To Be Born Again

[MDK]

…Now, here is from the Douay-Rheims Bible.

Reminding you that it’s the one I read, almost exclusively, so the differences between us is not which Bible we’re reading, is it? It’s that I listen to those sent by Christ, and you do not. You reject those Christ sent to explain God’s word, and therefore, you also reject Christ.

…
Rev. 20:1
And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
Rev 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.
Rev 20:3
And he cast him into the bottomless pit and shut him up and set a seal upon him, that he should no more seduce the nations till the thousand years be finished. And after that, he must be loosed a little time.
Rev 20:4
And I saw seats. And they sat upon them: and judgment was given unto them. And the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God and who had not adored the beast nor his image nor received his character on their foreheads or in their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5
The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection. In these the second death hath no power. But they shall be priests of God and of Christ: and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Rev 20:7
And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison and shall go forth and seduce the nations which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog: and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

Notice the big difference between the passage you quoted and the texts from the Douay-Rheims. For one, it says that Satan’s prison will be shut up and sealed, “that he should NO MORE seduce the nations.” Satan’s power would not be very much limited as how your source interpreted the text. Satan’s power would be NO MORE – nil, gone, nothing, zero, kaput!

I have no difference between what I’ve been saying, and the Scriptures you’ve quoted above. In fact, I use this very same Bible. The difference between you and me is that I don’t assume that I know more than God and put crazy words into His mouth that were never meant.

I believe everything in the Scriptures, but the difference is that I know what they mean and do not mean. I read the same texts and come up with the meanings that I have given earlier, the meanings provided by those God sent. It’s called an Apocalyptic book. It was never meant to be read literally, like you apparently are. If you want your own religion, then you will not authentically have Christ, will you?

…And if you will read further on to the end of the book, you will find that the Douay-Rheims says NOTHING of the first resurrection being that “of the soul to the life of glory” and the second resurrection to “be that of the body.” That is an interpretation not even hinted at in the entire Bible.

A Catholic man wrote this book. The Catholic Church has been given authority from God. The Catholic Church included the Book of Revelation into the Bible. The Catholic Church knows what teachings are in the Bible and what is not in the Bible. The Catholic Church has never taught error in faith and morals.

Compare the “Mailman”. Did not write Revelation. Does not have any authority whatsoever from God to teach. Did not assemble the Bible. Does not relaibly know what is in the Bible and what is not. Has taught errors in faith and morals, and continues to do so unrepentantly at an alarming rate.

…And you know what, in spite of that passage being only an interpretation, it still uses the phrase “a thousand years,” not “a long time,” although that is immediately followed by a remark interpreting the meaning of the phrase. But it never tells its readers WHY the phrase should be interpreted to mean the whole NT period, which just shows you that the interpreter has no understanding of Revelation and that its interpretation was chosen to fit a preconceived notion.

If I said it was “raining cats and dogs” you would then think cats and dogs are falling from the sky.

…Now, if I accept such an interpretation, I would be foolish to do so knowing that Jesus already said that, “if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” (Matt. 15:4).

If you accepted the interpretations I have provided, which come from God’s Church (meaning they ultimately came from God), then you would cease being foolish and blind.

 

[PJM]

=zach dunn;5354093]What does it mean? I’m looking specifically for a definition of the born again (or “anew”) in John 3:3 but I realize there are many other instances in the NT where being born again is talked about. Does it simply mean baptism?

Note: I want the Catholic idea of being born again, non-Catholics are free to debate with the Catholics but I’ll really only be accepting the Catholic idea.

Thanks!
Zach Dunn

Born “anew” means to desire a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.This is accomplished through the Sacrament of Baptism, and affirmed in the Sacrament of Confirmation. It is rewarded and lived through the other Sacraments most notably Confession and Eucharist; the gift of the Presence of Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. And it can only be fully lived in the confines of the Catholic Church:thumbsup:

*For infants who are Baptised before the age of reason it is a completly free “non-metorious” Gift and grace from God, that they will later have to reafirm for themselves, to reap it benefits.

For adults who are later led by the Spirit to Christ, it is an acceptance of Gods free gift of grace, once given and received, it cannot be repeated. It too requires full knowledge of and practice of thee Faith as described IN ITS ENTIRETY in the Catholic Bible. OSAS is a myth and is actually anti-biblical.*

Love and prayers

 

[po18guy]

MAILMAN!

What denomination are you? PLEASE!

Crickets.

You must be embarrassed regarding your faith community, I guess. Prove me wrong!

 

[MDK]

Crickets.

