N
nbtb1348
Guest
Well, when you wake up, give me Scripture that teaches what a saint is. There are a bunch of them in the NT. It just might change your life. I’m not trying to harm you, I’m trying to help you. Hope you slept well.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
brkn1
Guest
It is not the knowing of His word better than everything else that will save you, when you stand before God. The Scribes and Pharisees are examples of that not saving anyone. Nicodemas, who was declared by Jesus as the master of Israel in such knowledge, was also told by Jesus that he “must be born again” “of water (the spiritual water of the Word; not physical water) and the Holy Spirit.”. That is what all must have to be saved when they come before God.When I stand before God it will be with the humility of knowing that I am nothing and He is everything, not with the arrogance that I know his word better than everyone else.
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
How do you know it was not physical water?It is not the knowing of His word better than everything else that will save you, when you stand before God. The Scribes and Pharisees are examples of that not saving anyone. Nicodemas, who was declared by Jesus as the master of Israel in such knowledge, was also told by Jesus that he “must be born again” “of water (the spiritual water of the Word; not physical water) and the Holy Spirit.”. That is what all must have to be saved when they come before God.
B
brkn1
Guest
We are all spiritually dead before the new spiritual birth.How do you know it was not physical water?
It was the spiritual birth (quickening from being spiritually dead) that Jesus was talking about.
Jesus was talking about us having to be “born of the Spirit”, which has nothing to do with being “born of the flesh”. Physical water is of the flesh (worldly).
The Holy Spirit is described as being sovereign (The wind (Spirit) bloweth where it listeth) in the birthing of a person spiritually. If a man also had a part in the timing by using physical water, then the Holy Spirit could not be so described as sovereign in that birth.
N
nbtb1348
Guest
As I said elsewhere, I believe Catholics wish Jesus had just skipped the part about being born again. A point-in-time, eternity-changing event like actually being birthed into God’s family (regeneration) and all it implies…it just doesn’t seem very welcome here.We are all spiritually dead before the new spiritual birth.
It was the spiritual birth (quickening from being spiritually dead) that Jesus was talking about.
Jesus was talking about us having to be “born of the Spirit”, which has nothing to do with being “born of the flesh”. Physical water is of the flesh (worldly).
The Holy Spirit is described as being sovereign (The wind (Spirit) bloweth where it listeth) in the birthing of a person spiritually. If a man also had a part in the timing by using physical water, then the Holy Spirit could not be so described as sovereign in that birth.
E
elvisman
Guest
There were a bunch of churches around then. For starters, the churches in Corinth, Rome, Philippi, Collosae, Ephesus, and the churches in Galatia. Paul helped found a bunch. What’s your point?
WRONG.Dont forget the eunoch who founded the Ethiopian Church how about Thomas in India starting churches.
**There was the Church in all those places not different churches in them. They would be likened to parishes and dioceses of today. **
It was the Catholic Church in Corinth, Rome, Galatia, et al.
E
elvisman
Guest
Please show me where Jesus told Nicodemus anything other than what he said “Spirit and Water”.We are all spiritually dead before the new spiritual birth.
It was the spiritual birth (quickening from being spiritually dead) that Jesus was talking about.
Jesus was talking about us having to be “born of the Spirit”, which has nothing to do with being “born of the flesh”. Physical water is of the flesh (worldly).
The Holy Spirit is described as being sovereign (The wind (Spirit) bloweth where it listeth) in the birthing of a person spiritually. If a man also had a part in the timing by using physical water, then the Holy Spirit could not be so described as sovereign in that birth.
This is precisely why most Protestants can’t grasp The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6.
They tell us that when Jesus told us of the necessity of eating his flesh, the word, “flesh” is symbolic for his word, yet they can never point to where Jesus explains this away.
**On the contrary, he let those faithless followers leave, then turned to his apostles and said, “Do you also want to leave?” **
He never said, "Hey, wait! Don’t leave!! I was talking about my word not my flesh! Just as he never tells Nicodemus that water means anything else than what he said.
It’s a lack of faith on the part of Protestants, my friend - plain and simple.
L
LeroyCRHP
Guest
This is great Pete! I’m with you! Great answers all the way through this thread!
YBIC
Leroy
YBIC
Leroy
In my opinion it doesn’t prove anything, as for me not understanding, not being a learned man, that could be true, I accept like a child, that God left us a Church, and that Church was built on a Rock, and that Rock was Peter, it was built by Christ and is His Church and the power of satan will not overcome it, and since satan will not overcome it, anything that comes from it must be true.
E
elvisman
Guest
I don’t know where you get this kind of stuff. We Catholics completely believe in our rebirth - just as Jesus taught. It happens when we are baptized - just as scripture tells us. (John 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21)As I said elsewhere, I believe Catholics wish Jesus had just skipped the part about being born again. A point-in-time, eternity-changing event like actually being birthed into God’s family (regeneration) and all it implies…it just doesn’t seem very welcome here.
B
brkn1
Guest
So, if you commit a “mortal” sin, do you somehow get “unborn”?**I don’t know where **you get this kind of stuff. We Catholics completely believe in our rebirth - just as Jesus taught. It happens when we are baptized - just as scripture tells us. (John 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21)
Do you have to get reborn-again?
B
brkn1
Guest
Nicodemas thought in the flesh when he asked Jesus, “…,can a man enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?”. You also seem bent on understanding what Jesus said only in worldly terms of the flesh.Please show me where Jesus told Nicodemus anything other than what he said “Spirit and Water”.
This is precisely why most Protestants can’t grasp The Bread of Life Discourse in John 6.
They tell us that when Jesus told us of the necessity of eating his flesh, the word, “flesh” is symbolic for his word, yet they can never point to where Jesus explains this away.
On the contrary, he let those faithless followers leave, then turned to his apostles and said, "Do you also want to leave?"
He never said, "Hey, wait! Don’t leave!! I was talking about my word not my flesh! Just as he never tells Nicodemus that water means anything else than what he said.
It’s a lack of faith on the part of Protestants, my friend - plain and simple.
Do you see any violation of the Holy Spirit’s sovereignty, if man gets to use physical water to determine when the Spirit regenerates a person into God’s family? I do.
H
Hisalone
Guest
No matter how mc you wish it were so it is not so.WRONG.
There was the Church in all those places not different churches in them. They would be likened to parishes and dioceses of today.
It was the Catholic Church in Corinth, Rome, Galatia, et al.
It was the church at Corinth the church at Galatia as Paul wrote.
N
NonCatholic
Guest
The same church that God predestined before time, the “assembly of all of God’s elect/true believers”. Good question!HI ,IN READING YOUR POST YOU USE 1TIM3=15 CAN YOU PLEASE TELL WHAT CHURCH WAS AROUND AT THAT TIME
N
NonCatholic
Guest
You both error here. Nicodemas knew exactly what Jesus meant and used the literal birth as an analogy. I hope to get back to this later to give a more detailed explanation…but just review how Jesus answered after Nicodemas’s comment. He didn’t say “no you idiot, it has nothing to do with being born it a womb again”…Jesus does not answer like that.Nicodemas thought in the flesh when he asked Jesus, “…,can a man enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?”. You also seem bent on understanding what Jesus said only in worldly terms of the flesh.
Do you see any violation of the Holy Spirit’s sovereignty, if man gets to use physical water to determine when the Spirit regenerates a person into God’s family? I do.
N
NonCatholic
Guest
As I said will now repeat, you have to way the evidence and draw your own conclusion. The first site you gave is chuck full of error concerning Scripture in general and therefore is invalid. You might want to read on the site I gave…maybe you did, but I think it presents the arguments from both sides. None of it matters because we have the Bible we have and as far as I know the manuscripts that we found are the basis for the Bible, which were in Greek, Latin and Hebrew. to answer your other question, Greek was spoken a lot as well. I’ll bet Jesus spoke all the languages and we know on the day of Pentecost there were a variety of languages that were spoken. It seems appropriate that Greek would be the language of choice since it has so many nuances in language to give real clear meaning unlike English.Basically, it is one man’s opinion against the opinions of others. Ask yourself this question: If Latin was the Mother Tongue of Roman’s, and Hebrew or Araimic was the Mother Tongue of the Jews, and they were writing documents, and considering that the Apostles were not necessarily “Highly Educated” men… why would they be compelled to record anything in Greek?
This site disputes yours: v-a.com/bible/
And the content of this page casts much doubt on whether or not it was “originally” written in “Greek”: newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
*General character of the Gospel
Distinct unity of plan, an artificial arrangement of subject-matter, and a simple, easy style–much purer than that of Mark–suggest an original rather than a translation. When the First Gospel is compared with books translated from the Hebrew, such as those of the Septuagint, a marked difference is at once apparent. The original Hebrew shines through every line of the latter, whereas, in the First Gospel Hebraisms are comparatively rare, and are merely such as might be looked for in a book written by a Jew and reproducing Jewish teaching.** However, these observations are not conclusive in favour of a Greek original. In the first place, the unity of style that prevails throughout the book, would rather prove that we have a translation. It is certain that a good portion of the matter existed first in Aramaic–at all events, the sayings of Christ, and thus almost three-quarters of the Gospel.*** Consequently, these at least the Greek writer has translated. And, since no difference in language and style can be detected between the sayings of Christ and the narratives that are claimed to have been composed in Greek, it would seem that these latter are also translated from the Aramaic. This conclusion is based on the fact that they are of the same origin as the discourses. Theunity of plan and the artificial arrangement of subject-matter could as well have been made in Matthew’s Aramaic as in the Greek document; the fine Greek construction, the lapidary style, the elegance and good order claimed as characteristic of the Gospel, are largely a matter of opinion, the proof being that critics do not agree on this question. Although the phraseology is not more Hebraic than in the other Gospels, still it not much less so. To sum up, from the literary examination of the Greek Gospel no certain conclusion can be drawn against the existence of a Hebrew Gospel of which our First Gospel would be a translation; and inversely, this examination does not prove the Greek Gospel to be a translation of an Aramaic original.
I guess my point is this: Just because a bunch of people say it is so, doesn’t necessarily mean its so… From what I have read, I find it difficult to believe that native speakers of one language would automatically write in a second or third language… unless of course they were entirely at home in that language and capable of idiomatic expression.
One was a physician, one a tax collector, and the rest were a variety of occupations…none were linguistic scholars, or highly educated…thus, there is much room for argument as to the “original” language of the scriptures, unless you are talking about the “original translations”…but then there were original translations into many languages.
E
elvisman
Guest
That’s a cop-out.Nicodemas thought in the flesh when he asked Jesus, “…,can a man enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?”. You also seem bent on understanding what Jesus said only in worldly terms of the flesh.
Do you see any violation of the Holy Spirit’s sovereignty, if man gets to use physical water to determine when the Spirit regenerates a person into God’s family? I do.
I said show me where Jesus spoke of anything other than water. You won’t because you can’t.
That’s the problem with Protestantism - everybody starts making their own rules.
E
elvisman
Guest
You get forgiven - for which you must repent.So, if you commit a “mortal” sin, do you somehow get “unborn”?
Do you have to get reborn-again?
**You don’t get forgiven automatically unless you repent. **
Unrepentant sinners don’t get forgiven. (Mark 3:29, Matt. 12:31-32)
E
elvisman
Guest
He sure did.No matter how mc you wish it were so it is not so.
It was the church at Corinth the church at Galatia as Paul wrote.
The Church AT Corinth and Galatia - NOT the Church OF Corinth and Galatia.
The same Church - different location.
So, you and nbtb1348 couldn’t be more wrong.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
THE HOLD SPIRIT IS NOT DOING A VERY GOOD JOB,HOW MANY CHURCHES DO WE HAVE AT THIS TIME,ALL BEING GUID BY THE HSAny system or institution which one engages with in order to foster a sense of meaning or relevance in relation to something greater than oneself. I can’t tell you what to do; it’s your religion, but I can say that the Mary of the Bible does not resemble the Mary of the Catholic church based on what the Bible tells us, which isn’t much. Have a personal relationship with Christ and avoid institutions that have revelation outside of Scripture.
Yes, I go to a church building filled with true believers and probably some phonies.
On the Apostles Creed, I agree with the non-Catholic version.
Jesus, Paul, Moses, Peter, Mark, Luke, John - Biblical writers, Holy Spirit, John MacArthur, Gerode Whitfiled, Charles Spurgeon, John Bunyan…a few more. The Holy Spirit who guides to the truth of the tings of God is primary.
E
elvisman
Guest
**Just as Jesus didn’t change his words when he told the wea-faithed followers in *John 6, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.”, *****Jesus didn’t change his words when he told Nicodemus, *“Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” ***You both error here. Nicodemas knew exactly what Jesus meant and used the literal birth as an analogy. I hope to get back to this later to give a more detailed explanation…but just review how Jesus answered after Nicodemas’s comment. He didn’t say “no you idiot, it has nothing to do with being born it a womb again”…Jesus does not answer like that.
The only view that is wrong here is the Protestant view that Jesus wasn’t speaking of baptism.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.