John 3:5 simple meaning

[erikd]

How about our salvation in the religion that Christ made for us to follow?

"We are tied to God and bound to Him [religati] by the bond of piety, and it is from this, and not, as Cicero holds, from careful consideration [relegendo], that religion has received its name."Lactantius: “Divine Institutes”, IV, xxviii

We have salvation only IN CHRIST, not religion no matter what the definition. How do we get in Christ? By believing what God has said in his word, Jesus Christ is the son of God and was crucified and died for your sins and rose again on the 3rd day for your justification according to the scriptures. ( NOT sacred tradition, NOT water baptism, NOT communion, NOT purgatory, NOT confession, NOT RELIGION. )

If, however, the religion ties and bounds us to God, and you do not accept it, then you are not accepting God. Unless you are infallible and can speak infallibly, this is a real possibility for you. Right?

Quote:

Can you explain, then, how it is that between 40,000 and 50,000 different religious denominations have sprung up, all believing the same Bible, all claiming to have the ability to understand that same Bible from that same Holy Spirit? Remember that the Church (the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) has always believed as “One” Church meaning that we are of “One” faith, of “One” Baptism, of “One” Lord. The Only Christian “Religion” that has survived since Christ walked the earth. Does not the consistency of this Church show you something? Remember the passage and tell me how your Church stacks up:

38 And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought;
39 But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him.Acts 5:38-39

I am Catholic. which means universal, I have a fellowship that is universal to all people who believe the gospel and I am unified with them in the body of Christ. I am not Roman Catholic.

Do you deny that since the first century the Church has been led from Rome? If so, can I point you to Papal writings going back to Clement I. Do you not realize that for two centuries, universal meant that all believers believe universally?

Your thinking in mans ways and mans superstitions, and mans logic when you say One church institution here on earth. We need to worship in Spirit and truth. Christians are not called to build the kingdom today, we are to sow the word of God to a lost world, Jesus will build his kingdom when he comes again, Its religion that has blinded you to think you are doing anything for God. You are just piling up filthy rags.

By worshipping Christ I am piling up filthy rags? By trying to do His will I am building up filthy rags?

All denominations and religions are causing the divide into 50,000 sects. All men want to do is serve this world and their flesh. Religion is serving up a big dish of Pride, Greed, Idolatry, Rebellion, Hate, War, Government, Slavery, Persecution, Satan Worship, Legalism, Flesh, Dead works, the list goes on and on just choose your religion and choose your poison. The fruit of the Spirit is Love, Joy, Peace, Long suffering, Patience, Kindness, Faithfulness, Goodness, Gentleness, Self control.

For me I choose Christ and put away Religion.

Once again, I have to ask: Are you speaking infallibly? Could you be in error when saying that Religion is absolutely not tied to God as billions of people throughout the last two centuries have believed? Can you not see one bit of good that Religion has done? Have you ever heard of Catholic Charities?

 

[erikd]

You may have a hard time proving this point. Remember the structure of the Mass. Every day a minimum of two Scriptural readings plus several Psalms (none of these readings or Psalms repeating day to day but progressively moving through the Bible through a three year cycle). On Sundays there are 3 Scriptural readings and the Psalms. While the structure of the Mass took some time to become developed into its existence as we see it today, the Church has always read Scripture in Church. That is the reason the Canon of Scripture, agreed upon in 382 AD at the Council of Rome, was put together in the first place. The Canon was a list of Books that were to be read in Church. This was the Church’s mandatory teaching of what is to be read in Church, and it’s lasted for over 1600 years officially, and almost 2000 years unofficially (remember that for over 300 years the Church was persecuted and people were dying in mass numbers making it nearly impossible to uniformly develop the structure of the Mass and of the readings during the Mass.) I’m not sure where your argument is coming from.

Martin Luther’s first problem with the church was about indulgences, and people were deceived into believing that they needed to purchase these pieces of paper to help them get into heaven, The gospel was not being given to the people. The mass is a sacrifice of Jesus again and contrary to the bible, yet your still believing in your church and hoping that they are right and relying on sacred tradition whenever the bible is contrary to your religion.
Your still buying indulgences, its just under a different name.

Your original argument said that the Catholic Church was not “giving out the Bible but giving out Religion.” I explained to you the logistics of handing out Bibles that were hand copied one thousand years before the invention of the printing press. I’d say you dodged the question.

Quote:

If you believe that Catholics believe their salvation to be in anyone other than Jesus you don’t know Catholicism (no offense, I’m just pointing out factual truth)

Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in no one other than Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” This verse and many others make it abundantly clear that Christ is the only Savior of the world. That is precisely why the Church says that its existence in the world is necessary for salvation: because we would not know of Christ had it not been for the Church. In Acts 4:12, Peter is pointing to Christ as the Savior, but he does so as an authoritative witness to Christ, as his chosen apostle. The people to whom Peter was preaching would not know of Christ except through his witness as the leader of the Church. So we can say that the proclamation of Christ by the Church is necessary for salvation. Outside of Christ there is no salvation and, by implication, outside the Church there is no salvation.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403sbs.asp

You would not know of Christ if it wasn’t for the gospel. Faith comes by hearing and hearing comes from the word of God. So someone had to read it to be able to have it heard. This can be done in a church or it can be done on a dirt road.

Again you are wrong, In Acts 4:12 the people would not know about Christ unless Peter PREACHED the gospel. Your trying to establish Peter as some figure head, but the only saving thing about that verse is the gospel of Jesus Christ being preached, not who did the preaching.

Once again, I believe you are avoiding the reality. I am not trying to put St. Peter up as some sort of figure head, Jesus Christ did that for us in St. Matthew 16:17 and in St. John 21:15-17. I was merely showing you that the Bible that you read was not read by the earliest of Christians. How could someone read the epistle to the Romans when St. Paul was writing it? Do you think that the Letters to Titus ever made it to the Thessalonians? The logistics of those arguments are not resolvable. Jesus died approx. 31AD. The first full Bible was released approx 405 AD. Manuscripts were available, in Catholic Churches, but the full Scriptures were not released until 405. That leaves 374 years of oral tradition. Or, if you want to take it a little differently, St. Peter and St. Paul were both martyred about 67 AD. That’s 36 years after the death of Christ. In those days, that was three generations. That’s three generations of oral tradition, long before the Books were even finished. We can look at this in another way, if you want. The Gospel of St. John was written sometime between 90-110 AD. That’s as much as 79 after Christ and a full 295 years before the entire Bible was translated. That means that the Apostles (the leaders of the Church) preached Jesus Christ to all, baptized and forgave sins. Those apostles eventually died but before their death passed on their teachings to Bishops who they themselves appointed like St. Linus, St. Cletus, St. Clement, and so on until you reach Benedict XVI. It is an unbroken chain, and the closest link we have to the Apostles and to Christ and to the fullness of the Gospel of God. How could anyone have an issue with that?

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by SB81848889
The mass is a sacrifice of Jesus again and contrary to the bible,

JL: THE MASS IS THE WEDDING SUPPER OF THE LAMB. Christ entered once into the true tabernacle not made by hands, were he ever lives, the Lamb of God once slain, who takes away the sins of the world as our one mediator, interceding for us bringing to remembrance that PURE OFFERING, this IS my body, this IS my blood, the sacrifice of the cross, showing HIS BODY and HIS BLOOD before the Father and MAKING PRESENT to his people, the Church, his once for all sacrifice on the cross. The bread of life and the blood of the Lamb.

[Ex 25:30 And you shall set the bread of the Presence on the table before me always] The bread of the Presence is placed on a table before the Presence of God above the Ark of the Old Covenant in the Holy of Holies. The Temple bread of the Presence is a type and foreshadowing, of Christ and his real Presence, as the bread of life, the Lamb of God, who will stand in the midst of the throne bringing to remembrance the sacrifice of the cross, before the Father.

