For a full track, please visit www.biblechristiansociety.com
Speaker: John Martignoni
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Sola Scriptura - The Bible Alone?
Visit: www.BibleChristianSociety.com to download full talk(s)
Such as Mary in the Bible, Purgatory and Rapture
Courtesy: John Martignoni - Speaker
Such as Mary in the Bible, Purgatory and Rapture
Courtesy: John Martignoni - Speaker
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Question 4 and 5: Inside Islam
Question 4:
What is the difference between the terms “Muslim” and “Islam”?
Islam is the name of the religion itself. It means, in Arabic “submission to the will of Allah” Muslim is a related word that can be roughly translated as “one who submits” to Allah and his will. A Muslim, then, is someone who believes in Islam.
Question 5:
I have heard that “Islam” means peace. Is this true?
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, many people (including President George W. Bush) have asserted that Islam means “peace” It is true that salaam (peace) and Islam submission share the same Arabic root. The word Muslim means “one who submits [that is, surrenders himself] to the will of Allah.” But its broader meaning extends, to any person of any faith who surrenders himself to GOD’s will. This use is similar to the Christian’s use of term believer. However, Muslims most often use it to refer to someone who believes in the religion of Islam.
Muslims also use another word to refer to a believer in Islam: Mu’men, which literally means “believer.” Westerners may have heard this term in reference to Afghanistan’s Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban, who proclaimed himself “Emir al Mu’menin” (Prince [ or Leader ] of the Believers). The two terms Muslim and Mu’men are used interchangeably in Arabic, and there is no clear distinction between them.
“Request to my blog readers to please refrain from making any derogatory comments about the Islamic faith. This is just a general knowledge sharing blog about the faith” thank you.
Reference:
Inside Islam “A guide for Catholics” – 100 Questions and Answers – Authored by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer. Ascension Press, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
What is the difference between the terms “Muslim” and “Islam”?
Islam is the name of the religion itself. It means, in Arabic “submission to the will of Allah” Muslim is a related word that can be roughly translated as “one who submits” to Allah and his will. A Muslim, then, is someone who believes in Islam.
Question 5:
I have heard that “Islam” means peace. Is this true?
Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, many people (including President George W. Bush) have asserted that Islam means “peace” It is true that salaam (peace) and Islam submission share the same Arabic root. The word Muslim means “one who submits [that is, surrenders himself] to the will of Allah.” But its broader meaning extends, to any person of any faith who surrenders himself to GOD’s will. This use is similar to the Christian’s use of term believer. However, Muslims most often use it to refer to someone who believes in the religion of Islam.
Muslims also use another word to refer to a believer in Islam: Mu’men, which literally means “believer.” Westerners may have heard this term in reference to Afghanistan’s Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban, who proclaimed himself “Emir al Mu’menin” (Prince [ or Leader ] of the Believers). The two terms Muslim and Mu’men are used interchangeably in Arabic, and there is no clear distinction between them.
“Request to my blog readers to please refrain from making any derogatory comments about the Islamic faith. This is just a general knowledge sharing blog about the faith” thank you.
Reference:
Inside Islam “A guide for Catholics” – 100 Questions and Answers – Authored by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer. Ascension Press, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
QUESTION 2 - Inside Islam.
I have heard that the number of Muslims is rapidly increasing each year throughout the world. Is this true?
Answer is “yes”, Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. The mail reason for this trend is population growth, through adult converts make up a significant portion of Islam’s expansion as well. The number of Muslims in the world is increasing faster than the world population as a whole. In addition, those who proselytize for Islam are aggressive, well-prepared, and successful. Islam is sweeping through Africa and gaining ground in former Catholic bastions such as the Philippines. In the West, a few high profile converts – such as Muhammad Ali, Cat Stevens, Mike Tyson, Ahmad Rashad, and NBA stars Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Larry Johnson, Mahmood Abdul Rauf, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, and Shareef Abdur-Rahim have given Islam an aura of cool. In the United States there are now about as many Muslims as there are Jews and more Muslims than Presbyterians. Over the past forty years, Islam has also made significant inroads among African Americans, as witnessed by the rise of the Nation of Islam and other Black Muslim groups (although traditional Sunni and Shiite Muslims consider the Nation of Islam and similar sects to be heretical).
Far from suffering a drop-off after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Muslim groups have claimed a large influx of converts in the United States and Europe. Meanwhile, huge numbers of immigrants have given Islam the foothold in Europe that warriors of jihad could never gain for it. In the Netherlands, France and Germany, Muslims are becoming a political and religious force that cannot be ignored.
Even if population trends change, immigration stops, and Muslim missionary efforts cease, Islam looks to be significantly stronger worldwide in the new century than it has been in ages. While millions of Catholics have bought into the one-or-two child mentality of secular Europe and North America, Islamic societies are rapidly increasing in numbers. If current trends continue – and there is no reason to think that they will not – Europe will make up just 7.5 percent of world’s people by 2050, compared to 22 percent in 1950.
At the same time, the countries with the most youthful populations will all be Muslim: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Iraq. Worldwide trends indicate that by 2050, Muslims will comprise 30 percent of the world’s population, with Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) making up 25 percent. In 1900 by comparison only 12.4 percent of the world’s population was Muslim, with Christians comprising nearly 27 percent.
In summary, Islam is growing more quickly in the Western world today than at any other time in history for three main reasons:
1. Muslim are simply having more children than both Christian and non-Christian Westerners
2. Liberal immigration laws have allowed for rapidly growing Muslims populations throughout the West (particularly in the Netherlands, France and Germany, countries where the Muslim community is already a significant voice in public affairs)
3. Muslim proselytism results in many conversions
As much of the simplicity of Islam is attractive to people one of the main reasons for conversions among Westerners from Christianity to Islam are dissatisfactions with Christian religious figures and what seems to be an endless wave of scandals. Moreover, the decay of Western culture is seen from the Muslims perspective as a failure of Christianity to provide adequate grounding for society.
“Request to my blog readers to please refrain from making any derogatory comments about the Islamic faith. This is just a general knowledge sharing blog about the faith” thank you.
Reference:
Inside Islam “A guide for Catholics” – 100 Questions and Answers – Authored by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer. Ascension Press, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Answer is “yes”, Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. The mail reason for this trend is population growth, through adult converts make up a significant portion of Islam’s expansion as well. The number of Muslims in the world is increasing faster than the world population as a whole. In addition, those who proselytize for Islam are aggressive, well-prepared, and successful. Islam is sweeping through Africa and gaining ground in former Catholic bastions such as the Philippines. In the West, a few high profile converts – such as Muhammad Ali, Cat Stevens, Mike Tyson, Ahmad Rashad, and NBA stars Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Larry Johnson, Mahmood Abdul Rauf, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, and Shareef Abdur-Rahim have given Islam an aura of cool. In the United States there are now about as many Muslims as there are Jews and more Muslims than Presbyterians. Over the past forty years, Islam has also made significant inroads among African Americans, as witnessed by the rise of the Nation of Islam and other Black Muslim groups (although traditional Sunni and Shiite Muslims consider the Nation of Islam and similar sects to be heretical).
Far from suffering a drop-off after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Muslim groups have claimed a large influx of converts in the United States and Europe. Meanwhile, huge numbers of immigrants have given Islam the foothold in Europe that warriors of jihad could never gain for it. In the Netherlands, France and Germany, Muslims are becoming a political and religious force that cannot be ignored.
Even if population trends change, immigration stops, and Muslim missionary efforts cease, Islam looks to be significantly stronger worldwide in the new century than it has been in ages. While millions of Catholics have bought into the one-or-two child mentality of secular Europe and North America, Islamic societies are rapidly increasing in numbers. If current trends continue – and there is no reason to think that they will not – Europe will make up just 7.5 percent of world’s people by 2050, compared to 22 percent in 1950.
At the same time, the countries with the most youthful populations will all be Muslim: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Iraq. Worldwide trends indicate that by 2050, Muslims will comprise 30 percent of the world’s population, with Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) making up 25 percent. In 1900 by comparison only 12.4 percent of the world’s population was Muslim, with Christians comprising nearly 27 percent.
In summary, Islam is growing more quickly in the Western world today than at any other time in history for three main reasons:
1. Muslim are simply having more children than both Christian and non-Christian Westerners
2. Liberal immigration laws have allowed for rapidly growing Muslims populations throughout the West (particularly in the Netherlands, France and Germany, countries where the Muslim community is already a significant voice in public affairs)
3. Muslim proselytism results in many conversions
As much of the simplicity of Islam is attractive to people one of the main reasons for conversions among Westerners from Christianity to Islam are dissatisfactions with Christian religious figures and what seems to be an endless wave of scandals. Moreover, the decay of Western culture is seen from the Muslims perspective as a failure of Christianity to provide adequate grounding for society.
“Request to my blog readers to please refrain from making any derogatory comments about the Islamic faith. This is just a general knowledge sharing blog about the faith” thank you.
Reference:
Inside Islam “A guide for Catholics” – 100 Questions and Answers – Authored by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer. Ascension Press, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Islam - A Guide for Catholics 100 Q & A
This blog is written straight from a book that I have started reading "Inside Islam - A guide for Catholics" There are a total of 100 questions and answers. Book was authored by Daniel Ali a convert to Catholicism from Islam in 1998 and by Robert Spencer who has authored two pervious books on Islam.
So, here we go. Please keep in mind I am taking this straight from the book. No, changes are being added, nor am I giving an narrative or my opinion on the subject. No, offense to my Muslim Brothers and Sisters, friends, colleagues and family. These questions will be selected based on the content, which will the audience a general idea about Islam, it origin and its present state and how Catholic and Christians can understand the faith of our Muslims brothers and answer them if asked about Christian faith, in retrospect of tradition and belief.
I will try to my best to add as many questions and answers per blog, provided there are 100 questions and out which I will need to select them based on the content, that is not offensive to any of the blog reading audience.
Questions 1:
What is Islam?
Islam is the religion of more than a billion people on earth – a far cry from its humble and obscure beginnings in seventh-century Arabia. Islam is the dominant faith in over fifty countries stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. It is generally classified as one of the three great monotheistic religions along with Judaism and Christianity, and it contains numerous ties to Judeo-Christian tradition. Muslims worship one GOD, Allah, and they revere the man they consider to have been His last and greatest prophet, Muhammad, seventh-century Arabian.
Also, this is my request to my blog readers to please refrain from making any derogatory comments about the Islamic faith. This is just a general knowledge sharing blog about the faith(s).
Reference:
Inside Islam “A guide for Catholics” – 100 Questions and Answers – Authored by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer. Ascension Press, West Chester, Pennsylvania.West Chester, Pennsylvania.
So, here we go. Please keep in mind I am taking this straight from the book. No, changes are being added, nor am I giving an narrative or my opinion on the subject. No, offense to my Muslim Brothers and Sisters, friends, colleagues and family. These questions will be selected based on the content, which will the audience a general idea about Islam, it origin and its present state and how Catholic and Christians can understand the faith of our Muslims brothers and answer them if asked about Christian faith, in retrospect of tradition and belief.
I will try to my best to add as many questions and answers per blog, provided there are 100 questions and out which I will need to select them based on the content, that is not offensive to any of the blog reading audience.
Questions 1:
What is Islam?
Islam is the religion of more than a billion people on earth – a far cry from its humble and obscure beginnings in seventh-century Arabia. Islam is the dominant faith in over fifty countries stretching from Morocco to Indonesia. It is generally classified as one of the three great monotheistic religions along with Judaism and Christianity, and it contains numerous ties to Judeo-Christian tradition. Muslims worship one GOD, Allah, and they revere the man they consider to have been His last and greatest prophet, Muhammad, seventh-century Arabian.
Also, this is my request to my blog readers to please refrain from making any derogatory comments about the Islamic faith. This is just a general knowledge sharing blog about the faith(s).
Reference:
Inside Islam “A guide for Catholics” – 100 Questions and Answers – Authored by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer. Ascension Press, West Chester, Pennsylvania.West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
HUMAN RACE?
How would you define the human species? Are humans all good by nature; Evil or completely misunderstood? That is the questions. This article I wrote is solely based on my opinion, my experiences, my struggles to understand the human race and bares no ill harm against any one person, gender, group(s) based on their belief, race, back ground, culture and personality.
Humans in general can be described as kind, good willed, good natured or are they? Deceitful, manipulative and pure evil. Majority of humans if they were to evaluate themselves based on their conscience, and if asked what type of person they are? Would say they are kind, harmless are good natured and open to helping others. However, on the flip side of the spectrum, there are quite a few people who either understand themselves better or have grown to learn more about themselves would describe themselves as people who are riddled with secrets, deception, and have the ability to manipulate others for self betterment and some go to the extent of pure evil, malice towards their own kind.
Humans in general can be described as kind, good willed, good natured or are they? Deceitful, manipulative and pure evil. Majority of humans if they were to evaluate themselves based on their conscience, and if asked what type of person they are? Would say they are kind, harmless are good natured and open to helping others. However, on the flip side of the spectrum, there are quite a few people who either understand themselves better or have grown to learn more about themselves would describe themselves as people who are riddled with secrets, deception, and have the ability to manipulate others for self betterment and some go to the extent of pure evil, malice towards their own kind.
Now, do understand no one will come out and announce they have pure evil intent against mankind, but secretly in the deepest darkest corners of their heart know what evil they contain in themselves from a serial murder to Corporate officer that embezzles, Wall Street executive with a ponzi scheme, cheating spouse, a worker who in their work ethics might be very decietful.
Let's take this a bit further: Can one derive to the conclusion as to which gender might be more prone to more deceit, or can initiate deception, act in malice and could easily cheat? In his case, both sexes display equal attributes towards kindness, loyalty and can have great malice, can be vindictive and deceitful. In other words, we are born with both trails of good and evil, our environment plays a major role and our surrounding, and past, present situations encourage the action.
For example, let’s date back to our first parents, because of their regression man kind fell into peril. Now, who should we blame the woman or the man who committed the fall. Both are equal contributors to the act, but one had an upper hand or can be called the instigator. As a married, man I am not blaming the woman for the act of deceit, we know it all stemmed from the dark Lord “Satan”. But, the question is who sinned first the woman or the man. Who ate the Apple first, we clearly know from the Biblical text it was the woman. If so, then her eyes were open to sin first and had committed "the first act of sin" and offered the man to become part of the act as well, now we know it wasn’t the act of intercourse, that most scholars suggest. Because GOD made woman and man to share their life, love and wanted them to consummate their marriage. So it cannot be sex or the act of intercourse. It had to be the forbidden fruit, which is usually portrayed as an “Apple”.
However, if we examine the above listed scenario, we can easily pickup traces of manipulation. Male gender with ease can be manipulated, not to say Male gender cannot manipulate as well, as I stated before both sexes have the attributes and with free will; display and can act towards good and evil. Not, to be bias to my gender - Woman can easily manipulate us with their charm, sex appeal and beauty, just look back in history kings and kingdoms have been destroyed behind a woman for a woman and by a woman.
Let's take this a bit further: Can one derive to the conclusion as to which gender might be more prone to more deceit, or can initiate deception, act in malice and could easily cheat? In his case, both sexes display equal attributes towards kindness, loyalty and can have great malice, can be vindictive and deceitful. In other words, we are born with both trails of good and evil, our environment plays a major role and our surrounding, and past, present situations encourage the action.
For example, let’s date back to our first parents, because of their regression man kind fell into peril. Now, who should we blame the woman or the man who committed the fall. Both are equal contributors to the act, but one had an upper hand or can be called the instigator. As a married, man I am not blaming the woman for the act of deceit, we know it all stemmed from the dark Lord “Satan”. But, the question is who sinned first the woman or the man. Who ate the Apple first, we clearly know from the Biblical text it was the woman. If so, then her eyes were open to sin first and had committed "the first act of sin" and offered the man to become part of the act as well, now we know it wasn’t the act of intercourse, that most scholars suggest. Because GOD made woman and man to share their life, love and wanted them to consummate their marriage. So it cannot be sex or the act of intercourse. It had to be the forbidden fruit, which is usually portrayed as an “Apple”.
However, if we examine the above listed scenario, we can easily pickup traces of manipulation. Male gender with ease can be manipulated, not to say Male gender cannot manipulate as well, as I stated before both sexes have the attributes and with free will; display and can act towards good and evil. Not, to be bias to my gender - Woman can easily manipulate us with their charm, sex appeal and beauty, just look back in history kings and kingdoms have been destroyed behind a woman for a woman and by a woman.
