Answering aerial on 666- title of the pope.


he said:

“Kaya nga ang sabi ko pa nga ng aking sinipi ito ay: At dahil sa pinuna ng isa nating kapatid sa kaniyang COMMENTS section, na NAGKAKONTRAHAN ang kaniyang mga SINABI ay ganito ang kaniyang naging PALUSOT:
“oopss, there’s a mistake to my statement before, the one I am referring is the pope. THAT’S WHY I AM SPEAKING ALL THE TIME IN HERE ABOUT THE INCS CLAIM OF 666 AS THE TITLE OF THE POPE, NOT OF THE CHURCH. SO SORRY FOR THE TYPO ERROR HUH?”
Isa raw TYPO ERROR ang kaniyang nasabi, hehehehe.  Lumipas pa ang ilang sagutan namin at kung hindi pa may nag COMMENT na Kapatid, ay hindi pa niya mapapansin ang kaniyang pagkakamali, kahit na makikita ninyo sa kaniyang BLOG ay sinipi pa niya ang kaniyang SINABI na sinabi daw ng PASUGO NA ANG IGLESIA KATOLIKA ANG DIUMANO’Y ANG 666…kaya maliwanag na NAGPAPALUSOT para MAKAIWAS sa KAHIHIYAN ang magiting na CATHOLIC DEFENDER….”
 
sagot: there’s nothing wrong if someone who commits typo errors in the internet will ask for an apology, so in that case, I did it in order for the readers to understand what I mean, it is already a fact that I commented at the comment box that it is not my intention to confuse the readers regarding the mistake that I wrote that instead of writing “the pope” –I used “Catholic Church”— but the case is not about what I wrongly wrote but on the position that I stated to which I regard it to the pope and not to the Catholic Church. I won’t be able to emphasize it more since I already stated already the public apology through comment in my personal blog, is that not easy for you to understand? or your only way in order to insist that the description of Vicarius Filii Dei is really used by the pope as a title. remember, there is a difference between description and a title.
 
the dictionary states that:
 
description= label – a brief description given for purposes of identification; “the label Modern is applied to many different kinds of architecture”
 
 
title- (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a definite spiritual charge or office in the church, without appointment to which a candidate for holy orders cannot lawfully be ordained
 
 
As I said, though some knowledgeable latin writers had written Vicarius Filii Dei as a sort of description to the pope, in no ways you can see to ANY PICTURES OF THE TIARA that the kind of description is used to be the title of the pope.
 
Let me post again  pictures of the tiaras and some popes who it during their time:
 
 
 

the problem with the argument of Aerial is that he is not anymore emphasizing what the “Pasugo, September 1976 issue” stated in there, here’s the picture of their pasugo together on how they insisted that there’s an inscryption of Vicarius Filii Dei to the tiara.

this is a copy of their September 1976 issue of Pasugo

when we open the article, they argued that the pope is wearing a tiara that has an inscryption of Vicarius Filii Dei on its forehead:

Pasugo 1976 issue talks about the papal tiara

as we are going to zoom the page, they calculated it according to what I claim that the INC adhered to the accusations also of the Seventh Day Adventists regarding the title. Take note the title.

It is funny that Mr. Aerial cannot support their publication’s claims and resorted that it is not about how that title can be seen on the tiara but on how the authority is done. [rephrasing mine]. but the truth is that the pasugo issue had done it and made a big deal for that theory, now let the readers decide, how can a mere Mr., Aerial contradict the article written at the Pasugo? who is he, the head of Iglesia ni kristo [manalo]?

now he reiterated to us again, revelations 13, so since he is really trying to insist that the verse pertains to the pope, let me exegete the verse for the people’s enlightenment.

Rev. 13: 11 

” And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth: and he had two horns, like a lamb: and he spoke as a dragon.”

now, let me tell you readers that the verse is not speaking-alone to future events, but this is implying present events during the period of St. John the Evangelist’s preaching to the people in an apocalyptic way.

