Catholic Faith Defender

JOHN. 8:32 “et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos”

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

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on January 13, 2009

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 (4th 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 (4th 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 4th 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 nasi 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 4th 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 4th 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 4th Watch PMCC ay itinatag ni Cristo letra-4-letra (at word-4-word)?

9.Saan mababasa sa standard na mga references na ang 4th Watch PMCC ay itinatag ni Cristo letra-4-letra (at word-4-word)??

10.Saan mababasa sa Biblia 4th Watch PMCC (Sa Chapter at verses nito)?

11.(At yong Question number 13 sa Reply#2 ko sa iyo Henry)…

5 Responses to “Reply from Henry Arganda (Member PMCC 4thwatch) #4”

  1. 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

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

    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.

    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

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

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

    Papal Infallibility
    Was The Apostle Peter A Pope?

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

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

    “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).

    “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).

    “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).

    “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).

    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)

    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.”

    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.”

    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.

    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!

    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.).

    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.

    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!

    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).

    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

    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)

    **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,

    ***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!!!!

    ***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.

  2. Paisones sagot naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!

  3. Philans57CFD said

    Relax lang Mr. Arganda…..

    mga wednesday ko ma post ang rebutall ko….

    naka-uwi kansa sa Pilipinas????

  4. Philans57CFD said

    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). (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.

    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”

    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 4th Watch PMCC which founded by Arsenio Feriol here in the Philippines.

    The 4th 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 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 Resurrection our savior handed her over to Peter to be shepherd (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and other apostles to propagate and govern her (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 all nations (Mat 28:19), to teach them to obey everything had commanded by Him (Mat 28:20), to forgive the sins of anyone their sins are forgiven; and 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 (John 21:15-17), and Christ appoint in strengthen and establish his brethren (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

    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

    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 29 8) 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)

    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?

    ***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 4th 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??

  5. catholicfaithdefender said

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

    Posted by catholicfaithdefender on January 20, 2009

    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). (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.

    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”

    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 4th Watch PMCC which founded by Arsenio Feriol here in the Philippines.

    The 4th 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 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 Resurrection our savior handed her over to Peter to be shepherd (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and other apostles to propagate and govern her (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 all nations (Mat 28:19), to teach them to obey everything had commanded by Him (Mat 28:20), to forgive the sins of anyone their sins are forgiven; and 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 (John 21:15-17), and Christ appoint in strengthen and establish his brethren (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

    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

    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 29 8) 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)

    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?

    ***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 4th 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??

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: