unsay sabot nimo sa SANTOS-angay ampoan?

[lomhanz]

---

blame has nothing to do with here bro.

kana gung muingon ka nga imong sultihan bro, subjective na kaayo ka ug dating ana..sometimes ma interpret ka ug lain ana.. dili sa ingon nga dili ka paminawon, pero mura naka ug nanghilabot ana..kay ngano? ang pulong nga sakto ug sayop naa rana sa tagsa-tagsa nato bro.. posible nga ang sakto nako sayop nimo.. aron pa gyud mo mutoo, mao ni hinungdan nganong dunay lalis, kay nagtoo man ta nga sakto ta unya siya sayop.

did you know why there is WAR, because we believe the We Are Right.

mao na akong pasabot nga ayaw ninyo hukmi ang usa ka tawo nga sayop na iyang gibuhat o gitohuan.

nya RISE UP man kaha, cge..okay sad ko ana, basta sangyaw lang. barog mo didto sa colon bro, nya sangyaw mo. ayaw lang i personalize kay pagpanghilabot naman na. okay? nagkasabot nata?

PEACE!

[amingb]

So glad to see that some way you understand what a saint is and what it is all about (in the RC belief) despite lahi ta og religion.

OT sa ta bro ha ... discuss nato na nga Verse. ( Eph.2:19-20 )

Parihas ta ug belief regarding saints labi na sa mga Early Saints .. pero base anang nga quote kita pud puede ta mahimong saints .. CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS are called SAINTS

Pero naa disagreement diha dapit sa doctrine regarding authority base ana nga quote .

Sa Protestant ang only Authority regarding religios Doctine is "Scripture Alone"

Sa RC - For the Catholic sees his Church, not Scripture, as the final sole authority in all areas of life and theology (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 84-85, 113).

Moa ni ang Argument - base ana nga Quote the foundation which has already been laid down by the Apostle and Prophets with christ as the cornerstone since it is already laid down dili na dapat naa pay lain authority that well come up.

cguro clear kaau ana nga verse it indicates that the foundation that was laid once and thus never needs to be repeated.

Karon ang Vatican naghimo ug lain authority on earth via the Roman Catholic. Thus, each new foundation would logically require a new cornerstone. ( I think the Pope is the cornerstone )

Palihug kuno kos side ninyo ana bro ... discussion lang ni ato dili lang ta mag debate ... need lang kos inyoha explanation regarding sa ( cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 84-85, 113 )

[knockout]

@lomhanz
yes bro, hehe, example bro basahan taka ug verse sa bible nga dili sakto ang mo ampo ug santos, mga rebolto, panghilabot diay na? hehe, so you mean bro ang bible subjective ra kaayo? hehe, ana gyud na bro, truth hurts gyud na...hehe we dont need WAR bro or We Are Right, all we need is to read the bible. after you read the bible, RISE UP dayun. hehe... peace bro.

[amingb]

blame has nothing to do with here bro.

kana gung muingon ka nga imong sultihan bro, subjective na kaayo ka ug dating ana..sometimes ma interpret ka ug lain ana.. dili sa ingon nga dili ka paminawon, pero mura naka ug nanghilabot ana..kay ngano? ang pulong nga sakto ug sayop naa rana sa tagsa-tagsa nato bro.. posible nga ang sakto nako sayop nimo.. aron pa gyud mo mutoo, mao ni hinungdan nganong dunay lalis, kay nagtoo man ta nga sakto ta unya siya sayop.

did you know why there is WAR, because we believe the We Are Right.

mao na akong pasabot nga ayaw ninyo hukmi ang usa ka tawo nga sayop na iyang gibuhat o gitohuan.

nya RISE UP man kaha, cge..okay sad ko ana, basta sangyaw lang. barog mo didto sa colon bro, nya sangyaw mo. ayaw lang i personalize kay pagpanghilabot naman na. okay? nagkasabot nata?

PEACE!

Lahi man regarding sa atong religion bro mo hatag ko ug verse ha . Pero inig rebuke nimo sa tawo ayaw pud dayon Birahi kay mo suki mana. Hinay2x lang ba. Dili mana matawag pang hilabot.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (II Tim. 3:16,17)

[knockout]

@lomhanz
hehe infact bro, mabaw ra kaayo ka ug definition sa sangyaw bro, even diri sa istorya.net puedi ka mag sangyaw, you dont need to went to colon aron mag sangyaw, hehe... peace be with you bro...

[necrotic freak]

Lahi man regarding sa atong religion bro mo hatag ko ug verse ha . Pero inig rebuke nimo sa tawo ayaw pud dayon Birahi kay mo suki mana. Hinay2x lang ba. Dili mana matawag pang hilabot.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (II Tim. 3:16,17)

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

[pijavier]

Mo tuo kag Ginoo Bro lomhanz? asking lang ha, dili to pina busdak pag sulti... curious lang.

Para nako gud mga Bro, naa naman sa Bibia tanan. sakto man ang Biblia, sakto imong verse amingb. Impossible kayo ang 44 authors nga mag dungan og sulti and magsulat og something nga same ra og pasabot.

Guide man gud to life ang Bible, unless naa kay lain nga guide sa Kinabuhi, the Bible is still supreme so kung pasagdan lang nato ang mga tao, samot tag kagubot ani

[lomhanz]

@lomhanz
yes bro, hehe, example bro basahan taka ug verse sa bible nga dili sakto ang mo ampo ug santos, mga rebolto, panghilabot diay na? hehe, so you mean bro ang bible subjective ra kaayo? hehe, ana gyud na bro, truth hurts gyud na...hehe we dont need WAR bro or We Are Right, all we need is to read the bible. after you read the bible, RISE UP dayun. hehe... peace bro.

kon basahan ko nimo bro, pag panghilabot gyud na siya nako.. it is because nga lain-lain ta ug definition sa pagpanghilabot.. ug kon nganong basahan ko nimo? kay nagtuo ka nga sayop ang akong gibasa karon. dba? sayop ba ko bro? sorry kung sayop ko, imo ra nang pagtuo.

@lomhanz
hehe infact bro, mabaw ra kaayo ka ug definition sa sangyaw bro, even diri sa istorya.net puedi ka mag sangyaw, you dont need to went to colon aron mag sangyaw, hehe... peace be with you bro...

sakto ka bro. example ra to ang akoa bro nga muadto ka ug colon. kung mabaw ra ang akong difinition, hain man ang lawon? mabaw rasad kaayo ka ug pagsabot sa akong gisulti bro. example rana. kana tanan nimon gisulti, sakto na. naa pay ubang example bro ay, adto sa radyo, sa tv, podcast, blogs... got me bro? palawmi gamay imong pagsabot bro, literal ra kaayo bro.

Mo tuo kag Ginoo Bro lomhanz? asking lang ha, dili to pina busdak pag sulti... curious lang.

curious lang sad ko bro. what is Ginoo for you? kindly define before ko mutubag. pwde man na Ginoong Ramos, dba?

PEACE mga BRO!

[pijavier]

Bro lomhanz, diba nag hisgot man tag Bible og Mga Santos, naa ba sa Bible si Ginong Ramos? bwahahahahahaha. murag wala bro, sa Bible nako wala gyud!

so mo tuo ka sa Ginoong Diyos Bro? ako klarohon: Ginoo nga naghimo sa kalibutan og sa katawhan, Ginboo nga gisulti sa Biblia. curiousity ra to bro ky naa ky gi post nga naka catch nakog attention.

way blema, friendly fire rani ato, walay personalay ni. mag away gani mag uyab og mag bulag ang minyo. kita dir, no strings attached man ta. palami lang tag storya. pero kinahanglan sad naay kamatuuran...


I THENK YOU. BOW!

[knockout]

@lomhanz
salamat bro, hehe!

bitaw pijavier bro, klaroha na imong Ginoo, kay daghan raba ginoo, i english nalang na kung GOD imong pasabot. hehe