What's new
By:

🕯️ Traditions Black nazarene and sto. nino? there is no such in the bible!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eh ikaw nga di mo masasagot sagot mga maling turo niyo dada ka lang ng dada walang verses o alam para gawing basehan sa mga turo niyo mag previous post ka ang dami niyong turo na wala sa Biblia.
 
Mary the mother of Jesus was described by God as “highly favored” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). The phrase “highly favored” comes from a single Greek word, which essentially means “much grace.” Mary received God’s grace.

Grace is “unmerited favor,” meaning something we receive despite the fact that we do not deserve it. Mary needed grace from God just as the rest of us do. Mary herself understood this fact, as she declared in You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., “. . . and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. . .”

Mary recognized that she needed the Savior. The Bible never says that Mary was anyone but an ordinary human whom God chose to use in an extraordinary way. Yes, Mary was a righteous woman and favored (graced) by God (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). At the same time, Mary was a sinful human being who needed Jesus Christ as her Savior, just like everyone else (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).

Mary did not have an “You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..” The Bible doesn’t suggest Mary’s birth was anything but a normal human birth. Mary was a ****** when she gave birth to Jesus (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.), but the idea of the perpetual ******ity of Mary is unbiblical. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., speaking of Joseph, declares, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.”

The word “until” clearly indicates that Joseph and Mary did have sexual union after Jesus was born. Joseph and Mary had several children together after Jesus was born. Jesus had four half-brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). Jesus also had half-sisters, although they are not named or numbered (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). God blessed and graced Mary by giving her several children, which in that culture was the clearest indication of God’s blessing on a woman.

One time when Jesus was speaking, a woman in the crowd proclaimed, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). There was never a better opportunity for Jesus to declare that Mary was indeed worthy of praise and adoration. What was Jesus’ response? “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). To Jesus, obedience to God’s Word was more important than being the woman who gave birth to the Savior.

Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus, or anyone else, direct any praise, glory, or adoration towards Mary. Elizabeth, Mary’s relative, praised Mary in You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., but her praise is based on the blessing of giving birth to the Messiah. It was not based on any inherent glory in Mary.

Mary was present at the cross when Jesus died (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). Mary was also with the apostles on the day of Pentecost (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). However, Mary is never mentioned again after Acts chapter 1. The apostles did not give Mary a prominent role. Mary’s death is not recorded in the Bible. Nothing is said about Mary ascending to heaven or having an exalted role there. As the earthly mother of Jesus, Mary should be respected, but she is not worthy of our worship or adoration.

The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary can hear our prayers or that she can mediate for us with God. Jesus is our only advocate and mediator in heaven (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). If offered worship, adoration, or prayers, Mary would say the same as the angels: “Worship God!” (see You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..) Mary herself sets the example for us, directing her worship, adoration, and praise to God alone: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is His name” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).
 
Si Pedro unang Pope dyan pa lang butata kana eh. Bakit tinawag ni Cristo si Simon na bilang Bato kung hindi sya kasama sa foundation sa pag gawa ng unang simbahan? Whoever Binds nyo in earth will be bound in heaven. The Key bearer
 
The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., Christ built His church upon Peter.

But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; and You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).

What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).

Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).
 
The other popular interpretation of the rock is that Jesus was referring not to Peter, but to Peter’s confession of faith in verse 16: “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” Jesus had never explicitly taught Peter and the other disciples the fullness of His identity, and He recognized that God had sovereignly opened Peter’s eyes and revealed to him who Jesus really was. His confession of Christ as Messiah poured forth from him, a heartfelt declaration of Peter’s personal faith in Jesus. It is this personal faith in Christ which is the hallmark of the true Christian. Those who have placed their faith in Christ, as Peter did, are the church. Peter E×ρréššes this in You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. when he addressed the believers who had been dispersed around the ancient world: “Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”

At this point, Jesus declares that God had revealed this truth to Peter. The word for “Peter,” Petros, means a small stone (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). Jesus used a play on words here with petra (“on this rock”) which means a foundation boulder, as in You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. when He described the rock upon which the wise man builds his house. Peter himself uses the same imagery in his first epistle: the church is built of numerous small petros “living stones” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) who, like Peter, confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and those confessions of faith are the bedrock of the church.

In addition, the New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.; You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) and the head (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.) of the church. It is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.).

The Roman Catholic Church uses the argument that Peter is the rock to which Jesus referred as evidence that it is the one true church. As we have seen, Peter's being the rock is not the only valid interpretation of this verse. Even if Peter is the rock in You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., this is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being the “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. is not in the teachings of Peter or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).
 
Search mo First Pope dyan pa lang Butata kana eh ikaw search mo Born Again, INC, Baptist,SDA Founder nila nang mag kaalaman hehehe
 
Kating kati ka na ba TS makakita ng mga spoilers at gumawa ka ng Thread para mag away away? Siguro hindi ka makapag Bug kaya dinadamay mo sa mga Roman Catholic ang galit mo sa mga telcos. hehe Peace.
 
Successor ni Cristo si Pedro kaya nga gumawa sya ng mga Apostoles para pag ascending nya sa Heaven merong mag palaganap ng kanyang mga aral kaya nga ang tanong ko sa iyo James kung sinong Apostoles ni Cristo ang nag anointed sa founder nyo para mangaral? Kahit eh trace up mo na lang kay hudas para malaman natin kung totoong may Apostoles ni Cristo na nagaral sa inyo hehehe
 
Walang Apostolical Successor, walang history, walang nag bautismo sa kanila na Apostoles ni Cristo nag dala lang ng Biblia ang Pastor nila na gawa din ng Catholic tapos nag preach preach naku Bible Alone daw sapat na ang kaligtasan. Pero bawal daw bautismohan ang mga sanggol dahil hindi sila tao, laglag ang kaligtasan nyo dyan hehehe
 
James307 said:
Brb kain muna ko.
Click to expand...
Saang talata na nag talikod ang ginawa nyang unang simbahan at gagawa sya ng bago at kayo yun lahat ng mga sulpot yan ang verse eh. Gagawa daw si Cristo ng bago. Ano po ba ang nag talikod ang unang simbahan na tukod ni Cristo o ang tao bakit lumabas kayo sa unang simbahan? hehehe
 
alam mo james mas the best imbitahan mo sila at doon mo masasabi ng mas maayos yan hnd dito sa group na ito. isa pa may mali sa mga sitas mo eh. sa palagay ko para sayo simply ang kaligtasan nuh? hindi? yung binibida niyo sa john 3:16 akala mo lang yan na ganun kasimply pero hindi naman pala. at sa ginagawa mo kasi ditong pagiingay hindi mo sila tinatamnan ng tamang pagmamahal at paggising dahil nasa maling lugar ka ng pagpapaliwanag freenet site po ito at hindi ebanghelyo ninyo sa inyong samahan. sa paggawa ay naguumpisa din sa pakikinig ng salita ng Dios. makinig ay hikayatin mo sila umattend sa inyo ng mayroon pagpapakumbaba at hindi pagmamataas dahil sa ikaw ang nakakakilala sa Dios sila ay hindi. isa pa walang naghamon sayo dito ng debate pero kung yung pastor mo at yung mangangaral ko na galing sa tunay na Dios ang mag debate i doubt na may itatama ang mga sitas ninyo. ayan panoorin mo ang mga maling aral ng baptist church sa inyo. at ang tunay na kahulugan ng baptist na wala naman sa bibliya na baptist church tapusin mo kaibigan kung may gusto kang idepensa sa napanood mo na yan pumunta ka ng lokal diyan sa inyo kung nasaan ka man mayroon yan dyan. samahan ka nawa ng Dios.
 
Punta naman tayo sa thread title mo TS.

Black Nazarene- Tinawag itong Black Nazarene kasi ang wood na ginamit dito ay dark hardwood ng isang sculptor na mexicano in the year 1600s then tinransfer ito papuntang Manila 500 years ago.

Sto. Niño- Is only a "Spanish Word" nung kabataan ni Hesucristo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

About this Thread

  • 840
    Replies
  • 25K
    Views
  • 157
    Participants
Last reply from:
K r A T o S

New Topics

Trending Topics

Online now

Members online
348
Guests online
1,710
Total visitors
2,058

Forum statistics

Threads
2,271,656
Posts
28,937,089
Members
1,238,762
Latest member
qweasd123
Back
Top