The "Hidwang, Hunghang, And Wangwang" Teachings Of The Catholics And Protestants

Posted in the Philippines Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of214
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Definition of Terms For Easy Understanding:

1. Hidwang - from the Pilipino word "hidwa" meaning spurious, false, fake, incorrect, wrong, twisted, etc.

2. Hunghang- a Pilipino word meaning foolish, perverted, dumb, insane, and demented.

3. Wangwang- a Pilipino word coined from the sound of emergency state vehicles such as that of the police, fire department, and hospital. It also means "to "force through".

As used in a sentence:

1a. Bagaman and mga turo nang Santong Sulat ay iisa lamang ang tunay na Diyos, ginawang hidwa ito at binago ng mga Katoliko at Protestante.
1b. Although the Holy Scriptures is teaching only one true God, this was made spurious and changed by Catholics and Protestants.

2a. Minsan nang inamin ng isang dating pareng Katoliko na ang nasabing pananampalatayang Katolisismo ay paniniwala ng mga makasalanan at hunghang.
b. An ex-Roman Catholic priest once admitted that the Roman Catholic religion is the belief of sinners and fools.

3a. Ang mga pajeros na may mga itim na salamin mula sa PCSO at PAGCOR ay ginamit ng mga "Buayang Obispo" upang isakay ang palagiang hangad ng kanilang mga mata, ang mga murang edad na kabataang lalake at babae mula sa mga dalubhasaan at pamantasang Katoliko.
3b. The tinted pajeros coming from the PCSO and PAGCOR were used by the "Lolong Bishops" in transporting the cynosure of their eyes, the young boys and girls from Catholic colleges and universities.

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

The "Hidwang", "Hunghang", And "Wangwang" Religions Classified And Christ's Own Classification:

Churches and sects have been classified by religious scholars in various ways and with considerations of various categories. To illustrate, there are those who divide "Christianity" into three main branches, namely, Catholicism [referring to the Roman Catholic Church], Greek Orthodoxy, and Protestantism [consisting of Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, and Independents].

Others classify these churches according to polity or government, namely, episcopal, presbyterial, congregational, or a combination of these. However, any better classification that may be conventionally acceptable will not be as important as recognizing the authentic Christian Church or Church of Christ (Iglesia ni Cristo).

In fact, the most significant classification was that made by Jesus Christ. He classified religions into two by distinguishing between the religion that is of God and that which is not. He said:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." [Mt. 7:13, New International Version]

The true religion is the way to God. Here, Christ mentions about the wide and the narrow gates in reference to religions. The wide gate or the broad road refers to religions that separate man from God and lead him to destruction. The small gate or narrow road refers to the true religion that leads man to God so that he would attain life. Unfortunately, only a few, according to the Lord Himself, find the way to God. Even more lamentable is the fact that others refuse to search for the narrow gate or the true religion that will lead man to Him.

The religions that do not belong to God are those whose teachers teach false doctrines and do not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ [cf. I Tim. 6:3] and, therefore, pose danger to the life of man. These are the "Hidwangs", "Hunghangs", And "Wangwangs" !!!

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Where Most Of The "Hidwang", "Hunghang", And "Wangwang" Religions Came From Including The Places Of Paganism Where They Borrowed Their False Beliefs:

1. " ... In the north the Protestants were in control---Lutheran churches in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, the northern and central states of Germany; Calvinists or Reformed churches in Scotland, the Netherlands, Hesse, the Palatinate, and a few of the western German states. In the south the Catholics were in control---Spain, Italy, Austria, Bavaria, and elsewhere in southern Germany."

Reference:[Owen Chadwick, The Reformation, p.366]

2. "We Catholics do not quarrel with the methods of the religious historian, so long as he keeps within his proper limits, within the limits of historical data and proved historical fact, and so long as he does not claim in his classification of religious types to pass decisive judgment upon the essential nature of the religious structure which he has under examination. We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. There is no mechanical identity, but an organic identity. And we go further and say that thousands of years hence Catholicism will probably be even richer, more luxuriant, more manifold in dogma, morals, law and worship than the Catholicism of the present day. A religious historian of the fifth millennium A.D. will without difficulty discover in Catholicism conceptions and forms and practices which derive from India, China and Japan, and he will have to recognize a far more obvious complex of opposites."

Reference:(Adam, Karl. The Spirit Of Catholicism, p.2. Revised Edition. Translated by Dom Justin McCann, O.S.B. Nihil Obstat: Arthur J. Scanlan, S.T.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Archbishop of New York. New York, USA: Image Books, 1954)

3. "The choice of December 25 was probably influenced by the fact that on this day the Romans celebrated the Mithraic feast of the Sun-god (natalis solis invicti), and that the Saturnalia also came at this time. The indications are that the Church in this way grasped the opportunity to turn the people away from the purely pagan observance of the winter solstice to a day of adoration of Christ the Lord. Both St. Cyprian and St. John Chrysostom allude to this thought in their writings."

