|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 20:31:55 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 20:31:55 GMT 10
itong mat 10:4 na ito ay bilin yes tama, but do you know that the earthly governace supports this verse? kaya nga pag matigas ang ulo at nagkarun ng corruptions ang marriage, like ngayon napaka taas ngt adultery, extra marital affairs at divorce rates, the earthly civil laws protect the one who was faulted and gives integrity to the marriage vows by executing the laws?
Hi Linsi,
Let us put things in its proper perspective.
You asked a biblical verse to support my premise and position that it was God and not the Church of Jerusalem who defined the sanctity of marriage - and I just supplied you the biblical verse.
You asked the basis on why the sacredness of marriage is beyond human laws - and the biblical verse interprets itself on that.
There was no mention of Jesus handing the doctrinal precepts of marriage to the civil authority nor it was to be defied under civil law. Ikaw din ang nagsabi na sa 12 apostles at Jersualem Church. Why insist that civil marriage should be recognized as valid under religiuous terms when it is very clear (a) they are different and (b) it is under God's union which God would grant the grace - not under the civil union : )
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 20:35:13 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 20:35:13 GMT 10
binilin nga yan hindi naman natutupad, ng napaka rami why? because there is a neglect in spiritual transformation, ang alam lang nagpakasal at ignorance sa maintenance ng kasal so yung bilin na yun hindi tinutupad ng mas nakararami so what will our earthly government do?
support the institution of marriage by executing the full laws to that institution, kung pwedeng ma remedyuhan at kung hinde, the one's being faulted is protected.
that is of God. it is in the book of corinthians and even in the gospel of matthew
Hi Linsi,
I disagree. Marami ang nagpapaksal which were able to stand the struggles of married life. There are a lot of problems and failures but men are not authorized by God to judge what God wants.
Furthermore, hindi civil law and bubuo ng marriage. Civil law is not the guarantee it would succeed.
But an important element in marriage is Jesus Christ present in the union. Dito sigurado ako na kapag si Jesus ay present always - marriage would survive and succeed.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 20:40:39 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 20:40:39 GMT 10
mas may bearing ang ginawa ni christ na nag tax kay caesar, hindi sinabi ni christ na pwera ang kasal ng mga judge.. hehe
hindi rin sinabi ni christ na balang araw ang rome ang siyang magiging centro ng sacredness pagdating sa kasal.. rome was politically ridden ..
Hi Linsi,
The issue was the validity of marriage as a sacred union under God. Sinabi ni Jesus that the ture union is sacred made by God. It means that the union is conferred by God and not by the civil authorities and not by civil law. Hindi na kailangan isulat sa bibliya dahil malinaw na sinabi na ni Jesus na ito ay union na ginawa ng Diyos.
Bakit pipilitin natin na katulad o hawig ito sa civil marriage? Malinaw na hindi pareho di ba?
Again, the political issue is a human dimension. The discourse is about the doctrinal basis and precepts of marriage. I would like to appeal to reserve comments regarding Rome later but let us stick to the issue on marriage.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 20:43:39 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 20:43:39 GMT 10
eto talaga ang no offense ha, kung ang dalawang tao ay gustong magpakasal at wala silang pera para sa isang traditional roman catholic wedding, paano na..
ang RCC ay may special or ordinary wedding ceremony, hindi ito sinabi ni christ or ng mga disciples na may category na special or ordinary ayon sa amount na ibabayad sa simbahan, dapat ang kasal walang bayad. no offense yan.
trahe do boda, mga abay, mga ninong, reception at guests, kahit simple breakfast wedding reception ngayon or 10 years ago, it will costs too much so we will therefore perceive things as commercially treated.
Hi Linsi,
Mahirap man o mayaman - pareho ang grasya. Pareho din na kasal under sa mata ng Diyos. pareho din valid yung kasal. Pero iba kapag kasal outside of the Church. Hindi ba yun ang issue natin? Bakit kailangan dalhin dito...
Hindi ko alam kung bakit kailangan dalhin ang description ng RCC marriage under material terms when I have been discussing it under a spiritual and doctrinal level.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 20:47:24 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 20:47:24 GMT 10
sa contemporary pinas settings na lang.., of course ang couple na supposed to be magpapakasal sa judge pupunta for economic reasons or they just wanted it simple and legal..
ibig sabihin hindi sacred at binding ito? Ang kasal ay ordinance ng Diyos at ayaw nila ng live in gusto nila kasal sa judge, two witnesses, the bride, the groom, the judge, the vows, marriage contract with license, ibig sabihin hindi ito recognize ng Diyos
Hi Linsi,
Hindi ba I already said it over and over again. A civil marriage is not valid under the eyes of God and the Church.
