***CONSTANTINE and the CHURCH HISTORY!!!

[ketllac]

---

Yes there is unity among protestants and they are united as ever for the truth and for God. If you seek the truth you will find the true church.
If you read carefully, you said it yourself the sole authority of your church is the Pope and not the word of God. And if just red the evidences your church puts more authority on the church itself over the word of God.
You cannot handle the overwhelming factual evidence. As I cannot handle overwhelming deceit from your church.

so bali ang imo church ray true.?

tubaga kuno ni ning mga nag kalain laing interpretasyon kung naa bay unity;

1. Why protestant churches don't agree about the requirements of baptism?

2. Why protestant churches don't believe the importance of priesthood but others do?

3. Why protestant churches have different views or stands about contraception?

4.Why other protestant churches don't believe about eternal damnation but others do?

5. Why protestant churches don't have a uniform doctrine about same *** marriage?


asay factual ba wa straw man gani imo reply. nag pasabot nga wala ka kasabot sa amo dokrina nya sige kag debate namo. Ang basis sa katoliko in terms of faith and morals are bible and Church authority.

tan awa imo gi post o nga akong gi bold O.And if just red the evidences your church puts more authority on the church itself over the word of God. I was emphasizingthe authority of the church which is higher than Luther or any individual's private interpretation. Kasabot ka. ang Question nako ganina sayon ra nga wala gyud nimo gi tubag instead ni copy and paste ka nga halos ma occupy nimo ang space sa istorya.net.

be asa gikuha ni Luther iya authority sa pag usab sa bible?

[yanong_banikanhon]

ang Question nako ganina sayon ra nga wala gyud nimo gi tubag instead ni copy and paste ka nga halos ma occupy nimo ang space sa istorya.net.

be asa gikuha ni Luther iya authority sa pag usab sa bible?

*** akoa ang emphasis

Di man gyud na niya matubag, bro. Maong iyang tuyoon og lubog. If he values intellectual honesty, at least he should attempt to answer your questions or accept that he has no answer.

[ketllac]

Di man gyud na niya matubag, bro. Maong iyang tuyoon og lubog. If he values intellectual honesty, at least he should attempt to answer your questions or accept that he has no answer.

expect na sad nga mosulpot na sad ning uban bro posting anti-catholic link nga ang uban gi retract ra sad nila ang ang uban na debunked sa mga catholic apologists.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Ang ilang tactic, bro, repetition. Balik-balikon nila ang mga gi-tuis nga history hangtud nga murag tinuod na paminawon sa mga readers/listeners. They don't even attempt to check kun reliable ba ang ilang source and they don't listen to the replies. They have only one goal: pagdaut ug pagtamay sa simbahang katoliko kutob sa ilang makaya.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Maski kanang Lord's day dili man magkasinabot ang mga protestante ana. Ang uban moingon nga Sunday gyud kuno, kay nakasulat sa bible. Duna puy uban mamugos nga Saturday. Kay mao kuno nay tinuod nga nakasulat sa bible. Kun sakto pa nang doctrina nga 'bible alone', kun tinuod pa nga maayo ang private interpretation sa bible kay pirmi man kaha giyahan sa holy spirit ang bisan kinsa nga gustong makasabot sa bibliya, ngano man lagi nga bisan ang mga simple matters like the day of worship, etc...naglahi2x man ang ilang pagsabot?

Hain man ang unity nga ilang gipanghinambog karon?

[ketllac]

lagi. matod pa ni Joseph Goebbels “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

Makit-an nato ang level sa maturity ug sense of security tali sa Katoliko ug protestant sects. nga ang katoliko gi-discourage sa pag atake sa mga sekta instead hatagan ug respeto ang mga denominations. Naa pa man gani movement ang katoliko nga gitawag ug "Catholic ecumenical and interfaith relations" para mag respetoay ta sa ato pagtoo .inubanan sa panghinaut nga ang mensahe ni Kristo about love, peace and respect matagamtaman sa isig katawo.

[dcuenco]

This is what I got. I would expect others to dispute this:

Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
2. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
3. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
4. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
5. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
6. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Salvation by works:
Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.

Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.

Magic:
Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.


Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

[dcuenco]

Typical style of deception twists the real truth and does not tell complete lies. They mix the truth with lies to make it seem acceptable. Among other lies, these deceivers say the apocrypha is in the king james bible and that even martin luther endorsed it. Analyze This:

Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used.
Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:
"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."
King James Version Defended page 98.
In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:

"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."
King James Charles Stewart
Basilicon Doron, page 13
In his A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches," King James said this--
"...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall Scriptures...?"
Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition--the church of England published the Authorized (King James) Version) states that the Old and New Testaments are the Bible and the apocrypha is not:

In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche...

Now concerning the apocrypha it states,

And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene.
Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.

The Hampton Court Document came as a result of the famous Hampton Court Conference of 1604 when King James authorized the translation of the Bible that would one day bear his name. Concerning the apocrypha and the Church of England, it states--
The Apocrypha, that hath some repugnancy to the canonical scriptures, shall not be read...
The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles--Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.

Not even all Catholic "Church Fathers" believed the Apocrypha was scripture.

Not that this really means anything. The truth is not validated by the false. Nevertheless, this may be of interest to some...
Jerome (340-420) rejected the Apocrypha:
"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine."

KANANG PAG PANGILAD UG PAG PAMAKAK BUHAT NA SA DEMONYO.

[yanong_banikanhon]

"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."
King James Charles Stewart
Basilicon Doron, page 13

Di ba nisamot nuon og ka-klareks unsa ang rason nganong gitanggal ni Luther ang 'apocrypha' books? Tungod kay ni-rebelde siya sa mga papist (catholic church).

It's really amazing nga sa kadaghan sa imong mga pasikoy-sikoy nga rason, bisan unsaon, molugwa gyud ang tinuod nga hinungdan. You might not realized it yet but your previous posts actually confirmed this quote from wikipedia:

Apocrypha, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, means "books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate BUT excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament.

src: Apocrypha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the real issue is very clear. Protestants, including your denominations reject the books of Maccabees simply because they affirm some teachings of the catholic church. Hadlok mo mga mahibal-an sa publiko nga nakasulat diay sa early christian bible ang doctrine about purgatory, immaculate conception of mary, etc...

Aron pagtago sa kamatuoran, you choose to follow the Jewish bible instead. Inyoha pud na. Wala lang tay but-anay. Kay para namong mga katoliko, mas logical ang pagsunod sa scripture nga gigamit sa mga early christians kay sa pagsunod sa canon nga gikan sa mga tawong ni-rebelde ni Jesus (Jews).

Balik na sa topic, bro. Kay labihan na ka-tulibagbag ang imong mga posts. Constantine and the church history ang topic diri. Imo lang gyu'ng gipakita nga mas importante sa imoha ang pagpangdaut sa catholic church kaysa pag-post og mga on-topics comments.

[malic_2]

ni sulti naba ni si dcuenco kong onsa ni ilang gropo? mahadlok lagi siya ma ilhan?