Philippines and Vatican release Pope ...

Philippines and Vatican release Pope Francis postage stamps

There are 95 comments on the DFW Catholic story from Mar 27, 2014, titled Philippines and Vatican release Pope Francis postage stamps. In it, DFW Catholic reports that:

Manila, Philippines, Mar 27, 2014 / 02:02 am .- The Philippine Postal Corporation, in collaboration with the Holy See, has released a commemorative postage stamp celebrating the pontificate of Pope Francis.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at DFW Catholic.

ELIAS IBARRA

Guam

#64 Aug 6, 2014
Pinatutunayan ng Biblia na hindi si Cristo ang tunay na Diyos kundi ang Ama na lumalang ng lahat ng bagay. Sa kabila nito, maraming tagapangaral ang gumagamit ng mga talata ng Biblia para patunayan na si Cristo ay tunay na Diyos. Subalit, maging ang ibang nagtataguyod ng paniniwala na si Cristo ay Diyos ay tinututulan ang paggamit ng mga talatang ito para patunayan na si Cristo ay Diyos. Ayon sa pag-aaral ng mga tumututol na ito, ang mga talatang tinutukoy ay hindi mapagbabatayan na si Cristo ay Diyos. Ang tatalakayin sa artikulong ito ay ang ilan sa mga pangunahin at karaniwang mga talata ng Biblia na pinagbabatayan ng mga naniniwalang si Cristo ay Diyos.

Juan 10:30

“Ako at ang ama ay iisa.”

Ang sinabing ito ni Cristo ang isa sa mga talata ng Biblia na karaniwang ginagamit na katunayan na si Cristo ay Diyos. Subalit alam ba ninyo na maraming nasa hanay ng mga naniniwalang si Cristo ay Diyos ay tumututol na ang talatang ito ay katunayan ng diumano'y pagiging Diyos ni Cristo? Tunghayan natin ang pahayag ng isang paring Jesuita na si Stanley B. Marrow:

“Gayunman, ang malamang na hindi natin mapansin sa mga pananalitang ito ni Jesus ay, hindi niya sinabi na 'Ako at ang Diyos ay iisa'. Ang buong dahilan kung bakit niya sinabi iyon ay hindi upang angkinin sa sarili ang pagka-Diyos, kundi upang linawin na ang kanyang misyon billang Siyang Anak ay upang isagawa ang kalooban ng Ama na nagsugo sa kaniya (tingnan ang 4:34; 5:30). Sa pamamagitan ng ganitong pagsunod sa kalooban ng Ama ay pinatutunayan niya ang kaniyang pagiging tunay na Anak. Sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang buong-buong pagsunod ay inihayag niya na ang Diyos ang kanyang Ama. Dahil sa lubos na pagsang-ayon ng kaniyang kalooban, dahil sa kaniyang pagsunod sa kalooban ng Ama kaya niya sinabi na 'Ako at ang Ama ay iisa'.”

“What we are likely to overlook in these words of Jesus, however, is that he does not say,'I and God are one'. The whole reason why he makes the claim at all is not to arrogate to himself the divinity, but to make clear that his mission as the Son is to carry the will of the Father who sent him (see 4:34; 5:30). It is in this obedience to the will of the Father that he witnesses to his true Sonship. By the totality of his obedience he reveals God as his Father. It is because of the total conformity of his will, because of his obedience, to the will of the Father, that he can say ,'I and the Father are one'.”

Reference: Marrow, Stanley B. The Gospel of John – A Reading, p. 177. Makati, Philippines: Paulist Press, 1997.

Ayon sa paring Jesuitang ito, hindi pinatutunayan ni Cristo na Siya ay Diyos nang Kaniyang sabihin,'Ako at ang Ama ay iisa.” Ang pinatutunayan ni Cristo sa talatang ito ay kaisa Siya sa kalooban ng Diyos at ito'y pinatunayan Niya sa pamamagitan ng Kaniyang pagsunod.

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Tamuning, Guam

#65 Aug 10, 2014
Ang isa pang naniniwala na Diyos si Cristo ay ang Protestanteng komentarista ng Biblia na si A.M. Hunter. Subalit sa kabila ng kaniyang paniniwalang ito, ayon sa kaniya, ang sinabi ni Cristo na “Ako at ang Ama ay iisa” ay hindi katunayan na si Crsito ay Diyos. Sang-ayon din siya na si Cristo ay kaisa ng Diyos sa kalooban at hindi sa kalagayan:

“… Ang aking Ama at ako ay iisa. Ang kaisahan ay sa layunin sa halip na sa kasiyangaan:“Iniisip ng Anak ang mga nasa isipan ng Ama, at hinahangad ang layon ng Ama, at gumagawa sa kapangyarihan ng Ama'…“

“… My Father and I are one. The unity is one of will rather than of substance:'The Son thinks the Father's thoughts, and wills the Father's purpose, and acts in the Father's power'...”.

Reference: Hunter, A.M.The Cambridge Bible Commentary: The Gospel According to John, Commentary, p.107. London and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Guam

#66 Aug 22, 2014
Bakit kahit ang mga nagtataguyod ng aral na Diyos si Cristo ay tinatanggihan na ang nasa Juan 10:30 ay katunayan na si Cristo ay Diyos? Ang iskolar ng Biblia na si Albert Barnes ay nagbigay ng komento sa talatang nabanggit:

“30. Ako at ang aking Ama ay iisa. Ang salitang isinalin na 'iisa'[one] ay wala sa masculine [panlalaki] kundi nasa neuter gender [walang kasarian]. Ito'y naghahayag ng pagiging isa (union), subalit hindi tiyak ang uri ng union na iyon. Ito'y maaaring maghayag ng anumang union, at ang patrikular na uri na tinutukoy ay mahihinuha mula sa pagkakaugnay. Sa naunang talata ay sinabi niya na siya at ang kaniyang Ama ay nagkakaisa sa iisang layon – alalaong baga'y sa pagtubos at pangangalaga sa kaniyang bayan. Ito ang diwa ng kaniyang pangungusap.”

“I and my Father are one. The word translated 'one' is not in the masculine, but in the neuter gender. It expresses union, but not the precise nature of the union. It may express any union, and the particular kind intended is to be inferred from the connection. In the previous verse he had said that he and his Father were united in the same object – that is, in redeeming and preserving his people. It was this that gave occasion for this remark.”

Reference; Barnes, Albert. Barnes' Notes – Notes on the New Testament, p. 293. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1985.

Si Albert Barnes ay isang iskolar sa Biblia at ministro ng Presbyterian Church. Ang iglesiang kaniyang kinabibilangan ay naniniwala na si Cristo ay Diyos. Ngunit itinuturo niya na ang nasa Juan 10:30 ay hindi katunayan na si Cristo ay Diyos. Ayon sa kaniyang pag-aaral, sa wikang Griyego, ang salitang “iisa” na nasa Juan 10:30 ay hindi masculine kundi neuter na tumutukoy sa pagkakaisa, hindi sa kalagayan kundi sa layunin.

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Guam

#67 Aug 22, 2014
Narito pa ang karagdagang patotoo ukol sa isyung ito ng mga nasa hanay ng mga naniniwala na si Cristo ay Diyos:

“Ang salita para sa 'isa' ay ang neuter na hen, at hindi ang masculine na heis: Si Jesus at ang Kaniyang Ama ay hindi iisang persona, gaya ng ibig ipakahulugan ng masculine … si Jesus at ang kaniyang Ama ay lubos na iisa sa pagkilos, sa kanilang ginagawa …“

“The word for 'one' is the neuter hen, not the masculine heis: Jesus and his Father are not one person, as the masculine would suggest … Jesus and his Father are perfectly one in action, in what they do …“

Reference: Carson, D.A. The Pillar New Testament Commentary: The Gospel According to John, p. 394. Grand Rapids, Michigan: W.M.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1991.