Reference:(Catholic Encyclopedia. vol. 6, p. 403)

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

The False Gods And Erroneous Beliefs About God By The "Hidwang", "Hunghang", And "Wangwang" Catholics And Protestants:

Contrary to what the Holy Scriptures taught, the spurious religions uphold erroneous beliefs concerning God. One of these is the belief that there are three persons in one God, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is explained in a Catholic book, The Question Box, which says:

" ... In God there are three Persons in one Divine Essence, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, really distinct, equal, and of one substance. The Father is Unbegotten, the Son Begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son ..." (pp. 39-40)

Those who call themselves Jehovah Witnesses, on the other hand, introduce two gods, namely, a Mighty God and an Almighty God, referring to Christ and the Father, respectively:

"Much more could and do the true Scriptures speak of God's Son, the Word, as 'a god'. He is a 'mighty god' but not the Almighty God, who is Jehovah."

Reference:(The Truth Shall Make You Free, p.47)

The Worldwide Church of God, introduces God as being composed of a family:

"While he was on earth, Jesus made it clear that there was one who held a senior position to himself. He called his superior 'the Father,' establishing a relationship that human beings can readily understand. There was a Father and a Son--God is a family!... A characteristic of families is that they grow. But does God's Family grow? The Bible tells us that it does. When writing to the congregation at Rome, Paul explained that Jesus Christ was the 'firstborn among many brethren'(Romans 8:29). In his epistle to the Hebrew, he explained that God is in the process of 'bringing many sons to glory'(Hebrews 2:10).... Could it be plainer? The Scripture tells us that it is a family, with a Father and a firstborn Son, who is charged with the responsibility of bringing many others to glory. We, the human race, are those potential children." Reference:(Groping in the Light, pp. 23-25)

Meanwhile, the Oneness Pentecostal maintains that Jesus is both the Father and the Holy Spirit:

"In contrast to trinitarianism, Oneness asserts the following :(1.) God is indivisibly one in number with no distinction of persons.(2.) God's oneness is no mystery.(3.) Jesus is the absolute fullness of God in flesh; He is Elohim, Yahweh, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit."

Reference:(The Oneness View of Jesus Christ, p. 30)

For the Mormons, God was once a man like us. This is expressly stated in Joseph Smith's teachings, thus:

"Joseph Smith said:'God himself as we are now , and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see ... It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible ..." (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321)

And there is also the doctrine that God became human as Jesus Christ. In this book, Things Catholics Are Asked About, this is written:

"The incarnation means that God became man. How this was accomplished we do not know. But revelation states that God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity became man. We believe it, and if necessary would die for our belief, not because we understand this mystery, but because God revealed it to us." (p. 10)

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Roman Catholics believe that Christ, who is one of the three persons in the Holy Trinity, is God!!! When was this false doctrine promulgated and who were the false preachers who authored this??? A Roman Catholic book reveals:

"Thus, for example, it was not until 325 A.D., at the Council of Nicaea, that the [Catholic} Church defined for us that it was an article of faith that Jesus is truly God."

Reference:(Discourses on the Apostles' Creed, p. 206)

The Roman Catholic Church defined that it was an article of faith that Jesus is truly God in 325 A.D.!!! Take notice of the year when the dogma was promulgated and attended by the bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and with the Catholic Pope presiding at the Council of Nicaea!!! For almost 200 years had passed when Christ ascended to heaven and the Apostles were already dead and, therefore, they could had no consent nor knowledge of this kind of apostate doctrine!!!

Did Christ's Apostles have knowledge of this apostate doctrine??? A BIG NO!!! They were dead already as attested to by the following reference:

" ...For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church-fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul." (The Story of the Christian Church, p. 41)

Was the dogma of the Holy Trinity sanctioned by Christ and His apostles including the first-century members of the Church of Christ??? A book on Catholicism soundly declares:

"The New Testament writers do not even ordinarily speak of Jesus as 'God'..."

"Ni hindi man lamang karaniwang binabanggit ng mga manunulat ng Bagong Tipan ang tungkol kay Jesus bilang 'Diyos'..."

Reference: McBrien, Richard P. Catholicism. Third Edition. p. 346. Great Britain: Geoffrey Chapman, 1994.

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

A minister of the true Church of Christ (Iglesia ni Cristo) expounds on one of the spurious and demented doctrine of the "Hidwang", "Hunghang", And "Wangwang" Religions:

The Myth of Apostolicity

(The "most convincing argument" of the early Fathers of the Catholic Church is not convincing at all.)

By Feljun B. Fuentes

"When the early Fathers wished to use a most convincing argument to prove the true Church," writes Rev. Bertrand L. Conway, "they always appealed to the fact of its apostolic origin" (The Question Box, p.135). To warrant such argument, Catholic apologists adduce to a list of allegedly authentic Bishops (Popes) believed to have succeeded Apostle Peter (first in the list) down from one generation to another. With the list of Popes at hand, they feel confident and assured with the issue, with the thought that the list provides them the best and adequate premise to their foregone conclusion --that is, the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, though apparently and sharply distinct from so-called primitive Christianity, is allegedly by all standards the same Church of Christ founded by Jesus of Nazareth in the first century.

Such claim not only proves to be precarious to their avid desire to authenticate but also to be preposterous because it contradicts facts of evidence from history and from the epistles of the Apostles of Christ to the Church. Hence, the argument from apostolicity, which we are here prepared to investigate, is doomed to fail and further leaves the Catholic apologists with an alternative none other than to admit the poverty of their argument.

