one of the recent bindings you did on earth which is now bound in heaven?

Ed: If it’s good enough fot Timothy, it’s good enough for me to! That’s why we are supoosed to read the Scriptures for correction etc.

Quote:
Krakee: What Sciptures were available to him “from childhood”? Do you believe only in the Old Testament as what was being referred to here? I highly doubt that. Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

Ed: Let me ask you a question? 1 Peter 1:23 tells me, " For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of (name removed by moderator)erishable, through the living and enduring word of God."------- 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." ------- Also John 1:12, states,“Yet to all who receieved him, to those who believed in his name, He gave the right to become children of God.” v 13 “children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will but born of God.” -------You tell me if I believe the above, am I saved? YES or NO!

Now hold on a second here Ed, let’s not try and cover over what you just did. You are using this passage in 2 Tim 3:16 to prove that your hand-picked accompanying New Testament verses are claiming their own authority which in turn would discredit the authority of Jesus’ Church? Come on Ed, you said your authority was the Holy Spirit and that these interpretations are not yours. Well surely the Holy Spirit would know what was written in 2 Tim 3:15 about which Scriptures were available since his childhood. There was no New Testament at that time and the only Scriptures they had available was the Old Testament. That is what this particular verse is referring to by saying All Scripture.

Now, yes we believe the same is true of the New Testament but not because of this verse which you are erroneously using. It appears you’re interpretations could use a little work. I, a born again believer in which the Holy Spirit dwells, have read the Bible and am ready to teach, are you ready to listen?

Now to answer your question about if you believe all the above verses are you saved. I’ll ask it a better way. You tell me if I believe the above, and I’m a Catholic, am I saved? YES of NO!

Read what WilCox wrote on post 873. He does a very good job of explaining all about this.

Ed, you have claimed the Holy Spirit as your authority so please answer so we may all know. Why is the Gospel of Peter not being read today? How about the Gospel of Thomas or the Protoevangelium of James? Why is the book of James considered inspired but not these?

Quote:
Krakee: And what is it Paul had them do… Read it to the people. So what if a Catholic priest read John chapter 3 to you, would you believe him?

Ed: No! because there are too many Scriptures that refutes the Catholic interpretation of John 3:5. ED O.

Really Ed!?! You would deny the 3rd chapter of John’s Gospel because a Catholic read it to you? I think the problem here is you Ed. Do the words somehow come out differently when a Catholic reads the Bible? They’re the same words written on the page Ed.

Do you know what you just did Ed? You proved that one cannot just read (or be read to) the Scriptures without forming an interpretation. I simply asked you if a Catholic Priest read it to you would you believe it. Your answer was an exclaimed No! Very telling. This contradicts your earlier declaration that what you state here is NOT your PERSONAL interpretation. If the same words can be believable when read by one person but not believable when read by another than one has to conclude that what you state IS your personal interpretation.

The question is simple. Are you, Ed, an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Yes or No.

 

[The_Ambassador]

In John chapter 3, I take the term “water” to be a metaphorical reference to the “word of God.”

This is my position for two reasons:

1) The Bible teaches that we are born again by the word of God:

James tells us that God "begat us again with the word of truth" (1:18)

Peter describes Christians in 1 Pet 1:23 as, “having been born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” And then again in verse 25, he tells us that, “this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

**2) The Bible describes the word of God in many metaphorical ways - water is one. **

To be sure – this is not the only way in which the word of God is used metaphorically. Indeed the word of God is likened unto fire and even as a hammer – both signifying the convicting and conquering power of the word – and even as a judging, condemning, and demolishing agent.

Consider Jeremiah 23:29 – “Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?”

Again – the word of God is likened unto spiritual bread, signifying that the word of God is our daily sustenance. This is made clear in a number of passages, one if which is very familiar:

“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from of the mouth of God.” (Matthew 4:4 – see Deuteronomy 8:3)

Again, the word of God is likened unto food, even as the Bible speaks of a famine – not of bread, nor of water, but of the word of God – “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing *the words of the LORD.” *(Amos 8:11)

Again, this is most likely why Jeremiah exclaimed, “Thy words were found, and I did *eat *them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart!” (Jeremiah 15:15).

So now what about water?

Clearly then, when the word of God is likened unto *water *in the New Testament, it is simply being illustrated as a “cleansing” or “sanctifying” agent.

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for her; So that he might *sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word.” *(Ephesians 5:25, 26)

Here, the “word of God” is clearly shown to be a “cleansing” and “sanctifying” agent – likened unto “the washing of water.” This “water” with which the church is “washed” is very plainly described as “the word.”

This is why Jesus said: “Now ye are *clean through the word *which I have spoken unto you.” (John 15:3)

And this is why he said: “Father sanctify them by your truth – your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

I believe that the reason Jesus put the water and Spirit together in John 3, is because it is the Spirit that gives the new birth, but he only does so through the preaching of the gospel - the word of God.

Conclusion

1. The word of God is likened unto water (Eph. 5:26; John 15:3; John 17:3; etc.)
2. The word of God is that through which we are born again (James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23; etc.)
3. The New Birth is therefore described as taking place through water - which is a metaphorical reference to the word of God (John 3:5; Titus 3:5).

I recommend that all readers examine these passges again - prayerfully.

 

[izoid]

It is often helpful to look to scripture to help us understand scripture. We can compare several verses and see what is being said. Now, the verses I refer to are all cross referenced to each other in my Bile so we can safely believe that they are parallel verses.
In the verses below, we clearly see a three fold parallelism; water, sprit and salvation. Titus 3:5 is clearly speaking of water baptism, even Calvin agrees to this (Institutes 4, 15, 5). While his conclusions are not the Catholic conclusion, he does affirm that Titus s speaking of baptism.

John 3:5
5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Titus 3:5
5 He saved us,not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

We can then look to other verses for support.

1 Peter 3:21
21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Mark 1:4
4 John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:38
38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

When we look at the totality of scripture along with the understanding and practice of the early Church it is clear that baptismal regeneration was the Biblical understanding of baptism. In order to dispute this, Calvin and others must develop a highly complex metaphorical system for interpreting scripture.

 

[izoid]

1. The New Birth is therefore described as taking place through water - which is a metaphorical reference to the word of God (John 3:5; Titus 3:5).

I recommend that all readers examine these passges again - prayerfully.

You might want to read Calvin regarding this, he disagrees with you on Titus 3:5.

Here is what Calvin says:

By the washing of regeneration I have no doubt that he alludes, at least, to baptism, and even I will not object to have this passage expounded as relating to baptism;

Referenced from: ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom43.v.v.ii.html