Posted on 06/04/2017 12:29:15 PM PDT by ealgeone
I will ask you a question: Why don’t you believe what has been written in the Holy Scriptures?
Precisely. They gag at gnats and swallow camels to make an accusation. Then they wonder why we are skeptical when they build entire theologies off the thief on the cross, as if God had no volition....
As I've said in other places, Bible-only Christianity has sidestepped legalism by trading "the law" for a "science." They get to keep all the snobby conceit with none of the Scripturally condemned baggage. Unfortunately, they have to become 2 Cor 10:12 to do it.
Yes, but I thought that you wanted an explanation of the differences between the Clementine Vulgate and the Nova Vulgata that I posted. Modern Catholic English translations are indeed based on the original Hebrew and Greek.
Because no one knows the date or time.
I'll ask again...if you're wrong, will you publicly admit you're a false prophet?
Doesn’t the Hebrew render the word as He?
What good is context when one is still interpreting “water” as the natural birth?
You need that verse to say: “a man must be born of flesh, and of the Spirit...”. For the following verse says: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh...”, not, “that which born of the water is flesh”.
Furthermore, in reference to natural birth, John 1:13 also mentions the flesh, but not water.
I am unaware of any place in the entire Bible where water is mentioned in natural birth. But, I can point to several cases where water was a factor in an old life being replaced with a new life.
Is it only a Catholic thing that prevents Catholics from being successful at reading comprehension??? Obviously you guys wouldn't know there was a Trinity except you chose to believe someone who told you it was so...
You CAN find the Trinity in the scriptures even tho the word isn't there...
The rule from Jesus is that you study (IITim 2:15) the scriptures so you can put two or more sentences together to find some truth, NOT just read a single verse and make a doctrine out of it...
Which is in the same chapter that they demand the comments about eating His body and drinking His blood come from and they are adamant to take those literally, but I NEVER see a Catholics demand that we take THIS verse as literally.
So here we apparently TWO ways to be saved. Which contradict each other.
So which one is the right one? Maybe some Catholic can answer for themselves.
I already know what answer born again Christians will say.
I'm interested in how Catholics will reconcile those verses, instead of ignoring them.
Magicians and Devil Worshippers have been around far longer than your church since we’re comparing the legitimacy of religions based on years...
Conversing with you is like amateur hour on FR. I got more meat from the Gospel via a Street Preacher in 15 minutes than I got being trapped in your cult for over 20 years.
Keep thinking your cult saves you. Let us know how it works out in 100 years.
You’ve got major issues comparing somebody you’ve never met to another who poisoned your dog.
I pity you - really....
I find it intriguing that even in today’s “enlightened world”, the devil confuses the simple message of salvation for those who still insist they control their own destiny.
It’s on them in the end. What a shame!
I’ve already posted well over 20 verses proving my point and you have two little bitty itty verses that include what I say but also - include a WORK (which is in according to our FAITH). A man-made act that you truly believe bears any weight in God’s Throne Room. LOL! Joke’s on you legalist.
My faith is firm in Christ ALONE.
I scoff at your works-based religion which is nothing more than what Islam and Pentecostles promote. Your witness leads to hell since it’s man-made.
So you want us to believe that you worship over the pictures of relatives? How twisted must a mind be to fial to recognize the difference between taking pictures for remembrances of relatives, and making statuary before which worshipful posture and prayers are offered to Mary as if she has demigoddess powers.
You know what?
In that passage in John 3, if Jesus meant baptism, He could have just said *baptism*. instead of supposedly couching it in other terms.
He knew what baptism was. He had been baptized Himself.
They were talking about physical birth with Nicodemus and suddenly He switches to hidden, figurative language that’s supposed to imply baptism, and then switches back to speaking about physcial birth.
That makes NO sense whatsoever.
Plus those who insist that He is saying that one must be baptized run into the same problem as the John 6 issue.
That is that later in the same discourse Jesus CLEARLY states that salvation if by believing.
So now which is it? Baptism? Eating and drinking? Believing? All three? A combination of two? Which one and why?
Search for the Revelation 12 sign 2017.
I’m not saying it’s not possible, but we get ourselves in trouble when we start to date set. Hence, why I am absolutely against date setting.
Yes and no. Hebrew nouns carry a gender of either masculine or feminine. In the Hebrew the word ה֚וּא (hū) is masculine. This could mean "he" in English but it could also mean "it" in this context since its antecedent, זַרְעָ֑הּ (her seed), is masculine and requires a masculine pronoun. There is no neuter in Hebrew. So if ה֚וּא (hū) is referring to a particular person then is could be translated as "he." But if it is referring to "seed" in general then it should be translated as "it," or even "they" if "seed" is taken to mean all descendants.
Translation is not an exact science and we cannot rely purely on word-for-word translations. This is why there are so many different translations, all attempting to be faithful to the original.
Context shows us clearly that Nic referred to getting born from the water world of the womb a second time, and Jesus took him from where his mind was, to new birth by The Spirit. Perhaps some are unfamiliar with the phrase ‘my water broke’? LOL
“I guess there is....that’s why you have no pictures of your kids, mom and dad, no picture of Jesus....none of that forbidden stuff in your house......sigh.
Never used in worship. Never bow before them. Never pray to them.
Just another logical fallacy.
Um, no, the CATHOLIC version used to say MARY would bruise satans head. You know that little deceit was HISTORICALLY in the CATHOLIC version prior to the King James, but I understand why you want to hide that FACT.
This is the first verse cited in defense of the IC...though the Catholic Encyclopedia admits "No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture."
It further admits the Vulgate translation is in error: The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Gen 3:15 Douay Rheims
And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." Gen 3:15 NASB
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.