Search results for: Pastor+paul

Pages: 1
1
Humanities / Re: IMPOSTOR
« Message by rhaine_24 on 01-03-15 07:29 AM »
[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]
pustahan ba kamo?? ikaw na lang tutal lahat ng sugal legal  sayo :tawanan:  sakit sa tiyan!!

tsismis pala sayo to??

“THE POPE TAKES THE PLACE OF JESUS CHRIST ON EARTH…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. HE IS THE TRUE VICAR, THE HEAD OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, THE SUPREME JUDGE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, THE JUDGE OF ALL, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.” [Quoted from the New York cathetism)

tsk tsk  itinatangi mu lang eh halata ka eh

eto pa oh


“WE HOLD UPON THIS EARTH THE PLACE OF GOD ALMIGHTY” [Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894]

Nakakakilabot hindi po ba na hindi lang pala ang kapangyarihan at katungkulan ni Cristo ang inangkin ng Papa, pati ang kapangyarihan at katungkulan ng Diyos na Makapangyarihan sa Lahat.

to pa ang pinaka-nakakakilabot sa lahat, ang PAPA ay tinatawag naDiyos!

Pope Nicholas I declared: “the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on THE POPE, WHO, BEING GOD, CANNOT BE JUDGED BY MAN.” [Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para]

Kaya tupad na tupad ang sinabing ito ng Biblia sa Papa, na siyang ipinakikilala ng Biblia naBULAANG PROPETA:

2 Tessalonica 2:3-4 “Huwag kayong padaya kanino man sa anomang paraan: sapagka't ito'y hindi darating, maliban nang dumating muna ang pagtaliwakas, at mahayag ang TAONG MAKASALANAN, ang anak ng kapahamakan, NA SUMASALANGSANG AT NAGMAMATAAS LABAN SA LAHAT NA TINATAWAG NA DIOS O SINASAMBA; ANO PA'T SIYA'Y NAUUPO SA TEMPLO NG DIOS, NA SIYA'Y NAGTATANYAG SA KANIYANG SARILI NA TULAD SA DIOS.”

Mateo 24:5 “Sapagka't marami ang magsisiparito sa aking pangalan, na mangagsasabi, AKO ANG CRISTO; at ililigaw ang marami.”

So ang isa pa sa ikakikilala sa Bulaang Propeta ay magpapakilala siya na siya ay Cristo. Kaya nga sa pagsasabi na ang PAPA ay VICAR OF CHRIST o KAHALILI NI CRISTO lumalabas ngayon na CRISTO na rin ang PAPA hindi po ba?

May katibayan ba tayo niyan? Meron po, basa!

“THE POPE IS NOT ONLY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF JESUS CHRIST, HE IS JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, hidden under the veil of flesh.” [Catholic National, July 1895]

:whistle:  tsk tsk

ayaw mu lumubay?  pwes eto ka :tawanan:   :P

sa anong talata ba sinipi ng sumulat ng  heb. 1:8?

SA SUMULAT NG HEBREO ANO ANG KALIKASAN NG ANAK? DIYOS BA OA TAO? :hmm: kaabang abang ano po? tingnan po natin kung sino ang tama SI KRUSILIKO BA O ANG SUMULAT NG HEBREO?

Hebreo 1:8  “Nguni't tungkol sa Anak ay sinasabi, ANG IYONG LUKLUKAN, OH DIOS, ay magpakailan man; At ang setro ng katuwiran ay siyang setro ng iyong kaharian.”

Ginagamit ng mga tagapagtaguyod ng paniniwalang si CRISTO ay DIYOS ang talatang ito upang patunayan na tinawag daw ng DIYOS AMA si CRISTO na DIYOS. Kung ating tatanggapin na talagang tinawag ng Diyos ang kaniyang ANAK na “OH DIOS” sa HEBREO 1:8, Lalabas na KINONTRA ng Diyos ang kaniyang sarili! Sapagkat sinabi niya sa ISAIAS 46:9 na: “sapagka't ako'y Dios, at walang iba liban sa akin; ako'y Dios, at walang gaya ko;” Sa kabilang dako, ay mayroong pang ibang pagkakasalin ng talatang ito na pilit ikinukubli ng mga naniniwalang Diyos si Cristo na gumagamit ng talatang ito na inaakala nilang patunay sa kanilang paniniwala.

Subalit may mga iba na nagpapakita ng katapatan gaya ng ipinakita sa footnote ng Revised Standard Version na nagsasaad na “GOD IS YOUR THRONE” o “ANG DIYOS ANG IYONG LUKLUKAN” bilang katibayan na mayroon pang ibang pagkakasalin ng nasabing talata.

Ang salitang ginamit sa Bibliang Griego ay “O’ THEOS”…

Ang Hebreo 1:8, sa katunayan ay isang sipi mula sa aklat ng Mga Awit 45:6 na sa orihinal ay nasulat sa wikang Hebreo.

Ang salitang  O’ THEOS ay hindi matatagpuan sa Bibliang Hebreo na tinatawag na Texto Masoretiko (Masoretic Text). Ang O’ THEOS ay hinango sa SEPTUAGINTA [LXX], isang salin ng Lumang Tipan sa wikang Griego noong ikalawang siglo – 2nd Century (hindi ito ang orihinal na wika ng Lumang Tipan). Subalit dito man ay inaamin ng isang Bible Scholar, na si B.F. Wescott na ang Greek word na O’ THEOS ay may dalawang pagkakasalin:

"The LXX admits of two renderings: ho theos can be taken as a vocative in both cases (_Thy throne, O God,... therefore, O God, Thy God..._) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (_God is Thy throne,_ or _Thy throne is God..._), or in apposition to ho theos sou in the second case (_Therefore God, even Thy God..._)..." (The Epistle to the Hebrews," London, 1892, pp. 25)

Sabi sa aklat: ang LXX o ang Septuaginta ay inaamin na may dalawang pagkakasalin: ang HO THEOS ay maaaring kapuwa ituring na VOCATIVE CASE kaya maisasalin na “ANG IYONG LUKLUKAN, OH DIYOS”,… samakatuwid, “OH DIYOS, IYONG DIYOS…”, o maaaring ituring bilang SUBJECT o SIMUNO (o PREDICATE (PANAGURI)) na nasa first case: “ANG DIYOS ANG IYONG LUKLUKAN”, o “ANG IYONG LUKLUKAN AY ANG DIYOS”, o isang apposition sa HO THEOS SOU sa second case “SAMAKATUWID ANG DIYOS”, “MAGING ANG IYONG DIYOS”

Sa Bibliang Hebreo, ang nakalagay ay ang DIYOS ay ang LUKLUKAN ng ANAK na ito ay isang metaphor (ito ay isang figure of speech na naghahambing o nagtutulad) na nagpapakita na ang DIYOS ang pinanggalingan ng Luklukan o kapangyarihan ng Anak o ni Cristo.  Pinatutunayan ito ni Jesus sa Mateo 28:18 nang sabihin niyang:  “Ang lahat ng kapamahalaan sa langit at sa ibabaw ng lupa ay naibigay na sa akin.” At sa Mateo 11:27 ay sinabi din niyang: “Ang lahat ng mga bagay ay ibinigay sa akin ng aking Ama” .  Maliwanag kung gayon na ang pinanggalingan ng kaniyang kapangyarihan at karapat ay ang Diyos na pagdating ng ARAW NG PAGHUHUKOM ay paiilalim siya sa kapangyarihan ng nagiisang Diyos ang Ama:

1 Corinto 15:27 -28 “Ganito ang sinasabi ng kasulatan, “Ang lahat ng bagay ay lubusang ipinailalim ng Diyos sa kaniyang kapangyarihan.”  Ngunit sa salitang “lahat ng bagay” maliwanag na hindi kasama rito ang Diyos na siyang naglagay ng lahat ng bagay sa ilalim ng kapangyarihan ni Cristo.  At kapag ang lahat ay nasa ilalim na ng kapangyarihan ni Cristo, ANG ANAK NAMAN ANG PAPAILALIM SA KAPANGYARIHAN NG DIYOS NA NAGLAGAY NG LAHAT NG BAGAY SA ILALIM NG KAPANGYARIHAN NIYA.  Sa gayon lubusang maghahari ang Diyos sa lahat.” [Magandang Balita, Biblia]

Kaya nga maitatanong natin, bakit papailalim ang Anak sa Diyos kung PANTAY sila ng KAPANGYARIHAN ng Ama? Ito ay isang tanong na nakatatawag pansin at hindi maipaliwanag ng mga nagtataguyod ng aral na TRINIDAD, na ang laging palusot ng mga ito ay: “Ang Santisima Trinidad ay isang misteryo”.


“Ang Diyos Ay Iyong Luklukan”

Ang mga sumusunod ay ang mga iba pang pagkakasalin ng nasabing talata:

Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son he says, `GOD IS YOUR THRONE forever and ever! And a righteous sceptre is the sceptre of his kingdom!`" (Goodspeed)

Hebrews 1:8 "He says of the Son, `GOD IS THY THRONE for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity`." (Moffat Translation)

Maliwanag ang banggit sa mga verse na ito: “GOD IS YOUR THRONE” o  “GOD IS THY THRONE” na sa tagalog ay “ANG DIYOS AY IYONG LUKLUKAN”

Sa mga saling ito ng Biblia na Goodspeed at Moffat, makikita na hindi tinawag ng Ama na Diyos ang kaniyang Anak, kundi ang sinasabi ng Diyos Ama sa Anak (si Cristo) na Siya (Ang Ama) ay ang kaniyang (Ang Anak) luklukan o trono.

Samakatuwid ang dalawang pagkakasaling ito ng Hebreo 1:8 ay hindi kumokontra o sumasalungat sa iba pang mga pahayag sa Biblia kaya ating natitiyak na ang pagkakasaling ito ang tumpak at tama.  Dahil kung ating tatanggapin na kinikilala ng Ama ang Anak na isa pang Diyos maliban sa kaniya, ay kokontrahin ng Diyos mismo ang kaniyang pahayag:

Isaias 45:21  “Kayo'y mangagpahayag, at mangagpasapit; oo, magsanggunian silang magkakasama: sinong nagpakilala nito mula nang mga unang panahon? sinong nagpahayag niyaon nang una? hindi baga ang Panginoon? AT WALANG DIOS LIBAN SA AKIN: ISANG GANAP NA DIOS AT TAGAPAGLIGTAS; WALANG IBA LIBAN SA AKIN.”

Ang Diyos mismo ang nagsabi at nagturo sa mga tao na walang ibang Diyos maliban sa Kaniya, at ang NAGIISANG DIYOS na ito ay ang AMA na lumikha ng lahat ng mga bagay:

Malakias 2:10 “Hindi ba IISA ang ating AMA? Hindi ba IISANG DIYOS ang lumalang sa atin? [MBB]

Hindi lamang sa hindi kumikilala ang Diyos sa iba pang Diyos kundi ipinakilala pa niya ang kaniyang pagkakaiba sa pagsasabing wala siyang katulad o kagaya:

Isaias 46:9  “Inyong alalahanin ang mga dating bagay ng una: SAPAGKA'T AKO'Y DIOS, AT WALANG IBA LIBAN SA AKIN; AKO'Y DIOS, AT WALANG GAYA KO;”

Kung atin ngang babalikan ang Hebreo 1:8 at itutuloy ang pagbasa sa verse 9, ay mapapansin natin na ang Anak ang may kinikilalang Diyos:

Hebreo 1:9  “Inibig mo ang katuwiran, at kinapootan mo ang kasamaan; KAYA'T ANG DIOS, ANG DIOS MO, ay nagbuhos sa iyo, Ng langis ng kasayahang higit sa iyong mga kasamahan”.

Pansinin ang banggit na: “ANG DIOS MO” . Kung si Cristo na Anak ay ang Diyos, lalabas ngayon na ang Diyos ay may kinikilalang isa pang Diyos maliban sa kaniya, magkakaroon na ngayon ng DALAWANG DIYOS na ito ay aral na labag sa Biblia.

Maliwanag na katotohanan na kung ang Diyos, ang Ama ay walang kinikilalang iba pang Diyos, si Cristo sa kabilang dako ay kinikilala ang Ama bilang kaniyang Diyos:

Juan 20:17  “Sinabi sa kaniya ni Jesus, Huwag mo akong hipuin; sapagka't hindi pa ako nakakaakyat sa Ama, nguni't pumaroon ka sa aking mga kapatid, at sabihin mo sa kanila, Aakyat ako sa AKING AMA at INYONG AMA, at AKING DIOS at INYONG DIOS.”




“Ang Iyong Luklukan, binigay ng Diyos”

Sinasabi ng mga naniniwalang Diyos si Cristo na mali daw na paniwalaan na ang Diyos ay isang Trono o Luklukan, kasi daw ay pinababa namin ang kalagayan ng Diyos na itinuturing lang daw na upuan. Kaya kanilang tinatanong: “Paano magiging tama ang pagkaunawa na ang Diyos ay Trono o Luklukan ni Jesus?”

Marapat ba kasing unawain ito ng literal?

Dapat nating malaman na ang sinasabi sa Hebreo 1:8 ay isang propesiya o hula tungkol sa pagdating ng Mesias na mababasa sa Lumang Tipan na sinipi mula sa Mga Awit 45:7 na nagsasabi ng ganito: Ating pong basahin ang nasabing talata sa Bibliang isinalin ng mga Judio sa panahon natin ngayon:

Psalms 45:7 "THY THRONE, GIVEN OF GOD, endureth for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Jewish Publications Society of America Translation)

Maliwanag na sinasabi sa talatang iyan na isinalin ng mga Judio na: “THY THRONE, GIVEN OF GOD” o sa Filipino ay “ANG IYONG LUKLUKAN, BIGAY NG DIYOS”

Samakatuwid ang kahulugan nung salitang “GOD IS YOUR THRONE” (ANG DIYOS AY IYONG LUKLUKAN) ay “THY THRONE, GIVEN OF GOD” (ANG IYONG LUKLUKAN, BINIGAY NG DIYOS)

At ang katibayang iyan ay binigyang linaw sa unahan ng kapitulo na ang Diyos ay magbibigay ng kaniyang kaharian sa isang HARI:

Psalms 45: 1- 3 "Beautiful words fill my mind, as I compose this song for the king. Like the pen of a good writer my tongue is ready with a poem. You are the most handsome of men; you are an eloquent speaker. GOD HAS ALWAYS BLESSED YOU. BUCKLE ON YOUR SWORD, MIGHTY KING; YOU ARE GLORIOUS AND MAJESTIC." (Today’s English Version)

Sa Filipino:

Awit 45:1-3 “Mga magagandang salita ang pumupuno sa aking isipan, habang aking isinusulat ang awit para sa Hari. Katulad ng panulat ng isang magaling na manunulat ang aking dila ay nahahanda sa isang tula. Ikaw ang painakamakisig sa lahat ng mga tao; ikaw ay mahusay magsalita. ANG DIYOS AY PINAGPAPALA KANG PALAGI. ISUKBIT MO ANG IYONG TABAK, DAKILANG HARI; IKAW AY MALUWALHATI AT MARILAG.”

At ang kinatuparan ng propesiyang ito ay si Jesus na pinagbigyan ng Diyos ng Trono o Luklukan ni David:

Lucas 1:31-33  “At narito, maglilihi ka sa iyong tiyan, at manganganak ka ng isang lalake, at tatawagin mo ang kaniyang pangalang JESUS.  SIYA'Y MAGIGING DAKILA, AT TATAWAGING ANAK NG KATAASTAASAN: AT SA KANIYA'Y IBIBIGAY NG PANGINOONG DIOS ANG LUKLUKAN NI DAVID na kaniyang ama:  At siya'y maghahari sa angkan ni Jacob magpakailan man; at hindi magkakawakas ang kaniyang kaharian.”

Kaya maliwanag na ang kapangyarihan ni Jesus at ang kaniyang karapatang tinataglay ay hindi lihitimo sa kaniya kundi ito ay ibinigay lamang sa kaniya. At ito ay kaniyang ipinahayag sa kaniyang mga alagad:

Mateo 28:18  “At lumapit si Jesus sa kanila at sila'y kaniyang kinausap, na sinasabi, ANG LAHAT NG KAPAMAHALAAN SA LANGIT AT SA IBABAW NG LUPA AY NAIBIGAY NA SA AKIN.”

At ang nagbigay sa kaniya ng lahat ng ito ay ang Ama, narito ang kaniyang pagtatapat:

Mateo 11:27  “ANG LAHAT NG MGA BAGAY AY IBINIGAY SA AKIN NG AKING AMA: at sinoma'y hindi nakakakilala sa Anak kundi ang Ama; at sinoma'y hindi nakakakilala sa Ama, kundi ang Anak, at yaong ibiging pagpahayagan ng Anak.”

At pagkatapos nga na maibigay sa kaniya ang lahat ng bagay, ang ANAK ay papailalim sa kapangyarihan ng Ama na nagbigay ng lahat ng bagay sa kaniya, at ito ay magaganap sa ARAW NG PAGHUHUKOM:

1 Corinto 15:27-28 “Ganito ang sinasabi ng kasulatan, “Ang lahat ng bagay ay lubusang ipinailalim ng Diyos sa kaniyang kapangyarihan.”  Ngunit sa salitang “lahat ng bagay” maliwanag na hindi kasama rito ang Diyos na siyang naglagay ng lahat ng bagay sa ilalim ng kapangyarihan ni Cristo.  At kapag ang lahat ay nasa ilalim na ng kapangyarihan ni Cristo, ANG ANAK NAMAN ANG PAPAILALIM SA KAPANGYARIHAN NG DIYOS NA NAGLAGAY NG LAHAT NG BAGAY SA ILALIM NG KAPANGYARIHAN NIYA.  Sa gayon lubusang maghahari ang Diyos sa lahat.” [MBB]



“Si Jesucristo ay Tao”

Kung si Cristo man ay binigyan ng Trono o Luklukan ng Diyos, ito ay hindi mangangahulugan na ang Diyos ay paiilalim kay Cristo, niliwanag na iyan sa talatang binasa natin sa itaas. Eh ano ang puwesto ng Trono ni Cristo sa Langit? Siya ba ay nakaupo sa Trono o Luklukan ng Diyos mismo? Basahin natin ang patotoo ng Banal na Kasulatan mula din sa sumulat ng Hebreo 1:8:

Hebrews 8:1 "What I mean is that WE HAVE A HIGH PRIEST WHO SITS AT THE RIGHT SIDE OF GOD'S GREAT THRONE IN HEAVEN." (CEV)

Sa Filipino:

Hebreo 8:1 “Ang ibig kong tukuyin ay MAYROON TAYONG ISANG MATAAS NA SASERDOTE NA NAKAUPO SA KANAN NG TRONO NG DIYOS SA LANGIT.”

Ang tinutukoy na MATAAS NA SASERDOTE ay walang iba kundi si Cristo:

Hebrews 4:14 "That is why we have A GREAT HIGH PRIEST WHO HAS GONE TO HEAVEN, JESUS THE SON OF GOD." (NLT)

Sa Filipino:

Hebreo 4:14 “Kaya nga mayroon tayong ISANG DAKILANG MATAAS NA SASERDOTE NA UMAKYAT SA LANGIT, SI JESUS ANG ANAK NG DIYOS.”

Ano ang kalagayan ng sinasabing MATAAS NA SASERDOTE na NAKAUPO sa KANAN ng DIYOS? Sasagutin tayo ng mga talatang ito:

Hebrews 7:26 "Here is the HIGH PRIEST we need. A MAN WHO IS HOLY, faultless, unstained, seperate from sinners and lifted above the very Heavens." (Philips Translation)

Sa Filipino:

Hebreo 7:26 “Narito ang MATAAS NA SASERDOTE na ating kailangan, ISANG TAONG BANAL, malinis, walang dungis, hiwalay sa mga makasalanan at iniakyat sa itaas sa mga langit.”

Maliwanag ang pagkakasabi siya’y ISANG TAONG BANAL, samakatuwid ISANG TAO, narito pa ang isang ebidensiya:

Hebrews 7:24 "But THIS MAN, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." (KJV)

Sa Filipino:

Hebreo 7:24 “Ngunit ANG TAONG ITO, sapagkat namamalagi magpakailan man, ay may pagkasaserdote na hindi mapapalitan.”

At dahil sa si Cristo ay TAO, maliwanag na hindi siya DIYOS, sapagkat ang DIYOS ay HINDI TAO, ating basahin:

Oseas 11:9  “Hindi ko isasagawa ang kabangisan ng aking galit, hindi ako babalik upang ipahamak ang Ephraim: SAPAGKA'T AKO'Y DIOS, AT HINDI TAO; ang Banal sa gitna mo; at hindi ako paroroon na may galit.”

At sapagkat si Cristo, ang Mataas na Saserdote na nakaupo sa kanan ng Trono o Luklukan ng Diyos, ay isang TAO at HINDI DIYOS.  Samakatuwid ang sumulat ng Hebreo 1:8, ay hindi kailan man naniniwala o nagturo na si Cristo ay Diyos. At atin ngayong matitiyak na MALING SALIN ang mga talatang nagsasabi na “ANG IYONG LUKLUKAN, OH DIYOS.”

Dahil hindi kailan man kokontrahin ng sumulat ng aklat ng Hebreo ang kaniyang sarili…

KRUKSI para hindi ka mapahiya , basahin mu ang buong aklat ng hebreo malalaman mu sagot maliban na lang kung hindi ka marunong umintindi.

pansin mu iginaguide na kita? ganyan ako nahahabag sayo  :laugh:  kaya   :cool2: ka lang.

tungkol sa INFALLIBILITY ng papa


according to the will of christ,the chuech has the to teach his reveald word this power to teach INFALLIBILITY, WHICH MEANS THAT CHURCH CANNOT TEACH FALSE DOCTRINE or lead the faithful into ways not pleasing to god.

Book: WHAT IS A CATHOLIC
P.56
BY: PAUL HALLET


 :whistle:  :bicycle:  sagasado :tawanan:


2
[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]
talagang mas mababa sya sa anghel kasi nagkatawang tao nga sya. puro english po kasi kaya hindi nyo po maintindihan.MGA TAGA FILIPOS 2:5-6-7-8 mangagkaroon kayo sa inyong pag iisip na itoy na kay Cristo Jesus din naman: na siya bagamat nasa anyong dios, ay hindi nya inaring isang bagay na nararapat panangnan ang pagkapantay nya sa dios, kundi bagkus hinubad nya ito at naganyong alipin, na nakitulad sa mga tao: at palibhasay nasumpungan sa anyong tao, siyay nagpakababa sa kaniyang sarili, na nagmasunurin hanggang sa kamatayan, oo, sa kamatayan sa krus.
MAY tanong po ako sa mga ANTI CHRIST dito. sino ang dios na nagpakita kay Abraham at Moises bago sila naging mga propeta?
nono alam niu ba kung sinu si genreal constantine o emperor constatine noong taong  274 to 337 A.D.?
basahin lang po ninyo ito.
Quote
"Did Constantine decide what books belonged in the Bible?"

Answer: It is very important to clarify exactly what role the Emperor Constantine played in the Council of Nicea, what the purpose for the council was, what happened at Nicea, and briefly how the canon—the Bible as we know it—was formed. Constantine was a Roman Emperor who lived from 274 to 337 A.D. He is most famous for becoming the single ruler of the Roman Empire (after deceiving and defeating Licinius, his brother-in-law) and supposedly converting to Christianity. It is debated whether or not Constantine was actually a believer (according to his confessions and understanding of the faith) or just someone trying to use the church and the faith to his own advantage. Constantine called the Council of Nicea—the first general council of the Christian church, 325 A.D.—primarily because he feared that disputes within the church would cause disorder within the empire. The dispute in mind was Arianism, which was the belief that Jesus was a created being. The famous phrase they were disputing was, "There was when He was not." This was in reference to Jesus and was declared heretical by the council and thus resulted in the following words about Christ in the Nicene Creed: "God from true God…from the Father…not made." It was determined by the council that Christ was homoousia, meaning, one substance with the Father.

Concerning manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine, there is really no mention of such a thing actually happening at the order of Constantine or at the Council of Nicea. The Arian party's document claiming Christ to be a created being, was abandoned by them because of the strong resistance to it and was torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council. Constantine, and the Council of Nicea, for that matter, had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397, sixty years after Constantine's death. However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical—Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.

Liberal scholars and fictional authors like to purport the idea that the gospels of Thomas and Peter (and other long-disputed books) contain truths that the church vehemently stomped out, but that simply has no basis historically. It is closer to the truth to say that no serious theologians really cared about these books because they were obviously written by people lying about authorship and had little basis in reality. That is one reason why a council declaring the canon was so late in coming (397 AD), because the books that were trusted and the ones that had been handed down were already widely known.
panu yan mga bro? magising na kau sa katotohanan dahil lang pala naman kay constantine.MAKIKITA YAN SA WORLD HSITORY
linigaw lang kau ng paniniwala niu at mga parit'pastor mga bro.mga pari nag at pastor nag sipasuk sila ngayun sa islam dahil nalaman nila ang tunay na katotohanan, kayanga sa ngayun hindi imposible sa mga 2050 sa pilipinas ay maging muslim na ang mga tao nito.

3
Humanities / Re: Tunay na relihiyon (Paniniwala at Katotohanan!)
« Message by James307 on 09-06-17 03:31 PM »
: "Why are there so many Christian denominations?"

Answer: To answer this question, we must first differentiate between denominations within the body of Christ and non-Christian cults and false religions. Presbyterians and Lutherans are examples of Christian denominations. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are examples of cults (groups claiming to be Christian but denying one or more of the essentials of the Christian faith). Islam and Buddhism are entirely separate religions.

The rise of denominations within the Christian faith can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation, the movement to “reform” the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th century, out of which four major divisions or traditions of Protestantism would emerge: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. From these four, other denominations grew over the centuries.

The Lutheran denomination was named after Martin Luther and was based on his teachings. The Methodists got their name because their founder, John Wesley, was famous for coming up with “methods” for spiritual growth. Presbyterians are named for their view on church leadership—the Greek word for elder is presbyteros. Baptists got their name because they have always emphasized the importance of baptism. Each denomination has a slightly different doctrine or emphasis from the others, such as the method of baptism; the availability of the Lord’s Supper to all or just to those whose testimonies can be verified by church leaders; the sovereignty of God vs. free will in the matter of salvation; the future of Israel and the church; pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture; the existence of the “sign” gifts in the modern era, and so on. The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word.

Denominations today are many and varied. The original “mainline” denominations mentioned above have spawned numerous offshoots such as Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, independent Bible churches, and others. Some denominations emphasize slight doctrinal differences, but more often they simply offer different styles of worship to fit the differing tastes and preferences of Christians. But make no mistake: as believers, we must be of one mind on the essentials of the faith, but beyond that there is great deal of latitude in how Christians should worship in a corporate setting. This latitude is what causes so many different “flavors” of Christianity. A Presbyterian church in Uganda will have a style of worship much different from a Presbyterian church in Colorado, but their doctrinal stand will be, for the most part, the same. Diversity is a good thing, but disunity is not. If two churches disagree doctrinally, debate and dialogue over the Word may be called for. This type of “iron sharpening iron” (Proverbs 27:17) is beneficial to all. If they disagree on style and form, however, it is fine for them to remain separate. This separation, though, does not lift the responsibility Christians have to love one another (1 John 4:11-12) and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).

The Downside of Christian Denominations:

There seems to be at least two major problems with denominationalism. First, nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity. Thus, the second problem is that history tells us that denominationalism is the result of, or caused by, conflict and confrontation which leads to division and separation. Jesus told us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This general principle can and should be applied to the church. We find an example of this in the Corinthian church which was struggling with issues of division and separation. There were those who thought that they should follow Paul and those who thought they should follow the teaching of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 1:12, "What I am saying is this: each of you says, “I’m with Paul,” or “I’m with Apollos,” or “I’m with Cephas,” or “I’m with Christ.” This alone should tell you what Paul thought of denominations or anything else that separates and divides the body. But let’s look further; in verse 13, Paul asks very pointed questions, "Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name?” This makes clear how Paul feels, he (Paul) is not the Christ, he is not the one crucified and his message has never been one that divides the church or would lead someone to worship Paul instead of Christ. Obviously, according to Paul, there is only one church and one body of believers and anything that is different weakens and destroys the church (see verse 17). He makes this point stronger in 3:4 by saying that anyone who says they are of Paul or of Apollos is carnal.

Some of the problems we are faced with today as we look at denominationalism and its more recent history:

1. Denominations are based on disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture. An example would be the meaning and purpose of baptism. Is baptism a requirement for salvation or is it symbolic of the salvation process? There are denominations on both sides of this issue. In fact, baptism – its meaning, its mode, who can receive it, etc. – has been a central issue in the separation of churches and forming of new denominations.

2. Disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture are taken personally and become points of contention. This leads to arguments which can and have done much to destroy the witness of the church.

3. The church should be able to resolves its differences inside the body, but once again history tells us that this doesn’t happen. Today the media uses our differences against us to demonstrate that we are not unified in thought or purpose.

4. Denominations are used by man out of self-interest. There are denominations today that are in a state of self-destruction as they are being led into apostasy by those who are promoting their personal agendas.

5. The value of unity is found in the ability to pool our gifts and resources to promote the Kingdom to a lost world. This runs contrary to divisions caused by denominationalism.

What is a believer to do? Should we ignore denominations, should we just not go to church and worship on our own at home? The answer to both questions is no. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, where you as an individual can have a personal relationship with the Lord, where you can join in biblical ministries that are spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually. Pick a church on the basis of its relationship to Christ and how well it is serving the community. Pick a church where the pastor is preaching the Gospel without fear and is encouraged to do so. As believers, there are certain basic doctrines that we must believe, but beyond that there is latitude on how we can serve and worship; it is this latitude that is the only good reason for denominations. This is diversity and not disunity. The first allows us to be individuals in Christ, the latter divides and destroys.

