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”

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/description

 

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

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/title

 

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.