Matt 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jimsky: "No Jesus. Your church was not built on rock. The gates of hell prevailed against it. That's why I joined the church founded by Felix Manalo."

John 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. 17 The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you.

Jimsky: "Where is the Paraclete? He did not abide with us. You said 'I will not leave you orphans. I will come to you.' You lied. You left us orphans. So we believe in Felix Manalo instead."


16:12-15 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. / When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. / He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. / All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.

Jimsky: "Where is the Spirit of truth? If it is not in the bible, then it must be false. We don't need no 'Spirit of truth'."


Paul writes to Timothy: 1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
15 "The pillar and ground of the truth"... Therefore the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry.

Jimsky: "I disagree with Paul. The pillar and ground of the truth is the Bible, not the church founded by Jesus. I believe instead the church founded by Felix Manalo."


Matt 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Jimsky: "I disagree. Your church is supposed to teach all things that's in the Bible. Not all things that you have commanded."

"And where were you Jesus? You said 'behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.' But from the time the apostles died until July 1914, you were gone!"

"You are a liar Jesus. I don't really have faith in you. So I joined Felix Manalo instead."

Jesus (Matt. 23:9): Call no one your father on the earth.
Beatrice: I know better than you. I can call my priest my father.
------------------
Paul (Titus 1:6): Someone who is blameless, husband of one wife.
Beatrice: Our elders know better than you, Paul. They don't have to have one wife.
------------------------
James (Acts 15:20): But we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.
Beatrice: I know better than you, James, and the council of Jerusalem. I can eat strangled animals and blood.
-----------------
God (Ex. 20:4-5): You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow to them or serve them.
Beatrice: I know better than you, my God. I can make likeness or even sculptures of Jesus or saints, and even bow to them.
-----------------------
Are your answers anything like that? Or will you study the Bible and start obeying Jesus, Paul, James, and God himself? Stop thinking like you are infallible, while only Jim and others outside RCC are not, and start studying the Bible more carefully.

You have rejected the church founded by Jesus and made yourself a church.
You reject the magisterium or teaching authority of the church Jesus founded and reserved for yourself the authority to interpret the scriptures yourself.

Who gave you authority to interpret the scriptures? Nobody.

If you are to be one with Christ, you must also be one with the Catholic Church. (John 17-22). For one to gather in the name of Christ he must also gather in the name of the Church. Christ not only gave the power to bind and loose, He also commanded a oneness with Him and His Church, “ And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one.”

First and foremost, Christ established a Church, not Scripture. Scripture is the product of God's inspiration at work in His Church and so it cannot be divorced from her and understood properly outside of her. To the Church belongs the authority to teach what Scripture means to us, there is no authority granted to individuals to do this.

The Scripture itself is but a dead letter calling for a divine interpreter; it is not arranged in systematic form like a creed or catechism. It is often obscure and hard to understand, as St. Peter says of the Epistles of St. Paul (2 Peter 3:16, Acts 8:30-31). It is open to many a false interpretation. Moreover, a number of revealed truths have been handed down by divine tradition only.

Luther once stated that the Bible could be interpreted by everyone. But when others denied his teaching, the Bible became "a heresy book" most obscure and difficult to understand. Finally he said "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads."

Here are some of your misinterpretations Tomas:
"Call no one father on the earth." So what do you call the man who contributed his seed to your mother?

"Someone who is blameless, husband of one wife." Does Paul himself have a wife? Was John the Apostle married?

"But we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood." Jesus says "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." The council of Jerusalem prohibited eating of meat and blood "polluted by idols" meaning offered as sacrifice to idols so as not to scandalized Jewish Christians. Therefore if they were not sacrificed to idols, they are not prohibited.

Later on Paul relaxed this rule too because idols are nothing anyway. (1Cor 8:4; 10:19)

"You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow to them or serve them." What God prohibits is idolatry. But God wants his house to be decorated. See the statues in the Temple of Solomon, God instructed to be built. http://www.templemount.org/solomon.html Statues are visual aids and representational arts that aid in devotion.

So Tomas, you think you know better than Jesus. You think you can interpret the Scripture better than the church authorized by Jesus to teach?

It includes many denominations, not only your RCC, but also Lutherans, Baptists, INC, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., also many non-denominational Christians, it includes all who have repented and believe correctly all beliefs necessary for salvation. That is my church and that is hopefully also your church, if you are saved.

Beatrice:
You have rejected the church founded by Jesus and made yourself a church.
You reject the magisterium or teaching authority of the church Jesus founded and reserved for yourself the authority to interpret the scriptures yourself.

Who gave you authority to interpret the scriptures? Nobody.

Tomas:
I am in the church founded by Jesus. RCC is just one of the splinters of the church.
God gave me the authority to interpret the scriptures. All Christians have the authority. But of course nobody interprets the Bible perfectly, we just have to try our best. Look at the Bereans. They searched the Bible, interpreting it of course. They too had the authority, not led by the apostles yet, but already led by God to understand and enter the church.
----------------------------------------

Beatrice:
If you are to be one with Christ, you must also be one with the Catholic Church. (John 17-22). For one to gather in the name of Christ he must also gather in the name of the Church. Christ not only gave the power to bind and loose, He also commanded a oneness with Him and His Church, “ And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them: that, they may be one, as we also are one.”

First and foremost, Christ established a Church, not Scripture. Scripture is the product of God's inspiration at work in His Church and so it cannot be divorced from her and understood properly outside of her. To the Church belongs the authority to teach what Scripture means to us, there is no authority granted to individuals to do this.

The Scripture itself is but a dead letter calling for a divine interpreter; it is not arranged in systematic form like a creed or catechism. It is often obscure and hard to understand, as St. Peter says of the Epistles of St. Paul (2 Peter 3:16, Acts 8:30-31). It is open to many a false interpretation. Moreover, a number of revealed truths have been handed down by divine tradition only.

Tomas:
The tradition was temporary, until Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 4:6 not to go beyond what is written. After that, church tradition was no longer guided by God, so it kept changing over the centuries. Current RCC tradition is very different on many issues from the tradition of 2nd century. But already the 2nd century tradition was different from the original tradition, as they forgot they are to be guided by the Bible alone, and started making new traditions.
---------------------------------------

Beatrice:
Luther once stated that the Bible could be interpreted by everyone. But when others denied his teaching, the Bible became "a heresy book" most obscure and difficult to understand. Finally he said "There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads."

Tomas:
That is normal, because nobody interprets the Bible perfectly. But some parts of the Bible should be clear to everyone.
-----------------------------------------------

Beatrice:
Here are some of your misinterpretations Tomas:
"Call no one father on the earth." So what do you call the man who contributed his seed to your mother?

Tomas:
Naturally Jesus was not talking about biological fathers, but about spiritual fathers. But the RCC ignores that. Tell me, how do you obey this commandment? Or do you think it is irrelevant? Or not for today?
-------------------------------------------------

Beatrice:
"Someone who is blameless, husband of one wife." Does Paul himself have a wife? Was John the Apostle married?

