Madalas na kapag napapadaan sila sa Simbahan, sa simenteryo, oh kapag sila’y nakadarama ng matinding takot at pangamba, bago at matapos magdasal, ay nag-aantanda sila sa pag aakalang ang gawaing ito ay nakababanal at may nag-aakala rin na ito ay ipinag-utos ng Panginoong Diyos.
Subalit sa aming mga Iglesia ni Cristo, ay hindi namin isinasagawa ang ganito. Kaya atin pong talakayin ang dahilan kung bakit hindi nag-aantanda o nagsa-SIGN OF THE CROSS ang INC.
Tanda ng taong Katoliko
Hindi ito aral ng INC, kaya atin pong tanungin ang Iglesia Katolika, ano ba itong PAGAANTANDA o pagsa-SIGN OF THE CROSS?
Narito po ang kanilang sagot:
"ANG TANDA NG SANTA KRUS
"Ang paraang ginagawa sa paggamit ng Santa Krus ay dalawa: ang magantanda at ang magkrus. ANG PAGAANTANDA AY ANG PAGGAWA NG TATLONG KRUS NANGHINLALAKI NG KANYANG KANANG KAMAY; ANG UNA'Y SA NOO,... ANG TANDA NG SANTA KRUS AY SIYANG TANDA NG TAONG KATOLIKO,.." [Siya Ang Inyong Pakinggan:Ang Aral na Katoliko, Page 11]
Maliwanag ang Sagot sa atin ng aklat na sinulat ng Paring si Enrique Demond, kaya isinasagawa ang PAG-AANTANDA o SIGN OF THE CROSS ay sapagkat ito ay TANDA ng taong Katoliko. At totoo naman ito dahil madali mo naman talagang makilala ang Katoliko sa Hindi Katoliko, kapag nasa sasakyan ka, pag napatapat sa Simbahan, at may nag-antanda eh alam mo na kagad na Katoliko iyon.
Niliwanag din ng aklat Katoliko kung papaano isinasagawa ang pag-aantanda, ito ay paggawa ng tatlong krus ng hinlalaki ng KANANG KAMAY; ang una ay sa NOO.
Hindi niyo ba napapansin mga kaibigan na kahit kaliwete ang isang Katoliko hindi siya maaaring mag-antanda sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang kaliwang kamay? Kailangang KANANG KAMAY lamang ang kaniyang gagamitin. At hindi niya maaaring umpisahan ang pag-aantanda sa ibang bahagi ng katawan maliban sa kaniyang NOO lamang?
At dahil sa ito ay PAGAANTANDA na gamit ang KANANG KAMAY at NOO, kaya ito ay maaari nating tawagin na TANDA SA NOO at KANANG KAMAY.
Ipinag-uutos ba ito ng Biblia? May mababasa ba tayong verse sa Bible na nagtuturo na gawin ang bagay na ito?
Ang Tanda sa Noo at Kanang Kamay
Sa Biblia, may binabanggit na TANDA SA NOO AT KANANG KAMAY, pero ang kapansin-pansin hindi ito tanda ng mga taong maliligtas o tanda ng mga hinirang ng Diyos, kundi tanda ng mga taong mapapahamak:
Apocalypsis 13:16 “At ang lahat, maliliit at malalaki, at mayayaman at mga dukha, at ang mga laya at ang mga alipin ay pinabigyan ng isang TANDA sa kanilang KANANG KAMAY, o sa NOO;”
Mabuti ba ang pagkakaroon ng tandang ito? Ano ba ang idududulot sa tao kung tayo ay mananatiling magkakaroon o magsasagawa ng tandang ito?
Apocalypsis 14:9-11 "At ang ibang anghel, ang pangatlo ay sumusunod sa kanila, na nagsasabi ng malakas na tinig, Kung ang sinoman ay sumamba sa hayop at sa kaniyang larawan,at tumatanggap ng TANDA SA KANIYANG NOO, O SA KANIYANG KAMAY, Ay iinom din naman siya ng alak ng kaglitan ng Dios, na nahahandang walang halo sa inuman ng kaniyang kagalitan; at siya'y PAHIHIRAPAN NG APOY AT ASUPRE sa harapan ng mga banal na anghel, at sa harapan ng Cordero: AT ANG USOK NG HIRAP NILA AY NAPAIILANGLANG MAGPAKAILAN KAILAN MAN; AT SILA'Y WALANG KAPAHINGAHAN ARAW AT GABI, sila mga nagsisisamba sa hayop at sa kaniyang larawan, at sinomang tumatanggap ng tanda ng kaniyang pangalan."
Ang mga taong nagsasagawa ng PAG-AANTANDA o SIGN OF THE CROSS ay ang mga taong mapapahamak, sapagkat sila ang nagtataglay ng TANDA sa NOO at KANANG KAMAY.
At ito ay sinasang-ayunan maging ng PASIYON ng Iglesia Katolika na sinulat ng isa pang Pari na si Aniceto dela Merced:
"Ipag uutos mag quintal sa noo o canang camay sucat pagca quilalanan na sila nga, i, campong tunay nitong Anti-Cristong hunghang." [Pasion Candaba, isinulat ng Paring si Aniceto dela Merced, Page 210]
Sabi ng Pari, ang nagtataglay ng TANDANG ito ay kabilang sa mga tao na tinatawag na Anti-Cristo o kalaban ni Cristo kaya po tiyak na mapapahamak at hindi maliligtas sa Araw ng Paghuhukom.
Kaya iwan na po natin ang ganitong gawain.
“Tanda sa Noo at Kanang Kamay” iba raw sa “Tanda sa Noo o Kanang Kamay”
Sa kagustuhan namang makapangatuwiran (o magpalusot as usual) ng mga kaibigan nating Catholic Defenders, ang nakalagay daw sa talata ay “TANDA SA NOO O KANANG KAMAY” at hindi daw “TANDA SA NOO AT KANANG KAMAY”, sinasadya daw ng mga ministro sa INC na palitan ang “O” ng “AT” para daw mapalitaw na ang Katoliko ang tinutukoy, nagkakasala daw ang mga ministro sa INC sa ginagawa nilang ito na maging ang Biblia daw pinapalitan ng salita para mabagao ang kahulugan.
Kaya puntahan po natin ang nasabing talata sa Bibliang Griego ang orihinal na wikang ginamit sa pagsulat ng Bagong Tipan:
Revelations 13:16 “και ποιει παντας τους μικρους και τους μεγαλους και τους πλουσιους και τους πτωχους και τους ελευθερους και τους δουλους ‘ινα δωση αυτοις χαραγμα επι της χειρος αυτων της δεξιας η επι των μετωπων αυτων”
Pagbigkas:
kai poiei pantas tous mikrous kai tous megalous kai tous plousious kai tous ptōkhous kai tous eleutherous kai tous doulous hina dōsē autois kharagma epi tēs kheiros autōn tēs dexias ē epi tōn metōpōn autōn
Revelations 13:16 AndG2532 he causethG4160 all,G3956 both smallG3398 andG2532 great,G3173(G2532) richG4145 andG2532 poor,G4434 (G2532) freeG1658 andG2532 bond,G1401 toG2443 receiveG1325 G846 a markG5480 inG1909 theirG848 rightG1188 hand,G5495 orG2228 inG1909 theirG848 foreheads:G3359 [KJV with Strong’s Concordance]
Ang salitang Griegong “η” [ē] (pansinin ang letrang kulay pula sa itaas) na sa English ay isinalin bilang “OR” na sa tagalog ay “O”, ay maniniwala ba kayo na kasing kahulugan din ng salitang “AND” na sa tagalog ay “AT”?
Tingnan ang paliwanag na ito ng isang kilalang Greek Dictionary:
G2228
ἤ ē ay
A primary particle of distinction between two connected terms; disjunctive, or; comparative, than: - and, but (either), (n-) either, except it be, (n-) or (else), rather, save, than, that, what, yea. Often used in connection with other particles. Compare especially G2235, G2260, G2273.
[Strong’s Greek Dictionary]
Kitang-kita sa dictionary na kasama sa kahulugan nito ang salitang “and”.
At dahil sa ang salitang “η” [ē] ay kasing kahulugan din ng salitang “AND” o “AT” sa tagalog, ay hindi kailan man magiging maling sabihin na:
“TANDA SA NOO ‘O’ KANANG KAMAY”
ay katumbas din ng
“TANDA SA NOO ‘AT’ KANANG KAMAY”
Wala po iyang pagkakaiba kung sa orihinal na wikang ginamit sa Biblia na wikang Griego ang pag-uusapan. Kaya po hindi nagkakamali ang INC sa bagay na iyan.
Kaya sorry na lang mga magiting na Catholic Defenders, dahil walang magagawa ang pagpapalusot ninyong ito, palibhasa’y hindi ninyo matutulan kaya ultimo iyong salitang “AT” at “O” ay ginagawan ninyo ng isyu.
At para lalo nating matiyak na talagang ang Apocalypsis 13:16 ay sa mga Katoliko tumutukoy, ibaba lang ang pagbasa sa talatang 17 hanggang 18, at ganito ang ating matutunghayan:
Apocalypsis 13:17-18 “At nang huwag makabili o makapagbili ang sinoman, KUNDI SIYANG MAYROONG TANDA, sa makatuwid ay ng pangalan ng hayop o bilang ng kaniyang pangalan. Dito'y may karunungan. Ang may pagkaunawa ay bilangin ang bilang ng hayop; sapagka't siyang bilang ng isang tao: at ang kaniyang bilang ay ANIM NA RAAN AT ANIM NA PU'T ANIM.”
Ang nagbigay o siyang nag-utos na ang mga tao’y magkaroon ng TANDA sa NOO AT KANANG KAMAY ay ang taong may bilang na ANIM NA RAAN AT ANIM NA PU’T ANIM [666], na ang kinatuparan nito ay ang PAPA sa ROMA, at kung nais mabasa ang kumpletong pagtalakay, puntahan ang LINK na ito:
Kaya po sa mga kaibigan naming mga Katoliko, iwan na po ninyo ang gawaing iyan, dahil ang PAGAANTANDA ng KRUS, o pagsa-SIGN OF THE CROSS ay TANDA SA NOO AT KANANG KAMAY, tanda ng mga taong mapapahamak, isang gawaing hindi po makapagliligtas kundi magdadala sa atin sa kaparusahang walang hanggan sa araw ng paghuhukom.
Magsama-sama po tayo sa tunay na paglilingkod sa Diyos, halina po kayo at making sa mga katotohanan ng Diyos na itinuturo ng tunay na Iglesia - Ang Iglesia ni Cristo.
maraming maraming salamat po sa malinaw na pagkakapaliwanag ukol po sa paksang ito palibahasa binigyan ko ng puwang at pag intindi sa aking puso ang paliwanag ng biblia ukol sa bagay na ito kaya madali kong natanggap ang katutuhanan, di gaya ng mga taong katoliko naiintindihan o nauunawaan naman nilang malinaw kung ano nakasulat subalit kung bakit bigat na bigat sila sa pagtanggap nito at magagawa pa nilang manuligsa kesa magtanong tanong upang maliwanagan sila
ReplyDeletemaraming salamat po
wow kapatid na aerial, salamat at napaliwanag mo ng malinaw ang tungkol dito lalo na sa "o" at "at"...walang lusot ang mga katoliko :-) sinusubaybayan ko talaga mga post mo pati dun sa blog ng kapatid na readme...
ReplyDeletegaling na paliwanag...pwde po mag request? pwede po ba i tackle nyo rin po sa blog na to ang about sa GOSPEL OF JUDAS. Posible po bang walang Jesus na nagsakripisyo sa krus kung walang Hudas? posible po bang hindi tayo natubos ng dugo ni Cristo kung walang Hudas? please dont get me wrong po...
ReplyDeletesalamat at God Bless po...
Tinatayang ng mga dalubhasa na naisulat ang GOSPEL OF JUDAS noong taong 180AD, 2nd Century. At alam na alam naman natin na namatay si Judas noong taong 33AD. Kaya po imposible na si Judas talaga ang may akda ng nasabing manuskrito. Matagal nang tapos ang Biblia [taong 96AD] ng mga panahong iyan.
