John 3 - Born of Water and Spirit

[CadyandZoe]

Your claim above in RED is a flat-our LIE.

Not only did you FAIL to prove that Paul's definition of "Tradition" was ONLY confined to his physical examples - I destroyed that false notion in post #400 by showing you that he placed ORAL Tradition ON PAR with Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15).
In other words - I obliterated your position with Scripture, despite your claim that I can't argue from Scripture.

As to your last statement in RED - it's just another cowardly way out of having to prove your points, which so far - you have FAILED to to . . .

I showed you, from within the context, what Paul meant by traditions. You have NOT disproven my interpretation. All you did was state another, unlikely interpretation. Stating another interpretation is not the same thing as disproving mine. You need to PROVE that Paul was speaking about oral traditions, which he was not. You are purposely confusing his "verbal oratory" with Catholic Oral Tradition. The two are completely different things.

What you are doing is typical of Catholic apologists and Christian cults, who redefine words and read "into" a text what the author never intended. Your interpretation is implausible because Paul tells you that his traditions are those that he and the other apostles taught. This, by definition, discounts Catholic oral which came hundreds of years later. I encourage you to stop ignoring the obvious. Otherwise you will never learn the truth.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

1. Who says it is contested? Please share some articles.
2. Which manuscripts are you using, which do you reject, and why?

Well I definitely reject Westcott and Horts and all derivatives from them, they created their own Greek text.
Several Nestle-Alland derivatives are sketchy. relied too much on the vulgate and vaticanus.

A Spurious Reference to the Trinity Added in 1 John 5 verses 7-8
The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org
Johannine Comma - Wikipedia
Is it true that 1 John 5:7 was added at a later date? Has the Bible been changed? – Evidence for Christianity
What is the argument against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8 in the KJV?
Is there a Bible contradiction in 1 John 5:7?
Was 1 John 5:7 Added To The Bible - Comma Johanneum
The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8: Added or Removed? - Berean Patriot

Now why did you accuse me of mishandling the Word.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Please clarify.


Yeah, the baptism Jesus is speaking of in Matthew 20 clearly isn't "Spirit and fire" because He says "it's not Mine to give but shall only be given to them for whom it is prepared of My Father"--but John says "Jesus baptizes in Spirit and fire", meaning just as John's mission was to come and baptize all in water, so also it is Jesus's to baptize all in fire.

You're grasping at straws.

"What else ya got?"

What is fire and defend your answer.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

@Ronald Nolette

Keep in mind that my point (Word and Spirit are tightly bound together--eg, "My Words are Spirit") doesn't hinge on this verse.

Show why they must be connected in light of context, Jewish understanding and culture and the accepted beliefs of the day.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

1. The Spirit is compared with elements--water, wind and fire.
2. John said He would baptize in Spirit and fire, and fire fell on them when the Spirit came.
You take that as a "coincidence". That's unbelief in my book.
3. When Aaron's sons disobeyed fire came out from the Tabernacle and consumed them--"our God is a consuming fire", and Isaiah 4:4 "spirit of burning".

Show where the spirit is compared to fire. Acts 2 doesn't count because it is not tongues of fire- but cloven tongues like as of fire. Luke was making a comparison and not saying the tongues were fire.

3.I don't take that as a coincidence- that is you bearing false witness against me.

3. so then who does the spirit of judgment represent and prove it.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Please clarify.


Yeah, the baptism Jesus is speaking of in Matthew 20 clearly isn't "Spirit and fire" because He says "it's not Mine to give but shall only be given to them for whom it is prepared of My Father"--but John says "Jesus baptizes in Spirit and fire", meaning just as John's mission was to come and baptize all in water, so also it is Jesus's to baptize all in fire.

You're grasping at straws.

"What else ya got?"

Do your own grammar work. If you don't know, it is not my job to teach you basic grammar. I will not chase down every rabbit trail you post.

By the way I am still waiting for your evidence you use to accuse me of mishandling the Word.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I showed you, from within the context, what Paul meant by traditions. You have NOT disproven my interpretation. All you did was state another, unlikely interpretation. Stating another interpretation is not the same thing as disproving mine. You need to PROVE that Paul was speaking about oral traditions, which he was not. You are purposely confusing his "verbal oratory" with Catholic Oral Tradition. The two are completely different things.