Apostolicity Defined

Apostolicity, as defined by Leo Trese, "means simply that the Church which claims to be Christ's own must be able to prove its legitimate descent from the apostles, upon whom as a foundation Jesus established his Church." (The Faith Explained, p. 139) From the "list of the Bishops of Rome, going back from the Holy Father of our own day in a continous line to St. Peter," The Catholic Church proceeds to claim being the true Church of Christ. She further claims that the "true successors of the apostles" are the Popes of the Catholic Church who allegedly "are today's latest links in an unbroken chain which stretches back 1900 years." (Ibid.)

The celebrated James Cardinal Gibbons himself was convinced by this argument during his lifetime. In fact, his very own words defending this argument can be found in his famous book entitled The Faith of our Fathers. In his book, Gibbons strongly asserted:

"The Church did not die with Peter. It was designed to continue till the end of time; consequently, whatever official prerogatives were conferred on Peter were not to cease at his death, but were to be handed down to his successors from generation to generation." (pg. 89)

There is no gainsaying that Cardinal Gibbons reasoned along the same line. Yet, careful examination of Church history and prudent understanding of the epistles necessarily bring this argument to its astonishing end and cause the argument to inevitably crumble into pieces.

Post 1...to be continued

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Post 2...Continuation of:

The Myth of Apostolicity

(The "most convincing argument" of the early Fathers of the Catholic Church is not convincing at all.)

By Feljun B. Fuentes

The Three Points of Investigation

There are three crucial considerations in our examination of the argument from apostolicity. First, the contention that the death of the Apostles (the end of their ministry), did not punctuate the existence of the Church of Christ. Or, that the Church founded by Jesus has continued in its existence through the centuries. Second, that it was the Bishops of Rome (Popes) who succeeded Apostle Peter and were the ones given the authority and prerogatives to shepherd the young Church of Christ. Third, that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope of the Catholic Church, thus demonstrating a direct line and legitimate descent from the Apostles. These three points shall be dealt with one after another.

Apostle Peter's Warning

At the close of Apostle Peter's ministry in the Church, that is, prior to his death, he wrote the following to the Christians:

"False prophets appeared in the past among the people, and in the same way false teachers will appear among you. They will bring in destructive, untrue doctrines, and will deny the Master who redeemed them, and so they will bring upon themselves sudden destruction." (II Peter 2:1, Today's English Version)

This alarming prophecy was sounded with certainty regarding an impending apostasy or turning away of the Church from pristine Christian tenets. The apostasy was to be led by false prophets. To the Christians, Peter said these "...will appear among you." Indeed, these teachers would come not from without but from within the Church of Christ itself and would be responsible in bringing in heretical doctrines into the Church. Their absorbing influence would pervade the life of the early Christians as they usher the credulous ones of their time away from true Christianity.

Apostle Paul Warned Of The Same

Not alone was the Apostle to the Jews in this prophetic warning with regard to the impending danger confronting the Church. Apostle Paul, too, prophesied that, "The time will come when some men from your own group will tell lies to lead the believers away from them." (Acts 20:30, Ibid.). This would take place "when I leave" (Acts 20:29, Ibid.) said Apostle Paul.

Both the Apostles Peter and Paul were aware of the adverse conditions of the Christian faith after their demise. It was understood that the Church would reach its end. That is, when the authors of the apostasy would lead the Church astray. And these men would come from the company of believers themselves.

to be continued...

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Post 3...Continuation of:

The Myth of Apostolicity

(The "most convincing argument" of the early Fathers of the Catholic Church is not convincing at all.)

By Feljun B. Fuentes

Christ's Testimony Was Related

Jesus Christ during His public ministry, forewarned of the rising of false prophets. In one of His sermons, He explicitly said:

"Be on your guard against false prophets; they come to you looking like sheep on the outside, but on the inside they are really like wild wolves." (Mt. 7:15, Ibid.)

What danger would confront the Church founded by Christ at the advent of these false prophets? Christ explained the reason for His warning. He said that " ... many false prophets will appear and fool many people." (Mt. 24:11, Ibid.) The apostasy was inevitable. The Christians then would succumb to it. Such was strongly indicated by the very words of Christ.

It, therefore, was expected that the Church of Christ, from its pristine form would rise into an organization of "Christians" whose beliefs and practices would sharply differ from the original believers.

The Catholic Church After Christianity

Claiming to have followed the Church of Christ in time, that is, after the first century, the Catholic Church had set their own foot into her own trap. Granting the argument to be true, it would follow that the Catholic Church is the apostate Church, for the apostate Church would immediately follow the true one. In fact, though the Catholic Church exists today, it is obvious that it had grossly differed from the first-century Church of Christ.

It behooves us, therefore, to conclude that the apsotasy was not confined as a prophecy but was real--it was a fulfillment. It befell the Catholic Church as may be proven by history and by a comparison between Christian and Catholic teachings. The difference between Christianity and Catholicism is clear.

to be continued...

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Post 4...Continuation of:

The Myth of Apostolicity

(The "most convincing argument" of the early Fathers of the Catholic Church is not convincing at all.)

By Feljun B. Fuentes

The Denial Of The Lord

As stated by Apostle Peter, false teachers would not only bring destructive and untrue doctrines into the Church but would even " ...deny the Master who redeemed them." (II Peter 2:1, Ibid.) No Catholic apologist, for sure, would admit having denied Jesus Christ. No doubt about this. Yet, such a denial takes place in a very subtle manner. Subtle enough for the undiscerning and the credulous among the early Christians to believe and be deceived.

Apostle Peter not only warned as we have seen earlier. He even explained how the apostate Church would deny the Master. Referring to the Master, Peter said:

"This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, but has become the head of the corner." (Acts 4:11, Revised Standard Version)

Christ was the foundation stone of the Church. But the truth was rejected by the Catholic Church. Rev. Clement H. Crock, in his book entitled Discourses On The Apostles Creed, wrote that "Peter ... was the rock upon which the Church was to be built..." (p. 216)

This is infidelity to the truth. Catholicism's infidelity, however, has not stopped here. Another case of turning away from the teachings of Christianity is the recognition of the Pope as the head of the Church.'The Roman Pontiff is called the Head of the Church..." (Ibid., p. 129). The Bible teaches against this:

"And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church." (Eph. 2:22, Today's English Version)

Contrary, therefore, to the truth that Christ is the head of the Church, the Catholic Church taught otherwise. Catholic mentors have made a usurpation of Christ's divine position in God's design of the Church by recognizing the Pope instead. This is an insult on pristine Christianity. These assaults only prove the apostasy, thus, ending or punctuating the first-century Church.

Numerous inconsistencies between pristine Christianity and Catholicism may be enumerated. But space prevents us from dealing with all of them here. Besides, an enumeration of them all is not the main concern of the present study.

However, it was clearly demonstrated that the Church of Christ ceased to exist after the Apostles. The apostasy was real. It still happens. The Catholic Church, far from being the true Church of Christ, was born of an apostasy. It has been the apostate Church.

to be continued...

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Post 5...Continuation of:

The Myth of Apostolicity

(The "most convincing argument" of the early Fathers of the Catholic Church is not convincing at all.)

By Feljun B. Fuentes

Was There Apostolic Succession Ever?

This brings to the fore the second point of our discussion. Was there really such a thing as apostolic succession or, as other authors prefer to call it, Petrine succession? Is it a fact that Apostle Peter handed down his alleged authority and prerogatives to any successor? These questions assume a doctrinal error--the teaching of the alleged primacy of Peter.

In the first place, who were the immediate successors of Peter as Catholic authorities claim? The Rev. John Keith has this to say:

" ...The lists of early Roman bishops are in hopeless confusion, some making Clement the immediate successor of St. Peter. others placing Linus, and others still Linus and Anacletus, between him and the Apostle..." ("The Epistles of Clement," The Ante-Nicene Fathers, p. 227)

The list of Popes is a confused one. The chronology is uncertain. The names are even doubtful of existence. However, the epistle allegedly written by Clement "...may be dated about A.D. 97." (Ibid.) By this time, Catholic tradition asserts that Apostle John was living in Ephesus (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 1079)

It is strange, however, that the last Apostle (John) who lived to the time when the Bishops had taken over in the Church never mentioned Clement or any Bishop whom they ought to have fellowship with. John neither mentioned Linus nor Anacletus who probably were among his contemporaries.

We may therefore, conclude that John did not recognize the so-called successors of Peter (if there were such) The epistles indeed mentioned nothing about succession.

When, in behalf of the Apostles, Apostle John wrote a message to the Christians at the close of the first century, he said:

"What we have seen and heard we announce to you also, so that you will join with us in the fellowship that we have with the Father and with His son Jesus Christ." (I John 1:3, Ibid.)

John never exhorted the Christians of his time to nurture a fellowship with the Bishop of Rome or any successor of Peter for that matter. He exhorted them to have fellowship with the Father and with the Son. This is because, the Apostles were the ones God had placed in the Church (I Cor. 12:28) Not the Popes.

Being aware of the individuals who would want prominence in the Church, John said in an epistle: "When I come, then, I will bring up every thing he has done: the terrible things he says about us and the lies he tells." (III John 1:10, Ibid.)

to be continued...

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Post 6...Continuation of:

The Myth of Apostolicity

(The "most convincing argument" of the early Fathers of the Catholic Church is not convincing at all.)

By Feljun B. Fuentes

The Church Was Entrusted To God

Instead of entrusting the Church of Christ to any individual, sensing that the apostasy was close to reality, Apostle Paul said the following to the Christians at his departure:

"And now I commend you to the care of God and to the message of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you the blessings God has for all his people." (Acts 20:32, Ibid.)

The Church was entrusted to God and to God alone. It was not entrusted to any one else. Not to the Bishops either.

But why not to the Bishops or priests? Because they would lead the apostasy and bring heresies to the Church after the Apostolic age:

"That all priests do not practice all the virtues, that some have fallen into the grave and scandalous error, is a fact which no serious person could deny. From the earliest days priests have been guilty even of heresy, indeed, all the heresies of Christendom have been started and promoted by priests..."

Reference:(Whereon To Stand: What Catholics Believe And Why, pp. 240-241)

The outcome, that is, the turning away of the believers from pristine Christianity, proves that the Apostles were not able to prepare the next batch of leaders of the Church of Christ. Aside from the doctrinal incongruence between the teachings of the apostles and those of the leaders of the apostasy, persecutions became one among the dolorous experiences the Church had to suffer. The Church then was led astray.

Was Peter Pope

The third and last thing we are to ascertain is whether the fisherman of Galilee (Peter) was elevated to such an overwhilming position in the Church. Is it true that Apostle Peter was the first Catholic Pope? Was he made the overall overseer of the Church of Christ? And as such, was there a handing down of "official prerogatives" made "to his successors from generation to generation"?

