RELIGION....(part 2)

[Cardinal Bunal]

---

Dacs,

Waaaaa! You are distorting Scripture! ;-b ;-b

Manny,

Yes we do..... the autonoumous and separated brethren who are also baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.... and so is the Roman church we are all offshoots of The church in the person of the apostles and the prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone irregardless of what banner we proudly wave.

Peter must have been to Rome between 58 - 60 A.D. as it is recorded somewhere in the Scriptures, but it would have been unethical for the apostle Paul NOT to greet him if he was already there when he wrote the epistle to the Romans if the apostle Peter was already there as the "vicar of Christ" or "most special bishop" or "primary pastor" whatever the clergy wants to call him.

Peter in fact was appealing to everyone as a fellow elde/presbyterr (1 Pet. 5: 1) and in context of him being the first ROCK or building stone on the construction of God's spiritual temple, we too are LIVING STONES called to a holy priesthood with Christ himself as the Chief Cornerstone. "A stone that will make people fall and a rock that will make people stumble." (1 Pet. 2: 4 - 8 )

According to Deut. 32: 4, 15 or the entire Song of Moses in general, who is the Saving Rock?

According to 1 Cor. 10: 4, who is the Spiritual Rock?

And according to Eph. 2: 19 - 22 Who is the Chief Cornerstone?

[dacs]

Dacs,

Waaaaa! You are distorting Scripture! ;-b ;-b

Prove.

[dacs]

Yes we do..... the autonoumous and separated brethren who are also baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.... and so is the Roman church we are all offshoots of The church in the person of the apostles and the prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone irregardless of what banner we proudly wave.

You call Christ Lord, yet you do not obey Him. He established only one Church - the Catholic Church. You cannot trace your history and system of beliefs to the time of the Apostle. There is no Christian back then who ever believed that the Bible is the sole rule of faith. There is no Christian back who interpreted the letters and the gospels outside of the Church. Even then there were people who called Christ as Lord, yet Jesus did not recognize them. As the Bible stated that only with the guidance of the Holy Spirit will a man be able to call Christ as Lord, these people that had been rejected by Christ may already had believed - yet they were still not recognized by Christ.

Peter must have been to Rome between 58 - 60 A.D. as it is recorded somewhere in the Scriptures, but it would have been unethical for the apostle Paul NOT to greet him if he was already there when he wrote the epistle to the Romans if the apostle Peter was already there as the "vicar of Christ" or "most special bishop" or "primary pastor" whatever the clergy wants to call him.

In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Have you ever asked yourself if the historical 'Babylon' - the city that was mentioned in the Old Testament books - still existed at the time 1 Peter was written? It did not, and all biblical scholars of good reputation agrees that 'Babylon' is a code word for Rome.

Peter - the first among the apostles - must be a very wanted man in Rome. Reason enough for St. Paul not to mention him in case the letter would be intercepted by the spies of the Roman authorities and thereby giving them the affirmation that Peter is in Rome. Yet, what about history? What does it say?

"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (St. Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (St. Augustine, Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Clement of Alexandria, Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).

Want more?

[DHated]

pwde na.. pwde naka e-back2back ni Ely soriano

[Tamblot]

Many has been said about Religion, Bible, Christ, Faith, etc. And everybody is so eager to post and react.

How about the Demon? How about Satan? How about Diablo? or even Baal and Andariel?

Should we just leave them behind?

[Cardinal Bunal]

In his first epistle, Peter tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome.Â* Have you ever asked yourself if the historical 'Babylon' - the city that was mentioned in the Old Testament books - still existed at the time 1 Peter was written?Â* It did not, and all biblical scholars of good reputation agrees that 'Babylon' is a code word for Rome.

Babylon is back in business... nope it didn't STOP with pagan Rome. Babylon exists today. Although NOT in Mesopotamia (the areas in Iraq or areas in the ancient Middle East) ....Â* So that's the point of Daniel 7: 23....... and of course Revelation 18.Â* ;-b Yet some scholars Catholic and Nonsectorial alike are still rummaging through the ancient middle east, when Daniel and Isaiah clearly lay out the historical, geopolitical horizon about the significance of Babylon coming back in the Scriptures - and some of these prophecies were written even before Nebuchadnezzar, or if they were - definitely before Cyrus or Alexander... and of course definitely before ROME.
John the evangelist/apostle illustrates all of what those 2 prophets I mentioned (and other prophets for that matter) wrote about, figuratively, step by step. Even prophetic messages that allude to who were ruling in those times e.g. one Caesar who was shortlived, etc.

Well, Church is indeed singular and ONE...... if there was a standard of judging Church in the Roman Catholic sector it would have to be based on pontifical authority... or in what you now dub as "fundamentalist" or "orthodox" or "apostate" denominations, there are the Scriptures as the standard, nonetheless either of those two have at least one congregation in one area or one diocese working with err. - But what is the standard of judgment to these who err?

Is it written? Or rather, can it be found in documents sufficient enough NOT to leave us in darkness of how to live and do "church"? - Isaiah 34: 16 NAB,Â* 1 Cor. 15: 2

.... Sure ba ang RCC nga naa nila ang Holy Spirit?Â* No one can claim proprietorship to the Holy Spirit.Â* How do we gain the Holy Spirit?Â* - Gal. 3: 14

What is the external manifestation of expression faith and of death to sin? (Both Roman Catholic and Nonsectorial denominations know this, although they may disagree on the methods and times when this is to be administered)

But in a broader sense and in the long run what are the fruits of the Spirit? - Gal. 5: 22 - 24

----------------

Dacs will probably attest to the fact that I have a tendency to ramble - but speaking of Spirit it isn't JUST THE FRUITS either that we are able to discern spirits that come, even those coming in the name of Christ.Â* - 1 Jn 4: 2 - 3 ...... the Gnostics did NOT recognize Jesus Christ come in the flesh and so do those other spirits; one lie they can for some reason, NEVER get away with....... I think there was an apparition calling itself "Mary" in San Nicolas that quickly changed the topic when asked this question. Do you recognize Christ Jesus as come in the flesh?

Tamblot,

Here is an article about the Antichrist, Satan himself...

http://onemediator.4t.com/whats_new.html

[dacs]

Hay!

This is the very reason why I stop posting for a while here. You cannot find consistency of response among those who wants to argue. If proof is asked for, nothing is forthcoming. Instead, you will be waylaid on a tangent.

Ciao.

[mannyamador]

Yes we do..... the autonoumous and separated brethren who are also baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

That does not mean you're from the same church, especially since YOUR DOCTRINES ARE DIFFERENT from that taught by Christ and your ministers do not have the authority passed on fromm the Apostles. The Catholic Church, however, IS THE VERY SAME CHURCH FOUNDED BY CHRIST. We have an UNBROKEN line of formal authority passed on directly from the Apostles to our bishops, and we have the VERY SAME DOCTRINE.

Peter must have been to Rome between 58 - 60 A.D. as it is recorded somewhere in the Scriptures, but it would have been unethical for the apostle Paul NOT to greet him if he was already there when he wrote the epistle to the Romans if the apostle Peter was already there as the "vicar of Christ" or "most special bishop" or "primary pastor" whatever the clergy wants to call him.

As Dacs has already proven, Paul DID greet him. You really should learn how to read your Bible.

As for the rest, you ARE rambling -- INCOHERENTLY. Fanaticism has a way of doing that to people.

[DHated]

listen to The Antichrist superstar..


and mayu rest in peace all of you.

[Cardinal Bunal]

Hay!

This is the very reason why I stop posting for a while here.Â* You cannot find consistency of response among those who wants to argue.Â* If proof is asked for, nothing is forthcoming.Â* Instead, you will be waylaid on a tangent.

Ciao.

Naa oi, grabe sad. May pagka simang lang usahay... And I was agreeing to what you said of how Peter referred to Rome or being in Rome. Only to use it against the RCC. ;-b

We have an UNBROKEN line of formal authority passed on directly from the Apostles to our bishops, and we have the VERY SAME DOCTRINE.

I don't believe you. ;-b No, but I hear His voice... NOT yours.