Recommended Resource: Complete Guide to Christian Denominations: Understanding the History, Beliefs, and Differences by Ron Rhodes

4
Wala akong sinabing perpekto ang mga Pastor pero wag tayong mag generalize na lahat ng Pastor ay iisa o pareho kasi may fake pastor.

Anyway waste of time makipag usap kay kingron walang sense ang post at biblical proof na mas malinaw about Apostolic succession.

Apostolic Succession
Catholics are taught that Peter was the first Pope and that there has been a succession, one after the other, of Popes that followed Peter. One excellent example of this is found within the foyer of many Catholic churches. As you walk in the front door, there are a series of large plaques that dominate the main wall. On each plaque is the name of a Pope. Starting with the current living Pope, they trace the names of every Pope sequentially back in history to Apostle Peter, who they claim was the first Pope. Yet the office of Pope did not exist for the first 600 years of history. Such displays are a powerful deception to the masses, for historically and Biblically this is simply untrue.
The Catholic church prides itself as the original church that Jesus started in 33 AD and that all other denominations broke away from them and are therefore deviant. Catholics are led to believe from their priests, that if they were transported back in time to 100 A.D, they would be able to attend a Catholic church just like to day. The facts of history, however, paint an entirely different picture, because the Roman Catholic church, in its present organizational structure, did not exist prior to 606 A.D.
Click to View
Examining Catholic Successors
The aim of this study is to carefully examine the Scriptures regarding the Roman Catholic claim of successors. As in all our writings, our purpose is not to stir up hatred or to create strife. We wish only to make an honest inquiry regarding the validity of the successor doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church. Our intent is to secure an accurate knowledge of God's truth that we might abide therein. We ask our readers to investigate with open minds and honest hearts the things presented. God requires this of everyone. "Test all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thess. 5:21).

All scriptural quotations in this work are from authorized Catholic translations (from the Confraternity Version unless otherwise indicated), and all quotes are from authorized Catholic books. Ones which bear the "Nihil obstat" (nothing hinders) and the "Imprimatur" (let it be printed). A complete bibliography is furnished at the close of this document.

Click to View

Apostolic Authority
In this age, God speaks to us through His Son, Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1-2). Christ spoke the words and commandments given to Him from the Father (John 12:49-50). We are to hear Jesus, not Moses or Elijah (Mark 9:2-8). Christ is the mediator of the New Testament (Heb. 9:15-17). Christ is that great prophet who was to come (Deut. 18:15,19; Acts 3:22-23). The name of Jesus is the only name by which we can be saved (Acts 4:12). We cannot reject His word and be guiltless (John 12:48). God, therefore, makes known His will to us today through His Son.

Jesus makes known God's will through His apostles and prophets. Christ gave the same words and commandments that He received from the Father to His twelve apostles (John 17:6-8, 17-20). He promised them the Holy Spirit who would remind them of all He had said and would guide them into all truth. He said, "These things I have spoken to you while yet dwelling with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your mind whatever I have said to you." (John 14:25-26; see also 14:16-17). Furthermore, Jesus said, "But when the advocate has come, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness concerning me. And you also bear witness, because from the beginning you are with me." (John 15:26-27; see also 16:13-14). From the foregoing passages, we learn two important facts: (1) The promise of the Holy Spirit was to the apostles only. They were the ones to whom Jesus was speaking; they were the ones who had been with Him from the beginning. (2) The Holy Spirit would be in them and would enable them to teach all the truth concerning the will of God.

The apostles were to wait in Jerusalem to receive the Holy Spirit as was promised. "And I send forth upon you the promise of my Father. But wait here in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:49). "And while eating with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, 'of which you have heard,' said he, 'by my mouth; for John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence.' " (Acts 1:4-5). "...You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you..." (Acts 1:8). All of this was in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies which said, "...The law shall come forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." (Isa. 2:3; Micah 4:2).

The apostles received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:1-4 and "began to speak in foreign tongues, even as the Holy Spirit prompted them to speak." (Verse 4). Thus, they began to proclaim by inspiration the will or law of God as Jesus had declared in the words, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18). What Jesus said to Peter concerning binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), He also said to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). The meaning is not that the binding and loosing would come from their own devising--God alone is the lawgiver (James 4:12) and His word is forever firmly fixed in the heavens (Psalm 119:89)--but with the Holy Spirit guiding them they would proclaim the things God wanted bound and loosed. For example, they declared what God bound for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), and what God loosed--"...Delivered me from the law of sin and death" (Rom. 8:2). This principle is expressed in Matt. 10:20 which says, "...For it is not you who are speaking, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks through you."

Jesus also said to His apostles, "Receive the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (John 20:22-23). Again, the meaning is not that they would forgive and retain sins in and of themselves. They would not from their own devising arbitrarily say to one "your sins are forgiven" and to another "your sins are retained." The action they were to take was conditioned upon the expression, "Receive the Holy Spirit." By the possession of the Holy Spirit, therefore, they would be enabled to forgive and retain sins.

When the apostles received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), they began to do as the Lord had said. For example, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins..." (Acts 2:38). This and other similar passages are inspired examples of how their authority to forgive sins was exercised. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they laid down the conditions by which sins are forgiven. If we do as they commanded, our sins are forgiven, if we do not, our sins are retained. Since this is the only thing revealed in the New Testament concerning their power to forgive and retain sins, this constitutes the full extent of their authority in this matter.

Up to the point as recorded in Acts 2, only the twelve had obtained the ability to speak by the inspiration of God. Verse 14 of Acts 2 shows that Peter, standing with the eleven, declared that the gift which they had received was in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Verse 43 says, "And fear came upon every soul; many wonders also and signs were done by means of the apostles in Jerusalem, and great fear came upon all." Consequently, the apostles up to this point were the only ones who had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. God worked with them by giving them the power to work miracles. Mark 16:20 says, "But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the preaching by the signs that followed." (See also Heb. 2:3-4).

As we read a little farther in the book of Acts we see how New Testament prophets were made. The first account of someone besides an apostle working a miracle is that of Stephen. "Now Stephen, full of grace and power, was working great wonders and signs among the people." (Acts 6:8). Stephen, as well as Philip, was of the seven on whom the apostles had laid their hands. "These they set before the apostles, and after they had prayed they laid their hands upon them." (Acts 6:6). As we read still farther, we see that Philip is the next person who was able to work miracles. "And Philip went down to the city of Samaria and preached the Christ to them. And the crowds with one accord gave heed to what was said by Philip, listening to him and seeing the miracles that he worked." (Acts 8:5-6).

Although Philip was a New Testament prophet and could work miracles, he was unable to give the Holy Spirit to others. Only the apostles were empowered with that ability. Acts 8:14-19 says, "Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John. On their arrival they prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for as yet he had not come upon any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. But when Simon saw that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, 'Give me also this power, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.' "

Please notice that the Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands. This is the only way New Testament prophets were made and the prophets themselves were unable to give the Spirit to others. Philip could not give the Holy Spirit to the people of Samaria. Some apostles, Peter and John, had to be sent from Jerusalem before that could be done. When an apostle laid his hands on someone, he received miraculous powers. Acts 19:6 says, "And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they began to speak in tongues and to prophesy." Cornelius and his household received the "like gift" as the apostles for the specific purpose of God's acceptance of the Gentiles into the New Covenant (Acts 11:14-18).

Thus, we have shown that the apostles were the only ones who were to receive the power from on high and were to wait in Jerusalem for it (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8). This power enabled them to speak in tongues, prophesy and work miracles (Acts 2:4,43). Also, it gave them the ability to transmit the Holy Spirit by laying their hands on others. New Testament prophets were made in this manner and they also could speak in tongues, prophesy and work miracles but could not pass on the power to others (Acts 8:4-6; 14-19).

Click to View

Apostolic Succession
We will now notice several quotations from Catholic sources which assert that the present day officials in the Catholic Church are successors to the apostles. Please notice the following:

"There is no just ground for denying to the Apostolic teachers of the nineteenth century in which we live a prerogative clearly possessed by those of the first, especially as the Divine Word nowhere intimates that this unerring guidance was to die with the Apostles. On the contrary, as the Apostles transmitted to their successors their power to preach, to baptize, to ordain, to confirm, etc., they must also have handed down to them the no less essential gift of infallibility." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 54).
Please notice, first of all, that the Catholic writer says, "There is no just ground for denying to the Apostolic teachers of the nineteenth century in which we live a prerogative clearly possessed by those of the first..." In other words, he is saying there is no just ground for denying that the present day teachers in the Catholic Church are successors to the apostles. We claim that there is just ground for denying it. No one is a successor to the apostles and has their authority today because no one is inspired by the Holy Spirit today. The possession of the Spirit is the factor that determined the apostles' authority. They had the power to bind and loose, forgive and retain, because God was speaking through them. On that basis only were they enabled to unerringly deliver God's message to mankind. How can anyone claim to have authority such as theirs, being their successors, when not inspired by the Holy Spirit?

Furthermore, the apostles and those on whom they laid their hands could speak with tongues, prophesy and work miracles. They worked miracles to demonstrate their authority, to show that they were indeed inspired of God. In defense of his own authority, Paul said, "Indeed, the signs of the apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in miracles and wonders and deeds of power." (2 Cor. 12:12). No one can work miracles today as they did; thus, no one is inspired today and no one has the same authority today.

Secondly, the Catholic writer said, "...The Divine Word nowhere intimates that this unerring guidance was to die with the apostles." We agree that the unerring guidance was not to die with the apostles. However, we must inquire, "In what way is the unerring guidance transmitted or handed down to us today?" The Scriptures affirm that we receive it through the inspired writings of the apostles and prophets. The Catholic official, however, tries to show that it is handed down through men as successors of the apostles and prophets. He affirmed that the Divine Word nowhere indicates that it was not to be transmitted to their successors. In reality, the opposite is true. The Divine Word nowhere indicates that it was to be transmitted to successors.

A look at the qualifications of the apostles reveal they would not have successors. An apostle had to be an eye-witness of Christ. (See Acts 1:15-26). Paul defended his apostleship by saying, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1). The apostles were indeed witnesses in the fullest sense. They were the eye-witnesses, carefully chosen by the Lord, who would witness to mankind what they saw and heard concerning Jesus. Acts 1:8 says, "...But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the very ends of the earth." The Lord said to Paul, "...I have appeared to thee for this purpose, to appoint thee to be a minister and a witness to what thou hast seen, and to the visions thou shalt have of me." (Acts 26:16). Peter declared, "For we were not following fictitious tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eye-witnesses of his grandeur." (2 Pet. 1:16).

Realizing this important fact helps us to understand how the apostles witness to us today. They certainly do not do it through other ordained witnesses. It is impossible for one in our time to be a witness in the sense they were. Instead, it is through their writings--the holy Scriptures. The apostle John, in his introduction to his first epistle, declared that he was bearing witness to those things which they had heard, had seen with their eyes, and had touched with their hands, concerning the Word of life. John bore witness to those things by writing them for us. (See 1 John 1:1-4). The apostles' testimony given in their writings was to "all who call upon the name of our Lord in every place" (1 Cor. 1:2), and to "the faithful in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 1:1). The apostles witness to us today through their writings and this is the only way their unerring guidance is transmitted to the present.

Jesus prayed for unity of all those who would believe on Him through the word of the apostles. "Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in me." (John 17:20). In this prayer Jesus revealed how believers are to be made--through the apostles' word. Since we do not have the apostles present with us, we must inquire, "How are believers made through their word today?" It is not through their present day successors, but as John said, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31). Very simply, therefore, individuals were made believers at first as result of the inspired apostles witnessing to them while in their presence. Individuals are made believers today as result of the apostles witnessing through their inspired writings.

Click to View

Catholic Successors
We are taught of God not to go beyond the things which are written (1 Cor. 4:6). We must abide in the doctrine of Christ or we don't have God (2 John 9). We must not take from, add to, or pervert the gospel of Christ because doing so causes the curse of God to come upon us (Rev. 22:18-19; Gal. 1:6-9). Thus, if Catholics are to sustain their doctrine that the authority of the apostles was transmitted to authorized successors, they must produce the passages which openly and plainly reveal it. This they have not done. Please notice the following from a Catholic source:

"...The Christian faith has been taught, and was intended by its Divine founder to be taught, in all ages on the same plan that was adopted in the beginning; that is to say, by authorized human teachers, whose adherence to it has been secured by a special Divine assistance, as that of the apostles was in the beginning." (Plain Facts For Fair Minds, pp. 29-30).
The above Catholic writer affirms that the gospel was once in the inspired teachers and therefore must be learned from authorized human teachers today. No Bible was cited to prove his contention. The argument is unreasonable as well as unscriptural. We might as well argue that Adam and Eve were created and therefore "in all ages on the same plan that was adopted in the beginning" men are brought forth into the world today. However, we know that the miracle of creation was temporary and provisional; it was for that first pair alone. All others have come into the world by means of natural birth. In like manner the gospel was revealed by miracle to the apostles and prophets. The inspired word was for many years in the inspired men, but once the New Testament was completed and duly confirmed, the spiritual gifts that had brought the word and confirmed it ceased.

Notice the following quote from a Catholic source:

"The guidance of Christ was, therefore, to continue with their successors. This is clearly disclosed by the words of Christ: 'Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.' Since the Apostles were not to live until the end of the world, Christ promised to be with them in the person of their successors unto the end of time." (The Faith of Millions, p. 137).
The above Catholic writer quotes a passage of Scripture, Matt. 28:20, and declares that it discloses that the apostles were to have successors. Another Catholic writer quotes the same passage and asserts that Jesus was teaching that the church would never teach error. Please note the following:

"Why can't the Catholic Church ever teach error? Because Jesus promised to be always with His church to protect it from error. 'Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations...teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you: and behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world' (Matthew 28:19-20)." (A Catechism For Adults, p. 56).
Does it not seem strange that these Catholic officials can make the same passage teach two different doctrines when the passage says nothing about either? The promise of Christ was to the apostles and to them alone. In what way would He be with them to the end of the world? Notice the context. Just before He declared, "I am with you all days," he said, "...Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Thus, Christ would be with them in the teaching of His commandments. The apostles themselves would not remain forever, but their teachings, the commandments of Christ which they delivered, would. The same is taught in parallel passages. "For you have been reborn, not from corruptible seed but from incorruptible, through the word of God who lives and abides forever. For, 'All flesh is as grass, and all its glory as the flower of grass; the grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever.' Now this is the word of the gospel that was preached to you." (1 Pet. 1:23-25). Also, Christ would be with them always in the same sense He is with all faithful Christians. He dwells in them while they live here on earth (John 14:23), and after death they depart to be with Him (Phil. 1:21-23).

The following chart illustrates that Catholics are without Scriptural authority for their doctrine of successors.

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES

THAT WHICH THEY NEED BUT DON'T HAVE

Eph. 2:20, "...You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ himself as the chief corner stone."

"...You are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets AND THEIR SUCCESSORS with Christ himself as the chief corner stone."

Eph. 3:5, "...Now it has been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit."

"...Now it has been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets AND SUCCESSORS by the Spirit."

2 Cor. 5:20, "On behalf of Christ, therefore, we are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, appealing through us."

"One behalf of Christ, therefore, we AND OUR SUCCESSORS are acting as ambassadors, God, as it were, appealing through us."

1 John 4:6, "We are of God: he that knoweth God listens to us; he who is not of God does not listen to us."

"We are of God: he that knoweth God listens to us AND OUR SUCCESSORS; he who is not of God does not listen to us."

John 20:21-23, "As the Father has sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

"As the Father has sent me, I also send you AND YOUR SUCCESSORS. When he had said this, he breathed upon the, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you AND YOUR SUCCESSORS shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you AND YOUR SUCCESSORS shall retain, they are retained."

John 17:20, "Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their word are to believe in me."

"Yet not for these only do I pray, but for those also who through their AND THEIR SUCCESSORS' word are to believe in me."

If the Catholics are to sustain their idea of successors, they must produce the passages which plainly and openly reveal it. Anyone who teaches a doctrine not written in the Word of God incurs the displeasure and condemnation of God. Notice the following Scriptures:

"Now, brethren, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos by way of illustration for your sakes, that in our case you may learn not to be puffed up one against the other over a third party, transgressing what is written." (1 Cor. 4:6).
"Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in they name, and cast out devils in thy name, and work many miracles in thy name?' And then I will profess to them, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity!' " (Matt. 7:22-23).
"If anyone thinks that he is a prophet of spiritual, let him recognize that the things I am writing to you are the Lord's commandments." (1 Cor. 14:37).
"Anyone who advances and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ, has not God; he who abides in the doctrine, he has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 9).
Click to View

The Only Succession
The Catholics cannot produce the passages for their doctrine of successors because none exist. We have already shown that the apostles were the only ones who were to receive the power from on high and were to wait in Jerusalem for it (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8). This power enabled them to speak in tongues, prophesy, and work miracles (Acts 2:4,43). Also, it gave them the ability to transmit the Holy Spirit by laying their hands on others. New Testament prophets were made in this manner and they also could speak in tongues, prophesy, and work miracles, but could not pass the power to others (Acts 8:4-6, 14-19). The apostles and prophets, and they alone, were the chosen ambassadors of Christ through which we are reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20). They were chosen to reveal God's will to mankind (Eph. 3:5). We are to receive their word as the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13; 1 John 4:6). They are the foundation on which we are built (Eph. 2:20). They were selected to deliver "the faith" to mankind and it has once and for all been delivered (Jude 3). Their message has the promise of God to remain forever (1 Pet. 1:23-25).

When the apostles and prophets approached their deaths they did not give successors to take their places. Instead, they left their inspired writings. Peter said, "Moreover I will endeavor that even after my death you may often have occasion to call these things to mind." (2 Pet. 1:15). This would have been an excellent opportunity for Peter to tell us that he was leaving a successor through which we could recall the things of Christ, if indeed that was the truth regarding it. However, he said "This, beloved, is now the second epistle that I am writing to you wherein I stir up your pure mind to remembrance, that you may be mindful of what I formerly preached of the words of the holy prophets and of your apostles, which are the precepts of the Lord and Savior." (2 Pet. 3:1-2). Thus, Peter plainly declared that the things of Christ would be recalled through his writings. The inspired writings, therefore, are the only infallible succession that we have from the apostles and prophets.

The apostle Paul also demonstrated this fact. He said, "For I am already on the point of being sacrificed; the time of my departure has come." (2 Tim. 4:6; Catholic Edition RSV). Again, this would have been a wonderful opportunity for an apostle to teach that unerring guidance was to be handed down through their successors. He was writing to the young man Timothy who had received his spiritual guidance from him. Surely, if successors were to be ordained, he would have mentioned it to him so that he would know where to obtain unerring guidance. Or, if perhaps he had made Timothy his successor, surely he would have instructed him regarding it in order that he and others would know about it. However, there is no hint whatsoever of successors as this apostle approaches death. On the contrary, he points Timothy, as well as all men, to the sacred writings which the inspired men left us:

"For from thy infancy thou hast known the Sacred Writings, which are able to instruct thee unto salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim. 3:15-17).
Please notice the following quotations from Catholic sources:

"Jesus sends forth the Apostles with plenipotentiary powers to preach the Gospel. 'As the Father,' He says, 'hath sent me, I also send you.' (John 20:21). 'Going therefore, teach all nations, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' (Matt. 28:19-20). 'Preach the Gospel to every creature.' (Mark 16:15). 'Ye shall be witnesses unto Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth.' (Acts 1:8).
"This commission evidently applies not to the Apostles only, but also to their successors, to the end of time, since it was utterly impossible for the Apostles personally to preach to the whole world." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 56).
"Since it was physically impossible for the Apostles to preach to the whole world, the mission must have been intended also for their successors to the end of time, our Catholic Bishops and priests." (My Catholic Faith, p. 145).
As before, the above Catholic writers assume that our Lord's words to the apostles demand successors. Their whole doctrine of successors is based on this assumption. The words of Jesus were spoken to the apostles only. There is no mention of successors in the verses. As Jesus had commanded them, the apostles went into all the world and preached the gospel to every creature. The apostle Paul said concerning the gospel, "It has been preached to every creature under heaven..." (Col. 1:23). The task of unerringly revealing the gospel was completed by the apostles and their many helpers, those on whom they laid their hands, the New Testament prophets. The apostles and prophets still witness and preach to the world today through their writings. John said, "But these are written that you may believe..." (John 20:31), and "What we have seen and heard we announce to you...And these things we write to you..." (1 John 1:3-4). Furthermore, Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). Thus, the apostles and prophets by means of inspiration delivered our Lord's words to mankind and they will remain forever.

It seems very strange and odd that the successor of a king is a king, the successor of a president is a president, and the successor of a governor is a governor, but the successor of an apostles is a Catholic bishop or priest!

Click to View

Inheritors Of Authority?
Please notice the following quotation from a Catholic source:

"Christ conferred upon the Apostles the power to forgive sins: 'Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven, they are forgiven.' (John 20:23). St. Paul mirrors the faith of the Apostolic Church when he writes: 'God hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation.' (II Cor. 5:18).
"As the inheritors of the power and authority of the apostles, the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church exercise the ministry of reconciliation, forgiving penitent sinners in the name of Jesus Christ." (The Faith of Millions, pp. 71-72)
"Did Christ intend that THIS POWER should BE EXERCISED BY THE APOSTLES ALONE?
"No, Christ intended that this power should be exercised also by their successors, the bishops of church." (My Catholic Faith, p. 107)
"Christ had given the Apostles full powers to choose successors, when He gave them the powers His Father had given Him (John 20:21).
"It was the command of Christ that the Apostles should have successors to continue the Church, which He said would last till the end of the world. (Matt. 28:20). Without successors to the Apostles, the Church would have no rulers, and being unorganized would never have lasted." (Ibid., p. 107).
As one can see from he above, Catholics claim that the present day bishops and priests in the Catholic Church are successors to the apostles, being inheritors of their power and authority. This cannot be true. The Catholic bishops and priests were not promised the power from on high nor commanded to wait in Jerusalem to receive it (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4,8). They have no authority because they are not inspired of the Holy Spirit nor are they eyewitnesses of Jesus (John 20:22-23; Acts 1:8, 21-26). They cannot prove their authority by speaking in tongues, prophesying and working miracles (2 Cor. 12:12). They are not the chosen ambassadors who were selected to deliver God's message or "the faith" to mankind (Eph. 3:3-4; Jude 3). Moreover, they cannot be successors to the apostles and prophets because the only infallible succession to them are the inspired writings (2 Pet. 1:15; 3:1; 2 Tim. 3:14-17).

The words of Christ quoted by the above Catholic writers were addressed the apostles only. They were not addressed to Catholic bishops and priests and it is sinful and wrong to apply the passage to them. This is done repeatedly in the Catholic Church as they try to prove their man made doctrine of successors. It was done by the above Catholic writers as he made reference to John 20:21-23; Matt. 28:20 and 2 Cor. 5:18. None of the passages made mention of successors nor referred to successors. They referred to the apostles and prophets only, and to apply them to anyone else is to twist and pervert the word of God. The wrath of God rests on all those who do such (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 John 9; Rev. 22:18-19).

Catholic officials confuse the present Catholic bishops with the New Testament bishops. Notice the following:

"The Apostles chose men to assist them, imparting to them greater or less powers. Before leaving a place, they chose a successor with full powers (Acts 14:22).
"Those who received only a small part of the powers of the apostles were called deacons. Those given greater power were called priests. Those appointed successors to rule in the place of the Apostles were the bishops." (My Catholic Faith, p. 107).
The New Testament bishops were not successors to the apostles nor did they in any way resemble present day Catholic bishops. Their qualifications are clearly disclosed in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. We quote Paul's words to Timothy here for you careful consideration:

"This saying is true: If anyone is eager for the office of bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher, not a drinker or a brawler, but moderate, not quarrelsome, not avaricious. He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God? He must not be a new convert, lest he be puffed up with pride and incur the condemnation passed on the devil. Besides this he must have a good reputation with those who are outside, that he may not fall into disgrace and into a snare of the devil." (1 Tim. 3:1-7).
A study of New Testament bishops, first of all, reveals they had to be married men. 1 Tim. 3:2 says, "It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behavior, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher..." (Catholic Rheims Translation). "Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..." (1 Tim. 3:2; Catholic Revised Standard Version). Also, a bishop had to rule his own house well having his children in subjection (1 Tim. 3:4-5). The Catholic Church rejects the will of Christ in this matter. The inspired writers plainly revealed that among other things the great apostasy would "forbid marriage" (1 Tim. 4:1-3).

Secondly, the New Testament reveals that bishops are overseers of the local congregations. They were to be selected by each local church. They were to be "proved" or "tried" in view of the qualifications as were the deacons (1 Tim. 3:10). Deacons had no authority but were to "serve" in the local churches (1 Tim. 3:8-13). Once the bishops were selected, they were to oversee the local congregations wherein they had been chosen and ordained. Peter said to the bishops, "Tend the flock of God which is among you..." (1 Pet. 5:2). This was the extent of their oversight--overseeing only one church. The Catholic Church has changed the law of Christ in this matter also. Their bishops oversee not just one church but a whole diocese of churches. Paul showed that the great apostasy which was already underway in his time (2 Thess. 2:7) would begin among the bishops (Acts 20:28-31).

Thirdly, the New Testament disclosed that there was always a plurality of bishops in each local church. Acts 14:23 says, "In each church they installed presbyters and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith." (New Catholic Translation). Without exception there were always more than one bishop (or elder) in each church. Again, the Catholic Church has corrupted this form of governing as ordained by God. Instead of having several bishops (or elders) overseeing one church, they have one bishop overseeing several churches. The Council of Nicia in Cannon 8 forbad having more than one bishop in a city (Disciplinary a Decrees of the General Councils, p. 34).

Click to View

Catholic Mis-Translation
In the New Testament the words "elder," "bishop," or "pastor" are used interchangeably. The three terms refer to the same office which God placed in the local churches. Here is a list of the three words:

(1) Presbyter, or Elder - Acts 14:23; 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; 1 Pet. 5:1. It is translated from the Greek word presbuteros.

(2) Bishop, or Overseer - Acts 20:28; Titus 1:7; 1 Tim. 3:1; Phil. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:2. From the Greek word episkopos.

(3) Pastor, Shepherd, Tend, or Feed - Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; Eph. 4:11. From the Greek word poimen.

We mention again that all of the above terms refer to the same office because they are used interchangeably. Some passages use all three terms interchangeably in the same context, e.g., Acts 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1-3. We call your attention to the fact that the term "priest" (Gr. hiereus) is not among those synonymous terms, nor is it ever applied to the office of bishop or elder. The Catholic Church confuses this matter by saying that a "presbyter" is one official and a "bishop" is another. For example, "The word 'priest' is derived from the Greek presbyter..." (My Catholic Faith, p. 129). This is another example of their twisting of the Scriptures to prove their own doctrine. The Greek word "presbyter" does not mean "priest" and no reputable Greek scholar has ever rendered it as such. The word simply means "an old man, an elder." He had to have "believing children" (Titus 1:6), and, thus, only older men were qualified.

Catholic officials in their translations of Scripture insert the word "priest" into verses where it does not belong. In the Catholic Rheims Version, Acts 14:23 is translated, "And when they had ordained to them priests in every church..." All reputable Versions of the Scriptures, the King James, New King James, American Standard, New American Standard, etc., render this verse, "And when they had ordained elders in every church..." The word used in the verse is "presbuteros," which mean "elders" and not the word "hiereus" which is "priests." When one checks all the Greek texts, he finds that no variations exist; each contain the word "presbuteros." We can only conclude, therefore, that the Catholic Hierarchy inserted the word "priest" when the word "hiereus" wasn't there!

1 Tim. 5:17,19 - "Let the priests that rule well, be esteemed worthy of double honor...Against a priest receive not an accusation, but under two or three witnesses." (Catholic Rheims Version). This is another devious attempt to give Scriptural support to the Catholic priesthood. In both of the foregoing verses, the word "priest," singular or plural, is a mis-translation. The Greek text used the word "presbuteros" in one of its forms which is correctly rendered, "elder" or "elders."

James 5:14 - "Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priest of the church..." (Catholic Rheims Version). Again, the word "presbuteros" is the term used and "elders" is the correct translation. It is abundantly clear that the Catholic Church will stoop to any level, even to the changing of the Word of God, in order to sustain its priesthood.

To summarize regarding New Testament bishops or elders, God commanded that a plurality of them be chosen and appointed in each local church (Acts 14:23; Acts 20:17,28). They had to be married men (1 Tim. 3:2) with believing children (Titus 1:6) and were to oversee only one church (1 Pet. 5:2). These are the only bishops ordained by God in the New Testament and, thus, are the only type which exist with His authority and sanction.

Click to View

New Testament Bishops
Qualifications for New Testament bishops are clearly disclosed in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. New Testament bishops, first of all, had to be married men. 1 Tim. 3:2 says, "It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behavior, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher..." (Catholic Rheims Translation). "Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife..." (1 Tim. 3:2; Catholic Revised Standard Version). Also, a bishop had to rule his own house well, having his children in subjection (1 Tim. 3:4-5).

Secondly, the New Testament reveals that bishops are overseers of the local congregations. They were to be selected by each local church. They were to be "proved" or "tried" in view of the qualifications as were the deacons (1 Tim. 3:10). Deacons had no authority but were to "serve" in the local churches (1 Tim. 3:8-13). Once the bishops were selected, they were to oversee the local congregations wherein they had been chosen and ordained. Peter said to the bishops, "Tend the flock of God which is among you..." (1 Pet. 5:2). This was the extent of their oversight--overseeing only one church.