DeleteBukod pa rito, may mga nakalagay sa nasabing Ebangheliyo ni Judas ni tila bagang kakaiba gaya ng sinasabi sa bahaging ito:
“When Jesus appeared on earth, he performed miracles and great wonders for the salvation of humanity. And since some [walked] in the way of righteousness while others walked in their transgressions, the twelve disciples were called.He began to speak with them about the mysteries beyond the world and what would take place at the end. OFTEN HE DID NOT APPEAR TO HIS DISCIPLES AS HIMSELF, BUT HE WAS FOUND AMONG THEM AS A CHILD.” [Gospel of Judas, Published by National Geographic Society, 2006]
Si Cristo raw diumano ay hindi napakikita sa kaniyang mga alagad bilang siya kundi bilang isang bata. Saan mababasa sa Biblia ang pangyayaring iyan? Hindi ba iyan ay isang napakalaking salungat sa Biblia?
Bukod pa diyan ay may sinasabi pang ganito:
“Another angel, SAKLAS, also came from the cloud…“THEN SAKLAS SAID TO HIS ANGELS, ‘LET US CREATE A HUMAN BEING AFTER THE LIKENESS AND AFTER THE IMAGE.’ They fashioned Adam and his wife Eve, who is called, in the cloud, Zoe.” [Gospel of Judas]
Sabi daw ni Jesus ang lumikha ng tao ay ang isang ANGHEL na ang pangalan ay SAKLAS. Sige nga kapatid mapapaniwalaan mo ba iyan?
Hindi kataka-taka na may lilitaw na mga ibang ebangheliyo na iba sa itinuro ng mga Apostol, kaya nga nung nabubuhay pa sila ay ibinabala na nila ang tungkol sa bagay na iyan.
2 Cor 11:3 “Nguni't ako'y natatakot, baka sa anomang paraan, kung paanong si Eva ay nadaya ng ahas sa kaniyang katusuhan, ang inyong walang malay at malinis na mga pagiisip na kay Cristo ay pasamain. Sapagka't kung yaong paririto ay mangaral ng IBANG JESUS, na hindi namin ipinangaral, o kung kayo'y nagsisitanggap ng ibang espiritu na hindi ninyo tinanggap, o IBANG EVANGELIO na hindi ninyo tinanggap, ay mabuting pagtiisan ninyo.”
Ang GOSPEL OF JUDAS ay nagtuturo ng IBANG JESUS, at ito’y IBANG EVANGELIO na iba sa itinuro ng mga Apostol, ibinabala na nila iyan na talagang may lilitaw na mga ganiyan.
Kaya ano dapat gawin sa GOSPEL OF JUDAS?
Galacia 1:8 “Datapuwa't kahima't kami, o isang anghel na mula sa langit, ang mangaral sa inyo ng ANOMANG EVANGELIO NA IBA SA AMING IPINANGANGARAL SA INYO, ay MATAKUWIL.”
Dapat iyang itakuwil, at huwag paniwalaan…
Kapatid, totoo po ba na si Eliseo Soriano ay nangaling po sa Iglesia Ni Cristo? Kung totoo po yun, ank naman po ang dahilan bakit po siya natiwalag. Salamat po.
DeleteSir,may pagkakataon po bang ang isang tao ay maging katoliko ngunit hindi nagsasagawa ng pag aantanda o sign of the crus? Maaari po ba yun? Sapagkat sa kanyang pananaliksik ay naunawaan nya na mali nga iyon ngunit dahil sya ay katoliko na since birth ay mahirap ng umalis pa.
Deleteang pagtutuli, utos din ba ng Dios?
ReplyDeleteOpo.
DeleteBasahin mo sa Lumang Tipan at si Cristo,natuli rin naman.
Idagdag mo nalang anonymous na nasa taas yong pagpapagupit at
ReplyDeletepagpuputol ng kuko...
Baka kasi itatanong mo din yan eh..
tsaka idagdag mo din sa tanong mo kung utos ba ng Dios na maligo ang tao..
Sagarin mo na Anonymous!
hi im chez
ReplyDeletemay fren ako sa fb katoliko...kinuha ko atention nia dahl panay ang pos about their faith
my cnbi cya about sa sign of the cross ..eto po
"Pakibasa po Galatians 6:17 After this, let no one trouble me, I carry branded on my body the marks of Jesus. . . here referring to the sign of the cross. . ."
galatians 6:17 Buhat ngayon sinoman ay huwag bumagabag sa akin; sapagka't dala kong nakalimbag sa aking katawan ang mga tanda ni Jesus.
ano po explanation dito?..
marameng salamat
Sister Chez,
DeleteBasahin po muna natin ang nilalaman ng talata:
Galacia 6:17 “Buhat ngayon sinoman ay huwag bumagabag sa akin; sapagka't dala kong nakalimbag sa aking katawan ang MGA TANDA NI JESUS.”
Wala namang sinasabi sa talata na SIGN OF THE CROSS iyan eh. Iyan ay pakahulugan lang naman nila eh. Kasi hindi naman naging gawain ng mga Cristiano noong Unang Siglo na MAGANTANDA gaya ng ginagawa ng mga Katoliko.
“THE FIRST MENTION OF CHRISTIANS MAKING THE SIGN OF THE CROSS IS IN THE 2ND CENTURY BY TERTULLIAN who said: "In all our travels and movements, in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross" (De cor. Mil., iii).” [http://orthodoxwiki.org/Sign_of_the_Cross#History]
Ikalawang Siglo lang nagumpisang isinagawa iyan sa Iglesia Katolika, matagal ng patay ang mga Apostol, nasa Langit na si Cristo, at matagal nang tapos ang Biblia. At si TERTULLIAN ay hindi naman Apostol o alagad ni Cristo.
Ano ba iyong “MGA TANDA” na tinutukoy sa Galacia 6:17?
Puntahan natin ang talata sa Bibliang GREEK:
Gal 6:17 “του λοιπου κοπους μοι μηδεις παρεχετω εγω γαρ τα στιγματα του κυριου ιησου εν τω σωματι μου βασταζω” [Textus Receptus]
Pagbigkas:
tou loipou kopous moi mēdeis parekhetō egō gar ta STIGMATA tou kuriou iēsou en tō sōmati mou bastazō
Ang “STIGMATA” [στιγματα] ay plural, ang singular form niyan ay “STIGMA” [στίγμα] na may meaning na:
G4742
στίγμα
stigma
stig'-mah
From a primary word στίζω stizō (to “stick”, that is, prick); a mark incised or punched (for recognition of ownership), that is, (FIGURATIVELY) SCAR OF SERVICE: - mark. [Strong’s Greek Dictionary]
Ang ibig sabihin nung ‘STIGMA” ay “LATAY”, o MARKA NG MGA SUGAT, at kung gagamitin ang word figuratively ito ay tumutukoy sa “SCAR OF SERVICE”, o latay ng bunga ng Panglilingkod.
Ang ibig sabihin lamang noon ay nakamarka sa kaniya ang mga LATAY ng sugat ni Cristo. Literal ba iyon? Ang ibig sabihin lamang ni Apostol Pablo ay.
Mga pagsasakripisyong kaniyang Tiniis bunga ng kaniyang paglilingkod bilang alagad ni Cristo.
Kaya nga ang sabi niya sa bandang itaas ng Kapitulo ay:
Galacia 6:4-6 “Nguni't siyasatin ng bawa't isa ang kaniyang sariling gawa, at kung magkagayon ay magkakaroon siya ng kaniyang kapurihan tungkol sa kaniyang sarili lamang, at hindi tungkol sa kapuwa. SAPAGKA'T ANG BAWA'T TAO AY MAGPAPASAN NG KANIYANG SARILING PASAN. DATAPUWA'T ANG TINUTURUAN SA ARAL NG DIOS AY MAKIDAMAY DOON SA NAGTUTURO sa lahat ng mga bagay na mabuti.”
Maidamay tayo sa pagsasakripisyo ng sa atin ay nagtuturo, Gaya ng ginawa ni Pablo na nakidamay sa mga tiniis at pagsasakripisyo ni Cristo na tagapagturo niya.
Filipos 1:29 “Sapagka't sa inyo'y ipinagkaloob alangalang kay Cristo, HINDI LAMANG UPANG MANAMPALATAYA SA KANIYA, KUNDI UPANG MAGTIIS DIN NAMAN ALANGALANG SA KANIYA:”
Iyan ang MGA TANDA ni Cristo, ang kaniyang mga PAGTITIIS na dapat ay maging kabahagi rin tayo. Kailangan din namang mamuhunan tayo ng Pagtitiis at pagsasakripisyo, sapagkat nasa PAGTITIIS ang pagtatamo ng kaligtasan:
Mateo 24:13 “DATAPUWA'T ANG MAGTITIIS HANGGANG SA WAKAS AY SIYANG MALILIGTAS.”
Kaya hindi “SIGN OF THE CROSS” iyan kapatid, iyan ay MGA TANDA ng mga hirap na Tiniis ni Cristo na dapat may bahagi tayo sa pamamagitan ng pagtitiis na katibayan ng ating pakikibahagi sa mga hirap na tiniis niya.
tnx u po ng marame...d ko ganun naririnig tong talatang to kaya po d ko maunawaan..magaling po mga paliwanag nio...at sa mga coment pa dito na sngot nio po...chez
DeleteSir ano po bang mas mahalaga pananalig at paniniwala o relihiyon? Kung pananalig po at paniniwala ang mahalaga edi ayos lamang po kahit anong relihiyon meron ka?
DeleteRequest... Maaari mo rin po bang gawing topic yung tungkol sa infant baptism? May binibigay na basehan ang katoliko na 7 Sacraments of Baptism na wala naman talaga sa bible.
ReplyDeleteRequest... Maaari mo rin po bang gawing topic yung tungkol sa kalibugan ni ka Felix? May binibigay na basehan ang malilibog ring ministro natin na 2 asawa si ka Felix at yung una ginulpi pa nya.
ReplyDeleteGrabeng kabastusan...
Deletesigurado ako, isa po yan sa mga Catholic defenders na pag di na maitanggi na sobrang mali na ng turo nila, nangbabastos na lang tsk tsk tsk di na ako nagtataka...
May punto din siya, maraming INC na INC pagdating sa loob o sa simbahan, pero pagdating sa labas, mga bastos at malilibog, bakit? Dahil hindi totoo ang Diyos na sinasamba nila,walang pagbabago. Ang Tunay na Diyos ay may pangalan, which is si Jesus Christ. Isiah 9:6. Ang INC at Katoliko puro Debate, parehas namang wala sa katotohan. Dahil ang nasa katotohanan kasama ang Diyos, Pano malalaman? Sa mga himala, pagbabago ng buhay, gagawin kang bago ng TUNAY na Diyos, Hindi Iglesia lang pag nasa loob ng simabahan which is mga INC. Magagaling lang ang INC magsalita, pero kung papatunayang nasa kanila talaga ang Diyos WALA. The real prophet of God is Evangelist Wilde E. Almeda. , Na nananalangin araw at gabi, nag aayuno para ipanalangin ang mga myembro which is wla sa ibang relihiyon na alam ko.
Delete@anonymous, baka ikaw din yang nagcomment na yan? anong sense ng pananalangin ng sinasabi mong propeta kung di naman sya pinakikinggan ng Ama sa taas? at kailan pa naging Diyos si Cristo Hesus?
DeleteHunghang ka hindi sinabing Diyos ang ating Panginoong Jesu-Kristo kundi ipinangalan sa kanya ang kadakilaan ng nag-iisang tunay na Diyos . Parang gan2 yan. Pinangalanan ng tatay yung anak niya na kaparehas ng knya, Hal; Julius. Ibig sabihin ba iisa sila? Isang malaking kalokohan yan! Pangalan ang iisa pero pgdating sa persona ay hindi na
DeleteGinulpi ang isa?Si Tomasa?Eh laging wala si Ka Felix sa bahay nila.
DeleteAnd BTW,kung malilibog kami,ano naman kayo,makati?O kuneho?
Sino ba gumagawa ng sex videos o kamanyakan?Kami ba?Hindi,kayo yun.
Sir ang pagmumura po ba ay nakasulat din sa bibliya na masama ito? O tao lamang po ang may gawa nito?
Delete@ Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteSana po maunawaan natin na ang KABASTUSAN ay hindi aral ng PANGINOONG DIOS.
Maliwanag po sa Biblia iyan:
Efeso 4:29 "ANOMANG SALITANG MAHALAY AY HUWAG LUMABAS SA INYONG BIBIG, kundi ang mabuting ikatitibay ayon sa pangangailangan, upang makinabang ng biyaya ang mga nagsisipakinig."
Ang pagsasalita po ng KABASTUSAN o KAHALAYAN ay kahayagan na hindi tayo nasasakop ng KATUWIRAN na siyang KARUNUNGAN ng DIYOS.
Sa madaling salita, hindi po tayo sa Diyos dahil ang nabibigyan natin ng kapurihan sa tuwing nagsasalita ng KABASTUSAN ay ang DIABLO at hindi ang Panginoong Diyos.
Huwag po nating daanin sa ganiyang paraan, mag-usap po tayo sa ARAL na aming pinaniniwalaan. Iyan po ang inyong tutulan.
pag napabautismohan na po ba sa INC ay maliligtas na? papano po pag may nagpapadoktrina pa lang at sinusubok pa lang,malapit na po sana ang araw na sya ay bautismohan subalit may hindi magandang nangyari sa kanya halimbawa naaksidente siya? makakaligtas po ba sya sa araw ng paghuhukom? Gayon ganun na lang po ang pagsisikap niya na maging kaanib po ng INC, at pagsisi at pagtalikod sa mga nagawang kasalanan, makapaglingkod lang sa tunay na diyos,,,
ReplyDeleteNapakagandang tanong kaibigang ANONYMOUS, Unahin natin yung una mong tanong na:
Delete“PAG NAPABAUTISMOHAN NA PO BA SA INC AY MALILIGTAS NA?
Totoong sinabi ni Cristo na ang mabautismuhan matapos niyang sumampalataya ay MALILIGTAS at iyan ay mababasa natin sa aklat ni Marcos:
Marcos 16:15-16 “At sinabi niya sa kanila, Magsiyaon kayo sa buong sanglibutan, at inyong ipangaral ang evangelio sa lahat ng kinapal. ANG SUMASAMPALATAYA AT MABAUTISMUHAN AY MALILIGTAS; datapuwa't ang hindi sumasampalataya ay parurusahan.”
Maliwanag po iyan sa Biblia, sabi po ni Jesus ang sumasampalataya at mabautismuhan ay MALILIGTAS, hindi po niya sinabing SIYA’Y LIGTAS NA, na para bang wala nang gagawin ang tao sa loob ng INC ang isang tao kundi hintayin ang ARAW NG PAGHUHUKOM at siya’y AUTOMATIC na MALILIGTAS NA.
Sa sinabi ni JESUS na “MALILIGTAS” ibig sabihin ay may kaakibat na kondisyon ito, narito po ang isa:
Juan 8:31 “Sinabi nga ni Jesus sa mga Judiong yaon na nagsisisampalataya sa kaniya, KUNG KAYO'Y MAGSISIPANATILI SA AKING SALITA, KUNG MAGKAGAYO'Y TUNAY NGA KAYONG MGA ALAGAD KO;”
Ang isa po sa kundisyon, MANATILI po tayo sa SALITA ni CRISTO, na ang ibig sabihin kung babasahin natin sa ibang version ng Biblia. PATULOY TAYONG SUMUNOD SA KANIYANG MGA UTOS.
Eto pa ang isa:
Juan 15:5 “Ako ang puno ng ubas, kayo ang mga sanga: ANG NANANATILI SA AKIN, AT AKO'Y SA KANIYA, AY SIYANG NAGBUBUNGA NG MARAMI: SAPAGKA'T KUNG KAYO'Y HIWALAY SA AKIN AY WALA KAYONG MAGAGAWA.”
Manatili po tayong nakakabit sa punong si Cristo bilang sanga, na sa isang simpleng salita, manatili po tayong nakaugnay o kaanib ng IGLESIA na KATAWAN niya [Colosas 1:18]. Kasi kung tayo po ay mahihiwalay o matitiwalag dahil sa ating nagawang mga paglabag, ay wala po tayong magagawa sa ganang ating sarili upang maligtas sa Araw ng Paghuhukom.
Walang iniwan po sa ganito iyan eh, ang BAUTISMO po ay maihahalintulad natin sa ENROLLMENT sa isang SCHOOL para makapag-aral tayo ng kursong nais natin, ang SCHOOL ay ang IGLESIA, at ang ARAW NG PAGHUHUKOM ay ang GRADUATION DAY. Kung tayo po habang nasa SCHOOL ay hindi tayo nag-aral ng mabuti at naging pabaya tayo, at hindi natin ginawa ang mga kinakailangan para makapasa sa mga pagsubok, sa palagay ninyo pagdating ng GRADUATION DAY, tatanggap kaya tayo ng DIPLOMA o ng gantimpala bunga ng ating pagsisikap? Ganiyan po kasimple unawain iyan.
Wala pong aral sa INC na kapag nabautismuhan ka na ay AUTOMATIC na ligtas ka na, may mga bagay po na kailangang gawin, gampanan o isakatuparan ng bawat kaanib upang matamo niya ang gantimpala pagdating ng araw, gaya po ng sabi ni Apostol Pablo na kailangang tapusin natin ang ating TAKBUHIN:
2 Tim 4:7-8 “NAKIPAGBAKA AKO NG MABUTING PAKIKIPAGBAKA, NATAPOS KO NA ANG AKING TAKBO, ININGATAN KO ANG PANANAMPALATAYA: BUHAT NGAYON AY NATATAAN SA AKIN ANG PUTONG NA KATUWIRAN, NA IBIBIGAY SA AKIN NG PANGINOON NA TAPAT NA HUKOM SA ARAW NA YAON; at hindi lamang sa akin, kundi sa lahat din naman ng mga naghahangad sa kaniyang pagpapakita.”
Ganiyan po ang nais ng Diyos na gawin ng sinomang kaanib sa Iglesia ni Cristo, ang makibaka ng mabuting pakikipagbaka, at tapusin ang kani-kanilang takbo.
Susunod iyong isa mong tanong.
ano po ba pra sa INC c Jesus Christ? tao o Dyos?
ReplyDeletetao...
Deletebakit po? e ano po ang explanation nyo s mga verses sa baba:
DeleteJohn 1:1-5
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.
14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
John 1:14
We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Philippians 2:5~8
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
Collosians 2:2
My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
Collosians 2:9
9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
Tnx po!
Is Jesus God in John 1:1,14
DeleteJohn 1:1,14
This is the common point being used by Christ-is-God proponents. But obviously the verse doesn’t explicitly say that Christ is God. The more justification they made the more complicated the argument becomes so much so that it casts more reasonable doubts.
The verse is “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (v14) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
They say that the WORD being mentioned is Christ. Accordingly, Christ is the LOGOS or Word of God as translated in English. Hence, for this equivocation the verse is loosely interpreted as
“In the beginning was the Christ, and the Christ was with God, and the Christ was God. (v14) And the Christ was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
With this clever substitution, they extract meaning from it as follows:
1) Christ was there in the beginning. He had pre-existence.
2) Christ was and is God.
3) Christ was made flesh. Christ incarnates.
These extracted meanings even warrant further verification. These must be checked if supported by other verses of the bible.
The question whether Christ has pre-existence will be discussed sometime in this blog. Iglesia ni Cristo rejects the idea of pre-existence.
The verse (John 1:1,14) should be discerned as plain as possible without creating further assertions.
LOGOS is best understood by associated words such reason, logic, thought, principle, standard, statement. LOGOS is an abstract. It cannot be assigned to a person or entity.
In verse 14, it says “the LOGOS was made flesh and dwelt among us”. There is no argument that the flesh being referred to is none other than Jesus Christ.
So how should we understand the idea of an ABSTRACT was “made flesh”? The only best way to understand it is to compare it with other writings of John. We must compare spiritual things to spiritual. (1 Cor 2:13)
next...
Compare John 1:1,14 and 1 John 1:1-3
DeleteThus,
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. ( John 1:1-3)
The keywords found on this verse are beginning, Word of life, manifest, and fellowship.
If we extend our comparison of John Chapter 1 to the entire first chapter of 1 John, we would notice a resemblance. Other keywords are witness, and light.
So then, what is this something that is in the beginning? In the beginning was the PROMISE of eternal life as written in 1 John 2:24-25, thus,
Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.
So it makes a complete sense. The WORD being directly referred to in John 1:1, 14 is the PROMISE of the eternal life. The verse should be rendered as,
“In the beginning was the PROMISE, and the PROMISE was with God, and the PROMISE was God. (v14) And the PROMISE was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
This PROMISE of God was before the world began (Titus 1:2) through the prophets in the holy scriptures (Romans 1:2). The phrase “PROMISE was made flesh” is synonymous to “PROMISE being fulfilled in Christ” (Acts 13:32-33) or “PROMISE being MANIFESTED (1 John 1:2).
But why does it say :”WORD was God”?
The word “God” in the phrase “and the Word was God” is taken as an adjective and NOT a noun as opposed to the phrase “and the Word was a God”. The missing article “a” spells the difference.
The said expression should mean “the WORD was divine”. In the Mofatt translation of the verse, it says,
“THE Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine.”
Philippians 2:6
DeleteOne of the most oft-cited Bible verses relative to the issue under consideration, and which itself has given rise to much deliberations, is Philippians 2:6, which says,
"Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" (Ibid.).
That this verse has been either paraphrased or liberally rendered by some translators who believe that Christ is God is very evident in the following versions:
• "Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God." (Contemporary English Version)
• "Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God." (New Living Translation)
• "Who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God." (Living Bible)
The most common explication of the verse by the advocates of the Christ-is-God doctrine is that God divested Himself of His divine nature and became man or, as some would put it, that God walked incognito on earth in the person of Jesus Christ.
Even without delving into the Greek language in which Philippians 2:6 was originally written, one cannot but notice immediately the obvious and great discrepancy, incongruence, and absurdity of the three foregoing renderings and the interpretation that is responsible for them. Mere spiritual comparison of this verse with the other related verses plainly shows that such an interpretation, and its concomitant renderings, are wrong.
Two distinct beings
Verse nine, for example, states, "Wherefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name" (KJV).
The existence here of two distinct beings is undeniable:
-one is God, who "has highly exalted [Christ] and given Him the name which is above every name," and
-the other one is Christ, who has been higghly exalted by God.
If "Christ was truly God," - as CEV rendered, how could He be "highly exalted ... and given ... the name which is above every name" by God? How could Christ and the God, who exalted Him, be both "truly God"?
In verse six itself, and using CEV, the mistranslation is quite obvious -
"Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God."
Again, the existence here of two distinct beings is very evident: one who "was truly God" and another one whom He "did not try to remain equal with."
next...
User-friendly translations seek to make the Bible more readable and easier to understand, but if a verse is rendered in such a way that its original meaning is lost or twisted in the process, then that verse cannot be relied upon as God's Word. In view of this, strict accuracy,' achieved by faithfulness to the original languages in which a text was written is, therefore, to be immensely preferred to readability.
DeleteForm, Image: 'near synonyms'
The KJV renders the verse: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
The phrases "being in the form of God" (which is written) and "being God" (which is concluded) definitely do not mean the same thing. Just because Christ is "in the form of God," it does not necessarily mean that Christ "is God." In fact, not only do they mean two different things-they also are "spiritually incomparable." They are simply scripturally irreconcilable, considering the meaning of "form" and the fact that "form" and "image" (man, let it not be forgotten, was created in the image of God) are "near synonyms" (Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, p. 115).
According to The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, "form" ("morphe" in Greek) denotes an expression of "essential attributes" or "essential qualities" of God: "6. Being in the form of God (AV). Better, Though in his pre-incarnate state he possessed the essential qualities of God, he did not consider his status of divine quality a prize to be selfishly hoarded (taking harpagmos passively). Morphe, form, in verses 6 and 7 denotes a permanent expression of essential attributes, while schema, fashion (v. 8 ), refers to outward appearance that is subject to change" (p. 1324).
Wycliffe's commentary is corroborated by a more pronounced explanation by other Bible commentators, who say that "in the form of God" does not refer to the "divine essence" or "divine nature" but to "the external self-manifesting characteristics" of God. " ... Who subsisting (or existing, viz., originally: the Greek is not the simple substantive verb, to be) in the form of God (the divine essence is not meant: but the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shining forth from His glorious essence. The divine nature had infinite BEAUTY in itself, even without any creature contemplating that beauty: that beauty was 'the form of God'; as 'the form of a servant' (vs. 7) ... " (Practical and Explanatory Commentary on the Whole Bible, p. 1305)
Contrary to the popular understanding that Christ's "being in the form of God" in Philippians 2: 6 means that Christ is God, the use by the Apostle Paul of the word "form" (which is synonymous with "image") to refer to Christ is in itself an unequivocal proof that Christ is man, for, of all creatures, it is really man who was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). "It has long been recognized that ... (form) and ... (image) are near synonyms and that in Hebrew thought the visible 'form of God' is his glory ... " (Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, p. 115).
