Post by: barrister on Jul 19, 2013 at 09:39 AM
By Ramy Inocencio and Kocha Olarn
July 18, 2013 -- Updated 190
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130718062810-monk-youtube-story-top.jpg)
Thai authorities, in an investigation, uncovered a mind-boggling list of assets that they say a man sworn to austerity should not possess.
Nenkham, now stripped of his religious leadership, owned at least 83 automobiles and a list of properties that include plots of land, houses and condominiums, according to the DSI. Thai authorities believe more properties have yet to be accounted.
Authorities also estimate at least 300 million baht, or nearly $10 million, have disappeared from Nenkham's bank accounts in recent days. Donations over the past decade, from poor supporters as well as rich backers, had helped Nenkham amass his total wealth, according to investigators.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/18/world/thailand-corrupt-jet-set-monk/?hpt=hp_c3 (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/18/world/thailand-corrupt-jet-set-monk/?hpt=hp_c3)
Post by: oweidah on Jul 19, 2013 at 09:55 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jul 19, 2013 at 12:18 PM
The monk looks like yun lead make singer ng black eyed peas. :P
Post by: dpogs on Jul 19, 2013 at 05:08 PM
kung anong puno siyang bunga...
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jul 29, 2013 at 07:28 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jul 29, 2013 at 09:11 AM
I don't understand why the title of this thread is "Non-Catholic."
Non-catholic Religion talk.
Post by: leomarley on Jul 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM
Non-catholic Religion talk.
maybe you should complete the phrase and not just Non-Catholic para di maguluhan mga members.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jul 29, 2013 at 02:02 PM
maybe you should complete the phrase and not just Non-Catholic para di maguluhan mga members.
Di po ako ang TS. :)
Post by: leomarley on Jul 29, 2013 at 04:54 PM
Post by: rusty on Aug 23, 2013 at 02:58 AM
(http://www.hindustantimes.com/images/2012/4/08ae23ae-0dee-4f6b-8021-8e87490e423dcinemaphotourl.jpg)
“Only 5-6 people are not the culprits. The victim daughter is as guilty as her rapists... She should have called the culprits brothers and begged before them to stop... This could have saved her dignity and life. Can one hand clap? I don't think so.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asaram_Bapu
Post by: barrister on Aug 23, 2013 at 02:42 PM
I've heard about his rape comment, but the sexual assault charge is new to me.
===============================
maybe you should complete the phrase and not just Non-Catholic para di maguluhan mga members.
Malinaw yan, sir.
Nakasulat na lahat sa itaas, hindi mo lang nabasa:
PinoyDVD » Community » Chit-Chat » Big Talk » Religion (Moderator: firewired (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php?action=profile;u=34)) » Topic: Non-Catholic
Post by: leomarley on Aug 23, 2013 at 03:02 PM
Post by: rusty on Sep 07, 2013 at 04:45 AM
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/9/5/1378387039523/Pat-Robertson-TV-evangeli-010.jpg)
Mission Congo on TIFF:
http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/festival/2013/missioncongo
Mission Congo on IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3091380/
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 07, 2013 at 05:55 AM
New documentary shows how televangelist Pat Robertson defrauded millions in aid donations to fund a diamond mining venture in the Congo (http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/sep/05/mission-congo-pat-robertson-aid-rwanda?CMP=twt_gu)
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/9/5/1378387039523/Pat-Robertson-TV-evangeli-010.jpg)
Mission Congo on TIFF:
http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/festival/2013/missioncongo
Mission Congo on IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3091380/
Naging congressman or senator ba ito dito sa atin?
Post by: Hammerheart on Sep 07, 2013 at 06:44 AM
wanna get rich? religionAgree.
Post by: oznola on Sep 07, 2013 at 07:35 AM
Post by: rusty on Sep 07, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Naging congressman or senator ba ito dito sa atin?
No, sir.
He tried to run for US president in 1988.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Sep 07, 2013 at 12:00 PM
No, sir.
He tried to run for US president in 1988.
Joke lang po. Kasi ang galing nya mag-divert ng funds. Parang congressmen and senators natin.
:D
Post by: rusty on Oct 07, 2013 at 11:41 AM
(http://christianmessenger.in/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Pastor-Kong-Hee-wife.jpg)
A Christian evangelical pastor in Singapore is accused of embezzling more than $19 million in church funds to finance his wife’s career as a pop singer, all under the guise of spreading God’s message through her music.
Kong Hee, 47, and five other officials from the City Harvest Church are on trial for hatching a plan to embezzle millions to make his wife Sun Ho, 41, a pop star in the U.S.
Originally accused of siphoning off $19 million, the group allegedly misappropriated another $20 million to cover up the first diversion.
All six of the accused deny the charges. The church claims Ho’s career is part of a “crossover” campaign to spread God’s word to the secular world via her music.
Evidence presented in court showed more than $10 million – “in line with Shakira’s marketing budget and less than the budget for Beyonce” - was earmarked in the church’s budget for Ho’s marketing.
Ho cofounded the evangelical church with her husband in 1989. In 2009 she moved to Los Angeles to begin a career as an English-language singer. Ho’s “China Wine” music video featuring rapper Wyclef Jean has attracted over 1.5 million views on YouTube. According to Strait Times, $1.6 million was spent on production fees for Wyclef Jean.
Ho’s hopes at stardom were reportedly dashed once the scandal broke. Ho is not currently facing any charges herself, according to Raw Story. She has been appearing in court with her husband since the trial began.
Prosecutors claim Kong and his employees channeled money collected by the church to build a new facility into sham bonds in church-linked companies – a scam known as “round-tripping.”
Church accounts were then allegedly falsified to make it appear as though those bonds were redeemed.
The trial, which went to recess on Sept. 20 and will not resume until January 2014, has brought widespread attention to fast-growing mega-churches.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/mega-church-founder-kong-hee-embezzles-26-million-finance-pop-singer-wifes
Scandal puts spotlight on rich Singapore churches
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/501567/scandal-puts-spotlight-on-rich-singapore-churches
Sun Ho Music Videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ya3Hqu_-cg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GgxsfODXrI
Post by: barrister on Nov 19, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Manila Bulletin – 12 hours ago
... Bro. Jose Ventilacion, INC minister, said contrary to some “malicious” reports, their house of worship, which was located on top of a hill in Tacloban, actually provided shelter to storm victims regardless of their religious affiliation.
“New Zealand TV reported that there were many non-Iglesia Ni Cristo members who were sheltered in the Tacloban house of worship. Not only in Tacloban, but also in other places that sought Iglesia ni Cristo for refuge,” ...
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/inc-says-sheltered-yolanda-victims-154301977.html (http://ph.news.yahoo.com/inc-says-sheltered-yolanda-victims-154301977.html)
Post by: rusty on Feb 10, 2014 at 12:20 AM
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1xdzwr/serious_have_you_been_involved_with_a_cult_what/
Post by: rusty on Mar 27, 2014 at 05:05 AM
Woman rescued, child’s bones unearthed: NBI raids “cult lair”
http://www.philstar.com/cebu-news/2014/03/27/1305648/woman-rescued-childs-bones-unearthed-nbi-raids-cult-lair
NBI rescues missing woman, finds boy’s bones in pit of ‘Tatay’ Loloy’s home
http://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/2014/03/27/nbi-rescues-missing-woman-finds-boys-bones-in-pit-of-tatay-loloys-home/#sthash.H8Zeypnt.uxfs
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 27, 2014 at 08:55 AM
Post by: rusty on Mar 27, 2014 at 12:33 PM
“A cult is a religion with no political power.”
― Tom Wolfe (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4398-a-cult-is-a-religion-with-no-political-power)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Mar 27, 2014 at 12:44 PM
“A cult is a religion with no political power.”
― Tom Wolfe (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4398-a-cult-is-a-religion-with-no-political-power)
Haha! Nice one!
Post by: Hammerheart on Mar 27, 2014 at 01:29 PM
“A cult is a religion with no political power.”
― Tom Wolfe (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4398-a-cult-is-a-religion-with-no-political-power)
INCs and Catholics are no cult pala, they have VERY strong political powers. :)
Post by: jay john on Mar 27, 2014 at 06:49 PM
Post by: newwaveboy on Mar 27, 2014 at 08:57 PM
For guys like Mike & Eddie, they left no doubt and went for both options. Slam dunk.
Post by: leomarley on Mar 27, 2014 at 09:51 PM
My very wise college professor once said, "If you want a surefire way to get rich ...... enter politics or start your own religion".
For guys like Mike & Eddie, they left no doubt and went for both options. Slam dunk.
that is so true. remember this guy:
(http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Robertson.jpg)
Post by: barrister on Feb 25, 2015 at 04:51 PM
By VERENA DOBNIK - Associated Press - Tuesday, February 24, 2015
NEW YORK (AP) - The city said Tuesday it has reached a tentative agreement with members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community over a tradition known as oral suction circumcision.
Health officials have linked 17 cases of infant herpes since 2000 to the ancient ritual of sucking blood from the wounds on the infants’ penises.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/nyc-orthodox-jews-reach-agreement-on-circumcision-/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/24/nyc-orthodox-jews-reach-agreement-on-circumcision-/)
Post by: barrister on Jul 24, 2015 at 01:37 PM
onga ano pong ngyayari?
http://www.rappler.com/nation/100237-iglesia-cristo-help-hostage-sign (http://www.rappler.com/nation/100237-iglesia-cristo-help-hostage-sign)
Hindi ako INC, at hindi rin ako naniniwala sa INC doctrines. Pero duda ako sa hostage signs na yon.
Sabi niya hostage siya, pero puwede siyang humawak ng papel, folders at pentel, magsulat ng messages, magbukas ng malaking bintana, at magtutok ng mga malalaking messages sa labas ng malaking bintana. Napakaluwag naman ng mga bantay ng hostage na ito.
Ewan lang natin. Speculation lang, kasi hindi pa malinaw ang lahat.
Pero bilib naman ako sa mga INC members, hindi basta-basta nagbibigay ng opinyon habang wala pang malinaw. Mga disiplinado siguro talaga ang mga members.
Nakakapagtaka, hostage daw siya, ang lalaki ng mga signs na idinungaw sa bintana, pero parang ayaw magpakita ng mukha. Puro daliri lang niya ang makikita mo... :D
==================================
Sabi na nga ba, parang hindi totoo na may hostage:
Cops rule out abduction in Iglesia compound
(2nd UPDATE) Angel Manalo, brother of Iglesia ni Cristo
head Eduardo Manalo, also denies he was abducted
Katerina Francisco
Published 12:17 AM, July 24, 2015
Updated 4:00 AM, Jul 24, 2015
http://www.rappler.com/nation/100298-iglesia-cristo-police-tandang-sora-compound (http://www.rappler.com/nation/100298-iglesia-cristo-police-tandang-sora-compound)
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jul 24, 2015 at 02:00 PM
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 24, 2015 at 02:04 PM
For me, walang ka kwenta kwenta yun pag imbestiga ng mga pulis. The least they could have done is to look around inside and make sure that the person facing them is not under duress.
They say the INC controls the police.
Post by: barrister on Jul 25, 2015 at 09:49 AM
‘Deep Throat’ shakes up Iglesia Ni Cristo
PDI told: Mystery blogger started it all
Philippine Daily Inquirer
02:52 AM July 25th, 2015
... Rosales enumerated purchases, including “two choppers” and an “Airbus.”
She also pointed to a minister who owned several expensive condominium units in posh Bonifacio Global City.
“One minister even drives a Lamborghini,” she added.
“The families of these ministers fly on the INC Airbus for trips abroad and go on shopping sprees. They sport Louis Vuittons,” she said.
These jaw-dropping allegations cry out for investigation.
Ministers are not paid much, she said.
“We do not refer to their pay as salaries but as aid,” Rosales said.
There are ministers who started off already rich so they have cars and all, she said. But there are ministers who became wealthy along the way in questionable ways, she added.
... A major cause of dissent is Philippine Arena in Ciudad de Victoria in Bulacan province, inaugurated last year in time for INC’s 100th anniversary.
Often described as a showcase of INC’s power and wealth, the 55,000-seat Philippine Arena cost a whopping $200 million and has been declared the world’s largest indoor area by Guinness World Records.
“How can they recover the cost?” Rosales asked.
Holding concerts there that are not in keeping with INC’s teachings has raised eyebrows, she said, adding that last year’s New Year’s Eve concert by US R&B star Chris Brown that fell through was proof of how the venue was becoming a white elephant.
When INC members troop to the arena in rented buses, Rosales said, they bring packed food and drinks in order to save on expenses.
“What do the guards do? They make the people leave their drinks. The members should buy water sold by INC businessmen. Members are asked to sell tickets for events. During worship services they are asked to buy items on sale,” Rosales said.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/707540/deep-throat-shakes-up-iglesia-ni-cristo (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/707540/deep-throat-shakes-up-iglesia-ni-cristo)
Post by: sovrain on Jul 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM
Post by: tony on Jul 25, 2015 at 12:50 PM
Post by: dodie on Jul 25, 2015 at 02:48 PM
this is not surprising, many of the members are well off anyway...
being well off i think is not surprising....what is surprising is that they are using their church to advance the personal interest of some members and to profit from it bigtym....
Post by: praktikal on Jul 25, 2015 at 08:44 PM
Post by: pekspert on Jul 25, 2015 at 09:15 PM
I feel sorry for my friends who are INC members, forced at nagtitiis sila to give 10% monthly for their ministers to enjoy.
Post by: sovrain on Jul 25, 2015 at 09:36 PM
Post by: praktikal on Jul 25, 2015 at 09:43 PM
Post by: Philander on Jul 25, 2015 at 09:44 PM
Para silang nag iinvest without getting any; except yung pangakong sila lang ang maliligtas.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 25, 2015 at 11:00 PM
INC. Daig pa ang networking (scam) nito. Aba matinde, members are giving 10% fromtheir income without getting any physical product in return.
Para silang nag iinvest without getting any; except yung pangakong sila lang ang maliligtas.
Physical product in return? Well kung ang bawat tao ay ineexpect na kapag nagbigay ng ikapu eh may matatanggap sila na physical product abe eh they deserved a corrupt church leader.
Why do we go to church? To gain physical products or to grow spiritually?
Kaya dapat church must be local in nature not universal like inc and rc.
Iyong malaking portion ng ikapu kasi ng mga inc members ay napupunta sa central office ng inc/rc instead na mapunta lahat sa local church.
Post by: pekspert on Jul 25, 2015 at 11:06 PM
^Tax free?yes tax free. Govt cant do anything since they are religious sect. They dont even pay yearly realty tax (amilyar) on any of their churches to the local govt.
^ teka, yan bang 10% o ikapo eh compulsary pati sa mahirap na members o hanggang middle class lang ang pinakamababa nilang mga kasapi nila?compulsory iyan. Basta member ka. We recently once had a maid is INC and registered in an inc church nearby sa amin. Di siya regular churchgoer pero may pumupunta na goon sa house namin to remind her of her monthly obligation. Buti na lang umalis na sa amin yung maid na yun. But still bumalik pa din yung goon. Sinabihan ng isang maid namin yung goon na umalis na nga.
INC. Daig pa ang networking (scam) nito. Aba matinde, members are giving 10% fromtheir income without getting any physical product in return.In fairness to the INC may mga program sila minsan like free checkup, dental, law consultation..etc. But still not worth the 10% monthly IMO.
Para silang nag iinvest without getting any; except yung pangakong sila lang ang maliligtas.
Post by: barrister on Jul 25, 2015 at 11:42 PM
^ teka, yan bang 10% o ikapo eh compulsary pati sa mahirap na members o hanggang middle class lang ang pinakamababa nilang mga kasapi nila?
Walang 10% (or tithe or ikapu) sa INC.
Ibang sekta ang sinasabi mo siguro, sir. Like Baptists, Born Again, El Shaddai, Mormons, Sabadista, etc
However, wala ngang ikapu ang INC, marami naman silang ibang abuluyan, like Santa Cena, tanging handugan, tanging handugan sa distrito, lagak, pasasalamat, pasasalamat sa anibersaryo/midyear, regular offering (abuloy), abuloy sa Miyerkules/Huwebes, etc.
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 26, 2015 at 12:25 AM
Physical product in return? Well kung ang bawat tao ay ineexpect na kapag nagbigay ng ikapu eh may matatanggap sila na physical product abe eh they deserved a corrupt church leader.
Why do we go to church? To gain physical products or to grow spiritually?
Kaya dapat church must be local in nature not universal like inc and rc.
Iyong malaking portion ng ikapu kasi ng mga inc members ay napupunta sa central office ng inc/rc instead na mapunta lahat sa local church.
Ano naman kinalaman ng local o universal? Kung "universal" mas malaki bigayan? Minamaliit mo ba ang bigayan ng ibang relihiyon na "local"? Kailangan ba maging "local" para hindi lumaki ang ulo ng mga namumuno?
Post by: Philander on Jul 26, 2015 at 12:56 AM
Physical product in return? Well kung ang bawat tao ay ineexpect na kapag nagbigay ng ikapu eh may matatanggap sila na physical product abe eh they deserved a corrupt church leader.
Why do we go to church? To gain physical products or to grow spiritually?
Kaya dapat church must be local in nature not universal like inc and rc.
Iyong malaking portion ng ikapu kasi ng mga inc members ay napupunta sa central office ng inc/rc instead na mapunta lahat sa local church.
I think you did not get my point.
To me INC is a scam/business. So that's why I am not joining their membership because I can see any gain from my investment.
I rather invest the 10% of my income in legitimate business where I can earn and will donate to my church certain amount based on what I can/want.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 26, 2015 at 02:17 AM
We give to support the church in their basic monthly expenses and any excess must be use for the advancement of the Word of God. Rest assured when we give, our investment is not on this world, its in our afterlife.
Giving though should not be required or forced to members but teach them let them learn how to give in kind or of monetary value.
Post by: Philander on Jul 26, 2015 at 02:35 AM
Any religion right or false religion is an income generating organization... But we dont just give money or join a church as an investment. But every member of a certain church must know that the life of those who feed them spiritually depend on how much money they give.
We give to support the church in their basic monthly expenses and any excess must be use for the advancement of the Word of God. Rest assured when we give, our investment is not on this world, its in our afterlife.
Giving though should not be required or forced to members but teach them let them learn how to give in kind or of monetary value.
Then again, as Ive said, INC in my opinion is a scam. I don't categorized them as religion.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 26, 2015 at 02:44 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 26, 2015 at 07:13 AM
Any religion right or false religion is an income generating organization... But we dont just give money or join a church as an investment. But every member of a certain church must know that the life of those who feed them spiritually depend on how much money they give.
We give to support the church in their basic monthly expenses and any excess must be use for the advancement of the Word of God. Rest assured when we give, our investment is not on this world, its in our afterlife.
Giving though should not be required or forced to members but teach them let them learn how to give in kind or of monetary value.
Kung tatanungin natin mga iba't ibang relihiyon tiyak ang karamihan na sagot ay boluntaryo - ibig sabihin dahil gusto nila hindi dahil sa pinipilit ng simbahan nila. Palagay ko alam mo rin sa dalawang tinukoy mong partikular na relihiyon na boluntaryo ito.
Ang problema hindi ito kung hindi ang pamumuhay ng lagpas sa pangangailangan. Huwag natin idamay o sabihin na partikular sa isa o dalawang relihiyon puwera lang siguro kung masama talaga tinuturo gaya ng ibang tao dito. Gustong magpundar ng isang paniniwala ngunit sablay naman kapag dinebate.
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 26, 2015 at 07:19 AM
Gusto ko man isipin yan... But inc still a religion... Kasi kung iisipin natin na hindi religion ang inc then you should think the same for roman catholic... Some of their leader is much worse than some leaders of inc.
Banggitin ko rin sa hanay ng mga katoto mo mayroon din masamang elemento. Bakit ba partikular na tumutukoy ka sa INC at RC. Sa pananalita mo lumalabas na may sama ka ng loob. Kala ko ba sa hanay ka ng tapat sa panginoon.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 26, 2015 at 07:37 AM
As i said to my post certain leaders... Not all... Some leaders... Not all... :-) also inc at rc lang alam kong sigurado ako na universal church - un money collected ay napupunta sa central office... Kaya di maiwasan ng ibang chirch leader na gumawa ng masama... Were still in our physical form afterall. Very vulnerable.
Post by: tony on Jul 26, 2015 at 07:38 AM
religion is big business....
me bayad or donation sa kasal binyang at libing...
me mga eskuwelahan, hostpital, bangko at iba pa ang mga malalaking religion....
siyempre bukod sa colecton sa misa, kumikita ang kanilang mga negosyo....
Post by: dpogs on Jul 26, 2015 at 07:42 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 26, 2015 at 07:46 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 26, 2015 at 07:49 AM
And since those snakes usually are leaders... Ayun damay lahat ng kalimgkingan... Pati walang malay na miyembro magsisimba para matuto at lumagospiritwal nadadamay.. Uuwi siya biglamay magsasabi "ano ba yangreligion mo corrupt" kawawa naman.. Di naman lahat corrupt nadamay pa. :-(
Tama ka dito.
Hindi pala ako nahilo dito. Mas maayos dahil hindi naghalo ang ingles at tagalog sa isang pangungusap.
Post by: tony on Jul 26, 2015 at 07:49 AM
sa lahat man ng sulok ng mundo....ewan ko lang ang mga muslim kun merong kolesiyon
tuwing byernes....
pag may nagbibigay ng pera sa simbahan me corruption.....
Post by: tony on Jul 26, 2015 at 07:51 AM
And since those snakes usually are leaders... Ayun damay lahat ng kalimgkingan... Pati walang malay na miyembro magsisimba para matuto at lumagospiritwal nadadamay.. Uuwi siya biglamay magsasabi "ano ba yangreligion mo corrupt" kawawa naman.. Di naman lahat corrupt nadamay pa. :-(
ganyan ang kalakaran sa mundo......
me nagbibigay at me bnibigyan...
yung binigyan yumayaman....
yung nagbibigay same same lang....
Post by: sovrain on Jul 26, 2015 at 08:02 AM
sa lahat ng gubat me ahas....re: business...may kilala akong kontraktor, tinanong ko sya kung kilala nya yung kakilala ko ring isa pang kontraktor(a pastor, as well) ang sabi e, " kilala ko yun, yung nagbebenta ng salita ng Diyos" .... Medyo nangilabot ako sa sinabi nya...ang tingin nya rin ay negosyo ang pagtatayo ng relihiyon..
religion is big business....
me bayad or donation sa kasal binyang at libing...
me mga eskuwelahan, hostpital, bangko at iba pa ang mga malalaking religion....
siyempre bukod sa colecton sa misa, kumikita ang kanilang mga negosyo....
Post by: dpogs on Jul 26, 2015 at 08:06 AM
Kaya may mga tao na mawawalan ng paniniwala sa Diyos dahil sa kagagawan ng mga taong ito.
Post by: romeoalltheway on Jul 26, 2015 at 08:15 AM
Post by: tony on Jul 26, 2015 at 08:23 AM
yang pagmamahal sa salapi natural na sa tao.... >:D >:D >:D
Post by: doasmarx on Jul 26, 2015 at 08:50 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 26, 2015 at 09:04 AM
Post by: barrister on Jul 26, 2015 at 09:05 AM
Ika nga, money is the root of all evil...mapa religion man, eskwelahan o gobyerno.
Hindi tamang sabihin na money is the root of all evil.
Maraming kabutihan ang nagagawa ng salapi. Puwedeng pang tuition, pambili ng gamot, pambili ng pagkain, panlingap sa mga ulila at matatanda.
Ang wika, "the love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Tim. 6:10).
Samakatuwid, hindi salapi, kundi ang "pagmamahal sa salapi" ang ugat ng lahat ng kasamaan.
Post by: romeoalltheway on Jul 26, 2015 at 09:10 AM
Post by: barrister on Jul 26, 2015 at 09:42 AM
Ngayong ang puno ay tila puppet na lang ng sanggunian ng Iglesya (the highest advisory group of their church), paano mong aalisin ang puno ngayon? Wala ring sistema ng impeachment.
Dapat elected ang puno nila.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jul 26, 2015 at 09:44 AM
Ang naging problema sa INC, yung sistema nila na anak ang pumapalit sa puno.
Ngayong ang puno ay tila puppet na lang ng sanggunian ng Iglesya (the highest advisory group of their church), paano mong aalisin ang puno ngayon? Wala ring sistema ng impeachment.
Dapat elected ang puno nila.
Kapag elected, that will counter-act the "sugo" principle.
Post by: tony on Jul 26, 2015 at 09:48 AM
pansinin nyo maigi sa mahihirap na bansa na lang may "religion" ang tao. sa mga bansang mayayaman halos lahat atheist or wala na silang time for any religious rites
punta ka sa US, naroon lahat ng religions...
Post by: barrister on Jul 26, 2015 at 09:57 AM
Kapag elected, that will counter-act the "sugo" principle.
Hindi naman.
Si Ka Felix ang "Huling Sugo ng Diyos sa mga Huling Araw."
Ang huling sugo ay si Ka Felix, hindi yung anak at apo. Kasi wala na raw sugo na susunod sa kanya. Si Ka Felix na ang "Anghel Mula sa Sikatan ng Araw;" ang "Ibong Mandaragit."
Puwede nilang ibigay sa iba ang posisyon ng Tagapamahalang Pangkalahatan (Executive Minister), habang nananatiling Huling Sugo ang kapatid na Felix. So they can elect a new Executive Minister, while maintaining the Huling Sugo doctrine.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 26, 2015 at 10:04 AM
punta ka sa US, naroon lahat ng religions...
Isa lang ibig sabihin niyan pabagsak na ang US... Hindi man ekonomiya pero sigurado ako sa moral na status bagsak na ang US...
Post by: oweidah on Jul 26, 2015 at 10:11 AM
naku sa ibang banasa pa......more of the same...pareparehas lang yan....
sa lahat man ng sulok ng mundo....ewan ko lang ang mga muslim kun merong kolesiyon
tuwing byernes....
pag may nagbibigay ng pera sa simbahan me corruption.....
zakkah one of 5 pillars os islam. 2.5% of yearly savings compulsary contribution.
ka tony, basta charismatic may gift of tongue pwede na
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 26, 2015 at 10:13 AM
Kamakalawa lang eh halos "stock market crash" na.
May relihiyon o wala ang bansa kung babagsak eh babagsak talaga.
Post by: oweidah on Jul 26, 2015 at 10:14 AM
Isa lang ibig sabihin niyan pabagsak na ang US... Hindi man ekonomiya pero sigurado ako sa moral na status bagsak na ang US...
pabagsak o bagsak?
anong ibidens mo? may batayan ba yan na porke nandun lahat ng relihiyon eh
bagsak na? statistics namsn jan!
morals ng mga amerkano. diba gumagaya tayo sa mga gawain nila
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 26, 2015 at 10:17 AM
Post by: oweidah on Jul 26, 2015 at 10:18 AM
greed,lust for power n wealth yan sumira sumisira sisira sa tao
repent d end is near!
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 26, 2015 at 10:23 AM
Post by: doasmarx on Jul 26, 2015 at 10:23 AM
punta ka sa US, naroon lahat ng religions...
off course andun lahat religion what I am trying to say is yung participation of its members towards their respective religion. punta ka europe parang empty museum n lang cchurches dun even on a sunday
Post by: dpogs on Jul 26, 2015 at 10:46 AM
pabagsak o bagsak?
anong ibidens mo? may batayan ba yan na porke nandun lahat ng relihiyon eh
bagsak na? statistics namsn jan!
morals ng mga amerkano. diba gumagaya tayo sa mga gawain nila
50+ years of history
Post by: Philander on Jul 26, 2015 at 11:51 AM
Gusto ko man isipin yan... But inc still a religion... Kasi kung iisipin natin na hindi religion ang inc then you should think the same for roman catholic... Some of their leader is much worse than some leaders of inc.
INC is not a true church because it is founded by man here in the Philippines and not Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ is not building a religion.
So there, INC is just a scam.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 26, 2015 at 12:02 PM
INC is not a true church because it is founded by man here in the Philippines and not Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ is not building a religion.
So there, INC is just a scam.
I feel you sir... Still INC remains a religion whether it is true or a false church. :-(
Post by: Philander on Jul 26, 2015 at 12:15 PM
I feel you sir... Still INC remains a religion whether it is true or a false church. :-(
Oh dont feel for me, feel for those INC members not knowing they were scammed.
Post by: barrister on Jul 26, 2015 at 01:20 PM
Estimated membership of the INC: 2 million. That's about 2% of the population. How can 2% of the population block vote a presidential candidate into office? Impossible.
But how does the INC convince people that they are indeed a kingmaker?
Very easy. Wait until a few days before the date of the elections before announcing your choice. Look at the surveys, and endorse the candidate leading the surveys. The survey leader wins the elections, and people think you block voted him into office.
In the last surveys before the 2010 presidential elections, Pulse Asia result (April 2010) was P-Noy for president and Roxas for VP. SWS result (May 2010) was P-Noy for president and a tie for Roxas & Binay for VP.
Taking the surveys into consideration, which is the best choice? P-Noy and Mar Roxas, of course.
May 5, 2010 (only 5 days before elections), INC announces its official endorsements:
Iglesia Ni Cristo endorses Noynoy Aquino, Mar Roxas
Posted by akosistella on May 5, 2010
https://pulitika2010.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/iglesia-ni-cristo-endorses-noynoy-aquino-mar-roxas/ (https://pulitika2010.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/iglesia-ni-cristo-endorses-noynoy-aquino-mar-roxas/)
The survey results were obviously the basis for their choice.
Result?
Aquino and Binay. Talo si Mar Roxas, na ang INC endorsement ay kinopya lang sa survey.
==================================
Now let's look at their senatorial endorsements for 2010. Out of the top 12 senatoriables, the INC chose 11.
I said on May 5, 2010:
Out of the top 12 from the last surveys by SWS and Pulse Asia, the INC picked 11.
Ruffy Biazon is the only endorsement who does not appear on the top 12 of the last SWS and Pulse Asia Surveys (Biazon is No. 16 on SWS and No. 18 on Pulse Asia).
I'd like to see how Biazon performs in this election. Let's see if the INC endorsement really affects the outcome of elections ... ;)
If Biazon wins a senatorial seat, the INC endorsement might have something to do with it.
Actual results? Biazon loses, of course:
Here's the list of the 12 senators proclaimed:
Ramon Revilla Jr.;
Jinggoy Estrada;
Miriam Defensor-Santiago;
Franklin Drilon;
Juan Ponce Enrile;
Pia Cayetano;
Ferdinand Marcos Jr.;
Ralph Recto;
Vicente “Tito” Sotto III;
Manuel Lito Lapid;
Teofisto Guingona III; and
Sergio Osmeña III
As expected, Ruffy Biazon is nowhere to be found. :D
====================================
Bakit masyadong sigurista?
Kasi sinuportahan nila si Danding Conjuangco for president in 1992. Resulta, hindi lang talo, kulelat pa. Lesson learned.
But the general public, did they notice that the INC cannot make a king? No.
Madali lang namang hulaan kung sino ang susuportahan ng INC. They will endorse whoever is leading the surveys.
sir is that merely an assumption or a historical fact? pero hula ko rin yun ie-endorse nila.
Yes, historical yan. Nagtataka nga ako kung bakit hindi napapansin ng mga tao.
Don't forget, sinuportahan nila si Danding in 1992, natalo. After 1992, they just endorse whoever is leading the surveys, then announce the endorsement only a few days before election day.
1992 - The INC endorsed Danding Cojuangco several months before election day.
- April 1992 SWS survey: FVR & Miriam tied at 1st & 2nd place; Danding 3rd place.
- May 11, 1992 elections - Talo si Danding. He finished 3rd place, natalo pa ni Miriam.
After 1992, the INC never endorsed that far ahead of election day again.
1998 - Erap was leading the survey by a very wide margin.
- INC endorsed Erap on May 6 or 7, 1998.
- May 11, 1998 elections - Erap won.
2004 - Latest survey showed a near tie between GMA & FPJ, but GMA was still leading by a very small margin.
- INC endorsed GMA on May 6, 2004.
- May 10, 2004 elections - GMA won.
Post by: tony on Jul 26, 2015 at 04:06 PM
INC is not a true church because it is founded by man here in the Philippines and not Jesus Christ ; Jesus Christ is not building a religion.
So there, INC is just a scam.
i wonder, is there a true church? all of them seems to cater to MONEY and all its implications....
what we know about Jesus Christ and what we see with these churches seem to contradict one another...
Post by: dodie on Jul 26, 2015 at 04:17 PM
Post by: oweidah on Jul 26, 2015 at 04:28 PM
i wonder, is there a true church? all of them seems to cater to MONEY and all its implications....
what we know about Jesus Christ and what we see with these churches
seem to contradict one another...
sabi ni pareng bob,,,d answer my friend is blowing in d wind
Post by: dpogs on Jul 26, 2015 at 04:30 PM
Oh dont feel for me, feel for those INC members not knowing they were scammed.
Yup. True.i feel for 96% of the Philippines' population. :-(
Post by: barrister on Jul 26, 2015 at 04:46 PM
siguro sa national level hindi ganun ang epekto ng boto ng INC. pero sa local level, napakaimportante and you can see it sa election returns. this is not a guess, its a fact!
How did you know? Did you see the survey results at the local level?
The INC make their own surveys at the local level.
Post by: dodie on Jul 26, 2015 at 07:09 PM
How did you know? Did you see the survey results at the local level?
The INC make their own surveys at the local level.
talagang may sariling survey sa local level. at minsan ang survey sa local level nababali ng central....marami ng nangyari na malakas sa survey pero hindi nadala ng kapatiran dito sa probinsya namen. hindi naman yon ang point of contention ko eh. ang sinasabi ko yung block voting nila totoo. kse madami akong alam na baranggay dito samen na majority ang iglesia at nagmamanifest yon sa election returns. ngayon kung ikaw ay politiko, catch vote yon eh so bkt hindi mo sila susuyuin? eh sa pulitika, paramihan nga ng kakampi eh!
bigyan kita example. sa marinduque hindi masyadong factor ang iglesia vote sa provincial level kse konti lang ang bilang nila in relation sa total voting polupation. pero sa GASAN na isang bayan doon, na heavy ang concentration ng INC, baka humigit kumulang na trenta porsyento ang kanilang populasyon. hindi mo ba bibigyang halaga? sasabihin mo na hindi factor yung boto ng INC, at ang dinala nila ay yung nangunguna sa survey? it is not fair to say na na scam ng INC ang mga pulitoko. kse nagtotoo naman sila sa pagboto sayo, maaring hindi lahat, pero tiyak na yung nakararami ay sumusunod dito. saka hindi naman sinabi ng INC na sure win ka pag dinala ka nila, tao lang ang nag aasume na panalo ka na pag dinala ng INC.
Post by: barrister on Jul 26, 2015 at 09:06 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 26, 2015 at 09:13 PM
i wonder, is there a true church? all of them seems to cater to MONEY and all its implications....
what we know about Jesus Christ and what we see with these churches seem to contradict one another...
That's why I'm not a member of any sect.
Post by: ABCmotorparts on Jul 26, 2015 at 09:42 PM
I think you did not get my point.
To me INC is a scam/business. So that's why I am not joining their membership because I can see any gain from my investment.
I rather invest the 10% of my income in legitimate business where I can earn and will donate to my church certain amount based on what I can/want.
Ahhh yes,...
I totally agree...
Post by: CeeV on Jul 26, 2015 at 11:46 PM
He maybe also the reason why I do practice my religion (Catholic) half heartedly. I always remember my Grandfather ways of believing in GOD in his own bible interpretation and living a very humble simple life. Kinda ironic....Him a father of a priest and an uncle of an INC minister. I grew up hearing their normal bible/religion discussion...
Post by: dpogs on Jul 27, 2015 at 12:16 AM
With the current discussion of Religion...narember ko tuloy ang late Grandfather ko. He once said during a normal debate/discussion with his friends, pamangkins and son na catholic priest.. Give me a religion or any sect na walang involve na Donation/ikapu/contribution/charity money , whatever that involves money He would gladly follow that religion. And to this day I haven't found one.
He maybe also the reason why I do practice my religion (Catholic) half heartedly. I always remember my Grandfather ways of believing in GOD in his own bible interpretation and living a very humble simple life. Kinda ironic....Him a father of a priest and an uncle of an INC minister. I grew up hearing their normal bible/religion discussion...
in my opinion wala talagang mageexist na ganyang religion ... unang una... wala silang place of worship (walang perang pambili ng lupa o pang-upa ng building).... pangalawa patay ang pastor/pari/ministro (walang perang pambili ng pagkain - alangan naman magbusiness ang pastor - ano un mamangka sa dalawang ilog)... hindi na uso ngayon ang miracle na mag multiply ng tinapay at isda :):):)
dalawang method lang naman para maturuan ang mga miyembro magbigay
- blessed them and give them the true Word of God or salvation - good teaching
- teach them the prosperity Gospel or pay for your salvation - "when you give, expect in return/investment" or "when you give your soul will be delivered from hell" - bad teaching
Post by: barrister on Jul 27, 2015 at 12:17 AM
....Him a father of a priest and an uncle of an INC minister. I grew up hearing their normal bible/religion discussion...
Kabisado ko na ang direksiyon ng debate niyan.
Si Kristo ay tao, hindi Diyos. Di ba? :D
Post by: tony on Jul 27, 2015 at 08:16 AM
That's why I'm not a member of any sect.
i was born Roman Catholic, will die a catholic, although you can classify me as not devout one...
the most exciting part of any mass for me is when the priest gives his homily/sermons based on the Gospel, there are lessons to be learned.....
the RC church has also corruptions from within, after all tao lang ding ang mga kasapi...
Post by: barrister on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:18 AM
.... pangalawa patay ang pastor/pari/ministro (walang perang pambili ng pagkain - alangan naman magbusiness ang pastor - ano un mamangka sa dalawang ilog)... hindi na uso ngayon ang miracle na mag multiply ng tinapay at isda :) :) :)
No, hindi ganon yon sir.
Sa bibliya, ok lang na ang ministro ay kumuha ng kaunti sa abuloy para sa personal expenses niya. Pero hindi totoo na bawal maghanapbuhay ang isang ministro para sa sarili niyang expenses.
Sa katunayan, nagbigay si Pablo ng halimbawa.
Ang sabi niya, may karapatan siyang kumuha ng personal expenses sa abuluyan. Pero pinili niya na hindi kumuha ng personal expenses sa abuluyan kahit karapatan naman niya iyon:
11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.
13 Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? 14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
15 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. 16 For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. 18 What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:11-18)
Ano ang dahilan ni Pablo?
Nagbibigay kasi siya ng halimbawa. Ang prinsipyo sa bibliya, kung sino ang ayaw magtrabaho, huwag ding kumain.
Kaya si Pablo ay may sariling trabaho. Hindi siya kumukuha na lang ng pera sa abuloy, para lahat ng miyembro, pati ministro, ay gayahin siya na hindi umaasa na lang sa pera ng abuluyan:
7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” (2 Thess. 3:7-10)
Yes, Paul had a day job. Sa katunayan, hindi lang sideline na trabaho, mabigat na trabaho pa nga, araw at gabi --- He "worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that he would not be a burden."
And what was that job? He was a tradesman and tentmaker:
... Paul went to see them, 3 and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. 4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. (Acts 18:3-4)
==================================
Puwede bang kumuha ng personal expenses ang ministro sa abuluyan? Puwede.
Pero bawal bang magtrabaho ang ministro para sa personal expenses kasi "namamangka siya sa dalawang ilog"? Yon ang mali.
==================================
Hindi naman nakakapagtaka na ang mga miyembro ay hindi familiar sa mga sitas na yan.
Hindi tinuturo ni pastor, kasi hindi pabor sa kanya. :D
Post by: tony on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:37 AM
pag daw hindi ka nagbigay ng ikapu, ninanakawan mo ang Diyos......
Post by: barrister on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:40 AM
Kaya lang, mali ang interpretation nila.
Post by: tony on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:50 AM
bakit ang daming namumulot ng mga sitas sa bible na pabor lang sa punto nla?
Post by: CeeV on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:59 AM
dalawang method lang naman para maturuan ang mga miyembro magbigayYep totally agree on the "BAD Teaching" why do some if not all sect/religion makes it appear that GOD isa vengeful one? Wherein He's the opposite.
- blessed them and give them the true Word of God or salvation - good teaching
- teach them the prosperity Gospel or pay for your salvation - "when you give, expect in return/investment" or "when you give your soul will be delivered from hell" - bad teaching
As well na parang ginagawa nilang Investment type ang kanilang Faith..if you gives more you expect more abundance in return???...tsk. tsk. yan tlaga nd ko magets.
Post by: sirhc on Jul 27, 2015 at 12:02 PM
bakit ang daming namumulot ng mga sitas sa bible na pabor lang sa punto nla?
The story of organized religion's life.
Post by: CeeV on Jul 27, 2015 at 12:02 PM
i was born Roman Catholic, will die a catholic, although you can classify me as not devout one...
the most exciting part of any mass for me is when the priest gives his homily/sermons based on the Gospel, there are lessons to be learned.....
the RC church has also corruptions from within, after all tao lang ding ang mga kasapi...
Boss parehas tayo ng line of thoughts....sabi ko was born a Catholic and will die as one, but that doesn't mean I would not listen or study other beliefs ..kahit anong recruit gawin nila saken...wala sila magagawa to my belief...Kaso nga am not as well a devout one kase andami ko din doubt sa Catholic practices.
Post by: CeeV on Jul 27, 2015 at 12:09 PM
Kabisado ko na ang direksiyon ng debate niyan.
Si Kristo ay tao, hindi Diyos. Di ba? :D
hahaha...Mismo bossing...well isa lang yan. And both of my uncle ung isa INC minister the other Catholic Priest wala sila magawa sa Grandfather ko......If my late Grandfather lang was properly educated he could have done great things in life..born poor and died poor as well, (his choice kase napatapos naman nya lahat ang mga anak nya and nasa middle income group na mga offspring nya)
Post by: tony on Jul 27, 2015 at 12:44 PM
Boss parehas tayo ng line of thoughts....sabi ko was born a Catholic and will die as one, but that doesn't mean I would not listen or study other beliefs ..kahit anong recruit gawin nila saken...wala sila magagawa to my belief...Kaso nga am not as well a devout one kase andami ko din doubt sa Catholic practices.
marami rin naman matitinong turo ang simbahan ng RC......
marami rin naman maling gawain...ang kagandahan sa RC pwede mo
batikusin na hndi ka matitiwalag....
turned off ako pag ang usapan ay sila lang ang maliligtas, ikapu, abtp....
para akin masyadong incredible na halos nakakainsulto na sa intelligence,
yung para bang gusto na talagang makapanglamang....
Post by: sovrain on Jul 27, 2015 at 01:42 PM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jul 27, 2015 at 03:11 PM
me narinig pa ako na sinabi ng isang pastor,
pag daw hindi ka nagbigay ng ikapu, ninanakawan mo ang Diyos......
Nasa biblya yon sir.
Kaya lang, mali ang interpretation nila.
Bro Barrister, please share your thoughts on this matter.
Post by: barrister on Jul 27, 2015 at 07:17 PM
First, the short answer:
Tithing is Mosaic Law for ancient Israelites. It does not apply to Christians.
Now, for the long answer:
==================================
What is a tithe? 10% of everything you get? Wrong.
22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
23 And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the Lord thy God always.
24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the Lord thy God hath blessed thee:
25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose:
26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
27 And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee. (Deut. 14: 22-27)
Ancient Israel had 12 tribes --- Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, and Benjamin.
Who receives tithes? The Levites (the tribe of Levi).
Who gives tithes? The remaining 11 tribes.
Why? Because the Levites are a priestly tribe. They do not have any property. No land, no animals, no seed. Therefore, the Levites must rely on the other 11 tribes for sustenance.
You are not an ancient Israelite. Therefore, you do not have any obligation to tithe. Your pastor is not an ancient Israelite form the tribe of Levi. Therefore, he has no authority to receive tithes.
How much is the tithe?
10% of the increase of your agricultural produce.
You have 10 sheep. After 1 year, you have 20 sheep. You tithe 1 sheep (10% of the 10 new sheep), not 2.
In the same example, can you tithe 3 sheep? No. The law says 10%, which means exactly 10%; not more, not less.
Si pastor, pag less than 10%, bawal. Pag more than 10%, sabi ni pastor --- Ay OK yon! Lalong magaling! :D
You inherit a large amount of money from a dead grandmother. Do you tithe 10%? No.
How much of your inheritance do you tithe? Zero. Inherited money is not an increase of agricultural harvest.
What do the Levites do with the tithe?
They consume only 90% of the tithe, but 10% of the tithe that they received must be tithed to God by giving it to the priests.
25 The Lord said to Moses, 26 “Speak to the Levites and say to them: ‘When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the Lord’s offering. 27 Your offering will be reckoned to you as grain from the threshing floor or juice from the winepress. 28 In this way you also will present an offering to the Lord from all the tithes you receive from the Israelites.
From these tithes you must give the Lord’s portion to Aaron the priest. 29 You must present as the Lord’s portion the best and holiest part of everything given to you.’(Num. 18:25-29)
The Levites were not exempt from tithing.
They receive 10% from the 11 tribes, then they give 10% of the 10% to the Levitical priests.
Does your church tithe 10% to its ministers, or does it just give them salaries that are much less than 10% of the total tithes? :D
How often is the tithe paid?
Once a year.
Hindi naman siguro once a year lang ang tithing sa church ninyo? ;)
At the end of 3 years, all of the tithes from the 11 tribes must be given away to the poor and to the local Levites. None of it is brought to the temple for the Levitical priests:
28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest. (Deut. 14: 28-29)
Does your church give away all of the tithes for year 3? Or does it keep all of it for itself again?
If the tithe is not given in full, is that considered stealing from God?
Yes, if you are a part of the 11 tribes of Ancient Israel. No, if you are a Christian:
8 “Will a mere mortal rob God? Yet you rob me. “But you ask, ‘How are we robbing you?’ “In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse—your whole nation—because you are robbing me. (Mal. 3:8-9)
That was a law that applied only to Ancient Israel:
4 “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the decrees and laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel. (Mal. 4:4)
The law was "for all Israel" only; Christians excluded.
What is the law for Christians?
Give voluntarily and cheerfully:
7 Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. 8 And God is able to bless you abundantly, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work. 9 As it is written:“They have freely scattered their gifts to the poor; their righteousness endures forever.” (2 Cor. 9:7-9)
That's not tithing. That's freely giving to those in need.
Tithing is compulsory and must be exactly 10%. Fail to tithe correctly and you will be cursed.
But the cheerful giver can give any amount, so it's voluntary. No curse, whether you give less or more than 10%.
Pero si pastor, sabi pag less than 10% ninanakawan mo ang Diyos. Pero pag more than 10% --- Haya-hay! No problem! Mas lalong magaling, kasi babalik sa yo yan, siksik, liglig at umaapaw! :D
===================================
Why do so many sects insist on applying the Old Testament law on tithing when it clearly does not apply to Christians?
Siyempre naman. Ang laking pera non, ano... How can they resist? :D
Post by: zram18 on Jul 27, 2015 at 07:30 PM
Post by: tony on Jul 27, 2015 at 07:37 PM
Quote
Why do so many sects insist on applying the Old Testament law on tithing when it clearly does not apply to Christians?
Siyempre naman. Ang laking pera non, ano... How can they resist? :D
you hit the nail on the head....my thoughts exactly...
Post by: sovrain on Jul 27, 2015 at 07:58 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 27, 2015 at 08:01 PM
Now I know...
Salamat at nakatulong....
Sanay kasi ako dun sa pag may pinaliwanag ako sa bibliya, may nagagalit sa akin.... :D
Post by: sovrain on Jul 27, 2015 at 08:16 PM
Post by: pekspert on Jul 27, 2015 at 08:30 PM
Sa amin 8% lang monthly ;D ;D :D Kaya lipat na! :)
Post by: ABCmotorparts on Jul 27, 2015 at 08:39 PM
Nagtatawanan kaming mag kakaibigan whenever we discuss religion particularly the INC because nga of the large amount of money it involves. Kaya naghahanap kami ng ma-amo na mukha among us to be head minister and start our own religion. ;D :D
Sa amin 8% lang monthly ;D ;D :D Kaya lipat na! :)
Pwede,..
Religion has always been good business no matter what,...
Ayos yan,..
Post by: barrister on Jul 27, 2015 at 09:17 PM
Expelled minister Isaias Samson Jr, former editor in chief of the INC publication
Pasugo, earlier accused INC general auditor Glicerio Santos Jr of corruption
Katerina Francisco
Published 11:26 AM, July 27, 2015
Updated 11:38 AM, Jul 27, 2015
http://www.rappler.com/nation/100613-iglesia-ni-cristo-libel-isaias-samson-pasugo (http://www.rappler.com/nation/100613-iglesia-ni-cristo-libel-isaias-samson-pasugo)
INC members do not sue other INC members in court.
Para sa kanila, dapat hatulan sila internally, para ang judge ay kapwa nila INC member. Kung magdedemandahan sa husgado, most likely ang judge ay hindi INC member, at hindi tama na ang dalawang tao na sa Diyos ay hahatulan ng isang judge na hindi sa Diyos.
In this case, baka ang reasoning ay tiwalag na naman si Samson, kaya hindi masasabi na sila ay nag file ng kaso laban sa isang kapatid.
Post by: ABCmotorparts on Jul 27, 2015 at 10:40 PM
Talagang flexing out muscles,...
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jul 27, 2015 at 11:26 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jul 28, 2015 at 12:10 AM
regarding naman sa pagiging Pastor and working at the same time... what i mean is business not entirely "not working"...
i applied that "ang hindi gumawa ay huwag kumain" in terms of a Pastor work... i always see a Pastor's work as "fulltime"... those who lead a flock and at the same have a business of his own for me is not an ideal image of a pastor... maiintindihan ko kapag nagsisimula pa lang o missionary pastor ka pa lang sa isang lugar still kakaunti pa lang ang members and members offerings is not enough to maintain church daily expenses ...medyo maiintindihan kung ang isang Pastor ay magtrabao matustusan lang ang pagkukulang...
but for me the main work of a fulltime Pastor is to lead people to God first and foremost... now if a Pastor didnt do his work - leading people to God - then wala talaga siyang makakain... walang miyembro na magbibigay ng offering...
ang tao kasi takot idea ng "giving", "offering"... allergic tayo sa term na ganito... na kapag ang isang simbahan nagtuturo ng ganito akala natin ay scam na lahat ng religion na nagtuturo ng "giving/offering". walang simbahan ngayon na mabubuhay kung ang miyembro nito ay hindi nagbibigay o kung ang pastor ay hindi itinuturo ang pagbibigay.
Post by: barrister on Jul 28, 2015 at 01:07 AM
Thank you very much Atty. Bro. barrister for those valuable insights. :D Pag-aralan ko mabuti yan. Hehe! Alam mo naman ako, mabagal ako sa study because madaming iniintindi. Hehe!
Ewan ko lang kung matatanggap mo yon sir... ang alam ko, kontra yon sa teachings sa inyo.
@barrister : regarding the tithes and giving... you are right... it should not be imposed... members must not be required to give ... BUT a pastor/minister/priest must teach their member how to give... without money that church will not grow...
Tama yon sir. Kailangan talaga ng collections.
Si Pablo ay may collections din:
Now about the collection for the Lord’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with your income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. (1 Cor. 16:1-2)
Pero hindi 10% yon.
Walang fixed percentage. Bahala na sila sa amount, "in keeping with their income."
regarding naman sa pagiging Pastor and working at the same time... what i mean is business not entirely "not working"...
i applied that "ang hindi gumawa ay huwag kumain" in terms of a Pastor work... i always see a Pastor's work as "fulltime"... those who lead a flock and at the same have a business of his own for me is not an ideal image of a pastor... maiintindihan ko kapag nagsisimula pa lang o missionary pastor ka pa lang sa isang lugar still kakaunti pa lang ang members and members offerings is not enough to maintain church daily expenses ...medyo maiintindihan kung ang isang Pastor ay magtrabao matustusan lang ang pagkukulang...
but for me the main work of a fulltime Pastor is to lead people to God first and foremost... now if a Pastor didnt do his work - leading people to God - then wala talaga siyang makakain... walang miyembro na magbibigay ng offering...
Ok ang full time pastor na walang ibang trabaho. Hindi bawal yon.
Puwede mong sabihin na mas buo ang attention niya sa gawain pag walang distraction. Tama rin yon.
Ang hindi lang tama, yung pagbawalan siyang magtrabaho ng iba.
Ang sinasabing huwag kumain ang ayaw magtrabaho, yung miyembro, hindi yung ministro. Ang ministro ay may karapatang kumuha ng kakainin sa abuloy. Pero yung miyembrong tamad, hindi dapat kumuha ng kakainin sa abuloy ng ibang miyembro.
ang tao kasi takot idea ng "giving", "offering"... allergic tayo sa term na ganito... na kapag ang isang simbahan nagtuturo ng ganito akala natin ay scam na lahat ng religion na nagtuturo ng "giving/offering". walang simbahan ngayon na mabubuhay kung ang miyembro nito ay hindi nagbibigay o kung ang pastor ay hindi itinuturo ang pagbibigay.
Tama na naman. No church will survive without contributions.
Ang tao, pag nakarinig ng contributions, corruption agad ang naiisip. Pero hindi naman puwede kung walang contributions.
Madalas lang maabuso yon.
Parang si Mike Velarde. Katoliko daw ang El Shaddai. Pero walang ikapu ang Katoliko, siya meron :D .
Wala namang naitayo kahit isang kapilya. Pag umulan, siya may bubong sa grandstand, yung miyembro walang bubong. Sasabihin pa, huwag magpayong kasi grasya daw ng Diyos ang ulan, kaya sabi pa niya sa miyembro: "Baliktarin ang payong!" para daw masahod ang grasya. Yung mga uto-uto, binabaliktad nga ang mga payong.
Ang gusto ni Velarde, sa Quirino Grandstand lang ang pulong, kahit puwede namang may kanya-kanyang lokal. Bakit? Para centralized ang collection, hindi nadudugasan sa lokal.
Ayun, sa dami ng collection, hirap na hirap namang bilangin ang pera. Balita ko, sako-sako ang perang nakokoleta, eto na ang next Sunday, hindi pa natatapos bilangin yung previous Sunday's collection.
Yun ay noong kalakasan pa ng El Shaddai. Mahina na yata ngayon.
Post by: oweidah on Jul 28, 2015 at 04:22 AM
Nagtatawanan kaming mag kakaibigan whenever we discuss religion particularly the INC because nga of the large amount of money it involves. Kaya naghahanap kami ng ma-amo na mukha among us to be head minister and start our own religion. ;D :D
Sa amin 8% lang monthly ;D ;D :D Kaya lipat na! :)
taxfree o may tax exemption k kim h.?
baligtad din ba pagbukas ng payong?
ilang asawa pwede? (oppsite.sex)
may sign.up bonus?
Post by: praktikal on Jul 28, 2015 at 05:51 AM
Post by: pekspert on Jul 28, 2015 at 05:55 AM
taxfree o may tax exemption k kim h.?emen (<--velarde accent) to all. Plus free home theater for every sign up. ;D
baligtad din ba pagbukas ng payong?
ilang asawa pwede? (oppsite.sex)
may sign.up bonus?
On a serious note, this reminds me of the tragic kool aid tragedy in guyana. Stupid people believing anything they hear from their headmaster.
Post by: tony on Jul 28, 2015 at 07:19 AM
Post by: oweidah on Jul 28, 2015 at 08:36 AM
baka mas madali pa kay binay, jose pidal o velarde
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 28, 2015 at 10:21 AM
Iglesia ni Cristo sues expelled minister for libel
Expelled minister Isaias Samson Jr, former editor in chief of the INC publication
Pasugo, earlier accused INC general auditor Glicerio Santos Jr of corruption
Katerina Francisco
Published 11:26 AM, July 27, 2015
Updated 11:38 AM, Jul 27, 2015
http://www.rappler.com/nation/100613-iglesia-ni-cristo-libel-isaias-samson-pasugo (http://www.rappler.com/nation/100613-iglesia-ni-cristo-libel-isaias-samson-pasugo)
INC members do not sue other INC members in court.
Para sa kanila, dapat hatulan sila internally, para ang judge ay kapwa nila INC member. Kung magdedemandahan sa husgado, most likely ang judge ay hindi INC member, at hindi tama na ang dalawang tao na sa Diyos ay hahatulan ng isang judge na hindi sa Diyos.
In this case, baka ang reasoning ay tiwalag na naman si Samson, kaya hindi masasabi na sila ay nag file ng kaso laban sa isang kapatid.
This is exactly correct, atty. pag tiwalag na, hindi na kasama sa fold, at hindi na sakop ng doktrina na wag magdalahan ng usapin sa mga tao sa labas ng Iglesia ang magkakapatid.
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 28, 2015 at 10:28 AM
marami rin naman matitinong turo ang simbahan ng RC......
marami rin naman maling gawain...ang kagandahan sa RC pwede mo
batikusin na hndi ka matitiwalag....
turned off ako pag ang usapan ay sila lang ang maliligtas, ikapu, abtp....
para akin masyadong incredible na halos nakakainsulto na sa intelligence,
yung para bang gusto na talagang makapanglamang....
isn't that part of the reasons why nagkaroon ng Inquisition?
Saka kung RC believes lahat naman ay maliligtas, bakit kelangan pa ng missions to believers of other faiths?
Post by: dodie on Jul 28, 2015 at 11:20 AM
isn't that part of the reasons why nagkaroon ng Inquisition?
Saka kung RC believes lahat naman ay maliligtas, bakit kelangan pa ng missions to believers of other faiths?
who told you sir that the RC believes na maliligtas lahat? saan mo po ito nabasa o narinig? kay pope francis?
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 28, 2015 at 11:52 AM
Hindi po tama na sabihin na maliligtas lahat dahil hindi naman lahat ng tao ay nakikinig, kumikilos at nag-iisip ayun sa salita ng Diyos.
Post by: oweidah on Jul 28, 2015 at 02:33 PM
Post by: tony on Jul 28, 2015 at 03:05 PM
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 28, 2015 at 03:11 PM
common yan..only us will b saved, if ur not with us u burn in hell
Alangan naman lahat maliligtas kahit kalokohan ginagawa. Hindi naman din tama iyon.
Kahit ba "tama" ginagawa eh. Ang tanong eh ano ba iyung "tama" na tinutukoy?
Post by: barrister on Jul 28, 2015 at 03:29 PM
Ang meaning ng salitang lahat ay maliligtas, lahat ay may pag-asang maligtas kahit hindi miyembro ng samahan. Pag-asa lang, pag mabuting tao siya. Hindi yung lahat ay maliligtas pati rapist at terrorist.
Ang controversy, lahat ba maliligtas pag gumagawa ng mabuti, kahit hindi member ng specific denomination?
For example, pag sinabi ng Protestante na Solus Christus, ibig sabihin ang atheist walang pag-asa sa kaligtasan kahit mabuting tao pa siya.
Pag sinabi ng Katoliko na extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, ibig sabihin pag hindi ka Katoliko, siguradong impiyerno ka kahit mabuting tao ka pa at kahit anong kabutihan ang gawin mo.
Ganon din sa INC. Sabi nila, there is no salvation outside the INC. Meaning, pag hindi ka miyembro ng INC, siguradong impiyerno ka, kahit ano pa ang gawin mong kabutihan.
Kaya nga big deal ang tiwalag sa INC. Pag natiwalag ka, siguradong impiyerno ka kahit ano pa ang gawin mo.
Si Pope Francis naman, as quoted in news reports, ang sabi:
“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
Bakit ganon? Akala ko ba ang official Catholic doctrine ay extra Ecclesiam nulla salus?
Ayun, gumulo tuloy ... :D
Post by: tony on Jul 28, 2015 at 03:36 PM
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 28, 2015 at 04:47 PM
My point is sa RC ba ang faith is kahit nasa Protestantism ka, maliligtas ka? Kung oo bakit nila inusig before ang mga Protestants?
lahat naman yata ng religious organization, ang basis for missions ay "join us and you will be saved"
Otherwise kung kahit nasaan ka, pwede yan, what's the point of transfer?
Post by: barrister on Jul 28, 2015 at 05:27 PM
two thousand years of Catholicism.....nothing is permanent....
Hindi ganong kasimple yon sir.
Ang implication ng pagbabago ng doktrina, man-made kasi, kaya nababago.
Kung tunay na sa Diyos ang doktrina, hindi nababago.
Kaya pag sinabi mong walang permanenteng doktrina ang Katoliko, parang inamin mo na man-made ang doktrina Katolika.
Post by: tony on Jul 28, 2015 at 07:21 PM
isn't that part of the reasons why nagkaroon ng Inquisition?
Saka kung RC believes lahat naman ay maliligtas, bakit kelangan pa ng missions to believers of other faiths?
noong araw, ang paniwala ng simbahan ang araw ang miikot sa ating mundo...
sabi ni Galileo mali yon, ang araw ang sentro ng lahat ng mga planet kasama ang mundo natin...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
pero ngayon iba na, merong earth obserbatory sa Rome na nag-aaral ng mga planeta...
muntik ng pugot ulo si Galilleo.....
and so on......marami pang kuwento....pati nga si Leonardo Da Vinci muntik na....
bakit nangangalap ng miyembro ang RC? para mas dumami ang koleksiyon...:D
pero and tutoo, binlinan ni Hesus si Pedro na magpalaganap ng Simbahan ni Hesus hanggang sa dulo ng daigdig....
aba eh, nangyari na nga...sa dami ng simbahan, sa dami ng koleksiyon....yun lang....
maraming pera sa relihiyon....
Post by: tony on Jul 28, 2015 at 07:27 PM
Hindi ganong kasimple yon sir.
Ang implication ng pagbabago ng doktrina, man-made kasi, kaya nababago.
Kung tunay na sa Diyos ang doktrina, hindi nababago.
Kaya pag sinabi mong walang permanenteng doktrina ang Katoliko, parang inamin mo na man-made ang doktrina Katolika.
Simple lang ang doktrina ng RC.....
at hindi nagbago sa loob ng 2000 years...
at hindi na magbabago sa lahat ng panahon...
Si Kristo ang anak ng Diyos na nagkatawang tao...
Si Kristo ay Diyos...
Si Kristo ay namatay sa pagtubos ng lahat ng kasalanang minana.
ng may ikatlong araw siya ay nabuhay na mag-uli,
at nagpakita sa mga disipulo at mga ilang babae...
Si Kristo ay umakyat sa langit...
Si Kristo ay babalik sa wakas ng panahon....
siya ang huhukom sa mga nabubuhay at nangamatay na tao......
para sa akin ang kulto ay hindi naniniwala sa lahat ng ito....
wala akong alam na binilinan ni Jesus ang mga disipulo na mangalap ng abuloy....
bagkus ay mabuhay sa suporta ng mga naniniwala....
hindi upang magpayaman at mag pundar ng yaman na para sa lupa lang....
ito ang pinaniniwalaan ko....
ang tingin ko kay Kristo ay Diyos ng pag-ibig....
Post by: sovrain on Jul 28, 2015 at 08:02 PM
sir Barrister, baka may eksplanasyon ka rin tungkol sa dinuguan...may kaibigan ako na ang mga kapatid at ilang kaanak ay iba sa kanyang relihiyon, tinatanong namin sya kung bakit sya lang ang naiba, ang laging sagot, masarap daw kasi ang dinuguan ng pato.. ;D
Post by: dpogs on Jul 28, 2015 at 08:23 PM
Post by: CeeV on Jul 28, 2015 at 08:31 PM
Speaking of Dinuguan meron ako kakilala....INC pero their family business is a well known resto and one of their specialties are Gotong Batangas (soup made of coagulated blood and internal part of beef) and dinuguan hehehehe.
Post by: barrister on Jul 28, 2015 at 09:14 PM
sir Barrister, baka may eksplanasyon ka rin tungkol sa dinuguan...may kaibigan ako na ang mga kapatid at ilang kaanak ay iba sa kanyang relihiyon, tinatanong namin sya kung bakit sya lang ang naiba, ang laging sagot, masarap daw kasi ang dinuguan ng pato.. ;D
Madali lang yan sir.
Christ cleansed prohibited foods under the Old Testament. But there are still a few prohibited foods for Christians:
1. Food sacrificed to idols;
2. Strangled animals; and
3. Blood.
The following are not Old Testament Israelite laws, they are commandments for Christians under the New Testament:
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (Acts 15:19-20)
27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. (Acts 15:27-29)
Bawal talaga sa Kristiyano ang kumain ng dugo.
Bakit weirdo ang tingin ng iba sa bawal ang dugo, samantalang napakalinaw nito sa biblya? Ewan ko sa kanila.
Related questions:
Bakit bawal sa Kristyano ang kumain ng dugo?
Ano ang ibig sabihin ng: (a) pagkain na inalay sa diyos-diyosan, at (b) hayop na binigti?
Post by: jhelenz on Jul 28, 2015 at 11:15 PM
hindi ko na mararamdaman....nabuhay na ako sa impernong pinas....ano pa ang bago?kung paniniwalaan ang description ng Bible sa hell, baka maging paradise tingin mo sa pinag
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jul 28, 2015 at 11:48 PM
Jesus said "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”.
After further reading, tungkol ata ito sa unwashed hands before eating.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 28, 2015 at 11:57 PM
Madali lang yan sir.
Christ cleansed prohibited foods under the Old Testament. But there are still a few prohibited foods for Christians:
1. Food sacrificed to idols;
2. Strangled animals; and
3. Blood.
The following are not Old Testament Israelite laws, they are commandments for Christians under the New Testament:
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. (Acts 15:19-20)
27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. (Acts 15:27-29)
Bawal talaga sa Kristiyano ang kumain ng dugo.
Bakit weirdo ang tingin ng iba sa bawal ang dugo, samantalang napakalinaw nito sa biblya? Ewan ko sa kanila.
Related questions:
Bakit bawal sa Kristyano ang kumain ng dugo?
Ano ang ibig sabihin ng: (a) pagkain na inalay sa diyos-diyosan, at (b) hayop na binigti?
How can we settle this sa verse Mark 7:18-19 na kung saan sinasabi ni Jesus na
18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
19Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
simply by looking the context of the message... anong occassion meron at sino pinagsasabihan nila James to abstain from eating blood or any activities related to idolatry...
nagkaroon ng Acts 15:28-29 to settle the conflict of practice between churches of almost purely Gentiles and almost purely Jews churches...
Ang mga Gentiles christian di nila inoobserve kung ipinagbabawal nga ba talaga ang pagkain ng dugo but to avoid some confusion among conversative Jews, James told churches of Gentiles to abstain from doing so so that they may not offend some Jews christians...
walang masama naman kung pagsabihan natin na bawal kumain ng dugo ang isang grupo... ang anak ko nga pinagbabawalan kong kumain ng junkfoods o uminom ng coke... pero hindi ko puwedeng sabihin sa kanya na kasalanan ang kumain ng junkfood o uminom ng coke.... kasi naniniwala ako sa sinasabi ni Jesus na hindi ang pumapasok sa bibig kungdi ang lumalabas sa bibig "that defileth a man"...
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 12:11 AM
example... I believed that i can eat any food as long as it is clean (hindi panis), pero kung pupunta ako sa bahay ng mg INC at maghahanap ako ng dinuguan aba eh ibang usapan na yan... I maybe become a stumbling block for them para maakay ko sila sa faith ko...
eating food sacrificed to idol is nothing... because an idol is nothing... technically there is nothing wrong eating food sacrificed to someting that is not even real... but if eathing that food will cause others to stumble in their faith then we better not do it.
ex. gutom na gutom na ako... may nakita akong rice pudding na inalay sa isang rebolto... i can eat that kung walang ibang nakatingin... pero kung andoon ang nag-alay ng rice pudding aba eh maiinsulto iyon so i need to abstain myself eating rice pudding sacrfice to idol...
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jul 29, 2015 at 12:24 AM
1 The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and
2 saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed.
3 (The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders.
4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)
5 So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, "Why don't your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with 'unclean' hands?"
6 He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'
8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
9 And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!
10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'
11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God),
12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother.
13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen to me, everyone, and understand this.
15 Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him 'unclean.' "
16
17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable.
18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'?
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
20 He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.'
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 12:50 AM
Collosians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"
since we are now in the age of grace let no man judge us according to what we eat or drink, or whether we observed the sabbath day...
and if that freedom of ours will cause others to stumble in theri faith then we have a choice to limit that freedom thus not eating some food particularly food offered/sacrificed to idol, blood, etc...
instruction in Acts 15 regarding "abstaining from specific foods" simply means that
"The church leaders were exhorting the new Gentile believers to make a clean break from their old lifestyles and not offend their Jewish brothers and sisters in the church.
The instructions were not intended to guarantee salvation but to promote peace within the early church. <quoted>"
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2015 at 01:02 AM
Eto pala yun whole verse ng Mark 7
Tama yan.
Ang nangyari siguro sa iyo sir, binasa mo muna ang Matthew 15, wala yung Jesus declared all foods clean. nang binasa mo ang parallel verses sa Mark 7, nandoon na.
Jesus declared all food clean while He was on earth. Then He died, resurrected and ascended to heaven.
Then the apostles teach the new Christians to abstain from food offered to idols, strangled animals and blood.
It means food offered to idols, strangled animals and blood were not included in the cleansing of food prohibited in the Old Testament laws of Moses.
Otherwise, we would be accusing the apostles of contradicting Jesus' teaching.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Jul 29, 2015 at 01:08 AM
1 I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally.
2 My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,
3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
4 I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
5 For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.
6 So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him,
7 rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness.
8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
10 and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
11 In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ,
12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
The book of Colossians 2 was written by Paul while in prison in Rome. Though Paul had never visited Colossae, the church who was founded by Epaphras from Paul's missionary travels, was infiltrated by people attempting to combine paganism and secular philosophy with christian doctrine. Paul confronts these false teachings in his letters and affirms sufficiency in Christ.
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2015 at 01:41 AM
Galatians 5:1 states that we Christian believes in Christ have a total liberty from the law. We are now in the age of grace.
Collosians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"
since we are now in the age of grace let no man judge us according to what we eat or drink, or whether we observed the sabbath day...
Yes, we are at liberty from the law of Moses. But we are not at liberty from the law for Christians. That's how the verses should be understood.
Christians were commanded to abstain from blood. Yet you say it's ok to eat blood. That doesn't make sense.
and if that freedom of ours will cause others to stumble in theri faith then we have a choice to limit that freedom thus not eating some food particularly food offered/sacrificed to idol, blood, etc...
instruction in Acts 15 regarding "abstaining from specific foods" simply means that
"The church leaders were exhorting the new Gentile believers to make a clean break from their old lifestyles and not offend their Jewish brothers and sisters in the church.
The instructions were not intended to guarantee salvation but to promote peace within the early church. <quoted>"
So you are saying that the Gentile Christians were prohibited from eating blood so as not to offend the Jews who became Christians?
Why prohibit only 3 foods? Dapat bawal din ang pork, hito, pusit, hipon, etc. Di ba ayaw maka-offend ng Jews? E di dapat bawal din lahat.
You missed the point of Acts 15.
===================================
Ganito ang scenario prior to Acts 15:
The Jews who became Christians believed that the Gentiles who became Christians should also follow all Jewish law.
Thus, they insisted that the first step for Gentiles to become Christians should also be the first step to become a Jew, namely, circumcision.
The question now is, should Gentiles be circumcised first before they become Christians?
Now we go to Acts 15.
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. 3 The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. 4 When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” (Acts 15:1-5)
Now we are at the Council of Jerusalem to resolve the question. They debated the issue, then Peter, Barnabas and Paul speak:
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. (v. 6-12)
Peter scolded the Jews for forcing the Jewish yoke on the Gentiles. Peter's view is that salvation is by faith, through the grace of our Lord, and not by works of Jewish law. Following the laws of Moses does not give us salvation. Therefore, both Jews and Gentiles are saved by faith through grace, equally and without discrimination.
Then here comes the decision of the Council, announced by James:
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The reason? So as not to make it difficult for Gentiles who are turning to God. Why require Gentiles to follow laws that will not give them salvation anyway?
The next step of the apostles was to send news of the Council's decision to the other Gentiles.
So they chose Paul and Barnabas to send a letter:
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell. (v. 22-29)
The letter announces the Council's decision to the other Gentiles.
The reason for the decision? So as not to make it difficult for Gentiles who are turning to God. It was for the benefit of the Gentiles, not the Jews.
Meron bang sinasabi diyan na ang reason ay for the benefit of the Jews, para hindi ma-offend ang Jews?
You are adding meaning that is not there.
==================================
Answer these questions and the deeper understanding will make it clearer:
Related questions:
Bakit bawal sa Kristyano ang kumain ng dugo?
Ano ang ibig sabihin ng: (a) pagkain na inalay sa diyos-diyosan, at (b) hayop na binigti?
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 02:37 AM
these instruction just only shows that despite being free from law some of us still remain religious (clinging to tradition passed unto us)... so these instruction was made to settle some differences between Gentiles and Jews Christians...
Paul specifically says that if eating of these foods will cause borhters or newly converts to stumble (doubt) then better not eat them... pero walang nagsabi na sinful ang kumain ng blood sa new testament... it is an instruction by the jerusalem council to the Gentiles christian...
sabi pa nga ni Paul kung naimbitahan tayong kumain sa isang pagan feast just eat without asking for your consience sakes... kahit alam mo naman na madalas may dugo ang kakainin mo kasi its a pagan feast...
Post by: tony on Jul 29, 2015 at 04:49 AM
Boss Tony, mismo yang phrases na yan ang still and forever will be my Belief....as I've said before am not a devout one but those phrases are the pillars of my Faith.
Speaking of Dinuguan meron ako kakilala....INC pero their family business is a well known resto and one of their specialties are Gotong Batangas (soup made of coagulated blood and internal part of beef) and dinuguan hehehehe.
it took 85 years before the new testament of the bible was written,
by then the powers that be had a lot to say about how the book was to be written...
meanwhile between those times, Peter and the other disciples already had established their ministries...
it saddens me to see these Johnny come lately'es preach as if they knew....
surely they can recite the bible verbatim....
but the RC is rich with traditions and practices already in place....
even before the new testament was written down....
of course some of those practices are what may be called questionable....
but they are practices not doctrines....
but as long as we do not lose sight of the basic doctrines by which the Church was established,
then nasa tuwid na daan na tayo...
Post by: tony on Jul 29, 2015 at 04:54 AM
kaya iyon lang ang pinagbawal ng council dahil sa isa ito sa mga practice na madalas ginagawa ng mga Gentiles/pagan - feast, fiestas, festivals, na kung saan laging may kainan..... those practices are closely related to idolatry - eating blood/etrangled animals/food sacrifice to idol/sexual immorality... and take note... this council na bumuo ng ganoong instruction para sa mga Gentiles ay hindi pa kasali dito sa Paul which i believe hindi approve sa instruction na iyon (I Corinthians) but paul gladly received the instructions. Paul also the one teaches that circumsion have no bearing in terms of salvation.
these instruction just only shows that despite being free from law some of us still remain religious (clinging to tradition passed unto us)... so these instruction was made to settle some differences between Gentiles and Jews Christians...
Paul specifically says that if eating of these foods will cause borhters or newly converts to stumble (doubt) then better not eat them... pero walang nagsabi na sinful ang kumain ng blood sa new testament... it is an instruction by the jerusalem council to the Gentiles christian...
sabi pa nga ni Paul kung naimbitahan tayong kumain sa isang pagan feast just eat without asking for your consience sakes... kahit alam mo naman na madalas may dugo ang kakainin mo kasi its a pagan feast...
amen, praise God....
hindi nga naman ang pumapasok sa bibig mo ang nakasasama,
bagkus ang lumalabas sa bibig mo sapagkat nanggagaling sa puso...
Post by: AppleMan on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:36 AM
Post by: sovrain on Jul 29, 2015 at 08:08 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 29, 2015 at 08:35 AM
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 08:48 AM
Ano kaya mangyayari dun sa mga "Kristyano" na patuloy kumakain ng dinuguan? Mapupunta kaya kami sa langit? ;D
Good news is salvation doesnt depend on what we eat, or drink, or whether we observed not the holidays/sabbath days... :):):)
Post by: sovrain on Jul 29, 2015 at 09:28 AM
Ano kaya mangyayari dun sa mga "Kristyano" na patuloy kumakain ng dinuguan? Mapupunta kaya kami sa langit? ;D;D ;D ;D
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 29, 2015 at 09:41 AM
Good news is salvation doesnt depend on what we eat, or drink, or whether we observed not the holidays/sabbath days... :):):)
Talaga? E, bakit pa ipinagbawal, no bearing naman pala? O baka naman merong special place sa langit yung mga masunurin?
Post by: pekspert on Jul 29, 2015 at 09:53 AM
Ano kaya mangyayari dun sa mga "Kristyano" na patuloy kumakain ng dinuguan? Mapupunta kaya kami sa langit? ;Dhindi mapupunta ka sa ER ;D ;D
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 10:45 AM
Talaga? E, bakit pa ipinagbawal, no bearing naman pala? O baka naman merong special place sa langit yung mga masunurin?
Even good works (example: pagiging masunurin) have no part when it comes to salvation. :)
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 29, 2015 at 10:48 AM
Even good works (example: pagiging masunurin) have no part when it comes to salvation. :)
Really? So, marami ka palang LGBT makikita sa langit? :)
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 10:56 AM
Really? So, marami ka palang LGBT makikita sa langit? :)
well i believed that if you are a true Christian you will stop practicing homosexuality... and yes... all (including homosexual) can go to heaven... wala naman sinasabi sa Bibliya na dahil sa homosexual ka, o heterosexual, o makasalanan ka ay di ka na pupunta sa langit... remember ibinigay ni Jesus ang kanyang buhay para sa ating mga makasalanan :):):)
pahabol: kung good works lang naman ang pag-uusapan well lahat ng tao ay walang pag-asang makapunta sa langit.
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2015 at 10:58 AM
The question is ang DUGO ba ay PAGKAIN ? ANg UTOS huwag kakain ng DUGO kapag sinabi bang HUWAG eh hindi BAWAL ?
Tama rin yan.
Ang mga Israelites, hindi tinuturing na food ang dugo.
Kaya pag sinabing nilinis na lahat ng pagkain, hindi kasama doon ang dugo, kasi hindi nga pagkain ang dugo.
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 29, 2015 at 11:24 AM
well i believed that if you are a true Christian you will stop practicing homosexuality... and yes... all (including homosexual) can go to heaven... wala naman sinasabi sa Bibliya na dahil sa homosexual ka, o heterosexual, o makasalanan ka ay di ka na pupunta sa langit... remember ibinigay ni Jesus ang kanyang buhay para sa ating mga makasalanan :):):)
pahabol: kung good works lang naman ang pag-uusapan well lahat ng tao ay walang pag-asang makapunta sa langit.
Yun naman pala e. E bakit pinipilit mo pang magbago ang LGBT, mapupunta rin naman pala sa langit :)
Post by: tony on Jul 29, 2015 at 11:41 AM
genitals na pang lalake at nagpaka bakla,
aba eh hinipo ng holy sprit at ngayon straght na ulit,
wala na nga lang instrumento...
maramng ganyang kuwento.....
sana si Klaus hipuin ng Holy spirit....
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 11:43 AM
Yun naman pala e. E bakit pinipilit mo pang magbago ang LGBT, mapupunta rin naman pala sa langit :)
isa sa katibayan na tayo ay tunay na pupunta sa langit ay ang pagbabago ng ating buhay... di ba sabi ko kanina sa post... kung totoong Kristiyano ang isang tao hindi siya mananatiling gumawa ng kasalanan... hindi siya mananatili sa paulit ulit na kasalanan... merong pagbabago sa kanyang buhay...
pero huwag nating kalimutan na porket napakabuti ng isang tao ay siguradong sa langit siya pupunta hindi ganoon iyon...
saka isa ang lahat ay may pagkakataong magbago... kasi sinasabi ng iba wala na daw pag-asang magbago kasi ganoon na talaga daw sila... hindi ganoon iyon... anumang bagay na mali ay maaaring itama...
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 29, 2015 at 12:08 PM
isa sa katibayan na tayo ay tunay na pupunta sa langit ay ang pagbabago ng ating buhay... di ba sabi ko kanina sa post... kung totoong Kristiyano ang isang tao hindi siya mananatiling gumawa ng kasalanan... hindi siya mananatili sa paulit ulit na kasalanan... merong pagbabago sa kanyang buhay...
pero huwag nating kalimutan na porket napakabuti ng isang tao ay siguradong sa langit siya pupunta hindi ganoon iyon...
saka isa ang lahat ay may pagkakataong magbago... kasi sinasabi ng iba wala na daw pag-asang magbago kasi ganoon na talaga daw sila... hindi ganoon iyon... anumang bagay na mali ay maaaring itama...
Pinapagulo mo naman e :) Oo at hindi lang. Gay, hindi nagbago, namatay. Langit ba o hindi?
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 12:18 PM
Post by: tony on Jul 29, 2015 at 12:25 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 12:33 PM
^walang makapagsasabi nyan, it is between the gay and his God...
Tama yan... And we can only tell if a person have genuine faith is by his/her work or by his/ her testimonies.
Post by: tony on Jul 29, 2015 at 12:45 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2015 at 01:11 PM
Only God knows what is in our heart of hearts.....
That's correct.
It's ok to speak in general as to who will not go to heaven. For example:
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6:9-10)
But it's not right to say specifically, "I will go to heaven; you will go to hell," because only God knows the answer to that specific issue.
Iba kasi ang judgment ng Diyos sa judgment ng tao.
Sa batas ng tao, ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. Bakit? Kasi kung puwedeng excuse ang ignorance, e di lahat na lang sasabihin na hindi niya alam na bawal. Hindi na malaman ng judge kung totoo yon o nagsisinungaling lang ang accused, kasi hindi naman mind-reader ang judge.
Pero sa batas ng Diyos, ignorance of the law is an excuse. Bakit? Kasi alam ng Diyos ang iniisip natin, hindi katulad ng judge na tao. Alam din ng Diyos kung in good conscience na hindi mo alam ang batas Niya, o sinasadya mo lang na huwag alamin para ka makalusot.
Kaya kung ang tanong, itong bading na ito, makakarating ba siya sa langit? Ang tamang sagot ay "Ewan ko, Diyos lang ang nakakaalam."
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 29, 2015 at 01:17 PM
kaya kahit di nakilala si Kristo because of location and time (early Filipinos before the Bible became known here) can be saved according to the laws of their hearts (conscience)
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 29, 2015 at 01:29 PM
Not only for gays but this applies to everyone... If that person is a true christian then he/she ir going to heaven.
Pinagulo mo na naman e : Gay, Kristyano, nagsisimba. Merong bf o partner. Namatay. Pupunta ba sa langit?
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 29, 2015 at 01:37 PM
Pinagulo mo na naman e : Gay, Kristyano, nagsisimba. Merong bf o partner. Namatay. Pupunta ba sa langit?
kung ako ang Diyos oo, mas dadalhin ko pa sa impyerno yung:
Straight, nagsisimba, naglilimos sa pulubi pero pag may birthday nagvivideoke hanggang madaling arawsa typical neighborhood set-up.
Post by: oweidah on Jul 29, 2015 at 03:33 PM
ayan na naman ang exclusivity...kami lang ang may K
=away gyera
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 29, 2015 at 03:38 PM
kung ako ang Diyos oo, mas dadalhin ko pa sa impyerno yung:
Straight, nagsisimba, naglilimos sa pulubi pero pag may birthday nagvivideoke hanggang madaling arawsa typical neighborhood set-up.
Mahirap sabihin ang mga bagay na hindi puwedeng mangyari.
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 29, 2015 at 03:59 PM
Mahirap sabihin ang mga bagay na hindi puwedeng mangyari.
It's just my way of saying that two males living together as partners are not inconveniencing anybody while the religious straight guy who wakes up (sorry, prevents people from sleeping) the neighborhood are.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 04:15 PM
Una sabi mo bakit pinipilit magbago kung pupunta nman pla ng langit...
Yun naman pala e. E bakit pinipilit mo pang magbago ang LGBT, mapupunta rin naman pala sa langit :)
Ang gusto mo pala itanong sa akin ay ito...
Pinapagulo mo naman e :) Oo at hindi lang. Gay, hindi nagbago, namatay. Langit ba o hindi?
Sinagot kita if that person is a true christian then that person is going to heaven...
Tapos iba pala ulit tanong mo... Ung taong namatay sinasabi mo naman ngayon ay kristiyano na
Pinagulo mo na naman e : Gay, Kristyano, nagsisimba. Merong bf o partner. Namatay. Pupunta ba sa langit?
Now... Bago ko sagutin to... Baka gusto mong dagdagan na natin...
"gay, kristiyano, tunay na kristiyano" - heaven
"gay, kristiyano, di tunay na kristiyano" - not heaven
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 29, 2015 at 04:22 PM
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 04:29 PM
O, akala ko ba pupunta sa langit? ;D
If that person is a true christian... Yes...
Post by: tony on Jul 29, 2015 at 04:43 PM
Post by: oweidah on Jul 29, 2015 at 04:55 PM
bakit true christian lang punta langit
Post by: oweidah on Jul 29, 2015 at 04:59 PM
If that person is a true christian... Yes...
are you a true christian?
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:03 PM
Sabi nga sa Bible... Hindi lahat na nagtatawag o naniniwala sa Diyos ay mapupunta sa langit kahit na ang demonyo ay naniniwala sa Diyos at nanginginig pa.
Post by: luis on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:10 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:23 PM
^Di ba atty may verse sa Bible na "no laws, no sin" principle?
kaya kahit di nakilala si Kristo because of location and time (early Filipinos before the Bible became known here) can be saved according to the laws of their hearts (conscience)
Tama yun sir.
Saan mo nakuha yon sir? Bihira kong marinig yan sa iba, e. Ang madalas kong marinig, "kami lang ang maliligtas..." :D
Para eksakto, eto ang sitas:
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) (Rom. 2:12-15)
Pag hindi mo pa alam ang aral ng Kristiyano at hindi mo naman kasalanan kung bakit hindi mo nalaman ang aral, you "do not have the law."
If you do not have the law, how will you be judged?
Not by the law that you don't have, because that would be unfair. You will be judged by the law written in your heart, meaning by what your conscience dictates.
Therefore, if you have the law, you will be held to a higher standard. Pag alam mo na ang aral, pero paulit-ulit kang lumalabag, yari ka.
Mabuti pang hindi mo na natutunan ang aral Kristiyano (through no fault of your own), kasi ibang standard sana ang naging para sa iyo, para fair.
Yan yung sinasabi sa sitas na ito:
20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” (2 Peter 2:20-22)
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:30 PM
Tama yun sir.
Saan mo nakuha yon sir? Bihira kong marinig yan sa iba, e. Ang madalas kong marinig, "kami lang ang maliligtas..." :D
baka di ka maniwala e.
aral yan sa INC, di lang alam ng maraming tao.
ang naeemphasize kasi ay INC ang maliligtas pero hindi yun ang complete context of that doctrine. Parang yung doktrina sa abuloy na akala ng iba may 10% pero wala naman.
Post by: oweidah on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:31 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:42 PM
baka di ka maniwala e.
aral yan sa INC, di lang alam ng maraming tao.
ang naeemphasize kasi ay INC ang maliligtas pero hindi yun ang complete context of that doctrine. Parang yung doktrina sa abuloy na akala ng iba may 10% pero wala naman.
INC ka pala sir?
Di ko alam yung kumpletong doctrine ninyo, ang alam ko pala ay putol... :) Pero alam ko na wala ngang ikapu sa INC.
Pasensiya ka na sir, binabanatan ko rin kasi ang INC minsan, buti hindi ka nagagalit... :(
Basta ako, hindi ako bumabanat sa thread ninyo na "INC-100 Years of God's Blessings." Para sa inyo kasi dapat yon, so kung aatakehin ko kayo doon, sa tingin ko, kabastusan nang matatawag yon.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:45 PM
u sir dpogs,u not amswer my question
I am a sinner saved by grace... For without Christ i can do nothing.
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 29, 2015 at 05:49 PM
INC ka pala sir?
Di ko alam yung kumpletong doctrine ninyo, ang alam ko pala ay putol... :)
Pasensiya ka na sir, binabanatan ko rin kasi ang INC minsan, buti hindi ka nagagalit... :(
Basta ako, hindi ako bumabanat sa thread ninyo na INC-100 Years of God's Blessings. Para sa inyo kasi dapat yon, so kung aatakehin ko kayo doon, sa tingin ko, kabastusan nang matatawag yon.
okay lang sa akin, no need to apologize.
i don't see attacks on INC as personal. I respect other people's opinion. I try to understand everybody's stand. even the atheists. I am reading a lot of atheists' books now. When I was in high school i studied Jehova's Witnesses doctrines. Pati si Soriano pinapanood ko dati.
pati sa FB natatawa lang ako pag nakikita ko yung mga ikapu posts about the INC. Di ko naman responsibilidad na maging aware sila sa aral ng bawat religion.
para sa akin dapat ang isang tao mismo ang magsuri ng mga yan.
Of course there are some things na minsan itinatanong mo sa sarili mo, and you find answers to those questions.
I also respect the fact that you do not belong to any sect/group now. My principle is if I find another group na mas totoo dito, lilipat ako. that's how it stands right now.
Post by: oweidah on Jul 29, 2015 at 06:40 PM
I am a sinner saved by grace... For without Christ i can do nothing.
are you a true christian, yes or no
Post by: dpogs on Jul 29, 2015 at 07:32 PM
are you a true christian, yes or no
Yes. Same to those who believes that Jesus is God, nagkatawang tao nagdanak ng dugo, namatay, after 3 days nabuhay na muli for redemptions of sins and believes that noother way even good works can bring salvation but only though Jesus Christ.
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 29, 2015 at 08:58 PM
If that person is a true christian... Yes...
Hindi pala ko pupunta ng langit:)
Post by: oweidah on Jul 29, 2015 at 09:03 PM
Post by: tony on Jul 29, 2015 at 09:30 PM
Yes. Same to those who believes that Jesus is God, nagkatawang tao nagdanak ng dugo, namatay, after 3 days nabuhay na muli for redemptions of sins and believes that noother way even good works can bring salvation but only though Jesus Christ.
the RC doctrine is non-negotiable and non reviseable...either you accept it or you don't...
Post by: tony on Jul 29, 2015 at 09:33 PM
did Christ ever speak about hell as in dagat dagatang impyerno?
what i remember him say was, "from now on you will be with me in paradise" or "in my father's house there are many rooms...."
Post by: oweidah on Jul 30, 2015 at 12:06 AM
Post by: barrister on Jul 30, 2015 at 10:34 AM
question for atty barrister....
did Christ ever speak about hell as in dagat dagatang impyerno?
what i remember him say was, "from now on you will be with me in paradise" or "in my father's house there are many rooms...."
Hindi dagat-dagatang impiyerno. Ang tama ay "dagat-dagatang apoy."
Yes, maraming tinurong "hell" si Jesus Christ.
If you mean word-for word na sinabi ni Kristo na "dagat-dagatang apoy," wala. Pero yun na nga ang "hell" na sinasabi Niya, hindi lang word-for-word.
==================================
Kung letra-por-letra na "dagat-dagatang apoy" (lake of fire), sa Revelation lang makikita yon, mentioned several times. For example:
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:14-15)
==================================
Marami kang maririnig, ang sabi, "we are already in hell on this earth."
Kung iyon ang paniniwala nila, ok lang sa akin. Pero wag nilang sabihin na ganon ang teaching sa bible, kasi malayong-malayo iyon sa bible teachings. Para masabi nilang nasa impiyerno na tayo ngayon, kailangang itapon muna nila ang bibliya, kasi hindi magtutugma iyon... :D
Did Jesus teach about hell in that parable?
Siyempre naman. In fact, in the bible, it was Jesus Christ who taught about hell more often than anyone else.
For example:
43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ (Mark 9:43-48)
You are familiar with the story of Lazarus and the rich man. That was a parable, not an actual event. What did Jesus teach about hell?
1. There is fire in hell.
2. Man has been sufficiently warned about hell.
3. It is impossible to cross over from hell to heaven and vice-versa.
4. In hell, it is too late for forgiveness.
===================================
You might be surprised, but hell is a very advanced topic in the bible. Many think it's a topic easy enough for children to comprehend, but that's not true.
I'll give you a brief rundown, just to introduce you to the topic:
- The original words in the bible translated into English as "hell" are Hades, Sheol, Gehenna, and Tatarus.
- Hades and Sheol are Greek and Hebrew respectively, which mean a grave or burial site.
- Gehenna is Aramaic, which means "Valley of Hinnom," a garbage dump site where the garbage burns non-stop (because there's always new garbage being dumped in). Worms (maggots) are present, because it's a garbage dump.
- Tartarus is Greek, which means a condition of imprisonment of the fallen angels.
- When Jesus mentioned the word hell, He used the word "Gehenna."
Post by: CeeV on Jul 30, 2015 at 04:32 PM
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 30, 2015 at 04:42 PM
Wow..great info.....was wondering though....How come the word HADES is Hebrew where in the novel/movies Hades is part of the Greek Mythology...so am assuming it is a greek name..
Greek talaga ang Hades. baka typo lang si atty.
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 30, 2015 at 05:57 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 30, 2015 at 06:14 PM
One is the equivalent of the other, kaya madalas talaga akong mali kung Greek ba o Hebrew yon. :D
One is for Old Testament (Hebrew kasi ang O.T.), the other is for New Testament (Greek and Aramaic ang N.T.)
Edit ko na lang for the benefit of the others.
Post by: leomarley on Jul 30, 2015 at 06:19 PM
Yes. Same to those who believes that Jesus is God, nagkatawang tao nagdanak ng dugo, namatay, after 3 days nabuhay na muli for redemptions of sins and believes that noother way even good works can bring salvation but only though Jesus Christ.
interesting. just want to ask. since the INC do not believe that Jesus is God(correct me if i'm wrong), are you saying that they are not, as you say, "true christians"?
Post by: barrister on Jul 30, 2015 at 06:28 PM
Tartarus is Greek, is a place where the Titans were imprisoned. I don't know about the Angels part because there are no angels in Greek mythology.
Tartarus has its own meaning in Greek mythology, as originally used.
In the bible, Tartarus (tartaroo) has its own meaning. It was used in the bible only once, translated as "hell" in 2 Peter 2:4:
4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them in chains of darkness to be held for judgment; (2 Peter 2:4)
Tartaroo in the bible means to cast into Tartarus or to thrust down into Tartarus, the condition of imprisonment of the angels who rebelled against God.
Strong's Number 5020: http://biblehub.com/greek/5020.htm (http://biblehub.com/greek/5020.htm)
But I need to read up on Greek mythology. You guys know more about it than I do. :(
Post by: tony on Jul 30, 2015 at 08:04 PM
i have always suspected that hell is here on earth, that is why i imagine i will go to heaven
because all my life was spent in hell.....
Post by: dpogs on Jul 30, 2015 at 08:45 PM
interesting. just want to ask. since the INC do not believe that Jesus is God(correct me if i'm wrong), are you saying that they are not, as you say, "true christians"?
first "Christian" ang tawag sa mga followers ni Christ before... at hindi mga apostles not even Jesus ang nagtawag sa mga believers before... its the people around them or the pagans called those who believes that Jesus is GOd are called Christians... kasi sa ngayon basta hindi ka naniniwala kay allah/buddha/other gods Christian na kasi lagi tawag...
kaya ko naman nasabi na may "true" Christians because there are genuine faith and false faith or masabi lang na naniniwala siya sa Diyos/Jesus... kaya nga sabi sa BIble hindi lahat ng tumatawag sa Diyos ay maliligtas... eto ang mga false or professing to be Christians... may mga tao na pumupunta lang sa simbahan kasi sinasama lang ng kanilang nanay... but deep inside theri heart wala talagang genuine faith... iyong iba naman pinagkakaperahan...
at papaano mo masasabi kung may genuine faith (true Christian) ang isang tao... we can't... only that person can tell if he/she have a genuine faith kasi it is a personal relationship betweeh him/her and God...
tungkol naman po doon sa tanong mo... nagstay ako sa Laguna at isa sa mga naging project ko doon ay pag-aralan ang mga Rizalista sa Calamba... unang-una bakit natin tinawag na "Rizalista" sila - kasi naniniwala sila na diyos si Jose Rizal...
kung meron mang naniniwala dito na diyos si Dpogs malamang tawag sa kanila ay "Dpogista" :):)
can you call someone Christian if he/she doesnt believe in Jesus Christ as God and their personal saviour?
tungkol naman sa
Post by: pekspert on Jul 30, 2015 at 08:49 PM
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11811414_882267091862051_4633724068165052096_n.jpg?oh=2a02c57454824537733ed1554c7e0561&oe=5658FD75)
Post by: tony on Jul 30, 2015 at 09:18 PM
ang puno kasi nakikila sa bunga....
Post by: tony on Jul 30, 2015 at 09:21 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 30, 2015 at 10:01 PM
so these "hell" are actual places here in earth and not some imagined place?
i have always suspected that hell is here on earth, that is why i imagine i will go to heaven
because all my life was spent in hell.....
Sabi ko na nga ba doon pupunta yon... :D
Kung nasa hell na tayo ngayon, wala na tayong problema.
Sarap non, kahit magnakaw at pumatay ka, langit ka pa rin. :D
Post by: dpogs on Jul 30, 2015 at 10:23 PM
Post by: leomarley on Jul 30, 2015 at 11:49 PM
first "Christian" ang tawag sa mga followers ni Christ before... at hindi mga apostles not even Jesus ang nagtawag sa mga believers before... its the people around them or the pagans called those who believes that Jesus is GOd are called Christians... kasi sa ngayon basta hindi ka naniniwala kay allah/buddha/other gods Christian na kasi lagi tawag...
kaya ko naman nasabi na may "true" Christians because there are genuine faith and false faith or masabi lang na naniniwala siya sa Diyos/Jesus... kaya nga sabi sa BIble hindi lahat ng tumatawag sa Diyos ay maliligtas... eto ang mga false or professing to be Christians... may mga tao na pumupunta lang sa simbahan kasi sinasama lang ng kanilang nanay... but deep inside theri heart wala talagang genuine faith... iyong iba naman pinagkakaperahan...
at papaano mo masasabi kung may genuine faith (true Christian) ang isang tao... we can't... only that person can tell if he/she have a genuine faith kasi it is a personal relationship betweeh him/her and God...
tungkol naman po doon sa tanong mo... nagstay ako sa Laguna at isa sa mga naging project ko doon ay pag-aralan ang mga Rizalista sa Calamba... unang-una bakit natin tinawag na "Rizalista" sila - kasi naniniwala sila na diyos si Jose Rizal...
kung meron mang naniniwala dito na diyos si Dpogs malamang tawag sa kanila ay "Dpogista" :):)
can you call someone Christian if he/she doesnt believe in Jesus Christ as God and their personal saviour?
tungkol naman sa
medyo malabo ata yung sagot. sabi mo kasi that if they don't believe that Jesus is God then they are not True Christians. the INC does not believe that Jesus is God but they believe in his teachings. so are they not True Christians?
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 12:03 AM
medyo malabo ata yung sagot. sabi mo kasi that if they don't believe that Jesus is God then they are not True Christians. the INC does not believe that Jesus is God but they believe in his teachings. so are they not True Christians?
how can i tell if they are true or false christian eh on the first place they dont even believe that Jesus is God... well sa ngayon kasi ang term na christian eh applicable na sa lahat ng faith na ginagamit ang Bible sa kanilang teachings... sa panahon ngayon maari nating tawagin ang sinuman na christian simply by being a follower of Jesus teachings...
but for me di ko matatawag na christian ang isang tao kung hindi siya naniniwala na isang Diyos at Tagapagligtas si Jesus Christ.
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 12:11 AM
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 01:13 AM
ah ok so personal opinion lang pala. fair enough.
it maybe be my personal opinion but the Bible says... "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven;"
not all who says they're 'christian' will enter into the kingdom of heaven...
Post by: oweidah on Jul 31, 2015 at 04:00 AM
tell dat to jews, muslims, catholics etc
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 04:31 AM
dats y i said pag ganyan, "exclusivity" only we, true believers will be saved = away gyera.
tell dat to jews, muslims, catholics etc
Jesus Christ said ...
"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Mat.7:21
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Mat.7:15
malamang lamang ang nagsasabing "only we will be saved" ay ang false prophets...
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 06:09 AM
at papaano mo masasabi kung may genuine faith (true Christian) ang isang tao... we can't... only that person can tell if he/she have a genuine faith kasi it is a personal relationship betweeh him/her and God...
If that's the case, how were you able to tell that the LGBT mentioned a few posts back won't go to heaven? Are you God himself? :)
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 06:32 AM
If that's the case, how were you able to tell that the LGBT mentioned a few posts back won't go to heaven? Are you God himself? :)
ang sabi ko... if that person is a true christian or genuine christian then that person is going to heaven... if not then there is nothing else but hell... that is applicable to all i mention that also.
Now... Bago ko sagutin to... Baka gusto mong dagdagan na natin...
"gay, kristiyano, tunay na kristiyano" - heaven
"gay, kristiyano, di tunay na kristiyano" - not heaven
sinabi ko ba mismo na LGBT will go to hell? please qoute me... baka nakalimutan ko lang :)
PS: I am not god... but the Bible says that all sinners (that includes alll human both homoexuals or heterosexulas, including me and you) are going to hell unless they do the will of God the Father (Mat 7:21).
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:00 AM
Post by: tony on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:07 AM
Sabi ko na nga ba doon pupunta yon... :D
Kung nasa hell na tayo ngayon, wala na tayong problema.
Sarap non, kahit magnakaw at pumatay ka, langit ka pa rin. :D
you missed the point....when you commit crimes,
the justice system takes care of you....
if you are truly contrite and mend your ways,
there is hope for your salvation...
i think that virtue and character is its own reward...
for me a righteous man is in heaven already....
a state of bliss and blessedness....
here there or anywhere, everywhere....
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:15 AM
^My point is, in one post you can define what a "true" Christian is. In another, you say no one cannot tell because it is between God and the person.
hmmm... ganyan ang mga tanong hindi iyong manghuhusga ka agad na may pinost ako... kumbaga eh leading agad ang tanong mo :):):)
a true christian are those believer and have genuine faith to Jesus Christ as their God and Saviour... that is how i define true christian - i never mention yang sinasbi mong pinost kuno...
saka defining a meaning and knowing a "true" chrstian magkaiba iyon... :):):)
we can only assume that a person is a true christian according to his/her works/testimonies... if he/she keeps on sinning then that person is not true christian based on his/her works... or based on his/her testimonies...
but to know if that person have genuine faith (thus a true christian)... then it is between that person and God...
Post by: kidlat08 on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:26 AM
ito ba eh isang totoong christian at pupunta siya sa langit?
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11811414_882267091862051_4633724068165052096_n.jpg?oh=2a02c57454824537733ed1554c7e0561&oe=5658FD75)
Nakakalungkot isipin na may mga ganitong tao na nagsasamantala sa mga nangyayari ngayon. Duda ko hindi ito INC, dahil paulit ulit nyang tinatawag na SIMBAHAN ang mga gusaling sambahan ng INC. Kahit ang anak kong 6 years old, alam nya na ang tawag namin sa mga gusaling ito ay KAPILYA
Naalala ko tuloy nung Yolanda. May lumabas na picture sa Internet na pinakita ang Kapilya ng Tacloban, habang ang mga bahay sa paligid ay halos nadurog na. Biglang naglabasan ang mga chismis na hindi daw nagpapasok ng ibang mga tao sa loob ng kapilya at hinayaan na lang mamatay. Marami rin akong nabasang mga masasakit na salita laban sa amin noon. Pero nung humupa na ang bagyo, nakapasok na ang mga relief sa Tacloban, nalaman na halos lahat ng pamilya sa paligid kung nasaan ang kapilya, ay kinupkop at pinapasok sa loob habang dumadaan ang bagyo.
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:27 AM
hmmm... ganyan ang mga tanong hindi iyong manghuhusga ka agad na may pinost ako... kumbaga eh leading agad ang tanong mo :):):)
May pinost ka naman talaga. Kaya nga ako naguluhan e. And which leading question is that?
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:51 AM
May pinost ka naman talaga. Kaya nga ako naguluhan e. And which leading question is that?
kaya nga po... i quote mo ako na nag post under this thread kung sinabi ko ba talaga specifically na LGBT will go to hell...
you're assuming kasi na doon lagi papunta ang sasabihin ko :):):) as you can see i never i tried most of the time na instead homosexual address ko sa kanila dito ang ginagamit ko ay 'person'... because when it comes to heaven or hell our sexual preference means nothing...
Post by: sirhc on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:54 AM
ito ba eh isang totoong christian at pupunta siya sa langit?
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11811414_882267091862051_4633724068165052096_n.jpg?oh=2a02c57454824537733ed1554c7e0561&oe=5658FD75)
Don't know about the screen grab above but I personally experienced these "turo" on INC's sunday school for kids. My Ex-GF pad was next to a venue where an INC minister conducts their sunday school on, the landlord was an INC. What you'll hear on their teachings almost borders on hate messages. Its as if they're brainwashing their kids to hate on other religion, notably, Catholics and their practices.
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:58 AM
kaya nga po... i quote mo ako na nag post under this thread kung sinabi ko ba talaga specifically na LGBT will go to hell...
you're assuming kasi na doon lagi papunta ang sasabihin ko :):):) as you can see i never i tried most of the time na instead homosexual address ko sa kanila dito ang ginagamit ko ay 'person'... because when it comes to heaven or hell our sexual preference means nothing...
Ganito ha? Gay, nagsisimba, me bf, hindi nya tinigil yung relationship nya with the bf, biglang namatay. Langit ba pupunta? Sabi mo, hindi sya "tunay na Kristyano", so hindi langit.
Pro sabi mo rin, only God knows. And yet, you knew. Gets mo na?
Post by: sirhc on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:12 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:16 AM
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:24 AM
interesting. just want to ask. since the INC do not believe that Jesus is God(correct me if i'm wrong), are you saying that they are not, as you say, "true christians"?
The INC does not believe that Jesus Christ is GOd because INC is monotheistic in the sense that except for the Father, there's no other God.
Jesus Christ though not God in the belief of the INC is not considered as ordinary man. He was given a lot of extraordinary endowments by God: he was given Lordship, powers beyond ordinary man, he is the Son of God, He is the Savior, he is the Christ, he is the head of the Church, thus Iglesia Ni Cristo, He is the way to God's kingdom.
FYM on the other hand though refer to as angel does not mean higher than Christ, because angel came from angelus "Latin for angel" meaning messenger or tagapaghatid ng balita, in older tagalog: Sugo.
Plus the INC believes that Christ was originally believed not to be God by early Christians.
Of course many of you will find these unbelievable. But from where we are coming from, what is unbelievable is the belief that God had to transform into human then when on Earth, he called and prayed to himself to make the cup of suffering pass him, and when on the cross, he commended his spirit to his other self. Simplu put, we do not believe God is suffering from multiple personalities.
Like everything in religion, it's a matter of belief. We believed something that is not believed by many other people. That's how the early Christians were like, come to think of it.
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:25 AM
ito ba eh isang totoong christian at pupunta siya sa langit?
(https://scontent-lax1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11811414_882267091862051_4633724068165052096_n.jpg?oh=2a02c57454824537733ed1554c7e0561&oe=5658FD75)
Gaya ng ng post ng isang tao sa FB. Tanga na lang ang maniniwala na INC ang nagpost nito.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:26 AM
Ganito ha? Gay, nagsisimba, me bf, hindi nya tinigil yung relationship nya with the bf, biglang namatay. Langit ba pupunta? Sabi mo, hindi sya "tunay na Kristyano", so hindi langit.
Pro sabi mo rin, only God knows. And yet, you knew. Gets mo na?
mahirap iyang "sabi mo kasi ganito.. ganire"... just qoute me sa post ko na iyon... madali lang naman yan eh... punta ka sa post ko then click "Qoute"
now... if you're referring to these then nasa sa iyo na ang problema kung di mo nagets ang example
Now... Bago ko sagutin to... Baka gusto mong dagdagan na natin...
"gay, kristiyano, tunay na kristiyano" - heaven
"gay, kristiyano, di tunay na kristiyano" - not heaven
Post by: tony on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:26 AM
Don't know about the screen grab above but I personally experienced these "turo" on INC's sunday school for kids. My Ex-GF pad was next to a venue where an INC minister conducts their sunday school on, the landlord was an INC. What you'll hear on their teachings almost borders on hate messages. Its as if they're brainwashing their kids to hate on other religion, notably, Catholics and their practices.
i remember a very young kid went over to my place,
he said "kaya hind kayo mayaman kasi hindi kayo kasapi ng Iglesia"
hindi man lang sinaway ng magulang...
they boy must be 7 or 8 years old at the time...
i just smiled, nod and kept quiet.....
bata palang yan me kahambugan na.....tsk...tsk...tsk...
Post by: tony on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:29 AM
The INC does not believe that Jesus Christ is GOd because INC is monotheistic in the sense that except for the Father, there's no other God.
yes, just like the Muslims, the father dis not have a son....
Post by: oweidah on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:30 AM
na miss ko tuloy 70s sa harap ng quiapo church at luneta, pagsapit ng dilim, ayan na, debate ng mga relihiyoso' bukas ang kanya.kanyang biblia, very animated.
@dpogs, will a true muslim go to heaven?
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:30 AM
yes, just like the Muslims, the father dis not have a son....
Nope, we believe Jesus is the Son of God, like what I posted in the quote you cut.
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:33 AM
mahirap iyang "sabi mo kasi ganito.. ganire"... just qoute me sa post ko na iyon... madali lang naman yan eh... punta ka sa post ko then click "Qoute"
now... if you're referring to these then nasa sa iyo na ang problema kung di mo nagets ang example
Alam mo naman pala yung pinag-uusapan e :) How many times have you evaded answering with a "Yes" or "No"? E, napaka-simple lang nung tanong :)
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:33 AM
i remember a very young kid went over to my place,
he said "kaya hind kayo mayaman kasi hindi kayo kasapi ng Iglesia"
hindi man lang sinaway ng magulang...
they boy must be 7 or 8 years old at the time...
i just smiled, nod and kept quiet.....
bata palang yan me kahambugan na.....tsk...tsk...tsk...
if this is a generalization, then what can we infer from Rapists, murderers, child molesters, corrupt government officials, etc in our society that are members of RC.
I am not saying the kid in your story is right. HE WAS WRONG! and he was more wrong because the INC does not have that doctrine. In fact we acknowledge the fact that most of our members are poor.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:36 AM
o.t.
na miss ko tuloy 70s sa harap ng quiapo church at luneta, pagsapit ng dilim, ayan na, debate ng mga relihiyoso' bukas ang kanya.kanyang biblia, very animated.
@dpogs, will a true muslim go to heaven?
i believe kasi based on the Bible that anyone can go to heaven...
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:38 AM
Alam mo naman pala yung pinag-uusapan e :) How many times have you evaded answering with a "Yes" or "No"? E, napaka-simple lang nung tanong :)
but did i specifically says na LGBT will go to hell? :):):)
sabi mo kasi "gay,kristiyano" sabi ko dagadagan natin...
"gay,kristiyano, tunay na kristiyano" - heaven
"gay,kristiyano, hindi tunay na kristiyano" - not heaven
malinaw di ba... kapag gay yan at tunay na kristiyano - heaven... pero kung gay yan at hindi tunay na kristiyano - not heaven...
tapos inaassume mo na agad na LGBT will go to hell ang post ko...
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:47 AM
but did i specifically says na LGBT will go to hell? :):):)
sabi mo kasi "gay,kristiyano" sabi ko dagadagan natin...
"gay,kristiyano, tunay na kristiyano" - heaven
"gay,kristiyano, hindi tunay na kristiyano" - not heaven
malinaw di ba... kapag gay yan at tunay na kristiyano - heaven... pero kung gay yan at hindi tunay na kristiyano - not heaven...
When asked with a yes or no question, you answer yes or no. If the question is not clear, you clarify. You don't modify the question for your own benefit :)
Quote
tapos inaassume mo na agad na LGBT will go to hell ang post ko...
I didn't mention the word "hell", IIRC. But since inumpisan mo na, yung mga LGBT na Katoliko na nag-eengage sa sexual acts, biglang namatay, pupunta ba ng hell?
Post by: kidlat08 on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:50 AM
1. Noah at kanyang pamilya, at tig iisang pares ng mga hayop. Sila lang ang natira, at ang buong sanlibutan ay napawi ng dahil sa baha
2. Panahon ni Moses at Abraham
3. Panahon ng Israel, ang Bayan ng Diyos.
4. Panahon ni Cristo at ng mga Apostol.
Dito po sa mga nabanggit ko, hindi po sila ang majority na matatawag, pero sila ang itinaguyod ng Diyos. Meron po ba nakasaad sa Bibliya na may itataguyod pa na Huling Bayan ang Diyos sa mga panahon ngayon? At ano po ang nangyari sa mga tao noon na hindi kasama sa mga grupo na nabanggit ko sa itaas? Paano kung naging mabait naman sila, naging malinis ang kanilang mga hangarin, pero hindi sila nakasama sa Bayang Israel nung una?
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:02 AM
When asked with a yes or no question, you answer yes or no. If the question is not clear, you clarify. You don't modify the question for your own benefit :)
I didn't mention the word "hell", IIRC. But since inumpisan mo na, yung mga LGBT na Katoliko na nag-eengage sa sexual acts, biglang namatay, pupunta ba ng hell?
because you're asking a question that cant be answer by yes or no... :):):)
kung ang unang tanong mo pa lang sa akin eh... "gay tunay na kristiyano, namatay kasama ang bf niya" malamang lamagn sagot ko agad dyan yes going to heaven yan...
unang tanong mo eto... by the way ikaw ang unang nagbukas ng topic na LGBT... hindi ako :):):)
Yun naman pala e. E bakit pinipilit mo pang magbago ang LGBT, mapupunta rin naman pala sa langit :)
masasagot mo ba ya ng yes or no?
next na tanong mo eto na naman...
Pinapagulo mo naman e :) Oo at hindi lang. Gay, hindi nagbago, namatay. Langit ba o hindi?
masasagot ko ba yan ng yes or no.... hindi ko yan masasagot ng yes or no... laging may "IF" dyan
pangatlo nagbago ulit tanong mo...
Pinagulo mo na naman e : Gay, Kristyano, nagsisimba. Merong bf o partner. Namatay. Pupunta ba sa langit?
di ko na naman yan masasagot ng yes or no... may "IF" na naman dyan...
kaya dinagdagan ko na ng ganito
"gay, kristiyano, tunay na kristiyano" - heaven
"gay, kristiyano, di tunay na kristiyano" - not heaven
kung nun una palang tanong mo na agad sa akin ay ganito - "gay, tunay na kristiyano, nagsimba kasama ang bf/gf niya, hindi nagbago... pupunta ba ng langit?"
sagot ko dyan "YES" dahil sa word na "tunay na kristiyano" but... a big but... yan para sa akin... kasi kung sinasabi mong tunay siyang kristiyano bakit hindi nagbago? pero there is no doubt if that person is really a true christian pangit man ang ugali dito sa lupa pupunta yan ng langit.
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:06 AM
The INC does not believe that Jesus Christ is GOd because INC is monotheistic in the sense that except for the Father, there's no other God.
Jesus Christ though not God in the belief of the INC is not considered as ordinary man. He was given a lot of extraordinary endowments by God: he was given Lordship, powers beyond ordinary man, he is the Son of God, He is the Savior, he is the Christ, he is the head of the Church, thus Iglesia Ni Cristo, He is the way to God's kingdom.
FYM on the other hand though refer to as angel does not mean higher than Christ, because angel came from angelus "Latin for angel" meaning messenger or tagapaghatid ng balita, in older tagalog: Sugo.
Plus the INC believes that Christ was originally believed not to be God by early Christians.
Of course many of you will find these unbelievable. But from where we are coming from, what is unbelievable is the belief that God had to transform into human then when on Earth, he called and prayed to himself to make the cup of suffering pass him, and when on the cross, he commended his spirit to his other self. Simplu put, we do not believe God is suffering from multiple personalities.
Like everything in religion, it's a matter of belief. We believed something that is not believed by many other people. That's how the early Christians were like, come to think of it.
i'm not arguing on how the INC views Jesus. it's just an example about dpogs claim on what is a "true christian". i'm just wondering how dpogs views other sects.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:07 AM
ang itanong mo na lang ay ganito
tao, namatay, hindi nagbago, patuloy na nagkakasala, tunay na kristiyano - sagot ko = heaven
tao, namatay, nagbao, mabuting tao, hindi tunay na kristiyano - sagot ko = not heaven
Post by: Quitacet on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:12 AM
i'm not arguing on how the INC views Jesus. it's just an example about dpogs claim on what is a "true christian". i'm just wondering how dpogs views other sects.
Yes, bro. I know. I just used the opportunity to explain the "why" of your central point relative to dpogs' definition. :)
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:14 AM
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:20 AM
Yes, bro. I know. I just used the opportunity to explain the "why" of your central point relative to dpogs' definition. :)
point taken bro. ;D it's actually quite insightful, though. i don't follow any religion/belief/god but i like understanding other religions and their beliefs.
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:28 AM
Pinapagulo mo lang e ;D Playing safe ka ba? Ang LGBT ba, pwedeng maging tunay na Kristyano habang may bf/gf sya?
yang mga tanong na yan.... answerable yan ng YES or NO... dapat ganyan para di ka maguluhan...
YES
in fact ang tao ay puwedeng maging tunay na kristiyano kahit pumapatay pa yan, kahit rapist pa yan...
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:39 AM
yang mga tanong na yan.... answerable yan ng YES or NO... dapat ganyan para di ka maguluhan...
YES
in fact ang tao ay puwedeng maging tunay na kristiyano kahit pumapatay pa yan, kahit rapist pa yan...
Mukhang hindi mo na gets yung question kaya ako na magca-clarify. Pwede silang maging tunay na Kristyano kahit hindi nila ititigil yung LGBT acts?
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:49 AM
Pinapagulo mo lang e ;D Playing safe ka ba? Ang LGBT ba, pwedeng maging tunay na Kristyano habang may bf/gf sya?
Mukhang hindi mo na gets yung question kaya ako na magca-clarify. Pwede silang maging tunay na Kristyano kahit hindi nila ititigil yung LGBT acts?
iba kasi ang "habang" at "hindi nila ititigil" sa tinatanong mo ulit ngayon... :):):)
kung baga sa code... garbage in garbage out... ayusin mo ang tanong mo para makuha mo agad ang gusto mong sagot... :):):)
ngayon ang tanong mo ay kung maari bang maging kristiyano ang isang tao kung hindi sila titigil sa pagkakasala...
follow up question ko lang ulit... para hindi ka na magtanong next time: may balak bang hindi itigil ang paggawa ng kasalanan?
Post by: tony on Jul 31, 2015 at 11:00 AM
o.t.
na miss ko tuloy 70s sa harap ng quiapo church at luneta, pagsapit ng dilim, ayan na, debate ng mga relihiyoso' bukas ang kanya.kanyang biblia, very animated.
@dpogs, will a true muslim go to heaven?
kaya nga maramng sucide bombers, diretso na raw sila sa langit....
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 11:05 AM
]
iba kasi ang "habang" at "hindi nila ititigil" sa tinatanong mo ulit ngayon... :):):)
kung baga sa code... garbage in garbage out... ayusin mo ang tanong mo para makuha mo agad ang gusto mong sagot... :):):)
ngayon ang tanong mo ay kung maari bang maging kristiyano ang isang tao kung hindi sila titigil sa pagkakasala...
follow up question ko lang ulit... para hindi ka na magtanong next time: may balak bang hindi itigil ang paggawa ng kasalanan?
Hindi ko alam kung ako yung me problema sa pagsabi o ikaw sa pag-intindi. O sya, dun tayo sa "hindi ititigil". Ano na, langit o hindi?
Post by: tony on Jul 31, 2015 at 11:09 AM
Nope, we believe Jesus is the Son of God, like what I posted in the quote you cut.
aren't we all sons of God? just like the prophet Mohamed was a son of Allah?
Post by: tony on Jul 31, 2015 at 11:10 AM
if this is a generalization, then what can we infer from Rapists, murderers, child molesters, corrupt government officials, etc in our society that are members of RC.
I am not saying the kid in your story is right. HE WAS WRONG! and he was more wrong because the INC does not have that doctrine. In fact we acknowledge the fact that most of our members are poor.
i was relating a personal anecdote....
Post by: GIJoe on Jul 31, 2015 at 11:26 AM
if this is a generalization, then what can we infer from Rapists, murderers, child molesters, corrupt government officials, etc in our society that are members of RC.
I am not saying the kid in your story is right. HE WAS WRONG! and he was more wrong because the INC does not have that doctrine. In fact we acknowledge the fact that most of our members are poor.
https://phillipgarcia.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/behind-the-iglesia-ni-cristos-king-maker-role-a-chain-of-crimes-and-mythical-numbers/ (https://phillipgarcia.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/behind-the-iglesia-ni-cristos-king-maker-role-a-chain-of-crimes-and-mythical-numbers/)
Post by: tony on Jul 31, 2015 at 11:44 AM
in time they all died....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 02:28 PM
Hindi ko alam kung ako yung me problema sa pagsabi o ikaw sa pag-intindi. O sya, dun tayo sa "hindi ititigil". Ano na, langit o hindi?
iba po kasi ang "may balak na hindi titigil" or "hindi ITITIGIL" at ang "hindi TITIGIL sa kasalanan"
a genuine christian faith have a genuine repentance... these two - repentance and faith are inseparable, like a two side of coin... if you hve a genuine faith means you have a genuine repentance... if you have a genuine repentance means you have a true faith... if you are a genuine true christian mean you have both genuine repentance and faith...
what is repentance - it means a change of mind ... the disposition to repeat sin is gone...
Mukhang hindi mo na gets yung question kaya ako na magca-clarify. Pwede silang maging tunay na Kristyano kahit hindi nila ititigil yung LGBT acts?
kaya po ang taong sinasabi mong kristiyano ngunit walang balak na tumigil sa kasalan doesnt have genuine repentance - doesnt have a change of mind at walang balak na magbago thus cannot enter the heaven...
Jesus said, "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3)
now ang isang taong tunay na kristiyano kahit po tunay na kristiyano yan hindi po titigil sa paggawa ng kasalan yan kasi po nasa katawang lupa pa tayo....
ang taong tunay na kristiyano at hindi titigil sa paggawa ng kasalanan = heaven
ang taong nagsasabing tunay na kristiyano at walang balak tumigil sa paggawa ng kasalanan ay hindi tunay na kristiyano = so not heaven
ang taong walang balak itigil ang paggawa ng kasalanan ay hindi magiging tunay Kristiyano = not heaven
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 02:41 PM
Post by: pTrader on Jul 31, 2015 at 02:46 PM
huwag mo na kasi lagyan ng lgbt...
ang itanong mo na lang ay ganito
tao, namatay, hindi nagbago, patuloy na nagkakasala, tunay na kristiyano - sagot ko = heaven
tao, namatay, nagbao, mabuting tao, hindi tunay na kristiyano - sagot ko = not heaven
parehong - not heaven sir
yung tunay na kristyano, nagkakasala din pero nagbabago patungong Christ like - dumadaan sila sa sanctification at pumapasok dito yung pag disiplina ng Diyos.
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 02:47 PM
Atty may tanong po ako. Baka pwede mo ako tulungan. Base kasi sa mga narinig ko mula nung ako po ay bata pa, ang Diyos ay hindi kumikiling sa dami ng bilang ng kaanib ng kanyang bayan.
Sa madaling salita, ayon sa aking unawa, ang tanong mo ay --- Ang pamantayan ba para masabing sa Diyos ang isang samahan ay paramihan lang ng bilang ng miyembro?
Mas magaspang ang pagkakasabi, pero mas malinaw, di ba? ;)
Ang simpleng sagot ay hindi. Hindi paramihan ng miyembro ang labanan diyan.
===================================
Eto yung mga naaalala kong sitwasyon sa Bibliya, please correct me if im wrong in some of these examples:
1. Noah at kanyang pamilya, at tig iisang pares ng mga hayop. Sila lang ang natira, at ang buong sanlibutan ay napawi ng dahil sa baha
2. Panahon ni Moses at Abraham
3. Panahon ng Israel, ang Bayan ng Diyos.
4. Panahon ni Cristo at ng mga Apostol.
Dito po sa mga nabanggit ko, hindi po sila ang majority na matatawag, pero sila ang itinaguyod ng Diyos.
Tama. Pero hindi ako nasisiyan sa iyong batayan na sa tingin ko ay manipis pa. Bibigyan kita ng matibay na sitas.
Sa Old Testament, ang tipan ay sa pagitan ng Diyos at ng mga Israelitas.
Tama na pagkatapos ng baha, nag-umpisa ang lahi kay Noe at kanyang pamilya, tuloy kay Shem na anak ni Noe, na naging apo si Abraham. Si Abraham ang binigyan ng pangako, naging anak si Isaac, na naging anak si Jacob, na binigyan ng panibagong pangalan na "Israel," na nagkaroon ng 12 anak, na naging ninuno ng 12 tribo ng bayang Israel.
Totoong mas kaunti ang bilang ng Israelitas kung ihahambing sa bilang ng mga bayan na nasa paligid nila. Nguni't sapat na batayan na ba na mas kaunti sila para sabihing hindi kumikiling ang Diyos sa bilang?
Hindi sapat iyon. Kailangan natin ng mas matibay na batayan.
Kung ikaw ay kaanib ng INC, alam mo na may disiplina ang pag-aaral ng bibliya, na hindi maaari na haka-haka lang ang batayan.
At ang sitas na ito ang mas matibay na batayan ---
7 The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: (Deut. 7:7)
==================================
At ano po ang nangyari sa mga tao noon na hindi kasama sa mga grupo na nabanggit ko sa itaas? Paano kung naging mabait naman sila, naging malinis ang kanilang mga hangarin, pero hindi sila nakasama sa Bayang Israel nung una?
Mag pag-asa pa rin sila sa kaligasan.
Natalakay ko na ang temang iyan sa thread na ito. Sa tingin ko ay masisiyahan ka na sa aking ginamit na batayan:
Tama yun sir.
Saan mo nakuha yon sir? Bihira kong marinig yan sa iba, e. Ang madalas kong marinig, "kami lang ang maliligtas..." :D
Para eksakto, eto ang sitas:
12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) (Rom. 2:12-15)
Pag hindi mo pa alam ang aral ng Kristiyano at hindi mo naman kasalanan kung bakit hindi mo nalaman ang aral, you "do not have the law."
If you do not have the law, how will you be judged?
Not by the law that you don't have, because that would be unfair. You will be judged by the law written in your heart, meaning by what your conscience dictates.
Therefore, if you have the law, you will be held to a higher standard. Pag alam mo na ang aral, pero paulit-ulit kang lumalabag, yari ka.
Mabuti pang hindi mo na natutunan ang aral Kristiyano (through no fault of your own), kasi ibang standard sana ang naging para sa iyo, para fair.
Yan yung sinasabi sa sitas na ito:
20 If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. 21 It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. 22 Of them the proverbs are true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and, “A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.” (2 Peter 2:20-22)
==================================
Meron po ba nakasaad sa Bibliya na may itataguyod pa na Huling Bayan ang Diyos sa mga panahon ngayon?
Wala nang huling bayan.
Ganito ang plano ng Diyos ukol sa kaligtasan ng tao:
Ang Diyos ay nagkaroon ng tipan sa Israel. Pero dahil lumabag ang israel sa kasunduan, tinapos ng Diyos ang tipan, kaya't ito ay tinawag na Lumang Tipan. Kaya rin naman nagkaroon ng Bagong Tipan -- ngayon sa pagitan ng Diyos at ng mga Kristiyano.
Kung ang lumang tipan ay batay sa lahing Israel, sa bagong tipan ay wala nang batayang lahi. Kahit sino, maaari nang maligtas. Hindi na kailangan na ikaw ay kalahi ng sinumang ninuno.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. (Rom. 1:16)
First to the Jew, then to the Gentile. Samakatuwid baga --- Sa Hudyo muna (Lumang Tipan); pagkatapos ay sa Hentil, na ang ibig sabihin ay hindi Hudyo (Bagong Tipan).
Wala nang bagong bayan pa ng Diyos. Sa panahon ng Bagong Tipan, lahat ay may pag-asa sa kaligtasan, pantay-pantay, walang pagtatangi.
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. (Acts 10:34-35)
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 03:33 PM
Post by: pTrader on Jul 31, 2015 at 03:38 PM
kung sina Abraham ay apo ni Shem na anak ni Noah, saang linya galing ang ibang lahi tulad ng mga Egyptians?
Adam
Post by: dpogs on Jul 31, 2015 at 04:11 PM
^Ayan, malinaw na. Saan naman papasok yung sinabi mong only God knows?
oh i didn't mean "only God knows" kasi nasusulat naman yan sa Bible... mas maganda kung sabihin natin na it is between the believer and God...
we can only make assumption based on person's work or testimony but we really dont know their hearts... malay mo nagbabaitbaitan lang pala... akala natin nagbago na may inaantay lang na pagkakataon saka titira (wolves dress like a sheep)... only that person and God can tell if he/she is really a true Christian or not...
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 04:13 PM
kung sina Abraham ay apo ni Shem na anak ni Noah, saang linya galing ang ibang lahi tulad ng mga Egyptians?
Madali pa nga ang Egyptians, magkakahawig kasi sila, e.
Lalo naman yung Chinese, Africans at Caucasians. ;)
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 04:20 PM
Madali pa nga ang Egyptians, magkakahawig kasi sila, e.
Lalo naman yung Chinese, Africans at Caucasians. ;)
I mean kung sino Noah lang ang natira after the great flood. Saan nanggaling ang ibang tao? Did they come from Noah as well?
You say madali lang kasi magkakahawig sila, so kaninong linya nga ni Noah galing ang mga Egyptians if indeed Noah's family was the only humans left after the great flood?
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jul 31, 2015 at 04:49 PM
So I made a promise to myself that my child will never ever go to a Catholic school dahil na rerestrict ang creativity and open-mindedness. I enrolled my daughter to an IB school because the program encourages inquiries.
Sorry OT. Naalala ko lang :)
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 31, 2015 at 05:10 PM
Mga ibang taong galing din naman sa Katolikong paaralan eh "creative" at "open minded" din naman.
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jul 31, 2015 at 05:42 PM
Hindi naman sikreto kung bakit dumami ang tao ah. May "creativity" pa bang kailangan sa pagpapadami? Bakit mo naman dinamay pa ang Katoliko sa "creativity" at "open mindedness". Wala sa pagiging Katoliko iyun. Nandun iyun sa tao o sa likas na galing na biniyaya sa kanya ng kanyang mga magulang galing sa Panginoon.
Mga ibang taong galing din naman sa Katolikong paaralan eh "creative" at "open minded" din naman.
Hay. Nakakapagod itong ganito.
1. Adam and Eve plus their three sons. Sila lang ang tao nun. Pano na-populate ang mundo?
2. Wala naman akong sinabing pag galing ng Catholic school, hindi na creative or open-minded.
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 06:25 PM
Hahaha! I remember when I was in grade school and I asked my teacher kung pano dumami ang tao eh ang mga anak ni Adam and Eve eh tatlong lalaki. Pinagaliltan lang ako.
:D Ang dali naman ng tanong mo sir...
Hindi kasi ako ang tinanong mo, e. Napagalitan ka tuloy ... :D
====================================
Hindi totoo na tatlong lalaki lang ang anak nina Adan at Eba.
Pagkatapos pinanganak sina Cain, Abel at Seth, ano nangyari? Nagkaanak pa sila ng mga babae at mga lalaki.
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. (Gen. 5:4-5)
Ilang anak pa? Ewan. Basta plural na "sons" at plural na "daughters," hindi singular.
Grabe siguro ang dami non. Ikaw ba naman ang utusan na magparami, at nabuhay ka ng 930 years, e di marami nga yon... :D
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jul 31, 2015 at 06:31 PM
Ah really? Loko yun teacher ko. May iba pa palang anak, di na lang sinabi.
:D Ang dali naman ng tanong mo sir...
Hindi kasi ako ang tinanong mo, e. Napagalitan ka tuloy ... :D
====================================
Hindi totoo na tatlong lalaki lang ang anak nina Adan at Eba.
Pagkatapos pinanganak sina Cain, Abel at Seth, ano nangyari? Nagkaanak pa sila ng mga babae at mga lalaki.
4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: 5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. (Gen. 5:4-5)
Ilang anak pa? Ewan. Basta plural na "sons" at plural na "daughters," hindi singular.
Grabe siguro ang dami non. Ikaw ba naman ang utusan na magparami, at nabuhay ka ng 930 years, e di marami nga yon... :D
But still, there's not enough diversity in the genetic makeup for the species to survive, di ba?
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 06:52 PM
Ah really? Loko yun teacher ko. May iba pa palang anak, di na lang sinabi.
Siyempre naman hindi rin alam ni teacher yon, kaya hindi natin siya masisisi. Ikaw nga, ngayon mo lang nalaman yon, e (joke).
But still, there's not enough diversity in the genetic makeup for the species to survive, di ba?
Genetic diversity allows a greater chance for survival of a species by allowing it to better adapt to its environment.
But if the species is as smart as humans, its intelligence will allow it to survive changing environments without need for changes in phenotype. Too cold? Wear a bearskin. No need to wait until you grow your own fur. Just start a fire. :D
Why think about genetic diversity? If you can believe anybody can live to 930 years old, believing the other stuff would not be much of a big deal... :)
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:04 PM
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:07 PM
Post by: tony on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:08 PM
so to ask again, since di naman talaga sinagot, what lineage ang mga Egyptians kung ang lineage nila Abraham ay kay Shem na anak ni Noah? also, since sila lang ang natira sa mundo, does it mean na may incestuous acts na naganap?
^naku, madali lang sana yan sa ngayon dahil sa dna testing....
me nabasa ako na yung dna ni genghis kan kalat sa buong mundo...
Post by: pTrader on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:23 PM
so to ask again, since di naman talaga sinagot, what lineage ang mga Egyptians kung ang lineage nila Abraham ay kay Shem na anak ni Noah? also, since sila lang ang natira sa mundo, does it mean na may incestuous acts na naganap?
ADAM to NOAH to HAM.. - pwede na ba iyan sir?
Psalm 78:51King James Version (KJV)
51 And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham:
Psalm 105:23King James Version (KJV)
23 Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:28 PM
Di ko talaga alam yun. Superbook at Flying House lang ang reference ko hehe.
Wikipedia lang yan. ;) Sabi nang madali lang, e.
Ang mabigat, bakit nagkaroon ng Chinese, African and Caucasan? ;)
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:31 PM
May sagot na pala...
ADAM to NOAH to HAM.. - pwede na ba iyan sir?
Psalm 78:51King James Version (KJV)
51 And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham:
Psalm 105:23King James Version (KJV)
23 Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.
Korek!
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:32 PM
ADAM to NOAH to HAM.. - pwede na ba iyan sir?
Psalm 78:51King James Version (KJV)
51 And smote all the firstborn in Egypt; the chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham:
Psalm 105:23King James Version (KJV)
23 Israel also came into Egypt; and Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham.
so same family lang nga talaga. diba puro lalaki mga naging apo ni Noah. pano nagkababae? incestuous ba sila?
Post by: rascal101 on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:33 PM
Quote
So I made a promise to myself that my child will never ever go to a Catholic school dahil na rerestrict ang creativity and open-mindedness.
Ano ba ang gustong ipahiwatig ng ganitong pangungusap?
Adan at Eba at ang kanilang tatlong anak ... alangan naman natapos doon. May kasulatan ba na nagsabi na tumigil doon si Adan?
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:40 PM
Ano ba ang gustong ipahiwatig ng ganitong pangungusap?
Adan at Eba at ang kanilang tatlong anak ... alangan naman natapos doon. May kasulatan ba na nagsabi na tumigil doon si Adan?
Akala nga ng marami, dalawang lalaki lang ang anak ni Adan.
Ok lang yon sir. Normal lang yan sa usapang relihiyon.
Kaya nga ang kasabihan, there are only 2 topics to avoid in polite conversation--- politics and religion. :)
Post by: pTrader on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:50 PM
so same family lang nga talaga. diba puro lalaki mga naging apo ni Noah. pano nagkababae? incestuous ba sila?
kung mga lalake lang e panong incestous? same sex producing male and female?
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 07:54 PM
Baka sa walang kamatayang LGBT na naman ang pupuntahan niyan... :D
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:06 PM
kung mga lalake lang e panong incestous? same sex producing male and female?
andun pa naman mga nanay nila ;D. but seriously, pano nagkababae uli kung puro nga lalaki ang mga anak? galing ba uli sa ribs nila?
Post by: pTrader on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:16 PM
andun pa naman mga nanay nila ;D. but seriously, pano nagkababae uli kung puro nga lalaki ang mga anak? galing ba uli sa ribs nila?
binabangit lang ay puro lalake dahil they represent their clan, also inde por que silencio sa account ng mga girls wala ng nag exist na girl.
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:22 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:27 PM
Baka hindi pa rin... ;)
Post by: majoe on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:28 PM
so same family lang nga talaga. diba puro lalaki mga naging apo ni Noah. pano nagkababae? incestuous ba sila?
same family. di naman bawal ang incest noon. utos kasi sa kanila ay magpakarami gaya ng kila adam & eve.
walang sinabi dun na di sila nagkaanak ng babae.
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:31 PM
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:32 PM
Post by: majoe on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:39 PM
same argument. di rin sinabi na may anak sila na babae. why would they not mention that?
Genesis 11
10These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: 11And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
Post by: majoe on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:44 PM
Wala bang mahirap-hirap na tanong?
san ba napunta si enoch, na anak ni jared, nung kinuha sya? :D
Post by: bumblebee on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:49 PM
Post by: majoe on Jul 31, 2015 at 08:56 PM
Puwede na ba yung tatlong manugang na babae ni Noe?
Baka hindi pa rin... ;)
ang tinatanong kasi ni leomarley ay yung mga apo raw na puro lalaki.
Post by: majoe on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:06 PM
Me free will ba si judas?
syempre meron. kahit di naman nya ipinagkanulo si Hesus, isa pa rin naman kakahinatnan eh, maipapako pa rin si Kristo sa krus dahil sa kaso nyang blasphemy. foreseen events na yung nangyari dahil nababasa ni Hesus ang iniisip at puso ng tao.
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:25 PM
Wala bang mahirap-hirap na tanong?
san ba napunta si enoch, na anak ni jared, nung kinuha sya? :D
Joke lang yon sir.
Mahirap nga yung tanong mo. :P
I have an unusual answer. Still interested?
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:29 PM
Genesis 11
10These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: 11And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
ayun pala may binanggit eh. thanks for this.
Post by: majoe on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:31 PM
Joke lang yon sir.
Mahirap nga yung tanong mo. :P
I have an unusual answer. Still interested?
interested atty, pa share :)
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:33 PM
ang tinatanong kasi ni leomarley ay yung mga apo raw na puro lalaki.
Ang tinatanong niya, paano raw nagkaroon ng apo si Noe, kung tatlong lalaki lang ang anak niya sa arko. Akala niya limang tao lang ang nasa arko.
Walong tao ang nasa arko. Si Noe, yung asawa niya, tatlong anak na lalaki, at kanya-kanyang asawa nila (tatlong manugang na babae ni Noe.)
13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark, (Gen. 7:13)
Post by: leomarley on Jul 31, 2015 at 09:46 PM
Ang tinatanong niya, paano raw nagkaroon ng apo si Noe, kung tatlong lalaki lang ang anak niya sa arko. Akala niya limang tao lang ang nasa arko.
Walong tao ang nasa arko. Si Noe, yung asawa niya, tatlong anak na lalaki, at kanya-kanyang asawa nila (tatlong manugang na babae ni Noe.)
13 On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah's wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark, (Gen. 7:13)
no i wasn't asking about Noah. i know na may iba pang tao besides sa kanya at mga anak niya. yung tinatanong ko is yung mga apo niya.
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 10:10 PM
san ba napunta si enoch, na anak ni jared, nung kinuha sya? :D
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (Gen. 5:7)
Mahiwaga talaga ang sitas na yan.
The common interpretation? Enoch was taken up to heaven by God. Hindi ganon ang intindi ko.
Pinaliwanag sa sitas na ito:
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb. 11:5)
Maliwanag na? Hindi. Malabo pa rin... ;)
==================================
Sabi sa Gen. 5:7, "he was not." Meaning, nawala si Enoch. Bakit? God took him.
Took him to heaven? Walang sinasabing took him to heaven. Basta ang sabi, God took him.
Sabi sa Heb. 11:5, he did not see death. Ibig sabihin he did not die? No, namatay pa rin siya.
Ano ang ebidensiya na namatay din siya? Dahil nasa Heb. 11:5 yon, ituloy lang natin sa Heb. 11:13:
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. (Heb. 11:13)
E di namatay din nga silang lahat, kasama si Enoch.
Heb. 11 is called the "faith chapter," kasi puro by faith, by faith, by faith ang umpisa.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11)
Ang haba ng listahan, by faith by faith, by faith. Ang ending, "These all died in faith." E di namatay nga lahat.
Pangalawang ebidensiya:
Hindi maaaring nakarating si Enoch sa langit.
Bakit? Kung nakarating si Enoch sa langit noong Old Testament times, bakit ang sabi ni Kristo noong New Testament times wala pa raw nakakarating sa langit?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13)
Talagang wala pang nakakarating sa langit, kasi sabay-sabay tayong pupunta sa langit. Hindi una-una yon.
Kaya nga ang sabi sa Heb. 11:
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Heb. 11:39-40)
They (kasama si Enoch) received not the promise. God provided something better --- yun na nga ang langit. That they without us should not be made perfect --- sabay-sabay tayo, hindi puwedeng una si Enoch.
==================================
Hindi nakarating ng langit si Enoch. Saan pala siya napunta? Sa lupa rin. Ewan kung saan sa lupa, wala ngang nakakalam, e ("he was not found"). Basta hindi sa langit. :D Tinago lang siya ng Diyos dito sa mundo.
Ang sabi sa Hebreo:
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb. 11:5)
Ang wika, he was translated. Ano yung "translated"? E di inilipat lang sa ibang lugar, pero namatay din.
Greek interlinear: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/11.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/11.htm)
"Translated" --- In Greek, the word used was "metetethē." Meaning: to transfer.
Wala nang nakaalam kung nasaan siya, kasi Diyos ang naglipat sa kanya sa ibang lugar. Isa lang ang sigurado -- Hindi siya napunta sa langit, at hanggang ngayon, wala pa rin siya sa langit.
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 10:19 PM
no i wasn't asking about Noah. i know na may iba pang tao besides sa kanya at mga anak niya. yung tinatanong ko is yung mga apo niya.
Hindi ko pala naintindhihan... :(
But that's just it. No mention of girl children na mga ako ni Noah sa Bible. Also, kung may anak nga na mga babae ibig sabihin nga eh incestuous sila?
"Apo" pala yung "ako." Typo lang. Dapat naintindihan ko sa previous posts. :(
Tama ito:
binabangit lang ay puro lalake dahil they represent their clan, also inde por que silencio sa account ng mga girls wala ng nag exist na girl.
Post by: SiCkBoY on Jul 31, 2015 at 11:57 PM
Ano ba ang gustong ipahiwatig ng ganitong pangungusap?Hahaha! Ano ba kasi kinaka high blood mo? Bakit si barrister kalma lang sumagot
Adan at Eba at ang kanilang tatlong anak ... alangan naman natapos doon. May kasulatan ba na nagsabi na tumigil doon si Adan?
Post by: barrister on Jul 31, 2015 at 11:59 PM
Kasi kung madalas niyang makusap ang taga ibang sekta, alam sana niya na madalas ang asaran sa ganon, bihira lang ang kalmado... :D
Advice ko pag talakayan ng bibliya, dapat marami kang alam sa ibang doktrina. Pag alam mo yung mga doktrina nila, hindi ka na magugulat sa mga katuwirang lalabas. Pero mahirap gawin yon, ang daming sekta ngayon...
Post by: rascal101 on Aug 01, 2015 at 12:15 AM
Post by: leomarley on Aug 01, 2015 at 12:23 AM
Post by: oweidah on Aug 01, 2015 at 04:04 AM
Post by: tony on Aug 01, 2015 at 08:16 AM
ang mga arabo ganoon din kahit ngayon, nung magpakasal ang nakatrabaho kong si Ahmed sa Algeria, nagdala sya ng mga pictures ng kasal nya.....aba eh ni wala man lang mga babae sa pictures, at ng tanungin ko, haram daw na kunan ng picture yung misis nya....
Post by: tony on Aug 01, 2015 at 08:20 AM
at nung time na yon meron na ring mga powers that be na malaki ang kinalaman sa pagsulat, malay natin kung ano ang pinaggagawa nila.....
Post by: dpogs on Aug 01, 2015 at 08:38 AM
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (Gen. 5:7)
Mahiwaga talaga ang sitas na yan.
The common interpretation? Enoch was taken up to heaven by God. Hindi ganon ang intindi ko.
Pinaliwanag sa sitas na ito:
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb. 11:5)
Maliwanag na? Hindi. Malabo pa rin... ;)
==================================
Sabi sa Gen. 5:7, "he was not." Meaning, nawala si Enoch. Bakit? God took him.
Took him to heaven? Walang sinasabing took him to heaven. Basta ang sabi, God took him.
Sabi sa Heb. 11:5, he did not see death. Ibig sabihin he did not die? No, namatay pa rin siya.
Ano ang ebidensiya na namatay din siya? Dahil nasa Heb. 11:5 yon, ituloy lang natin sa Heb. 11:13:
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. (Heb. 11:13)
E di namatay din nga silang lahat, kasama si Enoch.
Heb. 11 is called the "faith chapter," kasi puro by faith, by faith, by faith ang umpisa.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11)
Ang haba ng listahan, by faith by faith, by faith. Ang ending, "These all died in faith." E di namatay nga lahat.
Pangalawang ebidensiya:
Hindi maaaring nakarating si Enoch sa langit.
Bakit? Kung nakarating si Enoch sa langit noong Old Testament times, bakit ang sabi ni Kristo noong New Testament times wala pa raw nakakarating sa langit?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13)
Talagang wala pang nakakarating sa langit, kasi sabay-sabay tayong pupunta sa langit. Hindi una-una yon.
Kaya nga ang sabi sa Heb. 11:
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Heb. 11:39-40)
They (kasama si Enoch) received not the promise. God provided something better --- yun na nga ang langit. That they without us should not be made perfect --- sabay-sabay tayo, hindi puwedeng una si Enoch.
==================================
Hindi nakarating ng langit si Enoch. Saan pala siya napunta? Sa lupa rin. Ewan kung saan sa lupa, wala ngang nakakalam, e ("he was not found"). Basta hindi sa langit. :D Tinago lang siya ng Diyos dito sa mundo.
Ang sabi sa Hebreo:
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb. 11:5)
Ang wika, he was translated. Ano yung "translated"? E di inilipat lang sa ibang lugar, pero namatay din.
Greek interlinear: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/11.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/11.htm)
"Translated" --- In Greek, the word used was "metetethē." Meaning: to transfer.
Wala nang nakaalam kung nasaan siya, kasi Diyos ang naglipat sa kanya sa ibang lugar. Isa lang ang sigurado -- Hindi siya napunta sa langit, at hanggang ngayon, wala pa rin siya sa langit.
I believe Enoch was taken away to heaven alive. This is not in contrary to what Jesus said "And no man hath ascended up to heaven".
On the first place Enoch did not ascend he was taken up only Jesus can ascend that is why God took Enoch.
Enoch himself cant ascend but God can took Enoch to heaven.
Post by: kidlat08 on Aug 01, 2015 at 09:07 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 01, 2015 at 10:09 AM
syempre meron. kahit di naman nya ipinagkanulo si Hesus, isa pa rin naman kakahinatnan eh, maipapako pa rin si Kristo sa krus dahil sa kaso nyang blasphemy. foreseen events na yung nangyari dahil nababasa ni Hesus ang iniisip at puso ng tao.
Hindi ba't may hula na ipagkakanulo si Jesus?
Post by: barrister on Aug 01, 2015 at 10:11 AM
Atty maraming salamat sa pagsagot. Kahit ako ay kaanib sa ibang relihiyon, gusto ko rin maunawaan ang doktrina ng iba. Ang RC halos kabisado ko na, from elementary until College sa Catholic schools ako eh :) Protestant is interesting also. Ang gaganda ng mga awit nila. From what i heard, during the first years of our church in the PH, nanghiram muna kami ng mga tono ng awit sa mga protestante. From what i heard :)
Ako rin, RC ang kabisado ko.
Elementary to college, Catholic school din ako.
RC ako from birth. College na ako nung lumayas ako sa RC... :D
Post by: jerix on Aug 01, 2015 at 10:31 AM
Post by: barrister on Aug 01, 2015 at 11:12 AM
Our conscience will be a big factor on Judgment Day.
Palagay natin na mali ang RC. Pero in your heart you thought it was correct. Maiintindihan ng Diyos yon.
Ganon din sa akin. Sabi ko mali ang RC, pero ako pala ang mali, yung RC pala ang tama. Maiintindihan din ng Diyos yon.
Post by: barrister on Aug 01, 2015 at 11:12 AM
I believe Enoch was taken away to heaven alive. This is not in contrary to what Jesus said "And no man hath ascended up to heaven".
On the first place Enoch did not ascend he was taken up only Jesus can ascend that is why God took Enoch.
Enoch himself cant ascend but God can took Enoch to heaven.
Yari, magkakontra na naman kami ni kapatid na dpogs... ;)
Nakapagbigay na ako ng tatlong argumento, suporta sa aking paniniwala na: si Enoch ay namatay din (Heb. 11:13); hindi siya nakarating sa langit (John 3:13); at wala pa siya sa langit kasi sabay-sabay tayong pupunta doon (Heb. 11:39-40).
Tutol ka sir sa interpretation ko sa John 3:13, kasi ayon sa iyo, ang "ascend" to heaven ay hindi pareho ng "taken up" to heaven.
Sasagutin ko muna yan, tapos bibigyan kita ng 4th argument. Ang 4th argument na yan ay tungkol sa violation of biblical principle.
===================================
Ayon sa iyo, "ascend" means to go to heaven using your own power. To "take up" means to go to heaven using the power of God.
There is no such distinction in the dictionary or in the bible.
According to the Oxford dictionary, ascend means "to go up; climb or rise." No specification that you should do it using your own power.
The bible uses the original Greek "anabebēken": http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3.htm)
The root word is "anabainó," which under Strong's Number 305 means "to go up, ascend." http://biblehub.com/greek/305.htm (http://biblehub.com/greek/305.htm)
No specification either that it must be through your own power. As in fact, the English word "ascend" contains no specification as to whose power the ascension was made possible.
I am aware that in Catholic doctrine, there is a difference between "ascend" and "assume."
Catholics believe that Jesus "ascended into heaven," but the Virgin Mary was "assumed into heaven;" with Jesus ascending into heaven through His own power, and Mary being assumed into heaven by the power of God. Kaya nga meron silang feast of the assumption on Aug. 15, at meron ding Assumption college, both referring to Mary's assumption, not ascension. However, this is not biblical.
===================================
So now, here's my argument #4:
In the bible, the principle is that Jesus Christ is always first; he cannot be second to anyone except the Father.
If we say Enoch reached heaven during Old Testament times, then he was the first man to reach heaven, even before Jesus. This cannot be correct, because this would violate the principle that Jesus should always be first.
1 Corinthians calls Jesus Christ the "firstfruits" --- a very important biblical principle:
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. (1 Cor. 15:20-24)
"Those who have fallen asleep" means those who died. Christ is the firstfruits of those who died. He is also called the "firstborn from the dead" (Rev. 1:5).
In Adam, all died. In Christ, all will resurrect.
"But each in turn." --- What is the proper sequence of events?
1. First, Christ --- because Christ is always first. Hindi puwedeng una si Enoch kay Kristo.
2. Then, when Christ returns, those who belong to Christ --- Sabay-sabay tayo, hindi puwedeng una si Enoch sa atin.
==================================
What does "firstfruits" mean? It means the first harvest of the season. It was a commandment to the Israelites in the Old Testament, a ceremonial offering of the first harvest of grain:
9 The Lord said to Moses, 10 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. (Lev. 2:9-10)
What was the commandment for? It was a prefiguration --- A symbolic representation of what is to come. That is why the bible says the law of Moses is only a "shadow of good things to come" (Heb. 10:1).
Therefore, Jesus Christ became flesh, then after His death, ascended to heaven. He was the first who died, resurrected, then went to heaven --- He is the "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."
Correct sequence: First, Jesus Christ --- the first of the harvest --- not Enoch. Then, those who attained salvation --- we will be the rest of God's harvest of souls --- sabay-sabay tayo, including Enoch.
Post by: Moks007 on Aug 01, 2015 at 11:29 AM
Post by: oweidah on Aug 01, 2015 at 04:15 PM
noong unang panahon, marginalised ang mga babae, ang tingin sa kanila commodity, or paanakan lang, tanging mga lalaki lang ang binibilang, kaya't hindi ako nagtataka....
ang mga arabo ganoon din kahit ngayon, nung magpakasal ang nakatrabaho kong si Ahmed sa Algeria, nagdala sya ng mga pictures ng kasal nya.....aba eh ni wala man lang mga babae sa pictures, at ng tanungin ko, haram daw na kunan ng picture yung misis nya....
segragation of sexes.
twice naimbitahan ako sa saudi wedding reception. hiwalay na area ung mga lalake at babae
Post by: dpogs on Aug 01, 2015 at 05:46 PM
Yari, magkakontra na naman kami ni kapatid na dpogs... ;)
Ayos lang yan sir... :) naipapaliwanag natin ang Bibliya paunti unti...
Nakapagbigay na ako ng tatlong argumento, suporta sa aking paniniwala na: si Enoch ay namatay din (Heb. 11:13); hindi siya nakarating sa langit (John 3:13); at wala pa siya sa langit kasi sabay-sabay tayong pupunta doon (Heb. 11:39-40).
for Heb. 11:13 Lets take a look from verse 1-5 mentioned Abel and Enoch... it specifically said that Abel died but not Enoch...
from verse 6-11, mentioned Abraham, Jacob, Isaac and Sarah...
now what is the difference between Abel/Enoch compares to Abraham/Isaac/Jacob/Sarah... God did not promise anything to Abel/Enoch... but God gave a promise to Abraham/Isaac/Jacob/Sarah they will bear more sons and will become father of many nations... therefore Hebrew 11:13 applicable only to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Sarah
verse 13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises,
Hebrews 11:13 refers only to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Sarah... the words that separate is "not having received the promises"... God never promise anything to Enoch only to Abraham/Isaac/Sarah/Jacob and we all know that theyve died without seeing the promise of God to them
Tutol ka sir sa interpretation ko sa John 3:13, kasi ayon sa iyo, ang "ascend" to heaven ay hindi pareho ng "taken up" to heaven.
Sasagutin ko muna yan, tapos bibigyan kita ng 4th argument. Ang 4th argument na yan ay tungkol sa violation of biblical principle.
===================================
Ayon sa iyo, "ascend" means to go to heaven using your own power. To "take up" means to go to heaven using the power of God.
Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
God took Enoch (in word Hebrew "took" is "laqach" meaning "to take", "to sieze", "take away"
Jesus ascend (to rise, to go up)
hindi naman natin maaring gawing pareho ang "God take away Enoch" at ang "Jesus ascend in the presend of disciple" kaya Jesus still the first to ascend because Elijah never ascend, God took him.
second, <there is a definite purpose and plan of salvatioin in the descent and ascent of Jesus, which is unlike the translation of Enoch by God, who was taken to heaven because of his righteous faith, exemplified in his walk of purity in fellowship - qouted>
therefore, "God taking Enoch" is different than "Jesus ascending"
There is no such distinction in the dictionary or in the bible.
According to the Oxford dictionary, it means "to go up; climb or rise." There is no disctinction between ascending using your own power or using another's power.
The bible uses the original Greek "anabebēken": http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3.htm)
The root word is "anabainó," which under Strong's Number 305 means "to go up, ascend." http://biblehub.com/greek/305.htm (http://biblehub.com/greek/305.htm)
Therefore, the original Greek word used contains no distinction between "to go up" and "ascend," because the two meanings can be used interchangably. As in fact, the English word "ascend" contains no specification as to whose power the ascension was made possible.
I am aware that in Catholic doctrine, there is a difference between "ascend" and "assume."
Catholics believe that Jesus "ascended into heaven," but the Virgin Mary was "assumed into heaven;" with Jesus ascending into heaven through His own power, and Mary being assumed into heaven by the power of God. Kaya nga meron silang feast of the assumption on Aug. 15, at meron ding Assumption college. However, this is not biblical.
the word "Mary assume" is not Bibilical in fact hindi ito makikita talaga sa Bible.
pero nasusulat sa Bible that God took someone Enoch and Elijah
===================================
So now, here's my argument #4:
In the bible, the principle is that Jesus Christ is always first; he cannot be second to anyone except the Father.
If we say Enoch reached heaven during Old Testament times, then he was the first man to reach heaven, even before Jesus. This cannot be correct, because this would violate the principle that Jesus should always be first.
1 Corinthians calls Jesus Christ the "firstfruits" --- a very important biblical principle:
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. (1 Cor. 15:20-24)
"Those who have fallen asleep" means those who died. Christ is the firstfruits of those who died.
In Adam, all died. In Christ, all will resurrect.
This is spiritual death not physical death since Enoch never experienced physical death
Luke 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead:
Let the spritually dead people bury their physically dead people.
"But each in turn." --- What is the proper sequence of events?
1. First, Christ --- because Christ is always first. Hindi puwedeng una si Enoch kay Kristo.
2. Then, when Christ returns, those who belong to Christ --- Sabay-sabay tayo, hindi puwedeng una si Enoch sa atin.
First of all, I believe that the story of Jesus regarding Lazarus and rich man is not a parable since it use actual names Lazarus and Abraham, and no earthly metaphor.
kaya ako naniwala na Lazarus and rich man is not a parable kasi may connection siya when Jesus "descend" to hell... all the believers who died prior to Jesus death doesnt go directly to heaven where God the father abode, they go first to Abrahams bossom and i believe this is the place where God put Enoch. basically, its still Jesus who goes to heaven first since when Jesus descend to hell isinama na rin niya sina Abraham (and all those who died prior to His death) to heaven.
==================================
What does "firstfruits" mean? It means the first harvest of the season. It was a commandment to the Israelites in the Old Testament, a ceremonial offering of the first harvest of grain:
9 The Lord said to Moses, 10 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When you enter the land I am going to give you and you reap its harvest, bring to the priest a sheaf of the first grain you harvest. (Lev. 2:9-10)
What was the commandment for? It was a prefiguration --- A symbolic representation of what is to come. That is why the bible says the law of Moses is only a "shadow of good things to come" (Heb. 10:1).
Therefore, Jesus Christ became flesh, then after His death, ascended to heaven. He was the first who died, resurrected, then went to heaven --- He is the "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."
First, Jesus Christ --- the first of the harvest --- not Enoch. Then, those who attained salvation --- we will be the rest of God's harvest of souls --- sabay-sabay tayo, including Enoch.
Yup, Jesus is always the first. The first to die physically without sin and resurrected after three days. a firstborn/firstfruit given/sacrificed for the redemption of our sins.
Enoch is not the first... God took him away, experience death spirtually but not physical death...
Post by: barrister on Aug 01, 2015 at 06:27 PM
O, pang Plaza Miranda na yan, pinag-aralan talaga, hindi yung pumulot lang sa LGBT activists and comedians... :D
==================================
Ganito na lang kapatid, para tapos ang sagutan, tutal kumpleto na siguro yan, ganito na lang ang gawin natin:
We have presented two viewpoints on the issue. One side says Enoch went to heaven; the other side says he did not.
Bahala na sila sa sarili nilang paniniwala.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 01, 2015 at 08:32 PM
Jesus is the firtfruit/firstborn.
Jesus is the only one that ascend and descend and no one else.
Jesus died as a sinless man rose up from the dead and ascend to heaven
:)
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 02, 2015 at 12:54 AM
Post by: jerix on Aug 02, 2015 at 08:17 AM
Ano ba ang kinalaman sa paniniwalang TAO si Cristo as against DIYOS si Cristo sa ating kaligtasan sa araw ng paghuhukom?
Post by: barrister on Aug 02, 2015 at 08:47 AM
Ang ganda nga ng discussion. Although hindi ko makita yun iba kasi i'm replying via mobile phone. Mahirap magbasa ng colored texts. Hehe! Pero saludo ako sa inyo guys for having a peaceful discussion.
Kailangan mong basahin sa PC sir, kasi magandang topic yung inumpisahan ni sir majoe. Mahirap na tanong talaga yon.
Baka may additional questions ka sa topic, I will be happy to answer.
Post by: barrister on Aug 02, 2015 at 09:01 AM
Nice reading! Pero question lang po mga master sa bibliya,
Ano ba ang kinalaman sa paniniwalang TAO si Cristo as against DIYOS si Cristo sa ating kaligtasan sa araw ng paghuhukom?
Ang importante ay sumusunod ka sa utos ni Kristo. Pero paano kang susunod sa utos kung hindi mo naman alam kung ano ang utos?
Kaya kailangan, tama ang unawa mo sa salita ng Diyos. Kung hindi, e di hindi mo rin masusunod ang utos.
Alin ang tamang interpretation ng salita ng Diyos? Diyan ka ngayon pipili ng samahan na tama ang unawa sa bibliya.
Kung ang sinasabi sa bibliya ay Diyos si Kristo, at ang samahan ay naniniwalang hindi Diyos si Kristo, hindi ka na dapat magtiwala sa unawa ng samahan na yon sa kabuuan ng biblya.
Ganon din ang kabaliktaran. Kung ang tama ay tao lang si Kristo, pero ang samahan ay hindi ganon ang turo, malamang mali rin ang aral nito sa kabuuan ng bibliya.
At kung mali-mali ang aral ng samahan na yon, malamang din na hindi pupunta sa kaligtasan ang aral nila.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 02, 2015 at 09:11 AM
Kailangan mong basahin sa PC sir, kasi magandang topic yung inumpisahan ni sir majoe. Mahirap na tanong talaga yon.
Baka may additional questions ka sa topic, I will be happy to answer.
Thanks thanks! Out of town kasi ako. Hehe!
Post by: barrister on Aug 02, 2015 at 10:35 AM
By Robertzon Ramirez (The Philippine Star) | Updated August 1, 2015 - 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines - The conflict in the family that leads the influential religious sect Iglesia ni Cristo began even before INC former executive minister Eraño “Ka Erdy” Manalo died in August 2009, an insider said.
The insider recounted that before Eraño died of cardiopulmonary arrest, he allegedly had a misunderstanding with his eldest son Eduardo, the incumbent INC executive minister.
“From what I know, Ka Erdy found out that Ka Eddie’s wife Babylyn was planning to organize a new Iglesia. They were previously evicted from the central office [after the incident],” the source said.
“Ka Babylyn is one of the reasons for this conflict. She is the ally of the Sanggunian (church council) and from what I know, she is their boss,” the source added.
The insider also said that the conflict was one of the reasons Eduardo was rarely seen at the wake of his father.
Eraño died in the arms of Felix Nathaniel “Angel” Manalo, younger brother of Eduardo. Before Eraño died, he told Angel to take care of the INC and all their people, a situation that Angel allegedly thought was his anointment.
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/08/01/1483155/leaders-wife-causing-rift-inc (http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/08/01/1483155/leaders-wife-causing-rift-inc)
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 02, 2015 at 11:40 AM
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 02, 2015 at 11:55 AM
http://mobile.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/08/02/15/brother-kidnapped-inc-minister-placed-under-wpp/ (http://mobile.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/08/02/15/brother-kidnapped-inc-minister-placed-under-wpp/)
Post by: jerix on Aug 02, 2015 at 01:15 PM
Leader’s wife causing rift in INC?
By Robertzon Ramirez (The Philippine Star) | Updated August 1, 2015 - 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines - The conflict in the family that leads the influential religious sect Iglesia ni Cristo began even before INC former executive minister Eraño “Ka Erdy” Manalo died in August 2009, an insider said.
The insider recounted that before Eraño died of cardiopulmonary arrest, he allegedly had a misunderstanding with his eldest son Eduardo, the incumbent INC executive minister.
“From what I know, Ka Erdy found out that Ka Eddie’s wife Babylyn was planning to organize a new Iglesia. They were previously evicted from the central office [after the incident],” the source said.
“Ka Babylyn is one of the reasons for this conflict. She is the ally of the Sanggunian (church council) and from what I know, she is their boss,” the source added.
The insider also said that the conflict was one of the reasons Eduardo was rarely seen at the wake of his father.
Eraño died in the arms of Felix Nathaniel “Angel” Manalo, younger brother of Eduardo. Before Eraño died, he told Angel to take care of the INC and all their people, a situation that Angel allegedly thought was his anointment.
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/08/01/1483155/leaders-wife-causing-rift-inc (http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2015/08/01/1483155/leaders-wife-causing-rift-inc)
I am just wondering, meron kayang specific verse sa bible na nagpapakita ng ganitong hidwaan sa loob ng INC?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 02, 2015 at 04:50 PM
Post by: tony on Aug 02, 2015 at 05:02 PM
Post by: jerix on Aug 02, 2015 at 05:43 PM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 07:56 AM
Kaya nga ang sabi sa Bible when it comes to church administration, women must learn to keep silent. :-)
You believe this?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:10 AM
You believe this?
100% yes when it comes to church/spiritual leadership. i also belive that men and women have equal rights and oppurtunities to serve God.
kaya nga di ako comfortable kapag may tinatwag na "Pastora" :):):) a woman can take any role in the church except church leadership or being head of the church.
She can take the role of a Sunday School Supervisor under niya ang mga lalake okay lang yan. She can be a School Academy Princiapl under niya ang mga lalaking academy teacher... she can be choir directress... a bus ministry head, any post na puwede niyang salihan ayos lang yan except for being the head of the church. :)
church leadership can't be liken to any type of secular organization/government... a woman can be a president of a country, a prime minister, a head of the family in the absense of a father, a supreme leader of secular organization... but not as a head of a particular church.
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:15 AM
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:17 AM
Post by: barrister on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:46 AM
Part 1: Who is Glicerio Santos Jr in the Iglesia ni Cristo?
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/100947-part-1-glicerio-santos-jr-inc (http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/100947-part-1-glicerio-santos-jr-inc)
Part 2: Glicerio Santos Jr's clout and control in the INC
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/101005-part-2-glicerio-santos-jr-inc-clout (http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/101005-part-2-glicerio-santos-jr-inc-clout)
Post by: sirhc on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:55 AM
Part 1: Who is Glicerio Santos Jr in the Iglesia ni Cristo?
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/100947-part-1-glicerio-santos-jr-inc (http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/100947-part-1-glicerio-santos-jr-inc)
Part 2: Glicerio Santos Jr's clout and control in the INC
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/101005-part-2-glicerio-santos-jr-inc-clout (http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/101005-part-2-glicerio-santos-jr-inc-clout)
Slightly OT: Rappler's articles re the INC are very commendable. It is very rare for media outlets to be critical of this very powerful organization and in all fairness, they seem to be unbiased about it.
Sirs, ako naman may tanong regarding the exclusivity doctrine like what other religions believe (Sila lang ang maliligtas, kung di ko kaanib, sorry ka). Sa mga may alam, what do they say about those who existed and died before the birth of the said organization? INC lang ba ang may ganitong doctrina? Thanks!
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:42 AM
Kung hinulaan ang paglitaw ng INC sa tingin meron din sigurong hula sa kanilang pagkaka bahagi. Ito ba ay kagagawan ni satanas? Kaninong grupo kaya panig si cristo. Kung sa pangalan lang kay Angel malamang. Wala naman yata sa hula yung Sanggunian.
Human nature;
2 Timothy 3:1-5 ESV
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:50 AM
Slightly OT: Rappler's articles re the INC are very commendable. It is very rare for media outlets to be critical of this very powerful organization and in all fairness, they seem to be unbiased about it.
Sirs, ako naman may tanong regarding the exclusivity doctrine like what other religions believe (Sila lang ang maliligtas, kung di ko kaanib, sorry ka). Sa mga may alam, what do they say about those who existed and died before the birth of the said organization? INC lang ba ang may ganitong doctrina? Thanks!
Most if not all sects/religious organizations embrace the exclusivity doctrine, otherwise there's no point in missions or conversion one group does not espouses exclusivity.
As atty barrister pointed out many pages earlier, even the Catholic Church espouses the same exclusivity doctrine, otherwise there will be no point in persecuting the Protestants in history.
Regarding people outside of the Church because of location and or time elements, they of course will be saved according to their conscience for God is Just. They will not be judged according to the writtel letter of the law because technically they did not hear the law or there was nobody to tell the gospel to them (pointed out also by atty earlier in reference to my no law, no sin principle post)
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:58 AM
nice article IMO
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:07 AM
the idea na "member lang ng aming simbahan ang maliligtas" ay ang number one sign/indicator na iyan ay isang false religion/church...
Post by: rascal101 on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:08 AM
100% yes when it comes to church/spiritual leadership. i also belive that men and women have equal rights and oppurtunities to serve God.
kaya nga di ako comfortable kapag may tinatwag na "Pastora" :):):) a woman can take any role in the church except church leadership or being head of the church.
She can take the role of a Sunday School Supervisor under niya ang mga lalake okay lang yan. She can be a School Academy Princiapl under niya ang mga lalaking academy teacher... she can be choir directress... a bus ministry head, any post na puwede niyang salihan ayos lang yan except for being the head of the church. :)
church leadership can't be liken to any type of secular organization/government... a woman can be a president of a country, a prime minister, a head of the family in the absense of a father, a supreme leader of secular organization... but not as a head of a particular church.
Dahil si Hesus ay lalaki kaya dapat ang liderato rin ay lalaki din? Tama ba?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:24 AM
Dahil si Hesus ay lalaki kaya dapat ang liderato rin ay lalaki din? Tama ba?
Nope... Hindi ganoon iyon... kasi kung ganoon ang basehan eh dapat lahat ng Pastor walang asawa kasi walang asawa si Jesus :)
Post by: rascal101 on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:28 AM
Kung ako tatanungin mahirap gampanin ang pagiging ama at ang pagiging pastor ng sabay. Kahit ikaw bigyan ko ng dalawang trabaho. Hinding hind mo magagawa ng maayos iyung dalawa kapag pinagsabay mop. Eh ito asawa tapos dagdagan mo pa anak.
Post by: barrister on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:33 AM
Dahil si Hesus ay lalaki kaya dapat ang liderato rin ay lalaki din? Tama ba?
Hindi iyon ang dahilan.
Ano ang dahilan? Dahil unang nilikha si Adan.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (1 Tim. 2:11-12)
Malalim na sitas yan, mahaba ang paliwanag.
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)
Post by: rascal101 on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:37 AM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:38 AM
Hindi iyon ang dahilan.
Ano ang dahilan? Dahil unang nilikha si Adan.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (1 Tim. 2:11-12)
Malalim na sitas yan, mahaba ang paliwanag.
+1000
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:41 AM
Dapat naman talaga hindi nag-aasawa kung babasehan natin ang buhay ni Hesus. Iyun nga ang hindi pagkakaunawaan ng ibang Kristiyanong relihiyon.
Kung ako tatanungin mahirap gampanin ang pagiging ama at ang pagiging pastor ng sabay. Kahit ikaw bigyan ko ng dalawang trabaho. Hinding hind mo magagawa ng maayos iyung dalawa kapag pinagsabay mop. Eh ito asawa tapos dagdagan mo pa anak.
1 This is a true saying, , if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1 Timoty 3:1-5
Post by: sirhc on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:46 AM
Hindi iyon ang dahilan.
Ano ang dahilan? Dahil unang nilikha si Adan.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (1 Tim. 2:11-12)
Malalim na sitas yan, mahaba ang paliwanag.
34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14:34-35)
Atty, care to expound? This is a very sensitive topic lalo na sa panahon ngayon. Would do well if we could gain insights about this. :)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:50 AM
Post by: rascal101 on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:52 AM
1 This is a true saying, , if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1 Timoty 3:1-5
Ang pagkakaintindi ko sa sitas na iyan ay iyung pagaayos sa sarili mong buhay. Hindi nito tinutukoy iyung sa pag-aasawa.
Post by: barrister on Aug 03, 2015 at 12:57 PM
Atty may basehan ba sa bibliya na puwedeng mag-asawa ang pari?
Wala nang pari sa New Testament.
Sa Old Testament, may Levitical priesthood. Sa New Testament may isang high priest (Christ), at ang lahat ng Kristiyano ay isang "royal priesthood."
Pero ibang topic na yon... :D alam naman natin ang ibig mong sabihin...
==================================
Ulitin natin ang tanong:
Atty may basehan ba sa bibliya na puwedeng mag-asawa ang pari?
Yes, puwedeng mag-asawa ang mga church leaders/officers ayon sa bibliya.
Sa bible, dalawa lang ang klase ng officers sa local churches:
1. Elder or overseer or bishop, and
2. Deacon.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; ... 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. (1 Tim. 3: 2; 12 )
Therefore, puwedeng mag-asawa ang bishop; puwedeng mag-asawa ang deacon.
Sa intindi ko kasi ang pari simbolo ng ating panginoon. Kung mismo ang panginoon ay walang asawa dapat ganun din ang pari.
Hindi nakukuha sa haka-haka yan sir. Kaya tama yung tanong mo na naghahanap ng basehan sa bibliya.
Dapat naman talaga hindi nag-aasawa kung babasehan natin ang buhay ni Hesus. Iyun nga ang hindi pagkakaunawaan ng ibang Kristiyanong relihiyon.
Kung ako tatanungin mahirap gampanin ang pagiging ama at ang pagiging pastor ng sabay. Kahit ikaw bigyan ko ng dalawang trabaho. Hinding hind mo magagawa ng maayos iyung dalawa kapag pinagsabay mop. Eh ito asawa tapos dagdagan mo pa anak.
Tama ang iniisip mo sir. Magulo ang buhay ng may asawa.
Kaya linawin natin ang aral:
1. Bawal bang mag-asawa ang local church leader? Hindi.
2. Kahit puwedeng mag-asawa ang local church leader, tama bang sabihin na mas mainam kung hindi na lang sila mag-aasawa? Tama rin.
Ang advice ni Pablo para sa lahat (local church leader o hindi; lalaki o babae), mabuting huwag mag-asawa. Bakit? Kasi, pag may asawa, ang concentration mo, sa mundo, hindi sa Diyos.
Pero kung gusto mong mag-asawa, ok lang, hindi kasalanan yon:
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. (1 Cor. 7:32-35)
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 03, 2015 at 01:03 PM
in my opinion wala dapat exclusivity...
the idea na "member lang ng aming simbahan ang maliligtas" ay ang number one sign/indicator na iyan ay isang false religion/church...
Ever since exclusive ang nations of God. Sa Israel before, sa Christianity later. But exclusivity is not Kami. period.
Even Christ is exclusive in the sense na one should believe Him, so out na ang other religions dyan na nakapakinig ng aral. Exclusivity as reflected in practices of religions of our time is different than exclusivity ng una. pero in various ways, exclusivity pa din, otherwise, what's the point of Christ establishing his Church kung ililigtas din naman pala niya ang Buddhists, Taoists, and pagan believer of their own gods and goddesses.
Post by: rascal101 on Aug 03, 2015 at 01:08 PM
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 03, 2015 at 01:11 PM
1 Timoteo 4:1
1Nguni't hayag na sinasabi ng Espiritu, na sa mga huling panahon ang iba'y magsisitalikod sa pananampalataya, at mangakikinig sa mga espiritung mapanghikayat at sa mga aral ng mga demonio,
1 Timoteo 4:3
3Na ipinagbabawal ang pagaasawa, at ipinaguutos na lumayo sa mga lamangkati, na nilalang ng Dios upang tanggapin na may pagpapasalamat ng mga nagsisisampalataya at nangakakaalam ng katotohanan.
Post by: jerix on Aug 03, 2015 at 01:13 PM
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 03, 2015 at 01:22 PM
Actually granting that the kaligtasan is exclusive to the INC, I could not fathom the reason why God is allowing the division in the church in this point when the supposed judgment is just a minute away. The battle between the direct descendants of the "sugo"versus the church administrators is actually eroding the credibility of the church.
The Church is founded on doctrines not on men. Men can be corrupted. Doctrines must not change.
Should I judged Jesus' organization when Judas betrayed him? Or when Peter denied him three times in spite of the belief by many (The INC do not believe this) that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus' Church will be built? No, we follow the Bible not because of what men did with God's words but in spite of what men did.
We can ask a lot of questions whose answers can be difficult to obtain:
1. Why did God and Christ allow John the Baptist to be decapitated and killed?
2. Why did Christ allow many of his believers in the Church to be under apostasy?
Cliche, but "maybe God really works in mysterious ways"
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 01:54 PM
Ever since exclusive ang nations of God. Sa Israel before, sa Christianity later. But exclusivity is not Kami. period.
Even Christ is exclusive in the sense na one should believe Him, so out na ang other religions dyan na nakapakinig ng aral. Exclusivity as reflected in practices of religions of our time is different than exclusivity ng una. pero in various ways, exclusivity pa din, otherwise, what's the point of Christ establishing his Church kung ililigtas din naman pala niya ang Buddhists, Taoists, and pagan believer of their own gods and goddesses.
Hmmm mukhang hindi tayo nagtugma doon sa exclusivity... Jesus said whosever believeth in Me... Salvation is offered to everyone not just to a single church ... No church or religion can say na kapag di ka kaanib ng aming iglesia di ka maliligtas ... The Bible says Jesus is the way... No man cometh to the Father but by Me... Jesus said. Hindi niya sinabi na ang sinumang hindi kaanib ay di maliligtas.
Post by: barrister on Aug 03, 2015 at 01:54 PM
Atty, care to expound? This is a very sensitive topic lalo na sa panahon ngayon. Would do well if we could gain insights about this. :)
Yes, sensitive topic yan sa panahon ngayon.
Iba talaga ang pang-mundo sa pang-bibliya:
19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. (John 15:19)
==================================
Dahil mahaba talagang explanation ang kailangan, bibigyan na lang kita ng intro.
Si Adan ang unang nilikha. Ano ang relevance non?
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (Gen. 2:18)
The first human needed a helper. That's why the second human was created --- to be the helper of the first.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (1 Tim. 2:11-12)
Therefore the human who was created second was created with the purpose of becoming helper to the first. Not the first as helper to the second. Yan ang significance ng sinasabing "for Adam was formed first, then Eve."
In the Old Testament covenant, Israel and God were spiritually married, with God as the husband and israel as the wife.
14 “Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I am your husband. (Jer. 3:14)
Who should be in submission, God or Israel?
In the New Testament, the church is the bride of the Lamb, which is Christ:
9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” (Rev. 21:9)
Who should be in submission, the church or Christ?
The church should be in submission to the head of the church, which is Christ:
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
==================================
In summary, the husband is the head of the wife, just as Adam is the head of Eve, just as God was the head of ancient Israel in the Old Testament, just as Christ is the head of the church in the New Testament.
Hindi puwedeng pantay lang ang husband and wife, at hindi rin puwedeng pantay lang si Adan kay Eba, ang Diyos at ang Israel, at si Kristo at ang Kristiyano.
Ganyang kalalim ang relationship ng husband and wife --- tumatagos hanggang sa Diyos at Israel, hanggang kay Kristo at ang Christian church.
At yan na rin ang hindi maarok ng mga pro-Same Sex Marriage. Akala nila simpleng kasal lang yon ng dalawang tao.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 01:59 PM
Yes, sensitive topic yan sa panahon ngayon.
Iba talaga ang pang-mundo sa pang-bibliya:
19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. (John 15:19)
==================================
Dahil mahaba talagang explanation ang kailangan, bibigyan na lang kita ng intro.
Si Adan ang unang nilikha. Ano ang relevance non?
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (Gen. 2:18)
The first human needed a helper. That's why the second human was created --- to be the helper of the first.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (1 Tim. 2:11-12)
Therefore the human who was created second was created with the purpose of becoming helper to the first. Not the first as helper to the second.
Yan ang significance ng sinasabing "for Adam was formed first, then Eve."
In the Old Testament covenant, Israel and God were spiritually married, with God as the husband and israel as the wife.
14 “Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I am your husband. (Jer. 3:14)
Who should be in submission, God or Israel?
In the New Testament, the church is the bride of the Lamb, which is Christ:
9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” (Rev. 21:9)
Who should be in submission, the church or Christ?
The church should be in submission to the head of the church, which is Christ:
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
==================================
In summary, the husband is the head of the wife, just as Adam is the head of Eve, just as God was the head of ancient Israel in the Old Testament, just as Christ is the head of the church in the New Testament.
Hindi puwedeng pantay lang ang husband and wife, at hindi rin puwedeng pantay lang si Adan kay Eba, ang Diyos at ang Israel, at si Kristo at ang Kristiyano.
Ganyang kalalim ang relationship ng husband and wife --- tumatagos hanggang sa Diyos at Israel, hanggang kay Kristo at ang Christian church.
At yan na rin ang hindi maarok ng mga pro-Same Sex Marriage. Akala nila simpleng kasal lang yon ng dalawang tao.
Super Agree.
Post by: luis on Aug 03, 2015 at 02:42 PM
Yes, sensitive topic yan sa panahon ngayon.
Iba talaga ang pang-mundo sa pang-bibliya:
19 If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. (John 15:19)
==================================
Dahil mahaba talagang explanation ang kailangan, bibigyan na lang kita ng intro.
Si Adan ang unang nilikha. Ano ang relevance non?
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (Gen. 2:18)
The first human needed a helper. That's why the second human was created --- to be the helper of the first.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. (1 Tim. 2:11-12)
Therefore the human who was created second was created with the purpose of becoming helper to the first. Not the first as helper to the second. Yan ang significance ng sinasabing "for Adam was formed first, then Eve."
In the Old Testament covenant, Israel and God were spiritually married, with God as the husband and israel as the wife.
14 “Return, faithless people,” declares the Lord, “for I am your husband. (Jer. 3:14)
Who should be in submission, God or Israel?
In the New Testament, the church is the bride of the Lamb, which is Christ:
9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” (Rev. 21:9)
Who should be in submission, the church or Christ?
The church should be in submission to the head of the church, which is Christ:
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
==================================
In summary, the husband is the head of the wife, just as Adam is the head of Eve, just as God was the head of ancient Israel in the Old Testament, just as Christ is the head of the church in the New Testament.
Hindi puwedeng pantay lang ang husband and wife, at hindi rin puwedeng pantay lang si Adan kay Eba, ang Diyos at ang Israel, at si Kristo at ang Kristiyano.
Ganyang kalalim ang relationship ng husband and wife --- tumatagos hanggang sa Diyos at Israel, hanggang kay Kristo at ang Christian church.
At yan na rin ang hindi maarok ng mga pro-Same Sex Marriage. Akala nila simpleng kasal lang yon ng dalawang tao.
husay sir! ;D
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 03, 2015 at 02:46 PM
Hmmm mukhang hindi tayo nagtugma doon sa exclusivity... Jesus said whosever believeth in Me... Salvation is offered to everyone not just to a single church ... No church or religion can say na kapag di ka kaanib ng aming iglesia di ka maliligtas ... The Bible says Jesus is the way... No man cometh to the Father but by Me... Jesus said. Hindi niya sinabi na ang sinumang hindi kaanib ay di maliligtas.
That's why I said exclusivity in various ways. When he founded His Church, he founded an exclusive Church that whosoever believeth in Him should be part of His Church. Hindi kasama dito ang mamabait na pagano
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 02:55 PM
That's why I said exclusivity in various ways. When he founded His Church, he founded an exclusive Church that whosoever believeth in Him should be part of His Church. Hindi kasama dito ang mamabait na pagano
The Church compose of people that believed not necesarily a person member of a particular church/sect/religion...
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 03, 2015 at 03:01 PM
The Church compose of people that believed not necesarily a person member of a particular church/sect/religion...
Whatever definition you put into it, there will still be exclusivity, meaning if you are not part of that church or in that group of people who believe in "that something", then you are not part of what that group offers.
Example, a Buddhist who hears a preaching of an apostle but did not believe Jesus but he's a good man and he worships his God in his own way in his own belief, will he be saved by Jesus Christ?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 03:35 PM
Whatever definition you put into it, there will still be exclusivity, meaning if you are not part of that church or in that group of people who believe in "that something", then you are not part of what that group offers.
Example, a Buddhist who hears a preaching of an apostle but did not believe Jesus but he's a good man and he worships his God in his own way in his own belief, will he be saved by Jesus Christ?
Salvation through Jesus christ is not exclusivity since salvation is offered to everyone...
Iba ang "kapag di ka kaanib di ka maliligtas" sa "kapag di ka naniwala di ka maliligtas"
Kasi kahit di ka nagpamiyembro basta naniniwala ka maliligtas ka.. Wala sinabi sa Bibliya na "maniwala ka at umanib ka sa aming iglesia"...
For example, based on sir barrister testimony and how he declares his faith on Jesus, i can say that ligtas siya kahit na di siya kaanib ng anumang relihiyon o simbahan.
A person na kaanib ng isang iglesia pero hindi naniniwala o hindsi tunay ang kanyang pananampalataya ay hindi maliligtas.
Salvation is not exclusive in the sense that it is offered to all/everyone.
The budhist may be not save but the salvation was offered to him/her. Kung exclusive ang salvatiom eh di sana nung malaman na budhist hindi na sana inoffered ang salvation.
Last, ang iglesia, ang religion, ang simbahan, ang kapilya, ang grupo ay hindi nakakaligtas... Si Jesus lang ang tanging daan, ang katotohanan at ang buhay.
Post by: sirhc on Aug 03, 2015 at 03:52 PM
Yes, sensitive topic yan sa panahon ngayon.
Iba talaga ang pang-mundo sa pang-bibliya:
Thanks for the enlightenment atty. The essence of those scriptures is really a good way for husbands and wives to live by.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 03:57 PM
Whatever definition you put into it, there will still be exclusivity, meaning if you are not part of that church or in that group of people who believe in "that something", then you are not part of what that group offers.
Question: for example sa INC, iyong mga member na natiwalag ng 'sangunian' ligtas ba sila o hindi?
Post by: sirhc on Aug 03, 2015 at 04:05 PM
Most if not all sects/religious organizations embrace the exclusivity doctrine, otherwise there's no point in missions or conversion one group does not espouses exclusivity.
As atty barrister pointed out many pages earlier, even the Catholic Church espouses the same exclusivity doctrine, otherwise there will be no point in persecuting the Protestants in history.
Pardon if I'm poorly informed, but isn't the persecution of protestants rooted on their disagreement on certain doctrines? What's the point in raising the persecution of protestants on the discussion of exclusivity and salvation?
Regarding people outside of the Church because of location and or time elements, they of course will be saved according to their conscience for God is Just. They will not be judged according to the writtel letter of the law because technically they did not hear the law or there was nobody to tell the gospel to them (pointed out also by atty earlier in reference to my no law, no sin principle post)
Hmmm. Okay, I get your point above. But still with the exclusivity of the INC, so let's say with in comparison with RC to INC, RC's believe that Jesus is God made flesh, but INC's believe otherwise, but both INC's and RC's lived a full christian life. So that would mean by INC standard that RC's would perish in hell just because RC's believed that Jesus was one with God?
Sorry if I may sound shallow, I'm just starting to be keenly interested on understanding these things.
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 03, 2015 at 04:55 PM
1. Exclusivity by having a different set of beliefs. Salvation is offered to everyone in Christianity. By that same standard, exclusivity lies in Christianity and other beliefs are outside of the scope of this salvation.
2. Exclusivity by having a different set of beliefs within Christianity. Say INC, RC, Protestant, etc. As clearly pointed out by atty barrister before, even the RC believes in its exclusivity. Many people might not know it but it's part of their doctrines. Maybe they changed it now, but it doesn't mean RC did not believe in it.
As to the Protestant persecution, that is exactly my point, why would RC persecute the Protestants if they are also Christians who believe in God and Jesus Christ? Isn't the point of inclusivity (if there is such a term) as opposed to exclusivity is that they are all under the same Christian beliefs?
Now if the Protestants are not Christians for having espouse different dogmas compared to RC, then it would mean RC is the only group of people that will be saved because every other sect disagrees with one or more doctrines of RC. And if RC says no, Protestants are Christians too and they are included in the salvation process, then why persecute them? after all the differences in doctrines does not hamper the other's salvation.
The fact remains, there is exclusivity, because you can only cast away exclusivity if there is no condition on inclusivity.
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 03, 2015 at 05:29 PM
Salvation through Jesus christ is not exclusivity since salvation is offered to everyone...
Iba ang "kapag di ka kaanib di ka maliligtas" sa "kapag di ka naniwala di ka maliligtas"
Kasi kahit di ka nagpamiyembro basta naniniwala ka maliligtas ka.. Wala sinabi sa Bibliya na "maniwala ka at umanib ka sa aming iglesia"...
For example, based on sir barrister testimony and how he declares his faith on Jesus, i can say that ligtas siya kahit na di siya kaanib ng anumang relihiyon o simbahan.
A person na kaanib ng isang iglesia pero hindi naniniwala o hindsi tunay ang kanyang pananampalataya ay hindi maliligtas.
Salvation is not exclusive in the sense that it is offered to all/everyone.
The budhist may be not save but the salvation was offered to him/her. Kung exclusive ang salvatiom eh di sana nung malaman na budhist hindi na sana inoffered ang salvation.
Last, ang iglesia, ang religion, ang simbahan, ang kapilya, ang grupo ay hindi nakakaligtas... Si Jesus lang ang tanging daan, ang katotohanan at ang buhay.
That's why all religious organization has missions: to offer salvation to everyone who'd hear it's doctrines. Salvation is offered to everyone, yes. Lahat pwedeng maligtas. Pero lahat ba ay maliligtas?
in the same way that you say "lahat ng maniwala kay Hesus" ay maliligtas regardless of your religious org, many religious orgs adopt that to a microcosm of their organization by upholding that their org has the right doctrines may they be RC, INC, ADD, etc. and the offering of salvation is done via religious preaching of each's own denomination.
so in that sense the parallelism is:
Christianity lang maliligtas (covered by law of the gospels)- exclusive ito dahil wala nang puwang ang ibang naniniwala sa Dios sa sarili nilang pamamaraan at pananampalataya
say INC lang ang maliligtas (covered by law of the gospels as believed by the organization that Christ build a Church with defined doctrines) - exclusive ito pero nagooffer pa rin kahit sino ka pa basta sumampalataya ka sa aral nito which in turn joining the organization. You can replace INC here with other religious group and the point will still be the same.
The fundamental problem lies not in exclusivity issues but definition of Christ's Church. Is it a defined church with a stricy set of doctrines with specific members, or does it include anybody even if they have different sets of doctrines and different interpretations of the bible, just as long as they can be categorized as Christians.
In both arguments, etsapwera pa din ang nakinig ng aral ng Biblia pero gusto pa ring sumamba sa Dios sa paraan at pananampalatayang gusto nya outside of the Bible.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:18 PM
I think it would good if you explain and show to others the biblical verses that support the doctrine of INC re exclusivity if you don't mind. Alam ko kasi meron itong verses sa bible specially the far east part.
Post by: jerix on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:24 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:41 PM
^ The point I am driving at is there are levels and ways exclusivity is adopted and practice.
1. Exclusivity by having a different set of beliefs. Salvation is offered to everyone in Christianity. By that same standard, exclusivity lies in Christianity and other beliefs are outside of the scope of this salvation.
2. Exclusivity by having a different set of beliefs within Christianity. Say INC, RC, Protestant, etc. As clearly pointed out by atty barrister before, even the RC believes in its exclusivity. Many people might not know it but it's part of their doctrines. Maybe they changed it now, but it doesn't mean RC did not believe in it.
As to the Protestant persecution, that is exactly my point, why would RC persecute the Protestants if they are also Christians who believe in God and Jesus Christ? Isn't the point of inclusivity (if there is such a term) as opposed to exclusivity is that they are all under the same Christian beliefs?
Now if the Protestants are not Christians for having espouse different dogmas compared to RC, then it would mean RC is the only group of people that will be saved because every other sect disagrees with one or more doctrines of RC. And if RC says no, Protestants are Christians too and they are included in the salvation process, then why persecute them? after all the differences in doctrines does not hamper the other's salvation.
The fact remains, there is exclusivity, because you can only cast away exclusivity if there is no condition on inclusivity.
So in your belief... sino lang ba ang maliligtas?
Post by: majoe on Aug 03, 2015 at 08:44 PM
ini expect ko na unsual ay kinuha sya ng Diyos na parang kagaya ng alien abductions eh, hehe.
24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him. (Gen. 5:7)
Mahiwaga talaga ang sitas na yan.
The common interpretation? Enoch was taken up to heaven by God. Hindi ganon ang intindi ko.
Pinaliwanag sa sitas na ito:
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb. 11:5)
Maliwanag na? Hindi. Malabo pa rin... ;)
==================================
Sabi sa Gen. 5:7, "he was not." Meaning, nawala si Enoch. Bakit? God took him.
Took him to heaven? Walang sinasabing took him to heaven. Basta ang sabi, God took him.
Sabi sa Heb. 11:5, he did not see death. Ibig sabihin he did not die? No, namatay pa rin siya.
Ano ang ebidensiya na namatay din siya? Dahil nasa Heb. 11:5 yon, ituloy lang natin sa Heb. 11:13:
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. (Heb. 11:13)
E di namatay din nga silang lahat, kasama si Enoch.
Heb. 11 is called the "faith chapter," kasi puro by faith, by faith, by faith ang umpisa.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11)
Ang haba ng listahan, by faith by faith, by faith. Ang ending, "These all died in faith." E di namatay nga lahat.
Pangalawang ebidensiya:
Hindi maaaring nakarating si Enoch sa langit.
Bakit? Kung nakarating si Enoch sa langit noong Old Testament times, bakit ang sabi ni Kristo noong New Testament times wala pa raw nakakarating sa langit?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13)
Talagang wala pang nakakarating sa langit, kasi sabay-sabay tayong pupunta sa langit. Hindi una-una yon.
Kaya nga ang sabi sa Heb. 11:
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Heb. 11:39-40)
They (kasama si Enoch) received not the promise. God provided something better --- yun na nga ang langit. That they without us should not be made perfect --- sabay-sabay tayo, hindi puwedeng una si Enoch.
==================================
Hindi nakarating ng langit si Enoch. Saan pala siya napunta? Sa lupa rin. Ewan kung saan sa lupa, wala ngang nakakalam, e ("he was not found"). Basta hindi sa langit. :D Tinago lang siya ng Diyos dito sa mundo.
Ang sabi sa Hebreo:
5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. (Heb. 11:5)
Ang wika, he was translated. Ano yung "translated"? E di inilipat lang sa ibang lugar, pero namatay din.
Greek interlinear: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/11.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/hebrews/11.htm)
"Translated" --- In Greek, the word used was "metetethē." Meaning: to transfer.
Wala nang nakaalam kung nasaan siya, kasi Diyos ang naglipat sa kanya sa ibang lugar. Isa lang ang sigurado -- Hindi siya napunta sa langit, at hanggang ngayon, wala pa rin siya sa langit.
Post by: majoe on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:01 PM
Ang sabi, a bishop must be the husband of one wife. E di puwede ngang mag-asawa ang bishop.
..
hmm... e yung di naman mga bishops, pwede ba mag asawa ng more than 1?
Post by: barrister on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:07 PM
Nasa ibang verses naman yon. Pero hindi na kailangang i-discuss, masyadong madali, matagal na nating alam ang sagot.
Post by: majoe on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:08 PM
@sir Quintacet
I think it would good if you explain and show to others the biblical verses that support the doctrine of INC re exclusivity if you don't mind. Alam ko kasi meron itong verses sa bible specially the far east part.
nagbago na kaya doctrine ng INC?
naalala ko kasi yung dating officemate ko na INC na medyo may posisyon sa church nila.
lagi ako kinukulit na magpa doktrina.
sabi nya kapag wala daw sa katawan, di daw maliligtas.
tapos kahit anong paliwanag sakin, di talaga ako makumbinsi na si Felix Manalo ay anghel tapos si Hesus ay tao lang. dami nyang binabasa na verses to support their claim.
Post by: majoe on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:23 PM
My replies in blue/red letters...
Enoch is not the first... God took him away, experience death spirtually but not physical death...
Enoch walked with God tapos namatay spiritually???
Post by: barrister on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:30 PM
nagbago na kaya doctrine ng INC?
naalala ko kasi yung dating officemate ko na INC na medyo may posisyon sa church nila.
lagi ako kinukulit na magpa doktrina.
sabi nya kapag wala daw sa katawan, di daw maliligtas.
tapos kahit anong paliwanag sakin, di talaga ako makumbinsi na si Felix Manalo ay anghel tapos si Hesus ay tao lang. dami nyang binabasa na verses to support their claim.
Ang naririnig ko, si kapatid na Felix daw ay hindi anghel na heavenly being, kundi anghel na "messenger of God," na tao rin.
Tama naman na puwedeng tawaging angel ang isang tao, kung siya ay isang tao na messenger ng Diyos. http://biblehub.com/greek/32.htm (http://biblehub.com/greek/32.htm)
Siya ang huling sugo, o ang huling messenger of God sa sikatan ng araw.
Official doctrine nila yan, tama?
Post by: majoe on Aug 03, 2015 at 09:39 PM
Ang naririnig ko, si kapatid na Felix daw ay hindi anghel na heavenly being, kundi anghel na "messenger of God," na tao rin.
Tama naman na puwedeng tawaging angel ang isang tao, kung siya ay isang tao na messenger ng Diyos. http://biblehub.com/greek/32.htm (http://biblehub.com/greek/32.htm)
Siya ang huling sugo, o ang huling messenger of God sa sikatan ng araw.
Official doctrine nila yan, tama?
kasama nga yan sa paliwanag nila. ang di ako makumbinsi, ay sya nga ba talaga yung anghel na yun sa far east.
Post by: majoe on Aug 03, 2015 at 10:01 PM
Hindi ba't may hula na ipagkakanulo si Jesus?
may hula pero di pa rin ibig sabihin na walang free will si judas.
choice pa rin nya yun kahit sabihin pa nating may nang dedemonyo sa kanya.
si peter nga, akala nya di nya madedeny si Hesus pero na deny pa rin.
ibig sabihin lang, kapag dumating sa isang tao ang pagsubok, lalabas talaga ang natural tendency nya.
greed sa case ni judas at self preservation naman kay peter. yun ang nangibabaw at choice naman nila yun.
Post by: barrister on Aug 03, 2015 at 10:08 PM
kasama nga yan sa paliwanag nila. ang di ako makumbinsi, ay sya nga ba talaga yung anghel na yun sa far east.
Iba ang paniniwala ko sa kanila.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 10:19 PM
Enoch walked with God tapos namatay spiritually???
Oh... di ko lang nahati ng maayos ang words arrangement...
All including enoch experienced 1 type of death - spiritual death
But not all experienced or some will not experience the other type of death - physical death
Luke 9:60 "Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
1. Enoch - when he was born he is already dead spiritually, he was born again by faith but never experienced physical death
2. Jesus - was born without sin and experienced physical death
3. Believers before rapture - experienced both spiritual and physical death
4. Believers during rapture - experienced spiritual death but will not experience physical death like enoch
Enoch and all believers experienced two type of birth - spiritual and physical birth
Post by: majoe on Aug 03, 2015 at 10:30 PM
My replies in blue/red letters...
kaya ako naniwala na Lazarus and rich man is not a parable kasi may connection siya when Jesus "descend" to hell... all the believers who died prior to Jesus death doesnt go directly to heaven where God the father abode, they go first to Abrahams bossom and i believe this is the place where God put Enoch. basically, its still Jesus who goes to heaven first since when Jesus descend to hell isinama na rin niya sina Abraham (and all those who died prior to His death) to heaven.
pwede ba mangyari yan dpogs? eh nauna si enoch kay abraham di ba?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 03, 2015 at 11:45 PM
pwede ba mangyari yan dpogs? eh nauna si enoch kay abraham di ba?
:) oh sorry again... it only means the paradise... doon po kasi sa kwento ni Jesus sinabi niya na "Abraham's bossom" greek word kolpos [kovlpo"] literally refers to the side or lap of a person... nasanay na akong tawagin siyang abraham's bossom kesa sa tawagin kong paradise...
this is where Jesus at iyong katabi niya sa cross nagpunta during Jesus three days of death
Luke 23:40-43
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
and take note ang reply ni Jesus
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
hindi sinabi ni Jesus na today you will be in heaven... instead Jesus said... today you will be with me in paradise.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 06:14 AM
may hula pero di pa rin ibig sabihin na walang free will si judas.
choice pa rin nya yun kahit sabihin pa nating may nang dedemonyo sa kanya.
si peter nga, akala nya di nya madedeny si Hesus pero na deny pa rin.
ibig sabihin lang, kapag dumating sa isang tao ang pagsubok, lalabas talaga ang natural tendency nya.
greed sa case ni judas at self preservation naman kay peter. yun ang nangibabaw at choice naman nila yun.
Alam ba ni Jesus na si Judas ang magkakanulo? If yes, why didn't he stop/save him?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 04, 2015 at 07:19 AM
Alam ba ni Jesus na si Judas ang magkakanulo? If yes, why didn't he stop/save him?
Whatever maging sagot dito sir, same din siguro applies with the enemies of the Israelites, the fallen angels, and siguro, sinners in the eyes of God.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 07:23 AM
"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?
Whatever happened to that teaching?
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 04, 2015 at 07:24 AM
The problem is Judas is his sheep.
"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?
Whatever happened to that teaching?
You have a point. Ganun din sa angels. What about free will sir?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 07:36 AM
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 04, 2015 at 08:06 AM
Angels should know better :) And come to think of it, are the fallen angels really at "war" with God, knowing they don't stand a chance? And did Satan not ask God permission to do evil on Job?
I don't think so sir. Post natin yun verses:
Job 1New International Version (NIV)
Prologue
1 In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil. 2 He had seven sons and three daughters, 3 and he owned seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen and five hundred donkeys, and had a large number of servants. He was the greatest man among all the people of the East.
4 His sons used to hold feasts in their homes on their birthdays, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom.
6 One day the angels[a] came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
9 “Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10 “Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11 But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”
12 The Lord said to Satan, “Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger.”
Then Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.
Concentrate tayo sa verses 9-11. I think what Satan is asking here is for God to remove His protection for Jacob because Jacob is:
8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”
Let's us also consider that Jesus was also tempted by Satan or "The Tempter" too. Did Satan asked permission? Hindi din.
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 04, 2015 at 08:13 AM
Ang naririnig ko, si kapatid na Felix daw ay hindi anghel na heavenly being, kundi anghel na "messenger of God," na tao rin.
Tama naman na puwedeng tawaging angel ang isang tao, kung siya ay isang tao na messenger ng Diyos. http://biblehub.com/greek/32.htm (http://biblehub.com/greek/32.htm)
Siya ang huling sugo, o ang huling messenger of God sa sikatan ng araw.
Official doctrine nila yan, tama?
Yes, this is correct as per INC's doctrine.
Angel from angelus meaning messenger or sugo in Tagalog.
as to the question sino ang maliligtas?
syempre ang sagot dyan ay yung mga taong sumasampalataya sa tamang doktrina at sino ang mga yan?
syempre sasagot ang bawat isang kaanib sa kni-kaniyang relihiyon na sila yun. Kung INC< INC yun. kung RC, RC yun. Kung ADD, ADD yun, Kung Jehova's Witnesses, JW yun, kung Mormons, Mormon yun.
Kung ang belief ng iba ay lahat basta naniniwala kay Kristo, so walang problema, kasama dun lahat ng kabuuan ng Kristyano, so walang bearing sa faith ninyo ang exclusivity doctrine ng iba't ibang sekta.
Sa inyo: Ligtas lahat ng Kristyano
Sa isang sektang Kristyano: sila lang ang maliligtas
Kung tumpak ang unang paniniwala, irrelevant na ang pangalawang paniniwala.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 04, 2015 at 08:14 AM
The problem is Judas is his sheep.
"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?
Whatever happened to that teaching?
Nope. Judas is not His sheep. Eto iyong sinasabi ko na "christian" but deep in Judas' heart he is not a "true christian"... kahit na miyembro siya ng 12 apostles... kahit na kasama niya kumakain si Jesus... :(:(:(
You can't find any verse in the Bible na kung saan tinawag ni Judas si Jesus na "My Lord" or "My God"... ang mababasa lang natin na tawag ni Judas kay Jesus ay "Rabbi" a teacher...
for three years Jesus gave Judas a chance to turn his heart towards God but instead choose to betray Jesus... and for me one characteristic of a true christian is know how to forgive themselves because they experienced how to be forgiven...
Judas betrayed Jesus
Peter denied Jesus not once but thrice
Judas regrets and killed hanged and killed himself.
Peter regrets his denial but didnt kill himself instead forgave himself and then asked forgiveness from Jesus.
Judas might be a christian (a follower of Christ) but he is not saved/believer.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 08:15 AM
Kinda candid talk between God and Satan no? And very cruel. Parang pinaglaruan lang si Job.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 08:20 AM
Nope. Judas is not His sheep. Eto iyong sinasabi ko na "christian" but deep in Judas' heart he is not a "true christian"... kahit na miyembro siya ng 12 apostles... kahit na kasama niya kumakain si Jesus... :(:(:(
So what is he then?
Quote
You can't find any verse in the Bible na kung saan tinawag ni Judas si Jesus na "My Lord" or "My God"... ang mababasa lang natin na tawag ni Juday kay Jesus ay "Rabbi" a teacher...
Kinda assuming on your part.
Quote
for three years Jesus gave Judas a chance to turn his heart towards God but instead choose to betray Jesus...
How did you know that?
Quote
Judas betrayed Jesus
Peter denied Jesus not once but thrice
Judas regrets and killed hanged and killed himself.
Peter regrets his denial but didnt kill himself instead forgave himself and then asked forgiveness from Jesus.
Come to think of it, mas matindi pagsisisisi ni Judas. Hindi nya kinaya e.
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 04, 2015 at 08:21 AM
Alam ba ni Jesus na si Judas ang magkakanulo? If yes, why didn't he stop/save him?
This is actually part of the argumen of the book I am reading now: (http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/images/9780979963100med.jpg)
Who was Jesus: Fingerprints of the Christ
The propositions were:
If Judas did his part, then he was actually helping come to fruition God's plan from the beginning. In essence he was helping the salvific purpose of God (who in many people's belief is Jesus too). How come he was vilified as evil when what he did led to salvation of the world.
If Judas was meant to be the traitor, where is free will there?
If Peter wished that death (on the cross) should never happen to Jesus, and Jesus said "Get behind me, Satan" to him, how come Judas who helped the plan, was considered evil.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 08:41 AM
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 08:47 AM
hindi sinabi ni Jesus na today you will be in heaven... instead Jesus said... today you will be with me in paradise.
Paradise is in heaven; paradise is synonymous to heaven.
Jesus did not say when the thief will go to paradise/heaven. That was a mistranslation in the bible.
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 04, 2015 at 08:58 AM
^What's INC's take on that? What's yours, just in case?
Just to be clear. The book I am reading is grounded on the thesis that the first four books of the NT can not be the source of historicity of the life of Christ and even the supposed mentioned of jesus in Josephus, Tacitus and other extra-biblical sources are being argued as "interpolations" by early Christians to support their belief of a historical Jesus and in considering that the three synoptic gospels at times provide different narratives of what happened.
On the INC's belief, it is of the popular belief that Judas betray Jesus not because he was made to but because he chose to. Later he realized this: “I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood” (Mt. 27:4).
I guess this topic will be going to predestination and foreknowledge branches later on.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:01 AM
Quote from: dpogs on Today at 08:14 AM
Nope. Judas is not His sheep. Eto iyong sinasabi ko na "christian" but deep in Judas' heart he is not a "true christian"... kahit na miyembro siya ng 12 apostles... kahit na kasama niya kumakain si Jesus...
So what is he then?
Judas - son of perdition (the other one na tinawag na son of perdtion is satan)
While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. John 17:12
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? John 6:70
Quote
You can't find any verse in the Bible na kung saan tinawag ni Judas si Jesus na "My Lord" or "My God"... ang mababasa lang natin na tawag ni Juday kay Jesus ay "Rabbi" a teacher...
Kinda assuming on your part.
The hypocrite pharisess always called Jesus a rabbi... they never called Jesus Lord or God...
i am not assuming, it is wrtten in the Bible kung babasahin lang natin. Jesus also knows that Judas doesnt believe on Him.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. John 6:64
Quote
for three years Jesus gave Judas a chance to turn his heart towards God but instead choose to betray Jesus...
How did you know that?
Jesus preached the Word of God and Judas being an apostle heard most of Jesus preaching...
Quote
Judas betrayed Jesus
Peter denied Jesus not once but thrice
Judas regrets and killed hanged and killed himself.
Peter regrets his denial but didnt kill himself instead forgave himself and then asked forgiveness from Jesus.
Come to think of it, mas matindi pagsisisisi ni Judas. Hindi nya kinaya e.
Remorseful yes but not repenting... Judas right at that moment can kneel and ask forgivenss for what he did but he didnt he is just remorseful and full of sorrow and guilt.
Any person who experienced God's ultimate forgiveness will always learn how to fogive others and to forgive himself.
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:05 AM
Paradise is in heaven; paradise is synonymous to heaven.
Jesus did not say when the thief will go to paradise/heaven. That was a mistranslation in the bible.
I belive this has something to do with the problem with punctuaton marks introduced to the Bible centuries later after they were written. Punctuation marks did not exist at the time.
If Jesus said "today you will be with me in paradise", isn't it that Jesus was resurrected three days after his death. So where is that "today" part?
That's the thing also, jesus is cleared that he will be dead for three days as his comparison with Jonah's experience inside the belly of the big fish.
How come Jesus dies every year on a Friday and gets resurrected every Sunday (two days only after being dead)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:05 AM
Just to be clear. The book I am reading is grounded on the thesis that the first four books of the NT can not be the source of historicity of the life of Christ and even the supposed mentioned of jesus in Josephus, Tacitus and other extra-biblical sources are being argued as "interpolations" by early Christians to support their belief of a historical Jesus and in considering that the three synoptic gospels at times provide different narratives of what happened.
On the INC's belief, it is of the popular belief that Judas betray Jesus not because he was made to but because he chose to. Later he realized this: “I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood” (Mt. 27:4).
I guess this topic will be going to predestination and foreknowledge branches later on.
Thank you for that. I'd like to think he had free will and was asked to, the same way God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Judas probably didn't understand why he had to do it, as you said, Jesus is innocent.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:09 AM
I belive this has something to do with the problem with punctuaton marks introduced to the Bible centuries later after they were written. Punctuation marks did not exist at the time.
If Jesus said "today you will be with me in paradise", isn't it that Jesus was resurrected three days after his death. So where is that "today" part?
That's the thing also, jesus is cleared that he will be dead for three days as his comparison with Jonah's experience inside the belly of the big fish.
How come Jesus dies every year on a Friday and gets resurrected every Sunday (two days only after being dead)
Time stops when we die. If we all go to heaven at the same time, it'd be like waking up from a sleep, as if no time elapsed. So, parang valid pa rin yung "today you'll be with me in paradise".
My understanding is that he rose on the third day, not after three days. First day would be Friday, the third is Sunday.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:14 AM
If Jesus knew about Judas, why keep him there? If he knew that Judas is really evil, but wanted to save him, why didn't he say "Judas, don't betray me after 3 years, that's bad."?
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:15 AM
Time stops when we die. If we all go to heaven at the same time, it'd be like waking up from a sleep, as if no time elapsed. So, parang valid pa rin yung "today you'll be with me in paradise".
My understanding is that he rose on the third day, not after three days. First day would be Friday, the third is Sunday.
Mat. 12:40
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Clear dyan na three days and three nights siyang patay
And my point is that, Jesus did not ascend to heaven immediately. so invalid talaga yung "today" part kahit iconsider natin na time stops when we die.
RC's belief is 40 days bago siya pumanhik di ba?
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:19 AM
Mat. 12:40
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Clear dyan na three days and three nights siyang patay
And my point is that, Jesus did not ascend to heaven immediately. so invalid talaga yung "today" part kahit iconsider natin na time stops when we die.
RC's belief is 40 days bago siya pumanhik di ba?
Good point yung 3 days/3 nights. Thank you for that.
Tama pa rin yung "today". For example, namatay ako nagyon. You died years later. When we see other other again, I'd feel like no time has passed kahit na years na talaga yung lumipas. Kumbaga, yung "today" was relative to me.
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:28 AM
Good point yung 3 days/3 nights. Thank you for that.
Tama pa rin yung "today". For example, namatay ako nagyon. You died years later. When we see other other again, I'd feel like no time has passed kahit na years na talaga yung lumipas. Kumbaga, yung "today" was relative to me.
I won't disagree with your point sir. Considering that my belief is that we don't immediately go to heaven after we die, and that we must wait judgement day for that, i can see your point. Biblically hindi siya tinatalakay ng diretso yung idea na yan pero i can see where you are coming from.
But then again, the common belief is that after a person dies, he immediately go to heaven or hell.
at kung bata ka pa nga and unbaptized, purgatorio daw.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:37 AM
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:54 AM
I'm just RC by birth so I don't know much about RC's doctrines :) I'm not sure about that the Purgatory thing. Kawawa naman yung bata :(
Sorry I made a mistake in my post.
It was limbo actually where unbaptized children will go. Purgatory is for those bit good-bit bad people.
But limbo was abandoned and abolished by in the RC doctrines by the Pope (Benedict XVI).
so ngayon sa heaven na daw ang unbaptized infants. This doctrine was intoduced by St. Augustine
sa INC ang bata ay itinuturing na walang kasalanan kaya automatic heaven pag namatay.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:57 AM
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 04, 2015 at 09:58 AM
Thanks for that. Seems purgatory is a happy place :)
If Purgatory is real, it will be where most people will be. even people who are considered saints ;D
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 10:58 AM
How come Jesus dies every year on a Friday and gets resurrected every Sunday (two days only after being dead)
This is one of the reasons why I left the Catholic Church.
The RC says Jesus died 3pm on a Friday. Until 3pm Saturday, that's one day; 3pm Sunday, that's 2 days; 3pm Monday, that's 3 days. They say Jesus resurrected Sunday, before dawn. That's only 1 1/2 days.
During Jesus' time there were 24 hours in one whole day; 12 hours day, 12 hours night. The same as what we have today.
9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? (John 11:9)
That's the thing also, jesus is cleared that he will be dead for three days as his comparison with Jonah's experience inside the belly of the big fish.
Jesus did not just say "3 days." He said "3 days and 3 nights" ---
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Mt. 12:40)
That's 3 days and 3 nights. There are 12 hours in one day. 3 days and 3 nights make 72 hours.
3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth means He would be buried in the earth for 3 days and 3 nights.
This is the sign that Jesus is the Messiah --- in fact, the only sign --- the sign of the prophet Jonas. If He was not buried for 3 days and 3 nights, then it would have been clear that Jesus was not the Messiah.
If a religious sect cannot resolve this simple issue, then it is clear that the religious sect is not of God.
That's one of the reasons why I left the RC.
So, how is the issue resolved? Very simple. Jesus did not die on a Friday.
I belive this has something to do with the problem with punctuaton marks introduced to the Bible centuries later after they were written. Punctuation marks did not exist at the time.
If Jesus said "today you will be with me in paradise", isn't it that Jesus was resurrected three days after his death. So where is that "today" part?
That's correct. The New Testament as originally written did not contain punctuation marks.
The King James Version, which mistranslated the verse, reads:
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:43)
The original verse, literally translated word-for-word, reads:
and he said to him truly to you I say today with me you will be in paradise http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/23.htm (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/23.htm)
Adding commas in the correct places, it should read:
and he said to him, truly to you I say today, with me you will be in paradise
It means Jesus did not say when the thief would be in paradise. "Today" is for emphasis --- e.g.: Truly I say to you today.
======================================
Jesus Christ is the firstfruits of those who died (1 Cor. 15:20-24); the firstborn from the dead (Rev. 1:15).
Jesus Christ must be the first man who died, resurrected and went to heaven. Pag nakarating yung magnanakaw sa langit nang araw na yon mismo, ibig sabihin nauna pa yung magnanakaw kay Kristo.
Bakit? Kasi 3 days later, ang sabi ni Kristo hindi pa raw Siya nakakaakyat sa langit.
After His resurrection, Jesus said to Mary:
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father (John 20:17)
3 days after His death, Jesus had not yet ascended to heaven, according to the verse. When did Jesus ascend to heaven? 40 days after His resurrection.
Yet 3 days before Jesus resurrected, wrong interpretations say Jesus and the thief were supposedly already in heaven. That doesn't make sense.
=======================================
Verily I say unto you today --- What did Jesus verily say to the thief today? --- You will be with me in paradise.
When will the thief be with Jesus in paradise? After Judgment Day.
Where is the thief now? Still dead, the same as Enoch and Elijah.
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. (Heb. 11:39-40)
Those who are saved will all go to heaven at the same time. Hindi puwedeng nauna yung magnanakaw, si Enoch o si Elias, because they "should not be made perfect without us."
At lalo namang hindi puwedeng nauna pa sila kay Kristo.
Post by: Quitacet on Aug 04, 2015 at 12:09 PM
Verily I say unto you today --- What did Jesus verily say to the thief today? --- You will be with me in paradise.
pag itinuturo ito ng INC pinagtatawanan pa ng iba e. sa belief kasi nila may heaven na (with souls of good people) at may hell na din. pag itinuwid kasi yung belief na yun mawawalan na ng bisa ang prayers for the dead nila
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 12:52 PM
Kung wala tayong dapat gawin kundi pakinggan si Father, dapat wala nang bibliya, kasi useless lang.
Mahirap ba para sa Diyos na ilagay lahat ng theological knowledge sa utak ng lahat ng mga Pastor? Kayang-kaya ng Diyos na gawin yon. Bakit may bibliya pa na nakakagulo lang?
Hindi nakakagulo ang bibliya. May bibliya para may siguradong batayan ng tama. Ang nakakagulo, si Pastor, hindi yung bibliya... :D
Post by: pTrader on Aug 04, 2015 at 01:01 PM
Kaya nga may bibliya --- para ma-check mo kung tama ba yung tinuturo ni Father o ni Pastor.
Kung wala tayong dapat gawin kundi pakinggan si Father, dapat wala nang bibliya, kasi useless lang.
Mahirap ba para sa Diyos na ilagay lahat ng theological knowledge sa utak ng lahat ng mga Pastor? Kayang-kaya ng Diyos na gawin yon. Bakit may bibliya pa na nakakagulo lang?
Hindi nakakagulo ang bibliya. May bibliya para may siguradong batayan ng tama. Ang nakakagulo, si Pastor, hindi yung bibliya... :D
capital F, capital P ... hmmm.. so nakakagulo ay si Father, si Pastor ???
Post by: CeeV on Aug 04, 2015 at 02:18 PM
Can you pls. confirm that the Holy Bible that all Christian Sect/religion is only one? Or me kanya kanya silang Version? I must admit kapag tinanong ako about this..am not as well sure of this. i.e. Bible of INC can it be used by Catholic and vice versa? Or the Anglican church and all the rest?
Post by: rochie on Aug 04, 2015 at 02:29 PM
But the Holy Bible...ang allegation ng mga brother Muslim natin that it was written in too many versions whereas ang Koran was written by a single person (Prophet Muhammad)...what's your comment on this guys?
Can you pls. confirm that the Holy Bible that all Christian Sect/religion is only one? Or me kanya kanya silang Version? I must admit kapag tinanong ako about this..am not as well sure of this. i.e. Bible of INC can it be used by Catholic and vice versa? Or the Anglican church and all the rest?
I think all Christians uses the same bible.
for INC, no we don't have our own bible, we also use the Bible that RC/Protestants etc etc uses.
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 03:43 PM
http://submission.org/verify_are_all_Arabic_versions_of_Quran_the_same.html (http://submission.org/verify_are_all_Arabic_versions_of_Quran_the_same.html)
http://answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm (http://answering-islam.org/Green/seven.htm)
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 04, 2015 at 05:51 PM
Also did the thief die the same day as Jesus? How long did they really last? Jesus is said to have died rather quick. Death by crucifixion can even take days.
Post by: kidlat08 on Aug 04, 2015 at 06:43 PM
This sums up how i feel regarding the controversies INC is facing as of late. I am also a handog, a follower, but not a blind follower. I personally hope that Ka Eduardo would stand up to the challenge and do a cleanse of his Sanggunian.
Post by: tony on Aug 04, 2015 at 07:01 PM
people are people no matter what, and human nature dictates that you flaunt wealth,
use your influence to get things move your way.....such is life....
Post by: tigkal on Aug 04, 2015 at 07:32 PM
Post by: RU9 on Aug 04, 2015 at 10:10 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 04, 2015 at 10:37 PM
We normally think about the bible as the word of God. However, if you read about the history of the bible, it was decided by men who may have vested interests. Before it was compiled, there were over 200 books. After the bible was compiled, all other books were burned and banned. How sure are we that those burned and banned books were the true gospel?
I don't see why there should be a problem.
Don't believe the bible. Problem solved.
Post by: mav14 on Aug 05, 2015 at 12:44 AM
Post by: Nicadraus on Aug 05, 2015 at 08:33 AM
Why use the word "today" when one can use "now"? Might there be a reason for using "today"?
Also did the thief die the same day as Jesus? How long did they really last? Jesus is said to have died rather quick. Death by crucifixion can even take days.
If you get whipped, crowned with thorns and beaten all over your body while carrying a big and heavy wooden cross then crucified and pierced with continues bleeding in the process, let's see if you last for at least six hours tops.
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 05, 2015 at 08:38 AM
If you get whipped, crowned with thorns and beaten all over your body while carrying a big and heavy wooden cross then crucified and pierced with continues bleeding in the process, let's see if you last for at least six hours tops.
That's what I said, Jesus died rather quick because of all those things you said.
I'm talking about the other guy. The point of crucifixion is torture. The longer you live, the better. The more torture you get. That's Roman specialty, to keep you alive for as long as possible.
Post by: jerix on Aug 05, 2015 at 08:48 AM
I dont believe that in the end, God will burn those who failed him because in the process he will be burning himself. So what is his good purpose? nothing.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 05, 2015 at 09:29 AM
That's what I said, Jesus died rather quick because of all those things you said.
I'm talking about the other guy. The point of crucifixion is torture. The longer you live, the better. The more torture you get. That's Roman specialty, to keep you alive for as long as possible.
You are correct sir. Actually before Jesus, the crucifixion was especially reserved as the most cruel punishment for the most severe offenses. But when Jesus came and was crucified, the crucifix became a symbol of salvation, hope and resurrection.
Post by: barrister on Aug 05, 2015 at 10:20 AM
I believe that the diversity of ideas on the existence or non-existence or how one should practice reverence to God is not an issue to God himself. Following the principle that we all came from him and all matters that exist or matters that have been put in the physical dimension shall in the end return back to God because there is nowhere else to go, then all ideas that have been processed by the mind of the human being and all human experience is owned by God himself.
That's a common belief.
All roads lead to God. No matter what your religion, be it Hindu, Buddhism or Christianity; no matter what your belief, be it monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, atheism; you will still meet Him.
That is not what Christianity teaches in the bible.
Jesus did not say all roads lead to God. Jesus said He is the only way to God:
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)
Jesus did not say we'll get to heaven no matter which gate we enter.
He said we must enter the small gate and walk the narrow road, and that only a few will find it; many enter the wrong gate and go to destruction:
13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Mt. 7:13-14)
I dont believe that in the end, God will burn those who failed him because in the process he will be burning himself. So what is his good purpose? nothing.
Jesus did not say it's OK whether you choose to remain in Him or not. Jesus said if you don't remain in Him, you will be burned:
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. (John 15:5-6)
=======================================
“All paths leading to God are equally good.” (Mahatma Gandhi):
“One of the biggest mistakes humans make is to believe there is only one way. Actually, there are many diverse paths leading to what you call God.” (Oprah Winfrey)
It sounds good. It's politically correct. It's New Age. It's popular.
“I’m gonna die! Jesus, Allah, Buddha – I love you all!” (Homer Simpson)
Post by: barrister on Aug 05, 2015 at 12:57 PM
Multi-million Airbus used by Iglesia leaders being sold
The used, 3-year-old Airbus is now selling for at most only $90 million,
much lower than its listed price of $229 million when it was new
Chay F. Hofileña
Published 8:14 AM, August 05, 2015
Updated 8:16 AM, Aug 05, 2015
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/101564-airbus-iglesia-leaders-sold (http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/101564-airbus-iglesia-leaders-sold)
Post by: dpogs on Aug 05, 2015 at 01:06 PM
Post by: rochie on Aug 05, 2015 at 01:17 PM
Multi-million Airbus used by Iglesia leaders being sold
The used, 3-year-old Airbus is now selling for at most only $90 million,
much lower than its listed price of $229 million when it was new
Chay F. Hofileña
Published 8:14 AM, August 05, 2015
Updated 8:16 AM, Aug 05, 2015
http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/101564-airbus-iglesia-leaders-sold (http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/investigative/101564-airbus-iglesia-leaders-sold)
binasa ko yung article. remember the word "USED" hehehehehe baka lang maipagpalit sa salitang "OWNED". :D :D :D
Post by: barrister on Aug 05, 2015 at 04:32 PM
Mismanagement of fund not corruption kung purchasing ng eroplano ang paguusapan, tama ba.
Tama.
Bumili/nag lease ng airbus, masyadong magastos. Pero corruption? Kailangan ng iba pang basis para masabi yon.
Hindi ko sinasabing walang corruption, tiyak na meron yan. Ang sinasabi ko lang, kulang pa ng basis.
May kilala ako, supplier for INC. Printing lang naman. May corruption din daw. Pero ayos daw magbayad ang INC, on time, walang bitin-bitin.
Post by: RU9 on Aug 05, 2015 at 05:05 PM
I don't see why there should be a problem.
Don't believe the bible. Problem solved.
True.
Does it follow that you must have faith in the bible first, before faith in god, to avoid circular reasoning.
Post by: barrister on Aug 05, 2015 at 05:32 PM
Does it follow that you must have faith in the bible first, before faith in god, to avoid circular reasoning.
You mean having faith in the existence of God first before having faith that the bible is the word of God is circular reasoning?
That's not circular reasoning. Both of them are declarations of belief, not proof. Interchange them and they're still two declarations of belief, not proof.
=====================================
This is circular reasoning: "The bible says God exists. Therefore, God exists."
To prove that God exists, the statement starts with the premise that the bible is the word of God. The premise already presumes that God exists, then the conclusion says God exists.
The starting point is the same as the end result. Circular reasoning.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 11:24 AM
But the Holy Bible...ang allegation ng mga brother Muslim natin that it was written in too many versions whereas ang Koran was written by a single person (Prophet Muhammad)...what's your comment on this guys?
Can you pls. confirm that the Holy Bible that all Christian Sect/religion is only one? Or me kanya kanya silang Version? I must admit kapag tinanong ako about this..am not as well sure of this. i.e. Bible of INC can it be used by Catholic and vice versa? Or the Anglican church and all the rest?
Iisa po yung original manuscript for every book (e.g. Genesis, Acts, etc..). Inde po "too many versions" at ang correct po ay "too many transalation" from the orginal manuscript.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:53 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:54 PM
And i dont think na ang librong ginagamit ng INC ay translated directly from the original manuscript.
which one?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 12:56 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 07:21 PM
Iisa po yung original manuscript for every book (e.g. Genesis, Acts, etc..). Inde po "too many versions" at ang correct po ay "too many transalation" from the orginal manuscript.
All original manuscripts have disappeared.
There are many "ancient manuscripts" that are available today. However, the surviving manuscripts are all copies, not "original manuscripts" or "autographs."
Yes, ALL of them --- from the Old Testament to the New Tetament. They are all copies, not originals.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 06, 2015 at 07:47 PM
All original manuscripts have disappeared.
There are many "ancient manuscripts" that are available today. However, the surviving manuscripts are all copies, not "original manuscripts" or "autographs."
Yes, ALL of them --- from the Old Testament to the New Tetament. They are all copies, not originals.
Yes. Yun Leningrad Codex ata ang oldest copies natin. Though yun so called dead sea scrolls is supposedly older than the Leningrad Codex and nag-match.
Post by: barrister on Aug 06, 2015 at 07:52 PM
And i dont think na ang librong ginagamit ng INC ay translated directly from the original manuscript.
No modern translation is based on the "original manuscripts" or autographs.
The King James Bible (1611), one of the oldest English versions, was based on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are ancient manuscripts, but they are not autographs (originals).
The INC is not confined to the use of a single bible version. They use the KJV, ESV, The Message, English Translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lamsa, etc.
They use various versions, depending on which one is they think is the most accurate for a particular verse.
For example, they use the Lamsa version for Acts 20:28.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 06, 2015 at 08:02 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 11:14 AM
All original manuscripts have disappeared.
There are many "ancient manuscripts" that are available today. However, the surviving manuscripts are all copies, not "original manuscripts" or "autographs."
Yes, ALL of them --- from the Old Testament to the New Tetament. They are all copies, not originals.
Original or copied, it is the translation version that differs..
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 11:15 AM
No modern translation is based on the "original manuscripts" or autographs.
The King James Bible (1611), one of the oldest English versions, was based on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are ancient manuscripts, but they are not autographs (originals).
The INC is not confined to the use of a single bible version. They use the KJV, ESV, The Message, English Translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lamsa, etc.
They use various versions, depending on which one is they think is the most accurate for a particular verse.
For example, they use the Lamsa version for Acts 20:28.
The KJV uses Textus Receptus
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 11:17 AM
No modern translation is based on the "original manuscripts" or autographs.
The King James Bible (1611), one of the oldest English versions, was based on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are ancient manuscripts, but they are not autographs (originals).
The INC is not confined to the use of a single bible version. They use the KJV, ESV, The Message, English Translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Lamsa, etc.
They use various versions, depending on which one is they think is the most accurate for a particular verse.
For example, they use the Lamsa version for Acts 20:28.
Yup, they will use Lamsa Acts 20:28 but will not use the Lamsa Romans 9:5..
Post by: barrister on Aug 07, 2015 at 12:25 PM
The KJV uses Textus Receptus
That's right.
But I was talking about manuscripts most closely connected to KJV as source. Textus Receptus is a printed version, not a manuscript.
Manuscripts closest to the KJV as sources, I said Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but it looks like I was still wrong there. :( I don't know what they're called. But they were definitely not "original manuscripts," just manuscript copies.
Post by: barrister on Aug 07, 2015 at 12:30 PM
Yup, they will use Lamsa Acts 20:28 but will not use the Lamsa Romans 9:5..
Yan din ang alam ko.
Ang alam ko, ang Lamsa ay ginagamit nila sa isang sitas lang (Acts 20:28) at wala nang iba.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 12:40 PM
That's right.
But I was talking about manuscripts most closely connected to KJV as source. Textus Receptus is a printed version, not a manuscript.
Manuscripts closest to the KJV as sources, I said Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but it looks like I was still wrong there. :( I don't know what they're called. But they were definitely not "original manuscripts," just manuscript copies.
yeah, the original was copied then propagated..
Post by: barrister on Aug 07, 2015 at 12:55 PM
The newer ones have inaccuracies, but the older ones are extremely accurate. So, if we're looking for accurate manuscripts, the older the better.
Why? Because the older ones were copied meticulously, not just word-for-word, they even counted the number of letters used in the source and compared them with the copy, to make sure no mistakes were committed in copying.
The newer ones sometimes had inaccuracies, where the scribe attempted to insert his own beliefs into the text.
When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s, they confirmed that the text we rely upon is indeed accurate.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were older than the oldest manuscripts existing at the time by about 1,000 years. Yet they were almost exactly the same as the other extant manuscripts, with variations consisting only of obvious slips of the pen and spelling variations.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 01:57 PM
So the usual question is, if none of the originals survived, and all manuscripts are copies, how do we know that the copies are accurate?
The newer ones have inaccuracies, but the older ones are extremely accurate. So, if we're looking for accurate manuscripts, the older the better.
Why? Because the older ones were copied meticulously, not just word-for-word, they even counted the number of letters used in the source and compared them with the copy, to make sure no mistakes were committed in copying.
The newer ones sometimes had inaccuracies, where the scribe attempted to insert his own beliefs into the text.
When they found the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s, they confirmed that the text we rely upon is indeed accurate.
The Dead Sea Scrolls were older than the oldest manuscripts existing at the time by about 1,000 years. Yet they were almost exactly the same as the other extant manuscripts, with variations consisting only of obvious slips of the pen and spelling variations.
It is by then the work of the Holy Spirit working on a genuine Christian for validatiion.
Follow-up question sino ba talaga ngayon yung genuine, sa daming nagsulmaganda ang relihiyon at sekta?
Post by: barrister on Aug 07, 2015 at 02:58 PM
It is by then the work of the Holy Spirit working on a genuine Christian for validatiion.
Tama.
Makikita mo naman na may basis para sabihin na accurate ang alam natin na "original text," kahit hindi "original manuscript" yon.
Siyempre, hindi mo pa rin masasabi with absolute certainty na 100% accurate. Doon na naman papasok ang faith.
Kung naniniwala ka na salita ng Diyos yon, dapat maniwala ka rin na makikita mo ang accurate version kung hahanapin mo. Pero kung sa tingin natin pinabayaan ng Diyos na corrupted lahat ang versions ng salita na Siya mismo ang nagpasulat, wag na rin tayong maniwala sa Diyos para wala na tayong problema. :D
Follow-up question sino ba talaga ngayon yung genuine, sa daming nagsulmaganda ang relihiyon at sekta?
Kanya-kanyang sagot yan. Kahit ano ang isagot, laging may bias, kaya ikaw na mismo dapat ang bahala, base sa konsiyensiya mo at sa tulong ng Espirito.
Kung ako ang tatanungin mo, wala pa akong nakikitang totoong samahan, kaya sa bibliya na lang ako.
Post by: Nelson de Leon on Aug 07, 2015 at 04:00 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 04:33 PM
Ang alam ko, maski wala na yun mga original manuscripts, they gathered all the so called "copies" that were circulating and meticulously compared them individually.
just like what the KJV translator did.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 04:36 PM
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 04:39 PM
I believe KJV is the perfect translation of God's Word in English language.
inde ka naman KJV Only?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 04:47 PM
inde ka naman KJV Only?
I think I am. I use other version for comparison only.
Post by: barrister on Aug 07, 2015 at 06:09 PM
I believe KJV is the perfect translation of God's Word in English language.
No perfect translation exists.
The KJV is one of the best translations in the English language, no question about that. But all versions have errors, KJV included.
==================================
Examples of major errors in the KJV:
1. The Pericope Adulterae
John 7:53 to 8:11 is the story of the adulterous woman, called the "Pericope Adulterae."
Among bible scholars, the consesus is that the Pericope Adulterae is a fake addition, called an "interpolation."
In the KJV, it is written in full, without explanation.
On this issue, the NIV (New International Version) is the better rendition. The NIV presents the verses in italics to clearly mark the interpolation, and includes this explanatory note:
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7&version=NIV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7&version=NIV)
That's why I never say, "who is without sin cast the first stone," as those familiar with my posts will notice. Anyone who uses those verses is likely a novice in bible studies.
2. The Johannine Comma
1 John 5:7-8 is called the "Johannine Comma" (in ancient Greek, a "comma" is a short clause).
The scholarly consesus is that the Johannine Comma is another fake addition or interpolation.
The KJV has it in full:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8, KJV)
The NIV again has the better rendition on this issue, and renders it this way:
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (1 John 5:7-8, NIV)
Footnote (a) of the NIV states:
a.1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
The likely motive of the interpolator was a strong belief in the Trinity doctrine, which I believe to be unbiblical.
===================================
Other KJV errors:
http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/how-to-understand-the-bible/are-there-mistakes-in-the-king-james-version (http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/how-to-understand-the-bible/are-there-mistakes-in-the-king-james-version)
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors (http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors)
http://watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html (http://watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html)
Post by: pTrader on Aug 07, 2015 at 07:01 PM
I think I am. I use other version for comparison only.
parang contradicting ah... if you have a perfect translation why use other for comparison?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 07:19 PM
parang contradicting ah... if you have a perfect translation why use other for comparison?
hmm... is there a contradiciton to compare a perfect from not perfect?
hmm... is there a contradiction to compare an original branded bag and the fake bag?
Post by: dpogs on Aug 07, 2015 at 07:36 PM
No perfect translation exists.
The KJV is one of the best translations in the English language, no question about that. But all versions have errors, KJV included.
==================================
Examples of major errors in the KJV:
1. The Pericope Adulterae
John 7:53 to 8:11 is the story of the adulterous woman, called the "Pericope Adulterae."
Among bible scholars, the consesus is that the Pericope Adulterae is a fake addition, called an "interpolation."
In the KJV, it is written if full, without explanation.
On this issue, the NIV (New International Version) is the better rendition. The NIV presents the verses in italics to clearly mark the interpolation, and includes this explanatory note:
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7&version=NIV (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+7&version=NIV)
That's why I never say, "who is without sin cast the first stone," as those familiar with my posts will notice. Anyone who uses those verses is likely a novice in bible studies.
2. The Johannine Comma
1 John 5:7-8 is called the "Johannine Comma" (in ancient Greek, a "comma" is a short clause).
The scholarly consesus is that the Johannine Comma is another fake addition or interpolation.
The KJV has it in full:
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. (1 John 5:7-8, KJV)
The NIV again has the better rendition on this issue, and renders it this way:
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. (1 John 5:7-8, NIV)
Footnote (a) of the NIV states:
a.1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
The likely motive of the interpolator was a strong belief in the Trinity doctrine, which I believe to be unbiblical.
===================================
Other KJV errors:
http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/how-to-understand-the-bible/are-there-mistakes-in-the-king-james-version (http://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/how-to-understand-the-bible/are-there-mistakes-in-the-king-james-version)
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors (http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors)
http://watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html (http://watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html)
:)
it will take us another thread to discuss the KJV authenticity and its perfection
:)
so well let this na lang as is - I belive that KJV is the Word of God and is perfect, inspired by God and you believe otherwise. :):):)
I believe that God will preserved His word from all generation. He preserved it in Hebrew, He preserved it in Greek, and He preserved it in English - KJV.
I also believe that every character, even a single blot, period etc ay hindi maaring alisin or idagdag sa Salita ng Diyos...
Post by: barrister on Aug 07, 2015 at 07:41 PM
Ok yon sir... Sanay na tayong pareho sa disagreements natin...
Mas nagugulat pa nga ako pag natiyempong pareho ang beliefs natin sa isang issue... :D
Post by: Philander on Aug 27, 2015 at 09:12 PM
Nag po protesta ang mga INC members sa harap ng DOJ.
All I can say is wow!
Post by: bumblebee on Aug 27, 2015 at 09:33 PM
Post by: istan on Aug 27, 2015 at 09:36 PM
May video wall pa. :D
They'll stay there for 3 days daw. Protesting about the state meddling on the affairs of their church.
Excuse is that the 2 SAF 44 are INC, that should be top priority of DOJ vs the investigation of kidnapping vs their leaders.
All I can say is... They can meddling in the affairs of the government, but not vice versa.
Eh di WOW!
Post by: istan on Aug 27, 2015 at 10:01 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 27, 2015 at 10:17 PM
Post by: RU9 on Aug 27, 2015 at 10:24 PM
17 mins ·
"The plot is: that more and more people will join that crowd and then a big push to EDSA takes place on Friday till Monday."
Post by: dpogs on Aug 27, 2015 at 10:28 PM
Post by: Philander on Aug 27, 2015 at 10:30 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 27, 2015 at 10:32 PM
Post by: istan on Aug 27, 2015 at 10:41 PM
Trapik na naman. LOL!
Post by: tony on Aug 28, 2015 at 07:07 AM
the INC is in the NBI, police and the military.....who needs private army?
why is Soriano hiding in a farway neverland? >:D >:D >:D
Post by: dpogs on Aug 28, 2015 at 07:11 AM
who knows the INC might produce martyrs this time around....wag naman sana...
the INC is in the NBI, police and the military.....who needs private army?
why is Soriano hiding in a farway neverland? >:D >:D >:D
at mortal na kaaway ng NBI si delima... :):):)
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 28, 2015 at 11:03 AM
Post by: NongP on Aug 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 28, 2015 at 12:35 PM
Post by: sirhc on Aug 28, 2015 at 01:01 PM
Ibang klase pinaglalaban ano, legal action against them mag-rarally sila? Hindi mo naman masasabing they are being forced into a corner. ayos.
Post by: Philander on Aug 28, 2015 at 01:16 PM
Post by: sirhc on Aug 28, 2015 at 01:19 PM
at mortal na kaaway ng NBI si delima... :):):)
Hindi ba't DOJ is on top of NBI? How did this happen? parang hindi ako aware dito.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 28, 2015 at 01:40 PM
Hindi ba't DOJ is on top of NBI? How did this happen? parang hindi ako aware dito.
Ganook ba. Naku, mukhang sala tsismis ko. Paumamhin po.
Di ko lang matandaan :-(
Post by: sirhc on Aug 28, 2015 at 01:44 PM
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 28, 2015 at 03:28 PM
They called it Iglesia ni Chris Tiu.
But the girls were all behaved naman.
Post by: barrister on Aug 28, 2015 at 06:19 PM
Cross-posting:
pati ba naman Bro Eli
source:https://viewpointsandangles.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/icymi-international-televangelist-bro-eli-soriano-declares-support-for-doj-secretary-leila-de-lima/
(https://viewpointsandangles.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/img_1460-0.png)
Hindi nakakapagtaka yan sir. Soriano was accused of rape by INC member Daniel Veridiano, who was a former member of Soriano's MCGI (Members Church of God International).
Veridiano, who was earlier excommunicated from the MCGI for theft of church funds, became an INC member. Afterwards, he filed a rape case against Soriano. Veridiano is still an INC member up to the present. The case is now pending with the Pampanga RTC.
The case was initialy dismissed by the Pampanga prosecutor for lack of evidence, but the dismissal was later overturned by then DOJ secretary Raul Gonzalez, which allowed the case to proceed. Soriano's group accused the INC of having a hand in the reversal of the prior dismissal.
Soriano posted bail, then went into hiding. Hindi na makauwi ng Pilipinas si Soriano since around 2008 dahil sa pending warrant of arrest. He is now preaching in Brazil.
Post by: pTrader on Aug 28, 2015 at 06:44 PM
Cross-posting:
Hindi nakakapagtaka yan sir. Soriano was accused of rape by INC member Daniel Veridiano, who was a former member of Soriano's MCGI (Members Church of God International).
Veridiano, who was earlier excommunicated from the MCGI for theft of church funds, became an INC member. Afterwards, he filed a rape case against Soriano. Veridiano is still an INC member up to the present. The case is now pending with the Pampanga RTC.
The case was initialy dismissed by the Pampanga prosecutor for lack of evidence, but the dismissal was later overturned by then DOJ secretary Raul Gonzalez, which allowed the case to proceed. Soriano's group accused the INC of having a hand in the reversal of the prior dismissal.
Soriano posted bail, then went into hiding. Hindi na makauwi ng Pilipinas si Soriano since around 2008 dahil sa pending warrant of arrest. He is now preaching in Brazil.
Kaya inde rin nakapagtaka yung kaso sa INC. Normal lang yan sa kalakaran ng religion sa Pinas.
Post by: tony on Aug 28, 2015 at 08:12 PM
wala namang bago na dyan...
kung gay man si Soriano, aba eh buhay nya yon....mananagot sya sa Diyos nya...
sa isang kabanata ng Fili ni Rizal, ...may procession na napahinto sa isang kanto,
merong indyong babae na me hawak ng batang maputi, napatapat kay padre Salvi,
sabi nung batang paslit, "papa, papa"...namutla ang dati ng maputlang pari...
sa america nga, merong tele-evangelist na umamin na gumagamit siya ng mga prostitutes...
Post by: fredreadrick on Aug 28, 2015 at 08:57 PM
maraming pedophiles sa RC...me mga pari na nakakabuntis, nagkakaanak...kaya nga nilagyan ng separation wall & lattice ang confessional booth eh >:D
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 28, 2015 at 08:57 PM
Post by: zonks on Aug 28, 2015 at 09:22 PM
Post by: dpogs on Aug 28, 2015 at 10:35 PM
Biglang kakawalang gana iboto si poe
para lang sa dagdag boto... kahit mali ang ginagawa ng grupo... susuportahan... paano pa kaya kung mas malalim na interes ang nakataya...
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 29, 2015 at 01:31 AM
Wala naman pinaglalaban.
Pero ang galing. Para silang mindless zombies.
I suspect na meron mga titiwalag sa Iglesia after seeing this.
Post by: Philander on Aug 29, 2015 at 01:35 AM
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 29, 2015 at 03:00 AM
Post by: tony on Aug 29, 2015 at 08:01 AM
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 29, 2015 at 11:23 AM
Post by: rusty on Aug 31, 2015 at 12:11 AM
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?_rdr=p&id=186007264758401&story_fbid=1171917349500716
Post by: barrister on Aug 31, 2015 at 01:12 AM
Medyo lumilinaw na sa akin. Ang lumalabas, may practice sila na confinement as a disciplinary measure.
Ang sinasabi nilang separation of church and state, wag daw pakialaman ng gobyerno ang practice nila ng confinement as a disciplinary measure, kasi ito ay religious policy na hindi puwedeng maging serious illegal detention.
Criminal offense pa rin yon kahit religious practice.
Kaya pala ayaw linawin kung bakit separation of church and state ang karapatang hinihingi. Kasi pag nilinaw nila yon, para na nilang inamin na may krimen ngang nangyari.
Paweirdo nang paweirdo a.
Post by: dpogs on Aug 31, 2015 at 01:32 AM
"church confinement" = parusa sa mga member na posibleng magbunyag ng baho ng INC... kung nagawa nila iyon sa mismong pamilya ng church founder... paano pa kaya ang ordinaryong member. so may katotohanan ang sinasabi ng natiwalag na member... "may mga member na bigla na lang nwawala hanggang ngayon di nakikita"
sir ricky: may ganito ba talagang practice sa INC - confinement - disciplinary measure para sa mga member?
Post by: godlike00 on Aug 31, 2015 at 01:37 AM
http://www.manilatimes.net/reap-the-whirlwind-whats-behind-the-inc-revolt/214373/
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 31, 2015 at 01:38 AM
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 31, 2015 at 01:48 AM
Read!The impact though, is totally unpredictable. Mukang lumakas si Mar Roxas, at humina si Grace Poe. We could have a two-way race between Roxas and Binay in 2016.
http://www.manilatimes.net/reap-the-whirlwind-whats-behind-the-inc-revolt/214373/
Post by: SiCkBoY on Aug 31, 2015 at 02:33 AM
“Bakit wala pang nakakasuhan sa Mamasapano, samantalang bago lang itong kaso ni Samson? May short-cut atang nangyayari.”
Post by: tony on Aug 31, 2015 at 07:14 AM
Thanks for the link.
Medyo lumilinaw na sa akin. Ang lumalabas, may practice sila na confinement as a disciplinary measure.
Ang sinasabi nilang separation of church and state, wag daw pakialaman ng gobyerno ang practice nila ng confinement as a disciplinary measure, kasi ito ay religious policy na hindi puwedeng maging serious illegal detention.
Criminal offense pa rin yon kahit religious practice.
Kaya pala ayaw linawin kung bakit separation of church and state ang karapatang hinihingi. Kasi pag nilinaw nila yon, para na nilang inamin na may krimen ngang nangyari.
Paweirdo nang paweirdo a.
weirdo nga.....
yung People's Temple ni Jim Jones, lumipat sa Guyana para naconfine ang members....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones
eto kinalabasan....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVWsr2vqir4
David Koresh....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn2KnnqeyiY
even the devil can recite the bible....
Post by: barrister on Aug 31, 2015 at 11:37 AM
Read!
http://www.manilatimes.net/reap-the-whirlwind-whats-behind-the-inc-revolt/214373/ (http://www.manilatimes.net/reap-the-whirlwind-whats-behind-the-inc-revolt/214373/)
Maganda rin ang article, pero hindi ako makapaniwala na tinanggihan nila si Mar Roxas.
Hindi naman siguro nagsisinungaling si Tiglao. Naniniwala ako na based on the anonymous source ang article niya.
They thought that the INC’s bloc vote for Roxas, estimated at 1.4 million, or more than half its membership, would give him a fighting chance, or at least provide them with the smokescreen for cheating.
But despite Roxas’ intense lobbying, the INC leadership had sent word that it cannot support his candidacy in 2016.
Ang sabi ni Tiglao, Roxas lobbied the INC to support his presidential candidacy in 2006, but the INC refused.
I find that hard to believe.
Candidates lobby the INC to support them, that's true. But the INC does not say whether they agree to support them or not. Basta makikinig sila sa candidate, pero hindi sasabihin kung sususportahan siya o hindi.
Pag malapit na ang elections, around a few days to go, doon magbibigay ng listahan ng endorsements ang INC.
Bakit hinihintay na malapit na ang elections? Gusto nilang makita kung ano ang resulta ng latest surveys, kasi yon ang magiging basehan ng endorsement.
Yan ang lagi kong sinasabi sa mga post ko:
http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,181516.msg2296590.html#msg2296590 (http://www.pinoydvd.com/index.php/topic,181516.msg2296590.html#msg2296590)
Ngayon, kung ang gawain ng INC ay maghintay ng survey results, paanong 2015 pa lang, tinanggihan na si Mar Roxas? Very unlikely.
Ang kapani-paniwala, nag lobby si Roxas, pero hindi pa sumasagot ang INC hanggang ngayon. Kasi hindi talaga sasagot yan. Maghintay ka na lang ng listahan ng endorsements a few days before elections.
Post by: tony on Aug 31, 2015 at 12:42 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 31, 2015 at 01:04 PM
In this case, I disagree with him kasi may nakikita ako na hindi kapani-paniwala sa analysis. Hindi yung disagree agad dahil lang siya si Tiglao.
=====================================
It's not a good move on the part of the INC.
The only one backing down from this stalemate is the INC. The government cannot back down. If they do, it makes them look weak.
On the other hand, the INC has to call off the rally sooner or later. When they do and the government does not budge, the INC exposes itself as a paper tiger.
That's what this rally is doing to your group. It shows the country that the INC is not so powerful after all.
The only way out for the INC is if the government asks for a dialog. The INC agrees to the dialog and calls off the rally.
If the government does not ask for a dialog, that's going to be a problem.
Nangyari na nga yung sinasabi kong only way out for the INC. Nagkaroon ng dialog, nagkaroon ng agreement, tapos na ang rally.
Puwede na nilang sabihin na tumigil sila dahil may agreement na. Kahit hindi nililinaw kung ano ba yung agreement na yon.
Iglesia ni Cristo ends 5-day protest
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines) — Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) spokesperson Edwil Zabala confirmed Monday morning (August 31) that the religious group has ended its protest, days after its members marched to Padre Faura in Manila and the EDSA-Shaw Blvd. intersection to object the government's alleged intrusion into their internal affairs.
...In a statement, INC General Minister said that group has reached an understanding with the government. "[N]agkausap na po ang panig ng Iglesia at ang panig ng pamahalaan, at sa pag-uusap na ito ay nagkapaliwanagan na po ang dalawang panig."
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/08/31/iglesia-ni-cristo-ends-protest.html (http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/08/31/iglesia-ni-cristo-ends-protest.html)
Post by: DVD_Freak on Aug 31, 2015 at 02:30 PM
Quote
the real fraud in the 2004 elections was the attempt itself of a celebrity, FPJ, to be president, which had never been done in any nation before (Ronald Reagan was governor for eight years before he run for the US presidency).
...you really lose your credibility. ;D
Post by: tenderfender on Aug 31, 2015 at 02:45 PM
Iglesia ni Cristo ends 5-day protest
So ilang araw nga uli ang ginugol nila for this???
e de Lima!!! >:D O0 ^-^
Post by: oweidah on Aug 31, 2015 at 02:52 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 31, 2015 at 03:23 PM
So ilang araw nga uli ang ginugol nila for this???
e de Lima!!! >:D O0 ^-^
Oo nga ano... :D Kaya pala pack up na pagdating ng lima.
Post by: barrister on Aug 31, 2015 at 03:29 PM
with INC, Samson's lawyers demand
By: InterAksyon.com
August 31, 2015 11:53 AM
MANILA, Philippines -- (UPDATE - 2:40 p.m.) The counsel of an expelled minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo whose criminal complaint against leaders of the church triggered the mass rallies of the last five days are demanding that government disclose the alleged agreement with the INC that led to the end of the protest on Monday.
... Lawyers Trixie Crus-Angeles and Ahmed Paglinawan, who represent Isaias Samson Jr., questioned why their client was not included in the agreement cited by INC leaders when they announced the end of the protests that saw thousands of church members mass up and stall traffic along EDSA in Mandaluyong and, earlier, on Padre Faura Street in Manila, where the protests started in front of the Department of Justice.
...“Tell us whether or not you’ve sold our client down the river or tell us if you haven’t. But you need to disclose this to us,” they said.
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/116858/did-government-capitulate-disclose-agreement-with-inc-samsons-lawyers-demand (http://www.interaksyon.com/article/116858/did-government-capitulate-disclose-agreement-with-inc-samsons-lawyers-demand)
Post by: tony on Aug 31, 2015 at 05:05 PM
On Tiglao..... when a person insists that during the Hello Garci issue, GMA did not cheat and was not a fraud... then saying:
...you really lose your credibility. ;D
yes, so why bother from such a polluted source?
Post by: oweidah on Aug 31, 2015 at 05:17 PM
Post by: tony on Aug 31, 2015 at 05:22 PM
Post by: barrister on Aug 31, 2015 at 08:25 PM
Post by: bass_nut on Aug 31, 2015 at 08:58 PM
but De Lima will eventually resign from her post due to her planned senatorial try, right ?
Post by: dodie on Aug 31, 2015 at 09:04 PM
but De Lima will eventually resign from her post due to her planned senatorial try, right ?
yes doc, including mar. ang blita till end of september sa office before resigning.....if delima will go out next week, whats the difference of another 3weeks in office...hahahahaha
Post by: bass_nut on Aug 31, 2015 at 09:50 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 01, 2015 at 12:36 AM
but De Lima will eventually resign from her post due to her planned senatorial try, right ?
Yes, ganon na nga.
Matagal nang sinabi ni De Lima na magre-resign siya early October when she files her certificate of candidacy for senator. Sinabi niya yon even before the INC controversy.
Kailangan lang ng INC na makapagbigay ng reason kung bakit tinigil nila ang rally. Kung talagang matigas sila, dapat resign muna si De Lima bago itigil ang rally.
Tigil ang rally in exchange for early retirement, e matagal nang naka schedule mag resign in early October. Wala yan, nagbigay ng news "leak" para hindi mapahiya ang INC.
Post by: oweidah on Sep 01, 2015 at 03:50 AM
marami sila...
alam na $
isa pa c alex magno, u.p. prof
Post by: tony on Sep 01, 2015 at 06:57 AM
yes doc, including mar. ang blita till end of september sa office before resigning.....if delima will go out next week, whats the difference of another 3weeks in office...hahahahaha
what is 3 weeks? what if de Lima's replacement had bigger balls? rally na naman?
or is the INC getting an INC member as DOJ secretary? lots of questions....
the answer will reveal itself in the coming days...
Post by: oweidah on Sep 01, 2015 at 06:59 AM
Post by: dpogs on Sep 01, 2015 at 07:02 AM
ang nakinabang ay ang nasa puwesto... taong bayan manipulated... :(
Post by: oweidah on Sep 01, 2015 at 07:26 AM
Post by: tony on Sep 01, 2015 at 07:46 AM
ang nakinabang ay ang sanggunian... members manipulated... :(
ang nakinabang ay ang nasa puwesto... taong bayan manipulated... :(
kaya nga napapaisip ako, sinong Kristo ang tinutukoy nila?
kasi saan man silipin, malayo sa naging buhay ni Kristo sa lupa ang ipinapakita nila,
wala akong makitang similarity, panay salita lamang...
Post by: barrister on Sep 01, 2015 at 08:28 AM
Ganito ang nangyayari pag ang nakaupo sa mataas na posisyon ay nangangarap umupo sa mas mataas na posisyon.
DOJ INSIDERS’ CLAIM
De Lima broke protocol
September 1, 2015 12:20 am
by JOMAR CANLAS REPORTER
There were irregularities in the way Justice Secretary Leila de Lima handled the review of the kidnapping and serious illegal detention case involving leaders of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC or Church of Christ), according to sources of The Manila Times–including two former secretaries of Justice and ranking prosecutors.
...A prosecutor disclosed to The Manila Times that de Lima has a penchant for summoning prosecutors to her office in connection with certain cases under their review.
“Nakikialam si de Lima sa kaso eh preliminary investigation level pa lang. Minsan nga kahit fact-finding investigation ng NBI pinapapelan na niya. Bakit hindi niya hintayin na umakyat sa kanya ang kaso kapag petition for review stage na [She is meddling in cases even though they are still at the preliminary investigation level. There are times when she would also dip her fingers into fact-finding investigations being conducted by the National Bureau if Investigation. Why can’t she wait for the cases to get elevated to her]?” the prosecutor remarked.
A former DOJ secretary said when a case is in the preliminary investigation stage, only prosecutors up to the Prosecutor-General are the ones in charge.
...“During my time as Secretary of Justice, I do not interfere in cases at the preliminary investigation level because the appeal will be with the [SOJ] via petition for review,” he told The Manila Times.
Another former Justice secretary said de Lima’s alleged interference in the INC case is a clear example of “unethical meddling” with the powers of the prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation.
http://www.manilatimes.net/de-lima-broke-protocol/214843/ (http://www.manilatimes.net/de-lima-broke-protocol/214843/)
Post by: rochie on Sep 01, 2015 at 09:42 AM
Ganito ang nangyayari pag ang nakaupo sa mataas na posisyon ay nangangarap umupo sa mas mataas na posisyon.
DOJ INSIDERS’ CLAIM
De Lima broke protocol
September 1, 2015 12:20 am
by JOMAR CANLAS REPORTER
There were irregularities in the way Justice Secretary Leila de Lima handled the review of the kidnapping and serious illegal detention case involving leaders of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC or Church of Christ), according to sources of The Manila Times–including two former secretaries of Justice and ranking prosecutors.
...A prosecutor disclosed to The Manila Times that de Lima has a penchant for summoning prosecutors to her office in connection with certain cases under their review.
“Nakikialam si de Lima sa kaso eh preliminary investigation level pa lang. Minsan nga kahit fact-finding investigation ng NBI pinapapelan na niya. Bakit hindi niya hintayin na umakyat sa kanya ang kaso kapag petition for review stage na [She is meddling in cases even though they are still at the preliminary investigation level. There are times when she would also dip her fingers into fact-finding investigations being conducted by the National Bureau if Investigation. Why can’t she wait for the cases to get elevated to her]?” the prosecutor remarked.
A former DOJ secretary said when a case is in the preliminary investigation stage, only prosecutors up to the Prosecutor-General are the ones in charge.
...“During my time as Secretary of Justice, I do not interfere in cases at the preliminary investigation level because the appeal will be with the [SOJ] via petition for review,” he told The Manila Times.
Another former Justice secretary said de Lima’s alleged interference in the INC case is a clear example of “unethical meddling” with the powers of the prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation.
http://www.manilatimes.net/de-lima-broke-protocol/214843/ (http://www.manilatimes.net/de-lima-broke-protocol/214843/)
sumikat naman sa FB atty, andami ngang bilib sa kanya kasi may balls daw eh.
Post by: NongP on Sep 01, 2015 at 10:13 AM
Quote
Mandaluyong Mayor Benhur Abalos said his decision to allow the protesters to stay at Edsa-Crossing beyond the time stated in the permit was not a special accommodation but was granted for “humanitarian reasons.”
nabasa ko lang sa INQ, nauuso ang "humanitarian reasons" ah. parang nakakalimutan ng mga tao na dapat din sisihin itong mga Mayors na ito na nag approved ng rally permit na pagkahabahaba.
Post by: barrister on Sep 01, 2015 at 11:24 AM
sumikat naman sa FB atty, andami ngang bilib sa kanya kasi may balls daw eh.
Yun nga ang una nilang iisipin. Fast-track sa complaint vs sanggunian, ang tapang.
Pero mahirap isipin na si De Lima ay acting without Malacanang backing.
May utos si Pnoy and Mar diyan kaya malakas ang loob.
Malamig ang INC kay Mar kasi mahina sa surveys. Maybe the threat of issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest will change their mind. ;)
E nag rally ang INC.
Hintayin natin ngayon kung mag DOJ Resolution vs. the INC sanggunian na no bail recommended bago mag resign si De Lima.
Post by: tony on Sep 01, 2015 at 01:38 PM
di ba prelminary investigation pa nga lang?
hiningnan na ba ang iglesia ng counter affidavit?
ano na ba ang status?
kaya nagrally ang INC ay para burahin ang sinapamng kaso
as if it never was filed sa tingin ko...
without due process ever taking place...
so that the INC is now the LAW?
Post by: Quitacet on Sep 01, 2015 at 01:41 PM
teka, submitted for resolution na ba yung kaso?
di ba prelminary investigation pa nga lang?
hiningnan na ba ang iglesia ng counter affidavit?
ano na ba ang status?
kaya nagrally ang INC ay para burahin ang sinapamng kaso
as if it never was filed sa tingin ko...
without due process ever taking place...
so that the INC is now the LAW?
as per the news, ibababa daw sa piskalya ang kaso
Post by: tony on Sep 01, 2015 at 02:15 PM
Post by: barrister on Sep 01, 2015 at 05:56 PM
teka, submitted for resolution na ba yung kaso?
di ba prelminary investigation pa nga lang?
hiningnan na ba ang iglesia ng counter affidavit?
ano na ba ang status?
Ang status, AFAIK, hindi pa nga nag-uumpisa ang PI. Kaya wala pang Counter-Affidavit.
kaya nagrally ang INC ay para burahin ang sinapamng kaso
as if it never was filed sa tingin ko...
without due process ever taking place...
so that the INC is now the LAW?
Ang sinasabi ng INC officially, bakit daw masyadong binigyan ng priority ang Sanggunian case, samantalang yung ibang mas mabigat na kaso katulad ng sa SAF 44 hindi gumagalaw.
Hindi nila sinasabing dapat dismissed yung kanila, o dapat no action ang DOJ.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/716563/inc-questions-de-limas-motive-on-putting-samsons-complaint-before-mamasapano (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/716563/inc-questions-de-limas-motive-on-putting-samsons-complaint-before-mamasapano)
Ang tunay na reason ng rally, hindi naman nililinaw ng INC. Kaya nga walang simpatya ang tao sa rally nila.
Sabi sa mga placards, separation of church and state. Ayaw ding linawin kung paanong naging separation of church and state ang issue.
Post by: tony on Sep 01, 2015 at 06:39 PM
sending followers to rallies on mere perceptions?
Post by: pTrader on Oct 20, 2015 at 05:11 PM
perception nila yon, are these the kind of leaders you want to have in your church?
sending followers to rallies on mere perceptions?
after the rally, tumahimik na ang kaso, tapos wala update.. hmmm...
Post by: SiCkBoY on Oct 26, 2015 at 12:53 AM
Post by: abbey on Dec 24, 2015 at 06:13 PM
It is by then the work of the Holy Spirit working on a genuine Christian for validatiion.
Follow-up question sino ba talaga ngayon yung genuine, sa daming nagsulmaganda ang relihiyon at sekta?
God thru the Bible will point you to the right religion 100%.
2 Corinto 1Ang Dating Biblia (1905) (ADB1905)
1 Si Pablo, na Apostol ni Cristo Jesus sa pamamagitan ng kalooban ng Dios, at si Timoteo, na ating kapatid sa Iglesia ng Dios na nasa Corinto, kalakip ng lahat ng mga banal na nasa buong Acaya.
Post by: tony on Jan 01, 2016 at 10:29 AM
Post by: jerix on Jan 01, 2016 at 10:51 AM
God thru the Bible will point you to the right religion 100%.
All religions appears all to be the right religion. Everybody will go to heaven.
Post by: tony on Jan 02, 2016 at 08:15 AM
Post by: abbey on Jan 04, 2016 at 09:06 PM
God was present even without the Bible...
Yes and God was already present even without humanity.That's why the Bible was written for us human being.
A love letter from God. :)
Post by: abbey on Jan 04, 2016 at 09:15 PM
All religions appears all to be the right religion. Everybody will go to heaven.
Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.