The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[Jhared]

---

sige atong tan.awn ug unsay naa sa Biblia bai.

"If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Romans 10:9-13

God or the Father has always been regarded as the savior esp in OT times..
like in the book of Joel 2:32 in the Old Testament,
"And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered."
but Paul in the verse above, referred to Jesus as Lord, and that whoever believes and calls to Him will be saved..

maski gani ang Holy spirit..naa puy Salvic works
"he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, "Titus 3:5

Jesus said in John 10:30 " I and the Father are one."

We don't have trouble regarding God the Father as the creator..however Paul regarded Jesus as the Creator as well.
"For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."
Colossians 1:16

which is confirmed in the Gospel of John 1:1-3
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

even the Spirit too is a Creator..
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. "
Genesis 1:1–2

the three distinctive persons in the Godhead were all called and referred to as God..both from Paul and Peter's writings.

the Father - "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Philippians 1:2

the Son - "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"
Colossians 2:9

the Spirit - "Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God."
Acts 5:3-4

and naa puy kang paul kung gusto ka..hehehe
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own"
1 Corinthians 6:19

this then ultimately, points out to the idea that St. Paul was indeed invoking the three divine persons in One divine Being when he greets his fellow believers in his letters..and it is needless to explicity mention the trinity.
besides, the Trinity is just a term given to describe God's nature..Paul wouldn't have had any idea about the term..hahaha

so we read...
"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."
2 Corinthians 13:14
what other reasons could there be? why not write may the grace,love and fellowship of God be with you instead..kung wa man diay nag hold ug trinitarian point of view si Paul towards God..

even in the old testament..we can find some verses where God was referring to Himself in plural..

like i said bay noy, it's all moot, maybe sulti ni Paul nga maluwas sad ta through Jesus and the Holy Spirit but that dont necessarily mean nga sulti na niya nga usa na sila, maybe it means something else entirely, we'll never know...

if Paul and the rest of your forefathers really believed about the Trinity, they would have mentioned it explicitly so, yes wa pman na maimbinto ang word nga trinity before the bible was written, or during Paul's time, but they couldve otherwise said something about it at least, like the father the son and the holy ghost are one, one and the same, but they didnt, so that leaves me with the conclusion that they thought about it differently than what we do now...

"Then God said, “Let US make mankind in OUR image, in our likeness."
Gen 1:26

" And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of US

should there be multiple Gods?

the bible also shows that there is only One God..

Or he maybe just talking to his angels.. or maybe in the past he also made beings like us and maybe out from that world naa pud mga saints etc., we dont know, i mean kadako sa universe.. hahaha, i know it sounds weird but im just saying..

"he most important one,answered Jesus, is this: Hear, O Israel The Lord our God, the Lord is one."
Mark 12:29

yes he is one, but mark didnt say god jesus and the holy spirit are one.. get my point?

should this be a contradiction? Let's see..

There is One God..but in some verses God addresses Himself in plural...
also, the bible teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Spirit is God.
and all three Saves and Creates..whatever the Father and Son does..the Spirit also does..
therefore, this points out that there is but One God, this One divine being we call God has three disctinctive Persons..

how is that possible?
for the same reason that a man and woman becomes one flesh in union with marraige.. with divine and perfect union..the three divine persons in the trinity is the fullness
of the One Divine being..the One God..

and besides, One being doesn't have to be equivalent with 1 person all the time..
human being? 1 person...
Plants? still a being but zero person...
God is One Being but in three persons.

this then explains why Jesus taught His disciples to baptise in the Name of the Father, the Son and of the Holy Spirit..otherwise, it wouldn't make sense...

i believe i have already supplicated you all the details and reasons bai regarding the Doctrine of Trinity.
you can go ahead and believe what you want to believe.

like i said previously, in times of confusion what to believe and who to believe..that's where the Apostolic Succession comes in.
The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Apostolic Succession..
ambut lang kaha tong mga pundok that denies the Trinity

anyways, i have answered from the Catholic perspective which this thread is all about.
so i guess we can just agree to disagree..hehehehe

There's no need to expound what trinity is about, i know it... what im trying to talk to you about is it's pre-Nicean conception..

[Enginyor]

unsay sunod relihiyon muturok gikan sa kristyanismo?

[miket07]

unsay sunod relihiyon muturok gikan sa kristyanismo?

Depende sa tao bro. If iyang name Richard basin Iglesia ni Jesus npud kay nana man INC. Ang uban mo ingon Iglesia ni Manalo. So iyaha kay Iglesia ni Richard. Diba naa man religion si Rizal. Basin inigkadugay naa pud Apolinario Mabini ani. Naay Saksi ni Jehovah basin ang uban maghimo pud og Saksi ni Bathala. etc, etc..depende ra na nila if unsa ila ganahan.

[brendomar]

unsay sunod relihiyon muturok gikan sa kristyanismo?

wala na tingali migo kay nainsakto nag hilo ang katawhan nga dili na makabalo sa kamatuoran ug kaluwasan nga diha lang ni Ginoong Hesukristo! mga kulto nuon ug anti-christian nga pundok (gahum2) maoy nanggawas rong panahuna!

