RELIGION....(part 2)

[makusama]

---

Neither does the Catholic church, truth be told you can only have apostolic roots if your allegiance is to Jesus Christ and His Gospel as written by the apostles....... After Babylon, Medo-Persia and Greece Rome has indeed crushed the whole world and trampled it underfoot as predicted by Daniel long ago. (chapter 7: 23)........ The Roman church has empirical roots NOT Christian origin or apostolic foundations.

You got nothing to back that up... Poor soul you are lost in your own delusions! Please research... There are about 9 Popes in the world today the Roman Catholic Pope is only one of them each of the Popes trace back into history to either one of the Apostles or their disciple... Babylon? Medo-persia? Greece Rome? What are you talking about? Poor Soul... It is written in History yet you shun yourself from it?! Only God can convince you now!

Such practices might have been that of the profanation of the Lord's Supper and the worship of the bread of the altar.

May God save your soul and forgive you! The body of christ a profanity?! You misrepresent and make the holiest of the holiest acts of a Christian LABELED AS PROFANITY. Whose interpretations are these? Yours again? Are you a prophet? As a christian how in the world can you sleep well at night?

[makusama]

No matter what we say... no matter what fact we present to you. No matter what history books and documnets we present to you....

You will always come back at us with half truths, unreliable interpretation, prophecies which nobody can really get a hold of to the real explaination.... and last but not the least your own fanatical interpretations with no basis at all...

Even your Bible quotes are so merged up with your personal interpretation that I cannot identify which is from the Bible and which is from you....

This is no longer an intelligent conversation/debate/argument. It feels like I am arguing with a child about Calculus! waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..... I am off this thread.

[Cardinal Bunal]

THE SACRILEGE

The Lord's Supper has been the succeeding and full consumnation of what the Passover Meal symbolized. In many Christian churches this is known as the Communion. And in Roman Church, known as the Eucharist. There have been slight modifications to this practice. In the 12th century both pontiffs Honorius and Innocent III have defined Transubstantiation, where the elements literally transform into the body, blood and divinity of Jesus Christ. And the Adoration of the Host, in which event the use of the unleavened bread has been changed into the use of the Wafer. Joie Quino, the author of "The Antichrist Revealed" and Director of Kahayag Ministries has always pointed out that Satan has been the first literal interpreter of the Word of God. Yes, in Genesis Adam and Eve did not literally die when they took from the fruit, but because of their disobedience, they have been cut off from fellowship with God. In other words, they were spiritually dead. When Jesus told us to gouge our eye out if it causes us to sin, did he really tell us to mutilate ourselves? No, he was telling us to take radical action to flee from sin. Did Jesus tell us to let our dead rot in the streets when he said "Let the dead bury their own dead, and follow me."? No, but surely in context of whom he was speaking to, instructing him to leave whatever priority one has at first for His sake. The teaching of Transubstantiation stems from the literal interpretation of when Jesus said "I am the bread of life." in John chapter 6, in which he also states, "whoever eats of my flesh and drinks my blood shall not perish but inherit eternal life." In Jim Tetlow's book, Messages from Heaven he very thoroughly explains that Jesus was making a comparison of the manna that their forefathers ate but had to expire from biological life eventually. Throughout the Bible, the comparison of temporary things and things of eternal value is a recurring theme. In Chapter 6 of John, still, in verse 27, Jesus tells his disciples to work for food that doesn't spoil, but for that which has eternal value. Jesus frames the context in verse 63 of Jn. 6 when He says, "The words I spoke to you are spirit, and they are life." The term EAT is used many times in the Scriptures to describe internalizing, such as in Ezekiel 3: 1 - 3, where the prophet is told to "Eat the scrolls." Or accepting and welcoming that which God presents before you, as in when Peter was told to EAT unclean animals in Acts 10: 13. In Matthew 16: 11 Jesus was frustrated at the immature blunt understanding of his disciples when it took them long to figure out that He wasn't talking about bread, and the yeast he was talking about was the teaching of the Pharisees.... Later on, the disciples have come to realize that Jesus was the fulfilling the Scripture that said he would open his mouth in parables. So that those who are ever seeing may not see and those who are ever hearing may not understand. [1] In the institution of the Lord's Supper, they did not have any complaints whatsoever to the statement "This is My Body." for they understood that just as Baptism symbolizes our death to sin and our burial with Christ, the Lord's Supper proclaims the Lord's death [2] his shedding of blood in the cross for the forgiveness of sins. And as in Hebrews 7: 22 - 25 the New Covenant that makes obsolete the Old. The Lord's Supper was to have a distinction between common meals [3], but it is important to note that both Jesus and Paul refer to the elements as "bread and wine" AFTER they are blessed. [4] Jesus did NOT turn into a wooden door when He said "I am the Door." nor did he turn into a literal Vine when He said "I am the Vine." So why should Christ's figure of speech in saying that He is the Bread of Life be any different? In context of the time and place, bread was a staple food for the Jews much like rice is that of the Filipinos. He IS the giver of Life, and His Words should be treasured even above our daily bread. [5] Moreover, Jesus is no longer flesh and blood, He is in His glorified body, for flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. [6] There have been many miracles attributed to the Host, where it would bleed, cry like a child, turn into a dove, levitate or even speak to Catholics who were in adoration. Meaning, whoever it is posing as Jesus in the Eucharist has deceived billions already. On purpose.