You must be embarrassed regarding your faith community, I guess. Prove me wrong!

By the grace of God, I am in His one Church. I would be embarrassed and ashamed to be in any man-made ecclesial community, as this is born not of love of God, but love of pride and arrogance. But, one has to know first in order to accept or reject God. By the grace of God, we informed Catholics do know, and are gratefully in His one Church.

 

[po18guy]

By the grace of God, I am in His one Church. I would be embarrassed and ashamed to be in any man-made ecclesial community, as this is born not of love of God, but love of pride and arrogance. But, one has to know first in order to accept or reject God. By the grace of God, we informed Catholics do know, and are gratefully in His one Church.

I am not trying to push him into going postal, just would like to know where on earth (or ???) his unusual theology comes from, that’s all.

 

[MDK]

I am not trying to push him into going postal, just would like to know where on earth (or ???) his unusual theology comes from, that’s all.

Yes, I know. We must realize that it’s not the truth that causes one to “go postal” but lies and deception of the evil one. If we continue to share the truth, and speaking against lies, then we will in no way be contributing to the corruption of thought or spirit.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, I know. We must realize that it’s not the truth that causes one to “go postal” but lies and deception of the evil one. If we continue to share the truth, and speaking against lies, then we will in no way be contributing to the corruption of thought or spirit.

Our Lord Jesus founded a Church to bear witness to the truth. It is on-going and remains the greatest battle in history. So many demons have come and “lead even the elect astray, if that were possible”.

 

[wmscott]

MAILMAN!

What denomination are you? PLEASE!

I think that MAILMAN is hiding from you because he can not stand the light of scrutiny.

 

[po18guy]

I think that MAILMAN is hiding from you because he can not stand the light of scrutiny.

If we dilute Church authority by reducing it only to scripture, we still have equal authority to him in doctrine and teaching. But, add Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, it’s a two hit fight.

 

[wmscott]

If we dilute Church authority by reducing it only to scripture, we still have equal authority to him in doctrine and teaching. But, add Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, it’s a two hit fight.

I like the three legged stool analogy…

The Catholic Church being the seat, with the three legs being Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. Remove any one and it all topples.

 

[po18guy]

I like the three legged stool analogy…

The Catholic Church being the seat, with the three legs being Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. Remove any one and it all topples.

Proof of intelligent design!

 

[MDK]

Our Lord Jesus founded a Church to bear witness to the truth. It is on-going and remains the greatest battle in history. So many demons have come and “lead even the elect astray, if that were possible”.

Yes, it is. And we are engaged on God’s side against these demons. I see many who come to CAF and in society in general with this malady of thinking they have Jesus, when in fact they have one of Satan’s representatives leading them instead.

 

[MDK]

Proof of intelligent design!

Protestantism has a one-legged stool in “Scriptures Alone”, and they weaken that one leg by taking the truth out of it.

 

[MDK]

I like the three legged stool analogy…

The Catholic Church being the seat, with the three legs being Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium. Remove any one and it all topples.

Removing the seat would be a bit painful as well.

 

[po18guy]

Yes, it is. And we are engaged on God’s side against these demons. I see many who come to CAF and in society in general with this malady of thinking they have Jesus, when in fact they have one of Satan’s representatives leading them instead.

Getting back to the OP: where (in hell) did the idea of baptism by amniotic fluid come from? This is a direct conflict with the command of Christ. This is how the evil one leads - with partial truth. The devil really is in the details.

 

[wmscott]

Proof of intelligent design!

Jesus was a carpenter

 

[Mailman]

What really matters to you, only the English words written on the page, or what God actually meant when He said these things If quoting the Scripture is helpful, I will quote it. When discussing with those ignorant of what they mean, quoting the words doesn’t normally help them, because it actually freezes them in their own false meanings, which they can’t seem to get beyond to the truth.

What matters to me is what God said, not a corruption of what He said. I know that quoting Scripture is NOT helpful to you. Why should you quote Scripture when it totally disagrees with what you are teaching?

Now, there’s another reason why you cannot be a true follower of Christ. The Christ of the Bible quotes Scripture all the time to teach a truth, especially to those ignorant of what they mean. He even quoted Scripture to the devil himself. Can you tell me one instance where Jesus refrained from quoting Scripture because his audience was ignorant of what the Scriptures mean? Why, ALL the Jews then, including Christ’s disciples, were ignorant of most of what was written in the Scriptures yet Jesus quoted Scripture to them all the time!

So, what I’ve done is better than quoting Scripture. Anyone with internet access and a mouse can quote Scripture. Yet, many don’t know what it means. When I quote Scripture to someone ignorant of what it actually means (you included), they just walk away with their meaning, and I with mine. It normally does no good. I usually wait until the ignoramus tells me that such and such is not in Scriptures, then I show them where it is, and/or how their interpretation does not match the original author’s intent.

Just be honest for once. You did not quote Scripture because it contradicts with your interpretation. If we had talked about papal succession/authority you would have immediately quoted Matthew 16:18. Am I right?

I don’t throw out all these Scripture quotes to show I have a mouse and internet Bible, like you have done. I do something much better, by providing what we’re really after… what they mean. What matters to you, only the English words written on the page, or what Christ actually meant when He said these things?

How can you know what the original words mean when you don’t even understand what your interpretation to those words mean? Again, what do you mean by saying, “The power of Satan has now been very much limited”? And, why interpret “a thousand years” to mean “a long time”?

 

[guanophore]

Getting back to the OP: where (in hell) did the idea of baptism by amniotic fluid come from? This is a direct conflict with the command of Christ. This is how the evil one leads - with partial truth. The devil really is in the details.

The anti-sacramentalists had to come up with some other meaning for the words “of water” so that they could reject the Catholic Teaching on the nature and work of baptism.

 

[Mailman]

This is even better. The Douay-Rheims is about the only Bible I read. The explanation I provided is from the Douay-Rheims. If you had actually read the Douay-Rheims online, you would have seen the notes that I provided and would not have had to ask instead. This represents the position that I take, and I don’t think I could have said it any better than was written in the explantory comments.

The footnotes/comments in the D-R, or in any Bible for that matter, is not Scripture. I hope you know that.

Kind of arrogant of you, considering you’re providing all these false meanings of Scripture, and then claim to use the authority. Some people might call what you have done hypocritical.

I never made any such claim. I pointed out the Douay-Rheims to you because that is supposed to be YOUR authority and you should refer to that particular translation of the Bible.

 

[Mailman]

Reminding you that it’s the one I read, almost exclusively, so the differences between us is not which Bible we’re reading, is it? It’s that I listen to those sent by Christ, and you do not. You reject those Christ sent to explain God’s word, and therefore, you also reject Christ.

I have no difference between what I’ve been saying, and the Scriptures you’ve quoted above. In fact, I use this very same Bible. The difference between you and me is that I don’t assume that I know more than God and put crazy words into His mouth that were never meant.

You are indeed quite a character, MDK. You can tell me I am putting crazy words into God’s mouth when it is you who CHANGED the words that came out of God’s mouth while I retained everything God said WORD FOR WORD. God said “a thousand years.” And so I said “a thousand years.” But you opt to use some crazy words like “a long time”, putting words into God’s mouth that He never said.

And God said He will “cast him [Satan] into the bottomless pit and shut him up and set a seal upon him, that he should NO MORE seduce the nations.” But you seem not to like what God said [Is it maybe because you don’t want Satan to lose all his power?] so you put the craziest words into God’s mouth like “the power of Satan will be very much limited.” And I say it’s the craziest because you can’t even explain what it means.

I believe everything in the Scriptures, but the difference is that I know what they mean and do not mean. I read the same texts and come up with the meanings that I have given earlier, the meanings provided by those God sent. It’s called an Apocalyptic book. It was never meant to be read literally, like you apparently are. If you want your own religion, then you will not authentically have Christ, will you?

No, you don’t. You don’t believe the Scriptures when it said God will rule for a thousand years. You don’t believe the Scriptures when it said Satan will NO MORE seduce the nations. And you don’t know what they mean because you can’t tell me why God’s words have to be changed.

A Catholic man wrote this book. The Catholic Church has been given authority from God. The Catholic Church included the Book of Revelation into the Bible. The Catholic Church knows what teachings are in the Bible and what is not in the Bible. The Catholic Church has never taught error in faith and morals.

That remains to be seen, MDK. God will reveal the truth to you in due time, just as Christ revealed the truth to the cocky and self-glorifying Pharisees with these words: “O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come” (Matt. 3:7). At least the Pharisees’ claim [to being the descendants of Abraham] was true. The same cannot be said of yours.

Now, your comment was supposed to be in response to my assertion that, “the Douay-Rheims says NOTHING of the first resurrection being that ‘of the soul to the life of glory’ and the second resurrection to ‘be that of the body.’” But when I sift through your statements and leave out the nonsense, I am left with nothing to read and respond to. So, please tell me, was what I said true? If it’s not, give me a book, chapter and verse to support your position. Just skip the nonsense.