“Ang 'iisa' ay neuter,'iisang bagay', at hindi 'isang persona'. Hindi ipinahahayag dito ang pagkakatulad kundi ang mahalagang pagkakaisa.”

“'One' is neuter,'one thing' and not 'one person'. Identity is not asserted' but essential unity is.”

Reference: Morris, Leon. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospel According to John, p. 522. Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

“Totoong ipinahayag ni Jesus,'Ako at ang aking Ama ay iisa',(Juan 10:30). Subalit hindi ito nangangahulugang si Jesus at ang Kaniyang Ama ay iisang Persona … dahil ang Griyegong neuter na hen ('iisa') ang ginamit ng apostol na si Juan sa halip na ang masculine na heis; kaya ang mahalagang pagkakaisa ang tinutukoy, hindi ang lubos na pagkakatulad.”

“Jesus did state,'I and My father are one',(John 10:30). But this does not mean that Jesus and His Father are one Person … for the Greek neuter hen ('one') is used by the apostle John instead of the masculine heis; therefore essential unity is meant, not absolute identity.”

Reference: Systematic Theology: A Pentecostal Perspective, p.174.

Maliwanag sa patotoo mismo ng mga naniniwala na si Cristo ay Diyos na ang sinabi ni Cristo na “Ako at ang Ama ay iisa” sa Juan 10:30 ay7 hindi mapagbabatayan na si Cristo ay Diyos.

All Catholics and Protestants must reject the Trinitarian doctrines and depart from these false religions!!!

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Guam

#68 Sep 3, 2014
Roma 9:5

“Na sa kanila ang mga magulang, at sa kanila mula ang Cristo ayon sa laman, na siyang lalo sa lahat, Dios na maluwalhati magpakailan man, Siya nawa.”

Alam ba ninyo na maging ang nasa Roma 9:5 ay tinatanggihan din ng marami bilang batayan ng paniniwala na Diyos si Cristo? Na ang talatang ito ay hindi katunayang si Cristo ay Diyos? Ayon sa mga nagsusuri sa talatang ito ang Diyos na binabanggit sa talatang ito ay tumutukoy sa Ama at hindi kay Cristo. Ganito ang pahayag ni Everett F. harrison, isang tagapagturong Protestante:

“Subalit, ang 'Diyos na siyang lalo sa lahat' ba ang tamang pagkasalin? Dahil sa iniiwasan ni Pablo sa ibang dako ang gayong tiyak na pagkilala, sa kabila ng kaniyang mataas na antas sa Cristolohiya , tinatanggihan ng ibang iskolar ang tradisyunal na pagkakasalin, kinakatigan ang ibang pagkakasalin tulad ng sa NEB (New English Bible):'Nawa ang Diyos, kataas-taasan sa lahat, ay purihin magpakailan man'. Ito'y nangangahulugang dapat tanggapin ang pangwakas na bahagi ng talata bilang isang doxologia at ipinapatutungkol sa Diyos (ang Ama).”

“But is 'God over all' the correct translation? On the ground that elsewhere Paul avoids such a stark identification, despite his high Christology, some scholars reject the traditional rendering, preferring something on the order of NEB:'May God, supreme above all, be blessed for ever'.' This involves taking the closing portion of the verse as a doxology and referring it to God the Father.”

Reference: The Expositor's Bible Commentary with the New International Version, vol. 10, p. 103. Gaebelin, Frank E., General Editor. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.

All Vatican-duped Catholics and Protestants must depart from their cults and reject its false teachings!!!

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

#69 Sep 11, 2014
Ganito rin ang patotoo ng isang teologo na si Georg Kummel:

“Lalong malinaw mula sa katotohanang iniwasan ni Pablo na tawaging 'Diyos' si Cristo, na wala siyang isipang pagpantayin sila.”

“It is evident, further, from the fact that Paul avoids calling Christ 'God' that he has no idea equating them.”

Reference: Kummel. Werner Georg.The Theology of the New Testament, p. 164. Nashville and New York: Abington Press, 1973.

All Catholics and Protestants must depart from Catholicism and Protestantism!!! These cults are proselytizing false doctrines!!!

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
KidlatNgayon

Toronto, Canada

#71 Sep 12, 2014
IsraelNOTPinas wrote:
<quoted text>
Bishop Felix Manalo is not a Messias sent by God!! The Messias is the Lord Jesus Christ and not someone who just usurped the functions of the true God!! The fact that Felix died in Ulcer is proof enough that he is never a Messias but a thief of one of God's titles!!! he employed religion as a cloak to cover his…immoral practices; that he pretended to be the Messias sent by God; and that to persuade his victims, he cited the example of Solomon and his many wives”
All Manalonians must improve their very low I.Q.!!!
Iglesia Ni Cristo NEVER EVER claimed that Bro, Felix Y. Manalo is the Messiah. Only the Lord Jesus Christ (to whom our Church is named after) is the Messiah.

You are inventing based on your own belief. Post something with a credible reference that Bro. Felix manalo called himself the Messiah or the Church of Christ called him the Messiah.

You are a liar like your Father of Lies, Satan!
pazuzu

Yigo, Guam

#72 Sep 12, 2014
KidlatNgayon wrote:
<quoted text>
Iglesia Ni Cristo NEVER EVER claimed that Bro, Felix Y. Manalo is the Messiah. Only the Lord Jesus Christ (to whom our Church is named after) is the Messiah.
You are inventing based on your own belief. Post something with a credible reference that Bro. Felix manalo called himself the Messiah or the Church of Christ called him the Messiah.
You are a liar like your Father of Lies, Satan!
KidlatnGAYon,

Since you put so much importance on who owns INC, you might want to investigate who owns EGM medical center LOL.
KidlatNgayon

Toronto, Canada

#73 Sep 16, 2014
pazuzu wrote:
<quoted text>
KidlatnGAYon,
Since you put so much importance on who owns INC, you might want to investigate who owns EGM medical center LOL.
Sanggol, who owns these hospitals?

• GAT Andres Bonifacio Memorial Medical Center - Delpan Street, Tondo
• Hospital of the Infant Jesus - Laong Laan Street, Sampaloc
• Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center - San Lazaro Compound, Rizal Avenue, Santa Cruz

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#74 Sep 16, 2014
There is nothing wrong with owning and running a hospital.
KidlatNgayon

Toronto, Canada

#75 Sep 16, 2014
Iglesia_Ni_Dinuguan wrote:
There is nothing wrong with owning and running a hospital.
Dinugo, what I mean is ... when a hospital is named after someone, that does not mean that someone owns that hospital. Read...read...read before you comment.
KidlatNgayon

Toronto, Canada

#76 Sep 16, 2014
pazuzu wrote:
<quoted text>
KidlatnGAYon,
Since you put so much importance on who owns INC, you might want to investigate who owns EGM medical center LOL.
Of course it's important to us, our Lord Jesus Christ owns the Iglesia Ni Cristo - the Church which is His body, being the head.

John 10:26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.…
pazuzu

Yigo, Guam

#77 Sep 16, 2014
KidlatNgayon wrote:
<quoted text>
Sanggol, who owns these hospitals?
• GAT Andres Bonifacio Memorial Medical Center - Delpan Street, Tondo
• Hospital of the Infant Jesus - Laong Laan Street, Sampaloc
• Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center - San Lazaro Compound, Rizal Avenue, Santa Cruz
kidlatn GAY on,

As for the above hospitals, who cares? I just proved to you that the Manalos own the EGM medical center and that INC is a family business. If your reasoning is that Jesus Christ owns INC because it is called such, who then own EGM medical center? Is it INC or is it Manalo?
pazuzu

Yigo, Guam

#78 Sep 16, 2014
KidlatNgayon wrote:
<quoted text>
Dinugo, what I mean is ... when a hospital is named after someone, that does not mean that someone owns that hospital. Read...read...read before you comment.
kidlatnGAYon,

Yes! according to INC reasoning! What does Jose Ventilacion ask my uncle Karl when they had a debate? Jose said INC is the true church because it is named Church of Christ and it is OWNED by Christ. When a church is named after someone, that does not mean that someone owns that church. In other words, just because it is named Church of Christ, it doesn't mean Christ is the owner.You are starting to see the light LOL.
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

#79 Sep 16, 2014
pazuzu wrote:
<quoted text>
KidlatnGAYon,
Since you put so much importance on who owns INC, you might want to investigate who owns EGM medical center LOL.
Patsuptsup,

The Iglesia ni Cristo is a corporation sole and this means that the true Church is under an Administrator!!! The Administrator does not own the assets of the Church but the entire organization or the Church!!! But the true Church Herself is owned by God and Christ!!! God planted Christ as the Vine (head) with branches (Church) or members!!! God and Christ are therefore co-owners of the true religion!!!

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
pazuzu

Yigo, Guam

#80 Sep 16, 2014
ELIAS IBARRA wrote:
<quoted text>
Patsuptsup,
The Iglesia ni Cristo is a corporation sole and this means that the true Church is under an Administrator!!! The Administrator does not own the assets of the Church but the entire organization or the Church!!! But the true Church Herself is owned by God and Christ!!! God planted Christ as the Vine (head) with branches (Church) or members!!! God and Christ are therefore co-owners of the true religion!!!
Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
EliASS,

You didn't answer the question. Who owns EGM Medical Center? Does EGM = God/Christ?
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

#81 Sep 17, 2014
pazuzu wrote:
<quoted text>
EliASS,
You didn't answer the question. Who owns EGM Medical Center? Does EGM = God/Christ?
Patsuptsup,

Your question was answered already except the matter of who owns the Magdalene Laundries!!! Here is the answer:

Magdalene Laundries in Ireland and Across the Western World



Magdalene Laundries: Sanctified Slavery

Imagine getting pregnant as a young teenager, or getting pregnant as a single mother. Your baby is ripped from your arms and sent to an orphanage the moment he is weaned. You are sent to a prison where you will be forced into slavery for the rest of your life.

For approximately 30,000 women in Ireland, this was a reality. In actuality, it was a very recent reality: the last Magdalene Laundry closed on September 25, 1996. It might seem surprising that the Magdalene Laundries continued for so long, but they were not in the public conscience until a rather macabre discovery was made when a convent of nuns sold their real estate: 155 inmates were buried in unmarked graves. The discovery at the Good Shepherd Asylum finally made the national news in 1999, and became a scandal.

Originally, Magdalene Laundries were meant for the rehabilitation of prostitutes. Initiated by the Evangelical Rescue Group in the United Kingdom, the goal of the Rescue Movement was to find quality employment for former prostitutes, who could not obtain a career due to their history. In Ireland, the Rescue Movement locations became known as Magdalene Laundries, nicknamed for Mary Magdalene of the Bible (a prostitute, according to Catholic tradition). The primary intent of the Rescue Movement was to help prostitutes restore their standing in society.

While the majority of Magdalene Laundries were run by the Catholic Church, there were two laundries run for (and by) Protestants. Bethany Home in Rathgar, Dublin was one such institution. The laundry on Ballsbridge Terrace in Dublin was another Protestant laundry.

Post 1...to be continued

Reposted by:

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam

ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

#82 Sep 17, 2014
Post 2...to be continued

Life Inside a Magdalene Laundry

Women were not allowed to speak to each other inside the Magdalene Laundry. Silence was imposed for most of the working hours, which were typically 10 hours per day, six days per week. The women received no wages, though the laundries were profitable organizations. The women were not allowed to see their families, or even their own children – who were often kept in an orphanage adjacent to the Magdalene Laundry.

Women were completely imprisoned, and never saw life outside of the laundry – and private conversation was forbidden. Women were assigned numbers rather than names, or had their names changed to a different moniker, since they were “sinners” and could not be allowed to have the same name as a holy figure from the Bible.

Post 2...to be continued

Reposted by:

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

#83 Sep 17, 2014
Post 3...End.

A Woman's Account of Life in a Magdalene Laundry

Mary Norris is a woman who was taken from her family as a 12 year old girl. Her mother was having a relationship with a nearby farmer, and the Catholic Church deemed the family situation “unsuitable” for young Mary. So they took her from her mother, locked her in a laundry, and condemned her to a life of slavery.

Mary was the eldest of eight children, living in South Kerry, Ireland. Her father died of cancer in 1945, leaving Mary’s bereft mother the sole provider for her young brood. Mary’s mother began a relationship with a local farmer, who was kind and generous to the children. They might have had a happy life, if not for the intrusion of the Catholic Church into their happy family life.

A local priest appeared at their door one morning, demanding that Mary’s mother and the farmer appear at the church by 8:00am with the farmer, or end the relationship. Mary’s mother refused.

A car pulled up to the house a couple of months later: the police and child welfare had come to take the children away because the mother’s lifestyle was considered unsuitable. By that evening, Mary and her siblings were all wards of the court, and Mary was placed into an orphanage.

The orphanage was just a stop on the trail leading to the Magdalene Laundry. As girls became too old for the orphanage life, they were often transitioned to the Magdalene Laundries under the pretense of some created “sin.”

Mary was assigned a job as a maid for a local family, but returned late one evening because she had gone to see a movie. The nuns were enraged, called her a tramp, and took her to a local doctor to be examined. A painful examination followed, proving that Mary was, indeed,“intact.” Despite this evidence, the nuns shipped her off to the Magdalene Laundry in Cork, Ireland.

Life in the Magdalene Laundry was horrible. Mary would go to the toilets at night, because there was a skylight there. When she couldn’t sleep, she would get a brief glimpse of the outside world – the sight of the stars and sky were reminders that an outside world existed. Her name was changed to Myra, because she was not allowed to share the name of a holy woman.

Wearing a strip of cloth to flatten her breasts, and a long, shapeless dress, Mary ironed, pressed, and cleaned every day – for no pay. She managed to escape this sanctified form of slavery two years after her admittance to the laundry. An American aunt had sent a letter, inquiring as to the whereabouts of young Mary. Outsiders were feared, and Mary was released at the age of 19. Mary suspects that money was exchanged for her release, though she has no proof.

Mary was reunited with her mother and sisters (who had been released from their orphanage) a year later. Mary’s brothers were not returned to the family, and were kept by the notoriously abusive Christian Brothers – one brother was later murdered, and the other died in a fire.

Mary now lives with her second husband in the west of Ireland.

Post 3...End.

Reposted by:

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
KidlatNgayon

Toronto, Canada

#84 Sep 17, 2014
pazuzu wrote:
<quoted text>
kidlatn GAY on,
As for the above hospitals, who cares? I just proved to you that the Manalos own the EGM medical center and that INC is a family business. If your reasoning is that Jesus Christ owns INC because it is called such, who then own EGM medical center? Is it INC or is it Manalo?
Are you crazy? How did you prove to me that the Manalos own the hospital? All INC properties belong to the Church.

Your logic is very off, stop using crack!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr Michael 699,593
News Alfie Evans' dad meets POPE to plead for asylum... 19 hr C Kersey 1
News United House of Prayer for All People: Bishop's... (Apr '08) Apr 18 G-Tee 10,755
News Pope writes Chile's bishops after receiving sex... Apr 12 Wisdom of Ages 1
News Vatican nixes former Irish president from Women... Apr 5 dubiecatholicarch... 3
News Vatican backs Obama as Nobel Peace Prize Winner (Oct '09) Apr 5 helpful links 40
News 'Hell does not exist,' says Pope Francis Apr 5 thepopeonthetwit 3