When the first line says:

“And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth”,  what does it mean? this speaks to the false prophets—they are those who preach another gospel contrary to the church made by Christ—twisting the gospel and twisting its meaning.

who are those false prophets?

2 Pet 2:1 [NIV] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves.

you can read on that passage that it demonstrate to false preachers who will divert the faithful to heresies and the like. Who are these false prophets nowadays?

simple, they are organized denominations who accused that there was a complete apostasy to the church made by Christ in the first century. The question is, where can we find in the Bible and History that those events happened?

The Bible is already clear that Jesus will never abandon His church and no evil will prevail against it.

Matthew 16: 18 [New Living Translation]

Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.

and who are those churches assumed that there was an apostasy[ complete apostasy] of the church made by Christ in the 1st century? I know you that you know also it Aerial.

Now, Mr. Aerial asserted that the meaning of representative will also define any particular cloning of the power of Jesus, that is false because as we can see, the definition itself would not define anything that the power/authority of theleader will also be possessed to a congressman.

 

If we will take a closer look to the definition of representative, we can read this:

 

Representative- adjective

  1. representing or serving to represent; specif.,
  2. picturing; portraying; reproducing

http://www.yourdictionary.com/representative

one might be confused to the word “portraying”, what is portraying?

Portray- to make a picture or portrait of; depict;

As you can see, since the pope portrays the authority vested on him, he only followed what the bible stated on the responsibility given to St. peter on the gospel. I already stated in here the verse and it is up for Aerial to understand what I the Bible says.

Now, what truly is being a representative? Is it all about cloning Jesus’ deeds? Or obeying the commandment and the authority vested on him? I think Aerial did not get this part.

  1. #1 by Christian on August 26, 2011 - 7:23 am

    HIndi makita ng maliwanag kung ano ang nakalagay sa PASUGO, kapag ito ay isinu-ZOOM, nais kong MABASA ang SINASABI SA BUONG PAGE.

    Makipost mo ang mas MALINAW na KOPYA ng PASUGO.

    Sinasagot ni BROD. AERIAL nang malinaw ang iyong mga sinasabi.

    Kaya makapagkukumpara kami ng maayos. at makikita namin ng maliwanag kung sino talaga ang nagsasabi ng totoo.

    I WILL NOT POST ON YOUR BLOG ANYMORE, Gusto ko na lamang maging EXPECTATORS sa sagutan ninyong dalawa.

    PLEASE MAKIPOST ANG MAS MALINAW NA KOPYA NG PASUGO, DAHIL NAIS KONG MABASA NG MALIWANAG ANG NAKALAGAY SA BUONG PAGE.

    • #2 by flewen on August 26, 2011 - 7:50 am

      kahit hindi na izoom christian, it is a clear proof that your church adhered to the notion of the seventh day adventists. If not, then you should not have been posting the sunday visitor article, it is a clear admission of aerial in his blog that the sunday visitor admitted that the claim that they first stated in their publication is a mistake, that’s why they mentioned that it is not the title of the pope, aerial even laughed at it and said it is a contradiction and the wikipedia article about it was edited. well, it is true that the wikipedia articles can be edited, but the footnotes on it as you click them will direct you to the source of the wikipedia article. and that cannot be edited.

  2. #3 by Sidewinder on August 27, 2011 - 4:21 am

    Brod Christian,

    Hindi Pasugo yan, Iyan yung karugtong ng Ginawa ni Wendell Talibong dun sa kanyang Blog.
    Haha. At yan din yung ibinibintang ni Mariposa. Tingnan mo yung Footer sa Ibaba. Pareho nung kay Talibong. Itong si Flewen nagpapaniwala ka Palsipikador Talibong. Haha

    • #4 by flewen on August 27, 2011 - 4:30 am

      anong hindi pasugo iyan? were you able to watch the debate of Mr. Karl Keating and Mr. Ventilacion? prove to me that what he showed during their debate was wrong.