Footnotes:
1. Luke 8: 10
2. 1 Cor. 11: 26
3. 1 Cor. 11: 27 - 29
4. John 13: 18, 1 Cor. 11: 26
5. Matthew 4: 4
6. 1 Cor. 15: 50

It is the official teaching of the Catholic Church that the sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of Calvary.
"The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice : 'The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests , who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.'" (1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1367)
The epistle that might have been written by the apostle Paul to the Hebrews contains the revelation that opposes all those who think that Christ's once and for all sacrifice is not enough a propitiation for sins. From the Book of Hebrews we know that:
1. Christ has died once and for all to take away sins. (Heb. 9: 25 - 27)
2. By that sacrifice Christ has perfected those who are being sanctified. (Heb. 10: 14)
3. And where these are forgiven, there is no longer an offering for sin. (Heb. 10: 18 )
Many think that Paul in Colossians 1: 24, was saying that Christ's sufferings for sin had something lacking in them. Hebrews 10: 18 speaks otherwise, let's just take note that in that verse he was referring to sufferings for the sake of the Gospel. [1], as we are all called to deny ourselves and suffer for Christ's sake and that of the Gospel.[2] Many times has Paul suffered for the Gospel. [3] I felt that need to include this here as many Catholic Faith Defenders quote that passage from Colossians out of context.

Footnotes:
1. Col. 1: 23
2. Mark 8: 35
3. 2 Tim. 2: 8 - 9

When Christ said "It is finished", the Greek translation for that statement means tetelestai, whose literal English translation means "paid in full." Yet the blasphemy of the Eucharist is supported by an apparition in San Nicolas Argentina, stating to visionary Gladys Quiroga De Motta:

"Love it! Adore it! For it is in the Eucharist that Jesus again becomes body and blood!"

To say that Jesus again becomes body and blood is to humanize the already risen Christ. The once and for all sacrifice of Jesus is enough, more than enough. No amount of human or demonic reasoning can change that. And knowing this, we can with much certainty be sure of the fact that the Communion Meal, the Lord's Supper was celebrated as a fraternal meal and NOT as a literal reinactment of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
In Jeremiah's time, sacrificial cakes of bread have been baked in the image of a goddess called the Queen of Heaven. That, friends is one of the bombastic titles of the impostor calling itself Mary. Who supports much of the heterodoxy and unscriptural practices of the Romish church. The Eucharist isn't the Lamb of God. It is a sacrilege. An image of abomination everytime it is performed. It is in no way the Lamb of God, and as Timothy Kauffman put it in his book "Quite Contrary", it is more like... the Lamb of Mary. ..... One of the impostor's titles is the Mother of the Eucharist and the apparition has always reiterated her relationship with the Eucharistic Christ.

[makusama]

This is my body... do this in remembrance of me...

I am not sure what gospel and what chapter this comes from and what verse but I am sure you know it exists.

Which part do you not understand?

Does your Church do the Communion in Remembrance of Jesus Christ?

(Almost) all verses pertaining to the last supper

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:26-28

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body." Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." Mark 14:22-24

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." Luke 22:19-20

Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17

And when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. 1 Corinthians 11:24-26

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54

Cant you read? Now who came up with your twisted interpretation? Was he an apostle or a disciple of an apostle? Or is he a guy with too much time in his hands? A phsyco a Wacko?


Imagine if you were Jesus how would you fell if you read this

In Jeremiah's time, sacrificial cakes of bread have been baked in the image of a goddess called the Queen of Heaven. That, friends is one of the bombastic titles of the impostor calling itself Mary

Mary is not our God but the Mother of our God Jesus Christ. We Roman Catholics do not worship Mary! We may adore her, Ask for Help, But we DO NOT worship her... Although some mislead Catholics do (taga Siquijor Black Magic2x Barang2x Voodoo2x) ... but this is not taught by the Roman Catholic Church and is shunned. When you adore your Mother, are you worshipping her? When you acknowledge the greatness of a basketball player are you worshipping him? When you speak to a picture of a dead relative and weep... or kiss the picture.. is that idolatry? is the picture now your GOD? or is it a mere representation of the person inside the picture who you would so want to speak to and miss?

Moreover, Jesus is no longer flesh and blood

Now what part of the Bible did you get this from? I bet it is from the Gospel of CardinalBunal! Ngilngig na diay na imo religion bro kay ikaw nagud nagsuwat2x og gospel... ngiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiga nimo noh?

Mathew 4: 4 is

Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Nagkabuang mani imo footnotes bro unsa mani na Bible? aaahhhhh.. lisod ni dah?! murag taga mars man tingali ni na Bible or emit bah?


Lisod ka kasturya bro samot naka kalisod kalalis.. wala kay klaro.. padayona na bro... masalbar gyud ka sigurado ana....

[makusama]

heheheheh mura man ka ga drive og eroplano pero manual sa rice cooker imo gi kuptan :mrgreen:... Palit og tarong na biblia oi... paka-uwaw raman ka

Wala naman niy lami oi... hahahahahahah nabitik ko nimo sa imo kabuang bro da.... kamo nalang ni manny pag lalis oi... ma boang ta og apil nimo

[dacs]

[richard79]

Pasensya na nga wala kaayo ko kabasa tanan tanan ninyong gipangsuwat pero gusto lang ko mangutana ngano intawn magpabilin ta sa isa ka tuo tuo nga kahibaw man ta nga daghan nga gibuhat simbahan romano katoliko wala nagasunod sa bibliya! Sama sa:

1) pag ampo og diyos diyos

2) pag pangumpisal sa pare nga pwedi raman mo dritso sa Ginoo

3) pag ampo kang birhin Maria og pagpangayo og tabang niya nga pwedi raman ta modritso

4) pag pangayo og tabang sa mga santos nga pwedi raman ta modritso sa Ginoo.

5) pag pangalawat nga hostiyas lang o pan lang walay labot ang paginom nga naa mana sa bibliya.

6) pag gamit og rosariohan nga balik balik ang pag ampo nga kasagaran dili kinasingkasing kay gabalik balik raman murag mongha.

7) pag wiris wiris og 'balaang tubig' nga wala mana sya

pag baptismo sa isa ka bata nga wala pay buot nga dili makadisisyon sa iyang kaugalingon nga bisag katong bata ba si Hesus gi didikar lang sya wala sya baptismohi unya diha na sya gibaptismohan pagkadako na niya.

9) pag pugong sa mga pare nga mangasawa bisag ang katomanan sa Ginoo wala dra.

10) pag butyag og novena bisag wala na sya ngahisuwat sa bibliya.

kung naa pakoy nalimtan ako nang idungag! pero pasabta ko ani intawn kay kasagaran sa atoa kay tungod mao lagi naandan mao nalang pud sundon. daghan nato maoy nabuta sa kamatuoran! daghan nato nga ang kamatuoran gihimong babag daw sa ilang pag ampo og pagsunod sa Diyos! Wala mo kasabot ngano ingon ana na og unsay history sa inyong simbahan!

[makusama]

1) pag ampo og diyos diyos
- kinsa man na diyos diyos gi ampo-an sa katoliko? kana imong gipasabot na staua? oi... exampol lagi kung gimingaw ka sa imong mama unya nagtan-aw ka sa iya picture unya imo istoryahan iya picture unya hilakan pa nimo... ang picture imo gihilakan or unsay naa sa picture na gi symbolize? Picture pana brad unsa pa kaha nang personal belongings niya unya kung maka-kita ka makahinumdom ka? kanang diyaos diyos brad kanang mu worship ka og IRO, KABAW, IRING, TAO, na himu-on nimo siya og ginoo...

2) pag pangumpisal sa pare nga pwedi raman mo dritso sa Ginoo
bay basa og bibliya bai.... mahimo man sad ta og brader soriano nimo oi...

Numbers 5: 6 -

"Say to the Israelites: 'When a man or woman wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the LORD, that person is guilty and must confess the sin he has committed. He must make full restitution for his wrong, add one fifth to it and give it all to the person he has wronged. But if that person has no close relative to whom restitution can be made for the wrong, the restitution belongs to the LORD and must be given to the priest, along with the ram with which atonement is made for him

Research lagi brad... pwde pa nimo basahon ang sumpay brad kuhaa imo biblia para dili sad tawon na ma abogan... naa diha ang pag gamit og holy water even before John the baptist....


3) pag ampo kang birhin Maria og pagpangayo og tabang niya nga pwedi raman ta modritso

-aw ayaw nalang pangayo og tabang sa imong isig ka tao pwede raman diay ka mu diretso sa ginoo! Pwerte man lagi nimo pangayo tabang sa imo mama mintras bata paka... nakasala na diay ka?? ngiga nimo noh ang ginoo raman pwede mutabang nimo! wala diay laing instumento ang ginoo? and excuse me brad wala gyud tawon mi nag ampo ni Maria brad... ngayo tingali og tabang... dili si Maria ginoo para ampo-an... Dili mananambal og mangkukulam ang Roman CAtholic church brad.... SAYOP intwn ka... or kinsa mana nagatudlo nimo sa imo nahibalo-an

4) pag pangayo og tabang sa mga santos nga pwedi raman ta modritso sa Ginoo.

-same as number 3

5) pag pangalawat nga hostiyas lang o pan lang walay labot ang paginom nga naa mana sa bibliya.

-brad pwede ka mu inom oi... kung pangayu-on gyud nimo... nakasulay nako ani kapila brad... lisod lagi gyud ni kung mag sige panaway unya walay alam

6) pag gamit og rosariohan nga balik balik ang pag ampo nga kasagaran dili kinasingkasing kay gabalik balik raman murag mongha.

-kahibalo ka unsay rosario brad? it is a meditation on the life of Christ. Research lagi. unsa man nga naa sa rosaryo na wala sa biblia beh? research brad una manaway....

7) pag wiris wiris og 'balaang tubig' nga wala mana sya
-holy water na brad!

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them.and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20).

using holy water simply reminds the "catholic/christian" of his baptism and his union with Christ nothing else. dili ni siya magic magic brad like makit-an nimo sa TV


actually brad daghan pa kaayo mga passages to support Roman Catholic Faith.. research brad and do not condemn because you do not know and do not understand

"IT IS EASIER TO DESTRY THAN TO BUILD"
"KUNG GUSTO KA MAKA ABOT SA TIU-OD PANINGUHAI OG PANGITA... AYAW OG DAWAT LANG"

to all the people participating in this thread... tanan ninyo mga question dinhi ako nana napangutana sa una... sobra pa... doubting and seeking the truth is good.. but doubting and being lazy to find the truth and replacing it with lies... lahi nasad na...

Frankly, most Catholics do not care about protestant religion as long as si Jesus Christ gihapon ilang ginoo... but hearing protestants say Mary is a "Whore of Babylon" etc etc... that is way out of line... Remember if you really are Christians have respect to the mother of Jesus

[makusama]

kung naa ka pangutana brad bahin sa Catholic Faith e-google usa brad... ayaw sad sulod anang mga site na murag hinimo ra og grade1... pangita sad tawon og tunay tan-awon ... kanang murag opisyal bah....

[mannyamador]

It is by Pius XII.... it exists. It is in the Munificentissimus Deus.

Wrong again. The exact definition is here:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the
course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

That -- and only that -- is the doctrine defined ex cathedra in Munificentissimus Deus. The apparition of Guadalupe, and whatever may be claimed of it, is NOT ex cathedra, and is NOT part of Catholic dogma. In Munificentissimus Deus Pius XII quotes St. John Damascene as saying:

"It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her
heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon
him as he sits with the Father."

Now some may think St. John Damascene may have believed in a painless childbirth, but that is NOT an ex cathedra statement. Pius XII never declared it as dogmatic. And St. John had no authority to make any ex cathedra statements. And the saint writes that Mary had escaped receiving in her heart the "sword of sorrow" at childbirth. But the "sword of sorrow" is not necessarily the same as physical pain of childbirth. In fact, the sword of sorrows definitely refers to the kind of pain Mary received when she saw her son crucified. Quite a different matter altogether.

Whether Mary experienced pain, however, is irrelevant in your claim, because As I have shown, being sinless does NOT necessarily mean that Mary was preserved from the pains of childbirth or of other hardships.

You make the claim that since the pangs of childbirht are a result of sin, then a sinless person cannot experience it. But then death is also a result of sin. If we follow your logic, then a sinless person cannot experience death. But Jesus Christ DID experience death. So, if we follow your faulty logic, then Jesus could not have experienced death, since death is a consequence of sin. By your logic, therefore, either Jesus did NOT die for our sins, or He was not sinless.

Argumentum ad absurdum. Your premisses lead to absurd conclusions.

The bottom line is that you a re making a PERSONAL INTERPRETATION and pretending that it is Catholic doctrine. That is DISHONEST. You are misrepresenting Catholic doctrine. That's called LYING.

Jesus Christ is the Head of the church I go to...

Well, YOU do not believe in the teachings of Christ, and you believe in misrepresenting the teachings of Christ's Church. SDo it's pretty obvuious you believe in LYING. Hardly a Christian belief.

Neither does the Catholic church, truth be told you can only have apostolic roots if your allegiance is to Jesus Christ and His Gospel as written by the apostles.......

That is exactly the allegiance of the Church: to Jesus Christ and His Gospel as written by the Apostles. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church to have a DIRECT and UNBROKEN line of FORMAL authority from the Apostles. Your "church" doesn't. The Catholic Church the ONLY one that has kept faithful to the original teachings of Christ as passed on by His Apostles, the "Deposit of Faith".

Your "church", on the other hand, only has twisted PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS (like the unscriptural sola scriptura and sola fide) and a bastardized Bible with a faulty Old Testament canon (promoted by a discredited, licentious, and prejudiced Martin Luther).

Our friend makusama has also shown the direct line of Popes all the way to the Apostles. Your "church" doesn't have that.