Therefore, Apostle Paul's reference to Christ as "being in the form of God" in Philippians 2:6 is synonymous-or spiritually comparable- with his allusion to Christ as being "the image of the invisible God" in Colossians 1:15. But Christ's being "the image of the invisible God" does not make Him God, just as all other men's being created in the image of God does not make us all Gods. No doubt, Philippians 2:6 and Colossians 1:15 are spiritually comparable; they both underscore Christ's being a man, and not His allegedly being God.
next...
In righteousness and holiness
DeleteLest Christ's being the image of God be misconstrued to mean in the visual sense, Apostle Paul, at once, clarifies that God is "invisible" (Col. 1:15; I Tim. 1:17)-a term spiritually comparable with Christ's statement that "God is Spirit" John 4:24), which means that God has no flesh and bones (Luke 24:36-39).
In what sense then is Christ the image of the invisible God, a characteristic that not only He, in fact, but all men should possess since all men have been created in God's image? In righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:23-24, TEV).
Although God has made mankind upright in keeping with His desire that men be in His image, yet men "have gone in search of many schemes," thereby failing to live up to his Maker's design. "This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes" (Eccles. 7:29, New lnternational Version).
It is for this reason that all men need the Lord Jesus Christ, for Christ, being the only man who is sinless (I Pet. 2:21-22), is the only one who has lived up to God's purpose of creating man in His image. Apostle Paul says, "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God-that is, our righteousness, holiness, and redemption" (I Cor. 1:30, NIV).
Owing to this, Paul urges the Christians who have truly "heard about [Christ] and were taught in him" that for them to be in "the likeness of God," they must "put off [their] old nature which belongs to [their] former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of [their] minds, and put on the new nature, created after likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph. 4:20-24, Revised Standard Version).
And to be able to heed this exhortation, they need to have the mind of Christ-humble and obedient. Paul says, "Let this mind be in you which
was also in Christ Jesus, ... And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (Phil. 2:5, 8, New King James Version).
Christ is in the form or image of God in righteousness and holiness, and His followers should be so, too.
God does not change
The error in the belief that "God became man" lies in the fact that the true God of the Bible-who is neither man nor the son of man (Num. 23: 19)-is immutable. God does not change, as He Himself says, "For I the Lord do not change" (Mal. 3:6, RSV).
Consistent with this, Apostle James writes:
"Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change." (James 1:17, Ibid.)
Clearly then, the belief that "God became man" is, to say the least, not spiritually comparable with other related verses. We can come up with a host of other related Bible verses with which the Christ-is-God interpretation of Philippians 2:6 simply cannot be spiritually compared. Instead of the verse introducing Christ as God, it actually all the more affirms the doctrine that Christ is man, and not God. Thus, when compared with "spiritual things" (I Cor. 2:13, KJV), the Christis-God dogma miserably fails .•
Colossians 2:9
DeleteFullness of God in Christ
Those who hold that Christ is God interpret this verse by arguing that since the fullness of the godhead dwells bodily in Christ, then Christ must be God Himself. The mistake stems from their misunderstanding of the term godhead. They assume that the term “godhead?that which has a nature of a God, whereas, it simply refers to the quality or attributes of God. God gave those qualities of God that dwell in Christ to Him. What are some of those qualities? Eph. 1:20-22 states.
“Which he exerted in Christ when He raised him from the dead and seated him at His right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion., and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church.?NIV)
The numerous attributes that Christ possesses, all of which came from God, have led many to believe that Christ Himself is God. This is a gross mistake. Even if Christ possesses all the attributes of God, He remains different from god because all those attributes of god are God’s inherently, while all those that are in Christ were just given to Him.
And above all, the fact that God has attributes not found in Christ such as being immortal, all-knowing, all-powerful, untiring and never weary prove that Christ is different from God., hence not God.
salamat po s explanation..
ReplyDeletepero s John po regarding the Word ay malabo dhil prang lumayo p po kau ng 1 John e nndun nmn n ung expalanation s mismong John 1:14
ung about nmn po s cnabi ni christ s revelation
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.-Revelation 22:13
tulad ng Ama:
I am he; I am the first and I am the last.-Isaiah 48:12
at ano po mssbi nyu dun at ung s sinabi po ni paul s Collosians 2:2 na pinangalanan n nya mismo n ang God ay c Christ? ang mystery ng God namely Christ.?
Collosians 2:2
My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
salamat po! God Bless
hi po
ReplyDeletemy nasaba po sa fb eto po...
Tanong: HI ADMIN .. good evening po .. Gusto ko lang po itanong kung bakit binibinyagan tayong mga katoliko habang baby pa.. eh ang nasasaad po sa Bible eh Repent and Be Baptized.. thank you po .. confused lang po .. and baptize is from the Greek word baptizo which means inilulubog ang buong katawan sa water :)) - Niken Otso
Sagot: Kung ang Greek word na "baptizo" ay laging ginagamit sa Bible bilang "inilulubog ang buong katawan", dapat sana ay inilubog din ang buong katawan ng mga apostoles SA APOY noong Pentecostes dahil "baptizo" din ang ginamit na word tungkol sa event na yun na hinulaan ni St. John the Baptist ---- "As for me, I baptize(βαπτιζω) you with water... He will baptize(βαπτισει) you with the Holy Spirit and fire." (Matthew 3:11)
Pero ang nangyari, ang Espiritu Santo't ang apoy ay dumapo lang sa kanila, hindi sila inilubog o nalunod.
╬█ UNANG DAHILAN █╬ Kahit baby pa, may kasalanan na tayo. Wala nang malinis na tao sa atin mula sa sinapupunan ng ating mga nanay. Nasusulat:
"Ako'y masama na buhat nang isilang,
makasalanan na nang ako'y iluwal." (Awit 51:5)
Tao ding may kaluluwa ang sanggol, di ba? At namamatay din ang sanggol, di ba? Kung ma-aabort ang bata, o kaya makukunan, namamatay ito. Kahit na bago lang ipanganak, pwede na itong mamatay. At alam naman natin na ang kamatayan ay bunga ng kasalanan. Kung pwedeng mamatay ang sanggol, kung gayon, naapektuhan din siya ng kasalanan. Hindi malinis ang kanyang pagkatao. At ayaw naman natin na mamatay ang bata na may kasalanan kung haharap siya sa pinakamalinis na Diyos, di ba?