Kahit ang civil law follows the precepts of Gods laws - kulang pa rin. Bakit - hindi ba we just discussed under Matthew that it was Jesus himself who defined that it is God that joins man and woman in this sacred union. Wala siyang sinabi na judge or state - and I still have to see a biblical verse saying that Jesus did.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 20:51:41 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 13, 2006 20:51:41 GMT 10
ahehehe that is a definite denial of God's ordinance about wedding. tapos yung vows, yung regististry na sunod sa ordinances ng Diyos na ginawa sa office ng judge, hindi kikilalanin ng Diyos at sasabihin niyang-- aah hindi ito binding? dapat sa roman catholic church dapat sa priests? wooah-- that is not the God i am serving.. Christ supported caesar's government by taxing, and apostle paul even admonished respect and obedience to earthly governments, hindi sinabing excluding marriage ceremony. this is unthinkable..
nung mag tax si christ kay caesar, ibig bang sabihin hindi supported ni christ ang lahat ng sangay ng government operations ni caesar sa rome, at pwera ang pagkakasal?
come on kuya banshik, let us make our horizons, wider and free from religious tampers.
Hi Linsi,
Simple lang naman.
There is no biblical basis that civil weddings confer the grace of God.
There is no biblical basis that Jesus appointed judges and the sate to confer the grace of marriage.
There is no biblical basis that the union was described to be made by man to be the same as the union made by God.
It is not a question of "horizons"... It is a question on interpretation of doctrine.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 13, 2006 22:53:56 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 13, 2006 22:53:56 GMT 10
so what you are claiming is only for the RCC, what i am saying here is for the universal body of the christian believing church specially the bible believing church, not on particular religious tradition or particular teaching of a certain religious sect like the RCC.
No, since the RCC claims they are the only true church it is more honest to say that you only claim it for the RCC..
my answer here?
The apostolic succession which RCC claims to be the cornerstone of a true church is not true.. therefore.. RCC cannot claim it is the only true church of God which can only again claim sacredness when performing wedding ceremonies. In contrary the RCC has been rocked by grey areas over apostolic successions for centuries.
we have been with this issue in RF..
and if this church has been politically ridden during the caesars, then the more it could not claim to confer sacredness.
again i never said that church wedding is not sacred, i am into the term sacredness per se..[/b]
i have been dealing with this and yet you refuse to take it. because you are a roman catholic and that is understandable, it is only with prejudiced that RCC tradition has been brought up in the board while we are evading it.
Jerusalem church is the first true christian church not the roman catholic church and we have to tackle church history so that i could attest what i am posting.
your answers are roman catholic leanings and would never welcome biblical basis even if i said Jesus respected earthly governace
that apostle paul admonished respect to the earthly government
that saul was annointed as the king of israel because the people wanted it (earthly president)
that vox dei , vox populi which your roman pope always says upon election is an implication that the selection of people for a government is annointed by god
that marriage ceremonies are not excluded
that adam and eve, nor ruth and boaz, and other old testament characters were made man and wife through God's annointing without the priest.
that God annoints things under his banner and principles
that civil wedding is annointed by God biblical basis were posted about earthly governments
that roman catholic civil ceremonies has been commercialized
all of these which make your claims cloudy as to sacredness of a wedding inside a church with a priest the only acceptable one..
I have presented every area , and i could not force a horse to drink although i can push him beside the waters.
civil wedding is null void, binding and sacred because it is done by the earthly governace which christ himself recognized.
the bible stated it, not excluding marriage.
it is sacred because earthly laws and government are founded in the laws of God, God acknowledges it and the disciples respected it.
civil wedding upholds the institution of marriage, protects it when it is at risks, gives justice to those who are faulted sealing the sacredness of earthly offices when performing marriages.
to say that it is not sacred is human perception. The bible does not say that civil wedding is not recognized by God while the earthly government has been respected by God inlcuding not excluding marraige ceremonies.
when a couple who has a sucessful marriage life they have the license, marriage certificate, witnessed by two others in a civil office dies, in heaven will Christ say, Oh your marriage is not binding and sacred because it is done in the office of judge therefore your marriage is not recognized here in heaven because it is not sacred ahehehe..
this is a very silly thought that could be presented in this board.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 14, 2006 3:02:56 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 14, 2006 3:02:56 GMT 10
ngayon kuya banshik
cno pong may sabi na hindi binding at hindi sacred ang civil wedding?
kung tayo ay mag co compromise halimbawa at isang couple ay kinasal sa simbahang katoliko ( dahil para sa sa mga RC's, RCC lang ang tunay na simbahan eh, we were there in RF ) at nagka aberya, nambabae o nanlalake ang isa, saan pupunta pag ang institusyon ng kasal ay nagkaron ng corruption?
di ba at sa due process ng batas ng bansa? ang batas ng bansa ay nag a uphold ng tama at naka pattern sa moral laws ng Diyos ( e di ito ay sagrado dahil it is of God) ahehe
ngayon balik tayo, nagkarun ng pangalawang mister o pangalawang misis (mistress/etc) ang legal na mag asawa, simbahang katoliko ba ang mag sasaayos neto? NO
Yung kanilang sole claim na sacredness ay hanggang ceremony na lang at pag nagkarun ng malaking problema i lalapit sa batas ng bansa na siyang mag aayos at mag poproteksyon sa napinsala, at magbibigay naman ng justice dun sa nagkasala..
kaya dapat complement ang civil or church wedding becoz it they help each other in maintaining the integrity of the marriage institution at wala akong nakikitang prejudice dito, kaya to say that civil wedidng is not binding and sacred is a misnomer.