Thirdly, the New Testament disclosed that there was always a plurality of bishops in each local church. Acts 14:23 says, "In each church they installed presbyters and, with prayer and fasting, commended them to the Lord in whom they had put their faith." (New Catholic Translation). There are three passages in the New Testament which use the terms "presbyter" (elder) and "bishop" (overseer) interchangeably--Titus 1:5-9; Acts 20:17,28; 1 Pet. 5:1-2. Consequently, the terms refer to the same office which God placed in the local churches, and without exception there were always more than one in each church.

In summary, God commanded that a plurality of bishops be chosen and appointed in each local church (Acts 14:23). They had to be married men (1 Tim. 3:2) with believing children (Titus 1:6) and were to oversee only one church (1 Pet. 5:2). These are the only bishops ordained by God in the New Testament and, thus, are the only type which exist with His authority and sanction.

Click to View

Present Day Hierarchy
The New Testament plainly reveals that a great corruption from the simple form of government which God ordained would slowly develop (1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; 2 Thess. 2:1-11; Acts 20:28-31). The book entitled, My Catholic Faith lists the many offices in the present day hierarchy of the Catholic church.

"1. In organization the Church is like a vast army; the Pope, its visible head, is commander-in-chief of this army.
"2. Cardinals, appointed by the Pope, are his principal advisers and assistants in the government of the Church.
"3. Patriarch is a bishop who holds the highest rank after the Pope, in jurisdiction.
"4. An archbishop is the head of an archdiocese; a bishop of a diocese...
"5. Legates, nuncious, internucious, and apostolic delegates are representatives of the Holy Father.
"6. Titular archbishops and bishops are those who hold the title of a see that formerly existed.
"7. Honorary prelates are those with a title, but without jurisdiction." (My Catholic Faith, p. 129).
None of the above offices in the Catholic Church are mentioned in the New Testament of Christ. As we have shown, the New Testament does specify "bishops," but they in no way resembled present day Catholic bishops. There was always a plurality of men chosen and appointed in each local church (Acts 14:23). They had to be married men (1 Tim. 3:2) with believing children (Titus 1:6) and were to oversee only one church (1 Pet. 5:2). All of the above mentioned Catholic offices were slowly developed over a period of several hundred years. The following Catholic sources freely admit this.

"The divine institution of the threefold hierarchy cannot of course be derived from our text; in fact it cannot in anyway be proved directly from the New Testament; it is a Catholic dogma by virtue of the dogmatic tradition, i.e., in a later period of ecclesiastical history the general belief in the divine institutions of the episcopate, presbyteriate, and diaconate can be verified and thence followed on through the centuries. But the dogmatic truth cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strict historical testimony." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 334).
"The word (hierarchy, DJR) first occurs in the work of pseudo-Dionysis on Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies. The signification was gradually modified until it came to be what it is at the present. A hierarchy now signifies a body of officials disposed organically in ranks and orders, each subordinate to the one above it." (Catholic Dictionary, p. 402).
"In his (Paul's, DJR) opinion the words (presbuteros and episkopos, DJR) were at one time used one for the other, but there has been a gradual adaptation of names corresponding with the progressive evolution of the hierarchy..." (A Catholic Commentary, p. 1144).
"Some parts of the governmental system of the Catholic Church are of divine origin; and many of them are human institutions." (Externals of the Catholic Church, p. 19).
Consequently, the present hierarchy of the Catholic Church was not ordained by Christ. All the modern offices in Catholicism were developed over a period of many centuries by men who had no regard or respect for God's arrangement. With this thought in mind, consider the absurdity of the following "official" claims.

"History proves conclusively that the same doctrines were in the Church from the beginning." (Catholic Facts, p. 209).
"Has the Catholic Church ever changed its teaching? No, for 2,000 years the Church has taught the same thing which Jesus taught." (A Catechism For Adults, p. 57).
"It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church, from the twentieth century back to the first, has not once ceased to teach a doctrine on faith or morals previously held, and with the same interpretation; the Church has proved itself infallible." (My Catholic Faith, p. 145).


5
@Sunstriker

Sigurado ka?

"Was Saint Peter the first pope?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.

But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).

What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).

Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy










@Cycle19

Di ka naman siguro kasama dun noh niyahaha.







6
[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]
Salamat sir diego isa pa po. pinaka malaking kontrobersya inilantad po ng mismong assistant ng pope napanood ko po to sa balita di po to kumpleto ito lang po mga naalala ko sa balita na un
Una meron limpak limpak na pera ang katoliko hindi ito kaya ubusin hangang magunaw pa ang mundo bakit nanghihingi parin ng pera satin para saan?
2. bakit maraming gay na pari diba bawal to
3. Dito ako na shock may mga paring ng rarape,child abuse pero di sila nakukulong kung makulong man makakalaya din agad
Ung mga yan maykatotohanan po dahil galing mismo sa pinaka malapit sa pope ngaun pinalayas sya sa vatican at dina sya pwede bumalik opinion nyo po dito


Kung tama po ang aking pagkakaintindi sa tanong mo po ang iyo pong tinutukoy dito ay iyong tungkol po sa Vatileaks scandal. Bale ito po yung eskandalong lumabas noong nakaraang taon po lamang kung saan ang inbolb po sa usaping ito ay iyon pong personal na butler ng nuon ay papa na si Pope Benedict XVI na si Paolo Gabriele. Tungkol po ito sa sinasabing mga dokumento ng pakikipag-usap ni Benedict XVI sa kanyang sekretarya sa estado at maging nang kanyang mga talaan na ginawang malikidahan ni Gabriele sa pamamagitan ng pagpapaabot nito sa isang Italyanong mamahayag na pinangalanang Gianluigi Nuzzi, na kalaunan ay naglabas po ng librong tungkol dito na may titulong His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI (Sua Santità: Le carte segrete di Benedetto XVI). Pero ano nga po ba ang mayroon sa mga dokumento at talaan (memo) na ito na nalikida ni Gabriele? At meron bang motibo sa likod ng pagnanakaw at pagpapalabas ng mga nasabing impormasyon?

Sa unang tanong ay tangin espekulasyon lamang po ang ating masasabi, subalit, ang espekulasyong ito ay importante rin pong mabanggit para narin po maunawaan natin kung anong mga posibleng nilalaman nga ng mga ito. Bale ang isa sa mga sinasabing laman ng nabanggit na mga impormasyong nilikidahan ay ang hindi kilalang dokumento, nanakasulat sa wikang Aleman, na nagbibigay deskripsyon po sa naging pakikipag-uusap daw ni Cardinal Paolo Romeo ng Palermo, Sicily, na pinapakiwaring nangyari sa naging paglalakbay niya sa Tsina, kung saan kanya daw pong binigyang prediksyon na ang nuo'y papa na si Benedict XVI ay papanaw daw po sa loob ng labing-dalawang buwan (12) at papalitan ng kardinal na si Angelo Scola ng Milan. Ang nasabing dokumento ay sinasabing ipinaabot daw po ng nagretiro ng kardinal ng Colombia na si Cardinal Dar'o Castrillón Hoyos sa papa. Maliban po dito, ang isa pang sinasabing kasama sa mga dokumentong natagpuan sa inuupahan ni Gabriele ay ang tungkol sa pagpapakawala daw ng Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR) ng mahigit ilang milyong Euros sa mga banko sa ibang bansa para matakasan ang ginagawang pagkontrol ng gobyerno ng Italya, at maiwasan narin ang paghabol nito. At pinakahuling naman na sinasabing kasama sa mga dokumentong ito ay ang tungkol po sa ipinadala daw na sulat ni dating Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, sa papa at sa sekretarya ng Estado na si Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, na nagrereklamo daw po sa nangyayaring korapsyon sa pinansyal ng Vatican at sa inilunsad na depamasyon laban sa kanya.

Bale ano o alin nga ba ang totoo dito? Ang una ay pinapaniwalaan na bahagi lamang ng plano para pababain ang katayuan ng kardinal na si Angelo Scola, yamang nung mga panahong iyon ay isa po siya sa mga kasama sa pinagpipiliang maging susunod na papa. Maliban dito, ang pagpapalabas ng nasabing hindi kilalang dokumento ay para daw po sirain ang unti-unti ng umaayos na ugnayan sa pagitan ng Vatican at nang gobyerno ng Tsina. Ang tungkol naman po sa pangalawa ay tatalakayin ko po pagpinaliwanag ko na po ang tungkol sa Institute for the Works of Religion o sa tanong mo po tungkol sa pagkakaroon ng limpak limpak na pera ng Vatican. Ang ikatlo at pang-huling nabanggit ko po ay iyong tungkol sa sulat ni Viganò na pinaniniwalaan po (hal. nang senior respondent ng NCR na si John L. Allen) na nilikidahan ng isang malapit sa kanya, na hindi parin daw po matanggap na tinanggal ito at inilipat sa ibang lugar - sa Amerika kung saan siya ngayon ang Apostolic Nuncio sa Estados Unidos. Ang rasong ito ay katanggap-tanggap. Bakit? Dahil nung panahon na bago po nailipat si Viganò ay sya po ang may hawak ng ikalawang posisyon, una si Bertano, bilang sekretarya ng Estado sa Vatican at desperado na syang mapanatili daw po ito.

Ngayon ano ba ang naging reaksyon ng papa dito? Bale ang kanya pong naging tugon sa nasabing eskandalo ay ibinigay po niya noong ika-tatlongpu (30) ng Mayo 2012. Ang komento ni Benedict XVI ay kinapapalooban po ng sumusunod na mensahe:


"The events of recent days about the Curia and my collaborators have brought sadness in my heart [...] I want to renew my trust in and encouragement of my closest collaborators and all those who every day, with loyalty and a spirit of sacrifice and in silence, help me fulfill my ministry."


Sa nabanggit pong komentong ito, ang nagbigay kalungkutan po sa dating papa ay hindi ang nasabing pagkawala ng tiwala nito sa kanyang mga kritiko, kundi, ayon po kay John L. Allen, Jr, sa kanyang malalapit na kaibigan.[1] Dahil una, ang ilan sa mga tauhan pa po mismo sa Vatican ang syang gumagatong sa eskandalo na syang lalong nagpapalala nito. Pero sino nga po ba ang mas maapektuhan sa nasabing eskandalo? Sa totoo lang po ang pinakamaapaektuhan nito ay hindi ang papa kundi ang kanyang sekretarya ng estado na si dating Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. Bakit? May dalawang rason po dito na kailangan po nating bigyang punto. Una, malaki ang tiwala ng dating papa sa kakayahan ni Bertone kaya't sinuportahan niya ito. Sa katunayan po, si Benedict XVI ang syang nagtalaga dito bilang Cardinal Secretary of State kapalit ni Angelo Sodano noong ika-abente dos (22) ng Hunyo 2006. Maliban pa dito, itinalaga rin siya nung una bilang Carmerlengo of the Holy Roman Church (o Chamberlain). Kaya't ang bagsak ng nasabing kontrobesya ay nakasentro sa kanya, dahil ang tiwala ng papa ay nakaatang sa kanyang mga balikat. Kinikwestiyon kasi ng mga kritiko ni Bertone kung may kakayahan ba siyang tumayo sa mga nasabing posisyon, lalo na nung nagkaroon ng desisyon sa pag-alis ng ekskomunikasyon sa dating traditionalist na Obispo nung 2009, na itinuturing na isang malaking dagok at nagpakita ng kanyang kahinaan bilang sekretarya ng estado.

Base naman po sa naging obserbasyon po nila Robert Mickens, John L. Allen at Dr. William Oddie, iba ang rason kung bakit inilabas ang nilikadahang mga dokumento. Oo nga't si Bertone po ang tinatarget nito, subalit sa iba pa daw pong dahilan. May ilang mga teorya na nabuo na kaya gustong mapatalsik si Bertone, nang mga taong sabik sa kapanyarihan, ay dahil sa hindi daw siya maalam pagdating sa diplomasya kaya malaking tanong sa kanila'y bakit itinalaga daw po ito? Sa puntong ito akin pong sisipiin ang ibinigay na paliwanag po ng Italyanong mamahayag na si Andrea Gagliarducci sa kanyang naging artikulo sa MondayVatican tungkol dito. Narito po ang ilang bahagi nito


Let’s make a step back in the past. In June 2006, the Pope had to announce that – after his return to Rome from his trip to Bavaria – his first act of governance will be the change of the Secretary of State, with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone replacing Cardinal Angelo Sodano.

… Many in the Curia were discontent. Bertone not only was not a career diplomat – as almost all the secretaries of state have been in recent centuries – but he came from the ranks of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of which he was the secretary from 1995 to 2003. He was the number two man, with Joseph Ratzinger as prefect, and now he is again becoming the main collaborator of the new Pope. Even after his election as Pope, Ratzinger has kept him as an adviser and a friend: not a week was gone by that they have not spoken together or seen each other.

Bertone’s appointment as Secretary of State signed a sort of “vindication” for the Holy Office. Called by this name until the 1960s, the Congregation was referred to within the Vatican as «la Suprema». Its highest official was the Pope himself, and the rest of the Curia hinged upon it. But then came Paul VI, and the Secretariat of State became the central axis of the Curia.

With John Paul II, who had little interest in Church governance, the power of the Secretariat of State in the Church’s internal and external affairs grew even greater. It is no surprise that in the last change of the papacy, the two head honchos of diplomacy and of the Curia – Cardinals Sodano and Achille Silvestrini – were the ones most staunchly opposed to the election of Ratzinger, just as they later tried to block the appointment of Bertone.



Sa madaling sabi ang puno't dulo ng nasabing eskandalo ay nakasentro po sa pag-aagawan sa kapangyarihan. Hindi dito inbolb sila Benedict XVI at Bertone kundi iyong mga nasa likod na gustong magpaalis o magpatalsik sa kanila. Posibleng kagagawan nang mga nasa poder nila Archbishop Giovanni Angelo Becciu, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, o Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, sino sa kanila? Hindi po natin alam. Ang sigurado lang, galing mismo sa naging pahayag po ni Cardinal Bertone, "The truth is that there is a malicious will to produce division" sa mga malalapit sa dating papa na ngayo'y Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

Bago ko po makalimutan ang nangyari po pala kay Paolo Gabriele ay nakasuhan po siya at inimbestigahan, at humarap po siya sa isang pag-uusig at hinawakan po ito ng huwes na si Piero Antonio Bonnet, na syang tumingin sa mga ebidensya ng kaso. Ang ginawa po kasing pagtatago ng mga nasabing dokumento sa inuupahan ni Gabrielle ay maituturing po sa batas na isang pagnanakaw dahil ang mga nasabing dokumento ay mga sulating konpidensyal sa pagitan ng papa at nang ibang opisyal ng Vatican at hindi pag-aari ni Gabriele, lalo na ang pagpapakalat po nito na walang permiso dahil papeles ito ng punong estado ng syudad ng Vatican. Sa isinagawang pag-aaral po sa mentalidad ni Gabriele ay nakitaan po siya ng "fragile personality with paranoid tendencies covering profound personal insecurity." Nung ika-anim (6) ng Oktubre, napatunayan po na may sala nga sa pagnanakaw si Gabriele, at siya nasentensyahan po ng labing-walong (18.) buwan sa kulungan ng Italya. Subalit kalaunan ay nakatanggap din po siya ng pagpapatawad mula kay Benedict XVI at sya po'y pinalaya. Yung isang pang-sangkot sa paglikida ng mga nasabing dokumento, si Claudio Sciarpelletti, ang computer technician ng sekretarya ng estado sa Vatican na sinasabing tumulong kay Gabriele, ay nakatanggap po ng mas mababang kaparusahan. Bale ang ginawa po ay tinanggal lang po siya sa kanyang posisyon, pero kaiba sa paniniwala ng ilan, pinanatili po siyang empleyado sa sekretarya ng estado sa Vatican.

Ngayon mapunta na po tayo sa mga tanong mo.


Ang una ay

(1) Meron limpak limpak na pera ang katoliko hindi ito kaya ubusin hangang magunaw pa ang mundo bakit nanghihingi parin ng pera satin para saan?

Totoo po na may pera ang Vatican subalit, tulad sa nakakarami, ito'y nauubos din po. Sa katunayan, base po sa akin pagkakatanda, ay nabankrupt ang Vatican nito lamang 2008. Kaya kung hindi po nauubos ang pera ng Vatican ay paano po mangyayari ito? Kaya imposible pong mangyari ang iyo pong nabanggit. Ngayon ang tanong saan nga ba at paano nga ba nakakapaggawa ng pera ang Vatican?

Ang ekonomiya ng Vatican ay pinapanatili po ng pinansyal na suporta mula sa mga boluntaryong kontribusyon (tinatawag na Peter's Pence), sa pagbebenta ng mga selyo at souvenier, bayad sa pagpasok sa mga museo ng Vatican, at pagbebenta ng mga libro at iba pang-lathalain. Sa madaling sabi, hindi lamang po sa donasyong ibinibigay nakakagawa ng pera ang Vatican kundi sa iba pang paraan. Subalit, dapat po natin tandaan na hindi dahil sa nakakuha ito ng pera ay hindi na ito nauubusan, hindi po. Alalahanin po natin na para mapatakbo, mapanatili at mamentina ang isang malaking estado, lalo na't independyente ito,[2] ay kinakailangan po nito ng mga trabahador, empleyado, atbp. na sya namang pinaglalaanan ng nalikom nitong salapi. Sa katunayan po, ayon sa estatistika ng GDP, mahigit 2,832 (nito lang Disyembre 2011) ang taong nagtratrabaho o empleyado sa syudad ng Vatican. At para mapasweldo nga lang po lahat nung empleyado noong 2007 ay kinailangan pong maglabas ng mahigit 6.7 million euros ng Vatican, kaya ang nangyari ay pagpasok nung 2008 ay kinapos po ito sa pundo ng mahigit 15 million euros.[3]

Ngayon, gaya ng sabi ko po kanina, nakakakuha po ng suportang pinansyal ang Vatican sa pamamagitan ng pagbebenta ng selyo at Vatican coins, at ito'y nasa awtoridad po ng Philatelic and Numismatic Office (Ufficio Filatelico e Numismatico) sa estado ng syudad ng Vatican. Ang resposibilidad nila ay gumawa at maglabas ng postal stamps atbp., at ang katamtaman naililimbag nito ay humigit kumulang po sa 300,000 hanggang 500,000 na selyo. Para magpatuloy po ito ay kinakailangan itong paglaanan ng salapi, dahil ang mismong establisyemento ay tumutulong po na mabigyan ng trabaho ang maraming tao sa syudad ng Vatican. Maliban dito, ang ibang perang nalilikom sa pamamagitan ng pagbebenta ng mga nasabing selyo ay napupunta po sa Istituto per le Opere di Religione (o IOR) na unang binuo para sa layuning makapagbigay ng suporta o tulong sa mga Simbahan at mga taong nangangailangan sa buong mundo. Ang isa pang dapat nating tignan ay ang Vatican Museums. Ang Vatican Museums ay ang sya pong nagkakanlong sa mga mahahalagang likhang sining tulad ng ipininta ni Leonardo da Vinci na St. Jerome in the Wilderness; ni Raphael na Madonna of Foligno, Oddi Altarpiece at Transfiguration; ni Olivuccio di Ciccarello na Opere di Misericordia, at marami pang iba. Nasa mga museo rin ng Vatican ang porphyri sarcophagi of Constance at Saint Helen, anak na babae at nanay ni Constantine the Great; ang Galleria delle Statue; ang Gabinetto delle Maschere, atbp. Ang mga bagay na ito ay kailangan pong mamentina, mapanatili at isaayos dahil ito po ang nagsasalaysay sa kanilang (sa Italya) kinagisnang historya. At para magawa po ito, kailangan ng pera ng Vatican at ito po ang isang pinaggagamitan ng mga donasyon ng natatanggap nito. Kasama din sa kailangang panatiliin ng Vatican ay ang silid aklatan nito na naglalaman ng mga mahahalagang sinaunang manuskrito at aklat tulad ng Codex Vaticanus (B) at Sinaiticus (א), na sya naman pong ginagamit natin ngayon pagdating sa Greek text.

Sa totoo lang po kahit magbigay po tayo ng ganitong dahilan ay hindi rin po ganun papaniwalaan ng ilan. Sa katunayan ay may mga naglabasan pa po nun na mga petisyon, hal. nalang po yung pinangunahan ni Alberto Juesas Escudero ng Espanya, na bakit daw po hindi nalang ibenta ang mga nasabing likhang sining at ipagpalit sa pagkain para maipamahagi sa mga tiga-Africa? Ang hindi po nila alam ay pinipigilan nang international law ang papa para magawa po ito. Bakit? Dahil ang Simbahan ay ang sya pong inatasang magpanatilin nito. Ayon nga po kay Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, ang tungkulin para panatiliin at ipreseba ang mga nasabing likhang sining ay ipinagkatiwala po ito ng estado ng Italya sa Simbahan. Pati ang mga bagay na ito ay nakatali at nagsasalaysay sa nakaraang kultura ng Italya at para ibenta po ito ay hindi magandang rason para lamang matugunan ang pangangailangan ng ibang bansa. Ang kaparehas na rason ay maiaaplay natin po dito satin. Halimbawa ang mga likhang sining ni Juan Luna tulad nang Spoliarium ay hindi po natin basta maibebenta lang sa ibang bansa para matugunan lamang po ang pangangailangan natin, dahil hindi naman po historya nila ang sinasalamin nito kundi ang sa'tin, sa Pilipinas, sa panahon ng pananakop ng Espanya. Kaya mayroon po itong halaga para sa'tin; pagdating sa talaan ng historya at kultura na kinaharap ng ating mga ninuno. Sumatutal, hindi lang po ito ganun nalamang kadaling gawin. Maganda po ang naturang swestiyon ngunit imposibleng magawa.

Pati alam din po ng mga tiga-Africa ang ginagawang tulong po dito ng Simbahang Katoliko, dahil mismong presidente nila'y kinilala pa po ang kontribusyon ng Simbahan pagdating sa suplay ng medikal at mga hospital na pinatayo po nito duon para labanan ang paglaganap ng virus na sanhi ng AIDS. Ang organisasyon pong Community of Sant'Egidio at nang mismong dating sekretarya ng sstado ng Vatican na si Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone ang sya pong nagsulong na mabigyan ng madaling akses sa mga antiretoviral drugs (hal. AZT) ang tiga-Africa, at ito'y maipamahagi po sa kanila ng libre. Kaya ang balik po ngayon ng tanong ay dun sa mismong nagsusulong ng mga katulad na petisyon, at yun po ay may nagawa na ba sila para matulungan ang mga ito? Kung wala ay hindi po nila makwekwestyon ang hakbang o desisyon ng Simbahan kung bakit hindi ito po ginawa.

Mabalik po tayo sa Institute for the Works of Religion (Istituto per le Opere di Religione, IOR). Katulad ng nabanggit ko po kanina, karamihan ng nalilikom pong salapi ng Vatican ay dumidiretso sa IOR, isang institusyon kinakategorya bilang charitable foundation at hindi talaga isang bangko. Sa katunayan po ang layunin sa pagpapatayo ni Pope Pius XII nito noong ika-dalawapu't-pito Hunyo 1942 ay para "to provide for the safekeeping and administration of movable and immovable property transferred or entrusted to it by physical or juridical persons and intended for works of religion or charity."[4] Pero tandaan po natin na hindi ito bahagi ng departamento ng Roman Curia kaya hindi po ito maisasama sa administratibong departamento ng Simbahang Katoliko. At dahil hindi po ito masasabing nasa ilalim ng Vatican, bagaman nasa disposal ito ng papa, ay pinangungunahan at pinasisimunuan po ito ng kalimita'y mga hindi po kabilang sa hirarkiya ng Simbahan.[5] Kaya nung nagkaroon po ng usapin tungkol sa money laundering ng mahigit ng €180 million, na unang inireport ng Italyanong magasin na Panorama, ang sangkot ay ang dating presidente nito na si Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, na labas sa hirarkiya ng Iglesia. Pero tandaan po natin na hindi natin inaakusahan dito si Gotti Tedeschi dahil sa totoo lang po kahit ang polisya ay nagsabi po na ang opisyal ay hindi naman talaga inaakusahan ng kaso, at kinakailangan pa ng judicial ruling para magpatuloy ang imbestigasyon nito. Kaya ang nangyari, nung Hulyo 2013, ang kaso kinakaharap po ni Gotti Tedeschi ay binitawan nadin po, dahil wala din naman pong ganun napatunayan kundi puro hinala lang.

Pero may ginawa bang hakbang o ano nga ba ang naging tugon dito ng Vatican o nang mismong papa nadin? Nung ika-tatlompu (30) ng Disyembre 2010 ay bumuo po si Benedict XVI ng Vatican's independent Financial Intelligence Authority (Autorità di Informazione Finanziaria, AIF) na ang punong tungkulin ay bigyang masid at pangasiwaan ang "monetary and commercial activities of all Vatican-related institutions" kabilang na po dito ang IOR. Ang tungkol po sa nasabing hakbang na ito ay bahagi po apostolikong sulat na tinawag na "Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI", kung saan tinalakay po kung paano maiiwasan at mapipigilan ang mga ilegal na aktibidades pagdating sa "monetary and financial dealings." Narito po ang ilang bahagi ng pahayag po ni Benedict XVI sa kanyang Motu Proprio

a) I establish that  the above-mentioned Law of Vatican City State and its future modifications apply as well to the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia and for each and every dependent institution or entity in which they carry out their activities, in accordance with Art. 2 of the same Law;

b) I establish the Autorità di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF) indicated in Art. 33 of the Law concerning the prevention and countering of the proceeds from criminal activities and of the financing of terrorism, as an Institution connected with the Holy See in accordance with Articles 186 and 190-191 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus, conferring upon it a public canonical juridical personality and a Vatican civil personality and approving its Statutes, which are attached to this “Motu Proprio”;

c) I establish that the Autorità di Informazione Finanziaria (AIF) exercise its duties with respect to the Dicasteries of the Roman Curia and of all the entities and institutions as specified in paragraph a).

d) I delegate, in the case of the crimes specified by the above-mentioned Law, the competent judicial Authorities of Vatican City State to exercise penal jurisdiction in regard to the institutions mentioned in paragraph a),
I stipulate that what has been established have full and permanent value from this day forth, anything to the contrary notwithstanding, although it may deserve special mention.



Ang nasabing hakbang na ito'y para narin po maalis ang hindi magandang imahe na ibinabandera ng ilan sa nasabing institusyon. Kaya nito rin lamang pong 2012 ay tuluyan na din pong binuksan sa publiko ang tala ng IOR at inilabas po ito bilang annual report na sya nagpapakita na pwede po itong maging transparent para sa lahat ng gusto tignan o obserbahang ang katayuang pinansyal, atbp. ng nasabing institusyon. Maari mo pong basahin ang tungkol sa nasabing annual report na ginawa po noong 2012 dahil inilagay ko na po ito sa attachment.

Ngayon ang mabuting balita naman po ay masasabi parin po natin na tumitindig parin po ang IOR sa tunay na layunin nito, at yun ay ang makatulong at makahatid ng suporta sa mga nangangailangan. Sa katunayan po, noong 2012, nakapagbigay po ng mahigit $70 million sa mga charitable foundations tulad halimbawa ng Amazon Fund, San Sergio Fund, at marami pang iba, ang nasabing institusyon. Maliban pa po dito, ang IOR, sa pangunguna ng yumaong Pope John Paul II, ay nagawa pong matulungan ang mga bansa sa Africa, Latin America, at Asia mula sa ad limina visits. Sa tulong din po ni Pope John Paul II ay nakapagbigay po ito ng suportang pinasyal sa mga araw na dumadanas ng kahirapan ang mga tao sa Poland ng dumaan po ito sa martial law. Ang mga tulong na personal na pinaabot ng dating papa ay ipinambili po ng mga pagkain at mga gamot, at ipinadala po sa St. Martin’s Church sa Warsaw’s Old Town kung saan ipinamigay po ito sa mga pamilyang nangangailangan nun. (Base sa ginawang interview ni George Wiegel kay Jan Nowak, noong ika-labing siyam (19) ng Augusto, 1998)

Ngayon kung talagang interesado ka pong maunawaan ang tungkol sa pinasyal na katayuan o estado ng Vatican ay ipinapayo ko po na hanapin at basahin mo po iyong libro ni Thomas J. Reese na Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church (pp. 202-229), na inilathala po ng Harvard University Press, dahil malaki po ang maitutulong nito pagdating po sa layong ito.

Sumatutal, ipinapakita lamang po kailangan din ng Vatican ng pera sapagka't may mga bagay po na kailangan din itong tustusan, hal. na nga po dito ang pagpapasweldo sa mga empleyadong nagtratrabaho dito; pangtulong pinansyal sa maliliit na simbahan; pangpondo sa mga itinatayo nitong establisyemento para sa mga gawain na ang layunin ay makatulong; pambili ng pagkain, gamot, pambayad kuryente, tubig, atbp; para sa mga gawaing pang-misyonaryo; pagpapanatili ng mga museo, silid aklatan at patuloy na pagpapalimbag ng mga lathalain ng simbahan; at marami pang iba. Kaya ang sinasabi po ngayon na hindi nauubusan ng pera ang Vatican ay hindi po totoo. Sa katunayan, kahit nakakuha pa po ito revenues na $355.5 million noong 2008, mula sa mga nabanggit ko po kanina (hal. boluntaryong donasyon, pagbebenta ng stamps, coins, atbp), ay halos wala rin pong natitira sa dami ng kailangan tustusan nito. Kung tutuosin ang nagastos pa nga po nito noong 2008 ay mahigit $356.8 million, na kung iisipin ay mas malaki pa po sa nalikom nito.

