John 3:5 simple meaning

[SB81848889]

JL: Scripture indicates, to be a valid minister one must be SENT, [Rm 10:14 …how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 how shall they preach EXCEPT THEY BE SENT?] Can an invisiable church SEND anyone?

Don’t you see yet. The Church sends nobody, the church feeds nobody, the church cloths nobody, the church does nothing. Oh ye have little faith, God is the one who sends preachers.

Lk 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that HE went out into a mountain to pray, and CONTINUED ALL NIGHT IN PRAYER to God. 13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and OF THEM HE CHOSE TWELVE, whom also he NAMED APOSTLES; JN 17:18 As you have SENT me into the world I also SENT them into the world 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, THAT THEY ALSO MAY BE CONSECRATED IN TRUTH. 20 I do not pray for these alone but for those who will BELIEVE IN ME THROUGH THEIR WORD 21 THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE as you Father are in me and I in you THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE you SENT ME.] Christ is praying for one specific VISIBLE sent group, the Apostles Fellowship, whom he consecrated in truth. Hearing their word and BEING ONE IN FELLOWSHIP, with THEM, the world may believe the Father sent him. I don’t think Christ meant, he would only be with that fellowship and it would only be one, just while the apostles were alive, but to the end of the world. [Mt 28:16 THE ELEVEN disciples 18 JESUS SPOKE TO THEM, ALL POWER IS GIVEN TO ME in heaven and in earth 19 GO TEACH ALL NATIONS BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 20 TEACHING to observe ALL things whatever I have COMMANDED you I AM WITH YOU always even TO THE END.] Can an invisiable church teach all nations till the end? That’s the great commission to the Church, the apostles fellowship. Christ to whom all power in heaven and earth is given, sent with his authority that apostles fellowship to TEACH ALL, to observe what he taught, they were to go to all nations (universal, catholic). Only the apostles fellowship were sent to teach all nations, with the authority of Christ. Christ promised to be with them till the end of the world. Those individuals would not be around till the end, but their SENT successors in the Apostolic Fellowship would, by sending and passing on their authority to teach, sanctify and rule by laying on of hands from bishop to bishop, in an unbroken line, till the end.

Yes he is praying for the 12 apostles, not 265 Popes. The only one who is going to be with us to the end is Jesus Christ, It doesn’t say anything about successors, that’s the false doctrine you have to swallow to be a catholic. If we just stick with the bible alone we can find the truth.

DN 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall THE GOD OF HEAVEN SET UP A KINGODM which shall never be destroyed and THE KINGDOM shall not be left to other people but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms and IT SHALL STAND FOR EVER, Lk 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be CALLED THE SON OF THE HIGHEST and the Lord GOD SHALL GIVE unto HIM THE THRONE OF HIS FATHER DAVID 32 And HE SHALL REIGN OVER THE HOUSE OF JACOB FOR EVER and OF HIS KINGDOM THERE SHALL BE NO END. [LK 22:29 I APPOINT YOU A KINGDOM as my Father has appointed me 30 That you may eat and drink AT MY TABLE IN MY KINGDOM and SIT ON THRONES JUDGING the twelve tribes of Israel 31 SIMON Satan has desired to have you 32 I have prayed for you that YOUR FAITH FAIL NOT when you are converted, STRENGTHEN YOUR BRETHREN.] When Peter is converted his faith will never fail, he is to strengthen all the brethren as Universal Pastor. Christ said Satan wanted to sift all the apostles (you plural) as wheat, but Christ prayed that only (you singular) Peter’s faith fail not, this was said in the presents of the other apostles. Christ promised Peter’s faith alone would not fail, implying all must be in union and agree with the faith of Peter. Those not in union with Peter’s faith even though they have apostolic secession can teach error. My Bishop or any number of Bishops can teach error if not in union and agreement, with the successor of Peter. JN 21:14-17 Jesus asked Peter three times, “do you love me more than these” [THESE, would be the other apostles. After being asked three times and replying three times, “yes”. Christ said to Peter, the first time, “feed MY lambs”, the second time, “feed MY sheep”, the third time, “feed MY sheep”. Peter is to feed ALL the sheep in Christ’s flock, not some, but ALL the sheep Christ has purchased with his blood.

Daniel is speaking of Christ’s kingdom here on earth, well that cant happen until he returns, You cant just quote one end times prophecy without considering all of the books about the last days. Are the 12 apostles judging the 12 tribes of Israel today? No, that must be for the future. You don’t have a kingdom. Unless there is 265 tribes of Israel then I don’t think you can apply this passage to the Popes of your Church either.

Your really reaching to claim Jesus told 11 of the apostles they must follow Peter. That’s just not in the text at all. You must rely soley on your sacred tradition to come up with that teaching, I wouldn’t even call it an interpretation.

Did you ever stop and think why Jesus asked peter 3 times if he loved him. For one Jesus used 2 different words for love in the Greek, and when he used the last one Peter broke down. Jesus was forgiving Peter for denying him 3 times and bringing him back to fellowship with him. Yes Peter one of the ONLY 12 apostles preached the first gospel.
[/quote]

 

[RNRobert]

Yes he is praying for the 12 apostles, not 265 Popes. The only one who is going to be with us to the end is Jesus Christ, It doesn’t say anything about successors, that’s the false doctrine you have to swallow to be a catholic. If we just stick with the bible alone we can find the truth.

But whose interpretation of Scripture can we trust? Pastor Billy Bob down the street teaches a different interpretation of Scripture than you do. And Reverend Jones on the other side of town teaches still a different interpretation. How are you so sure that YOUR intepretation of Scripture is correct and MY intepretation of Scripture (or that of Pastor Billy Bob or Reverend Jones) is the wrong one?

 

[RNRobert]

The great Catholic writer G.K. Chesterton had this to say about the Bible (boldface my emphasis):

You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. **The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally**. The Catholic refers it to something that can say something, to the living, consistent, and continuous mind of which I have spoken; the highest mind of man guided by God.

 

[Carlan]

Don’t you see yet. The Church sends nobody, the church feeds nobody, the church cloths nobody, the church does nothing. Oh ye have little faith, God is the one who sends preachers.

Yes he is praying for the 12 apostles, not 265 Popes. The only one who is going to be with us to the end is Jesus Christ, It doesn’t say anything about successors, that’s the false doctrine you have to swallow to be a catholic. If we just stick with the bible alone we can find the truth.

Daniel is speaking of Christ’s kingdom here on earth, well that cant happen until he returns, You cant just quote one end times prophecy without considering all of the books about the last days. Are the 12 apostles judging the 12 tribes of Israel today? No, that must be for the future. You don’t have a kingdom. Unless there is 265 tribes of Israel then I don’t think you can apply this passage to the Popes of your Church either.

Your really reaching to claim Jesus told 11 of the apostles they must follow Peter. That’s just not in the text at all. You must rely soley on your sacred tradition to come up with that teaching, I wouldn’t even call it an interpretation.

Did you ever stop and think why Jesus asked peter 3 times if he loved him. For one Jesus used 2 different words for love in the Greek, and when he used the last one Peter broke down. Jesus was forgiving Peter for denying him 3 times and bringing him back to fellowship with him. Yes Peter one of the ONLY 12 apostles preached the first gospel.

Mr SB88++++: I think you are a very rude believer, You do not know or are interested in knowing about Christ’s Apostolic .Church, your Anti Catholicism is not appreciated here thank you very much! If you wish to tell us about your beliefs good and fine, I would be pleased to know, However, you have n ot been asked to come and inform us of the lies you believe about Christ’s holy Church. G’day!

 

[RNRobert]

Mr SB88++++: I think you are a very rude believer, You do not know or are interested in knowing about Christ’s Apostolic .Church, your Anti Catholicism is not appreciated here thank you very much! If you wish to tell us about your beliefs good and fine, I would be pleased to know, However, you have n ot been asked to come and inform us of the lies you believe about Christ’s holy Church. G’day!

I have been participating on this forum off and on for 5 years and have seen many “Bible-Only” Christians like SB and BibleAnswer come and go. Their schtick is the same: they come here and tell us that we are wrong, and claim their interpretation is based on the Holy Spirit. Yet when we Catholics respond that our study of Scripture and inspiration of the Holy Spirit led us to the Catholic faith, we are dismissed as ‘slaves of Rome.’ The arrogance and hypocracy of such people is simply breathtaking! :nope::banghead::dts:

 

[fbl9]

Don’t you see yet. The Church sends nobody, the church feeds nobody, the church cloths nobody, the church does nothing. Oh ye have little faith, God is the one who sends preachers.

