Catholic Faith Defender

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

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). (http://www.scripturecatholic.com)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HENRY: Papal Infallibility
Was The Apostle Peter A Pope?

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

G-ONE:

We speak the wholeness of truth and love.

HENRY:

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

G-ONE:

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

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

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

HENRY:

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

G-ONE:

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

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

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

HENRY:

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

G-ONE:

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

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

HENRY:

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

G-ONE:

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

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

HENRY:

Was The Apostle Peter A Pope?

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

G-ONE:

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

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

Why we call our Pope “Holy” (Santo)?

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

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

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

HENRY:

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

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

G-ONE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HENRY:

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

G-ONE:

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

HENRY:

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

G-ONE:

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

The meaning of “for other foundation no one can lay” is the churches which found only by (ordinary) human and it is not Christ’ founded church (Act 17:24 KJV “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands,”) – example of this man made church is the 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 <e.g. power, head of the church, King of kings, etc> Col. 1:18 DRB. But Christ commission Peter to shepherd his People (John 21:15-17). Therefore Christ made Peter the Bishop (or overseer) of all Bishop and all his people.

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

-as visible head of the church

-as Bishop of the Bishops

-in matters of (universal) church Governance

-as successor of Saint Peter

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

HENRY:

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

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

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

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

G-ONE:

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

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

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

HENRY:

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

G-ONE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HENRY:

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

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

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

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

G-ONE:

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

HENRY:

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

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

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

G-ONE:

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

HENRY:

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

By David J. Riggs

G-ONE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peru ang mga Apostol rin po ay foundation:

Ephesians 2:20 (The Message)

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

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

Ephesians 2:20 (Contemporary English Version)

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

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

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

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

Ephesians 2:20 (Worldwide English (New Testament)

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

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

Ephesians 2:20 (Tyndale Bible)

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

Ephesians 2:20 (Magandang Balita Biblia)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G-ONE:

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

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

Halimbawa:

“BATO”

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

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

-Pedro ay Bato (John 1:42)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G-ONE:

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright © 1998 by Bibles International

1 Pedro 5:1 (Ang Salita ng Diyos)

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

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

G-ONE:

May mababasa tayo sa Biblia na maiintindihan na si San Pedro ay may mataas na authority kaysa ibang mga apostol (May mababasa na maiintindihan pero hindi word-for-word). Nasagot ang tanong ni Henry Arganda member ng 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??

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

  1. MGA SAGOT SA MABABABAW NA TANONG NI PAISONES,

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

    SAGOT:

    si pedro mismo ang tanungin natin -1 pt2:9-lahat ng mga mananampalataya lahat sila..ay saserdote.at sa new century version 2:5-“priest”

    PERO KUNG ANG MGA PARI NG KATOLIKO LALO NA ANG PAPA.AY DI PWEDING GAMITIN NILA ANG SASERDOTENG BINABANGGIT SA BIBLIA..SAPAGKAT SILANG MGA SASERDOTE OR PRIEST AY PINILI..ayon sa binasa natin 1pt 2:9-,ito yung tunay na iglesia sa N.testament-kung old testament priest naman ang aankinin ng KATOLIKO na sila yun,abay lalong mali..sapagkat ang O.T.priest..ay mga tinawag sila ng Dios..HB.5:1-4.

    ANG MGA PARI AYUN SA KASAYSAYAN NG KAPAPAHAN(PAPACY)LALO NA ANG PAPA AY WALANG PATUNAY NA TINAWAG O HINIRANG..NARITO ANG PATUNAY:

    Papal conclave
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    (Redirected from Papal election)
    Jump to: navigation, search
    For other uses of the word conclave, see Conclave (disambiguation).
    Holy See

    This article is part of the series:
    Politics and government of
    Vatican City

    * Pope
    o Benedict XVI
    * Roman Curia
    o Secretariat of State
    o Roman Congregations
    * Vicariate General of Rome
    * Vatican City
    o Pontifical Commission
    o President
    + Giovanni Lajolo
    * Conclave: 2005
    * Foreign relations
    o Lateran Treaty

    Other countries · Atlas
    Politics portal
    view • talk • edit
    The Sistine Chapel has been the location of the conclave since 1492.

    A papal conclave is a meeting of the College of Cardinals to elect the pope (or Bishop of Rome) who is considered by Catholics to be the successor of Saint Peter and earthly head of the Catholic Church.[1] The conclave is the oldest ongoing method for choosing the leader of an institution.[2]

    A history of political interference in these elections and consequently long vacancies between popes, and most immediately the interregnum of 1268-1271, prompted the Second Council of Lyons to decree in 1274 that the electors should be locked in seclusion cum clave (Latin for “with a key”), and not permitted to leave until a new Bishop of Rome had been elected. Conclaves are now held in the Sistine Chapel in the Palace of the Vatican.[3]

    In the early centuries of Christianity the Bishop of Rome (like other bishops) was chosen by the consensus of the clergy and people of Rome.[4] The body of electors was more precisely defined when, in 1059, the College of Cardinals was designated the sole body of electors.[5] Since then other details of the process have developed. In 1970 Pope Paul VI limited the electors to cardinals under 80 years of age. The Pope may change the procedures for electing his successor by issuing an apostolic constitution; the current[update] procedures were established by Pope John Paul II in his constitution Universi Dominici Gregis[6] and amended by a motu proprio of Pope Benedict XVI dated 11 June 2007.[7][8]
    Contents
    [hide]

    MALIWAG AYUN SA KASAYSAYAN NA HINDI TINAWAG ANG PAPA,
    KUNG GAGAMITIN NAMAN NILA ANG ACTS CHAPTER 1 HINDI PWEDE,HINDI BAGAY SA PAPA,DAHIL ANG NAG ELECT SA PAPA AY MGA CARDINALIS HINDI PWEDING HIRANGIN NG MABABANG KATONGKULAN ANG MAS MATAAS NA KATUNGKULAN,AYUN SA TALATA NG CH 1 NG GAWA AY PRESENT ANG 11 NA MGA APOSTOL–MALAYO ANG DISTANCIA KUM BAGA…

    TANONG SAAN BA BINATAY O GINAYA NG PAPACY ANG PARAANG ITO NG ELECTION?

    Secular influence

    For a significant part of its history, the Church was influenced in the choice of its leaders by powerful monarchs and governments. For example, the Roman Emperors once held considerable sway in the elections of popes. In 418, Honorius settled a controversial election, upholding Boniface I over the challenger Eulalius.[26] He ordered that in future cases, any controverted election would be settled by a fresh election; the method was never applied before its lapse. After the demise of the Western Roman Empire, influence passed to the Ostrogothic Kings of Italy and in 532, John II formally recognised the right of the Ostrogothic monarchs to ratify elections. By the end of the 530s, the Ostrogothic monarchy had been overthrown, and power passed to the Byzantine Emperors (known as the Eastern Roman Emperors). A procedure was adopted whereby officials were required to notify the Exarch of Ravenna (who would relay the information to the Byzantine Emperor) upon the death of a pope before proceeding with the election. Once the electors arrived at a choice, they were required to send a delegation to Constantinople requesting the Emperor’s consent, which was necessary before the individual elected could take office. Lengthy delays were caused by the sojourns to and from Constantinople; when Benedict II complained about them, Emperor Constantine IV acquiesced, ending the requirement that elections be confirmed by emperors. Thereafter, the Emperor was only required to be notified; the requirement was dispensed with by Pope Zachary.

    In the 9th century, a new empire—the Holy Roman Empire, which was German, not Italian—came to exert control over the elections of popes. While the first two Holy Roman Emperors, Charlemagne and Louis, did not interfere with the Church, Lothar claimed that an election could not be conducted except in the presence of imperial ambassadors. In 898, riots forced John IX to recognise the superintendence of the Holy Roman Emperor; the local secular rulers in Rome also continued to exert a great influence, especially during the tenth century period known as the Pornocracy.

    In 1059, the same papal bull that restricted suffrage to the cardinals also recognised the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor, at the time Henry IV, but only as a “concession” made by the pope, thus establishing that the Holy Roman Emperor had no authority to intervene in elections except where permitted to do so by papal agreements. Pope Gregory VII was the last to submit to the interference of the Holy Roman Emperors; the breach between him and the Holy Roman Empire caused by the Investiture Controversy led to the abolition of the Emperor’s role.[27] In 1119, the Holy Roman Empire acceded to the Concordat of Worms, accepting the papal decision.

    From the sixteenth century, certain Catholic monarchs were allowed to exercise the so-called “right of exclusion” or “veto”. By an informal convention, each nation was allowed to veto one candidate; any decision made by a nation was conveyed by one of its cardinals. The power of exclusion was, by the same custom, only exercisable once. Therefore, the nation’s cardinals did not announce the use of the power until the very last moment when the candidate in question seemed likely to get elected. No vetoes could be employed after an election. After the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1806, its place was taken by Austria (which was a part of the Empire and whose ruler was also Holy Roman Emperor). Austria became the last nation to exercise the power in 1903, when Cardinal Puzyna de Kosielsko informed the College of Cardinals that Austria opposed the election of Mariano Cardinal Rampolla (who had received 29 out of 60 votes in one ballot). Consequently, the College chose Giuseppe Cardinal Sarto with 55 votes. Cardinal Sarto chose the name Pius X and abolished the right of the secular veto, declaring that any cardinal who communicated his government’s veto would suffer excommunication.[28]

    AT MUKHANG MAY KAMALAMALAHAN PA SA VOTING (PASININ)BAKIT NAKATAGO PA SILA SA VOTING?
    hat the electors should be locked in seclusion cum clave

    TANONG GINAWA BANG SECLUDED NG MGA APOSTOL ANG KAY MATTIAS?MALAYO DIBA?

    ANG MASAMA SA KATOLIKO GINAGAMIT ANG BIBLIA PARA PATUNAYAN NA SILA ANG TOTOO..PERO KUNG SUSURIING MABUTI ANG BIBLIA NAPALAYO,..

    IKUMPARA NATIN ANG MGA APOSTOL SA PAPA-

    PABLO–tinawag roma 1:1–papa-hinirang ng mga tao.

    12 apostol tinawag mat.10-,luke 6:13-papa-hinirang ng tao-

    #2 na mahinang tanong ni paisones(desperate question)

    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?

    SAGOT-ang tanong na iyan ni paisones ay nasa JUAN 21:15-17,

    SA MGA BUMABASA-unawain natin kung bakit inutusan si pedro-basahin natin ang vs 3-“mangingisda ako”kaya sabi ng Panginoon kay pedro vs 15 “iniibig mo baga ako ng higit sa mga ito(isda)ANG DAHILAN PAISONES PARA MADAGDAGAN ANG ALAM MO si pedro nag backslide!!!lucas 22:32-“kung makabagbalik ka nang muli” yun!! nag backslide ang pundasyun ng katoliko.!!!!

    #3tanong ni paisones

    3. Is Peter a leader according to the Bible?

    sagot:lahat ng mga apostol na tinawag at tatawagin ay lider..1 cor.12:28 “una una”yun lider nabasa!!!

    #4 na tanong ni paisones-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?
    SAGOT-NASAGOT KO NA YAN SA #3 PAULIT ULIT KA!!

    #5-TANONG NI PAISONES-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:

    SAGOT:sa sagot kong yan paisones kaya kung panindigan,”yang mga translator ay hindi naman mga apostol..ang mga apostol lang at kasamahan ng apostol ang may karapatang magpaunawa ng biblia kaya sabi ni pedro ..2 peter3:15-16 16Gayundin naman sa lahat ng kaniyang sulat, sinasalita niya ang mga bagay na ito. Ilan sa mga ito ay mahirap unawain at binigyan ng maling kahulugan ng mga hindi naturuan at hindi matatag. Ganito rin ang kanilang ginagawa sa ibang kasulatan sa ikapapahamak ng kanilang sarili

    PANSININ MO PAISONES PILI KA TULOY NG PILI NG TRANSLATION, LALABAS TULOY IBAIBA ANG BIBLIA!!at yun talaga ang totoo dahil kasalanan ng translator..
    NARITO ANG SAGOT:
    What’s Wrong With Modern Translations?

    The Old Testament has been faithfully preserved by the Jews in what is known as the Masoretic Text. There are few translation problems with the Old Testament.

    However, most modern translations, from the Revised Standard Version (RSV) to the New International Version (NIV), use as their source for the New Testament a Greek Text based upon the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth century. This text, publicized by Westcott and Hort, is also known as the Alexandrian Text. It originated in Egypt and has been massaged by “higher critics” down through the ages. These manuscripts, used in the RSV, represent less than 5% of known Greek Biblical manuscripts, but are supposedly more authentic because they are “old.”