Yung tungkol naman po sa ibinibigay natin sa ating mga diocese, hal. offerings, ay para po ito sa tatlong layon. Una, para sa pagsasaayos, mentina at pagpapagawa po ng ating mga simbahan. Ikalawa, ang mga naiipon ng ating simbahan sa bawat diocesses ay ibinibigay po sa mga nagmimisyonaryo sa iba't-ibang lugar o bansa. At ikatlo, para pang-tustos sa pangangailangan po ng simbahan, hal. pambayad ng ilaw, tubig, pampasweldo sa mga nagtratrabaho sa simbahan, pambili ng pintura, pagkain, pagpapagawa ng pamphlet, pambili ng mga ginagamit para sa mga seminars, atbp. Samakatuwid po, ang bawat donasyong kusang loob na ibinibigay ay malaki po ang naiaambag para sa pagpapanatili at maging sa pangangailangan narin po ng simbahan; at kung wala po nito, siguradong mahihirapan po ang maliliit na simbahan na magpatuloy.


Mapunta na po tayo sa ikalawa mo pong tanong,


(2) Bakit maraming gay na pari diba bawal to

Bago ko po sagutin ito ay ibibigay ko muna po ang depinisyon ng homosekswalidad batay sa pagkakalahad po nito sa Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 2357-59

Chastity and Homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Cf. Gn 19:1-29; Rm 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tm 1:10), tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered' (CDF, Persona Humana 8.) They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.



Opo, totoo pong mayroong mga paring homosekswal at ito po'y hindi maitatanggi. Ayon narin po kasi sa kinumisyong pag-aaral ng John Jay College of Criminal Justice, ay may ilang bilang daw po nang mga lalaking homosekswal ang pumasok daw po sa seminaryo noong 1970 hanggang 1980[6] sa Estados Unidos pa lang. Kaya ang sinabi ko po ay meron, subalit,  pagdating po sa usapin na ito ay dapat po nating isaalang-alang muna ang aral o turo po ng Simbahan ukol sa mga paring homosekswal para huwag po agad tayong humantong sa konklusyon, na mahuhusgahan na po natin sila. Malinaw pong sinabi sa Catechism na ang itinuturing na mali ng Simbahan ay ang pagkakaroon ng akto ng homosekswalidad at hindi ang pakakaroon ng atraksyong homosekswal. Magkaiba po ito. Ang akto ng homosekswalidad ay ang akto kung saan ang magkaparehas na kasarian ay nagkakaroon po ng relasyon sekswal, hal. pakikipagtalik, at ito ang kinukundena po ng Simbahan na masama at mortal na kasalanan. Makikita din po natin ang parehas na pagkundena sa bibliya sa Gn 19:1-13, Lv 18:22-30, 20:13, Jgd 19:22-30, Rm 1:18-32, 1 Cor 6:9 at 1 Tm 1:8-10, kung saan ang pinatutungkulan po ay ang pagkakaroon ng aktong homosekswal. Sa madaling sabi, hindi po ang pagiging homosekswal ang mali dito, bagkus, kapag ang isang taong may ganitong preperensya ay umaakto na po sa isang bagay na maituturing ng mali, hal. pakikipagtalik sa kapwa lalake o babae, ay magiging labag na po ito sa panuntunan ng Simbahan.

Kaya ito nga po ang sinasabi po ng Simbahan, lalo na kapag ang isang pari ay umamin na sya'y homosekswal; "observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven".[7] Ang nais po ditong ipaabot ng Simbahan, na kapag ang isang pari ay homosekswal, dapat siyang mamuhay ng mabuti at malinis, at wag magpapadala sa tawag ng laman.[8] Sa punto pong ito ang importansya ng pagkadalisay (chastity) ay mahalagang itanim sa isipan po ng mga homosekswal na pari. Ang nais ng Simbahan ay mabigyan po ng respeto ang bawat homosekswal, hindi lang ang mga paring may ganitong preperensya, kundi lahat ng taong namumuhay sa ganitong mundo; subalit, ang ipinapayo lang nito wag na sanang humantong pa na magkaroon sila ng relasyong sekswal. Pati, sa totoo lang, hindi narin po kasi basta basta nalang po itong  ganun mababago, lalo nga't naordinahan na nga sila. Kaya ang dapat pong silipin at bigyan ng karampatang tuon ay iyong mga magsisimula o papasok palang po sa seminaryo, habang yung mga naordinahan na, muli, mamuhay nalang malinis at ituon ang kanilang atensyon sa tunay na pagsisilbi sa Dios.

At sa katunayan ay ito nga po ang ipinaabot ng Simbahan. Dahil nung Nobyembre po ng 2005 ay naglabas po ang Congregation for Catholic Education sa ilalim ng direktiba ni dating Pope John Paul II ng dokumento ukol sa nasabing usapin, at ito'y tinituluhan po bilang Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. Ayon po sa nasabing dokumento, ang Simbahan,


"while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"".



Ang gusto mangyari po ng Simbahan ay kapag ang isang tao ay homosekswal at malakas ang tendensiya niya na mahulog sa tawag ng laman, ay wag na sanang pumasok pa seminaryo. Dahil makakaapekto lamang ito sa tungkulin pong kanyang gagampanan. At nakakalungkot man pong isipin, ay nangyayari nga po ito sa ilang kaparian na naakusan ng pang-aabusong sekswal; na kalimitan iyon pong mga paring nang-abuso ay napag-alaman po na mga homosekswal. Muli, hindi po natin kinukundena ang mga taong homosekswal kundi ang akto ng homosekswalidad. Nais po natin silang mamuhay ng dalisay, hindi sa pinipigilan po natin ang kaligayahan nila[9], kundi dahil sa ito po ang kagustuhan mangyari ng Panginoon. Alalahanin po natin na ang pakikipagniig ay plinano ng Dios upang maging bahagi sa paglikha ng panibagong buhay, at mangyayari lamang ito sa pagitan po ng lalake't babae, sa loob ng kasal at hindi sa labas nito.

Sa kabuoan, respeto, pagtanggap at pang-unawa po ang masasabi nating kailangan ng mga kapariang homosekswal at hindi po ang ating panghuhusga. Ganunpaman, dapat po tayong maninidigan na ipaalala sa kanila na mahalagang manatili sila sa kanilang sinumpaang bokasyon at yun ang pagpapanatili po ng kanilang kadalisayan; hindi lamang panloob kundi maging ang panlabas. Ngayon ang unang hakbang na dapat po nilang gawin, hindi lang ng homosekswal na pari kundi maging ng mga layko, ay humanap ng suporta mula sa isang grupo na makakatulong po na ipaalala sa kanila ang kahalagahan na mamuhay ng dalisay at kahit papaano ay makapagbigay narin ng pag-asa sa kanila na maari pang mapanumbalik ang kanilang preperasyong sekswal sa ibang kasarian. Ang samahan tulad po Courage International na pinangangasiwaan po ni Benedict Groeschel, nang Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, ay may ganito pong misyon. Maging ang organisasyon po na Catholic Medical Association ay may ganito rin pong layunin, at sa ilang taon na kanilang pagsasagawa, hal. pagpapapayo, paggabay, pagbibgay ng suportang pang-espiritwal, ay marami na po silang naitala na mga layko na nagbago ng kanilang sekswal na preperasyon at kalaunan ay nakapag-asawa at mayroon ng mga anak ngayon.


Ang huli mo pong tanong ay tungkol po sa

(3) mga paring ng rarape, child abuse pero di sila nakukulong kung makulong man makakalaya din agad

Ang unang bagay na dapat po nating maunawaan pagdating po sa tanong mong ito ay ang katotohanan na hindi lamang po nangyayari ang pang-aabusong sekswal sa Simbahang Katolika, kundi ito'y malaganap na umiiral maging sa ibang relihiyon o Kristyanong sekta/ denominasyon.[10][11] Tandaan lamang po na hindi ko po ito sinasabi dito para siraan ang ibang grupo o samahan, bagkus, ang akin pong layunin ay ipakita na malawak ang saklaw ng usaping ito, at hindi lang po nararapat tignan sa posisyong kinakaharap o kinatatayuan ng Simbahan. Ang maganda lang po nito, hindi po ito itinatanggi ng Simbahan; bagkus, kinikilala po nito na mayroong talagang problema at gumagawa po ito ng mga hakbang para maisaayos at maitama ito sa paraang parehas na mapagtutuonan ng pansin ang inabuso at nang abuso.

Sa kaso ng [mga] naabuso nang ilang kasapi sa hirarkiya ng simbahan, hal. pari, diyakuno, obispo, ay inilabas po ng United States Conference of Catholic Bishops ang isang karter na kinapapalooban po ng mga paraan kung paano dapat harapin ng isang diocese ang [mga] alegasyon ng pang-abubusong sekswal mula membro nito, at ito po ang sumusunod:

To Guarantee an Effective Response to Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors

ARTICLE 4. Dioceses/eparchies are to report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities. Dioceses/eparchies are to comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and cooperate in their investigation in accord with the law of the jurisdiction in question. Dioceses/eparchies are to cooperate with public authorities about reporting cases even when the person is no longer a minor. In every instance, dioceses/eparchies are to advise victims of their right to make a report to public authorities and support this right.

ARTICLE 5. We affirm the words of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in his Address to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers: “There is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young.” Sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric is a crime in the universal law of the Church (CIC, c. 1395 §2; CCEO, c. 1453 §1). Because of the seriousness of this matter, jurisdiction has been reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, AAS 93, 2001). Sexual abuse of a minor is also a crime in all civil jurisdictions in the United States. Diocesan/eparchial policy is to provide that for even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor*—whenever it occurred—which is admitted or established after an appropriate process in accord with canon law, the offending priest or deacon is to be permanently removed from ministry and, if warranted, dismissed from the clerical state. In keeping with the stated purpose of this Charter, an offending priest or deacon is to be offered therapeutic professional assistance both for the purpose of prevention and also for his own healing and well-being. The diocesan/eparchial bishop is to exercise his power of governance, within the parameters of the universal law of the Church, to ensure that any priest or deacon subject to his governance who has committed even one act of sexual abuse of a minor as described below (see note) shall not continue in ministry. A priest or deacon who is accused of sexual abuse of a minor is to be accorded the presumption of innocence during the investigation of the allegation and all appropriate steps are to be taken to protect his reputation. He is to be encouraged to retain the assistance of civil and canonical counsel. If the allegation is deemed not substantiated, every step possible is to be taken to restore his good name, should it have been harmed. In fulfilling this article, dioceses/eparchies are to follow the requirements of the universal law of the Church and of the Essential Norms approved for the United States.

ARTICLE 6. There are to be clear and well-publicized diocesan/eparchial standards of ministerial behavior and appropriate boundaries for clergy and for any other paid personnel and volunteers of the Church in positions of trust who have regular contact with children and young people.

ARTICLE 7. Dioceses/eparchies are to be open and transparent in communicating with the public about sexual abuse of minors by clergy within the confines of respect for the privacy and the reputation of the individuals involved. This is especially so with regard to informing parish and other church communities directly affected by sexual abuse of a minor.



Base sa artikulo, bilang apat (4), ang diocese o parokya ay dapat iulat sa awtoridad kung may natanggap itong alegasyon ng pag-aabusong sekswal. At kailangan din nitong sundin ang panuntunan ng batas sibil, kung saan ito'y dapat magpakita ng kooperasyon sa mga awtoridad, lalo na't ang taong inaakusahan ay humaharap sa imbestigasyon. Sa puntong ito makikita po natin na mayroon ng nasimulang hakbang para matulungan ang mga naabuso, at para sa hinaharap; binigyang tuon nadin po nito na nararapat lamang paglaanan ng sapat na atensyon ang pagkakaroon ng ligtas na kapaligiran para sa mga kabataan ng hindi sila makaranas ng pang-aabuso. Ito daw po dapat ay may kooperasyon sa mga magulang, sa komunidad, sa awtoridad, atbp.

To Protect the Faithful in the Future

Article 12. Dioceses/eparchies are to maintain "safe environment" programs which the diocesan/eparchial bishop deems to be in accord with Catholic moral principles. They are to be conducted cooperatively with parents, civil authorities, educators, and community organizations to provide education and training for children, youth, parents, ministers, educators, volunteers, and others about ways to make and maintain a safe environment for children and young people. Dioceses/eparchies are to make clear to clergy and all members of the community the standards of conduct for clergy and other persons in positions of trust with regard to children.



Maliban sa nabanggit, naglunsad narin po ng mga pagsasanay ang Simbahan sa mga kleriko, empleyado, at mga boluntaryong nagbibigay kalingan sa kabataan o sa mga taong nagtratrabaho malapit sa kanila, upang sa hinaharap ay hindi na po magkaroon pa ng karagdagang tala ng pang-aabuso. Ang nasabing programa ay masasabi pong tagumpay dahil marami po ang lumahok at nangakong susundin ang nakasaad sa Article 12.

Successes

The good news is that most clerics, employees, and volunteers who work with children, as well as children themselves, are being or have been trained. Even as the problems of record keeping are noted, so too are the efforts of dioceses/eparchies to provide the necessary training for their people. The prevention of child sexual abuse is becoming part of parish life.

More and more dioceses/eparchies are auditing their parishes to measure the level of compliance with their own policies. This is a critical part of ensuring compliance, not only with Article 12, but with all aspects of the Charter.
Safe environment training is powerful for adults as well as children. This training provides, to children in particular, critical, life-forming messages about the skills necessary to protect themselves from the harm of child sexual abuse.




Ang mga naging biktima po ng pang-aabusong sekswal ay hindi rin po pinapabayaan ng Simbahan. Sa inilabas na Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, sinabi ng USCCB na mahalagang abutin at hanapin ang mga naging biktima/ nakaligtas at ang [mga] pamilya nito, nang sa ganun ay sinserong silang magawang matulungan, hindi lamang po sa pangangailangang pinansyal na gagamitin sa kanilang pagpapagamot, kundi maging narin po sa pang-espiritwal at emosyonal (hal. counseling, spiritual assistance, support groups, atbp), dahil ito po ang obligasyon ng Simbahan para sa mga naging biktima upang mapaghilom at mapanumbalik ang kanilang tiwala, na makakapagbukas namang muli ng panibagong pag-asa para sa kanila. (Tignan ang To Promote Healing and Reconciliation with Victims/ Survivors of Sexual Abuse of Minors, art. 1) Umalingawngaw rin po ito sa sinabi ni dating papa Benedict XVI sa mga obispo sa Estados Unidos nung 2008 sa krisis ng pang-aabusong sekswal ng kaparian, "It is your God-given responsibility as pastors to bind up the wounds caused by every breach of trust, to foster healing, to promote reconciliation and to reach out with loving concern to those so seriously wronged."

Dito sa Pilipinas, nagpalabas narin po ng panuntunan ang Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) at kinilala po nito na ang [mga] kleriko "who engage in any form of sexual misconduct are violating their vows and the ministerial relationship. They are misusing their authority and power and are taking advantage of the vulnerability of those who are seeking spiritual guidance" (paragraph 15.) Sa paragraph 8 ng Pastoral Guidelines on Sexual Abuse and Misconduct by the Clergy ay binigyang punto rin po na ang mga pari at relihiyoso na nang abuso ay nasasailam ng "the civil and penal laws of the state", kaya sila'y nasasaklwan din ng batas, na kung mapapatunayan na may ginawa ngang kamalian ay nararapat na maparusahan.

Ngayon patungkol naman po sa mga akusado ng alegasyon at mga napatunayan ngang ng abuso, ano bang mga hakbang o aksyon ang ginagawa ng Simbahan para sa mga ito?

Ayon po sa inilabas na pag-aaral ng John Jay College of Criminal Justice, isang institusyong hindi Katoliko, mahigit sa 1,021 na pari ang naiulat sa polisya na may alegasyon ng pang-aabuso o lumalabas po na 24% ng kabuoang bilang. At lahat, ayon din po sa kanila nabanggit, ay humantong sa imbestigasyon, 384 ang nasampahan po ng kaso, at 252 po dito'y nahatulan ng hukuman at ngayo'y pinagdudusahan po ang kanilang nagawa sa kulungan.

Kalimitan, ang aksyon pong ginagawa ng Simbahan kapag ang isang pari ay nasangkot sa alegasyon ng pang-abubusong sekswal, bago pa ang tuwirang pag-iimbestiga dito, ay sila'y pinagbibitiw o hindi kaya'y panandaliang inaalis po sa serbisyo ng pagkapari. Ang nasabing aksyon ay makikitang isinasagawa po ng mga parokya at relihiyosong komunidad sa mga pari kapag may basehan o substansya ang mga alegasyon, hal. sa mahigit 10,519 o sa 100% ng paring may ganitong alegasyon, 1,066 o 24.3% dito ang binigyan ng administratibong bakasyon; 1,256 o 28.7% dito ang sinuspinde; 820 o 18.7% ang tuluyang nagbitiw; at 156 o 3.6% ang inalis po sa pagkapari. Sa totoo lang po, ang katulad na hakbang ay hindi lamang po nangyayari sa mga paring may basehan ang alegasyon kundi maging sa mga wala rin po nito o iyong mismong nagakusa ay binawi po ang kanilang akusasyon, hal. sa mahigit 1,881 o 100% na walang basehang alegasyon, 195 o 23.7% po dito ang binigyan ng administratibong bakasyon; 171 o 20.8% dito ang sinuspinde; 115 o 14% ang tuluyang nagbitiw; at 14 o 1.7% ang inalis po sa pagkapari. Lumalabas lamang po na kahit papaano'y masasabi po natin na may ginagawa po ang Simbahan na hakbang ukol sa usaping ito.

Simula rin po ng maupo nun si dating Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (na kalauna'y naging si Pope Benedict XVI) ay napatupad po ang "zero-tolerance policy" laban hindi lamang po sa mga mapang-abusong kaparian kundi maging narin po sa mga paring homosekswal sa kabuoan. Sa inilabas pong ulat ng dalawang mananliksik sa pang-aabusong sekswal ng mga kaparian, na inihayag sa USA Today sa "Report: Homosexuality no factor in abusive priests" ni Rachel Zoll, malaki ang ibinaba sa kaso ng pang-aabuso pagkaraan ng 1985. Parehas po na ang dating si Pope John Paul II at ang kanyang kardinal nun na si Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger ay malaki po ang naiambag sa pagpigil nito. (Tignan ang dalawang graph sa ibaba, mula sa iniulat ng John Jay)






Katulad po ng iyong nababasa ay meron pong ginagawa ang Simbahan na aksyon hindi lamang po para matulungan ang mga naabuso kundi para narin po maparusahan ang mga napatunayang mga kapariang nagkasala. May mga nakukulong at hanggang ngayon ay nagbabayad at nagsisilbi parin ng ilang taon sa kulungan. Subalit, sabihin man po natin na may mga tunay na nagkasala nga, mayroon din naman pong wala talagang kasalanan ngunit dahil sa maling alegasyon ay nakukulong. Nakakalungkot pong isipin pero totoo po ito. May mga kaso po ng mga paring nakulong na wala talagang nagawang kasalanan kundi idiniin lamang po ng mga nag-aakusa o mismong ang pamilya, kamag-anak, abogado, ang nag-udyok na ituro ito. Para sa anong dahilan? Ito po'y dahil sa malaki po ang maaring makuhang kompensayon ng [mga] biktima, totoo man po ang kanilang bintang o hindi.

Ang ilang halimbawa na lamang po nito ay ang kaso ng pang-aabusong isinampa sa dating paring si John Geoghan, sa paring sila Eugene Boland, Kevin Reynolds, James Selvaraj, Edward C. McDonagh, at sa dalawang obispong sila Michael J. Bransfield at David A. Zubik. Lahat po ng akusasyong ibinintang sa kanila ay napatunayan po na pawang walang katotohanan at walang basehan. Mismong noong Nobyembre ng 2001, ang nag-akusa po sa dating paring si John Geoghan ng pang-hahalay, sila Sean Murphy at Byron Worth, ay umamin po na nagkasala sa tangkang pang-iiskam sa Archdiocese ng Boston ng mahigit $850,000. Ang kanilang akusasyon ay napatunayan po na walang katotoohan, na kung tutuosin po ay hindi pa madidiskubre kung hindi pa po nagkamali ang dalawa sa pagsampa ng kaso (Daniel Lyons, "Clergy Sex Scammers?" Forbes, Sept. 24, 2003). Isa pa po yung sa kaso ng nahuling magnanakaw ng bangko na si Shamont Sapp. Si Sapp ay nagakusa po ng pang-aabusong sekswal mula nung 1970s sa apat (4) na pari sa apat (4) na dioceses: Tucson, Arizona; Covington, Kentucky; Spokane, Washington; at Portland, Oregon. At lahat po ito'y na patotohanan na pawang mga kasinungalingan lamang, at ang syang nais ni Sapp ay makakuha lamang ng pera mula sa mga nabanggit na parokya.

Kung iisipin mabuti, hindi po sa nilalahat, parang ang habol nalamang po ng iilan sa pagsasampa ng kaso (kahit hindi man po ito totoo) ay upang makapanggantso at makakuha ng pera sa [mga] parokya, dahil sa malaki nga ang kompensasyon nito. At hindi nga po ako nagkamali. Base narin po kasi sa inilathala ng The Wall Street Journal, sa panulat ni Dorothy Rabinowitz, nung Abril 2005, ay dapat daw po maunawaan ng mga tao na mayroong iskam na nagaganap pagdating sa mga sinasabing kaso ng pang-aabuso ng kaparian at isa na itong malaking "money-making proposition."

Sa kabuoan, ang pang-aabusong sekswal ay isa ng malawak na problema; muli, hindi lamang ng Simbahan kundi ng buong sambayanan. Mapaito man ay institusyon, relihiyon, organisasyon, eskwelahan, atbp. ang pang-aabusong sekswal ay maaring mangyari kung hindi po mapagtutuonan ng pansin ng mga tao at mismo ng komunidad, ang pagkakaroon ng ligtas na kapaligiran sa mga kabataan at maging ang pagkakaroon ng tamang disiplina sa mga taong kumakalingan sa mga ito. Ngayon pagdating naman sa mga nang-abuso, hindi dapat na dahil sa sila'y nang-abuso ay hahayaan na po natin sila na magdusa, hindi po; dahil kung sa realidad ay iisipin po lamang natin ang pangangailangan ng mga naabuso at ito lang ang ating bibigyan pansin, ang mga nang-abuso ay mawawalan narin po ng pag-asa na maitama pa kanilang mga nagawa at ang tiwala nila sa sarili ay hindi na mabubuo pa.  Ang Simbahan ay nauunawaan po ito, kaya maliban sa pagtulong sa mga naabuso ay ipinapaabot din po nito na kailangang din matulungan ang mga nang-abuso, hal. sa pamamagitan ng "spiritual counselling, prayers, cognitive behavioral treatment," atbp).






7
@Tisoy Manila

We should not jump to conclusion...

Alamin muna natin why? ano ang pagkakaiba iba at bakit?

Question: "Why are there so many Christian denominations?"

Answer: To answer this question, we must first differentiate between denominations within the body of Christ and non-Christian cults and false religions. Presbyterians and Lutherans are examples of Christian denominations. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are examples of cults (groups claiming to be Christian but denying one or more of the essentials of the Christian faith). Islam and Buddhism are entirely separate religions.

The rise of denominations within the Christian faith can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation, the movement to “reform” the Roman Catholic Church during the 16th century, out of which four major divisions or traditions of Protestantism would emerge: Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican. From these four, other denominations grew over the centuries.

The Lutheran denomination was named after Martin Luther and was based on his teachings. The Methodists got their name because their founder, John Wesley, was famous for coming up with “methods” for spiritual growth. Presbyterians are named for their view on church leadership—the Greek word for elder is presbyteros. Baptists got their name because they have always emphasized the importance of baptism. Each denomination has a slightly different doctrine or emphasis from the others, such as the method of baptism; the availability of the Lord’s Supper to all or just to those whose testimonies can be verified by church leaders; the sovereignty of God vs. free will in the matter of salvation; the future of Israel and the church; pre-tribulation vs. post-tribulation rapture; the existence of the “sign” gifts in the modern era, and so on. The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word.

Denominations today are many and varied. The original “mainline” denominations mentioned above have spawned numerous offshoots such as Assemblies of God, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Nazarenes, Evangelical Free, independent Bible churches, and others. Some denominations emphasize slight doctrinal differences, but more often they simply offer different styles of worship to fit the differing tastes and preferences of Christians. But make no mistake: as believers, we must be of one mind on the essentials of the faith, but beyond that there is great deal of latitude in how Christians should worship in a corporate setting. This latitude is what causes so many different “flavors” of Christianity. A Presbyterian church in Uganda will have a style of worship much different from a Presbyterian church in Colorado, but their doctrinal stand will be, for the most part, the same. Diversity is a good thing, but disunity is not. If two churches disagree doctrinally, debate and dialogue over the Word may be called for. This type of “iron sharpening iron” (Proverbs 27:17) is beneficial to all. If they disagree on style and form, however, it is fine for them to remain separate. This separation, though, does not lift the responsibility Christians have to love one another (1 John 4:11-12) and ultimately be united as one in Christ (John 17:21-22).

The Downside of Christian Denominations:

There seems to be at least two major problems with denominationalism. First, nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity. Thus, the second problem is that history tells us that denominationalism is the result of, or caused by, conflict and confrontation which leads to division and separation. Jesus told us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This general principle can and should be applied to the church. We find an example of this in the Corinthian church which was struggling with issues of division and separation. There were those who thought that they should follow Paul and those who thought they should follow the teaching of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 1:12, "What I am saying is this: each of you says, “I’m with Paul,” or “I’m with Apollos,” or “I’m with Cephas,” or “I’m with Christ.” This alone should tell you what Paul thought of denominations or anything else that separates and divides the body. But let’s look further; in verse 13, Paul asks very pointed questions, "Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name?” This makes clear how Paul feels, he (Paul) is not the Christ, he is not the one crucified and his message has never been one that divides the church or would lead someone to worship Paul instead of Christ. Obviously, according to Paul, there is only one church and one body of believers and anything that is different weakens and destroys the church (see verse 17). He makes this point stronger in 3:4 by saying that anyone who says they are of Paul or of Apollos is carnal.

Some of the problems we are faced with today as we look at denominationalism and its more recent history:

1. Denominations are based on disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture. An example would be the meaning and purpose of baptism. Is baptism a requirement for salvation or is it symbolic of the salvation process? There are denominations on both sides of this issue. In fact, baptism – its meaning, its mode, who can receive it, etc. – has been a central issue in the separation of churches and forming of new denominations.

2. Disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture are taken personally and become points of contention. This leads to arguments which can and have done much to destroy the witness of the church.

3. The church should be able to resolves its differences inside the body, but once again history tells us that this doesn’t happen. Today the media uses our differences against us to demonstrate that we are not unified in thought or purpose.

4. Denominations are used by man out of self-interest. There are denominations today that are in a state of self-destruction as they are being led into apostasy by those who are promoting their personal agendas.

5. The value of unity is found in the ability to pool our gifts and resources to promote the Kingdom to a lost world. This runs contrary to divisions caused by denominationalism.

What is a believer to do? Should we ignore denominations, should we just not go to church and worship on our own at home? The answer to both questions is no. What we should be seeking is a body of believers where the Gospel of Christ is preached, where you as an individual can have a personal relationship with the Lord, where you can join in biblical ministries that are spreading the Gospel and glorifying God. Church is important and all believers need to belong to a body that fits the above criteria. We need relationships that can only be found in the body of believers, we need the support that only the church can offer, and we need to serve God in community as well as individually. Pick a church on the basis of its relationship to Christ and how well it is serving the community. Pick a church where the pastor is preaching the Gospel without fear and is encouraged to do so. As believers, there are certain basic doctrines that we must believe, but beyond that there is latitude on how we can serve and worship; it is this latitude that is the only good reason for denominations. This is diversity and not disunity. The first allows us to be individuals in Christ, the latter divides and destroys.