Ang pagbabautismo ay isang paraan para matanggal ang kasalanan upang maligtas. Nasusulat:
"Ang tubig ay larawan ng bautismong nagliligtas sa inyo ngayon. Ang bautismo ay hindi paglilinis ng dumi ng katawan kundi isang pangako sa Diyos buhat sa isang malinis na budhi. Inililigtas kayo ng bautismo sa pamamagitan ng muling pagkabuhay ni Jesu-Cristo..." (1 Pedro 3:21)
"At kung hindi muling binuhay si Cristo, kayo'y hindi pa nalilinis sa inyong mga kasalanan at walang katuturan ang inyong pananampalataya." (1 Cor 15:17)
Hindi na kailangang magsisi pa ang bata sa kasalanang hindi niya alam. Hindi din niya kailangang maging conscious sa kasalanan niyang hindi naman niya consciously ginawa. Kung na-acquire niya ang kasalanan sa paraang di niya alam, hayaan nating matanggal ang kasalanang iyon ng walang pagpapaalam sa kanya, sa pamamagitan ng bautismo.
╬█ IKALAWANG DAHILAN █╬ Ang bautismo o binyag ay paraan ng pagpapasali sa atin na maging miyembro ng Katawan ni Kristo. Nasusulat:
"Sapagka't kung paanong ang katawan ay iisa, at mayroong maraming mga sangkap, at ang lahat ng mga sangkap ng katawan, bagama't marami, ay iisang katawan; gayon din naman si Cristo. Sapagka't sa isang Espiritu ay binabautismuhan tayong lahat sa isang katawan..." (1 Corinto 12:12-13a)
Kaya ang pagbabautismo sa atin noong sanggol pa tayo ay paraan ng pagsasali sa atin sa Kristiyanong lipunan. Bilang mga anak, tungkulin ng mga magulang na ipamana sa atin ang pananampalatayang tinamo nila, at palakihin tayo rito. Hindi lang nanay at tatay ang pwedeng maging Kristiyano, pati din ang anak - anuman ang gulang. Hindi lang ang matatanda ang pwedeng lumapit kay Kristo, kahit mga bata ay dapat ipalapit kay Kristo. Nasusulat:
"Inilalapit ng mga tao kay Jesus pati ang kanilang mga sanggol upang hilinging ipatong niya sa mga ito ang kanyang kamay. Nang ito'y makita ng mga alagad, pinagalitan nila ang mga tao. Ngunit tinawag ni Jesus ang mga alagad at sinabihang, "Hayaan ninyong lumapit sa akin ang mga bata. Huwag ninyo silang pagbawalan sapagkat ang mga katulad nila ang mapapabilang sa kaharian ng Diyos." (Luke 18:15-16)
sana ay mbgyan nio po ng katugunan ang ukol sa bagy na to...salamt
Isang katangahan nanaman yan ng Iglesia ni Manalo hahahha ginamit nilang versikulo ang Apocalypsis 13:17-18 “At nang huwag makabili o makapagbili ang sinoman, KUNDI SIYANG MAYROONG TANDA, sa makatuwid ay ng pangalan ng hayop o bilang ng kaniyang pangalan. ANO ANG RELASYON NG PAGBILI NG ANOMANG BAGAY SA SIGN OF THE CROSS WALA KASI DI NAMAN YUN ANG TANDA TINUTUKOY SA BIBLYA ANG TINUTUKOY DOON AY ANG TATAK NG 666 HINDI ANG TATAK NI KRISTO NA SIGN OF THE CROSS.. KAYA KABOBOHAN NANAMAN ITO NG MGA IGLESIA NI MANALO
ReplyDeleteWHY DO CATHOLIC SIGN OF THE CROSS
ReplyDeleteThe sign means a lot of things. In the book, I describe six meanings, with and without words. The sign of the cross is: a confession of faith; a renewal of baptism; a mark of discipleship; an acceptance of suffering; a defense against the devil; and a victory over self-indulgence.When you make the sign, you are professing a mini version of the creed -- you are professing your belief in the Father, and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. When you say the words and pray in someone's name you are declaring their presence and coming into their presence -- that's how a name is used in Scripture
IS THERE ANY BIBLBICAL BASIS CONCERNING THE PRACTICE OF SIGNING THE CROSS?
In the original Hebrew word “ TAW” or “ TAV” was used which means mark The sign of the cross was originally used by the Hebrew in the shape of a cross, It is very clear that even the early age the sign of the cross was used by the Hebrews. It is God who commanded the Jews to make a sign of the cross Ezekiel 9:4 and the Lord said unto him, “Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men who sigh and who cry because of all the abominations that are done in the midst thereof.”
That is why we Catholic make a sign of the cross as sign of faith to God. If you read the Hebrew bible it is written "emoi de mE genoito kauchasthai ei mE en tO staurO tou kuriou hEmOn iEsou iEsou christou di hou emoi kosmos estaurOtai kagO tO kosmO"
which means “ "But may it never be for me to boast, except in the cross our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me and I to the World."(Galatians 6:4). St Paul used the world “Lexicon” which mean to glorify or to boast that is why St. Paul glorify the cross of the Lord It is a sign of God’s victory from death and the salvation of mankind. In Philippians 3:17 it is written Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark those who so walk, as ye have us for an example.” We catholic believes that we should be proud of the cross. Because of the God’s love to us. He brought salvation to mankind. Ephesians 2:15-16 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that He might make in Himself one new man out of the two, so making peace, and that He might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message about Christ's death on the cross is nonsense to those who are being lost; but for us who are being saved it is God's power
The use of the sign of the cross traces back to early Christianity. It is part of Apostolic Tradition which is as authoritative as the New Testament. Both of them originate from the Apostles.
ReplyDeleteWhen one wants to be a Christian, let him know what the early church believed in.
"From the earliest times Christians have made the sign of the cross. St. Basil the Great tells us that the apostles themselves taught the sign of the cross. This is shown by the fact that the earliest mentions of the sign of the cross speak of it as an already established custom and simply encourage the faithful to make it correctly." - Catholic Answers