What you are doing is typical of Catholic apologists and Christian cults, who redefine words and read "into" a text what the author never intended. Your interpretation is implausible because Paul tells you that his traditions are those that he and the other apostles taught. This, by definition, discounts Catholic oral which came hundreds of years later. I encourage you to stop ignoring the obvious. Otherwise you will never learn the truth.

This is ludicrous.

Paul explicitly states his point in the text:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, WHETHER BY an ORAL STATEMENT OR BY a LETTER from us."

Either Written Tradition (Scripture) or ORAL Tradition (Oral teaching).
Paul is stating emphatically that the ORAL teachings (Traditions) that they are teaching are every bit as binding as what is WRITTEN by them (Scripture). There s NO other way to parse this text.

YOU are guilty of the very thing you accuse ME of doing - reading "into" the text what the author never intended.

 

[GracePeace]

Well I definitely reject Westcott and Horts and all derivatives from them, they created their own Greek text.
Several Nestle-Alland derivatives are sketchy. relied too much on the vulgate and vaticanus.

A Spurious Reference to the Trinity Added in 1 John 5 verses 7-8
The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org
Johannine Comma - Wikipedia
Is it true that 1 John 5:7 was added at a later date? Has the Bible been changed? – Evidence for Christianity
What is the argument against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7-8 in the KJV?
Is there a Bible contradiction in 1 John 5:7?
Was 1 John 5:7 Added To The Bible - Comma Johanneum
The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8: Added or Removed? - Berean Patriot

Now why did you accuse me of mishandling the Word.

As I already noted, the Johannine Comma does not include verse 6.

 

[GracePeace]

What is fire and defend your answer.

1. Irrelevant, the point was as to the applicability of the baptism/frequency with which the baptism was to be given--just as John came to baptize all in water, so Jesus comes to baptize all in fire.
2. "Spirit and fire"--the "fire" refers to the Spirit, and they had fire over their heads on Pentecost, so I reject your unbelief that fire refers to this one baptism, and I leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves.

Show why they must be connected in light of context, Jewish understanding and culture and the accepted beliefs of the day.

Well, 1) they're members of the Trinity (the Word and the Spirit) LOL so obviously they're bound together 2) "My Words are Spirit and life", so you receive the Spirit as you receive His Words, just as Paul argues "If someone preaches another Gospel... if you receive some other kind of spirit" 2 Co 11:4 : the Word and Spirit proceeding from the Word, ipso facto, are bound together. Also Galatians 5 "this persuasion does not come from Him Who calls you"--by following a "persuasion" from a spirit that did not emanate from God, they "departed from God" Galatians 1:6 and were "... fallen from [the Spirit of] Grace" Galatians 5:4.

Do your own grammar work. If you don't know, it is not my job to teach you basic grammar. I will not chase down every rabbit trail you post.

By the way I am still waiting for your evidence you use to accuse me of mishandling the Word.

Well, OK, I reject your argument since you haven't produced any proofs and like 95% of the rest of your arguments fall through and prove to be baseless and hiding behind a veil of supposed "knowledge" which proves to be nothing but ignorance.

Thanks.

 

[GracePeace]

Do your own grammar work. If you don't know, it is not my job to teach you basic grammar. I will not chase down every rabbit trail you post.

By the way I am still waiting for your evidence you use to accuse me of mishandling the Word.

When you present an argument, the burden of proof is upon you--but this is especially the case with you, in fact, since almost all your arguments, upon inspection, fall through and prove to be nothing but air.

 

[Illuminator]

I showed you, from within the context, what Paul meant by traditions. You have NOT disproven my interpretation. All you did was state another, unlikely interpretation. Stating another interpretation is not the same thing as disproving mine. You need to PROVE that Paul was speaking about oral traditions, which he was not. You are purposely confusing his "verbal oratory" with Catholic Oral Tradition. The two are completely different things.

Not everything the Apostles taught got written down.

What you are doing is typical of Catholic apologists and Christian cults, who redefine words and read "into" a text what the author never intended. Your interpretation is implausible because Paul tells you that his traditions are those that he and the other apostles taught.

Yes, that is what we keep trying to tell you.

This, by definition, discounts Catholic oral which came hundreds of years later. I encourage you to stop ignoring the obvious. Otherwise you will never learn the truth.

"which came hundreds of years later" is a lie. What was believed and practiced by all was well established before the canon of Scripture. You defy Protestant reference manuals about Bible origins so you make up fantasies. You change the meaning of Tradition to make it fit your presuppositions. On top of that, you ignore the authentic beliefs and practices of the early church, so you re-write it with "0" evidence. The "pagan influence fallacy" is just that, a fallacy that has been exposed 100 times. Then you say, "I encourage you to stop ignoring the obvious. Otherwise you will never learn the truth." What a joke.

 

[GracePeace]

Mark 13:31 – heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus’ Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.

Mark 16:15 – Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

Mark 3:14; 16:15 – Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn’t He have said a word about it?

Luke 10:16 – He who hears you (not “who reads your writings”), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.

Luke 24:47 – Jesus explains that repentance and forgiveness of sins must be preached (not written) in Christ’s name to all nations. For Protestants to argue that the word of God is now limited to a book (subject to thousands of different interpretations) is to not only ignore Scripture, but introduce a radical theory about how God spreads His word which would have been unbelievable to the people at the time of Jesus.

Acts 2:3-4 – the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of “tongues” of fire so that they would “speak” (not just write) the Word.

Acts 15:27 – Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God’s infallible Word by “word of mouth.”

Rom. 10:8 – the Word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, which is the word of faith which is preached (not just written).

Rom. 10:17 – faith comes by what is “heard” (not just read) which is the Word that is “preached” (not read). This word comes from the oral tradition of the apostles. Those in countries where the Scriptures are not available can still come to faith in Jesus Christ.

1 Cor. 15:1,11 – faith comes from what is “preached” (not read). For non-Catholics to argue that oral tradition once existed but exists no longer, they must prove this from Scripture. But no where does Scripture say oral tradition died with the apostles. To the contrary, Scripture says the oral word abides forever.

Gal. 1:11-12 – the Gospel which is “preached” (not read) to me is not a man’s Gospel, but the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Eph. 1:13 – hearing (not reading) the Word of truth is the gospel of our salvation. This is the living word in the Church’s living tradition.

Col. 1:5 – of this you have “heard” (not read) before in the word of truth, the Gospel which has come to you.

1 Thess. 2:13 – the Word of God is what you have “heard” (not read). The orally communicated word of God lasts forever, and this word is preserved within the Church by the Holy Spirit.

2 Tim. 1:13 – oral communications are protected by the Spirit. They abide forever. Oral authority does not die with the apostles.

2 Tim. 4:2,6-7 – Paul, at the end of his life, charges Timothy to preach (not write) the Word. Oral teaching does not die with Paul.

Titus 1:3 – God’s word is manifested “through preaching” (not writing). This “preaching” is the tradition that comes from the apostles.

1 Peter 1:25 – the Word of the Lord abides forever and that Word is the good news that was “preached” (not read) to you. Because the Word is preached by the apostles and it lasts forever, it must be preserved by the apostles’ successors, or this could not be possible. Also, because the oral word abides forever, oral apostolic tradition could not have died in the fourth century with all teachings being committed to Scripture.

2 Peter 1:12, 15 – Peter says that he will leave a “means to recall these things in mind.” But since this was his last canonical epistle, this “means to recall” must therefore be the apostolic tradition and teaching authority of his office that he left behind.

2 John 1:12; 3 John 13 – John prefers to speak and not to write. Throughout history, the Word of God was always transferred orally and Jesus did not change this. To do so would have been a radical departure from the Judaic tradition.

Deut. 31:9-12 – Moses had the law read only every seven years. Was the word of God absent during the seven year interval? Of course not. The Word of God has always been given orally by God’s appointed ones, and was never limited to Scripture.

Isa. 40:8 – the grass withers, the flower fades, but the Word of our God (not necessarily written) will stand forever.

Isa. 59:21 – Isaiah prophesies the promise of a living voice to hand on the Word of God to generations by mouth, not by a book. This is either a false prophecy, or it has been fulfilled by the Catholic Church.

Joel 1:3 – tell your children of the Word of the Lord, and they tell their children, and their children tell another generation.

Mal. 2:7 – the lips of a priest guard knowledge, and we should seek instruction from his mouth. Protestants want to argue all oral tradition was committed to Scripture? But no where does Scripture say this.

ORAL APOSTOLIC TRADITION

STOP POSTING OFF TOPIC GARBAGE.
START A NEW THREAD.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT CATHOLICISM VS PROTESTANTISM.

 

[GracePeace]

I showed you, from within the context, what Paul meant by traditions. You have NOT disproven my interpretation. All you did was state another, unlikely interpretation. Stating another interpretation is not the same thing as disproving mine. You need to PROVE that Paul was speaking about oral traditions, which he was not. You are purposely confusing his "verbal oratory" with Catholic Oral Tradition. The two are completely different things.

What you are doing is typical of Catholic apologists and Christian cults, who redefine words and read "into" a text what the author never intended. Your interpretation is implausible because Paul tells you that his traditions are those that he and the other apostles taught. This, by definition, discounts Catholic oral which came hundreds of years later. I encourage you to stop ignoring the obvious. Otherwise you will never learn the truth.

You and @Illuminator need to take this discussion elsewhere.
This thread is not to be about Catholicism vs Protestantism.

 

[GracePeace]

This is ludicrous.

Paul explicitly states his point in the text:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, WHETHER BY an ORAL STATEMENT OR BY a LETTER from us."

Either Written Tradition (Scripture) or ORAL Tradition (Oral teaching).
Paul is stating emphatically that the ORAL teachings (Traditions) that they are teaching are every bit as binding as what is WRITTEN by them (Scripture). There s NO other way to parse this text.

YOU are guilty of the very thing you accuse ME of doing - reading "into" the text what the author never intended.

Off-topic.

 

[GracePeace]

By the way I am still waiting for your evidence you use to accuse me of mishandling the Word.

Anyone who wants can go look at our interactions and see how many falsehoods you've emptily asserted that have been challenged and debunked--and they can see that you don't care to acknowledge basic Scriptural reality.

 

[Illuminator]

STOP POSTING OFF TOPIC GARBAGE.
START A NEW THREAD.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT CATHOLICISM VS PROTESTANTISM.

It's not garbage. It's off topic because the baseless anti-Catholic digs are off topic. You can't control them and neither can the moderators.

 

[GracePeace]

It's not garbage. It's off topic because the baseless anti-Catholic digs are off topic. You can't control them and neither can the moderators.

When someone brings something that is off topic up (eg, Catholicism vs Protestantism), and you're interested in pursuing that discussion, please invite them to a different thread where it IS the topic. If there isn't a thread for that discussion then please create one.

 

[GracePeace]

1. Irrelevant, the point was as to the applicability of the baptism/frequency with which the baptism was to be given--just as John came to baptize all in water, so Jesus comes to baptize all in fire.
2. "Spirit and fire"--the "fire" refers to the Spirit, and they had fire over their heads on Pentecost, so I reject your unbelief that fire refers to this one baptism, and I leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves.

1. When God appeared to Moses, He appeared as what? A blazing fire Exodus 3:2.
2. When God appeared to Israel, He appeared in what? Fire Exodus 19:20.
3. God is described as what? A consuming fire Exodus 24:17, Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 12:29.
3. The Masoretic reads a "fiery Law" issued from God's Right Hand Deuteronomy 33:2.
"A fiery Law"--given, according to Jewish tradition, on the same day (Pentecost) the Ministry of the Spirit took over (we're no longer under Law but under the Spirit of Grace Romans 6:14).
So, "the Oldness of the Written Code" was a fiery Law; "the New way" is "Spirit and fire".

There are so many connections for my view you'd have to be in unbelief to reject it.
You'd have to be holding to a presupposition to reject it.
You'd have to be trying to prove something.
You'd have to be fighting against the truth.
You'd have to be doing what you're doing.
Submit to the truth--don't be obstinate.

 

[GracePeace]

@Ronald Nolette Also, Paul describes the gift of the Spirit as "fire" :

2 Timothy 1:6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands...

When the gift of the Spirit dies down it is like "embers", and we should "fan" the "embers" until they become a roaring fire again.

Why is Paul using this "fire" metaphor? Doesn't he know @Ronald Nolette disbelieves this? What is Paul thinking?

 

[n2thelight]

"Born of water" has been generally misunderstood. Many wrongly believe it means baptismal regeneration. Others wrongly believe that it is a reference to amniotic fluid. Few understand that it is a metaphor for the Word of God, which is "the seed" on the New Birth.

When Jesus spoke of being born of water, He was alluding to what was revealed in Ezekiel 36:25: Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Now what kind of water would God Himself sprinkle on sinners? Obviously it would not be H2O since it would cleanse from filthiness (sins) and idols. The answer is found in Ephesians 5:25,26: Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word...

According to this passage it is the application of the Word of God that cleanses the soul (by convicting and convincing). Thus it applies to the Gospel -- also the Word of God -- under the power of the Holy Spirit. and that is exactly what Peter and James tell us:

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the Word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the Word which by the Gospel is preached unto you. (1 Peter 1:23-25)

This corresponds to the truth that faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. And it is only those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who are born again (contrary to Calvinistic nonsense about people being regenerated BEFORE they believe and are saved).

James confirms the words of Peter thus: Of his own will begat he [gave birth to] us with the Word of Truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:19)

To sum up, when Jesus said that the New Birth is by the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Word of God, He was speaking about spiritual realities and not physical substances.

John 3:3 "Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

This is a very interesting statement, and in most King James Bibles the margin reads "again" as being "from above". In Strong's Greek dictionary, # 509, the word is "Anothen", "from above". You will never understand this statement that Jesus made unless you understand what it means to be "born from above." In a later verse, it is documented that you must be "born from above", or your soul will be lost for eternity.

The church world has their sayings and songs that "Ye must be born again", and yet these verses they sin miss the mark, because they do not understand what it means to be "born from above" [born again]. This is part of God's plan that everyone [every soul] be born of woman, from above. For documentation we find in the Book of Jude whereby the penalty of the fallen angels is given, in as much as they left their place of habitation. Angels are to inhabit heaven, or paradise at this time, in the flesh age.

Jude 6; "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

Angels are not to be on the earth in the flesh age, except on special mission by God Himself. These angels that are in chains and bound for destruction, left the heavens without the permission of God, and as it is written in Genesis 6, were not born from above, but came from above. They were not born of woman, but observed woman and made play mates out of them.

Genesis 6:1, 2; "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, " [1] "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." [2]

These angles cohabited with them, and the offspring of this weird relationship between these Nephilim, or fallen angels and women were the "geber" which is to say "giants". They were the misfits that roamed the earth. This was contrary to God's plan, and it was in this way that Satan and his tribe of fallen angels hoped to destroy the daughters of Adam, whereby there would not be a womb of humanity fitting to bring forth the promised Messiah, the Christ child. What was left would only be Satanic, angelic hybrids which would be a mixture of man and angel.

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

"Verily, verily" is "truly, truly". Jesus is telling him that there must be two births necessary; the birth of the water and of the spirit. Many people teach that this "born of the water", means to be baptized, and this is not what is being talked about. To be born from above is to be born of the womb of your mother. Every child is born in a bag of water, in fact the normal birth is announced by the breaking of the waters with in the birthing bag. So we see in this that one must be born of woman, in innocence, and then "be born of the spirit".

Born of the spirit means to accept the Spirit of Christ. That soul choosing by free will the Spirit of Christ into their spirit. That is what the marriage of Christ is all about; to become one in Christ.

This is why most people simply do not know what being "born from above means", when they disregard what happened in the book of Genesis, and in that first earth age. They overlook all of Satan's attempts to destroy the womb of woman, and God's plan to send us His Son that we might have redemption. God intervened in Satan attempt, as He always will do. This is why the book of Jude is so important.

John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."

To understand this, lets go to I Corinthians 15:50; "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

No soul in its flesh and blood body can enter the kingdom of heaven. The kingdom of Heaven is where ever God is, and for the soul to enter that kingdom, it must first die or be changed. The soul must be separated from the flesh first before that soul returns to the Father that created it. This is the basic principle of the plan of our heavenly Father.

Remember back in Ecclesiastes 12:7; God told us what happens to the soul and the flesh when the flesh body dies. "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God Who gave it."

Our flesh bodies are the accumulation of all the elements from the earth that we consume by eating. Upon death of ones body, the process then returns the decaying flesh body back to those elements. The soul's spirit came from God, and it will return to God when this flesh body dies. All will return to the Father, for He is the judge of your soul; whether for destruction or eternal life.

john3