sino ngayon ang nag uphold ng institution ng marriage to the fullest definition of the favorite verse na "what God has joined together....walang iba kundi batas dahil pag nagka problema batas ang haharap nito, pag hindi tinupad yang matthew 10:4 hindi ang simbahang katoliko,kundi batas ang mag dedecide para proteksyunan ang marriage institution ng Diyos
ngayon alin ang hindi sacred? yung civil wedding? na isang area ng earthly governace? sinasabi ba sa kasal sa judge na iba ang marraige vows dito ha, dahil hindi ito simbahan at opisina lang a hehe, alin ang hindi sacred at binding yung nagbibigay ng katwiran at justice pag nagkaproblema ang kasal? ano ngayon ang sacred at binding ulet?
yung pagka sa loob ng simbahan at pari lang? THIS IS SOOO FANATICAL.
sacredness is a word for God and of God. those who uphold these things do the sacred thing in the eyes of God.
second
Kung tayo ay mga muslim, hindi sacred ang kasal sa muslim style? ahehe dito pumapasok ang principles ng Diyos eh
alin ba ang tunay lang yung sa RCC po? e kung disclaim na ang RCC e gawa lang ng Roman Empire paano yan..
kaya we have to widen our horizons po..
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 14, 2006 13:52:19 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 14, 2006 13:52:19 GMT 10
Yours: cno pong may sabi na hindi binding at hindi sacred ang civil wedding?
kung tayo ay mag co compromise halimbawa at isang couple ay kinasal sa simbahang katoliko ( dahil para sa sa mga RC's, RCC lang ang tunay na simbahan eh, we were there in RF ) at nagka aberya, nambabae o nanlalake ang isa, saan pupunta pag ang institusyon ng kasal ay nagkaron ng corruption?
Hi Linsi,
Civil weddings can never become sacred.
I already made my position on that because only a wedding/marriage bound by God is sacred. A civil marriage bound by human law and civil authorities may follow God's law but the problem is that God never entrusted authority on civil government or magistrates to confer the grace of marriage. In fact, I am still waiting for your biblical verse to prove Jesus confered authority to the civil goevrnents and officials and making the civil wedding sacred.
Sorry, but I do not believe there is an issue of compromise when it comes to scriptural context and God's doctrine. It was very clear (Matthew) that marriage union is bound by God. It would be inconsistent that God's precepts be subjected to any form of compromise made by men.
Please reflect on the same words made by Jesus regarding the sacred bond of marriage. Even if one of the parties (man or wife) commits immorality or serious harm towards another, the bond that God made is still there. This is why marriage is sacred and not a mere writ of contract or a piece of paper.
Yours: di ba at sa due process ng batas ng bansa? ang batas ng bansa ay nag a uphold ng tama at naka pattern sa moral laws ng Diyos ( e di ito ay sagrado dahil it is of God) ahehe
ngayon balik tayo, nagkarun ng pangalawang mister o pangalawang misis (mistress/etc) ang legal na mag asawa, simbahang katoliko ba ang mag sasaayos neto? NO
Mine: Again Linsi, the human dimension between the union does not change the precepts of marriage under God.
It maybe true that civil law provide the practical matters in the event of marital dispute and problems, but it would be too naive to conclude that the civil authorities and civil officials can mandate a resolution towards the disputes. For example, one can not force a person to truly love and trust another, or forgive another. It is simply a matter between the couple and the values what they learned from the Church.
Furthermore, even if the civil laws pattern itself from the laws of God, it does not necessarily mean that the same set of civil laws are valid in the eyes of God. For example, it is only through God's precepts and authority that one can be forgiven, saved or be conferred grace. Thus, it would not be consistent to say that civil laws and God's laws are the same - simply because they are different in application and in merit.
Yours: hindi ang simbahang katoliko,kundi batas ang mag dedecide para proteksyunan ang marriage institution ng Diyos
Mine: Linsi, Jesus never authorized civil authorities to uphold His laws and instructions. Jesus never asked the civil authorities to protect His doctrine and His Church.
Marriage has always and will have its moral dimension. And moral laws are well under the confines of the Church. Kaya sila ang mag-proprotekta nito.
To prove my point...immoral and same sex union (biblical yan ha). Pero may civil authorities that grant same sex union. Sino ang lumalaban at nag-protekta sa pagka sacred ng marriage - hindi ba ang simbahan.
Yours: yung pagka sa loob ng simbahan at pari lang? THIS IS SOOO FANATICAL.
Mine: Linsi, I do not think this is necessary, just like the previous posts. If you have an issue with my beliefs, we could always discuss it positively under the context of doctrine which I am trying to do.
Anyway, the issues I raised were never answered:
There is no biblical basis that civil weddings confer the grace of God.
There is no biblical basis that Jesus appointed judges and the sate to confer the grace of marriage.
There is no biblical basis that the union was described to be made by man to be the same as the union made by God.
For a person who subscribes to scriptural context as basis of truth, it would just be fair if you could supply us the bibilical to disprove me. It is not being "fanatical" but trying to be more "objective".