[Rv 5:6 …in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders STOOD A LAMB AS IT HAD BEEN SLAIN …] Our slain sacrificed Passover Lamb the Bread of Life with his atoning blood ever living and present in the true Holy of Holies in the midst of the throne before God the Father mediating, [1Jn2:1 MY LITTLE CHILDREN, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And IF ANY MAN SIN, we have AN ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And HE IS THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.], Christ is our propitiation for sins before and after baptism, bringing to remembrance and making present his once for all sacrifice of great mercy. Our PURE OFFERING, Jesus Christ, our living High Priest making intercession for us. That same once for all sacrifice of the cross. There is no re-sacrifice it is the same once done MADE PRESENT to us a living memorial sacrifice. [Malachi 1:11 For FROM THE RISING OF THE SUN even UNTO the GOING DOWN of the same my name shall be great among THE GENTILES; and IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE shall be OFFERED unto my name, AND A PURE OFFERING: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. [That PURE OFFERING=sacrifice, this IS my body, this IS my blood, is our Eucharistic Lord, Jesus Christ. Animal sacrifces had to be clean, but they could never be pure, only Christ our sacrifice is PURE.]

[Rv 5:6 And I beheld in the midst of the throne … stood a Lamb as it had been slain… Hb 7: 17 …Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Hb 7:24 … this man…continues ever…an unchangeable priesthood 25 Wherefore he is able also to save … seeing he ever lives to make intercession for them. … Hb 8…We have such an high priest… 2 A minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle …3 … every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices wherefore IT IS OF NECESSITY THAT THIS MAN HAVE SOMEWHAT ALSO TO OFFER 4 …priests that offer gifts according to the law 5 … serve to the EXAMPLE and SHADOW OF HEAVENLY THINGS… … 6 But now has he obtained a more excellent ministry… MEDIATOR OF A BETTER COVENANT … Hb9:24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; BUT into HEAVEN itself, NOW TO APPEAR IN THE PRESENCE OF GOD FOR US:]
Christ is not just sitting and watching events, he is our High Priest interceding for us with the Father, bringing to remembrance to the Father and to us that same once for all sacrifice of the lamb on the Cross, which we eat at Mass, just as the Israelites ate their Passover lamb. [JN 6:55 My flesh IS meat indeed, my blood IS drink indeed.

Malacahi 1:11 …from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles and IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE shall be offered to my name AND A PURE OFFERING] The prophecy of Malachi says Gentiles will offer incense and make a pure offering (sacrifice) to the Lord’s Name from the rising to setting of the sun in every place. That is fulfilled in the Catholic Church as that same once for all sacrifice of the cross is made present at Mass which is celebrated by priests in every parish daily in all places, the Orthodox Church has this same pure offering also.

The fruit, of the the Tree of Life=Cross, our Passover Lamb is eaten at mass. [Hb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren THAT HE MIGHT BE a merciful and faithful HIGH PRIEST in things pertaining to God TO MAKE RECONCILIATION FOR THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE 1Jn 2:2 2 And HE IS THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. [Hb9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but THE HEAVENLY THINGS themselves WITH BETTER SACRIFICES than these. 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now TO APPEAR in the presence of God FOR US:] BETTER SACRIFICES, plural, because that once for all sacrifice of Christ is made sacramentally present to us each time mass is offered. This IS my body, this IS my blood, with these words the living memorial sacrifice is accomplished by the sacaramental separation of body and blood showing forth Christ death.

Hb7:25 Wherefore HE IS ABLE also TO SAVE THEM to the uttermost THAT COME UNTO GOD BY HIM, seeing HE EVER LIVETH TO MAKE INTERCESSION FOR THEM. Hb12:22 but YE ARE COME UNTO MOUNT SION, and unto THE CITY OF THE LIVING GOD, the HEAVENLY JERUSALEM, and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and TO GOD THE JUDGE OF ALL, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And TO JESUS THE MEDIATOR of the new covenant, and TO THE BLOOD OF SPRINKLING, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

 

[jlhargus]

yet your still believing in your church and hoping that they are right and relying on sacred tradition whenever the bible is contrary to your religion.

JL: Sacred Oral Tradition and Sacred Writen Tradition=Scripture cannot be contrary to each other, they both come from the same source, God.

An example of a tradition of men made a doctrine of God would be Sola Scriptura, which only scatters and divides people of faith. There is no scripture saying scripture only. In fact that very sole authority they claim tells them the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, 1Tm3:15. And if one does not listen to the church treat him as an unbeliever, Mt18:17.

What did people do the first time the gospel was preached by Peter? Acts2:41 Then THEY THAT gladly RECEIVED HIS WORD were BAPTIZED: and the same day there WERE ADDED UNTO THEM about three thousand souls. 42 And THEY CONTINUED steadfastly IN the APOSTLES’ DOCTRINE and FELLOWSHIP, and in BREAKING OF BREAD, and in PRAYERS. [Those that received his word were baptized. They were brought into the Church by baptism and CONTINUED steadfastly in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Fellowship.] 1Cor 1:9 God is faithful you were called into THE FELLOWSHIP OF his Son JESUS CHRIST 10 I appeal to you BREATHREN by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you AGREE that there be no dissensions among you that you BE UNITED in the same mind and THE SAME JUDGMENT. 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO **US **BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH and the spirit of ERROR [Therefore we do not listen to men, the spirit of error, to be taken in by false teachers and every wind of doctine men can devise through sola scriptura, the tridition of men made a doctrine of God around 1521 AD.]

If scripture is the sole authority? Then what authority was used before the canon? What authority discerned the books of this sole authority? This sole authority also teaches we are to keep those Apostolic Traditions, whether by word OR epistle. They dismiss those scriptures, saying all those Oral Traditions are now in the written Tradition of Scripture. Yet they cannot, by that sole authority, PROVIDE SCRIPTURE TELLING US THAT IS THE CASE. The fact is scripture confirms Oral Tradition throughout. The following are a few scripture references for our gospel, whether by word or epistle, as Paul tells us:
1Tim6:20 Timothy, KEEP THAT WHICH IS COMMITTED TO THY TRUST, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

Philip4:9 THOSE THINGS, which YE HAVE both LEARNED, and RECEIVED, and HEARD, and SEEN IN ME, DO: and the God of peace shall be with you.

1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BREATHREN, STAND FAST, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, WHETHER BY WORD OR our EPISTLE.

Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and BRING all things TO your REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.

2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS also.

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee **KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST **which dwelleth IN US.

Handed down by the apostles through oral and written Tradition. Oral Apostolic Tradition is found in the lived out life of the Church through the liturgy (worship of the church), church councils, writings of the Fathers, teachings of the popes, creeds, prayers, writings of the saints and doctors. This does not mean all these writing are without error or that all oral Tradition is written down. It is that **magisterium (Teaching Authority) SENT **by Christ to TEACH the whole world till the end, Mt28:16-20. That teaching authority SENT others by laying on of hands and will continue till the end. That teaching authority today is the Pope and Bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit promised by Christ to lead them in all truth, who discern Apostolic Tradition from the traditions of men. Tradition and the Bible go hand in hand and cannot contradict each other. Without Tradition the scriptures cannot be correctly understood and interpreted. One of the ways the canon of the Bible was discerned is Apostolic Tradition. Those books could not be contrary to that lived out faith Tradition, already received and practised as delivered by the Apostles, they must agree. Those writings contrary to Tradition given by the Apostles, where rejected.

Hb13:7 REMEMBER YOUR LEADERS, WHO SPOKE THE WORD OF GOD TO YOU. Consider the outcome of their way of life and IMITATE THEIR FAITH.

Christ’s teachings to the apostles were all Oral Tradition and Traditioned by Christ to his apostles. Christ wrote nothing and the apostles wrote to already established churches who had received, and lived by that Oral Word of God, taught them from the Apostolic Oral Tradition, some of the Oral Word of God was latter written down. The epistles were written for the most part to clarify or solve problems in the community. 2 THES 2:14 he called you by our gospel…15: …stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught whether by word or our epistle. Really it cannot get any clearer, our gospel equals word (oral) or epistle (scripture) both form our gospel per Paul. 1Thes 2:13 … you received the word of God which you heard of us…not as the word of men but as it is in truth the word of God…2Thes2:14 says “which you have been taught” not read but taught by those sent by Christ with the authoity to do so, and 1Thes 2:13 says “which you have heard of us” not read and then make up your own interpretation, but heard of us, the apostles fellowship. Christ sent the apostles to teach the whole world and he promised to be with them till the end of the ages, how? Passing on that authority by laying on of hands from aposltes to bishops to bishops till the end of the ages.

 

[RNRobert]

I wonder where SB and BibleAnswer went off too…

 

[Omyo12]

I wonder where SB and BibleAnswer went off too…

Yeah… they never responded to my post back in page 3… Least I don’t think (this thread is getting huge!)

 

[RNRobert]

Yeah… they never responded to my post back in page 3… Least I don’t think (this thread is getting huge!)

And they never answered my question on what happened to apostolic authority (I’ve been on this forum 5 years and whenever I ask that question of a “Bible-Only” Christian, they tend to become scarce…)

 

[Omyo12]

you mean the One Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church

Actually, the Catholic Church is not only Roman but also includes the various Eastern Catholic Churches. While they differ in traditions and terminologies, they are still in full communion with the Pope and part of the Universal Church.

There’s also a movement right now (one of many within the Anglican Church) called the Traditional Anglican Communion which are folks seeking to be in full communion with the Pope

 

[erikd]

I wonder where SB and BibleAnswer went off too…

I think I can answer that. Since they believe in only the Bible and not in the teachings of man, they are currently listening to sermons, espoused by man, to find out how to answer our Biblical arguments. Remember, it is not OK for a Catholic to listen to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that has been on this planet since Jesus walked here, it is only OK to listen to protestant preachers who CLAIM to be guided by God. :bigyikes::banghead::hypno:

 

[RNRobert]

I think I can answer that. Since they believe in only the Bible and not in the teachings of man, they are currently listening to sermons, espoused by man, to find out how to answer our Biblical arguments. Remember, it is not OK for a Catholic to listen to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that has been on this planet since Jesus walked here, it is only OK to listen to protestant preachers who CLAIM to be guided by God. :bigyikes::banghead::hypno:

Makes perfect sense to me! :whacky::whacky::whacky:

 

[SB81848889]

I am not trying to attack anyone and I am sorry If I have offended someone, but when 2 parties have differing interpretations about a portion of scripture then our dialogs are going to seem combative, but that doesn’t mean that there is no respect for the other party and their opinions. Its difficult to explain a certain viewpoint in a short couple of paragraphs without seeming simplistic and short fused, but I assure you that I personally take very seriously and consider each and every one of your guys response to me and I do intend to try and explain my points as best I can. Please If I say something negative against the Catholic church, it is because I truly believe it is teaching error, but I have nothing but respect to every individual catholic, and my goal is not to offend anyone, but to try and prove to you why I think this away about organized religion. It is not just my opinion, but I too very diligently try to study my bible and I truly believe that what I am saying is from the word of God. I do not mean to sound harsh, but I don’t know of any other way to point out how subtle deception can be. My best friend is a very studied Catholic on this forum and every other friend I have is Catholic in some degree. I am not a Protestant. Like Bible Answer has said, we just believe the word of God, and yes if there is an organized religion we share the most in common with it is some forms of Protestantism over any other religion, but really its the Bible alone. I know this is against your beliefs, but again we have to share a dialog in order to attempt to explain our positions.

