Ash Wednesday topic

Catholic Defenders justify of putting a cross by priests using ash by this verse:

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 that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

The problem, they never explain it using Biblical verses. they just interpret it. if that is true, the Jews of Judaism should be the first to do it even today.

Anyway, What is the mark of God that Ezekiel commanded to put? 

What is the spiritual form of putting a mark if a man has it is he will depart from iniquity?

John 3:33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. (King James Version)

Jesus' words came from God and ordered by God to say it (read John 12:49)



If you received God's testimony, you are marked. It can be done by preaching to you God's words and you receive it and not rejecting it.

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

The verses that putting mark is preaching God's words to receive God's testimony:

Isaiah 8:16 Bind this warning, seal the Torah in My disciples.' (Jewish version of Tanakh)

Isaiah 8:16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. (King James Version)

John 3:33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.

John 3:34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. (King James Version)

Catholic Church's payout for sexual abuse on Guinness Word Records 2009

In the Bible, This should be the right decision to act upon this situation:

1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

Pagans god whose birthday is December 25

ADD members were forbidden to debate with their enemies

Bro. Eli said on the photo above that sharing is allowed but not to debate. because his member asked if it is okay to debate with non religious brethen about what he knew in religion.

 
Bro Eli said to his member who asked him about "It is okay to debate with their own brethen who cannot understand each other on social networking site like facebook?"

that "No, do not give any ruin to their brotherhood or religious organization."

ANOTHER PROOF IS FROM THE WORDS OF WISDOM OF BRO. ELI:

39. Kapag ang usapan tungkol sa kautusan, mapupunta lang sa walang kwenta, iwasan mo na.

In English: If the discussion is about the law, it will go nonsense. avoid it.

From: http://pantas.wordpress.com/2007/01/28/part-xii/

Islam kills its apostates

 

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them"

Qur'an (9:11-12) - "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist."   
Other verses that seem to support the many Hadith demanding death for apostates are Qur'an verses 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66. 


From the Hadith:

The reason why executing apostates has always been well-ensconced in Islamic law is that there is an indisputable record of Muhammad and his companions doing exactly that according to the reliable Hadith.  According to verse 4:80 of the Quran: "Whoso obeyeth the Messenger obeyeth Allah."

 

Bukhari (52:260) - "...The Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "  Note that there is no distinction as to how that Muslim came to be a Muslim.

 

Bukhari (83:37) - "Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate."

Bukhari (84:57) - [In the words of] "Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Bukhari (89:271) - A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to "the verdict of Allah and his apostle."

 

Bukhari (84:58) - "There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, 'Who is this (man)?'  Abu Muisa said, 'He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.'  Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, 'I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.'  Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, 'Then we discussed the night prayers'"

 

Bukhari (84:64-65) - "Allah's Apostle: 'During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'"

 

Abu Dawud (4346) - "Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?"  Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to "repent" under duress.  (The person in question was Muhammad's former scribe who left him after doubting the authenticity of divine "revelations" upon finding out that he could suggest grammatical changes.  He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).

 

Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8.1 - "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed."  (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).
Islamic Law:

There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii), as well as classical Shiite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death.  The process of declaring a person to be an apostate is known as takfir and the apostate is called a murtadd.

Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: "An apostate...is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, 'Slay those who change their din [religion]'...Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition...prior to his execution."

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: "Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.... When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."

The equivalent, gravely negative implications of the OIC's Sharia-based Cairo Declaration are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10, which proclaims: "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism." Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the "punishment" of so-called "apostates" from Islam: "[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.; [22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.; [22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.; [22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith."
 

Catholic authorities say that Apostle Peter never went to Rome

Authorities: Their Testimonies

Lest we be accused of being partial in presenting evidences belying the pronouncement of the Catholic Church concerning Peter upon which its claim of being the true Church hinges, let us take some of the testimonies of different authorities, including authorities of the Catholic Church itself. Did the early fathers of the Catholic Church support the idea that Peter once served as bishop in Rome and therefore, became the first pope of the Roman Church? Boettner gives this answer:

"All of this makes it quite certain that Peter never was in Rome at all. Not one of the early church fathers gives any support to the belief that Peter was a bishop in Rome until Jerome in the fifth century." (Roman Catholicism, p. 122)

The early fathers of the Catholic Church were not convinced that Peter had become bishop of Rome or that he ever had reached the place for that matter. Notably, they were not the only ones who dismissed this belief. Even Catholic scholars reject such claim. Bishop Stephen Neill says:

"Most scholars reject as unhistorical the tradition that the Apostle Peter was, and was recognized as being, the first Bishop of Rome." (The Christian Society, p. 36)

Catholic scholars themselves who know and understand their church history belie the claim of the Catholic Church. Even archaeologists who had done exhaustive research on the matter could not find any conclusive evidence that Peter the apostle had once visited Rome and became its first bishop or pope. Let's take this revealing account:

"Exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the Catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate that Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin. L.H. Lehmann, who was educated for the priesthood at the University for the Propagation of the Faith, in Rome, tells us of a lecture by a noted Roman archaeologist, Professor Marucchi, given before his class, in which he said that no shred of evidence of Peter's having been in the Eternal City had ever been unearthed, and of another archaeologist, Di Rossi who declared that for forty years, his greatest ambition had been to unearth in Rome some inscription which would verify the papal claim that the apostle Peter was actually in Rome, but that he was forced to admit that he had given up hope of success in his search. He had the promise of handsome rewards by the church if he succeeded." (Roman Catholicism, pp. 118-119)

In spite of the concerted efforts, motivation, and promise of handsome reward from the Catholic Church, archaeologists have failed in finding decisive evidence to prove the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome or that, at least, he had reached this ancient city. And although there were some bones found in the diggings, these were of uncertain origin. The pope himself, who is supposed to be a firm believer as he is the alleged successor of Peter, was skeptical that these "bones... were really those of... Peter." In the magazine The Sunday Times, published on December 24, 1950, the Roman pontiff came out with an announcement:

"...the Pope announced officially the discovery of the tomb of Saint Peter beneath the great Basilica which bears his name. But the Pope said that it was not possible to prove with certainty that the human bones found in the tomb were really those of Saint Peter." (pp. 1,2)

The Catholic faithful should ponder on this bold but honest-to-goodness admission from no less than the supreme head of the Catholic Church. At any rate, nobody can blame the pope for doubting the authenticity of the findings. The matter of apostolic succession upon which the papacy bases its authority has been a long standing controversy in the Catholic Church. At the Vatican Council in 1870, the papacy's theory of apostolic succession came under fire from a high-ranking official of the Catholic Church, Bishop Strossmayer. He said in his speech before his fellow bishops.

"Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment." [Bishop Strossmayer's Speech (in the Vatican Council of 1870), p. 4]

Bishop Strossmayer testified that there is no trace of the papacy in the New Testament. He was that certain that he made his testimony with a solemn oath. This coming from no ordinary authority of the Catholic Church. Who was Bishop Strossmayer? Below are some data about him:

Bishop Joseph Georgre Strossmayer

"STROSSMAYER, JOSEPH GEORGE (1815-1905). Roman Catholic Bishop. Born of German parents in Croatia, he was ordained to the priesthood in 1838 and nine years later, became professor of canon law at Vienna. In 1850, he was elevated to the bishopric of Bosnien with its seat at Diakovar." ( The New Intemational Dictionary of the Christian Church)

Startling as the account may seem, this bishop delivered his speech before a great council of the Catholic Church where almost all its bishops in various parts of the world were represented. Going further into his speech, he said:

"Finding no trace of the papacy in the days of the apostles I said to myself, I shall find what I am in search of in the annals of the church. Well, I say it frankly I have sought for a pope in the first four centuries, and I have not found him." [Bishop Strossmayer's Speech (in the Vatican Council of 1870), p. 10]

Having found no trace of the papacy in the era of the apostles in the New Testament, the good bishop continued his search in the annals of church history but, alas, he found out that there was no trace of the papacy in the first four centuries after the death of the apostles either. His findings were a devastating blow on the allegation that Apostle Peter had reached Rome and served as its bishop. Said he:

"But it is said on all sides, Was not St. Peter at Rome? Was he not crucified with his head down? Are not the pulpits in which he taught, the altars at which he said the mass, in this eternal city? St. Peter having been at Rome, my venerable brethren, rests only on tradition..." (Ibid, p. 9)

There is no evidence in both the New Testament and history books that Peter ever was in Rome. Thus, the papacy's claim of apostolic succession is plainly baseless. And, instead of coming out with positive evidence for the alleged authority and infallibility of the papacy, Strossmayer came out with this revealing conclusion:

"This century is unfortunate, as for nearly 150 years the popes have fallen from all the virtues of their predecessors, and have become apostates rather than apostles' ." (Ibid, p. 20)

His words said it all. The Catholic Church is not the true Church. It is the apostate Church.

St. Peter never went to Rome

Lest we be accused of being partial in presenting evidences belying the pronouncement of the Catholic Church concerning Peter upon which its claim of being the true Church hinges, let us take some of the testimonies of different authorities, including authorities of the Catholic Church itself. Did the early fathers of the Catholic Church support the idea that Peter once served as bishop in Rome and therefore, became the first pope of the Roman Church? Boettner gives this answer:

"All of this makes it quite certain that Peter never was in Rome at all. Not one of the early church fathers gives any support to the belief that Peter was a bishop in Rome until Jerome in the fifth century." (Roman Catholicism, p. 122)

There is no historical evidence much less biblical basis, for the claim that Peter was once bishop of Rome. It is based only on legends. Author Loraine Boettner says in the book, Roman Catholicism:

"There is in fact no New Testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, Peter ever was in Rome. All rests on legend." (p. 117)

It is sad to note that what the Catholic Church gives as the "best proof" in its claim of being the true church crumbles in the light of historical facts. At best, its claim concerning Peter is based only on legends. Any student of history worth his salt knows that testimonies based on traditions and legends are not reliable at all.

"We may note, however, that there was no foundation for the claim of the Roman Church that Peter was bishop of Rome for twenty-five years from 42 to 67 A.D." (The Story of the Church, pp. 14-15)

JOSE RIZAL EXPOSE

Catholic statue of Mary and child Jesus similar to Isis

Different faces of Jesus Christ of the Catholics

 

Jesus who is a True God should not be depicted by art and then use it for worshipping Him.

Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 

Worshipping Him should be in Spirit as mentioned in John 4:24.

A Spirit has no physical form that cannot be touch or see similar to the human body

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

It means worshipping the true God like Lord Jesus should never include graven images or pictures depicting Him to be used in worship.