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 14, 2006 15:42:23 GMT 10
Post by frango on Jul 14, 2006 15:42:23 GMT 10
Genesis 1: 27-28 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
Romans 13: 1-7 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 14, 2006 16:06:44 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 14, 2006 16:06:44 GMT 10
Hi Linsi,
Civil weddings can never become sacred.
I already made my position on that because only a wedding/marriage bound by God is sacred. A civil marriage bound by human law and civil authorities may follow God's law but the problem is that God never entrusted authority on civil government or magistrates to confer the grace of marriage. In fact, I am still waiting for your biblical verse to prove Jesus confered authority to the civil goevrnents and officials and making the civil wedding sacred
Kuya banhsik
ikaw lang ang may sabi nyan.. sorry for that.. that is only your POV and tainted with Roman church ideas...
If you are asking me biblical basis i have given you biblical basis wherein earthly governace is appointed and annointed by God, Jesus Christ HImself and the apostles.. wala ngang biblical basis sa new testament na kasal pari lang ang sacred kc ang preisthood inabolish na ni Christ eh.[/b]
Kung dadaanin natin sa bibliya
dapat wala nang priesthood gaya ng sa katoliko, dahil inabolish na ni Christ ang ganyang ceremonial priesthood ngayon e grace na at total access na sa throne ng Diyos..[/b]
so what you are saying is only point of view.. at hindi ko kayang baguhin yan kundi ikaw ang mag decide nyan..
again the Roman Catholic Church can be disclaimed as the church created only by the Roman Empire..it is politically ridden.
and everything done inside this church can be questioned endlessly.
Sacredness is from God and of God..
civil wedding is from God, of God, binding, and sacred.
agree to disagree.
[/color]
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 14, 2006 16:18:31 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 14, 2006 16:18:31 GMT 10
kuya banshik says civil wedding is not sacred
this is only a human opinion, for the readers sake...
Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered in my name I am there among them...
yan ang sabi ni Christ sa book of Matthew na nagpapatunay na sacred ang isang ceremony kapag ginawa sa pangalan niya.
in a civil wedding with wedding vows from God and in the name of God, two or three people gathered in God's name is sacred because God is among them
[/b]
this is the biblical basis, hindi sinabing dapat simbahan at pari lang para maging sacred ang kasal..
this is biblical sa dami ng bible verses na posted ko..
[/color]
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 14, 2006 16:20:28 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 14, 2006 16:20:28 GMT 10
From kuya banshik
Please reflect on the same words made by Jesus regarding the sacred bond of marriage. Even if one of the parties (man or wife) commits immorality or serious harm towards another, the bond that God made is still there. This is why marriage is sacred and not a mere writ of contract or a piece of paper.
No,
once na namababae o nanlalake ang isang asawa, ang vows ay nasira, they broke the vows of marriage and therefore God could never sit down with it,
God even divorced Israel when Israel rebelled against him.. wag akalain na pag nagka adultery or nagkarun ng extra marital affairs ay nandun pa rin ang basbas ng Diyos, this is the whole context of matthew 19:9 kaya nga pwedeng mag re-marry,
evil crept in at nagkarun ng corruption, the vows were broken and crime was committed against God, and the society.
Paanong mangyayaring nandun pa rin ang bond na pangako ng Diyos sa tao e sinira na ng tao yung vows, wala na yung compliance, at bondings na yun. e di sira na , wala na. this is soo unthinkble. of course ang kasunod nyan yung culpability at justice dahil pumasok na ang kasalanan at wala na yung marraige covenant sira na eh.
like adam and eve when they sinned, nasira ang covenant, at kahit saang area, pag sinira ng tao ang covenant, wala na God could never bless it.. that is biblical and objective, nawala na ang sacredness at bond, sino pong maysabi na nandun pa rin ang bond na ginawa ng Diyos,kahit mag commit ng immorality, this is gross, napaka unbiblical neto.
hindi ko po sinabing mere piece of paper sinabi kong ang marriage contract signed with its license makes it more legally binding dahil sa proteksyon na ibinibigay ng batas at justice sa mga nagkasala at nag break ng vows.
kaya nga upholded ng batas ang kasal na institusyos mismo ng Diyos.kaya nga i mentioned fanaticism, dahil hindi na objective ang replies kundi based na sa particular religious sect teachings ang nangyayari at hindi strictly biblical.
I would like to emphasize that yung matthew 4 na yan na "what god has joined together, let no man put assunder" hindi ibig sabihin ay mali ang divorce read Mathew 19:9
ang ibig sabihin let no man commit adultery and immorality within that institution of marriage made by God...dahil kapag nag commit ng immorality si mister or misis,he/she defiled the sanctity of the matrimonial bed and marriage as a whole, siya ang nag sever, siya ang sumira sa pangako, sa vows, dinumihan niya ang covenant na ginawa niya sa harap ng Diyos, he/she turned out a traitor to that marriage covenant, simbahan, judge, witnesses at sa harap ng mga tao..papano pa sasabihing nandun pa rin ang bonds ng Diyos kahit may immorality, hindi po ganito,kc kung magkaganun, sisirain ng Diyos ang sarili niyang words, this is soo unbiblical ang violating God's principles.