Tom:
Paul was not married, but he was not an elder. The command is for elders, not apostles. I don't know if John was married, if he was not, he never became an elder. Elders have to have one wife, also deacons, and bishops. Peter was eligible to become a bishop, because he was married. Paul was not eligible.
--------------------------------------------

Beatrice:
"But we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood." Jesus says "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man." The council of Jerusalem prohibited eating of meat and blood "polluted by idols" meaning offered as sacrifice to idols so as not to scandalized Jewish Christians. Therefore if they were not sacrificed to idols, they are not prohibited.

Later on Paul relaxed this rule too because idols are nothing anyway. (1Cor 8:4; 10:19)

Tomas:
It does not say blood polluted by idols. It says "from things polluted by idols... and from blood". So only the first of the four commandments is about idols. And Paul did not relax this rule, he just explained it, we don't need to inquire if it was sacrificed to idols. But if we know it was, we have to obey this commandment of the Jerusalem council.
-------------------------------------

Beatrice:
"You shall not make for yourself a sculptured image, or any likeness of what is in the heavens above, or on the earth below, or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow to them or serve them." What God prohibits is idolatry. But God wants his house to be decorated. See the statues in the Temple of Solomon, God instructed to be built. http://www.templemount.org/solomon.html Statues are visual aids and representational arts that aid in devotion.

Tomas:
The Temple statues were not for bowing to them, they were just symbolic. But you bow to your statues. That makes them idols.
---------------------------

Beatrice:
So Tomas, you think you know better than Jesus. You think you can interpret the Scripture better than the church authorized by Jesus to teach?

Tomas:
Jesus knows better than me, but also better than you. The church is authorized to teach doctrines necessary for salvation, it is infallible on these. But on other issues we should try our best to interpret the Bible, and not let anyone cloud our minds with human tradition.

Those that do not have children cannot be bishop. Therefore bishops who cannot have children cannot be good bishops.

1 Tim 3:1 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, 3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his CHILDREN in subjection with all chastity. 5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?


2 "Of one wife"... The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none), but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once.

Your argument about Paul is not valid. Apostle Paul was not a bishop. But Peter had a wife, and since he was a bishop, he must have had at least 2 children.

In your imagination?

Acc. to 1 Tim. 3:4 a bishop has to control his children. Plural. So at least 2 children. So that we can see his abilities.

St. Paul teaches us (Ephesians 2:20) that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles, whom Christ Himself chose (John 6:70, Acts 1:2,13; cf. Matthew 16:18). In Mark 6:30 the twelve original disciples of Jesus are called apostles, and Matthew 10:1-5 and Revelation 21:14 speak of the twelve apostles. After Judas defected, the remaining eleven Apostles appointed his successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26). Since Judas is called a bishop (episkopos) in this passage (1:20), then by logical extension all the Apostles can be considered bishops (albeit of an extraordinary sort).


If the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D. In like fashion, St. Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-6), shortly before his death, around 65 A.D. This succession shows an authoritative equivalency between Apostles and bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles. As a corollary, we are also informed in Scripture that the Church itself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18). Why should the early Church be set up in one form and the later Church in another? All of this biblical data is harmonious with the ecclesiological views of the Catholic Church. There has been some development over the centuries, but in all essentials, the biblical Church and clergy and the Catholic Church and clergy are one and the same.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/apostles-can-become-bishops-apostolic.html

St. Paul teaches us (Ephesians 2:20) that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles, whom Christ Himself chose (John 6:70, Acts 1:2,13; cf. Matthew 16:18). In Mark 6:30 the twelve original disciples of Jesus are called apostles, and Matthew 10:1-5 and Revelation 21:14 speak of the twelve apostles. After Judas defected, the remaining eleven Apostles appointed his successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26). Since Judas is called a bishop (episkopos) in this passage (1:20), then by logical extension all the Apostles can be considered bishops (albeit of an extraordinary sort).


If the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D. In like fashion, St. Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-6), shortly before his death, around 65 A.D. This succession shows an authoritative equivalency between Apostles and bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles. As a corollary, we are also informed in Scripture that the Church itself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18). Why should the early Church be set up in one form and the later Church in another? All of this biblical data is harmonious with the ecclesiological views of the Catholic Church. There has been some development over the centuries, but in all essentials, the biblical Church and clergy and the Catholic Church and clergy are one and the same.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/apostles-can-become-bishops-apostolic.html

Just because Judas Iscariot was a bishop, does not mean all apostles are bishops. The Bible does not say that anywhere. Judas became a bishop before the new rules for bishops were announced by Paul. So maybe he was not even married. But if anyone became a bishop before 1 Tim. was written, and did not meet the new qualifications, he was no longer a bishop. He could be an evangelist, an apostle, a teacher, but not a bishop any more. He would no longer oversee a congregation.

he can then divorce her and marry another who will give him at least two children?

IF he marries another and if the new wife could give only one child, then he must divorce her too and marry another so he could have at least two children?

If the third wife could not give him another child, then he must divorce her too and find one that would give him another child?

Felix Manalo had many children from many women. He qualifies as bishop, doesn't he?


Tomas, your private interpretation is screwed up. Do you not see what Peter prohibits private interpretation such as yours?

at least until she dies and he marries another who gives him children. Or divorce is possible, but only if she is an unbeliever and leaves him, which is the only approved grounds for divorce (1 Cor. 7:15). Otherwise he cannot become a bishop, elder or deacon. He can become an apostle, an evangelist or a teacher.

What a pity. Paul's requirement is more strict for others including Jesus.

Like Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, Lord.
But still, he was on earth before the new rules of 1 Tim. were inspired by God, so if he wanted to be a bishop too, he could. And we don't know if he was married and had children. Is. 53:10 seems to say he did have descendants, so if that is the right interpretation, he was married, as he would not have children outside marriage, that would be a sin.

as bishops. They can be apostles but cannot be bishops.

apostles defined: 1 : one sent on a mission: as a : one of an authoritative New Testament group sent out to preach the gospel and made up especially of Christ's 12 original disciples and Paul b : the first prominent Christian missionary to a region or group.

bishops defined: 1 : one having spiritual or ecclesiastical supervision: as a : an Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic clergyman ranking above a priest, having authority to ordain and confirm, and typically governing a diocese.

Does that make sense to you?

Paul himself an apostle who's above bishops cannot himself qualify as bishop because he's unmarried and had no children?

Whether John was unmarried, the Bible does not say. Bishops in the Bible oversee a congregation. But Paul traveled too much for that. He was a traveling evangelist. If he had a wife and children, it would have been hard for him to travel so much, so he chose not to marry.
And you are right, apostles are above bishops. So when Linus became bishop of the church of Rome, he was still below surviving apostles. Not a pope.

Both think they can teach better than the church Jesus founded.

Both reject the church Jesus founded and both believe they can interpret the Scripture better than the church Jesus authorized to teach.

Both believe they are the pillar and bulwark of truth, not the church Jesus founded.

They completely disregard the teaching of Our Lord when He said, "...and there shall be ONE FOLD and ONE SHEPHERD." John 10:16

Tomas believes too that anyone can found another church. Where is that in the Bible? Which chapter and verse?

Therefore if even satan would found a church and call it "Church of Christ", then it must be a denomination of the truth church because it's called "Church of Christ" and he has his own interpretation of the Scripture.

Where are denominations authorized in the Bible Tomas?

The primary root cause of this is the false belief of individual interpretation of the Bible. Protestant churches cannot teach that they are the 'One True Church' which Jesus Christ founded because none of them can trace their founding back to Jesus Christ when He founded His Church in Matt 16:18.

If all Protestantism was united in the Holy Spirit, then how can you explain that Calvinists believe Baptism is a Sacrament, but Baptists do not? How do you explain that Lutherans say that Mary is the Mother of GOD, but Evangelicals say she is not? How do you explain that Episcopalians believe man has free will, yet Presbyterians deny it? You can go on and on through all 28,000 plus protestant sects and see differences as presented in this sampling.

If all Christian Churches taught the same thing then there would be only one Church, as there was for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

There are many Bible verses which tell us that individual interpretation of the Bible simply cannot be done without divine assistance...

Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures."
So it took Jesus Christ to open the minds of the Apostles so that they could teach others in the truth.
Do you believe likewise that Jesus Christ opened the minds of each of the leaders of all those 28,000 protestant churches? If so, why is there so much disagreement between them?

Acts 8:27-40, the eunuch was trying to read Isaiah when Philip asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading?" But he said, "Why, how can I, unless someone shows me?"
Since Philip had been filled by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, he was able to explain the truth of Isaiah to the eunuch.

2Pet 1:20, St. Peter said, "This then you must understand first of all, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS MADE BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION." I do not see how Peter could have said it any plainer than he did here. Why do Protestants ignore verses such as this one?

2Pet 3:16-17, St. Peter said, "...In these Epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, WHICH THE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE DISTORT, JUST AS THEY DO THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES ALSO, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. YOU THEREFORE, BRETHREN, SINCE YOU KNOW THIS BEFOREHAND, BE ON YOUR GUARD LEST, CARRIED AWAY BY THE ERROR OF THE FOOLISH, YOU FALL AWAY FROM YOUR STEADFASTNESS."
Here is a very clear warning that it is easy to fall into error by private interpretation of Scripture.


Sorry Tomas, your private interpretations of the Scripture are not acceptable. They will lead you to your own destruction.

Remember this scenario of Judgment Day and many will not be able to stand before Jesus on that day. "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on Judgment Day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" [Mt 7:21-23].

Tomas, when you reject the church of Jesus, you reject Jesus himself. Jesus said, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Therefore Tomas, when you reject the church Jesus founded, you are going to hell.

But then in hell, you will have the company of the members of the "Iglesia ni Cristo". It would not be so bad, would it? I am sure Jimsky and Davaoguy would enjoy your company.

Jesus is the only human who is infallible, so he knows better than anyone else.

Beatrice:
Both think they can teach better than the church Jesus founded.

Both reject the church Jesus founded and both believe they can interpret the Scripture better than the church Jesus authorized to teach.

Both believe they are the pillar and bulwark of truth, not the church Jesus founded.

They completely disregard the teaching of Our Lord when He said, "...and there shall be ONE FOLD and ONE SHEPHERD." John 10:16

Tomas believes too that anyone can found another church. Where is that in the Bible? Which chapter and verse?

Tomas:
Look at Luke 9:49-50. 'Then John said in reply, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow in our company". Jesus said to him, "Do not prevent him, for whoever is not against you is for you." '
My explanation: false gospels are against the apostles, but other churches are for the apostles. And I do not disregard the teaching of John 10:16. Good churches all belong in one fold and have one shepherd, Jesus.
--------------------------------------

Beatrice:
Therefore if even satan would found a church and call it "Church of Christ", then it must be a denomination of the truth church because it's called "Church of Christ" and he has his own interpretation of the Scripture.

Where are denominations authorized in the Bible Tomas?

Tomas:
As I said above, they are authorized in Luke 9:49-50. But if Satan founds a church and calls it Church of Christ, then it is a false gospel. I know one with that name, the Church of Christ Scientist. Any church connected with Satan fails to have at least one doctrine needed for salvation. That is abundantly true of the Church of Christ Scientist, so they are one of the false gospels.
-----------------------------------------------

Beatrice:
The primary root cause of this is the false belief of individual interpretation of the Bible. Protestant churches cannot teach that they are the 'One True Church' which Jesus Christ founded because none of them can trace their founding back to Jesus Christ when He founded His Church in Matt 16:18.

If all Protestantism was united in the Holy Spirit, then how can you explain that Calvinists believe Baptism is a Sacrament, but Baptists do not? How do you explain that Lutherans say that Mary is the Mother of GOD, but Evangelicals say she is not? How do you explain that Episcopalians believe man has free will, yet Presbyterians deny it? You can go on and on through all 28,000 plus protestant sects and see differences as presented in this sampling.

If all Christian Churches taught the same thing then there would be only one Church, as there was for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

Tomas:
There was not one denomination during the first 1500 years of Christianity. There were many, like the Catholic church, the Orthodox, the Monophysite, the Hussite, the Waldensians, the Petrobrusians, the Lollards, the Ebionites, the Donatists, the Arians, the Theodotian Monarchians, the Modalists, the Montanists, the Utraquists, the Unity of Brethren (Unitas Fratrum), and others.
The reasons why there is a lot of beliefs among the Protestants and others, is that the Bible is sometimes hard to understand. Therefore differences in beliefs are allowed in the Bible, see Romans 14. Only on beliefs necessary for salvation is no difference allowed.
-----------------------------------------------

Beatrice:
There are many Bible verses which tell us that individual interpretation of the Bible simply cannot be done without divine assistance...

Luke 24:45, "Then He opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures."
So it took Jesus Christ to open the minds of the Apostles so that they could teach others in the truth.
Do you believe likewise that Jesus Christ opened the minds of each of the leaders of all those 28,000 protestant churches? If so, why is there so much disagreement between them?

Tomas:
When you look at the context, Jesus did not make them understand all scriptures, but those that explain why Jesus had to die. Paul later admitted that he and others did not understand everything, see 1 Cor. 13:9-12. With the help of the Bible, the minds of all true preachers are opened about why Jesus had to die. But not on everything, see Rom. 14.
---------------------------------------------------

Beatrice:
Acts 8:27-40, the eunuch was trying to read Isaiah when Philip asked him, "Do you understand what you are reading?" But he said, "Why, how can I, unless someone shows me?"
Since Philip had been filled by the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, he was able to explain the truth of Isaiah to the eunuch.