  3. #5 by Sidewinder on August 27, 2011 - 4:28 am

    eto ang link: http://catholicfaithdefenders.com/category/wendell-talibong, yan din yung Pasugo Isyu umano na 1964 Isyu. hehe. Pero ang totoo hindi yan ang Isyu ng Pasugo noong July 1964.
    Tingnan mo yung Footer Brod Christian. Nasa dulo. Si Cyrus the Great na sinabihan ko ng Butterfly na ngayon ay Mariposa. ahaha. BFF silang tatlo, si Flewen, si Mariposa, at si Talibong.

    • #6 by flewen on August 27, 2011 - 4:32 am

      anong 1964 issue? I was talking in here about the September 1976 issue, is that not obvious to you?

    • #7 by flewen on August 27, 2011 - 5:29 am

      eto ang link: http://catholicfaithdefenders.com/category/wendell-talibong, yan din yung Pasugo Isyu umano na 1964 Isyu. hehe. Pero ang totoo hindi yan ang Isyu ng Pasugo noong July 1964.
      Tingnan mo yung Footer Brod Christian. Nasa dulo. Si Cyrus the Great na sinabihan ko ng Butterfly na ngayon ay Mariposa. ahaha. BFF silang tatlo, si Flewen, si Mariposa, at si Talibong.

      ikaw talaga..nakalagay nga doon eh “PASUGO ! JULY…” papaanong hindi july 1964 yun?

  4. #8 by Sidewinder on August 27, 2011 - 6:10 am

    flewen, flewen, my friend hindi mo ako malilinlang, Wala pa akong footer na nakikitang ganun sa aming Pasugo kaya sorry. Oo Pasugo, tapos may July pero nasaan ang 1964? Kulang my Friend. At yang ipinakita mong Pasugo Copy (kuno) ay katulad nung kay Talibong so Sorry, hindi mo ako kayang linlangin its the same Flewen, look at the Footer my Friend.

    • #9 by flewen on August 27, 2011 - 7:17 am

      i don;t know, but one thing for sure, I am talking about september 1976 of pasugo…and with regards to the 1964 issue, let yourself argue with mr. wendell talibong in their site…remember, this issue was also been published and debated during mr. ventilacion and mr. karl keating’s debate in the U.S.A.

    • #10 by flewen on August 27, 2011 - 9:54 am

      btw, when you are asking for the whole copy of it, make sure also that every time your co-INC are showing quotations from a ctholic source, they should have also brought with them their book or the like and post it somewhere else in the internet world, but the problem is that even at the sunday visitor source that you have, you cannot provide to us the whole development of their publish from the time they claimed that there was an inscryption to the time they accepted the fact that there wasn’t. tablahan lang iyan diba?

  5. #11 by Sidewinder on August 27, 2011 - 7:51 am

    It’s the SAME Flewen, there is no date 1976, where is the serial number of that. If that is the Pasugo 1976. And most of all what MONTH issue is that. Your source is UNRELIABLE, and also YOU ARE UNRELIABLE. isn’t it. Di ba Flewen napaka irresponsible ang dating mo nyan sa mga Nagbabasa ng Blogs mo. make your source RELIABLE. Para hindi lalabas na yung mga Pinaglalagay mo sa Blogs mo eh puro kasinungalingan. Di ba Flewen.

    • #12 by flewen on August 27, 2011 - 9:39 am

      during the debate of mr. karl keating and mr. ventilacion, your INC debater never criticized the copy of the pasugo of mr. karl keating. If you ever watched the debate, you would see the same content from what I showed you here. If you are really a member of the INC, you should have searched in your archives those copies for verification. As I said, this copy were also the copy used by mr. Karl Keating and the religion world accepted it as true.

  6. #13 by Sidewinder on August 28, 2011 - 3:59 am

    Flewen, tingnan mo nga yang ipinost mo, nasaan ang Month ng Pasugo na iyan, nasaan ang 1976 na taon diyan wala Flewen. Putol at kulang ang Post mo. Haha, ipinagmalaki mo pa si Karl Keating, eh kulang na nga lang magtago yun sa ilalim ng Lamesa nya dahil sa kahihiyang inabot nya, sa Kapatid naming Ministro na si Brod Jose Ventilacion, sinasabi mong yan ang Source mo eh wala namang ipinakitang Pasugo si Karl Keating. Puro kayo mga HEARSAY, diyan kayo sanay. Sige observe muna ako sa inyo ni Brod AC. Hanggang ngayon kasi hindi mo matutulan ang mga Point namin.