Kaya nagkarun ng divorce Matthew 19:9 dahil marami ang nag co commit ng immorality within the marriage constitution, ito ay resulta ng immorality na ginawa na rin ng tao, and in order to put it in an an orderly process, dahil hindi tumutupad ang tao, divorce was permitted... again Matthew 19:9, again God divorced Israel when Israel committed immorality against Him kahit na pa hindi ito ang design ng Diyos.
parang kay adam at eve, designed ba ng Diyos na mahulog cla? NO, pero they fell kaya nagkarun ng curse.. dito makikita yung hindi pagsunod ng tao kahit sa simpleng personal na utos,e di lalo na sa Moral laws, ,kaya alam ng Diyos na talagang hindi makakasunod ang tao 100% kahit pa nga 50 %.
but matthew 19:9 is a solid testimony that immorality cannot be tolerated by God declaring the bonds of marriage severed by Man.
Mike
that is what i am exactly trying to explain from the very start.. that earthly governace is acknowledged by God not excluding marriage ceremonies.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 19, 2006 13:57:08 GMT 10
Post by peng on Jul 19, 2006 13:57:08 GMT 10
Ang lupit naman, ganun ba yun? Sa atin kasi takot sa divorce malaking kasalanan yan kahit nambababe na ang lalaki ganun pa rin ang paniwala ko, basa pa.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 20, 2006 3:23:06 GMT 10
Post by supremo on Jul 20, 2006 3:23:06 GMT 10
Nawala lang me, humaba na pala thread. Don't need to add anything. All have been said. Bangzhik101, you and i have the same position regarding marriage. It is sacred and instituted by God. No question about it. Pag kinakasal ang tao, dapat may panunumpa sa harap ng diyos at sa harap ng tao. Ginagawa ito sa simbahan at kahit sa ating gobyerno. Ang pinagkaiba lang, sa church wedding (RCC), naka-abito ang nagkakasal samantalang sa civil wedding nakabarong naman ang nagkakasal. But those presiding are both human beings and bounded by the same law instituted by God, therefore both are SACRED in the eyes of God when they preside over a wedding. Sa katunayan, iisa lang ang sinasabi nila habang nagkakasal. Hindi nawawala ang salitang GOD. Yes, its true that the bible is unclear of who will institute marriage, the government or the church, but it is very clear in it's position that: Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name I am there among them... You don't need a priest, a pastor to preside over marriage to be sacred. MARRIAGE ITSELF IS SACRED WHEN DONE IN HIS NAME. The priesthood is abolished as per linsi...naalala ko tuloy itong kantang ito: Holy of Holies In the holy of hollies Behind the heavenly veil Sat the ark of the covenant Where the most high dwell And only the high priest, Could enter therein To offer up a sacrifice, For atonement of sin. But the veil is ruined in an instant Revealing that holy place. And now thereby on that rugged cross Justice met grace Chorus Now i can go, to the holy of hollies I can kneel, and made my petition known I can go, to the holy of hollies. And although i'm just a common man With God's redemption plan I can boldly approach God's throne.. Ayan napapakanta tuloy ako.....
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 20, 2006 18:01:13 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 20, 2006 18:01:13 GMT 10
Bangzhik101, you and i have the same position regarding marriage. It is sacred and instituted by God. No question about it. Pag kinakasal ang tao, dapat may panunumpa sa harap ng diyos at sa harap ng tao. Ginagawa ito sa simbahan at kahit sa ating gobyerno. Ang pinagkaiba lang, sa church wedding (RCC), naka-abito ang nagkakasal samantalang sa civil wedding nakabarong naman ang nagkakasal. But those presiding are both human beings and bounded by the same law instituted by God, therefore both are SACRED in the eyes of God when they preside over a wedding. Sa katunayan, iisa lang ang sinasabi nila habang nagkakasal. Hindi nawawala ang salitang GOD.
Yes, its true that the bible is unclear of who will institute marriage, the government or the church, but it is very clear in it's position that:
Hi Supremo,
Yes. We are in agreement that marriage is sacred.
However, we disagree on the authority vested by God that makes the union holy. My position is that only a wedding made under God and His Church makes the union sacred and "valid" under the eyes of God.
Marriage under civil law even is only valid in the eyes of man (natural marriage). Civil authority may follow moral and religious authority in form but its substance would never be the same.
The reason being which I was trying to explain is that God (Jesus) never confered sacramental duties of faith to civil government and authorities. The Lord never gave authority to civil governments to institute the sacraments.
1. I have yet to see a biblical verse that authority to confer sacraments specially marriage was given to civil authorities. If your argument that there is no specific verse that priests are empowered to confer weddings, there is no specific verse which states that Jesus confered the power to confer weddings to civil authorities.
In fact, if one does a historical perspective - those who confered weddings have always been religious authorities and holy men. Civil authorities only came into the picture when society have embraced "humanism" and the moral divide between Moral Law as interpreted under God or under man.
2. Mat 18:20 refers to prayer not with the conferment of sacrament and grace (you can check the preceding verses Mttw 18:18-19).