[slabdans]

wala na tingali migo kay nainsakto nag hilo ang katawhan nga dili na makabalo sa kamatuoran ug kaluwasan nga diha lang ni Ginoong Hesukristo! mga kulto nuon ug anti-christian nga pundok (gahum2) maoy nanggawas rong panahuna!

kuyawan man sad ta aning tubaga hhmmmnnn

[noy]

like i said bay noy, it's all moot, maybe sulti ni Paul nga maluwas sad ta through Jesus and the Holy Spirit but that dont necessarily mean nga sulti na niya nga usa na sila, maybe it means something else entirely, we'll never know...

if Paul and the rest of your forefathers really believed about the Trinity, they would have mentioned it explicitly so, yes wa pman na maimbinto ang word nga trinity before the bible was written, or during Paul's time, but they couldve otherwise said something about it at least, like the father the son and the holy ghost are one, one and the same, but they didnt, so that leaves me with the conclusion that they thought about it differently than what we do now...


Or he maybe just talking to his angels.. or maybe in the past he also made beings like us and maybe out from that world naa pud mga saints etc., we dont know, i mean kadako sa universe.. hahaha, i know it sounds weird but im just saying..


yes he is one, but mark didnt say god jesus and the holy spirit are one.. get my point?


There's no need to expound what trinity is about, i know it... what im trying to talk to you about is it's pre-Nicean conception..

Like i said bai..kung mao nay imung tan.aw sa amuang doctrine ug mao nay imung pagsabut sa nahisuwat sa Bibliya. wa nakoy mabuhat ana..hehehe

I've already presented to you writings of the Church Fathers, predating the council of Nicaea..predating Constantine..
and explained the theological aspects of the Doctrine of the Trinity.
so i guess, humana ang akong part ani nga discussion.. if di ka mutuoo then we'll just have to agree to disagree
but as far as this thread is concerned, you already have your answers.

at the end of the day we either accept a new point of view or crawl back to the ones that we think is right..
in my case, i rest my beliefs with the side that has unbroken ties with the apostles...
mao ning ingun ko sa imu, in times of confusion regarding Church doctrines..that's where the Apostolic Succession comes in..
hence i asked you, kanang imung point of view..naa nay apostolic roots?
and of course everything in some sense can be debatable only because of our ability to have personal and different understanding on a certain subject. however, the statement of the early Church Fathers were absolute though.
by absolute i mean firm regarding their Trinitarian view on the One God.

in other words, i'd rather believe the early Church Fathers' writings and early Christian articles about the Trinity as verified by History than your conspiracy theories.

i would conclude my part in this discussion again with the writings of early Christians with Apostolic roots below confirming the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ only this time bai i hope you'd give extra attention to the dates when they were written. ALL predates the council of Nicaea which you claim when the doctrine of trinity has been realized.


Ignatius of Antioch
"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

Justin Martyr
"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein" (First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).

Theophilus of Antioch
"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15 [A.D. 181]).

Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).



Origen
"For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist" (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

"No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages" (ibid.).

"For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" (ibid.).

Hippolytus
"The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:29 [A.D. 228]).


Novatian
"For Scripture as much announces Christ as also God, as it announces God himself as man. It has as much described Jesus Christ to be man, as moreover it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the son of man; nor does it only say, the son of man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God. . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the son of man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" (Treatise on the Trinity 11 [A.D. 235]).

Pope Dionysius
"Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate" (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

"Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd" (ibid., 1–2).

"Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity. . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’" (ibid., 3).

Gregory the Wonderworker
"There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

source: The Trinity | Catholic Answers

[noy]

Q:
since some parts of the bible, especially the kind of morality that was accepted and punishments for violation like stoning, are outdated, what is the modern Christianity?

can you instead cite a specific violation bai para klaro pud ug unsay sanction? hehehe

- - - Updated - - -

unsay sunod relihiyon muturok gikan sa kristyanismo?

i don't think your question boss relates to the subject..hehehe..

[heartthr0b]

unsay sunod relihiyon muturok gikan sa kristyanismo?

wala na yamo..

padulong na ilubong sa mga tawo ang kristiyanismo...

nagka increase na ang mga non-believer sa mga bulok nga religion..

[luff101]

I don't know naa nabay nakapost nga thread ani about christianity and other religions

Ari lng ko dri mag ask kay daghan active.. hehehe

Ako i'm a solid Roman Catholic pero Why do Roman Catholic and other christian religions kay dili pwede kaslon kung lahi2x mo ug religion?

Mao pud ni nakabati sa ubang religion kay impose ug mga rules just to make their religion intact. Kung buot huna-hunaon pwede ra man unta kay we share the same faith ra man unta(no blasphemy intended).

[noy]

I don't know naa nabay nakapost nga thread ani about christianity and other religions

Ari lng ko dri mag ask kay daghan active.. hehehe

Ako i'm a solid Roman Catholic pero Why do Roman Catholic and other christian religions kay dili pwede kaslon kung lahi2x mo ug religion?

Mao pud ni nakabati sa ubang religion kay impose ug mga rules just to make their religion intact. Kung buot huna-hunaon pwede ra man unta kay we share the same faith ra man unta(no blasphemy intended).

it is encouraged nga dapat same ug denomination ang mga mag minyo para di maka cause ug conflict driven by doctrinal differences ug that's why we find some Parishes or Protestant churches that would urge people to have their respective partners who are not catholics or catholics in the case for protestant denomination churches to accept their respective doctrines first before allowing the couple to get married with either of the churches. however, i believe that it is not something absolute.

i just did the honors of being the best man for one of my closest friends who is Catholic and married a baptist woman..
and i also played the guitar nagduyog sa mass sa kasal sa akong miga didto sa gamay nga chapel sa Archbishop's palace where her groom was a Protestant Christian..

therefore, naa exceptions to the rule..hehehe

i suggest you click the link below

Code of Canon Law: text - IntraText CT