Catholic Kath'Holes

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

REFUTATION ON THE FOOLISHNESS OF CHRISTIANACCUSER:

We really don't know if this guy is in the right manner to THINK. neither, we know, if HE HAS A BRAIN. in his comments above, he showed at least eleven verses in the Bible which says the name of the church is "church of God".. is he insane? let us carefully examine his claims:

Act 20:28, 1Co 1:2, 1Co 10:32, 1Co 11:22,1Co 15:9, 2Co 1:1, Gal 1:13, 1Th 2:14, 2Th 1:4, 1Ti 3:5, 1Ti 3:15

All of those verses which ADD use as a proof that theirs is the TRUE Church were invalid evidences to justify that the apostles gave the official name "Church of God" to the true followers of Christ. The said passages merely emphasize that Christian Church is OF GOD. it denotes OWNERSHIP. as a matter of fact, Jesus said,

"You are Peter, upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH" (Matthew 16:18)

The Church which all true christians belong is of God. and it could be testified through the words of the Apostle Paul:

"which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased POSSESSION, unto the praise of his glory" (Ephesians1:14)

hence, no wonder, that the apostle paul keeps on reminding the Christians that they are OF GOD. so that,

"GOD may be all in ALL" (1 Corinthians 15:28)If one would think properly: A man's mistress would often claim to be the latters LEGAL WIFE, on the other hand, the real spouse would NO LONGER CLAIM to be such, because she has all the proof. in the sameway, Why we have to be NAMED, "CHURCH OF GOD" if we are really the true Church? We must not USE GOD'S NAME in order to justify ourselves. consider the following analogy:

1) Mike Arroyo is known to be the "Son of the President", but he need not CLAIM IT OPENLY that he is the Son of the President.

2) If the true Church was officially named by the apostles as "Church of God". then why during old testament era, Jews wasn't officially named as "PEOPLE OF GOD?" they are called "people of God" but the OFFICIAL NAME of the Jewish nation is ISRAEL. Elijah is called "MAN OF GOD" , but his name is "Elijah". The Lord Jesus is called "The Son of God" but his name is "Jesus". The Holy Spirit is called "The Spirit of God" but his name is "Holy Spirit". furthermore, THE BIBLE TESTIFIED THAT THOSE WHO USE THE NAME OF GOD WERE HIS ENEMIES.

"Thine ENEMIES take thy name in vain" (Psalms 139:20)

See? who then between the Catholic Church and Members, Church of God International, who use God's Name???

ChristianACCUSER [The term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church was not familiar to early Christians. It was also never used and mentioned by the apostles in preaching the true congregation established by God. They used the term Church of God]

Is this guy really knows and read the Bible? or was just deceived by PAPA Eli?

Was the term "Catholic" unfamiliar to early Christians? why did the new testament writers used the term "KATH'OLES" ?? kath'oles is the ROOT of the english word CATHOLIC.

LUKE 4:14 " .. Ho Galalaia kai pheme exerchatomai KATH'OLES"

LUKE 8:39 "Apelthen KATH'OLES ten polin..."

LUKE 23:5 "Anaseis ton laos didasko KATH'OLES"

ACTS 9:41 "Gnotos de egeneto KATH'OLES"

ACTS 10:32 "Hemeis oidate ho genomenon rhema KATH'OLES"

ACTS 4:18 "Kai kelasantes autos pareggeilan to KATH'OLOU..."

and the two significant were,ACTS 9:31 "He men oun EKKLESIA KATH'OLES .." - the Church is called "CHURCH THROUGH OUT" in greek, "EKKLESIA KATH'OLES" (KATA + HOLOS = KATHOLIKOS) is MCGI the Church described in this verse?

ROMANS 1:8 " He pistis humon KATAgelettai en HOLO to kosmo" - The Faith of the Christians here is "KATA HOLOS" which means "through out" (Catholic derived from the words KATA + HOLOS) do the faith of MCGI also "kata-holos" ???

CATHOLIC MEANS FOR ALL NATIONS: IS MCGI NOT CATHOLIC OR FOR ALL NATIONS???

Was the term "Apostolic" unfamiliar to early Christians? Let's give a simple lesson on this ACCUSER:

ACTS 1:25 to take over this APOSTOLIC ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs (TNIV).

MATT.10:39 “APOSTOLIC discourse” (Jerusalem Bible)

There is none pala ahh? hehehehe ..

This attempt to disprove the authenticity of the Catholic Church, is too shallow. Not even a grade one pupil would ever hid the argument of this guy. APOSTOLIC came from the word APOSTLE. Why? because the Church is founded on the Apostles:

EPHESIANS 2:20 "And are BUILT UPON the foundation of the Apostles..."

APOSTOLIC MEANS FOUNDED ON THE APOSTLES: IS MCGI APOSTOLIC OR FOUNDED ALSO ON THE APOSTLES?

Was the term "Romans" unfamiliar to early Christians? Then why Paul wrote an epistle to the Romans??

ROMANS 1:8 "Your (roman christians) faith is heralded through out the World"The Faith of the Roman Christians is heralded through out.

Another IGNORANCE OF THIS ACCUSER is that, the CATHOLIC CHURCH does not limit herself with the Church of Rome. The Seat of Authority is in ROME but we also have Churches who does not want to be called "Roman". we have the BYZANTINE CATHOLIC CHURCH,. MARONITE CATHOLIC CHURCH, URKANIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and so forth. However, these Churches were ALL UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IN ROME.

ChristianACCUSER [There are eleven (11) verses in the Bible containing the term Church of God. On the other hand, we cannot read even a single verse; neither apostles nor early Christians used the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church]

In the sameway as THOSE VERSES in the bible never claimed that the official name of the Church is "Church of God" as proven above, these verses only connotes "God's possession"ChristianACCUSER [We can check that with the aid of available digital Bible searchers.]What is silly about this ADD Fanatic is that, he searched the word catholic on KING JAMES VERSION. why not go back to the original? the Bible said

"Thus saith the Lord, stand ye in the ways, and SEE and ASK FOR THE OLD PATH ..." (Jeremiah 6:16)

isnt this is the favorite verse of MCGI?? why did ChristianACCUSER not apply this verse in searching for the Truth? go back to the OLD!! go back to the ORIGINAL!! Catholic is ORIGINALLY "KATH'OLES" .. while the New testament is written ORIGINALLY in "GREEK". so i ask ChristianACCUSER, why not SEARCH "KATH'OLES" ON "GREEK VERSION OF THE BIBLE"? were you afraid to face the truth??another foolishness of yours, is that, the bible in the sameway does not mention the term INTERNATIONAL word for word.

Christian ACCUSER [If their doctrines are truly apostolic, or if they are really obeying the will of God written in the Bible, why didn’t they use the title taught by the apostles which was written eleven times in the scriptures? Instead, they used titles unknown by the Bible.]

Simple Answer, BECAUSE WE OBEY THE WILL OF GOD NOT TO USE HIS NAME IN VAIN (PSALMS 139:20) That is why the official name of our Church does not use the name of God. as proven above, the term CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC IS KNOWN IN THE BIBLE

ACTS 9:31 - CATHOLIC or KATH'OLESACTS 1:25 TNIV - APOSTOLIC

Christian ACCUSER [If we will follow Parabanog’s explanation, it is very clear that the word catholic is not a translation of kata holos but rather a coined word. Having comparisons among other translations of the Bible, we can see that the term “throughout” or “throughout all” is used instead of “universally” or “generally”.Even in Spanish and Latin rendition, it was never translated as catholica nor catholicus as like what Parabanog claims. Thus, the accurate and correct translation for ekklesia kata holos is not Catholic Church but “church through out” or “church through out all”.]

This claim of Christian accuser is a proof of IGNORANCE and attempt to conceal the Truth.. (hanap butas para lang makalusot) well, we wont let you ESCAPE FROM THIS ChristianACCUSER.. there is a common adage which says, "SEEING CONTRADICTION WHEN THERE IS NONE" it is fitted for this guy.

Bro. Parabanog didn't said, CATHOLIC is the DIRECT TRANSLATION OF KATA HOLOS, rather , CATHOLIC was DERIVED from the WORD KATA HOLOS. dont twist the issue idiot!! it is what we call ETYMOLOGY.. meaning, "the study of the history of words and how their form and meaning have changed over time." (wikipedia)

Getting the ORIGIN OF a name is NOT CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE. as a matter of fact, it is even USED by Biblical Characters.

"..They shall call his name EMMANUEL ,WHICH MEANS God is with us" (Matthew 1:23)

TAKING THE MEANING OF A NAME is not WRONG. What is significant is the MEANING OF THE NAME. thus, NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR USING THE TERM CATHOLIC, inasmuch as the MEANING OF THE WORD CATHOLIC IS UNIVERSAL. AND THE CHURCH, BEING UNIVERSAL IS BIBLICAL!!MATTHEW 28:19 "Therefore go and make DISCIPLES OF ALL NATIONS"

The Disciples should be of ALL NATIONS. Catholic means Universal, (Webster’s II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary, Page 45) and Universal means OF ALL NATIONS.

REVELATIONS 5:9 "with your BLOOD you PURCHASED men for God, from EVERY TRIBE AND LANGUAGE AND PEOPLE AND NATION"

THOSE WHO WERE PURCHASED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST CAME UNIVERSALLY!! CATHOLIC MEANS UNIVERSAL!! (Webster’s II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary, Page 45)

AND WE KNOW THAT IT IS THE CHURCH WHO WAS PURCHASED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST (ACTS 20:28) therefore, THE CHURCH is CATHOLIC!! (REVELATIONS 5:9-10)

MY question to Christian ACCUSER, why did he question BRO.PARABANOG FOR USING ETYMOLOGY? WHEREAS, EVEN PAPA ELI SORIANO DO USE ETYMOLOGY? isnt? whenever PAPA ELI would discuss the meaning of Religion, he would explain it as coming from the word "RELIGARE" ??? it is Etymology !!!

CHRISTIAN ACCUSER attempted to disprove the claims of brother Parabanog by making a contradiction with "through out all" and the term "Catholic". (para makalusot) well, NO LINGUIST WOULD EVER ACCEPT THIS CLAIM.What do we mean by Catholic?

CATHOLIC-universal (Webster’s II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary, Page 45)What do we mean by UNIVERSAL?

UNIVERSAL - 1)Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or ALL within the world; WORLDWIDE:

- 5) applicable or occurring THROUGHOUT or relating to the universe;

(Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universal)

See? WHO ARE YOU TO ACCUSE US OF USING THE TERM CATHOLIC? WHEREAS YOUR TERM INTERNATIONAL HAS THE SAME ESSENCE with THE WORD CATHOLIC!!MOREOVER, This guy DESPERATELY ATTEMPT to make a DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TERM" THROUGH OUT ALL" BEING USED IN ACTS 9:31 WITH THE TERM "CATHOLIC" as proven by a NON-BIASED WEBSITE PROVIDED ABOVE. UNIVERSAL ALSO MEANS "THROUGH OUT" ChristianACCUSER gradually SHOWS HOW DESPERATE IS HE.

Christian ACCUSER [In addition to that, it could be an anachronism if we believe that the church is universal during the first century A.D. As the word catholic implies, it could not be applicable during St. Paul’s time. The Catholic Church was not developed until several hundreds years have passed after the New Testament was written. There are countries that were not yet reached by the time St. Luke wrote Acts 9:31. (3) Even in our present time, there are nations that do not have catholic churches still, especially in some parts of the Middle East (4).]

This is a DESPERATE CLAIM. UNIVERSAL means PRESENT EVERYWHERE, however,

base on your undertanding, you are trying to claim that the Catholic Church is not PRESENT IN EVERY PART OF THE SYSTEM. When we say UNIVERSAL, it COULD MEAN "FOR ALL PEOPLE OF EVERY NATION" meaning, EVERY ONE IS INVITED OR WELCOME. AND IT IS BIBLICAL!! (REVELATIONS 5:9-10)

ChristianACCUSER [If the right term for ekklesia kata holos is Catholic Church, why did their authorities not publish versions of the Bible where we can be able to read their coined term? Even Catholic translators did not and may never attempt to translate it to Catholic Church. Although, we know that their church, being wealthy and powerful, is capable of producing billions of versions of the Scriptures where they can correct Acts 9:31. The Catholic Church was also known for burning versions of the Bible to deviate from the Biblical doctrines which are against their personal desires. They even intentionally burned believers who pursued to translate the Bibles in understandable languages]

See WHAT ACCUSATION IS BEING STATED BY THIS LIAR!! Christian ACCUSER by the name "Christian defender" is a CERTIFIED LIAR!!! Catholic could be found in old Editions of Latin Vulgate of Douay-Rheims Version!! (a more ANCIENT TRANSLATION than KJV and Ang Biblia)

JAMES 1:1 “The Catholic Epistle of James the Apostle” (Douay Rheims Version)

ANOTHER ACCUSATION, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NOT GUILTY FOR BURNING VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE TO DEVIATE FROM BIBLICAL DOCTRINES, THE CHURCH HAS NEVER MADE AN ATTEMPT TO TEACH ANYTHING CONTRARY TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. It is also a LIE to say they burned believers who pursued to TRANSLATE BIBLE IN UNDERSTANDABLE LANGUAGES!! FOR YOUR INFORMATION, EVEN BEFORE THE TIME OF REFORMATION MADE BY LUTHER, THERE ARE ALREADY DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE HOLY BIBLE, IT SO HAPPENED DURING THOSE TIMES, GUTTENBURG PRINTING PRESS WAS'NT ESTABLISHED YET!. What Comics you have got this information?

ChristianACCUSER [Thus, the title Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is not Biblical. It is just a mere eisegesis of someone who claims to be wise and prudent.]

hahahaha.. as proven Above, Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is biblical, if you wish, let us find it out:

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 YOUR FAITH IS spoken of ALL OVER THE WORLD.”

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.Now, in addition to your ignorance. CHRISTIANACCUSER ALREADY ADMIT that the term Catholic means "UNIVERSAL" now, do we have a proof that the term Universal Church is mentioned in the Scriptures? The answer is YES!! . however, in order to escape from the TRUTH. These guy attempts to debar the argument of calling the Church as UNIVERSAL or CATHOLIC (kath’oles) because , he said, “its not adjective”. Now let us give this guy A BIT of knowledge

ROMANS 16:23 says, “Gaius mine host, and of the WHOLE CHURCH saluteth you”

If we go to LATIN TRANSLATION of this text, it will be read this way,

ROMANS 16:23 Latin Vulgate “Salutat vos Gaius hospes meus et UNIVERSA ECCLESIAE salutat vos”

10,000 times clearer than the sun!! it states UNIVERSA ECCLECIA!! (Universal Church). UNIVERSA has been used, and not OMNI. Now, is the latin WORD UNIVERSA adjective? Let us ask this source:

AdjectiveUNIVERSA

1.nominative feminine singular of ūniversus2.nominative neuter plural of ūniversus3.accusative neuter plural of ūniversus4.vocative feminine singular of ūniversus5.vocative neuter plural of ūniversus

[Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/universa]

Christian Accuser [Now, we have proven that the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is not Biblical. Apostles never preached it and early Christians never mentioned it. Never, not even once. What we must believe and use is the name attributed to the owner – Church of God]

And we have proven otherwise, that the term Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is biblical!!

“Roman” – (Romans 1:1 Novum testamentum Latine)

“Catholic” – means “universal” and the faith of the Church in Rome is “universo or universal” (Romans 1:8 Novum Testamentum Latine)

“Apostolic” - implies that the Church is founded upon the Apostles (Ephesians 2:20)Roma 1:7-8 7omnibus qui sunt Romae(Rome) 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 (Faith) vestra adnuntiatur in UNIVERSO (Universal) mundo.

So idiot!! To say that there is none!

Christian Accuser [It is very evident that the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church was not known by first century Christians and never been taught by apostles for it was only officially used almost 1,700 years after Christ’s death. It was just formed upon the decisions of bishops at the Vatican Council.]

This is another distortion of TRUTH!! Using our very own publication while picking up certain passages OUT OF THE CONTEXT! Even from the First Century the term “Catholic” is used and due to the course of time, it gradually developed from KATH’OLES TO KATHOLIKOS TO CATHOLIC. In the same way as with their cult. From IDKH HSK to BAYAN NG KATOTOHANAN to IGLESIA NI YHWH …… to MCGI and so forth. (we can really find out the tactics of an ACCUSER)

Let us give another “bit” of information to this guy. And we’ll prove even BEFORE THE TIME the books of the Bible has not been compiled yet, the word KATH’OLES OR KATHOLIKOS is widely used.

1st Century:

ACTS 9:31 "He men oun EKKLESIA KATH'OLES .." - the Church is called "CHURCH THROUGH OUT" in greek, "EKKLESIA KATH'OLES" (KATA + HOLOS = KATHOLIKOS)

ROMANS 1:8 " He pistis humon KATAgelettai en HOLO to kosmo"

2nd Century

(c. A.D. 110). “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2

(A.D. 155). " and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2

(A.D. 155). “…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...” The fragment of Muratori

(A.D. 180). " while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3

3rd Century:

(A.D. 200). “the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus,” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 254).” while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 4th Century:

(A.D. 325). “But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance...these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” Creed of Nicea

(A.D. 325). "Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church . . that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church..." Council of Nicaea I

(A.D. 350). “Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, 'That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth'” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350). "[T]he Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,' on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other.” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26

(A.D. 360). "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life. Amen." Apostles Creed

(A.D. 381). " in one holy Catholic, and apostolic Church." Constantinopolitan Creed

(A.D. 381). " anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God." Council of Constantinople I, Canon 7

(A.D. 390) “We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies..” Augustine, The True Religion, 7:12

(A.D. 393). “Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in the Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic.” Augustine, On Faith and Creed, 10:21

NOTE: THE HOLY BIBLE HAS BEEN COMPILED AROUND 397 A.D. Christian ACCUSER is indeed a trained, certified and professional Liar. WHO ARE THEY TO USE A COMPILATION OF BOOKS (BIBLE) MADE AROUND 397 A.D. yet, rejects the term CATHOLIC? WHICH WAS THEN KNOWN EVEN BEFORE 397 A.D.?

Christian accuser [Thus, we can safely believe that it neither originated from Christ nor apostles, for it has been used more than a millennium after the New Testament was written. It is a man-made belief.]

As proven above, the term Catholic , Apostolic has a strong BIBLICAL FOUNDATION. And even if they cover their eyes to the original greek translation, they cannot contradict that the Bible DESCRIBES THE CHURCH AS

CATHOLIC = “Universal or for all the nations” (Revelations 5:9-10)

APOSTOLIC = “founded on the Apostles” (Ephesians 2:20)

If the bible describes the Church as Apostolic and Catholic, is it wrong to call the TRUE CHURCH “CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC”? I’ll read the favorite verse of PAPA Eli to justify his use of gago, tarantado etc.

PROVERBS 24:11 “a WORD FITLY SPOKEN is like apples of gold in pictures of silver”

The Holy Bible itself says, that if a WORD IS FIT with the subject. It is not WRONG, on contrary, it is like APPLES OF GOLD. Now, are the words Catholic and Apostolic fits the CHURCH IN THE BIBLE? YES!! BECAUSE THE BIBLE ITSELF DESCRIBES THE CHURCH AS CATHOLIC (REVELATIONS 5:9-10) AND APOSTOLIC (EPHESIANS 2:20)No doubt if ADD REJECTS this, because they are not really FOUNDED UPON THE APOSTLES.

Christian Accuser [In our discussion, we have provided evidences and arguments that refute the claim Catholic Apostolic Roman Church as being Biblical. The name was not used by Christ, apostles and early Christians. The Greek term kata holos must not be translated as catholic. It was not also used to describe the church in Acts 9:31 for kata holos is not an adjective. Anachronism will surely be committed for the “term universal church in first century A.D.” could be in the wrong historical period.Thus, it is safe and better to believe and use the name Church of God instead of a name foreign to the Bible.]

On contrary, Christian Accuser had just showed how ignorant he is in Public. Not knowing any history and was proven a CERTIFIED LIAR. SEEING CONTRADICTION WHEN THERE IS NONE: AND MY CHALLENGE IS, IF "KATA HOLOS" DOES NOT MEAN CATHOLIC, THEN TELL ME, OF WHICH WORD DOES THE GREEK TERM "KATHOLIKOS" DERIVED FROM??

Christian Accuser [We rest our case.]

I guess its only the beginning for your research.. ask yourselves ADD Members.

CATHOLIC means “universal or for all the nations” : IS YOUR CHURCH NOT CATHOLIC? MEANING YOU ARE NOT FOR ALL NATIONS?

APOSTOLIC means “Founded on the apostles”: IS YOUR CHURCH NOT APOSTOLIC? MEANING YOU ARE NOT FOUNDED ON THE APOSTLES?

IF THE ANSWER WOULD BE YES: Then you admit you belong to a fake church. Because the Bible attests to the truth that the Church is Catholic or for all the nations (revelations 5:9-10) and is Apostolic or founded on the Apostles (Ephesians 2:20)

IF THE ANSWER WOULD BE NO: Then why you accuse Catholics for using the term Catholic Apostolic Church? Since the Bible says, “the WORD FITLY SPOKEN” (Proverbs 25:11) is not wrong? Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 11:07 PM 21 comments Labels: On-Line Debate with ADD

Saturday, December 19, 2009

2ND EXCHANGES WITH ADD BLOGGER "CHRISTIANDEFENDER" (CHRISTIAN ACCUSER IN REALITY) REGARDING CONFESSION

CHRISTIANDEFENDER:

Ask you Great Grandfather if you have one. Many Filipino Patriots were put to jail or worse, killed because their activities were discovered through the sacrament of confession

BELTRAN, O.P.

hahaha.. bulok na istilo mo christianaccuser.. MR. CHRISTIANACCUSER, we are talking about the ORIGIN and AUTHENTICITY OF THIS SACRAMENT.. i just proved that EVEN FROM THE 1ST CENTURTY WHEREIN CHRISITANITY IS STILL THE ENEMY OF THE STATE. there is already confession!! wag mong ilayo. dont turn the story upside down.., we know what you are trying to say. but its just an ABUSIVE use of some unworthy pastors. BUT ITS NOT THE REASON WHY COnfession was established. COMMON SENSE. today, many officials in the Government were corrupt. does it mean, that the Government were establish FOR CORRUPTION? O’H CMMON !! use your brain if you have any!! hahahaFurthermore Jesus CLEARLY STATED:

“whoever SINS you forgive, THEY ARE FORGIVEN” (John 20:23)

Catholic Priests has this power. WHENEVER THEY GIVE ABSOLUTION to a penitent. THEY WERE FORGIVEN. Now ChristianACCUSER, tell me. HOW DID PAPA ELI manifests this BIBLICAL PASSAGE?

CHRISTIANDEFENDER:

Is Christ speaking to a Catholic Priest or to his Apostles?

BELTRAN, O.P.

hai hai hai.. c’mon Christian accuser!! ofcourse!! he was talking to his apostles!! and his apostles are priests!!!

“Upang maging lingkod ni Cristo Jesus bilang PARI sa mga hentil” (Roma 15:16 MBB)

The Apostles were PRIESTS!! question! what if they die?? there would be successors to the

apostles of course!!

just like your HISTORY “DAW”..

1st Presiding Minister – Nicholas Perez

but when the latter died, he was succeeded by

2nd Presiding Minister – PAPA ELi Soriano

and if Eli Soriano die, he will be replaced by Big Brother DAniel Razon

as simple as that! there is SUCCESSION, and history will prove that CATHOLIC PRIESTS have the DIRECT SUCCESSION FROM THE APOSTLES!!

“PAPACY – the office and institution of the pope, the bishop of Rome, in SUCCESSION TO ST. PETER” (Concord Desk Encyclopedia, p927)

oh yan ahh? encyclopedia ang nagsabi niyan. ITS A NON-BIAS ENCYCLOPEDIA. oh> dont tell me im basing myself on Encyclopedia? dont use also dictionary .. hahaha..

CHRISTIAN DEFENDER:

Are you sure that there is no such word as teached? You better correct this dictionary.

http://teached.urbanup.com/2001931

1. teached 35 up, 35 downbuy teached mugs, tshirts and magnetsteached (teechd)–verb: past tense and past participle of “teach”. Commonly used in Trinidad by the most educated people.“Ummm, where have you teached before?”

BELTRAN, O.P.

ahahahaha!!! ow my!! Christian Accuser!! you already fired up yourself on your very own blog. you even used http://teached.urbanup.com/ hahaha.. are you insane? from you own reference it states, its a VERB and is a PAST TENSE..

but on your statement above you said:

“One of the sacraments TEACHED by the Catholic Church is the sacrament of Confession wherein a member will tell everything that he has done to a priest.”

is it a PAST TENSE? hahaha.. c’mon!! until now the Church teach such doctrine!! hahaha.. its not PAST EVENT.Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 2:53 AM 3 comments Labels: On-Line Debate with ADD

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Response to:Where should we confess our sins?

ADD FANATICS have manifested their "worries" when they made a blog in order to refute the blog of Rev. Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS. It seems the SPLENDOR OF THE CHURCH BLOG is becoming a threat to their cult. Now,let us scrutinize well their accusations: http://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/ posted the following:

One of the sacraments teached by the Catholic Church is the sacrament of Confession wherein a member will tell everything that he has done to a priest. Later on the priest will tell the person to pray some repetitious prayer before the altar for his sins to be forgiven. However, why would you tell your sins to the priest? If you are suppose to confess your sins, the bible says that we should confess it to God and to the person whom we have offended.

(Psalms 32:5)

I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah.

(James 5:16)

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

According to history, confession has been use by the Catholic Church in order to suppress heresy. Rebels against the Church and the State were exposed because their members of their family would often go the Priest and confess of what they know.

OUR RESPONSE:

CHRISTIANDEFENDER SAYS:

"A member will tell everything that he has done to a priest. Later on the priest will tell the person to pray some repetitious prayer before the altar for his sins to be forgiven."

Let us ask this "guy"? Do you really know what's the meaning of SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION? base on your post, your understanding of Confession is different from the TRUE TEACHINGS which the Catholic Church upholds.

"the priest will tell the person to pray SOME REPETITIOUS PRAYER BEFORE THE ALTAR"

This is a public blog CHRISTIANACCUSER.. hehehe.. Catholic Priests does not give ONLY REPETITIOUS PRAYERS before the altar. They also give other penances such as ALMS GIVING, FASTING, AND OTHER SPIRITUAL EXCERCISES which INCLUDES PRAYERS. another thing is that, we can pray not only BEFORE THE ALTAR.

WHERE DID YOU GET THIS INFORMATION?

CHRISTIANDEFENDER SAYS:

"If you are suppose to confess your sins, the bible says that we should confess it to God and to the person whom we have offended [citing psalms 32:5 and james 5:16]"

What is funny about the argument of ChristianACCUSER is that, he used PSALMS 32:5. for his information, THE BOOK OF PSALMS was attrubuted to KING DAVID who is a JEW and lived in the Old Testament times. JEWS DURING THE TIME OF KING DAVID ask GOD'S

FORGIVENESS THROUGH THE PRIEST:

Leviticus 5:5-6[King James Version] "And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall CONFESS that he hath sinned in that thing: And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats, for a sin offering; and THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE AN ATONEMENT FOR HIM CONCERNING HIS SIN."

See?? hahaha.. even the writer of the Book of Psalms is under this Law. This is clear in the Catholic Church. where in a person CONFESS HIS SINS to the Priest. and the Priest in turn, by the merits of Christ , THE LAMB OF GOD. will grant GOD'S PARDON because they are granted MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION which was given to the TRUE MINISTERS OF GOD ALONE:

2 Corinthians 5:18 [ King James Version] And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and HATH GIVEN US THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION"

No Wonder, i UNDERSTAND THE PART OF ADD FANATICS. THERE IS NO SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION FOR THEM, BECAUSE THE MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION WAS GIVEN TO THE APOSTLES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS (Catholic Bishops and priests) ALONE.. which PAPA ELI and his cohorts does not HAVE... huhuhu.. poor argument.

Another thing is that Psalms 32:5 is not a CONTRADICTION to Catholic Practice of CONFESSION, inasmuch as during the rite of the Sacrament of Confession, we recite the ACT OF CONTRITION:

"OH MY GOD I AM HEARTLY SORRY FOR HAVING OFFENDED YOU...."

see? we still talk to God, IN THE SAME WAY King DAVID has said in PSALM 32:5. otherwise, DAVID HIMSELF WOULD BE CONTRADICTING THEIR RITUAL STATED IN LEVITICUS 5:5-6.

CHRISTIANDEFENDER SAYS:

According to history, confession has been use by the Catholic Church in order to suppress heresy. Rebels against the Church and the State were exposed because their members of their family would often go the Priest and confess of what they know.

oh My ChristianACCUSER.. please give me the COMICS where you got your information. First of all, the HISTORY ITSELF WOULD TESTIFY that EARLY CHRISTIANS already confessed their sins EVEN BEFORE THE TIME THE CHURCH AND THE STATE BECAME "UNITED"

I'll give this guy A BIT OF AUTHENTIC HISTORY:

"In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life...On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 4:14,14:1 (c. A.D. 90).

see?? even from the 1st century WHERE CHRISTIANITY WAS STILL AN ENEMY OF THE STATE, they were already practicing the CONFESSION OF SINS.

CONCLUSION:

Now, let us TRASH all of CHRISTIANACCUSER (Christiandefender "daw") arguments.

His points in his post were:

1) Confession should be made to God and the person offended: [TRASH]

hehehe.. The writer of the book of psalms himself, were under the law of asking God's forgiveness through the Priest.

2)Catholic Priests will give later on repititious prayers before the altar: [TRASH]

hahaha.. Catholic Priests also gives other penance like alms giving, fasting , and so forth, w/c include 'prayers' but not VAIN repetitions. and we can also do our penance not ONLY BEFORE THE ALTAR

3) History(daw) says, the Catholic Church uses Confession as a weapon against the enemies of the Church and State: [TRASH]

even before the time where Christianity was still an enemy of the State, Christians already practicing Confession of sins..

LET US ALL PUT HIS USELESS ARGUMENTS INTO THE GARBAGE.. HAHAHA.. "TRASH" :p

[TAKE NOTE: THIS RESPONSE WAS ORIGINALLY POSTED ON http://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2009/12/17/where-should-we-confess-our-sins/#comment-219 YET, THE ADD BLOGGER, DELETED THIS. BUT ITS HIS MISFORTUNE BACAUSE I SAVED THEM ALL TO POST IT ALSO ON THIS BLOG]

Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 11:14 PM 0 comments Labels: On-Line Debate with ADD

Catholic Apologist pinulbos ang ADD Blogger - Dating Daan pinatunayang daan ng masasamang tao

[Originally posted on http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/ by Rev. Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS]

Ito ang sinasapit ng mga taong dumadaan sa DATING DAAN na dinadaan ng mga MASASAMANG TAO.Our readers are aware that the Dating Daan supporters opened a Blog [http://www.christiandefenders.wordpress.com/] to answer this Blog... He, he, he... that is how important The Splendor of the Church is for them. A young Catholic apologist named Parabanog, who is a veteran of Internet debates, engaged the blogger in an exchange. After several turn the ADD blogger retreated in shame. He, he, he... His reputation was blasted right in his own Blog. Ha, ha, ha... And started deleting the debate text. Sorry for him, Parabanog is not Valedictorian and Cum Laude for nothing.Unfortunately for Quiel or christiandefender Bro. Parabanog recorded the entire exchange. So, we are fortunate to have it posted in our own site. ENJOY...*******Quiel:

SABI NG DESPERADONG SI PARABANOG,

“Eh lalo namang yang imbentong kultong ADD. WALA YAN SA BIBLIA.”

EH KUNG MABASA KO BA SA BIBLIA NA MAYROON TALAGANG ANG DATING DAAN AAMININ MO IGNORANTE KA TALAGA SA BIBLIA RESULTA NG PAMBOBOBO SA INYO NG PARI NINYONG WALANG ALAM KUNDI MAGPABAYAD NG BINYAG, KUMPIL, KASAL PATI PATAY KAILANGANG MAGBAYAD PARA MAALIS DAW SA PURGATORYONG IMBENTO LANG NG IPINAGMAMALAKI MONG PARI MO DAHIL WALA NON SA BIBLIA. AAMININ MO BA LAHAT YON PAG NABASA KO?

Parabanog:

Quiel, bulok na yang istilo mo. Alam naman ng lahat na merong sinasabi ang bibliya sa Ang Dating Daan eh. Gusto mo malaman? Eto at basahin mo:

Job 22:15 (Ang Biblia)

Iyo bang pagpapatuluyan ANG DATING DAAN, na nilakaran ng mga masamang tao?

Bibliya na mismo ang nagpatotoo na yang grupo mo, eh nilakaran ng masasamang tao. Na tupad na tupad naman ngayon kasi yang amo mo eh pinaghahanap ng mga alagad ng batas sa kasong panghahalay sa kapwa lalaki. Tinakasan nya kaso nya eh di ba kaya sya nagtatago ngayon. Tupad na tupad! Kaya di ako aanib dyan sa grupo nyo eh. halatang di talaga sa Diyos.

At patungkol naman sa banat mo na nagpapabayad ang mga pari namin tuwing binyag, kumpil, etc., kasinungalingan yan. Tulong yun sa simbahan at hindi bayad. Sa inyo rin di ba may handog o alay tuwing me kinakasal o binibinyagan? Kaya wag kang ipokrito.

Yung bayad ay binibigay kapalit ng serbisyo. Kung walang bayad eh walang serbisyo. Eh bakit maraming binibinyagan at kinakasal kahit walang bayad? Kasi wala naman talagang bayad ang sakramento. Wala ka ngang inilitaw na kaso na merong tinggian ng sakramento kasi walang pambayad.

Kaya advice ko sayo Quiel eh wag kang magkalat ng kasinungalingan.

Ex 23:1 (Ang Biblia)

Huwag kang magkakalat ng kasinungalingan: huwag kang makikipagkayari sa masama, na maging saksi kang sinungaling.

Sa inyo nga eh tig-iisang libo ang hinuhuthot ng amo nyo sa inyo ok lang sayo eh. Di ba? “Ease me with my burden?” Yan ang talamak na panghuhuthut sa miyembro.

Christiandefender:

Ginamit ang nakasulat sa Job 22:15. Sino ba ang nagsasalita sa talatang yan? Kung itataas natin ang pagbabasa sa naunang talata, sa talatang Job 22:1, makikita nating malinaw na ang nagsasalita sa talata ay si Eliphaz na Temanita.

(Job 22:1)

1 Nang magkagayo’y sumagot si Eliphaz na Temanita, at nagsabi,

Ang nagsasalita ay si Eliphaz. Ano ang sinabi ni Eliphaz?

(Job 22:15)

“15 Iyo bang pagpapatuluyan ang dating daan, na nilakaran ng mga masamang tao?”

Inaakusahan ni Eliphaz ang dating daan na nilakaran daw na mga masamang tao kung saan lumalakad ang matuwid na si Job. Ang sinabi bang ito ni Eliphaz ay matuwid? Meron bang sinabing matuwid ang taong si Eliphaz? Ito po ang pahayag ng Dios.

(Job 42:7)

“7 At nangyari, na pagkatapos na masalita ng Panginoon ang mga salitang ito kay Job, sinabi ng Panginoon kay Eliphaz na Temanita, Ang aking poot ay nagaalab laban sa iyo, at laban sa iyong dalawang kaibigan: sapagka’t hindi kayo nangagsalita tungkol sa akin ng bagay na matuwid, na gaya ng ginawa ng aking lingkod na si Job.”

Parabanog:

@ christiandefender

Pag aralan nga natin yang binanggit mong sitas:

Job 42:7 (Ang Biblia)

At nangyari, na pagkatapos na masalita ng Panginoon ang mga salitang ito kay Job, sinabi ng Panginoon kay Eliphaz na Temanita, Ang aking poot ay nagaalab laban sa iyo, at laban sa iyong dalawang kaibigan: SAPAGKAT HINDI KAYO NANGAGSALITA TUNGKOL SA AKIN NG BAGAY NA MATUWID, na gaya ng ginawa ng aking lingkod na si Job.

Ano daw yung sinabi ni Eliphaz na di matuwid? Yung sinabi ni Eliphaz “TUNGKOL SA AKIN” sabi ng Diyos. Underline the word: TUNGKOL SA AKIN. Sa madaling salita, yung mga pahayag ni Eliphaz patungkol sa Diyos ang di matuwid. Pero walang sinasabi ang talata na LAHAT ng sinabi ni Eliphaz ay mali na. (i.e., di matuwid)

Eto ang tanong ngayon: Yung sinabi ba ni Eliphaz sa Job 22:15 eh patungkol sa Diyos o patungkol sa ANG DATING DAAN? Tingnan natin:

Job 22:15 (Ang Biblia)

Iyo bang pagpapatuluyan ANG DATING DAAN, NA NILAKARAN NG MGA MASAMANG TAO?

Aba’y maliwanag pa sa katanghaliang tapat na patungkol sa ANG DATING DAAN ang sinasabi ni Eliphaz sa Job 22:15 at hindi patungkol sa Diyos. Ang Dating Daan ay nilakaran ng masasamang tao. Na totoo naman sapagkat natutupad ito kay Soriano na pinaghahanap ng batas sa kasong panghahalay sa kapwa lalaki. Tupad na tupad.

Christiandefender:

Ang Dios na mismo ang nagsabi na si Eliphaz na Temanita ay walang sinabing matuwid na bagay kahit isa. Kaya sa tanong natin kung merong sinabing matuwid na bagay si Eliphaz na Temanita, ang sagot diyan ay wala ayon sa Dios.

Ang nakakatawa ay ginagamit ng isang pantas sa sarili ang salita ng isang kaaway ng Dios para pasamain ang Ang Dating Daan. Inakusahan ni Eliphaz na linakaran ng masama Ang Dating Daan na linakaran ni Job subalit ang Dios mismo ang nagsabi na walang sinabing matuwid si Eliphaz na Temanita kung kaya’t ang sinabi niyang ito ay mali. Ang nais ng Dios ay lumakad ang mga tao sa mga dating landas kung saan naroon ang mabuting daan. Ito naman ay kinokontra ng mga kaaway ng katuwiran. Samakatuwid, si Parabanog pala ay kakampi ng kaaway ng Dios.

Parabanog:

Saan sinabi ng Diyos na WALANG SINABING MATUWID NA BAGAY NI ISA si Eliphaz? Saan yan?

Ke linaw nung sinabi ng Diyos:

Job 42:7 (Ang Biblia)

At nangyari, na pagkatapos na masalita ng Panginoon ang mga salitang ito kay Job, sinabi ng Panginoon kay Eliphaz na Temanita, Ang aking poot ay nagaalab laban sa iyo, at laban sa iyong dalawang kaibigan: SAPAGKAT HINDI KAYO NANGAGSALITA TUNGKOL SA AKIN NG BAGAY NA MATUWID, na gaya ng ginawa ng aking lingkod na si Job.

Yung mga sinabi ni Eliphaz TUNGKOL SA DIYOS ang di matuwid. Pero walang sinasabi ang talata na ni isa eh walang sinabing matuwid si Eliphaz. Dinadagdagan mo yung salita ng Diyos eh. Mali yun. Etong masasabi sayo ng bibliya christiandefender:

Kawikaan 30:5-6 (Ang Biblia)

5 Bawa't salita ng Dios ay subok: siya'y kalasag sa kanila, na nanganganlong sa kaniya.

6 Huwag kang magdagdag sa kaniyang mga salita, baka kaniyang sawayin ka, at masunduan kang sinungaling.

Lapat na lapat sayo Christiandefender, kung sino ka man. Sa pagdadagdag mo sa salita ng Diyos eh di nalantad ang kasinungalingan mo ngayon.

Ano ang patunay na hindi totoo ang tsismis ni Christiandefender na ni isa eh walang sinabing matuwid si Eliphaz?

Job 4:8 (Ang Biblia)

Ayon sa aking pagkakita yaong nagsisipagararo ng kasamaan, at nangaghahasik ng kabagabagan ay gayon din ang inaani.

Mali ba ito? Eh parehong-pareho eto sa sinasabi ni San Pablo eh:

Ga 6:7-8 (Ang Biblia)

7 Huwag kayong padaya; ang Dios ay hindi napabibiro: sapagka't ang lahat na ihasik ng tao, ay siya namang aanihin niya.

8 Sapagka't ang naghahasik ng sa kaniyang sariling laman ay sa laman magaani ng kasiraan; datapuwa't ang naghahasik ng sa Espiritu ay sa Espiritu magaani ng buhay na walang hanggan.

So klaro na hindi LAHAT ng sinabi ni Eliphaz ay mali at di matuwid. Meron din syang sinabi na matuwid. At kasama dun yung pahayag niya sa ANG DATING DAAN sa Job 22:15.

Christiandefender:

Pero kung ang Dios ang ating pakikinggan. Inutusan niya ang mga tao na lumakad sa Dating Daan.

(Jeremias 6:16)

“16 Ganito ang sabi ng Panginoon, Magsitayo kayo sa mga daan at magsitingin kayo, at ipagtanong ninyo ang mga dating landas, kung saan nandoon ang mabuting daan; at magsilakad kayo roon, at kayo’y mangakakasumpong ng kapahingahan sa inyong mga kaluluwa: nguni’t kanilang sinabi, Hindi kami magsisilakad doon.”

Parabanog:

Walang sinasabing Ang Dating Daan dyan. MGA DATING LANDAS ang sinasabi dyan. Plural. Yung sainyo eh singular. At hindi landas ang wording kundi daan. Kaya malayong kayo yung tinutukoy ng talata. Kaya wag nang managinip ng gising. Malinaw na ayon sa bibliya, ANG DATING DAAN ay nilakaran ng mga masamang tao.

Job 22:15 (Ang Biblia)

Iyo bang pagpapatuluyan ANG DATING DAAN, NA NILAKARAN NG MGA MASAMANG TAO?

Swak na swak sa inyo.

christiandefenders :

Sa tingin ko ay nawawala na sa sarili itong ating kausap.

Kapansin-pansin na hindi niya nauunawaan ang kahulugan ng sinabi ng Dios. Para makalusot at maipilit ang kaniyang paniniwalang lisya sa bibliya ay binigyan na lang niya ng sariling pakahulugan ang talata. Kung babasahin natin ang mga nakasulat sa bibliya sa Job 42:7-9 ay mapapansin natin na matibay ang sinabi ng Dios na walang sinabing matuwid si Eliphaz at ang kaniyang mga kasama magmula pa nang makipagusap sila sa lingkod ng Dios na si Job.

Parabanog:

Ang totoo, eh ikaw tong wala sa sarili. Ikaw etong di nakakaunawa eh. Walang sinasabi ang talata na WALANG SINABING MATUWID SI ELIPHAZ MAGMULA PA NANG MAKIPAGUSAP SILA KAY JOB. Wala.

Binabago mo yung salitang Diyos eh. Di ka ba kinikilabutan nyan?

Tingnan ulit ang talata:

Job 42:7 (Ang Biblia)

At nangyari, na pagkatapos na masalita ng Panginoon ang mga salitang ito kay Job, sinabi ng Panginoon kay Eliphaz na Temanita, Ang aking poot ay nagaalab laban sa iyo, at laban sa iyong dalawang kaibigan: SAPAGKAT HINDI KAYO NANGAGSALITA TUNGKOL SA AKIN NG BAGAY NA MATUWID, na gaya ng ginawa ng aking lingkod na si Job.

Malinaw sa talata na si Eliphaz ay hindi nagsalita ng bagay na matuwid PATUNGKOL SA DIYOS. Yung pahayag ni Eliphaz patungkol sa Diyos ang di matuwid. Pero walang sinasabi ang talata na LAHAT NG SINABI ni Eliphaz ay di na matuwid. Malayo ang deperensya pero mukhang di mo mahuli eh. Gumagawa ka ng maling generalization ng pahayag ni Eliphaz para susugan ang hidwa mong pananampalataya.

Gine-generalized mo yung buong pahayag ni Eliphaz na kesyo di matuwid gayong walang sinasabi ang talata nang ganun. Dinadagdagan mo yung salita ng Diyos. Bukong-buko istilo mo. Lantad tuloy ang kasinungalingan mo. (cf. Pr 30:5-6) Sabi ng bibliya yung mga sinungaling, ang bahagi nila ay sa Dagat-Dagatang Apoy . (cf. Rev 21:8) DDA. Eh ADD ka. So nakini-kinita ko yung koneksyon na natutupad sayo eh.

christiandefenders :

Para makapamuntos, maging ang sinabi ng taong walang sinabing matuwid kahit isa ay ginagamit niya.

Parabanog:

Sagutin mo nga ako ng diretso: Saan sa talata mababasa na walang sinabing matuwid si Eliphaz kahit isa? Saan yan? Nagde-delusyon ka na eh. O baka naglulubid ka na ng kasinungalingan? Palagay ko pareho eh.

Talagang pinanindigan mo na kasinungalingan mo no? Kahit wala sa talata eh sinasabi mong meron? Mahiya ka naman. Buko ko na istilo mo.

christiandefenders :

Pinaninindiganan pa niya na may sinabing matuwid si Eliphaz na taliwas sa pahayag ng Dios na wala siyang sinabing matuwid.Parabanog:

Eto ang sabi ng Diyos: SAPAGKAT HINDI KAYO NANGAGSALITA TUNGKOL SA AKIN NG BAGAY NA MATUWID.

Pakatandaan yung sinabing “TUNGKOL SA AKIN.” Yung pahayag ni Eliphaz na PATUNGKOL SA DIYOS ang di matuwid.

Pero ang sabi mo na sabi daw ng Diyos: WALA SIYANG SINABING MATUWID.

Aba’y umaasta ka pa ngayong matadero ng salita ng Diyos ha? Galing mong mangchop-chop ng salita ng Diyos para ilusot yang palpak mong pangangatwiran. Kilabutan ka. Kala ko mga ministro lang ng iglesia ni Manalo ang magaling sa chop-chop. Kayo rin pala.

Sa pang aatado mo ng salita ng Diyos, pinalalabas mo na LAHAT NG SINABI NI ELIPHAZ AY DI MATUWID. Maliwanag na panloloko yang ginagawa mo eh. Malas mo hindi madaling mauto si Parabanog. Kaya buko ngayon modus mo.

christiandefenders :

Para sa kaalaman ni Parabanog, hindi tsismis na walang sinabing matuwid si Eliphaz. Salita ng Dios yan na ipinakikita ko lang.

Parabanog:

Kaso inatado mo para palabasin na LAHAT NG SINABI NI ELIPHAZ AY DI MATUWID. Kitang-kita naman sa talata na yung mga sinabi ni Eliphaz PATUNGKOL SA DIYOS ang di matuwid. Ang pinalalabas mo sa pang aatado mo, NI ISA WALANG SINABING MATUWID SI ELIPHAZ. Yan ang panlolokong maliwanag.

Job 42:7 (Ang Biblia)

At nangyari, na pagkatapos na masalita ng Panginoon ang mga salitang ito kay Job, sinabi ng Panginoon kay Eliphaz na Temanita, Ang aking poot ay nagaalab laban sa iyo, at laban sa iyong dalawang kaibigan: SAPAGKAT HINDI KAYO NANGAGSALITA TUNGKOL SA AKIN NG BAGAY NA MATUWID, na gaya ng ginawa ng aking lingkod na si Job.

Buko ang panloloko mo di ba?

christiandefenders :

Ginamit mo ang Job 4:8 para patunayan na may sinabing matuwid si Eliphaz. Nakasisiguro ka ba na si Eliphaz ang nagsabi niyan? Siya ba ang nagsabi niyan o narinig niya lang sa isang tinig?

Parabanog:

Talagang sigurado ako na si Eliphaz ang nagsasalita sa Job 4:8. Eto kasi yung sabi sa pasimula ng kapitulo 4:

Job 4:1 (Ang Biblia)

Nang magkagayo'y sumagot si Eliphaz na Temanita, at nagsabi,

So walang duda na si Eliphaz ang nagsasalita sa Job 4:8. Eto ngayon ang tanong na gusto kong sagutin mo ng deretsahan: Matuwid ba yung pahayag ni Job sa Job 4:8 o hindi? Iwasan na sana ang pagliguy-ligoy dahil dito ka mababaon.

christiandefenders :

Siya ba ang nagsabi niyan o narinig niya lang sa isang tinig?

Parabanog:

Di isyu dito kung narinig niya sa iba. Halatang nililigaw mo yung isyu eh. Obvious kasing ipit ka dito. Ang isyu, si Eliphaz ang nagsasalita sa Job 4:8 na paralelo ng sinabi ni San Pablo sa Ga 6:7-8. At dahil ikaw ang unang dumaldal na NI ISA EH WALANG SINABING MATUWID SI ELIPHAZ, eto ang tanong:

Matuwid ba yung pahayag ni Eliphaz sa Job 4:8 o hindi? Yan ang tanong na wag mong iwasan.

christiandefenders :

Kung babalikan naman natin ang nakasulat sa Jeremias 6:16.

(Jeremias 6:16)

“16 Ganito ang sabi ng Panginoon, Magsitayo kayo sa mga daan at magsitingin kayo, at ipagtanong ninyo ang mga dating landas, kung saan nandoon ang mabuting daan; at magsilakad kayo roon, at kayo’y mangakakasumpong ng kapahingahan sa inyong mga kaluluwa: nguni’t kanilang sinabi, Hindi kami magsisilakad doon.”

Hindi mo puwedeng tutulan na merong isang mabuting daan na makikita sa mga dating landas.

Parabanog:

Kumbinsido talaga ako na sa pagitan nating dalawa, eh ikaw itong tuliro at nawawala sa katinuan. ANG MABUTING DAAN ang nasa talata hindi ANG DATING DAAN. Ang layo naman ng deperensya. Gusto mo pang ilusot eh mali naman. Panong nangyari na yung MABUTING DAAN eh siya rin yung ANG DATING DAAN gayung ayon sa bibliya, yung ANG DATING DAAN AY NILAKARAN NG MGA MASAMANG TAO. (cf. Job 22:15)

Kahit anong gawin mong palusot, malinaw ang sinasabi ng talata: MGA DATING LANDAS AT ANG MABUTING DAAN. Walang sinabing ANG DATING DAAN. Wala. Kaya wag mo kaming lokohin.

christiandefenders :

Yung mabuting daan ay nasa “singular” na hindi mo puwedeng pasinungalingan.

Parabanog:

Ang di mo pwedeng pasinungalingan eh magkaibang-magkaiba yung ANG MABUTING DAAN SA ANG DATING DAAN. Kahit Grade 1 alam yan. Sa kasamaang palad, di yan alam ng mga uring gaya nyo. Di komo pareho silang singular konklusyon mo agad eh IISA NA SILA. Lawak-lawakan naman ang kukote. Pinipilit mong ANG MABUTING DAAN eh yun din yung ANG DATING DAAN eh magkaiba nga eh. Kung iisa sila sana yung pangalan ng grupo nyo ANG MABUTING DAAN. Kaso ANG DATING DAAN nga yung sainyo eh, na ayon sa bibliya eh NILAKARAN NG MGA MASAMANG TAO. (cf. Job 22:15)

christiandefenders :

Ang mahalagang tanong diyan ay; Bakit naging dati yung daan na pinalalakaran ng Dios? Maliwanag ang dahilan. Kaya naging dati yung daan na yun dahil maraming nagtatang ng sarili nilang daan na mga Pastor na matatakaw kagaya ng mga Paring Katoliko kung saan ang lahat ng aral ay pinababayaran.Parabanog:

Kayo yun. Kayo kasi yung kabilang sa mga naglipanang bagong sulpot na samahan na ang layunin ay mangligaw ng mga tao.

At speaking of matatakaw, mga lider ng grupo nyo yung matatakaw. Lakas manghuthut ng tig-iisang libo sa miyembro. Huling-huli sa video eh kaya walang lusot. Yun ang matindi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm5eANsn8a4 Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 7:38 PM 12 comments Labels: Ang Dating Daan

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

The Mark of the Beast applies more on Felix Manalo and Ellen Gould White than with the Papacy

[The following were originally posted on the Splendor of the Church blog by Rev. Fr. Abraham Arganiosa, CRS]

O ito ang katunayan na ang KAPAPAHAN ang siyang HAYOP na binabanggit sa Apokalipsis, O ito, tunghayan mo tanga! [O, here is the proof that the PAPACY is the BEAST mentioned in Apocalypse, O here, look at it stupid]

VICARIUS FILII DEI666, The Number of the Beast

Well, these agents of the Beast and the other beasts are becoming bitter and bitter in their posts. He, he, he... They are so angry that that very insulting personal attacks are being employed. I decided to erase the others because it doesn't suit even their bestiality and animality, and preserved only the term 'tanga' which is pointed at me as 'stupid'. Since I do not claim great erudition I can accept the limitation of my intellect. And since this anonymous poster claim that I am such it is therefore presuppose that he is intelligent while I am not. Good for him... Let us see how intelligent he is.

Now, about VICARIUS FILII DEI = 666.

Once again, it is a proven fact that there is NO 'Vicarius Filii Dei' on the Tiara of the Pope. That lie was invented by the Seventh Day Adventists and used also by the Iglesia ni Manalo. Their researchers have admitted that there is indeed no such text written on the crown of the Pope yet their very intelligent puppies are parrotting it until now to deceive the Catholics to transfer to their newly founded religions.

It means they are swallowing their own INVENTION. This is the classic case of invented lies they drilled into their heads so that later on that lie got a semblance of truth on the liar. The deceivers are now enjoying the effect of their own lies and their lies made them pregnant with self-delusion, and self-delusion gave birth to self-deception.

Their level of intelligence is indeed proven to be very high. It is as high as a Giraffe and is proper for a very high Giraffe. I raise my glass to their renown intellectual capacity.

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

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Obviously, this intelligent giraffe is not aware that the Servants of God also have mark, a seal on their FOREHEADS:

Rev 7:3 [KJV] 'Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have SEALED the SERVANTS OF OUR GOD in their FOREHEADS.'

Dream on, Catholic hater. Dream on. Mock me and show how intelligent you really are. Prove not my stupidity but most of all that of the Catholic Church.

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

This is more appropriate for the followers of Manalo and Ellen Gould White who used to count and to number their own followers. The INC even prohibits its followers to give charity to their non-members. They are so-exclusive. They believe that only their members will be saved.Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

NAME OF A MAN OR IN TAGALOG 'TAO' [Human Person]. The beast is a human person. For example, Felix Y. Manalo or Ellen Gould White. These are names of human person.

Note that according to verse 17, there are three different characteristics that distinguish the beast:

his mark (of authority)The INC and SDA also have authority. They are even more authoritarian. In INC only Manalos are serving as leaders while the SDA their worship is exclusive on Saturdays. So, before pointing at others please look at your own sala and dining room. He, he, he...

his nameYes, name... NAME. His name like Felix Manalo, Iraneo Manalo, Eduardo Manalo. Or 'her' name... ELLEN GOULD WHITE. Very easy application isn't it? But, if you will refer it to the Pope what will you get? Nothing because it is not a name of a man or of a human person. Unless you will accuse the famous poet ALEXANDER POPE as the Anti-Christ. Not even the Popemobile can fit the description.

the number of his name (666).It fits again because THE NAME OF FELIX Y. MANALO and IRANEO MANALO and ELLEN GOULD WHITE are proven to be equal to 666. Perfectly fitting to these modern day demons.

It might be argued by some that 666 must be applied to one man's name, and that this will then help identify him as the antichrist. I would offer the following verse to show that 666 need not apply solely to a man's name:

Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.It doesn't fit and your use of Rev 19:16 doesnt disprove the fact that the 666 is the name of the person. The verse that you quoted refers to Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It doesn't state that Felix Manalo and Ellen Gould White are not the 666. Besides, this is your claim: "I would offer the following verse to show that the 666 NEED NOT apply solely to a man's name". Sorry for you, because THERE IS NO STATEMENT IN REV 19:16 THAT SHOWS 'The 666 need not apply solely to a man's name." Where is that in the text? None. He, he, he...That is another hallucination once again.

The same Greek word translated as name (onoma: G3686) that appears in Revelation 13:17-18 is also used in chapter 19:16, so clearly the word can also apply to a title, and not just one man's name. Now, we are told that it takes a certain understanding and wisdom to discern just how this number is actually applied. Based on the fact that 666 can apply to a title, below are several

words and phrases that have been put forth over the centuries as probable solutions to the enigma of 666.

The problem with your position is this. Rev 19:16 does not refer to a title but to a Name. It means that the phrase KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS is a Name of the Lord God:

Exodus 15:3 [KJV] "The Lord is a warrior; THE LORD is HIs NAME."

The term Lord is a Name of God. The text itself supports our position. It is said a NAME written on His thigh, KING OF KINGS and LORD OF LORDS. So, the two are Names not Titles. The problem with you is that you are treating them as Titles. For human person, Kingship is a Title. Being King is a position and title for King Juan Carlos of Spain or for the King of Jordan or King Bhumibol of Thailand. But for God being KING is not a mere position and title it is His Name. He possess Kingship absolutely and perfectly. What is a Title for men is a Name for Christ our God... The Lord of All.

Thus Lord of Lord is a Name of God as well as King of Kings. There is no statement there that they are mere titles. They are Divine Names and Divine Attributes. So, THERE IS NO SCAPE FOR THE NAMES OF YOUR FOUNDERS, MANALO AND ELLEN G. WHITE.

GREEK

The numeric equivalents of Greek letters can also be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica under "Languages of the World", Table 8.

The ancient Greek word for "the Latin speaking man" is LATEINOSO, you have found another invented tactic to discredit the Catholic Church ha. Let us see if it is effective.The problem is that the Pope now is German speaking, the previous one is Polish speaking, the one before him were Italians... Ha, ha, ha... And I am Filipino speaking. Ha, ha, ha...

L = 30 lambdaA = 1 alphaT = 300 tauE = 5 epsilonI = 10 iotaN = 50 nuO = 70 omicronS = 200 sigma------------666BRAVO, YOUR CALCULATOR IS VERY EFFICIENT. He, he, he....

NOTE: Latin is the official language of the Roman Catholic Church. Church Documents are usually published first in Latin, and then translated from the Latin into other languages. The association of "Lateinos" with 666 was first suggested by Irenæus (ca. 130-202 A.D.) who proposed in his Against Heresies that it might be the name of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 7:7.Latin is the language of the Roman Christians because it was the language of the people of Rome. So, I thought that you are SOLA SCRIPTURA now you are banking on the work of St. Irenaeus instead of the Bible and even distorting the work of Irenaeus just to feed your lies. He, he, he...First, THE BIBLE DOESN'T SPEAK OF 666 AS PEOPLE, OR GROUP, OR CHURCH THAT SPEAKS LATIN AS ITS OFFICIAL LANGUAGE. If it is in the Bible then show me. Chapter and Verse please.Second, Rev 13:18 DOES NOT MENTION OF LATEINOS BUT OF A NAME OF A MAN:

PANGALAN NG TAO. So, your effort to cover the demonic identity of your founder by presenting a LANGUAGE is not effective at all. Better luck next time. SAPUL PA RIN SI MANALO AT SI ELLEN G. WHITE. He, he, he...Third, Irenaeus also refers to a NAME not to LANGUAGE. This is clear in the text of the Wikipedia:

"Irenaeus is the first of the church fathers to consider the mystic number 666. While Irenaeus did propose some solutions of this numerical riddle, his interpretation was quite reserved. Thus, he cautiously states: "But knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, have a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation."[44] Although Irenaeus did speculate upon three NAMES to symbolize this mystical number, namely Euanthas, Teitan and Lateinos, nevertheless he was content to believe that the Antichrist would arise some time in the future after the fall of Rome and then the meaning of the number would be revealed[45 Against Heresies Book 5 Chapter 30, sec. 3]"Irenaeus clearly refers to NAMES, such as Euanthas, Teitan and Lateinos. Yet, you demonically distorted it to OFFICIAL LANGUAGE of the Catholic Church which is NOT LATEINOS BUT 'LATIN'.

Are you blind? Don't you see the DIFFERENCE between LATIN and LATEINOS. Ha, ha, ha... Your effort is PATHETIC. In Tagalog, kahabag-habag at kalunos-lunos. Ha, ha, ha... Besides, Irenaeus is a Bishop and Martyr of the Catholic Faith. He is a French Bishop of the Catholic Church. Definitely he was not referring to the Catholic Church. Much more, THE NAME LATEINOS IS NOT LATIN BUT GREEK. Ha, ha, ha... Nakakaawa ang iyong katalinuhan. Is that what you've learned from Ellen Gould White and Felix Y. Manalo?

Then also Lateinos has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence].Definitely it doesn't fit our Church... Its name is not Lateinos but THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Your claim about the official language of the Church doesn't hold any water or crude oil, not even kerosene, because LATEINOS IS GREEK AND NOT LATIN and it doesn't refer to the Latin speaking Christians. Don't you know that the First complete translation of the Bible in one Language is in LATIN?AGAIN, DREAM ON!!! Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 1:00 AM 0 comments Labels: Iglesia ni Manalo, Pope

Sunday, December 13, 2009

INC on the Statue of Manalo: "Sounds Catholic?"

The Iglesia ni Manalo (INC) oftenly accused the Catholic Church as "IMAGE-WORSHIPPERS". But what's really the stand of the Catholic Church on IMAGES ?

Firstly, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NEVER TEACHES TO WORHSHIP THE IMAGE ITSELF. but Venerate the person Portrayed by it:

"Sacred images in our churches and homes are intended to awaken and nourish our faith in the mystery of Christ. Through the ICON OF CHRIST and his works of salvation it is HE WHOM WE ADORE. Through the SACRED IMAGES of the Holy mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, we VENERATE THE PERSONS REPRESENTED" ( Catechism of the Catholic Church 1192)

What then is the PURPOSE OF THE IMAGES IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?

"Ang IMAHEN ng mga Santo at Banal nila ay NAGPAPAALAALA sa ating lahat kung paano magkalinga ang Diyos sa tao sa bawat panahon" (The IMAGE of the Saints REMINDS us all of how God cares for humans in every age) [F. Maano, SAGOT. p.49]

in short. We Catholics (1) Makes use of IMAGES as a REMEMBERANCE or REMINDER and (2) DO NOT WORSHIP THEM.

now lets go to the STATUE OF FELIX MANALO IN CENTRAL TEMPLE of the IGLESIA NI MANALO in Diliman Quezon City.

The plaque on the Statue of Manalo therby states, "Ang kahalalan ng Sugo ay lagi nating AALALAHANIN. ngunit ang larawan at siya kailanman ay HUWAG SASAMBAHIN"(The election of the messenger will always be REMEMBERED. but the Image nor him should NOT EVER BE WORSHIPPED)

SEE?? hehehe.. for them the Statue of MANALO is a:

(1) REMEMBRANCE and should(2) NOT BE WORSHIPPED.

THE SAME STAND as with the Catholic Church use of IMAGES. it is just a

(1) REMEMBRANCE of the person portrayed by it (SAGOT by: F. Maano, p.49) and(2) SHOULD NOT BE WORSHIPPED (CCC 1192)

WHO ARE THEY TO ACCUSE US? the Lord Jesus Christ said:

"You can see the SPECK on your friends eye. BUT YOU DON'T NOTICE the log in your OWN EYE" ( Matthew 7:2 CEV) Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 4:27 AM 13 comments Labels: Iglesia ni Manalo, Images

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Biblical Basis of Papacy (using ADD/INM method of explaining)

The Catholic Church holds on to the truth that Peter was the First Pope. The Chief of the Apostles, however, Anti-Catholics refuses to believe this Truth (Despite of strong Historical - Archeological Proofs) saying, "How would Peter be the First Pope? since He was not the supreme leader of the 1st Century Church!" This article will condemn the erroneous notions of non-catholics, and we'll prove the Primacy of Peter through the Bible. At First, let us take a glance to an incident where Christ has appointed Peter to be the Shepherd of his flock.

" Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? he said to Him, Yes Lord! you know that i love you, He said to him, Feed my lambs .. Tend my Sheep .. Feed my Sheep" ( John 21:15-17)

What does the Lord Jesus mean by saying this? to "feed and tend His sheeps?". Obviously, to tend means to care for, the greek word used here is "Poinamio" which literally implies "To Shepherd". a clear understanding that Jesus appoints Peter as a Shepherd. Who are the sheeps then? The Bbile tells us clearly, that Sheeps signifies the people of God.

"So we, your people, and sheep of your pasture give you thanks.." (Psalms 79:13)

The Sheeps signifies, the "People of God". and who are the People of God? They are Christians! this is what Peter himself has said.

"But you (Christians) are a chosen generation .. which in time past, not people, but now the People of God" (1 Peter 2:9-10)

So Jesus clearly appointed Peter to be the Shepherd of his sheeps ( John 21:15-17) His People (Psalms 79:13) who are Christians (1 Peter 2:9-10). But is this just an interpretation of Jesus' words? let us also ask the Bible, what knowledge they have of Peter. Paul attests to the Truth that Peter is one of the Pillars of The Church.

"And when James, Cephas (Peter) and John, who seems to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me" ( Galatians 2:29)

If Peter were one of these Pillars, who is the Chiefest among the three? the Gospel writers, says it was Peter!.

"Now the names of the twelve apostles are these, The First, Simon who is called Peter .. " ( Matthew 10:2)

Peter, is called 'The First'. We cannot say that the passage only meant the chronological order of the apostle's calling. For it was Andrew, who is called first before the other apostles. ( Jn 1:40) in fact, the original greek word used for "The First" is Protos which actually means "The Chief". He is the Chief of the Apostles! the Shepherd of the People of God. that is why Peter's Primacy is clear in the Bible. in Latin we read the verse to be,

"Dvodecim autem apostolorvm nomina sunt; haec PRIMVS SIMON qui dicitur PETRUS" (Matthew 10:2 Latin Vulgate)

The word PRIMACY derived from the latin word "Primvs". and as it was attested above, PETER is PRIMUS! This is what Jesus meant when he gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

" And i tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this Rock, i will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, i will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you will bind on earth, will be bound in heaven and whatever you will loose on earth, will be loose in heaven " ( Matthew 16:18-19)

Jesus gave Peter the authority of the Keys, which in a rabbinic sense mean "Supreme Authority". This scene by which Jesus gave Peter the Keys, was actually the fulfillment of an old Testament prophecy. Peter and his successors was prophecied as a Prime Minister of the Kingdom (The Church)!

" And it shall come to pass, that i will call Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and i will cloth him with your robe, and will strengthen him with your girdle, and i will commit your government into his hand, and he shall be a 'father' to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of judah, and the Keys of the House of David will i lay upon his shoulder, so he shall open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open, and i will fasten him in a sure place and he shall be for a glorious throne in his father's house, and they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house.." (Isaiah 22:21-24)

This is a prophecy on the Authority of Peter! He is not the King, he is the Prime Minister! Just like the government of Japan, they have the Emperor as the head of the State, while they have the Prime Minister as the Head of the Government, so is the Kingdom of God, - The Church. Jesus is

our king, while Peter is the Prime Minister, the above passage symbolically portrays the Kingdom of David. Obviously, David is the King of that Kingdom! but God has appointed a Prime Minister, who heads the Government of the Kingdom, who shall be as a 'father' (In Greek: Papa), who has the Keys! and will be adorned with all glory of the kingdom! This was even confirmed by Jesus, when he told his disciples,

"And i appoint you a Kingdom, as the Father appointed me, that you may eat and drink at my table and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, and the Lord said, Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat, But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" ( Luke 22:29-32)

Jesus tended Peter to unify his Church. It would be Peter and his Successors, who will strengthen the Christian Community. Only the Catholic Church manifests this, the Pope, who, being the successor of Peter, is our Prime Minister, in whose hand is the government of the Church on earth, who is called 'father' (PAPA ) whom we adorned with the glory of the Church! Why then would other sects accuse us of paying so much attention to the Pope? when it is Biblically supported? Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 8:27 AM 0 comments Labels: Pope

Biblical Basis of the Seven Sacraments (Using LETRA POR LETRA Argument)

The Catholic Church has NEVER TAUGHT that a doctrine must be found WORD FOR WORD in the Bible in order to say it is true. however, we will use the same argument of the fundamentalists so as to show there are really SEVEN SACRAMENTS in the Bible which they insists to omit:

BAPTISM-The Sacrament by which we are incorporated into the Church.

“Repent and be BAPTIZED everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of all your sins” (Acts 2:38 KJV)

CONFIRMATION-The Sacrament by which we receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit to attain spiritual maturity by laying of hands.

"Now he that CONFIRMETH us with you in Christ and that hath anointed us, is God: Who also hath sealed us and given the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts." (2 corinthians 1:21-22 Douay-Rheims Version)

COMMUNION-The Sacrament by which we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the COMMUNION of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the COMMUNION of the body of Christ?” (1 Corinthians 10:16 KJV)

CONFESSION-The Sacrament by which we confess and ask for the forgiveness of the sins we committed after baptism.

“And many that believed came, and CONFESSED, and showed their deeds” (Acts 19:17 KJV)

ANOINTING OF THE SICK-The Sacrament by which a sick person is anointed with oil.

“And they cast out many devils, and ANOINTED WITH OIL many that were SICK, and healed them.”(Mark 6:3)

MARRIAGE:

-The Sacrament by which a man and a woman united together in a loving commitment.

“He that giveth her in MARRIAGE doeth well; but he that giveth her not in Marriage doeth better” (1 Corinthians 7:38 KJV)

ORDINATION-The Sacrament by which a person is consecrated to serve God.

“Must one be ORDAINED to be a witness to us .. that he may take part of this ministry..” (Acts 1:22-25 KJV)

Why they are called Sacraments?

Because all of which are instruments of Christ through his Church in order to sanctify and give us his grace, the Apostle Paul called the way Christ sanctify us through the Church as a “sacrament”(mystery).

“This is a great SACRAMENT: but I speak in Christ and in the church.” (Ephesians 5:32 Douay-Rheims) Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 8:25 AM 0 comments Labels: Sacraments

The Roman Church according to the Bible vs. The Roman Church according to Manalo and Soriano

HOW THE BIBLE REGARD THE ROMAN CHURCH?

If an INM or ADD would hear "Roman Church". they would definitely argue, its the Catholic Church! the Whore of Babylon. hehehe. its their view. but not what the BIBLE PERCEIVED REGARDING THE ROMAN CHURCH.

At first, we must hold on to the Truth that the TRUE GOSPEL STARTED FROM JERUSALEM.

"And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among ALL NATIONS BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM" ( Luke 24:47 KJV)

Now, A TRUE CHRISTIAN MUST THEN UPHOLD THE TEACHINGS OF THE APOSTLES THAT STARTED FROM JERUSALEM. Was the Roman Church has an assurance of this? Jesus said to Paul,

"For as you have testified for me in JERUSALEM so you MUST ALSO bear witness in ROME" ( Acts 23:11 Gideons)

it is clear that the Roman Church UPHOLDS THE SAME TEACHING THAT STARTED FROM JERUSALEM. How did Paul described the FAITH of the Roman Church?

". your Faith is spoken of THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE WORLD" (Romans 1:8 KJV)

The Faith of the Roman Church is HERALDED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, signifying their Faith's universality. What about the other local churches? how did they regard the Roman Church? Paul said ..

"THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST salute you" (Romans 16:16 KJV)

The Churches of the first century Christianity have a HIGH REGARD towards the Church of

Rome. this is why, Paul said to the Roman Church,

"This letter is to ALL OF YOU IN ROME: GOD LOVES YOU and has chosen you to be his VERY OWN PEOPLE" (Romans 1:7 CEV)

Exactly!! the BIBLE testifies, the authenticity of the Church of Rome. they were chosen by God to be his VERY OWN PEOPLE, Highly regarded by all the local churches, whose teaching came from Jerusalem, and whose Faith is Universal. THE BIBLE IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT HIS FACT.

HOWEVER,

IF you ask the Iglesia ni Manalo or the Ang Dating Daan concerning the Church of Rome. They would tell you OTHERWISE which is a very contradiction of Biblical claims as mentioned above. he he he Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 8:18 AM 8 comments Labels: Ang Dating Daan, Iglesia ni Manalo

Sagot sa isang kaanib ng Iglesia ni Manalo na nagngangalang INGKONGELISORIANO ng youtube.

Sa youtube ay tila may isang KAANIB NG CORPORATION NI FELIX MANALO ang pilit na pinaparantangan ako na hindi ko daw sinasagot ang tanong niya.. Sa TOTOO LAMANG PO mga kababayan.. ay nagloloko ang youtube. ni hindi ko alam kung bakit. oh sadyang kumakampi talaga ang DIABLO PARA HINDI ILANTAD ANG KATOTOHANAN.. ang CODENAME PO NG TAONG KAANIB NI MANALO AY “IngkongniEliSoriano” .. heto po ang kaniyang katanungan:

(NOVEMBER 12,2009)

INGKONG: Heto ang una kong katanungan! Heto ang una kong katanungan! ok gusto mo magtanong ako syo? heto ang ktanungan ko syo! SAANG TALATA S BIBLIA MO O KHIT SANG BIBLIA MBABASA N ANG PNGALAN NG IGLESIA N ITINAYO NI CRISTO AY “ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH”.. ibigay mo sa akin yung talata n sinabi ni cristo n ang pangalan ng simbahan nya ay tatawaging “ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH” word by word! TUTAL MUKHANG BIHASA KNA KAMO S BIBLIA IBIGAY MO S KIN YUNG TALATA N MKIKITA KO ANG PANGALANG “ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH”! Yan ang UNANG tanong ko sa iyo! SAAN TALATA? Naghihintay ako..

Eto po ang Sagot natin kay INGKONG na hindi maisend sa youtube:

Introduction:

Alam mo ingkong, una sa lahat. Kailangan mo munang mag-aral ng kahit kakaunting “Griego” .. ok? J ang salitang “Catholic” ay hindi tagalog, HINDI INGLES, HINDI NIPPONGO, kundi GRIEGO. Catholic ay pinaikling salitang GRIEGO NA “KATA-HOLOS..” meaning, PANGKALAHATAN SA TAGALOG (oopss.. sounds familiar ), UNIVERSAL SA INGLES, UNIVERSO SA LATIN. Katunayan MAGBASA KA NG DICTIONARY PARA MALAMAN MO KUNG ANO KAHULUGAN NG CATHOLIC AT SAAN ITO NAGDERIVE

etymologically.

Ngayon ang Tanong mo: SAAN MABABASA SA BIBLIA ANG “ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH” ?

Aba konting basa lang.. kaya lang dapat ORIGINAL ang babasahin mo, kasi kami ay ORIGINAL CHURCH hahaha .. ROMA 1:7-8

“Kayong lahat na nangasa ROMA mga iniibig ng Dios, tinawag na mga BANAL … nagpapasalamat ako sa Dios dahil ang inyong pananampalataya ay BANTOG SA BOONG SANLIBUTAN”

Ngayon, dahil sabi ko nga sayo SALITANG GRIEGO ANG CATHOLIC, dapat basahin din sa Salin na Griego.. eto..

“Pas ho on en ROMA agepetes Theos cletes HAGIOS . . . he pistis humon KATAngeletai en HOLO to kosmo”

AYOWN!!! Ang mga BANAL (IGLESIA) na nasa Roma (ROMAN) ay may pananampalataya na bantog sa BOONG mundo (KATA-HOLOS) ano bay an? Hndi ba tinuro sa inyo ni Michael Sandoval iyan? Db? May elective siya sa “Greek” ?? hehehe .. oh .. baka sabihin mo nagkakalokohan tayo, basahin pa natin..

Sa GAWA 9:31 .. ang Iglesia ay sinasabing kalat sa BOONG Judea , Galilea at Samaria. Pano basa neto sa Griego?

“Ho men ho EKKLESIA KATHOLIS..” (Gawa 9:31)

Yown!!! EKKLESIA KATHOLIS (English: Catholic Church) nga!! Hahaha.. oh baka gusto mo pa ng ibang salin? Sa Latin naman..

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

Yown nanaman!!! UNIVERSA ECCLESIA !! (Universal Church) !! Catholic Nga!! Haha .. oh ayan ahh? Kailangan lang na MARUNONG KA MAG TRANSLATE .. otherwise, di mo talaga maiintindihan, kung sabagay, malinaw naman sa biblia

“Na binulag ng dios ng Sanlibutan na ito ang mga mata ng di sumasampalataya” (2 Cor 4:4)

Hehehehe .. kung tutuusin ang salitang KATHOLIS ay nababanggit din sa mga salin sa Griego, sa ibang pagkakataon tulad ng pagkakakilanlan kay Cristo, ayon sa Lukas 4. si Cristo ay nakilala sa boong lupain..

“Kai hupostrepho ho Iesoos en ho dunamis ho Pneuma eis ho Galilaia kai pheme exerchomai KATHOLIS..”(LUCAS 4:14 Novum Testamentum Graece)

AYOWNN!! Hahaha . translate ko sau ahh? Hehehe .. si Kristo daw ay naging bantog sa BOONG LUPAIN..

Isa pa.. you want?

“Apelthen KATHOLIS ten polin kerruson hosa epoiesen auto ho Iesoos” (Lucas 8:39)

Yown !!! nanaman!! .. you want more? :) ok .. eto pa ..

“Anaseis ton laos didasko KATHOLIS ..” (Lucas 23:5)

Hahaha .. ang dami naman niyan.. sa GREEK LANG MABABASA .. ano? Want more? O no more? Hahaha .. MORE PA .. eto pa..

“Gnotos de egeneto KATHOLIS ..” (Gawa 9:41)

Oh ?? ok ka pa? baka sabihin mo nagkakalokohan ulit tayo, at wala naman talagang SALITANG KATOLIKO (KATAHOLOS) Sa biblia ehh, kaya eto pa

“Humeis oidate ho genomenon rhema KATHOLIS” (Gawa 10:32)

Ngayon bakit Roman? Syempre, nuong unang Siglo, si Pedro na syang TAGAPAMAHALA sa Iglesia ay nasa Roma, kaya dapat lamang na ang naging sentro ng Cristianismo ay sa Roma. (Matapos ang pang uusig ng mga judio at pagbagsak ng Jerusalem nalipat sa Roma ang sentro)

Anong katunayan? ROMA 16:16 (oops.. parang , kilala ko itong talata na ito ahh? )

“Mangagbatian kayo ng banal na halik BINABATI KAYO ( mga taga Roma) ng LAHAT ng MGA IGLESIA ni Cristo (Roma 16:16)

Sa Griego , napakalinaw na ang ginamit sa salitang BATI ay ASPAZOMAI .. na sang ayon sa strong greek dictionary ay SALUDO.. ngayon? Sino ang sinasaluduhan ng LAHAT NG MGA IGLESIA NI KRISTO? Napakalinaw sa talata.. ANG IGLESIA SA ROMA!!

Oh? Akala ko ba? Kayo ang INC na nasa Roma 16:16? Eh ang mga INC jan SUMASALUDO SA IGLESIA ROMANA ehh? Kayo ba sumasaludo ngayon sa IGLESIANG NASA ROMA? :p hahaha ..

Ngayon, sabi ni Kristo, “Huwag niyong gagawin sa kapwa ninyo ang ayaw niyong gawin ng kapwa mo sa inyo” MALINAW YAN.. uulitin ko lang ang tanong ko. AT NASILAT KA NG MALAKI dito ingkong

1) Saan mo nabasa sa Biblia na dapat BAWAT ARAL AY WORD FOR WORD.

2) Sino sa mga Apostol ang nag practice niyan? Bigay ka naman ng pangalan. Baka sakaling makilala ko

3) PARA FAIR. Saan mo mababasa sa BIBLIA WORD FOR WORD ang EXECUTIVE MINISTER AT ANG “EKKLESIA TAN CHRISTOU” (Iglesia ni Cristo) SA ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS??

Oh dapat FAIR ahh? J hehehe.. pinakitaan kita ng EKKLESIA KATHOLIS (Iglesia Katolika) mula sa Biblia. Dapat pakitaan mo din ako ng EKKLESIA TAN CHRISTOU (Iglesia ni Cristo) sa Biblia .. WORD FOR WORD” .Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 7:42 AM 13 comments Labels: Iglesia ni Manalo

Bawal nga ba ang paulit-ulit na panalangin?

Kadalasang tinutuligsa ang Iglesia Catolica sa isang gawain na minamahal ng mga miyembro nito, at ito nga ang pagdarasal ng Rosaryo at mga litanya. Sabi ng ibang mga sekta, ito ay malinaw na ipinagbabawal ng bibliya. Anumang dasal na paulit-ulit ay pinagbabawal diumano sa Mateo 6:7. upang ating malaman ng lubos ang kanilang pahiwatig, ay mabuting basahin natin ng mabuti ang nilalaman ng nabanggit na talata sa bibliya:

“At sa pananalangin ninyo ay huwag ninyong gamitin ang WALANG KABULUHANG Paulit ulit, na gaya ng ginagawa ng mga gentil,; sapagka’t iniisip nilang dahil sa kanilang maraming kasasalita ay didinggin sila”

Sa nabanggit na talata sa itaas, ay mariing ipinagbawal ng Panginoon ang walang kabuluhang paulit-ulit, ngunit, ito’y hindi marapat isipin na isang dahilan upang sabihin na ang mga katoliko ay lumalabag sa bibliya dahil sa pagdadasal ng rosaryo at mga litanya. ang binabanggit dito ng Panginoong Hesus ay ang mga “Walang Kabuluhan” at “Gaya ng mga Gentil(pagano)”. samantalang ang Rosaryo naman, ay pawang naka ugat sa Bibliya. Bawat misteryo na binabanggit sa Rosaryo ay makikita sa Bibliya. Tungkol sa paulitulit, ang binabanggit dito, ay ang mga “Walang Kabuluhan”. alalahanin natin, na ang bawat nakalagay sa Bibliya ay pawang may kabuluhan. Mismong ang mga Hudyo ay nagdarasal ng paulit-ulit ayon sa Bibliya, Sa akalt ng mga AWIT 136. Ay maaaninaw ang paulit-ulit na pagpupuri sa Panginoon, sa pamamagitan ng mga katagang,

“Sapagkat ang kaniyang kagandahang loob ay magpakailanman” (Awit 136)

Ang mga Hudyo, kabilang mismo ang ating Panginoong Hesus, ay nagdarasal ng mga salmong ito, isa na ang isang buong kapitulo na binabanggit sa itaas. Masasabi ba natin na ang mga Israelita, kabilang ang Panginoong Hesus ay lumalabag sa palatuntunan ng Dios?

Sa Langit po, ang mga mananamba sa Dios, ay gumagamit rin ng paulit-ulit na mga salita.

“At ang apat na nilalang na buhay na may anim na pakpak bawat isa sa kanila, ay mga puno ng mata sa palibot at sa loob; at sila’y WALANG PAHINGA, ARAW AT GABI, NA NAGSASABI; BANAL..BANAL..BANAL.. Ang Panginoong Diyos, ang Makapangyarihan sa lahat na buhay at siyang darating” (Apocalipsis 4:8)

Wala pong makasalanang tao ang makakaakyat sa langit. Kung ang mga ityo ay nasa langit? masasabi ba natin na sila ay makasalanan? dahil sila ay gumagamit ng PAULIT ULIT na mga salita Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 7:40 AM 5 comments Labels: Rosary

Bawal patawag ng "father" ang pari ayon DAW sa Biblia

Ang Iglesia Catolica, dala ng kanilang mataas na repseto sa mga ministro ng Dios – ang mga Pari. Ay tinatawag namin silang “father” ito’y nagpapahiwatig na sila ay iginagalang namin bilang mga ama ng aming pang espiritwal na kalagayan. Ngunit, sa kabila nito, ay binabanggit ng ilang mga sekta, na ang pagtawag sa tao bilang ‘ama ng kaluluwa’ ay isang paglabag sa Bibliya. Ito raw ay makikita sa Mateo 23:9:

“At Huwag ninyong tatawaging ama ang sinomang tao sa lupa, sapagka’t iisa ang inyong Ama, samakatuwid baga’y siyang nasa Langit”

Ano kaya ang ibig ipakahulugan ng ating Panginoong Hesus dito? ito kaya ay isang patunay ng paglabag ng Iglesia Catolica sa bibliya?. Mga kaibigan, mas mabuti pong ating suriing mabuti ang nilalaman ng talatang ito. Kung atin lamang po babasahin ng buo ang kapitulo 23 ng Mateo, ay malinaw na ang pahayag ng Panginoong Hesus ay huwag tataawaging Ama o guro ang mga Pariseo at Escriba!! sapagka’t sila ay mahilig magmataas.

“Nang magkagayo’y nagsalita si Hesus sa mga karamihan at sa kaniyang mga alagad, nanagsasabi, Nagsisiupo ang mga Escriba at Pariseo sa luklukan ni Moises. lahat ng kanilang ipinagutos ay gawin ninyo at ganapin, datapuwat’ huwag kayong magsigawa ng alinsunod sa kanilang mga gawa, sapagka’t kanilang sinasabi at hindi ginagawa, Oo Sila’y nagbibigkis ng mabibigat na pasan at mahihirap na dalhin at ipinapasan nila sa mga balikat ng mga tao; datapuwa’t ayaw man lamang nilang kilusin ng kanilang daliri, datapuwa’t ginagawa nila ang lahat ng kanilang mga gawa upang makita ng mga tao; sapagka’t

nagpapalapad sila ng kanilang mga pilakteria, at nagpapalapad ng mga laylayan ng kanilang damit. at iniibig ang ang mga pangulong dako sa mga pigingan, at ang mga pangulong luklukan sa mga sinagoga, at pagpupugayan sa mga pamilihan at ANG SILA’Y TAWAGIN NG MGA TAO ‘RABI’

DATAPUWA’T KAYO’Y HUWAG PATAWAG NA RABI (Guro) Sapagka’t IISA ANG INYONG GURO, at kayong lahat ay magkakapatid, at huwag ninyong tatawaging ama ang sinomang tao sa lupa; sapagka’t iisa ang inyong Ama, samakatuwid baga’y siyang nasa langit, ni Huwag kayong patawag na panginoon; sapagka’t iisa lamang ang inyong Panginoon sa makatuwid baga’y ang Cristo, datapuwa’t ang pinakadakila sa inyo ay magiging lingkod ninyo at sino mang nagmamataas at mabababa; at sinomang nagpapakababa ay matataas, DATAPUWA’T SA ABA NINYO! MGA ESCRIBA AT PARISEO, MGA MAPAGPAIMBABAW!!…” (MATEO 23:1-13)

Kung ating susuriin mabuti, ang mga pinaparinggan ng ating Panginoon ay ang mga Escriba at mga Pariseo. ang tinutukoy lamang ni Kristo dito ay tatawaging guro,ama, panginoon ang mga pariseo at mga escriba. sapagka’t sila’y pawang mapagpaimbabaw. Ngunit, kung ang isa namang alagad ni Cristo, na isang Taong nagpapagal para sakaniya, ay hindi naman bawal na sila’y tawaging ama. Alalahanin natin, na sa lumang tipan pa lamang ay isinasagawa na ang pagtawag ng ama sa mga alagad ng Dios. Tulad ni Eliseo, tinawag niyang ‘Ama’ si Elias:

“.. At si Elias ay sumampa sa langit sa pamamagitan ng ipoipo, at nakita ni Eliseo, at siya’y sumigaw, Ama ko! Ama ko! ..” (2 Hari 2:11-12)

Si Eliseo man ay ay tinawag na Ama ng hari ng Israel;

“At sinabi ng hari ng Israel kay Eliseo, nang makita niya sila, Ama ko, sasaktan ko ba sila?” (2 Hari 6:21)

Maaaring sasabihin ng iba, ‘Ito’y itinigil na sa panahon ng Bagong Tipan’ ito nga ba’y totoo? hindi po!! kung tutuusin ay mismong mga apostol ay ay nagpapaka-Ama sa mga Cristiano:

“Gaya ng inyong nalalaman kung ano ang inugali namin sa bawa’t isa sa inyo, na gaya ng ISANG AMA SA KANIYANG SARILING MGA ANAK..” (1 Tesalonika 2:11)

Malinaw na mismong mga apostol ay tulad ng isang ama. Kung sila ay nagpapaka – ama, ano ba dapat ang ating itawag sa kanila at sa kanilang mga halili? hindi po ba ay ‘ama’ rin? sabi ng Bibliya ay ganito;

“Salitang sinalita sa KAUKULAN ay gaya ng isang mansanang ginto sa mga bilaong pilak” (Kawikaan 24:11)

“Ibigay ninyo sa lahat ang sa kanila’y nararapat ..”(Roma 13:7)

Malinaw ang sabi ng Bibliya, ‘ibigay sa tao ang sa kanlia’y nararapat’ at ang ‘mga salita na itinatawag sa karapat dapat , ay gaya ng isang mansanas na ginto’ ganun din po ang mga katoliko!! dahil ang mga Pari, (kahalili ng mga Apostol) ay nagpapaka ama sa amin, ay marapat lamang na tawagin silang Ama oh “Father”. Sa Tuligsa ni Cristo sa Mateo 23, ay ating mapapansin na hindi lamang ang “ama” ang ipinagbabawal niya, kung ating baasahing muli, ay tatlo ang kaniyang ipinagbabawal na mga titulo: una, ‘guro’ (Versikulo pangalawa, ‘ama’ (versikulo 9) at pangatlo, ‘panginoon’ (Versikulo 10).

isa ang ang ‘guro’ sa pinagbabawal ng Panginoong Hesus, kung literal na ipinaguutos ni Cristo na “huwag patawag na Guro” bakit ang Apostol mismo na si Pablo ay nagpatawag na guro? ganito ang ating mababasa;

“Na sa bagay na ito ay ako’y itinalaga na tagapangaral, at apostol ,at GURO” (2 Timoteo 1:11)

Si Pablo ba ay lumabag sa utos ni Cristo na huwag patawag na ‘Guro’ ? (Mateo23:8) Hindi ba alam ito ni Pablo? Alam po natin na sa bagay na iyan ay alam ni San Pablo ang mga utos ni Cristo. Ibig lamang ipakahulugan dito na hindi po literal ang utos ni Cristo sa Mateo 23:8-10.

Posted by Ang Daan ng Katotohanan at 7:36 AM 3 comments Labels: Priests Newer Posts Older Posts Home Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Ang Banal na Kasulatan

KATANUNGAN SA ARAL KATOLIKO: BIBLIA ANG SASAGOT

About Me

Ang Daan ng Katotohanan This blog is moderated by a Catholic Apologist known as "Beltran" a Lay Affiliate of the Order of Preachers (Dominicans) He moderates this blog and continue to write articles in the defense of the Catholic Faith. He also spread articles of his co-Apologists here in the Philippines whenever circumstances necessitate it.

View my complete profile

Labels

Ang Dating Daan Anti-Catholicism

Apologetics-English

Atty. Marwil N. Llasos

Catholic Pride

Christmas

Debunking ADD blog

Devotion to the Saints

Iglesia Catolica

Iglesia ni Manalo

Images

Mary

Mother of Christians

Mr. Adrian Tambuyat

O.P.

On-Line Debate with ADD

Peter the Rock

Peter-in-Rome

Pope

Priests

Protestantism

Purgatory

RH Bill

Rosary

Sacraments

Seminars

Sign of the Cross

My Blog List

Bro. Marwil N. Llasos, O.P.

EXPOSING THE LIES AND DECEPTIONS OF ARMANDO ANG

7 hours ago

The Splendor of the Church

PALIWANAG HINGGIL SA UNITY OF GOD AT DISTINCTIONS OF THE PERSONS

6 days ago

Catholic Faith Defender

G-one T. Paisones Versus Mark Baring (A Debate)

7 months ago

Marwil N. Llasos

GERRY SOLIMAN AND ELIPHAZ

9 months ago

NOTICE:

This blog is updated weekly. Your questions about our Catholic Faith, will be answered much possibly a week after. The owner of this blog does not have his own connection. Thank you for your patience. I pray God will bless every person who'll read the content of this blog!

Blog Archive

►   2011 (11)

►   2010 (59)

▼   2009 (16)

o ▼   December (16)

REFUTATION ON THE FOOLISHNESS OF CHRISTIANACCUSER:...

2ND EXCHANGES WITH ADD BLOGGER "CHRISTIANDEFENDER"...

Response to:Where should we confess our sins?

Catholic Apologist pinulbos ang ADD Blogger - Dati...

The Mark of the Beast applies more on Felix Manalo...

INC on the Statue of Manalo: "Sounds Catholic?"

Biblical Basis of Papacy (using ADD/INM method of ...

Biblical Basis of the Seven Sacraments (Using LETR...

The Roman Church according to the Bible vs. The Ro...

Sagot sa isang kaanib ng Iglesia ni Manalo na nagn...

Bawal nga ba ang paulit-ulit na panalangin?

Bawal patawag ng "father" ang pari ayon DAW sa Bib...

Tanda ng Santa Cruz: Nasa Bibliya nga ba?

Refutation of an ADD member - Eugene's claim that ...

Images in the Catholic Church

Iglesia Katolika: nasa Biblia nga ba?

Travel template.