It was clear that God gave specific powers to His successors to look after His doctrine, His Church, and His Gospel. It was not meant for "ordinary men" but in fact it was further described by St. Paul the crieria for those who would be bishops, priests and deacons.
If the prieshood was indeed abolished, it contradicts the plan of God which said His Church would be there for all time. It also defeats the purpose of apostolic succession which was carried on by the apostles and can be proven by the epistles describing the criteria of who should be bishops, priests and deacons.
But I could understand our predicament on the issue of "succession" simply because it is one of the fundamental differences of our faith.
3. Anyone can try and justfy actions and say it is done under the "name" of Jesus. But the criteria of making it holy and sacred is not limited to saying the action under His name alone.
In fact, the most important criteria is if the action done under His name is in "accordance to God's Will, Laws and Doctrine. This is the reason not all who call Him "Lord" would be acknowledged.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 20, 2006 18:36:45 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 20, 2006 18:36:45 GMT 10
Linsi: Jerusalem church is the first true christian church not the roman catholic church and we have to tackle church history so that i could attest what i am posting.
Bangzhik: I never disagreed on the historical issue of the Jerusalem Church. But can you refelct on the question why did St. Paul have to describe the criteria for Bishops, Priests, and Deacons if Apostolic succession was abolished - and there was no direct successor to the Jerusalem Church?
Linsi: that apostle paul admonished respect to the earthly government
that saul was annointed as the king of israel because the people wanted it (earthly president)
that vox dei , vox populi which your roman pope always says upon election is an implication that the selection of people for a government is annointed by god
that marriage ceremonies are not excluded
Bangzhik: No issue on St. Paul's teachings that Christians shold respect civil laws. But you forgot to mention that the same set of civil laws should be in accordance with the doctrine of Jesus Christ. This is the reason why there is a moral mandate from the people to challenge civil authorities if their laws do not comply and they contradict the teachings of Christ.
The issue of King Saul may have been requested by the "majority" of Israel - but Saul was annointed under the grace of Yahweh or God. Saul was made King only under the mandate of God. Furthermore, it was still God who made the decision of conferring the authority of King, it was never men. So your analogy on the majority defining moral statutes never applied at all.
FYI. The term "Roman" is always interpreted under our context of faith as the same as "universal". It owes this meaning out of tradition that during the time of the early Church that the Roman Empire was synonimous to the whole world.
BTW. I am not aware that the Pope would say "vox dei, and vox populi" upon his election. What happens is that the electors (the College of Cardinals) invoke the Holy Spirit (same as the manner the apostles chose Matthias) in making the choice.
Linsi: that adam and eve, nor ruth and boaz, and other old testament characters were made man and wife through God's annointing without the priest.
that God annoints things under his banner and principles
Bangzhik: Yes, God truly annoints things under His banner and principles. But you forgot to mention that before Christ there was no formal institution of His Church. The point I am bringing is that the moment Christ established and defined His Church - the same precepts that define His Laws and Doctrine apply to the faithful.
Linsi: I have presented every area , and i could not force a horse to drink although i can push him beside the waters.
Bangzhik: If you truly did, where is the verse that states Jesus empowered civil authorities to confer sacraments like marriage under His name?
Linsi:Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered in my name I am there among them...
yan ang sabi ni Christ sa book of Matthew na nagpapatunay na sacred ang isang ceremony kapag ginawa sa pangalan niya.
in a civil wedding with wedding vows from God and in the name of God, two or three people gathered in God's name is sacred because God is among them
Bangzhik: Same with my answer with supremo. Mat 18:20 refers to prayer not with the conferment of sacrament and grace (you can check the preceding verses Mttw 18:18-19).
It was clear that God gave specific powers to His successors to look after His doctrine, His Church, and His Gospel. It was not meant for "ordinary men" but in fact it was further described by St. Paul the criteria for those who would be bishops, priests and deacons.
What would be the merit of st. Paul trying to describe the criteria of priesthood if ordinary men can just invoke the name of God by themselves?
sabi ko nga.. "Anyone can try and justfy actions and say it is done under the "name" of Jesus. But the criteria of making it holy and sacred is not limited to saying the action under His name alone.
In fact, the most important criteria is if the action done under His name is in "accordance to God's Will, Laws and Doctrine. This is the reason not all who call Him "Lord" would be acknowledged."
Maliwanag na ang verse na binigay (Mttw 18:20) ay may kakulangan na paliwanag at hindi specifically sa issue ng marriage. it may suit an explanation with your position of not needing the priesthood in the conferment of sacraments and grace - but it contradicts the substance of other doctrines described in the bible as well.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 20, 2006 18:51:22 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 20, 2006 18:51:22 GMT 10
Linsi: kung tayo ay mag co compromise halimbawa at isang couple ay kinasal sa simbahang katoliko ( dahil para sa sa mga RC's, RCC lang ang tunay na simbahan eh, we were there in RF ) at nagka aberya, nambabae o nanlalake ang isa, saan pupunta pag ang institusyon ng kasal ay nagkaron ng corruption?