2Pet 1:20, St. Peter said, "This then you must understand first of all, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS MADE BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION." I do not see how Peter could have said it any plainer than he did here. Why do Protestants ignore verses such as this one?

Tomas:
Protestants do not ignore such verses, in fact, they explain them better than RCC. Look at verse 20 carefully, Peter was explaining how prophecy was made. It was not made by private interpretation, but by God's inspiration. But we are free to interpret even prophecy, we are not making prophecy, but merely interpreting prophecy already made.
The eunuch did not understand that prophecy of Isaiah, but that's OK. That is why the church has experts in the Bible like elders. But nobody understands the Bible perfectly except Jesus himself.
------------------------------------------------


2Pet 3:16-17, St. Peter said, "...In these Epistles there are certain things difficult to understand, WHICH THE UNLEARNED AND UNSTABLE DISTORT, JUST AS THEY DO THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES ALSO, TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. YOU THEREFORE, BRETHREN, SINCE YOU KNOW THIS BEFOREHAND, BE ON YOUR GUARD LEST, CARRIED AWAY BY THE ERROR OF THE FOOLISH, YOU FALL AWAY FROM YOUR STEADFASTNESS."
Here is a very clear warning that it is easy to fall into error by private interpretation of Scripture.

Beatrice:
Sorry Tomas, your private interpretations of the Scripture are not acceptable. They will lead you to your own destruction.

Remember this scenario of Judgment Day and many will not be able to stand before Jesus on that day. "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on Judgment Day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" [Mt 7:21-23].

Tomas:
Yes, unfortunately there are many in false gospels, that perform satanic miracles, drive out demons and prophesy falsely. Even in large false gospels, like Christian Science, the Kimbanguist church, the Brotherhood of the Cross and Star, and the International Ministry Growing in Grace. Therefore in the millennium Jesus will tell them away from me. Then they will have to repent and if they refuse to repent, they will perish in hell like others who refuse.
---------------------------------------------------

Beatrice:
Tomas, when you reject the church of Jesus, you reject Jesus himself. Jesus said, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Therefore Tomas, when you reject the church Jesus founded, you are going to hell.

But then in hell, you will have the company of the members of the "Iglesia ni Cristo". It would not be so bad, would it? I am sure Jimsky and Davaoguy would enjoy your company.

Tomas:
I do not reject the church Jesus founded, I belong in it, and so do many in the INC. And in hell people will not enjoy each other's company, they will perish there. No more thinking, dead forever. INC is just as wrong about this as your RCC. But some churches have it right, like Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Advent Christian Church, Church of God (Seventh Day), Living Church of God, Dawn Bible Students Association, Assemblies of Yahweh, the Way International and many others also understand the nature of hell. Look at John 3:16 etc.

Luke 9:49 And John, answering, said: Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in thy name, and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us. 50 And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you.

"He that is not against you, is for you."

But these churches you mentioned are against the church founded by Jesus:

Monophysite, the Hussite, the Waldensians, the Petrobrusians, the Lollards, the Ebionites, the Donatists, the Arians, the Theodotian Monarchians, the Modalists, the Montanists, the Utraquists, the Unity of Brethren (Unitas Fratrum), and others.

You can see the attacks by the Iglesia ni Cristo to prop up the church founded by Felix Manalo. Therefore the Iglesia ni Cristo is not for the Catholic Church.

Even under your private interpretation of Luke 9:49, the Iglesia ni Cristo is not within the church of Jesus, for it is against his church.

Gal 1:6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.


You Tomas and the Iglesia ni Cristo are preaching another gospel. You reject the teachings of the church founded by Jesus and make your own private interpretations of the Scripture. It is contrary to the teachings of Peter prohibiting private interpretations.


Even you have perverted the gospel of Christ.
Is it not clear to you that Paul condemns you? "Let him be anathema."

Not to worry, you will have the company of Felix Manalo and his kool-aid drinkers.
Unfortunately, it will not be in a place you would want to be.

Beats qouted Apostles Paul "If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. "




Which religion is in possesion of the greatest number of "DAMNABLE HERESIES" introduced by

the false prophets or false teachers probing the APOSTASY OF THE CHURCH?


"HERESY" from MERRIAM-WEBSTERS DICTIONARY

Synonyms: dissent, dissidence, heterodoxy, misbelief, nonconformism, nonconformity, schism, unorthodoxy
Related Word: impiety, infidelity; apostasy, defection, revisionism; error, fallacy
-----------------------------------------------------------

2 Peter 2
1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in "DAMNABLE HERESIES", even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church..
By Dr. Ian Paisley

The vast majority of the doctrines and beliefs of the Church of Rome have no basis whatsoever in the Bible. They were added at a later date, contrary to the clear warning of the Bible in Revelation 22:18. Here is a list of the main unscriptural doctrines and the dates on which they were made official. All Roman Catholics are forced to accept them without question:
1. The daily mass, 394 A.D.
2. The doctrine of purgatory (Pope Gregory), 593 A.D.
3. Prayers to the Virgin, Queen of Heaven, 600 A.D.
4. The first Pope (Boniface III), 610 A.D.
5. Kissing the Pope's foot began in 709 A.D.
6. Temporal power of the Pope declared in 750 A.D.
7. Worship of images, relics and cross, 788 A.D.
8. Holy water, blessed by a priest, 850 A.D.
9. Veneration of St. Joseph, 890 A.D.
10. Canonization of dead saints (Pope John XV), 995 A.D. 11. Lent and Good Friday began in 998 A.D.
12. The mass declared to be a sacrifice of Christ, 1050 A.D.
13. Celibacy of the priesthood and nuns, 1079 A.D.
14. The rosary introduced by Peter the Hermit, 1090 A.D. 15. Selling indulgences began in 1190 A.D.
16. Doctrine of transubstantiation adopted in 1215 A.D. 17. Confession of sins to human priest, 1215 A.D.
18. Adoration of the water (Pope Honorius), 1220 A.D.
19. Interpretation of Bible forbidden to laity, 1229 A.D. 20. Scapular declared a charm against dangers, 1287 A.D. 21. Communion under one kind, 1414 A.D.
22. Seven sacraments declared, 1439 A.D.
23. Superstitions of the Ave Maria (Pope Sextus V), 1508 A.D.
24. Tradition established as infallible authority, 1545 A.D.
25. Apocryphal books added to the Bible, 1546 A.D.
26. Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, 1854 A.D. 27. Infallibility of the Popes, 1870 A.D.
28. Mary declared to be the Mother of God, 1931 A.D.
29. Assumption (translation) of the Virgin Mary, 1950 A.D.

