Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) Discussion: Inquiries and Information.

[merijaan]

nindota ani oi...Malic versus Maddox22.....

Round 1......ting! ting!.....

[Malic]

nindota ani oi...Malic versus Maddox22.....

Round 1......ting! ting!.....

aw...

igo naman sis...ambot kabarog pa ba kaha ni.

[merijaan]

aw...

igo naman sis...ambot kabarog pa ba kaha ni.

Hahaha... nindot sad btaw ni noh...

cge...

Round 2.....ting! ting!

[Malic]

mao ni Catholic version of trinity...mura'g ga pataka napod ug pamsangi ni si Maddox about sa Katoliko nga version sa trinity. For a proper definition read this...

The dogma of the Trinity

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes:

There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever (P.G., X, 986).

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies. In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. Attempts have been made recently to apply the more extreme theories of comparative religion to the doctrine of the Trinity, and to account for it by an imaginary law of nature compelling men to group the objects of their worship in threes. It seems needless to give more than a reference to these extravagant views, which serious thinkers of every school reject as destitute of foundation.


ambot asa kaha ug kuha si Maddox ug definition sa Trinity according sa Catholic Dogma kay lahi man iyang pag present sa Catholic Trinity.

pssst Maddox ayaw pataka ug hatag ug definition oi. konsultaha sa ang mga katoliko.

murag diri ka maayo 'misrepresentation'...ako advice nimo kung dili kaayo ka sweto ayaw na ang pag paka sweto sweto.

[merijaan]

Naa lagi mo sa "Questions about INC bro"

mas nindot diay dri mag boxing

[Malic]

Naa lagi mo sa "Questions about INC bro"

mas nindot diay dri mag boxing

OT: nindot pod diri hehe. na intriga lang ko gud kung unsay sulod diri kay pirmi man naa sa taas sa Section. hehe!

pero kung mo angkon ni si Maddox nga di siya ADD naa pay porohan nga pasagdan ni nako.

[merijaan]

OT: nindot pod diri hehe. na intriga lang ko gud kung unsay sulod diri kay pirmi man naa sa taas sa Section. hehe!

pero kung mo angkon ni si Maddox nga di siya ADD naa pay porohan nga pasagdan ni nako.

Ah ok ...na Wa la gi sya...nagresearch pa

[maddox22]

toink nisamot imong pagka way klaro. sige jud lobaga jud ug maayo para makalusot ka. hahaha!

intawn kalooy kalayo na sa imong depensa.


basaha ug osab imong statement...Jesus Christ has shown here, as an example to us also, that he concedes to the will of the Father.


meaning ang iyang WILL gi submit niya sa WILL sa Father. mao nay pasabot ana ha. Dili pasabot nga osa ilang WILL.

kung si Jesus ang paboton lahi iyang gusto but tungod gusto niya ang kaboboton sa amahan ang matoman maong ng ni concede siya sa WILL sa Amahan. But it doesnt mean nga OSA ilang WILL.

lahi ng ONE WILL ug gi CONCEDE NGA WILL. ayaw ug lusot.


As ive said excited lang ko kay naa napod pa sweto sweto sa bibiya, di jud ko mokalma kay lami kaayo e sugmag sa punching bag. kana bitaw nga dugay naka wala ka sparring nya naay mo volunteer, sus pagkalami jud ug patid patid sa punching bag.

Malic, asa man na nimo gibutang imo utok bro? Kabantay na gyud ko ani akong ka-atbang da. Asa kaha ni graduate.

Anyway, sorry diay if ga-sige ko english sa ako previous posts. I didn't realize mag-lisud man diay ka.

Sige ako na bisayaun karon.

Kung ni concede si Jesus Christ sa will sa iya amahan, gapasabot ba na nga lahi siya ug will Naunsa na man ka Malic? Ni-concede na bitaw, na lahi na hinuon iyang will? Unsa man diay 'YES' sa imo? NO?

Kana bro, bisaya na man gyud na, ok na ka ana?

Hinuna-a Malic ha, gamay ra kaayo na imo argument. Wala nimo gitan-aw at a higher level ba. (Might I say a more educated level?) Ang imo argument is that kung si Jesus Christ nihangyo sa iya amahan nga kung mahimo dili na lang ilahos ang iyang kalbaryo - gapasabot na na sa imoha nga lahi siya ug will sa iya amahan.

Ok, sige, pagbigyan kay mao man na imo pagtuo diba? Pero given nga nihangyo si Jesus Christ, unsa man iya gibuhat pagkahuman?

Ingon siya, let thy will be done!!!

So unsa may pasabot ana sa imoha? Nisupak ba siya? Ahh... Malic in case wala ka kabalo and wala lang ka gasulti, wala nisupak si Jesus Chrsit bro. After ana gilansang siya sa cross.

hehe... haay naku...

Mao lagi ako sulti bro, sakto unta imo point pero nakulang lang kay - ambot basig wala ka kabalo nga gilansang sa cross si Jesus Christ - or basin wala na ka kasabot sa mga words after ato nga verse kay english biya to. hehe.. peace!

Again, hinuna-a Malic ha, kung lahi pa ug will si Jesus Christ sa iya amahan, then pag-site daw ug example nga naay gibuhat si Jesus Christ nga dili uyon sa gusto sa amahan?

O lahi na sad ni nga pangutana para kang Malic ha. Let's hope this time tubagun na gyud ta ug diretso ni Malic.

Usab, kay para sa imo dili man one will and purpose si Jesus Christ ug ang Diyos amahan, pakita-a daw mi ug example gikan sa Bible nga nisupak si Jesus Christ sa iya amahan?

Sige daw Malic...

tik tak tik tak...

[merijaan]

Sige daw Malic...

tik tak tik tak... [/quote]



yay...its getting hot in here....

keep going....

[maddox22]

Naigo sa left hook ni Pacquiao na-ikog na ug tingog.