Yes he is praying for the 12 apostles, not 265 Popes. The only one who is going to be with us to the end is Jesus Christ, It doesn’t say anything about successors, that’s the false doctrine you have to swallow to be a catholic. If we just stick with the bible alone we can find the truth.

Did you ever stop and think why Jesus asked peter 3 times if he loved him. For one Jesus used 2 different words for love in the Greek, and when he used the last one Peter broke down. Jesus was forgiving Peter for denying him 3 times and bringing him back to fellowship with him. Yes Peter one of the ONLY 12 apostles preached the first gospel.

laterThe gospel according to St.Matthew 25:41-46 i think you better reread these veses and come up with a different defination of what church means.

I did stick with the bible that’s why i fled from false teachers back to His only church the Catholic church.

And just what else did Jesus have to say to St.Peter at this time…feed my lambs,feed my lambs,feed my sheep…did you ever stop to notice how the lambs now are sheep…it’s a time thing.

 

[fbl9]

I have no problem obeying my leaders, I pay taxes, I don’t commit crime, but religious organizations are not our leaders, they have become YOUR leader because they have deceived you into believing you need them and their sacraments, priests, rituals, IDOLS, incense and works to go to heaven. You are a slave to Catholicism not Christ. And you will serve your master.

Religion is a dirty word, It has been responsible for millions and billions of people to rely on a sacrament or priest or prayer or saint or bread or wine or ritual for their salvation and not Jesus Christ and his finished work. If you go to your church on Sunday and only feed orphans and widows and keep yourselves free of worldly things like money then that I would call a good religion also.

Who has idols?:shrug:there is not a single christian that teaches they need idols
Just whom does catholism serve?

Oh yeah of little understanding do you have not the faith to believe Christ when He said St John 6:52"If anyone eat of this bread he shall live forever; and the bread I will give is my flesh for the life of the world"…It is through the bread and wine which is miracliously tansformed into His flesh that we eat to have life…Just as our Lord said so.

 

[fbl9]

Hi, good to hear from you,

**Revelation 13 **speaks of a time when Satan, called the beast that comes out of the sea, will rule in the churches through false Gospels. In this chapter these churches are called false prophet that comes out of the earth. These churches have become altogether apostate.

My argument: through scripture, is that ALL CHURCHES have become apostate, yes including every single Protestant church I have ever been too, and the rest of the WORLD!
Every single church, so I by no means single out Catholics, its just that this is the best forum I have ever found, and so this is where I’ll go for now.

**Verse 7 **ominously warns: “And it was given unto him (the beast) to make war with the saints and overcome them”.

Likewise in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-10 God speaks of the ‘man of sin’, who can only be Satan, taking his seat in the temple; that is he will rule in the churches that have become apostate.

In 1 Peter 4:17: “Judgment must begin at the house of God.”

We are all familiar with the prophecy of **Matthew 24:24 **which teaches that ‘false Christs’ and ‘false prophets’ coming with signs and wonders will arise to deceive the very elect.
Notice the same language is used in Revelations 13 as in Matthew 24:24, ‘false prophet’ false false false!!

In spite of their flaws and defects, God has used the churches during the last 1900 years to bring the Gospel to the world. These churches from many different denominations, have been vehicles, the instrument by which the Gospel of salvation has gone into virtually every country of the world. There are many glorious chapters in the history of the churches as they more or less were faithful to the great commission, “Go ye into all the world with the Gospel.”

Now as I seriously questioned what I was being taught after I began to seriously study on my own, I read about HIGH PLACES. And every church is a High place.

Look at the money in the Catholic Church,

Look at all the books and Cd’s they sell by apologists who somehow have more authority than you or i, that they can somehow explain to us the meaning of whatever. Somehow they can shed light and give true, spiritual understanding to all the retards for a fair market value of only $19.99… Hey salvation is cheap this year. Wow really, your going to sell answers concerning matters of salvation. Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser, and render unto God what is Gods. I don’t think God would charge admission to Heaven, Geez how incredibly owned by MAMMON they all are. When instead, you can study the bible, more diligently and earnestly for FREEEEEE!

look at all the political intrigue, and all the opinions about everything. Tell me, how is politics following faithful to the great commission, “Go ye into all the world with the Gospel.” It isn’t. The LORD has no concern with the matters of this world. “Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars, and render to God what is Gods.” Ceasar is the world, God is spiritual. Yes an abortion is so incredibly wrong, yet abortions are not the point of the bible, spiritual salvation is the bible. IT is very sad and wrong, and any other forum or group would be adequate to protest, however a church is only concerned with preaching the Gospel. And by preaching the Gospel, the LORD will work HIS WILL, HIS WAY, and if it be HIS WILL to touch the hearts of abortionist, then that is GODS WILL. But that is all a church should do, hand out a bible track, preach the Word, and then have nothing else to say, because we are not judges, the law is the judge, and the law is Gods Word. Each and every person will stand for their sins and be judged by the law, But the church should not judge, or forgive, because forgiveness is a virtue from the LORD, The LORD forgives.

Look at the importance of Moral Law over spiritual salvation. One does not necessarily go hand in hand. The LORD killed the man in Exodus 20 by stoning him, just for picking up a few sticks on the Sabbath. Do you think Morally, it was wrong to pick up sticks, no of course not, he hurt nobody, he killed nobody, he thought no evil thought, he did no evil act. What he did do was disobey Gods Law, and the punishment for breaking the law is death. Do you notice any degree of separation. God does not distinguish between picking up a few sticks, or Cain murdering Abel. They were both sins, and the wages of sin is death. No degree, a sin is a sin.

Look at the incredible wealth of 2000 years of doctrines that have come from the church, and is any of it inspired by God, were any of them prophets, NO, the last prophet was John, he was exiled on the Island of Patmos around 95AD, and he penned Revelation, and the final say on the Bible is Revelation 22:21.

Your bible must be wrote quite different i found no mention of the beast ruling through churches in chap 13 of the Apocalyse
I guess you you too are apostate according to your own words…

So how did you obtain your bible? was it handed to you.or did you pay for it,so it ain’t free
Yes it was wrong to pick up sticks for the Lord forbade him to do so.

As for abortion where in scripture do you find it said to be wrong?

Christ said there are sins that can’t be forgiven and many that can be,sure sounds like degrees to me.

 

[nsper7]

My salvation does not rest in Martin Luther, so there is bound to be many things he said that I don’t agree with and feel contradict the word of God. He is not infallible. The Holy Spirit is infallible. Besides the majority of Martin Luther’s life was a poor example for a christian to follow. I’m sure your aware of his later writings. However his theology of salvation by faith alone and receiving Gods righteousness in place of our own is exactly what the word of God says, and that’s what has been hidden from people during the dark ages.

“History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.”
Napoleon Bonaparte

Don’t put your faith in history, put it in Christ.

WHERE IN SCRIPTURE IS ‘SOLA SCRIPTURA’ ADVOCATED? Answer the question or your entire argument is useless.

 

[jlhargus]

Mark 16:16 Still no mention of water here, remember there is only one baptism, the Holy Spirit.

JL: So what baptism is it? It doesn’t mention Holy Spirit baptism or baptism by fire either, does it? Baptism is always water baptism as far as I can see in scripture. If it is not water baptism, it is clear in scripture it is not water baptism.

1. **Galatians 3:27** Baptized into Christ. One baptism. No mention of water, water cannot put you in Christ.

JL: Water in itself cannot put one in Christ, but water and the Spirit can. 1Cor6:11 And such were some of you. But YOU WERE WASHED you were SANCTIFIED, you were JUSTIFIED in the NAME of the Lord JESUS Christ AND in the SPIRIT OF OUR GOD.

[Rms 6:3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were BAPTIZED INTO HIS DEATH? 4 We were therefore BURIED WITH HIM THROUGH BAPTISM INTO DEATH in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, WE too may LIVE A NEW LIFE. 5 If we have been UNITED WITH HIM like this in his death, we will certainly also be UNITED WITH HIM in his resurrection. 6 For we know that OUR OLD SELF WAS CRUCIFIED with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should NO LONGER be SLAVES TO SIN.]

Tell me what baptisms are these and how do you know? What do you wash with?

 

[jlhargus]

Your confusing church with religion. The body of believers ( church ) has the truth because they believe. Your religion is not the biblical church. Again I agree that baptism is necessary, but not for salvation unless you mean the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Only problem is there is now and was at the beginning antichrists and wolfs in sheeps clothing. division is the tears and unity is the wheat. Your suggesting that the Roman Catholic church has no division and thus no tears, so every single catholic is saved. Do you agree with this?