History tells us the following about Simon Peter:

"Our knowledge of the Papacy in the earliest days is very dim and uncertain. Peter, the fisherman of Galilee, who as tradtion relates, was crucified with his head downward about 66, is claimed by the advocates of the Papal system, but without a shadow of historical proof, as first Bishop of Rome."

Reference:(The World's Greatest Events, vol. II, p. 163)

Neither do archaeologists believe that Peter was ever present in Rome during the Apostolic age:

"But is should be carefully noted that there is absolutely no archaeological evidence so far, for the presence of Peter in Rome in the apostolic age (first century)..."

Reference:(Story of the Church, p. 20)

With these truths, it becomes impossible that Peter became Bishop of Rome and that he had the prerogative of primacy over the Church. If he had never been in Rome, how could he be the first Bishop of Rome?

Perhaps, the Catholic apologists found it an easy way to prove that the Catholic Church is the true church by simply showing a connection between the authority of the apostles and the papal system. So, they chose this argument . But the premise required of their argument they chose does not cooperate towards the desired conclusion.
Rev. Bertrand L. Conway himself tell us that the belief that Peter was Bishop of Rome was only declared in the Vatican Council:

"It was not divinely revealed that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome,...The Vatican Council...defined it as an article of faith that 'St. Peter still lives, presides and judges in the person of his successors, Bishops of Rome'."

Reference:(The Question Box, p.145)

Apostle Peter's supposed ascendancy to power as Bishop of Rome is a conciliar invention manufactured in the Vatican Council.

to be continued...

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Post 7...End of:

The Myth of Apostolicity

(The "most convincing argument" of the early Fathers of the Catholic Church is not convincing at all.)

By Feljun B. Fuentes

The Age Of Shadows

The last generation of the first century which covers the years from the death of Apostles Peter and Paul to the end of that century saw a deplorable event in the life of the Church. Although we may know the least about this period (that is why Church historian Jesse Lyman Hurlbut calls it "The Age Of Shadows"), we are quite sure that those who assumed power in the Church had changed the course of the society of believers, So that, at the turn of the century, the true Christian Church was there no more. What we see is the Church now known as the Catholic Church. Dr. Hurlbut describes it as follows:

" ...For fifty years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church-fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul."

Reference:(The Story of the Christian Church, p. 41)

Conclusion

We now arrive at a conclusion beyond refutation. There was no apostolic succession. In fact, no leadership was prepared by the Apostles to shepherd the growing flock. False prophets or teachers were the ones who held power in the Church after the Apostles instead. Consequently, the Church was led astray.

Aside from this, Peter was never Pope. Nothing in the Bible even suggests its possibility.

Therefore, the argument which the early fathers of the Catholic Church may have thought to be "most convincing" is both fallacious and not convincing at all.

End.

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

The "Not So Ordinary Joe," of the true Church of Christ (Iglesia ni Cristo) writes:

The 'Incarnation Of God': Grossly Unbiblical

By JOSE J. VENTILACION

God's Message--March 2004

THE INCARNATION, A CONCEPT that is supposed to mean God took a human form in the person of Jesus, is intimately connected with the Trinity doctrine. While the doctrine of the Trinity postulates that in one God there are three distinct, divine persons sharing one nature, the doctrine of incarnation somewhat reverses the order as it supposes that there are two natures in one person of Jesus Christ. Such supposition is technically called the hypostatic union. It is important to understand the doctrine of the hypostatic union since it became the foundation for the formulation of the Trinity doctrine.

Formulation of the concept

Two of the earliest proponents of the so-called Incarnation of God were Tertullian (c. 160-230) and Origen (c. 185-254), considered as Church Fathers by the Catholic Church. Their ideas were highly considered when the doctrine of the hypostatic union was formulated into a creed in Chalcedon in 451.

Tertullian, in his work, On the Flesh of Christ, says, "Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God ... this property of the two states--the divine and the human--is distinctly asserted with equal truth of both natures alike ... The power of the Spirit proved Him to be God, His sufferings attested the flesh of man" (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 525).

Origen, in his De Principiis writes, "Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things--'For by Him were all things made'--He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which he was; that he assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit" (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p.240)

Both Tertullian and Origen claimed that Christ had dual nature--He is both man and God. This position had made significant contribution to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

It can be recalled that it was the Council of Nicea that declared that "Jesus Christ is "truly God and truly man, true God from true God, begotten not made." Although ubbiblical and incomprehensible, the belief that a true God would come from another God was favored by the more than 250 bishops, was formulated into a creed, and is now believed to be divinely inspired!

In the absence of valid biblical basis, such a confounding and absurd doctrine had to rely on faulty inferences. Biblical verses were stretched in the attempt to prove that Jesus is both God and man. In spite of hundreds of years trying to refine it, the incongruity and incoherence still persist, with no lucid and biblical pronouncements to back up the claim.