Than, one can argue males have destroyed nations and annulated race because of evil, hatred. So, the balance swings both ways no one gender can contest to sainthood, sorry boys and girls score is 1 for 1. Thanks for reading, unfortunately human race is as complex species and a piece of work.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
"TRINITY" & "SIGN OF THE CROSS"
Trinity
The doctrine of Trinity is Biblical, even though the word “Trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible from cover to cover. However, you can find Biblical references that point towards one GOD with three divine natures; Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (spirit). Let’s look at Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
Now, the mentioned of Trinity is not unique to the Gospel of Matthew, but referencing GOD the head and its three persons is found elsewhere in the New Testament for example 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb 9-14 and many more reference could be found. Furthermore, you find the mention of Trinity in the writings of the early Church Fathers. They clearly understood the teachings of the Apostles, who were their predecessors by means of oral traditions and their writings.
Let me mention a few of the early Christians and their writings which point towards the divinity of Christ and his relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit – If we explore the Didache (1st century writings of the early Christians – 70 AD). “After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water….If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]). So, in other words the power of the Trinity can release us from the bondage of sin and give us entry to GOD’s kingdom in heaven. Please note; water is essential and is the essence of life, another topic which I must write in the future about. Anyhow, back to what the Didache the writing of the early Christians references to is “Trinity” GOD head and three persons; Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Also, you must understand that early Christians were apprentices of the Apostles and successor to the Apostles. These Apostles passed on Christians teachings orally and in written forms. There are many more writers and due to lack of time I will only mention a very few: Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Hippolytus etc.
Just to prove the point here’s an example of Justin Martyr (First Apology 13:5-6 [A.D. 151]) writings – “We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true GOD himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal GOD, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” Now, let’s briefly look at this statement; the author mentions clearly about the Trinity. However, do notice that Justin is either refuting a claim or writing in rebuttal to the one’s accusing the early Christians about “Trinity” The reason I mention this is because the early Church was faced with heresy, schisms and non believers of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. So, it is not unusual to see in our world today that people do not believe in the “Trinity” and the second nature of GOD that is the SON of GOD.
At this point, let’s practice some apologetics – defending the doctrine of Trinity.
Bible teaches us about one GOD as mentioned above in Matthew 28:19 about the Son and Holy Spirit, which total three persons and possess the nature of GOD. Now, for some people this doctrine is very difficult to understand or in other word is a mystery of GOD that most Catholics don’t understand and even if they do; they cannot explain or defend this doctrine. To explain this doctrine of faith or in other word most non Catholic call this illogical or unreasonable doctrine. You must first explain the difference between “being” and “person”. “Being”, can be described as “What” and Person as “Who”? For example, pointing to my wife, the question would be “What is she?” first answer would be she is a human being. The question of “Who is she?” can be answered as “Samantha”.
“All persons are beings, but not all beings are persons. For example, you are one being and one person. But a dog is one being and zero persons. With regard to the Trinity, there is one being, which is GOD, yet there are there persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is not illogical. If one were to say that there is one GOD and three Gods, or one Person and three Persons – that would be illogical. But one being and three Persons is not contradiction”. (Catholic.com)
Another argument that is most often used by most non-Christians is the “why the Jews didn’t know that – Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one GOD. Why does their great prayer only mention of one GOD. “Hear O Israel, the Lord thy GOD is one GOD”
Let me explain and give you a better defense to such illogical argument. First of all there is no mention of Triune in the Old Testament. Nor did Jesus upon his arrival to earth in a manger announce his divinity and neither did GOD stand on Mount Sinai gave Moses the explanation of the three distinct persons who are one in the being and nature, existing consubstantially and eternal. Understanding GOD the Father and the three persons has been gradual over time, since the beginning of time. Just imagine we are still having problems fully comprehending what GOD truly is, just think if GOD wouldn’t have gradually revealed himself, man kind would have had a melt down. As, Jesus said, “I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present” (John 16:12) hopefully, upon our arrival in heaven will explain everything. Till then, keep exploring and reading Christian doctrine, especially the writings of the early Church Fathers who saw and understood first hand account of Jesus’ teaching.
Sign of the Cross: Not sure why most Christian denomination refute on making the sign of the cross on themselves. Even though five centuries ago Protestants agreed with Catholics despite their rebellion against the Church on adding cross as a symbol of Christianity on their Bibles, Pulpits, steeples and car bumpers. They fail to understand the making the sign of cross is ancient and scriptural. Word of GOD, man incarnate came for the salvation of mankind, he was born, and he suffered and died. He came to redeem ransom and restore his people – his Church. We should place the cross on ourselves as a reminder of the reality of the Crucifixion. Early Christian writing shows us that the sign of the cross was made and used regularly in all travels and movements, as apologist Tertullian wrote “In our coming in and going out, in putting our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candies. In lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross.”
I hope my brothers and sisters in Christ; that the divinity of Christ and Trinity of GOD the Father, his only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit makes sense after reading my brief explanation. This topic is huge, but I have tried my best to answer and explain to my ability what Trinity means and why we must make the Sign of the Cross every moment of our being here on earth. Make the cross and you will always have his protection and grace upon you, your children and families. Walk with GOD and stay blessed.
Reference: www.Catholic.com
The doctrine of Trinity is Biblical, even though the word “Trinity” is not mentioned in the Bible from cover to cover. However, you can find Biblical references that point towards one GOD with three divine natures; Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost (spirit). Let’s look at Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”
Now, the mentioned of Trinity is not unique to the Gospel of Matthew, but referencing GOD the head and its three persons is found elsewhere in the New Testament for example 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb 9-14 and many more reference could be found. Furthermore, you find the mention of Trinity in the writings of the early Church Fathers. They clearly understood the teachings of the Apostles, who were their predecessors by means of oral traditions and their writings.
Let me mention a few of the early Christians and their writings which point towards the divinity of Christ and his relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit – If we explore the Didache (1st century writings of the early Christians – 70 AD). “After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water….If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]). So, in other words the power of the Trinity can release us from the bondage of sin and give us entry to GOD’s kingdom in heaven. Please note; water is essential and is the essence of life, another topic which I must write in the future about. Anyhow, back to what the Didache the writing of the early Christians references to is “Trinity” GOD head and three persons; Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Also, you must understand that early Christians were apprentices of the Apostles and successor to the Apostles. These Apostles passed on Christians teachings orally and in written forms. There are many more writers and due to lack of time I will only mention a very few: Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Hippolytus etc.
Just to prove the point here’s an example of Justin Martyr (First Apology 13:5-6 [A.D. 151]) writings – “We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true GOD himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal GOD, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein” Now, let’s briefly look at this statement; the author mentions clearly about the Trinity. However, do notice that Justin is either refuting a claim or writing in rebuttal to the one’s accusing the early Christians about “Trinity” The reason I mention this is because the early Church was faced with heresy, schisms and non believers of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. So, it is not unusual to see in our world today that people do not believe in the “Trinity” and the second nature of GOD that is the SON of GOD.
At this point, let’s practice some apologetics – defending the doctrine of Trinity.
Bible teaches us about one GOD as mentioned above in Matthew 28:19 about the Son and Holy Spirit, which total three persons and possess the nature of GOD. Now, for some people this doctrine is very difficult to understand or in other word is a mystery of GOD that most Catholics don’t understand and even if they do; they cannot explain or defend this doctrine. To explain this doctrine of faith or in other word most non Catholic call this illogical or unreasonable doctrine. You must first explain the difference between “being” and “person”. “Being”, can be described as “What” and Person as “Who”? For example, pointing to my wife, the question would be “What is she?” first answer would be she is a human being. The question of “Who is she?” can be answered as “Samantha”.
“All persons are beings, but not all beings are persons. For example, you are one being and one person. But a dog is one being and zero persons. With regard to the Trinity, there is one being, which is GOD, yet there are there persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is not illogical. If one were to say that there is one GOD and three Gods, or one Person and three Persons – that would be illogical. But one being and three Persons is not contradiction”. (Catholic.com)
Another argument that is most often used by most non-Christians is the “why the Jews didn’t know that – Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one GOD. Why does their great prayer only mention of one GOD. “Hear O Israel, the Lord thy GOD is one GOD”
Let me explain and give you a better defense to such illogical argument. First of all there is no mention of Triune in the Old Testament. Nor did Jesus upon his arrival to earth in a manger announce his divinity and neither did GOD stand on Mount Sinai gave Moses the explanation of the three distinct persons who are one in the being and nature, existing consubstantially and eternal. Understanding GOD the Father and the three persons has been gradual over time, since the beginning of time. Just imagine we are still having problems fully comprehending what GOD truly is, just think if GOD wouldn’t have gradually revealed himself, man kind would have had a melt down. As, Jesus said, “I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present” (John 16:12) hopefully, upon our arrival in heaven will explain everything. Till then, keep exploring and reading Christian doctrine, especially the writings of the early Church Fathers who saw and understood first hand account of Jesus’ teaching.
Sign of the Cross: Not sure why most Christian denomination refute on making the sign of the cross on themselves. Even though five centuries ago Protestants agreed with Catholics despite their rebellion against the Church on adding cross as a symbol of Christianity on their Bibles, Pulpits, steeples and car bumpers. They fail to understand the making the sign of cross is ancient and scriptural. Word of GOD, man incarnate came for the salvation of mankind, he was born, and he suffered and died. He came to redeem ransom and restore his people – his Church. We should place the cross on ourselves as a reminder of the reality of the Crucifixion. Early Christian writing shows us that the sign of the cross was made and used regularly in all travels and movements, as apologist Tertullian wrote “In our coming in and going out, in putting our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candies. In lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupies us, we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross.”
I hope my brothers and sisters in Christ; that the divinity of Christ and Trinity of GOD the Father, his only begotten Son and the Holy Spirit makes sense after reading my brief explanation. This topic is huge, but I have tried my best to answer and explain to my ability what Trinity means and why we must make the Sign of the Cross every moment of our being here on earth. Make the cross and you will always have his protection and grace upon you, your children and families. Walk with GOD and stay blessed.
Reference: www.Catholic.com
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Committing “Adultery” Perspective paper:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ: In today’s topic let us take a look at the subject of “Adultery”. In today’s society, this subject of having multiple partners, pornography, self indulgence is seen quite normal and in certain cultures it is very normal. Once a young adult comes at an age of reason, and starts exploring a relationship with the opposite sex. Our society, gives that adult a whole hearty permission to explore his or her sexuality.What does the English dictionary say about "Adultery":
n. pl. a·dul·ter·ies
Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse. The key factors to understand is the word "Voluntary" which means that by free will; a man or a woman in the hour of temptation forgo of their senses, become carnal and commit a mortal and grave sin against their commit of matrimony (husband or wife), their loved one (effect on children and the ramification of the act) and against their creator. Now, we must also understand that GOD has also given us the free will, the freedom to choose between good and evil. That same choice has been with us from the beginning, our first parents had that grace, and they were given to opportunity to confess. Their mind clouded by their sin, made their judgment impaired, to confess and ask for repentance, which was made available to them by GOD the Father.
The other part of this meaning alludes to "a partner" OTHER than the LAWFUL spouse. Which brings us to the point why were these rules set in the first place to be loyal to one spouse and not multiple? Because GOD first created a MAN and then chose a WOMAN to be his partners. He did not create multiple partners for Man's delight. The main ideology behind a spouse is that GOD never wanted mankind to be alone; however the all knowing GOD also placed certain rules for the companionship and living in the bond of Holy matrimony. Holy Bible is filled with teachings and scripture passages that have taught mankind about the true meaning of a committed relationship. Furthermore, GOD gave man the ultimate rule which is found in the Ten Commandments.
What does the Catholic Church and the Catechism tell us about "Adultery"
ADULTERY: Marital infidelity, or sexual relations between two partners, at least one of whom is married to another party. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely (2380; cf. 1650).
Article 6: The Sixth Commandment “You Shall not commit Adultery” Futhermore, Jesus elaborates on this commandment and tells us in addition to what is the true meaning of adultery:
“You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.114” Now, that doesn’t mean you cannot look at people or persons, but to wrongfully commit lust or want, obsession for someone in your mind or heart; you have committed a mortal and grave sin. One must consistently ask for purity of heart and mind, and the grace from our Lord Jesus to avoid carnal temptations of flesh.
Offenses against the Dignity of MarriageAdultery
Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations—even transient ones—they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.171 The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely.172 The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.173
Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents' stable union.
Let’s look at the subject a bit further and see what the Catechism says about adultery, fornication, sexual immorality and or self indulgence. We must first understand what does human sexuality really means. According to the Catechism 2332, sexuality affects all aspects of human person(s) in the unity of his body and soul. The main effective of sexuality is having the capacity to love and to procreate and this helps in forming a bond of communion with others. However, this bond is only achieved when two people are committed to each other through the sacrament of Holy Matrimony and this communion must not be used without the presence of this sacrament. Here are some of the offensive that are of grave nature; that can blemish the soul and condemn you towards eternal damnation.
Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.
2353
Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.
Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.
Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.140 Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.
Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.
Now, let’s spend some time on the topic of Divorce. What does the Catholic Church doctrine tells us about Divorce.
The Lord Jesus insisted on the original intention of the Creator who willed that marriage be indissoluble.174 He abrogates the accommodations that had slipped into the old Law.175 Between the baptized, "a ratified and consummated marriage cannot be dissolved by any human power or for any reason other than death."176
The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.
Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:
If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another's husband to herself.178
2385
Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.
It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage.179
Other offenses against the dignity of marriage
The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law. "[Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."180 The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.
Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them.181 St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense: "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you . . . for a man is living with his father's wife. . . . In the name of the Lord Jesus . . . you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. . . ."182 Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.
Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing.
In a so-called free union, a man and a woman refuse to give juridical and public form to a liaison involving sexual intimacy.The expression "free union" is fallacious: what can "union" mean when the partners make no commitment to one another, each exhibiting a lack of trust in the other, in himself, or in the future?The expression covers a number of different situations: concubinage, rejection of marriage as such, or inability to make long-term commitments.183 All these situations offend against the dignity of marriage; they destroy the very idea of the family; they weaken the sense of fidelity. They are contrary to the moral law. The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes a grave sin and excludes one from sacramental communion.
Some today claim a "right to a trial marriage" where there is an intention of getting married later. However firm the purpose of those who engage in premature sexual relations may be, "the fact is that such liaisons can scarcely ensure mutual sincerity and fidelity in a relationship between a man and a woman, nor, especially, can they protect it from inconstancy of desires or whim."184 Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate "trial marriages." It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.185
The reason for bringing light to this topic is very important in today’s world; I clearly understand that sin of flesh has been with the human race from the beginning of time. But, one must understand the cause/effect and the ramification of this mortal and grave sin. Your salvation is at stake my dear brothers and sisters, though this sin is hard to avoid, because as you read previously from the Catechistic perspective that human’s by nature are sexual and with the integration of sexualized medium that our society uses from billboards, to magazine, movies and internet. People are consistently bombarded with sexual images in this world. So, the only way to avoid such temptation is to pray, avoid all opportunities that can drive your thoughts to sin. Be blessed and I will pray for you, please pray for me. Amen.
Reference: Cathecism http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/ United Stated Conference of Catholic Bishops
Monday, January 10, 2011
Seventh-Day Adventism
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ. Today, I wanted to share with you some thoughts on doctrinal history about the Seventh-Day Adventists. As most of us only know, including myself before I did some research on Seventh Day Adventism was that their first prefect of faith is that they worship on Saturdays, not Sundays. But there’s more to this unique sect, than Saturday worship.Historical background
The Seventh-Day Adventist church can be traced back to an American preacher William Miller (1782–1849), a Baptist who predicted the Second Coming would occur between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844. Because he and his followers proclaimed Christ’s imminent advent, they were known as "Adventists." (Catholic.com) When Christ failed to appear, Miller reluctantly endorsed the position of a group of his followers known as the "seventh-month movement," who claimed Christ would return on October 22, 1844 (in the seventh month of the Jewish calendar). (Catholic.com)Is it ironic that majority of sects like Jehovah witnesses, Seventh Day and many others during their formation have tried to predict the coming of Christ, when it’s clearly written in the scriptures that no one knows of the time of Jesus’ return, it will come as the thief of the night. So, why predict and live in a faulty delusion. The amount of energy spent calculating his coming could have been spent else where. Now, I understand and realize I cannot judge any one based on their righteousness. As human one cannot judge who might be more close to GOD. But, when the scriptures have told of his coming, which again no one on earth or heaven except GOD knows, why waste the time and create and recreate doctrines, Christian sects, Christian churches, falsify and misinterpret scriptures.
Anyhow, again we see with Miller’s origin of his claims are based on his misinterpretation of Daniel and Revelation, that Christ would return in 1843–44 to cleanse "the sanctuary" (Dan. 8:11–14, 9:26), which he interpreted as the earth. After the disappointments of 1844, several of his followers proposed an alternative theory, another pitfall, trying to recalculate the return using human intellect. One of Miller’s followers by the name of Hiram Edson during his morning walk on October 23, 1844, the day after Christ failed to return, according to him received a spiritual revelation that indicated that Miller had misidentified the sanctuary. It was not the earth, but the Holy of Holies in God’s heavenly temple. Instead of coming out of the heavenly temple to cleanse the sanctuary of the earth, in 1844 Christ, for the first time, went into the heavenly Holy of Holies to cleanse it instead. (Catholic.com)
Now, the doctrine which is the forefront of the Adventist faith is the observation of the Lord’s day, which was influenced by Joseph Bates, a retired sea captain, who in 1846 and 1849 issued pamphlets insisting that Christians observe the Jewish Sabbath—Saturday—instead of worshipping on Sunday. This helped feed the intense anti-Catholicism of Seventh-Day Adventism, since they blamed the Catholic Church for changing the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. (Catholic.com)
So, in 1860 the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination was formed by Ellen Gould White who had claimed to have received many visions confirming the two main doctrine of their faith, Christ entering the heavenly sanctuary and the need to keep the Jewish Sabbath.(Catholic.com)Today the denomination reports that it has 780,000 members in the United States and 7.8 million members elsewhere, many in Catholic countries. (Catholic.com)
Propaganda
Ellen Gould White received her first several hundred visions in December of 1844. She soon gained recognition in the Adventist faith as the prophetess and became the church’s leader. According to the Adventist faithful she assisted on nearly fifty books which include on health, education, finance. Her most influential works that are still being used by the Seventh-Day include The Desire of the Ages and The Great Controversy. Her works are held by her followers to be inerrant on matters of doctrine, as is the Bible, though they are on a slightly lower plane of honor than the Bible. Her books are still in print by the Adventist publishing house; however they often appear with different covers and titles. The Great Controversy is often marketed as America in Prophecy. They are printed whole or in excerpted form. Sometimes Ellen Gould White’s name appears on the cover, sometimes a less well-known form of her name appears (e.g., E. G. White), and sometimes her name does not appear on the outside of the book at all. (Catholic.com)
“This allows Adventists to put White’s works in the hands of non-Adventists without alerting them that they are reading an Adventist publication until they are well into the work. Adventist publishing houses also keep the terms "Seventh-Day" and "Adventist" out of their names. Typical Adventist and Adventist-related publishing houses have names including Inspiration Books, Amazing Truth Publications, Review & Herald Publishing Association, and Pilgrims’ Press. (Catholic.com)Generally, Adventist-related publications are mass mailed under the Amazing Truth Publications’ anti-Catholic volume, National Sunday Law. (Catholic.com)
Adventist Beliefs
Seventh-Day Adventists agree with many Catholic doctrines, including the Trinity, Christ’s divinity, the virgin birth, the atonement, a physical resurrection of the dead, and Christ’s Second Coming. They use a valid form of baptism. They believe in original sin and reject the Evangelical teaching that one can never lose one’s salvation no matter what one does (i.e., they correctly reject "once saved, always saved").
Adventists also subscribe to the two Protestant shibboleths, sola scriptura (the Bible is the sole rule of faith) and sola fide (justification is by faith alone)However, they also hold many false and strange doctrines. They consider the following: (a) the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon; (b) the pope is the Antichrist; (c) in the last days, Sunday worship will be "the mark of the beast"; (d) there is a future millennium in which the devil will roam the earth while Christians are with Christ in heaven; (e) the soul sleeps between death and resurrection; and (f) on the last day, after a limited period of punishment in hell, the wicked will be annihilated and cease to exist rather than be eternally damned. (For rebuttals of many of these ideas, see the Catholic Answers tracts, The Antichrist, The Hell There Is, Hunting the Whore of Babylon, The Whore of Babylon, and Sabbath or Sunday?) (Catholic.com)Many Adventists insist that, as a matter of discipline (not doctrine), one must not eat meats considered unclean under the Mosaic Law (many endorse total vegetarianism), and one must avoid "worldly entertainments" (card-playing, dancing, smoking, drinking, reading non-religious books, listening to non-religious music, watching non-religious television, going to the movies, etc.). (Catholic.com)
Adventist against the Catholic teaching:
Adventist theology is intensely anti-Catholic. Many Catholics who come in contact with the Adventist publications do not realize just how hostile Adventist could be towards the Catholic Church. Anti-Catholicism characterization is mainly because of Ellen Gould Whites “divinely inspired” writings which as stated before was embraced and played a major role in the adaptation of the key doctrinal principles that formed the Seventh - Day Adventist.
Eschatology
Seventh-Day Adventism basic doctrine of faith is surrounded the revelation of end or last days. As stated above they see “Papacy” as the seven-headed beast from the sea as they misunderstand and misinterpret Revelation 13:1-10.
According to her, the papacy is the seven-headed beast from the sea in Revelation 13:1–10. Accompanying this beast is a lamb-like beast from the earth (Rev. 13:11–18). The latter causes the world to worship the former and has an image made of it. White proclaimed that the second beast is the United States (The Great Controversy, 387–8), and that it will force people to worship the papacy by "enforcing some observance which shall be an act of homage to the papacy" (ibid., 389).
This observance, she says, is Sunday worship rather than Saturday worship. Seventh-Day Adventism cannot change its views on the Catholic Church being the Whore of Babylon without admitting that it was wrong on Sunday worship. It cannot admit that Sunday worship is not the mark of the beast without changing its views on the Jewish Sabbath. Seventh-Day Adventism cannot cease to be anti-Catholic without ceasing to be Seventh-Day Adventism. (Catholic.com)
By virtue of their valid baptism, and their belief in Christ’s divinity and in the doctrine of the Trinity, Seventh-Day Adventists are both ontologically and theologically Christians. But Christians, once separated from the Church our Lord founded, are susceptible to being "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph. 4:14). (Catholic.com)
Reference and Sources:IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004http://www.catholic.com/The Great Controversy, by Ellen Gould White
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Peter the "ROCK"
Simple Explanation:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, quite often I hear from mostly fundamentalist non Catholics missionary that Catholics misunderstand or misinterpret Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." They generally will allude to term "Rock" used by Jesus for Simon was “Petros” a Greek word meaning a little stone, a pebble. Evangelical Christians say that Jesus was only making a contrast, Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon Peter was not remotely qualified to lead the Church.
It happened again yesterday as I was on my way home from work; listening to Catholic Radio during the Apologetic hour with Dr. Karl Keating on Catholic Answers Live. It's a show where people call in to ask questions about the Christian faith. It is broadcasted between 3 PM to 5 PM weekdays on 12:30 AM or in certain areas at 12:60 AM. Anyhow, back to the questions. Someone called staying that they were approached by a Non Catholic minister at a local WalMart with some anti Catholic tracts. This missionary was handing out these pamphlets and was quite adamant about finding faults or flaws in the Catholic faith and immediately focused his attention on why Catholics misunderstand Matthew 16:18.
Well my friends let me explain to you how one should approach a question that fundamentalist non Catholics do not understand themselves. First, we must understand that Jesus spoke Aramaic the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke, it was their common language. "We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross "Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani"? That isn't Greek; It's Aramaic and it means, " My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?
Anyhow, so Jesus in Matthew 16:18 called Simon "Cepha" in Aramaic which is a transliteration and rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form. And what does Kepha mean? It means a Rock, the same as petra, it does not mean a little stone or pebble. So, what Jesus said to Simon in Matthew was "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church". (Dr. Karl Keating)
Now, the argument is that in Greek; why it was translated to Petros which means stone or pebble? Petros is a male noun and provided Simon was a male they had to use Petros, but in actuality they should have used Petra which translates as the "Rock" big bolder or large stone. "You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word Petra as stated above is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble, But you can't use it as Simon's new name, because you can't give a man a feminine name - at least back then you couldn't. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros.” (Dr. Karl Keating)
I hope this will help you answer this question, if ever asked by our other brothers and sisters in Christ. I will be back with some more short explanation about the Catholic faith. Stay safe, love Jesus Christ and his Church that he founded on earth and asked Peter to lead. Stay bless in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Reference: Peter the Rock http://www.catholic.com/ by Dr. Karl Keating.
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, quite often I hear from mostly fundamentalist non Catholics missionary that Catholics misunderstand or misinterpret Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." They generally will allude to term "Rock" used by Jesus for Simon was “Petros” a Greek word meaning a little stone, a pebble. Evangelical Christians say that Jesus was only making a contrast, Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon Peter was not remotely qualified to lead the Church.
It happened again yesterday as I was on my way home from work; listening to Catholic Radio during the Apologetic hour with Dr. Karl Keating on Catholic Answers Live. It's a show where people call in to ask questions about the Christian faith. It is broadcasted between 3 PM to 5 PM weekdays on 12:30 AM or in certain areas at 12:60 AM. Anyhow, back to the questions. Someone called staying that they were approached by a Non Catholic minister at a local WalMart with some anti Catholic tracts. This missionary was handing out these pamphlets and was quite adamant about finding faults or flaws in the Catholic faith and immediately focused his attention on why Catholics misunderstand Matthew 16:18.
Well my friends let me explain to you how one should approach a question that fundamentalist non Catholics do not understand themselves. First, we must understand that Jesus spoke Aramaic the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke, it was their common language. "We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross "Eli, Eli Lama Sabachthani"? That isn't Greek; It's Aramaic and it means, " My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?
Anyhow, so Jesus in Matthew 16:18 called Simon "Cepha" in Aramaic which is a transliteration and rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form. And what does Kepha mean? It means a Rock, the same as petra, it does not mean a little stone or pebble. So, what Jesus said to Simon in Matthew was "You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church". (Dr. Karl Keating)
Now, the argument is that in Greek; why it was translated to Petros which means stone or pebble? Petros is a male noun and provided Simon was a male they had to use Petros, but in actuality they should have used Petra which translates as the "Rock" big bolder or large stone. "You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word Petra as stated above is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble, But you can't use it as Simon's new name, because you can't give a man a feminine name - at least back then you couldn't. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros.” (Dr. Karl Keating)
I hope this will help you answer this question, if ever asked by our other brothers and sisters in Christ. I will be back with some more short explanation about the Catholic faith. Stay safe, love Jesus Christ and his Church that he founded on earth and asked Peter to lead. Stay bless in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Reference: Peter the Rock http://www.catholic.com/ by Dr. Karl Keating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)