    The bulk of New Testament manuscripts were copied century after century from earlier ones as they wore out. Older copies did not survive because these texts were used until worn out. This text, the so-called “Received Text” or “Byzantine Text” (also termed “Syrian”, “Antioch”, or Koine text) was used in the King James Version. Nearly 4,000 manuscripts of this Byzantine or Official Text agree almost perfectly with each other, and are a far better standard to go by than corrupt copies no matter how early they were made. Located primarily at Mt. Athos in Greece, copies of the Official Greek Text give us a very reliable record of the New Testament scriptures.

    Proof the Received Text is Correct

    Jay P. Green, Sr., General Editor and Translator of the Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, states in his preface:

    “The market-place is being glutted with new books which are being represented as versions of the Bible. Each one claims to be the very word of God, yet there are literally thousands of differences between them . . . . they all leave out dozens of references to the deity of Jesus Christ, and they add words which tend to question His virgin birth, His substitutionary, fully satisfying atonement. This is due to their decision to depend upon an Alexandrian [Egyptian] textbase, instead of that body of God’s words which has been universally received and believed in for nineteen centuries, known to us as the Received Text. These new versions [such as the NIV, New Jerusalem Bible and others] are not only marked by additions, but also by subtractions, since some four whole pages of words, phrases, sentences and verses have been omitted by these new versions. And these are words attested to as God’s words by overwhelming evidence contained in all the Greek manuscripts . . . .

    ” . . . it has been written, ‘For I say to you, Until the heavens and the earth pass away, in no way shall pass away one iota or one point from the Law, until all things come to pass.’- -Matthew 5:18 [Green’s paraphrased] . . . .

    “What then is the evidence these Bible-alterers offer to persuade you to give up the precious words they have removed from their versions? Mainly, they cite two manuscripts, admittedly old, but also admittedly carelessly executed. The Sinaiticus was so poorly executed that seven different hands of ‘textual critics’ can be discerned as they tried to impose their views on the Bible . . . it was discarded, found in a wastebasket fourteen centuries after it was executed. The Vaticanus manuscript lay on a shelf in the Vatican library at Rome until 1431, and was considered so corrupt that no one would use it . . . . they have systematically removed Luke’s witness to the ascension of Christ–and of course they have done away entirely with Mark’s witness to the ascension, simply because these last twelve verses do not appear in those two corrupt manuscripts, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus . . . .

    ” . . . Origen, an early textual critic . . . said, that ‘the Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written’ . . . . given the opportunity, many like Origen will actually alter the manuscripts to make them say what they understand them to mean….Justin Martyr, Valentinus, Clement of Alexandria, Marcion, Tatian, and a horde of others practiced their ‘textual science’ by operating on manuscripts, or by writing their own ‘versions’ . . . .

    ” . . . Today there are more than 5,000 manuscripts and lectionaries in Greek as witnesses to the New Testament text. And 95% of them witness to the Received Text readings [contained in Green’s Interlinear and the King James Version]. Partly due to the fact that ancient manuscripts containing the Received Text were worn out by use, while the Alexandrian textbase manuscripts were preserved by the dry conditions of Egypt, some have sought to discredit the Received Text because they say it is not ancient. But now that manuscript portions from the second century are being unearthed, it is found that many of the readings of the Received Text which had been tagged scornfully as ‘late readings’ by nearly unanimous consent of the ‘textual scientists’ are appearing in these [newly found] manuscripts. Readings which were before called late and spurious have been found in these early-date manuscripts . . . . Yet strangely, in textual criticism classes, such discoveries are swept under the rug, not reported to the class.”

    We use the King James Version exclusively as our main study Bible, only using other translations to aid study of certain passages, to get another perspective. The fact that modern versions slavishly depend on the Egyptian and Vatican corruptions of the New Testament should make us avoid them as a “main Bible.

    ANG TRANSLATOR paisones ay nagsasalin sila ng mga salita ayun lang sa inabot ng unawa nila sa kanilang karanasan sa salita SAMANTALANG ANG APOSTOL AY UMAASA SA DIRECT REVELATION FROM GOD- GAL.1:11-12.

    ITO PA PAISONES!!

    TRANSLATION ERRORS AND
    FORGERIES* IN THE BIBLE

    horizontal rule

    Sponsored link.

    horizontal rule
    Translation Errors:

    The original texts of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Christian Scriptures (New Testament) were written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Unfortunately, relatively few adults in North America can read any of these ancient languages. So most of us have to rely upon English translations.

    The reader cannot always trust the translators. Bibles contain many inaccuracies and errors. Some appear to be intentional.
    bullet Most versions of the Bible are sponsored by one or more Christian denominations. Thus, translators tend to have similar belief systems. Some denominations have long standing prejudices against other religions, sexual minorities, etc. This sometimes affects the accuracy of their translation.
    bullet Translators are under economic constraints: if they translate some verses as they actually appear in the original Hebrew and Greek, then long held prejudices would be threatened and many potential readers might reject the translation. Some pastors have favorite passages that appear to condemn Wiccans, other Neo-pagans and homosexuals. If a translation appeared in which those verses no longer condemned Witches or homosexuals, it is unlikely that those clergy would buy it or recommend it to their flock.

    Some of the most obvious mistranslations occur in passages related to
    bullet Witchcraft where the word has so many conflicting meanings in modern English that (in our opinion) it should never be used by Bible translators. The English phrase “black magic” would be a much better fit in most locations.
    bullet Homosexuality which some theologians believe the Bible uses to refer to a broad range of mostly criminal activities: homosexual rape, same-sex temple prostitution, group orgies, and child abuse of boys, heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities. They believe that none of the passages seem to refer to gay and lesbian sex between consenting adults or committed partners. However, other Christians believe that these same “clobber passages” condemn all homosexual behavior.
    bullet Same-sex emotional relationships that Ruth, David and Daniel were involved in.

    horizontal rule
    Forgeries* in the Bible
    bullet Matthew 6:13: The Lord’s Prayer traditionally ends: “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.” This seems to have been absent from the original writings. 6
    bullet Matthew 17:21 is a duplicate of Mark 9:29. It was apparently added by a copyist in order to make Matthew agree with Mark. But Mark 9:29 also contains a forgery*; this makes Matthew 17:21 a type of double-layered forgery*. 5
    bullet John 7:53 to 8:11: One of the most famous forgeries* in the Bible is the well-known story of the woman observed in adultery. It was apparently written and inserted after John 7:52 by an unknown author, perhaps in the 5th century CE. This story is often referred to as an “orphan story” because it is a type of floating text which has appeared after John 7:36, John 7:52, John 21:25, and Luke 21:38 in various manuscripts. Some scholars believe that the story may have had its origins in oral traditions about Jesus.
    It is a pity that the status of verses John 8:1-11 are not certain. If they were known to be a reliable description of Jesus’ ministry, they would have given a clear indication of Jesus’ stance on the death penalty.
    bullet Mark 9:29: Jesus comments that a certain type of indwelling demon can only be exorcised through “prayer and fasting” (KJV) This is also found in the Rheims New Testament. But the word “fasting” did not appear in the oldest manuscripts. 5 New English translations have dropped the word.
    bullet Mark 16:9-20: The original version of Mark ended rather abruptly at the end of Verse 8. Verses 9 to 20, which are shown in most translations of the Bible, were added later by an unknown forger*. The verses were based on portions of Luke, John and other sources.
    bullet Luke 3:22: This passage describes Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist. According to Justin Martyr, the original version of this verse has God speaking the words: “You are my son, today have I begotten thee.” Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and other ancient Christian authorities also quoted it this way. 1 The implication is that Jesus was first recognized by God as his son at the time of baptism. But a forger* altered the words to read: “You are my son, whom I love.” The altered passage conformed more to the evolving Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God at his birth, (as described in Luke and Matthew) or before the beginning of creation (as in John), and not at his baptism.
    bullet John 5:3-4: These verses describe how “a great multitude” of disabled people stayed by the water. From time to time an angel arrived, and stirred the waters. The first person who stepped in was cured. This passage seems strange. The process would not be at all just, because the blind could not see the waters being stirred, and the less mobile of the disabled would have no chance of a cure. Part of Verse 3 and all of Verse 4 are missing from the oldest manuscripts of John. 3 It appears to be a piece of free-floating magical text that someone added to John.
    bullet John 21: There is general agreement among liberal and mainline Biblical scholars that the original version of the Gospel of John ended at the end of John 20. John 21 appears to either be an afterthought of the author(s) of John, or a later addition by a forger*. Most scholars believe the latter. 4
    bullet 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. It is obvious to some theologians that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter* with little talent at forgery.* Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: “Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them].” 2 If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery*, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul. This is a very important passage, because much many denominations stand against female ordination is based on these verses.
    bullet Revelation 1:11: The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and,” (KJV) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. It is also found in the New King James Version (NKJV) and in the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) The latter are basically re-writes of the original KJV. Modern English, is used, but the translators seem to have made little or no effort to correct errors. The Alpha Omega phrase “is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger’s definitive ‘A Textual Commentary’ on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994..

