Dr. Sungenis humiliates Matt Slick

Uploaded on Jan 21, 2011
At 12:33 begins this dialogue:
Word for Word:
***Matt Slick: I have authority
Robert Sungenis: Yeah? Where’d you get it?
Slick: From Jesus.
Sungenis: Yeah?
Slick: Yeah
Sungenis: Did He talk to you or something?
Slick: (laughs) Actually, He, uh…let’s just say He manifested Himself to me while I was, um, um, receiving Him, and He actually came in His presence.
Sungenis: Can you prove that to me?
Slick: Why would I have to prove it to you?
Sungenis: If I’m going to believe what you say Matt I need some proof that Jesus gave you the authority.
***Slick: I didn’t say he gave me the, um, authority.

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynZokT9Owv4&feature=feedu

Aired on CARM radio and can be heard on either catholicintl.com and here at Carm.org
http://carmpodcasting.blogspot.com/2010/07/matt-slick-and-dr-sungenis-debate-…

Slick didn’t even know who Sungenis was.

Video Courtesy by: http://www.youtube.com/user/Theologica37/videos?view=0

Debate on Biblical Authority: Robert Sungenis vs David Hester

On August 19-20, 2011, Robert Sungenis, a Catholic theologian from Catholic Apologetics International engaged in a religious debate on Bible Authority with David Hester, preacher at Springville Road church of Christ. Sungenis contended the Roman Catholic magisterium, the Bible and Apostolic Tradition constitute the authorities for Christian faith and practice. While Hester affirmed the Bible as the exclusive standard of authority for Christian faith and practice.

Video Courtesy by http://www.youtube.com/user/Drgamedood?feature=watch

A Discussion With A Pro-RH Bill Supporter

A Discussion With A Pro-RH Bill Supporter

By Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso

 

This happened on Facebook and I think it is a good idea that I will share this to everyone; written in black is quoted from the Pro-Rh Bill advocate in written in red is my response.
Pro-RH Bill: Fun arguments by CBCP and the like when they themselves done follow the teachings of the bible most relevant with worshiping a man made idol i’ll make it into tagalog, gumagawa ng REBULTO. Though shalt not commit IDOLATRY which means do not worship or pray to anything man made and Idols are man made. Might tell you if you read the bible. John 14:6 says I am the way the truth and the light NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME AND NOT YOUR MAN MADE SAINTS. *cough* Calunsod *cough*.
Me: I cannot afford not to comment on your status. As much as I respect your opinion, allow me to correct some of your misconceptions about the Catholic faith.First and foremost you are correct in saying that the Bible prohibits worshiping idols and carving images of idols. In Ex.20:3-5 it is clear that God prohibits worshiping of idols and the creation of their images. However, God allowed the creation of images of angels on top of the Ark of the Covenant Ex.25:18 and the temple where people of the Old Testament is full of images in which it was God who ordered the creation thereof (1 Kings 6:29).

“The walls on all sides of both the inner and the outer rooms had carved figures of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers”. 1 Kings 6:29

While the people of God are wandering in the desert God ordered Moses to create an image of a bronze serpent. (Num.21:8-9)

What can we learn from this? It basically tells us that there are two kinds of images. Images that were prohibited by God such as the pagan deities (we do not see any pagan images inside the Church). And the images of saints and angels in which God did not prohibited.

Nowhere in Catholic teaching ever teach nor encourage the worship of images of idols or saints.

We do believe that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6) that is why in the Holy Eucharist the center of the worship ceremony is Jesus Christ not Mary and the saints. However, the Bible also says that The Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Timothy 3:15-16) henceforth if we want to know more about Christ and become close to Christ we have to heed the teachings of the true Church for faith comes from what is heard (Rom.10:17). May God Bless you.

 

Pro-RH Bill: I get your point but tell that to your delusional devotees that are overzealous on enforcing their beliefs on other people as well as interfering on the processes in the Law of the Land. Eucharists are now are interfered basically for POLITICAL STATEMENTS made by and for the CBCP. Where is the SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND STATE? If the Catholic Church can’t even respect that then might as well TAX the Church. Its already gone and long since the time of the DAMASO’S and the Hypocrisy. Even Oscar Cruz calling out “Civil Disobedience” what you want you get what you don’t want you interfere with.
Me: [I get your point but tell that to your delusional devotees that are overzealous on enforcing their beliefs on other people as well as interfering on the processes in the Law of the Land.]People of the faith have the moral obligation to oppose a law that is detrimental to the life and dignity of all human beings. It is those who are in favor of RH BILL who imposes their belief on others by making it a law obliging everyone to obey what they believe under the precept of law.

[Eucharists are now are interfered basically for POLITICAL STATEMENTS made by and for the CBCP. Where is the SEPARATION BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND STATE? If the Catholic Church can’t even respect that then might as well TAX the Church.]

The separation of the Church and the State does not entail absolute separation rather, the Church nor the state will not interfere in matters that are purely political or religious. Thus in the Constitution the state is prohibited from espousing or favoring a specific religion. However, it does not prohibits the cooperation of the state and the Church. When the Legislative branch of the state interfered in matters pertaining to morality they are the ones who is violating the separation of the state and the Church because they are imposing a law which is contrary to the moral beliefs of the Filipino people. Remind you that even in our constitution religious beliefs are being respected, thus obliging any person to act contrary to his belief is unconstitutional. There are provisions in the RH BILL that violates the fundamental right of a person. And this fundamental right is protected by our 1987 constitution and that is the right to exercise ones religious belief.

[Its already gone and long since the time of the DAMASO’S and the Hypocrisy. Even Oscar Cruz calling out “Civil Disobedience” what you want you get what you don’t want you interfere with.]

Yes Damaso is long gone because clergies nowadays espouses the example of Fr. Florentino, civil disobedience is justifiable and is an inalienable right of a person if such laws that were implemented are detrimental to his life, dignity and morality. It was through civil disobedience that the Negros were freed from slavery.

Pro-RH Bill: What fundamental right may that be? The right to live? THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE CLAUSE WHERE IT STATES THERE IS ABORTION.There was no clause in forcing the RH Bill on Everyone, and Contraception was already available in the market long ago, it only helps on providing sufficient contraceptives on part of the mass that can’t afford it. Then you would be making the case on why not spend the Bill on helping people improve on their livelihood? The Government has already a lot of those and still it may be or not justifiable for the cost and the corruption that may happen within the Government.

Civil Obedience on behalf of the Church is NEVER and i repeat NEVER JUSTIFIABLE. You make use of the members of your congregation as PAWNS for the CBCP’S own interest. Then after that the CBCP will make make a say on the Issue which makes the line between the Separation between the Church and State has gone Blurry.

” There are provisions in the RH BILL that violates the fundamental right of a person. And this fundamental right is protected by our 1987 constitution and that is the right to exercise ones religious belief. ”

Again this is never ever forcing itself on everyone, EVERYBODY HAS A CHOICE AND THIS WAS GIVEN TO THEM. Di pinagpipilit ito sa mga tao kung magpaparticipate sila, specially when it came to Sex Education which for me is a need these days, KULANG ang guidance ng parents sa mga teenagers lately and it lead to more frequent teenage pregnancy. We were all teenagers once and don’t try to be a saint that curiosity never best us in many ways.

DAYS OF DAMASO Long gone? RUMOR MONGERING, SCANDALS THAT WERE SHUN. Dream on.

Me: [What fundamental right may that be? The right to live? THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE CLAUSE WHERE IT STATES THERE IS ABORTION.]Of course it is not stated in the said provision because it is directly contrary to the constitution. However, the promotion of contraceptive pills and IUD which both are not only prevents conception but also acts as abortifacients. They might not have specific clause which legalizes abortion yet the mere fact that they are promoting the use of contraceptive/abortifacient medicines and devices is tantamount to promotion of abortion under the precept of “essential medicines” to where these medicines and devices where classified. What fundamental right was violated? Under our constitution in Sec.1 Art.III on the bill of rights it says,

Art.III Sec.1 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of Law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Isn’t it true that an aborted infant is deprived of his life and liberty? When a fetus or a zygote is aborted due to the use of pills and IUD are they not depriving such a person of his life and liberty? I cannot think of what to call a person who disagrees with this obvious truth. Clearly this is violation of a person’s fundamental right. Furthermore, the Constitution also protects another fundamental right, the freedom of religion.

Art.III Sec.5 No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for exercise of civil or political rights.

When health professionals under the penalty of law are coerce to teach or educate his client in using artificial contraception even if it is against his religious belief are they violating his fundamental right? Employers are force to distribute contraceptive pills to their employees even if it is against their religious conviction are they not violating his fundamental right? Are they not forcing these faithful to betray their own conscience for the sake of their so called law?

[There was no clause in forcing the RH Bill on Everyone, and Contraception was already available in the market long ago, it only helps on providing sufficient contraceptives on part of the mass that can’t afford it.]

There is a clause in H.B 4244 (Consolidated version) which forcing the RH BILL to everyone. H.B 4244 Sec.21 forces employers to provide reproductive health services. And by reproductive health services it includes the distribution of contraception. If such an act is contrary to the religious belief of the employer are they not violating his fundamental right as protected by the Constitution?

Aside from the employers, health care professionals faithful to their belief are also coerce to betray their conscience.

H.B 4244 Sec.28: Any healthcare service provider, whether public or private, who shall:

(1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health, including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and effective family planning methods;

under this section a health professional who refuses to educate his client on how to use artificial contraception will be liable to the law even if it is against his religious belief to teach and spread the use of these contraceptive measures. Isn’t it clear that this law prevents the individual from freely exercising his religious belief? And under the precepts of our Constitution is it not clear that hindering the individual from exercising his religious belief is a violation of his fundamental right as stated in the constitution?

[ Then you would be making the case on why not spend the Bill on helping people improve on their livelihood? The Government has already a lot of those and still it may be or not justifiable for the cost and the corruption that may happen within the Government.]

The government lacks the funds for education and health care, how many times have we heard that we lack books, chairs and classrooms for our public schools? What about the government hospitals? If not for Japan under the JPEPA agreement the Southern Philippines Medical Center in Davao City will not have the funds for renovating its buildings. And government hospitals lack sophisticated instruments, supplies and man power, you know why? Because they lack funds!

[Civil Obedience on behalf of the Church is NEVER and i repeat NEVER JUSTIFIABLE. You make use of the members of your congregation as PAWNS for the CBCP’S own interest. Then after that the CBCP will make make a say on the Issue which makes the line between the Separation between the Church and State has gone Blurry.]

And by whose authority do you say that civil disobedience in behalf of the Church is never justifiable? You might have forgotten your history class. Who was that person who initiated the People Power that ousted a dictator? It was Cardinal Sin! It was this person who called people through radio veritas to go out in the streets! People Power is an example of civil disobedience! Who where there in the front line facing the tanks with flowers and rosaries? It was the priests, nuns and believers!

[Again this is never ever forcing itself on everyone, EVERYBODY HAS A CHOICE AND THIS WAS GIVEN TO THEM. Di pinagpipilit ito sa mga tao kung magpaparticipate sila, specially when it came to Sex Education which for me is a need these days, KULANG ang guidance ng parents sa mga teenagers lately and it lead to more frequent teenage pregnancy. We were all teenagers once and don’t try to be a saint that curiosity never best us in many ways.]

Section 21 and 28 of H.B 4244 (consolidated version) clearly forces an individual to act against his religious convictions and against his conscience. Sex education for elementary and high school students is not appropriate because they don’t have the maturity of an adult to know what is right and what is wrong. We are all teenagers once and we all passed in the state of curiosity however if one’s curiosity is guided to know which one is wrong and which one is not then such an exercise of curiosity is blameless.

The Fr. Florentino nowadays out numbered those of Damaso. Why focus your attention to the Damasos and not on the Florentinos?

SUKNAAN

Sa sibya sa Traditionalist, (Tigpamaba sa Society of St. Pius X) gisibya sa Radyo Marso 11, Domingo, miataki pag-ayo sa Kapangulohan sa Simbahang Catolico sa pagkutlo sa duha ka visionaries sa La Sallete, 1846 ang iyang …

 

SUKNAAN

 

PANGUTANA:

 

Sa sibya sa Traditionalist, (Tigpamaba sa Society of St. Pius X) gisibya sa Radyo Marso 11, Domingo, miataki pag-ayo sa Kapangulohan sa Simbahang Catolico sa pagkutlo sa duha ka visionaries sa La Sallete, 1846 ang iyang unang giingon nga pakigsulti ni Birhen Maria, ug sa 1879 ikaduhang pagbutyag niya sa iyang “nakuha” sa pulong ni Birhen Maria miingon: “Ang Roma mawagtangan sa iyang pagtuo, ug ang Anti-Cristo makasulod sa Simbahan sa Roma.” Matuod ba nga giingon nga mapukan sa Yawa ang Papa o mapukan sa ilang gahom? Carlos Pastorite, San Isidro, Talisay City, Cebu.

 

TUBAG:

 

Ang otoridad sa Iglesya Lokal mao ang ilang kaobispohan. Ang ikaduhang pagpabutyag sa Visionaries sa La Sallete sa 1879, wala aprobahi sa mga Obispo, giisip nila nga ang pahayag sa Visionaries mahimo nga milakdop lang sa iyang opinion, dili gayud gikan sa baba ni Birhen Maria nga giingon nga maoy nakigsulti kanila (Catholic Encyclopaedia, On Line). Bisan tugtan ta nga kining usa ka pagbutyag gikan ni Santa Maria Birhen, pero sabton kini nga usa ka warning kun pasidaan nga matagnaon sa hulga batok sa Simbahang Catolico. Dili kini sabton nga makakab-ot og katumanan. Kay nasayran na nato ang mga pulong sa Dios. “Kon mosulti Ako, Ako kining tumanon, kon mamulong Ako, Ako kining pahinaboon” (Ez. 12:25). Ang pulong ni Cristo sa Iglesya nga Iyang gitukod, dili gayud mapakyas. “Ikaw, Pedro, ug sa ibabaw niining bato pagatukoron Ko ang Akong Iglesya nga ang Ganghaan sa Impyerno, dili makabuntog niini” (Mat. 16:18). “Kay Ako magauban kaninyo sa matag adlaw hangtud sa katapusan sa panahon,” (Mat. 28:20).

Maingon usab niadto mihulga ang Dios sa makalilisang nga silot sa Israel. Si Jeremias miingon: “Ah Ginoo, sa pagkatinuod gilimbongan Mo ang katawhan sa Jerusalem pinaagi sa pag-ingon: Kamo makabaton sa pakigdait; apan diay espada nga milagbas ngadto sa kinabuhi. Alaut kita kay kita nagkagun-ob” (Jer. 4:10-13). Sa maong hulga, gipulihan sa Dios sa Iyang maluwasnong kamot sa pagbakwi sa Iyang hulga, diha nga naghinulsol ang katawhan.

 

 

PANGUTANA:

 

Sa Assisi, Italia, sa buhi pa si Papa Juan Pablo II sa pagsaulog sa World Day of Peace Oct. 19, 1992, gidapit sa papa ang lainlaing mga pundok sa Tinuhoan sa Tibuok kalibutan. Ug sa katapusang adlaw nagmisa siya ug gialirongan ug misalmot ang mga lainlaing mga lider sa tinuhoan nga dili Catolico, dili ba pruyba nga ang naghimog Heretical Mass ang papa kay miapil sa Misa ang mga Lider sa Tinuhoan nga mga dili-Catolico? Wildan Mindajao, Lawaan II, Talisay City.

 

TUBAG:

 

Bayanihon ang gihimo sa Papa, kay ang tumong mao ang pag-ampo sa Kalinaw sa Kalibutan. “Ang gahom sa pag-konsagrar sa pan ug bino anaa sa lehitimo nga pari lamang” (Canon Law no. 900 Fundamentals of the Catholic Dogma page 397). Dili kadto Heretical Mass, ang pagtambong sa mga lider sa lainlaing mga tinuhoan. Ang milagro sa pagkabalhin sa Pan ug Bino ngadto sa Lawas ug Dugo ni Cristo anaa sa gahom ni Cristo pinaagi sa Papa, wala sa mga lider sa lainlaing tinuhoan. Sa wali sa Papa, iyang gimantala si JesuCristo ang atong Ginoo sa Kalinaw ug sa Kadait, “Nagtapok kita, ingon nga mga higala. Magpasalamat ako ninyo, ingon nga ako magtutuo ni Cristo ug isip Catolico.” Wala ilimod ni Papa Juan Pablo II ang iyang pagtuo ni Cristo ug sa atong Simbahang Catolico.

 

Retrieve from: http://www.bagonglungsoranon.com/2012/07/sa-sibya-sa-traditionalist-tigpamaba-sa-society-of-st-pius-x-gisibya-sa-radyo-marso-11-domingo-miataki-pag-ayo-sa-kapangulohan-sa-simbahang-catolico-sa-pagkutlo-sa-duha-ka-visionaries-sa-la-sall/

CFD (Ryan Mejillano) vs Kinawawang INC (Julius Cutin)

CFD (Ryan Mejillano) vs Kinawawang INC (Julius Cutin)

Tingnan po naman ninyo ang isa nanamang kinawawang Ministro ng INC-Manalo laban sa ating kapatid na si Bro. Ryan Mejillano ng Catholic Faith Defenders.
This four-part video is the supposed discussion turned debate between CFD Bro. Ryan and Minister Julius Cutin of INC(Manalo), Locale of Mintal, District of Davao. It was initiated by the INC (of Manalo) to trap Bro. Ryan thinking that the latter was just a petty and mediocre Catholic Christian. This happened at the residence of an INC member who was very desiroua few months before to engage Bro. Ryan in a debate with another INC (of Manalo) Minister.

Please notice the difference between a Catholic Christian and Iglesia Ni Cristo (Ni Manalo). Notice how an INC Minister delivers his part, his speeches, how he evades from the main topic that was agreed, how he first use foul words from the start to the end of these four videos.

Enjoy and reflect.

Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis.

All Rights Reserves
Video Duplication is for back-up purposes only.
Video Courtesy:

http://www.youtube.com/user/najeca2

http://www.youtube.com/user/20asisjohncarlo

TAGALOG SUBTITLE

A CATHOLIC ANSWER TO IGLESIA NI CRISTO [INC] ATTEMPT AT DISPROVING THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

A CATHOLIC ANSWER TO IGLESIA NI CRISTO [INC] ATTEMPT AT DISPROVING THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

by Prof. Ramon Gitamondoc, CFD National Pres.

 

 
The Transfiguration of the Lord revealing His Divinity

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

I have read a post in the Splendor of the Church Ring of Fire Blog which contains arguments from an INC member refuting some verses which prove the divinity of Christ.  I personally took up the cudgel of answering these objections for several reasons.  Firstly, because as a Catholic I believe in the foundational doctrine of Christianity regarding the divinity of Christ and as St Peter admonishes “be ready always to satisfy every one that asks you a reason of that hope which is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).  Secondly, I find the arguments put forward worthy of refutation because by the manner it was given it seem that the objector is confident that he has successfully refuted the Catholic position.  Thirdly, because the case at hand illustrates the typical strategy used by the INC of quoting and interpreting isolated passages in order to prove their point.  The original post was partly written in English and partly in Tagalog.  In this response, I paraphrased his objections in order to make it more understandable and decent.  Let us now take a look at INC arguments.

 

INC objection:  Whoever is a child of God does not continue to sin, for God’s very nature is in him” (1 John 3:9 TEV).  Are Christians also God in this particular verse? 

From the way the question is posed it is safe to conclude that the INC is aware that there are scriptural passages which may be interpreted as Jesus having the nature of God [i.e., Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:6].  In order to evade this the INC attempts to make a false analogy:  If as 1 John 3:9 which says that the very nature of God is in the believer and this does not ipso facto make him God, so also those passages which speak about Christ having the nature of God do not prove that Christ is God.

The text cited above is rendered differently in other reputable bible versions:  “Whosoever is born of God commits not sin: for his seed abides in him” (Douay Rheims); “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him” (KJV); “No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him” (NAB); “Those who have born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides I them” (NRSV).  If we use these renderings of the verse, the force of the INC objection is significantly diminished.  Of course, the INC will stick to the TEV rendering of this verse since this will best serve their purpose.  The INC is not only selective in their quotation of scriptural passages but also in the bible versions they will use in quoting a particular passage.  They do not usually go by the rules of textual criticism in determining whether a particular verse is translated accurately or not since to them the highest criteria for judging the accuracy of a text is whether or not it subscribes to their man-made doctrines which are constructed upon isolated proof texting.  It then becomes apparent that they are not mostly concerned with accuracy of their alleged proof as much as it’s effect to the unwary audience.     

Setting aside the issue on which is the more accurate rendition of this particular verse, this quotation from the TEV will not at all help the INC cause.  The fallacy of the INC lies in the fact that although it is said that God’s very nature is in the believer (1 John 3:9 TEV) and it is also said to be in Christ but each has it in a different sense.  God’s very nature is in the believer by way of partaking or sharing of the divine nature “By whom he has given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).  This partaking of the divine nature, which in Catholic theology is called the infusion of sanctifying grace into our souls, is the formal principle which makes us sons of God and objectively holy and pleasing before Him.  The fact that Jesus is called Son of God and we are also called sons of God does not put us in the same category as Jesus.  We are made sons of God by way of adoption, “you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). For the Spirit himself gives testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God.  (Romans 8:15-16).  On the contrary, Jesus is Son of God by nature, “No man has seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he has declared him” (John 1:18; “For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2:5-6).  However, the INC fails to make this all-important distinction which is a manifestation of a very shallow theology, if any.

INC objection:   If you believe that Jesus is God based on Colossians 2:9 because it says that “For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally”,will you also say that Christians are God since we can also read that “All the fullness of God might be filled in them (Ephesians 3:19 KJV)?

I would like to point out to the readers that this is typical INC strategy.  They will quote bible verses out of context, formulate a false analogy and build their doctrine out of it.  In response to this let’s do a contextual reading starting with verse 17 to 19 which reads:  “That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts: that, being rooted and founded in charity, you may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, to know also the charity of Christ, which surpasses all knowledge that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God.”  St Paul here teaches that the way to comprehend and gain a deep insight into the mystery of Christ is through sanctity [that is our souls is rooted and founded in charity] which is the way of the saints.  Christ who dwells in our hearts also enables us to grow ever deeper into his own mystery until we are filled unto the fullness of God [that is the measure of knowledge which God wants to reveal Himself to us].  In the same Epistle St Paul said:  “Untilwe all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto themeasure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13).  If we observe carefully St Paul substituted Christ [in Ephesians 4:13] for God [in Ephesians 3:19].  The “fullness of God” is equated with “fullness of Christ” in relation to the knowledge of the Son of God given to us.  Thus St Paul does not equate Christ with us but he equates Christ with God.

Let us now turn our attention to Colossians 2:9 which reads: “For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally.”  Once again, it is important to read this passage in its context.  In his Epistle to the Colossians, St Paul was warning the believers against men who practice superstitious worship paid to angels or demons by offering sacrifices to them from which they derive hidden knowledge [gnosis].  In so doing they also denied the supremacy of Christ who is the head both of angels and men.  In order to condemn them of their pretensions and warn the believers St Paul wrote: “Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:8-10).  St Paul here upholds the supremacy of Christ [who is head of all principality and power] by asserting his divinity though he appeared in form of man [in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally].  Thus by an examination of the context of the passage it becomes crystal clear that this passage supports the divinity of Christ.  But context is foreign to INC interpretation of key Biblical passages. 

 

 

INC objection:  If you [Catholics] insist that the Son and the Father is God because Jesus said they are one based on your interpretation of John 10:30, will you also say that the disciples is God since they too are one as the Father and the Son are one (John 17:11, 21-22)?

The recurring fallacy of the INC in quoting verses out of context and failing to make proper distinctions is again manifest.  Once again, a contextual reading will reveal the error in the INC interpretation.  In John 17:11-22, Jesus was praying to the Father for his disciples.  In the verses surrounding John 10:30, Jesus was addressing the unbelieving Jews.

Let’s take a closer look first at John 10:30 where Jesus said “I and the Father are one.”  The traditional Catholic interpretation of this passage is that Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons based on the use of the plural linking verb ARE and that they share one divine nature based on ONE.  Let me explain why this interpretation is perfectly consistent within the context.  In the preceding verses Jesus speaks lengthily about himself as the Good Shepherd who takes care of his sheep and that those who belong to his fold listens to his voice.  In verse 14, Jesus says:  “I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me.”  Using the INC line of reasoning [that is, if we don’t try to distinguish], since Jesus said “I know mine, and mine know me” are we to say then that our [his sheep] knowledge of Jesus is in the same measure as Jesus’ knowledge of us?  Of course not!  In verse 15, Jesus makes this astounding claim:  “As the Father knows me, and I know the Father and I lay down my life for my sheep.”  Unquestionably, the Father knows the Son perfectly.  Does the Son also know the Father perfectly?  If we look at parallel sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, we see that Jesus leaves no doubt about this.  Here is what Jesus declares:  “And no one knows the Son but the Father: neither does any one know the Father, but the Son” (Matthew 11:27).  What does Jesus mean here?  Do we not know the Father?  Of course, we do!  But not in the same measure as Jesus knows the Father.  While we know the Father in the measure that the Son reveals Him to us, Jesus knows the Father perfectly.  The Jews understood well the full impact of His words so that in verse 19, John wrote that “A dissension rose again among the Jews for these words.”  However their dissension did not deter our Lord from teaching to them what He has come to reveal.  In verse 28, Jesus delivers to them another one of his hard sayings:  “And I give them life everlasting: and they shall not perish for ever. And no man shall pluck them out of my hand.”  Says who?? Did Jesus just claim here that he is able to give life everlasting?  Yes, He did.  But isn’t this gift reserved for God ALONE to give?  Not only that, Jesus claims that no man shall pluck them [the elect] out of his hand.  Hand in biblical parlance is used to mean power which saves the just and judges evil men (see Exodus 6:1, 7:5, 9:3, 13:3 etc.).  Jesus can give everlasting life because he has the power to accomplish what he wills.  In verse 29, Jesus clarifies from whom He receives all that He has:  “That which my Father has given me is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father.” Notice the shift in the words “out of my [Jesus’] hand” in verse 28 to “out of the hand of my Father” in verse 29.  It is the same hand [power] of Jesus and the Father which gives life everlasting.  Jesus receives this power from the Father as the Son is said to receive all that the Father is [His nature].  In order to avoid any misgivings about Jesus receiving power from the Father that Jesus’ power is something delegated and not inherent, Jesus emphasizes in the verse 30:  “I and the Father are one.”  There is no escaping here that Jesus intended to drive home to his hearers his claim to divinity.  The Jews got this perfectly but they could not accept this astounding truth and for them this is blasphemy so they “took up stones to stone him” (John 10:31).  Had the Jews misunderstood Jesus then Jesus would have corrected them as He did in other occasions (Matthew 16:5-12; John 3:3-8; John 11:11-14).  In the succeeding verse, Jesus defended his words and gave reasons why we should accept his words at face value even if it cannot be fathomed by our finite understanding.

The quote in John 17:11, 21-22 where Jesus said “they may be one, as we also are” is not in anyway denying his substantial unity with the Father nor does it make us united substantially to the Trinity.  Our unity with one another and to God is only analogical to the unity within the Blessed Trinity.  The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in power and therefore essence.  This can be proven in Jesus great commissioning of his disciples: “Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Mat 28:19).  Name here means power and authority as evident when we also read other passages of Scriptures (Mark 16:17; Acts 3:6; 4:7).  Notice the use of the singular “name” and not the plural “names.”  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit equally and wholly share this one name.  Furthermore, when speaking of God, His name also refers to His essence (Exodus 3:14).  What the passage from John 17:11, 21-22 simply mean is that the essential unity of Jesus and the Father is the vital principle of our unity with one another and with God. Jesus’ disciples are not united by any human affinity but by the grace of God.  They are united with one another in so far as they abide in Jesus and not by anything else. Once more, the INC fails to make the proper distinctions for whatever reasons.

INC objection:  In John 20:28 in which the Apostle Thomas said “My Lord and my God” we are sure that Jesus is not the God referred to here but the Father because if we read back to verse 17, we will notice that in this verse Jesus acknowledged who his God is.  He says:  “I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God.” The God of Jesus is the Father. Therefore, Jesus is not God.   


In my opinion John 20:28 can stand by itself without any further explanation.  Instead of confronting the direct meaning of the verse the INC evades it by jumping back to verse 17.  Before I address verse 17, let us first turn our attention to verse 28 and the immediate verse which precedes and follows it.  In verse 27, Jesus rebukes Thomas for his lack of faith and gave him proof of his resurrection saying, “Put in your finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing.”  Having no room to doubt, Thomas believes and makes his profession of faith to the risen Christ in verse 28: “Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God.” Then in verse 29, Jesus confirms this profession of faith saying:  “Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.”  It is truly amazing how one can miss the plain and simple meaning of this statement.  Jesus is Thomas’ Lord and God. Thomas saw Jesus in his risen humanity yet professed belief in Jesus’ divinity.  The verse does not say “Thomas answered and said to them” but “to him.” These words were addressed to Jesus and to no other. In dealing with John 20:28, the INC out rightly abandons their oft-repeated dictum not to add or subtract anything from the Bible.  For the INC when Thomas says to Jesus “My Lord and my God” Jesus is only Thomas’ Lord but not his God.  Let us keep in mind this line reasoning of the INC as this will come in handy in shutting up their back door exit. 

In an attempt to escape being trapped in a self-willed denial of verse 28 the INC harps back to verse 17.  They will assert that when Jesus said “I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God” he therefore acknowledges the Father to be his God and therefore Jesus is not God.  But wait a minute, did they not just tell us that when Thomas said to Jesus “my Lord and my God” that Jesus is only Thomas Lord but not his God and that Thomas was referring to two different persons [Jesus as his Lord and God as (well guess what?) his God]?  How then could they suffer from exegetical amnesia when it comes to verse 17 in which Jesus said “My Father… and my God” and tell us that in here Jesus is speaking about the same person who is his Father and at the same time his God?  The fact that Jesus addresses the Father as God is not in anyway a denial of his own divinity in the same way that the fact that the Father addresses his Son as God is a denial of Father’s divinity.  This will bring us to the answer to the next objection.

INC objection:  If in Hebrews 1:8 the Father acknowledges the Son as God, then it will come out that there will be a contradiction in God’s word since He has already declared “Have not I the Lord, and there is no God else besides me? A just God and a saviour, there is none besides me” (Isaiah 45:21).  He, in fact, repeated this twice in this particular passage.  That is why the correct translation in order to eliminate this contradiction is James Moffatt’s which reads: “But unto the Son, He saith ‘God is thy throne…’”

In an attempt to explain away Hebrews 1:8 the INC presumes to create a contradiction in God’s word but in reality the contradiction exists only in their mind and not in the word of God.  In order to understand why the INC avoids this particular verse, let’s read what it says:  “But to the Son: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of your kingdom” (Douay Rheims);  “But unto the Son he saith; Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:  a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom” (KJV); “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne O God is for ever and ever; and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom” (NRSV); “but of the Son:  ‘Your Throne, O God, stands forever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom” (NAB).  In this passage of scriptures it is clearer than the noonday sun that the Father addresses his Son as God!  If this verse stands then the Catholic Church teaching on the divinity of Christ stands and all INC members should rush to the feet of Jesus in repentance for the sin of blasphemy!

Where the INC finds an alleged contradiction between the above rendering of Hebrews 1:8 and Isaiah 45:21 the Catholic finds that this can harmoniously be reconciled with the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity.  Since the doctrine of the Trinity states that each of the three divine persons is wholly, entirely and truly God then the fact that Father address his Son as God in Hebrews 1:8 presents no difficulty.  And since the doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the Son is not another God besides the Father but as Jesus Himself teaches that He and the Father are one (John 10:30) then it does not contradict Isaiah 45:21.  Furthermore, when we read in context Isaiah 45:21, God was reproving the people for worshipping idols:  “Assemble yourselves, and come, and draw near together, you that are saved of the Gentiles: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven work, and pray to a god that cannot save” (Isaiah 45:20).  It is in the context of condemning idolatry that God reminds the people that there is no God besides him.  In verse 22, God said, “Be converted to me, and you shall be saved, all you ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is no other.”  The God of spoke in the Old Testament appeared in the New Testament and bears the name of Jesus:  “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13).  I wish the INC will not stop at Isaiah 45:21 but will continue reading up to verse 24 where God said:  “For every knee shall be bowed to me, and every tongue shall swear.”  Upon reading this Philippians 2:10-11 easily comes to mind which says: “That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.”

In a desperate effort to salvage their position, the INC clings to the translation of James Moffatt: “But unto the Son, He saith ‘God is thy throne…’”  This is another glaring example of INC’s selectiveness in using a bible version that will best suite their purpose.  This will give us an idea that the INC is not interested in knowing the truth but in only defending their position at all cost and in whatever means.  This translation by Moffatt is at least doubtful if not badly inaccurate for several reasons:  1)Reputable bible versions such as the Douay Rheims, KJV, NRSV, NAB and many others render this particular verse as “Thy Throne, O God.”  2) These particular passage is actually a quotation from the Book of Psalms 45:6 where again in a host of reputable bible versions it is rendered as “Thy Throne, O God.”  3)  If we grant the Moffatt “But unto the Son, He saith ‘God is thy throne’” then this will make the Son greater than God since the one who sits on the throne is unquestionably greater than the throne on which he sits. 4) Ascribing a throne [dominion and authority] to the Son is proper since Jesus is called King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelations 19:16) and only God deserves this title (1 Timothy 6:15).  5)  The Moffatt translation is noted for altering passages which points to the divinity of Christ like in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 by removing the I AM;  In 1 Timothy 3:16 by changing “God was manifest in the flesh” into “He who was manifest in the flesh”; In Matthew 8:2 “worshipped” (KJV) or “adored” (Douay Version) is changed into “knelt.”  6)  In the same context the Son is given divine prerogative:  “And again, when he [Father] brings in the first begotten into the world, he [Father] says: And let all the angels of God adore him [Son]” (Hebrews 1:6).  Here the Father commands all the angels to adore his Son.  If the Son is not God, is the Father commanding us to worship a creature?  Of course for the INC they will teach that God alone is worthy of adoration but since God commands us to adore his Son then we should obey the Father anyway.  This is nothing but what someone calls double-think!

Finally, I would like to exhort all INC members to have an open mind.  Read and learn the arguments of Catholicism from people who are Catholic and who know very well the Catholic faith.  My prayers are for you!

 

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-catholic-answer-to-iglesia-ni-cristo.html

 

 

Iglesia Catolica – Sumasamba Ngaba ng Larawan_Part1

Iglesia Catolica – Sumasamba Ngaba ng Larawan?

Unang Bahagi

(Ni Bro. G-one T. Paisones, CFD/CFLAMP)


1. Introduction:

Magandang araw sa mga kapatid nating bumabasa nito; ang paksa natin ngayon ay hingil sa mga larawan o rebulto na nasa simbahan ng mga Katoliko.  Dito sa Pilipinas ang isa na mga paghatak ng mga ministro at pastor ng mga protestante at ibang sekta ay unang nakatoon sa pang-aalipusta nila sa mga larawan at rebolto na matatagpuan sa simbahan at bahay ng mga Katoliko; ito ang pinaka unang sentro na topiko sa kanilang Bible study upang mahatak nila ang kanilang mga tagapakinig na Katoliko pagkatapos na itoy mapalapit na sa kanila.

Ang ibig kung sabihin ay ang unang hakbang ng mga pastor ay kakaibiganin at ipapakita na Masaya ang kanilang grupo; pagkatapos ay naka sentro na ang topic sa larawan; para mahatak ang mga ito na umanib sa kanilang sekta.

Para po sa mga Katolikong bumabasa; narito po ang detalyado at step-by-step na proseso at sagot sa mga aligasyon; tanong at pangungutya ng mga Kapatid nating mga protestante; hinggil sa mga imahe o larawan sa ating simbahan.


2. MGA TANONG NG PROTESTANTE AT SAGOT NG Catholic Faith Defender (CFD):

(Note: Ang Pula ay katwiran at tanong ng mga protestante; at ang Berdi ay ang sagot logical at biblical ng mga Catholic Faith Defenders)

2.1: Bawal ang mga larawan ayon sa Sampong Utos ng Dios:

Protestante:

“-Ayon sa Exo. 20:4-5 (Magandang Balita Biblia) “Huwag kayong magkakaroon ng diyus-diyusan o kaya’y larawan o rebulto ng anumang nilalang na nasa himpapawid; nasa lupa o nasa tubig. Huwag kayong yuyukod o maglilingkod sa alinman sa mga diyus-diyusang iyan sapagkat akong si Yahweh ay mapanibughuin. Parurusahan ko ang lahat ng aayaw sa akin pati ang kanilang mga anak hanggang sa ikaapat na salinlahi.

Nakita na ninyo mga kapatid na isa sa sampong utos ng Dios ay ang Hindi pagkakaroon ng mga larawan; eh sumunod ba ang mga Katoliko ditto??? Abay; napakalinaw at pagkalaki-laki ng kanilang larawan na makikita sa Katolikong simbahan.

At dahil isa ito sa mga sampung utos ng Dios; abay binagu ng mga Paring Katoliko ang kanilang sampung utos.  Narito po ang ebedinsya na nagpapatunay na binago ng mga Katoliko ang sampung utos upang mapagtakpan ang kanilang aral hingil sa larawan:

Source: Armed with the Faith; 2004; Catholic Information Services; Knights of Columbus Supreme Council; New Haven, CT:

Ten Commandments:

1. I am the Lord your God: you shall not have strange gods before me.

2. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

3. Remember to keep holy the Lord’s Day.

4. Honor your father and your mother

5. You shall not kill

6. You shall not commit adultery

7. You shall not steal

8. You shall not bear false wetness against your neighbor

9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.

10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.


Nakita napo ninyo na binago ng Katoliko ang kanilang sampong utos para mapagtakpan ang kanilang maling aral hingil sa imahe o mga larawan.  Ang tanong saan mababasa sa Biblia na dapat sambahin ang mga larawan?


SAGOT #1

-Ang karaniwang kamalian ng mga kapatid nating mga protestante ay ang pagtatanong na may kasamang conclusion – ito po ay tinatawag na Fallacy of Assumption.  Sa tanong sa itaas na “saan mababasa sa Biblia na dapat sambahin ang mga larawan?” ay isa sa mga halimbawa ng Fallacy of Assumption”.  Dapat linawin natin na HINDI DOCTRINA NG SIMBAHANG KATOLIKO ANG PAGSAMBA (BILANG DIOS) SA MGA IMAHE O LARAWAN; narito po ang mga ebedensya:

Denzinger; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; Documents of the Roman Pontiffs and of the Councils; Council of Nicea II   787; Ecumenical VII (against the Iconoclasts)

Definition of the Sacred Images and Tradition *; ACTION VII

302      (I.  Definition) . . . We, continuing in the regal path, and following the divinely inspired teaching of our Holy Fathers, and the tradition of the Catholic Church, for we know that this is of the Holy Spirit who certainly dwells in it, define in all certitude and diligence that as the figure of the honored and life-giving Cross, so the venerable and holy images, the ones from tinted materials and from marble as those from other material, must be suitably placed in the holy churches of God, both on sacred vessels and vestments, and on the walls and on the altars, at home and on the streets, namely such images of our Lord Jesus Christ, God and Savior, and of our undefiled lady, or holy Mother of God, and of the honorable angels, and, at the same time, of all the saints and of holy men.  For, how much more frequently through the imaginal formation they are seen, so much more quickly are those who contemplate these, raised to the memory and desire of the originals of these, to kiss and to render honorable veneration to them, not however, to grant true latria according to our faith, which is proper to divine nature alone; but just as to the figure of the revered and life-giving Cross and to the holy gospels, and to the other sacred monuments, let an oblation of incense and lights be made to give honor to these as was the pious custom with the ancients.  “For the honor of the image passes to the original”; * and he who shows reverence to the image, shows reverence to the substance of Him depicted in it. <emphasize added>

– Harmony Media, Inc.; 1995; P.O. Box 138; Gervais, OR 97026; Church History; “St.  John Damascene (c. 675-749), monk and priest, was the great doctor of the Church of the period.  His “Three Discourses On images” made the points that: (1) though God cannot be represented by an image, Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and the saints could be depicted with approximate fidelity; (2) it is licit to revere images, provided that the veneration transcends the material icon to the prototype; (3) it is profitable to revere images, which can instruct, inspire, and exercise a certain intercession with God; and (4) that to avoid error one ought to distinguish between strict worship paid to God alone, and veneration of a person or thing as related to God

-Fr. M. Guzman; Catholic Catechism; 1995: #563 “It is right to show respect to the statues and pictures of Christ and of the saints, just as it is right to show respect to the images of those whom we honor or love on earth.”

Fr. M. Guzman; Catholic Catechism; 1995: #564 “We honor Christ and the saints when we pray before the crucifix, relics and sacred images because we honor the persons they represent; we adore Christ and venerate the saints.”

Fr. M. Guzman; Catholic Catechism; 1995: #565 “We do not pray to the crucifix or to the images and relics of the saints, but to the persons they represent.”

Atty. Teofilo Tumulak; Dili Ang Tanan; 1985; Page 113 <With Imprimatur> “Hinoon ang idolatry (Exodo 20:3) nagapadayon, apan dili sabton nga ang mga Katolico nakasupak niini kay ang pag-ampo nila sa gilarawanan dili man ingon nga Dios.”  (Datapuwat ang idolatry (Exo. 20:3)ay nagpapatuloy; peru hindi ibig sabihin na ang mga Katolico ay nakalabag nito dahil sa pagdadasal nila sa nilalarawan ng imahe (ng mga Santo) ay hindi bilang isang Dios.)<emphasize added>

Napatunayan napo natin na hindi sinasamba ng mga Katoiko ang mga larawan bilang Dios; kaya mali po ang tanong ng ating mga kapatid na protestante.  Kung gayon tayo bang mga Katoliko ay hindi sumunod sa utos ng Dios sa Exo. 20:4-5?  Mga kapatid sumunod po ang Katoliko sa utos na yan; eh kung sumunod ang mga Katoliko sa Exo. 20:4-5; eh bakit may mga larawan o emahi sa kanilang simbahan (marahil yan ang susunod na tanong ng ating mga kaibigan)???

Dapat mo nating malaman na kung tayo ay magbabasa ng Biblia; hindi po natin dapat limitahan ang ating mga pananaw sa mga bagay na inaakala natin na tama.  Tulad nalang sa argumentong ito:

Bawal ang mga imahe (Exo. 20:4-5)

Ang mga Katoliko ay may mga imahe

Therefore; Ang mga imahe ng katoliko ay bawal

Sa itaas ay ang halimbawa ng fallacy of generalization ng mga kapatid nating mga protestante dahil, ang Biblia bagaman ay nakasaad ng mga talata na bawal ang mga emahi; ay may roon ding mga nakasulat na utos ng Dios na pagpagawa ng mga imahi; narito po ang mga ebedinsya:


Exo. 25:1, 18-22 (RSV) “The LORD said to Moses; 8 And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. 19 Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece with the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. 20 The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. 21 And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark; and in the ark you shall put the testimony that I shall give you. 22 There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony, I will speak with you of all that I will give you in commandment for the people of Israel.”

Ano ba ang mga cherubim? Ito po ay mga anghil; at utos ng Dios na magpagawa ng mga statwa ng mga anghil; narito po ang mga ebidensya:

Exo. 25:18-22 (Living Bible) “Then make images of angels, using beaten gold, and place them at the two ends of the lid of the Ark.  They shall be one piece with the mercy place, and shall have wings spread out above the gold lid. Install the lid upon the Ark, and the place within the Ark the tables of stone I shall give you.  And I will meet with you there and talk with you from above the place of mercy between the cherubim; and the Ark will contain the laws of my covenant.  There I will tell you my commandments for the people of Israel.” (Emphasize added)

At saan pa ilalagay ang mga imahi ng mga anghil? Eh ang Biblia po ang ating papasagutin:

2 Cron:3:1; 7-14 (RSV) “3:1Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to David his father, at the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.” “3: 7-14 “So he lined the house with gold–its beams, its thresholds, its walls, and its doors; and he carved cherubim on the walls. And he made the most holy place; its length, corresponding to the breadth of the house, was twenty cubits, and its breadth was twenty cubits; he overlaid it with six hundred talents of fine gold. 9 The weight of the nails was one shekel* to fifty shekels of gold. And he overlaid the upper chambers with gold. In the most holy place he made two cherubim of wood* and overlaid* them with gold. 11 The wings of the cherubim together extended twenty cubits: one wing of the one, of five cubits, touched the wall of the house, and its other wing, of five cubits, touched the wing of the other cherub; 12 and of this cherub, one wing, of five cubits, touched the wall of the house, and the other wing, also of five cubits, was joined to the wing of the first cherub. 13 The wings of these cherubim extended twenty cubits; the cherubim* stood on their feet, facing the nave. 14 And he made the veil of blue and purple and crimson fabrics and fine linen, and worked cherubim on it.

Ano po ang nakalagay sa Biblia??? Sa templo ng Dios ilalagay ang mga imahi ng mga anghil!…

Tingnan po natin kung ano ang nakasaad sa ibang version ng Biblia:

2 Cron. 3:7 (The Living Bible) “All the walls, beam, doors, and the thresholds throughout the Temple were plated with gold, with angels engrave on the walls.”

2 Cron. 3:10 (The Living Bible) “Within the innermost, the Holy of Holies, Solomon placed two sculptured statues of angels, and plated them with gold.”

NAPAKALINAW NA TAYONG MGA KATOLIKO AY SUMUSUNOD LAMANG SA BIBLICAL TEMPLE OF GOD SA OLD TESTAMENT!!!

Eh, sumunod kaya ang mga protestante ditto?????????????????

At tungkol po naman sa paratang na tayong mga Katoliko ay Binago raw po natin ang sampung utos ng Diyos… Abay napakalinaw na talagang walang alam itong mga kapatid nating mga protestante sa Biblia; dahil dalawa po ang nakasaad/version ng sampong utos ng Dios diyan sa Biblia.  Ang isa po ay makikita sa Exo. 20:4-17 at ang isa naman ay makikita sa Deut. 5:6-21; at pakaalaman natin na tayong mga Katoliko ay sumunod sa Deut. 5:6-21 na version.  At dapat rin nating tandaan na ang sampong utos ay walang insaktong talaan ng bilang o numbers kaya may pagkaka-iba ang 10 commandments ng mga protestante; sa Katoliko/Luteranismo version.

Nasagutan po ang tanong at abangan po ang susunod na mga bahagi…….

Salamat pos a inyong pagbasa……  Abangan po ang pangalawang bahagi….

Tanong Galing sa Member ng Iglesia ni Cristo-Manalo

Author: jenny
E-mail : SnowAngel_rHose06@yahoo.com
URL    :
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=124.217.32.154
Comment:
excuse me..tanong ko lang sa mga CATHOLIC mayroon bng nakasulat sa bible na IGLESIA KATOLIKA APOSTOLIKA ROMANA??if meron den i will convert to your religion, tska patunayan nyong hindi bawal kumain ng dugo,hindi bawal ang pagsamba sa mga diyos diyosan,bawal na pag aasawa ng pari, hindi bawal ang fiesta,,,and for the information of all,kea lang naman po kayo nang uusig is that nabubulgar na ang mga maling aral niyo,,and thank God,,kasi tama ang nakasulat sa bible,na kung pinag uusig ang panginoong Hesukristo kami man din,,so,makinig muna kayo ng totoong aral bago kayo mang usig,,kayo din!!!para sa kaalaman din ng iba wala kaming nilalabag sa mga utos ng Diyos,,if meron po kayong mapatunayan na meron kameng nilalabag den ipagsigawan niyo sa buong madla,,but for sure wala naman kayong mapapatunayan..dats ol..hope na magliwanag ang inyong nabubulagang puso..

———————————–

-SINAGUTAN NILA:

Bro. G-one T. Paisones

Bro. Noel D. Paisones Sr.

Dear Jenny,

Sa hindi pa natin sasagutin ang tanong mo ay dapat nating malaman na si Cristo lang ang nagtatag ng Kanyang iglisya (Mat. 16:18); itoy naitatag N’ya sa kanyang kapanahonan ( Mat. 18:17); itoy Kanyang katawan (Col.1:18); Sya ang manliligtas ng iglisya (Efe 5:23); ito’y itinayo nya sa saligan ng mga apostol (Efe 2:20); itoy sasamahan Nya hanggang sa katapusan ng sanlibutan (Mat. 28:20) at bibigyan Nya ito ng patnubay(Juan. 14:16-17) at ang patnubay, ang Espiritu Santo na magtuturo sa iglisya ng lahat ng bagay at magpapaalala ng lahat ng sinabi ni Cristo (Juan. 14:26)

Ang tunay na iglisyang itinatag ni Cristo ay magpasahanggang sa ngayon ay narito pa at hindi ito kalian man tatalikod at mawawalang parang bula (Mat. 16:18) (Mat. 28:20) (Juan. 14:16-17,26)

Sa kapanahunan natin ngayon may mahigit na sa 33000 kristianong denomenasyon (sekta); at lahat nag-aangkin na sila raw ang totoong iglisyang itinatag ni Cristo. Sa 33000 sekta isa lang ang tunay na iglisiang Itinatag ni Cristo. Ang tunay na iglesya:

-Si Cristo ang nagtatag

-Naitatag ni Cristo ang kanyang iglisya sa kanyang kapanahonan

-Hindi ito madadaig ng Kamatayan

-Sa mga panahon ng mga Apostol hanggang sa ngayon ay existed itong Kanyang iglesya

-Ang iglisyang ito ay can trace back its origin to the apostles.

Ang iglisyang that can trace back its origin to the apostles ay ang Roman Catholic Church (Pasugo Magazine –April 1965- page 41) (The World book Encyclopedia-1986 page 580) (The World Alamanac & Book of Facts-1966 page 501).

Ang Pasugo pa mismo ang nag patunay na ang Roman Catholic Church ay ang isa at tanging makapagpabalik ng dugtong nito sa mga apostol. Narito ang kanilang pahayag “So we don’t question the claim of the Catholic Apologist, that the Catholic Church alone could trace back its origin to the apostles” -à itoy inilathala ni Brod. C. P. Sandoval sa Pasugo Magazine –April 1965- page 41.

Ø SASAGUTIN PO NATIN PONTO-4-PUNTO ANG MGA TANONG MO

Tanong #1: Mayroon bang nakasulat sa bible na Iglisya Katolika Apostolica Romana?

àSagot po natin ay mayroon pong mababasa sa Biblia na Iglisya Katolika Apostolica Romana.

Mababasa natin ang Iglesia (Church) (ἐκκλησία): Mat. 16:18 “18} And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (KJV).

Mababasa natin ang Katolika (Catholic) (καθ’ ὅλης): James 1:1 “Catholic Epistles of St. James the Apostles” (Douay Rheims Version).

Mababasa natin ang Apostolica (Apostolic): Mat.10:39 “Apostolic discourse” (Jerusalem Bible); Act. 1:25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs (TNIV).

Mababasa natin ang Romana (Roman): Rom. 1:1 “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans” (KJV)

Kapatid na Jenny baka isipin mo na ang word na Catholic ay mababasa lamang sa Catholic Bible; narito po ang karagdagang ebedinsya sa na mababasa talaga ang word na Catholic sa Bible:

Catholic or General Epistles (Introduction of the Greek New Testament –Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft- Page 48)

Catholic Epistles- A term applied to the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude. It goes back to the early church father, but how it arose is unknown. The most commonly accepted explanation is that these epistles were addressed, not to individual churches or persons but to a number to the church at large, i.e., the universal church (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible, Page 108)

Kapatid na Jenny kung gusto mo ay sa isang citas lang sa biblia natin babasahin ang na Iglisya Katolika Apostolica Romana; ang sagot parin natin ay MAYROON MABABASA at MAIINTINDIHAN.

The Jerusalem Bible: ROMANS “The letter of Paul to the Church in Rome” Chapter 1, Verse 7-8 “ To you all, then, who are God’s beloved in Rome, called to be saints, may God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ send grace and peace. First I thank my God through Jesus spoken of all over the world.”

The Greek New Testament: Roma 1:8 Πρῶτον μὲν εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν ὅτι πίστις ὑμῶν καταγγέλλεται ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ,

Roma 1:8 ………………………he pistis humon KATAggelletai en holo to kosmo,

Novum Testamentum Latine : Roma 1:7-8 7omnibus qui sunt Romae dilectis Dei vocatis sanctis gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro et Domino Iesu Christo 8primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Iesum Christum pro omnibus vobis quia fides vestra adnuntiatur in universo mundo.

à dito ating makikita na ang Iglisya sa Roma ang may maramin bunga at narinig ang pananampalataya nito sa buong (Universal or catholic) mundo. At mapapansin sa itaas na sa Roma 1:1,6-8 mababasa at maiintindihan natin na may nabangkit na Iglesia, Roma, Universa or Catholic (Paki tingnan sa ibaba ang masusing explanation) at itoy Apostolica dahil si San Pablo ang sumulat nito sa Roma, at si San Pablo ay Apostol.

CATHOLIC-universal (Webster’s II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary, Page 45)

CATHOLIC-members of the Universal or Catholic Church (Webster’s New School & Office Dictionary, Page 142)

CATHOLIC-or Universal (Introduction to the Catholic Epistles of James, Douay Rheims Version)

Luke 4:14 (Novum Testamentum Latine) –UNIVERSAM

Luke 4 :14 (Novum Testamentum Graece) –kaq olhV (KATHOLIS)

1 Cor. 14:23 (Novum Testamentum Latine) 23si ergo conveniat universa ecclesia in unum et omnes linguis loquantur intrent autem idiotae aut infideles nonne dicent quod insanities.

Gawa 9:31 ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ 9:31 Greek NT: WH / NA27 / UBS4 with Concordance
μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχεν εἰρήνην οἰκοδομουμένη καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύνετο.

Gawa 9:31 Mababasa natin sa Grego ang EKKLESIA KATHOLIS (ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης) – which correspond to Catholic Church.

Liban sa Biblia ang KASAYSAYAN ay nag papatunay rin na ang Roman Catholic Church ay ang iglesyang itinatag ni Cristo-Jesus. Dapat malaman ng ating mga giliw na mga kapatid na mga non-catholic na ang HISTORY-is the study of the past particularly the written record of the human race, but more generally including SCIENTIFIC and ARCHAELOGICAL discoveries about the past. At ang Bible mismo ay isang HISTORICAL Books.

More than 1900 years ago, Jesus Christ the Son of God, come upon earth to save mankind. After His atoning death on the cross He rose glorious and immortal. Before leaving this world to go to the Father, our Lord founded the Catholic Church and gave to that church the command to “teach all nations” (The Old World and America by Furlong-Page 100).

Grollier Encyclopedia –volume V, page 106: “Catholic Church (Gr. Katholikos, universal, general). Term generally applied to the Divine society founded by Jesus Christ, and endowed by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.”

The New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (International Edition): Page 155: CATHOLIC– of the original Christian Church before the schism between East and West (ORTHODOXY)// of the Roman or western church after this schism and before the Reformation.

Information Almanac 1988 –Page 724: Roman Catholics– Traditionally, by Jesus who named St. Peter the 1st vicar; historically in early Christian proselytizing and the conversion of imperial Rome in the 4th century.

International Encyclopedia Volume 15,Page 520: Roman Catholic Church – there are two equally valid definitions of the Catholic Church comparable to the twofold nature of Jesus Christ its founder.

At marami pang ibang mga Standard references na nag papatunay na si Cristo talaga ang founder ng Roman Catholic Church tulad ng:

World Almanac and Book of Facts –1986 Edition- Page 243-

New Book of Knowledge Encyclopedia –Volume 18, Page 287-

-Young Student Encyclo.–Weekly Reader Book- Vol. 18, Page 2021/2121

àNasagot po ang tanong #1

(Image Link: http://globeadventure.blogspot.com/2010/09/dinuguan.html)

#2: Patunayan nyong hindi bawal kumakain ng dugo

Noon ang dugo ay ginagamit ng mga Israylita para sa alay dahil sa kanilang kasalanan kayat itoy ipinagbawal kainin (Leviticus 17:10-11 And whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.)

Kahit na sa panahon ng mga apostolis ang dugo ay ipinagbawal dahil itoy kanilang napanunod sa relihiyong Judaismo ng Kanilang mga magulang (Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.)

Ngunit unti-unti’y namulat o nakita ng mga Apostolis na itong mga PAGKAIN ay walang kaugnayan hinggil sa Kaligtasan bagkus ang nabubuhay sa Grasya ng Dios; “sapagkat ang pag-pasok ng tao sa kaharian ng Diyos ay hindi nababatay sa kinakain at inumin kundi sa pagiging matuwid, pagkakasundo-sundo at kagalakan na pawing kaloob ng Espiritu Santo” (Roma 14:17 Tagalog Popular Version or TPV)

Ipinagtibay ni San Pablo na huwag hamakin ang kumakain ng kahit lamang gulay, at huwag naming hatulan ng kumakain lamang ng gulay ang kumakain ng kahit ano, sapagkat siyay tinanggap ng Diyos. (Roma 14:3 TPV)

Ang prinsipyo na ito ay sinimulan ng panginoon… “Kayo man baga’y wala ring pang-unawa? Tugon ni Jesus. Hindi ba ninyo alam na hindi nakapagpaparumi sa tao ang kinakain nya, sapagkat hindi naman pumapasok iyon sa kanayang puso, kundi sa tiyan at pagkatapos ay idudumi. (Sa pagkasabi nito’y para nang ipinahayag ni Jesus na maaring kanin ang lahat ng pagkain) Marcos 7:18-19

Eze. 39:17-21(KJV) And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, [even] a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood. Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan. } And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD. And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

Leviticus 10:18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy [place:] ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy [place,] as I commanded.

àDito malinaw kapatid na Jenny na ang dugo ay ipapakain.

(Image Link: http://freechristimages.org/biblebooks/Book_of_Exodus.htm)

#3: Hindi bawal ang pagsamba ng dios-diosan?

At tungkol naman sa mga dios-diosan, siguro ang ibig mong sabihin ay ang mga imahe ng mga santo. Ang mga mga imahe ng mga santo ay hindi dios-diosan sapagkat hindi sila kinikilalang Diyos ng mga Katoliko at hindi ito ang doctrina ng santa Iglesia Catolica na mga Dios ang mga ito.

Kung may mga katolikong kumikilala na ang mga imahe ay Dios, sila ay nagkasala na tinatawag ng ADOLATRIA ayon narin sa batas ng Santa Iglesia Catolica.

Ito ang tunay na turo ng Santa Iglesia Catolica hingil sa mga imahen:

“We honor sacred images in order to show our veneration for the person the represent, not to adore them as gods.” (My Catholic Faith, Page 191)

“We do not pray to the crucifix, to the images and relics of the saint but to the person they represent” (Catholic Catechism, Number 565)

Hindi ba malinaw na ang aral ng Santa Iglesia Catolica na ang mga imahe ay hindi sinasamba bilang Diyos.

At ano naman ang pahayag ng mga protestante tungkol sa pagsamba ng dios-diosan:

Idolatry –the worship of false gods (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible, Page 266)

At ano ang sabi ni San Pablo 1 Cor 8:4 “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world”

Siguro sasabihin ng mga ministro ni Manalo at nang ibang protestante na paggawa ng mga imahe ng mga santo ay pagsamba ng mg adios-diosan ay nagkakamali sila.

At kung sasabihin rin ng mga ministro ni Manalo mali ang pag gawa ng mga imahe; ang sagot natin jan ay hindi lahat.

Ang Diyos pa mismo ang nagpagawa ng mga imahe ng mga anghil Ex 25:18-22 “And thou shalt make two cherubims [of] gold, [of] beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. {25:19} And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: [even] of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. {25:20} And the cherubim shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. {25:21} And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. {25:22} And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which [are] upon the ark of the testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

At sa templo pa ng Diyos ipalalagay ang mga banal na imahe 2 Cron 3:1, 7, 10-13(KJV) “Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where [the LORD] appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite. {3:7} He overlaid also the house, the beams, the posts, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and graved cherubims on the walls.10 And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid them with gold. {3:11} And the wings of the cherubims [were] twenty cubits long: one wing [of the one cherub was] five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing [was likewise] five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub. {3:12} And [one] wing of the other cherub [was] five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing [was] five cubits [also,] joining to the wing of the other cherub. {3:13} The wings of these cherubims spread themselves forth twenty cubits:

At ang utos ng Diyos na doon tayo sumamba sa kanya, sa lugar na pinili ng Diyos, ito ay ang kangyang templo na may imahe 2 Cron 7:15-16(KJV) Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer [that is made] in this place. {7:16} For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

Mailinaw na malinaw kapatid na ipinag utos ng Diyos na doon sumamba sa kanyang templo (structural) na may mga imahe (Ex 25:18-22) (2 Cron 3:1, 7, 10-13) (2 Cron 7:15-16)…….sumunod ba kayo rito?

#4: Bawal na pag-aasawa ng mga pari?

Ang aral ng Katoliko tungkol sa Celibacy o ang hindi pag-aasawa ng mga pari alang-alang sa Diyos ay nasa Biblia at turo ito ng Panginoong Jesus.

Ang sabi ni apostol Pablo sa 1 Cor. 7:8, 32-33 (KJV) “{7:8} I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. {7:32} But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: {7:33} But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife.

àAt pakakatandaan natin na si Apostol San Pablo ay Pari-Roma 15:16 (Cebuano Popular Version)

Ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo ay ganito rin ang itinoro sa Mat. 19:12 (KJV) “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it,] let him receive [it.”

àAt pakakatandaan natin na ang Panginoon Jesu-Cristo ay Pari- Heb. 3:1 (Cebuano Popular Version.)

#5: Hindi bawal ang fiesta?

Ang Fiesta – ito po ay otos at toru na mababasa natin sa Biblia

1 Cor 5:8 (KJV) “8} Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth.

Sa katunayan ay namimista ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo taon-taon Luke 22:1, 78 (KJV) “{22:1} Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. {22:2} And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. {22:7} Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. {22:8} And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

Ang Fiesta ng Santa Iglesia Catolica ay ang pagdiriwang at pag-alaala sa mga Santo, kay Santa Maria at mismo sa Dios.

At hindi po totoong kami ay nang-uusig sa Iglesia ni Cristo ni Manalo bagkos ang mga ministro ang nang-uusig sa mga Paring katoliko.

At kapatid kong tongkol naman sa debate ng Iglesia ni Cristo Team VS Catholic Faith Defensers Team, pawing puro makatutuhanan po ang mga isinulat naming.

Kapatid na Jenny hindi po kami bulag, sa katunayan wala ho kaming kahit isang kosing na matatanggap sa mga Pari, gusto lang namin na maiparating ang tamang aral ng Santa Iglesia Catolica.

Kapatid na Jenny wag ho sana kayong maghusga sa amin…Suriin mo ang Docrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica ng taos puso…tiyak ko na gagaya Karin nila…

—-

Tanong Galing sa Member ng Iglesia ni Cristo-Manalo

Author: jenny
E-mail : SnowAngel_rHose06@yahoo.com
URL :
Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=124.217.32.154
Comment:
excuse me..tanong ko lang sa mga CATHOLIC mayroon bng nakasulat sa bible na IGLESIA KATOLIKA APOSTOLIKA ROMANA??if meron den i will convert to your religion, tska patunayan nyong hindi bawal kumain ng dugo,hindi bawal ang pagsamba sa mga diyos diyosan,bawal na pag aasawa ng pari, hindi bawal ang fiesta,,,and for the information of all,kea lang naman po kayo nang uusig is that nabubulgar na ang mga maling aral niyo,,and thank God,,kasi tama ang nakasulat sa bible,na kung pinag uusig ang panginoong Hesukristo kami man din,,so,makinig muna kayo ng totoong aral bago kayo mang usig,,kayo din!!!para sa kaalaman din ng iba wala kaming nilalabag sa mga utos ng Diyos,,if meron po kayong mapatunayan na meron kameng nilalabag den ipagsigawan niyo sa buong madla,,but for sure wala naman kayong mapapatunayan..dats ol..hope na magliwanag ang inyong nabubulagang puso..

-SINAGUTAN NILA:

Bro. G-one T. Paisones

Bro. Noel D. Paisones Sr.

Dear Jenny,

Sa hindi pa natin sasagutin ang tanong mo ay dapat nating malaman na si Cristo lang ang nagtatag ng Kanyang iglisya (Mat. 16:18); itoy naitatag N’ya sa kanyang kapanahonan ( Mat. 18:17); itoy Kanyang katawan (Col.1:18); Sya ang manliligtas ng iglisya (Efe 5:23); ito’y itinayo nya sa saligan ng mga apostol (Efe 2:20); itoy sasamahan Nya hanggang sa katapusan ng sanlibutan (Mat. 28:20) at bibigyan Nya ito ng patnubay(Juan. 14:16-17) at ang patnubay, ang Espiritu Santo na magtuturo sa iglisya ng lahat ng bagay at magpapaalala ng lahat ng sinabi ni Cristo (Juan. 14:26)

Ang tunay na iglisyang itinatag ni Cristo ay magpasahanggang sa ngayon ay narito pa at hindi ito kalian man tatalikod at mawawalang parang bula (Mat. 16:18) (Mat. 28:20) (Juan. 14:16-17,26)

Sa kapanahunan natin ngayon may mahigit na sa 33000 kristianong denomenasyon (sekta); at lahat nag-aangkin na sila raw ang totoong iglisyang itinatag ni Cristo. Sa 33000 sekta isa lang ang tunay na iglisiang Itinatag ni Cristo. Ang tunay na iglesya:

-Si Cristo ang nagtatag

-Naitatag ni Cristo ang kanyang iglisya sa kanyang kapanahonan

-Hindi ito madadaig ng Kamatayan

-Sa mga panahon ng mga Apostol hanggang sa ngayon ay existed itong Kanyang iglesya

-Ang iglisyang ito ay can trace back its origin to the apostles.

Ang iglisyang that can trace back its origin to the apostles ay ang Roman Catholic Church (Pasugo Magazine –April 1965- page 41) (The World book Encyclopedia-1986 page 580) (The World Alamanac & Book of Facts-1966 page 501).

Ang Pasugo pa mismo ang nag patunay na ang Roman Catholic Church ay ang isa at tanging makapagpabalik ng dugtong nito sa mga apostol. Narito ang kanilang pahayag “So we don’t question the claim of the Catholic Apologist, that the Catholic Church alone could trace back its origin to the apostles” –à itoy inilathala ni Brod. C. P. Sandoval sa Pasugo Magazine –April 1965- page 41.

Ø SASAGUTIN PO NATIN PONTO-4-PUNTO ANG MGA TANONG MO


Tanong #1: Mayroon bang nakasulat sa bible na Iglisya Katolika Apostolica Romana?



àSagot po natin ay mayroon pong mababasa sa Biblia na Iglisya Katolika Apostolica Romana.

Mababasa natin ang Iglesia (Church) ( κκλησία): Mat. 16:1818} And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (KJV).

Mababasa natin ang Katolika (Catholic) (καθ’ λης): James 1:1 “Catholic Epistles of St. James the Apostles” (Douay Rheims Version).

Mababasa natin ang Apostolica (Apostolic): Mat.10:39 “Apostolic discourse” (Jerusalem Bible); Act. 1:25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs (TNIV).

Mababasa natin ang Romana (Roman): Rom. 1:1 “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans” (KJV)

Kapatid na Jenny baka isipin mo na ang word na Catholic ay mababasa lamang sa Catholic Bible; narito po ang karagdagang ebedinsya sa na mababasa talaga ang word na Catholic sa Bible:

Catholic or General Epistles (Introduction of the Greek New Testament –Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft- Page 48)

Catholic Epistles– A term applied to the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude. It goes back to the early church father, but how it arose is unknown. The most commonly accepted explanation is that these epistles were addressed, not to individual churches or persons but to a number to the church at large, i.e., the universal church (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible, Page 108)

Kapatid na Jenny kung gusto mo ay sa isang citas lang sa biblia natin babasahin ang na Iglisya Katolika Apostolica Romana; ang sagot parin natin ay MAYROON MABABASA at MAIINTINDIHAN.

The Jerusalem Bible: ROMANS “The letter of Paul to the Church in Rome” Chapter 1, Verse 7-8 “ To you all, then, who are God’s beloved in Rome, called to be saints, may God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ send grace and peace. First I thank my God through Jesus spoken of all over the world.”

The Greek New Testament: Roma 1:8 Πρτον μν εχαριστ τ θε μου δι ησο Χριστο περ πάντων μν τι πίστις μν καταγγέλλεται ν λ τ κόσμ,

Roma 1:8 ………………………he pistis humon KATAggelletai en holo to kosmo,

Novum Testamentum Latine : Roma 1:7-8 7omnibus qui sunt Romae dilectis Dei vocatis sanctis gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro et Domino Iesu Christo 8primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Iesum Christum pro omnibus vobis quia fides vestra adnuntiatur in universo mundo.

à dito ating makikita na ang Iglisya sa Roma ang may maramin bunga at narinig ang pananampalataya nito sa buong (Universal or catholic) mundo. At mapapansin sa itaas na sa Roma 1:1,6-8 mababasa at maiintindihan natin na may nabangkit na Iglesia, Roma, Universa or Catholic (Paki tingnan sa ibaba ang masusing explanation) at itoy Apostolica dahil si San Pablo ang sumulat nito sa Roma, at si San Pablo ay Apostol.

CATHOLIC-universal (Webster’s II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary, Page 45)

CATHOLIC-members of the Universal or Catholic Church (Webster’s New School & Office Dictionary, Page 142)

CATHOLIC-or Universal (Introduction to the Catholic Epistles of James, Douay Rheims Version)

Luke 4:14 (Novum Testamentum Latine) UNIVERSAM

Luke 4 :14 (Novum Testamentum Graece) kaq olhV (KATHOLIS)

1 Cor. 14:23 (Novum Testamentum Latine) 23si ergo conveniat universa ecclesia in unum et omnes linguis loquantur intrent autem idiotae aut infideles nonne dicent quod insanities.

Gawa 9:31 ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ 9:31 Greek NT: WH / NA27 / UBS4 with Concordance
μν ον κκλησία καθ’ λης τς ουδαίας κα Γαλιλαίας κα Σαμαρείας εχεν ερήνην οκοδομουμένη κα πορευομένη τ φόβ το κυρίου κα τ παρακλήσει το γίου πνεύματος πληθύνετο.

Gawa 9:31 Mababasa natin sa Grego ang EKKLESIA KATHOLIS ( κκλησία καθ’ λης) – which correspond to Catholic Church.

Liban sa Biblia ang KASAYSAYAN ay nag papatunay rin na ang Roman Catholic Church ay ang iglesyang itinatag ni Cristo-Jesus. Dapat malaman ng ating mga giliw na mga kapatid na mga non-catholic na ang HISTORY-is the study of the past particularly the written record of the human race, but more generally including SCIENTIFIC and ARCHAELOGICAL discoveries about the past. At ang Bible mismo ay isang HISTORICAL Books.

More than 1900 years ago, Jesus Christ the Son of God, come upon earth to save mankind. After His atoning death on the cross He rose glorious and immortal. Before leaving this world to go to the Father, our Lord founded the Catholic Church and gave to that church the command to “teach all nations” (The Old World and America by Furlong-Page 100).

Grollier Encyclopedia –volume V, page 106: “Catholic Church (Gr. Katholikos, universal, general). Term generally applied to the Divine society founded by Jesus Christ, and endowed by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.”

The New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (International Edition): Page 155: CATHOLIC– of the original Christian Church before the schism between East and West (ORTHODOXY)// of the Roman or western church after this schism and before the Reformation.

Information Almanac 1988 –Page 724: Roman Catholics– Traditionally, by Jesus who named St. Peter the 1st vicar; historically in early Christian proselytizing and the conversion of imperial Rome in the 4th century.

International Encyclopedia Volume 15,Page 520: Roman Catholic Church – there are two equally valid definitions of the Catholic Church comparable to the twofold nature of Jesus Christ its founder.

At marami pang ibang mga Standard references na nag papatunay na si Cristo talaga ang founder ng Roman Catholic Church tulad ng:

World Almanac and Book of Facts –1986 Edition- Page 243-

New Book of Knowledge Encyclopedia –Volume 18, Page 287-

Young Student Encyclo.–Weekly Reader Book- Vol. 18, Page 2021/2121

àNasagot po ang tanong #1


#2: Patunayan nyong hindi bawal kumakain ng dugo


Noon ang dugo ay ginagamit ng mga Israylita para sa alay dahil sa kanilang kasalanan kayat itoy ipinagbawal kainin (Leviticus 17:10-11 And whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.)

Kahit na sa panahon ng mga apostolis ang dugo ay ipinagbawal dahil itoy kanilang napanunod sa relihiyong Judaismo ng Kanilang mga magulang (Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.)

Ngunit unti-unti’y namulat o nakita ng mga Apostolis na itong mga PAGKAIN ay walang kaugnayan hinggil sa Kaligtasan bagkus ang nabubuhay sa Grasya ng Dios; “sapagkat ang pag-pasok ng tao sa kaharian ng Diyos ay hindi nababatay sa kinakain at inumin kundi sa pagiging matuwid, pagkakasundo-sundo at kagalakan na pawing kaloob ng Espiritu Santo” (Roma 14:17 Tagalog Popular Version or TPV)

Ipinagtibay ni San Pablo na huwag hamakin ang kumakain ng kahit lamang gulay, at huwag naming hatulan ng kumakain lamang ng gulay ang kumakain ng kahit ano, sapagkat siyay tinanggap ng Diyos. (Roma 14:3 TPV)

Ang prinsipyo na ito ay sinimulan ng panginoon… “Kayo man baga’y wala ring pang-unawa? Tugon ni Jesus. Hindi ba ninyo alam na hindi nakapagpaparumi sa tao ang kinakain nya, sapagkat hindi naman pumapasok iyon sa kanayang puso, kundi sa tiyan at pagkatapos ay idudumi. (Sa pagkasabi nito’y para nang ipinahayag ni Jesus na maaring kanin ang lahat ng pagkain) Marcos 7:18-19

Eze. 39:17-21(KJV) And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, [even] a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood. Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan. } And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD. And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

Leviticus 10:18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy [place:] ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy [place,] as I commanded.

àDito malinaw kapatid na Jenny na ang dugo ay ipapakain.

#3: Hindi bawal ang pagsamba ng dios-diosan?



At tungkol naman sa mga dios-diosan, siguro ang ibig mong sabihin ay ang mga imahe ng mga santo. Ang mga mga imahe ng mga santo ay hindi dios-diosan sapagkat hindi sila kinikilalang Diyos ng mga Katoliko at hindi ito ang doctrina ng santa Iglesia Catolica na mga Dios ang mga ito.

Kung may mga katolikong kumikilala na ang mga imahe ay Dios, sila ay nagkasala na tinatawag ng ADOLATRIA ayon narin sa batas ng Santa Iglesia Catolica.

Ito ang tunay na turo ng Santa Iglesia Catolica hingil sa mga imahen:

“We honor sacred images in order to show our veneration for the person the represent, not to adore them as gods.” (My Catholic Faith, Page 191)

“We do not pray to the crucifix, to the images and relics of the saint but to the person they represent” (Catholic Catechism, Number 565)

Hindi ba malinaw na ang aral ng Santa Iglesia Catolica na ang mga imahe ay hindi sinasamba bilang Diyos.

At ano naman ang pahayag ng mga protestante tungkol sa pagsamba ng dios-diosan:

Idolatry –the worship of false gods (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible, Page 266)

At ano ang sabi ni San Pablo 1 Cor 8:4 “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world

Siguro sasabihin ng mga ministro ni Manalo at nang ibang protestante na paggawa ng mga imahe ng mga santo ay pagsamba ng mg adios-diosan ay nagkakamali sila.

At kung sasabihin rin ng mga ministro ni Manalo mali ang pag gawa ng mga imahe; ang sagot natin jan ay hindi lahat.

Ang Diyos pa mismo ang nagpagawa ng mga imahe ng mga anghil Ex 25:18-22 “And thou shalt make two cherubims [of] gold, [of] beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. {25:19} And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: [even] of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. {25:20} And the cherubim shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. {25:21} And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. {25:22} And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which [are] upon the ark of the testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

At sa templo pa ng Diyos ipalalagay ang mga banal na imahe 2 Cron 3:1, 7, 10-13(KJV) “Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where [the LORD] appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite. {3:7} He overlaid also the house, the beams, the posts, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and graved cherubims on the walls.10 And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid them with gold. {3:11} And the wings of the cherubims [were] twenty cubits long: one wing [of the one cherub was] five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing [was likewise] five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub. {3:12} And [one] wing of the other cherub [was] five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing [was] five cubits [also,] joining to the wing of the other cherub. {3:13} The wings of these cherubims spread themselves forth twenty cubits:

At ang utos ng Diyos na doon tayo sumamba sa kanya, sa lugar na pinili ng Diyos, ito ay ang kangyang templo na may imahe 2 Cron 7:15-16(KJV) Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer [that is made] in this place. {7:16} For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

Mailinaw na malinaw kapatid na ipinag utos ng Diyos na doon sumamba sa kanyang templo (structural) na may mga imahe (Ex 25:18-22) (2 Cron 3:1, 7, 10-13) (2 Cron 7:15-16)…….sumunod ba kayo rito?


#4: Bawal na pag-aasawa ng mga pari?


Ang aral ng Katoliko tungkol sa Celibacy o ang hindi pag-aasawa ng mga pari alang-alang sa Diyos ay nasa Biblia at turo ito ng Panginoong Jesus.

Ang sabi ni apostol Pablo sa 1 Cor. 7:8, 32-33 (KJV) “{7:8} I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. {7:32} But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: {7:33} But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife.

àAt pakakatandaan natin na si Apostol San Pablo ay Pari-Roma 15:16 (Cebuano Popular Version)

Ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo ay ganito rin ang itinoro sa Mat. 19:12 (KJV) “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it,] let him receive [it.”

àAt pakakatandaan natin na ang Panginoon Jesu-Cristo ay Pari- Heb. 3:1 (Cebuano Popular Version.)

#5: Hindi bawal ang fiesta?

Ang Fiesta – ito po ay otos at toru na mababasa natin sa Biblia

1 Cor 5:8 (KJV) “8} Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth.

Sa katunayan ay namimista ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo taon-taon Luke 22:1, 78 (KJV) “{22:1} Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. {22:2} And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. {22:7} Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. {22:8} And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

Ang Fiesta ng Santa Iglesia Catolica ay ang pagdiriwang at pag-alaala sa mga Santo, kay Santa Maria at mismo sa Dios.

At hindi po totoong kami ay nang-uusig sa Iglesia ni Cristo ni Manalo bagkos ang mga ministro ang nang-uusig sa mga Paring katoliko.

At kapatid kong tongkol naman sa debate ng Iglesia ni Cristo Team VS Catholic Faith Defensers Team, pawing puro makatutuhanan po ang mga isinulat naming.

Kapatid na Jenny hindi po kami bulag, sa katunayan wala ho kaming kahit isang kosing na matatanggap sa mga Pari, gusto lang namin na maiparating ang tamang aral ng Santa Iglesia Catolica.

Kapatid na Jenny wag ho sana kayong maghusga sa amin…Suriin mo ang Docrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica ng taos puso…tiyak ko na gagaya Karin nila…