I will try to respond to each of your comments, and Hope we can come to at least an understanding of agreeing to disagree. Although I do hope that some of you will attempt to see my points and not totally dismiss them just because that’s not what you have been taught, just like I will try to understand your views about what I have been taught as I respond to your posts.

Sincerely, Chris

 

[SB81848889]

Nsper7: Yes our bible only has 66 books, and you make the point that the Jewish nation created their own cannon of 39 books, however just because the pharacies rejected Christ doesn’t mean that their cannon was incomplete. God established their cannon as the Law, Psalms and the Prophets combined, and the last Prophet died in the 4th century BC. Also no book of the Apocrypha claims it is inspired, but the cannon of 39 books does. And Jesus himself concluded what was the cannon, The Law, Psalms and the Prophets. Another point is If the early church felt that these 7 or 9 books should have been included in the Jewish cannon, by the writers, then why does the Catholic church call these books the 2nd cannon. ( Deuterocanonical ). Also St. Jerome who translated your Vulgate agreed with the Jewish cannon of 39 books and said the apocrypha should only be considered as historical writings. However the Church went against his beliefs and added these books into the Vulgate only because they were included in the Septuagint as an amendment. Also none of the apocryphal writings were written in Hebrew, and could never have been included in the Hebrew cannon. Also why didn’t the Catholic church officially canonize these books until the council of Trent in 1547 AD?

Anyway these are a few reasons why Martin Luther and all Protestants reject them as inspired.

 

[SB81848889]

Omyo12: Authority is crucial to not falling into error, I agree and that is why our bible can be the only authority. We don’t have any other way to know the revelation of God other than the Bible.

You say you need a perfect authority before you will accept any teachings, well that’s good. Let me ask you an honest question. Is it possible then that the Roman Catholic church has adopted the teaching that the Pope is also authoritative and infallible because of the same reason? They needed to keep their religion strong, and they had to have an authority for their flocks to hold onto. Since all Popes are men could they have decided to decree all Popes were infallible and thus create sacred tradition to continue to keep the people in subjection to them? Is that at least possible in your eyes if you really honestly ask yourself if that could have happened? We do agree that it is impossible for the Bible to not be authoritative and infallible.

 

[SB81848889]

Erikd: I don’t think Sola Scriptura in necessarily a doctrine, but just a word to defend against falling into error. When the bible speaks about tradition, yes I agree it is the teachings of the apostles. And yes the early christians did not have a complete written new testament to read from. However they did have an apostles doctrine that we now have as the bible, and the early christians had the complete old testament written bible to read in church’s. The point that I am trying to show it that the Catholic church has laid claim to sacred tradition as the apostles doctrine, and also claims to be able to add to this apostles doctrine through infallible speakings of the Popes. This is the error I am trying to get to the bottom of that cannot be supported by scripture. The faith that Jesus handed down to the 12 apostles was that body of doctrines and teachings that they directly received from the holy spirit and they taught to the new testament writers. That is the foundation of Christianity, and that is the foundation of the church. We all build off of that foundation and must be careful not to build off of another. I ask you as well, is it possible that the Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings are a result of historical events and circumstances developed to try and survive and grow and thrive in this world, and not based off of or deviated from the apostles doctrine?

Remember Christ came not to unify but to divide men between those who believe the gospel and those who do not. We may have to hate our mothers and brothers for the sake of the gospel. I believe this current driving force for unity in religion and in government is the work of Satan, and I want to try and show this through the word of God.

Let me know what you think.

 

[SB81848889]

Todd Easton: Nicodemus is asking in verse 4 how can a man be born twice. Nicodemous is the one who brings up the possibility of being born twice. Jesus is answering his question like this. Yes you must be born the first time, but Nicodemous please understand me that you must think in the spirit, you must be born of the water ( flesh ) and the spirit. Jesus is trying to explain being born of the spirit to Nicodemous who is thinking about being born twice from a mothers womb. I am not the one who created the idea of 2 births, it was Nicodemous. And your exactly right in verse 6 Jesus is telling him that yes there is indeed 2 births, that of flesh and that of spirit. We are all born of water, but we must be born of the spirit now. We need to be born twice, thats exactly what their talking about in these passages.

I agree water is not always symbolic of spirit, but it is almost always symbolic of something. Johns water was symbolic of repentance, and he even drove away some pharacies who wanted to be baptized by him but had no fruit of repentance. The water baptism of John would not have given them repentance, they needed to repent to be baptized, just like water baptism now does not wash away sin and save you, but you need your sin washed away and already have salvation to be baptized. Water also symbolizes the word of God. So if we look at the context of the verse we are trying to understand, the context will tell us what the analogy is.

When Paul says there is but one baptism he is saying it is of the spirit, not water, however there is 2 births, and we all have had one of them so far.

 

[nsper7]

Why should waste my time listening to you? You have no authority, only your own opinion, which is countered by not only Catholic theology, which is infinitely superior to any of the muck Protestants dredge up and make up, but even the theology of other Protestants.

 

[erikd]

 I don't think Sola Scriptura in necessarily a doctrine, but just a word to defend against falling into error.

Can you tell me where the Bible claims to be the “complete” Word of God? Can you tell me where the Bible claims to the “pillar” or “foundation” of truth? And last but not least, can you tell me where the Bible claims that if you avoid Holy Tradition, you are falling into error?

When the bible speaks about tradition, yes I agree it is the teachings of the apostles. And yes the early christians did not have a complete written new testament to read from. However they did have an apostles doctrine that we now have as the bible, and the early christians had the complete old testament written bible to read in church’s. The point that I am trying to show it that the Catholic church has laid claim to sacred tradition as the apostles doctrine, and also claims to be able to add to this apostles doctrine through infallible speakings of the Popes.

Can you tell me where the Catholic Church has added something that is contradictory or in addition to the teachings of the Apostles? If you tell me Mary (which would be the most popular answer to this question) can you tell me why it is that the earliest Christians believed, from the teachings of the Apostles that Mary was immaculately conceived and was assumed into heaven body and soul? Can you explain why writings such as the “Protoevangelium of James” claimed that Mary is the “Holy Mother of God” hundreds of years before the idea of Mary being Holy or being the Mother of God were said infallibly?

This is the error I am trying to get to the bottom of that cannot be supported by scripture. The faith that Jesus handed down to the 12 apostles was that body of doctrines and teachings that they directly received from the holy spirit and they taught to the new testament writers. That is the foundation of Christianity, and that is the foundation of the church. We all build off of that foundation and must be careful not to build off of another. I ask you as well, is it possible that the Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings are a result of historical events and circumstances developed to try and survive and grow and thrive in this world, and not based off of or deviated from the apostles doctrine?

If you can show me a doctrine that directly opposes a teaching of the Bible, I would be on board. But that does not exist.

Remember Christ came not to unify but to divide men between those who believe the gospel and those who do not. We may have to hate our mothers and brothers for the sake of the gospel. I believe this current driving force for unity in religion and in government is the work of Satan, and I want to try and show this through the word of God.

Let me know what you think.

I think that you’re forgetting all those passages in Acts like 8:29-35 or 18:26. I think you’re also forgetting passages like St. Matthew 18:17, or 16:17-19, or St. John 21:15-17. These are verses where you have to stretch the truth and become inventive in order to explain their meaning to match a Protestant idea, as opposed to reading, as you would say the “simple meaning” which is also the correct meaning that does not contradict anything in scripture. The truth is that nowhere does the Bible state to be the sole authority or the sole representation of the Word of God. Nowhere does the Bible state that each one can interpret as he / she sees fit. If that were the case, I’d be renouncing my Catholic status right now.

 

[nsper7]

Nsper7: Yes our bible only has 66 books, and you make the point that the Jewish nation created their own cannon of 39 books, however just because the pharacies rejected Christ doesn’t mean that their cannon was incomplete. God established their cannon as the Law, Psalms and the Prophets combined, and the last Prophet died in the 4th century BC. Also no book of the Apocrypha claims it is inspired, but the cannon of 39 books does. And Jesus himself concluded what was the cannon, The Law, Psalms and the Prophets. Another point is If the early church felt that these 7 or 9 books should have been included in the Jewish cannon, by the writers, then why does the Catholic church call these books the 2nd cannon. ( Deuterocanonical ). Also St. Jerome who translated your Vulgate agreed with the Jewish cannon of 39 books and said the apocrypha should only be considered as historical writings. However the Church went against his beliefs and added these books into the Vulgate only because they were included in the Septuagint as an amendment. Also none of the apocryphal writings were written in Hebrew, and could never have been included in the Hebrew cannon. Also why didn’t the Catholic church officially canonize these books until the council of Trent in 1547 AD?

Anyway these are a few reasons why Martin Luther and all Protestants reject them as inspired.

1. St. Jerome’s opinion is NOT necessarily the authoritative opinion of the Church.
2. The last Prophet did not die out in the 4th Century BC, but in the 1st Century AD. Remember that Jesus said St. John the Baptist was the last Prophet according to Jesus (Luke 7:28). You Protties still listen to Him, right? The Jews claimed the last prophet died out in the 4th Century, yet they still celebrate Hanukkah, which is entirely based on the Books of Maccabees.
3. I don’t where you are getting the idea that the Deuterocanonical Books were only added at the Council of Trent.

“Now indeed we must treat of the divine scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of]
Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book, Ecclesiastes, one book, [and] Canticle of Canticles [Song of Songs], one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books”

"[It has been decided]
that besides the canonical scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and a portion of the Psalms], the twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . ."

"[It has been decided]
that nothing except the canonical scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine scriptures. But the canonical scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . ."

“A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . .”

You know, if you’re what passes for Evangelical/Fundamentalist scholarship, it is no wonder they are collapsing in on themselves.

 

[RNRobert]

Remember Christ came not to unify but to divide men between those who believe the gospel and those who do not. We may have to hate our mothers and brothers for the sake of the gospel. I believe this current driving force for unity in religion and in government is the work of Satan, and I want to try and show this through the word of God.

Yes, Christ came to bring a sword dividing believers and non-believers. But He expected his followers to be ONE- read John 17. St Paul urged Christians to avoid dissensions and factions and to preserve unity at all costs. As he said in Ephesians 4, ONE Lord, ONE faith, ONE baptism. The only thing that is the work of Satan is the division and do-it-yourself Christianity spawned since Luther’s revolt.

 

[RNRobert]

Erikd: I don’t think Sola Scriptura in necessarily a doctrine, but just a word to defend against falling into error. When the bible speaks about tradition, yes I agree it is the teachings of the apostles. And yes the early christians did not have a complete written new testament to read from. However they did have an apostles doctrine that we now have as the bible, and the early christians had the complete old testament written bible to read in church’s. The point that I am trying to show it that the Catholic church has laid claim to sacred tradition as the apostles doctrine, and also claims to be able to add to this apostles doctrine through infallible speakings of the Popes. This is the error I am trying to get to the bottom of that cannot be supported by scripture. The faith that Jesus handed down to the 12 apostles was that body of doctrines and teachings that they directly received from the holy spirit and they taught to the new testament writers. That is the foundation of Christianity, and that is the foundation of the church. We all build off of that foundation and must be careful not to build off of another. I ask you as well, is it possible that the Roman Catholic doctrines and teachings are a result of historical events and circumstances developed to try and survive and grow and thrive in this world, and not based off of or deviated from the apostles doctrine?

Tradition and papal infallibility are necessary to correctly interpret Scripture. Otherwise, Christians would be vulnerable to every false teacher spreading heresy with a Bible verse on his lips.
As G.K. Chesterton wrote, the Bible cannot be the only standard when Christians can’t agree on what it teaches.