Catholic Apologetic Site for Filipinos

  • Thread starter Thread starter kat_holos
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jaaraf said:
Anyone here know the bible passage that can refute “we are saved by faith alone”?:confused:
Click to expand...
James 2:24 “You see that a person is justified by what he does and NOT BY FAITH ALONE.” (NIV)

i know its already been answered but it’s worth repeating.

NOT BY FAITH ALONE!!!
NOT BY FAITH ALONE!!!
NOT BY FAITH ALONE!!!
 
Joero said:
I have a book " The New Jerome Biblical Commentary " which was given to me by my American son-in-law and I have been reading and studying it at present. I happened to read the commentary about 1Cor. 3: 15. I was surprised that the author of that particular topic said that “there is no reference to Purgatory”. I am really embarrassed by that statement, but who am I to oppose to that.

You know I’ve been using this scripture verse as one of the verses I’ve known in explaining about Purgatory for many years since I became a Catholic Faith Defender here in Cebu City, Philippines.

Does anybody in this forum could give some enlightenment to why this author happened to say such thing, because 1 Cor. 3: 15 had been used in defending and explaining about Purgatory by many Apologists, not only Filipinos but also the Americans and Europeans and others?
Click to expand...
Biblical commentaries are NOT infallible.
 
Joero said:
I have a book " The New Jerome Biblical Commentary " which was given to me by my American son-in-law and I have been reading and studying it at present. I happened to read the commentary about 1Cor. 3: 15. I was surprised that the author of that particular topic said that “there is no reference to Purgatory”. I am really embarrassed by that statement, but who am I to oppose to that.

You know I’ve been using this scripture verse as one of the verses I’ve known in explaining about Purgatory for many years since I became a Catholic Faith Defender here in Cebu City, Philippines.

Does anybody in this forum could give some enlightenment to why this author happened to say such thing, because 1 Cor. 3: 15 had been used in defending and explaining about Purgatory by many Apologists, not only Filipinos but also the Americans and Europeans and others?
Click to expand...
I don’t have a book like that of yours but one of my friends has, and he let me borrowed for a while.
As I see it, the author’s commentary is that St. Paul merely making a parallel happening of a man who was trapped in a burning house and runs out from the burning house saving his own life.
The author could be right that there is no reference to Purgatory. But the author’s commentary is his own although it has more weight because he is a theologian and a priest.

I hope that helps!
 
Filipinos what are your views on this? http://www.sikatangpinoy.com/News-Images/israel-phil-flag.jpg

Israel’s national flag is displayed beside Philippines’ national flag on the shore of the Dead Sea November 25, 2007. The two flags, both 100 meters-long (328 feet) and 200 meters wide (656 feet), were displayed together on Sunday to mark 50 years of relations between the two countries, a spokesperson at the Israeli Tourism Ministry said. The Israeli flag, which took 3 weeks to sew and weighs about 5,200 kg (11,464 lbs), was financed by Philippine businesswoman Sister Grace Galindez-Gupana and will compete for a title in the Guinness Book of Records. REUTERS/Oleg Popov (ISRAEL)

sikatangpinoy.com/two-flags-philippines-and-israel.html
 
Pinoy_Katoliko said:
Yes, there is! I’ll inform you if it is already posted.

My orientation in apologetics for the last 3 years was based on American style of apologetics. It was only last year when I learned the top caliber Filipino apologist by the name of Mayor Soc Fernandez, former National President of Catholic Faith Defenders Inc. and veteran debater.

I had the privileged of meeting, talking, and listening to him. This guy’s memory and understanding of the bible is far better than Eliseo Soriano! I saw his debates with INC and other denominations back in the 90’s and BOY ARE THEY NOT HAPPY! Despite his greatness as an apologist, what I like best about him is that he remains to be humble and live a deep spiritual life.

Here are some pictures of Bro. Soc Fernandez during last December’s first National Catholic Apologetics Gathering.

Part 1

thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2008/12/defensores-fidei-foundation-sponsored.html

Part 2

thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2008/12/defensores-fidei-foundation-sponsored_19.html

Part 3

thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2008/12/defensores-fidei-foundation-sponsored_20.html
Click to expand...
i will look forward to listening to the debates when they are posted
GOD BLESS AND GOOD DAY!:)🙂
 
why is it that at mass, we are to partake only in the body of Christ and not His blood? **Bakit po ba pari lang po ang umiinom ng dugo ni Kristo? **(Why is it that only the priest drinks Christ’s blood?). Just asking. But I do hope I can be enlightened in this matter. Thank you
 
jamil_joseph02 said:
why is it that at mass, we are to partake only in the body of Christ and not His blood? Bakit po ba pari lang po ang umiinom ng dugo ni Kristo? (Why is it that only the priest drinks Christ’s blood?). Just asking. But I do hope I can be enlightened in this matter. Thank you
Click to expand...
the reason is CHRIST IS PRESENT AT BOTH ELEMENTS OF THE EUCHARIST.
although, by virtue of the words of CONSECRATION, it is the body Jesus which becomes
present under the appearances of bread, and the blood of Jesus under the appearances of
wine; yet we know that the Person of Jesus, now that he is risen from the dead, cannot
be divided. Where his body is, his blood also must be, and with his body and blood must
also be his soul and his divine nature to which his body, blood and soul are united. Likewise where the blood of Jesus is,all of Jesus must be.Consequently by the words,“This is my body”, the body of Jesus becomes present, and by what theologians call CONCOMITANCE,that is by the very nature of his unity of person-the blood, soul and divinity of Jesus becomes present.By the words"This is my Blood", the blood of Jesus
becomes also present, and by concomitance also his flesh,soul and Godhead.
That is why it is not necessary to receive Holy Communion under the forms both bread
and of wine.If we receive under either form, of bread or of wine, we receive the whole
Jesus, complete and entire.
GOOD DAY AND GOD BLESS:):)🙂
 
jamil_joseph02 said:
why is it that at mass, we are to partake only in the body of Christ and not His blood? Bakit po ba pari lang po ang umiinom ng dugo ni Kristo? (Why is it that only the priest drinks Christ’s blood?). Just asking. But I do hope I can be enlightened in this matter. Thank you
Click to expand...
Because his Body suffices.
John 5
Click to expand...
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. 52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
Click to expand...
Furthermore, St. Paul teaches us that either of the Body or the Blood would suffice.
1 Corinthians 11
Click to expand...
27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
Click to expand...
 
Pinoy_Katoliko said:
Yes, there is! I’ll inform you if it is already posted.

My orientation in apologetics for the last 3 years was based on American style of apologetics. It was only last year when I learned the top caliber Filipino apologist by the name of Mayor Soc Fernandez, former National President of Catholic Faith Defenders Inc. and veteran debater.

I had the privileged of meeting, talking, and listening to him. This guy’s memory and understanding of the bible is far better than Eliseo Soriano! I saw his debates with INC and other denominations back in the 90’s and BOY ARE THEY NOT HAPPY! Despite his greatness as an apologist, what I like best about him is that he remains to be humble and live a deep spiritual life.

Here are some pictures of Bro. Soc Fernandez during last December’s first National Catholic Apologetics Gathering.

Part 1

thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2008/12/defensores-fidei-foundation-sponsored.html

Part 2

thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2008/12/defensores-fidei-foundation-sponsored_19.html

Part 3

thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2008/12/defensores-fidei-foundation-sponsored_20.html
Click to expand...
I’ve seen the pictures of our best apologist here in Cebu, Mayor Soc Fernandez. At present , he is now our National Adviser for the CFD. Maybe majority of us here in this forum didn’t realize that you are a servant of God until you made such exposure of your self.🙂
Good day to you, Fr.👍
 
Mga kapatid, anyone of you know of a good way to refute the Seventh Day Adventist’s (or Sabadista’s) claim that the pope is the anti-Christ? I am doing a bible study with some well versed SDA and a non-denominational friends and we are currently studying the Book of Daniel. When we got to Chapter 7 that is when they revealed their interepratation about the Catholic church as the Anti Christ (the little horn that sprouted from the 10 big horns), although i already knew about this before hand.

Any suggestions (book, links, etc) to refute this claim is greatly appreciated.

Thanks and God bless!!!
 
Ro_A said:
Mga kapatid, anyone of you know of a good way to refute the Seventh Day Adventist’s (or Sabadista’s) claim that the pope is the anti-Christ? I am doing a bible study with some well versed SDA and a non-denominational friends and we are currently studying the Book of Daniel. When we got to Chapter 7 that is when they revealed their interepratation about the Catholic church as the Anti Christ (the little horn that sprouted from the 10 big horns), although i already knew about this before hand.

Any suggestions (book, links, etc) to refute this claim is greatly appreciated.

Thanks and God bless!!!
Click to expand...
There are many disagreements about the little horn in Daniel chapter 7. Some theologians would say that it refers to Antiochus Epiphanes, son of King Antoichus the Third of Syria, some would say that it refers to Titus, son of Emperor Vespasian of the Pagan Roman empire. ( some would say, according to your post, it refers to the papacy which means the Roman Catholic Church ).

Let us first make a distinction. The little horn in Daniel chapter 7 is said to be bragging and boasting and the worst is that “ He will speak against the Supreme God and oppress God’s people. He will try to change their religious laws and festivals…” (Daniel 7: 25).
(None of the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church has this kind of characteristic. If there is, let them produce concrete evidence of History).

Let us remember that the little horn in Daniel chapter 7 came from the fourth beast who has the ten horns. The fourth beast is already known by many theologians that it refers to the Roman empire. The horns represent the rulers or kings in those times. The rulers of the Romans during that time were : Julius Caesar (although he was assassinated), Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otto, Vitellius, Vespasian, etc.and so on and so forth… Galba, Otto and Vitellius died in few months during their reign. Some historians said that they were murdered. ( The first ten rulers could be the ten horns)

I would prefer that the little horn in Daniel chapter 7 refers to Titus, son of Emperor Vespasian. Why? Firstly, the little horn does not belong to the ten horns as stated in Daniel 7: 8. It just came out from among the ten. In history, emperor Vespasian tasked his son, Titus, to commander his army to repel the rebellion in Jerusalem, which caused the destruction of Jerusalem completely. Bible reference could be traced also in Daniel 9: 26.which says “And at the end of that time God’s chosen leader will be killed unjustly ( which refers to Christ ). The city and the Temple will be destroyed by the invading army of a powerful ruler.” ( which happened in 70 A.D. )
The next verse which is verse 27 states about putting an end to the sacrifices and the offerings (pertaining to the Jewish sacrifices and offerings) which implies the changing of their Jewish laws (concurs to the statement in Daniel 7: 25) and the Awful Horror will placed on the highest point of the Temple (Roman pagan temple). In Matt. 24: 15 Jesus said “ You will see the Awful Horror of which the prophet Daniel spoke.”
 
Hi, Joero! How would you then distinguish Antiochus Epiphanes from Titus because in the “net” majority are referring the little horn in Daniel chapter 7 to be Antiochus Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus III of Syria? Just asking, to clear doubts! 😃
 
Lapulapu said:
Hi, Joero! How would you then distinguish Antiochus Epiphanes from Titus because in the “net” majority are referring the little horn in Daniel chapter 7 to be Antiochus Epiphanes, son of King Antiochus III of Syria? Just asking, to clear doubts! 😃
Click to expand...
There are those who interpreted the four beasts correspondingly to have been referred to Babylonia, Media, Persia & Greece. Naturally, they would come up interpreting the little horn associated in the fourth beast to be referred to Antiochus Epiphanes because it happened sometime during the Greek empire era. But the Bible itself explains that Media and Persia were not separated Kingdoms but one ( Daniel 8: 20 ).

I hope that explains your doubts. 🙂
 
Joero said:
There are those who interpreted the four beasts correspondingly to have been referred to Babylonia, Media, Persia & Greece. Naturally, they would come up interpreting the little horn associated in the fourth beast to be referred to Antiochus Epiphanes because it happened sometime during the Greek empire era. But the Bible itself explains that Media and Persia were not separated Kingdoms but one ( Daniel 8: 20 ).

I hope that explains your doubts. 🙂
Click to expand...
So, the right interpretation of the four beasts would be Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome, the four great Empires during those times. But are you not aware that even in the book you were referring before, in your previous post, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, the author’s commentary about Daniel chapter 7 made the fourth beast to refer to Greece and the little horn is referred to Antiochus Epiphanes. How would you react to that? 🤷
 
Lapulapu said:
So, the right interpretation of the four beasts would be Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome, the four great Empires during those times. But are you not aware that even in the book you were referring before, in your previous post, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, the author’s commentary about Daniel chapter 7 made the fourth beast to refer to Greece and the little horn is referred to Antiochus Epiphanes. How would you react to that? 🤷
Click to expand...
Who am I to give remarks on the works of others! That is part of their job being Theologians, Exegetes or what have they. And I am not contesting their wisdom with regard to this matter. Commentaries on the Bible can also benefit us to learn things which are alien to us or we don’t have the knowledge about, but not necessarily to adhere to everything the author was writing about. I have also high respect to these kind of people because it’s not easy if you are on their shoes doing their kind of works.

My preferred interpretation of the little horn in Daniel chapter 7 could be unwelcome to Theologians and Exegetes but still I have that strong feeling that I could be right, only God knows when He would let somebody to give important emphasis on this matter to put on more weights of expounding it.
 
Note brothers that the Bible advocates double-fulfillment, or triple if you won’t mind. Just as the “Immanuel” of Isaiah 7:14 fulfills the contemporary leader in the Major Prophets’ time, it also refers to Jesus. Take note also that in that verse, the "young woman: is used (almah) and not the “virgin” of Matthew. But the very essence of the “Immanuel” (God with us) is retained.

Also, we all agree that the Beast in the Apocalypse points to Nero. Yet we also believe that it points to another one, too, in the distant (or near) future. That’s double-fulfillment.

In the case of that “horn, a little one”, it can be both Antiochus Epiphanes or Titus whomever you prefer. They have their own notoriety which deserves that horn. The Bible isn’t literal of anything especially when it comes to apocalyptic symbolism. The “morning star” of the Revelation is Christ, clearly, but what about the “Day Star” of Isaiah, which signifies Satan? They have the same etymological renderings in the original dialects, too.

So stop that and just stick on what you believe in. As for me, I’ll just interpret any biblical prophecies or forebodings in the way Christ wanted us to do: to interpret and KNOW it when it actually COMES.

“So also, when you see all these things, you** know** that he is near, at the very gates.”
(Matthew 24:33)
i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq143/katolikongtunay/visit.gif
 
The Iglesia ni Cristo in the Philippines is a cult. They taught that Felix Manalo is an angel while Jesus is merely a man. They have spent millions of pesos from their collections defending Felix Manalo’s angelis state and the Iglesia ni Cristo.

The Bible says that Jesus is the only Way, the Truth and the Life but Iglesia teaches that only through joining their cult one is saved.

:eek:
 
speaking of cults, what does cult mean? what does it take for a group to be called a “cult”? Why is Iglesia ni Cristo called a cult? the Catholic church, not? Just asking anyway…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top