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

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

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

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

Enjoy and reflect.

Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis.

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

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

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

TAGALOG SUBTITLE

UPDATE ON CHURCH OF GOD INTERNATIONAL or ANG DATING DAAN SECT

By: Fr. Abe Arganiosa CRS

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/11/update-on-church-of-god-international.html

Caesarea Philippi, the massive Rock formation before which the Lord Jesus promised St. Peter: “You are a rock and on this rock I will build my Church and the gate of hell shall not prevail against it.”

A neophyte Catholic Apologist named Beltran O.P. informed me the other day that Ang Dating Daan preacher Eli Soriano, who is now hiding somewhere for rape case of a male victim, lost his constant companion in debates and in public fora, Bro. Willy Santiago.

The viewers of ADD programs will easily remember Willy Santiago as the guy who has special talent in opening the Sacred Scriptures and read it for Soriano. It is noticeable that while Soriano was speaking and mentioning a Biblical passage, Bro. Willy was ahead of him in finding the chapter and the verse.

Now, Willy left Soriano due to, according to many in the web world, power struggle. Because as Soriano is getting older and is hampered by so many legal cases the one being groomed to be the successor in Soriano’s throne is his favorite newphew, Daniel Razon. This is allegedly unacceptable to many followers, especially to the trained ministers like Willy because Razon is pre-occupied with many businesses and doesn’t show extraordinary talents on Sacred Scriptures as well as public debates. He stresses that Razon never joined the public fora of ADD wherein Soriano or the ministers answer questions on the spot from the audience. And he never joined them in squaring it off with the pastors of opponent religions in public plazas. In short, Willy claims that Daniel Razon got no balls according to ADD criteria. That is a very drastic revelation… tantamout to pulling off the guy’s pants down. Manny Pacquio will not accept that because that is below the belt. Don’t you think so?

Anyway debating is very important for them. Because the sect prided itself on their claim that Soriano is undefeated in debates and that he can answer all questions. So, if ever the successor cannot perform the same then he will be an impotent duck undeserving of respect and loyalty of their seasoned debaters. So, Razon could be good for Peking Duck menu but they prefer one who debates. Imagine, Willy and the ministers are veteran in the battle of the streets and plazas, and suddenly nepotism is creeping in to take away the glory from them. Interesting indeed. He, he, he…

Now, to aggravate the situation few months ago Willy and his cohorts abandoned Soriano and are now appearing in another TV progam in IBC-13 to reveal, guess what, the erroneous doctrines and unchristian activities of Soriano. How kind of him to do that? But of course, Soriano is fuming mad and as a retaliation he issued a Fatwa… I mean Excommunication in a very Christian form worst than the Anathema Sit of the Council of Trent against the Protestants and heretics. Soriano preferred the Pauline language of: “Giving over to Satan”. It means that he was entrusting Willy and his rebel companions to the devil.

Surely, Willy answered. He satirically responded that Eli Soriano could do that because he is on pact with the devil, otherwise how can he be sure that the devil will accept his entrustment. Very reasonable, isn’t he? How can he turn over to Satan his beloved Willy and companions unless he has direct communication with the Angel of Darkness. Very revealing!

To complicate the matter Soriano made Jane Santiago, Willy’s own wife, to appear on national TV to denounce her husband, narrate her ordeal from the so-called battering hand of Willy and his plans to wrist control of ADD from Soriano. How touching! Family matters when mixed with religion and faith always make a melodramic touch on any story. This one is no exception, even with Eli Soriano as its script writer and director. I am almost tempted to believe that the preferred theme song for the program should be Barbara Streissand’s version of Send In The Clown with some touch of The Days We Were. Ha, ha, ha… Bro. Mars will love that.

Willy insists that his reasons to breakaway is purely doctrinal and not carnal in anyway. He listed a lot of doctrinal reasons but I will only point some of them:

1. Soriano’s command that the members kneel in worship ONLY facing the Sun, according to Willy is unbiblical. Really? Ha, ha, ha… Where did Soriano get that doctrine? Guess who?

2. Soriano’s claim that “MAY PUWIT ANG DIOS” [God has a Butt!]. O no, I already pointed out that there should be no below the belt. These two must be very malicious in their actions. Soriano speaks of Butt… very improper especially when applied to the Most High.

So, better for me to stop here. If you want to check their WORD WAR you can check the You Tubes. And if you want to read Willy’s Blog [at least supportive of him], please check this: http://exegesis.weebly.com/index.html

Ang Dating Daan: An Old Path Incarnate Again (Revised)

Link: http://www.pugiofidei.com/ang.htm

I. Introduction
II. A Brief History of The Church of God International
III. The Bible Predicted Me, and God Himself Teaches Me
IV. Soriano and the Stinkblossom
V. A Semi-Arian Apollinarian
VI. Confusing the Covenants

I. Introduction

Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us (Ecclesiastes 1:10).

When a Filipino Catholic man first alerted me to the existence and activity of The Church of God International of Mr. Eliseo Soriano, which he publicizes through his popular television show Ang Dating Daan (“The Old Path” in Tagalog), my first instinct was that it was a bit absurd to refer to a religious group as the Old Path which has only been around for about 30 years. However, upon further study of its history and of the corpus of Mr. Soriano’s teachings, I have realized that this is not the case. Rather, it is more ironic than absurd, because it really is an old path, simply not in the sense that Mr. Soriano thinks it is. For it is the same path that we see incarnate in the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many other similar groups: a charismatic leader claims direct divine revelation, twists Scripture, preaches vigorously, and with the help of fortuitous social, economic, and psychological circumstances, manages to attract a sizable flock to follow him down to perdition. Fortunately, Soriano’s claims are so easily falsifiable, so manifestly absurd, his exegetical incompetence so blatantly obvious, his self-contradiction so evident, that any person of good will who studies his teachings will be able to see him for the false prophet that he is and fly back to the bosom of Holy Mother Church to be reintroduced to the divine life of grace in the soul. A bit of background first.

II. A Brief History of The Church of God International

He that gathereth not with me, scattereth (Matthew 12:30).

Schisms are the plague of all schismatics. Once a group of factious men splits off from the Mystical Body of Christ to follow winds of doctrine more to their liking, little remains to bind them to each other. Hence, whenever someone comes to an irreconcilable doctrinal disagreement with the leadership of the schismatic church, or simply wants power and authority that they have but are not willing to give him, the first schism is followed by further schisms, and factions proliferate. This is the principle which underlies the history of Ang Dating Daan.

The story starts with a man named Felix Manalo, who left the Catholic Church as a teenager. He dabbled briefly in a cult called Colorum which claimed direct communication with God, and then joined the Methodist Episcopal Church and became a minister. As his Catholic mother lay dying he “rejected the last sacrament for her.”¹ He then spent a brief stint as a Presbyterian minister, then left them as well for the Christian Missionary Alliance, who impressed him because they baptized by immersion only. He then switched teams again after he lost a debate to a Seventh Day Adventist minister and decided that since he couldn’t beat them he would join them. He left them as well after deciding they were wrong about observing a Saturday Sabbath, and briefly flirted with atheism and agnosticism. Finally, according to the account which he convinced his credulous followers to believe, in November 1913 he spent three days and nights in total seclusion studying the Bible and came out convinced that he was God’s last messenger, the messenger from the Far East prophesied by Rev 7:2-3; Isaiah 43:5-6; 46:11; 41:9-11. In any case, in 1914 started a church for himself, which would later claim Protestants to be apostates, and itself to be the one true Church of Christ outside of which there is no salvation.² But his own biographers give lie to these claims, relating that:

On December 25, 1918, ministers of the Christian Mission honored Felix Manalo as an outstanding evangelist. The certificate was signed by Ministers Leslie Wolfe and Higinio Mayor, attested by attorney V. Dimagiba. The affair, held at the Gloria Theater in Tondo, Manila was attended by Church members and several Protestant pastors… In August 1919 Manalo visited all local congregations before departing for the United States to advance his Bible studies. He advised the brethren to keep united and protect one another in his absence. One day in September that year he sailed for the U.S. and stayed at Berkeley, California, burying himself in Bible research and studies, and attending classes in a school of religion.³

So, either Felix Manalo was accepting awards and taking classes from men he regarded as apostates, or his claim to head the only true Church of Christ came later, and from 1914-1919 he believed himself to be the head of just another Protestant church.

While Manalo was away in America his church begat the grandfather of And Dating Daan, when two of his students whom he had passed over for ordination, Teofilo Ora and Januario Ponce, started their own church called the Iglesia Verdadero de Cristo (“The True Church of Christ” in Spanish) and drew away much of his fold with charges of immorality. True to the nature which this schismatic church inherited in its genesis, it soon begat the father of Ang Dating Daan with another schism. Nicolas Antiporda Perez founded the Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan (“The Church of God in Christ Jesus, Pillar and Ground of the Truth” in Tagalog), and attracted a following. The day before Eliseo Soriano turned seventeen, his parents took him to hear one of his sermons; the topic was, not surprisingly, the true Church of God according to the Bible, and Soriano was convinced. Perez baptized him, and made him a minister, the only other minister in the whole church. Hence, Soriano expected that when Perez died he would accede to the leadership of the Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus.⁴ However, when Perez died, a woman name Levita Gugulan in fact came to power,⁵ and Soriano, true to form, left and started yet another splinter church. He claims that he was forced out by former colleagues who “driven by extreme greed for power embarked on dark schemes against him and launched an underground plot to malign and discredit” him.⁶

Soriano further claims that this occurred in fulfillment of Zechariah 13:8-9, a claim with about as much credibility as Manalo’s claim to be the angel ascending from the east of Revelations 7. Zechariah 13:7 is about the execution of Christ (cf. Matt 26:31) and the following two verses are about the persecution of the early Christian Church. For Soriano to apply it to his little group 2000 years later is wholly erroneous. Consider how mild the persecutions Soriano has endured really are compared to what the early Church went through. The early Christians were torn to pieces by lions while crowds of heathens laughed at them; Soriano got sued, and lost. They were crucified; Soriano got briefly kicked off television. They had the option of sacrificing to demons or losing their heads; Soriano’s character is sometimes verbally attacked by the ministers he so frequently attacks himself. Soriano in fact has not endured any more persecution than Mohammed endured, whose persecution consisted of verbal abuse, a boycott, family pressure, and juvenile pranks like people dumping trash on his porch. This, compared to what Christians have endured, is child’s play.

In any case, Bro. Eli, as he now likes to be called, registered his group as Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan (“The Church of God in Christ Jesus, Pillar and Ground of the Truth”), a name almost identical to the name of Gugulan’s group, Soriano having only replaced one word for “ground” (suhay, brace) with another (saligan, basis). Not surprisingly, Gugulan sued him, and the Philippine Supreme Court ruled in her favor. Soriano then changed the name of his group to Iglesia Ni YHWH at ni YHWSA HMSYH, and, most recently, to Members Church of God International.⁷ This is ironic because in one of his sermons which is posted at the Ang Dating Daan website Soriano chastises the Jehovah’s Witnesses for having multiple names throughout their history, and he insists that the real name of the true church is The Church of God in Christ Jesus, and that if an organization does not bear this exact name it cannot be of God.⁸ I eagerly await Mr. Soriano’s admission that his church no longer meets his own criteria for being of God.

And somehow, in spite of his ignominious origins, legal troubles, and self contradiction, Soriano has managed to draw a rather large following to himself, including many former Catholics. He apparently has an extraordinary memory, and amazes his listeners with his ability to regurgitate Scripture passages off the top of his head. One of his shows, in fact, is called “Ask Soriano, and the Bible Will Answer.” However, he clearly does not understand much of what he has memorized, as will become evident throughout this essay. Soriano must be very charismatic as well, given the way his followers fawn over him.⁹ He also exploits the chaotic religious landscape of the Philippines with his constant harangues against false preachers, wolves in sheep clothing, who are only after money and don’t really care about their flocks. He is thus a magnet for all those who are disillusioned and disaffected with their current churches, and who are willing to listen to a man claiming that he really loves them, and that he’s “the only sensible and sincere evangelist”¹⁰ who cares for them and wants to lead them to salvation. Soriano also uses unethical debate tactics, such as heckling, setting up debates on his home turf where the audience can shout his opponents down, and recording his opponents’ words so he can replay them to the audience and pronounce allegations of contradiction.¹¹ Finally, he is adept at character assassination, and smears all apostates from his group.¹² He uses, in sum, the tactics characteristic of a cult.

III. The Bible Predicted Me, and God Himself Teaches Me

The Lord hath not sent thee, and thou hast made this people to trust in a lie (Jeremiah 28:15).

As noted above, Soriano claims to be the only sincere evangelist. Everyone else, besides his underlings, is a charlatan, according to him. Naturally, he also claims that he has been predicted by Scripture, specifically Ecclesiastes 9:15. He is, as he styles himself, the poor wise man who saved his city from destruction. Again, this is erroneous; it is simply another manifestation of Soriano’s utter incompetence to interpret Scripture, for in Ecclesiastes 9:15, Solomon is not predicting anything, but simply illustrating a principle (i.e., that wisdom is better than strength, even though it is accounted as less in the eyes of the world), by relating an event from the past. A poor and wise man saved his city from being destroyed by the army of a great King, but afterwards no one remembered his name. This may be a parable, or it may refer to a real event (Scripture records similar occurrences in Judg 9:52-55; 2 Sam 20:14-22). But in either case, it is narrated as an event which was completed in the past. Moreover, Soriano has yet to turn aside any armies or save any cities, and given the way he dresses, he clearly is not poor, and given the way he preaches, neither is he wise. Finally, the poor wise man’s name was forgotten in obscurity, but Soriano’s fame is only growing. Indeed, his great ambition is that “before I die… all people from the different parts of the world would be able to hear me as I preach the Gospel of Christ.”¹³ He should have realized, if he wanted to claim Ecclesiastes 9:15 for himself, that he would have to avoid professing ambitions to everlasting world renown. Clearly, if he were to preach his gospel to the entire world, his name would not be universally forgotten. In sum, no passage of Scripture refers directly to Mr. Soriano. He is simply one of the many false prophets contributing to the great apostasy predicted thereby.

Soriano’s arguments, while perhaps impressive on the surface, fall apart upon deeper analysis. But he impedes his followers from discovering this by forbiding them to interpret the Bible. Indeed, in an article aptly titled, “Should the Bible Be Interpreted” he declares “it is not correct for us to interpret the Bible! God did not give anybody the right to interpret the Bible! And nobody can claim, not even a person with a Bachelor’s degree, like Law for instance, that he can explain the Bible, even if he follow the principles of hermeneutics or the formal study of methods of interpretation… the only thing that we have to do is, read the Bible. Do not interpret it.” He then quotes Romans 16:25-26 and Colossians 1:24-26 and concludes “Now, can anybody claim that, God left a certain mystery unexplained for these pastors to clarify and interpret themselves? Doing this is a clear act of deception.”¹⁴ Next, he further pronounces that “The Bible should no longer be explained by man inasmuch as the Bible already explains itself.”¹⁵

On this point, Mr. Soriano is clearly inconsistent with his own rule. As the reader has probably already noted, and will continue to note throughout this essay, Soriano’s arguments generally rest on tenuous, dubious, and even outright erroneous and incompetent interpretations of Scripture. We will see again and again that Soriano breaks his own rule and interprets the Bible, and does a poor job of it at that.

And of course, the idea that the Bible is so clear that no one needs to interpret it is itself unbiblical. 2 Peter 3:16 says, “As also in all [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” The Bible contains many things that are “hard to be understood,” mysteries which need to be explained, a clear refutation of what Soriano states above. One would think, then, that Soriano would avoid this passage. However, he does not, for in a later article Soriano teaches that yes, the Bible does need to be interpreted after all. He quotes 2 Peter 3:16, then states:

We really should know how to use the bible. We should not perceive it as something so simple that anybody can readily interpret. In fact, it is the opposite! The Bible is not a plain as it may seem to be. The Holy Scriptures has the highest degree and the utmost quality of words and wisdom any book could offer that a man can read in his lifetime…. The Bible is unique and more special than any other book essential to our salvation. Hence, not anybody can just stand up and explain, elucidate, or even interpret the words of the Almighty Himself!¹⁶

He is here developing a self-contradiction which will be consummated in future articles. But I will make a brief digression first. Soriano illustrates his point with an example:

In Psalms 22:6, the one who is speaking is supposedly ‘…a worm, not man. Reproached of men, and despised of people.’

Continuing in verse 16 and 18, this so-called ‘worm’ said that: ‘…dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me… For they pierced my hands and my feet, they part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.’ These descriptions fit very well to our Lord Jesus Christ because Christ experienced all these at the time of His crucifixion and death. Therefore we can safely say that Jesus Christ, as He himself said, is ‘a worm, not man;’ but, in John 8:40, Jesus said to the Pharisees that He is ‘a man hath told you the truth’. Still, in 1 John 5:20, it says that, ‘Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life.’ Here, we are faced with the dilemma of distinguishing the real nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. Is He a worm, a man, or a God? This is one of the greatest debates in the religious world; but how can we, in our humble being, be able to understand this seemingly complicated issue? Is it possible for us, human beings, to comprehend complexities such as these?¹⁷

Indeed, Mr. Soriano, that is why Jesus established a Church against which the gates of hell would not prevail (Matt 16:18), and promised to be with her “all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt 28:20), to send her the “Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever: The spirit of truth” (John 14:16-17) who, when He comes, “will teach you all truth” (John 16:13). That is why he told his apostles, “He that heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16) and why the apostles appointed successors to perpetuate their ministry for future generations (cf. 1 Tim 5:19-22; 2 Tim 4:2-5; Tit 1:5; 2:1, 15). For although almost anyone could see that Psalm 22:6 is using a metaphor, not literally saying that Jesus is a worm, it did indeed take divine guidance to bring humanity to a proper understanding of the hypostatic union, the union of the divine and human natures in the single person of Jesus Christ. God guided the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the early Catholic Church, men like St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Athanasius of Alexandria, to explain to their flocks the mystery of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, true God, as the true man Jesus Christ, and this understanding, received from the apostles and transmitted and developed by the same bishops of the early Catholic Church, was finally codified at Catholic ecumenical Councils such as Nicaea and Chalcedon. Christendom has never been without authentic Christian teachers, the successors of the apostles.

But no, Soriano would have his followers believe that Christ abandoned his Church, and that for almost 2000 years there were no “sincere evangelists” who faithfully taught apostolic doctrine, or, rather, he would have them believe that these evangelists existed but there is simply no historical record of them because the mean old Catholic Church covered it up. How convenient. Incidentally, this is the same logic that Dan Brown uses in The Da Vinci Code to argue that Jesus was a mere man who taught peace and worshiped the sacred feminine. Once one decides to reject the entire historical record as a forgery written by power hungry men, one is free to project a narrative onto the past which is in reality one’s own personal creation. This is how Soriano convinces his followers to believe that his doctrines, so foreign to Christian history, actually represent authentic apostolic teaching.

Let’s return to the developing contradiction. Soriano concludes this article by relating the means of properly interpreting the Bible. First, one must have the Spirit of God, which requires one to fear the Lord and keep His commandments. He reconciles his statements thus far with his dictum that no man may interpret the Bible by insisting that the Bible interprets itself, and that if one has the Spirit of God and searches the Scriptures diligently, one will find the explanation of the passage one does not understand in some other passage somewhere else.

Incidentally, he further insists that one must not refer to any book besides the Bible itself in the endeavor of Biblical interpretation, and that anyone who does so is flirting with damnation (I suppose he would except his own sermons and his “book” (I put “book” in quotation marks because I printed it on 16 pages of 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper) Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ. Sure, it’s alright to refer to those writings in order to understand the Bible). This is absurd. Tremendous insights can be gained into biblical interpretation through historical, grammatical, and linguistic analysis, and this often requires reference to non-biblical literature. Try figuring out what archegos means, for instance, without referring to extra-biblical Greek writings (it is used only once in the entire New Testament: in Hebrews 12:2). Archeology and geography also throw light on much of what is obscure in Holy Scripture. Finally, the Church Fathers, who held on to the traditions which they received from the apostles (2 Thess 2:15), which included the proper understanding of many passages of Scripture, likewise provide for us a sure guide for understanding God’s Word.

But Soriano would cut off his flock from these tools, and from education in the methods of biblical exegesis, and leave them adrift all by themselves to try to interpret these ancient texts, written in a language and culture far removed from their own, and expect them to just be able to read and understand. And naturally, they will fail. Without knowing the first thing about Greek and Hebrew exegesis, and being ignorant of the Church’s theology of things like salvation, the Trinity, and the hypostatic union, they will simply be unable to understand these deeply complex texts. Then, they will have to turn to Bro. Eli. This is where his self-contradiction reaches its consummation. The following is from an article entitled “Three Colors of Death Green & White & Red” in Soriano’s Old Path Magazine:

Firstly, parables, as parables, were not meant to be understood by most people… Secondly, Jesus used minute details which were intended to hide the truth of the text from the non-spiritual, but to reveal truth to God’s people… Thirdly, symbols (such as the woman, merchant man, wind, angel, dove, water, fire, and others) frequently appear in texts of the Bible.

All of these show the need for a teacher who has the Spirit of God so that one may understand the Word of God. Nothing less would be able to lead one to truth and guide one until the end.

And God is faithful that he would not leave his people alone without one. Fortunate, indeed, is one who has found that true preacher.

As attested to by many, God is really with Bro. Eli Soriano. He is remarkably an extraordinary individual – unschooled by the world’s standards but unbeatable in biblical matters. He can see what others do not and has the understanding of the Word of God not found in anyone even among sages. And for that, how blessed is the Philippines! …It is then no surprise that he claims he is being taught by God which explains his deep understanding of God’s Word and the revelations given to him… Anyone thirsting for the knowledge of God would make sure he is in the right path – the Old Path. And if you truly care for truth, you must make sure you are being led by someone with an understanding given by God, and teaching things of God – like a spring that never runs dry.¹⁸

There is more of the same in articles entitled “Super-Preacher in Our Times” and “Nobody Does It Better” in the same issue:

There is no secret in the Bro. Eli’s being unique, singular, and distinctive. The Bible gives its own explanation in John 3:34 as him being sent, therefore speaks the words of God, who gave him unlimited spirit – For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.¹⁹

The irony of it all is that God has equipped the faithful preacher with full knowledge of the Bible with unmeasured Spirit, then warned him what not to do that he may finish his work, and yet allowed him to be fair game to wicked people and their evil designs. But God is faithful, this mysterious set-up may be the strength of God’s design in preserving His nation through His Faithful preacher – one whom none can beat in unlocking the mysteries of the Bible…

As Bro. Eli preaches, he makes distinctions between quantity of the word, its quality, its direction, time, construction of meaning, and extent of meaning. He goes as far as explaining the source and the intended receiver to place the message in proper context… Truly, none can compare with the understanding that Bro. Eli has that symbolisms in the Bible are effectively expounded to his congregation and to his hearers in bible expositions. While he has not formally studied so-called hermeneutics that are the fare of secular schools, his level of understanding shows an awesome depth that each topic – unheard of before from all corners of this world – is as valuable as his next topic would be. Indeed, Bro. Eli preaches faithfully. Foremost, he unlocks mysteries from the Word of God like nobody. The faithful one whom God has assigned would do his task God’s way – like Bro. Eli.²⁰

Now Soriano’s true colors come out. Before, anyone who feared the Lord and patiently worked at it could interpret the Bible. Now, only he can. Before, “God did not give anybody the right to interpret the Bible!” Now, Soriano is divinely commissioned to interpret the Bible. Before, he asked “can anybody claim that, God left a certain mystery unexplained for these pastors to clarify and interpret themselves? Doing this is a clear act of deception.” Now, he is “unlocking the mysteries of the Bible” for his flock who eagerly lap up every word that falls from his lips. The contradiction could hardly be clearer. Now I am eagerly awaiting Mr. Soriano’s admission that, in addition to his group not being a true church, he has also perpetrated “a clear act of deception” on his poor unfortunate followers. For he has left them utterly dependent on him to learn anything at all about Sacred Scripture. Indeed, how dare they question he who is receiving direct revelation from God. How dare they think to read what competent Bible scholars and exegetes have to say about Sacred Scripture! Soriano is the only faithful preacher! All who oppose him are charlatans!

Do not listen to this man. He is incompetent to interpret the Bible, and he contradicts himself. This alone should be enough to disqualify him in the eyes of any Christian who would diligently “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). But if that still is not enough, let us examine his repeated appeals to his allegedly exemplary character as proof of his divine commission. Let us even grant that what he says about his life is true. Even so, do not the Catholic saints far exceed him in holiness, sacrifice, labor, and love? Has he stared down a barbarian at the head of an army of the same, as St. Leo the Great did? Did he resist a threat to be boiled in oil when he was but nine years of age, as the Fatima children did? Has he reduced his sleep to three hours a night to attend to the spiritual needs of his children, as St. Pio did? Until he has, he cannot claim the holiness of his life as a reason why anyone should embrace his doctrine instead of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. In sum, to all followers of this old path, I want you to know that Soriano is not the only one who loves you. The Catholic Church loves you, and wants you back. Moreover, she will welcome you back with open arms.

IV. Soriano and the Stinkblossom

Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? (John 3:10)

The more one reads of Soriano, the more his ignorance is manifest, and the more it grieves one to consider how very many people he has led astray. Take, for example, Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ. The entire “book” is based on one gargantuan blunder. In fact, if I were to write a book about every blunder in history that was larger than this blunder, it might still be a shorter book than Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ. He somehow completely misreads Hebrews 6:1-2, which states, in the KJV: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ [i.e. the first rudiments of Christian doctrine], let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” As the following quotes demonstrate, Soriano actually thinks St. Paul is telling his readers to forget about or ignore these fundamental doctrines:

But why did Paul admonished the first Christians that they (including Paul himself) must leave behind these fundamental doctrines of Christ? The fundamental is more on the material! Jesus wants us to attain, not only physical, but spiritual blessings. The fundamental purpose of laying on of hands is to heal the physical or material body of the subject person. But Christ, in his capacity, wants us to seek for the spiritual significance of His teachings because this is the way to learn more of Him…

Why then do we have to stop or leave this fundamental doctrine of Christ on the laying on of hands? A person with leprosy can be healed physically but his spirituality isn’t…²¹

But why did Paul said, in his dispensation, that Christians must leave the fundamental doctrine of the resurrection of the dead? …A saint who died in this dispensation, particularly in this time will not be delighted to be resurrected, to inhale again polluted air, to drink polluted water, and to eat chemical-laden foods and to be subjected to harsh brutality and gory death again… One thing is sure, the many glory-hungry and money-hungry preachers (it is against my conscience to call them preachers) of our times, who pretend to have power to resurrect the dead are all liars, which further belies their stand of being God-sent. It only displays their total ignorance of what Saint Paul have said almost two thousand years ago that perfection can be attained by leaving the fundamental doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.²²

Soriano’s interpretation here misses the mark completely. All St. Paul is saying that once his audience has sufficiently mastered the basics of the Christian religion, it will be possible for his discourse to advance to more lofty themes. Analogously, a math teacher might tell his students that once they have mastered arithmetic they can move on to algebra. St. Paul is absolutely not telling his audience that they ought to forget or abandon the “fundamental doctrines of Christ.” These are the foundation of Christianity; they support the entire soaring edifice, and without them the religion has nothing on which to stand. The foundation can never be forgotten. St. Paul’s only point is that once it has been laid properly once, the Christian teacher can move on from teaching these subjects and start building upon them the superstructure of more advanced theology. To risk mixing metaphors, once the new Christian has been nursed to a certain degree of maturity on spiritual milk, the teacher can then begin to give him solid food (Heb 5:12-14). It would be silly to keep “laying the foundation” over and over again, by teaching nothing but the basics, and never graduating Christian students from ecclesiastical kindergarten, just like it would be silly to hold back school children in the same grade year after year. Once we learn how to read, write, and do basic math, we can move on to history, philosophy, engineering, etc. But that does not mean we can forget about reading, writing, and basic math, or the more advanced subjects will become impossible. So too, should a Christian forget about repentance, faith, baptism, the laying of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, he will turn his religion into nonsense.

There are many more errors in Soriano’s “book.” As a side note, for one who blasts the Catholic Church for using a little bit of Latin in her liturgy, he has no problem with using the Latin phrase prima facie himself in the very first paragraph. Don’t you see, Mr. Soriano, that learning the meaning of a few words of Latin, whether prima facie or dominus vobiscum is really not that hard?

In any case, following his opening harangue against false preachers, a feature almost ubiquitous in his works, Soriano quickly jumps into a fairly odd theological disputation: he constructs a dichotomy, as false as it is sharp, between the idea of Jesus as the personal Lord and Savior of the Christian, and His operation through the corporate body of the Church. But as one who is so famed for his ability to memorize the Bible, he should know that both concepts are present in Scripture. See for example the Magnificat, wherein Our Lady exclaims “My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47; cf. John 20:28).

It seems Soriano is led to a false conclusion because he starts out from a faulty philosophical premise, namely that that which is “personal” cannot be shared. Indeed, he challenges that if Jesus were the personal savior of anyone, it would be unethical to let Him be someone else’s savior as well. He makes an analogy to a man sharing his wife, his “personal property” as Soriano describes her. This is clearly an instance of equivocation regarding the meaning of “personal,” as the word does not necessarily imply exclusivity or possession, but merely a relationship. Jesus has an intimate and direct relationship with each individual soul consecrated to His service, and jealousy need not ensue. That Soriano thinks jealousy would ensue from such a relationship merely demonstrates once again that he is incompetent to interpret Scripture. He has projected his own erroneous presuppositions onto the Word of God, and his exegesis has been clouded accordingly.

A little while later, Soriano makes yet another exegetical blunder when he states that the primary purpose of the laying of hands is “to heal the physical or material body of the subject person”²³ (this is allegedly why we ought to “leave behind” this fundamental doctrine; Jesus wants us to forget about temporal things like bodily health and move on to the spiritual realm). One wonders if he is reading the same Bible as the rest of us. Scripture frequently records that the Apostles laid their hands on persons in perfect bodily health, in order to confer a spiritual gift. “The Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands” (Acts 8:17; cf. 19:6). St. Paul likewise urges St. Timothy to kindle afresh the charisma, the spiritual, supernatural gift which he received through the laying of hands (2 Timothy 1:6). That gift was his ordination to the episcopacy. The Apostles, through the laying of hands, also ordained St. Stephen and six other men to the diaconate (Acts 6:5-6). So, one sees that in Scripture the laying of hands is ordered primarily to supernatural and spiritual realities, not mere bodily health as Soriano says. And the Catholic Church is ever faithful to the Bible. In fact, the phrase “the laying of hands” is simply the biblical manner of denoting the Catholic sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders.

Moving on, it does not take Soriano long to make another obvious mistake: he uses Hebrews 11:13, 35-40 in attempts to prove that the saints resurrected in Matthew 27:50-53 are not currently in heaven. Hebrews 11 is about the era before the Cross, the era of the Old Covenant. Men like Abraham and Noah died in faith, but did not go immediately into heaven. As St. Paul says in Hebrews 11:40, they “received not the promise; God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us [the saints of the New Covenant].” However, that era is over, for on Holy Saturday, Christ descended to the abode of the righteous dead and “preached to those spirits that were in prison” (1 Pet 3:19). His mission was successful, and “ascending on high, he led captivity captive” (Eph 4:8). This means He brought the souls of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, et al to heaven with Him, where they now comprise the “cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1) who, as St. Paul informs us, watch over the lives of Christians. Should we die in a state of grace, we will follow them. There is no period of “soul sleep” as Soriano believes. We will not lie senseless in our graves until the general resurrection on the last day. Rather, “it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment” (Heb 9:27). We will be judged immediately and sent to either heaven, purgatory, or hell; on the last day this judgment will merely be publicly declared.

Next, leaving behind Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ, let us go on to Soriano’s sermons, not sparing them from critical scrutiny, but likewise demonstrating their bankruptcy and internal contradiction. Let’s start with his sermon on “the salvation which is being taught by the Bible”, in which he chastises his ecclesiastical great grandfather, the Iglesia ni Cristo of Mr. Felix Manalo, for teaching that outside of it there is no salvation.²⁴ He is, of course, quite right in decrying this claim as false. However, excepting his provision for the salvation of those who never hear the Gospel, Soriano in effect makes the exact same claim, for while he does reject any form of extra ecclesiam meam nulla salus (outside my church there is no salvation) in theory, this is essentially what his doctrine amounts to in practice. Although he teaches that the true Christian church existed before him, that he joined it, and did not create it, and is emphatic that it is forbidden for preachers to create their own churches, on the other hand he teaches that the only means of joining the true church is to assent to the whole body of apostolic doctrine as recorded by the Bible.²⁵ And who possesses the whole body of apostolic doctrine? Who is the only preacher who properly understands the Bible and teaches all its commandments without addition or deletion? Who is the only preacher who uses only the Bible to interpret the Bible, without referring to other books? Soriano, of course. He is, recall, the “only sensible and sincere evangelist,” and has been divinely commissioned to unlock the mysteries of the word of God. He “holds the key,” to use the headline of one of his magazines, to the meaning of Sacred Scripture, and thus he holds the key to eternal salvation. His literature reminds his followers:

Not all preachers can save, however. Only the faithful one used by the Lord as vessel can save – himself and those that hear him.²⁶

I care for my fellow Filipinos. As former President Joseph Estrada once said, nobody will care for the Filipinos but the Filipinos themselves. Many foreigners have come to our country but they only deceived us. We can have no other ally except our fellow Filipino… a Filipino, who speaks clearly… a Filipino who knows every righteous thing that the Bible says. I am extending you whatever I can offer, my countrymen. That is what I am here for.²⁷

Most of our preachers today are like the devil. Why? They speak slyly. Whenever they use the Bible, they employ deception.²⁸

So, Soriano can on the one hand avoid making the preposterous and untenable claim that his 30 year old group is the one true Church of Jesus Christ outside of which there is no salvation, and on the other hand he can tell people that he is the only preacher who can lead them to salvation. How convenient.

Errors abound in this sermon. Soriano soon begins to inveigh against “vain repetition” and other alleged errors in Catholic prayer, and he makes basically the same wrongheaded comments as any fundamentalist Protestant would. More on this below. But in addition to the standard Protestant fare, he also says something so uniquely absurd and incompetent that I have to mention it here. He quotes a large section of the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, including the lines “Tower of David, pray for us. Tower of ivory, pray for us. House of gold, pray for us. Ark of the covenant, pray for us. Gate of Heaven, pray for us.” Then, he exclaims:

Even towers, which are without tongues, are petitioned to pray for them. Even the house of gold, even the tower of ivory, even the Ark of the Covenant, even the tower of David! Could they pray? Where did you get those ideas? Why are you also urging the gate of heaven to pray for you? Can they pray? They could perhaps produce a squeaking sound, but to pray to… that is impossible! The gate of heaven could not pray! That is not found in the Bible. Why are you calling on so many things to pray for you?²⁹

Now, surely any competent person reading this litany would realize that Catholics are not literally asking towers, houses, gates, and arks to pray for them; these are simply titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary. How did Soriano miss this? Is it because of ignorance, dishonesty, or spiritual blindess that he cannot grasp the obvious meaning of these prayers? Should he not be able to infer, given that the previous 27 lines of the prayer invoked Mary under a different title, that this is the meaning of these lines as well? And could he not at least have asked a Catholic to explain this prayer to him before he started expatiating with such ridiculous pronouncements?