    • #14 by flewen on August 28, 2011 - 4:10 am

      obvoius iyan sa lahat ng mga writeups at even sa debate nila ventilacion at ni mr. karl keating, my source is also used by him and mr. ventilacaion did not say anything in opposition to his source…

      kayo kayo lang ngayon ang kumukuwestiyon niyan dahil alam niyo na ang position ninyo ngayon is different from what was the position of your brethren before.,

  7. #15 by jokingonlee on September 22, 2011 - 3:26 am

    You said “As you can see, since the pope portrays the authority vested on him, he only followed what the bible stated on the responsibility given to St. peter on the gospel. ”

    Well you can argue on that based on what think about the term but if the Pope is just a representative or not exactly like Christ. Then that would be your defense. For this fact proves what your saying is just your opinion to defend your faith.

    On the question if the Catholics belief on whether or not the POPE is being portrayed as Christ representative or being made to be christ on earth can be put t rest dear. For your authorities ADMITTED on that belief long ago:

    “THE POPE IS NOT ONLY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF JESUS CHRIST, HE IS JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, hidden under the veil of flesh.” [Catholic National, July 1895]

    So the Pope is not merely a REPRESENTATIVE but JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF… imagine that. Whatever you may argue dear Flewen. it is just a lame defense on your belief for your authorities even PUBLISHED the Catholic church STAND on this matter.

    Your mentors even went a bit further in placing the Pope as a god. Imagine that.

    “We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty”
    Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894

    Father A. Pereira says: “It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title ‘Lord God the Pope,’ for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII.”

    Writers on the Canon Law say, “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth.” Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. – Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.

    Imagine that the Pope and God are the SAME. Hindi naman ito katakataka dahil pinagPAUNA ng mga Apostol ang ukol TAONG MAKASALANAN na nagtatanyag sa kaniyang sarili na tulad sa Dios:

    2 Tessalonica 2:3-4 “… NA SIYA’Y NAGTATANYAG SA KANIYANG SARILI NA TULAD SA DIOS.”

    Wala pong layunin ang INC na manira kungdi IHAYAG ang KATOTOHANAN. At di upang makapanakit ng damdamin ninyo kungdi upang ihayag ang KATOTOHANAN na pinagPAUNA ng mga apostol.

    You may not easily accept this truth. But it is clear. It is not the INC who said that about your Pope but your church authorities. They ATTEST to that TEACHING. And were found to be what the apostle EXACTLY forwarned about.

    Mga taong MAKASALANAN. di po ba?

    • #16 by flewen on September 30, 2011 - 4:55 pm

      the point of the encycical letters that provides quotations that the pope and God are the same if taken out of context would initially support your claim, but if we will really read the whole document [as I suppose you have it if you are not bias] will only explain the authority of the pope in which if God is only present physically to our planet will have equal when it comes t decisions of the church when it comes to church doctrines and not to his personal role as a mere human being. Please bear that in mind. If you can post to us the whole document, then I could further emphasize to you what I mean in order not to mislead you with that initial understanding on the title issue. I am a Catholic and even to those who are nominal one, we never equate the pope and God when we talk about personal moral aspects but we equate them if we will understand the point that according to the Church;s practice and its Biblical connections to the life of St. Peter, He [Jesus] entrusted His flock to a mere man and whoever he/she retains shall be, and whoever shall not, will not.

  8. #17 by bikiplamtrang.com on June 4, 2013 - 11:20 am

    Excellent post. I used to be checking constantly this blog and I’m impressed! Extremely useful info specially the final phase🙂 I care for such information much. I was seeking this particular information for a very long time. Thank you and good luck.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: