Fans just got a taste of what to expect this season. Here are the numbers that shaped the first week of UAAP volleyball action.read more
The DLSU Lady Spikers took a walk in the park as they dominated UST from start to finish with 25-8, 27-25, 25-13read more
Japeth Aguilar's trey and block saved the day as Barangay Ginebra escaped the Talk N Text Tropang Texters 97-95.read more
Jessy Mendiola's time is here. Patiently waiting for her turn in the spotlight, she is proof that good things come to those who wait.read more
While we don't espouse violence, one can't help get more adrenaline watching the game when you see players go at each other at all costs.read more
tinan mo kapatid isa na iyan sa ebidensya na kahit kayo ay hindi nagkakasundo pero iisa ang inyong basihan....
Magkakontra ang prinsipyo ng SOLA SCRIPTURA at ang CANON OF SCRIPTURE ng mga PROTESTANTE/EBANGHELICO. Allow me to define the terms using the wikipedia (dahil wala namang official na pagkukuhanan iisang aral protestante/ebanghelico):
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture. However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today (see Five solas).
Each time protestants/evangelicals argue for their 'version' of the canon, they actually spit on the face of their primary doctrine SOLA SCRIPTURA. How?
1) the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness - how can the bible contain all the knowledge necessary for salvation when it doesn't have the list of what is canonical scripture? You have to know which composes the bible before you could even attempt to say that the bible contains all the knowledge necessary for salvation!
2) sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture - how do you determine the protestant 66 book canon of scripture using the scriptures? Hindi rin puede.
3) it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God - how do you correct the 39 book canon of the council of Jamnia (composed of Pharisaic Rabbis whom the Lord Jesus referred to as hypocrites which later became the authorities of the evangelicals/protestants in determining the O.T. canon) using the scripture when it doesn't have the canon? They therefore appeal to EXTRABIBLICAL and FALLIBLE human (pharisaic tradition) that they despise for the canon of scripture. Ironic di ba?
How can the protestant/evangelical now argue for the primacy of scripture when they can't determine infallibly what books should be considered as scripture?
Ultimate infallible authority daw nila ang biblia - paulit-ulit na sinasabi dito sa thread na ito, pero baket kinoconsulta nila ang tradition ng mga hudyo bilang AUTORIDAD kung ano ang libro dapat nasa biblia? Paano ngayon naging supreme and final authority ang bible kung HUDYO sinusunod nila sa canon of scripture (O.T.)? Tapos tradition catolico naman sa N.T.? At kung ang infallible lang ang biblia - how could you now trust the canon of scripture nitong mga ebanghelico/protestante - hindi naman nila hinugot sa biblia yung listahan nila? At ang masakit pa - yung canon of scripture nila galing lang sa mga tradition ng tao na sa kanila FALLIBLE. So how could they argue na listahan nila ang tama kaysa catolico eh aminado silang YUNG LISTAHAN NILA PUEDENG PALPAK dahil FALLIBLE at wala naman sa biblia? Contradiction di ba? IN ORDER TO PRACTICE SOLA SCRIPTURA YOU MUST KNOW WHAT IS SCRIPTURA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Eh di nila masabi infallibly kung ano scripture - how could they now adhere to the teaching of Sola Scriptura? Di ba masakit sa ulo? :P
Maraming ebanghelico/protestante tumutuligsa sa aral ng purgatoryo. Pero alam niyo ba meron din sa kanilang naniniwala sa purgatoryo itinuturo din nila yan sa mga seminaryo nila di lang nila inaamin. Doon sa mga talagang nagsusuri ng biblia - totoo naman ang purgatoryo at aral apostolica naman talaga and to some degree even some evangelicals agree to a certain extent about the catholic doctrine about purgatory:
Most Protestants don't realize that purgatory is a Roman Catholic tradition based on a very interesting early church—and possibly apostolic—belief.
Hades Is Thrown into the Lake of Fire
Revelation 20:14 makes the rather shocking statement that Hades is thrown into the lake of fire. Really? Most of us have believed that Hades is the lake of fire.
Obviously, it's not.
Hades, in the New Testament, is the place of the dead. The early Church believed that all dead go there. Most fundamentalist Protestant denominations "officially" agree, though I've found that doctrine is not well-known except perhaps in seminaries.
Actually, fundamentalist Protestants agree that all the dead used to go there. Now, however, Hades has been emptied since Christ rose. Verses like 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6, which say that Jesus preached to "the spirits in prison" and "the dead," are used to teach this idea.
Ephesians 4:8 adds that when Jesus rose he "led captivity captive," and that passage is also used to suggest he released the righteous dead from Hades.
Jesus Describes Hades
In Luke 16, Jesus tells the story of Lazarus the beggar and a rich man. When they die they are both carried to the place of the dead. Jesus specifically says the rich man is in Hades, and he does not say this of Lazarus. He says only that Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom.
However, though there is a "great gulf" between Lazarus and the rich man, they can see each other. They are in some manner in the same place.
Interestingly enough, The Book of Enoch (or 1 Enoch) gives a very similar description of the place of the dead. Enoch is cited in the Bible, in Jude 14-15. On the subject of Hades, it reads:
I went to another place, which was still more horrible than the former, and I saw … a great fire there which burned and blazed, and the place had a crevice as far as the abyss, being full of great, descending columns of fire … Then Uriel … one of the holy angels who was with me said … to me, "This place is the prison of angels, and here they will be imprisoned forever.
From there I went to another place with a mountain of hard rock. … Raphael, … one of the holy angels who was with me, said to me, "These hollow places have been created for … the spirits of the souls of the dead, … yea, that all the souls of the children of men should assemble here. These places have been made to receive them until the day of their judgment. (1 Enoch 21-22)
Enoch was very popular with the early church. It's mentioned several times by name, but ideas from Enoch pervade the writings of most early Christian writers. Justin Martyr, for example, says around A.D. 150 that demons are the spirits of dead men.
This is shocking to our modern ears, but he is referring to the giants mentioned in Genesis 6:4. Enoch says that they were cursed by God never to rise bodily, and so their spirits wander the earth looking for other bodies to possess. This is a frequent theme in the early Christian writings. I know I read it recently in the writings of Commodianus, who wrote around A.D. 240.
Hades? I Thought We Were Talking about Purgatory?
Hades is Purgatory. While Protestants generally believe Hades was emptied at the resurrection of Christ, that is not what the early church believed. They read Enoch. Enoch says, "These places have been made to receive them until the day of their judgment." They believed Hades wouldn't be emptied until the day of judgment.
I won't draw conclusions on this one. I highly suspect that the afterlife is far more complicated than our feeble minds can comprehend. However, the Scripture the early church used is pretty direct. Revelation 20:13 says that Hades gives up the dead that are in it at the judgment, at which time it is thrown into the lake of fire.This is where the real source of the tradition of purgatory is.
Protestants tend to believe that judgment happens basically as soon as you die. If you've accepted Christ, you go to heaven. If you haven't, you go to hell.
If that's true, I wonder, then why does God have to bother to have a judgment in Revelation 20? Why bother emptying a burning Hades just to throw the people in it into a burning lake of fire? Why bother to have a judgment if these people are already judged?
The early churches believed that the judgment was real. No final decision was made until the judgment. Yes, people like the rich man were in flames in Hades, while people like Lazarus the beggar were in comfort; nonetheless no final decision was made.
This left room for things to change. I have put The Suffering of the Holy Martyrs Perpetua and Felicitas on this web site. On that page, Perpetua prays for deliverance for her dead brother Dinocrates.
This is a surprise to us Protestants, but the early church believed there was still hope for the dead who were in Hades awaiting judgment. They did not pray to the dead, as Roman Catholics do today, but they did pray, at least occasionally, for the dead.
Purgatory Just Needs a Little Time
Given the early church understanding of Hades, it's no surprise that over time this evolved into strange religious practices and beliefs.
Purgatory is not much different than the flaming part of Hades; however, the section of comfort, where Abraham is (or was), seems to have disappeared from Roman Catholic thought. http://www.christian-history.org/purgatory.html
And this is what the Catholic Church has been saying all along. :P
ElCid's post 426 is devastating to the Evangelicals' Sola Scriptura. I have not read those arguments before but they're good.
Elcid, lahat ba ng evangelicals ay nagkakaisa ukol sa kaligtasan? Sila alng ba ang maliligtas?
May mga ebanghelico na contra sa pagtawag ng AMA sa mga kaparian. Pero alam niyo ba na mayroon din ebanghelico/protestante na tumatawag ng ama sa mga kaparian nila kakontra ng aral ng kapwa nila ebanghelico:
The term father for presbyters is generally restricted to Catholic and Orthodox usage, though many Anglicans and even some Lutherans will use the term, as well. It is not generally thought of as a title, however, but simply as an affectionate term of address for the presbyter.
Last edited by ElCid; Aug 9, 2011 at 08:19 AM.
Maraming protestante/ebanghelico ang walang tutol sa diborsiyo. Pero ano ba ang aral sa biblia ukol dito?
Mal 2:16 (RSV)
“For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel… So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless.”
Tapos ang masaklap pa may vow din sila na 'til death do us fart' eh di you break your vow by allowing divorce? Contradiction na naman...
^^ hahaha pang 34 na dapat yan Elcid hahaha
wala ba tayong bagong contradiction ngayon?
Last edited by jeric92002; Jul 24, 2012 at 03:49 PM.
Divorce in Italy may be obtained on one of the following grounds: After the court has approved consensual separation; after judicial separation; when one spouse has been sentenced for certain criminal offenses; when one spouse is a foreign citizen and has obtained a divorce or has married again abroad; or when the marriage has not been consummated. If the divorce is based on separation, it may only be obtained after three years of continuous separation beginning on the date the spouses appeared before the court in the proceedings for legal separation.
Last edited by sophion; Jul 24, 2012 at 10:15 PM.
"Till death do us fart." is just a formality that every love struck bride and groom love to utter. If marriage should be taken seriously, we should not be made to make promises we aren't sure we can keep. That vow violates a biblical principle:
Boast not thyself of tomorrow; For thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.
Divorce is allowed in the bible from the old to the new testaments. God may have hated it, but he allowed it, and even made rules about it. Religious people banned what their god has made legal. However, biblical divorce is so disadvantageous for women.
It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.
Then again, no sensible government, religious or not, will implement this. That's how idiotic the bible is.
Though the Quran has a "spanking the wife" verse, it's teachings on divorce is much much more sensible than that of the bible where it will not leave women hanging because it has a teaching similar to the modern tenet of alimony and provides for suspected pregnancy or expected homelessness.
2:241The divorcees also shall be provided for, equitably. This is a duty upon the righteous.
٢٤١:٢وَلِلمُطَلَّقٰتِ مَتٰعٌ بِالمَعروفِ حَقًّا عَلَى المُتَّقينَ
^ heto pa:
But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.
SO UNBIBLICAL TALAGA ANG MARRIAGE VOWS NA YAN!
Kagaguhan yang 'till death do us fart' na yan. Hindi ba nila alam na nag iiba ang ugali ng tao?? Pano kung yung asawa mo naging maniakis na humahalay sa sarili niyang anak? O sige, kahit hindi niya sariling anak. Kaya ba nilang pakisamahan yan? Daming ganyan no.