I know you have been taught that your church is led by the line of voted in apostles, so that anything the bible says about apostles your religion can claim it for themselves and keep 1 billion people in subjection. Your faith is in your church not Christ.

The biblical church if there even is one in this day has authority, I agree.

you mean the One Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church

JL: Got any evidence for any of your statements? I see nothing but your own opinion, just another empty voice claiming to be lead by the Holy Spirit saying nothing in your own little Tower of Babel.

 

[jlhargus]

Don’t you see yet. The Church sends nobody, the church feeds nobody, the church cloths nobody, the church does nothing. Oh ye have little faith, God is the one who sends preachers.

Yes he is praying for the 12 apostles, not 265 Popes. The only one who is going to be with us to the end is Jesus Christ, It doesn’t say anything about successors, that’s the false doctrine you have to swallow to be a catholic. If we just stick with the bible alone we can find the truth.

Daniel is speaking of Christ’s kingdom here on earth, well that cant happen until he returns, You cant just quote one end times prophecy without considering all of the books about the last days. Are the 12 apostles judging the 12 tribes of Israel today? No, that must be for the future. You don’t have a kingdom. Unless there is 265 tribes of Israel then I don’t think you can apply this passage to the Popes of your Church either.

Your really reaching to claim Jesus told 11 of the apostles they must follow Peter. That’s just not in the text at all. You must rely soley on your sacred tradition to come up with that teaching, I wouldn’t even call it an interpretation.

Did you ever stop and think why Jesus asked peter 3 times if he loved him. For one Jesus used 2 different words for love in the Greek, and when he used the last one Peter broke down. Jesus was forgiving Peter for denying him 3 times and bringing him back to fellowship with him. Yes Peter one of the ONLY 12 apostles preached the first gospel.

JL: For a sola scriptura person you seem unable to use scripture to answer, just the same old smart remarks no substance.

I have no problem with connecting Peters denial of Christ with Christ restoring Peter, that is well known nothing new there. But it is much more, Christ also says the first time feed my lambs, the little ones, second time Christ says, tend or shepherd my sheep, third time Christ says, feed my sheep. Why do you overlook those statements? Peter is to shepherd and feed all Christ’s flock as universal pastor on earth from the smallest to the greatest, a ROCK of unity and faith.

Christ said, “WHEN THOU ART CONVERTED”. Lk 22:29 And I APPOINT UNTO YOU A KINGDOM, as my Father hath appointed unto me; 30 That ye may eat and drink at my table in MY KINGDOM, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 And the Lord said, Simon, SIMON, behold, SATAN HATH DESIRED TO HAVE YOU, (all Apostles) that he may sift you (all apostles) as wheat: 32 BUT I HAVE PRAYED FOR THEE, (Peter alone) THAT THY (Peter alone) FAITH FAIL NOT: and WHEN thou art CONVERTED, STRENGTHEN THY BRETHREN. When Peter is CONVERTED his faith will not fail, Christ guarantees Peter’s faith and Peter is to STRENGTHEN, SHEPHERD and FEED the BRETHREN, both LAMBS AND SHEEP, as our Lord commissioned him to do, while restoring him. When Christ said to Peter, “do you love me more than THESE,” who were THESE? none other than the other apostles, who were present. Are the other apostles not sheep and brethren? How many breathren and sheep is Peter to feed? All those purchased by the blood of Christ.

 

[nsper7]

I’m still waiting one of these “Bible Only” types to show me where in Scripture it advocates ‘Sola Scriptura’. :banghead:

 

[RNRobert]

I’m still waiting one of these “Bible Only” types to show me where in Scripture it advocates ‘Sola Scriptura’. :banghead:

I’m also waiting for one of them to explain what happened to apostolic authority. I think we’re both in for a long wait…:coffeeread:

 

[Carlan]

I’m not sure I understand. There are, as you know, two covenants. The old covenant and the new covenant. The new replaced the old. The Church did exist during the old covenant, it is explained throughout the Pentateuch. In the new covenant, the Church changed as Christ became our Paschal Sacrifice. People became Christians and Judaism and Christianity became two separate and distinct forms of belief. That being said, there was a Church started within the first century, the Christian Church. St. Paul traveled to many places to preach the Word, as is explained by his own writings. Those writings were not made public until after the death of St. Paul, which means there was a time when St. Paul preached that which has not yet been published. The Bible, at that time, only included the Old Testament, and it was known as the Septuagint. There is an example of the Church existing before the Bible.

But by that logic you are ignoring the teaching of the Apostles, teaching that were not necessarily written down, but teachings that were communicated to the faithful using oral tradition, not the written Word. These were still the teachings of Christ and, again just using your logic, you are ignoring those teachings of Christ.

You’re right, as St. John himself tells us:

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.
St. John 21:25

Therefore we rely on the teachings of the Apostles, teachings that have been passed down for almost 2000 years through an unbroken chain of Bishops and clergy.

Because the teachings of the Apostles are not satanic!!! They are of God and their teachings are in unison with the Holy Writ.

How do you know that I am not a serious Bible student? I have been reading the Scriptures for over 30 years. I have been praying since I was a little child. If you are a serious Bible student, as you claim to be, I would ask you to look into the entire Bible. Remember that the original KJV of 1611 included the 7 Books you are currently missing. In addition to this, remember where the KJV began. The New Testament of the KJV came from the “Textus Receptus” which was written down by Erasmus, a Catholic Priest. The Textus Receptus was not complete, as parts of it have disappeared by the time the KJV was being written. Therefore, the missing parts, mostly of Revelations, came from the Latin Vulgate, a Catholic Bible. The Old Testament of the KJV came from the Septuagint and it included 46 Books, not 39. I hope, as a serious Bible student you can see the Catholicity of the Bible you are reading, as well as the error you are falling into by reading an incomplete Bible.

I have searched and have found. That is why I defend against heresies and misunderstandings. I invite you to consider what I’ve said as the Bible really is a Catholic Book, and goes hand in hand with the Oral Tradition passed down to us by the Apostles. All of which make up the “Entire Word of God.”

Hello Erik, Thank you for your inspired posts to the man Bible and l thank the other persons who are trying to witness sincerely to him and his friend.also. Forgive me, Erik, but as good as you are I can’t see you continuing to waste your witness on the kind of drivel these two men are producing It is so obvious that they are anti Catholic and here simply to upset and make trouble. I am new to the forums and today when I noticed this john 3 thread I was anxious to have a look and I have now become very disgusted and will surely be more careful in the future to watch out for the types you are so kindly trying to witness our faith to.:sad_yes: Carlan

God Bless you and thank you for all do for our precious Lord.

 

[Nita]

John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Is it possible that Catholics have been taught by their church that this verse implies baptism as a requirement to get into heaven to instill a works salvation. when the more realistic and simple interpretation is that Jesus was simply talking with nicodemus is a way that he could understand. They were talking about being born.

Nicodemus was astonished at Jesus words about being born again, and asked him how could a man craw back into his mothers womb.

Jesus is talking about a natural birth (water) and a spiritual birth (spirit).

To take the interpretation that water means baptism does not even enter into the context of their discussion. It seem the Catholic church is teaching this verse means more than what Jesus said. Something that you would never assume without another telling you thats what it meant.

I was just wondering what a Catholic says about this.

I think as Catholics, we are so used to the concept of “sacramentality” that we forget other denominations are unfamiliar with it – that God uses visible, tangible things when He communicates invisible spiritual gifts/graces. He binds, so to speak, the spiritual gift (totally intangible to us poor humans who can only perceive the tangible) to something tangible. And He usually chooses a tangible item that physically manifests in some way what the true, invisible gift is about.

Hence, we have the gift of the cleansing of our souls by the working of the Holy Spirit bound to the physical element of water being poured over us. Water and it’s action is a physical “type”, or symbol, of the Holy Spirit and His action. (Eg. Water is used to cleanse ourselves. The reception of the Holy Spirit cleanses our souls of sin. Water is necessary for physical life. The Holy Spirit is necessary for supernatural life.)

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
So, Our Lord has bound the true gift of His Spirit and the spiritual birth accomplished in us by Him, to being baptized with water.

The greatest Sacrament of all was Jesus Christ — God (pure Spirit) binding Himself to a physical, mortal, human body and soul so that humans could see and hear the ways of God tangibly expressed and lived out. So we could see the seriousness of sin. So we could see…

 

[erikd]

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

Your interpretation of the water being a natural birth does not concur with other passages in Scripture:

That’s because Jesus didn’t talk to anyone else about being born again, Its just simply the context of the verse. Jesus wasn’t talking to you and me about how to be saved, he was answering a mans question very candidly. I can go to Israel and cross the Jordan river, but I don’t think I would be fulfilling prophecy. Joshua did, and he’s who God commanded to cross. This is a good lesson in interpreting verses of scripture.

Are you suggesting, as Nicodemus asked, that a grown or old man is to crawl into his mother’s womb so that she can give birth to him again? Can you physically crawl back into your mother’s womb?

25: I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
26: A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.
27: And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.
Ezekiel 36: 25-27

The Prophet is speaking the Words of God referring to the sanctification of Israel, after having profaned His Name. Sounds very Baptismal. This, by the way, leads straight to the New Testament writings of St. Paul:

So your saying God also literally ripped out their hearts and put a new beating heart back instead. Also what is it that made them obey his laws? Not the water, but the new heart, the water can only be symbolic in this passage, because the rest of the passage is symbolic. Plus its God doing the sprinkling, so their is no work of man here.

When a person, who has a heart of stone, turns his / her behavior because of a change of heart, that is a real change that has nothing to do with symbolism. Physically your heart may look the same but the change is absolutely real. Are you then saying that in Baptism pretend water should be used? Is that similar to the pretend (hidden) church that one should attend? Should we look at all of Scriptures as just a pretend Book?

15: They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
Romans 2:15

The laws are written in our hearts, thanks to the regenerative power of water and Spirit.

I don’t see any mention of water in this verse, but I do see a mention of what the water symbolizes.

You’re forgetting about the reality of the change. Ezekiel 36:25-27 is the promise, Romans 2:15 is the result. There is no one pretending, there is nothing symbolic, just a real change in real people.

5: he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,
Titus 3: 5

This is also not speaking of a physical rebirth, but rather a washing of the foolish, disobedient, and the deceived (3:3).

Again Jesus was only talking to nicodemus about being born again and crawling back into his mothers womb, so I am pretty sure the rest of the bible is only speaking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and not water. Just like this verse you quote here is.

So, you’re telling me that a grown man crawling into his mother’s womb is not symbolic but the water is? Can you picture the logistics of what you are espousing?

Here, then, those miscreants provoke questions. And so they say, “Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith.” But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added w the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The comparison with this law of that definition, “Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,” has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.
Tertullian “On Baptism” 160-240 AD

The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament.
Catholic Encyclopedia “Baptism”

“Baptism is the external ablution of the body, performed with the prescribed form of words.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III:66:1

Key phrase in Tertullian’s comment is "For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed” Obviously he believes in a works salvation or legalsim. When we go outside the bible for answers we will undoubtedly fall into error.

Are you saying that your understanding of this Scriptural verse, or any other for that matter, came only from you and not anyone else? Are you saying that you’ve never heard a sermon by a protestant? Are you saying that you’ve never read a commentary by someone who has certain beliefs? Are you the pot calling the kettle black? Just wondering.

 

[erikd]

Hello Erik, Thank you for your inspired posts to the man Bible and l thank the other persons who are trying to witness sincerely to him and his friend.also. Forgive me, Erik, but as good as you are I can’t see you continuing to waste your witness on the kind of drivel these two men are producing It is so obvious that they are anti Catholic and here simply to upset and make trouble. I am new to the forums and today when I noticed this john 3 thread I was anxious to have a look and I have now become very disgusted and will surely be more careful in the future to watch out for the types you are so kindly trying to witness our faith to.:sad_yes: Carlan

God Bless you and thank you for all do for our precious Lord.

Hi Carlan,

Sometimes I do feel that way, but I always try to remember that these men firmly believe in what they say, just as do the Jehova’s Witnesses, the Mormons, etc. If I let them espouse their error, unsuspecting Catholics will fall into that error, and I can’t allow that to happen. I thank you for you kind words, but I will try to defend the truth until my last day. As our Lord told us in St. Matthew 10:22, 24:13, and St. Mark 13:13, “he who endures till the end shall be saved.”

 

[erikd]

Remember that God leads us into all truth, and since my faith is in Christ alone, I know he will keep his promise. I should not have used the word PROUD, I meant blessed.

Don’t forget that Christ built His Church in order to ensure that noone would ever fall into error. You leave the Church, you’re liable to fall into error.

 

[nsper7]

Don’t forget that Christ built His Church in order to ensure that noone would ever fall into error. You leave the Church, you’re liable to fall into error.

If you leave the Church or willfully reject the Church, then you have already fallen into serious error.