Hi Linsi,
"what god has joined together, let no man put assunder"
This means that marital infidelity may cause a problem in the union but the grace which God confered in the union is binding and would always be there. The sacred nature of marriage is still the same and does not lose its authority over the couple.
In fact, if you reflect fruther the writ of divorce was described by Jesus as only a "practical" remedy out of the stubborness of the Jews. In Matthew 5:27 "Be faithful in marriage" implies the law described by Jesus in how man should relate with the union.
Ergo, the doctrine of Jesus was not meant to have an excuse to destroy marital unions or a way out of people to justify immoral unions as well. In fact the docrtine of marriage why it was binded by God's authority imply that the laws of God are created to enforce and support such a union.
Hindi Diyos ang nagkukulang kapag nagkakaproblema ang mag-asawa. Kung pag-aaralan natin, tao ang nagkukulang sa isa't isa.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 20, 2006 18:59:49 GMT 10
Post by bangzhik101 on Jul 20, 2006 18:59:49 GMT 10
Linsi: once na namababae o nanlalake ang isang asawa, ang vows ay nasira, they broke the vows of marriage and therefore God could never sit down with it,
Hi Linsi,
Personal comment: Hindi sapat na sukatin ng tao at humusga ang isa't isa sa pagkukulang - lalo na sa mag-asawa. Mahirap isipin na sa bawat union ay uuwi kaagad ito sa immoral union or sexual misconduct. Mas maganda na isipin ang positive aspects ng union o ng mag-asawa.
There are a lot of things that complicate married life. But God has made man to have a heart and the ability to forgive. Not to abuse this virtue of love and mercey - but use it as an instrument to make men stronger. In this case between man and wife - the marriage stronger because man or the wife has learned to forgive and love his/her spouse more.
Personally, kahit alam ko na maraming problema ngayon sa mag-asawa - hindi dapat tayo magpadala sa hatred and bitterness. We should use our actions so that others see the image in Christ.
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 21, 2006 2:35:48 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 21, 2006 2:35:48 GMT 10
from kuya banshik so what you are claiming is only for the RCC, what i am saying here is for the universal body of the christian believing church specially the bible believing church, not on particular religious tradition or particular teaching of a certain religious sect like the RCC.
sorry you just stepped on the grey areas, i know when it comes to church, your belief has been totally tainted by rome that RCC is the only true church..and therefore only the rcc priest in an rcc performing the marriage ceremony is sacred..
but i tell you kuya banshik that RCC has long been questioned as only a creation of the roman empire therefore any ceremony inside would be questionable to non rcc..( another thread po ito)
sorry for that. we have been in RF and to say that you address the topic universally is quite intriguing, as a matter of fact every response i read is not strictly biblical specially about Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered in my name I am there among them... gathering is not only prayer, gathering simply is a meeting of fellowship which acknowledges God even in the sipping of tea...and even in exchanges promoting God's principles as "against phornography, etc.." ganun po yun...
hindi po sinabing ang mathew 18:20 ay sa prayer lang eto po ang kahulugan ng buong context ng matthew 18:20 wag po nating bigyan ng limitadong aral ito..dahil napaka self explanatory
When you are gathered together in the Living Word, and claiming the promises from that Living Word, and having faith in Him, God will be with you by the dwelling of His Holy Spirit.
Marriage is a gathering of an ordination of God,from God, by God the vows are admonished by God as his institution, be reminded that we are talking about our culture acknowledging the christian God, if you reply about prayer, the only name to be acknowledged is God and non other else, ( ring a bell?} likewise in marriage the civil servants acknowledge this as an intitution of God therefore.
Those who are not against God is for God and the gathering of the union is acknolwedged to be of God therefore God is in the midst of a wedidng ceremony in the name of God..." now you are man and wife, to hold and to cherish till death do you part" a clear photograph of Genesis 2:18-25
18 The LORD God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him."
23-25
23 5 the man said: "This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; This one shall be called 'woman,' for out of 'her man' this one has been taken." 24 6 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, yet they felt no shame.
ibig mong sabihin kuya banshik wala ang Diyos sa kasal na civil kahit acknowledged ng judge, ng groom, ng bride at witnesses ang Diyos at alam nila na ito ay institusyon ng Diyos?
ahehehe.. hindi po ganun ang attribute ng Diyos, minsan mas mahigpit pa tayo kesa sa Diyos.
like joshua who believes in God, he never prayed at the moment of great need, he commanded the sun to stand still winning the battle over their enemies, because he believes in this God, God knew that joshua was engaging in a situation which calls his name.When Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, by faith the sun obeyed, did he pray at that moment? NO, it was acknowledging God's name and power.
likewise marriage, which is of God is sacred when done and executed acknowledging his name..because everybody knows it is an ordination of God mula sa Genesis pa lang
anyway kuya banshik i think we will end to disagree, hahaba lang to e hindi naman tayo nagpipilitan na hatakin ang bawat isa..
i posted everything from marriage, to civil law , to divorce, and i have biblical references and explanations.the readers are smart enough.