Post 1...to be continued

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Post 2...Continuation of:

The 'Incarnation Of God': Grossly Unbiblical

By JOSE J. VENTILACION

God's Message--March 2004

A complete absurdity

In the light of the Scriptures, one can clearly see the implausibility and the palpable absurdity of the position. The doctrine of Incarnation could not be proven biblical because it contradicts the teachings of the Bible concerning who the only one true God is. Jesus didactically and emphatically taught who the true God is while uttering His prayer:

" ...'Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your Son, so that the Son may give glory to you....And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent'." (Jn. 17:1, 3, Today's English Version)

The Bible records several other instances of Jesus praying to God or to the Father, showing His disciples that like them, He is a man who needs help from God. The apostle Paul testified, thus:

"In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety." (Heb. 5:7, New American Standard Bible)

If it were true that Jesus is both God and man, then His prayer would be nothing less than superficial. It would appear that He was praying to Himself, which is truly an inconsistency. And why would Jesus, if He were the same God as the One to whom He was praying, pray to Himself? The truth is, Jesus' prayer is an expression of His dependence on the one God who can save Him from death.

The doctrine of hypostatic union is a matter of prejudice and manifestly absurd because it creates a distorted view about Jesus. Like a jigsaw puzzle whose missing parts could not be found, the arbitrary and convoluted ideas presented to defend it are nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. Its assumptions are inconsistent with the true knowledge about Jesus as presented in the Bible. Take for instance the case when at one point, Jesus acknowledged that:

"But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.'(Mk. 13:32, Ibid.)

Clearly, Christ is telling us He is not omniscient. Unlike God, Christ does not know the exact day and the hour of His Second Coming. And since Christ is not omniscient, then it appears that if He were God, He could only be so in an inferior and subordinate sense, a clear and gross inconsistency with the alleged equality between the Father and the Son. The verse clearly points to the supremacy of the Father as the Omniscient and the only true God since He alone knows the day and the hour of His Son's coming.

If it were true that Jesus was God while He was still here on earth and an omnipotent one, how could we reconcile such claim and Christ's admission that "...My Father is greater than I" (Jn. 14:28, New King James Version)? Is such teaching consistent with Paul's teaching that "...Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ" (I Cor. 11:3, TEV)? Why would Paul issue such a statement if it were true that (the) God who is supreme over Christ is Jesus Himself in a form of a human being on earth? Such an inconsistency has left us with no option at all but to treat the doctrine of hypostatic union as a riddle devoid of solution.

to be continued...

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Post 3...Continuation of:

The 'Incarnation Of God': Grossly Unbiblical

By JOSE J. VENTILACION

God's Message--March 2004

Pushed to the limits, hypostatic union defenders argue that the statement issued by Jesus while He was still on earth should not be construed as untterances by God since they aver that whatever Jesus said or did on earth, He did as a man. But after the resurrection, they claim that he returned to being God. This is short of saying that as a man, Jesus' words should not be accepted as truth but as statements of someone who had perjured Himself. Should we not give credence to His words since they were uttered by a man who has physically existed on earth? Christ Himself confirmed that His words are truth. Here's what He said:

"But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God ..." (Jn. 8:40, NASB)

Granting, without conceding, that Christ was speaking as man, does it make His statements false? Who in the world could contest His statement that He is telling the truth? Everything that Jesus taught His disciples and documented in the New Testament is truth that He heard from God. Will God tell Him things that are untrue? Jesus never lied. As Peter testified, "He committed no sin, and no one ever heard a lie coming from his lips" (I Pt. 2:22, TEV).

After Christ's resurrection, He was mistakenly thought of as a spirit (Lk. 24:36-37). That event would have been a good tome for Him to expose His true state of being. He could have told His disciples the magic words that hypostatic union believers would love to hear, that He is really what they think He was; that, although He was covered with flesh, He is the same unseen God whom they serve and worship.

However, quite the contrary, what Jesus exposed at that time was the glaring truth that he is different from God. In an unequivocal statement, Christ declared that he is a human being with flesh and bones; not a spirit, not God (Jn. 4:24).

Jesus also told them after His resurrection that "...I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God" (Jn. 20:17, NKJV)
Wouldn't it be incomprehensible then to accept the position that Christ did not reveal Hilself yet as God before His resurrection but identified Himself as such after He arose from the dead? The statements "My Father," "My God," which were constantly and repeatedly uttered by Jesus while He was still on earth before His resurrection reverberated once more after His resurrection. And once more, at the time that He was talking to Mary. He told her to relay the same message to His brothers that He was ascending to His God, their God. There was no hint whatsover that the disciples thought differently or that Jesus would be ascending to Himself!

to be continued...

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Post 4...Continuation of:

The 'Incarnation Of God': Grossly Unbiblical

By JOSE J. VENTILACION

God's Message--March 2004

Incarnation is grossly unbiblical

Should we believe in Jesus the way His early disciples did, we would not be making serious mistakes fatally committed by those who formulated the doctrine of hypostatic union in Chalcedon. The "hypostatic union" which was developed without a clear definition of how God could have become man, has so many serious flaws that make it illogical and unacceptable.

Is it true that Christ took another form after His resurrection? No. After His resurrection, Jesus did not change His nature. He was--and is a man. Apostle Peter, during the day of Pentecost declared:

"Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know." (Acts 2:22, NASB)

Apostle Paul, who was called by Jesus when He was already in heaven testified that, "... there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (ITim. 2:5, King James Version).

Obviously, if Christ had indeed converted to His alleged former state or condition, that is, of being God in heaven, then Paul would have said otherwise that "the Mediator is Christ, who is now God!"

Paul, in his letter to the Romans, delineates Christ's role in heaven:

"... Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us." (Rom. 8:34, NASB)

If Jesus Christ were the very God of the universe, then we would not need a Mediator. Christ's function as Mediator for His people which he fulfills even now that He is in heaven negates the allegation that Christ is now existing as God in heaven.

As we move fast forward to the day of Judgment, when "all things" shall be placed under Christ's rule, what shall the Son do which proves that He is not the Almighty God? The Bible says:

"For the Scripture says,'God put all things under his feet'. It is clear, of course, that the words 'all things' do not include God himself, who puts all things under Christ. But when all things have been placed under Christ's rule, then He himself, the Son, will place himself under God, who placed all things under him; and God will rule completely overall." (I Cor. 15:27-28, TEV)

The Son's position before, until, and even after Judgment Day is that of being subordinate to the Father. And the reason is clear: The Son will place Himself under God so that God (the Father) will rule completely overall. The Bible never alludes to the so-called incarnation of God. After a careful examination and consultation with Scripture, the doctrine of God's incarnation remains contrary to reason and unbiblical.

to be continued...

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Post 5...End of:

The 'Incarnation Of God': Grossly Unbiblical

By JOSE J. VENTILACION

God's Message--March 2004

Concerning the Son, the Bible portrays Him in no uncertain terms. Instead of teaching that Christ is both God and man while He was still on earth, Apostle Paul testified that He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature (Heb. 1:3), therefore, a visible image of an unseen God.

To put in a clearer perspective, an image such as a picture, is not the very self or nature of what it represents. The image and the form or model from where it was derived are two different entities. Since God is invisible and powerful (Jn. 4:24; Gen. 17:1), His Son (Jesus) represented Him on earth as a tangible proof of His holiness and power (Heb. 1:3), clearly demonstrated through the miracles and wonders which the Father performed through Him (Acts 2:22, TEV). The Son likewise served as man's way to God, then and now (Jn. 14:6; Heb. 13:8). Being at the right hand of God in heaven, Christ always lives to make intercession for His servants (Heb. 10:12; 7:25, NASB).

There is no defense that could be produced to support the inconceivable doctrine that Jesus is both God and man. Without a clear and explicit biblical basis, believers of such teaching have to adopt the philosophies of Tertullian and Origen. Tertullian, the one who started this mess, was a pagan philosopher who embraced Christianity but later on became a heretic. Although he departed from the Catholic Church, his writings are still being used to explain the unbiblical doctrine of Christ's having two natures which has led Catholics and Protestants to embrace another illogical doctrine which Tertullian termed as Trinity.

To describe in simple terms, it is in vain to call the Chalcedonian formula and its related doctrine of the Trinity as a mystery; It is an absurdity and, therefore, grossly unbiblical!

End.

Real Elias Ibarra
Gua
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Another minister of the true Church of Christ (Iglesia ni Cristo) reveals an alias of the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of the Mother of God or the Church of Mary!!! He also reveals that Mary is supreme over Christ and the Almighty Father which of course are untrue!!!

THE CHURCH OF THE MOTHER OF GOD

By TOMAS C. CATANGAY

(Published in God's Message Magazine's Issue of April -June 1995)

The official name of the church headed by the pope of Rome is "The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church." However, Rev. James T. O'Connor, vice-president of the Mariological Society of America as of 1984, was bold, or we should say, candid enough to call the church of which he is an ordained priest as "The Church of the Mother of God":

"Hail, O Holy and Mystic Trinity, Who have called us together in this Church of the Mother of God. Hail Mary, Mother of God,... "

Reference: O'Connor, James T. The Father's Son, p.70. Boston, MA: Daughters of St. Paul, 1984.

Since Mary is called the "Mother of God" hence, the church headed by the pope is actually the "The Church of Mary." There must be a valid reason that prompted Rev. James T. O'Connor to give the name "The Church of the Mother of God" or "The Church of Mary."

Today, there are many fraternities and congregations in honor of Mary, the mother of Christ. Various religious orders are founded in her honor and placed under her supposed protection. There is no church (building in Roman Catholic usage) that does not have an altar where the image of the "blessed Virgin" is enshrined. Millions of prayers are addressed to her daily, and as if these are not enough, countless towns have Mary as their patron saint.

Concerning pilgrimages, Rene Laurentin, a mariologist, has this to say:

"The principal pilgrimages of the Middle Ages had as their object Christ or the apostles - the Holy Land, the Holy Sepulchre,... Today the pilgrimages which draw the largest corwds are those to the shrines of our Lady: two and a half million pilgrims every year go to Lourdes alone, and very large number to Fatima, too. To these two shrines could be added hundreds of others..."

Reference: Laurentin, Rene. Mary's Place In The Church, p. 9. London: Burns & Oates Ltd., 1965.

Post 1...to be continued...

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Post 2...Continuation of:

THE CHURCH OF THE MOTHER OF GOD

By TOMAS C. CATANGAY

(Published in God's Message Magazine's Issue of April -June 1995)

According to the Catholic Church, how high a position does Mary occupy, prompting Rev. James T. O'Connor to call the church of which he is an ordained priest as "The Church of the Mother of God" or "The Church of Mary"?

"God has empowered her and commissioned her to fill with saints the empty thrones from which the apostate angels fell by pride. The will of the Most High, Who exalts the humble, is that heaven, earth and hell bend, with good will or bad will, to the commandments of the humble Mary, whom He has made sovereign of heaven and earth,..."

Reference: De Montfort, St. Louis Grignion, True Devotion To The Blessed Virgin Mary, pp. 18-19. New York: The Montfort Fathers, 1941.

Roman Catholic authorities entertain the notion that God made Mary the sovereign of heaven and earth to the extent that all in heaven, earth, and even hell bend to the commandments of the "humble Mary."

Do Catholic mentors include God among those under the sovereignity of the "humble Mary"?

"Mary, being altogether transformed into God by grace and by the glory which transforms all the saints into Him ... that in heaven and on earth everything, even God Himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin,... "

Reference: De Montfort, St. Louis Grignion, True Devotion To The Blessed Virgin Mary, p. 17. New York: The Montfort Fathers, 1941.

"The saints have said many beautiul things about Mary ... They knew that there were no limits to her power, because she has power over God Himself."

Reference: De Montfort, St. Louis Grignion, True Devotion To Mary, p. 3. Montfort Publications, 1956.

"St. Bernardine of Siena declares that all obey Mary's commands, even God..."

Reference: Alberione, J. Glories and Virtues of Mary, p. 177. Philippines: St. Paul Publications, 1960.

By a mere stroke of his pen, Louis De Montfort had "transformed" Mary into God to the extent "that everything in heaven and on earth, even God Himself is subject to the Blessed Virgin."

Thus, the "humble Mary," the servant of God, she who was a mere creature of God has been catapulted by the Roman Catholic Church to a position of extraordinary prominence, nay to the position of the Most High!

to be continued...

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
ELIAS IBARRA

Yigo, Guam

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Post 3...Continuation of:

THE CHURCH OF THE MOTHER OF GOD

By TOMAS C. CATANGAY

(Published in God's Message Magazine's Issue of April -June 1995)



But why do Catholic mentors entertain the belief that even God is subject to Mary?

"76. Moreover, if, as I have said, the holy Virgin is the Queen and Sovereign of heaven and earth, has she not then as many subjects and slaves as there are creatures? St. Anselm, St. Bernard, St. Bernadine, St. Bonaventure say ...' behold, all things, and God included, are subject to the empire of the Virgin'"

Reference: De Montfort, St. Louis Grignion. True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, p.55. New York: The Montfort Fathers, 1941.

Hold your breath! Mary, according to Roman Catholic authorities, has an empire! She is allegedly the "Queen and Sovereign of heaven and earth," so much that all things and even God are subject to her empire. She has been catapulted to a position over and above that which the Holy Scriptures attest.

But who is Mary according to the Holy Scriptures? Mary was a servant of the Lord:

"The Mary said,'Here I am, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word'.... " (Luke 1:38, The New Revised Standard Version)

"And Mary said,'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoice in God my Savior, for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. Sure, from now on all generations will call me blessed; for the Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name'." (Luke 1:46-49, Ibid.)

Mary was a servant of the Lord. Of course she was, and for this she deserves to be called "Blessed." But nowhere in the Holy Bible does it say Mary is above all mankind, or that she has an empire in which all things, even God, are subject to her. Mary was a servant of the Lord. She magnified and recognized God as her Savior. She is not therefore the savior but among those to be saved.

Salvation, according to the Bible, was effectuated by our Lord Jesus Christ through the redemption of those within His Church by His precious blood. Redemption was brought by our Lord Jesus Christ!(cf. Lk. 2:11; Eph. 5:23; Heb. 9:14-15; Gal. 3:13)

But what do Roman Catholic authorities say regarding redemption?

"Dogmatically, a similar sort of revolution is to be noted. According to classical mariology only Christ merited the Redemption in a sufficient manner, the merit of the Virgin Mary was seen as an addition -'an accidental excess of sweetness', as certain authors tried to define it. According to the new view, Mary merited quite sufficiently Redemption itself: her merit equals in justice the price of our sins and of our salvation, and now it is the merit of Christ which appears as a surplus addition."

Reference:(Laurentin, Rene. Mary's Place in The Church, p. 25. London: Burns & Oates Ltd., 1965.

The above citation relegates Christ's redemption to a mere "surplus addition." The present belief is that "Mary merited quite sufficiently Redemption itself" thus, Christ's Redemption now "appears as a surplus addition." Hence, Christ's exalted position of Redeemer has ceased to be His and has become more of Mary's.

Apparently, Mary's preeminence within Catholicism prompted Rev. James T. O'Connor to give the name "The Church Of the Mother of God" or "The Church of Mary" to the church headed by the pope of Rome.

to be continued...

Real Elias Ibarra
Guam

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of214
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

69 Users are viewing the Philippines Forum right now

Search the Philippines Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Iglesia ni Cristo is a scam (Mar '12) 13 min TRISTAN ESN 3,873
wanted textmate sexmate 42 min vince 1,677
anybody here in manila,girls looking for lesbia... (Jul '13) 1 hr bes1985 8,803
Why does Filipinos have lower IQ average than a... (Aug '13) 2 hr Don the American 763
Was Ado|f Hit|er a good man? 3 hr John3 2
Philippine leader hit with impeachment complaint 3 hr Don the American 5
Filipinos are partially White European race (Oct '10) 3 hr John3 1,353
•••
•••