    KAYA DAPAT PAISONES PARA MAUNAWAAN ANG BIBLIA DAPAT MAY GURO NG KATOTOHANAN -1 TIMO 2: 7Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
    SA LOOB LANG NANG TUNAY NA IGLESIA IPINAPAHAYAG NG DIOS ANG MGA HIWAGA NG KASULATAN-:Marcos 4:11 (Ang Salita ng Diyos)

    11Sinabi niya sa kanila: Ang makaalam ng hiwaga ng paghahari ng Diyos ay ibinigay sa inyo. Ngunit sa kanila na nasa labas, ang lahat ng mga bagay ay ginagawa sa talinghaga

    verse 34Marcos 4:11 (Ang Salita ng Diyos)

    11Sinabi niya sa kanila: Ang makaalam ng hiwaga ng paghahari ng Diyos ay ibinigay sa inyo. Ngunit sa kanila na nasa labas, ang lahat ng mga bagay ay ginagawa sa talinghaga

    KAYA PAISONES DI KITA MASISISI KUNG MGA MALI ANG UNAWA MO SA BIBLE DAHIL WALA KAYONG APOSTOL,

    #6 NA TANONNG NI PAISONES-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?

    DI KO MUNA SASAGUTIN ITO KAY PAISONES…PAAAMININ MUNA NATIN SA KANYA KUNG MABASA KO PAISONES SA BIBLIA NA SUGO NAGTAYO NG IGLESIA AAMININ MO KAMPON KA NG DEMONYO!!!???
    SA DEMONYO KA TALAGA MAGTANONG LITRA POR LITRA WORD FOR WORD EH ANG MGA SAGOT NYO SA BIBLIA DI NAMAN LITRA 4 LITRA MANDARAYA ITONG MGA CFD,,KAYA GUSTO NYANG GANUN PARA MAKATAKAS KUNO SYA,..SAMANTALANG YUNG SALITA NYANG WALANG SINOMANG SUGO NA NAGTAYO NG IGLESIA.DUN NATIN KINUHA YUNNG TANONG,NGAYUN GUSTO NYANG TUMAKAS SA TANONG,KAYA GUSTO NYA LITRA 4 LITRA.”SATANIC WISE SI PAISONES”

  2. Philans57CFD said

    Kawawang Henry Arganda, sabi niya ako raw ang dispirado eh, hindi nga niya nasagutan lahat ng tanong ko sa kanya at saka mali pa ang mga sagot niya….

    kawawa talaga….

  3. Philans57CFD said

    saka mali pa ang Sagot niya…..

  4. patunayan mong mali, sagutin mo ayon sa biblia wag sa bunganga mo lang wala ka lang maitutol sa sagot ko sayo…,.mahina yan paisones walang dating yan!!anong mali sa sagot ko ????patunayan mo ayun sa biblia???come on…!!!!!

  5. Philans57CFD said

    Kung mapatunayan ko Henry Arganda na mali ang sagot mo sa reply ko…

    AAMININ MO BANG IKAW ANG SATANAS AT HINDI AKO!!!!

    Sagot hinri Satanismo, esti Arganda pala…..

  6. siguraduhin mo lang na mali ha…sagutin mo na dong !!!

  7. Philans57CFD said

    Sabi ko sayo may mali sa sagot mo…..

    kung mapatunayan ko na mali ang sagot mo Henry Arganda, aaminin mobang ikaw ay Pis-pis sa yawa…??

  8. patunayan mo na puro ka satsat!!binura mo pa ang post ko na nagpamatay na milyones ang papa ayon sa history ..mga mambabasa!!basahin nyo ang inquisition sa encyclopedia..ang maka-satanas na gawa ng kapapahan ..hindi ito matutulan ng cfd kaya binura ..di kayang sagutin..may tama kayo ha ha ha

  9. Di ba sabi mo paisones pag sinagot ko ang tanong mo..sasagutin mo rin ang tanong ko di ba kapatid ni taning??sagutin mo na ito :kung mabasa ko ayon sa biblia na sugo ng Dios nagtayo ng iglesia maliban kay Cristo aaminin mo na false church ang katoliko?sabagay matagal mo na palang alam yan na bulaan ang katoliko .di ka lang makaalis dahil swelduhan ka ng katoliko para ipagtanggol ang maling aral ng katoliko..kahit di mo aminin yan ..iyan ang totoo lahat ng cfd.

  10. sabi mo ang mga pari na umalis sa katoliko ay bulaan di ba ?ex martin luter..

    kamangmangan yan paisones !!di mo ba alam sa biblia na may utos sa apocalipsis “mangagsilabas kayo sa kanya bayan ko upang wag kayong mangaramay sa kanyang mga salot” kaya yang rason mo paisones nagpapakita na napaka poor ang logic mo…

    ito ang tanong paisones para matoto ka ..”naniniwala ka ba na lahat ng Religion o grupo ay may umaalis”??kaya paisones wag mong gamitin yun dahail wala kang ka logic logic!!

    ngayon kung totoo ang katoliko (kahit maling mali)kung lang ha…tamang gamitin yung mga talata sa biblia na ang umalis sa tunay na iglesia ay bulaan.

  11. catholicfaithdefender said

    Sabi ni Henry Arganda:

    Author : henry arganda (IP: 64.228.73.61 , bas2-windsor12-1088702781.dsl.bell.ca)
    E-mail : henri_4w@yahoo.ca
    URL : http://www.pmcc4thwatch.com
    Whois : http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl?queryinput=64.228.73.61
    Comment:
    Di ba sabi mo paisones pag sinagot ko ang tanong mo..sasagutin mo rin ang tanong ko di ba kapatid ni taning??sagutin mo na ito :kung mabasa ko ayon sa biblia na sugo ng Dios nagtayo ng iglesia maliban kay Cristo aaminin mo na false church ang katoliko?sabagay matagal mo na palang alam yan na bulaan ang katoliko .di ka lang makaalis dahil swelduhan ka ng katoliko para ipagtanggol ang maling aral ng katoliko..kahit di mo aminin yan ..iyan ang totoo lahat ng cfd.

    REPLY:

    Basahin mo sa Biblia Letra 4 letra at word-4-word diyan sa chapter at verses ng Biblia na may na sugo ng Dios nagtayo ng iglesia maliban kay Cristo….!!!!!

    Pag wala kang mababasa ikaw ang Satanas!!!!!!!

  12. catholicfaithdefender said

    Basahin mo sa Biblia Letra 4 letra at word-4-word diyan sa chapter at verses ng Biblia na may na sugo ng Dios nagtayo ng iglesia maliban kay Cristo….!!!!!

    Pag wala kang mababasa ikaw ang Satanas!!!!!!!

    Kung may mababasa ka Letra 4 letra at word-4-word diyan sa chapter at verses ng Biblia na may na sugo ng Dios nagtayo ng iglesia maliban kay Cristo balhin ko sa 4th Watch PMCC!!!

    Basahin mo pare…..

  13. catholicfaithdefender said

    henry arganda said
    January 29, 2009 at 8:31 am e

    sabi mo ang mga pari na umalis sa katoliko ay bulaan di ba ?ex martin luter..

    kamangmangan yan paisones !!di mo ba alam sa biblia na may utos sa apocalipsis “mangagsilabas kayo sa kanya bayan ko upang wag kayong mangaramay sa kanyang mga salot” kaya yang rason mo paisones nagpapakita na napaka poor ang logic mo…

    ito ang tanong paisones para matoto ka ..”naniniwala ka ba na lahat ng Religion o grupo ay may umaalis”??kaya paisones wag mong gamitin yun dahail wala kang ka logic logic!!

    ngayon kung totoo ang katoliko (kahit maling mali)kung lang ha…tamang gamitin yung mga talata sa biblia na ang umalis sa tunay na iglesia ay bulaan.

    REPLY:

    NAKO KAWAWA TALAGA SI HENRY ARGANDA, Ako pa ngayong ang walang ka logic2x,,

    peru wala naman siyang pang suportang mga valid contention na wala akong logic,,,

    pagkalooy ni mo pre….

  14. catholicfaithdefender said

    January 29, 2009 at 8:12 am e

    patunayan mo na puro ka satsat!!binura mo pa ang post ko na nagpamatay na milyones ang papa ayon sa history ..mga mambabasa!!basahin nyo ang inquisition sa encyclopedia..ang maka-satanas na gawa ng kapapahan ..hindi ito matutulan ng cfd kaya binura ..di kayang sagutin..may tama kayo ha ha ha

    REPLY:

    PUMAYAG KA MUNA HENRY ARGANDA, na pag napatunaytan ko na mali ang sagot mo sa akin… aaminin mo bang ikaw ang SATANAS AT HINDI AKO…

    PUMAYAG KA MONA PRE…..

    PAPAHAG KABA o HINDI…..

  15. catholicfaithdefender said

    Henry Arganda,

    Papaano ako makapag follow-up question saiyo eh mali ang sagot mo…..

    Example:

    Tanong ko ay= 2+2=?

    Henry answer= 9

    Eh papaano ako maka follow-up niyan…

    Kaya Kung PAPAYAG ka Henry ARGANDA na kong mapatunayan ko na mali ang sagot mo, aaminin mo bang ikaw si Satanas at Hindi ang Catholic Faith Defendes.

  16. catholicfaithdefender said

    Challenge for Mr. Henry Arganda

    By Bro. G-one Paisones

    Since we had been posting in our site many articles regarding apologetics, we also received many comments, questions, and even criticisms.

    One of these critics is Mr. Henry Arganda whose affiliation is a member of fourth Watch Pentecostal Missionary Church Christ according to him. According to him, he is also a debater of the said Protestant cult.

    Mr. Arganda, and I have a lot of exchanging Biblical dialogue (see: http://catholicfaithdefender.blog.friendster.com/2009/01/dialogue-between-g-one-cfd-vs-henry-4th-watch-pmcc/). Mr. Arganda always attack the true church founded by Christ; he often ask many questions and sometimes make an ad Hominin arguments against the Catholic Faith Defenders.

    As a member of the true Church Founded by Christ; I have been countering Mr. Henry Arganda’s contention; I already answered all his questions (except the one that Mr. Henry challenge me) and denied his ad hominim attacks against the Catholic Faith Defenders- with my logical and Biblical reasoning.

    When I asked questions to Mr. Henry Arganda, he did not answer all the questions, instead he ask questions repeatedly.

    The irony is that Mr. Henry Arganda tackles things, which I do not ask.

    Mr. Arganda posted many comments to our site; those contain criticism and evil propaganda to attack the Catholic Church.

    Since I could no longer prohibited Mr. Arganda’s comments to our site; —

    I CHALLENGE HIM IN A FORMAL PUBLIC DEBATE HERE IN CEBU CITY

    The suggested Topics are:

    TOPIC#1

    “Resolve that the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church is the true church founded by Jesus Christ according to the Bible and standard references”

    -I am (G-one Paisones) the one who present the affirmative side

    -Henry Arganda presents the negative side

    -Catholic Church Doctrine will not be included in this debate (It is the topic#2 of the propose public debate)

    TOPIC#2

    “Resolve that the Catholic Church’s doctrines are of Satan according to the Bible and standard references”

    -Henry Arganda presents the affirmative side

    -G-one Paisones presents the negative side

    TOPIC#3

    “Resolve that the 4th Watch Pentecostal Missionary Church Christ is the true church founded by Jesus Christ according to the Bible and Standard references”

    -Henry Arganda presents the affirmative side

    -G-one Paisones presents the negative side

    As of now I could no longer accepts any proxies of Mr. Henry Arganda because in previous month he failed to do so.

    IF HENRY ARGANDA DOES NOT ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE AFTER ONE MONTH, THEREFORE MR. HENRY ARGANDA LOSES THE DEBATE.

    IF HENRY ARGANDA DOES NOT SEE ME IN A PERSONAL DEBATE AFTER I POST THIS CHALLENGE (RANGE: 1 month) – THEREFORE MR. HENRY ARGANDA LOSES THE DEBATE.

    Mr. Arganda if you hold the truth; then you must see me face-to-face in a formal public debate!

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: