Home PEx Family and Society Realm of Thought
COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

Bawal ba ng Biblia ang pagkain ng Dinuguan?

191012141521

Comments

  • hi s mga INC. at HINDI INC.
    bakit po big deal ang pagkain ng dugo kesa pagpatay??? diba pareho lang naman na ipinagbawal yun sa biblia?
  • AgapitoAgapito PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Huwag nyo nang problemahin yang pagkain ng dinuguan.

    Kung yung mga pari nga gumagahasa ng bata, pinapalaglag pa pag nabuntis yung babae, walang takot sa Diyos..... pagkain pa kaya ng dinuguan ??

    Ano ang mas masahol, kumain ng dugo ng baboy, or gumahasa ng bata?

    Check muna natin yung database ng mga malilibog na pari:
    https://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-E.html


  • hsusonhsuson PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited June 2019
    Agapito said:
    Huwag nyo nang problemahin yang pagkain ng dinuguan.

    Kung yung mga pari nga gumagahasa ng bata, pinapalaglag pa pag nabuntis yung babae, walang takot sa Diyos..... pagkain pa kaya ng dinuguan ??

    Ano ang mas masahol, kumain ng dugo ng baboy, or gumahasa ng bata?




    Bawal sa Bibliya:
    1.  Bawal kumain ng Hipon, Tahong, Alimango at Lobster
    2.  Magsuot ng Lacoste at Ralph Lauren sport shirt
    3.  Bawal din ang Lechon at Dinuguan
    4.  Magsuot ng Jeans ang mga babae.

    Pwede sa Bibliya:
    1.  Patayin ang mga taong nagtratrabaho pag Sabado....Hello SM
    2.  Bugbugin ang mga katulong
    3.  Patayin ang mga anak mong matigas ang ulo
    4.  Patayin ang ikakasal na babaeng hindi na Virgin
    5.  Kung sexy yung katulong niyo, pwedeng  i-*****
  • TrollmeisterTrollmeister PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Agapito said:
    Huwag nyo nang problemahin yang pagkain ng dinuguan.

    Ano ang mas masahol, kumain ng dugo ng baboy, or gumahasa ng bata?



    Di ba sinagot na ni Manny Pacquiao ang tanong mo!   Yung pakikipagtalik sa kapwa lalake ay mas masahol pa sa hay0p!    :rofl: 
  • TrollmeisterTrollmeister PEx Veteran ⭐⭐

    :rofl:    kawawang mga baklang Atheista!     :rofl: 

  • TrollmeisterTrollmeister PEx Veteran ⭐⭐

    :rofl:   iyak ang mga baklang Atheista!!! 

  • alchemistofophiralchemistofophir PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    bawal dati noong mga Jewish-Christians pa lang ang mga Katoliko. kasalukuyang iniintegrate ang mga Gentiles at ang proscription dati ay di na kailangan strictong sundin ang LAHAT ng Mosaic Law. Para lang yun sa mga Jewish Christians na prinapractice pa rin ang pagka Hudyo.

    Noong totally naintegrate na at naging Katoliko ang Roman Empire at ginawa na yung mga ritual sa pagsasamba, mapapansin na umiinom ng dugo ng Katawan ni Kristo sa Eucharist. Equivalent ito sa pagkain ng dugo since ang transubstantiation ay seryosong dogma ng Katoliko. pero mapapansin na ang dugo sa old testament ay galing sa hayop at ang dugo sa Eucharist ay galing kay Kristo.

    pwede rin sigurong balikan ang pagiging Jewish-Christian pag katoliko ka pa rin. Siguro kaya nakadikit pa rin ang Old Testament sa Holy Bible at sinasabing huwag kumain ng dugo ay para mahanap ang middle ground, na dapat in moderation lang o kung kinakailangan.

    B)B)B)
    .V.. ..I..
  • hsusonhsuson PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐

    Daming pari ang natamaan :rofl: 
  • AgapitoAgapito PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐

    Baklang Pari na Chumupa Ng 2 Batang Lalaking Sakristan, umapela



    Pumalag ang dating kanang-kamay ni Pope Francis na isang Baklang Pari na si George Pell, matapos itong maghain ng apela sa isang Korte sa Australia.

    Matatandaang itong si Father George Pell na isang bading, ay nahatulang GUILTY sa kasong pag-chupa sa dalawang batang lalaking sakristan sa loob ng kanyang simbahan noong dekada 1990s.

    Ayos sa record ng pulisya, hindi napigilan ni Father na ilabas ang kanyang kabaklaan at chinupa niya ang dalawang batang lalaking sakristan na noon ay 13 anyos pa lamang.

    Isa sa mga batang biktima ay nag-suicide matapos mag-overdose sa droga.

    https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1126159/cardinal-pell-appeals-landmark-child-sex-conviction

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

    Kawawang mga bata, hindi sila niligtas ng Diyos sa kamay ng Manyak na Paring Bakla. At sa loob pa mismo ng simbahan hinalay ng Pari ang mga biktima.
  • TrollmeisterTrollmeister PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    hsuson said:

    Daming pari ang natamaan :rofl: 

    Correction, mga VAKLA  you mean!   :rofl: 
  • hsusonhsuson PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    hsuson said:

    Daming pari ang natamaan :rofl: 

    Correction, mga VAKLA  you mean!   :rofl: 
    VAKLANG PARI :rofl:
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    hi s mga INC. at HINDI INC.
    bakit po big deal ang pagkain ng dugo kesa pagpatay??? diba pareho lang naman na ipinagbawal yun sa biblia?
    Why God prohibits the eating  of blood or any food mixed with blood
    http://theiglesianicristo.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-god-prohibits-eating-of-blood.html

    THE BIBLE SPEAKS of blood not to be eaten. In fact, the Bible strictly forbids the eating of blood. Why did God prohibit the eating of blood?

    BLOOD IS LIFE

    The Lord God forbids the eating of blood as early as the time of Noah:

    “So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” (Genesis 9:1-4, NKJV)

    God did not only command the ancient people to abstain from eating blood, but also gave the reason why. He said, “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”

    Take note that blood was not given as food. He created  and designed it for a definite purpose which man should uphold. Thus, God ordered the ancient people “not to eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”

    Biological sciences confirm it. This truly amazing red fluid circulates in the vascular system of human beings and multi-cellular animals. Blood supplies nourishment (nutrition) and transport oxygen (respiration) to all parts of the body. It carries away waste products (excretion) and safeguards the body against disease and infection. It also regulates the body temperature (encyclopedia International, vol. III, p. 73). The lack of it could render man lifeless or in deficient condition, so much more the absence of it. Because of its fundamental importance for the individual’s existence, blood is frequently used as a synonym for life. Hence the prohibition:

    “Just as the gazelle and the deer are eaten, so you may eat them; the unclean and the clean alike may eat them. Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life; you may not eat the life with the meat.” (Deuteronomy 12:22-23, NKJV)


    ITS ATONING VALUE

    Another reason given by the Bible for His law prohibiting the eating of blood is that, blood is used as atonement for man’s soul:

    “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.'” (Leviticus 17:11, NKJV)

    During the time of ancient Israel, animal blood was used as a sacrifice to atone for man’s sin. Thus, blood served as a ransom or counter price. Blood, therefore, is not intended as food but as atonement for man’s soul. For this reason too, it should not be eaten.


    THE PENALTY

    Because God strictly forbids the eating of blood, any offender is going to pay for the price. This the Bible proclaims:

    “If any Israelite or any foreigner living in the community eats meat with blood still in it, the LORD will turn against him and no longer consider him one of his people.” (Leviticus 17:10, TEV)

    The Lord will turn against him who violate His law prohibiting the eating of blood, and if he happens to be among God’s people, he will no longer be considered one of his people.

    You might also like:

    The biblical basis of the prohibition on eating blood even in the Christian Era

    Does I Timothy 4:4-5 say that eating of blood is already allowed?
    Did Apostle Paul abolish the prohibition on eating blood in Colossians 2:14-16?


    Does Acts 10:14-16 abolish the prohibition regrading the eating of blood?


  • ranger*gurlranger*gurl PEx Rookie ⭐
    edited June 2019
    John 6

    53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.


    The Catholic Church is the only church that drinks the REAL BLOOD of the lord!

     <3 
  • AgapitoAgapito PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    That's just a Figure of Speech. The priests actually drink Chivas Regal during Holy Mass.
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    Agree ako ke Agapito. :lol: 

    Saan ba nanggaling yang doktrina ng transubstantiation, inimbento na naman yan sa Fourth Council of the Lateran. That's not a biblical teaching. Alam naman nating figure of speech talaga ang paggamit dyan ni Cristo noong last supper! Hindi maaaring mag-conflict ang mga salita ng Diyos na ipinagbabawal Nyang kumain ng dugo at tapos ay paiinumin ni Cristo ng totoong dugo Niya ang mga tao. Hindi ba't iisa ang isipan ng Ama at ni Cristo? (John 10:30)

    So ano ang ibig sabihin na "kanin ang katawan at inumin ang dugo ni Cristo"?  TULARAN SI CRISTO! (1 Corinthians 11:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:6)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation 
  • ranger*gurlranger*gurl PEx Rookie ⭐
    edited June 2019
    Agapito said:
    That's just a Figure of Speech. The priests actually drink Chivas Regal during Holy Mass.

    "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink"

    catholics believe what christ said. we drink the actual blood of the lord!

     <3 
  • AgapitoAgapito PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    You can find a bottle of Chivas under the pulpit. Ask any sakristan about it.
  • ranger*gurlranger*gurl PEx Rookie ⭐
    Agapito said:
    You can find a bottle of Chivas under the pulpit. Ask any sakristan about it.

    the wine transubstatiates into the real blood of jesus!


     <3 
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐

    Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?

    1. We ought to interpret the church fathers’ statements within their historical context.

    Such is especially true with regard to the quotes cited above from Ignatius and Irenaeus. During their ministries, both men found themselves contending against the theological error of docetism (a component of Gnostic teaching), which taught that all matter was evil. Consequently, docetism denied that Jesus possessed a real physical body. It was against this false teaching that the apostle John declared, “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7).

    In order to combat the false notions of docetism, Ignatius and Irenaeus echoed the language Christ used at the Last Supper (paraphrasing His words, “This is My body” and “This is My blood”). Such provided a highly effective argument against docetic heresies, since our Lord’s words underscore the fact that He possessed a real, physical body.

    A generation after Irenaeus, Tertullian (160–225) used the same arguments against the Gnostic heretic Marcion. However, Tertullian provided more information into how the eucharistic elements ought to be understood. Tertullian wrote:

    “Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).

    Tertullian’s explanation could not be clearer. On the one hand, he based his argument against Gnostic docetism on the words of Christ, “This is My body.” On the other hand, Tertullian recognized that the elements themselves ought to be understood as symbols which represent the reality of Christ’s physical body. Because of the reality they represented, they provided a compelling refutation of docetic error.

    Based on Tertullian’s explanation, we have good reason to view the words of Ignatius and Irenaeus in that same light.

    * * * * *

    2. We ought to allow the church fathers to clarify their understanding of the Lord’s Table.

    We have already seen how Tertullian clarified his understanding of the Lord’s Table by noting that the bread and the cup were symbols of Christ’s body and blood. In that same vein, we find that many of the church fathers similarly clarified their understanding of the eucharist by describing it in symbolic and spiritual terms.

    At times, they echoed the language of Christ (e.g. “This is My body” and “This is My blood”) when describing the Lord’s Table. Yet, in other places, it becomes clear that they intended this language to be ultimately understood in spiritual and symbolic terms. Here are a number of examples that demonstrate this point:

    The Didache, written in the late-first or early-second century, referred to the elements of the Lord’s table as “spiritual food and drink” (The Didache, 9). The long passage detailing the Lord’s Table in this early Christian document gives no hint of transubstantiation whatsoever.