SACERDOTAL MASS, PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD, SIGN OF THE CROSS
WAX CANDLES, VENERATION OF ANGELS AND DEAD SAINTS, DAILY MASS, EXULTATION OF MARY AS "MOTHER OF GOD", PRIESTS WEARING SPECIAL CLOTHING, PURGATORY, LATIN LANGUAGE USED IN WORSHIP, PRAYER OFFERED TO MARY, DEAD SAINTS, AND ANGELS, THE OFFICE OF POPE, KISSING OF THE POPE'S FEET, KISSING OF THE POPE'S RING,
TEMPORAL POWER OF POPE'S, POPE = "GOD ON EARTH", PONTIFEX MAXIMUS, POPE HOLDS KEYS TO HEAVEN AND EARTH, POPE CARRIED ON PORTABLE THRONE, VENERATION OF CROSSES, STATUES, IMAGES, AND RELICS, "HOLY WATER" OF WATER, SALT, CHRISM, AND PRIEST BLESSING, BAPTISM OF BELLS, INFANT BAPTISM, CANONIZATION OF DEAD SAINTS, FASTING OF FRIDAYS DURING LENT, CELEBRATION OF EASTER, CELEBRATION OF GOOD FRIDAY, CELEBRATION OF CHRISTMAS
DAILY "SCARIFICE" OF THE MASS, THE ROSARY, THE INQUISITION INSTITUTED BY THE COUNCIL OF VERONA IN 1184AD, SALE OF INDULGENCES, SEVEN SACRAMENTS, TRANSUBSTANTIATION, AURICULAR CONFESION (CONFESSING TO A PRIEST), ADORATION OF A WAFER (COMMUNION), THE SCAPULAR, THE BIBLE FORBIDDEN TO LAYMEN IN 1129AD BY COUNCIL OF VALENCIA, TRADITION PLACED ON SAME GROUND AS SCRIPTURE, THE APOCRYPHA, "IMMACULATE" CONCEPTION OF MARY (WITHOUT SIN), INFALLIBILTY OF POPE IN MATTERS OF FAITH, ASSUMPTION OF MARY, MARY AS QUEEN OF HEAVEN, MARY AS CO-REDEEMER, MARY AS MOTHER OF THE CHURCH
IMAGE WORSHIP INSTITUTED BY COUNCIL OF NICEA IN 787AD, TORTURE AND KILLING OF OVER 100 MILLION CHRISTIANS, THE PERPETUAL "VIRGINITY" OF MARY, POPE JOHN PAUL STATES "EVOLUTION = FACT"
CHURCH SANCTIONED BINGO AND GAMBLING, LOYALTY TO CHURCH NECESSARY FOR SALVATION, CHURCH AND STATES COMBINED, ENFORCEMENT OF CHURCH DOCTRINES UPON GENERAL PUBLIC,
THE NATIVITY OF JESUS DECEMBER 25TH, THE NATIVITY OF ST. JOHN JUNE 24TH, HOT CROSS BUNS, 40 DAYS OF LENT, DEAD VISITING LIVING ON ALL SOULS DAY, BURNING INCENSE, CHANTS, THE CRUCIFIX, WEARING OF RELIGIOUS IMAGES, MYSTICISM, PENANCE, INDULGENCES, NUNS, CONVENTS

This is nowhere stated in the Bible. The church has one head, Jesus, but below Jesus, preachers can found various churches. No need to be united into one organization. At least not now, but when Jesus comes, he will correct our errors, and we will be finally united on all beliefs, and able to form one organization.

doctrines necessary for salvation. On other issues we can differ, see Romans 14. Therefore in my list of good churches before the Reformation I listed only churches that agree with us on every issue needed for salvation.
Paul warned us against Gnosticism. That group of false gospels disagreed with us on the issue of whether Jesus came in the flesh. We have to believe he did, according to 1 John 4:2, 2 John 7. So the gnosticism in the time of Paul was a false gospel, as were various gnostic churches of following centuries. They claimed that flesh is evil, so Jesus could not have come in flesh, he just appeared to have flesh.
Another false gospel already before the Reformation is the Nestorian church, because they don't recognize the book of Revelation, whose recognition is necessary for salvation, according to Rev. 22:19.
And of course there are many ancient false gospels that don't even call themselves churches.

And your argument about being against RCC is not valid. Jesus said 'against you'. He did not say against RCC. He was talking about his apostles. The churches I listed are not against his apostles. I listed churches that are within God's church, I left out any false gospels.

2Pet 1:20, St. Peter said, "This then you must understand first of all, that NO PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE IS MADE BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION."

I do not see how Peter could have said it any plainer than he did here.

By what authority you interpret the Scripture on what is other gospel and what the gospel is?

What are your credentials? Did you take a four year course on Theology?

Did you just read the bible like Felix Manalo and think you are already an authority on it?

That is not the usual modern Catholic idea. It's true your church still has the slogan of no salvation outside church, but the meaning has been redefined, to be friendly to other denominations, and even to Judaism and Islam. Basically your church now has the unbiblical idea that salvation flows to Jews and Muslims from the Catholic church, at least if they don't commit mortal sins. Totally contrary to the Bible, which requires membership in God's church. But God's church is not a denomination, but includes many denominations.

I am not ignorant of this spelling, but I made a typo.

Bat tree bears Bad fruit.

Mat 7:17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

Davaoguy, don't you know it's a sin to lie?

Matt 12:36 But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

without telling stories like you do!

Sex Crimes Cover-Up By Vatican?
Secret Document Told Bishops To Conceal Allegations Against Priests

By Dan Collins

A timeline of the sex scandals, questions and answers about the church's response and a look at the impact on U.S. dioceses.

(CBS) For decades, priests in this country abused children in parish after parish while their superiors covered it all up. Now it turns out the orders for this cover up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican.

CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales has uncovered a church document kept secret for 40 years.

The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests - anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.

The policy was written in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.

The document, once "stored in the secret archives" of the Vatican, focuses on crimes initiated as part of the confessional relationship and what it calls the "worst crime": sexual assault committed by a priest" or "attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals."

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases "in the most secretive way...restrained by a perpetual silence...and everyone {including the alleged victim) ...is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office...under the penalty of excommunication."

Larry Drivon, a lawyer who represents alleged victims, said, “This document is significant because it's a blueprint for deception.”

Drivon said this proves what he has alleged on behalf of victims in priest-abuse lawsuits: that the church engaged in a crime – racketeering.

“It's an instruction manual on how to deceive and how to protect pedophiles,” Drivon said. "And exactly how to avoid the truth coming out."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the document is being taken out of context, that it's a church law that deals only with religious crimes and sins. And that the secrecy is meant to protect the faithful from scandal.

“The idea that this is some sort of blueprint to keep this secret is simply wrong,” said Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, a spokesman for the Conference.

“This is a system of law which is complete in itself and is not telling the bishops in any way about how to handle these crimes when they are considered as civil crimes,” Maniscalco said.

But Richard Sipe, a former priest who has written about sex abuse and secrecy in the church, said the document sends a chilling message.

“This is the code for how you must deal with sex by priests. You keep it secret at all costs,” Sipe said. “And that's what's happened. It's happened in every diocese in this country.”

According to church records, the document was a bedrock of Catholic sex abuse policy until America's bishops met last summer and drafted new policies to address the crisis in the church

If not, why do you remain a member of this horrible catholic church?

why do they have to conceal evidence of raping altar boys?

Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse

Expulsion threat in secret documents

The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.

It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.

Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.

He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment.'

British lawyer Richard Scorer, who acts for children abused by Catholic priests in the UK, echoes this view and has described the document as 'explosive'.

He said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. This document appears to prove it. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go to prevent the information getting out to the public domain.'

Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue of sexual abuse was a modern phenomenon.

He claims the discovery of the document will raise fresh questions about the actions of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

Murphy-O'Connor has been accused of covering up allegations of child abuse when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Instead of reporting to the police allegations of abuse against Michael Hill, a priest in his charge, he moved him to another position where he was later convicted for abusing nine children.

Although Murphy-O'Connor has apologised publicly for his mistake, Scorer claims the secret Vatican document raises the question about whether his failure to report Hill was due to him following this instruction from Rome.

Scorer, who acts for some of Hill's victims, said: 'I want to know whether Murphy-O'Connor knew of these Vatican instructions and, if so, did he apply it. If not, can he tell us why not?'

A spokesman for the Catholic Church denied that the secret Vatican orders were part of any organised cover-up and claims lawyers are taking the document 'out of context' and 'distorting it'.

He said: 'This document is about the Church's internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims to report civil crimes. The confidentiality talked about is aimed to protect the accused as applies in court procedures today. It also takes into consideration the special nature of the secrecy involved in the act of confession.' He also said that in 1983 the Catholic Church in England and Wales introduced its own code dealing with sexual abuse, which would have superseded the 1962 instructions. Asked whether Murphy-O'Connor was aware of the Vatican edict, he replied: 'He's never mentioned it to me.'

Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.

Rev Thomas Doyle, a US Air Force chaplain in Germany and a specialist in Church law, has studied the document. He told The Observer: 'It is certainly an indication of the pathological obsession with secrecy in the Catholic Church, but in itself it is not a smoking gun.

'If, however, this document actually has been the foundation of a continuous policy to cover clergy crimes at all costs, then we have quite another issue. There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm.

'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.'

If not, why do you remain a member of this horrible church?

Catholic Church Scandal Jokes
Late-Night Jokes About Pedophile Priests

"The U.S. Cardinals said they are going to develop a code of ethics to help them deal with the sexual scandal. Wait a minute, I thought their already was a code of ethics, it's called the Bible." —Jay Leno

"I read this in the paper this morning: New York City has a priest shortage. So you see, there is some good news in the world. ... To give you an idea how bad it is, earlier today in Brooklyn an alter boy had to grope himself." —David Letterman

"As you've probably heard, the Pope has asked all the Cardinals to return to Rome. You know how they got them all to come back? They told them that there was going to be a performance by the Vienna Boys Choir." —Jay Leno

"The Cardinals will be staying at the Domus Sanctae Marthae, the new hotel at the Vatican, where turn down service means the bell boy isn't interested." —Daily Show host Jon Stewart

"They say (the Pledge of Allegiance) violates the separation of church and state. How about the separation of church and altar boy? That's what I'm worried about." —Jay Leno

"Cardinal Law had difficulty with his memory under oath today. He could only remember three commandments. Under oath, Cardinal Law said 'I do not recall' 43 times. I'm telling you, this guy is presidential material." —David Letterman

"The House Transportation Committee is now considering a bill that would allow pilots to carry guns for protection. I've got a better idea, why not give guns to altar boys, give them a fighting chance." —Jay Leno

"In Boston, it looks like Cardinal Bernard Law isn't going to be punished. It turns out he's getting transferred to Rome, which is kind of like a promotion. He said today he wanted to thank all the little people." —Jay Leno

"The Catholic Church is finally cracking down. Here's the deal now: if a priest is transferred to another parish, he cannot take his live-in boyfriend." —David Letterman

"The Catholic Church has just opened a new $2 million cathedral in Los Angeles. They really spared no expense. Each confessional has a panic button in it." —David Letterman

"The Church reaffirming celibacy — it's kind of like Clinton reaffirming monogamy." —Jay Leno

"The big Vatican summit wrapped up, closing ceremonies were Harry Connick Jr. The Vatican is taking a tough stand now, three strikes and you're transferred." —David Letterman

"This is the last Take Your Daughter to Work Day. Next year, boys will be involved too. I guess the church lobbied pretty hard on that one." —Jay Leno

"After all these scandals in the church, many Roman Catholics are calling for an end to celibacy. And end to celibacy, how about starting celibacy? Let's at least try it to see if it works." —Jay Leno

"Pope has called all the U.S. cardinals back to the Vatican. He's going to have Italy's top soccer coach talk to them. I believe the topic is how to do your job without using your hands." —Jay Leno

"Today the Catholic Church unveiled its new policy. Don't ask, don't confess." —Jay Leno

"Isn't it crazy with all these church scandals? I'm beginning to understand how all those Bibles ended up in hotel rooms." —Jay Leno

"This week hundreds of bishops arrived in Dallas for their annual convention. You know what that means? Party. Party. Party. A couple of bellboys are being carried over the threshold tonight." —Jay Leno

"There is a big conference of Catholic Bishops in Dallas. Well this is great for the city, it brings in about $12 million in hush money." —David Letterman

"The Supreme Court ruled today that virtual child pornography is legal. Finally, some good news for the church." —Jay Leno

"Bush said we're going after white-collar criminals and I'm thinking 'Gee I wish the Catholic church would do that.'" —David Letterman

"Kids, if you see an ad that says Cardinals looking for a bat boy, watch out, that has nothing to do with the baseball team." —Jay Leno

we will undress you here!

we will undress the brutal history of your pagan religion!

no more bullets Beats?

Done with your pagan concept of Christianity?

rapist.


In 1954, the newspaper The Bombshell published a three-part story concerning Felix Manalo, founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. The first part was published on October 21 with front page headline “IGLESIA NI CRISTO ‘HEAD’ ANGEL OR SEX MANIAC?” The article includes a letter of confession from a certain Rosita Trillanes who, according to her, was raped several times by Felix Manalo. Here is the inside story.

http://emilyjordan.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/felix-manalo-rapist-of-his-members-and-his-ministers-wives/


The church founded by Jesus never claimed to be a church only for saints. It's a church of sinners. It's a hospital for sinners. Even St. Paul calls himself the chief of sinners. 1 Tim 1:15.

Yet though the church is a church of sinners, it has produced more saints than all protestant churches combined.

