Truly truly I say to you...

[AlegreFe]

This is not true. Baptism is important. But for example, the criminal on the cross, who genuinely repented, would have asked to be baptized if He could, but obviously, the Lord will not hold that against Him.

You’re right! But that’s because of “Baptism of Desire.” It could also possibly be because the thief was hanging there next to Jesus. He also expressed faith in Jesus by asking Jesus not to forget him and he even stuck up for Jesus.
…But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to
God by contrition or love of God above all things
accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for
true Baptism of water,…

Baptism of Desire - Wikipedia

The Necessity of Baptism
Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“Those who die for the faith, those who are
catechumens, and all those who, without knowing
of the Church but acting under the inspiration of
grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will,
are saved even if they have not been baptized”
(CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is
also possible under this system;
cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).

Wow, here’s a good story:
PFC Daniel G. Dolan: Baptism of Desire Here’s just part of the story;
“Daniel wasn’t raised in any faith,” Msgr. Bonnell said.
“His father is a non-practicing Catholic and his mother
is a non-practicing Seventh-day Adventist. Everyone
said that Dan was always a nice, pleasant young man
who showed natural goodness. I don’t know what drew
him to Catholicism, but he did take the next step, and
he did it while facing several obstacles. He was in the
Army and he was in a foreign country.”
“The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults,”
published this year by the United States Conference
of Catholic Bishops, says on page 192: “Candidates
for Baptism who die before they receive the Sacrament,
but have repented their sins and have embraced Christ’s
love are saved by what is called Baptism of Desire.”

 

[justasking4]

What do you mean by this? Do you mean at that particular instance or are you talking about transubstantiation? When he took the bread and said “this is my body”?

When He said this in John 6:41

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

This is not true. Baptism is important. But for example, the criminal on the cross, who genuinely repented, would have asked to be baptized if He could, but obviously, the Lord will not hold that against Him.

**
Yes but the church does teach about both baptism by desire (applicable here) and Baptism by blood (matryed for Christs sake)**

Romans 6:4

Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

This is why full immersion is important. Symbolizing going into the water, burying our old self, and coming out, being resurrected with Christ. Jesus’s Baptism Himself was Full Immersion.
Whole different topic here. Jesus’s baptism was most definitely not our baptism i.e “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” Please give me a bible reference where is says sprinkling is not a vaild baptism. (Have you read Ezekiel 36:25-27?)
**

Matt 3

16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water;** and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

And the fact that He used the word Truly twice, or verily twice depending on the translation is a writing style of John.

**

John 10

1 Verily, verily**, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

Where is the sacrament of the literal door. Where is the sacrament where we enter though a sheep’s door? Shouldn’t we celebrate it then if He verily, verily.

I think you misunderstood my statement, I never said that when Christ said Truly truly that he was instituting a sacrament. I just said that, when he does say it there are several instances where Protestants do not think he literally means what he says. Is he the door to Heaven?..Yes he is. I think even today you would think it meant something different if I said to you , “I am the door to your success” and “You have to eat my flesh if you want to succeed”. One you would understand immediately and the other you would probably question…Which the disciples did and he clarified that he did indeed mean “eat my flesh and drink my blood”
**

John 12

Verily, verily**, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

Where is the sacrament of the corn of wheat? Do Catholics celebrate a holiday where you drop a piece of corn. Then based on your logic, you should, he said verily twice.
see above statement wrt sacraments

The context determines the meaning of the verses. As you go through the dialogue, Jesus reveals the meaning. In chapter 3, He reveals how one is born again when Nicodemus keeps asking…

**

John 3

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

**

Much how Jesus in chapter 6 reveals He was speaking in Spirit in Chapter 6.
By which authority do you give this interpratation? If this is true, why did a number of his disciples leave him over this and follow him no more if he was speaking spiritually? vs. 66
**

John 6

63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

**

Later,

 

[AlegreFe]

Romans 6:4
Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

And what makes you think that this baptism of which Paul speaks is not baptism of water?

rbarcia:

This is why full immersion is important. Symbolizing going into the water, burying our old self, and coming out, being resurrected with Christ. Jesus’s Baptism Himself was Full Immersion.

:whacky: Who tells you these things? And what makes you think that the baptism of Jesus is full immersion? And even if it was (which is not specified in scripture) that doesn’t mean that ours has to be of full immersion. Jesus just said “born of water and spirit” He didn’t say “you have to be fully immersed in water for it to count.”

Matt 3

16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. 17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

This does not prove immersion.

And the fact that He used the word Truly twice, or verily twice depending on the translation is a writing style of John.

Huh. writing style of John? Do you think that John was going to write something that Jesus did not say and just put it down just because he felt like it?

Where is the sacrament of the literal door. Where is the sacrament where we enter though a sheep’s door? Shouldn’t we celebrate it then if He verily, verily.

:whacky:

John 12
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.

This a parable and you know it.
Here are the verses in context;
20 Now there were some Greeks among
those who had come up to worship at
the feast.
21 They came to Philip, who was from
Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him,
“Sir, we would like to see Jesus.”
22 Philip went and told Andrew; then
Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.
23 Jesus answered them, "The hour has
come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
24 Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a
grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies,
it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it
dies, it produces much fruit.
25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and
whoever hates his life in this world will
preserve it for eternal life.
26 Whoever serves me must follow me,
and where I am, there also will my servant
be. The Father will honor whoever serves me.

Where is the sacrament of the corn of wheat? Do Catholics celebrate a holiday where you drop a piece of corn. Then based on your logic, you should, he said verily twice.

:whacky: You know very well that this is a parable and I’ll stop wasting my time now on such nonsensical statements.

 

[rbarcia]

Also if it is symbolic, then how do you expalin vs 51 where our Lord says “the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh” when did Christ give his flesh for the life of the world? On the Cross, not symbolically but painfully real.

Right, He was speaking of His coming cruxifiction, He was using Bread symbolically to talk about His sacrifice on the cross.

 

[santaro75]

That does not make sense if you “do believe” but just interpret it differently.

It is what it is. Jesus could not be any clearer on what He says in those verses.

You just can’t see it right now. But mostly you don’t want to see it in the light of the Catholic Faith.

It would seem sometimes that evangelical protestants don’t think that God uses physical matter to impart grace.

I believe Christianity to be the great reconciler of spirit and matter. Flesh and soul.

God gave us baptism and communion for our physical side. Incense, icons, statues, oil, ashes etc…is all to and for the Glory of God.

 

[Ceil-1]

The Didache, which is the direct teaching of the Apostles, specifically says in Chapter 7, verse (1): "Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, “baptise in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water, (2) but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. (3) But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”…

I believe that most Protestants hold to the authority of the Apostles, so there you have it. How can anyone argue with the Apostles? If you want a good scare, read the rest of it. I always shudder when I do.

 

[rbarcia]

And what makes you think that this baptism of which Paul speaks is not baptism of water?

:whacky: Who tells you these things? And what makes you think that the baptism of Jesus is full immersion? And even if it was (which is not specified in scripture) that doesn’t mean that ours has to be of full immersion. Jesus just said “born of water and spirit” He didn’t say “you have to be fully immersed in water for it to count.”

This does not prove immersion.

Huh. writing style of John? Do you think that John was going to write something that Jesus did not say and just put it down just because he felt like it?

:whacky:

This a parable and you know it.
Here are the verses in context;
20 Now there were some Greeks among
those who had come up to worship at
the feast.
21 They came to Philip, who was from
Bethsaida in Galilee, and asked him,
“Sir, we would like to see Jesus.”
22 Philip went and told Andrew; then
Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.
23 Jesus answered them, "The hour has
come for the Son of Man to be glorified.
24 Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a
grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies,
it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it
dies, it produces much fruit.
25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and
whoever hates his life in this world will
preserve it for eternal life.
26 Whoever serves me must follow me,
and where I am, there also will my servant
be. The Father will honor whoever serves me.

:whacky: You know very well that this is a parable and I’ll stop wasting my time now on such nonsensical statements.

The original poster said, because Jesus said, 'Truly, Truly", it showed that Jesus was talking literally. But I showed examples that the same phrase was used, where the Jesus was speaking symbolically.

 

[rbarcia]

The Didache, which is the direct teaching of the Apostles, specifically says in Chapter 7, verse (1): "Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, “baptise in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water, (2) but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. (3) But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”…

Why isn’t the Didache in the Bible? Why wasn’t it included in the Bible? The Didache was found in 1883. We have no way of knowing if it actually came from the Apostles.

But using the Roberts-Donaldson English Translation, the English Translation by J.B. Lightfoot, and English Translation by Ivan Lewis,

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Also, the fasting requirement seems to indicate against infant baptism since I doubt starving an infant who needs nutrition was a practice. Notice pouring water was only if no other method were available. Running or living indicates a running body of water, since pouring was a last option.

I believe that most Protestants hold to the authority of the Apostles, so there you have it. How can anyone argue with the Apostles? If you want a good scare, read the rest of it. I always shudder when I do.

I am not a Protestant, just a Christian, I have read it, it is nice writing, but not inspired, or it would have been in the Bible.

 

[Ceil-1]

Sounds like you are looking for an excuse not to believe. So much the worse for you. You seem very bitter towards a Church that has been around for 2,000 years. They can’t get anything right, oh, but you know the answer to everything. Lucky us to have you. There are a lot of know-it-alls around. In the end they’re just bitter malcontents.

 

[VociMike]

No it is not. Canabalism = eating dead flesh. Jesus is alive!

Exactly. And it is eating dead flesh of a human person. Since Christ is neither dead nor even maimed, and since He is a Divine Person, the term cannibalism simply does not apply.

In fact, a person who knows that the Church teaches that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, and who still calls it cannibalism, is actually denying Christ’s Incarnation and Resurrection. Rather serious errors for any Christian to make.

 

[rbarcia]

Sounds like you are looking for an excuse not to believe. So much the worse for you. You seem very bitter towards a Church that has been around for 2,000 years. They can’t get anything right, oh, but you know the answer to everything. Lucky us to have you. There are a lot of know-it-alls around. In the end they’re just bitter malcontents.

Believe in what? I believe in Jesus? Not sure where this is coming from? This is not a discussion, just you making accusations, or trying to be a psychologist, and being sarcastic. Many here may not like me, but I have always posted with respect and discussed the issues. Anyway, Jesus never started a church called the catholic church.

 

[santaro75]

Why isn’t the Didache in the Bible? Why wasn’t it included in the Bible? The Didache was found in 1883. We have no way of knowing if it actually came from the Apostles.

But using the Roberts-Donaldson English Translation, the English Translation by J.B. Lightfoot, and English Translation by Ivan Lewis,

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Also, the fasting requirement seems to indicate against infant baptism since I doubt starving an infant who needs nutrition was a practice. Notice pouring water was only if no other method were available. Running or living indicates a running body of water, since pouring was a last option.

I am not a Protestant, just a Christian, I have read it, it is nice writing, but not inspired, or it would have been in the Bible.

The didache is not scripture. nobody says it was. It was just a document that some early churches used. for us it is just a window into the past.

 

[santaro75]

Believe in what? I believe in Jesus? Not sure where this is coming from? This is not a discussion, just you making accusations, or trying to be a psychologist, and being sarcastic. Many here may not like me, but I have always posted with respect and discussed the issues. Anyway, Jesus never started a church called the catholic church.

Rbarcia, do you think that Jesus made his deposit of faith to his apostles? Do you believe that he gave them special charisms and endowed them with his spirit? Do you believe that he gave them authority over sin? Do you believe that after the apostles died all authority, charisms and the original deposit of faith was lost forever except for what was written in the letters?

You don’t have to answer all of those questions but i am trying to get a picture of how non-orthodox/catholic christians believe the church developed if not through apostles and their appointed succesors.

Why did Jesus have apostles? Why did he call Paul to be an apostle after the fact?

 

[AlegreFe]

The original poster said, because Jesus said, 'Truly, Truly", it showed that Jesus was talking literally. But I showed examples that the same phrase was used, where the Jesus was speaking symbolically.

Yes but that doesn’t take away from what he really wants us to follow or do. The Parables start out symbolically but then they give a real message to us as to what would happen if we do not do certain things. And that is “truly, truly” real. There is nothing symbolic about us going to hell if we do not do as Jesus says.

But just because the “truly, truly” was in the Parables does not mean every time He says “truly, truly” that it only means “symbolically.” When the disciples walked away Jesus did not stop them. Did you read the post where if He did mean it symbolically, it would be possible that Jesus would have said something to that effect? I’ll put it here and at least try to make some sense out of it. Just imagine the disciples walking away in John 6:66;

How 'bout this one, “symbolically, symbolically, I say to you, I never meant you should actually eat me. You could still live without me, even without this bread, after all this bread does not really give life. I just called it the ‘bread of life’ but meant it only in a ‘symbolic’ way, so please come back… don’t walk away, come back!!”

 

[AlegreFe]

Why isn’t the Didache in the Bible? Why wasn’t it included in the Bible? The Didache was found in 1883. We have no way of knowing if it actually came from the Apostles.

We never said it was a canonical document that belongs in Scripture. It is a peice of history from the Early Church Fathers.

rbarcia:

Also, the fasting requirement seems to indicate against infant baptism since I doubt starving an infant who needs nutrition was a practice.

Fasting is for people over the age of 13. There are many older kids and adults who come into the Catholic Church who would have to abide by this rule. But since fasting is only for those age 14 and over it would not apply to infants and kids under that age.

You seem to keep trying to find something so as to “stump” the Catholic Faith and you always fail to do so. So just stop trying please.

rbarcia:

I am not a Protestant, just a Christian, I have read it, it is nice writing, but not inspired, or it would have been in the Bible.

There you go again; trying to “stump” Catholic beliefs.

You are against the Catholic Faith otherwise you would be Catholic. So that makes you a Protestant Christian. You protest against the Catholic faith so I come to that conclusion that you are a Protestant Christian.

 

[AlegreFe]

It would seem sometimes that evangelical protestants don’t think that God uses physical matter to impart grace.

I believe Christianity to be the great reconciler of spirit and matter. Flesh and soul.

Jesus performed many miracles by actually touching people. He used mud to cure the blind man. So that is how Jesus imparts His grace to us. I just wish that Protestant Christians would get that.

santaro75:

God gave us baptism and communion for our physical side. Incense, icons, statues, oil, ashes etc…is all to and for the Glory of God.

:yup:

 

[AlegreFe]

Right, He was speaking of His coming cruxifiction, He was using Bread symbolically to talk about His sacrifice on the cross.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i85/Alegre-Fe/Emoticons/Shakehead.gif I guess I’ll just have to accept God’s will right now and see that He is not giving you the Gift of Faith in the Catholic Church right now.

Anyway, Jesus never started a church called the catholic church.

Jesus started this Catholic Church with Peter being the Rock on which He built it. Jesus just didn’t say, “call it the Catholic Church will ya.” It was just Jesus’ Church that He built and is still being built right now. It just happens to be the Catholic Church whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[santaro75]

I’m aware of what the catholic church says about transubstantiation. That’s not what is going on here in John 6.

but it is what is going on! communion with christ in the Eucharist is literally the passover meal of the lamb of God.
The one lamb for us all.

in contrast to…

Exocus12

If a family is too small for a whole lamb, it shall join the nearest household in procuring one and shall share in the lamb in proportion to the number of persons who partake of it.
The lamb must be a year-old male and without blemish. You may take it from either the sheep or the goats. You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and then, with the whole assembly of Israel present, it shall be slaughtered during the evening twilight. They shall take some of its blood and apply it to the two doorposts and the lintel of every house in which they partake of the lamb. That same night they shall eat its roasted flesh with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. It shall not be eaten raw or boiled, but roasted whole, with its head and shanks and inner organs. None of it must be kept beyond the next morning; whatever is left over in the morning shall be burned up. "This is how you are to eat it: with your loins girt, sandals on your feet and your staff in hand, you shall eat like those who are in flight. It is the Passover of the LORD. For on this same night I will go through Egypt, striking down every first–born of the land, both man and beast, and executing judgment on all the gods of Egypt-I, the LORD! But the blood will mark the houses where you are. Seeing the blood, I will pass over you; thus, when I strike the land of Egypt, no destructive blow will come upon you. "This day shall be a memorial feast for you, which all your generations shall celebrate with pilgrimage to the LORD, as a perpetual institution.For seven days you must eat unleavened bread. From the very first day you shall have your houses clear of all leaven. Whoever eats leavened bread from the first day to the seventh shall be cut off from Israel. On the first day you shall hold a sacred assembly, and likewise on the seventh. On these days you shall not do any sort of work, except to prepare the food that everyone needs. "Keep, then, this custom of the unleavened bread. Since it was on this very day that I brought your ranks out of the land of Egypt, you must celebrate this day throughout your generations as a perpetual institution. From the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month until the evening of the twenty-first day of this month you shall eat unleavened bread. For seven days no leaven may be found in your houses. Anyone, be he a resident alien or a native, who eats leavened food shall be cut off from the community of Israel.

This was the sacrificial meal of the old church. It apparently was taken very seriously as it says you will be cut off from israel if you do not do it as said.

After reading John 6 and the other Gospels you see that the in the new church sacrificial meal was brought to perfection. The sacrificial lamb was perfect and thus good for all generations of the one household we call the church. no need for any other lambs.

The very lamb of the new passover is also made present for all of us to partake of by the power and decree of almighty God. Whose words even bread and wine obey.

When we eat the bread and drink the cup we partake of the holy lamb of God who took away the sins of the world. That event we are partaking of is the most important event in ALL of salvation history and that is why Catholics do it as often as possible. WE LOVE IT and are thankful for it (eucharist means thanks giving)

 

[Ceil-1]

rbarcia:

All your posts have the same tone. None of it is in the least respectful or even inquiring. It is always baiting. I get tired of the games.

As far as I’m concerned, all these materials are easily at hand for prayerful reading and reflection. Any person who cannot come at least to the conclusion that there is much he doesn’t know and should hold all of it up for further scrutiny doesn’t have an interest in the truth.

That’s okay, though, keep going because the rest of us get mini-theology lessons and catechisms that edify us in the faith. Thanks for that.