    Justin Martyr (110–165) spoke of “the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).

    Clement of Alexandria explained that, “The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood” (The Instructor, 2.2).

    Origen similarly noted, “We have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist” (Against Celsus, 8.57).

    Cyprian (200–258), who sometimes described the eucharist using very literal language, spoke against any who might use mere water for their celebration of the Lord’s Table. In condemning such practices, he explained that the cup of the Lord is a representation of the blood of Christ: “I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places, contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the Cup of the Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ” (Epistle 63.7).

    Eusebius of Caesarea (263–340) espoused a symbolic view in his Proof of the Gospel:

    For with the wine which was indeed the symbol of His blood, He cleanses them that are baptized into His death, and believe on His blood, of their old sins, washing them away and purifying their old garments and vesture, so that they, ransomed by the precious blood of the divine spiritual grapes, and with the wine from this vine, “put off the old man with his deeds, and put on the new man which is renewed into knowledge in the image of Him that created him.” . . . He gave to His disciples, when He said, “Take, drink; this is my blood that is shed for you for the remission of sins: this do in remembrance of me.” And, “His teeth are white as milk,” show the brightness and purity of the sacramental food. For again, He gave Himself the symbols of His divine dispensation to His disciples, when He bade them make the likeness of His own Body. For since He no more was to take pleasure in bloody sacrifices, or those ordained by Moses in the slaughter of animals of various kinds, and was to give them bread to use as the symbol of His Body, He taught the purity and brightness of such food by saying, “And his teeth are white as milk” (Demonstratia Evangelica, 8.1.76–80).

    Athanasius (296–373) similarly contended that the elements of the Eucharist are to be understood spiritually, not physically: “[W]hat He says is not fleshly but spiritual. For how many would the body suffice for eating, that it should become the food for the whole world? But for this reason He made mention of the ascension of the Son of Man into heaven, in order that He might draw them away from the bodily notion, and that from henceforth they might learn that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly eating from above and spiritual food given by Him.” (Festal Letter, 4.19)

    Augustine (354–430), also, clarified that the Lord’s Table was to be understood in spiritual terms: “Understand spiritually what I said; you are not to eat this body which you see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth. . . . Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood” (Exposition of the Psalms, 99.8).

    He also explained the eucharistic elements as symbols. Speaking of Christ, Augustine noted: “He committed and delivered to His disciples the figure [or symbol] of His Body and Blood.” (Exposition of the Psalms, 3.1).

    And in another place, quoting the Lord Jesus, Augustine further explained: “‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,’ says Christ, ‘and drink His blood, ye have no life in you.’ This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure [or symbol], enjoining that we should have a share in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us (On Christian Doctrine,3.16.24).

    A number of similar quotations from the church fathers could be given to make the point that—at least for many of the fathers—the elements of the eucharist were ultimately understood in symbolic or spiritual terms. In other words, they did not hold to the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

    To be sure, they often reiterated the language of Christ when He said, “This is My body” and “This is My blood.” They especially used such language in defending the reality of His incarnation against Gnostic, docetic heretics who denied the reality of Christ’s physical body.

    At the same time, however, they clarified their understanding of the Lord’s Table by further explaining that they ultimately recognized the elements of the Lord’s Table to be symbols—figures which represented and commemorated the physical reality of our Lord’s body and blood.

     

    Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?

    NATHAN BUSENITZ | APRIL 22, 2016

    https://www.tms.edu/blog/early-church-teach-transubstantiation/

  • ranger*gurlranger*gurl PEx Rookie ⭐
    edited June 2019

    Did the Early Church Teach Transubstantiation?

    NATHAN BUSENITZ | APRIL 22, 2016

    https://www.tms.edu/blog/early-church-teach-transubstantiation/


    who cares about that protestant opinion? 

    here is proof that the early church used transubstantiation:
    http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/a5.html


    but this is hard teaching, how can you accept it? this is why you turned back and no longer followed the lord.
    (john 6:60-66)


     <3 





Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file