Things I hate about RELIGION [Sitemap]

View Full Version : Things I hate about RELIGION

DrGerbil

16th Mar '08 Sun, 18:45

KATERIVINCENT

16th Mar '08 Sun, 20:06

kapag nasa loob ka ng simbahan/sambahan, para kang lilipad na sa langit sa sobrang kapormalan at Kabanalan.

Pero...

paglabas mo ng simbahan/sambahan ang galing mong magmura yun bang pwede ka ng gumawa ng sarili mong diksyunaryo ng mga mura.
Daig mo pa ang tambutso ng Bus sa paghithit buga ng sigarilyo mo. daig mo pa ang calculator sa pagbilang ng taya mo sa sugal

Akala mo na ang pagsisimba tuwing linggo ay nakakabawas ng kasalanan mo

Akala mo na ang pagpahid-pahid mo ng panyo sa mga inukit na rebultong yon ay makapagpapagaling sayo, 'tol Germz lang
ang makukuha mo!

Akala mo na ang pag-anib sa samahang kinabibilangan mo ang magdadala sa'yo sa langit

Kada simba mo may time-in time-out ka pa, bakit sumusweldo ka ba? eh sila nga ang umuubos ng kita mo diba?

Akala mo na ang pagbili-bili ng panyo ang makakabless sa iyo. mga 'tol tela lang yun!

Akala mo na hindi ka pwedeng magbasa ng Bibliya kapag wala yung magasin na binibigay ng lider nyo.KAMANGMANGAN!

Akala mo na ang pagpapabinyag ang maghuhugas lahat ng kasalanan mo, KABOBOHAN

ano tinamaan ka ba? mahal ka ng Diyos...
ang oras ay tumatakbo... sana hindi pa huli ang lahat para sayo.

"For God so Loved the world, that He Gave his only Son, That whosoever believes on Him, Shall not Perish but have Eternal Life." John 3:16

yung kabobohan at kamangmangan ay yung nasa simbahan na tinatag lang tao..........i'm sorry ha talaga...not intending to hurt you...

PSALM 127:1--"1 Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it"

1 Tim 3:15--"the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth"

----------------
ikaw try to trace the history of your Church whether it was founded by God...Yes..some of the points there are true...but not all...I'm sorry...

[B]Akala mo na ang pagpahid-pahid mo ng panyo sa mga inukit na rebultong yon ay makapagpapagaling sayo, 'tol Germz lang
ang makukuha mo!

if GOD will channel his healing on things..then who are we say it's wrong..examples...in

Matt. 9:21; Mark 5:28 - the woman with the hemorrhage just sought the hem of Christ's cloak and was cured. This shows that God uses physical things to effect the supernatural.

Acts 19:11-12 - Paul's handkerchiefs healed the sick and those with unclean spirits. This is another example of physical things effecting physical and spiritual cures.

Akala mo na ang pag-anib sa samahang kinabibilangan mo ang magdadala sa'yo sa langit

membership of the CHURCH is necessary for salvation...as an instrument for salvation to guide us in the fullness of truth and give us all means for salvation..

ACTS 13:47--"47 For so the Lord hath commanded us: I have set thee to be the light of the Gentiles: that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth. 48 And the Gentiles hearing it were glad and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to life everlasting believed. 49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout the whole country.

[B]Akala mo na ang pagpapabinyag ang maghuhugas lahat ng kasalanan mo, KABOBOHAN

this is false...scripture is very clear with this..

ACTS 2:38--"be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins."

Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation.

1 Peter 3:21 - Peter expressly writes that “baptism, corresponding to Noah's ark, now saves you; not as a removal of dirt from the body, but for a clear conscience. “ Hence, the verse demonstrates that baptism is salvific (it saves us), and deals with the interior life of the person (purifying the conscience, like Heb. 10:22), and not the external life (removing dirt from the body). Many scholars believe the phrase "not as a removal of dirt from the body" is in reference to the Jewish ceremony of circumcision (but, at a minimum, shows that baptism is not about the exterior, but interior life). Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12), but it, unlike the old circumcision, actually saves us, as Noah and his family were saved by water.

"For God so Loved the world, that He Gave his only Son, That whosoever believes on Him, Shall not Perish but have Eternal Life." John 3:16

yes...BELIEVE in HIM..but believing in JESUS..means not only "FIDES FIDUCIALIS"-trusting faith, but a DOGMATIC FAITH, to believe in all TEACHINGS of CHRIST revealed by HIM through his CHURCH...

Mat 28:19-20

"19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."

LUKE 10:16

"16 He that heareth you heareth me(church): and he that despiseth you(church) despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me"

we are called to be ONE with that ONE BODY the CHURCH

Col 3:15

"15 And let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body: and be ye thankful. "

John 10:16

" And there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

One of the undeniable aspects of unity and oneness in the Bible is the constant warning (especially in the writings of St. Paul) against (and prohibition of) divisions, schism, and sectarianism, either by command, or by counter-example (Matthew 12:25, 16:18, John 10:16, 17:20-23, Acts 4:32, Romans 13:13, 16:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, 3:3-4, 10:17, 11:18-19, 12:12-27, 14:33, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 4:3-6, Philippians 1:27, 2:2-3, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Titus 3:9-10, James 3:16, 2 Peter 2:1). This is clearly no trifling matter. Our Lord even makes unity a means by which the world might believe that the Father sent the Son (John 17:21,23), and prays that it will be as profound as the unity of the Trinity itself (John 17:21-22). St. Paul makes stirring up division a grounds for virtual exclusion from the Christian community (Romans 16:17), and says that divisions (in effect) divide Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13). This has always been one of the strengths of the Catholic position over against Protestantism, and Protestants are themselves increasingly alarmed over what they consider to be a scandalous concurrence between denominationalism and sectarianism, which all agree is condemned in Scripture.

--------------------------
for me the CATHOLIC CHURCH is the true CHURCH founded by CHRIST coz she alone could trace her history back to CHIRST and his aPOSTLEs...therefore given by him the fullness of truth( 1 TIm 3:15, John 16:13) and all means of salvation(acts 13:47).......

even the enemies of the CHURCH attested it"

1) "We cannot question the claims of the Catholic apologists that ONLY the CATHOLIC CHURCH ALONE COULD TRACE IT'S HISTORY TO THE TIMES OF THE APOSTLES.."--Pasugo Magazine Mar-Ap--1965 page 41

2) " Ang Iglesia Katolika sa Pasimula siya ay ang Iglesia ni Kristo.."--Pasugo Magazine Ap 1966, page 46

3)"So down to the big public library I went--and Icommenced to search. I searched through every history of Christian church development I could find. I searched through the sectarian histories and non-sectarian histories, the big encyclopedias and the little encyclopedias. I would have been fooling no one but myself if I shirked any evidences or displayed even the slightest bias.Then finally, after several weeks of intense searching and comparing, I found the blessed unity I was looking for. And I found it where I least expected to find it--in the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH..."--Confession of a Roman Catholic by Rev. Paul Whitcomb page 14

3) """There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul's."--Anglican Historain Lord Thomas Macaulay--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Babbington_Macaulay

TO BE DEEP IN HISTORY IS TO CEASE TO BE A PROTESTANT--john henry newmann:beat:

DrGerbil

16th Mar '08 Sun, 21:01

first things first,

Baptism is not necessary to salvation. bakit?
its your personal relationship with Christ.

tanong ko sayo, un bang magnanakaw sa tabi ni Hesus nung nasa Krus siya eh binyagan? eh di ba nagpakumbaba lang siya kay Hesus at humingi ng tawad? anong sabi sa kanya ni Hesus, "Jesus said to him, 'i promise you that today you will in paradise with me." Luke 23:43

second, hindi talaga mahuhugasan ng tubig sa pagbibinyag ang kasalanan natin. bakit?
"The blood of Jesus, God's Son , purifies us from every sin." 1 John 1:7

well, next about dun sa sinabi kong "Akala mo na ang pag-anib sa samahang kinabibilangan mo ang magdadala sa'yo sa langit" it is not intended for catholics, but tutal tinamaan ka na rin lang, ipapaliwanag ko sayo,

sa panahon ngayon maraming nagsasabi na sila ang simbahang itinatag ni Cristo. sasabihin ko ulit, KABOBOHAN YUN, bakit? ang tunay na simbahang tinatag ni Cristo ay nandun sa mga taong una, Tinanggap si HESUS bilang tagapagligtas at PANGINOON
pangalawa,Yung mga taong umamin sa harapan ng Diyos na siya ay makasalanan Pangatlo,yun mga taong iniwan na ang gawain ng laman. in short ung mga taong na Born Again or Born of God eto ang katotothanan, mapa katoliko ka man, INC, Jehovah, kung nagawa mo yung tatlong nabanggit sa taas, well, kabilang ka na sa simbahang itinatag ni Cristo."To all who received Him, He Gave the right to become children of God-Born Of God John 1:12,13" NIV "Jesus answered, 'I am telling you the truth: no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again. John 3:3"

well ung tungkol naman sa rebulto, base dun sa binigay mong example, tanong ko sayo, BAKIT ANNOINTED BA YUNG REBULTO NYO? well, at least si kapatid na Paul eh na sa kanya si GOD, annointed sya ni GOd nung magpagaling siya. second, BAKIT SI HESUS BA TALAGA YUNG REBULTO NYO? naiintindihan ko kung bakit gumaling yung babaing dinudugo kasi KAY HESUS SIYA MISMO LUMAPIT! sa rebulto ba siya lumapit? di ba hindi? sige, kung mabibigyan mo ako ng atleast isang berso sa bibliya na nagpapakita na may gumaling sa pamamagitan ng rebulto, sige baka sakaling maniwala ako sayo.

ALam mo. tama naman yun sinabi mong ang SIMBAHANG KATOLIKO lang ang makakapagtrace ng history nila. PERO....

bakit kaya kailangang bumili ng indulhensya noon sa paniniwalang ito ang magligligtas sa kanila.

bakit kaya ipinasunog ng mga PARI si Joan of Arc at pagkatapos ng ilang taon ay ginawang santo?

Bakit kaya ipinagbabawal ng SIMBAHANG KATOLIKO noon ang pagbasa ng bibliya?

Alam nyo pasalamat nga dapat kayo kay Martin Luther kasi dahil sa kanya mraming nagbago sa simbahan niyo. baka kung hindi dahil sa kanya, hanggang ngayon bumibili pa rin kayo ng indulhensya para maligtas, baka hanggang ngayon bawal parin kayong magbasa ng BIBLIYA.

kung ganon din lang naman ang history ng church na kinabibilangan ko, mas maganda pa sigurong ibaon ito at wag na itong ungkatin. pero naniniwala naman ako sa learn from your past mistakes,at least marami namang nabago sa simbahang KATOLIKO.

SIYA NGA PO PALA, HINDI AKO INC.

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 00:16

Baptism is not necessary to salvation. bakit?
its your personal relationship with Christ.

tanong ko sayo, un bang magnanakaw sa tabi ni Hesus nung nasa Krus siya eh binyagan? eh di ba nagpakumbaba lang siya kay Hesus at humingi ng tawad? anong sabi sa kanya ni Hesus, "Jesus said to him, 'i promise you that today you will in paradise with me." Luke 23:43

second, hindi talaga mahuhugasan ng tubig sa pagbibinyag ang kasalanan natin. bakit?
"The blood of Jesus, God's Son , purifies us from every sin." 1 John 1:7

this is very unbiblical..i'm sorry..the scripture explictly teaches us the necessity of baptism...

Mk 16:16
"He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned."

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

Many evangelical Protestants like to point out that the thief on the cross next to Jesus wasn't baptised and went to heaven anyway (Lk 23:39-43). From this they then conclude that both baptism, and sacraments in general are unnecessary for salvation.

This is a weak, insubstantial argument from the get-go, because it presupposes a fallacy of wrongly applying the elements of an extraordinary, exceptional situation to ordinary situations (i.e., the routine infant baptism). That's as illegitimate as arguing from the "hard cases" of abortion to unlimited abortion-on-demand. C.S. Lewis said: "the rules of chess are what create chess problems." One doesn't ditch the rules upon discovering a potential or perceived "problem" made possible by the very existence of the rules!

The Catholic Church has always recognized the baptism of desire:

Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

{Vatican II: Constitution on the Church, I, 16; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1257-1261}

In other words, the thief was in this situation. He had the desire for salvation (and, one might say, for baptism), but obviously was in no shape to receive it! But generalizing from this case to everyone is clearly illogical. Furthermore, Paradise in this verse (Lk 23:43) about the thief on the cross (if interpreted literally) is not even referring to heaven, and indeed could not, since Jesus was not yet in heaven on that day ("today . . ."). He was crucified on Friday and didn't rise from the dead until Sunday. In fact, He didn't ascend to heaven until forty days after that (Acts 1:3,9-11; cf. Jn 20:17)!

Between Good Friday and Easter Sunday, He descended into Sheol, or Hades, the place of the dead (both righteous and unrighteous- see Luke 16:19-31) to preach to the captives (righteous dead). We know this from passages such as 1 Pet 3:19-20, 4:6, and Eph 4:8-10 (cf. Rom 10:7, Acts 2:27). So, then, Paradise in Lk 23:43 is referring to Sheol, not heaven. The conclusion is inescapable from cross-scriptural exegesis. E.g., Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (an impeccable and standard Protestant linguistic source) holds to this view, which is not just Catholic belief, but that of conservative Protestants as well (see also the reputable Protestant reference New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., p.935).

When some Protestants claim that baptism isn't necessary at all, they are in clear violation of scriptural injunctions or examples (e.g., Mt 28:19, Col 2:11-12, Jn 4:1-2, Eph 4:5, Acts 10:48, Gal 3:27). All Christians (excepting Quakers and the Salvation Army) have held to the necessity of baptism (if not regenerative baptism). There is no option for the believer on this point, provided he is able to be baptized (which the thief was not). Furthermore, baptism is explicitly tied in with salvation in several passages: Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21 (cf. Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4), Jn 3:5, Acts 22:16, 1 Cor 6:11, Titus 3:5. These constitute proofs for baptismal regeneration, which is held not only by Catholics, but also by Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, Churches of Christ, and Disciples of Christ. It is certainly as necessary for a Christian to be baptized, as it is to "receive Jesus into your heart" (which cannot be found in the Bible in those terms), whether or not it is considered regenerative.

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 00:37

sa panahon ngayon maraming nagsasabi na sila ang simbahang itinatag ni Cristo. sasabihin ko ulit, KABOBOHAN YUN, bakit? ang tunay na simbahang tinatag ni Cristo ay nandun sa mga taong una, Tinanggap si HESUS bilang tagapagligtas at PANGINOON
pangalawa,Yung mga taong umamin sa harapan ng Diyos na siya ay makasalanan Pangatlo,yun mga taong iniwan na ang gawain ng laman. in short ung mga taong na Born Again or Born of God eto ang katotothanan, mapa katoliko ka man, INC, Jehovah, kung nagawa mo yung tatlong nabanggit sa taas, well, kabilang ka na sa simbahang itinatag ni Cristo."To all who received Him, He Gave the right to become children of God-Born Of God John 1:12,13" NIV "Jesus answered, 'I am telling you the truth: no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again. John 3:3"

[FONT="Arial Black"][COLOR="Blue"]i'm sorry again..i think your presumptions are not supported by biblical truths...no where else in the scripture that said that the true church are those people who accepted Christ as LORD and SAVIOUR...as I said He FOUNDED a VISIBLE, HIERARCHICAL, APOSTOLIC CHURCH..not ONLY SPIRITUAL...

The Bible teaches us that the Church is a visible, identifiable institution, which has a verifiable history of unchanging apostolic teaching.

It is true that Catholics believe in an “invisible” Church in some sense: namely the mystical Body of Christ. We hold that all Christians who have been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are part of the Church, however imperfectly. But from this it doesn’t follow that there cannot also be a visible, institutional body of believers whose members can be said to properly belong to Christ’s True Church. When Jesus and Scripture speak of the Church, it is usually in terms that suggest a tangible, specific, active presence in the world and in the community of believers:

Matthew 5:14-16: “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

Matthew 18:15-17: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

1 Timothy 3:15: “. . . the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” (cf. Matt. 16:18)

Some Christians seem to think that the Apostle Paul was a kind of “lone ranger,” not part of any Church but single-handedly (or with the help of a few friends) preaching and spreading the gospel. The Bible, on the other hand, recounts how Paul was subject to the direction and sanction of the institutional Church. He, too (even though he was an apostle, who wrote much of the New Testament), was under authority:

Acts 13:1-4: “Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Mana-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’ Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off. So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia; and from there they sailed to Cyprus.” (cf. 14:26-28)

Acts 15:2-3,22-23,30: “And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoeni'cia and Sama'ria, . . . . Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab'bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter: . . . So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter."

Galatians 1:18-19: “. . . I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.”

Galatians 2:9: “and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas [Peter] and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised…”

A Protestant Might Further Object:

But the words of Jesus Himself suggest that the Church is first and foremost invisible, not bound by denominational structures.

For example, doesn’t His analogy of the sheep and the shepherd (Jn. 10:1-16; cf. 2 Tim. 2:19; 1 Jn. 2:19), who know each other, show that the Church is a mystical, invisible body consisting of the elect and truly saved only?

The One-Minute Apologist Says::

No, because Scripture also describes the unsaved reprobate as “sheep” (Ps. 74:1), refers to “sheep” that have “gone astray” (Ps. 119:176), and applies the description to the nation of Israel (Ezek. 34:2-3,13,23,30), and indeed, all men (Isa. 53:6). The overall biblical theme concerning “sheep” is in the sense that all men, and particularly Israel, are His children. But this doesn’t require an invisible Church or forbid a visible, institutional Church, because the latter is clearly indicated in the Bible.

John Calvin

But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matt. 22:30]. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isa. 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify . . .

(Institutes of the Christian Religion, edited by John T. McNeill; translated by Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, IV, 1, 4; Vol. 2, p. 1016)

------------------

yung John 1:12,13--refers to the Christians being baptized in this VISIBLE INSTITUTION,ONE CHURCH..1 COR 12:13---"13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink."...there is Only One Faith, One Baptism, One LORD, and One Body(church)--Eph 4:4...

papaanu daw tayo naging anak ng DIOS???--in BAPTISM

Gal 3:26-27

"
26 For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus.

27 For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ.

therefore..by baptism we become adopted children of God in connection with John 1:12,13, then we are incorporated in the ONE, VISIBLE, HIERARCHICAL, And APOSTOLIC CHURCH...i think you missed this one...

-------------------

yung....JOHN 3:3..na yun..it refers to BAPTISM...it says about WATER and HOLY SPIRIT...like what happened in the RIVER JORDAN...water and the HOLY SPIRIT..the context of the gospel is clear..that it refers to baptism..

also in TITUS 3:5..the same argument of St. PAuls' letter

"he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,"

John 1:32 - when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus' baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

Acts 8:36 – the eunuch recognizes the necessity of water for his baptism. Water and baptism are never separated in the Scriptures.

Acts 10:47 - Peter says "can anyone forbid water for baptizing these people..?" The Bible always links water and baptism.

Acts 22:16 – Ananias tells Saul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins.” The “washing away” refers to water baptism.
.
Titus 3:5-6 – Paul writes about the “washing of regeneration,” which is “poured out on us” in reference to water baptism. “Washing” (loutron) generally refers to a ritual washing with water

DrGerbil

18th Mar '08 Tue, 00:37

DrGerbil

18th Mar '08 Tue, 00:42

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 00:47

well ung tungkol naman sa rebulto, base dun sa binigay mong example, tanong ko sayo, BAKIT ANNOINTED BA YUNG REBULTO NYO? well, at least si kapatid na Paul eh na sa kanya si GOD, annointed sya ni GOd nung magpagaling siya. second, BAKIT SI HESUS BA TALAGA YUNG REBULTO NYO? naiintindihan ko kung bakit gumaling yung babaing dinudugo kasi KAY HESUS SIYA MISMO LUMAPIT! sa rebulto ba siya lumapit? di ba hindi? sige, kung mabibigyan mo ako ng atleast isang berso sa bibliya na nagpapakita na may gumaling sa pamamagitan ng rebulto, sige baka sakaling maniwala ako sayo.

OK...NUMBERS 21:8-9

"And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live.

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and set it upon the standard: and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he looked unto the serpent of brass, he lived."

God..himself commanded Moses to make that brazen serpent..and anyone who will look at it will be healed from the serpents/vipers bites...that's it..it was mraculous..GOD himself attested that...yes...hindi nga anointed...inanimate objects nga ehhh...but my point is that..if GOD wills that his healing power will from those objects...who are we to say it's wrong..again the example verses that i give you supported that...i didn't question St. Paul or Christ...but my point is who are we to say if God wills it..like in Numbers 21:8-9..ok..??

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 00:58

ALam mo. tama naman yun sinabi mong ang SIMBAHANG KATOLIKO lang ang makakapagtrace ng history nila. PERO....

bakit kaya kailangang bumili ng indulhensya noon sa paniniwalang ito ang magligligtas sa kanila.

thank you for your HONEST ADMISSION..that the Catholic church can trace her history...GOOD...

The so-called selling of indulgences positively did not involve any "selling" -- it involved the granting of the spiritual favor of an indulgence (which is the remission of the debt of temporal punishment for already-forgiven sins) in return for the giving of alms to the Church for the building of Christendom's greatest house of prayer -- St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. One must understand with regard to indulgences that there are always two acts to be fulfilled by the one gaining the in-dulgence: 1) doing the deed (e.g., alms-giving) and 2) saying of some prescribed prayers with proper spiritual dispositions. In the case in point, the first act for gaining the indulgence was "giving alms." If the almsgiver thereafter failed to say the requisite prayers, he would not receive the indulgence because he had failed to fulfill both required acts. The indulgences therefore were not "sold"; the very giving of money was itself the first of two requisite acts for gaining the indulgence in question.

yes there are abuses like in the case of Johan Tetzel...

Martin Luther did indeed exaggerate the monetary aspect of the indulgence, but not according to Church teaching. Even the silly saying about the "coffer" cannot be traced to Tetzel with any certainty. He did teach a version of what the saying conveys, but it was -- again -- not the official teaching of the Church, as is often ignorantly and slanderously implied. The view was not supported by the Papal Bulls of Indulgence, and the pope had not taught this, as Luther falsely charged.

(Background Source: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, S.J., translated by E.M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: 1914-1915, 6 volumes; taken from vol. 1: 342-344)

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) issued a decree that gave Church teaching on indulgences and that provided stringent guidelines to eliminate abuses:

Since the power of granting indulgences was conferred by Christ on the Church (cf. Matt. 16:19, 18:18, John 20:23), and she has even in the earliest times made use of that power divinely given to her, the holy council teaches and commands that the use of indulgences, most salutary to the Christian people and approved by the authority of the holy councils, is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who assert that they are useless or deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.

In granting them, however, it desires that in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church moderation be observed, lest by too great facility ecclesiastical discipline be weakened. But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by any reason of which this excellent name of indulgences be blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished. Other abuses, however, of this kind which have sprung from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from whatever other sources, since by reason of the manifold corruptions in places and provinces where they are committed, they cannot conveniently be prohibited individually, it commands all bishops diligently to make note of, each in his own church, and report them to the next provincial synod" (Sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences).

Abusus non tollit usum - Wrong use does not preclude proper use

Is 61:1
"1 Spiritus Domini super me,
eo quod unxerit Dominus me;
ad annuntiandum mansuetis misit me,
ut mederer contritis corde,
et prædicarem captivis indulgentiam,
et clausis apertionem;"

DrGerbil

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:03

OK...NUMBERS 21:8-9

"And Jehovah said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a standard: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he seeth it, shall live.

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and set it upon the standard: and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he looked unto the serpent of brass, he lived."

God..himself commanded Moses to make that brazen serpent..and anyone who will look at it will be healed from the serpents/vipers bites...that's it..it was mraculous..GOD himself attested that...yes...hindi nga anointed...inanimate objects nga ehhh...but my point is that..if GOD wills that his healing power will from those objects...who are we to say it's wrong..again the example verses that i give you supported that...i didn't question St. Paul or Christ...but my point is who are we to say if God wills it..like in Numbers 21:8-9..ok..??
ok sino nga naman tayo para i-question ang power ni God? di ba?
Pero...

bro tandaan mo, ung verse na pinangalingan nyan galing sa OLD TESTAMENT meaning, wala pa ung mediator nating si HESUS dito sa lupa. so what's my point?

di ba, nung namatay si Hesus sa krus eh napunit na yung veil na naghihiwalay sa Holy of Holies sa mga tao (kung nanood ka the passion of the Christ you should have noticed that.) so anong ibig sabihin nun? ibig sabihin kung dati mga piling tao lang ang pwedeng makalapit sa Diyos at pwedeng kumausap sa kanya, nung mamatay si Christ, nagbago na ang lahat. ngayon pwede na tayong lumapit sa Ama Through JESUS CHRIST. ano punto ko??

ang punto bakit ka pa lalapit sa REBULTO kung Pwede ka nang Lumapit sa DIYOS Through JESUS CHRIST. bakit dun ka pa sa imitation 'bat di ka na dun sa Orig. diba?

DrGerbil

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:11

So what are indulgences all about???

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:14

bakit kaya ipinasunog ng mga PARI si Joan of Arc at pagkatapos ng ilang taon ay ginawang santo?

Joan of Arc was born in France in 1412. A poor, illiterate peasant girl known for her piety, she began hearing "voices" from God at age 13. Five years later she revealed the message of the voices: to deliver France from the control of England, gained by Henry V in the Treaty of Troyes in 1420.

Joan convinced Charles VII (known as the Dauphin), rightful heir to the French crown, to assemble an army and help relieve the city of Orleans, which had resisted the English and been under siege for eight months. With Joan in command, the French army marched on Orleans and ended the siege in eight days. A succession of further victories saw Joan present at Charles's coronation at Rheims in 1429.

Charles, once crowned, became apathetic and opposed Joan's plans for further action, and when she tried to move to relieve the city of Compiegne, she was arrested and, in 1430, sold to the English, who wished to eliminate their staunchest adversary and at the same time discredit the coronation of Charles, owed directly to Joan.

Pierre Cauchon, bishop of Beauvais and strong ally of the English, tricked her into an admission of guilt, and, after a three-month trial, she was convicted of heresy. She was excommunicated and turned over to the state, which on May 30, 1431 had her burned at the stake.

In 1456, after a posthumous trial, Joan was formally rehabilitated by Rome, which canonized her in 1920. This reversal of Cauchon's judgment in no way affects the Church's teaching authority. A lone bishop's determinations of an individual's sanctity or personal revelations does not fall under the Church's charism of infallibility. Joan was condemned by an individual bishop who had a clearly political agenda.

Cauchon's personal corruption says nothing about the universal Church's ability to teach authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. On the positive side, note the relative speed (by fifteenth-century standards) with which she was rehabilitated; keep in mind also that she was burned by the secular power, not by the Church.

Abusus non tollit usum - Wrong use does not preclude proper use

DrGerbil

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:20

So Ibig sabihin CATHOLIC CHURCH dishonors their own Decision?

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:23

ok sino nga naman tayo para i-question ang power ni God? di ba?
Pero...

bro tandaan mo, ung verse na pinangalingan nyan galing sa OLD TESTAMENT meaning, wala pa ung mediator nating si HESUS dito sa lupa. so what's my point?

di ba, nung namatay si Hesus sa krus eh napunit na yung veil na naghihiwalay sa Holy of Holies sa mga tao (kung nanood ka the passion of the Christ you should have noticed that.) so anong ibig sabihin nun? ibig sabihin kung dati mga piling tao lang ang pwedeng makalapit sa Diyos at pwedeng kumausap sa kanya, nung mamatay si Christ, nagbago na ang lahat. ngayon pwede na tayong lumapit sa Ama Through JESUS CHRIST. ano punto ko??

ang punto bakit ka pa lalapit sa REBULTO kung Pwede ka nang Lumapit sa DIYOS Through JESUS CHRIST. bakit dun ka pa sa imitation 'bat di ka na dun sa Orig. diba?

YES you are correct..it was in the OT, but that principle was not revoked by Christ nor any of the apostles..in fact that scenario was used by Christ in parallelism of his death..in John 3:14..anyways...when we are praying in front of an image we are asking naman not to the wood or cement or stone but to the one being represented...wala namang buhay yun ehhh...ok...that's my point also...like giving salute to the flag, but not directle to the cloth but to the one being represented...

Yes tama ka...through Christ our Lord..correct..tnxx..

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:28

Bakit kaya ipinagbabawal ng SIMBAHANG KATOLIKO noon ang pagbasa ng bibliya?

The Bibles which were collected and burned by the Catholic Church in times past -- notably the Wycliff and Tyndale Bibles -- were faulty translations, and therefore, were not the holy Word of God. In other words, the Catholic Church collected and burned those "Bibles" precisely because she does honor the Bible, the true Bible, as the holy Word of God and wants her members to become familiar with its truths. Proof of this is seen in the fact that after those Bibles were collected and burned, they were replaced by accurate editions. There can be no doubt that the Wycliff and Tyndale translations were corrupt and therefore deserving of extinction, for no church has ever attempted to resurrect them. Nor can there be any doubt that the Bibles which replaced them were correct translations, because they have long been honored by both Protestants and Catholics.

hindi ipinagbawal sa mga katoliko ang pagbasa ng biblia bro..

si st. jerome,4th century nagsabi...

"ignorantia scripturae est,gnorantia Christi est"--ignorance of scriptures is ignorance of Christ...--so maglearn at magbasa tayo..yan ang ibig sabihin nun....

DrGerbil

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:29

YES you are correct..it was in the OT, but that principle was not revoked by Christ nor any of the apostles..in fact that scenario was used by Christ in parallelism of his death..in John 3:14..anyways...when we are praying in front of an image we are asking naman not to the wood or cement or stone but to the one being represented...wala namang buhay yun ehhh...ok...that's my point also...like giving salute to the flag, but not directle to the cloth but to the one being represented...

Yes tama ka...through Christ our Lord..correct..tnxx..
very well bro. kung lahat ng KATOLIKO kasing talino mo, kasing lalim ng pagkakaunawa mo. baka hindi na kayo maakusahan ng idolatry.

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:30

Alam nyo pasalamat nga dapat kayo kay Martin Luther kasi dahil sa kanya mraming nagbago sa simbahan niyo. baka kung hindi dahil sa kanya, hanggang ngayon bumibili pa rin kayo ng indulhensya para maligtas, baka hanggang ngayon bawal parin kayong magbasa ng BIBLIYA.

yes..at some points/or aspects like abuses...but not to the point of inventing new doctrines like SOLA SCRIPTURA, SOLA FIDES...etc...which are unscriptural...again the other two points ay sinagot ko na....

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:33

So what are indulgences all about???

The word indulgence (Latin indulgentia, from indulgeo, to be kind or tender) originally meant kindness or favor; in post-classic Latin it came to mean the remission of a tax or debt. In Roman law and in the Vulgate of the Old Testament (Isaiah 61:1) it was used to express release from captivity or punishment. In theological language also the word is sometimes employed in its primary sense to signify the kindness and mercy of God. But in the special sense in which it is here considered, an indulgence is a remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, the guilt of which has been forgiven. Among the equivalent terms used in antiquity were pax, remissio, donatio, condonatio.

An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive. Regarding this definition, the following points are to be noted:

* In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.

from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:37

So Ibig sabihin CATHOLIC CHURCH dishonors their own Decision?

yes..talagang dishonors...talaga namang abuses yun ehh..in fact POPE JOHN PAUL II, asked forgiveness in the Name of the Whole Universal Church...for the abuses of some church leaders and civil authorities done in the days of inquisition...

kahit na personal yung mga kasalanan..he asked forgiveness in the name of the universal church...it does not mean that the church did those things or wills it..NO..he asked for forgiveness dahil mga KATOLIKO din naman yung nagawa nun at KATOLIKO rin ang mga VICTIMA...

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:41

very well bro. kung lahat ng KATOLIKO kasing talino mo, kasing lalim ng pagkakaunawa mo. baka hindi na kayo maakusahan ng idolatry.

talaga namang hindi IDOLATRY yan ehh..it was defined and cleared out by the church..nuon pa..in the COUNCIL of TRENT..ang mga tao lang kasi ang di muintindi...

The twenty-fifth session of the Council of Trent (Dec., 1543) repeats faithfully the principles of Nicaea II:

[The holy Synod commands] that images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God, and other saints are to be held and kept especially in churches, that due honour and reverence (debitum honorem et venerationem) are to be paid to them, not that any divinity or power is thought to be in them for the sake of which they may be worshipped, or that anything can be asked of them, or that any trust may be put in images, as was done by the heathen who put their trust in their idols [Ps. cxxxiv, 15 sqq.], but because the honour shown to them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by kissing, uncovering to, kneeling before images we adore Christ and honour the saints whose likeness they bear (Denzinger, no. 986).

DrGerbil

18th Mar '08 Tue, 01:47

talaga namang hindi IDOLATRY yan ehh..it was defined and cleared out by the church..nuon pa..in the COUNCIL of TRENT..ang mga tao lang kasi ang di muintindi...

bro. di nyo kami pwedeng sisihing mga di nyo kapanampalataya, kasi, iba ang nakikita namin sa mga miyembro ng simbahang katoliko sa itinuturo ng mga lider nyo. so kailangan nyong i-inform ng maigi ung mga miyembro nyo.

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 02:11

the catholic church malpractices the sacrament of baptism. bakit? tanungin kita, si Cristo ba nung bininyagan eh sanggol pa? eh ikaw aware kaba nung bininyagan ka?

alam ko ang isasagot mo. "Kaya nga may sacrament of confirmation eh."
ok lets take that as an answer. pero....

noon ang Panginoong Hesus ay bininyagan, alam nya ang ginagawa nya, He's fully aware of what's happening. eh ang ginagawa kasi ng SIMBAHANG KATOLIKO ngayon pagkapanganak eh binyag kaagad. WHAT'S THE SENSE????

that's not true..na infants baptism is lacking and it needs confirmation..no..confirmation is a sacrament to increase or deepen the gifts of the Holy Spirit given at baptism...

Acts 8:14-17 - the people of Samaria were baptized in Christ, but did not receive the fullness of the Spirit until they were confirmed by the elders. Confirmation is a sacrament that Jesus Christ instituted within His Catholic Church to further strengthen those who have reached adulthood.

Acts 19:5-6 - the people of Ephesus were baptized in Christ, but Paul laid hands on them to seal them with the Holy Spirit. This sealing refers to the sacrament of confirmation.

Eph. 1:13 - Paul writes that the baptized Ephesians were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, in reference to confirmation.

Eph. 4:30 - Paul says the Ephesians were sealed in the Holy Spirit of God, in reference to the sealing of confirmation.

Heb. 6:2 - Paul gives instruction to the Hebrews about the laying on of hands, in reference to confirmation, not ordination. The early Church laid hands upon the confirmand to administer the sacrament of confirmation.

Heb. 6:2 - this verse also refers to the cycle of life and its relationship to the sacraments - baptism, confirmation, death and judgment - which apply to all people.
------------------
now about sa UNCONSCIOUS na INFANT..TRUE..

but GOD's GRACE work out even in the UNCOSCIOUS..di naman kasi needed na conscious sya ehh..like an infant that needs an operation...he need not to be conscious or knows everything para sya ay maoperahan..

the same with baptism...due to the original sin..baptism is a must to remove the filth of original sin...

Psalm 51:5 - I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. We have inherited Adam's sin from the moment of our conception. This is why babies need baptism – to wash away the original sin inherited from Adam and Eve.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came into the world through one man, Adam, and death came through this sin. This sin affects all people, men and women, babies and adults. Through the merits of Jesus Christ, we have the sacrament of baptism to wash away the sin that came through Adam.

John 3:3,5 - unless we are "born again" of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

nan dito yung UNCOSCIOUS...john 3:3.5 refers to baptism nuh??--in verse 8..it says

(Darby) The wind blows where it will, and thou hearest its voice, but knowest not whence it comes and where it goes: thus is every one that is born of the Spirit.

ok??still GOd's spirit can still work ot even if unconscious tayo..

then..bibinyagan..

To the objection that baptism requires faith, our reply is that adults must have faith, but infants receive habitual faith, which is infused into them in the sacrament of regeneration. As to actual faith, they believe on the faith of another; as St. Augustine (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii) beautifully says: "He believes by another, who has sinned by another."

As to the obligation imposed by baptism, the infant is obliged to fulfill them in proportion to its age and capacity, as is the case with all laws. Christ, it is true, prescribed instruction and actual faith for adults as necessary for baptism (Matthew 28; Mark 16), but in His general law on the necessity of the sacrament (John 3) He makes absolutely no restriction as to the subject of baptism; and consequently while infants are included in the law, they can not be required to fulfill conditions that are utterly impossible at their age.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.

The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

---------------------------
ok eto pa, kung ang pagpapabinyag eh nakakapagligtas sa tao. e di sana hindi nalang namatay sa krus si Hesus para sa ating mga kasalanan, sana iniutos nya nalang na binyagan tayong lahat para maligtas. much easier for Him diba?

pero anong ginawa nya, namatay sya sa krus para maligtas tayo. itinigis nya ang kanyang dugo para mahugasan tayo mula sa ating kasalanan. sabi ko nga, all we have to do is repent, accept Him as Lord and Savior and leave all your sins behind. that's all what it takes para maligtas ka.

"The blood of Jesus, God's Son , purifies us from every sin." 1 John 1:7

yes..namatay si Kristo TRUE...the fruit of that redemption is
grace--Rm 3:23, and that grace we can get that and avail that as an ordinary means by the sacrament, in the catholic position...that is why we need the sacrament of baptism..repent yes...repent and be baptized..for the remission of sins(ACTS 2:38)

yes the blood of Jesus...it represents his atonement and redemption-and again the result of that is GRACE which we can avail at BAPTISM...

yes totoo na inutus nya ang lahat para malgtas...Mark 16:16

Mar 16:15 Then he said to them, "As you go into all the world, proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.
Mar 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who doesn't believe will be condemned.

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 02:18

hindi ko na kailangan pang sagutin ung second argument mo, the bible already answered that.

."To all who received Him, He Gave the right to become children of God-Born Of God John 1:12,13" NIV

"Jesus answered, 'I am telling you the truth: no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again. John 3:3"

again..we cannot just take out from the scripture a verse out of context....to all who received...receiving by just believing ONLY..NOPE..again..Mark 16:16..believe and be baptize...becoming the sons/daughters of God..means we recieve Christ in the Baptism..the biblical context is very clear...not just by imagination..i already quote Gal 3:26-27
"Gal 3:26 For all of you are God's children through faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27 Indeed, all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. "

and John 3:3--refers to BAPTISM, the context in chapters 1-4..said that...

John 1:32 - when Jesus was baptized, He was baptized in the water and the Spirit, which descended upon Him in the form of a dove. The Holy Spirit and water are required for baptism. Also, Jesus’ baptism was not the Christian baptism He later instituted. Jesus’ baptism was instead a royal anointing of the Son of David (Jesus) conferred by a Levite (John the Baptist) to reveal Christ to Israel, as it was foreshadowed in 1 Kings 1:39 when the Son of David (Solomon) was anointed by the Levitical priest Zadok. See John 1:31; cf. Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21.

John 3:3,5 - Jesus says, "Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." When Jesus said "water and the Spirit," He was referring to baptism (which requires the use of water, and the work of the Spirit).

John 3:22 - after teaching on baptism, John says Jesus and the disciples did what? They went into Judea where the disciples baptized. Jesus' teaching about being reborn by water and the Spirit is in the context of baptism.

John 4:1 - here is another reference to baptism which naturally flows from Jesus' baptismal teaching in John 3:3-5.

KATERIVINCENT

18th Mar '08 Tue, 02:20

bro. di nyo kami pwedeng sisihing mga di nyo kapanampalataya, kasi, iba ang nakikita namin sa mga miyembro ng simbahang katoliko sa itinuturo ng mga lider nyo. so kailangan nyong i-inform ng maigi ung mga miyembro nyo.

TRUE..pero..their are other individuals..even how hard you explain to them..still won't understand..for me ok lang..basta we did our best to provide the reasonableness of our belief..coz we cannot just conclude that through what we see bro ehh,why? coz we cannot read the mind and heart of individuals...like sa inyo maybe when you pray, or having praise and worship, kasi BORN AGAIN ka...maybe your in-front of a guitar or a band or any instruments..it is unfair for you if I say, you worship that instrument..coz yun yung nakita ko..it is ufair...that why..the COUNCIL of TRENT..confirmed what was the teachings before..since time in memorial that is already the constant teaching of the
Church....sana ma-intindihan ninyu at sa Iba..I pray for that....

GODBLESS

Wolf

18th Mar '08 Tue, 02:35

actually tama un, mali ung mga rebulto na yan sa mga simbahan eh.. kasi pag lumindol.. at nabagsakan ka eh patay ka! :D

seryoso, agree ako kay drgeril parehas kami ng pananaw dyan!
mali nga naman ung pag samaba sa mga rebulto,yan kasi ang kinamulatan mula nung pagkabata mo so, dahil na sanay ka na di mo npapansin ung mali dun! TAMA un ano bang makukuha mo sa paghalik pagpupunas, ng panyo, face towel etc sa mga rebulto? ans: GERMS!

eto example fiesta ng NAZARENO! anong gingawa ng mga loko na yan? nakikipagpatayan ka para lang sa rebulto?
eh kng mag stay ka nalang sa bahay?! safe ka pa! hahahah meron isa dun sa balita nagulongan ung paa nya... di ba nakakatawa lang? kasi ano ba ksi gingawa nya dun?

meron akong kilala na deboto daw sya nun for how many years na! may nagbago ba sa buhay nya? ans: WALA!!!!

meron pa ELshaddai... tama un mali? ans: mali! nagpapatunay lang tlaga na madaming tanga dito sa pilipinas! matakin nyo un pinapayaman lang nila si mike... ika nga kng gusto mong yumaman may tatlong paraan...
gambling lord, drug lord at praise the lord! :D icpin nyo magkano ang panyo dun? panyo na pang utot! este pang uto!

DAting daan? isa din yan!! mukhang tanga un si soriano eh... bakla pa! nakikipag debate eh gusto nya sya lang nagsasalita! hahahah ganon din pamemera alng din ang punto!!

haaay naku ang dami pa.. nkakatamad mag type! :D

cruxrifter

18th Mar '08 Tue, 10:06

mga pre..

from my own interpretation... ndi naman namin sinasamba ung rebulto.. have u ever heard of the word "REPRESENTATION"? we'll let the dictionary define it for you..

representation is something that represents, as: 1. An image or likeness of something.

ung mga rebulto are just mere representations of people/divine beings that has instilled great impacts on the church... REsPECT that way of thinking of the catholics.

on the other side of things, i see also why other religious sects react on how the catholics "worship" the statues since other catholics do it exaggeratedly.

as what WOLF said:
TAMA un ano bang makukuha mo sa paghalik pagpupunas, ng panyo, face towel etc sa mga rebulto? ans: GERMS!

eto example fiesta ng NAZARENO! anong gingawa ng mga loko na yan? nakikipagpatayan ka para lang sa rebulto?

i agree since its not right to those things coz 1st of all, its unsanitary and 2nd, its not necessary. its enough that we pray through it. kulang na nga lang dalhin na sa bahay ung rebulto para lang mahimas2 araw2..

dapat isipin rin ng ibang katoliko na ndi yun tulad sa alladin na paghihimas-himasin mo ay matutupad ung mga wish mo! hehehe

1 thing i also hate bout the statues is that meron pang mga gimmicks like bloody tears para lang makagain benefits from it which is very wrong.. tsk

basta i rest my case.. catholic ako pero there are circumstances that i can say na the catholic church gets out of hand.

DrGerbil

18th Mar '08 Tue, 11:23

mga pre..

from my own interpretation... ndi naman namin sinasamba ung rebulto.. have u ever heard of the word "REPRESENTATION"? we'll let the dictionary define it for you..

representation is something that represents, as: 1. An image or likeness of something.

ung mga rebulto are just mere representations of people/divine beings that has instilled great impacts on the church... REsPECT that way of thinking of the catholics.

on the other side of things, i see also why other religious sects react on how the catholics "worship" the statues since other catholics do it exaggeratedly.

as what WOLF said:

i agree since its not right to those things coz 1st of all, its unsanitary and 2nd, its not necessary. its enough that we pray through it. kulang na nga lang dalhin na sa bahay ung rebulto para lang mahimas2 araw2..

dapat isipin rin ng ibang katoliko na ndi yun tulad sa alladin na paghihimas-himasin mo ay matutupad ung mga wish mo! hehehe

1 thing i also hate bout the statues is that meron pang mga gimmicks like bloody tears para lang makagain benefits from it which is very wrong.. tsk

basta i rest my case.. catholic ako pero there are circumstances that i can say na the catholic church gets out of hand.
kaya nga po sabi ko kay bro.katerivincent

"bro. di nyo kami pwedeng sisihing mga di nyo kapanampalataya, kasi, iba ang nakikita namin sa mga miyembro ng simbahang katoliko sa itinuturo ng mga lider nyo. so kailangan nyong i-inform ng maigi ung mga miyembro nyo."

Catholic church needs to have an extenzive information drive.

DrGerbil

18th Mar '08 Tue, 11:26

babycheche01

18th Mar '08 Tue, 14:22

bro wolf, hinay-hinay lang sa pagsasalita. :giveheart:

angganda naman ng discussion dito...im not catholic po i'm also born again christian but i do respect their belief about the sacred images and i know many catholic devotees needs enlightment..at alam kong ang mga priest ang dapat na magsabi sa mga members kung sumusobra na sila sa paggalang sa mga images coz they are responsible for that..

dapat na maging aware din tayu kung anu yung nakasulat sa bible, God is Jealous, pag sinabi natin yun hindi lang yun basta basta kung ang taong magkasintahan nga kung magselos grabe may makita lang sya na picture sa wallet mo magseselos na agad kahit hindi ka pa nakakapagpaliwanag...the same also with God..i remember this verse 2 Kings 18:3-4..God allows to broke it kasi nga nasobrahan na sa paggalang ganyan din ang nakikita ko ngayun sa ibang mga deboto..kailangan na mayroon din mag-guide sa kanila bibically..

2 Kings 18:3-4 Hezekiah did right in the sight of the Lord... He broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until then the Israelites had burned incense to it; but he called it Nehushtan .The very thing God had Moses make for the people to look upon to be healed, in time became a idol so that it was kept venerated. God used it for a single event but the people kept it as a souvenir.

Wolf

18th Mar '08 Tue, 16:38

bro wolf, hinay-hinay lang sa pagsasalita. :giveheart:

pasensya na carried away lang.. :yipee:

anyway... ang sakin naman eh tama na siguro ung nasa puso mo ang diyos, maypaniniwala at respeto ka, Na diretso dapat sa itaas hindi na dadaan pa sa kng saan-saan like sa panyo-panyo, suarez dvd, nazareno, rebulto, pagbibigay ng pera sa mga namumuno ng simbahan at kng ano ano pa! eh mali yun! ang mganda sigurong gawin lumuhod ka sa kama mo at magdasal, humingi ng tawad etc. mas madaling gawin kesa makipagbakbakan ka pa sa quiapo!!! eh kng matapaktapakan ka dun? PATAY ka! namatay ka nalang di ka pa nkapag hugas ng kasalanan! di po ba?

sharing time:

meron akong napanood sa 24 oras kelan lang medyo bago lang...

Sunog un sa cebu, cebu nga ba yun?! basta sunog kng saan man yun! ganito ang ngyari ung isang deboto na yun tumayo sa harap ng nasusunog na bahay.. at itinaas ang sto.nino!!!
anong point nya dun? para maapula ang apoy? mali po un...
tubig ang kelngan sa sunog hindi rebulto! tama o mali? ans: tama...

kakapagod tlga mag type... cya... :D

babycheche01

19th Mar '08 Wed, 10:41

TRUE..pero..their are other individuals..even how hard you explain to them..still won't understand..for me ok lang..basta we did our best to provide the reasonableness of our belief..coz we cannot just conclude that through what we see bro ehh,why? coz we cannot read the mind and heart of individuals...like sa inyo maybe when you pray, or having praise and worship, kasi BORN AGAIN ka...maybe your in-front of a guitar or a band or any instruments..it is unfair for you if I say, you worship that instrument..coz yun yung nakita ko..it is ufair...that why..the COUNCIL of TRENT..confirmed what was the teachings before..since time in memorial that is already the constant teaching of the
Church....sana ma-intindihan ninyu at sa Iba..I pray for that....

GODBLESS

God bless you too...naintindihan po kita...

kurabo

19th Mar '08 Wed, 11:52

angganda naman ng discussion dito...im not catholic po i'm also born again christian but i do respect their belief about the sacred images and i know many catholic devotees needs enlightment..at alam kong ang mga priest ang dapat na magsabi sa mga members kung sumusobra na sila sa paggalang sa mga images coz they are responsible for that..

dapat na maging aware din tayu kung anu yung nakasulat sa bible, God is Jealous, pag sinabi natin yun hindi lang yun basta basta kung ang taong magkasintahan nga kung magselos grabe may makita lang sya na picture sa wallet mo magseselos na agad kahit hindi ka pa nakakapagpaliwanag...the same also with God..i remember this verse 2 Kings 18:3-4..God allows to broke it kasi nga nasobrahan na sa paggalang ganyan din ang nakikita ko ngayun sa ibang mga deboto..kailangan na mayroon din mag-guide sa kanila bibically..

2 Kings 18:3-4 Hezekiah did right in the sight of the Lord... He broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until then the Israelites had burned incense to it; but he called it Nehushtan .The very thing God had Moses make for the people to look upon to be healed, in time became a idol so that it was kept venerated. God used it for a single event but the people kept it as a souvenir.

agree ako sayo at some point.. actually about naman dun sa mga pari kung pinagsasabihan nila.. palagi nilang pinagsasabihan yun kasi hindi naman yun ang paraan para maipakita mo ang paggalang at pagkilala mo sa diyos eh.. kaso nga may pagkaexaggerated talaga at kahit nga ako siguro mapapaisip akong sinasamba nga nila rebulto.. sila ang nagbibigay ng dahilan para isipin ng ibang tao na sinasamba nga yun.. pero kasi tingin ko dun.. out of desperation na lang kasi yun sa buhay..

pero explain ko lang sa iba about dun sa rebulto.. this time it's all about religion, hindi ako gagamit ng mga verses ng bible para maunawaan ng lahat, at sana kahit dito may makaunawa kahit konti at wala sanang kumontra kasi hindi naman ako nagkikipag debate.. we never worship the image.. kahit anong sabi ng iba na sinasamba nila yung rebulto.. sinasabi lang nila yun base sa nakikita nila at hindi sa nuunawaan nila.. like rin ng pagkakaunawa ng bible ng karamihan sa atin.. maybe this includes me also.. praying in front of images.. it's our way of showing honor and respect to God.. kung hindi man ng iba naunawaan toh.. i felt sorry and pity for them..;)

about naman sa mga traditions like christmas and lenten season and etc.. anong masama kung icelebrate mo ang ang pagkapanganak at pagkamatay ni Jesus.. dahil lang ba sa nabuo ang traditions na ito sa time ng romans which is the time of pagans.. make us evil?.. kung tayo nga nagcecelebrate ng Bday,New Year etc.. celebration pa kaya para kay Cristo.. yung iba sabi wala daw kasi sa bible yun at gawa lang tao yun.. yes gawa ng alang tao yun.. para sa pagalala.. pati lahat na lang ba ng gagawin mo,isusuot mo or kahit utot mo sa bible dapat nakabase..:slap: hindi natin namamalayan na naging sunod sunuran tayo sa mga turo ng kanya kanyang lider natin gamit ang bibliya hanggang parang mawalan na tayo ng desisyon para sa sarili natin

About naman sa bible.. marami talaga nagkakagulo dito.. simula nung nabuo ang bible.. marami na nag nagkagulo.. kaya nga tinawag minsan ang bible na root of all confusions eh.. imagine dahil sa bible ilang kristyanong sekta ang nabuo.. almost 100 thousand.. sa hundred thousand na yun.. lahat sila nagsasabi na sila ang nakakaunawa ng bible at ang tamang daan na to the point sa tingin nilang tama nga ang kani kanilang mga paniniwala.. pati muslim na ibang relihyon na pinatulan pa:slap:..
kanya kanyang paliwanag ng verses.. pero mukhang karamihan alam lang paano basahin pero mukhang hindi naauunawaan ang sole purpose ng bible..

I'm a christian not a catholic, not a born again, not an INC or whatsoever religion.. I'm a christian and i'm proud to be one..

nwei I state my case bahala na kayo jan;):salute:

DrGerbil

19th Mar '08 Wed, 12:32

agree ako sayo at some point.. actually about naman dun sa mga pari kung pinagsasabihan nila.. palagi nilang pinagsasabihan yun kasi hindi naman yun ang paraan para maipakita mo ang paggalang at pagkilala mo sa diyos eh.. kaso nga may pagkaexaggerated talaga at kahit nga ako siguro mapapaisip akong sinasamba nga nila rebulto.. sila ang nagbibigay ng dahilan para isipin ng ibang tao na sinasamba nga yun.. pero kasi tingin ko dun.. out of desperation na lang kasi yun sa buhay..

pero explain ko lang sa iba about dun sa rebulto.. this time it's all about religion, hindi ako gagamit ng mga verses ng bible para maunawaan ng lahat, at sana kahit dito may makaunawa kahit konti at wala sanang kumontra kasi hindi naman ako nagkikipag debate.. we never worship the image.. kahit anong sabi ng iba na sinasamba nila yung rebulto.. sinasabi lang nila yun base sa nakikita nila at hindi sa nuunawaan nila.. like rin ng pagkakaunawa ng bible ng karamihan sa atin.. maybe this includes me also.. praying in front of images.. it's our way of showing honor and respect to God.. kung hindi man ng iba naunawaan toh.. i felt sorry and pity for them..;)

about naman sa mga traditions like christmas and lenten season and etc.. anong masama kung icelebrate mo ang ang pagkapanganak at pagkamatay ni Jesus.. dahil lang ba sa nabuo ang traditions na ito sa time ng romans which is the time of pagans.. make us evil?.. kung tayo nga nagcecelebrate ng Bday,New Year etc.. celebration pa kaya para kay Cristo.. yung iba sabi wala daw kasi sa bible yun at gawa lang tao yun.. yes gawa ng alang tao yun.. para sa pagalala.. pati lahat na lang ba ng gagawin mo,isusuot mo or kahit utot mo sa bible dapat nakabase..:slap: hindi natin namamalayan na naging sunod sunuran tayo sa mga turo ng kanya kanyang lider natin gamit ang bibliya hanggang parang mawalan na tayo ng desisyon para sa sarili natin

About naman sa bible.. marami talaga nagkakagulo dito.. simula nung nabuo ang bible.. marami na nag nagkagulo.. kaya nga tinawag minsan ang bible na root of all confusions eh.. imagine dahil sa bible ilang kristyanong sekta ang nabuo.. almost 100 thousand.. sa hundred thousand na yun.. lahat sila nagsasabi na sila ang nakakaunawa ng bible at ang tamang daan na to the point sa tingin nilang tama nga ang kani kanilang mga paniniwala.. pati muslim na ibang relihyon na pinatulan pa:slap:..
kanya kanyang paliwanag ng verses.. pero mukhang karamihan alam lang paano basahin pero mukhang hindi naauunawaan ang sole purpose ng bible..

I'm a christian not a catholic, not a born again, not an INC or whatsoever religion.. I'm a christian and i'm proud to be one..

nwei I state my case bahala na kayo jan;):salute:
bro. kurabo. yes, you have a point that SOME Christians overuses the bible.
pero i disagree dun sa quotation mo na "bible is the root of all confusion." bro, ang tao lang ang nagpapagulo, hindi ang bibliya. mapanganib magbasa ng bibliya kung wala sa'yo ang Banal na Espiritu, mahirap din ung ganito: "OH! i have a problem, gonna open my bible for some guide." papaano kung mabasa ung verse na "and Judas hang himself"?
tapos buklat ka na naman ulit and nabasa mi naman ung verse na "Go and do the same."
eh di tapos...ang lyf mo.

my point is, diba ang bible was described as "a double edged sword" so better handle it with care. even a great swordsman can cut himself with his own sword if he is not careful enough.

so next time na magbabasa ka ng bible, pray first. ask for the Holy Spirit to guide you.

my other point...

minsan nga we are accusing the catholic church of idolatry not knowing that we ourselves have idols. lilinawin ko lang, hindi lang po rebulto ang idols. maging ang trabaho, computer, pera or maging ang Symbianize pwedeng maging idols. idols, eto ung mga bagay na nakakaagaw ng oras natin para kay GOd.

filbryant

19th Mar '08 Wed, 15:34