“Mr. Manalo, perhaps, is not fully satisfied with his wife and six children. In the early twenties he started already victimizing several women. To mention the few which met a strange, most bitter and painful experience lives are Rosita, whom he can not deny that this woman is one of those that met her doom during that time; Teresa Teodoro, another victim of the so-called “Angel”; Basilla Santos, if he can recall is also one among those that suffered under his hypnotistic system. Wives of several ministers that can not talk for fear that they might be expelled as “Diakonesas” might be known by their husbands. Our informant disclosed that the following are more or less under his sex domination: Felicidad, Rosa, Virginia, Bining, Mrs. Santos, Toddy, Atang, Paz, Pilar and several weeping souls that perhaps twice as much as those above-mentioned are, in one way or another, seeking revenge against Felix Manalo.

“To support our allegation, we want to prove to the reading public the following:

“Letter of Rosita to Her Brothers

“Brothers: In my belief that I will find protection I agreed that I be brought to [the] Central Office by Brother Jacinto Torres. When I was already there I experienced the most bitter and painful in [t]he life of [a] maiden like when Manalo, whom I considered as a father, abused me. At first he courted me but when I refused to accede to his desires he struck and beat me which rendered me unconscious. And when I was already unconscious, he raped me. There I suffered much because of the ill-treatment, beating and [threatening] that I received whenever I protested against his lewd designs.

“I also witnessed many who have been raped by Felix Manalo: some are maidens; others are the wives of members and ministers. Manalo himself told me about the others whom he molested when he was persuading me to accede to his desires. He told me about some thirty women he abused. I could not reveal their names to protect their dignity, but they frequently come to the Office. In my presence, he raped a maiden who later became pregnant and that happened when she went to the central office in that only instance which concerns Manalo. … Could your good sense accept these anomalies…? It is up to you to decide.”

*******

On my next post, we will discover more of Felix Manalo’s activities when he is out of his members’ sight. These are contained in Rosita’s letter, in the original Tagalog, which were removed by the editor of The Bombshell for this issue.


http://emilyjordan.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/felix-manalo-rapist-of-his-members-and-his-ministers-wives/

Small wonder. You have already condemned the One who Sends by calling Him Heartless in 1 Sam 15.3-18, what more can you expect?

Beattrice has judged God calling him Heartless, what else can Beattrice not do?

What kind of the Bible are you reading?

Where in the Bible does God send your Felix Manalo a rapist to reestablish his church?

You must be a kool-aid drinker.

So what else is new?

Republic of the Philippines
City of Manila S.S.

AFFIDAVIT


I, ROSITA TRILLANES, Filipino, of legal age, married a resident of and with a postal address at 639 Piyo Margal, Manila, upon being duly sworn according to law depose and say:

1. That I am the same ROSITA TRILLANES who was accused of libel by Mr. Felix Manalo before the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, in the month of September in the year 1939;

2. That I was convicted by the Court of First Instance for that crime upon my failure to prove the truth thereof, said conviction having been published by the Taliba, on January 4, 1941;

3. That I appealed from the decision of the said Court of First Instance to the Court of Appeals because of my fear that upon my failure to pay the fine imposed threat that I would be imprisoned;

4. That concerning that libelous letter I wrote and for which I accused by Mr. Felix Manalo, I hereby state and so declare, that all matters therein stated and written are all false and pure fabrications without any truth whatsoever;

5. That the letter and all those matters stated therein was fabricated by Messrs Raymundo Mansilungan, Tedoro Briones and Cirilo Gonzales who induced me to sign the same upon their representation that it would be shown only to the brethren of the Church of Christ (IGLESIA NI CRISTO) to convince them to revolt against the administration of Mr. Felix Manalo, in retribution against him for expelling us from the Church;

6. That together with Messrs Raymundo Mansilungan, Tedoro Briones and Cirilo Gonzales, we were expelled from the Church for Acts and behaviors contrary to the doctrines of the Church;

7. That contrary to my expectation, my companions above mentioned not only showed the letter to the brethren in the Church, but published the same in a Pampango Newspaper, entitled “Ing Cawal”, whose editor at the time was Salvador Tumang, and as a consequence thereof, Mr Felix Manalo filed a libel suit against me and against Salvador Tumang and Cirilo Gonzales, resulting in our conviction,

8. That after my conviction I appealed the case to the Court of Appeals and by claiming that I was motivated by good intentions I was able to acquit myself (see Official Gazette Vol. 1, July 1942 – No. 8180, April 21, 1942), although, since then and up to the present time, I have been bothered continuously by remorse and a guilty conscience;

9. That I have therefore executed the foregoing affidavit to confirm the truth of all I haves stated above and for such other purposes for which the same could be availed of to right the wrong and injustice I have committed against Mr. Felix Manalo about whose integrity and character I have the highest of regard and resepect. Furthermore, I have executed the same without any consideration whatsoever, without having been induced by any one, except for the reasons I have stated, and without mental reservation whatsoever.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit, and affixed my right hand thumb mark below that of my signature at the left margin of the first page and at the bottom hereof, to remove any doubt about the authenticity of this instrument, this 21st day of November 1952, in the City of Manila, Philippines.

(signature)
Rosita Trillanes
Right hand_________Thumb mark

Signed in the presence of:

(Signature of witness) (signature of 2nd witness)


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of November, 1952, at Manila, Philippines; affiant exhibited to me her Residence Certificate No. A0385178 issued at Manila, on November 7, 1952.

(signature)
(Notary Seal) Frolian Tafalla
Notary Public
Until December 31, 1952
Doc. No. 118
Page No. 97
Book No. II
Series of 1952

Is God not with FYM? Why was FYM so afraid?

Those who are scared are those who hide from the truth! FYM filed the case to open it more in public that he don't have anything to hide. Truth prevails his missions was never hindered by the devils tactics and false accusations! The church has succeeded and you are just a loser!

but the Accuser has accused God, so who else can she not accuse?

imagine calling your God a name that i can't even mention it.

.

Curse it in the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth!

Death to those who Worship this Queen of Heaven!!!!!

er 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead [their] dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

sounds like Miss Immaculada Conception, the queen of hearts! I ddn't know the she is also the queen of heaven and it's a biblical pagan queen.

Judah had Provoked the God of Israel to anger.

Jer 7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead [their] dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Jer 7:20 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, mine anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched.

Amalekites the Sinners according to the God of Israel.

1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

1Sa 15:18 And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead [their] dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

1Sa 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

1Sa 15:18 And the LORD sent thee on a journey, and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they be consumed.

very interesting indeed.

The Lord God, The Father is to be praised Forever for he keeps his word, he is faithful, and Just!

He alone is GOD!

In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Amen.

John 13:34
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

A true man of God will show compassion and forgiveness but will never file a lawsuit against anyone.
It's very clear that FYM disobeyed Jesus.
It's crystal clear that FYM was not a man of God.

Catholic Church's U.S. Leadership Mired in Scandal -
Pope Announces New Hierarchy Among Cardinals

By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY

By AP Wireservice
US Cardinals, wearing new colorcoded caps, reciting, 100 times: "I shall never, never covet another altar boy again"

As the USA's Roman Catholic Church roils with reports of sexual abuse by priests and coverups from neighborhood parishes to cathedrals, Catholics and non-Catholics alike wonder: What will it take to "purify" this church? Who will lead the way? Every week, men and women step forward with painful memories of sexual abuse by priests during their childhood or teen years.

Have you invited her? Have you explained to her that Felix Manalo was angel of the east? Have you given her Rosita Trillanes' alleged affidavit signed about 25 years after about 25 years after the rape?

I you believe in Felix Manalo, why not make her believe in him too?

who ever she is, the rest of my family was not even a member how much more with you and your friend Beats!

You have lost your credibility by accusing the Almighty God being heartless.

Have you read the retraction of Sis. Rosita that all he accused FYM of were just lies? She was just deceived by some Catholics leaders that time to sue FYM in exchange of cash.

VITW loves to open several account in Network 54 to fool his fellow pagans.

was made?

Did she face a public press conference where she admitted to lying to besmirch the reputation of the "angel?"

Did she receive bribe money for the "retraction."

What kind of benefits did she receive from Felix Manalo?

Was she not made a deaconess after she signed the "retraction?"

If she was a liar, why would the "angel" make a liar who besmirched his reputation a deaconess?

Did the "angel" adopt her son? Who was the father of her son? Why would the "angel" adopt her son when he already have many children with his wife?

Did she not stay at the Central? Why was she permitted to stay at the Central if she lied and besmirched the reputation of the "angel?"

The alleged "retraction" raises many questions. Can you truthfully answer them?

If not then be quite and stop acting like one!

Click the link Beats!


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection


Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse

Expulsion threat in secret documents

The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.

It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.

Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.

He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment.'

British lawyer Richard Scorer, who acts for children abused by Catholic priests in the UK, echoes this view and has described the document as 'explosive'.

He said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. This document appears to prove it. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go to prevent the information getting out to the public domain.'

Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue of sexual abuse was a modern phenomenon.

He claims the discovery of the document will raise fresh questions about the actions of Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

Murphy-O'Connor has been accused of covering up allegations of child abuse when he was Bishop of Arundel and Brighton. Instead of reporting to the police allegations of abuse against Michael Hill, a priest in his charge, he moved him to another position where he was later convicted for abusing nine children.

Although Murphy-O'Connor has apologised publicly for his mistake, Scorer claims the secret Vatican document raises the question about whether his failure to report Hill was due to him following this instruction from Rome.

Scorer, who acts for some of Hill's victims, said: 'I want to know whether Murphy-O'Connor knew of these Vatican instructions and, if so, did he apply it. If not, can he tell us why not?'

A spokesman for the Catholic Church denied that the secret Vatican orders were part of any organised cover-up and claims lawyers are taking the document 'out of context' and 'distorting it'.

He said: 'This document is about the Church's internal disciplinary procedures should a priest be accused of using confession to solicit sex. It does not forbid victims to report civil crimes. The confidentiality talked about is aimed to protect the accused as applies in court procedures today. It also takes into consideration the special nature of the secrecy involved in the act of confession.' He also said that in 1983 the Catholic Church in England and Wales introduced its own code dealing with sexual abuse, which would have superseded the 1962 instructions. Asked whether Murphy-O'Connor was aware of the Vatican edict, he replied: 'He's never mentioned it to me.'

Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages.

Rev Thomas Doyle, a US Air Force chaplain in Germany and a specialist in Church law, has studied the document. He told The Observer: 'It is certainly an indication of the pathological obsession with secrecy in the Catholic Church, but in itself it is not a smoking gun.

'If, however, this document actually has been the foundation of a continuous policy to cover clergy crimes at all costs, then we have quite another issue. There are too many authenticated reports of victims having been seriously intimidated into silence by Church authorities to assert that such intimidation is the exception and not the norm.

'If this document has been used as a justification for this intimidation then we possibly have what some commentators have alleged, namely, a blueprint for a cover-up. This is obviously a big "if" which requires concrete proof.'

1. Did she face a public press conference where she admitted to lying to besmirch the reputation of the "angel?"

No. She didnt need to. She was not after publicity
2. Did she receive bribe money for the "retraction."
There was no evidence to prove she did.

3. What kind of benefits did she receive from Felix Manalo?
She was accepted back to the true church.

4. Was she not made a deaconess after she signed the "retraction?"
Maybe, after proving her worth.

5. If she was a liar, why would the "angel" make a liar who besmirched his reputation a deaconess?
She made a mistake. She confessed her sin and asked forgiveness. She already told the truth.

6. Did the "angel" adopt her son? Who was the father of her son? Why would the "angel" adopt her son when he already have many children with his wife?

There's no law the prohibit somebody to adopt someone's child. Whether it was adoption or whatever, you also do not know. Everything is just left your imagination.

7. Did she not stay at the Central? Why was she permitted to stay at the Central if she lied and besmirched the reputation of the "angel?"
Same answer as question no. 5


8. The alleged "retraction" raises many questions. Can you truthfully answer them?
There's no reason to doubt it, unless you are privy to her when she made the retraction.

If Rosita lied, where is her remorse?

NONE.

It is obvious you mikel never served in a jury. In the county court, we not only examine the papers, but also watch witnesses for tell tale signs and demeanors. Lawyers cross examine witnesses on the stand to bring out the truth and to see if they are telling the truth and nothing but the truth. We listen for answers and we look at witnesses eye to eye.

We in the jury look for normal behaviors of those who made mistakes. Look at Congressman Sanford who broke down and confessed to having extra marital affairs.
It is obvious that he was living a lie and he broke down and had remorse.

There was no sign that Rosita lied. There was no real confession. No admittance of lying all those 23 years.

The alleged "letter of retraction" stinks like a paper of fabricated lies in a vain attempt to whitewash the sins of Felix Manalo.


That's the reason his son a lawyer Erano G Manalo would not dare reopen the case and bring that piece of s**t in court. Not credible at all.

The "retraction" is only for gullible Iglesia members like mikel, jimsky, davaoguy, etc.

If my reputation was besmirched, and I received that retraction, I would be jumping up and down and let the public know about it.

I would get my lawyer and take bring that retraction to court to clear my name.

Why didn't Manalo do that? If he was falsely accused, he would insist on clearing his name.

But he didn't.

Why?

Perhaps he knows that the "retraction" was all a fabrication.

He wasn't jailed ! Why need to show to the court? they knew he was innocent that is why he is free?

He wasn't fined for anything ! Why need to show to the court, he doesn't have anything to recover from the court.

Nobody from the INC members left the church because of the false accusation ! Why need to bother to show to the court, the church is still multiplying rapidly despite the false accusation.

The accuser already returns to become an active member of the church! Why need to show to the court and bother the sister who returns to the fold?