Read more: [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]

8
Humanities / Iglesia against Catholic?
« Message by USB on 07-17-12 11:30 AM »
Good afternoon mga ka pd. Curious lang po. May kakilala po kasi akong catholic na friend ko at gusto sana niya pakasalan yung gf niya iglesia pero ayaw na ayaw ng parents nung babae na iglesia dun sa friend ko. Pansin in my own experience parang may alitan talaga ang dalawang religion.
 Dito samin pastor sa iglesia lantaran sinasabi na sila lang daw masasave. :dontknow:

Sa pagreresearch ko nakita ko to. Totoo kaya?
Quote
The Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog, "Church of Christ") claims to be the true Church established by Christ. Felix Manalo, its founder, proclaimed himself God's prophet. Many tiny sects today claim to be the true Church, and many individuals claim to be God's prophet. What makes Iglesia ni Cristo different is that it is not as tiny as others.
Since it was founded in the Philippines in 1914, it has grown to more than two hundred congregations in sixty-seven countries outside the Philippines, including an expanding United States contingent. The Iglesia keeps the exact number of members secret, but it is estimated to be between three million and ten million worldwide. It is larger than the Jehovah's Witnesses, a better known sect (which also claims to be Christ's true Church). Iglesia is not better known, despite its numbers, because the majority of Iglesia's members are Filipino. Virtually the only exceptions are a few non-Filipinos who have married into Iglesia families. The organization publishes two magazines, Pasugo and God's Message, which devote most of their energies toward condemning other Christian churches, especially the Catholic Church. The majority of the Iglesia's members are ex-Catholics. The Philippines is the only dominantly Catholic nation in the Far East, with eighty-four percent of its population belonging to the Church. Since this is its largest potential source of converts, Iglesia relies on anti-Catholic scare tactics as support for its own doctrines, which cannot withstand biblical scrutiny. The Iglesia tries to convince people of its doctrines not by proving they are right, but by attempting to prove the Catholic Church's teachings are wrong.
Is Christ God?
The Catholic teaching that most draws Iglesia's fire is Christ's divinity. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia claims that Jesus Christ is not God but a created being.
Yet the Bible is clear: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). We know Jesus is the Word because John 1:14 tells us, "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." God the Father was not made flesh; it was Jesus, as even Iglesia admits. Jesus is the Word, the Word is God, therefore Jesus is God. Simple, yet Iglesia won't accept it.
In Deuteronomy 10:17 and 1 Timothy 6:15, God the Father is called the "Lord of lords," yet in other New Testament passages this divine title is applied directly to Jesus. In Revelation 17:14 we read, "They will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings." And in Revelation 19:13-16, John sees Jesus "clad in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God.... On his thigh he has a name inscribed, King of kings and Lord of lords."
The fact that Jesus is God is indicated in numerous places in the New Testament. John 5:18 states that Jewish leaders sought to kill Jesus "because he not only broke the Sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God." Paul also states that Jesus was equal with God (Phil. 2:6). But if Jesus is equal with the Father, and the Father is a God, then Jesus is a God. Since there is only one God, Jesus and the Father must both be one God-one God in at least two persons (the Holy Spirit, of course, is the third person of the Trinity).
The same is shown in John 8:56-59, where Jesus directly claims to be Yahweh ("I AM"). "'Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.' The Jews then said to him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and you have seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.' So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." Jesus' audience understood exactly what he was claiming; that is why they picked up rocks to stone him. They considered him to be b.aspheming God by claiming to be Yahweh.
The same truth is emphasized elsewhere. Paul stated that we are to live "awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). And Peter addressed his second epistle to "those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 1:1).
Jesus is shown to be God most dramatically when Thomas, finally convinced that Jesus has risen, falls down and exclaims, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28)- an event many in Iglesia have difficulty dealing with. When confronted with this passage in a debate with Catholic Answers founder Karl Keating, Iglesia apologist Jose Ventilacion replied with a straight face, "Thomas was wrong."
God's Messenger?
A litmus test for any religious group is the credibility of its founder in making his claims. Felix Manalo's credibility and, consequently, his claims, are impossible to take seriously. He claimed to be "God's messenger," divinely chosen to re-establish the true Church which, according to Manalo, disappeared in the first century due to apostasy. It was his role to restore numerous doctrines that the Church had abandoned. A quick look at Manalo's background shows where these doctrines came from: Manalo stole them from other quasi-Christian religious sects.
Manalo was baptized a Catholic, but he left the Church as a teen. He became a Protestant, going through five different denominations, including the Seventh-Day Adventists. Finally, Manalo started his own church in 1914. In 1919, he left the Philippines because he wanted to learn more about religion. He came to America, to study with Protestants, whom Iglesia would later declare to be apostates, just like Catholics. Why, five years after being called by God to be his "last messenger," did Manalo go to the U.S. to learn from apostates? What could God's messenger learn from a group that, according to Iglesia, had departed from the true faith?
The explanation is that, contrary to his later claims, Manalo did not believe himself to be God's final messenger in 1914. He didn't use the last messenger doctrine until 1922. He appears to have adopted the messenger doctrine in response to a schism in the Iglesia movement. The schism was led by Teogilo Ora, one of its early ministers. Manalo appears to have developed the messenger doctrine to accumulate power and re-assert his leadership in the church.
This poses a problem for Iglesia, because if Manalo had been the new messenger called by God in 1914, why didn't he tell anybody prior to 1922? Because he didn't think of it until 1922. His situation in this respect parallels that of Mormonism's founder Joseph Smith, who claimed that when he was a boy, God appeared to him in a vision and told him all existing churches were corrupt and he was not to join them, that he would lead a movement to restore God's true Church. But historical records show that Smith did join an inquirer's class at an established Protestant church after his supposed vision from God. It was only in later years that Smith came up with his version of the "true messenger" doctrine, proving as much of an embarrassment for the Mormon church as Manalo's similar doctrine does for Iglesia.
Iglesia Prophesied?
A pillar of Iglesia belief is that its emergence in the Philippines was prophesied in the Bible. This idea is supposedly found in Isaiah 43:5-6, which states, "Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you; I will say to the north, 'Give up,' and the south, 'Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth.'"
Iglesia argues that in this verse, Isaiah is referring to the "far east" and that this is the place where the "Church of Christ" will emerge in the last days. This point is constantly repeated in Iglesia literature: "The prophecy stated that God's children shall come from the far east" (Pasugo, March 1975, 6).
But the phrase "far east" is not in the text. In fact, in the Tagalog (Filipino) translation, as well as in the original Hebrew, the words "far" and "east" are not even found in the same verse, yet the Iglesia recklessly combine the two verses to translate "far east." Using this fallacious technique, Iglesia claims that the far east refers to the Philippines.
Iglesia is so determined to convince its followers of this "fact" that it quotes Isaiah 43:5 from an inexact paraphrase by Protestant Bible scholar James Moffatt that reads, "From the far east will I bring your offspring." Citing this mistranslation, one Iglesia work states, "Is it not clear that you can read the words 'far east'? Clear! Why does not the Tagalog Bible show them? That is not our fault, but that of those who translated the Tagalog Bible from English- the Catholics and Protestants" (Isang Pagbubunyag Sa Iglesia ni Cristo, 1964:131). The Iglesia accuses everyone else of mistranslating the Bible, when it is Iglesia that is taking liberties with the original language.

9
Humanities / Re: KATOLIKO KAMi.
« Message by JsarUnoTres on 03-20-13 09:37 AM »
[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]
Ang relihiyong katoliko ba ay totoo?patunayan niyo!hango sa biblia ang sagot,hindi sariling opinyon!pakipost ng verses

ito na naman ang puro hango sa bibliya pero mismong sila hindi naintindihan ang sagot dahil brainwashed ng mga pastor nila


ang katoliko ay naniniwala sa Diyos Ama Anak at Espiritu Santo

kung ibabase mo sa Bible o New Testament

kami ang gumawa ng Bible dahil si

St Paul ang nagsulat ng mga tala sa Bible

si saint Paul ng Roma at ng mga unang Kristyano

sila ang nagcompile ng Biography ni Jesus hanggang sa Revelation

10
Humanities / Re: MGA SIGNS NA ANG ISANG RELIHIYON AY KULTO
« Message by hardy98 on 05-22-12 11:12 AM »
Di katangap tangap ang paliwanag sa acts.Ang biblia ba ang nagsabing iyan e hindi literal o ang SDA?

Ung sa timothy paki paliwanag din tsaka yung kay pedro at paul..Ng maliwanagan ako kung nasa mali nga ako.

Galing dun sa link at :agree: ako dito :thumbsup:

Quote
mga katugunan
mula sa Salita ng Diyos. Bungad
About Anu-ano Ang Mga Palatandaan
Ng Hidwaang Relihiyon? Upang maituring na kulto ang
isang grupo, hindi
nangngailangan na lahat ng
nasasaad sa listahan ng mga
palatandaang ito ay kanilang
tinataglay. Ang iba ay nagtataglay lamang ng isa o
dalawang palatandaan na
nakasaad dito, ngunit sa
karaniwan ang mga kulto ay
nagtataglay ng mas higit pang
mga palatandaan na nakasaad sa listahang ito. 1. Awtoridad na higit sa Biblia. Maraming grupong
pangrelihiyon na nabibilang sa
kategorya ng kulto ang hindi
lamang Biblia ang ginagamit
na awtoridad. Gumagamit din
sila ng sarili nilang aklat. Mayroon din namng mga kulto
na sumusunod daw sa Biblia
ngunit ang paliwanag lamang
ng kanilang lider ang kanilang
sinusunod o tinatangkilik. Ang
paliwanag ng iba ay kinokondena. 2. Kaligtasan sa pamamagitan
ng gawa: Ang mga kulto ay hindi naniniwala na ang
kaligtasan ay sa pamamagitan
lamang ng pananampalataya.
Itinuturo nila na hindi sapat
ang kamatayan ni Cristo para
sa kaligtasan. Halimbawa, may mga kulto na nagtuturo na
walang kaligtasan ang isang
tao kung hindi siya sasanib sa
kanilang iglesia (INC). Mayroon
din naming nagtuturo na
walang kaligtasan kung hindi nabautismuhan sa tubig ang
isang tao (RCC at mga Oneness). 3. Lagelismo o Mahigpit na
pagsunod sa patakaran o
alituntunin: Ang mga kulto ay may mga patakaran na
mahigpit nilang ipinasusunod.
Mahigpit nilanh ipinasusunod
ang mga ito sapagkat ayon sa
kanila ito ang pagiging
Cristiano. Ang ilang halimbawa nito ay ang mahabang buhok
para sa mga babae, pagsusuot
ng mahahabang damit ng mga
babae, paggamit ng isang salin
lamang ng Biblia, pagbabawal
ng ilang uri ng pagkain, at iba. 4. Walang katiyakan ng
kaligtasan. Ang mga kulto ay hindi naniniwala sa katiyakan
ng kaligtasan. Alipin sila ng
pangamba at takot na kung
sila ay hindi gagaw ng mga
bagay na ipinapagawa sa
kanila ng kanilang iglesia, sila’y maaaring mapahamak sa
kaparusahan ng Diyos. 5. Ang mga lider ng mga kulto
ay may kakaibang dating sa
kanilang mga kaanib. Tinitingala ng lubos ng mga
kaanib ang kanilang mga lider.
Sila lamang ang may tamang
interpretasyon ng Biblia at sila
ay hinirang ng Diyos para sa
isang gawain at sa gayun ay mayroon silang espesyal na
kapangyarihan mula sa Diyos.
Halimabawa, may isang pastor
ng isang kulto sa Pilipinas na
nag-aangkin na siya “Ang
Itinalagang Anak ng Diyos.” Sa makatwid, siya ang Cristo sa
mga Hentil kung paano si Jesus
ang Cristo sa mga Judio. 6. Sila lamang ang tunay na
iglesia. Ang mga kulto ay karaniwang nag-aangkin na
sila lamang ang tunay na
iglesia at kinikilala ang ibang
grupo bilang hidwaan. Dahil
diyan, ang sinumang miembro
na nagnanais lumisan sa kanilang iglesia ay binibigyan
ng babala at pananakot na
walang kaligtasan sa labas ng
kanilang iglesia. 7. Nag-aangkin na sila’y
mayroong tinanggap na
espesyal na kapahayagan mula
sa Diyos. Hindi na nagbibigay ng kapahayagan ng mga
bagong katotohanan ang Diyos
upang ating panaligan. Ngunit
may mga nag-aangkin na sila
ay mayroong tinanggap na
espesyal na kapahayagan mula sa Diyos. At ang mga
kapahayagang ito ay kanilang
ipinapantay sa antas ng mga
katotohanan sa Biblia. Ang
isang halimbawa nito ay ang
“Book Of Mormons.” 8. Maling pananaw o
paniniwala ukol kay Cristo. Ang mga kulto ay hindi
kumikilala na si Cristo ay Diyos
na nagkatawang tao.
Karaniwan sa mga kulto’y
kinikilala si Cristo bilang isang
tao lamang at hindi Diyos. Mayroon namang iba na hindi
siya kinikilala sa tunay na tao. 9. Paggamit ng Biblia sa maling
konteksto. Ang mga kulto ay “magaling” gumamit ng Biblia
sapagkat sumisitas sila ng mga
talata upang patunayan ang
kanilang punto. Ngunit
karaniwan na sa kanila ang
gumamit ng mga teksto mula sa Biblia namali ang konteksto
o ang kabuuang sinasaad ng
talatang kanilang sinitas. Kaya
marapat lamang na maging
maalam tayo sa Biblia upang
hindi tayo madaya ng mga taong ito. 10. Ang Espiritu Santo ay hindi
kinikilala bilang isang persona. Marami sa mga kulto ang hindi
kinikilala ang Espiritu Santo
bilang isang persona na tulad
ng Ama at ng Anak. Itinuturo
nila na ang Espiritu Santo ay isa
lamang kapangyarihan o puwersa tulad ng elektrisidad

11
Ang pagkakaiba po namin sa ibang relihiyon

nasa acronim po ito na BAPTISTS


B

Biblical Authority

The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture's inherent authority. "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." ~ 1st Thessalonians 2:13



A

Autonomy of the Local Church

The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the church. All human authority for governing the local church resides within the local church itself. Thus the church is autonomous, or self- governing. No religious hierarchy outside the local church may dictate a church's beliefs or practices. Autonomy does not mean isolation. A Baptist church may fellowship with other churches around mutual interests and in an associational tie, but a Baptist church cannot be a "member" of any other body. "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." ~ Colossians 1:18 -



P

Priesthood of the Believers

Every born-again believer has direct access to the throne of God. Therefore, since every child of God shares in the priesthood of the believers, all have the same right as ordained ministers to communicate with God, interpret Scripture, and minister in Christ's name. This is first and foremost a matter of responsibility and servanthood, not privilege and license. "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." ~ 1 Peter 2:5



T

Two Ordinances of the Church

We practice only believer's baptism by immersion, which is the only acceptable mode for baptism because it alone preserves the picture of saving truth. No other form pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:1-5). We believe that the Lord's Supper is a symbolic ordinance, picturing Christ's body broken for our sins and His blood shed for our redemption. It is not a saving ordinance, but helps us remember His death, and inspires us while looking forward to His coming. It is to be observed by regenerate, obedient believers. "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." ~ 1 Corinthians 11:23-24



I

Individual Soul Liberty Every

individual Christian has the liberty to believe, right or wrong, as his/her own conscience dictates. While we seek to persuade men to choose the right, a person must not be forced to into compliance, realizing that it is not always the larger group who holds the truth when, in fact, our heritage as Baptists has demonstrated the worth of every individual believer. "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. ~ Romans 14:12



S

Saved and Baptized Church

Membership Local church membership is restricted to individuals who give a believable testimony of personal faith in Christ and have publicly identified themselves with Him in believer's baptism. When the members of a local church are believers, a oneness in Christ exists, and the members can endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."..."Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." ~ Acts 2:41&47 -



T

Two Offices of the Church

The Bible mandates only two offices in the church-- pastor and deacon. The three terms--"pastor," "elder," and "bishop," or "overseer"--all refer to the same office. The two offices of pastor and deacon exist within the local church, not as a hierarchy outside or over the local church. "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work."..."For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus." ~ 1st Timothy 3:1-13 -



S

Separation of Church and State God established both the church and the civil government, and He gave each its own distinct sphere of operation. The government's purposes are outlined in Romans 13:1-7 and the church's purposes in Matthew 28:19 and 20. Neither should control the other, nor should there be an alliance between the two. Christians in a free society can properly influence government toward righteousness, which is not the same as a denomination or group of churches controlling the government. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:" ~ Romans 13:1-3


Quote
what if lang naman na yun
ang tanging gamot? Ok balikan natin panahon
na wala pang gamot sa mga
sakit, pero merong
treatment.. Yung pag jajakol
ay pang pa wala ng sakit sa
pag iihi.. Advice sayo 2-3x a week ka mag jakol.. Anu
gagawin mo pa rin ba kahit
kasalanan ito?
mas susundin ko payo ni paul.
para po sa akin e mag aasawa nalang ako,kesa magjakol..

12
Humanities / Re: PASTOR o PASTORA ang nasa BIBLIA
« Message by danhiel024 on 03-25-12 03:17 PM »
Hahaha ayon kay pusero;
"bawal ang pastor sa biblia."
ayon kay huck;
"walang ibang pastor sa biblia maliban kay Cristo."
Ayon sa biblia;
Jeremiah 3:15
"And I will give you PASTORS(plural) according to mine heart, which shall FEED you with knowledge and understanding."
=== maliwanag na merong pastor ayon sa talata at hindi iisa kundi marami, kaya mali na agad sina huck at pusero.
Ayon kay Iccaro;
"hindi mangangaral ang pastor kundi tagapag'alaga ng tupa."
===Sagot; ang tagapag'alaga ng tupa ay tagapag'pakain(feed) din ng tupa, sa kaso ng pastor na binangit sa;
Ephesians 4:11
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; “
ay tao ang inaalagaan nila, eto ay ayon sa mga talatang;
John 21:16
15. So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, FEED my lambs.
16. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, FEED my sheep.
17. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, FEED my sheep.
===In telling Peter to shepherd his sheep, Christ was appointing him as a pastor.
=== So maliwanag na ang pastor ay tagapag'alaga at tagapag'pakain ng spiritual life ng mga cristiano sa iglesia(flocks,lambs).
==tanong; bakit kelangan pakainin, ano ang ipapakain?
==sagot; Mattew 4:4
" But he answered and said, IT IS WRITTEN, MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDETH OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.
Mattew 28:19-20
"19. Go ye therefore, and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
1 Corinthians 1:18,
“For the preaching of
the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.”
Titus 1:3,
“But hath in due times
manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;”
===So maliwanag na ang pastor ay tagapag'alaga at mangangaral upang pakainin ang FLOCK O IGLESIA, eto ay ayon sa mga talatang;
Acts 20:17
"17. And from Miletus he sent to
Ephesus, and called the elders(Pastors) of the church.
Dito in'address ni Paul ang kanyang paalala, na gampanin ang;
Acts 20:28
"28. Take heed therefore unto
yourselves, and to all the flock, over
the which the Holy Ghost hath made
you overseers, to FEED the church of
God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."
==Maliwanag na may mga appointed at ordained Pastor ang Panginoon..
==Wala kaming tutul sa sa sinasabi ng
John 10:11
"I am a good Shepherd, the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
=== Ngunit sa talatang ito, walang sinabi na Si Cristo lang(ALONE) ang pastor, dahil may sinabi pa ang biblia na; 1 Peter 5:4
"4. And when the chief SHEPHERD shall
appear, ye shall receive a crown of
glory that fadeth not away.
===So mali sina pusero,huck at iccaro dahil sa iisang talata lang sila bumase at nag'kunklusyon agad? Maling mali na interpretasyon sa biblia.
===Tungkol na sa pag'tawag ng pastor,
Hebrews 13:17,
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”
1 Timothy 5:17,
“Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.”
===eto ang paraan namin ng pagtrato sa pastor.
Think of ways to give him honor. Never call him by his first name.
He is deserving for such previeledges.
===Tungkol naman sa mga pasaway na pastor, may paalala ng biblia dito
I Peter 5:1-3
 1. The elders which are among you I
exhort, who am also an elder, and a
witness of the sufferings of Christ, and
also a partaker of the glory that shall
be revealed:
2. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight
thereof, not by constraint, but
willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a
ready mind;
3. Neither as being lords over God's
heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
====God will correct His man if he needs it.
When Saul was trying to kill David, David
would not fight back.
He knew Saul had been called of God. The Scripture says,
“Touch not mine anointed,” and
“Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord.”
==Ayan nailatag ko na ang stand ko, nainip kasi ako sa puro palususot nila pusero eh.
==Sir hardy bahala ka na kasi super bussy ako ngayon.

13
Humanities / Re: O.S.A.S
« Message by kaisa on 01-23-12 02:45 AM »
[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]
Ah so mali pala si Pablo ng sinabi niyang
"At saka nahiwalay"??. Ganun ba??.
sige nga po paki paliwanag at ng di ako
maligaw..
« Last Edit: 01-20-12 11:30 PM by cute_
huckfin »
Sir hardy pwede ako na magpaliwanag?
@huckfin, to understand this passage, we need to read the Hebrew 6:1-12, ok?
(Main topic)Paul deals with a major lack of understanding among Hebrew Christians (Hebrews 6:1-12)
1. Therefore leaving the principles of
the doctrine of Christ, let us go on
unto perfection; not laying again the
foundation of repentance from dead
works, and of faith toward God,
2. Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of
resurrection of the dead, and of
eternal judgment.
3. And this will we do, if God permit.
4. For it is impossible for those who
were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were
made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5. And have tasted the good word of
God, and the powers of the world to
come,
6. If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing
they crucify to themselves the Son of
God afresh, and put him to an open
shame.
7. For the earth which drinketh in the
rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by
whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing
from God:
8. But that which beareth thorns and
briers is rejected, and is nigh unto
cursing; whose end is to be burned. 9 But, beloved, we are persuaded
better things of you, and things that
accompany salvation, though we thus
speak.
10. For God is not unrighteous to
forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his
name, in that ye have ministered to
the saints, and do minister.
11. And we desire that every one of
you do shew the same diligence to the
full assurance of hope unto the end:
12. That ye be not slothful, but
followers of them who through faith
and patience inherit the promises.
In the first 3 verses here Paul expresses
concern that these immature Jewish
Believers still had not mastered the
elementary principles of the faith.
He began this discussion in chapter 5 when in verse 13 he refers to them as "babes" in the faith.
What are these "principles of the doctrine of Christ" on which these Hebrew Christians seem to need a refresher (verses 1-3)?
"repentance from dead works"
They needed to turn from the works of
Judaism.
"faith toward God"
They needed to turn to faith in Christ. "the doctrine of baptisms"
They needed to understand the
differences between the baptism of
Jewish proselytes, baptism by John the
Baptist, Christian baptism and Holy Spirit baptism.
"laying on of hands"
For commissioning, ordination, etc. "resurrection of the dead"
"eternal judgment"
You can see that these were some pretty basic issues of their Christian faith. A lack of understanding on these issues would open them up to false teachers.
Then Paul expresses a major concern he has for these Jewish Christians - their impression that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross can somehow be treated like the temporal sacrifices they were accustomed to making when they sinned.
Many have sought to deny that the people referenced here are actually saved, but I'm convinced that the five qualifications described in verses 4-5 are intended by Paul to absolutely confirm that he is talking about
washed-in-the-blood Believers.
Let's look at these five qualifications that constitute a Believer in verses 4-5:
1. once enlightened
2. have tasted of the heavenly gift
3. were made partakers of the Holy Ghost
4. have tasted the good word of God 
5. [have tasted] the powers of the world
to come,
It appears that Paul is going the extra mile to make certain that his readers
understand that he is talking about saved people in verses 4-5. So, what's the FALLING-AWAY reference in verse 6? Here it is:
These Jewish Christians were accustomed to offering another sacrifice every time they sinned. The Christian life does not work like that.
Christ was just sacrificed one time; it can't happen again. Paul is explaining: that's it; there is no more
sacrifice. So, for these Jews who wanted to continue with their Old Testament pattern of sinning, sacrificing, sinning, sacrificing, sinning, sacrificing...(you get the picture), there's only one sacrifice - Christ.
Therefore, they needed to understand: if you say that the sacrifice of Christ was only good until your next shortcoming (sin), you have a big problem - you're all out of sacrifices; Christ was only sacrificed once.
If you take the sacrifice of Christ and apply it to the old pattern of repeated sacrifices rather than accepting the new pattern of once- and-for-all sacrifice, you have no more sacrifice to offer, and thus, no way back to salvation.
This hypothetical scenario is intended to show the Jewish Christians that, were it possible to have a second
salvation experience, it would require that they "crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open
shame."
That, of course, is impossible. To sum it up, Paul is saying this: If you could
lose your salvation (and you can't), you
could not be saved again because you
have used up the only sacrifice Christ
made for salvation. They must abandon
their old mindset of sin, sacrifice, sin again, sacrifice again in lieu of the finished work of Christ once and for all for all their sin.
Verses 7-9 reinforces the roll of good
works in the Believer's life. He is blessed
from God as he serves. Verse 8 probably
paints a scenario of the Judgment Seat of Christ in I Corinthians 3:11-1 where Believers' works are tried by fire.
Verse 15 of that passage says, "If any
man’s work shall be burned, he shall
suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."
This second fire analogy
adds additional evidence to my arsenal that Paul wrote Hebrews.
In verse 9 Paul expresses that he expects godliness in lifestyle from these Hebrew Christians.
Verses 10-12 sum up Paul's exhortation
here: You (Jews) who are making this
transition from the Law of Moses to faith in Christ need to follow this path to its logical and scriptural conclusion. Don't get sidetracked by attempting to create a hybrid doctrine of a little Law and a little faith.
Done!


qoute ko na rin tong copy paste  :rofl:

laki ng tawa ko dito, pede ng mr. copy paste  :peace:

geh read lng ako muna  :news: page 8 pa lang ako  :D

Helow Pastor, sana Welcome ako dito.

dnt worry reading mode lang muna ako  :P


14
1. The Bible teaches that to be saved a person must “BELIEVE ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.”

In Acts 16:30 the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas this crucial question: “What must I do to be saved?” What answer did these men give to this needy jailer? Did they say, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be baptized and thou shalt be saved”?  If baptism is necessary for salvation, then why is nothing said about baptism in Acts 16:31? It’s true that this man was baptized (verse 33), and yet this does not change the fact that Acts 16:31 says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” If water baptism was a condition of salvation, then this would have been the perfect place for Paul to have said so.

2. The Bible teaches throughout the New Testament that FAITH and FAITH ALONE is necessary for salvation.

I would urge you to read carefully and prayerfully the following verses of Scripture:
 
 
John 1:12-13
John 3:15
John 3:16
John 3:18
John 3:36
John 5:24
John 6:35
John 6:40
John 6:47
John 7:38-39
John 11:25-26
John 20:31
Acts 2:21
Acts 10:43
 
Acts 11:17
Acts 13:38-39
Acts 15:11
Acts 16:31
Acts 20:21
Romans 1:16
Romans 3:22
Romans 3:26
Romans 3:28
Romans 3:30
Romans 5:1
Romans 10:9
Romans 10:11
Romans 10:13
 
 
1 Corinthians 15:1-2
Galatians 2:16
Galatians 3:2-9
Galatians 3:14
Galatians 3:24
Galatians 3:26
Ephesians 2:8-9
2 Thessalonians 2:10
2 Thessalonians 2:12
1 Timothy 4:10
2 Timothy 3:15
Titus 3:8
1 John 5:1
1 John 5:11-13
 


In all of these passages FAITH is mentioned as being essential for salvation. In none of these passages is water baptism mentioned. If baptism is a necessary part or an essential part of salvation, then why is nothing said about baptism in these passages? If a man must be baptized to be saved, then why do all these verses fail to say so? For example, in Acts 10:43 why didn’t Peter say, “whosoever believeth in Him and is baptized shall receive remission (forgiveness) of sins”?

3. EPHESIANS 2:8-9 is a passage which God has given to answer this key question: HOW IS A PERSON SAVED? This important doctrinal verse says nothing about water baptism.
 
How is a person saved? “For by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” Why is there no mention made of baptism? Why didn’t Paul say, “For by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH AND BAPTISM . . .”?

4. Water baptism is a WORK (something that man does to please God), and yet the Bible teaches again and again that a person is not saved by works.

Here are some examples:
 
Titus 3:5—“Not by WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS which WE HAVE DONE, but according to His mercy He saved us.”
 
2 Timothy 1:9—“Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, NOT ACCORDING TO OUR WORKS.”
 
Ephesians 2:8-9—“For by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast.”
 
Romans 3:28—“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW.”
 
Romans 4:5—“But to him that WORKETH NOT, but BELIEVETH on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

In other words, salvation is not DOING something; it is KNOWING someone (John 17:3). Salvation is not based on what we might do; it is based on what Christ has ALREADY DONE (John 19:30). Salvation is not TRYING; it is TRUSTING (John 6:47). If salvation could be earned by anything we do, then Christ’s death was a waste (Galatians 2:21). Salvation is not WORKING; it is RESTING on the WORK of Another (Romans 4:5). Good works are not what a man DOES in order to be SAVED; good works are what a SAVED MAN DOES (Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5-8). God’s holiness utterly condemns the best man (Romans 3:10-23); God’s grace freely justifies the worst (1 Timothy 1:15)!

5. The key question is this: When is a person saved? Is a person saved at the moment he believes on the Lord Jesus Christ or is a person saved the moment he is baptized in water? Is a person saved when he believes or is he saved when he is baptized in water (at a time subsequent to initial faith)?

If a person is saved at the point of faith, then this means that faith alone is necessary for salvation and that water baptism is something that is done after a person is saved. This would also mean that the requirement for salvation is simple faith in Christ. It is not faith plus baptism. The salvation formula would be this:

FAITH + NOTHING = SALVATION

If a person is saved at the point of water baptism, then this means that faith in Christ is not enough for salvation. This means that faith in Christ is part of the requirement but it is not the total requirement. To be saved a person must not only believe in Christ but he must also be baptized in water. The requirement for salvation is faith plus water baptism. This would also mean that it is possible for a person to be a believer in Christ and yet still be unsaved until he is baptized. The person’s sins are not washed away until the water baptism takes place. The salvation formula would thus be as follows:

FAITH + WATER BAPTISM = SALVATION

Let us now go to the Scriptures to determine whether a person is saved at the point of faith or at the point of water baptism.
 
A)       Acts 16:31—“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (this statement was made in answer to the question of verse 30, “What must I do to be saved?”). This is a conditional promise. God promises to do something if the sinner does something. If the sinner does his part, God will do His part. So the meaning of Acts 16:31 is this: “If you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you shall be saved.” Notice that nothing is said about water baptism being a requirement for salvation. The clear implication is that if a person believes on the Lord Jesus Christ, he will be saved. Ephesians 2:8-9 is a key passage which tells us how a person is saved: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). Water baptism is not mentioned. Salvation takes place at the point of faith. The gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to all who believe” (Romans 1:16), clearly implying that all who believe are saved.
 
B)       1 Corinthians 1:21—“It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” God saves those who believe! God would never fail to save someone who believes.
 
C)       Luke 8:12—“Then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.” The devil knows God’s simple plan of salvation! He does not want people to BELIEVE AND BE SAVED! To foil the devil, the sinner simply needs to believe. If he does that, he will be saved! The devil’s strategy has always been to add certain requirements in order for man to somehow work for and earn God’s salvation. Here’s a simple test to prove this: Ask any member of a religious cult this simple question: “What must I do to be saved?” and then compare his answer with Paul’s answer found in Acts 16:31. You will find that the two answers are not the same! The cultist will invariably add at least one additional requirement.
 
D)       Hebrews 7:25—“Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.” He saves all those who come to Him through Jesus Christ. In John 6:35 we learn that COMING TO GOD is synonymous with BELIEVING ON HIM. Thus, God saves to the uttermost all who believe (compare also John 6:37).
 
E)       John 3:16; John 3:36; John 5:24; John 6:47; John 11:25-26 and other passages clearly teach that those who believe on Christ HAVE eternal LIFE as a present possession (compare also 1 John 5:12). If a person has eternal life the moment he believes on Christ, then this person is saved. It’s unthinkable to speak of a person who has eternal life and yet who is unsaved! All those who receive Jesus Christ by faith have received God’s free gift of eternal life (Romans 6:23), and this free gift becomes theirs at the moment of faith, not at the moment of water baptism.
 
F)       Acts 10:43—“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission (forgiveness) of sins.” If a person believes on Christ and does not receive forgiveness of sins, then God is a liar! There is no such thing as a true believer whose sins are not forgiven. Those who refuse to believe on Christ will die in their sins (John 8:24), but those who believe in Him will not. Complete forgiveness of all my sins becomes a reality the moment I believe on Christ, not the moment I am baptized in water. If your sins have not been forgiven prior to being baptized in water, then you should not be baptized (because this would mean you are an unbeliever and hence unsaved).
 
G)      “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39). All who believe are forgiven and justified from all things! In verse after verse we learn that FAITH is the one condition, the one requirement for salvation and for forgiveness. If you can find a true believer who is not justified from all things, then God would be a liar. God forbid!
 
H)       Romans 4:3 and 4:5. In Romans 4 we learn how Abraham was saved. Keep in mind that Abraham lived prior to the time of water baptism. In verse 3 we learn that “Abraham believed God and it was counted (imputed) unto him for righteousness.” At the moment Abraham believed, God’s righteousness was put to his account. At the moment of faith Abraham was justified. As we come to verse 5 we find that the very same thing happens to a person living today: “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). If justification takes place at the point of water baptism, then Paul could have clarified this. He could have said something like this: “Even though Abraham received God’s righteousness at the moment he believed, things are different in our day. Today a person does not receive God’s righteousness when he first believes, but he is justified only when he is baptized in water. There is no salvation, no justification, no forgiveness until the believing sinner takes this initial step of obedience and submits to water baptism.” But Paul says nothing of the sort. Paul consistently taught that those who believe are blessed just as Abraham was (Galatians 3:9). God’s Word teaches that “the righteousness of God . . . is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe” (Rom. 3:22).”  No believer lacks God’s righteousness. Every believer has been justified.
 
I)        In John 1:12-13 we learn that a person is born of God (is regenerated) and becomes a child of God when he receives Jesus Christ and believes on His Name. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born (regenerated), not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). Nothing is here said about baptismal regeneration. It does not say that water brings about this new birth, but it does say that these wonderful things happen when a person believes on Him.
 
J)       How does a person become adopted by the Father and entitled to all the privileges and benefits of being God’s son? “For ye are all the children [literally “sons”] of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:26). Once again we see that simple faith in Christ is the key.
 
K)       How is a person purified and made fit for God’s kingdom? “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith” (Acts 15:9). Notice that is does not say that their hearts were purified by faith and water baptism. Keep in mind that some people claim to believe in Christ when they really don’t believe in Him at all. They profess Him but they don’t actually possess Him (1 John 5:12). Some of these false professors (mere pretenders) are even baptized in water, but this does nothing to purify their hearts. Only true faith in Jesus Christ can do this. The person must have his heart purified by faith before he or she ever gets into the water, or else water baptism is nothing but a meaningless ritual.
 
L)       We have already seen that people are saved by faith and forgiven by faith and justified by faith and regenerated by faith, and in Acts 26:18 we learn that people are also SANCTIFIED (set apart unto God) by faith—“To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me” (Acts 26:18). In 1 Corinthians 6:11 we learn of those who are washed, justified and sanctified, and all of these blessings are conditioned on simple faith in Christ. It is impossible to find a true believer in Christ who is un-washed, un-justified and un-sanctified. Such a thought would be Biblically absurd! But according to those who believe in baptismal regeneration, there is a period of time, albeit short, where a person is a believer in Christ and yet is not yet saved and not yet forgiven and not yet cleansed. In their view, this would be the time between when the person believed in Christ and when the person was baptized in water. Remember, no one is baptized immediately after putting faith in Christ. Some amount of time elapses between the two events, whether it be very short or long.
 
Thought question: What happens if the person dies after he believes in Christ but before he is baptized in water? If this person is safe with God and among the redeemed, then it is very clear that it was not the water baptism that saved him. [The thief on the cross is often used as an example of this. Here was a man who trusted Jesus Christ and had no opportunity to be baptized in water (even though we recognize that Christian baptism did not begin historically until the Day of Pentecost, about 53 days later). If any additional requirements for salvation had been laid on this man, apart from simple faith in Christ, he would have been in trouble].
 
M)      The New Testament consistently teaches that a person receives the Spirit by faith. Those who believe in Christ receive the Spirit (according to John 7:37-39). In Galatians chapter 3 we learn that we receive the Spirit, not by any kind of works, but by faith (Gal. 3:2,14). In Romans 8:9 we learn that if a person does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is “none of His” (meaning he is not a Christian, he does not belong to Christ). This implies that all those who have the Spirit belong to Him and are Christians. Indeed a Christian can be defined as one who has received the Spirit by faith. If a person is not indwelt by the Spirit, then this person is not a Christian and is not saved. Since every believer is indwelt by the Spirit and since everyone indwelt by the Spirit is saved, then this strongly points to the fact that a person is saved at the moment of faith. Nowhere in the New Testament does it teach that the reception of the Spirit is contingent upon being baptized in water. We also learn in Ephesians 1:13 that a person is sealed with the Holy Spirit when he believes in Christ [the KJV of this verse can lead to confusion; Darby’s translation: “in whom also, having believed, ye have been sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise”]. You can’t be securely saved unless you are sealed, and this sealing takes place at the moment of faith, not at the moment a person is baptized in water.
 
N)       Salvation is the work of God from beginning to end, as summarized by 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, “But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Faith is mentioned in this passage (“belief of the truth”) but there is no mention of water baptism.
 
O)      In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 Paul sets forth the content of the gospel. He tells us what the gospel really is. He mentions Christ’s death for our sins (v.3) and Christ’s resurrection (v.4) and the necessity of genuine faith (v.1-2), but he says absolutely nothing about water baptism. If water baptism were an essential requirement for salvation, then how could Paul have omitted this from his explanation of the gospel? Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 1:14-16 Paul was thankful that he did not personally baptize the Corinthians, except for a few people. He then made this remarkable statement—“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor. 1:17 and compare 1 Cor. 1:21). How could Paul say such a thing if water baptism were essential for salvation? The clear implication here is that water baptism, though clearly practiced by the apostles, was not part and parcel of the gospel message. But if water baptism were essential for salvation, then we would expect it to be at the very heart of the gospel message. But water baptism is not something that a person does to be saved; it is something that a saved person does. This is a crucial distinction.  [See also 1 Corinthians 4:15. The Corinthians owed their regeneration to Paul, the human instrument, and to the gospel (Eph. 1:13) but not to water baptism.  Paul did not say, "I have begotten you through the gospel and through water baptism."]
 
P)       In the early church there were legalistic false teachers who were saying, “Except ye be circumcised, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). This teaching was strongly condemned by the apostles and the Jerusalem council. Today there are those who teach this: “Except ye be baptized in water, ye cannot be saved.” Should this teaching be likewise condemned?
 
Q)      Conclusion to this section: In the book of Acts we have frequent examples of water baptism. As we study the book of Acts we learn that the order was always this: 1) First, the person heard the gospel and believed on Christ; 2) Then, the person was baptized. According to the Bible, a person is saved when he believes on Christ (Acts 16:31; 1 Cor. 1:21), and therefore those who were baptized in the book of Acts were already saved before they entered the water.
 
We just studied numerous passages of Scripture showing that a person is saved and justified and forgiven and sanctified and purified and regenerated and sealed and indwelt the moment he believes on Christ. We also looked at numerous salvation verses under Section 2 of this study. All of these verses declare that a person is saved the moment he believes on Christ. The Lord Jesus Himself said, “He that believeth on Me HATH (HAS) everlasting life” (John 6:47). If a person confesses that Jesus is Lord and believes in his heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, that person is SAVED (Romans 10:9). If he is not saved, then God is a liar. God saves those who believe (1 Cor. 1:21). Saved people have their sins forgiven and forgiveness is something that a person receives the moment he believes (Acts 10:43). Therefore, baptism is not something that a person does to be saved; baptism is something that a saved person does. It is something that a believing person does after he is saved and after he is forgiven. An unsaved person should never be baptized. There is no such thing as an UNSAVED BELIEVER. The Bible knows of only two groups of people: BELIEVERS (those who are saved) and UNBELIEVERS (those who are not saved). See John 3:18; 3:36; 1 John 5:12. Only saved believers should be baptized in water, in obedience to Christ’s command. [Note:  A "saved believer" is a redundancy but we use it here to over-emphasize our point].

6.      Is water baptism essential? The answer is both NO and YES. It is not essential for salvation, as we have already studied. God’s single requirement for salvation is FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ. “Nothing in my hands I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling!” On the other hand, water baptism is essential for OBEDIENCE once a person is saved. How can we not obey the Lord who died to save us? Water baptism is one of the first things that God tells a believer to do after he is saved. It is Lesson Number 1 in God’s School of Obedience. It is something that God has commanded that his believers should do (Acts 10:48; Acts 2:38; Matthew 28:19-20). We should gladly obey our Lord and not be ashamed to publicly identify ourselves with Jesus Christ our Saviour and with other believers who love and honor Him.
 
According to "Church Of Christ" theology, no one can be saved while repenting and believing in Christ on their knees in the privacy of their bedroom, no one can be saved while sitting at their kitchen table crying out to Christ for salvation, no soldier can be saved by asking the Lord for salvation while dying from a gunshot wound on the battle field, no astronaut soon to die in outer space from a heart attack can be saved by simply believing in the Lord, no one trapped in a burning house can be saved by asking Christ for mercy, no one dying of injuries from a car crash can be saved by simply believing the Gospel message. None of these persons can be saved according to "Church Of Christ" theology, unless they can be baptized for remission of sins. Now, if a "Church Of Christ" person would say there are some exceptions that would allow some persons to be saved without baptism, it proves baptism is not necessary for salvation.   --Bruce Oyen
 
7.      If a person is not baptized in water, is he saved? This question needs to be answered carefully. There are different reasons why a person may not be baptized. He may be a new believer and perhaps no one has taught him the importance and the significance of water baptism. Remember, Philip had to teach the Ethiopian Eunuch about baptism (Acts 8). There may also be unusual circumstances which would make water baptism very difficult. For example, a man could come to know Christ on his hospital death-bed, and be physically unable to be baptized in water. God certainly understands the circumstances.
 
I knew a Pastor who was sound in the faith in almost every area. He had a heart for the lost and was an excellent Bible teacher. But he had a doctrinal quirk. For some strange reason he believed that water baptism was not for today (even though he was not ultradispensational) and thus he never baptized those who got saved. This man led many precious souls to a saving knowledge of Christ and I have no doubt that they were genuinely saved. Had they been correctly taught about baptism, I’m sure they would have submitted to the ordinance. This pastor will have to give an account to Christ for his incorrect teaching concerning water baptism, but we can thank God that he preached Christ and many were saved through this man’s ministry (compare Philippians 1:18).
 
What about the person who is correctly taught about baptism, knows that he should be baptized, understands its significance and yet refuses to obey Christ in this area? Would not this indicate a major spiritual problem? Our Lord asked this searching question: “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Obedience is the fruit of saving faith. We are not saved because we obey, but we obey because we are saved. As blood bought believers, it is sadly true that there are times when we fail to obey our Lord and Master and we need to confess this sin of disobedience (1 John 1:9). But the general pattern of our new life in Christ should be one of obedience. It was said of the original disciples that “they kept His Word” (John 17:6) even though we know that they did not always keep His Word (think of Peter’s denial, as an obvious example). If you took a snapshot of Peter denying Christ, you would have a picture of his terrible sin and disobedience. But if you watched a video of his entire life as a believer, it would show a general pattern of obedience and faithful service to Christ. In spite of times of failure, the overall pattern of a saved person’s life should be one of obedience. “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:3-4). If a person knows and understands the importance and significance of water baptism and refuses to obey Christ’s command in this regard, then it would not be wrong of us to seriously question this person’s salvation.

8.    Passages That Seem to Teach that Water Baptism Saves

We have examined the mass of Biblical evidence which clearly teaches that a person is saved at the moment of faith, and not at the moment of water baptism. The verses we looked at were simple and clear and unmistakable in their meaning. How can it be put any more simply or any more clearly than this: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved” (Acts 16:31); “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” (John 6:47); etc. ?

We now want to look at a few verses which at first glance may seem to teach that water baptism saves. Do these verses really teach baptismal regeneration or do these verses actually harmonize with the scores of passages which we have already looked at?

Mark 16:16
 
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).
 
In light of this verse consider the following groups of people:
 
1)       Those people who have believed on Christ and who have been baptized in water. According to Mark 16:16, these people are saved.
 
2)       Those people who have believed on Christ but who have not been baptized in water. Nothing is said about this group of people in Mark 16:16. If this verse had said, “He that believeth and is not baptized is not saved,” then this would be a strong argument for those holding to baptismal regeneration. But it doesn’t say this. Actually unbaptized believers were practically unheard of in the days of the early church. According to the book of Acts, when people believed on Christ they were baptized in water, and this usually took place without much delay. So it is not surprising that this verse in Mark has nothing to say about unbaptized believers. The believers of the first century were willing to go so far as to die for Christ, and they were certainly willing to be baptized. I can find no example in the book of Acts of true believers who refused to be baptized in water after they learned its importance and its symbolism.
 
3)       Those people who have not believed in Christ and who have not been baptized. According to Mark 16:16 such people are damned (condemned, judged).
 
4)       Those people who have not believed in Christ and yet have been baptized. These people will be damned also. Mark 16:16 clearly implies that all unbelievers will be damned whether they have been baptized or not. This is in harmony with John 3:18 and 2 Thessalonians 2:12 and other passages which teach that men are condemned because of their unbelief. In Acts 8:9-24 we have an example of an unbeliever who was baptized. He is known as Simon the Sorcerer. Even though it says he believed (v.13), verses 20-23 indicate that his faith was not genuine saving faith. He was a professing believer but not a true believer. Does water baptism save? One thing we know for sure! Water baptism has never saved an unbeliever. Those who do not believe will die in their sins (John 8:24).

One final word about Mark 16:16. It is absolutely true that the person who believes and is baptized shall be saved. This is true in my own life. I believed in Christ and I was baptized in water, and I am saved. But the Scriptures teach, as we have previously established, that the essential ingredient and requirement of salvation is not baptism, but faith. Faith is essential for salvation. Water baptism is essential for obedience because as a believer I must be careful to observe to do all things whatsoever Christ has commanded me (Matthew 28:19-20), and water baptism is one of the first things He has told me to do. However, the water did not save me, Christ did (Matthew 1:21)!

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

This passage is talking about how a person is born again or how a person is regenerated. Those who believe in baptismal regeneration believe that the “water” mentioned in this verse refers to water baptism. But is this really the case?

First, we should remember that when Jesus said these words, Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. Christian baptism was first mentioned by Christ in Matthew 28:19-20 and it was not practiced until Acts chapter 2 (the day of Pentecost, see especially verse 41). That there was a clear difference between the baptism of John and Christian baptism is obvious from Acts 19:1-7 (compare also Acts 18:25). So Jesus in John 3:5 could not have been referring to Christian baptism because such did not exist at that time.

If He was not referring to baptism, then what was our Lord referring to when He taught that a person must be “born of water”? The main point that Jesus was making is this: You cannot enter God’s kingdom unless you are CLEAN. Filthy disciples (those who are unclean, unforgiven, uncleansed) will not be allowed to enter. Our Lord was not talking about physical water which can only cleanse a person on the outside. In John 3:5 Jesus was talking about SPIRITUAL CLEANSING (something that must happen on the inside of a person). To be clean on the outside a person must take a bath and use soap and water! To be clean on the inside there is another kind of bath that is needed. Soap and water can never remove the filth of sin! God must do something on the inside of a person. Let us now see what the Bible says about being born of water and of the Spirit.
   
John 3:3 says that if a person is going to see the kingdom he must be born again. John 3:5 says that if a person is going to enter the kingdom he must be born of water and of the Spirit. Therefore, being born again means the same thing as being born of water and of the Spirit. If a person has been born again, then this person has been born of water and of the Spirit.

[Note: Some think that “water” refers to our natural birth when we were born as a baby and “Spirit” refers to our spiritual birth when we are born again. But this view does not fit the context. Since every person has been born physically, it would be stating the obvious to say that to enter the kingdom a person must be born of water. This would be like saying, A person cannot enter the kingdom unless he is a person.]

Water is the one thing we use whenever we wash something. Water is the universal cleansing agent. If you wash your car, water is used. If you wash your face, water is used. To make your clothes bright and clean, you use water. To make your teeth clean, you not only use toothpaste, but water as well. Whatever we wash, water is somehow involved. It is easy to see how WATER can be symbolic of CLEANSING (making something clean)!

Sinners need to be washed and made clean. Jesus wanted Nicodemus to know something very important: No unclean person can enter God's kingdom! Paul says it this way: “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God” (Ephesians 5:5 and see also Galatians 5:21 and Revelation 21:27). To enter the kingdom a person must be CLEAN and WASHED on the inside (sins forgiven!). No unwashed people will be admitted! No unclean person will enter the kingdom of God. Only cleansed sinners will be allowed! Compare Psalm 24:3-4. You must be born of water! You must be washed!

Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Will any unclean or unrighteous people inherit the kingdom? Will washed sinners enter the kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:11)? There is hope for the filthy, but only if they get washed, and this washing does not refer to water baptism. It refers to an inner work that only God can do. In verse 11 we have the two ingredients of John 3:5 mentioned: the WATER (“washed”) and the SPIRIT (“by the Spirit of our God”).

Whenever you think of John 3:5 you should also think of Titus 3:5. The latter explains the former. Both of these verses are found in chapter 3 verse 5, so they are easy to remember! Both of these verses talk about being BORN AGAIN (the word "REGENERATION" in Titus 3:5 means "born again"). Both of these verses talk about the WATER and the SPIRIT. Look at Titus 3:5: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration (the WATER) and renewing of the Holy Spirit (the SPIRIT)." The born again person is the person who has been thoroughly cleansed and renewed by the Spirit of God!

All of these verses are talking about that wonderful work which God does on the inside of a person, making it possible for him to enter God's kingdom!

Notice the water in John 13:5. Jesus was using this water to be a symbolic picture of an important spiritual truth. Was Peter a "washed" disciple? Was Peter CLEAN on the inside (see John 13:9-10)? Who was the disciple who was never born of water? Judas was the disciple who was unwashed and unclean and who had never been born again (John 13:10-11 and compare John 13:2)? This man would never enter the kingdom.
 
The WATER is also mentioned in Ephesians 5:25-26: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph. 5:25-26). How is a person washed? BY THE WORD! The WORD OF GOD is an essential part of the cleansing process. The WORD OF GOD is the mirror that shows us how dirty we really are (because of sin). Not only does the Bible show us our sin, but it also points out the only Saviour and His many promises to save those who truly believe on Him. Without the Word of God a person could never be saved and could never be born again. The following verses show how important God's Word is when it comes to salvation and regeneration and cleansing:

1) Psalm 119:9 -"Wherewithal (how) shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.”

2) John 15:3 - "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.”

3) 1 Peter 1:23-25 - "Being born again (regeneration!) not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth for ever."

4) James 1:18 - "Of His own will begat He us with the word of truth." “Begat” is another term that relates to regeneration.

God's Word does two things: 1) It shows man how great a sinner he is (Romans 3:10-23) and 2) It show man how great a Saviour Christ is (Romans 3:24-26)!

Nicodemus was a Jew who should have been familiar with the Old Testament. In John 3:9 we see that Nicodemus still did not understand what Jesus was talking about. In John 3:10 Jesus told Nicodemus that he should have known these things! He should have understood about the WATER and the SPIRIT! He should have been familiar with EZEKIEL 36:25-29. Does this passage talk about the WATER? Does this passage talk about being CLEAN and being CLEANSED? Does this passage talk about the SPIRIT? In this passage God promised to do a wonderful work ON THE INSIDE (see Ezekiel 36:26-27)! See also Jeremiah 4:14 and Isaiah 1:16.

My friend, based on these many passages, if God has not cleansed you on the inside, then you will not enter the kingdom. You must be born again! Water baptism is not the answer. You need to be cleansed before you ever get baptized in water. You need to have your heart purified by faith (Acts 15:9).

Note on Titus 3:5
 
What does the "renewing of the Holy Spirit" mean?  Most Bible students would understand this as the renewing that is produced by the Holy Spirit.   In similar manner, what does "the washing of regeneration" refer to?  If the "renewing of the Holy Spirit" refers to the renewing that is produced by the Holy Spirit, then "the washing of regeneration" would refer to the washing (cleansing from sin) that is produced by regeneration.   Notice that it does not say that the washing produces the regeneration.   Those who hold to baptismal regeneration wrongly teach the washing (which they identify as water baptism) produces regeneration.  That is, they teach that water baptism is a condition for being born of God or regenerated.  However, the verse is actually teaching that the regeneration (God's supernatural work of giving a person new life) produces the washing (the cleansing from sin). This same "washing" is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:11 and has nothing to do with water baptism. It is an inner washing that is accomplished by the supernatural working of the Spirit of God.

Acts 2:38
 
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38).

This passage has become one of the favorite verses of those who teach baptismal regeneration. In a motel room there was a Gideon Bible and near the front it had a section with John 3:16 written out in many different languages. In this particular Bible someone had crossed out all of the John 3:16 verses and in big letters had written ACTS 2:38. The person who had defaced this Bible was communicating something like this: “You are deceived if you think that John 3:16 presents the true gospel. It doesn’t present the true gospel at all. It’s not enough to believe in Christ. To be saved and to be forgiven a person also needs to be baptized in water. The true gospel is much better presented in ACTS 2:38!”

When it comes to having sins forgiven, what must a person do? The Bible teaches that it is faith and repentance that brings about forgiveness. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin. You can’t have true repentance without having true faith. You can’t have true faith without having true repentance. They go together. The Bible sometimes mentions repentance as the only condition of salvation. One example of this would be Luke 13:3, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” See also Luke 15:7,10 and Acts 17:30. A few times both repentance and faith are mentioned in the same verse (Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21). There are many, many verses which mention only faith as the condition of salvation (John 1:12; 3:16; 5:24; Acts 16:31; etc.). When only repentance is mentioned, faith is implied or assumed. When only faith is mentioned, repentance is implied or assumed. Where you have one you must have the other.

What is repentance? The word means “a change of mind.” It means to change your mind about sin, self and the Saviour. It especially has to do with one’s recognition of his true condition before God. One Biblical definition of repentance is found in Job 42:4. Job said, “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” According to this verse, to repent is to abhor oneself, to discover how vile we are (see Job 40:4), to discover our utter wretchedness and sinfulness. No one can be saved unless he changes his mind about sin and self and recognizes how sinful he really is in God’s sight.

Harry Ironside explained repentance as follows: ““Repentance is just the sick man’s acknowledgment of his illness. It is simply the sinner recognizing his guilt and confessing his need of deliverance....(repentance) is judging oneself in the presence of God; turning right about-face, turning to God with a sincere, earnest desire to be completely delivered from sin. And when a man takes that attitude toward God and puts his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, he finds salvation” (Luke, pp. 253-254).

In another place Ironside said, “Literally [repentance] means ‘a change of mind.’ It actually implies a complete reversal of one’s inward attitude. To repent is to change one’s attitude toward self, toward sin, toward God, toward Christ....So to face these tremendous facts is to change one’s mind completely, so that the pleasure lover sees and confesses the folly of his empty life; the self-indulgent learns to hate the passions that express the corruption of his nature; the self-righteous sees himself a condemned sinner in the eyes of a holy God; the man who has been hiding from God seeks to find a hiding place in Him; the Christ-rejector realizes and owns his need of a Redeemer, and so believes unto life and salvation” (Except Ye Repent, pages 15-16).

True faith requires repentance because to be saved a person must recognize his lost estate and see himself as lost and helpless and vile and wicked and utterly sinful. True repentance requires faith because the man who repents believes what God has said about his true condition (Romans 3:10-23) and he also believes that God has provided a perfect solution in the person of His Son, God’s only Saviour.

Now let us return to our discussion of Acts 2:38. We have already seen that faith (which would include repentance), not baptism, is essential for the forgiveness of sins. This is clearly seen in Peter’s very next sermon, found in Acts 3:19—“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Notice that in this verse Peter says nothing about water baptism. If water baptism is essential for the forgiveness of sins, why did Peter say nothing about this in Acts 3:19? If water baptism is essential for forgiveness of sins, why did Peter say nothing about this in Acts 10:43 (“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission (forgiveness) of sins”). If water baptism is an essential part of the preaching of salvation, then why does Luke 24:46-47 mention repentance and the remission (forgiveness) of sins but say nothing about water baptism? Even in the days of John the Baptist, it was repentance that was for the remission of sins, not water baptism (see Mark 1:4).  John's baptism was an outward demonstration to show publicly that repentance had already taken place.

Forgiveness is received at the point of repentance/faith, not at the point of water baptism. Those who are not forgiven should not be baptized. They are yet in their sins. One simple parenthesis helps us to understand what Acts 2:38 is really saying, “Then Peter said unto them, Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
 
The real question centers on the meaning of the preposition eis (translated "for" in the KJV).  It is possible to show examples where eis can mean "because of" (Matthew 12:41--"at") or "on the basis of" or "with reference to," and all of these are certainly grammatically possible.  However, it seems more natural and more probable that in Acts 2:38 this preposition indicates purpose or result.  Peter was preaching to unsaved Jews who were guilty of crucifying Christ.  They desperately needed the forgiveness of sins (as we all do).  Peter was telling them what they must do in order to have forgiveness (see Acts 2:37---"What shall we do?").
 
The translations seem to support this meaning.  The KJV, NASB, Amplified, NEB, RSV all give the rendering "for."  The Revised Version has "unto."  The NIV has "so that your sins will be forgiven" (although in later editions this was changed to "for").  You can see how a person believing in baptismal regeneration could easily use all of these translations to support his view.
 
The lexicons seem to support this meaning.  Arndt & Gingrich say that the preposition here denotes purpose ("in order to") and they render the phrase:  "for forgiveness of sins, so that sins might be forgiven."  Thayer has a similar rendering "to obtain the forgiveness of sins" (his discussion under baptizo).  Thus those who believe that a man is saved by water baptism would gladly appeal to these authorities.
 
Acts 3:19 seems to support this meaning.  This is the very next sermon that Peter gives, and again he tells the Jews what they must do to have forgiveness.  We would expect that what Peter told the Jews in Acts 3 would be similar to what he told them in Acts 2.  In both cases he was preaching to unsaved Jews under similar circumstances.  In Acts 3:19 once again the preposition eis is used, and the KJV translates it "so that your sins might be blotted out."    Of course, those who teach baptismal regeneration do not make much of this verse because water baptism is not even mentioned.
 
The grammarians also concede that the preposition may be translated "for the purpose of' or "in order that" (see Dana & Mantey, p. 104).  Those such as A.T.Robinson and Julius Mantey who render it “because of” or “on the basis of” do so primarily on the basis of theology, not grammar.  They suggest a rare usage for the term in order to make the verse not teach baptismal regeneration.  But are we really forced to depart from what seems to be the more natural and more common rendering?
 
Most commentators, regardless of the view they hold, understand the prepositional phrase ("for the remission of sins") as belonging with the verb "be baptized."    It is possible, however, that the phrase is actually part of a chiasmus (inverted parallelism) and should be connected not with the command "Be baptized" but with the command "Repent."  The verse contains two commands and two prepositional phrases which can be represented by the following chiasmus:
 
                A         Repent
 
                            B        Be Baptized
 
                            B        In the  Name of Jesus Christ
 
                A          For the remission of sins
 
In English we would best represent this structure by using a parenthesis:  "Repent (and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ) for the remission of sins."  This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches (only Peter there omits the parenthesis).  In Acts 3:19 Peter could have said, "Repent (and be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ) so that your sins may be blotted out!"

15
Humanities / Re: The BIBLE Guide
« Message by cute_huckfin on 06-24-11 01:56 PM »
[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]
eto debate ng mga biblical scholars.. hindi mga pastor lang na mangmang sa background ng bible na plain bible lang ang alam.. ang mga scholars manuscripts mismo na written in greek,syriac coptic etc ang inaanalyze, ang mga pastor nyo ay mga tanga nagpapauto naman kayo wala silang degree at wala silang alam sa mga manuscript na basis ng mga printed bible na ginagamit natin ngayon

[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]

ang new testament ay ginawa after jesus' death by greek speaking people(jesus and the apostles used aramaic not greek) the original copies of the bible are lost, what we have now are copies of copies of copies ng manuscripts na puro textual variants, isertion deletion ng mga scribes of the 1st 200yrs.. si hesus ay hudyo ang kristyanismo ay based lang sa turo ni paul na kontra sa original na turo ni jesus na pinagpatuloy ni james na kapatid nya hanggang umentra si paul sa eksena na iba ang turo.. etc etc.. magtanong lang kayo i will answer it on historical-critical method hindi plain bible lang tulad ng mga pastor na nagkalat ngayon ;D

Bat hindi mo subukan ang mangangaral ko. :hahaha:


Hindi naman kasi lahat mauunwaan ng basta kung sino man ang scriptures. Maliban ng pagkalooban.


"At sinabi niya sa kanila, Sa inyo ay ipinagkaloob ang makaalam ng hiwaga ng kaharian ng Dios: datapuwa't sa kanilang nangasa labas, ang lahat ng mga bagay ay ginagawa sa pamamagitan ng mga talinghaga:" (Mark 4:11).

Ang biblia hindi naman kailangan mataas ang pinagaralan mo para maunawaan mo ito.

"Sapagka't masdan ninyo ang sa inyo'y pagkatawag, mga kapatid, na hindi ang maraming marurunong ayon sa laman, hindi ang maraming may kapangyarihan, hindi ang maraming mahal na tao ang mga tinawag: Kundi pinili ng Dios ang mga bagay na kamangmangan ng sanglibutan, upang hiyain niya ang mga marurunong; at pinili ng Dios ang mga bagay na mahihina ng sanglibutan, upang hiyain niya ang mga bagay na malalakas;" (1 Corinthians 1:26-27).

"At ang mga bagay na mababa ng sanglibutan, at ang mga bagay na hinamak, ang pinili ng Dios, oo at ang mga bagay na walang halaga upang mawalang halaga ang mga bagay na mahahalaga: Upang walang laman na magmapuri sa harapan ng Dios." (1 Corinthians 1:28-29).


subukan mo ang mangangaral ko.. Ikaw ang makakasagot sa tanong mo..


:lol:

16
Humanities / Re: [ADD]Ang Dating Daan, Natameme nga ba?.
« Message by FranceAngelo on 06-13-11 09:48 AM »
[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]
pasingit lang... kaya bang makipagdebate ni eli boy sa mga biblical scholars? kayo bilang mga miyembro nya napag isip isip nyo ba na walang alam sa background at history ng bible ang pinuno nyo dahil sya ay pastor lang hindi sya biblical scholar at ang pinagyayabang nyong KJV ay based lang sa textus receptus na based lang din sa greek version ni erasmus na based lang sa isang manuscript dated 12th century lang?

these are the facts of the bible na hindi aware ang mga add maging ang ibang relgion ngayon dahil pastor lang ang mga leader nyo wala silang degree at authority sa biblical studies:

-The letters of Paul and others form most of the New Testament; some Pauline letters were pseudonymous
-Before the advent of the printing press, Christian writings had to be hand copied for centuries by hand
-Amateur copyists made the copies during the first two hundred years; changes were made and they were made widely

-The story about the women taken in adultery, now found in John 7:53-8:12 was not originally a part of any of the gospels but was added by scribes. Scholars who work with the manuscript tradition have no doubt of this. Scholars call this an "orphan" text since it seems to float around. Some scribe placed it after Luke 21:38 at one time.
-from the King James in 1611 onward, up until modern editions of the 20th century include the woman taken in adultery, the last twelve verses of Mark, and the Johnnanine Comma , even though none of these passages can be found in the oldest and superior manuscripts of the Greek New Testament."

-1 Corinthians 14: 34-35 says: " ...  let the woman keep silent. For it is not permitted to speak, but to be in subjection, just as the law says. But if they wish to learn anything let them ask their own husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

Why did Paul likely not write this:

 1.The subject is prophesy in the church and these verses seem not to fit.
 2.Seems to conflict with 1 Corinthians 11 and
 3.The lines are found after verse 40 in some manuscripts (three Greek and two Latin) instead of after verse 33 suggesting a Scribal note that found its way into the text. 

-Romans 16:7 says: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me, they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was." Some translations today change the Female Junia to the male Junias [There is no evidence of a male name Junias in the old world.] Some of the manuscripts say: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives; and also greet my fellow prisoners who are foremost among the Apostles. This avoids calling Junia an Apostle. A similar change was made by scribes in Acts chapter 17.

- Luke 23:34 says: "Father forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing." This prayer is missing from our earliest Greek manuscripts. This verse is about the crucifixion and many scribes thought of Jews as the bad guys

-Luke and Matthew used much of Mark in writing their gospels changing it as they wished to suit their own viewpoint when they wrote their accounts. In this sense they were like the Scribes. We kind of change scripture because we put it into our own words for our understanding but we do not change the words in the text -- the Scribes did.
Hehehe...ito sana yung gusto kong sabihin at malaman ng lahat..about history of the bible..mayroon kasi talagang binago dyan..

wahh!!brad manggagalaiti sayo mga COG nyan!!pero sige lang..atleast nalaman nilang ganun sila..hehehe..

17
Humanities / Re: Today God Is First (Daily Devotion)
« Message by Natzjaps on 01-24-11 08:35 AM »
[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]
It Happens to the Best of Us!

“These things happened … as examples. ” 1Co 10:11 NKJV

A pastor was building a fence while his neighbor's twelve-year-old son watched. The pastor smiled and said, “Interested in carpentry, huh?” “Nope,” the boy replied. “Just wanna hear what a preacher says when he hits his thumb with a hammer!”

You are the only Bible some people will ever read, and I betcha they're watching to see how your life lines up with what you profess. Some are hoping for confirmation of how Jesus has changed your life; others are waiting for a chance to say, “See, Christians are all hypocrites!” Oooh ….

We want to set a good example, but sometimes we can't help but fall short. And as humbling as it is to mess up, God uses those failures to “[ make] it clear that our … power is from [Him], not … ourselves ” (2Co 4:7 NLT). God doesn't glaze over the shortcomings of even the most notable saints (in the Bible). They're “all … written down so … we don't repeat their mistakes” (1Co 10:11 TM).

Listen to this: Abraham, the “friend of God,” lied about Sarah being his wife (See Ge 12:10-20). Moses, the mighty deliverer, got angry and disobeyed God. David, a man after God's heart, committed adultery then tried to cover his tracks with murder (See 2Sa 11:15). Peter, head of the church, denied Jesus – not once – but three times (See Lk 22:54-62), and John Mark gave up and went home during a missionary trip (See Ac 15:38). Yep. They're all in there, warts and all, and Paul says, “ We are just as capable of messing …up as they were ” (1Co 10:12 TM). So don't get discouraged when you stumble. Admit your mistake, apologize to the people involved, ask God for forgiveness, forgive yourself, learn from what happened, and move on.


18
School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF MEDICINE
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 315

1.SANTIAGO MELOVEEM LLANTO
2.SANTIAGO MISSY DE JESUS
3.SANTIAGO NATHANIEL DE GUZMAN
4.SANTIAGO NEIL RYAN NICOLAS
5.SANTIAGO NERYSA GERADA
6.SANTIAGO NOLY KERVY AGUTAYA
7.SANTIAGO NYMPHA JULIANO
8.SANTIAGO PATRICK SORIANO
9.SANTIAGO PATRICK JAMES VELARDE
10.SANTIAGO PERCIVAL ALVIS
11.SANTIAGO PERLA BARGO
12.SANTIAGO RALPH JONES CANIEDO
13.SANTIAGO RIEZEL SONZA
14.SANTIAGO RITCHELLE RELUCANO
15.SANTIAGO RODANTE DIONISIO
16.SANTIAGO ROGELIO DELA CRUZ
17.SANTIAGO RONA MARIE SANTOS
18.SANTIAGO RONALDO ANDAN
19.SANTIAGO ROSABELL MARTIN
20.SANTIAGO ROXANNE CAASI
21.SANTIAGO RUEL FABIANES
22.SANTIAGO SARAH JANE VILLA
23.SANTIAGO SAYAKA FELIX
24.SANTIAGO SHEILA MAY VALDEZ
25.SANTIAGO SHEREE HANNAH MENDOZA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF MEDICINE
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 317

1.SANTIAGO VANESSA IVY ADAP
2.SANTIAGO VANESSA MAE CAGUIOA
3.SANTIAGO VINA ROSE MAMURI
4.SANTIAGUEL DAISY ORCULLO
5.SANTIAGUEL RHODA LAYUG
6.SANTIANO SHERILYN DEL ROSARIO
7.SANTIGAO AIZA EJARES
8.SANTILLAN CHRISTINE CHUA
9.SANTILLAN CLYDIE ZAMORA
10.SANTILLAN JAN KORI LABASTILLA
11.SANTILLAN JAY-VEE CORTEZ
12.SANTILLAN NIANITA KABILING
13.SANTOALLA CHRISTIAN JOSEPH BALDEMOR
14.SANTOALLA JAYPEE BALDEMOR
15.SANTOK MARE CHRISTINE VILLANUEVA
16.SANTOLAJA MA CHRISTINA GONZALES
17.SANTOR RYAN TAPAWAN
18.SANTOR SISOLITA NOCON
19.SANTOR STELLA SUBAY
20.SANTORCE EMARLYN GONTANG
21.SANTOS ABIGAIL HERNANDEZ
22.SANTOS ABIGAIL TOPE
23.SANTOS ABIGAIL ANNE LUCERO
24.SANTOS ABIGAILE LEGARDA
25.SANTOS ABRIL-REY ABITRIA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF MEDICINE
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 321

1.SANTOS ADA LORRAINE MAMARIL
2.SANTOS ADRIAN CHRISTIANSEN MAGTIBAY
3.SANTOS AILEEN SALAMAT
4.SANTOS AIRIS PAULINO
5.SANTOS AISA CARLA JUAQUICO
6.SANTOS AISABEL ANGELA PALACIOS
7.SANTOS AIZZA MARIE MENDOZA
8.SANTOS AL JORIN SANVICTORES
9.SANTOS ALAINE JAIRUS VILLACARLOS
10.SANTOS ALBERT JOVES
11.SANTOS ALDREW BAUTISTA
12.SANTOS ALDRIN JAN SANTOS
13.SANTOS ALFREDO ISAIAH LEORMA
14.SANTOS ALREN NICHOL PEREZ
15.SANTOS ALVIN JAMES MABUTAS
16.SANTOS AMELIA ESGUERRA
17.SANTOS AMETHYST GAY LARON
18.SANTOS ANALIZA GENTUGAO
19.SANTOS ANDROU ENMIL
20.SANTOS ANGELI MARIE CARIAGA
21.SANTOS ANNA MICAELA FABIAN
22.SANTOS ANTHONY LAWRENCE MAYOR
23.SANTOS ANTONY BUNALADE
24.SANTOS APRIL JOY MAHUSAY
25.SANTOS ARLEEN VALENZUELA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF MEDICINE
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 323

1.SANTOS ARTHUR II NARTE
2.SANTOS ARVY JOAMEL
3.SANTOS ASHLY MIKKEL VILLANUEVA
4.SANTOS AVEL RAMOS
5.SANTOS BARBARA ANNA CHANCHICO
6.SANTOS BARBRA KRESTA LEE
7.SANTOS BENJAMIN PASCUAL
8.SANTOS BENNETTE STA MARIA
9.SANTOS CAMILLA BLANCA BELARDO
10.SANTOS CAMILLE MERCADO
11.SANTOS CAMILLE SEPTIMO
12.SANTOS CANEILLE FAITH ANGELES
13.SANTOS CARINA VI ANTOLIN
14.SANTOS CARL JOSEPH CASTRO
15.SANTOS CARLENE BUSTAMANTE
16.SANTOS CARLYN JOY
17.SANTOS CATHERINE MALLARI
18.SANTOS CATHERINE MORFE
19.SANTOS CATHERYN DELA CRUZ
20.SANTOS CELDAN JADE RUIZ
21.SANTOS CHARMAINE BAUTISTA
22.SANTOS CHIQUI RAVAGO
23.SANTOS CHRISEL CASTILLO
24.SANTOS CHRISMAR CHANGCO
25.SANTOS CHRISTIE ANN CLAIRE TORRENTE


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF MEDICINE
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 325

1.SANTOS CHRISTINE MANZANO
2.SANTOS CHRISTOPHER BACLIG
3.SANTOS CINDY SERQUIÑA
4.SANTOS CLARICE MAIDEN TORRES
5.SANTOS CLAUDINE MABELLE SAN MIGUEL
6.SANTOS CRIS JOSEPH CRUDA
7.SANTOS DANA ARMELLI QUIMLAT
8.SANTOS DAVID HIPOLITO
9.SANTOS DEAN ISRAEL BAYANI
10.SANTOS DENNIS PANG-OT
11.SANTOS DIANA GRACE SAMALCA
12.SANTOS DIANA LYNN SALANGAD
13.SANTOS DIANA MARIE DELA PAZ
14.SANTOS DIANE ERIKA ROSAS
15.SANTOS DIANNE CARYL LARA
16.SANTOS DIANNE MAE UBALDO
17.SANTOS DINAH ELEANOR MANUEL
18.SANTOS DIVINO REY SO
19.SANTOS DOLLYRIE TAN
20.SANTOS DONNA ALLYN PAULINO
21.SANTOS DREGZIL JOHN
22.SANTOS EDLAINE ROSE ESPERANZA
23.SANTOS EDMAR LAPE¤A
24.SANTOS ERICA YVONNE ABRATIQUE
25.SANTOS ERIKA PAULA PADUA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF MEDICINE
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 327

1.SANTOS EROSS CANLAS
2.SANTOS ETHEL PAULINE GALVAN
3.SANTOS FATIMA JOYCE RIVERA
4.SANTOS FLORINDA LAPUEBLA
5.SANTOS FRITZIE HAZELLE DUEÑAS
6.SANTOS FROILAN BILLEDO
7.SANTOS FROILAN MANALO
8.SANTOS FYERARY CALLO
9.SANTOS GENE RODNEY CRUZ
10.SANTOS GEORGE DANIEL CAUTON
11.SANTOS GERALD ARIES AGAPAY
12.SANTOS GERALDINE JOYCE CINCO
13.SANTOS GERARD PASTOR
14.SANTOS GERMAIN ACURAM
15.SANTOS GERMAINE DE JESUS
16.SANTOS GILBERT DARAY
17.SANTOS GILLIANNE ANDREI ROBLES
18.SANTOS GLAIZA DEL ROSARIO
19.SANTOS GLEN INNES MANALASTAS
20.SANTOS GLENDA VILLAFUERTE
21.SANTOS GONZALO NARCISO CHUA
22.SANTOS HANNA JOY SALCEDO
23.SANTOS HAYDIELYN SANTIAGO
24.SANTOS IAN BERNALDEZ
25.SANTOS INOCENCIO JR CORDERO


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF MEDICINE
Floor : 4TH
Room / Group No.: 407

1.SANTOS IVAN ANTHONY DE LEON
2.SANTOS IVAN HOE CRISTOBAL
3.SANTOS JAMES VICTOR NAZARENO
4.SANTOS JAN AURIEL GALING
5.SANTOS JANE AMARO
6.SANTOS JANICE RAMOS
7.SANTOS JARA BONNETTE CABANG
8.SANTOS JASMIN FAJARDO
9.SANTOS JASMIN PERALTA
10.SANTOS JASMIN QUIRIMIT
11.SANTOS JASPER ADDISON RACELA
12.SANTOS JAY-AR MAUHAY
13.SANTOS JAYFREY CRUZ
14.SANTOS JAYSON ALEJO
15.SANTOS JAYSON CABASBAS
16.SANTOS JAYSON QUIROZ
17.SANTOS JAYVELYN JARANTA
18.SANTOS JEANNE JAN ABHA FLORES
19.SANTOS JECRIZ ESCOTE
20.SANTOS JEFFERSON BASA
21.SANTOS JEFFERSON RENIEDO
22.SANTOS JEFFREY CARLO DEL ROSARIO
23.SANTOS JEFFREY MARVIN OGALINO
24.SANTOS JEFFRY FRANCISCO
25.SANTOS JEHROME ISIDORO


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor :
Room / Group No.: 42

1.SANTOS JENE APOSTOL
2.SANTOS JENELYN REGIS
3.SANTOS JENIFER DAGDAGAN
4.SANTOS JENNA LOU ABERGAS
5.SANTOS JENNIFER DEBULOS
6.SANTOS JERICA ARAZA
7.SANTOS JERICHO VIADO
8.SANTOS JERICK MAGLAPIT
9.SANTOS JESUS OBREGON
10.SANTOS JESUSA DE RUEDA
11.SANTOS JESUSA MANANSALA
12.SANTOS JOANA KATRINA HILA
13.SANTOS JOANNE CAMILLE LUMAUIG
14.SANTOS JOCELYN CAMANO
15.SANTOS JOE ANN CAMELLE MATEO
16.SANTOS JOEN LOZANO
17.SANTOS JOEY DE LARA
18.SANTOS JOHANNA PAGADUAN
19.SANTOS JOHN ERIC AREJA
20.SANTOS JOHN IRVIN MATIENZO
21.SANTOS JOHN MARTIN RIVERO
22.SANTOS JOHN NOEL MIÑAS
23.SANTOS JOHN PAOLO DELOS REYES
24.SANTOS JOHN PAUL LOZANO
25.SANTOS JOHN SEDFREY CONCEPCION


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor :
Room / Group No.: 43

1.SANTOS JONAH RIZA CRISTOBAL
2.SANTOS JONALYN PERALTA
3.SANTOS JONASES OCAMPPO
4.SANTOS JONATHAN DUMLAO
5.SANTOS JOSE ANJELO CUSI
6.SANTOS JOSE RENE AMADEO JR ROSARIO
7.SANTOS JOWILYN SANTOS
8.SANTOS JOY BUCCAT
9.SANTOS JOY MELO
10.SANTOS JOYCE PAYABAN
11.SANTOS JOYCE ANN YANOS
12.SANTOS JUCEL ANN SANTOS
13.SANTOS JURELY ANN GIMENA
14.SANTOS KAREN LUMAWIG
15.SANTOS KARL JOSEPH CRUZ
16.SANTOS KATHERINE ANN CRUZ
17.SANTOS KATRINA GARCIA
18.SANTOS KATRINA SANTOS
19.SANTOS KATRINE MAE GAMBALA
20.SANTOS KAYSELYN GUEVERRA
21.SANTOS KEI OLIVEROS
22.SANTOS KENNETH DE LEON
23.SANTOS KEVIN AKINO MONTEROLA
24.SANTOS KHRISTINE JOY PASCUAL
25.SANTOS KIM MANUBAY


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor :
Room / Group No.: 44

1.SANTOS KLARICE LEI MURIEL
2.SANTOS KRISIA BORACAY
3.SANTOS KRISTA CARLA TIBURCIO
4.SANTOS KRISTEL CHARMAGNE MALASIQUE
5.SANTOS KRISTINE JHOY ARAOS
6.SANTOS KRISTOPHER BRYAN GUARDIANO
7.SANTOS KRIZEL ANN DE GUZMAN
8.SANTOS LEA MAY DE LEON
9.SANTOS LEAH ANGELICA CONTRERAS
10.SANTOS LEMUEL ELLIS REYES
11.SANTOS LENDL JAIRUS SOMERA
12.SANTOS LEOVHE REYES
13.SANTOS LESTER RIVERA
14.SANTOS LORENCE GONZALES
15.SANTOS LOU KRIS GUARIN
16.SANTOS LOUELLA ROSAS
17.SANTOS LOURDES DIANE SALALILA
18.SANTOS LUCKY LYN LUCION
19.SANTOS MA CLARISSA VILLARAMA
20.SANTOS MA CRISTINA GENESE
21.SANTOS MA CRISTINA VILLARUZ
22.SANTOS MA EDGIELYN CARGANILLA
23.SANTOS MA JERRIPER DONGON
24.SANTOS MA LORENA ANNE DE GUZMAN
25.SANTOS MA LOURDES FLORES


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor :
Room / Group No.: 45

1.SANTOS MA MONINA MANAYAN
2.SANTOS MA PAMELA CAPARAS
3.SANTOS MA VENICE ANGELINE GERONIMO
4.SANTOS MACKENZIE DIZON
5.SANTOS MACKY MARIA TIZON
6.SANTOS MAILYN BULAN
7.SANTOS MARCO REYNALDO OLIVEROS
8.SANTOS MARGARITA OCTA
9.SANTOS MARIA BLAIZE DIANNE VERGARA
10.SANTOS MARIA CECILIA PERALTA
11.SANTOS MARIA CLEO GLEN VILLASEÑOR
12.SANTOS MARIA CRISMA PEREY
13.SANTOS MARIA CRISTINA JOAQUIN
14.SANTOS MARIA ELENA CALANOG
15.SANTOS MARIA GRACELYN TINGNE
16.SANTOS MARIA IRENE ALYSON OCAMPO
17.SANTOS MARIA JOY PANGANIBAN
18.SANTOS MARIA NOIME PARULAN
19.SANTOS MARICA KRISTEL ARELLANO
20.SANTOS MARICAR VIRAY
21.SANTOS MARICRIS RAMOS
22.SANTOS MARIDEL ABASOLO
23.SANTOS MARIFEL CALISTE
24.SANTOS MARINELLI WAGAN
25.SANTOS MARISOL RAAGAS


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor :
Room / Group No.: 46

1.SANTOS MARIVIC MADUCDOC
2.SANTOS MARK DEL ROSARIO
3.SANTOS MARK ANDREW CALDERON
4.SANTOS MARK ANTHONY ANDRESIO
5.SANTOS MARK ANTHONY AQUINO
6.SANTOS MARK ANTHONY ROBLES
7.SANTOS MARK ANTHONY VACUNAWA
8.SANTOS MARK DANIEL RABINA
9.SANTOS MARK ENGEL AQUINO
10.SANTOS MARK JOSEPH DAQUIS
11.SANTOS MARK JOSEPH DIAG
12.SANTOS MARK LENIN MACALUDAS
13.SANTOS MARK ROBY BALLESTEROS
14.SANTOS MARVI EZEKIEL BASALLO
15.SANTOS MARVIN MAGNO
16.SANTOS MARY ANGELLE PASTORES
17.SANTOS MARY ANN ESTRELLA
18.SANTOS MARY HAZEL DE GUZMAN
19.SANTOS MARY JEAN DELA CRUZ
20.SANTOS MARY LOUANNE CRUZ
21.SANTOS MARY MILDRED JOAQUIN
22.SANTOS MARY ROSE VILLEGAS
23.SANTOS MARY-ANN PAGLINGAYEN
24.SANTOS MAVEL BUNDA
25.SANTOS MAY KRIS OTIC


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor :
Room / Group No.: 47

1.SANTOS MAYLENE ENRIQUEZ
2.SANTOS MECAELA DALISAYMO
3.SANTOS MELODY LUCAS
4.SANTOS MERAN TORRES
5.SANTOS MIKE DONALD CABUNGCAL
6.SANTOS MIRESAN CINENSE
7.SANTOS MYCHAL KYLE MIER
8.SANTOS MYLA BELENARIO
9.SANTOS MYRNA TUGBO
10.SANTOS NATHALINE MATIAS
11.SANTOS NEILSAN POLINTAN
12.SANTOS NICKELODEON FUENTES
13.SANTOS NIMFA NUGUID
14.SANTOS NINO CHRISTOPHER YUMOL
15.SANTOS NIÑO LAZARO
16.SANTOS NOEL DESTURA
17.SANTOS NOEL MARTINEZ
18.SANTOS NOELYN RUZGAL
19.SANTOS NOLI LAYGO
20.SANTOS NORMANDO GARCIA
21.SANTOS PAMELA CHRISTINE DELA PAZ
22.SANTOS PATRICIA MARIE BAUTISTA
23.SANTOS PAULO NIÑO OBDIANELA
24.SANTOS PINKY MARIE LLANETA
25.SANTOS PRINCESS JULIE MENDOZA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor :
Room / Group No.: 48

1.SANTOS RACHEL CARDONA
2.SANTOS RACHEL DINGLE
3.SANTOS RACHEL VARGAS
4.SANTOS RACHEL ANN PAGKATIPUNAN
5.SANTOS RACHEL ANN REYES
6.SANTOS RANDOLPH JAMER
7.SANTOS RAP JESSIE OBOZA
8.SANTOS RAQUEL ADRIANO
9.SANTOS REICHELLE ANN FAUSTINO
10.SANTOS REUTER KENNETH NAVARRO
11.SANTOS REYMOND BRAVO
12.SANTOS REYNALDO AQUINO
13.SANTOS RICHARD BARTOLOME
14.SANTOS RICHARD DAYAO
15.SANTOS RICHARD NOTARTE
16.SANTOS RICHARD DONN DULAY
17.SANTOS RICHEL LEAÑO
18.SANTOS ROBIN QUIJANO
19.SANTOS ROGELIE BAUTISTA
20.SANTOS ROGIEL KENNETH MACALINAO
21.SANTOS ROJANI QUIJANO
22.SANTOS ROLANDO JR TORRES
23.SANTOS ROMMEL DELA CRUZ
24.SANTOS ROMNICK MANAOAT
25.SANTOS RONALD BUTCH TUAZON


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor :
Room / Group No.: 49

1.SANTOS RONALD WARREN BONDOC
2.SANTOS ROSA DESTURA
3.SANTOS ROSALIE JOY MANGROBANG
4.SANTOS ROSE SHELL PERALTA
5.SANTOS ROSELLE COMIA
6.SANTOS ROVINA CHAN
7.SANTOS ROXANNE BALAORO
8.SANTOS ROXANNE GAYE LAYGO
9.SANTOS RUBY RAMOS
10.SANTOS RUBY ANN GUNGAB
11.SANTOS RYAN ROMASANTA
12.SANTOS RYAN JAY SANTIAGO
13.SANTOS SARAH JANE DAVID
14.SANTOS SARAH ROSE CABRERA
15.SANTOS SELINA RUTH CUNANAN
16.SANTOS SHEILA MARIE BERNARDO
17.SANTOS SHERRY ROSE OCAMPO
18.SANTOS SHERWIN OLAN ZETA
19.SANTOS SHERYL GONZAGA
20.SANTOS SHIELA MARIA AGATO
21.SANTOS SHIELA MARIE MORALES
22.SANTOS SOLEDAD JOSE
23.SANTOS STELLA MARIE RODRIGUEZ
24.SANTOS SUNSHINE CAYETANO
25.SANTOS VANESSA BATINGAL


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor :
Room / Group No.: 50

1.SANTOS VANESSA LALYN VILLEGAS
2.SANTOS VANILEE INTAL
3.SANTOS VANNESA MUSONG
4.SANTOS VERNALIZA BANSIL
5.SANTOS VERONE ANDREA ARCHES
6.SANTOS VICTORINO III VISPO
7.SANTOS WENDY FRANCISCO
8.SANTOS WILFREDO JAN LIPATA
9.SANTOS WILLIAM MAPILI
10.SANTOS ZAYRA ZAPATA
11.SANTOS-DIAZ JONHEL ALIBADBAD
12.SANTOYO JOY ESPARRAGO
13.SANTUALLA JANA ROSE RAMOS
14.SANTUELE JAYMARK EMOLAGA
15.SANTULAN DARWIN BELARMINO
16.SANTUYA FRANCIS MAR BERSABE
17.SANTY PAOLA REGINE CARREON
18.SANVICTORES JANNICA JEANNE AGUILA
19.SANVICTORES JOYCE ANNE VILLARAMA
20.SANVICTORES PAUL CARLSTON VARGAS
21.SANVICTORES REX FLORES
22.SANZ STEPHEN ARAQUE
23.SAPA SANDY ROSANN SIMON
24.SAPANGHILA JOHN ROVEL CAMERINO
25.SAPANGHILA JUN DARYL FAUNI


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor :
Room / Group No.: 52

1.SAPAULA MA SOCORRO NOVENCIDO
2.SAPAYLA ANECITO JR LARGO
3.SAPERA SHARON MAY LUMPAN
4.SAPI MARIA ROWENA TUSIT
5.SAPIANDANTE CARLA ENRIQUEZ
6.SAPIANDANTE MARVIN VILLEGAS
7.SAPIDA DORICA CARLA MANALAYSAY
8.SAPIDA JUAN ALBERT
9.SAPIE ZADIA MHERRAIZ LARA
10.SAPILAN MARITESS SANGELES
11.SAPIO MARY ANGELINE MADRID
12.SAPIT ROMMEL MACARAY
13.SAPITOLA MARK ALEJANDRO SANCHEZ
14.SAPITULA MICHELLE CARIASO
15.SAPLA SHERNAN JOSEPH ALPAJORA
16.SAPNO VINCENT ALDERMAN TANGCO
17.SAPNU EULALIA DELA CRUZ
18.SAPON CLARIZA ESLAO
19.SAPORNE DAN LORENZO TORRES
20.SAPUAY FLORENCE ANN GAMENG
21.SAPUNGAN RONN LESTER CUA
22.SAQUIDO MELODY ALBANO
23.SAQUILABON REA PANGILINAN
24.SAQUILAYAN AIRA LEGASPI
25.SAQUILLO JOY BRIOLA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 1ST
Room / Group No.: 101

1.SAQUING MAXIMO JR PABLO
2.SARA ARVIN JOHN TEODORO
3.SARABI ALTAZHAR EVALLE
4.SARABIA ANA MARGARITA REYES
5.SARABIA ARON CHRISTOPHER BACAY
6.SARABIA DIANA JANE CHUA
7.SARABIA GARY GALANTO
8.SARABIA MARTIN JOHN VARGAS
9.SARABIA PRINCESS UNARSE
10.SARACANLAO LEOPOLDO JR ARROBANG
11.SARAD RICHARD SANTILLAN
12.SARAGOSA REI EARL PELIPEL
13.SARAGOZA AIZA TIPAY
14.SARAIL ETHIDAL MUSA
15.SARAIL SARAH MUSA
16.SARAJAN JHUNIELYN GABRIEL
17.SARALDE ARMIE JOYCE ENCIO
18.SARANGAYA JOAN MAUREEN MANINGAS
19.SARANGAYA JOYCELYN BERNARDO
20.SARANGUERO MARISOL STO NIÑO
21.SARAOS PRIMO CARLO PALPAL-LATOC
22.SARAPANAN MA CATALINA PALERMO
23.SARASIN ABIGAIL BALLARES
24.SARAYAN RICHELL ERISPE
25.SARAZA ESTAFANIE JOY ENTRATA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 1ST
Room / Group No.: 102

1.SARCEDA EDNA VERSOLA
2.SARCENO MARY GRACE CASTILLO
3.SARCIA DARRELL AGRIS
4.SARCIDA JUVAIL LADIGOHON
5.SARCILLA MICHELLE RESPETO
6.SARDAN ERICSON SEMBRANO
7.SARDEA DIEG DOMINIC AYAPANA
8.SARDEA MILDRED RAPOSON
9.SARDEA PATRICIA ANGEILA CRUZ
10.SARDEA SUNSHINE BANGALAN
11.SARDIDO ARISTOTLE ICBAN
12.SARDUAL JENNIFER DANCEL
13.SARENAS JAYMEL OLA
14.SARENAS MEREDITH JULIANA
15.SARENO JOHNLY GAVINO
16.SARGAN CARA ANGELA ORTEGA
17.SARI FRIEL GALLARDO
18.SARIA DICK ARCEO
19.SARIA JENNELYN SIMON
20.SARIA SHEILA ANN APOLINAR
21.SARIA TED KRISTIAN MESINA
22.SARIBA SARAH BON MEANA
23.SARILAMA NORMALIH REYES
24.SARILI JENNILYN VARGAS
25.SARILI JOICE VARGAS


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 1ST
Room / Group No.: 103

1.SARILI KLARISSE QUICHO
2.SARINAS VINCENT PAOLO URRIQUIA
3.SARIO DALISAY SEVILLA
4.SARIO LOWELA USTARES
5.SARIP NASEEF SALA
6.SARIP SANERAH MAMAGAYAO
7.SARIPADA SITTIE JARIYAH DISIMBAN
8.SARMEN GECHEL MENDOZA
9.SARMENTA LIEZEL DIMALANTA
10.SARMIENTO ABEGAIL MENDOZA
11.SARMIENTO AIMEE CASTRO
12.SARMIENTO AMAL CASUGA
13.SARMIENTO APRIL SANTIAGO
14.SARMIENTO ARCHIE DELATANID
15.SARMIENTO ARLENE GONZALES
16.SARMIENTO ARVHINE MICHELLE ABARIENTOS
17.SARMIENTO CARINA MARIMLA
18.SARMIENTO CASSIUS CLAY DAGA
19.SARMIENTO CHARLEMAGNE CLEMENTE
20.SARMIENTO CHARLIE CRUZ
21.SARMIENTO CHRISTINE FORBES
22.SARMIENTO CONNIE ISIDRO
23.SARMIENTO DANNAVEL VELASQUEZ
24.SARMIENTO DENNIS JR PINKIAN
25.SARMIENTO DEXTER BUNGAY


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 1ST
Room / Group No.: 104

1.SARMIENTO DIANA MANGOBA
2.SARMIENTO DINERICK SAN MIGUEL
3.SARMIENTO DIOSA LYN AGUSTIN
4.SARMIENTO DOLORES RUIZ
5.SARMIENTO ELOISA MAE HERMOSILLA
6.SARMIENTO ERIC BASILIO
7.SARMIENTO EXCEL SANTOS
8.SARMIENTO FRANCES ANGELICA LUMBA
9.SARMIENTO GIAN KARLO FLORES
10.SARMIENTO HARLEY ADVINCULA
11.SARMIENTO HERMINIO ESPIRITU
12.SARMIENTO IAN BENEDICK GAMBOA
13.SARMIENTO JENNIFER FOLOGME
14.SARMIENTO JESSA IMPORTA
15.SARMIENTO JESSAMIN SISON
16.SARMIENTO JOHANNAH GALLETO
17.SARMIENTO JOSEPHINE VEGA
18.SARMIENTO JOY AMAGEN
19.SARMIENTO JUN MANDI
20.SARMIENTO JUSTIN GABRIEL BAGADIONG
21.SARMIENTO KATRINA DELA CRUZ
22.SARMIENTO KRISTEL JOY SALTING
23.SARMIENTO LENIE PEREZ
24.SARMIENTO LUNINGNING LIMPIN
25.SARMIENTO MA CRISTINA VALIC


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 1ST
Room / Group No.: 107

1.SARMIENTO MA KARMELA CASTRO
2.SARMIENTO MA KRISTINA CASTRO
3.SARMIENTO MA MERILOU INDICO
4.SARMIENTO MA RUTH ADRRIANO
5.SARMIENTO MARGARITA AMIO
6.SARMIENTO MARIA ELENA PASCUAL
7.SARMIENTO MARIA KATRINA GARCIA
8.SARMIENTO MARIA REBECCA ROZALDO
9.SARMIENTO MARINEL LEJAT
10.SARMIENTO MARK GIL CRISOLOGO
11.SARMIENTO MARY JOY CAPULONG
12.SARMIENTO MARYJANE MANALAD
13.SARMIENTO MISCHELLE JOY GENER
14.SARMIENTO NOEL BACTAD
15.SARMIENTO PAMELA CALLOS
16.SARMIENTO PIA MARIE SALTING
17.SARMIENTO RAPHAEL PAGOBO
18.SARMIENTO RAQUEL DELA OSA
19.SARMIENTO RAYMUND TABUADA
20.SARMIENTO REIMON GARCIA
21.SARMIENTO RIA GRACE MARIANO
22.SARMIENTO ROBBIE MARTIN TADENA
23.SARMIENTO RODEL II SY
24.SARMIENTO RONALD VINCENT ALINEA
25.SARMIENTO RYANWELL VIANA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 1ST
Room / Group No.: 108

1.SARMIENTO SHEENA ANGELIE MANDIN
2.SARMIENTO SMILEY CENON
3.SARMIENTO SOPHIA EUSEBIO
4.SARMIENTO TRAZY DOMEN
5.SARMIENTO VINCENT JOSEPH BULAO
6.SARNO DARYLL ROSETE
7.SAROCAM GABRIEL DAOLONG
8.SAROMINES MAY ANNNICA BOBOROL
9.SARON LOREYLOVE MONTILLA
10.SARRA RUAN FRANCIS PENKIAN
11.SARREAL JENALYN VILLANUEVA
12.SARSABA ANA ANITA CLAYTON
13.SARSONAS MAR VINCENT JR BALLENER
14.SARTE IVHORY ANNE SANTOS
15.SARTE SANDY AZORES
16.SARTILLO ANGELIE MANDRAS
17.SARTIN ADELPHA ALEJANDRO
18.SARTO PAUL CHRISTIAN MAGONLES
19.SASABO PEARLY
20.SASAHARA KRISHNA DASI GAVILAN
21.SASI ANN-SHIELIKA ORCIGA
22.SASI JOEVANI GALENO
23.SASI MELANIE BERTOLANO
24.SASIS DIANNE JESSICA MARTINEZ
25.SASIS KAREN KHAY CLAROS


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 1ST
Room / Group No.: 109

1.SASOY ZARABELLE MATEO
2.SASTRILLO MHA-AN ELEJERTO
3.SATAJO PASCUAL CEA
4.SATIRA GLENDA SALVADOR
5.SATO KATRINA MALLARI
6.SATO LOVELY CAMILLE BACUS
7.SATOC MERLISA DELA PEÑA
8.SATORRE EXELCIS MELENDREZ
9.SATSATIN IAN ORASA
10.SATUITO EVERNICE ALVIOR
11.SATUR WILSON TAGHAP
12.SATURNINO RICA MER PAZ
13.SATURNINO TATE JOHN CAIN
14.SATURNO JANNILE ALMODOVAR
15.SATURNO MAE ELLEN ANDRADA
16.SAUADAN SHIRLEY MABBORANG
17.SAUL KJEIL GALLARDO
18.SAUL MARY GRACE EMBILE
19.SAULO LORIANN VILLARUEL
20.SAULOG LEO ANGELO CESA
21.SAULOG MARK AXEL BALEÑA
22.SAUR CAMILLE JOY AGAPITO
23.SAURA ANTHONY ANTONIO
24.SAURA MYLA RAMOS
25.SAURIN DARLENE KAE SANGAT


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 2ND
Room / Group No.: 207

1.SAUT MANILYN BARRUN
2.SAUVA SAN PAULA MAYO
3.SAUZA JOHN ROLAINE PERALTA
4.SAVARES JOVEN ROYOL
5.SAVARES JOYCIE KATE ROYOL
6.SAVARES MA ALICIA REGALADO
7.SAVARIZ BRIAN TORRES
8.SAVELLA FRANCIS JAY SIPIN
9.SAVELLANO MARILYN DOMINGO
10.SAVILLA SHERYANN DAYAG
11.SAVILLO LHYNAN ABA
12.SAVINADA MA KARRA MAE TALLA
13.SAWAL MARIA SOLEDAD MERCADO
14.SAWAL MARK JASON REYES
15.SAWALI RONALYN BINAY
16.SAWALI SHERYLL BINAY
17.SAWIT ARLYN ROSE GRANDIA
18.SAYABOC JOY DE LOS REYES
19.SAYAJON RHOM MARCONI NAMBATAC
20.SAYAS JANE MAY ANNE PARANGAT
21.SAYAS JOYCE ANN RUIZ
22.SAYCO HAZEL ROQUIOS
23.SAYCO SHELLA MAE GUANZON
24.SAYDOQUEN TYRONE AGABAS
25.SAYGO MONALYN CATCHILLAR


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 2ND
Room / Group No.: 208

1.SAYLO DARLENE MAGTOTO
2.SAYNO MARK ANTHONY ALMEIDA
3.SAYO ANA MARIE LAZARO
4.SAYO BIENVENIDO JR ALFEREZ
5.SAYO MARY ANNYDELLE CAMILLE PARAS
6.SAYO MHAY TOBIAS
7.SAYOTO CIARA KEITH NAGALLO
8.SAYQUE ANA TAN
9.SAYRE DENISE AISHA TEVES
10.SAYSON CHRISTINE BUDADONG
11.SAYSON JAMES ORIJUELA
12.SAYSON JOY ANN LADEMORA
13.SAYSON REZAH TARRE
14.SAYSON RYAN ANTHONY ALCANTARA
15.SAZON ANTHONY MENDOZA
16.SAZON BIMBO EMPAYNADO
17.SAZON CZAR ALEXANDER ALDOVINO
18.SAZON ELAINE MANUEL
19.SAZON JOHN PAUL JORGE
20.SAÑEZ JHOANNE MAE JALBUENA
21.SAÑEZ JUN ALEXANDER LORIA
22.SAÑEZ LAARNI ABO-ABO
23.SAÑGA RITZMOND BERNAL
24.SAÑO JEREMIAH SANTOS
25.SAÑO LUCKY SHEENA GUEVARRA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 2ND
Room / Group No.: 209

1.SCHERER JOANNA MARIE LANGILAO
2.SCHIELDS LOVELY MENDOZA
3.SEACHON WILEEN ACEBES
4.SEACOR LANI TALITE
5.SEALONGO CHERRY HERNANDEZ
6.SEASOL SUE CARMELL SAQUINE
7.SEBALLOS MARICON CUACHON
8.SEBALLOS MARY JACKELYN JOJIE CABANGON
9.SEBANTA RAYMUND DE GUZMAN
10.SEBASTIAN ALICIA VALENZUELA
11.SEBASTIAN ARMI EMILY SESPEÑE
12.SEBASTIAN BEEJAY LAVERINTO
13.SEBASTIAN CAMILLE DELA CRUZ
14.SEBASTIAN EYZELL HAZEL CABIGTING
15.SEBASTIAN JANNIE LYN ANTIPUESTO
16.SEBASTIAN JOHN EVAN VILLANUEVA
17.SEBASTIAN LEMUELE BENEDICT FABIAN
18.SEBASTIAN MA SABINA RAMIREZ
19.SEBASTIAN MARY ANN BITUIN
20.SEBASTIAN MICHELLE MARIE LLENADO
21.SEBASTIAN OLIVER AYALA
22.SEBASTIAN PRINCESS ALEJO
23.SEBASTIAN ROWELL SOMERA
24.SEBASTIAN ZERAH PARRAS
25.SEBRERO DIANNE GONZALES


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 301

1.SEBUAN MARIE GRACE SANTIAGO
2.SECAPURI MEVYL MONGAYA
3.SECILLANO CHA-CHEZ MUÑOZ
4.SECILLANO DANIEL JR VICTORINO
5.SECO ANN MARJORIE MORALES
6.SECRETARIO ANALYN SALVADOR
7.SECRETO JOANNA ABAYARE
8.SECSON DONNIE ZACHARY CONTIANGCO
9.SEDA ERIC BAGASBAS
10.SEDA XANDER RAMOS
11.SEDA XIAMILLE RAMOS
12.SEDAN SANDY GRACE EVAL
13.SEDANTE BRYAN ADAMS ALAD
14.SEDANTO JOSE CLARO GARCIA
15.SEDARIA DIANA MANALO
16.SEDENIO BEEJAY VILLANUEVA
17.SEDIACO GEMABELL BERNARDO
18.SEDIGO MANCARL ANTONIO
19.SEE ALFRED DAVE SAJISE
20.SEE JOSHUA IVAN DELA CRUZ
21.SEE MA KRISTINA CASANDRA BORLONGAN
22.SEE MARIA LOURDES BORLONGAN
23.SEE SHEENA RED ONG LO
24.SEE VINCENT GALARIO
25.SEELIN ROBIGEM MENDOZA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 302

1.SEGADOR GENER ADALLA
2.SEGADOR MARK JOHN BERT ALFARO
3.SEGARRA MARJORIE MANILA
4.SEGARRA SHERRY ANNE LACSON
5.SEGISMUNDO RODALYN RUMA
6.SEGOMA REZIEL ANN ILIW-ILIW
7.SEGUBAN JONARD CABAEL
8.SEGUBIENSE KERVIN RIVERA
9.SEGUBRE JOEMAR AGUILAR
10.SEGUI ALDOUS ULYSSES ROXAS
11.SEGUI ANINAH KARLA RAMOS
12.SEGUI MARK IVAN NACORDA
13.SEGUIN VENUS BALOLONG
14.SEGUIS ANNA MARIE SIBALA
15.SEGUNDERA MARY JANE FACTON
16.SEGUNDO IRISH JANE SANDOVAL
17.SEGUNDO JENNIFER BALCE
18.SEGUP MARVIN ALDRIN OJO
19.SEGURA ARNOILDA DIAL
20.SEGURA MICHELLE BERNAL
21.SEGURA RACHELLE ANN DALIDA
22.SEGURITAN NOVE SORIANO
23.SEIBERT JEDDAHLYN MANGUNE
24.SEJALBO EMILY VILLOSO
25.SELDA CHRISTIAN SEMILLA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 303

1.SELECCION IMEE DELA CRUZ
2.SELGA ANGIE DUBRIA
3.SELGA FRITZIE ANNE QUADRA
4.SELGA MELISSA DUAY
5.SELLEZA KRYSTINE ASIJAN
6.SELMA PRINCESS GRACE MATA
7.SELMO MARY JANE DE OCAMPO
8.SELMO RENATO GUBALLO
9.SELODIO CHARIS MAE ATILANO
10.SEMA NORHINA MIDTIMBANG
11.SEMANA CECILIA CALACHAN
12.SEMANA ELAINE MARIE SANA
13.SEMANA NOEL GILVEREY MAXIMO
14.SEMAÑA ANA LIZA BAYLON
15.SEMAÑA JASEN TAN
16.SEMBRANO ERLEN JOY FLORES
17.SEMBRANO JONALYN ARELLANO
18.SEMBRERO PINKY SALAMEDA
19.SEMIC JAN VINCENT RELOJ
20.SEMILLA AERON JAY SAPUNTO
21.SEMILLA KELVIN CASIDSID
22.SEMINIANO MARC RONALD PANGILINAN
23.SEMPER ANALYN BAUTISTA
24.SENA ANGELICA JINANG
25.SENA CHRISTINE SAPUNGAN


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 304

1.SENCIDA ABRAHAM JR CUBILLO
2.SENCILLA ALMA DELA CRUZ
3.SENDAYDIEGO QUEENIE INGCO
4.SENDIN HONEYLETTE BANAAG
5.SENDIN JUANITO ESTEBAN
6.SENDON VANESSA CLAIRE SALENTES
7.SENEN JOANNA MARIE GENITO
8.SENETA CESAR JR CARANGALAN
9.SENGCO MICHAEL ANJO SANTOS
10.SENICA MILDRED CESA
11.SENICA SHERRY FRANCIN MENDOZA
12.SENIDO LENIE JANE DEL ROSARIO
13.SENIN KHARIZZA SENDAYDIEGO
14.SENIO JENLYN VELASCO
15.SENO KIMBERLY GAMO
16.SENO SARAH BERNADETTE IBASCO
17.SENOSA JOE MARIE TROMPETA
18.SENOSIN JULIE BALID
19.SENSON GLENN MARC GRAFIL
20.SENTENTA JOKER ROMERO
21.SENTIN KATHERINE RAMOS
22.SENTINA LEIZEL AGUSTIN
23.SENTINELLEAR ROSALIE AYSON
24.SENTURIAS PSYVANN MARC RAGAS
25.SEPADA JASMINE PADILLA


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 305

1.SEPILLO JENNIBETH ALVAREZ
2.SEPILLO MICHAEL JOHN ESPINAS
3.SEPLACO JAY ANUAT
4.SEPNIO JEFFERSON SANSANO
5.SEPNIO JOSE JR SAHISA
6.SEPTIMO MA CRISTINA NAVARRO
7.SEPULVEDA SIEGMUND REMOROZA
8.SEPULVIDA ANNA AISSA VALETE
9.SERA CHARLENE SAPLOR
10.SERA MAE SHELPHONIE BANZALI
11.SERA JOSEF SHIELA MARIE TIMOG
12.SERADILLA JESSIE ANDRIAN OLIVER
13.SERAFICA LIZA SOLANOY
14.SERAFICA LLOYD UGADDAN
15.SERAFICA LYSTRA HANNAH VILLANUEVA
16.SERAFICO EMELINE ESTACIO
17.SERAFICO KRISTELLE COLOT
18.SERAFIN JAPHETH SEÑASE
19.SERAFIN JEAN MAURICE GUIJARNO
20.SERAFIN NIKKI MARIZ BAUTISTA
21.SERALVO RHODERICK PANGANIBAN
22.SERAPIO HELEN GRACE PILIPIÑA
23.SERAPIO JONA PEREZ
24.SERAPIO KRIZ RUBY BAGUINAT
25.SERAPION CIELITA SASI


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 306

1.SERARZO NOEME ESTRADA
2.SERASPI AGUSTINA VALLOSO
3.SERCADO NICOLLETE JOOSE SORIANO
4.SERDAN JHUVY ELARAN
5.SERDENIOLA CHERRYL GIDAYAO
6.SERDEÑA REINA MARGARET SINGAYAN
7.SERDON JENNY TESS GABRINO
8.SERDON MARIA FATIMA BEJAR
9.SERDONCILLO RALPH PAULO SANTOS
10.SERENUELA CHRISTINE PEARL GERAGA
11.SERENUELA KEVIN PAUL GERAGA
12.SERGANTES MARY EDEN TAN
13.SERGIO RAYMOND BADONG
14.SERGOTE WENDY JUAN
15.SERILO SIZELLE SALCEDO
16.SERING MARIO JR TEJOR
17.SERING MELCA JOY CRUIZ
18.SERIRITAN IVY TEVES
19.SERMONIA LOU ARDEN DECANO
20.SERMONIA MARIA ROMINA UNSON
21.SERNA KHAIE JOANA SHYLAC SORINIO
22.SERNA MA ARRIY JANN MARTIREZ
23.SERNA MA POLAND MARTIREZ
24.SERNA MARK IAN ALBA
25.SERNA MARY ANN QUILAS


School : UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Address : ESPAÑA, MANILA
Building : FACULTY OF ENG'G
Floor : 3RD
Room / Group No.: 307

1.SERNA MICHAEL JAN RAMOS
2.SERNADILLA SHIRLEY ACOSTA
3.SERNANDE DIANNE PATRICIA CREDO
4.SERNAT JOSE CZAR VINCENT PARIÑAS
5.SERNAT KATRINA EUNICE LAGRIA
6.SERNEO CAMILLE SAQUILAYAN
7.SERNICOLA MA SHIELA TEÑOSO
8.SERNICULA ALTAIRE ZYRAH SALAZAR
9.SERNICULA NADIA BARIT
10.SERNICULA NAIDA BARIT
11.SERON ALLAN CROMWELL VILLAFUERTE
12.SERON NIÑO MONTECLARO
13.SEROPIAN NANCY BENAVIDEZ
14.SERQUINIA MARK LOUIE ELEGIDO
15.SERQUIÑA CRISTINA BARRERAS
16.SERRA KARSTEN RAE SIAZON
17.SERRA MA JONADY DIVINA
18.SERRA SEAN ANDREW PADERNILLA
19.SERRANO ABIGAIL TORRES
20.SERRANO ACE KING RAQUEDAN
21.SERRANO AILEEN GRACE DOMINGO
22.SERRANO AIZA BELLE CANILANG
23.SERRANO ALVIN BRYAN MANGUBAT
24.SERRANO ANA MARIA LEYTE
25.SERRANO ANGELA LEI CRUZ

19
Mga tol wag nyo namang paiyakin si coco, :cry: future pastor ng mga christian yan at si handuser balang araw :pray:

20
Tambay tayo dito! / Re: Bible?
« Message by NuGamma1998 on 04-03-09 10:26 PM »
 :thumbsup: doon mo nga mapapatunayan na TOTOO ang BIBLE at nilalaman nito.. kasi sabi don lilitaw ang mga BULAANG cristo at mga PROPETA (MAT 24:4, 23-24)... well at NATUTUPAD na nga... napansin mo kanya kanya silang cristo?? iba iba?? PERO ISA LANG ANG TUNAY na CRISTONG itinuturo ng BIBLE...

parang ganito... si LEONARDO da VINCI nag drawing ng cristo nya na LONG HAIR (yun kasi ang naiturong cristo ng religion nya)... at pinaniwalaan naman ni DAN BROWN... kaya nagkaroon ng DA VINCI CODE na BOOK...

ang TANONG? TUNAY ba na cristo ang pinapakilala ng DA VINCI CODE?

balik tayo sa mas AUTHORITY sa mas naunang nalathala..... at yun ang BIBLE... sabi sa BIBLE sabi ni CRISTO... na pinaniniwalaan naman ni ST.PAUL... eh ganito...

1st CORINTHIAN 11:14-15
""Hindi baga ang katalagahan din ang nagtuturo sa inyo, na kung may mahabang buhok ang lalake, ay mahalay sa kaniya?

Datapuwa't kung ang babae ang may mahabang buhok, ay isang kapurihan niya; sapagka't ang buhok sa kaniya'y ibinigay na pangtakip. "

BASTOS daw ang LALAKING MAHABA ang BUHOK?? ang TANONG???? ano ba ang GENDER ni CHRIST??

 ;) so ang LOGIC... HINDI MAHABA ang BUHOK ng TUNAY na CRISTO!

at manapa... yung ibang religion o denomination ang NANGOPYA sa BIBLE...

may alam akong religion mga 7th century lumitaw.. yung FOUNDER nun nag babatay kunwari sa BIBLE... at namumulot nga lang sya doon ng gusto nya...  at gumawa siya ng sarili nyang AKLAT, pinakilala nya sa mga followers nya na siyay propeta... at si Cristo daw ay HINDI diyos... dumami sila ngayon 1.8 billion... mas marami sila sa CATHOLIC dito sa ASIA... at ang paniniwala nun kapag kaaway nila PUPUGUTAN nila... :bat:

meron naman mga nagsasabing BAPTIST - BORN AGAIN daw sila tanggapin lang daw si Cristo itaas ang kamay LIGTAS na? HINDI na raw kailangan ng GAWA... SUMAMPALATAYA na lang daw... tapos tatakutin ang mga member nila na NAGNANAKAW sila sa Diyos kapag hindi sila nagbigay ng PERA...

ang nakakatawa... ;D HINDI na pala kailangan ng GAWA pero.. HIHINGIAN ka ng IKAPU o PERA...maski sa PALENGKE sa BUS lalapagan ka ng envelop ng mga loko lokong pastor... (eh bat ka naman GAGAWANG mag abot ng PERA? di na pala kanyo kailangan ng GAWA? NONSENSE!)... :confused:

kilatisin mo muna bago tanggapin ang cristo nila... kung KAPAREHAS ba ng CRISTO ng BIBLE...


kaya ganun ka TOTOO ang BIBLE.. bago pa man lumitaw ang mga loko lokong propeta na yan .. eh NASABI na ng BIBLE!....  :thumbsup:






astig_add@yahoo.com
FRIENDSTER

21
Humanities / Re: Three in One?
« Message by Cocomuizz99 on 04-07-13 04:33 PM »
[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]
kaya nga may mga pastor na mali ang turo. Si jesus ang founder, bakit? Siya ang kauna-unahang naglatag ng misa at from the root christ kaya pinangalanan ni st. paul ang religion ng christianity. sa tingin mo kung wala ba si jesus at hindi siya nagmisa noon may christianity ba? Sino ba sa tingin mo ang bumuo ng christianity si jesus o saint paul? Thats why its called christianity dahil we are following  the teaching of jesus. Hay naku! :kawali:
the first books of the New
Testament all came from one man, Paul of
Tarsus. The books were later rearranged to
take some of the emphasis off of Paul, but it
is impossible to deny that he was the primary
architect of what would become Christianity. Paul of Tarsus, or Saint Paul, is the person
most responsible for the spread of
Christianity. Without Paul, Christianity may
have well died as an obscure apocalyptic
Jewish sect. Paul wrote up to about half of
the New Testament. It isn't known exactly how much of the book is attributable to Paul.
His influence on the bible is hard to discount.
Many Christians will tell you that his words
were God inspired, so it doesn't matter who
actually penned them, or when. If that is
true, it doesn't explain the myriad contradictions between the ideas of Paul and
the rest of the bible.

Christ's Mass or Christmas. Siyanga pala mag OOT LANG. Bawal ba ang baboy?

22
Humanities / Re: Ano gusto niyong kultura na bansa?
« Message by ilyreno on 03-02-13 05:47 AM »
[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]

no, i mean i have a living proof or buhay na patunay, reality na may Diyos na sinasamba sa loob ng katolisismo (hindi kami gawang tao lang, minsan yong mga pari o namumuno may ibang interpretasyon sa lipunan, tao lang naman sila. nagkakamali at natutuwid. but ang point ko eh alam kong sumasamba ako sa totoong Diyos) kaya naniniwala ako sa katoliko, tinatanong mo kasi kung bakit matindi ang debosyon ko sa katoliko

and it is up to you kung maniniwala.


Anyway, the Catholic church is good naman, but I really cannot go back anymore. May mga magagandang aral doon, pero hindi lahat ay masasabi ko na gusto ko. Some ay ayos at some ay hinde.

...and about Christian bible, yeah, it is serve as a guide, moral and ethics pero hindi din ako ganun ka dependent. Magulo kase siya-ha ha :lol: Sabi mo nga, there is bible verse na nagsasabing may gender equality pero at the same, there is a bible verse na nagsasabing there is a gender unequality too. Totoo siya, pero of course, sino ba taong interpreter ng bible ang kukuha ng bible verse about gender unequality kung alam naman niya na hindi maganda at hindi mabuti? Hindi siya pang pa inspired. Pang pa frustration lang iyon and so, they have to ignore that bible verse or sabihin natin na, ikinukuha pa rin siya ng ibang tao, porket nakalagay lang siya sa mismong biblia and inaapply pa rin, but hindi ko sasabihin kung anong bible verse iyon. Hindi ko ni lalahat ang mga taong kumukuha ng ganung bible verse about gender unequality and I think, sabi mo nga, tao lang sila, na parang common na sa kanila, na basta lang kumukuha kuha sa bible verse at iaapply in real life and then, naging social norm pa doon sa maling pag iinterpret ng verse na iyon.

Yun lang.

Tulad ng to be kept silence in church daw ang mga women, sabi ni Paul in bible. In the present days, it was literal interpreted na bawal ang mga babae na magsalita sa simbahan. Ano nangyari in the present days? Some churches are not allowed sa mga babae ang maging pare or maging pastor man lang dahil to be silence nga naman sila. I mean why they have to interpret that bible verse diba? It was so literal na in the present days, naging social norm natin, e diba nila alam na during those days lang ni Paul, na nasabihan niya ang ganun dahil nagkataon na maiingay ang mga babae sa simbahan and bakit idinala pa sa present days? Nagkataon na maiingay ang mga babae sa loob ng simbahan during sa panahon na iyon, siyempre, ngayon, huwag na nila idala iyon in the present days dahil obvious naman na ke lalake at ke babae, dapat huwag maingay talaga sa simbahan.

Iyon lang ang isa sa mga example ko.

[You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login]

Pages: 1