And it does not take Soriano long to ram his foot even deeper down his throat. He asks, incredulously, “If you were a woman, how would you feel about being addressed as ‘ginoo’ (mister)? Wasn’t she the wife of Joseph? Why don’t you call her ‘Ginang Maria’ instead?”³⁰ Here, Soriano’s error stems from a lack of knowledge of the history of his own language. Filipino apologist Marwil Llasos explains:

During the 19th century, “ginoo” (gentleman) or “maginoo” (gentlemanly) was applied to both men and women. In fact, our national hero, Jose Rizal (a true-blooded Tagalog from Calamba, Laguna) wrote to the women of Malolos (Malolos, Bulacan, also a tagalog-speaking town. Until now, Bulacan is known for its high-sounding or classical Tagalog) addressing them “Mga Maginoong Babae ng Malolos” (“gentlemanly women of Mololos”). Soriano, in his ignorance, does not understand classical language.³¹

So, one begins to notice a pattern here. When Soriano is in ignorance, instead of having the humility to ask someone more knowledgable to enlighten him, he just assumes he is right and merrily blunders his way along. He quite confidently makes his bombastic pronouncements on all manner of subjects, and it never quite dawns on him what a fool he is making out of himself, that he does not know what he is talking about, that he is the proverbial Emperor who has no clothes. Pray God some day he will look at himself and realize he is naked. Lastly, though it has been corrected at some point, this sermon used to say that 6×6=39.³²

Errors abound in others of his sermons and teachings as well. First, for one who habitually thrashes those who consult the dictionary when they have trouble understanding the Bible (recall he cuts off his followers from any means of understanding the Bible besides himself), he has no problem starting off his sermon on whether religion is necessary with, “if we are going to consult the dictionary for the meaning of the word ‘sect’, it means religious ‘faction.’”³³

Second, he claims in his sermon on whether it is God’s will that we join a Church that, “Everything that the Apostles saw and heard had been written down.”³⁴ This is just a blatant and explicit contradiction of Scripture. It is written, “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). Has Soriano not read this verse?

Third, in another sermon³⁵ he quotes Proverbs 22:1, which says “A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches,” and makes yet another exegetical blunder. He actually thinks it is referring literally to a person’s appellation, e.g. John, Eliseo, Jude, Elizabeth. He doesn’t realize that “a good name” in this context is a metaphor for a good reputation. Perhaps he should have let the Bible interpret the Bible, and read Proverbs 10:7: “The memory of the righteous is blessed, but the name of the wicked will rot.” Clearly, the second clause of the sentence is the converse of the first; the righteous will be remembered fondly, but the wicked will be remembered in infamy. Their reputation will remain foul forever. See also Ecclesiastes 7:1; Sirach 41:12-13; Proverbs 18:10; 21:24. This is really quite simple! Literally every competent, published biblical commentator understands this passage. Jew and Christian, Catholic and Protestant, conservative and liberal: everyone sees what only Soriano is too blind to see.³⁶ Incidentally, Soriano also manifests his inability to recognize a literary device when he quotes Matthew 6:9, “Hallowed be thy name” and concludes that we ought to worship the name of the Lord. “Hallowed be thy name” is simply a poetic way of saying “Hallowed are you.”

Fourth, while explaining where the water for Noah’s flood came from, Soriano makes a rather silly scientific blunder:

[O]xygen and hydrogen are abundant in our atmosphere. And if you combine two molecules of hydrogen with one molecule of oxygen, the result is water. Put some ice in a glass. After a while, there would be moisture outside the glass. That is because the molecules of hydrogen had combined with the molecule of oxygen.³⁷

This is entirely wrong! The reason water condenses on the outside of a glass of ice water is not because new water molecules are being formed through the combination of atmospheric hydrogen and oxygen. The true explanation is as follows: the atmosphere contains a large amount of water in vapor form. If the air becomes saturated with more water vapor than it can hold, some of the water will precipitate out as moisture. Furthermore, hot air is capable of containing much more water vapor than cold air. If hot air containing a large amount of moisture is rapidly cooled, the air suddenly will no longer be able to hold that moisture, and the water vapor will condense. Thus, when a cold glass of ice water causes a drop in the temperature of the surrounding air, water precipitates out of that air, and condenses on the side of the glass. Soriano really should learn his elementary atmospheric science before he presumes to teach people about it.

Fifth, Soriano gets his history wrong:

Galileo was expelled by the Pope because of his adherence to the Copernican theory, which was in contradiction to what the Pope believed in. There were so many things that they disagreed on, and one of them was on the shape of the earth. The Pope believed that it was flat. Actually, that was a common belief that time. They thought that the earth was flat and if you reach the edge of the earth, you will fall. They also believed that, based on the horizon, wherever the earth ends, there also is where the sky ends. But Galileo believed otherwise. He believed that the earth is round. And because of upholding a belief that was contrary to the belief of the Pope, he was expelled from the Catholic Church. And eventually, it was proven that what Galileo believed in was true.³⁸

There are three glaring errors here. First off, “the Pope” did not believe in a flat earth, and this belief was not common among scholars at any point in Christian history. This was a calumny against Christendom invented by 19th century rationalists like John W. Draper.³⁹ All educated people at the time of Galileo recognized that the earth is a sphere. Second, Galileo’s trial before the Inquisition had nothing to do with the shape of the earth; it concerned his opinion that the sun is fixed and immobile at the center of the universe, and that the earth revolves around it. The proposition that the sun is immobile was condemned as heretical, and the proposition that the earth moves was condemned as at least erroneous in faith. Third, Galileo was never excommunicated. He was held vehemently suspect of heresy, and so forced to sign an oath of abjuration, consigned to house arrest, and made to recite the seven penitential psalms each week. But he was never expelled from the Catholic Church. Soriano cannot seem to get anything right.

Sixth and finally, Soraino misinterprets extrabiblical literature as well:

“A rose by any other name will still be sweet.” That is not true! If somebody gives you this quotation, that would mean that, that person is out of his mind. Why say that, a rose by any other name is sweet? In the Philippines, there is a flower called, katuray. By the mere sound of its name, we can already tell that this flower is not sweet, even if you call it “rose”. Using the name “rose” for a “katuray” will not make it any sweeter. Misnaming anything is not good.⁴⁰

Soriano has completely missed Shakespeare’s point. The point of the phrase “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” is that a thing, objectively, is what it is. The name one applies to it does not change its intrinsic nature. A rose will still be a rose, and thus will still smell sweet, even if you call it a stinkblossom. Similarly, the Catholic Church will still be the Church founded by Christ, even if you call it awful names like the whore of Babylon, and the holy sacrifice of the Mass will still yield an aroma of spiritual fragrance which is pleasing and acceptable to the Lord even if you call it an abomination. Conversely, as Soriano points out, calling a katuray a rose will not make it sweeter. Calling a stinkblossom a rose will not make it less foul. Thus, no matter whether Soriano calls his church “the Church of the living God, Pillar and Foundation of the Truth,” “Members Church of God International,” or “Ang Dating Daan,” it will never be the pillar and foundation of the truth, it will never be the church of God, and it will never be the same “old path” referenced in Jeremiah 6:16. So, we certainly grant to Soriano, that misnaming things is not good, and that calling evil good and good evil will neither make evil good nor good evil. But that is exactly what Shakespeare is saying in the phrase Soriano rejects. Soriano thus uses an argument which proves that misnaming something does not change its nature, in order to refute a phrase which teaches that misnaming something does not change its nature.

In order to deal with Soriano’s wider argument here, viz., that the true Church of God has to have the proper, biblical name, and cannot bear an invented name such as “Catholic,” suffice it to note that the Bible freely applies at least 45 names to the Church: Temple of God (1 Cor 3:16); spiritual house (1 Pet 2:5); body of Christ (Eph 1:22); household of God (Eph 2:19); Israel of God (Gal 6:16); congregation of saints (Psalm 149:1); bride of Christ (Rev 21:2); etc. There is nothing to prevent the same Church from freely applying new names to herself, so long as these new names accurately describe her, now that the Bible is finished.⁴¹ And “Catholic” most certainly does accurately describe her. She is universal; she is the whole Church, and she counts among her members men from every race and nation under heaven, to which, God willing, might one particularly ornery Filipino soon be added.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will state it again: Soriano is incompetent. He ought to be embarrassed at the utterly foolish things that he has said. Moreover, his followers ought to realize that one who so frequently sticks his foot in his mouth might not be the most reliable guide to the finer points of Christian theology and biblical exegesis, and that it might not be the safest thing to place one’s eternal salvation in his hands. For if he can be so wrong about something so simple as recognizing a metaphor, he can be wrong about something difficult like the nature of God or of salvation as well. Indeed, one would expect his errors to be all the more grievous as the subject of his expositions grows more grave. This is, in fact, the case, as I will demonstrate below.

V. A Semi-Arian Apollinarian

He… was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God (John 5:18).

Soriano states the principle quite well when he says, “If a religious organization teaches wrong doctrines, that means that the Holy Spirit is not guiding it, and therefore, it is not of God.”⁴² Or again, “the Church, which is headed by Christ, does not teach any wrong doctrine. Instead, it teaches indestructible and undefiled doctrines.”⁴³ These are the standards to which we will hold Mr. Soriano. If it can be proven that he teaches wrong doctrines, he must then admit that the Lord has not sent him (cf. Jer 28:15), that he is not of God. His teachings must be weighed in the scales, and if they are found wanting (cf. Dan 5:27), rejected. He must then repent and take his flock back to the bosom of Holy Mother Church. I am informed that one of his favorite tactics in debate is to ask his opponent if, supposing he can prove such and such a doctrine from the Bible, his opponent will admit he is wrong and convert then and there to his church. With this essay, I propose the selfsame bargain to him.

There is some difficulty in pinning down Soriano’s doctrine of God. He has not published a thorough exposition, so the reader must glean his doctrine from statements here and there, on his website and in his television programs. I’ve found, also, that whenever he speaks concerning the doctrine of God, he devotes most of his time to attacking “Oneness” evangelicals, who hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person, and the doctrine of the Iglesia ni Cristo (or Iglesia ni Manalo, as he likes to call it, and I concur), which holds that Jesus is mere man, not God. He spends relatively little time attacking the Trinity (he’ll maybe cite John 10:29; 14:28; 1 Cor 15:28, and then move on), and expounding his own peculiar doctrine.

As far as I have understood it, this doctrine is basically semi-Arian. Soriano clearly believes in some form of subordinationism, as he emphatically denies that the three persons of the Godhead are co-equal. Hence, for all his protestations that Jesus is “a true and Mighty God,”⁴⁴ he cannot maintain the true divinity of Christ. God is absolutely perfect, a purely simple Spirit (John 4:24) of charity (1 John 4:8). If the Son and Holy Spirit do not share these perfections equally with the Father, they are not “God,” according to the Bible’s definition.

Soriano affirms that the Son was begotten, not created, so he avoids the error of the strict Arians and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which asserts that the Son is merely a creature. His doctrine is less false, if perhaps less logically consistent, than theirs. Soriano properly asserts, if I am not mistaken, that the Son and Holy Spirit receive their being from the Father from eternity, and were not created out of nothing at a particular point in time. The Father never existed without the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is correct, though unfortunately as noted above he concludes that because the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their being from the Father they must be less than Him. Soriano also tends toward the error of tritheism (that there are three gods), as he denies that the three persons of the Godhead are one in all their works in creation (in the language of theology, their operations ad extra). Indeed, he adduces as one of his arguments against the “Oneness” position that because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are described in Scripture as performing different roles, we may therefore conclude that they are three separate entities. More on this below. Soriano’s tritheistic leanings are expressed very clearly in the first article of his formulation of the basic doctrines of Ang Dating Daan:

We believe in the Almighty God, the Father, the Creator of the universe, in Christ Jesus, the Father’s begotten son, a true and Mighty God, the only savior of mankind and the only way to the Kingdom of God in heaven ( Acts 14:15; I Cor. 8:5-7; John 14:6; 14:1 ).⁴⁵

Soriano also holds to a highly flawed Christology, which states that Christ did not truly become Incarnate, did not truly become a man, but only took on the appearance of being a man. He thus revives the ancient heresy of Apollinarianism. Next, his belief that the persons of the Godhead are not one in all their works leads him to a rather bizarre doctrine of salvation. And finally, as a result of his incompetence to interpret Scripture, demonstrated above, Soriano misunderstands the attributes of God, and denies such a fundamental doctrine as His omnipresence. Let us then test the spirits to see whether they are from God (1 John 4:1), and compare Soriano’s doctrine to the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, using, as he likes to say, the Bible as our basis.

Soriano objects that there is “no such word as Trinity in the Bible.” However, he will use the word Godhead, because he reads it in three places in his King James translation, which he is so heavily dependent upon. As an aside, if he took a more modern translation as his primary version, he might think it was unbiblical to talk about “the Godhead” as well, since neither the NIV nor the NASB ever use the word. In any case, Soriano understands the word Godhead in the same sense it is commonly used in theology, that is, to denote the union of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the three divine persons taken together. This is clear from his affirmations that there are three persons in the Godhead. Now, as noted above, Godhead is used three times in KJV. In Acts 17:29 it translates theion, the accusative of theios, meaning divine nature or divinity. The context says nothing about multiple persons or entities; in fact, St. Paul introduces “God that made the world and all things therein” in v. 24. From Soriano’s perspective, then, this sermon is about God the Father, and theion in v. 29 must refer to the Father’s nature as God. Next, in Romans 1:20 Godhead translates theiotes, or divine nature. Again, the context contains nothing about multiple persons; it is about the divine attributes knowable by reason alone. Finally, in Colossians 2:9 it translates theotetos, the genitive of theotes, the essence of divinity. Soriano, reading the translation “Godhead” from his KJV Bible, and interpreting Godhead the way it is commonly used in theology, takes this passage to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all dwell in body of Jesus Christ. However, the meaning of the Greek is that the fullness of the essence of the divinity dwells in Christ, that is, that the Son is fully God, participates fully in the divine nature of the Father, and is therefore co-equal with Him. In this context, theotetos denotes the divine essence, not the persons of the Godhead. So, Soriano is once again hoisted by his own petard. If the word Trinity is never used in the Bible, neither is the word Godhead, at least in the sense Soriano takes it to mean.

But this is not a battle of semantics anyway. What matters is not whether we can find the word Trinity in the Bible, but whether the concept is there. And it is.

First, that the Father and Son are co-equal is taught in John 5:18, as St. Augustine proves:

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father;” not in any ordinary manner, but how? “Making Himself equal with God.” For we all say to God, “Our Father which art in heaven;” we read also that the Jews said, “Seeing Thou art our Father.” Therefore it was not for this they were angry, because He said that God was His Father, but because He said it in quite another way than men do. Behold, the Jews understand what the Arians do not understand. The Arians, in fact, say that the Son is not equal with the Father, and hence it is that the heresy was driven from the Church. Lo, the very blind, the very slayers of Christ, still understood the words of Christ. They did not understand Him to be Christ, nor did they understand Him to be the Son of God: but they did nevertheless understand that in these words such a Son of God was intimated to them as should be equal with God. Who He was they knew not; still they did acknowledge such a One to be declared, in that “He said God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” Was He not therefore equal with God?⁴⁶

Next, we saw above that the Trinity is taught in Colossians 2:9 as well. All the fullness (Gk. pan to pleroma) of the essence of divinity dwells in Christ. Since Soriano is a subordinationalist, he does not confess that all the fullness is in Christ; he can only confess that some of the nature of the Father’s divinity is in Christ, otherwise he would have to admit that the Son is equal to the Father.

Moving on, we see the same doctrine once again in Philippians 2:6, which the Douay-Rheims renders as “[Christ Jesus] being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” More modern translations render the last clause as “[Christ] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (NAS), however, when we consider that “grasped” (Gk. harpagmon) carries the connotation of seizing that which is not rightfully one’s own, the meaning is essentially the same. Now, we have two possibilities for the correct interpretation of this verse: (1) Christ is naturally and properly equal to the Father, so He knew that He did not have to attain such a state by robbery, and was perfectly justified in teaching the Jews as much (cf. John 5:18), or (2) Christ is less than God, and he knew that He ought not to exalt Himself and seize for Himself a status of equality which was not properly His. The Catholic Church holds the former, whereas the Arians, and most likely Soriano following them, hold the latter. So, many of the arguments that the Holy Fathers adduced against the Arian position might be applied to Soriano as well.

In this vein, St. John Chrysostom observes that for an inferior God to attempt to seize the power of a superior God is absurd and intrinsically impossible: “Tell me now… if [Christ] were little, as they say, and far inferior to the Father in power, how could He possibly have seized to Himself equality with God? For an inferior nature could not seize for himself admission into that which is great; for example, a man could not seize on becoming equal to an angel in nature; a horse could not, though he wished it, seize on being equal to a man in nature.”⁴⁷

Furthermore, according to the Arian interpretation of this verse, in which St. Paul praises Christ for not desiring to snatch for Himself the possessions of his Father, St. Paul is essentially praising Christ for abstaining from the behavior of Satan. Obviously, there is nothing especially praiseworthy about this! Indeed, it is the bare minimum demanded by justice. Additionally, in this case, St. Paul’s appeal to the example of Christ is inappropriate for the lesson he is attempting to teach the Philippian Christians about humility. In the Catholic interpretation, on the other hand, Christ’s example does illustrate extraordinary humility: He for whom it was not robbery to be equal to God (because He was equal to God by right) so abased Himself as to take on the form of a servant, a mortal man.

Finally, Revelations 1:8 likewise contradicts Soriano’s distinction between the Father, who alone is “almighty God” and the Son, who is allegedly just “a mighty God.” In this verse Jesus Christ tells St. John, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty” (cf. Rev 15:3). Kurios ho theos is how the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament which the Apostles used) translated YHWH Elohim, the Lord God, one of the divine titles of the one and only God in the Old Testament. Likewise, the title Almighty (Gk. pantokrator) is used in Scripture exclusively of the Most High (cf. 2 Cor 6:18; Rev 4:8; 11:17; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). Jesus could not properly be called “the Lord God almighty” if He were subordinate to the Father, who alone is almighty. The Scripture only makes sense if Jesus is consubstantial with the Father, if they are two co-equal persons in one God, if everything the Father is, the Son is as well.

Testimonies to the true nature of the Holy Spirit, the third co-equal divine person of the Blessed Trinity, are less numerous and explicit. However, the doctrine is taught in Scripture nonetheless. Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott summarizes the biblical evidence:

The name “Holy Ghost” and the name “God” are used alternately. Acts 5, 3 et seq.: “Ananias, why has Satan tempted thy heart that thou shouldest lie to the Holy Ghost? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.” Cf. 1 Cor. 3, 16; 6, 19 et seq. In the Trinitarian Formula of Baptism, the Holy Ghost is made equal to the Father and the Son who are truly God. Again, divine attributes are ascribed to the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost possesses the fullness of knowledge: He teaches all truth, presages future things (John 16, 13), searches the innermost secrets of God (1 Cor. 2, 10) and has inspired the Prophets of the Old Covenant (2 Peter 1, 21; cf. Acts 1, 16).⁴⁸

Next let us examine the verses which Soriano alleges against the equality of persons within the Trinity. The first is John 10:29, which reads “My Father, who has given [my sheep] to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” According to Soriano, because the Father is greater than all, that means He must be greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But to answer this interpretation one need only look at the immediate context. Jesus is here assuring the Jews that no wolf is able to snatch His sheep out of His hand, that is, no wicked person, man or demon, is able to take down to perdition one of God’s elect whom He has predestined for eternal glory. The reason the wicked are unable to do so is because Jesus’ Father is “greater than all,” that is, He is greater and more powerful than any creature who might try to steal His sheep. So, in context, Jesus is saying that His Father is greater than all creatures, not that He is greater than the other uncreated persons of the Trinity.

This is especially clear given that in this passage Jesus is simultaneously teaching that He is one God with the Father. He states in v. 28 “no one will snatch [my sheep] out of My hand,” then adds in v. 29 “no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand,” and concludes in v. 30 by saying “I and the Father are one.” As St. Cyril of Alexandria points out, “‘the hand,’ in the Divine Scripture, signifies ‘the power.’”⁴⁹ So, Jesus may be paraphrased as saying, “no one will snatch my sheep out of my hand… No one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” Now, Soriano claims that when Jesus says “I and the Father are one,” he means only a union of affection or desire only, and he appeals to John 17:11, where the phrase is used in this sense. However, this meaning cannot be imposed in the context of John 10:30, for the phrase “I and the Father are one” derives its meaning from the immediately preceding verses wherein Christ spoke of His own power and the power of the Father interchangeably. The meaning is “I and the Father are one in power.” I will defer once more to the master of Greek exegesis, St. John Chrysostom:

Then that thou mayest not suppose that He indeed is weak, but that the sheep are in safety through the power of the Father, He addeth, “I and the Father are One.” As though He had said “I did not assert that on account of the Father no man plucketh them away, as though I were too weak to keep the sheep. For I and the Father are One.” Speaking here with reference to Power, for concerning this was all His discourse; and if the power be the same, it is clear that the Essence is also. And when the Jews used ten thousand means, plotting and casting men out of their synagogues, He telleth them that all their contrivances are useless and vain; “For the sheep are in My Father’s hand”; as the Prophet saith, “Upon My hand I have pictured thy walls.” (Isa. xlix. 16.) Then to show that the hand is One, He sometimes saith that it is His own, sometimes the Father’s. But when thou hearest the word “hand,” do not understand anything material, but the power, the authority. Again, if it was on this account that no one could pluck away the sheep, because the Father gave Him power, it would have been superfluous to say what follows, “I and the Father are One.” Since were He inferior to Him, this would have been a very daring saying, for it declares nothing else than an equality of power; of which the Jews were conscious, and took up stones to cast at Him. (Ver. 31.) Yet not even so did He remove this opinion and suspicion; though if their suspicion were erroneous, He ought to have set them right, and to have said, “Wherefore do ye these things? I spake not thus to testify that my power and the Father’s are equal”; but now He doth quite the contrary, and confirmeth their suspicion, and clencheth it, and that too when they were exasperated. For He maketh no excuse for what had been said, as though it had been said ill, but rebuketh them for not entertaining a right opinion concerning Him.⁵⁰

This last observation must be the nail in the coffin for Soriano’s interpretation of this verse. To adapt the saying of St. Augustine, behold the Jews understand what Soriano does not. The Jews well understood what Jesus meant when He said, “I and the Father are one,” that is, He was making Himself equal to God (cf. John 5:18), so the picked up stones to execute Him for blasphemy. And Jesus made no effort to correct their opinion. He never said, “I and the Father are one by a union of affection only, in the same sense that my disciples are one with another.” No, He was saying exactly what the Jews thought that He was saying.

Soriano also attempts to use John 14:28 against the equality of persons in the Trinity, in which Jesus states “the Father is greater than I.” There are two possible interpretations of this text.

According to the common exposition, Christ here speaks of himself, as made man, which interpretation is drawn from the circumstances of the text, Christ being at that time, going to suffer, and die, and shortly after to rise again, and ascend into heaven, all which agree with him, as man, and according to his human nature… The enemies of the divinity of Christ here triumph, and think they have the confession of Christ himself, that he is less than the Father. But if they would distinguish the two natures of Christ, their arguments would all fall to the ground. Jesus Christ, as man, and a creature, is inferior to his Father, the Creator; but, as God, he is, in every respect, equal to him.⁵¹

The other solution is to posit that Jesus is here speaking in the category of authority. The Father is the higher authority, to which the Son submits, because the Father is the principle from whom the Son receives His being. However, the Father communicates His entire being to the Son, holding back none of the divine perfections, so the Father and Son are equal in essence and in goodness, regardless of this distinction.⁵² Incidentally, by these two arguments we have already sufficiently answered Soriano’s attempts to use 1 Cor 15:28 against the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.

And having answered Soriano’s subordinationism, let us now answer his false Christology. Recall, he is an Apollinarian; he does not confess that Jesus Christ is truly a man, merely that he has taken on the appearance or form of a man. He uses Philippians 2:6-7 in support of this belief, which refers to Jesus, who was in the form of God, assuming the form of man. Of course, the major problem with this argument is that Soriano believes that Jesus really is a God, so to be consistent he would have to admit that if the phrase “the form of man” means Jesus is not truly a man, the phrase “the form of God” means he is not truly a God. St. John Chrysostom pointed out the inconsistency of Arians who did not apply this phrase equally in both instances:

Tell me now, what means, “He took the form of a servant”? It means, He became man. Wherefore “being in the form of God,” He was God. For one “form” and another “form” is named; if the one be true, the other is also. “The form of a servant” means, Man by nature, wherefore “the form of God” means, God by nature.⁵³

Reverse the order of this argument, and it applies directly to Eliseo Soriano.

Moreover, St. Paul explicitly calls Jesus Christ a “man” in Rom 5:15; 1 Cor 15:21; 1 Tim 2:5. And the parallelism in the first two of those verses between Adam, the one man through whom death entered the world, and Jesus Christ, the one man through whom came life, would make little sense if Jesus were not truly, actually a man. Also, the whole point of St. Paul in calling attention to the fact that Jesus is a man in 1 Tim 2:5 is to explain why He can mediate between God and man: He is truly God and at the same time He is truly one of us. Moreover, the way we interpret “man” in this verse when it is used with respect to Christ (i.e., actually a man, or just in the appearance of man?) must be controlled by the immediately preceding usage, in which it refers to real, actual men. To switch our interpretation of “man” in the middle of this verse is to do violence to the text. Next, Hebrews 2:17-18 sounds a similar theme to 1 Tim 2:5: “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest… For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.” If Christ only took on the appearance of manhood, He would not be like us in “all things”; He would only be like us in appearance. In order to be like us in “all things” He must be like us in nature. And finally, Matthew 9:8 refers to a group of “men”, and Jesus is one of them. If Jesus had only the appearance of manhood he would not be a true and proper man in the same sense as the rest of them.

The last false christological belief of Bro. Eli which I will tackle is the idea that Christ is not immutable. Soriano teaches that the Father could not have become incarnate since the Bible says He cannot ever change (Jas 1:17), whereas Jesus allegedly “changed” when He became a man. But “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb 13:8). The Son is immutable according to His divinity. He did not change in His absolutely simple, spritual essence when He joined Himself to a human nature.

And now, having sufficiently answered Soriano’s false Christology, let us answer his tritheistic beliefs. According to the orthodox faith, the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3), “The works of the Trinity are inseparable.”⁵⁴ Whatever the Father does, so does the Son and the Holy Spirit, and vice versa. All three Persons participate equally in every divine act in the world. For the biblical evidence, again Ludwig Ott:

Christ testifies to the unity of His working with the Father, and bases it on the unity of Nature. John 5, 19: “What things soever (the Father) doth these the Son also doth in like manner.” John 14:10: “But the Father who abideth in Me, He doth the same works.” Holy Writ asserts the unity of the operations of the Divine Persons also by ascribing the same works, for example, the realisation of the Incarnation, the bestowal of the supernatural gifts of grace, the forgiveness of sins, to different persons. Cf. Luke 1, 35; Mt. 1, 20; Phil. 2, 7; Hebr. 10, 5 (Incarnation); 1 Cor. 12, 4 et seq. (gifts of grace); Mt. 9, 2; Luke 7, 48; 23, 34; John 20, 22 (forgiveness of sins).⁵⁵

Even without the explicit biblical testimony of John 5:19; 14:10, Ott’s Catholic logic is conclusive. According to Luke 1:35; Matt 1:20, the Holy Spirit produced the Incarnation; according to Phil 2:7, the Son produced the Incarnation; according to Heb 10:5, the Father produced the Incarnation. Therefore all three Persons produced the Incarnation, as in all their other operations.

Soriano does not believe this, because he reads in certain places of Scripture that one person of the Blessed Trinity is described as doing something, and the other two Persons are not explicitly named. This is because he does not understand the principle of appropriation, that is, we commonly associate certain kinds of works, which are in actuality common to all three Persons, with one particular Person, because it expresses some truth about the inner life and divine relations of the Trinity. Thus, because the Father is the ultimate origin from which the other two Persons receive their being, we commonly attribute to Him the creation of the world. Thus, because the Holy Spirit is the love or sanctity of God, who proceeds from the Father and the Son as the terminus of their will to love one another, we commonly attribute to Him the outpouring of the grace, the mercy, and the love of our God.

Now we can easily see the fallacy of one of Soriano’s arguments against “Oneness” evangelicals. Although he is correct to denounce their doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, he is wrong when he claims we can prove they are distinct persons because they perform different works. If the Bible commonly attributes creation to the Father, it does not neglect to mention that the Son participated equally (cf. John 1:3; Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17). If the Son saves us, so also do the Father and the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 1:21; 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 2 Tim 1:8-9; Tit 1:2-4; 2:10; 3:4-6; Jude 25). And if the Holy Spirit helps and comforts us, so also do the Son and the Father (cf. Psalm 71:21; 86:17; 119:76; Isa 12:1; 49:13; 57:18; Rom 8:34; 2 Cor 1:3-5; 7:6; 2 Thess 2:16-17; Heb 7:25). Inseparabilia sunt opera Trinitatis.

Soriano’s denial of the unity of the works of the Godhead leads him, as noted above, to a rather bizarre doctrine of salvation. He believes that in the time of the Old Testament, only God the Father was the savior. Jesus Christ His Son was only appointed savior when He was born and began to preach the gospel, and even then, he had only a limited jurisdiction of salvation, namely the Church. (Soriano appeals to such texts as Eph 5:3, which do say that Jesus is the savior of the Church.)

As implied above, Soriano denies that the Church is the only instrument of salvation. This is because he believes that it would logically follow that everyone who did not hear the gospel preaching of the Church would be damned, which is contrary to Romans 2:13-16. He appeals to all the peace loving Chinese people who never heard the name of Christ. Such people, according to Soriano, may still be saved under the Old Testament system, by God the Father and not by Jesus Christ. Supposedly, these two parallel paths of salvation will still be valid for the rest of history; God the Father is a savior from the beginning to the end of humanity, and Jesus Christ is the savior of the Church. To substantiate the Father’s alleged independent salvation plan, Soriano appeals to 1 Tim 4:10, in which St. Paul states “we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” He lays great stress on the word “all” to emphasize that the Father is the savior of those who never hear the gospel.

Now, the first step in refuting this doctrine we have already accomplished, when we noted that the Bible describes both God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son as saving Christians, the Church. “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope” (1 Tim 1:1; cf. vv. 2:3-5). God the Father is “our savior,” the savior of St. Paul, St. Timothy, and the rest of the Christian Church. “God… has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 1:8-9). Titus 1:3-4 mentions “God our Savior… and Christ Jesus our Savior” (cf. v. 2:10; Jude 1:25). Again, “But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Tit 3:4-6). This is very explicit. All three Persons of the Godhead save all who ever will be saved. Soriano might counter that he admits that the Father deserves overall credit since He is the one who sent Jesus Christ as savior, however, in the last verse we cited the Father was described as having a very direct, immediate, and active role in salvation; He saved us “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly.” He did not simply let Jesus go off and do it Himself.

Secondly, Soriano’s doctrine does not conform to the statement in 1 Tim 4:10 that God the Father is “especially” the savior of believers. Recall, according to him, the Father is directly the savior of those who do not hear the gospel, and only indirectly the savior of those who do. Soriano’s emphasis is the opposite of St. Paul’s; to teach Soriano’s doctrine, St. Paul should have said that God is the savior of all men, especially those who do not believe (i.e., never hear the gospel, but live according to their conscience). In reality, the meaning of this text is that God bestows more abundant graces on those who are formally united to His Son in the Church, through a visible sacramental communion, though He may also, “by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace,”⁵⁶ save those to whom no man ever preaches the gospel.

Finally, Soriano is wrong to assert that anyone at all may be saved without Christ. “Neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12). There are no two parallel paths of salvation. Those who are saved having never heard a man preach the gospel are saved the same way as those who have, namely through Christ and his Church, for “by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer.”⁵⁷

Let us move on to Soriano’s errors concerning the attributes of God. As alluded to above, he does not believe that God is omnipresent. In his sermon on “the salvation that is being taught by the Bible” he adduces a few facile arguments in support of this claim. (1) Because we lift our eyes to heaven and pray “Our Father who art in heaven” he alleges that God is not everywhere, but in heaven only. (2) He quotes “Hail Mary, Full of grace, the Lord is with thee” and asks the following incredulous questions: “Where is God, this time? Which is true now? Is He everywhere? Is He in heaven? Or, is He in Mary? You are fooling yourselves!” (3) He attempts a reductio ad absurdum: “If you are claiming that God is everywhere, it follows that He is also in cabarets, night clubs, sauna baths, and gambling dens because your God is everywhere.” (4) He quotes Acts 17:24: “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.”⁵⁸

Before refuting him point by point I will note that Soriano is here contradicting the overwhelming testimony of Sacred Scripture to the omnipresence of God. God is simultaneously in heaven and on earth: “He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other” (Deut 4:39). The heavens cannot contain Him: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built! (1 Kings 8:27) His presence extends from heaven to earth: “Thus says the LORD, ‘Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool.” (Isa 66:1) God’s presence fills all space from the highest heaven to the depths of sheol (hell) and everything in between: “Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty? They are high as the heavens, what can you do? Deeper than Sheol, what can you know? Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea” (Job 11:7-9). Again: “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, if I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, even there Your hand will lead me, and Your right hand will lay hold of me” (Psalm 138:7-10). God fills the entirety of the heavens and the earth: “‘Can a man hide himself in hiding places so I do not see him?’ declares the LORD. ‘Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?’ declares the LORD” (Jer 23:24). He is omnipresent; we live and move in Him, and He sustains and holds all things in existence by a continual act: “For in Him we live and move and exist” (Acts 17:28). Again: “He [Christ] is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Col 1:17; cf. Heb 1:3).

Next, in order to resolve the apparent contradiction between these verses and the passages which Soriano alleges against the omnipresence of God, it is necessary to provide some theological background. There are many senses in which God can be “present” in a place, and He may be present in one sense of the word but not present in another. Ott distinguishes as follows:

Since the time of Petrus Lombardus (Sent. I 37, 1) theologians more closely determine the omnipresence of God as a presence according to power (per potentiam–dynamic presence), according to knowledge (per praesentiam sive scientiam–ideal presence), and according to essence (per essentiam–essential or substantial presence). Through this essence He is present substantially in all things, including the created spiritual essences (angels, demons, human souls), as the immediate origin of their existence. Cf. S. th. I 8, 3. The substantial omnipresence of God is to be more closely defined as a repletive presence, that is, the whole Divine Essence fills the whole created space and every one of its parts…

In addition to this general, natural, presence of God, there is also a special supernatural presence or indwelling of God, by the supernatural efficacy of His grace, in the soul of the just man (John 14:23; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19), in the house of God (Ps 131:13 et seq.) and in Heaven (Mt 6:9).⁵⁹

Now we are ready to counter Soriano’s contentious claims. (1) We direct our prayers heavenward because that is where the saints and angels see God as He is, face to face, where God is present according to His grace and love to the fullest extent. This does not mean that He is not also present elsewhere, as is clear from Soriano’s objection (2), wherein he quotes from a Catholic prayer which is lifted directly from the pages of Sacred Scripture: “Hail [Mary], full of grace, the Lord is with thee” (Luke 1:28). Obviously, if the Bible tells us that God is both in heaven and with Mary, both are true. God indwells the soul of Mary just as He dwells in heaven. (3) Of course, God does not spiritually indwell the souls of great sinners in places of sin. However, He is there in the three senses that He is everywhere, enumerated above, namely according to power, knowledge, and essence. Recall that God fills the earth (Jer 23:24), that is, there is no place on earth that He is not. The psalmist could not escape the presence of God by going down to sheol (Psalm 138:7-10); neither can we escape the presence of God by going to a brothel. Indeed, God might be operative by His grace in the souls of the patrons of places of sin, leading them to repentance and regeneration in Christ. Nowhere is beyond His reach.

(4) Finally, Soriano has wrenched Acts 17:24 from its context and construed it to mean something wholly foreign to the intent of St. Paul. St. Paul is dealing with pagans who believed, like Soriano, in finite gods who could be circumscribed in a certain place. They believed that their gods dwelt in the temples and idols that they carved for them, as though the gods needed these things (v. 25) for homes. St. Paul proclaims to them, on the contrary, that God cannot be thus confined, that he does not need anything from us, and that He is omnipresent, for “in Him we live and move and exist” (v. 28). That having been said, as noted above God may choose to spiritually indwell a temple in order to receive the prayer and worship of the faithful who pray and worship there. “For the LORD has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. ‘This is My resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it’” (Psalm 132:13-14; cf. Gen 28:22). God does not dwell in houses of pagan worship, but He does indeed dwell in legitimate houses of worship established according to His desires. These are Catholic Churches.

I am once again eagerly awaiting Mr. Soriano’s admission that he is not of God.

VI. Confusing the Covenants

He taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth (Hebrews 10:9).

In previous installments of this series, I have accused Soriano of being incompetent to properly interpret Sacred Scripture. I will now go further, and accuse him of being incompetent to even read it. In his sermon on “The Real Church of God,” he quotes Acts 15:16-17: “After this, I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down, and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.” He concludes: “Therefore, whenever the Bible uses ‘will build’, it suggests that something has fallen down.”⁶⁰ Essentially, Soriano is saying that “build” in the Bible always means “rebuild,” restoring something that previously existed, but had been destroyed. He sets this in opposition to the word “establish” which he believes is the biblical way of saying that someone is building something new. He sets up this dichotomy in order to support his notion that the New Testament Church is merely the restored Israel, and not a new institution founded by Christ. But his argumentation here is erroneous on so many levels that one hardly knows were to begin.

First, Soriano ought to realize that just because he can find one instance where a word is used in a secondary sense, that does not mean he can interpret it in the secondary sense everywhere he finds it. “Build,” whether in English, Tagalog, Greek, or Hebrew, usually just means build, and if context determines that we must interpret it as “rebuild” in one instance or another, that one instance does not therefore become an overriding principle which determines our exegesis everywhere. Indeed, if we make it one we render a great many biblical passages unintelligible. Anyone with access to a program that searches the Bible for passages containing a given word (incidentally, Soriano’s website provides its patrons with one) can see this quite clearly: search for passages using the word build and you will find that it usually just means build. To cite just a few examples: Num 32:16; 1 Sam 2:35; 2 Sam 7:27; 1 Kngs 5:5.

But what is most astounding, Soriano seems to have missed the word “again” in his King James translation. “I will build again the ruins, etc.” It is amazing that one who claims to read the text of Scripture so closely and pay attention its minutest details could have overlooked something so conspicuous. Not only would Soriano’s argument prove nothing, if he could find an instance where “build” meant “rebuild” in the Bible, but this is not even such an instance! The Greek is anoikodomeo, the regular word for “rebuild,” the word for build being oikodomeo.

This, then, is the shaky ground, the shifting sands, upon which Soriano bases his entirely unique exegesis of Matthew 16:18. He uses a false example, to prove a non-existant principle, in order to overturn the plain meaning of the text that Jesus Christ established a Church upon the rock of St. Peter, and argue instead that He merely rebuilt Israel.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has the explicit teaching of the Bible to reinforce the plain meaning of Matthew 16:18. The reader has already seen Hebrews 10:9 quoted above: God did not “rebuild” the Old Covenant, but took it away in order to “establish” (there’s the word Soriano was looking for in Matt 16:18) the New. See also 2 Cor 3:6-14; Eph 2:15; Heb 7:18; 8:7, 13. Ephesians 2:15 calls the Church of Christ a “new man,” which Jesus made from both Jews and Gentiles after He had abolished the Old Testament Law. Jesus did indeed establish a Church on St. Peter; He both established and built (cf. Psalm 89:4) and Soriano is clearly opposed to the teaching of the Bible when he denies this.

Soriano adduces additional facile arguments in support of his contention that Jesus did not establish a Church. One of them is his misunderstanding about “name” being used as a metaphor for reputation, or person, which I have documented above. Another argument runs along the lines that we need to find the very first church in the Bible, because “Nothing could be better than the original.”⁶¹ Curiously, he attempts to justify his principle that the original is always the best by citing 1 Corinthians 15:45, which refers to Adam as the “first man” and Genesis 3:20 which calls Eve “the mother of all the living.” He then concludes, “If, in matters like this, there are ‘originals’, when it comes to the church, there is also an original, or the first church.”⁶² One wonders if Soriano maintains that the first Adam is better than the second Adam, Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 5:14-15). He must not, as he has proclaimed on his television network that he believes that Adam was damned.⁶³ If, then, this is the case, his appeal to Adam and Eve proves only the inherently obvious proposition that there can be a first, or original, of something; it in no way follows from this that the original is best. His argument here is a blatantly fallacious leap of logic, which is actually hard to miss if one simply refuses to be enraptured with Soriano’s passionate style and fiery denunciation of false, heretical teachers.

Soriano continues to argue that Jesus did not establish a Church by attempting to identify “the church of the firstborn” mentioned in Hebrews 12:23 with Israel. Unfortunately for him, the context of this passage is a direct contrast between the Christian Church and the covenant God established with Israel. St. Paul sets up the contrast as follows: “For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. For they could not bear the command, ‘If even a beast touches the mountain, it will be stoned.’ And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, ‘I am full of fear and trembling’” (Heb 12:18-21). Clearly, St. Paul is emphasising the great fear involved in the establishment of the covenant of Moses at Mount Sinai. He then opposes to this fear the tremendous spiritual blessings which Chrisitans are priveleged to receive in Christ: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22-24). Thus, Christians have been recieved into the spiritual Mount Zion, and the heavenly Jerusalem (cf. Rev 3:12; 21:2), where we have fellowship with God Himself and all the hosts of heaven because of the redemption and mercy wrought for us by Jesus Christ. The great Catholic exegete Dr. Witham draws out the meaning of the text quite well:

But you are come to Mount Sion, where not a law of fear, like that of Moses, but a new law of love and mercy hath been given you, preached by our Saviour himself, and by his apostles, testified by the coming of the Holy Ghost, and by the effusion of God’s spirit upon the believers. Here you are called to the city of the living God, (to the Christian Church on earth) and even to the celestial Jerusalem, there to be for ever happy in the company of many millions of Angels; to the church of the first-born, who are written in heaven, (ver. 23.) to be happy with those who have been chosen by a special mercy of God, and blessed with an endless happiness; to be there in the presence of God, the judge of all men, with all the celestial spirits and souls of the just and perfect in the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ is the mediator of this new testament, the redeemer of mankind by his death on the cross, by the sprinkling and effusion of his blood, which speaketh better than that of Abel: the blood of Abel cried to heaven for vengeance, and the blood of Christ for mercy and pardon.⁶⁴

Now, regarding the specific question of what St. Paul means by “the church of the firstborn” we have a few options. Clearly, it refers to some group of the inhabitants of heaven, with whom Christians have entered into fellowship in Christ. If we grant to Mr. Soriano that it refers to the Jews, then it refers to the saints of the old covenant, whom Christ took with Him to heaven when He Himself ascended (cf. Eph 4:8). But it does not follow therefore that Jesus Christ did not establish a Church, as He said He would do (Matt 16:18). Rather, the righteous Jews would have joined His Church when Jesus came to their resting place to preach to them (cf. 1 Pet 3:19). Or, “the church of the firstborn” may refer to the very first Christians who died in Christ, those who had already passed to their reward at the time St. Paul penned this epistle. Or, it may refer to the occupants of heaven who are most eminent in sanctity, such as the patriarchs and prophets. Or, it may refer to the holy angels. In any case, St. Paul’s intent has little to due with the superficial exegesis of Mr. Soriano, who thinks that because he can find a verse talking about the “church of the firstborn” and another verse that calls Israel “firstborn” and another verse that calls Israel “the church in the wilderness,” he has therefore proven that Jesus did not establish a Church, but that the New Testament Church is Israel.

Soriano also makes a non sequitur appeal to James 1:18. Of course, the Jews were the first hear the gospel and join the Christian Church, but it simply does not follow that Jesus did not establish a Church.

It seems the best that Soriano can do is to quote the prophetic imagery of Amos 9:11 about rebuilding the tabernacle of David, in attempts to establish that Jesus merely restored a fallen Israel. He contends that “the tabernacle of David” refers to the Jewish Church, which is one and the same with the Christian Church which we are allegedly supposed to join by imbibing the doctrines of Ang Dating Daan. However, it might just as easily apply to the Jewish people, a remnant of whom God spiritually restored by integrating them into the new covenant through Baptism in the Church of Christ. This is the Church which Christ established on the rock of St. Peter. It is the Catholic Church. If one wishes to be restored from the ruin of sin and built up into a new creation in Christ, he must forsake his errors and join.

Ben Douglass
February 28, Anno Domini MMVII

Endnotes

[1] Isabelo Crisostomo, “Felix Y. Manalo and the Iglesia ni Cristo,” Pasugo (Manila: May-June 1986)

[2] Catholic Answers, “Iglesia ni Cristo” http://www.catholic.com/library/Iglesia_Ni_Cristo.asp

[3] Crisostomo, op. cit.

[4] Ang Dating Daan, “Our Presiding Minister” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_ministers.htm

[5] The Bereans, “Ang Dating Daan” http://www.thebereans.net/prof-add.shtml

[6] Ang Dating Daan, “Church History” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_chistory.htm

[7] The Beareans, op. cit.

[8] Eliseo Soriano, “The Official Name of the Church in the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_religion_2_pf.htm

[9] See, for example, the articles “Super-Preacher in Our Times” and “Nobody Does It Better” in The Old Path Magazine, Vol. 1 No. 3 2005.

[10] Ang Dating Daan, “What is ‘Ang Dating Daan’?” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_faq.htm

[11] The Bereans, op. cit.

[12] “By this world’s standards, it is not surprising that those being expelled would group together where they are tolerated. As bonus for them, they get the chance to tell the world in their own terms that they are innocent, in effect making their excommunication appear an injustice. From their appearances alone on television one could tell, they have gone back to the ways of this world – cutting their hair, using make up, dressing immodestly, and from their mouths speak out lies about those they said they believed in before. Rather than engaging in self-introspection to see where they have gone wrong and in humility ask pardon from God, they have preferred to attend to what this world would think about them, never mind God. Now come the cosmetics to supposedly blot out or suffocate the reasons why they were expelled. In so doing, they resort to all sorts of shenanigans” (Ang Dating Daan, “Three Colors of Death Green & White & Red,” The Old Path Magazine Vol. 1 No. 3 2005).

[13] Eliseo Soriano, “A Preacher of God is Prohibited from Enriching Himself” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_apostle_1_pf.htm

[14] Eliseo Soriano, “Should the Bible Be Interpreted” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_2.htm

[15] Eliseo Soriano, “Understanding the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_3_pf.htm

[16] Eliseo Soriano, “The Rightful Way of Using a Formidable Bastion” The Old Path Magazine Vol. 1 No. 2, 2005 http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/pub_top_1c.htm

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ang Dating Daan, op. cit.

[19] Ang Dating Daan, “Super-Preacher in Our Times” The Old Path Magazine, Vol. 1 No. 3 2005, emphasis mine. http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/pub_top_2b.htm

[20] Ang Dating Daan, “Nobody Does It Better” The Old Path Magazine, Vol. 1 No. 3 2005, emphasis mine. http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/pub_top_2c.htm

[21] Elseo Soriano, Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ, Ch. 3. http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/about_leav_3_pf.htm

[22] Elseo Soriano, Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ, Ch. 4. http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/about_leav_4_pf.htm

[23] Ibid. Ch. 3

[24] Eliseo Soriano, “The Salvation that is Being Taught by the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_expo_1_pf.htm

[25] Eliseo Soriano, “Is it God’s Will that We Join or Become a Member of the True Church of God in the Bible?” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_religion_1_pf.htm

[26] Ang Dating Daan, “Nobody Does It Better,” The Old Path Magazine Vol. 1 No. 3 2005. http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/pub_top_2c.htm

[27] Eliseo Soriano, “Faith must have a basis” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_expo_3_pf.htm

[28] Eliseo Soriano, “Understanding the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_3_pf.htm

[29] Eliseo Soriano, “The Salvation that is Being Taught by the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_expo_1_pf.htm

[30] Ibid.

[31] Marwil Llasos, e-mail of April 26, 2006.

[32] The original, with the error, can be found on the web archive.

[33] Eliseo Soriano, “Is religion still needed? Who practices pure religion?” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_expo_4_pf.htm

[34] Eliseo Soriano, “Is it God’s Will that We Join or Become a Member of the True Church of God in the Bible?” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_religion_1_pf.htm

[35] Eliseo Soriano, “The Official Name of the Church in the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_religion_2_pf.htm

[36] E.g., “It was the hope of every Israelite that he would be remembered for the good which he had done and that his name, that is, his good reputation, would endure permanently” (R. N. Whybray, The Book of Proverbs (London: Cambridge University Press, 1972) p. 62). This is from his commentary on Proverbs 10:7, to which he refers the reader on p. 124 in his note to verse 22:1. Cf. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 1481; Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005) pp. 198-199; Michael A. Machado, The Book of Proverbs: The Wisdom of Words (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2003) p. 134; Leo G. Perdue, Proverbs (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2000) p. 188; William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach (Philedelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1975) pp. 422-423, 566; Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999) pp. 194-195; Fr. George Haydock, The Douay-Rheims Old Testament (Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1992) p. 820.

[37] Eliseo Soriano, “This is about the time of Noah” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/ask/ask_broeli_2d.htm

[38] Eliseo Soriano, “Existence of God: Fulfillment of the Word of God” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/segments/seg_focus_2_pf.htm

[39] Cf. Jeffrey Burton Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1997).

[40] Eliseo Soriano, “The Name of God” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/segments/seg_focus_1_pf.htm

[41] The first recorded instance of the term “Catholic Church” is in St. Ignatius of Antioch’s epistle to the Smyrnaeans, written ca. 110 A.D.

[42] Eliseo Soriano, “The Jesus and Christ of the Bible is not God, the Father” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_christ_1_pf.htm

[43] Eliseo Soriano, “Questions and Answers” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/ask/ask_broeli_2b.htm

[44] Ang Dating Daan, “Church General Declaration and Doctrines” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_doctrines.htm

[45] Ibid.

[46] St. Augustine, Tractate 17 on the Gospel of John, 16

[47] St. John Chrysostom, Homily 6 on Philippians

[48] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, Il: Tan Books, 1974) p. 58-59

[49] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 7

[50] St. John Chrysostom, Homily 61 on the Gospel of John

[51] Fr. George Haydock, The Douay-Rheims New Testament (Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1991) pp. 1421-1422

[52] cf. Ibid.

[53] St. John Chrysostom, Homily 6 on Philippians

[54] “Inseparabilia sunt opera Trinitatis.” St. Augustine, Sermo 213, 6, 6 in Ott, op. cit., p. 72

[55] Ibid.

[56] Bl. Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7

[57] Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 103

[58] Eliseo Soriano, “The salvation that is being taught by the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_expo_1_pf.htm

[59] Ott, op. cit., p. 38

[60] Eliseo Soriano, “The Real Church of God” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_religion_3_pf.htm

[61] Ibid.

[62] Ibid.

[63] He appeals to 1 Tim 2:14, and argues that Adam knew full well what he was doing when he ate the forbidden fruit, whereas Eve’s culpability was mitigated by her ignorance.

[64] In Fr. George Haydock, The Douay-Rheims New Testament (Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1991) p. 1598

RODIMUS APOLOGIZED, I ACCEPTED IT AS A CHRISTIAN!

By: Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/rodimus-apologized-i-accept-as.html

In an unexpected gesture Bro. Rodimus apologized on the issue of John 4:5 and John 1:1. Once apology is given the love of Christ urges us to accept it. It is a command of charity then to return love for love and from then on walk in the light of Peace. Let us praise the Lord, not because Bro. Rodimus apologized, but because His truth is setting us free. Truly, His great love is without end.

Here is the apology of Bro. Rodimus and followed by my own posted in his blog comment section:

Friday, March 13, 2009

An apology to all

After much consideration on the facts, I hereby admit that I stand corrected on John 4:5 and John 1:1 as well. The posts have been deleted.

Furthermore, I apologize to Defensores Fidei Foundation especially to Atty. Marwil Llasos, Fr. Abe Arganiosa, and Mr. Cenon Bibe for the things I said about them. I was supposed to exchange information instead I ended up trash talking about yourselves. Please forgive my arrogance and sarcasm. So I therefore take back what I said.

I apologize to my colleagues for I went rogue and acted on my own. You don’t have to be held accountable for my actions.

I’m sorry, everyone.

1 comments:

Fr. Abe, CRS said…

DEAR BRO. RODIMUS,

GRACE AND PEACE!

ON MY PART, I ALSO APOLOGIZE FOR CAUSING SO MUCH HURT TO YOUR HEART AND MIND. EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT KNOW YOUR PERSONAL IDENTITY I’M SURE YOU HAVE BEEN WOUNDED BY MY VERY STRONG REMARKS.NOW, AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE LET US BE CHRISTIAN TO EACH OTHER. I HOPE YOU ARE ACCEPTING MY OFFER TO STOP THE MANNER OF TREATING EACH OTHER AND LET US BE WORTHY TO BE CALLED ‘CHILDREN OF GOD’.VERY EARLY THIS MORNING, ABOUT 12:10AM I RECEIVED A TEXT FROM MR. HENRY SY, THE PRESIDENT OF DEFENSORES FIDEI, AND HE ADMONISHED ME TO BE MORE CHARITABLE TO YOU. I PROMISED HIM THAT I WILL OBEY HIS DIRECTION SINCE I HAVE TO SHOW EXAMPLE OF OBEDIENCE TO OUR LEADERSHIP.BROTHER, THE CATHOLICS ARE ALSO BIBLE CHRISTIANS. AS YOU CAN SEE IN OUR EXCHANGES AND IN YOUR FORUM WE ARE USING THE SAME BIBLICAL TEXTS AND WE SIMPLY DIFFER IN INTERPRETING THEM. I HOPE YOU WILL CHANGE YOUR VIEW ON CATHOLICISM BEING UNBIBLICAL.MAY THE GOD OF PEACE REIGN IN OUR HEARTS.

N.B.: I capitalized my message for stressing my points and not for any emotional outburst. He,he,he…

Yours in Christ Jesus,

Rev. Fr. Abe P. Arganiosa, CRS

March 13, 2009 6:26 PM

EXCHANGES WITH ANOTHER ANONYMOUS EVANGELICAL

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/02/exchanges-with-another-anonymous.html

A friend and fellow Catholic apologist from Catholic Faith Defenders – Cebu inquired about my opinion on ‘The Woman Clothed with the Sun’ of Revelation 12: 1. While we were exchanging ideas about it I remember the exchange I had with another Anonymous Evangelical rejecting that the Woman of Revelation 12 is Mary of Nazareth — the Mother of Jesus. I decided to take the exchange from the comment section and bring it up into the main post to have a life of its own. I also added from the original response since the original answers were done in haste to respond to immediate assaults on the Faith then. The original exchange can be found in the post entitled: THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY. The words of the Evangelical is in Red while mine is in Blue:

Anonymous said… Jer 7:17 See you not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.Jer 7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? says the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the shame of their own faces?Jer 7:20 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD; Behold, my anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched. August 24, 2008 11:42 AM

Anonymous said… And a great sign was seen in the heavens, a woman having been clothed with the sun, and the moon was underneath her feet; and on her head a crown of twelve stars;(Ref. Gen 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.Note: . This sign is referring to Israel and is a reference to Josephs’ dream, but, accept for having eleven stars, this has twelve which would include Joseph.Rev12:5 And she bore a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron staff. And her child was caught away to God, and to His throne. (Ref. Rev. 2:27 Psalm 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.)

Note: This is the ascension of Christ. This scripture passage goes back with more details in v. 7-14 Rev12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place, it having been prepared from God, that there they might nourish her a thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Note: Rev. 12:5-10 is represented as the first seal, the white horse. This verse is telling of the Jesus’ victory on the cross. I am referring this to when the Messiah shall be cut off in the last week in Daniels seventy weeks as told in Dan. 9:25-27. Now, the thousand two hundred and sixty days in this verse is the first half of the seven years when God will finish His dealing with Israel and graft them back into the Olive Tree and Rapture the Israel of God to Himself as read in Rev. 7: then His wrath is poured out. I will Spell these verses out for better understanding to you, the reader. August 24, 2008 11:56 AM

Anonymous said… ” The queenship Of The Blessed Virgin Mary”Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. Mary had children after Jesus was born that means she did not remain a virgin. August 24, 2008 12:03 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said… To post No. 1* The Queen of Heaven condemned in Jeremiah is not Mary of Nazareth but the pagan goddess ISHTAR or ASTARTE, a Near-Eastern goddess of Fertility. Just look at the photo inset above showing the Immoral Astarte. Definitely we do not honor that demon.

We, Catholics refer to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, as our Queen BECAUSE JESUS IS THE KING OF KINGS – the last in the Davidic Kingdom. In all Monarchy culture, the Mother of the King is always referred to as THE QUEEN-MOTHER. Mary is the Queen-Mother of the Kingdom of Jesus her Son.

Your argument will only be effective if you can prove that Jer 7:17 refers to Mary of Nazareth. Years before the coming of the prophet Jeremiah, the Psalmist already prophesied that the Messiah will have a Queen: “upon thy right hand the queen in gold of Ophir.” [Psalm 45:9]If you deny that the King being referred to in Psalm 45 is not the Messiah-King then you have to show who and you have to tell me who is the person referred to therein as queen. DENIAL OF THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY IS DENIAL OF CHRIST’S KINGSHIP; DECLARATION OF MARY’S QUEENSHIP IS A PROCLAMATION OF CHRIST’S KINGSHIP.

Fr. Abe, CRS said… To Post No. 2The Catholic Church teaches that Revelation 12:1 can be interpreted in 3 different manners and all of them correct:

1. It can be interpreted as Israel, like the one you described and explained.

2. It can be interpreted as the Church with the 12 stars symbolizing the 12 Apostles who were the foundation stones of the Church [Rev 22:14]. But, Israel and the Church can only be analogical interpretation of the text. The literal interpretation refers to

3. MARY! Because in Rev 12:5 it says that the Woman gave birth to Christ. Yes, the rod of iron refers to the Ascension of Jesus. However, that is not the point. The point is WHO IS THE WOMAN WHO LITERALLY AND PHYSICALLY GAVE BIRTH TO THE KING WHO WILL RULE THE WORLD WITH A ROD OF IRON? If you are saying that the rod of iron refers to Jesus’ Ascension then the Male-Child is JESUS. Then, the one who gave birth to Jesus is Mary. WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT ISRAEL OR THE CHURCH GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS? The 12 stars interpreted as the 12 Apostles is also appropriate for Mary because after the Ascension of Jesus, Mary – the Mother of Jesus – stayed with the Apostles: “And when they were come in, they went into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brethren” [Acts 1:14].

Rev 12 also refers to the woman as someone who fled to the desert. WHEN DID ISRAEL MOVED TO FLEE TO THE DESERT? ISRAEL AS A COUNTRY WAS AND IS IMMOVABLE. But, Mary went to Egypt – a land famous for deserts because the – together with the child Jesus and Joseph in order to escape the persecution of the evil monarch, Herod [Matthew 2:14-15]. So, the prophecy applies only analogically or metaphorically to Israel but more literally to Mary. Just like the country of our birth; I call the Philippines ‘Inang Bayan‘ [Mother Land] but my real mother is not my country but the woman who gave me birth biologically. The wife of my father is my real mother. But, it is also correct to refer to my nation as my mother yet it is only appropriate as a figure of speech. Also, Jesus refers to Mary in the Gospel of John as WOMAN [John 2:4; 19:26]. Since Revelation is also attributed to John then it is clear that Mary is THE WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN. Let the readers decide who is interpreting the Bible correctly.

Fr. Abe, CRS said… To post no. 3 “Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. Mary had children after Jesus was born that means she did not remain a virgin.”

1. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JAMES, AND JOSES, AND JUDAS, AND SIMON ARE CHILDREN OF MARY? ANSWER: NONE! NADA! In Russian NYET NYET!

It is nowhere stated in the Bible that Mary became pregnant again and gave birth to other children again. In fact in Mark 6:3 the Evangelist wrote THE SON OF MARY when referring to Jesus — not SONS OF MARY. Jesus is the one and only Son of Mary.

2. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY GAVE BIRTH TO ANOTHER CHILDREN OTHER THAN JESUS? ANSWER: NONE! NADA! NYET NYET!

3. Isaiah 7:14 as fulfilled in Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27 refer to Mary as VIRGIN. QUESTION: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?ANSWER: NONE! NADA! NYET NYET!*

The New Testament is not written in Filipino or English but in Greek. The word used in Greek is ADELPHOI. The word adelphoi is the plural form of adelphos. It does not mean simply as biological siblings but it also refers to relatives and kins: “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my BRETHREN, my KINSMEN according to the FLESH” [Romans 9:3]* Also, the Bible for your information refers to another Mary as the MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES: “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES and the mother of Zebedee’s children.” [Mt 27:56] This is also proven by St. Mark in Mark 15:40 and Mark 16:1. * In John 19:25 the Evangelist reported that on the foot of the Cross there was Mary the Mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas who was with Mary Magdalene. Then, the Mary mother of James and Joses cannot be Mary the Mother of Jesus but another woman, most probably a relative, who is also known as Mary the wife of Clopas.

Please answer my questions above. Much more, please identify yourself. Do not hide your identity. It doesn’t speak well of you. If you wish to exchange ideas with us, it is Ok but please be gentleman or be a lady. It is also very nice for me to know your religious affiliation.Thank you for visiting this blog.

Anonymous said… Hello,I am a filipino too and from your town also and I am a lady. I don’t have a religion but a relationship with Jesus. I praise God He saved me from the wrath of God.My God rules and not ruled by his mother, My God is the creator of all things. My God is the God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, He is the God of the living and not of the DEAD.and My God is no longer on the cross.Do not form the scripture to your own religion but let the scripture form you and your theologyThe bible is very clear and I believe I know the truth,Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. This is very clear the they are talking about JESUS and his mother was mary.WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?so you mean to say that joseph never slept with his wife?poor joseph.WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT ISRAEL GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS?Jesus is an Isrealite and Israel is reffered to a woman, and it’s been reffered in the old testament many timesWhy is it that your religion put Mary up in the pedestal and not Jesus the creator, Paul nor Peter did not even mentioned her on their epistles but only Jesus whom they lifted up and worship,I believed that your religion got it wrong about Peter as the first Pope, Peter was never a Roman but Paul was an Israelite but a Roman citizen. and Peter was married and the bible can prove it. Paul was never married, He has more qualifications than Peter. why wasn’t Paul the first pope. Do you have an assurance of going to heaven or of your salvation?I know that I cannot change what you believed but I know that God can change you. Do not believe a LIE. August 25, 2008 5:34 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said… I am glad to know that you are a lady and from the same town. If you want we can meet and chat personally about our faith. And, I am wondering why you are afraid to reveal your identity, your name. Hope you are not ashamed of yourself or your name or your God or your church. Mine is posted in this blog together with my genuine photo. The faith must not be hidden but must be proclaimed on the rooftop. How can you proclaim it on rooftop if you are hidden?

I find it contradictory that you profess in Jesus yet claiming that you don’t have religion. That is a common lie among Born Again people who used to roam around houses and preach in the buses. They claim not to have a religion but in reality they have. Please don’t be afraid of your religious affiliations. The statement usually propagated that “religion is not necessary” is an invention that is not supported by the Bible. Perhaps, you can quote a chapter and verse for that. I will stand corrected if you can find a Biblical support. Your claim that you don’t have a religion also shows that you are ‘lying’ because it is obvious that you are Born Again or an Evangelical or a Protestant. You are shameless in your lie just to deceive the Catholics and lure them into your fellowship.

It appears to me that you are not aware of genuine Catholic doctrines. Your knowledge is superficial and biased with anti-Catholic mentality.

1. I’m glad to know that you praise God and that He saves you. Well, if you are not aware of it we also praise God and He is also our Savior and He saves us too. If you are thinking that you are the only one praising God then you are deceiving yourself.

2. So, your God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Congratulations! But, our God is the same God. My God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Do you know my baptismal name. IT IS ABRAHAM! Our God is the God of the Patriarchs. That is why if you will visit the Holy Land, the oldest Christian Churches in Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Capernaum are owned by the Catholic Church not by Born Again or Protestants.

3. Your God is the God of the living not of the Dead. Well, who told you that our God is the God of the dead. We Catholics are worshipping the One Living God who is Eternal and Unbegotten. We are living worshippers of 1.3 billion faithful. We are more living than your faith affiliation multiplied a hundred times over.

4. Your God is no longer on the Cross. So, you mean to say our God is still on the Cross. Ha,ha,ha… You know the best group that proclaims the Resurrection of Jesus is the Catholic Church. We have Sunday worship weekly because we are proclaiming weekly and daily the Resurrection of Jesus. Besides, Pope Gregory was the one who established the Gregorian Calendar wherein annually the Solemnity of Easter is being celebrated for several weeks. I know that Protestants and Evangelicals are celebrating Christmas and Easter following the dates established by the Catholic Church. Your fellowhips were not yet invented and registered in the Security and Exchange Commissions yet we are already proclaiming the Risen Christ as our Lord and Savior. Don’t invent our doctrines, please.

We have a Cross, because the Bible teaches us that we should not be enemies of the Cross of Christ: “for many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping that they are THE ENEMIES OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST, whose end is destruction…” [Philippians 3:18-19 KJV]. WE CATHOLICS ARE NOT ENEMIES OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST. HOW ABOUT YOU? ARE YOU A FRIEND OR AN ENEMY OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST? Also, St. Paul encourages the believers to glory in the Cross of Christ: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in THE CROSS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST…” [Galatians 6:12-16 KJV]. That’s the reason why we Catholics are fond of the Cross because it reminds us that the Risen Lord died on the Cross for our Salvation. Obviously you are not being faithful to the

5. “Do not form the scripture to your own religion but let the scripture form you and your theologyThe bible is very clear and I believe I know the truth,Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. This is very clear the they are talking about JESUS and his mother was mary.”I have already refuted that above. The word used in Greek does not refer exclusively to biological siblings. The word used by the Evangelists was ADELPHOS and ADELPHOI which are used in the Bible several times with different meanings:

[a] Romans 9:3 St. Paul used it for kinsmen.

[b] Genesis 13:8 Abraham called Lot ‘brother’ even if he is actually his nephew.

If you want to know the truth read the Sacred Scripture properly and not be biased by anti-Catholic mentality. It is obvious that your position is wrong because you are insisting that these brethren of the Lord are ‘biological brothers’. It is very clear in the text that there is no mentioned of these people being biological brothers of Jesus. In fact, the mother of James and Joses is another Mary. Mary of Nazareth is always being referred to as the Mother of Jesus while there is another Mary being called the mother of James and Joses [Matthew 27:56/ Mark 15:40/ Mark 16:1 KJV]. The fact that the Bible repeatedly mentions another Mary as the mother of James and Joses, it destroys your argument.

6. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?so you mean to say that joseph never slept with his wife? poor joseph.

You are basing your judgment on presumption. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JOSEPH HAD SEXUAL CONTACT WITH MARY? Don’t invent things, please. The relationship between Mary and Joseph is not ordinary but extraordianary. He married her primarily because he wanted to preserve her honor and to protect the Child. I understand that your faith is American invented. It came from a place whose culture and mentality is dominated by sex. But Joseph is not sex-crazed. He is a just man [Matthew 1:19 KJV]. Even Jesus and St. Paul didn’t marry. In Biblical theology, virginity is not evil but a heroic virtue.

7. “WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT ISRAEL GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS?Jesus is an Isrealite and Israel is reffered to a woman, and it’s been reffered in the old testament many times”

Is this your answer? Are you not ashamed of this answer to the question that I raised. WHERE CAN YOU FIND A PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE THAT THE WOMAN WHO GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS IS ISRAEL? The Bible is categorical that it was Mary who gave birth to Jesus, NOT ISRAEL [Luke 2:1-7].You are twisting the Word of God to avoid Mary yet that is already explicit, categorical and direct statement. Palpak ang Israel interpretation mo and yet you do not admit it. SINO BA ANG NAGLIHI AT NAGBUNTIS KAY JESUS? SINO? SINO? SINO? ANG ISRAEL BA O SI MARIA? Let our readers decide!

Also your insistence on Israel being referred to as a Woman smack of ignorance because MARY TOO IS REFERRED IN THE BIBLE AS A ‘WOMAN’ [Genesis 3:15/ John 2:4/ John 19:26]. That is why the Catholic Church is very intelligent in teaching that both Mary and Israel fits the verse but if you will pit Mary and Israel against each other then you have to show me that Israel gave birth to Jesus. Jesus is born in Israel but it was Mary who gave birth to Him. Read your Bible carefully please.

8. “Why is it that your religion put Mary up in the pedestal and not Jesus the creator, Paul nor Peter did not even mentioned her on their epistles but only Jesus whom they lifted up and worship,”ANOTHER DISTORTION. Read carefully the post once again. JESUS IS OUR KING, JESUS IS OUR MESSIAH, JESUS IS OUR GOD. Mary is being honored by Catholics because she is the woman chosen by God to be the Mother of the Messiah. She is the Mother of the Lord [Luke 1:43]. We simply honor Mary because God honors her in the Bible. Mary is honored in the Bible. THE BIBLE CALLS MARY THE HIGHLY FAVORED OF GOD [Luke 1:28]. She is blessed among women. It means she is more blessed than you, your mother, the wife of your pastor, the mother of your pastor, etc. Mary is highly favored of God. If she is ‘favored by God’ of course she is also ‘favored’ by Catholics. IN YOUR RELIGION YOU ARE CALLING PEOPLE ‘EVANGELISTS’. Evangelist Almeda, Evangelist Villanueva, etc. Why do you honor people who are not even mentioned in the Bible? Mary is much, much better than the people you are honoring. Mary is nothing in comparison to Jesus because Jesus is the King of Kings and the Lord of lords. That is our position. For you to say that we put Mary above Jesus is a distortion of our Catholic Faith. You are attacking a caricature that you yourself had invented. That’s not Catholic. The official doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church is published in the book THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Please read it and if you want to question any provision in it then I am here explain our side. Please present our real Catholic teachings not your own teaching about the Catholic Faith.

9. “I believed that your religion got it wrong about Peter as the first Pope, Peter was never a Roman but Paul was an Israelite but a Roman citizen.”Another mistake. WE ARE NOT TEACHING THAT PETER IS A ROMAN. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT? It is not Catholic teaching that Peter is a Roman. Being Pope doesn’t depend on Roman citizenship. Our present Pope is German while the previous one was Polish. We know that Peter is a Jew not a Roman because the House of Peter in Capernaum is now a Catholic shrine. Visit the Holy Land in the Internet to check. Peter is the first Pope because he is the leader of the Church. It is on him that the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven were entrusted [Matthew 16:18-19]. Instead of following your Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, Eddie Villanueva, Almeda, etc. We follow the leadership of Peter. Ours is more Biblical, isn’t it?

10. “and Peter was married and the bible can prove it.” Peter is married but our Lord and Savior is not Peter but Jesus. Jesus is never married. Peter is married but he left his wife for the sake of the Kingdom: “Then Peter said, Lo, WE HAVE LEFT ALL and followed thee. And he [Jesus] said to them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left HOUSE, or parents, or brethren, or WIFE, or CHILDREN, FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD’S SAKE, WHO SHALL NOT RECEIVE MANIFOLD MORE IN THIS PRESENT TIME, AND IN THE WORLD TO COME LIFE EVERLASTING” [Luke 18:28-30 KJV]. St. Paul was never married. St. John was never married. How about Andrew, James, Jude, Bartholomew, etc.? WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU FIND THAT THEY ARE MARRIED? Chapters and verses, please!

That’s the problem with you Born Again people, you just read that Peter is married then you succumbed to lust. You have forgotten that the Messiah is a male virgin and that 99% of his Apostles are not married at all. The Catholic Church is more faithful to the Bible.

11. “Paul was never married, He has more qualifications than Peter. why wasn’t Paul the first pope.” Glad to learn that you are aware that Paul is unmarried.

God doesn’t judge according to human standard. Yes, Paul is more educated, more intelligent than Peter and the other apostles because he was a rabbi and a former student of the philosopher Gamaliel but Jesus didn’t entrust to him the Keys of the Kingdom. He was not the first among the Apostles. But, for us Catholics we both honor and love Sts. Peter and Paul equally. Being first Pope is a mere responsibility given by God but they are both great Apostles and faithful witness of the Gospel in heroic degree. That is why in Catholic Calendar they have the same feast day. The Catholic Church teaches us not to reject any of them because they both deserve our gratitude. We both built great monuments in honor of these two champions of our faith. These monuments are Basilicas built over their tombs in Rome.

12. Do you have an assurance of going to heaven or of your salvation? Once again don’t be presumptuous. Mary is more worthy of heaven than you. Yet, you are rejecting her.The doctrine of OSAS [Once Saved will Always be Saved] is not in the Bible. May be you can find it for me. Chapter and verse please?

Now, if you will ask me if I am saved, my answer is Yes I am! Because Jesus died for me on the Cross and He gave up his life for my salvation. His salvation is not only for you and your tiny fellowship but for all believers like us. JESUS IS OUR LORD AND SAVIOR TOO IF YOU DON’T KNOW.However, since I am still alive I have to exert effort to be faithful to Jesus in my daily life and activities. Because NOT EVERYONE WHO CALLS HIM LORD, LORD WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BUT ONLY THOSE WHO DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER IN HEAVEN [Matthew 7:21]. So, it is not enough to consider Jesus as your Lord and Savior you have to ‘do’ the will of your father in heaven. Hope you have read that passage. It’s Jesus who said it. Your Lord, and mine too.

13. “I know that I cannot change what you believed but I know that God can change you. Do not believe a LIE.”I do not believe a LIE and that is the reason why I am Catholic. I do not believe the lie that we Catholics are worshipping Mary because the Bible itself says that Mary will be called Blessed by all generations [Luke 1:48]. That prophecy is fulfilled not in your faith affiliations but in mine.

I do not believe your lie that you don’t have a religion because I am aware that you are saying that only to attract me to your self-invented religion.

I am firmly convinced that our faith is more Biblical than yours.

Anonymous said… the Queen of Heaven originated from pagan Babylonian goddess worship. We read in Jeremiah about the Babylonian Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17, 44:18, 44:19, 44:25). Jeremiah 7:18 plainly states that God hates idolatry and it provokes Him to anger. Why would God allow Mary to be called a queen of heaven if He was angry about it. Psa 45:9 Kings’ daughters were among your honorable women: at your right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophi Roman Catholics believe that Mary was born without sin and that she lived a sinless life. Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul does magnify the Lord, Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. Mary never claimed to be sinless- she saw herself as needing a SaviorRoman Catholics made Mary as a co-redemptrix, Jesus is the redeemer and there is nothing in the bible says Mary was the co-mediatorJoh 14:6 Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. In 1923,Pope Ius XV’s(1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ and that with Him, she redeemed the human race.And Pope Pius XII officially designated mary the “Queen of the World.”Roman Catholicism has taken the mother of Jesus and reinvented her ans ascribed to her things she would never have wanted.She steemed her son, she loved God’s Word, she was a servant and the most wonderful woman who ever lived.But she would be appalled at what Roman Catholicism has done to her, She never spoke of purgatory,of indulgences, of her redeeming souls,of being a co-redemptrix or co-mediator.These are inventions and traditions of men; which her son warned us about in His Word.1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, this to be a testimony at the proper time.Calling the Pope as the Holy Father is an abomination to God,where in the bibles says that the pope is holy father”For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED.” CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882vICAR(LATIN) OF CHRIST- Anti(Greek)of Christanti- christ -a prepostion signifying against,opposite, contrary, IN PLACE OF Or A substitute”We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE).” POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302 2Th 2:3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.2Th 2:4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God August 28, 2008 11:29 AM

Anonymous said… QUESTION: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.Mat 1:25 But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JAMES, AND JOSES, AND JUDAS, AND SIMON ARE CHILDREN OF MARY? Matthew13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Mark6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.the very context of scripture reveals that this is talking about the blood family of Jesus! In other words, Jesus, Son of Mary, brother of James and Joses, and He also had sisters. It’s identifying a blood family, and it would be tortuous of scripture to deny this. If we’re going to say that word Brother doesn’t really mean His brethren, we have to also say that word Mother doesn’t really mean Mary was Jesus Mother. For it’s the same word that was used in Matthew 27:56 saying Mary was the Mother of James and Joses. And so it is utterly ludicrous to believe Mary was not the Mother of James and Joses.The conjoined mention of the mother of Jesus appears to imply that the children are of the same mother are meant.I understand that your faith is American invented. MY FAITH IS INVENTED WRIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH It came from a place whose culture and mentality is dominated by sex.I DON’T HAVE THIS MENTALITY, SEX IS GOOD, GOD CREATED SEX.IT IS ONLY GOOD INSIDE MARRIAGE OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IS A SIN.But Joseph is not sex-crazed. I DID NOT SAY THAT HE WAS A SEX-CRAZED. In Biblical theology, virginity is not evil but a heroic virtue. SEX IS NOT EVIL EITHER WHEN ITS DONE INSIDE MARRIAGE.CATHOLIC TRADITION – Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.CATHOLIC TRADITION – Forbidding the priesthood to marry. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – 1) It is devilish to forbid God’s people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving. 1 Timothy4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to. 1 Corinthians9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? CATHOLIC TRADITION – Mary is the mother of God. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Mary is the mother of the earthly Jesus, not God. Jesus pre- existed from everlasting as God (see John 1:1). When He came to redeem mankind, He laid aside His glory and was made like unto sinful man so that He could take our punishment (Hebrew 2:9). God has no mother. He has lived from everlasting which means He had no beginning. Isaiah43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. [If Mary gave birth to God, she'd be God.] Psalm93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Philippians2:6 Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:CATHOLIC TRADITION – Pope called Holy Father. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – The term Holy Father is only found one time in the entire Bible. It was when Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane. He referred to God the Father as Holy Father. It is blasphemy to call a man by God’s name John17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Purgatory, nuns, popes. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – None of these is mentioned in the Bible. It is a sin to add to the Bible. Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous (see above). One does not need the pope to determine what God’s will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord. Popery has been treacherous, but worse, each pope has been the blind leading the blind. Jesus said that both will fall into the ditch. Catholics, come out of this system that cannot save and know Jesus for youself, intimate and up-close. NOTE: Purgatory is supposedly a place where a person is purified of sins–even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…. When a person dies their eternal home is sealed–heaven or hell–no in between. Hebrews 9:27 …it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.CATHOLIC TRADITION – Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them. Exodus20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God…CATHOLIC TRADITION – The mass. Through transubstantiation, the wafer/host and the wine supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus died once for sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh. Hebrews10:12 But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. John19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. 1 Corinthians11:24 And when he [Jesus] had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come (not for the forgiveness of sins or to receive Jesus).CATHOLIC TRADITION – Saved, in part, by good works. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved. An apple does not make its tree an apple tree, it was already an apple tree before any apples appeared. When you see the apples; however, you know what kind of tree it is. If a person is saved, he will shew forth good works because he has the spirit of Christ in him. The good works don’t make him saved only the blood of Jesus can do that. I John1:7b …the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Acts 16:31b…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Romans3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.What about James 2:20 “faith without works is dead”? The kind of faith that saves is a faith that shows forth the works of God. Even devils believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Many people believe in Jesus but they won’t follow Him. They have a faith, but not the kind that saves. If a person has true faith in Jesus, the Holy Ghost dwells in him and will cause good works will show forth in his life. The good works confirm the faith by which the person was saved. James 2:21-23 uses Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God so when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, out of his faith in God, offered up Isaac. CATHOLIC TRADITION – The church is founded on Peter. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter Satan in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship. 1 Corinthians3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Matthew21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?CATHOLIC TRADITION – Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone. I John1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Matthew6:9, 12 After this manner…pray ye: Our Father… forgive us…. 1 Timothy2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope]; I John 2:1, …And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. August 28, 2008 12:37 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said…

TO POST NO. 9

1. So after long days of silence you are back. And once again you are still hiding your identity and your religious affiliations. I guess you are ashamed of your own beliefs. You are attacking our faith while hiding your own so that you are free to criticise while protected from our own scrutiny of your faith. What a treacherous attitude. That is a pagan attitude. That was the same style of Lucifer, hiding in the form of Snake to lure our first parents.

2. “the Queen of Heaven originated from pagan Babylonian goddess worship.”The queen of heaven of the Babylonians originated from pagan Babylonian goddess worship. But, the Christian ‘Queen of Heaven’ belief originated from the Judaeo-Christian concept of the Kingship of the Messiah and the Queen-Mother of Biblical culture. You are confusing the two. You are fond of distortions, I see. Rev. 12:1 presents a Woman Crowned as Queen and she is in Heaven. She is not God but the mother of the Messiah. The Catholic Church, following the Bible, honors the Mother of the Messiah as Queen of Heaven.

3. “We read in Jeremiah about the Babylonian Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17, 44:18, 44:19, 44:25). Jeremiah 7:18 plainly states that God hates idolatry and it provokes Him to anger.” We hate Idolatry too that is why it is prohibited for us to worship Mary. Also, if you are not aware, the Church who destroyed the Temples of the Pagan goddesses such as Astarte, Diana, Artemis, Hera and others was the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was the one who defeated the Hellenistic and Roman Empire and submit them to Christian Faith.

Since you have started quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where can you find there the command or the teaching that we Catholics must or are worshipping Mary?

4. “Why would God allow Mary to be called a queen of heaven if He was angry about it. Psalm 45:9 Kings’ daughters were among your honorable women: at your right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir” Don’t be presumptous again. You are claiming to be a spokesperson of God yet you are distorting the Sacred Word of God. Rev. 12:1 shows that there is a Woman Crowned as Queen in Heaven. We are basing our belief on a Sign from Heaven and that is Divine Sign. For sure that Queen is not the pagan queen mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah. You are confusing the two.

How dare you claim that God is angry on calling Mary ‘Queen of Heaven’. Where can you find that in the Bible? On the contrary, Mary is the HIGHLY FAVORED OF GOD [Luke 1:28]. God will be happy to bestow honor to His favorite creature. The favorite of God is also the favorite of Catholics, yet she is hated by Born Again. How nice isn’t it? You have something in common with Satan.

Psalm 45:9 is a prophecy that during the kingship of the Messiah, the Queen shall stand on His right hand. Jesus’ Kingship was initiated during his Nativity and the woman on His side was Mary, then in the first miracle at Cana and the woman on His side was Mary, then on the Cross and the woman on His side was Mary. Mary is the Queen standing on the side of the Messiah-King.

5. “Roman Catholics believe that Mary was born without sin and that she lived a sinless life. Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul does magnify the Lord, Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. Mary never claimed to be sinless- she saw herself as needing a Savior”

So, you are escalating the discussion ha. You are jumping from one topic to another. We consider Mary as sinless because of the following Biblical passages:

[a] Genesis 3:15 The ‘Woman’ whose Seed will crush the Ancient Serpent will be in perpetual enmity with Satan. Since Mary is the Mother of the Messiah who destroyed Satan, Mary the Mother of the Messiah is in perpetual enmity with Satan. Thus, Satan has never enslaved Mary because she is protected by the grace of the Messiah. Just like the Woman in Rev. 12 whom Satan did everything to destroy yet he repeatedly failed because she is protected by God. I am wondering why you are so against Mary, just like the Serpent-Dragon. Are you not ashamed of that. You are on the side of the Ancient Serpent in being anti-Mary. Your opposition against Mary is full of venom. You have become an agent of the Serpent.

[b] Luke 1:28 Mary is ‘highly favored‘. In original Greek it is ‘Kaire Kecharitomene‘. The root word is ‘Charis’ = Grace. Mary is a woman filled with God’s grace. Thus, the more proper translation is ‘Hail, Full of Grace!‘ If Mary is already full of Grace, then there is no room for sin in her.

[c] Luke 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. This passage support our position not yours. Imagine, she was still alive and Jesus was not yet crucified yet it is already declared Biblically under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Mary already received Salvation from God. So, if there is one who is worthy of Salvation and of Sanctification it is Mary, not you or your cohorts. You are claiming Salvation for yourself yet it is not stated in the Bible. Mary’s salvation is announced in the Bible. But not yours!

6. “Roman Catholics made Mary as a co-redemptrix, Jesus is the redeemer and there is nothing in the bible says Mary was the co-mediator. Joh 14:6 Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.” Distortion again. The prefix “Co” there doesn’t mean Co-Equal but “Cooperator”. It means that she cooperated in God’s plan of Salvation.

Lk 1:26-27 before the Messiah was born to start God’s plan of Salvation, He sent the Angel Gabriel not to you or to your mother or to your pastor but to Mary.

Lk 1:38 Mary as a servant of God accepted the mission to be the Mother of the Messiah.

She didn’t refuse but ‘co’-operated with God’s plan.

Jn 2:1-11 Jesus declared that His time was not yet come but because of Mary’s request or prayer to Jesus, the Lord started the Plan of Salvation earlier. If Mary was not a Woman of Faith, salvation would have come later.

The teaching of human participation in Salvation is very Biblical but unfortunately you seem blind to it:

James 5:20 Whoever turns a sinner from error of his ways will SAVE him and cover a multitude of sins.

Jude 22-23 Be merciful to those who doubt… and SAVE THEM. [New International Version]

1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I MIGHT BY ALL MEANS SAVE SOME.

1 Tim 4:16 Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this THOU SHALT BOTH SAVE THYSELF, AND THEM THAT HEAR THEE. [Mary did this Lk 1:38, 45].

The concept of human participation in Salvation doesn’t diminish the Saving Power of Christ instead makes it more glorious through human cooperation.

7. In 1923, Pope Ius XV’s(1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ and that with Him, she redeemed the human race. And Pope Pius XII officially designated mary the “Queen of the World.” You are distorting the text of the Pope. This concept is based on Biblical teaching:

2 Tim 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain THE SALVATION THAT IS IN CHRIST JESUS, with eternal glory. [Mary as the Pope said endured a lot of suffering and pain for Jesus. That suffering just like that of St. Paul obtained Salvation for others but of course, JESUS IS THE ONLY ONE GIVING THAT SALVATION because He is the only Lord and Savior].

In 2 Tim 2:11-12 St. Paul further explained: “If we died with him, we will also live with him: if we endure, we will also reign with him.” [Mary was not afraid to die with Christ. The Apostles run away but not her. She was there at the foot of the Cross. She endured the pain of a Mother seeing her Son slowly dying through tortured wounds. Thus, she is reigning with Christ as shown in Rev 12:1]

Now, tell me if Mary is not worthy to reign with Christ.

In Ang Biblia 2 Tim 2:12 was translated ‘mangaghahari tayong kasama niya’. So, this is Biblical words using Kingdom terminologies. Your faith is lacking in Biblical Kingdom terminologies.

8. “Roman Catholicism has taken the mother of Jesus and reinvented her ans ascribed to her things she would never have wanted.She steemed her son, she loved God’s Word, she was a servant and the most wonderful woman who ever lived.But she would be appalled at what Roman Catholicism has done to her, She never spoke of purgatory,of indulgences, of her redeeming souls,of being a co-redemptrix or co-mediator.” Once again, you are becoming presumptous. Earlier you are presenting yourself as a spokesperson of God now you are presenting yourself as the spokesperson of Mary. Yes, Mary is a simple Woman yet that is exactly the reason why she was honored by God. The humble shall be exalted. God had exalted Mary and so does the Catholic Church. On the contrary, in a Luciferian move the Born Again wanted to ignore Mary.

9. These are inventions and traditions of men; which her son warned us about in His Word. TELL ME YOUR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS. TELL ME WHERE DO YOU GO FOR WORSHIP. TELL ME WHO YOUR PASTOR IS AND I WILL ENNUMERATE TO YOU YOUR INVENTIONS. You have the gall to accuse us of inventions because you are hiding your identity and your own church. Treacherous snake.

The Kingdom of the Messiah with its King and Queen-Mother is not the tradition of men but Biblical Tradition.

10. “1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, this to be a testimony at the proper time.”IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE THAT VERSE WHY IS IT THAT YOU ARE PRAYING FOR ANOTHER PERSON. WHY DO YOU HAVE A PASTOR? So, you are committing the same mistake because you need another person for your faith.

You are deceiving our readers yet in doing so you have revealed what you are.

11. Calling the Pope as the Holy Father is an abomination to God,where in the bibles says that the pope is holy father WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT CALLING THE POPE AS HOLY FATHER IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD? You are inventing. There are hundreds of passages in the Bible calling men ‘father’.”For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED.” CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882

12. “vICAR(LATIN) OF CHRIST- Anti(Greek)of Christanti- christ -a prepostion signifying against,opposite, contrary, IN PLACE OF Or A substitute”

PLEASE DON’T SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY IN THE INTERNET WHERE THOUSANDS WILL READ HOW STUPID YOU ARE. VICAR IS ENGLISH. THE LATIN OF VICAR IS ‘VICARIUS’ WHICH MEANS REPRESENTATIVE OR A DEPUTY OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE IN CHARGE. IT IS BLATANT DECEPTION OF THE PUBLIC TO CLAIM THAT VICAR IS ‘ANTI’ IN GREEK. THE PREFIX ‘ANTI’ IS BOTH LATIN AND GREEK BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH VICAR.YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CLEAR BLUNDER SHOWING YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF BOTH LATIN AND GREEK. STUDY PLEASE! OR YOU ARE DECEIVING PEOPLE INTENTIONALLY.

DECEPTION IS AN ACT PROPER OF THE ANTI-CHRIST BECAUSE SATAN IS ‘THE DECEIVER’.

13. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE).” POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302 2Th 2:3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.2Th 2:4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God”

Once again a distorted quotation. Jesus apointed leaders in the Church and having Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons is necessary for Salvation. Just like there are successors to the Apostles, there is a successor to the head of the Apostles – Peter. That we call Pope. The Power of the Keys given in Mt 16-18-19 is not only limited to Peter but for all believers of all time. The Pope is not God but the leader of the Universal Church. He is a wordwide pastor. Jesus appointed men to be leaders of the Church and had chosen them personally. You yourself have pastors and leaders. If you reject the Pope why do you have his equivalents.

I WARN YOU TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF. BECAUSE YOU ARE ATTACKING OUR FAITH TRECHEROUSLY. IF YOU WILL CONTINUOUSLY REMAIN ANONYMOUS THEN I WILL ERASE YOUR FUTURE MESSAGES. I AM WILLING TO DEBATE BUT LET US LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELDS.

Fr. Abe, CRS said… TO POST NO. 10

1.”QUESTION: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN? Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.Mat 1:25 But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”

Nowhere in that passage does it says that Joseph had sexual union with Mary. The word UNTIL im Mt 1:25 is the Greek HEOS HOU. It simply signifies that prior to the Nativity of Jesus no sexual intercourse between Mary and Joseph had happened. Yet, it doesn’t assure that there is sexual intercouse that occured later. Here are some examples of Biblical use of UNTIL or HEOS HOU:

2 Samuel 6:2 “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.” [You mean to say she had a child after her death?]

1 Corinthians 15:25/Ps 110:1 “For he must reign UNTIL he put all enemies under his feet.” [Does it mean that he was no longer reigning when all enemies were put under his feet?]

Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, UNTIL all be fulfilled.” [So, does it mean when all laws have been fulfilled one tittle of the law will pass away?]

You see, the word UNTIL is not a proof that something had happened afterward between Mary and Joseph.

2. “WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JAMES, AND JOSES, AND JUDAS, AND SIMON ARE CHILDREN OF MARY? Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.the very context of scripture reveals that this is talking about the blood family of Jesus! In other words, Jesus, Son of Mary, brother of James and Joses, and He also had sisters. It’s identifying a blood family, and it would be tortuous of scripture to deny this. If we’re going to say that word Brother doesn’t really mean His brethren, we have to also say that word Mother doesn’t really mean Mary was Jesus Mother. For it’s the same word that was used in Matthew 27:56 saying Mary was the Mother of James and Joses. And so it is utterly ludicrous to believe Mary was not the Mother of James and Joses.The conjoined mention of the mother of Jesus appears to imply that the children are of the same mother are meant.

I already explained that in Hebrew culture relatives and kinsmen are called brothers and sisters. It was shown that Mary the Mother of Jesus is not the same Mary the Mother of James and Joses. All the rest are mere presupposition. What you are quoting are not solid evidence that these people are truly biological siblings of the Lord.

First, it is nowhere stated in the texts that they are biological siblings of Jesus.

Second, only Jesus was referred as the Son of Mary. It is a stretch of imagination to claim that these James and Judas and Joses are biological family of Jesus because it was not stated as such.

Third, I do not trust those who speak because they are enemies and non-believers of Jesus. Your teaching concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doesn’t come from Prophets and Apostles but from words quoted from the mouth of the ENEMIES OF JESUS. Your position is Satanic.

3. “I understand that your faith is American invented. MY FAITH IS INVENTED WRIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH It came from a place whose culture and mentality is dominated by sex.I DON’T HAVE THIS MENTALITY, SEX IS GOOD, GOD CREATED SEX.IT IS ONLY GOOD INSIDE MARRIAGE OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IS A SIN.But Joseph is not sex-crazed. I DID NOT SAY THAT HE WAS A SEX-CRAZED. In Biblical theology, virginity is not evil but a heroic virtue.SEX IS NOT EVIL EITHER WHEN ITS DONE INSIDE MARRIAGE.”

Yes, but it is nowhere stated in the Bible that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary. The teaching that Mary had other children appeared only in the 4th century when Helvidius invented that doctrine based on wrong interpretation of the Scriptures.

Sex is good inside marriage that’s true but VIRGINITY TOO IS GOOD. So, why is this Born Again so against the chastity and virginity of Joseph and Mary. Imagine, she even exclaimed ‘poor Joseph’ to the idea that Joseph didn’t sleep with his wife. That is a Sex-Crazed mentality. If the Born Again and the Evangelicals cannot control their lust they should refrain from thinking that Mary and Joseph are like them in that weakness.

4. “CATHOLIC TRADITION – Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

SO WHAT DO YOU CALL THE HUSBAND OF YOUR MOTHER, THEN? A DOG? There are so many passages in the Bible calling men ‘father’:

Judges 17:9-10 Micah told a Levite: “Be to me a FATHER and a PRIEST.”

Genesis 17:5 Abraham was made the FATHER of many nations.

Exodus 20:12 Honour your FATHER and your mother. [Lk 18:20]

1 Samuel 23:11 David called King Saul ‘father’.

2 Kings 2:12 Elisha called Elijah ‘my father’ 2x

Acts 7 St. Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit yet he called people ‘fathers’ 18x.

Philippians 2:22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the FATHER, he [Timothy] hath served with me in the gospel.

1 Corinthians 4:14-16 …I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. Therefore I urge you, be imitators of me. [New International Version]

1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder [Presbyteros, priest], but entreat him as a FATHER.

4. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Forbidding the priesthood to marry. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – 1) It is devilish to forbid God’s people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving. 1 Timothy4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to. 1 Corinthians9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

DON’T DECEIVE PEOPLE. WE CATHOLICS ARE NOT PROHIBITING MARRIAGE. IN FACT, WE HAVE MORE MARRIAGES THAN YOUR FELLOWSHIPS. YOUR MARRIAGES ARE NOTHING IN COMPARISON TO THE NUMBER OF CATHOLIC MARRIAGES WE ARE DOING.

Who prohibits marriages? My parents are married and so are my uncles and aunts. Actually, our teaching is similar to that of Saint Paul. IF YOU WANT TO MARRY SO GET MARRIED. IF YOU DON’T WANT TO GET MARRIED AND BE PRIEST SO BE IT. Our doctrine is based on Biblical understanding that Jesus and the Kingdom of God must be priority over family:

Matthew 10:37 Jesus must be loved more than father, mother, son or daughter.

Matthew 19:12 Some renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven [NIV]

Luke 18:28-30 Yes, I agree with you that Peter has a wife but he left ALL when he followed Jesus.

REVELATION 14:4 THESE ARE THEY WHICH ARE NOT DEFILED WITH WOMEN; FOR THEY ARE VIRGINS. THESE ARE THEY WHICH FOLLOW THE LAMB WHITHERSOEVER HE GOETH. THESE WERE REDEEMED FROM AMONG MEN, BEING THE FIRST FRUITS UNTO GOD AND TO THE LAMB. [Who are these virgin males who are in heaven? Are they Catholic priests or Protestant pastors?]

Clearly, male virginity is not being condemned in the Bible but being honored. Read your Bible carerfully. WE HAVE MORE MARRIAGES THAN YOU. I myself have license to marry and I am marrying Catholics, a lot of them.

5. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Mary is the mother of God. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Mary is the mother of the earthly Jesus, not God. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS THE MOTHER OF THE EARTHLY JESUS ONLY? Luke 1:43 “And whence is this come to me, that THE MOTHER OF MY LORD should come to me?“

MARY IS THE MOTHER OF THE LORD! What is the Lord? Is He God or Man? or God-Man?

If the son is a King, the Mother is the Mother of the King.

If the son is a Messiah, the Mother is the Mother of the Messiah.

If the Son is God, the Mother is the Mother of God.

The mother of the president is the Mother of the President even if she is not a president. Simple Logic.

6. Jesus pre- existed from everlasting as God (see John 1:1). When He came to redeem mankind, He laid aside His glory and was made like unto sinful man so that He could take our punishment (Hebrew 2:9). God has no mother. He has lived from everlasting which means He had no beginning. Isaiah43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. [If Mary gave birth to God, she'd be God.] Psalm93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Philippians2:6 Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

WE DO NOT DENY THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST. YOUR NEWLY INVENTED RELIGION WAS NOT YET ESTABLISHED WE WERE ALREADY DEFENDING THE DIVINITY OF JESUS AGAINST THE ARIANS IN THE 3RD-4TH CENTURY.

You yourself is calling Jesus as your Lord and God, yet you deny Mary as Mother of God. We are not claiming that God as God has a Mother but the Bible attests that when God became Man in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth He was born of Mary. Mary is the Mother of the Incarnate God — JESUS CHRIST!

7. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Pope called Holy Father. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – The term Holy Father is only found one time in the entire Bible. It was when Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane. He referred to God the Father as Holy Father. It is blasphemy to call a man by God’s name John17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Your knowledge of the Bible is very superficial. It is true that God is the Father of all but contrary to your claim God allowed us to call men Father. He Himself called people ‘father’ and He Himself shared His Holiness to people and things. So that calling people or things ‘Holy’ or “Father’ is not contrary to the Honor of God.

2 Kings 2:12 Elisha called Elijah ‘my father’ not only once but twice.

2 Kings 13:14 King Joash of Israel called the prophet Elisha ‘my father’ twice also.

Genesis 45:8 Joseph the Prime Minister of Egypt was made by God ‘father’

Isaiah 22:21 The Keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom is prophesied to become ‘a father to the inhabitants of Israel’.

* The word Pope is the English version of the word ‘Papa’ which means ‘Father’. He is called as such because the Office of Peter and his successor is the fulfillment of Isaiah 22:21.

WHY WAS IT CALLED ‘HOLY’? BECAUSE IT IS AN OFFICE ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. [cf. MATTHEW 16:18-19]. Is it wrong to refer to people or things as ‘holy’. The Bible says NO! Look at these:

Leviticus 21:8 The priest who offered the Bread of God is ‘holy’ [The Pope is a Priest who offers the Bread of God]

Deuteronomy 26:19 You will be a ‘holy people’ [All members of the People of God are holy then]

Acts 3:21 “Holy prophets” [The Pope is a prophet for us just like the pastors and evanglists and ministers in the Protestants]

Luke 2:23 “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called HOLY TO THE LORD.”

Exodus 3:5 The place you are standing is a “holy ground”.

Exodus 30:25 “holy oil”

1 Chronicles 23:28 “All holy things”

1 Chronicles 23:32 “holy place”

Matthew 27:53 “holy city”

Leviticus 8:9 “holy crown’

Leviticus 16:4 “holy garments”

Leviticus 2:3, 10 “most holy of the offerings”

Number 5:17 “holy water”

1 Kings 6:16 “Most holy place”

Psalm 99:9 “worship at His holy hill”

8. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Purgatory, nuns, popes. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – None of these is mentioned in the Bible. It is a sin to add to the Bible. Proverbs30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous (see above). One does not need the pope to determine what God’s will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord. Popery has been treacherous, but worse, each pope has been the blind leading the blind. Jesus said that both will fall into the ditch. Catholics, come out of this system that cannot save and know Jesus for youself, intimate and up-close.

You are pretending to be faithful to the Bible but in fact you are teaching a lot of things contrary to it or not found in it:

1. Where can you find in the Bible your Dogma of SOLA SCRIPTURA or BIBLE ALONE AS THE AUTHORITY IN FAITH?

2. Where can you find in the Bible your Dogma of SOLA FIDE or FAITH ALONE for Justification and Salvation?

3. Where can you find in the Bible your OSAS ‘Once Saved will Always be Saved’?

4. Where can you find in the Bible your doctrine of Rapture?

5. Where can you find in the Bible that your dogma of TITHING must be obligatory for Christians?

6. Where can you find in the Bible that Women can be pastors?

7. Where in the Bible can you find that the Musical Band can be used in worship?

Your claim that the believers doesn’t need a Pope is a stupid statement. Because it is never stated in the Sacred Scriptures that matters of Faith and Morals are determined by mere reading of the Bible. In Acts 15 when St. Paul and St. Barnabas were being disobeyed by the Jewish-Christians they went to Jerusalem and St. Peter decided with finality the issue without reading any Biblical text. The authority in the Church is given to persons because the Book cannot interpret itself [cf. Matthew 16:18-19/ 18:18].

Concerning the nuns, it is very obvious that Jesus was taking of the 10 Virgins while St. Paul admonishes the female virgins [1 Corinthians 7:8]. Do you think that all women in the early Church are non-Virgins? Then you are deceived. These are the first nuns in the history of the Church. Just like during the time of St. Paul they are still wearing their veils until now as a sign of their consecration of virginity to Christ.

9. NOTE: Purgatory is supposedly a place where a person is purified of sins–even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…. When a person dies their eternal home is sealed–heaven or hell–no in between. Hebrews 9:27 …it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.

You will go there. You will go to Purgatory if not directly to Hell. You will not be able to enter heaven straight because your FAITH ALONE, BIBLE ALONE AND ONCE SAVED WILL ALWAYS BE SAVED are not in the Bible and therefore you will be answerable to God for them, for deceiving other people and deceiving yourself. The Doctrine of Purgatory is actually proclaiming that Christ is the one purifying our sins. The word Purgatory alone proves that:

“Who being the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance and upholding all things by the word of his power, making PURGATION OF SINS, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high” [Hebrew 1:3 Douay-Rheims]

Try to read it in Latin:

Heb 1:3 “qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae PURGATIONEM PECCATORUM faciens sedit ad dexteram Maiestatis in excelsi”

It is nowhere stated in the Bible that only Heaven and Hell exists:

Rev 5:3 “And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it” [cf. Philippians 2:10]

Who are these souls who have the right to try opening the Scrool of Life? For sure the spirits of demons and the damned in Hell are not part of them. These are souls in Heaven, the souls of the human beings on earth and the souls in Purgatory. In fact Revelation 5:13 speaks of creatures under the earth who are singing the Honor of Christ. For sure these are not referring to minerals and worms under the soils.

Concerning Hebrew 9:27 we believe that that is why we believe that the souls in heaven are alive and saved like that of Peter and Paul, the other Apostles and the holy ones of God. However, you have forgotten that there is also judgment in the after life. The Lord Jesus speaks of forgiveness in the world to come [Matthew 12:32] and St. Peter supported it by declaring that the Gospel is preached to the dead for their judgment [1 Peter 4:6].

10. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them. Exodus20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God…

God is a jealous God but He is not stupid like you. He prohibited Idolatry and so the Catholic Church prohibits it as well. What you are not teaching is that God commanded Images to be made for His Glory in the Temple. There is no need for me to repeat it here. You can visit my presentation of Sacred Images in this Blog.

11. CATHOLIC TRADITION – The mass. Through transubstantiation, the wafer/host and the wine supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus died once for sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh. Hebrews10:12 But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. John19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. 1 Corinthians11:24 And when he [Jesus] had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come (not for the forgiveness of sins or to receive Jesus).

You are making me laugh. Imagine, you rightly stated that the bread is turning into the Body and Blood of Jesus according to our Catholic faith then in order to disprove it you quoted Hebrew stating that Jesus died only once. How can the ‘once and for all’ death of Jesus disprove the Transubstantation? When in fact, we Catholics are also teaching that Jesus died once and for all. From what devil did you get that Jesus is dying again according to Catholic theology?

Why do we have the Mass? Because Jesus commanded His apostles to DO THE LAST SUPPER AGAIN. Let us see the testimony of St. Paul:

1 Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,

St. Paul says that he received it and now he is passing it to his followers. Well, exactly as the generations of Catholic do. The Born Again do not have it or they are simply making a caricature of it by using Grape Juice and Biscuits. Nakakahiya kayo di ba?

1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

JESUS SAID ‘THIS IS MY BODY’… It’s not ‘This is the symbol of my body’ but THIS IS MY BODY. That’s categorical and declarative. You are denying the very words of Jesus and testified by St. Paul. This is Catholic Theology word for word in the Bible.

1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

This is the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy of Psalm 116:12-13 “What shall I render the Lord for all His goodness to me? I will take THE CUP OF SALVATION, and call upon the name of the Lord.” The Lord has given us a new covenant in His Blood, right in that very Cup. That is a Sacred Cup because it contains the Blood of the Divine Master.

1 Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

You cut it here to make it appear that your theology is supported eh. But the next passage destroys your position.

1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.

Those who will take the Eucharist unworthily are sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord. Why? Because those are no longer ordinary bread and wine they transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord substantially.

1 Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 1 Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Co 11:30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Exactly as the Catholics do. We examine our conscience and ask for forgiveness of our sins before the Eucharistic Meal in order not to commit sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord.

12. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Saved, in part, by good works. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved. An apple does not make its tree an apple tree, it was already an apple tree before any apples appeared. When you see the apples; however, you know what kind of tree it is. If a person is saved, he will shew forth good works because he has the spirit of Christ in him. The good works don’t make him saved only the blood of Jesus can do that. I John1:7b …the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Acts 16:31b…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Romans3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.What about James 2:20 “faith without works is dead”? The kind of faith that saves is a faith that shows forth the works of God. Even devils believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Many people believe in Jesus but they won’t follow Him. They have a faith, but not the kind that saves. If a person has true faith in Jesus, the Holy Ghost dwells in him and will cause good works will show forth in his life. The good works confirm the faith by which the person was saved. James 2:21-23 uses Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God so when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, out of his faith in God, offered up Isaac.

With all the passages that you have cited not one is saying that Salvation or Justification is by Faith Alone. None. Your doctrine, your dogma of Sola Fide is unbiblical and therefore by your standard, SATANIC. MAN-MADE. BY YOUR OWN STANDARD WILL BE ENOUGH TO BRING YOU TO HELL because you are following a mere doctrine of man.

What is the teaching of Jesus concerning Salvation?

Matthew 7:21-27 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

Romans 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

James 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

James 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Man is justified NOT BY FAITH ALONE but also by Good Works. So, it must be Faith & Good Works. Faith alone is dead so that is the reason why the advocates of this erroneous dogma are deceiving themselves.

13. CATHOLIC TRADITION – The church is founded on Peter. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter Satan in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship. 1 Corinthians3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Matthew21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

Definitely, you are not equal with Peter. In humanity, yes but not in sanctify of life that he lived after he became totally converted to Jesus. To claim that Peter is just like you is too abominable to accept. We do not even know who you are. For what we know you can be a demon in disguise.

Peter was chosen by Jesus and it was to him that Jesus entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven. He was weak during the earthly life of Jesus but after then he became a courageous leader of the Church.

Jesus callled Peter Satan but Jesus also promised him that he will be protected from Satan twice [Matthew 16:19 and Luke 22:31-32]. Jesus entrusted to him the authority of a lead Shepherd to represent Him the Chief Shepherd [John 21:15-17].

After Jesus’ Ascension Peter’s leadership was unequalled by any apostles. He faced the Sanhedrin as the leader of all believers. He decided by his lonesome self the successor to Judas and decided to baptized the Gentiles. He became so powerful spiritually that he can witheld the Holy Spirit from the evil ones and his mere shadow can cure people. Of course those miracles were done by the Lord Jesus.

Downgrading the Blessed Peter the Apostle will speak ill of you because you are honoring your weak, sinful and self-proclaimed pastors while rejecting the one chosen by the Lord Jesus Himself.

14. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone. * WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE? THAT WE HAVE TO CONFESS OUR SINS TO GOD ALONE? YOU ARE INVENTING! John 20:22-23 And when he said this, he breathed on them and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost WHOSE SOEVER SINS YE REMIT THEY ARE REMITTED UNTO THEM, AND WHOSE SOEVER SINS YE RETAIN, THEY ARE RETAINED. [So, the power to forgive sins was given to the leaders of the Church, to human persons.] HOW COME YOUR PASTORS DON’T HAVE THIS POWER? BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKES!

I John1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Matthew6:9, 12 After this manner…pray ye: Our Father… forgive us….

1 Timothy2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope];

I John 2:1, …And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

We also confess our sins to God but Jesus Himself has taught us to go to the Church authority on matters of sins. In Matthew 18:15-18 Jesus taught us to settle our disputes and sins personally if possible, if we cannot solve it then we ask help from others and if it is still persistent we have to bring it to the Church. So, the highest authority on earth on matters of sins and reconciliation is the Church Authority. This is the will of God.

SOME OF THE ISSUES YOU HAVE RAISED HAVE BEEN ANSWERED HERE AND IN THE PREVIOUS POST.YOU ARE NOT ATTACKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. YOU ARE ATTACKING A CARICATURE OF YOUR OWN INVENTION. ONCE AGAIN, I REPEAT. YOU ARE AFRAID TO REVEAL YOUR IDENTITY AND YOUR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS BECAUSE YOU ARE AFRAID THAT YOUR TEACHINGS CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE. I ALREADY GAVE YOU THE CHANCE TO PRESENT YOURSELF AND I ALLOWED YOUR POSTS WITHOUT CUT WHATSOEVER. NOW, IF YOU WILL CONTINUE BEING ANONYMOUS YOUR PRECEEDING POSTS WILL BE DELETED BECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY ATTACKING WITHOUT SHOWING YOURSELF. AS YOU WANT TO QUESTION MY FAITH, I ALSO WANT TO QUESTION YOURS. I WANT TO SEE IF IT IS BIBLICAL.

RIDICULOUS ANSWERS OF THE BEREANS APOLOGETICS

RIDICULOUS ANSWERS OF THE BEREANS APOLOGETICS By Atty. Marwil Llasos

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/ridiculous-answers-of-bereans.html

Madonna and Child by Michelangelo

Little learning is a dangerous thing. This adage is once again proven true by the way the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry (Bereans) answers questions. They showed their limited capacity for higher level thinking and demonstrated beyond any iota of doubt their Biblical illiteracy. Eliseo Soriano and his co-horts will surely have a run for their money!

In the Berean’s rebuttal to my article on perpetual virginity, its moderator, official spokesperson and representative named GERALD a.k.a. RODIMUS magnificently displayed the Bereans’ sloppy research and shallow reasoning.

Below is our exchange. Rodimus’ words are in red while mine are in black. Blue stands for the words I used in my past article. I ask the reader to judge who presents more substantial arguments and who displays little learning.

Atty. Llasos further attempted to refute my consideration of Matthew 13:55 as comprehensive by saying:

In fact, a parallel verse in Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as “THE son of Mary.” The article “the” is significant in Greek because it signifies “the one and only.” Jesus, being the Son of Mary, means that He is Mary’s only Son in the same manner that Jesus, being the Son of God, means that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.

While the article “the” can signify the one and only, it doesn’t always mean that way in other sentences. In John 4:5, Joseph is mentioned to be THE SON of Jacob, are we to conclude that Jacob had no other children?

In my refutation of Rodimus’ supposition that Matthew 13:55 as “comprehensive” in proving that Mary had other children, I did raise the issue of the use of the definite article “the” as an added proof that “Jesus, being the Son of Mary, means that He is Mary’s only Son in the same manner that Jesus, being the Son of God, means that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.”

I mentioned the use of “the” in Mark 6:3 merely as one of the cumulative evidence for the Catholic position that Jesus is Mary’s only Child. I don’t rest my case on that argument alone; I pointed out its significance. As Rodimus himself admitted, “the article ‘the’ can signify the one and only, it doesn’t always mean that way in other sentences.” Yes, but its significance cannot be discounted.

I believe that “Jesus’ unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother. He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man.”

My view that the perpetual virginity of Mary points to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ finds support from formidable authors of impeccable credentials. Rodimus cannot hold a candle beside these scholars because his credentials, if any, are light years away from those of evangelical Prof. Tim Perry and (formerly) Protestant Jaroslav Pelikan.

Prof Tim Perry is on record as saying that “Like her virginity ante partum and in partu, Mary’s post partum virginity’s most powerful support derives from the uniqueness of Jesus” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 282]. He concluded that “[i]n the divine economy, the corollary of the ontological description ‘only begotten God’ is ‘ever-virgin’ (aeiparthenos; semper virgo)” [ibid, p. 283].

For Jaroslav Pelikan, “the eternal begetting of the second person of the holy Trinity should be mirrored in his incarnate life: “He [is] the single and only begotten Son of God [and] also the single and only begotten Son of Mary” [Jaroslav Pelikan, “Most Generations Shall Call Me Blessed,” in Mary: Mother of God, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004) p. 8].

That Jesus is the only Child of the Blessed Virgin Mary is underscored by the fact that He is always referred to as “THE” Son of Mary. The article “the” [“ho” - the Greek letter o’ (o with the iota subscript)] is significant in Greek because it signifies “the one and only.” For instance, ho theos refers to the oneness or unicity of God: there is only one God. Thus, ho huios means that Jesus is the only Son of Mary just as He is the only Son of God.

Let us now consider the Bible verses we cited. I used Mark 6:3 while Rodimus used John 4:5.

Mark 6:3 is rendered in Greek (Romanized, for easy reading) “ouch houtos estin ho tektOn ho huios tEs marias kai erchetai oun eis polin tEs samareias legomenEn suchar plEsion tou chOriou ho edOken iakOb [tO] iOsEph tO huiO autou.”

In John 4:5 where Joseph is mentioned to be “the Son” of Jacob is rendered differently: “adelphos iakObou kai iOsEtos kai iouda kai simOnos kai ouk eisin hai adelphai autou hOde pros hEmas kai eskandalizonto en auto.”

I don’t think I clearly saw “ho huious” in John 4:5 in reference to Joseph “the son” of Jacob which Rodimus used to counter my use of Mark 6:3 (which clearly mentions “ho huios”). In the New International Version, evangelicals’ favorite translation, John 4:5 is rendered: “So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph.” I also didn’t see the expression Joseph “the son” of Jacob. So also in the Revised Standard Version, the expression “the son” of Jacob is conspicuously absent: “So he came to a city in Samaria, called Sychar, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.”

Moreover, Jesus was referred as “a son” in Luke 1:31 and not “your only child,” so why not conclude Mary has other children subsequent to Christ?

Here’s where the Bereans’ little learning is most dangerous!

Let’s read Luke 1:31: “You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.”

Note that in the verse above, the expression “Jesus, the son of Mary” is not used. The obvious sense that Luke 1:31 conveys is that the angel is announcing to Mary that she is giving birth to a SON, not a DAUGHTER! [Cf. Rev. 12:5 – She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”] So, Mary is going to give birth to a son, meaning a male child – and not a daughter or a female child!

Also, since Mary is giving birth to a son, it means that she’s not giving birth to a twin, a triplet or a quadruplet but just a son!

Notice how ridiculous the Bereans argue! I really couldn’t help myself but to laugh out loud with the Bereans’ pathetic argumentation. They are so desperate that they don’t realize that they are making a fool out of themselves! They have made themselves into a laughingstock!

When will you ever learn? When will you ever learn?

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #5

New comment on your post #210 “Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #4″
Author : henry arganda (IP: 64.228.134.239 , bas2-windsor12-1088718575.dsl.bell.ca)
E-mail : henri_4w@yahoo.ca
URL    : http://www.pmcc4thwatch.com
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=64.228.134.239
Comment:

Black: -Henri Arganda (New Comments)

Red: -Henri’s Old Replies

Blue: -G-one Paisones’ Old Reply

Green:-G-one Paisones (New Reply)

Other colors- For emphasizing

HENRY:

yril of Alexandria c.376–444, bishop. Traditionally regarded as the most outstanding theologian of Alexandria, Cyril presented against Nestorius of Constantinople the classical doctrines of the Trinity and the Person of Christ based on the work of Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzus. Little is known of his early life. He was born at Alexandria and first became known as a young priest who was the nephew of the patriarch of Alexandria, Theophilus, whom he succeeded in 412. His intransigent vigour was soon expressed in attacks on the Novatians, the Neoplatonists, the Jews, and the imperial governor Orestes. The latter was believed to have been influenced by the philosopher Hypatia against him: Cyril’s followers lynched her without his knowledge. His controversy with Nestorius was the most important of his life. The different exegetical traditions of Constantinople and Alexandria, sharpened by rivalry between

the two sees for pre-eminence, embittered the quarrel. Nestorius was believed to have

taught that there were two distinct persons in Christ who were joined by a merely moral union: consequently the Blessed Virgin Mary should not be called Theotokos or Mother of God. Cyril certainly and Nestorius probably appealed for support to Pope Celestine, who, after examining the question in a council at Rome, condemned Nestorius’ teaching, excommunicated and deposed him unless he retracted, and appointed Cyril to carry out the sentence. Nestorius refused to submit; the Council of Ephesus (431) was summoned; 200 bishops took part. Cyril presided and condemned Nestorius, who refused to appear, before the arrival of the bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch. They in their turn condemned Cyril first but later reached agreement with him. The emperor upheld the condemnation of Nestorius and the word Theotokos became a touchstone of orthodoxy. The precision, accuracy, and skill of Cyril as a theologian has often been remarked, but his intransigence and even misunderstanding of his opponents’ thought is often criticized by modern scholars. Traditionally he was regarded as the fearlessly outspoken champion of orthodox thought on the Person of Christ. In addition to this, his writings contain some fine passages on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the place of Mary in the Incarnation. His works include sermons and letters besides more formal theological treatises. As the moving spirit of the third Ecumenical Council of the Church he is of great importance in the development of Christian Doctrine. His feast in the East is 9 June, in the West 27 June. He was declared a Doctor of the Church by Leo XIII in 1882.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Origen and Origenism
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z … no errors or contradictions can be admitted in Scripture (Commentary on John X.3) …
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

Ambrose: Introduction

Saint Ambrose (born 337 or 339) was bishop of Milan from 374 until his death in 397, during a time when the church was engaged in simultaneous struggles against the external enemy of paganism and the internal enemy of Arianism. Ambrose played a key role in both, opposing the attempts of the party of Symmachus to restore the Altar of Victory to the Senate (see EPISTULAE 72 and 73 [17 and 18]) and of the Arians to take over the Basilica Portiana of Milan (see Epistulae 76 [20] and 75A [21a] [= Sermo contra Auxentium de basilicis tradendis]; in his VITA SANCTI WILLIBRORDI [MGH SRM 7.139], ALCUIN praises Ambrose as the defender of Milan.) Ambrose’s vigorous defense of the prerogatives of the Church in spiritual matters led to conflicts even with orthodox emperors; his imposition of public penance upon Theodosius I for the massacre at Thessalonica (see Epistula extra collectionem 11 [51]; PAULINUS OF MILAN, VITA AMBROSII XXIV; see AMBROSIUS under ACTA SANCTORUM; ed. Pellegrino 1961) made a profound impression upon contemporaries and was recounted admiringly by many medieval writers. ÆLFRIC’s version of the story, in an addition to CATHOLIC HOMILIES II.xxxiii (ÆHom 27, B1.4.27, ed. EETS OS 260.762-69) is based upon THEODORET, HISTORIA ECCLESIASTICA TRIPARTITA

Scholarly Critiques of Irenaeus’ Writings

Debate Over Originality of Writings One classic debate over Irenaeus’ writngs was framed by Friedrich Loofs. In the early 20th century Loofs suggested that Theophilus of Antioch was the source of Irenaeus’ writings, not Irenaeus himself.[8] F.R.M. Hitchcock, in his article “Loof’s Theory of Theophilus of Antioch as a source of Irenaeus”[9] has shown some of the weaknesses of Loofs’ study. He acknowledges that some writings from a different context are apparent at some points of Irenaeus’ work but that this does not prove Loofs theory. An example is in Adversus haereses 3. 22. 1, where Irenaeus makes use of an anti-Ebionite argument that proves that Christ was born of a virgin in order to argue against the Gnostics that Christ had a human origin. There have been a slew of other academics who have taken positions on both sides of the issue, with the general appearance of the unity and validity of Irenaeus’ work being favored.[10]

Uses of the Writings of Irenaeus Irenaeus’ writings, as have many other church fathers, have been used by a variety of scholars to support a myriad of contemporary and historical heretical positions. One particular theological position that has been skewed is Irenaeus’ doctrine of recapitulation. M.C. Steenberg has pressed the concept of the recapitulation of Christ into a Roman Catholic Mariology. Arguing against the possibility that Irenaeus is driven primarily by aesthetic concerns, the author posits a reading of Irenaeus that finds in Mary’s person an integral and essential component of a theologically coherent system of personal and social recapitulation.[11] This style of tainting the works of the church fathers is both unworthy scholarship and dangerous to the uninformed reader

**Thus we find from this passage also, that there was in Christ a fleshly body, such as was able to endure the cross. “When, therefore, He came and preached peace to them that were near and to them which were afar off,” we both obtained “access to the Father,” being “now no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (even of Him from whom, as we have shown above, we were aliens, and placed far off), “built upon the foundation of the apostles”(12)–(the apostle added), “and the prophets;” these words, however, the heretic erased, forgetting that the Lord had set in His Church not only apostles, but prophets also. He feared, no doubt, that our building was to stand in Christ upon the foundation of the ancient prophets,(13) since the apostle himself never fails to build us up everywhere with (the words of) the prophets. For whence did he learn to call Christ “the chief corner-stone,”(14) but from the figure given him in the Psalm: “The stone which the builders rejected is become the head (stone) of the corner?”” THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION — (REST OF BOOK V) -CHAP.XVII

HENRY: NAPANSIN SANA NG MGA MAMBABASA KUNG SINO ITONG MGA GINAMIT NI PAISONES NA MGA CHURCH PADER KUNO,MGA KATOLIKO YAN…

G-ONE: hahaha, joker pala itong si brother Henry akalain mo pa naman na ipapabasa pa ng mga bumabasa kung sino ang tinutukoy na mga Church Pader…. Hehehe, salamat sa iyo Henry Arganda; at sa mga bumabasa, paki basa lang po ng mga isinulat ni Henry Arganda regarding sa mga Church Pader.

HENRY: PANSININ NYO PO ANG SAGOT NI PAISONES SA PAHAYAG KO NA SI CRISTO ANG PETRA ..IBA ANG SAGOT NYA DI NYA KAYANG PASUBALI-AN…(NASA BABA PO ANG PAHAYAG KO)ANG SINAGOT NYA AY PATOTOO NG DATING PROTESTANTE..NA BUMALIK…SA MALAKING KAMALI-AN.

G-ONE: PANSININ PO NINYO ANG MENSAHI NI HENRY ARGANDA, IBA DAW ANG SAGOT KO? SIGURO WALA NGA TALAGANG ALAM SI HENRY ARGANDA SA ARGUMENTATION; EH BAKIT BA AKO SASAGOT HINDI AKO TINATANONG? Ang mga comments sa baba ng kanyang mensahi ay isa ring Burden of Rebuttal ko laban sa kanya. At naipaliwanag na natin sa previous post (reply#2) natin laban kay Henry Arganda ang mga contention natin hinggil sa Matt. 16:18 na si Pedro ang batong pinag-uusapan. For the sake of arguments ito ang mga sumusunod na contention natin:

Narito ang mga punto natin:

1.) Sa Matt. 16 ang linguahe na isinulat dito ay ang Greek; pero ang linguahing sinalita o ginamit ng Panginoon Jesus at nang mga apostol ay ang Aramaic.Ang BarJonah ay salitang Aramaic na ibig sabihin ay “son of Jonah”.Majority po ng mga scholar ay naniniwala na ang madalas na wikain ng Panginoong Jesus ay ang Aramaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus)

Kaya ang Matt. 16:18 na PETROS sa pagkasulat, peru ang ibinigkas talaga ng Panginoong Jesus ay KEPHA.Pariho lang po ang kahulugan ng PETROS (in Greek) sa KEPHA (in Aramaic) – “And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter f ). John 1:42 (TNIV)” at nasa footnote ng Today’s New International Version (TNIV) na ang CEPHAS ay Aramaic.

Kaya sa Aramaic Bible ay walang pinag-iba ang Pedro sa Bato. Pawang KEPHA po ang Aramaic word ng Pedro at Bato dahil ang ibig sabihin ng Pedro ay Bato:

Therefore sa Matt. 16:18 ang Batong pinagtatayoan ng Iglesia ay si San Pedro.

2.) Sa Matt. 16:18 ang Greek construction na “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”).

Sa Matt. 16:18 ang phrase na “on this rock” ay reperido kay Pedro. Catholic believes that other apostles are also foundation of the church and Christ Himself is the chief cornerstone (Efe. 2:20) but in Matt. 16:18 the only reference on the phrase “on this rock” is for Saint Peter.

3.) Matt. 16:18-19 This is a three-fold blessing of Peter – you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom). (http://www.scripturecatholic.com)

HENRY: MR. PAISONES ITO NAMAN ANG SAGOT KO DYAN SA NAGPAYOTOO YANG …IYAN KARANIWANG KATOLIKO ITONG AKIN AY MGA RANKING ITO SA KATOLIKO’

G-ONE: Mr. Arganda Henry wala ka bang logic? Kung tatanungin ka, hindi ka sumasagot; pag hindi naman tinatanong, ikaw naman ay sasagot. Wala po tayong problema kahit ranking pa Katoliko yan dahil sa inihula sa Biblia yan. Act 20:30 (TNIV) “Even from your own number some will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” kaya po natupad po ang hula ng Biblia hingil sa mga bulaang propeta. TAKE NOTE PO MGA KAPATID: (Gawa 20:30) Ang mga bulaang propeta ay galing mismo sa tunay na Iglesia! Eh saan ba nanggaling si Martin Luther? Si Felix Manalo? (ewan ko lang kay Feriol?). Kaya po mga kapatid hindi nakapagtataka na may ilang mga ranking na mga Katoliko noon na hindi sang-ayon sa ilang mga Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica. <ang isa sa mga example ni Henry ay niyakap ang paniniwalang nasa katotohanan at bumalik sa union ng Catholic Church>

HENRY: Roman Catholic Faith Examined!
Was Peter the first Pope?
Catholics say Yes! Truth says No!

G-ONE: Another fallacious argument of Henry Arganda. This fallacy is called fallacy of presumption. This type of fallacy of presumption is called petitio principii.

Fallacies of Presumption- are those arise when the disputant assumes, without presenting evidence or argument, the truth of the conclusion which it is his duty to prove. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 102)

Petitio Principii- in this fallacy of presumption, the arguer assumes the truth of the proposition which is in essence the same as the conclusion which he seeks to establish. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 102)

Henry patunayan mo muna na ikaw ay tama, kaya nga tayo nag argue diba, wag kang basta-bastang mag conclude sa mga argumento mong hindi mo pa napapatunayan.

HENRY: Papal Infallibility
Was The Apostle Peter A Pope?

We Speak truth in LOVE
Tell us of if we have misrepresented Catholic Faith
Papal Infallibility

G-ONE:

We speak the wholeness of truth and love.

HENRY:

From the past and present, here are some things that have been said about papal infallibility by Catholics themselves:

G-ONE:

Below are the Catholics who denied the Papal infallibility. But it does not mean that they are correct on the certain point; for example Bishop Joseph Strossmayer once denied the Papal infallibility but later on he repeatedly proclaimed his submission to the pope, as in his pastoral letter of 28 February, 1881, on Sts. Cyril and Methodius, expressing his devotion to the papal see at times in extravagant language. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14316a.htm)

HENRY: “Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of Scripture or evident reason (for I do not believe either Pope or councils alone, since it is certain that they have both erred frequently and contradicted themselves)…I neither can nor wish to revoke anything.” (This was said by Martin Luther at Worms in 1521 while still a Catholic priest).

G-ONE: Martin Luther is the father of Protestantism so it is natural for here that he is against of some doctrine of Catholic Church “because he is the false prophet according to the Bible” <the color Dark Red statement is my personal opinion only and it is not the stand of Catholic Faith Defenders and the Catholic Church>

HENRY:

“No enlightened Catholic holds the pope’s infallibility to be an article of faith. I do not; and none of my brethren, that I know of do.” (This was said by Bishop John Purcell in the Campbell-Purcell Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion in 1837. The Debate was later printed in a book and Bishop’s Purcell’s statement is found on page 27. He made his remark before papal infallibility was decreed by the Vatican Council in 1870 to be an article of faith).

G-ONE:

As I read that book “A DEBATE ON THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION”, in my overall observation of the debate, Bishop John Purcell wins against ALEXANDER CAMPBELL in various topics (majority of the topic) they had debated. It is true that Bishop Purcell said the above statements, BUT this debate happens before Vatican Council in 1870 defines papal infallibility. In the climax of the debate, Bishop Purcell also said in his contention that “Catholics hold that infallibility was promised” to the church by Jesus Christ. Its testimony is heard in a general council, or in the pope’s decision in which all assent. The church can subsist without a general council. General councils are not essential though frequently of use, because, though we all believe without exception, that the pope’s decision, in which, after it has been duly made known, all the bishops of the Catholic world acquiesce, is infallible, still the decision of a general council declares in a more impressive and solemn, though not more authentic, manner, the belief of the Catholic world on the contested doctrine, and thus more effectually proscribes the contrary error”. (A DEBATE ON THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION Between ALEXANDER CAMPBELL of Bethany, Virginia, and the RT. REV. JOHN B. PURCELL, Bishop of Cincinnati; PAGE 172)

The above statement of Bishop Purcell seem favoring on infallibility of the council of Bishop not to the Pope alone. But in Church History, in the fourth session the question of Papal Infallibility occupied the attention of the Council. The members were divided into two parties. The great majority favored a definition of the doctrine as the best bulwark against the inroads of Rationalism. A considerable minority, consisting chiefly of bishops from countries of mixed religious population- France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, North America- were opposed to a formal definition, not because they were opposed to the doctrine it self, but because they feared “that such a definition, at such time, would have the effect of driving away many who were in sympathy with Catholicism and might also lead to new schism in the Church.” When the final vote was taken on July 18, 1870, only two bishops- one from Naples and one from the United States- voted against the definition. (Church History by John J. Laux, Page 541-542)

So there are many possibilities that Bishop Purcell might favor the definition of Papal Infallibility.

HENRY:

“Therefore, to resume, I establish: (1) That Jesus has given to His apostles the same power that He gave to St. Peter. (2) That the apostles never recognized in St. Peter the vicar of Jesus Christ and the infallible doctor of the church. (3) That St. Peter never thought of being pope, and never acted as if he were pope…I conclude victoriously, with history, with reason, with logic, with good sense, and with a Christian conscience, that Jesus Christ did not confer any supremacy on St. Peter and that the bishops of Rome did not become sovereigns of the church, but only confiscating one by one all the rights of the episcopate.” (This, along with many arguments against papal infallibility, was said by Bishop Joseph Strossmayer in his speech before the Vatican Council in 1870).

G-ONE:

Joseph Georg Strossmayer-(Josip Juraj), Bishop of Diakovár [Djakovo], born at Essegg [Osijek] in Croatia-Slavonia, 4 February, 1815; died 8 April, 1905. He came from a family of German peasants who had immigrated into Croatia. After attending the gymnasium of his native town, he studied theology in the seminary at Diakovár and the higher seminary at Budapest, where he obtained the degree of Doctor of Philosophy when only twenty years of age. In 1838 he was ordained priest and was for two years vicar at Peterwardein [Petrovaradin]. In 1840 he went to the Augustineum at Vienna; in 1842 obtained the degree of Doctor of Theology, and was then made professor at Diakovár. In 1847 he became court chaplain, prefect in the Augustineum and professor of canon law at the University of Vienna. On 18 November, 1849, he was appointed Bishop of Diakovár, and was consecrated on 8 September, 1850. At the same time he was Apostolic Administrator of Belgrade-Semendria in Serbia. In 1898 the pope conferred the pallium on him.

At the Vatican Council he was one of the most notable opponents of papal infallibility, and distinguished himself as a speaker. The pope praised Strossmayer’s “remarkably good Latin.” A speech in which he defended Protestantism made a great sensation. Afterwards another speech, delivered apparently on 2 June, 1870, was imputed to him. It is full of heresies and denies not only infallibility but also the primacy of the pope. The forger is said to have been a former Augustinian, a Mexican named Dr. José Agustín de Escudero. After the council Strossmayer maintained his opposition longer than all the other bishops and kept up a connection with Döllinger and Reinkens until October, 1871. Then he notified them that he intended to yield “at least outwardly”. Finally, on 26 December, 1872, he published thedecrees of the council in his official paper. At a later date he repeatedly proclaimed his submission to the pope, as in his pastoral letter of 28 February, 1881, on Sts. Cyril and Methodius, expressing his devotion to the papal see at times in extravagant language. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14316a.htm)

HENRY:

“It has now become quite clear that the conception of continuity, authority, infallibility of the Church and the Church’s teaching, on which there has not been sufficient reflection, has led the Catholic Church into a dangerous tight corner.” (This, alone with other doubts regarding papal infallibility, was said by Hans Kung, a prominent Catholic theologian, in his book, “Infallibility, An Inquiry,” 1971).

G-ONE:

Küng studied theology and philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and was ordained in 1954. He then continued his education in various European cities, including the Sorbonne in Paris. His doctoral thesis Justification. La doctrine de Karl Barth et une réflexion catholique, was published in English in 1964. It located a number of areas of agreement between Barthian and Catholic theologies of justification, concluding that the differences were not fundamental and did not warrant a division in the Church. (The book included a letter from Karl Barth, attesting that he agreed with Küng’s representation of his theology.) In this book Küng argues that Barth like Martin Luther overreacted against the Catholic Church, which despite its imperfections has been and remains the body of Christ.^[2]

In the late 1960s Küng became the first major Roman Catholic theologian after the late 19th century Old Catholic Church schism to reject the doctrine of papal infallibility, in particular in his book Infallible? An Inquiry (1971). Consequently, on December 18, 1979, he was stripped of his licence to teach as a Roman Catholic theologian but carried on teaching as a tenured professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tübingen until his retirement (Emeritierung) in 1996. To this day he remains a persistent critic of papal authority, which he claims is man-made (and thus reversible) rather than instituted by God. He was not excommunicated though, and remains a Roman Catholic priest.

HENRY:

Was The Apostle Peter A Pope?

In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: “Pope,” “Holy Father,” “Vicar of Christ,” “Sovereign Pontiff.” All of these are titles that rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father. There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any of the above titles are applied to a man. The term, “Holy Father” is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used by Jesus in addressing God the Father. (John 17:11)

G-ONE:

The title “Pope” is from the Italian language “papa” and Greek word “papas” which means father. In Matt 16:18-19 Jesus gives Peter the keys of kingdom of heaven. Among all apostles; Peter is only the one who receive the keys and it is referred to Isaiah 22:22 in which Shebna the chief steward of the old Davidic kingdom pass his office to Eliakim. Those the Lord Almighty place in the shoulder of Eliakim the key of house of David. The Lord Almighty put the authority over Eliakim in which Eliakim opens the house of David that no-one can shut, and what Eliakim’s shut no-one can open.

God promise to establish the Davidic kingdom forever on earth (Psalm 89:3-4); those Saint Matthew clearly establishes the tie of David to Jesus (Matt 1:1). Saint Luke wrote in the gospel that angel Gabriel announces to Mary that her Son would be given the throne of His father David (Luke 1:32). As Christ give alone to Peter the keys (Mat 16:19), Peter now become the father of God’s people or the church- it is referred to Eliakim which the Lord Almighty made him the father of Jerusalem (Isaiah 20:21). It is the reason why Catholics called the successor of Peter- Pope or Father based on the Bible.

Why we call our Pope “Holy” (Santo)?

SAINT-in a religious sense it means that which is separated or dedicated to God, and therefore remove from secular use. The word is applied to people, places, and things (e.g. the temples, vessels, garments, the city of Jerusalem, priest). In a personal sense it means holy. (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.), Page 518)

Is Peter a priest? The answer is YES! And it can read in the Bible. Henry, do you agree with me that Peter is a priest according to the Bible?

The Pope’s title “Holy Father” is truly Biblical, even it does not explicitly appear in the Bible but we can understand it; through implicit manner of correct exegesis or interpretation of the Bible.

HENRY:

Among the above titles is the bold assertion that the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ.” A “vicar” is “One serving as a substitute or agent; one authorized to perform the functions of another in higher office.” (Webster). When one searches the Bible from cover to cover, he finds only one passage which gives an indication of a vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4; it is worded as follows:

“Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.”

G-ONE:

Catholics believe that the Pope is not an absolute God (Tandaman sa Pagtuong Katoliko by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 77). Therefore the assertion of Henry Arganda in 2 Thess. 2:3-4 could not apply to the Catholic Church.

We Call the Pope the “Vicar of Christ” because the Pope is the successor of Saint Peter the first Vicar of Christ. In establishing the Pope as Vicar of Christ; first we need to prove that Saint Peter was the (first) Vicar of Christ here on earth when Jesus Christ ascended into heaven. Here are the arguments:

->Christ is the Shepherd of the Flock (John 10: 11-16)

->Christ commissioned Peter to Shepherd his sheep (John 21:15-17)

->This happened in the post-resurrection period (when Jesus Christ commission Peter to be His Vicar or He place Peter to be a Shepherd of His flock as He is)

->History attests that Saint Peter has successor (Church History by John Laux)

The teaching of the Catholic Church that the Pope is Vicar of Christ is truly Biblical.

HENRY:

Some religionists today advocate that man is saved by faith only. However, there is only one passage in the entire Bible that has the words “faith” and “only” together and it says, “not by faith only” (James 2:24). The Catholics today speak of the Pope as vicar, taking the place of God (Christ Himself is God, Matt. 1:23; John 1:1), yet there is only one passage in the entire Bible which speaks of a man doing such and it calls him “the man of sin.”

G-ONE:

Catholic speak that the Vicarship of the Pope is not to the extend that the Pope is equal to God, but Vicarship of His (Jesus Christ) works here on earth such as strengthen and establish his brethren; feeding the lambs and sheep; and shepherd the sheep or people of God according to the Bible. Do you agree with me, Mr. Henry Arganda that Christ commissioned Peter in strengthening and establishing his brethren; feeding the lambs and sheep; and shepherd the sheep or people of God according to the Bible?

HENRY:

James Cardinal Gibbons, a Catholic Archbishop said, “Jesus our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand, for it is not the work of God.” (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 82). The apostle Paul said, “For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 3:11). There is no other foundation but Christ! Therefore, any church which does not recognize Christ alone as the foundation stone cannot be the church of Christ.

G-ONE:

We had already established the meaning of 1 Cor. 3:11 “for other foundation no one can lay”. In the foundation of the true church; Peter, apostles, prophets and Jesus Christ-the spiritual rock (1 Cor. 10:4) the foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11) (Defense Catholic Truth by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59-60). Christ promise that He is with the church until the end of the world (Matt 28:19-20) and the gates of Hades (Death) shall not prevail against the church (Matt 16:18). Therefore Matt 16:18 and Eph 2:20 are not contradict to 1 Cor. 3:11.

The meaning of “for other foundation no one can lay” is the churches which found only by (ordinary) human and it is not Christ’ founded church (Act 17:24 KJV “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands,”) – example of this man made church is the 4^th Watch PMCC which founded by Arsenio Feriol here in the Philippines.

The 4^th Watch PMCC founded by Arsenio Feriol is not the true church because Christ’ said that He will establish a church (Matt 16:18); Christ had done founding His church when He still on earth (Matt 18:17) and He is with the church everyday until the end of the world (Matt 28:19-20) therefore from the time of Apostolic period until nowadays the true church continue to struggled and still exist- and this church is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church.

-Therefore James Cardinal Gibbons is correct when he said in his book that “Jesus our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand, for it is not the work of God.” because the contention of Cardinal Gibbons above is base on the Bible and Apostolic tradition.

-The only wrong here is Henry Arganda because his exegesis on 1 Cor 3:11 is wrong or poorly Biblical scholarship and does not harmonize the entire Bible. Mr. Arganda I would like to recommend to you that before you interpret the verse of the Bible; study first the Hermeneutics.

HENRY:

Catholic writers often speak of “the primacy of Peter” and “the primacy of the Pope.” However, Col. 1:18, speaking of Christ, says, “And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy…” Thus, with reference to the authority in the church, the Lord Jesus Christ holds the primacy in all things. This leaves nothing for the Pope!

G-ONE:

-Take note that the Bible uses by Mr. Henry Arganda may be it is in Douay Rheims Bible, a Catholic Translation of the Bible. Catholic believes that Christ has the ultimate Primacy here on earth <e.g. power, head of the church, King of kings, etc> Col. 1:18 DRB. But Christ commission Peter to shepherd his People (John 21:15-17). Therefore Christ made Peter the Bishop (or overseer) of all Bishop and all his people.

The doctrine of Catholic Church regarding the “Primacy of Peter and/or the Pope does not mean that the Pope (or Peter) is above all things making himself equal to God. The Pope primacy over all Catholic bishops, priests, deacons and all members of Catholic Church are in the following conditions:

-as visible head of the church

-as Bishop of the Bishops

-in matters of (universal) church Governance

-as successor of Saint Peter

-In teaching (address to all people) regarding of Faith and Morals (when the Pope speaks EX-CATHEDRA).

HENRY:

Catholics claim that the Pope is the visible head of the church. Please notice the following from Catholic sources:

“The pope, therefore, as vicar of Christ, is the visible head of Christ’s kingdom on earth, the Church, of which Christ Himself is the invisible head.” (Answer Wisely, by Martin J. Scott, p. 49).

“According to the will of Christ, all its members profess the same faith, have the same worship and Sacraments, and are united under the one and same visible head, the Pope.” (Father Smith Instructs Jackson, by John F. Noll and Lester J. Fallon, p. 42)

Catholic officials always use the word “visible” no doubt thinking that it removes the thought of the Pope standing in opposition to the headship of Christ, and removes the apparent problem of having a church with two heads. Nonetheless, the Scriptures nowhere teach the idea of a visible and invisible head. Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18; Emp. mine D.R.).

G-ONE:

Catholics believe that Christ is the head of the Church (Eph 5:23 TNIV “For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.”) (The Documents of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Number 7- “The Head of this body is Christ.”)

After His <Christ> Resurrection our savior handed her <church> over to Peter to be shepherd (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and other apostles to propagate and govern her <church> (cf. Mt. 28:18 ff.). Her He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsist in the Catholic Church, which govern by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor, although many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside of her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, posses an inner dynamism toward Catholic unity. (The Documents of Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, Number 8)

Please take note that Henry Arganda uses a Catholic Bible translation- the Douay Rheims Bible. Catholic believe that all authority in heaven and earth has given by God (Mat 28:18), and Christ gives an authority to his disciples to preach the Good News (Mat 28:19), to make disciples <of Christ> of all nations (Mat 28:19), to teach them <all people> to obey everything had commanded by Him <Christ> (Mat 28:20), to forgive the sins of anyone their sins are forgiven; and <they disciples> do not forgive them, they are not forgiven (John 20:23), and the authority of binding and loosing (Mat 18:18). Among of the apostles, Peter had given by Christ a higher authority: Christ gives alone to Peter the keys of kingdom of Heaven (Mat 16:19), Christ commission Peter to shepherd his People < feeding the lambs and sheep; and shepherd the sheep or all people of God> (John 21:15-17), and Christ appoint in strengthen and establish his brethren <all disciples of Christ> (Luke 22:32).

HENRY:

Luke 17:20-21 says, “And on being asked by the Pharisees, ‘When is the kingdom of God coming?’ he answered and said to them, The kingdom of God comes unawares. Neither will they say, ‘Behold, here it is,’ or ‘Behold, there it is.’ For behold the kingdom of God is within you.” The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and therefore needs only a spiritual head or king.

G-ONE:

Thank you for your contention above and because of your contention; it is easy in my task to prove that Christ is the spiritual head of the church and the Pope is the visible head of the church. I would agree with you that “Christ is the spiritual head” but I would not agree with you that “The kingdom of God is a spiritual kingdom and therefore needs only a spiritual head or king”.

In my previous contention; I said that in the Bible we must not limit our understanding in a term, phrase and sentence. Sometimes a term where used as a figurative sense (Biblical Expression) and many times as a literal sense.

The phrase “Kingdom of God” has different meaning in the Bible:

Kingdom of God- (Gr. Basileia tou theou). The word kingdom is capable of three different meanings: (1) the realm over which a monarch reigns, (2) the people over whom he or she reigns, and (3) the actual reign or rule it self. In English the third use of the word is archaic and so is not always given its rightful place in discussion of the term; but in Greek and Hebrew, this is the primary meaning. All three meanings are found in NT… 1. The kingdom of God is sometimes the people of the kingdom (Rev 1:6; 5:10)… 2. The kingdom of God is the realm in which God’s reign is experience… 3. The kingdom is also God’s reign or rule… NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.), Page 333 <emphasize mine>

CHURCH- the English word derives from the Greek word kuriakos (belonging to the Lord), but it stands for another Greek word ekklesia (whence “ecclesiastical”), denoting an assembly… When we turn to Acts, the situation changes, the saving work has been fulfilled, and the NT church can thus have its birthday at Pentecost. The term is now used regularly to describe local groups of believers… It is a building of which Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone or foundation (Eph 2:20-22), the fellowship of saints or people of God (1 Peter 2:9), the bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-26), and the body of Christ, he being the head and Christians the members (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 12:12-13; Eph 4:4, 12, 15-17). NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.), Page 121 <emphasize mine>

The people of the kingdom of God are the church, which is the body of Christ. Therefore the people of the kingdom of God or the church are visible (a building).

We already establish that Peter commission by Christ to shepherd his people; hence making Peter the Bishop of the Bishops and the flock. Therefore Peter is the leader, superintendent and head of the church.

HEAD-(Heb. Ro’sh, Gr. Kephalē). The OT uses ro’sh 592 times, translated “chief,” “leader,” “top,” “company,” “beginning,” “captain,” and “hair” but in most often “head,” sometimes used figuratively (e.g., Exod. 18:25; Josh 2:19; 1 Sam 28:2; 2 Sam 3:8; Job 10:15, 20:6). NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.), Page 242

My question to you Mr. Arganda; Head is used to translate a word leader; is Peter a leader according to the Bible?

HENRY:

Eph. 5:23-25 shows that Christ is the only head of the church. “Let wives be subject to their husbands as to the Lord; because a husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body. But just as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.” Consequently, the wife is subject to her husband as the church is to Christ. Just as the wife is subject to only one head–her husband, the church is subject to only one head–Christ. Just as the husband does not send a substitute to rule over his wife, Christ does not authorize a substitute to rule over His bride, the church.

Catholics often use the expression, “One fold and one shepherd” to sustain the doctrine of the papacy. (See Catholic Catechism For Adults, p. 59, q. 3). They teach that the “one shepherd” is the Pope and the “one fold” represents the Catholic Church. Hear what Jesus said about it:

“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep…I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” (John 10:11, 14-16).

Jesus is that one good shepherd. If one can understand that one and one equals two, he can understand this. If one is subject to Christ as the one shepherd–that’s one. If one is subject to the Pope as the one Shepherd–that’s two!

G-ONE:

Henry Arganda, base on your contention above I have a question to you: Does Christ said to Peter “Shepherd my sheep”? If I could read in the Protestant Bible that Christ said to Peter “Shepherd my sheep”; do you agree with me that you are losing in our discussion? ANSWER MR. ARGANDA!

HENRY:

The church is often compared to the human body in the Scriptures. The members of the church are represented as the various parts of the body. Christ is always said to be the head. (See 1 Cor. 12:12-27; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:15-16). Our question is: “What part of the body is the Pope?” Also, “How does one get the idea of a sub-head into the body?”

One of the greatest arguments against the primacy of Peter is the fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves as to which of them should be the greatest. Notice the following:

“Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.’” (Luke 22:24-26).

G-ONE:

I do not know if Mr. Arganda is confuse, because he is using Luke 22:24-26. Take a look on the phrase “let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.” This verse clearly establish that Christ commission a chief on his flock as servant and if we continue to verse 32, Christ told Peter “strengthen and establish your brethren;” clearly in this verse Christ appoint Peter to become his chief as a servant. In the verse we can identify also the authority of Peter not as a political leader but a servant leader whose duty are establishing and strengthening his brothers and all Christ sheep.

HENRY:

The very fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they did not understand that Peter was to be prince. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal–the last night of the Lord’s earthly ministry–and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their heads, “But not so with you.” Thus, Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the others.

By David J. Riggs

G-ONE:

The contention of Mr. Arganda which he wrote in English is nice compare to his contention written in Tagalog. Mr. Arganda’s contention written in “Tagalog” had many illogical propositions, fallacious conclusions, invalid argumentation and faulty reasoning.

We have already countered the contention of Mr. Henry Arganda. Even the English contention of Henry is nice but in the counter-proposition of our burden of rebuttal we can easily distinguish that it is very weak and totally destroyed his arguments by presenting Biblical and valid evidence.

Our conclusion is that we had been proven that Christ gives the authority to His disciples and among disciples, Christ gives to Peter a higher authority.

HENRY: PANSININ PA NATIN ANG MGA MALING SAGOT NI PAISONES,

G-ONE- Bakit koba babaliin ang Gal. 2:9 eh nasa Biblia yan at kahit suriin mopa Mr. Arganda ang mga post ko laban sa saiyo, hindi ka makakahanap na kahit isang pangungusap na itinatanggi ko ang Gal. 2:9. Sa totoo nga e-pang support sa amin mga Catholic Faith Defender ang verse nayan.

**HENRY-SAMAKATUWID SANG-AYUN SYA,NA SI PEDRO AY ISA LANG SA HALIGI NG IGLESIA AT HINDI SYA PUNDASYUN,(TANONG LANG PAISONES SAN-AN NYO PINANGSUPPORT YANG VERSE NA YAN,IPAKITA MO NGA ANG ILANG SULAT NYO NA PINANGSUPPORT NYO YAN,NA SI PEDRO AY ISA SA MGA HALIGI NG IGLESIA(HINTAYIN KO AT NANG MGA READERS ANG SAGOT MO)

G-ONE: Makailang ulit na akong nagsabi at nag payo sa iyo Henry na mag-aral ka muna ng Argumentation at Logic kasi puro fallacious ang mga conclusion mo. Ang conclusion ni Bro Henry ay isang klase ng petitio principii (fallacy of presumption) na tinatawag na Assumptio Non-Probata.

Petitio Principii- in this fallacy of presumption, the arguer assumes the truth of the proposition which is in essence the same as the conclusion which he seeks to establish. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 102)

Assuptio Non-Probata- means the assumption of the truth of an unproved premise. It arises when the arguer uses the conclusion to be proved as means of proving it. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 102)

Gal. 2:9 KJV “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.”

Hindi ibig sabihin na porke’t ang mga Apostoles ay Haligi hindi narin sila foundation. Ang haligi (pillar) po na pinag-uusapan sa Galatia 2:9 ay isang Biblical Expression:

PILLAR- …The word is also used figuratively (Song of Songs 3:6; 5:15; Jer. 1:18; Joel 2:30) The four NT uses of stylos (“pillar”) are figurative: a victorious Christian (Rev 3:12), the church (1 Tim 3:15), apostles (Gal 2:9), and an angel (Rev. 10:1). NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.), Page 462

Peru ang mga Apostol rin po ay foundation:

Ephesians 2:20 (The Message)

19-22That’s plain enough, isn’t it? You’re no longer wandering exiles. This kingdom of faith is now your home country. You’re no longer strangers or outsiders. You belong here, with as much right to the name Christian as anyone. God is building a home. He’s using us all—irrespective of how we got here—in what he is building. He used the apostles and prophets for the foundation. Now he’s using you, fitting you in brick by brick, stone by stone, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone that holds all the parts together. We see it taking shape day after day—a holy temple built by God, all of us built into it, a temple in which God is quite at home.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:20&version=65

Ephesians 2:20 (Contemporary English Version)

20You are like a building with the apostles and prophets as the foundation and with Christ as the most important stone.

Ephesians 2:20 (New International Reader’s Version)

20 You are a building that is built on the apostles and prophets. They are the foundation. Christ Jesus himself is the most important stone in the building.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:20&version=76

Ephesians 2:20 (Worldwide English (New Testament)

20God’s family is like a house and you are part of the building. The apostles and prophets are like the lower walls of the house and you are the building on this foundation. Jesus Christ is the big stone at the corner.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:20&version=73

Ephesians 2:20 (Tyndale Bible)

What a foundation you stand on now: the apostles and the prophets; and the cornerstone of the building is Jesus Christ himself!

Ephesians 2:20 (Magandang Balita Biblia)

Kayo’y itinayo rin sa Saligan ng mga Apostol at mga propeta, na ang batong panulukan ay si Cristo Jesus.

FOUNDATION- (Heb. Yasadh, to found, Gr. katabole, themelios). The word is used of the foundation of the earth (Job 38:4; Ps 78:69; Isa 24:18), the righteous (Prov 10:25 KJV), and as the basis of a person’s life (Luke 6:48), Christ (1 Cor 3:11), the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20), the proper use of wealth (1 Tim 6:17-19), and God’s truth (2 Tim 2:19). NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.) Page 209

Kaya po napatunayan po natin na hindi contrary statement ang: mga apostol ay foundation at ang mga apostol ay haligi (pillar); puro po tama ang dalawa ayon sa ating mababasa sa Biblia.

Sa tanong ni Henry Arganda sa atin na: “SAN-AN NYO PINANGSUPPORT YANG VERSE NA YAN,IPAKITA MO NGA ANG ILANG SULAT NYO NA PINANGSUPPORT NYO YAN,NA SI PEDRO AY ISA SA MGA HALIGI NG IGLESIA?” Sa hindi ko pa ito sasagutin may clarifying questions ako sa iyo Mr. Henry: Ang ibig mo bang sabihin sa tanong mo ay sa mga Catholic books o sa internet lang? Asan sa dalawa?

**HENRY-PANSININ PA NATIN ANG MGA SAGOT NI PAISONES,ANG SABI NYA AY -”

G-ONE(ALYAS PAISONES) Malinaw po na ang ang Isa 28:16 ay Messianic Methapor at ito ay nangangahulugan sa pagiging Messiah ni Cristo- sa pag tatag Niya sa kanyang Iglesia na hindi madadaig ng Kamatayan (Dan. 2:44, Matt. 16:18). Sa Isa. 28:16 hindi po ibig sabihin na hindi foundation ang mga apostol sapagkat ang pagiging ISANG bato ay sa pagiging Messiah ni Cristo sa kanyang pagtatag ng tunay na Iglesia.

Ang ibis sabihin po sa Isa. 28:16 na “foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone,] a sure foundation” ay isang Messianic Methapor

Si Cristo lang ang syang nag tatag ng kanyang Iglesia at hindi kalian man ito itatag ng kahit nasinong mga taong nag-aangkin na sila ay sugo ng Dios sapagkat sabi ng Biblia “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone,] a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isa. 28:16 KJV)

***HENRY-SA SAGOT MONG ITO PAISONES
pagiging ISANG bato ay sa pagiging Messiah ni Cristo sa kanyang pagtatag ng tunay na Iglesia–
SAMAKATUWID INAAMIN NA NI PAISONES NA SI CRISTO ANG BATO SA MATEO 16:18,AYUN SA FOOTNOTE(SI CRISTO ANG PETRA)NARITO ANG FOOTNOTE NA GINAGAMIT NYA RIN MULA SA AMPLIFIED:Footnotes:

1. Matthew 16:18 The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20)

***YAN MALIWANAG PAISONES NA TINANGGAP MO NA.. 1. Matthew 16:18 The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah,

G-ONE:

Fallacy na naman, nako itong si Mr. Arganda talagang walang alam sa Argumentation at Logic. Sinabi na natin sa kanya na si Cristo ay bato, peru sa Matt. 16:18 hindi si Cristo ang bato na pinag-uusapan jan. Narito ang mga dati kong reply:

Sa Bible hindi po dapat natin limitahan ang ating pang-unawa sa mga termino o mga salitang bumabasi sa SUBJECT ng mga ito dahil kalimitan ng mga TERMS na ito ay FIGURATIVE o BIBLICAL EXPRESSION.

Halimbawa:

“BATO”

-DIOS ay Bato (2 Sam. 22:2-3)

-Cristo ay Bato (1 Cor. 10:4)

-Pedro ay Bato (John 1:42)

-Believers ay Bato (1 Ped. 2:5 Magandang Balita Biblia)

Para malaman ng lahat ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia ay ang mga ito:

Si Cristo ay ang espirituwal na BATO ng Iglesia (1 Cor. 10:4) “Yes, it is true that Christ is the leading cornerstone of the foundation (Eph. 2:20). Christ is himself, “the spiritual rock following them and the rock is Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). This is a metaphorical Biblical expression which means that Christ is really the spiritual head and leader. However, it is willed by the Lord that there must be a visible leader in his Church and that leader be his vicar. Therefore those texts from 1 Cor. 3:11; Acts 4:11 do not contradict the Catholic teaching that Christ is the cornerstone of the foundation. However, we cannot also go against Christ’s will to appoint a visible head for His Church.”

“And now I say to you: you are Peter (or rock) and on this rock I will build My church; and never will the powers of death overcome it” (Matt. 16:18). Remember that Christ was the one who changed the name Simon into Cephas (Jn. 1:42). Cephas in Aramaic means ROCK- or BEDROCK, not an ordinary small stone rolling on the ground. Even in Greek, the word CEPHAS comes from Kephalaion which means fundamental or foundation (GREEK – SPANISH dictionary, Mendizabal, Page 298) Even though foundation is also defined by other people as faith of Peter but what is faith if there is no person holding on to it?” (Defense Catholic Truth by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59)

Si San Pedro ang pundasyon ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 “At tungkol sa ‘bato’ na ayaw kilalanin ng kaibigan mo (Numer Villanosa), sabihin mo sa kanyang wala siyang balita. Halos lahat ng mga dalubhasa sa Bibliyang Protestante ay tinitiyak na walang ibang batong binabanggit si Kristo sa Mt. 16:18 kundi si Pedro. Kasama rito si Alford, Bloomfield, Kiel, Marsch, Rosmuller, Seifert, Thompson, at Weiss at iba pa. Ang mga ito’y nagsunog ng kilay bilang bihasa at iskolar sa syensya ng Biblia at lahat sila’y nagpapatotoo na walang ibang batong binanggit si Kristo sa tekstong yaon (Matt. 16:18) kundi si Pedro.” (Paano Ninyo Sasagutin by Fr. Ben Carreon, Page 126) <Emphasis added>

Ang mga Apostol at mga profeta ang pundastion ng Iglesia at si Cristo mismo ang chief cornerstone (Efe. 2:20). “The Catholic Church is apostolic because she was founded by Christ on the Apostles and in accordance with his divine will has always been and will always be governed by their lawful successors.” (Catholic Catechism By Fr. M. Guzman, Number 157, Page 39).

Sa Reply#2 ko pa ang nasa itaas na mga contention ko. Henry Arganda I am very sorry pero dapat ko nang itanong sa iyo ito: Henry Arganda tanga ka ba? O sadyang nagbubulag-bulagan kalang?

Ang fallacy po na ginamit ni Henry Arganda ay Fallacy of Composition.

Fallacy of Composition- consists of taking a group of words or phrase as a unit instead of taking them separately as it should be. (LOGIC- The Essentials of Deductive Reasoning By: Ramon B. Agapay- Page 193)

-Ang Santa Iglesia Catolica ay naniniwala na si Cristo ay bato pero hindi si Cristo ang pinag-uusapan diyan sa Matt. 16:18.

-Ang Santa Iglesia Catolica ay naniniwala na pinangalan ni Cristo si Simon na Pedro at ang kahulugan ng Pedro ay Bato; at si San Pedro ang pinag-uusapan sa Matt 16:18 na batong pagtatayuan ng iglesia.

Iwan ko lang bakit parating mali ang mga argumento ni Henry Arganda. Siguro ang isang dahilan ay ang pagiging ignorante niya sa Argumentation at Logic? Oh di kaya’y baka bulag na itong si Mr. Arganda dahil sa kapangyarihan ng Satanas ay bumabalot sa kanyang puso’t isipan? <The color Dark Red statement is my personal opinion only and it is not the stand of Catholic Faith Defenders and the Catholic Church>

***HENRY-NEXT NA MALING SAGOT NI PAISONES(BASAHIN MUNA NATIN ANG SAGOT O PAHAYAG NYA)

Si Cristo lang ang syang nag tatag ng kanyang Iglesia at hindi kalian man ito itatag ng kahit nasinong mga taong nag-aangkin na sila ay sugo ng Dios sapagkat sabi ng Biblia “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone,] a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isa. 28:16 KJV)

****PANSININ NATIN ANG PAHAYAG NYA.. hindi kalian man ito itatag ng kahit nasinong mga taong nag-aangkin na sila ay sugo ng Dios..

TANONG PAISONES KUNG MABASA KO SA BIBLIA NA MAY SUGO NA NAGTAYO NA IGLESIA AAMININ MO NA MALI KA NA NAMAN,???SAGUTIN MO ITO HA HIHINTAYIN NAMIN!!!!

G-ONE:

Magandang tanong ito Mr. Henry Arganda. Ito ang gusto kong tanong!

Sa mga bumabasa, maganda po ang challenge ni Henry Arganda, pero SASADYAIN NATING HINDI SASAGUTIN ang tanong NIYA, dahil sa hindi niya pag sagot sa mga tanong ko sa kanya. Lahat ng mga tanong niya nasagutan ko at lahat ng mga ebedensya niya na giniba (destroy) ko, pero ang katanungan niyang ito (sa itaas) ay sadyang hindi natin sasagutin; sasagutin lang natin ito kung sasagot na siya sa mga tanong ko.

Mga kapatid (sa mga bumabasa) sa tanong ni Henry napakaganda ho niyan at pinaka gusto ko ang challenge na yan, pero sinabi ko na, na sasadyain kong hindi ito sasagutin para masagutan ni Henry Arganda ang mga tanong ko sa kanya. Henry Arganda nandaraya ka ba? Kung hindi ka nandadaya eh- sagutin mo yong tanong ko… OK?

***HENRY-NEXT NA TANONG KAY PAISONES!!!SA KANYANG SINABING ITO:Bakit po ba si San Pedro lang ang subject ni Cristo sa Matt. 16:18? -Sapagkat mas mataas pa ang Authority ni San Pedro kaysa sa ibang mga apostol

****TANONG PAISONES SAAN MABABASA SA BIBLIA NA MAS MATAAS PA ANG AUTHORITY NI SAN PEDRO KAYSA IBANG MGA APOSTOL??HINTAYIN NATIN..FOR THE MEANWHILE BASAHIN MO NATIN KUNG SAAN MATAAS SI PEDRO…
Ang Salita ng Diyos (SND)

Copyright © 1998 by Bibles International

1 Pedro 5:1 (Ang Salita ng Diyos)

1 Pedro 5
Sa mga Matanda at mga Kabataang Lalaki
1Ang mga matanda na nasa inyo ay pinagtatagubilinan ko bilang isa ring matanda na nakasaksi sa mga paghihirap ni Cristo at bilang kabahagi rin ng kaluwalhatiang ihahayag.

MATANDA LANG SYA…HA HA HA .AT BASAHIN NYO ANG GAL.2:9 KUNG MAS MATAAS SYA KAY JUAN AT SANTIAGO.

G-ONE:

May mababasa tayo sa Biblia na maiintindihan na si San Pedro ay may mataas na authority kaysa ibang mga apostol (May mababasa na maiintindihan pero hindi word-for-word). Nasagot ang tanong ni Henry Arganda member ng 4^th Watch PMCC na itinatag ni Arsenio Feriol; iglesiang itinatag ng pangkaraniwang tao at hindi si Cristo ang nagtatag nito.

NOTICE: Ang mga tanong sa baba ay sa likha lang ng may akda at hindi kasali/kasama ang Catholic Faith Defenders Inc. at ang Santa Iglesia Catolica.

MGA TANONG KAY HENRY ARGANDA

1. Henry do you agree with me that Peter is a priest according to the Bible?

2. Do you agree with me, Mr. Henry Arganda that Christ commissioned Peter in strengthening and establishing his brethren; feeding the lambs and sheep; and shepherd the sheep or people of God according to the Bible?

3. Is Peter a leader according to the Bible?

4. Did Christ said to Peter “Shepherd my sheep”? If I could read in the Protestant Bible that Christ said to Peter “Shepherd my Flock”; do you agree with me that you are losing in our discussion?

5. Sabi mo Henry Arganda na hindi foundation ang mga Apostol, at dagdag mo pa na “yang ginamit mong jerusalem bible ay catholic translation..na apostles its foundation..ang maraming translation ay walang “its”dagdag ng katoliko yan..gamitin mo lahat ng biblia paisones;” eh kung mababasa ko ito sa Biblia:

Ephesians 2:20

19-22That’s plain enough, isn’t it? You’re no longer wandering exiles. This kingdom of faith is now your home country. You’re no longer strangers or outsiders. You belong here, with as much right to the name Christian as anyone. God is building a home. He’s using us all—irrespective of how we got here—in what he is building. He used the apostles and prophets for the foundation. Now he’s using you, fitting you in brick by brick, stone by stone, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone that holds all the parts together. We see it taking shape day after day—a holy temple built by God, all of us built into it, a temple in which God is quite at home.

Aaminin mo bang mali ka Henry Arganda?

Pag nabasa ko ito sa Biblia:

Ephesians 2:20

You are like a building with the apostles and prophets as the foundation and with Christ as the most important stone.

Aaminin mo bang sinungaling ka Mr Henry Arganda?

Pag nabasa ko ito sa Bibliyang protestante Henry Arganda:

Ephesians 2:20

20 You are a building that is built on the apostles and prophets. They are the foundation. Christ Jesus himself is the most important stone in the building.

Aaminin mo bang ikaw ang kampon ni satanas at hindi kaming mga Catholic Faith Defenders?

Pag nabasa ko ito sa Bibliyang Protestante Mr Henry Arganda:

Ephesians 2:20

What a foundation you stand on now: the apostles and the prophets; and the cornerstone of the building is Jesus Christ himself!

Aaminin mo bang ikaw ay talo na sa ating discussion?

SAGUTIN MO YAN HENRY ARGANDA!

6. Saan mababasa sa chapters at verses ng Biblia letra-4-letra at word-4-word na “MAY SUGO NA NAGTAYO NA IGLESIA liban kay Cristo?

7.Masagutan mo ba yong mga dati kong tanong, o hindi na???

8.Kung hindi mo masagutan ang mga tanong ko Henry Arganda payag kabang ikaw ay talo na sa ating discussion??

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #4

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #4

Author : henry arganda (IP: 64.228.74.19 , bas2-windsor12-1088702995.dsl.bell.ca)
E-mail : henri_4w@yahoo.ca
URL    : http://www.pmcc4thwatch.com
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=64.228.74.19
Comment:

Black: -Henri Arganda (New Comments)

Red: -Henri’s Old Replies

Blue: -G-one Paisones’ Old Reply

Green:-G-one Paisones (New Reply)

HENRY: PANSININ NATIN ANG MGA MALING SAGOT NI PAISONES,

G-ONE: PANSININ PO NATIN ANG FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS NI HENRY.

G-ONE (alyas paisones),Sa itaas malinaw na malinaw ang kamalian ni Henry Arganda dahil sabi nya na ang “Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar.. means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ) Peru ang footnote nang nasabing Amplified Bible ay hindi naman pala. Kaya po nabuko po natin ang kamalian ni Henry Arganda.

Henry: tingnan naman natin kung anong sagot nya dun sa isang pahayag nya tungkul sa footnote,itong si paisones..laking kalituhan..mahirap kasi ang lumaban sa katotohanan ng bible laging mabubuking..katakot takot na panglulubid ang ginagawa nya,

G-one (Old Replies):
Footnotes:

e. Matthew 16:18 The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20).
Basahin mo ulit at unawain mo,…”or it may be…” nagpapahayag ng isang sugestion at hindi absolute conclusion na si pedro ang pagtatayuan

G-one:
Hindi nga absolute conclusion na si Pedro ang pagtatayuan sa Amplified Bible dahil sa conjunction na “OR” peru ipinahiwatig ng may akda (Amplified Bible) na “either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself –is the rock on which the church is built. Samakatuwid dalawa lang ang pinag-pipilian ng may akda at salungat ito sa pahayag mo na si Cristo ang “bato” sa Matt. 16:18 (nang ginamit mo ang Amplified Bible sa contention mo)

HENRY:
HINDI DAW ABSOLUTE CONCLUSION NA SI PEDRO ANG PAGTATAYUAN,.

G-ONE-Ang sabi ko na si Pedro lamang ang Pundation na tinotokoy na pagtatayuan ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 (specific verse in the Bible; not whole Bible)

HENRY:
TINGNAN MO YAN PAISONES HULING HULI KA yang salitang “LAMANG”absolute conclusion yan..oopps baka tumakas ka na naman..sabi pa nya dalawa lang ang pinagpipilian ng may akda..pero sa kanya(paisones)pinili agad si pedro..

G-ONE: Mr. Arganda Henry ang sabi ko saiyo na mag review ka muna ng Argumentation at Logic kasi you’ve always committing fallacious arguments.

Para sa bumabasa narito ang ponto ko:

Ang Amplified Bible ay ginamit ko bilang ebidensya kay Henry arganda dahil ginamit niya ito bilang proof sa kanyang argumento. Para magiba ko ang argumento niya tungkol sa Matt. 16:18 ginamit ko rin ang Amplified Bible para malaman nang madla ang pagkakamali niya. Hindi ibig sabihin na sumasang-ayon na ako sa pahayag ng may akda ng Amplified Bible, ginamit kolang ito para makiba ang argumento ni Henry. Kayat wala pong contradictory ang mga pahayag ko.

Ito po kasi ang ponto ng pinagdedebatihan:

G-one (Catholic Faith Defender): Contention

Si San Pedro ang Bato na pinag-uusapan sa Matt. 16:18.

Henry Arganda (4^th Watch PMCC) <emphasis mine>: Contention

Si Cristo ang Bato na pinag-uusapan sa Matt. 16:18.

Burden of Proof- is the risk of the proposition, the duty to of the affirmative to prove what he alleges, otherwise he loses his case (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 21)

Burden of Proof- never shifts: it always lies on the affirmative side (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 22)

Burden of Rebuttal- is the duty of presenting arguments and evidences at any given stage of the case to counteract the influence of the opposing case (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 22)

Burden of Rebuttal-shifts from side to side as debate progresses (The Art of Argumentation and Debate, by: Francisco M. Africa, Page 22)

Henry Arganda (4^th Watch PMCC): Burden of Proof

Amplified Bible (upon this Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar..means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ)pagkalakilaki basahin mo ang gibraltar..kung anong klasing bato”)

G-one (Catholic Faith Defender): Burden of Rebuttal

“Eh sabi ni Henry na si Cristo raw ang Gibraltar peru nang tiningnan ko ang Amplified Bible hindi naman pala si Cristo.” Narito po ang dati kong reply kay Henry Arganda tungkol sa topic na ito:

At salamat na mismo kay brad Henry dahil sa kanyang information na ibinigay sa atin na buko na natin ang pag sisinungalin nya para lang masiraan ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica hinggil kay San Pedro. Ang sabi nya kasi “well alam ko ginagamit nyo ang amplified bible..and i tell you peter(grk petros)a large piece of rock and upon this Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar.. means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ) pagkalakilaki basahin mo ang gibraltar..kung anong klasing bato” –PERU ang katotohanan po, nang binasa ko po sa online ang footnote nang nasabing Amplified Bible (na inakala ni Henry na ginamit ko sa mga pagpapatotoo ko na si Pedro ay ang Bato) ang nakalagay doon ay Si Pedro or Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah is the rock on which the church is built. Narito ang boong minsahi sa Amplified Bible:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=45

Matthew 16 (Amplified Bible)

18And I tell you, you are ^[e]Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a ^[f]huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the ^[g]infernal region) shall ^[h]not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].

Footnotes:

e. Matthew 16:18 The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20).

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=45

Malinaw po sa itaas na ang Ampified Bible ay ginamit kolang bilang pang giba (Burden of Rebuttal) sa argumento (Burden of Proof) ni Henry Arganda.

Dahil itoy isang argumentation ginamit ko ang Amplified Bible para magiba ang ina-akala (ni henry) niyang ang Gibraltar ay si Cristo.

Ang conclusion ni Mr. Arganda na contradict ang mga pahayag ko ay nag papakita lang po na hindi alam ni Mr. Arganda ang rules of Argumentation.

Sumatotal ang Amplified Bible ay ginamit ko contra (Burden of Rebuttal) sa argumento ni Henry, hindi ibig sabihin na sumang-ayon na ako sa statement ng may akda (Amplified Bible). Ang Argumento (STAND) ko ay “si San Pedro ang Bato na pinag-uusapan sa Matt. 16:18.”

KAYA SI HENRY ARGANDA PO ANG NALILITO KASI INAKALA NIYA NA CONTINTION KO ANG FOOTNOTE NG AMPLIFIED BIBLE; ANG AMPLIFIED BIBLE’ FOOTNOTE AY BURDEN OF REBUTTAL KO LANG LABAN KAY HENRY. Henry sabi ko sa iyo mag review ka muna dahil wala ka pang background sa Argumentation and Logic. Para hindi ka malilito dapat mag-aral ka ng logic at para hindi ka basta gawa ng gawa ng mga fallacious arguments.

Sa mga bumabasa si Mr. Arganda ay nakapag gawa po ng maling contention na tinatawag na FALLACY. At ang klasi po ng Fallacy na nagawa niya, ay tinatawag na Fallacy of Composition.

Fallacy –errors in reasoning (Logical Fallacies) & error in understanding (Rhetorical Fallacies). The Art of Argumentation and Debate by: Africa, Page 92

Fallacy of Composition- consists of taking a group of words or phrase as a unit instead of taking them separately as it should be. (LOGIC- The Essentials of Deductive Reasoning By: Ramon B. Agapay- Page 193)

Ito po ang argumento ni Henry (implicit): (ang mga sumusunod ay basi sa mga argumento ni Henry Arganda at hindi sa may akda na si G-one Paisones)

G-one Major premise: Amplified Bible’ Footnote- The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself.

G-one Minor premise: Ang sabi ko na si Pedro lamang ang Pundation na tinotokoy na pagtatayuan ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 (specific verse in the Bible; not whole Bible)

Conclusion: TINGNAN MO YAN PAISONES HULING HULI KA yang salitang “LAMANG”absolute conclusion yan..oopps baka tumakas ka na naman..sabi pa nya dalawa lang ang pinagpipilian ng may akda..pero sa kanya(paisones)pinili agad si pedro..

Sa itaas ay ang argumento ni Mr. Arganda na isang halimbawa ng Fallacy of Composition. Fallacy of composition sapagkat ang:

-Inaakala ni Henry Arganda na Major Premise ko ay ang Burden of Rebuttal ko

-Inaakala ni Henry Arganda na Minor Premise ko ay ang Contention (stand) ko

-Inaakala ni Henry Arganda na tama ang conclusion niya ay isang Fallacy of Composition pala

Ang Burden of Rebuttal ay ginamit ko pang contra sa Burden of Proof ni Henry Arganda, at ito po ay magkaiba (different) sa Contintion (stand) ko. Ang mali ni Henry ay pinagsama niya ang mga ito para makagawa siya ng conclusion na animoy makatutuhanan peru isa namang pandaraya sa panganagtwirang logical. Alam natin na hindi sinasadya ni bro. Henry ang kanyang Fallacious Arguments (pandaraya sa pangangatwirang logical) dahil wala kasi syang background sa Argumentation at Logic.

HENRY: but let us once more study the petros and petra..The rcc apologists claim that “Petros” [masculine in gender] is the proper word to address “Simon Peter” since it is grammatically incorrect to call a male man, “Petra” [feminine in gender].

Is it really grammatically incorrect to call Simon Peter, a male man, “Petra” – a Greek word feminine in gender?

Based on biblical use of the word, “Petra”, this so called grammatical prohibition is suspect. Paul calls Christ “Petra” [feminine in gender] in 1 Cor. 10:4.

1 Cor 10:4

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [petra] was Christ.

In the Greek NT, Christ has many names or titles that are feminine in gender such as; Power or “Dunamis”, Wisdom or “Sophia”, Resurrection or “Anastasis”, Way or “Hodos” , Truth or “Aletheia”, and the Life or “Zoe”

1 Cor. 1:24

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power [duvnamin] of God, and the wisdom [sofivan] of God.

John 11:25

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection [ajnavstasiß], and the life [zwhv]: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way [oJdo], the truth [ajlhvqeia], and the life [zwhv]: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

If the feminine gender “PETRA” can be used for Christ (a male man) how can there be an objection on grammatical ground on the use of “Petra” for Peter (also a male man)? IOW, Matt. 16:18 could have been written this way:

“You are Petra and on this Petra I will build my church.”

However, it is interesting to ask why the Gospel Writer did not use “Petra” to address Simon Peter.

A very good reason is to differentiate the person of Peter (“Petros”) from the person of Christ the “Petra.”

It is highly probable that the Greek Gospel Writer wanted to retain the original “word play” as he heard Christ say it verbatim in the Aramaic; “Kepha” for “Petros” and “Shua” for “Petra.”

Christ is the only person ever explicitly called “Petra” in the NT Scriptures. Likewise, “Petros,” is used to refer to Peter alone.

“Shua” for “Petra.”

Is it any wonder that the Aramaic name of Jesus is YeSHUA.

Matthew 16:18: The Petros-petra Wordplay — Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew?

by David Bivin, Member of the Jerusalem School.
Published: 01-Jan-2004
David Bivin

The pinnacle of the gospel story may be Jesus’ dramatic statement, “You are Petros and on this petra I will build my church.” The saying seems to contain an obvious Greek wordplay, indicating that Jesus spoke in Greek. However, it is possible that “Petros…petra” is a Hebrew wordplay.

The recognition that the synoptic gospels are derived from a Semitic source or sources seems essential to any productive methodology of interpretation. Scholars of the Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research have found that often unless one translates the Greek texts of the synoptic gospels to Hebrew, one cannot fully understand their meaning.

G-ONE:

Narito po ang pahayag nang isang dating protestante na ngayon ay nag katoliko sa pagkat nakita niya ang katotohanan:

Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic by: David B. Curie

David B. Currie was raised in a devout Christian family whose father was a fundamentalist preacher and both parents’ teachers at Moodey Bible Institute. Currie’s whole upbringing was immersed in the life of fundamentalist Protestantism- theology professors, seminary presidents and founders of evangelical mission agencies were frequent guest at his Trinity International University and studied in the Master of Divinity program at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

This book was written as an explanation to his fundamentalist and evangelical friends and family about why he became a Roman Catholic. Currie presents a very lucid, systematic and intelligible account of his conversion to the ancient Church that Christ founded. He gives a detailed discussion of the important theological and doctrinal beliefs Catholic and evangelicals hold in common, as well as the key doctrines that separate us, particularly the Eucharist, the Pope, and Mary.

(This book is available at WORD OF JOY FOUNDATION INCORPORATE, Unit 2, 127 A. Roces Ave., Laging Handa, Quezon City, Tel. Nos.: 374-2229/ 3738960-61 Telefax: 4159757, E-mail: wordjoy@insclub.net)

(Nag papasalamat rin ako kay Fr. Abe sa kanyang pagbigay nang magandang libro na ito)

PAGE 62- 64

Mat 16:13-20 <emphasize mine> Peter did not conclude that Jesus was the Messiah on the basis of his own experience or his superior intellect. This is important. God the Father intervened in history to reveal it directly to Peter: “This was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.” This revelation from God, and from Peter’s willingness to verbalize it, is what separates Peter from the other disciples from point forward. Jesus’ words in verses 18 and 19 are all addressed to the second person singular. There could be no mistaking what Jesus said meant for Peter alone. All successors of the apostles would have supernatural powers and responsibilities, but Peter’s would be special.

Fist of all, Jesus calls Peter by his new name. Jesus renamed Simon to emphasize the qualities of this new name. This would be analogous to my naming a friend “spaghetti-head” because his hair is always tangled and sticky. A name can also emphasize a position or a role. That is what Jesus is emphasizing in this passage: Peter’s new role.

“Peter” is a transliteration; the word used was “rock”. Evangelicals point out that in the Greek text of this passage there are two words for rock: that referring to Peter is masculine, while that referring to the foundation of the Church is feminine. Because of these differences, Evangelicals teach that the foundation rock of the church is the faith of Peter, as opposed to Peter himself. Peter’s faith was not the focus of this promise, not Peter. Even as an Evangelical, I thought this seemed an odd way for Jesus to express himself. Why make all these promises to Peter if “rock” refers to the faith, not the man? To claim the rock was Peter’s faith seemed to me nonsense of the rest of the paragraph.

The insurmountable problem with Evangelical analysis of the Greek text is that in Aramaic, the language of Jesus, there was only one word for rock (Kepha). The Greek text is itself a translation of the original Aramaic. There was no possibility of the original hearers being confused about Jesus’ meaning. The disciples had to have heard Jesus Saying, in Aramaic, “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha), and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my church.” There is not the slightest room for any other meaning in the words originally uttered! The Church would be built on the Peter as “rock”, as distinguished from the other apostles there that day with him. The Aramaic word for “rock”, transliterated into English, can be written Cephas, that this name of Peter is used elsewhere in the Scripture lends further support for the Catholic understanding of this Passage (see Jn 1:42; 1 Cor 1:12, 3:22, 4:5, 15:5; Gal 2:9-14).

So why would the translator (in the case Matthew) use two different words with different genders? The reason seems rather simple. The best translation for the Aramaic “rock” was feminine Greek word meaning “large rock”. The problem with using that same word for a man’s name is obvious. Naming Peter “Petrina” would awkward. Faced with this problem, often inherent translation, Matthew chose another word for “rock”, a masculine word. We are not used to these gender problems in English, but they are common in many languages. In English the Greek would be roughly equivalent to “I tell you that you are Rocky (masculine), and on this Rockette (feminine) I will build my Church.”

Yan po ang sabi ng dating protestante na ngayon ay nag Katoliko na.

HENRY:
BALIKAN NATIN ANG MGA MALING SAGOT PA NI PAISONES,(G-0)

G-one:

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built
(Taken from ScriptureCatholic.com)

“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

“…folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid…” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).
“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“…the chief of the disciples…the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).

“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church…” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).

“[B]lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom…” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).

“[T]he Lord spoke to Peter a little earlier; he spoke to one, that from one he might found unity, soon delivering the same to all.” Pacian, To Sympronianus, Epistle 3:2 (AD 372).

“Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me…I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures.” Ephraim, Homily 4:1, (A.D. 373).

“[T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built.” Epiphanius, In Ancorato, 9:6 (A.D. 374).

“Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church.” Basil, In Isaias, 2:66 (A.D. 375).

“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 375).

“Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32:18 (A.D. 380).

“[W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”…The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it.” Pope Damasus, Decree of Damasus, 3 (A.D. 382).

”It was right indeed that he (Paul) should be anxious to see Peter; for he was the first among the apostles, and was entrusted by the Savior with the care of the churches.” Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Galatians, PL 17:344 (A.D. 384).

“Peter bore the person of the church.” Augustine, Sermon 149:7 (inter A.D. 391-430).

“Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” Augustine, Psalmus contro Partem Donati (A.D. 393).

“But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one (Peter) among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.” Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 1 (A.D. 393).

“The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles…he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church.” Gregory of Nyssa, Panegyric on St. Stephen, 3 (ante A.D. 394).

“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church,” Wherefore where Peter is the Church is…” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 40:30 (AD 395).

“At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church.” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 43:40 (AD 397).

“In order that he may show his power, God has endowed none of his disciples with gifts like Peter. But, having raised him with heavenly gifts, he has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit. The first to be called, he followed at once…The Saviour confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times ‘Lovest thou me?’ And he receive the world in charge…” Asterius, Homily 8 (A.D. 400).

“(Peter) The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples.” John Chrysostom, Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407).

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4 (ante A.D. 407).

“This Peter on whom Christ freely bestowed a sharing in his name. For just as Christ is the rock, as the Apostle Paul taught, so through Christ, Peter is made rock, when the Lord says to him: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church…” Maximus of Turin, Homily 63 (A.D. 408).

“…the most firm rock, who (Peter) from the principal Rock received a share of his virtue and his name.” Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations, 2:28(A.D. 426).

“He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this he sets Peter as shepherd.” Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 428).

“[B]ut that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God.” John Cassian, Contra Nestorium, 3:12 (A.D. 430).

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place…” Philip, Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

“[B]lessed Peter preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he under took…And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See…to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this See, but also primate of all bishops. When therefore…believe that he is speaking whose representative we are:..” Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 3:3-4 (A.D. 442).

“We exhort you, honourable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.” Peter Chrysologus, Epistle 25 of Leo from Peter (A.D. 449).

“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges.” Theodoret of Cyrus, To Pope Leo, Epistle 113 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.” Pope Leo the Great, To Bishops of Vienne, Epistle 10 (A.D. 450).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith…” Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. ‘Peter, the apostle, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church.’” Paschasinus, Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

“Peter is again called ‘the coryphaeus of the Apostles.’” Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25 (ante A.D. 468).

“The holy Roman Church is senior to the other churches not by virtue of any synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy from Our Lord and Savior in the words of the Gospel, ‘Thou art Peter…’” Pope Gelasius, Decree of Gelasium (A.D. 492).

“[T]he statement of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’…These (words) which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain.’” Pope Hormisdas, Libellus professionis fidei, (A.D. 519).

“To Peter, that is, to his church, he gave the power of retaining and forgiving sins on earth.” Fulgentius, De Remissione Peccatorum, 2:20 (A.D. 523).

“Who could be ignorant of the fact that the holy church is consolidated in the solidity of the prince of the Apostles, whose firmness of character extended to his name so that he should be called Peter after the ‘rock’, when the voice of the Truth says, ‘I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven’. To him again is said “When after a little while thou hast come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren.” Pope Gregory the Great, Epistle 40 (A.D. 604).

“The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable.” Isidore of Seville, (ante A.D. 636).

“For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.” Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica (A.D. 650).

“Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord…the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced…” Pope Agatho, To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople, (A.D. 680).

“A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome…Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up..” Constantinople III, Council to Pope Agatho, (A.D. 680).

“For, although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for Peter alone, and wished that the others be confirmed my him; and to Peter also was committed the care of ‘feeding the sheep’(John 21:15);and to him also did the Lord hand over the ‘keys of the kingdom of heaven’(Matthew 16:19),and upon him did He promise to ‘build His Church’ (Matthew 16:18);and He testified that ‘the gates of Hell would not prevail against it’ (Matthew 16:19).” Pope Pelagius II, Quod Ad Dilectionem (c. A.D. 685).

“’Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’? When Wilfrid spoken thus, the king said, ‘It is true, Colman, that these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?’ He answered, ‘It is true O king!’ Then says he, ‘Can you show any such power given to your Columba?’ Colman answered, ‘None.’ Then added the king, “Do you both agree that these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven were given to him by our Lord?’ They both answered, ‘We do.’” Venerable Bede, (A.D. 700), Ecclesiastical History, 3:5 (A.D. 700).
Link:

HENRY:
Ang mga ginamit ni Paisones na mga nagpatotoo na hindi matuwid na patotoo”mga commentaries ,pansinin nyo sa taas hindi naman sila nangatwiran ayon sa biblia,at ang mga ginamit nyang ito na mga church fathers kuno,ay si pedro lang ang tinuturo na foundation,!!pero kaya paisones iba naman  at sabi ni Paisones ay ganito….

G-paisones-said, peru kung sa buong biblia na pag-uusapan abay hindi ko sinasabing si San Pedro lamang ang Foundation ng Iglesia; pati narin ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo, mga Apostol at mga Propeta ay Foundation rin ng tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo (Efe. 2:20).

ikaw ang humatol paisones kung parehas kayo ng mga church fathers mong yan…

ISA pang mali ni Paisones…basahin muna natin ang tanong ko na mali ang sagot nya..

G-ONE:

Mr. Arganda hindi ako gumamit ng hindi matuwid na patotoo dahil ang mga Church Fathers ay ang sinaunang Cristiano na nagsulat sa kanilang mga pang-unawa sa Biblia at galling sa Apostolic Tradition; naiilang ka kasi brother Henry Arganda dahil ang mga church fathers ay hindi kasapi ng 4^th Watch PMCC. Ang mga church fathers ay nangangatwiran ayon sa Biblia at Apostolic tradition (ito po ay taliwas sa sinasabi ni Henry Arganda: “hindi naman sila (church fathers) nangatwiran ayon sa biblia”- <emphasize added>).

Mapapansin po natin ang kamalian nanaman ni Henry Arganda dahil sabi niya na: “hindi naman sila (church fathers) nangatwiran ayon sa biblia”- <emphasize added>

Peru hindi ngaba nangangatwiran ang mga church fathers ayon sa Biblia? MALI PO SI HENRY ARGANDA dahil ang ilan sa mga church fathers (sa itaas) ay nangangatwiran ayon sa Biblia at Apostolic Tradition. Narito po ang ating mga ebedensya:

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church,” Wherefore where Peter is the Church is…” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 40:30 (AD 395).

“At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church.” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 43:40 (AD 397).

“Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church.” Basil, In Isaias, 2:66 (A.D. 375).

“He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this he sets Peter as shepherd.” Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 428).

Hindi po kami nagkakaiba sa mga Church Fathers dahil, ang mga commentaries po sa itaas ay nakatoon sa AUTHORITY ni San Pedro na higit pa sa mga ibang mga Apostol, kaya nga sinabi ko na “si Pedro lamang ang Pundation na tinotokoy na pagtatayuan ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 (specific verse in the Bible; not whole Bible); hindi ko sinabing si Pedro LAMANG ang Foundation ng Iglesia na mababasa sa Buong Biblia. Para maintindihan ng lahat… Sa Matt. 16:18 si Pedro lamang ang tinutukoy na syang pagtatayuan ng Iglesia (kung sa Matt. 16:18 lamang ang pag-uusapan) peru kung sa buong biblia na pag-uusapan abay hindi ko sinasabing si San Pedro lamang ang Foundation ng Iglesia; pati narin ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo, mga Apostol at mga Propeta ay Foundation rin ng tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo (Efe. 2:20).

Bakit po ba si San Pedro lang ang subject ni Cristo sa Matt. 16:18? -Sapagkat mas mataas pa ang Authority ni San Pedro kaysa sa ibang mga apostol.

Pansinin po natin ang quote ni Cyprian: “…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251). Dito malinaw na wala pong contradiction ang aking pahayag at sa mga church fathers.

Sa boung Biblia ang mga apostol, propeta at si Cristo (main cornerstone) ang foundation ng Iglesia (Efe. 2:20), peru sa Matt. 16:18 si Pedro ang foundation ng Iglesia sapagkat may mataas na katungkolan at authority siya kaysa sa ibang mga apostol na ibinigay sa kanya ng Panginoong Jesu-Cristo. Kaya po sa ang mga church fathers sa itaas ay nakatoon lamang ni san Pedro dahil may mataas pa siyang authority kaysa sa mga Apostol. Ang mga church fathers rin ay naniniwala na ang mga apostol ay foundation.

Para po mapagtibay ko po ang aking mga argumento sa itaas na ang mga apostol ay foundation ayon rin mismo sa mga church fathers; narito ang mga sumusunod na mga ebedensya:

“In a foreign country were the twelve tribes born, the race of Israel, inasmuch as Christ was also, in a strange country, to generate the twelve-pillared foundation of the Church.” IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES — BOOK IV, CHAP. XXI: 3

“Thus we find from this passage also, that there was in Christ a fleshly body, such as was able to endure the cross. “When, therefore, He came and preached peace to them that were near and to them which were afar off,” we both obtained “access to the Father,” being “now no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (even of Him from whom, as we have shown above, we were aliens, and placed far off), “built upon the foundation of the apostles”(12)–(the apostle added), “and the prophets;” these words, however, the heretic erased, forgetting that the Lord had set in His Church not only apostles, but prophets also. He feared, no doubt, that our building was to stand in Christ upon the foundation of the ancient prophets,(13) since the apostle himself never fails to build us up everywhere with (the words of) the prophets. For whence did he learn to call Christ “the chief corner-stone,”(14) but from the figure given him in the Psalm: “The stone which the builders rejected is become the head (stone) of the corner?”" THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION — (REST OF BOOK V) -CHAP.XVII

“And if, further, temples are to be compared with temples, that we may prove to those who accept the opinions of Celsus that we do not object to the erection of temples suited to the images and altars of which we have spoken, but that we do refuse to build lifeless temples to the Giver of all life, let any one who chooses learn how we are taught, that our bodies are the temple of God, and that if any one by lust or sin defiles the temple of God, he will himself be destroyed, as acting impiously towards the true temple. Of all the temples spoken of in this sense, the best and most excellent was the pure and holy body of our Saviour Jesus Christ. When He knew that wicked men might aim at the destruction of the temple of God in Him, but that their purposes of destruction would not prevail against the divine power which had built that temple, He says to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again. … This He said of the temple of His body.”(3) And in other parts of holy Scripture where it speaks of the mystery of the resurrection to those whose ears are divinely opened, it says that the temple which has been destroyed shall be built up again of living and most precious stones, thereby giving us to understand that each of those who are led by the word of God to strive together in the duties of piety, will be a precious stone in the one great temple of God. Accordingly, Peter says, “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ;”(4) and Paul also says, “Being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ our Lord being the chief cornerstone.”(5) And there is a similar hidden allusion in this passage in Isaiah, which is addressed to Jerusalem: “Behold, I will lay thy stones with carbuncles, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. And I will make thy battlements of jasper, and thy gates of crystal, and all thy borders of pleasant stones. And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children. In righteousness shall thou be established.”(6)” ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS — BOOK VIII -CHAP. XIX

Malinaw po na hindi po nag contradict ang mga contention ko at sa mga church fathers.

Henry:
G-paisones-said, peru kung sa buong biblia na pag-uusapan abay hindi ko sinasabing si San Pedro lamang ang Foundation ng Iglesia; pati narin ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo, mga Apostol at mga Propeta ay Foundation rin ng tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo (Efe. 2:20).
sa sagot mong ito Paisones ay maraming pundasyun ang iglesia..KUNG MAY MABASA AKONG BERSIKULO NA ISA LANG ANG PUNDASYUN NG IGLESIA SI CRISTO LANG AAMININ MO BA NA FALSE CHURCH ANG KATOLIKO?

G-one:
Siguro ang nasa isipan ni Henry Arganda na gagamitin niya ay ang 1 Cor 3:11? Peru ganito po ang tamang interpretation sa 1 Cor. 3:11:

HENRY:
Paisonesssssssss!!!!!mali ka!!!! ang sagot ko ay sa Isaias 26:16-”kaya’t ganito ang sabi ng Panginoong Dios,narito aking inilalagay,sa Sion na pinakapatibayan ang ISANG BATO,ISANG BATONG SUBOK,ISANG MAHALAGANG BATONG PANULOK NA MAY MATIBAY NA PATIBAYAN,ang naniniwala ay hindi magmamadali…

yan ilan daw paisones???? ISA!!! kay paisones ilan ???MARAMI!!!

G-one  – “peru kung sa buong biblia na pag-uusapan abay hindi ko sinasabing si San Pedro lamang ang Foundation ng Iglesia; pati narin ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo, mga Apostol at mga Propeta ay Foundation rin ng tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo (Efe. 2:20).”

G-ONE:

Sa Isa. 28:16 ganito ang nakalagay “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone,] a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isa. 28:16 KJV)

Ang ibis sabihin po sa Isa. 28:16 na “foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone,] a sure foundation” ay isang Messianic Methapor.

Sa pagiging Messiah (sa pagtatag ng kanyang Iglesia) ni Jesus siya ay isa lang at hindi kalian man magagaya ng ibang tao katulad ni Arsenio Ferriol na nagtatag nang kanyang sariling iglesia na tinatawag na 4th Watch PMCC.

Si Cristo lang ang syang nag tatag ng kanyang Iglesia at hindi kalian man ito itatag ng kahit nasinong mga taong nag-aangkin na sila ay sugo ng Dios sapagkat sabi ng Biblia “Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone,] a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.” (Isa. 28:16 KJV)

Para sa karagdagang ebedensya sa ating sagot:

CORNERSTONE- (Heb. Pinnah, Gr. Akrogoniaios). Usually used figuratively (e.g., Job 38:6; Ps 118:22; Isa 28:16; Zech 10:4). The synoptic Gospels validate Jesus’ claim to messiahship by citing Psalm 118:22 (Mat 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17). Peter and Paul’s use of the word is similar (see Rom 9”33, quoting Isa 28:16 and 8:14, following LXX; Eph 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6). NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.) Page 132.

Malinaw po na ang ang Isa 28:16 ay Messianic Methapor at ito ay nangangahulugan sa pagiging Messiah ni Cristo- sa pag tatag Niya sa kanyang Iglesia na hindi madadaig ng Kamatayan (Dan. 2:44, Matt. 16:18). Sa Isa. 28:16 hindi po ibig sabihin na hindi foundation ang mga apostol sapagkat ang pagiging ISANG bato ay sa pagiging Messiah ni Cristo sa kanyang pagtatag ng tunay na Iglesia.

FOUNDATION- (Heb. Yasadh, to found, Gr. katabole, themelios). The word is used of the foundation of the earth (Job 38:4; Ps 78:69; Isa 24:18), the righteous (Prov 10:25 KJV), and as the basis of a person’s life (Luke 6:48), Christ (1 Cor 3:11), the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20), the proper use of wealth (1 Tim 6:17-19), and God’s truth (2 Tim 2:19). NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible (The Zondervan Corporation-OMF Literature Phil.) Page 209

Sa itaas mapapansin natin na si Cristo, mga apostol at mga propeta ay foundation. Kaya po napatunayan po natin na mali ang exegesis ni Henry Arganda sa Isa. 28:16.

-Napansin po ba ninyo (mga bumabasa) na hindi sinagutan ni Henry ang tanong ko sa Kanya: “Makapagbigay kaba ng Bible scholar na nagsasabing hindi foundation ang mga apostol sa Efe. 2:20?”

HENRY:
next na mali ni Paisones at ng lahat ng cfd..”yang ginamit mong jerusalem bible ay catholic translation..na apostles its foundation..ang maraming translation ay walang “its”dagdag ng katoliko yan..gamitin mo lahat ng biblia paisones..

At payo sayo paisones wag kang maglalagay ng maling isip sa mga mambabasa na sasabihin mo wala akong alam sa Biblia..hindi ko nga sinasabi na wala kang alam sa biblia …ang sabi ko lang mga mali ang unawa mo sa biblia…at para kang si satanas gumamit ng biblia..para ka ring si ela soriano laban laban ang sinasabi.

G-one:

Granting without admitting na mali ang Jerusalem Bible dahil ito ay Catholic translation, ang tanong mali then ba mga translation na ito? Take note Protestant Translation yan (except for Magandang Balita Biblia).

Ephesians 2:20 (The Message)

19-22That’s plain enough, isn’t it? You’re no longer wandering exiles. This kingdom of faith is now your home country. You’re no longer strangers or outsiders. You belong here, with as much right to the name Christian as anyone. God is building a home. He’s using us all—irrespective of how we got here—in what he is building. He used the apostles and prophets for the foundation. Now he’s using you, fitting you in brick by brick, stone by stone, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone that holds all the parts together. We see it taking shape day after day—a holy temple built by God, all of us built into it, a temple in which God is quite at home.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:20&version=65

Ephesians 2:20 (Contemporary English Version)

20You are like a building with the apostles and prophets as the foundation and with Christ as the most important stone.

Ephesians 2:20 (New International Reader’s Version)

20 You are a building that is built on the apostles and prophets. They are the foundation. Christ Jesus himself is the most important stone in the building.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:20&version=76

Ephesians 2:20 (Worldwide English (New Testament)

20God’s family is like a house and you are part of the building. The apostles and prophets are like the lower walls of the house and you are the building on this foundation. Jesus Christ is the big stone at the corner.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:20&version=73

Ephesians 2:20 (Tyndale Bible)

What a foundation you stand on now: the apostles and the prophets; and the cornerstone of the building is Jesus Christ himself!

Ephesians 2:20 (Magandang Balita Biblia)

Kayo’y itinayo rin sa Saligan ng mga Apostol at mga popeta, na ang batong panulukan ay si Cristo Jesus.

Ang payo ko sa iyo Mr. Arganda dapat mag-aral ka nang maigi sa Biblia dahil wala ka talagang alam sa Biblia. Napakalinaw ng Efe. 2:20 na ang mga Apostol ay foundation minamali mo pa. Hindi po mali ang pang-unawa ko sa Biblia, may marami akong ebedensya sa mga contentions hindi gaya kay Henry Arganda na wala nga siyang ipinapakita sa atin kahit isang Bible scholar nag papatotoo sa contention niya na “hindi foundation ang mga Apostol sa Efe. 2:20”.

HENRY:
next na mali ni paisones..

Ang sumusunod ay ang mga Argumento:

Henry Arganda: (4th Watch PMCC) – Sa Efe. 2:20 “Hindi foundation ang mga Apostolis” – (Ito po ay implicit basi narin sa mga comento ni Henry Arganda)

G-one Paisones (Catholic Faith Defender) – Sa Efe. 2:20 “Ang mga Apostolis ay foundation”

sagot ko hindi foundation ang mga apostol,kundi haligi.Gal.2:9,(hindi mabali ni paisones ang galatia 2;9,tingnan natin kung kayang baliin nya) isa lang ang faundation or cornerstone Isa 28:16(di rin ito pinapansin ni paisones di nya kasi kaya itong baluktutin puro mat 16:18 lang ang nakikita bulag talaga,vias gumamit,)samantalang kay Cristo lahat ng kasulatan ang nagpapatotoo,Juan 5:39 paki basa ng mga reader dyan!wag si paisones at cfd isang verse lang ang pinagbabatayan.

hintayin natin kung kakalabitin ni paisones ang Galatia 2:9,at isa 28:16,paano nya kaya ito babaliin…tingnan natin………abangan

abangan ang mga mali ni Paisones at ng lahat ng cfd…abangan……

G-ONE:

Sa mga bumabasa pakitingnan po ninyo ang statement ni Henry Arganda sa itaas; wala talagang alam sa argumentation; kasi:

-sumasagot si Mr. Henry Arganda na hindi tinatanong!

-Pag tinatanong si Mr. Henry Arganda hindi naman sumasagot!

-hahay (ika nga sa Cebuano: “kalaay”)

Bakit koba babaliin ang Gal. 2:9 eh nasa Biblia yan at kahit suriin mopa Mr. Arganda ang mga post ko laban sa saiyo, hindi ka makakahanap na kahit isang pangungusap na itinatanggi ko ang Gal. 2:9. Sa totoo nga e-pang support sa amin mga Catholic Faith Defender ang verse nayan.

May Marami tayong mga verses sa Biblia na ginamit natin para mapagtibay natin ang ating contention. Kayat mali po ang sinabi ni Mr Arganda na “puro mat 16:18 lang ang nakikita bulag talaga,vias gumamit,” Kung bibilangin pa po natin ay mas marami akong verses na sinulat kaysa kay Henry Arganda.

Sa Isa. 28:16 nasagot na natin to at na ipaliwanag nang maigi sa pamamagitan ng ating mga ebedensya sa pamamagitan na mga factual references. Sa nasambit na natin sa unahan na ang Isa. 28:16 ay ang isang Messianic Methapor na ibig sabihin ay pagiging Messiah ni Jesus sa kanyang pagtatag ng kanyang Iglesia siya ay ISA at hindi kalian man maihahalintulad ni Arsenio Ferriol na nagtatag rin nang kanyang sariling iglesia na tinatawag na 4th Watch PMCC, nakinabibilangan ni Henry Arganda.

Abangan na naman po natin ang mga walang logic na pangangatwiran ni Henry Arganda…….

Mga tanong na HINDI PA NASAGOT ni MR. HENRY ARGANDA:

1.Makapagbigay kaba ng Bible scholar na nagsasabing hindi foundation ang mga apostol sa Efe. 2:20?

2.Dahil sang-ayon ka na ang tunay na iglesia ay sasamahan ni Cristo araw-araw hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo at sinabi mong hindi kayo (Catholic Church) yun; ang follow-up question ko sa iyo Henry Arganda (At pakisunod narin ng mga iba kong tanong) itong iglesia na ito; ito ba ay ang 4^th Watch PMCC?

3.Si Pedro ba ay Bato?

4.Kung ang sagot mo ay Bato, ito ba ay malaking bato o maliit na bato?

5.Basi sa sagot mo sa Q#2-Sang-ayon kaba sa sinasabi ko na ang tunay na Iglesia ay narito pa sa ating kasalukoyang panahon?

6.Kailan na itatag ang 4^th Watch PMCC?

7.Kung ang sagot mo sa (#6) ay 33 A.D.; may maipapakita kabang mga standard na mga referencia na nagpapatunay sa sagot mo?

8.Saan mababasa sa Biblia na ang 4^th Watch PMCC ay itinatag ni Cristo letra-4-letra (at word-4-word)?

9.Saan mababasa sa standard na mga references na ang 4^th Watch PMCC ay itinatag ni Cristo letra-4-letra (at word-4-word)??

10.Saan mababasa sa Biblia 4^th Watch PMCC (Sa Chapter at verses nito)?

11.(At yong Question number 13 sa Reply#2 ko sa iyo Henry)…

Bro. Soc Fernandez on CFD lecture (Cebuano)

• Bro. Socrates Fernandez
• National Advicer of Catholic Faith Defenders Inc.

-Cebuano Apologetics-

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #3

Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #3

Author : henry arganda (IP: 67.68.15.139 , bas2-windsor12-1128533899.dsl.bell.ca)
E-mail : henri_4w@yahoo.ca
URL    : http://www.pmcc4thwatch.com
Whois  : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=67.68.15.139

Black: -Henry Arganda (New Comments)

Red: -Henry’s Old Replies

Blue: -G-one Paisones’ Old Reply

Green:-G-one Paisones (New Reply)

Comment:
Henry:

#1.sa sagot mo paisones,sa amplipied..ang pinagbatayan mo ay ang footnote..ang footnote ba ay ang kahulugan ng verse..o dagdag ng nagsulat?ang footnote ay comment ng nagsulat ng aklat ..sa baba ang sagot ko dyan sa mali mong pakahulugan sa footnote.

G-one:

Ang punto po natin dito Henry Arganda na mali ka sa akala mo na ang ang petra sa Matt. 16:18 sa Amplified Bible ay si Cristo. Narito ang mga pahayag mo noon:

“well alam ko ginagamit nyo ang amplified bible..and i tell you peter(grk petros)a large piece of rock and upon this Rock petra i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar..means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ)pagkalakilaki basahin mo ang gibraltar..kung anong klasing bato”

Ang mali mo sa iyong conclusion na ang Rock “petra” i will build my church a large piece of rock like gibraltar..means ng gibraltar na syang petra (Christ) dahil mismo sa footnote nang naturang Biblia ay: “The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20).

Ang mali mo ay ginamit mo ang Amplified Bible bilang ebedensya sa mga proposition mo peru ang masaklap hindi mo binasa ang footnote nito. Nidagdagan mo pa ang mali mo kasi sinabi mo na mali ang pagpakahulugan ko sa footnote sa Amplified Bible.

Mr. Arganda wag mo naming ipakahalata na wala ka talagang alam sa Biblia dahil kahit na ang grade school ay maiintindihan ang pahayag ng may akda (sa Amplified Bible) sa kanyang footnote: “The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20)”.

Henry:

#2na mali mo, “yung mga bible scholar na mga nagpatotoo,pinahayagan ba ng Dios”

?apostol ba sila Gal.1:11-12,ang apostol lang ang pinapahayagan ng Dios..kaya dapat ikaw paisones sa kabuuan ka ng Bible bumatay..hindi sa isang talata lang…

G-one:

Mapapansin po natin sa itaas ang fallacious statement ni Henry Arganda. Ginamamit ko lang ang Amplified Bible (Scholar) sa pag counter sa kanyang argumento, dahil ginamit niya ito (Amplified Bible) bilang ebedensya sa kanyan proposition. At ginamit ko rin ang Amplified Bible sa paggiba (destroy) sa kanyang proposition sa Matt. 16:18.

Mr. Arganda ang kabuohan ng Biblia at ng Apostolic Tradition (2 Tes. 2:15) ako nakabatay.

Henry:

#3 na mali mo!– ang hinahanap ko sayo na sagot mo dapat ay sa catholic dogma,na turo ba ng katoliko na lahat ng apostol at propeta ay pundasyun?ang ginamit mo ay ang sulat ni Soc fernandez ,san kinuha yun ni soc sa catholic dogma ?

G-one:

Hindi ba Henry Arganda napagkasunduan na natin via email (yahoo) ang mga hinanaing mo sa itaas (tungkol sa Catholic Dogma)? Hindi ko pwedi isulat dito ang napagkasunduan natin nahil bawal sa aming mga Catholic Faith Defenders ang adhominim. Pakatandaan mong nagkasundo na tayo hinggil sa bagay na ito. At kung magpupumilit ka; ikaw ang dapat mag pakita ng ebedensya na mali ang pahayag ko o contra ang pahayag ko sa Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Ginamit ko ang libro ni Bro. Socrates Fernandez bilang ebedensya na tinuturo sa Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica na ang mga apostol at propeta ay pundasyun.

Henry:

ikaw na rin ang nagsabi na si Cristo ay spiritual na Foundation,,TANONG KO SI PEDRO BA AY LITERAL NA PUNDASYUN SAN MABABASA NA LITERAL FOUNDATION SYA.ANG PAGIGING BATO BA NI PEDRO AY LITIRAL NA BATO,?buti pa si pedro na lang ang sumagot…1 pet 2:5..ang lahat ng mga believers
ay spiritual stones hindi literal na gaya ng kamalian nitong si paisones..

G-one:

Ang sagot sa tanong mo ay si San Pedro ang foundation ng iglesia (Matt. 16:18, Efe. 2:20)! Kung binasa pa ni Henry ang reply#2 ko sa kanya, hindi na sya babangit ng katulad nito: “1 pet 2:5..ang lahat ng mga believers ay spiritual stones hindi literal na gaya ng kamalian nitong si paisones” dahil sinabi ko na: “Believers ay Bato (1 Ped. 2:5 Magandang Balita Biblia)”

Narito ang naunang reply ko kay Henry Arganda:

Sa Bible hindi po dapat natin limitahan ang ating pang-unawa sa mga termino o mga salitang bumabasi sa SUBJECT ng mga ito dahil kalimitan ng mga TERMS na ito ay FIGURATIVE o BIBLICAL EXPRESSION.

Halimbawa:

“BATO”

-DIOS ay Bato (2 Sam. 22:2-3)

-Cristo ay Bato (1 Cor. 10:4)

-Pedro ay Bato (John 1:42)

-Believers ay Bato (1 Ped. 2:5 Magandang Balita Biblia)

Henry:

si pedro ay bato lang sa pangalan.at di sya ang kinatatayuan ng iglesia..kay Cristo nakatayo.Epeso 2:22,babaguhin na naman yan ni Paisones parang si satanas gumamit ng salita..

G-one:

Akalain mo nga naman itong si Henry Arganda- para daw akong si satanas. Ehemm… Si Cristo ang nag pangalan kay Simon na “Kepha” dahil Siya (Cristo) ay mag tatag ng kaharian na hindi kalian man madadaig ng Kamatayan (Dan. 2:44) at itong kaharian na ito ay ang Iglesia (Mat. 16:18). Sinamahan at pinamunuan Nya ito (Ang Iglesia) ng Siya ay nabubuhay pa; nang Siya ay pumunta na sa Langit, itinalaga Niya sa Kanyang mga apostol ang mga Gawain bilang ambassador at Obispo (Mat. 28:19,Luke 10:16, Act. 1:20-25) at ang pangkalahatang Obispo sa mga Obispo -kay San Pedro (John 21:15-17). Kaya pinangalanang Kepha (John 1:42) ni Cristo si Simon sapagkat siya ang mag sibling tagapangalaga ng lahat ng kasapi ng Iglesia at Si Pedro ang foundation ng Iglesia kasama na rito ang mga apostol at profeta (Efe. 2:20). Mr. Arganda hindi ko binago ang nakasulat sa Biblia, IKAW ang bumago sa pagkaintindi mo sa Biblia.

Ang mga sinaunang Cristiano ba sa kapanahunan ng 2^nd Century (pagkatapos ng kapanahonan ng mga Apostol) hanggang 10^th Century ay katulad ng pag-iisip ni Henry Arganda hingil kay Pedro at sa mga Apostol?

Hindi po sapagkat ang paniniwala ng mga Church Fathers po ay contrary sa exegesis ni Henry Arganda. Narito po ang pahayag ng mga Church Fathers atbp:

Peter is the Rock on which the Church is Built

(Taken from ScriptureCatholic.com)

“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).

“…folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundation of the Church were laid…” Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian, Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).

“…Peter, that strongest and greatest of all the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others…” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:14 (A.D. 325).

“And Peter,on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail’” Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:25 (A.D. 325).

“…the chief of the disciples…the Lord accepted him, set him up as the foundation, called him the rock and structure of the church.” Aphraates, De Paenitentibus Homily 7:15 (A.D. 337).

“Peter, the foremost of the Apostles, and Chief Herald of the Church…” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,1 1:3 (A.D. 350).

“[B]lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom…” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).

“[T]he Lord spoke to Peter a little earlier; he spoke to one, that from one he might found unity, soon delivering the same to all.” Pacian, To Sympronianus, Epistle 3:2 (AD 372).

“Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the Holy Church. I betimes called you Peter (Kepha), because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me…I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, have given you authority over all my treasures.” Ephraim, Homily 4:1, (A.D. 373).

“[T]he first of the apostles, the solid rock on which the Church was built.” Epiphanius, In Ancorato, 9:6 (A.D. 374).

“Peter upon which rock the Lord promised that he would build his church.” Basil, In Isaias, 2:66 (A.D. 375).

“As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 375).

“Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32:18 (A.D. 380).

“[W]e have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it…”…The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it.” Pope Damasus, Decree of Damasus, 3 (A.D. 382).

”It was right indeed that he (Paul) should be anxious to see Peter; for he was the first among the apostles, and was entrusted by the Savior with the care of the churches.” Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Galatians, PL 17:344 (A.D. 384).

“Peter bore the person of the church.” Augustine, Sermon 149:7 (inter A.D. 391-430).

“Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” Augustine, Psalmus contro Partem Donati (A.D. 393).

“But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one (Peter) among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.” Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 1 (A.D. 393).

“The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles…he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church.” Gregory of Nyssa, Panegyric on St. Stephen, 3 (ante A.D. 394).

“Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church,” Wherefore where Peter is the Church is…” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 40:30 (AD 395).

“At length, after being tempted by the devil, Peter is set over the Church.” Ambrose, Commentary on the Psalms, 43:40 (AD 397).

“In order that he may show his power, God has endowed none of his disciples with gifts like Peter. But, having raised him with heavenly gifts, he has set him above all. And, as first disciple and greater among the brethren, he has shown, by the test of deeds, the power of the Spirit. The first to be called, he followed at once…The Saviour confided to this man, as some special trust, the whole universal Church, after having asked him three times ‘Lovest thou me?’ And he receive the world in charge…” Asterius, Homily 8 (A.D. 400).

“(Peter) The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples.” John Chrysostom, Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407).

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4 (ante A.D. 407).

“This Peter on whom Christ freely bestowed a sharing in his name. For just as Christ is the rock, as the Apostle Paul taught, so through Christ Peter is made rock, when the Lord says to him: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church…” Maximus of Turin, Homily 63 (A.D. 408).

“…the most firm rock, who (Peter) from the principal Rock received a share of his virtue and his name.” Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations, 2:28(A.D. 426).

“He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this he sets Peter as shepherd.” Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Matthew (A.D. 428).

“[B]ut that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God.” John Cassian, Contra Nestorium, 3:12 (A.D. 430).

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place…” Philip, Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

“[B]lessed Peter preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he under took…And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See…to him whom they know to be not only the patron of this See, but also primate of all bishops. When therefore…believe that he is speaking whose representative we are:..” Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 3:3-4 (A.D. 442).

“We exhort you, honourable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.” Peter Chrysologus, Epistle 25 of Leo from Peter (A.D. 449).

“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, hastened to the great Peter in order that he might carry from him the desired solution of difficulties to those at Antioch who were in doubt about living in conformity with the law, much more do we, men insignificant and small, hasten to your apostolic see in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the churches. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges.” Theodoret of Cyrus, To Pope Leo, Epistle 113 (A.D. 449).

“[T]he Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery.” Pope Leo the Great, To Bishops of Vienne, Epistle 10 (A.D. 450).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith…” Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. ‘Peter, the apostle, who is the rock and support of the Catholic Church.’” Paschasinus, Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

“Peter is again called ‘the coryphaeus of the Apostles.’” Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25 (ante A.D. 468).

“The holy Roman Church is senior to the other churches not by virtue of any synodal decrees, but obtained the primacy from Our Lord and Savior in the words of the Gospel, ‘Thou art Peter…’” Pope Gelasius, Decree of Gelasium (A.D. 492).

“[T]he statement of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’…These (words) which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain.’” Pope Hormisdas, Libellus professionis fidei, (A.D. 519).

“To Peter, that is, to his church, he gave the power of retaining and forgiving sins on earth.” Fulgentius, De Remissione Peccatorum, 2:20 (A.D. 523).

“Who could be ignorant of the fact that the holy church is consolidated in the solidity of the prince of the Apostles, whose firmness of character extended to his name so that he should be called Peter after the ‘rock’, when the voice of the Truth says, ‘I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven’. To him again is said “When after a little while thou hast come back to me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren.” Pope Gregory the Great, Epistle 40 (A.D. 604).

“The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable.” Isidore of Seville, (ante A.D. 636).

“For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.” Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica (A.D. 650).

“Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord…the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced…” Pope Agatho, To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople, (A.D. 680).

“A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome…Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up..” Constantinople III, Council to Pope Agatho, (A.D. 680).

“For, although the devil desired to sift all the disciples, the Lord testifies that He Himself asked for Peter alone, and wished that the others be confirmed my him; and to Peter also was committed the care of ‘feeding the sheep’(John 21:15);and to him also did the Lord hand over the ‘keys of the kingdom of heaven’(Matthew 16:19),and upon him did He promise to ‘build His Church’ (Matthew 16:18);and He testified that ‘the gates of Hell would not prevail against it’ (Matthew 16:19).” Pope Pelagius II, Quod Ad Dilectionem (c. A.D. 685).

“’Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’? When Wilfrid spoken thus, the king said, ‘It is true, Colman, that these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?’ He answered, ‘It is true O king!’ Then says he, ‘Can you show any such power given to your Columba?’ Colman answered, ‘None.’ Then added the king, “Do you both agree that these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of heaven were given to him by our Lord?’ They both answered, ‘We do.’” Venerable Bede, (A.D. 700), Ecclesiastical History, 3:5 (A.D. 700).

Link:

Henry:

yung mga protestanteng nag patotoo sa mat.16:18 mga mali din yun kasi may bahid pa ng mali ng katoliko yun kasi lumabas lang yun sa katoliko.

G-one:

Ewan ko kung nasa tamang pag-iisip si Henry Arganda. Mr. Arganda mag review ka nga ng Logic at Argumentation / Debate, dahil Fallacy of Non Sequitor ang mga contention mo. Fallacy of Non Sequitor- Ang ibig pong sabihin nito ay:

Fallacy –errors in reasoning (Logical Fallacies) & error in understanding (Rhetorical Fallacies). The Art of Argumentation and Debate by: Africa, Page 92

Non Sequitor is a Latin term which means it does not follow. This is a fallacy, which arises when the arguer draws a conclusion from a premise without any attempt to show the connection between the cause and the effect. (The Art of Argumentation and Debate by: Africa, Page 107)

Hindi porkit lumabas sa Katoliko (Libro ng Katoliko) eh mali na iyon. Ang may akda tulad ni Fr. Ben Carreon ay sumulat lamang sa mga factual evidence hinggil sa mga stand ng scholars na mga protestante. Hindi basta-basta sinulat lang niya (Fr. Ben Carreon) na walang ebedinsya. Hindi po na emplowensyahan ang mga scholars na mga protestanti (ng Santa Iglesia Catolica) sa kanilang stand na si Pedro ang foundation ng iglesia sa Matt. 16:18.

Henry:

sa iyong footnotes sa amplified,nag jump ka sa iyong conclusion na inaangkin na naglagay ng comment na si Pedro ang pagtatayuan ng Iglesia.Matthew 16 (Amplified Bible)

18And I tell you, you are [e]Peter [Greek, Petros--a large piece of rock], and on this rock [Greek, petra--a [f]huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades (the powers of the [g]infernal region) shall [h]not overpower it [or be strong to its detriment or hold out against it].

Footnotes:

e. Matthew 16:18 The rock on which the church is built is traditionally interpreted as either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself (see Eph. 2:20).
Basahin mo ulit at unawain mo,…”or it may be…” nagpapahayag ng isang sugestion at hindi absolute conclusion na si pedro ang pagtatayuan

G-one:

Hindi nga absolute conclusion na si Pedro ang pagtatayuan sa Amplified Bible dahil sa conjunction na “OR” peru ipinahiwatig ng may akda (Amplified Bible) na “either Peter’s inspired confession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah, or it may be Peter himself –is the rock on which the church is built. Samakatuwid dalawa lang ang pinag-pipilian ng may akda at salungat ito sa pahayag mo na si Cristo ang “bato” sa Matt. 16:18 (nang ginamit mo ang Amplified Bible sa contention mo).

Henry:
Ginamit mo ang mga protestant bible scholar,

G-one:

Ginamit ko ang mga protestant bible scholars; at may factual evidence ako hingil dito.

Henry:

ito naman ang isinulat ni Lorraine Boettner,a Theologian,Roman Catholism p.105″The Rock” -Romanist quote(Matt.16:13-19) this verse with relish,and add their own interpretation to establish their claim for papal authority. But in the greek the word peter is Petros,a person, masculine, while the word “rock”,petra is feminine and refers not to a person but to the declaration of Christ’s deitythat Peter had just uttered–”Thou art the Christ,the Son of the Living God”
Using Peter’s name and making as it were,play upon words,Jesus said to Peter,”You are Petros and upon this petra I will build my church” The truth that Peter had just confessed was the foundation upon which Christ would build His church.He meant that Peter had seen the basic,essential truth concerning His person,the essential truth upon which the church would be founded, and that nothing would be able to overthrow that truth, not even all the forces of evil that might be arrayed against it.Peter was the first among the disciples to see our Lord as the Christ of God.Christ commended him for that spiritual insight, and said that His church would be founded upon that fact. And that, of course was a far different thing from founding the church on Peter.
Had Christ intended to say that the Church would be founded on Peter,it would have been ridiculous for him to have shifted to the feminine form of the word in the middle of the statement,saying,if we may translate literally and somewhat whimsically,”And I say unto thee, that thou art Mr.Rock and upon this,the Miss Rock,I will build my church.” Clearly it was upon the truth that Peter had expressed, the deity of Christ,and not upon weak, vascillating Peter,that the church would be founded.The greek Petros is commonly used of a movable stone,a mere pebble,as it were.But “petra” means immovable foundation, in this instance the basic truth that Peter had just confessed,the deity of Christ.And in fact that is the point of conflict in the churches today between evangelicals on the one hand and modernist or liberals on the other,whether the church is founded on a truly divine Christ as revealed in a fully trustworthy Bible,or whether it is essentially a social service and moral welfare
organization which recognizes Christ as an example, an outstandingly great and good man,but denies or ignores His deity.”

G-one:

Tungkol naman kay Lorraine Boettner masasabi nating itoy isang poor scholarship niya sapagkat sinabi niya na ang Petros ay kaiba sa petra dahil nga ang petros ay masculine at ang petra ay feminine peru pakakatandaan natin na ang vocal language na ginamit ni Jesu-Cristo sa panahon na ito (Mat. 16) ay ang Aramaic. Kaya nga tinawag ni Cristo si Simon na Kepha (John 1:42). Sa nasambit na natin sa Reply#2 kay Henry ang petros at petra ay walang pinagkakaiba sa Aramaic:

Sa Matt. 16 ang linguahe na isinulat dito ay ang Greek; pero ang linguahing sinalita o ginamit ng Panginoon Jesus at nang mga apostol ay ang Aramaic. Ang BarJonah ay salitang Aramaic na ibig sabihin ay “son of Jonah”. Majority po ng mga scholar ay naniniwala na ang madalas na wikain ng Panginoong Jesus ay ang Aramaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus)

Kaya ang Matt. 16:18 na PETROS sa pagkasulat, peru ang ibinigkas talaga ng Panginoong Jesus ay KEPHA. Pariho lang po ang kahulugan ng PETROS (in Greek) sa KEPHA (in Aramaic) – “And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter f ). John 1:42 (TNIV)” at nasa footnote ng Today’s New International Version (TNIV) na ang CEPHAS ay Aramaic.

Kaya sa Aramaic Bible ay walang pinag-iba ang Pedro sa Bato. Pawang KEPHA po ang Aramaic word ng Pedro at Bato dahil ang ibig sabihin ng Pedro ay Bato:

At ang mga bihasang protestante ay alam ang mga nasambit natin sa itaas:

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.

“The Gospel of Matthew”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34

---

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.

The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34

---

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built…. The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.

Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

---

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho“. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha“…. Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre“; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

(At marami pang iba, please refer to Reply#2)

http://catholicfaithdefender.wordpress.com/2008/12/27/reply-from-henry-arganda-member-pmcc-4thwatch-2/

Henry:
Patunay yan paisones na hindi lahat ng protestants ay pareho ang paniwala,”may conflict” kung matino kang gumamit ng mga protestants schoolar or teologian,dapat lahat gagamitin mo.

G-one:

Henry Arganda alam kong hindi lahat ng mga protestant scholars ay may stand na si San Pedro ang Foundation sa Matt. 16:19. Kung matino ka Mr. Arganda at alam mo ang rules ng public discussion hindi kana mag komento ng tulad nito: “kung matino kang gumamit ng mga protestants schoolar or teologian,dapat lahat gagamitin mo”

Alam kong hindi lahat ng protestante ay nagkakasundo hinggil sa kanilang interpretation sa Biblia, kaya nga hindi nagkakaisa ang mga protestante sa kani-kanilang doctrina. Ang contention ko ay si San Pedro ang pinagtatayuan ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 at bilang suporta sa mga argumento ko isinulat ko ang mga protestanting pabor sa contention ko. Pakakaalaman natin na ang mga protestante ay tinawag na protestante sapagkat contra sila sa mga doctrina ng Santa Iglesia. Kaya ginamit ko ang mga protestante na pabor sa contention ko dahil ang nature ng protestante ay contrahin ang doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica.

Henry:
-one: Para sa kalinawan ng lahat hindi po namin sinabi na si Pedro lamang ang pundasyon na mababasa sa BUONG BIBLIA. Napakasinungaling po nitong si Mr. Arganda. Mr. Arganda saan po nabasa na sinulat ko na si Pedro lang ang pundasyon na mababasa sa Buong Biblia? Ang sabi ko na si Pedro lamang ang Pundation na tinotokoy na pagtatayuan ng Iglesia sa Matt. 16:18 (specific verse in the Bible; not whole Bible); hindi ko sinabing si Pedro LAMANG ang Foundation ng Iglesia na mababasa sa Buong Biblia. Para maintindihan ng lahat… Sa Matt. 16:18 si Pedro lamang ang tinutukoy na syang pagtatayuan ng Iglesia (kung sa Matt. 16:18 lamang ang pag-uusapan) peru kung sa buong biblia na pag-uusapan abay hindi ko sinasabing si San Pedro lamang ang Foundation ng Iglesia; pati narin ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo, mga Apostol at mga Propeta ay Foundation rin ng tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo (Efe. 2:20).

Bingo!!!!!yan inamin mo na hindi lamang si pedro ang pundasyun ng iglesia kung ang biblia sa kabuuan ang pagbabatayan!!pero teka basahin natin ang isang sagot mo…

G-one:

FITA!!!!

Tulad ng nasambit ko na na hindi lamang si San Pedro ang foundation ng iglesia kung patungkol sa boung laman ng Biblia (Efe. 2:20) peru sa Matt. 16:18 si San Pedro ang foundation ng Iglesia.

Henry:
G-one: Itong si Henry napakasinungaling, Hindi po doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica na si Cristo ay hindi foundation; kaya nga ginamit po namin ang Efe. 2:20 dahil aral ng Iglesia Catolica yang verse na yan. Ang punto po naming dito na SA MATTHEW 16:18 SI SAN PEDRO PO ANG BATO NA SINABI NI CRISTO NA PAGTATAYOAN NG KANYANG IGLESIA. Therefore Saint Peter is the Foundation of the Church in Matt. 16:18.

dito tayo sa jump conclucion mo…SA MAT.16:18 SI SAN PEDRO PO ANG BATO NA SINABI NI CRISTO NA PAGTATAYUAN NG IGLESIA,.”THEREFORE MR.PAISONES KUNG HINDI LANG SI PEDRO ANG PUNDASYUN NG IGLESIA ,AY MARAMING BATO..???samakatuwid maraming bato sa mateo 16:18,si Cristo,si pedro,at ang mga alagad (kasama ni pedrong mga apostol)verse 13—

G-one:

Ang tanong ni Henry Arganda ay hindi malinaw “THEREFORE MR.PAISONES KUNG HINDI LANG SI PEDRO ANG PUNDASYUN NG IGLESIA ,AY MARAMING BATO..???- Baka ang tanong ni Henry ay ganito “THEREFORE MR.PAISONES KUNG HINDI LANG SI PEDRO ANG PUNDASYUN NG IGLESIA, ANG IGLESIA AY MARAMING BATO..???

Ang sagot po natin sa tanong ni Henry Arganda:

SA MAT.16:18 SI SAN PEDRO PO ANG BATO NA SINABI NI CRISTO NA PAGTATAYUAN NG IGLESIA. At singular lang po ang ginamit rito na bato sa Matt. 16:18 na patungkol kay San Pedro.

PERU KUNG SA BOUNG BIBLIA HINDI LANG SI PEDRO ANG FUNDATION KUNG PATUNGKOL SA BUONG BIBLIA ANG PAG-UUSAPAN (Efe. 2:20).
Tingnan po natin ang argument ni Mr. Henry pagkatapos ng kanyang tanong:

samakatuwid maraming bato sa mateo 16:18,si Cristo,si pedro,at ang mga alagad (kasama ni pedrong mga apostol)verse 13—

Sa mababasa natin sa Matt. 16:18 isa (singular) lang ang batong pinag-uusapan rito- at ito ay si Pedro.

Henry:
sabi mo aral ng katoliko ang verse na yang sa efeso 2:20 –saan nga sa catholic dogma?wag si soc ang gamitin mo..yung official na aklat na Doktrina na katoliko…catholic dogma(doctrine)

G-one:

Hindi ba Henry Arganda napagkasunduan na natin via email (yahoo) ang mga hinanaing mo sa itaas (tungkol sa Catholic Dogma) suman-ayon ka muna sa napagkasunduan natin? Pagnabasa ko na ang Efe. 2:20 ay doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica ayon sa Catholic dogma(doctrine) sang-ayon kaba sa napag kasunduan natin sa yahoo mail?

Henry Saan mababasa sa Catholic Dogma na hindi doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica ang Efe. 2:20?

Henry:
samakatuwid paisones kung ang kabuuan ng biblia ang pagbabatayan ay mali ang unawa mo sa mat 16:18..na si pedro lamang ang pundasyun ng iglesia.tinatanggap mo ba ito?sagutin mo!

G-one:

Sa Matt. 16:18 ““And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. Upon this rock is singular and this refers to Saint Peter. Eph. 2:19-20 (Jerusalem Bible) So you are no longer aliens or foreign visitors: you are citizens like all the saints, and of God’s household. You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.

Pansinin po natin ang sentence na “You are part of a building that has the apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone” sa Jerusalem Bible. Sa Eph. 2:19 nakasaad po doon na “you are citizens like all the saints, and of God’s household” ibig sabihin po nito na kasapi naho tayo sa house ng Diyos. Ang house of God ay ang Iglesia po (1 Tim. 3:15 KJV “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how 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.”). We are part of the building (The Church) being built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-20).

Kaya hindi mali ang unawa ko sa Matt. 16:18 na si Pedro ang foundation ng Iglesia; at sa buong Biblia pati narin ng mga apostol, mga porfeta at si Cristo (main corner stone) mismo ang foundation ng iglesia.

Henry:
G-paisones-said, peru kung sa buong biblia na pag-uusapan abay hindi ko sinasabing si San Pedro lamang ang Foundation ng Iglesia; pati narin ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo, mga Apostol at mga Propeta ay Foundation rin ng tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo (Efe. 2:20).
sa sagot mong ito Paisones ay maraming pundasyun ang iglesia..KUNG MAY MABASA AKONG BERSIKULO NA ISA LANG ANG PUNDASYUN NG IGLESIA SI CRISTO LANG AAMININ MO BA NA FALSE CHURCH ANG KATOLIKO?

G-one:

Siguro ang nasa isipan ni Henry Arganda na gagamitin niya ay ang 1 Cor 3:11? Peru ganito po ang tamang interpretation sa 1 Cor. 3:11:

Sa pundation ng Tunay na Iglesia, hindi lamang si Pedro o mga apostol at mga propeta ang nag silbing pundasyon dito, bagkus nariyan si Cristo ang Batong Espiritwal(1 Cor. 10:4) na foundation din ng tunay na Iglesia (1 Cor 3:11) (Defense Catholic Truth by Bro. Socrates Fernandez, Page 59-60) dahil sasamahan nya ang Kanyang Iglesia hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo (Mat. 28:19-20) at hinding-hindi ito madadaig ng kamatayan (Matt. 16:18-19). Kaya hindi po contradict ang Matt. 16:18 at Eph. 2:20 sa 1 Cor. 3:11.

Ang ibig sabihin sa “for other foundation can no man lay” ito po yong mga itinatag na Iglesia na tao lamang ang nag tatag, at hindi si Cristo (Act 17:24 KJV “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands,”) -tulad na lamang ng 4^th Watch PMCC na itinatag ni Arsenio Feriol dito sa Pilipinas.

Ang 4^th Watch PMCC na itinatag ni Arsenio Ferriol ay hindi tunay na iglesia sapagkat ayon kay Cristo na Siya ay mag tatag ng Kanyang Iglesia (Matt. 16:18) at naitatag nya ito (Mat. 18:17) at sasamahan nya ito araw-araw hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo (Matt. 28:19-20) kaya mula sa panahon ng Panginoon Jesu-Cristo hanggang sa kasalukoyan NARITO PARIN ANG TUNAY NA IGLESIA- AT ITO ANG SANTA, IGLESIA, CATOLICA, APOSTOLICA, ROMANA. Samantalang ang 4^th Watch PMCC ay wala pang isang daan taon itong itinatag ni Arsenio Ferriol.

Ang Santa Iglesia Catolica lamang ang makapag-dugtong sa panahon ni Cristo hanggang sa kasalukoyang panahon.

Henry:

G-one says-Sabi mo na mali ang naka sulat sa Efe. 2:20; ano ba ang authority mo nang sabihin mo na mali ang Efe. 2:20?

sagot Mr paisones wag kang maglalagay ng mga salitang di ko sinabi o sinulat makakasuhan ka nang libelo..saan ko sinabi na mali ang nakasulat sa efeso 2:20?ipakita mo nga? kung di mo maipakita Juan 8:44 ka…hihintayin ko ..

G-one:

Henry Arganda kung kakasuhan mo ako, maraming-maraming salamat sa iyo. At alam moba kung ano ang kasong libelo? Bro Henry, wagkang magmarunong, ika nga sa Cebuano: “Ayaw pagpatoo-too”; kasi hindi mo nga alam ang kasong libelo. Granting without admitting na pinaparatangan kita at hindi mo talaga sinulat (implicit & explicit) na mali ang naka sulat sa Efe. 2:20; then mag tanung ka sa abogado kung makakasuhan ba ako ng libelo… Assignment mo yan ha…..

Nang sabihin natin ni henry na: “Sabi mo na mali ang naka sulat sa Efe. 2:20; ano ba ang authority mo nang sabihin mo na mali ang Efe. 2:20?” –ito’y dahil sa kanyang sinulat (comment) sa amin, samakatuwid ang aking katanungan sa itaas ay basi narin sa kanyang komento sa amin; narito ang kanyang komento:

“o sige gamitin natin yung ginagamit nyo sa efeso..2:20..diba ginagamit nyo ito para patunayan na ang pundasyun ay apostol eh mali pa rin kayo ipalagay na natin na maga apostol ang pundasyun sa hindi paggamit ng ibang verse sa biglang basa ika nga mali pa rin kayo kasi sabi nyo si pedro lang ang pundasyun eh d2 mga apostol at mga propeta eh di marami nakuuu bakit paborito nyo si pedro lang mahina pundasyun nyo sa tao lang”

Malinaw na nakasaad sa Efe. 2:20 “…apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.” Peru ang sabi ni Henry ay: “…efeso..2:20..diba ginagamit nyo ito para patunayan na ang pundasyun ay apostol eh mali pa rin kayo ipalagay na natin na maga apostol ang pundasyun sa hindi paggamit ng ibang verse sa biglang basa…” Malinaw na sinabi ni Henry na mali raw na “pundasyun ay apostol” peru nang binasa natin ang Efe. 2:20 nakasaad roon na “…apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.” Kaya naitanong natin kay Henry na: ano ba ang authority mo nang sabihin mo na mali ang Efe. 2:20?

Henry:

G-one At mali daw ang nakasulat sa Efe. 2:20 na ang mga Apostol ay pundation ng Iglesia. Nako itong si Mr. Arganda kahit mababasa na eh gilubag parin. Hindi po mali ang Efe. 2:20 ang mali po ay si Mr. Arganda.

Sagot paisones,hindi ko sinabi na mali ang efeso 2:20 -ang mali yang unawa mo,basahin mo pinutol mo na naman..nawala ang mga propeta,.ang nilagay mo ay ang mga apostol ay pundation ng iglesia…tingnan mo nga ang epeso 2:20 kung yan ang nakalagay?binago na naman parang si satanas ka gumamit ng talata…

G-one:

Hindi sinabi (explicitly) ni Henry na mali ang efeso 2:20 peru maiintindihan at mababasa (implicit) na sinabi niya na mali ang efeso 2:20 dahil sinabi niya na mali raw na “pundasyun ay apostol” peru nang binasa natin ang Efe. 2:20 nakasaad roon na “…apostles and prophets for its foundations, and Christ Jesus himself for its main cornerstone.” Kaya naitanong natin kay Henry na: ano ba ang authority mo nang sabihin mo na mali ang Efe. 2:20?

Dagdag pa ni Henry Arganda na mali daw ang unawa ko sa Efe. 2:20. Mga kapatid kayo na ang mag husga kung sino ang may maling pang-uunawa sa amin dalawa ni Henry Arganda (4^th Watch PMCC) at sa akin (G-one Paisones –Catholic Faith Defender)

Makapagbigay kaba ng Bible scholar na nagsasabing hindi foundation ang apostol sa Efe. 2:20? Pangalawang assignment mo na yan ha….

Sa rules ng argumentation kailang dapat nakatoon sa subject ang proposition ng Debator. Kaya paminsan minsan hindi na natin isinasali sa pagsulat ang “profeta” sa Efe. 2:20 para malinawan ang bumabasa, makuha nila ang punto natin (particularly sa pinag-uusapang topiko) at malaman nila ang katotohan.

Ang sumusunod ay ang mga Argumento:

Henry Arganda: (4^th Watch PMCC) – Sa Efe. 2:20 “Hindi foundation ang mga Apostolis” – (Ito po ay implicit basi narin sa mga comento ni Henry Arganda)

G-one Paisones (Catholic Faith Defender) – Sa Efe. 2:20 “Ang mga Apostolis ay foundation”

Kaya minsan hindi na natin naisama ang profeta sa mga argumento ko laban kay Henry.

Sumatotal hindi ko binago ang Biblia; alam ng bumabasa na hindi natin binago Efe. 2:20 dahil sa nasambit na natin sa itaas na ang mga apostol, mga porfeta at si Cristo (main corner stone) mismo ang foundation ng iglesia. Peru paminsan-minsan hindi na natin isinusulat ang mga profeta para maka-focust ang bumabasa sa topiko na pinag-dedebatihan.

Henry:

G-one question-Sang-ayon kaba sa sinasabi ko na ang tunay na iglesia ay sasamahan ni Cristo araw-araw hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo?

oo sang ayun ako kami yun, hindi kayo yun.

G-one:

Check Mate!

Salamat sa pag sagot mo sa tanong ko. Peru napansin kong hindi mo sinagutan lahat ng tanong ko. Peru OK lang baka busy ka. Kung may Oras ka paki sagot naman ng mga tanong ko…. salamat…

Dahil sang-ayon ka na ang tunay na iglesia ay sasamahan ni Cristo araw-araw hanggang sa kataposan ng mundo at sinabi mong hindi kayo (Catholic Church) yun; ang follow-up question ko sa iyo Henry Arganda (At pakisunod narin ng mga iba kong tanong) itong iglesia na ito; ito ba ay ang 4^th Watch PMCC?

Maraming salamat sa mga replies mo sa akin.

Regards.