To supremo it is simple, we believe both in the same bible and church teachings as clear as the mid day sun...baka mapakanta rin meh ng bone of my bone flesh of my flesh ganda yun
I opted to consentrate on matthew 19, matthew 4, matthew 18:20 and Genesis 2:18-25, this time, and i end my replies in agreeing to disagree.
once more with all my explanations civil wedding is sacred because it acknowledges God. judging otherwise would be unbiblical. kay kuya banshik hindi sacred, so i wonder what happens to couples who are sincere , and acknowleding God, and wedded in a civil ceremony in the name of God and made it to the final phase of seperating only due to death at natupad naman ang mga marriage vows ng God, hindi pa rin sacred? tsk.....
thank you po...
PS/
hindi lang po sa prayer yung matthew 18:20
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 21, 2006 2:47:10 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 21, 2006 2:47:10 GMT 10
From kuya banshik Please reflect on the same words made by Jesus regarding the sacred bond of marriage. Even if one of the parties (man or wife) commits immorality or serious harm towards another, the bond that God made is still there. This is why marriage is sacred and not a mere writ of contract or a piece of paper.
emphasis lang po ulet, God could never sit down with immorality, the bond of God in marriage was broken by man, therefore the above posted is not biblical.
pwera na lang kung nagpatawaran sincerely iba na po yun.He could never break his own words and law against filth. i donot want the readers to be misguided when it comes to this, sorry po.
hinding hindi pwedeng yung bond ay narun pa kung may immorality, nasira na po ang bond..hindi pwede sa Diyos yun.
thank you kuya banshik, naipaliwanag ko na ang lahat, kung itutuloy pa ito e magkukulitan lang at hindi na maganda....
kumanta na lang daw sabi ni supremo..
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 21, 2006 4:44:25 GMT 10
Post by supremo on Jul 21, 2006 4:44:25 GMT 10
Yes. We are in agreement that marriage is sacred.
However, we disagree on the authority vested by God that makes the union holy. My position is that only a wedding made under God and His Church makes the union sacred and "valid" under the eyes of God.
My reply: I will accept your position regarding wedding made under God and his Church sacred, but please show to me who is the real Church authorized to give or institute marriage
Marriage under civil law even is only valid in the eyes of man (natural marriage). Civil authority may follow moral and religious authority in form but its substance would never be the same.
My reply Then prove to me
The reason being which I was trying to explain is that God (Jesus) never confered sacramental duties of faith to civil government and authorities. The Lord never gave authority to civil governments to institute the sacraments.
My reply: What is sacraments? I can't even find that word in my bible (KJV)
1. I have yet to see a biblical verse that authority to confer sacraments specially marriage was given to civil authorities. If your argument that there is no specific verse that priests are empowered to confer weddings, there is no specific verse which states that Jesus confered the power to confer weddings to civil authorities.
My reply: Yes, i agree it's not clear whether who will confer wedding. I advice you the read this (Matt 22:2 "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,"
In fact, if one does a historical perspective - those who confered weddings have always been religious authorities and holy men. Civil authorities only came into the picture when society have embraced "humanism" and the moral divide between Moral Law as interpreted under God or under man.
2. Mat 18:20 refers to prayer not with the conferment of sacrament and grace (you can check the preceding verses Mttw 18:18-19).
My reply: NO, this is not prayer bangzhik, but an example of how to manage indifferences, sins etc against thy brother. In 18-19, pinakikita dito na kung ano ang napagkasunduan, napagusapan, pinagisa etc sa lupa, gayun din sa langit. Marriage is one thing. Take not of the progress starting verse 15-17. Parang una, sa individual muna, kung nagkasundo sa lupa, ganun din sa langit. Pag di nagkasundo, next level, hanap ng 3rd party as a witness. Pag nagkasundo na dito at kung ano pinagusapan sa lupa, tanggap sa langit. Pero pag hindi, next level na ulit. Sa church na. Yan ang logic na makikita sa verses na yan. Isa lang ang ibig pinahihiwatig ng verse na yan "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
It was clear that God gave specific powers to His successors to look after His doctrine, His Church, and His Gospel. It was not meant for "ordinary men" but in fact it was further described by St. Paul the crieria for those who would be bishops, priests and deacons.
My reply: I guess not bangzhik. Those he chose are all ordinary men, may fishermen, tax collector etc etc. Walang pharisee, priest, king etc syang ginawang successor. God will chose anyone, ordinary or not, if those he chose are willing to obey and follow Him. That's the key of his chosing.
If the prieshood was indeed abolished, it contradicts the plan of God which said His Church would be there for all time. It also defeats the purpose of apostolic succession which was carried on by the apostles and can be proven by the epistles describing the criteria of who should be bishops, priests and deacons.
My reply:
I tell you bangzhik, even if God abolished preisthood, it is still in accord to his plan that his church would be there for all time. For me christ never confer apostolic succession, but APOSTOLIC MULTIPLICATION. He wants everyone to be His successor. Thats the truth!!
But I could understand our predicament on the issue of "succession" simply because it is one of the fundamental differences of our faith.
My reply That's why we are giving you another perspective of faith. Hope you have an open mind.
3. Anyone can try and justfy actions and say it is done under the "name" of Jesus. But the criteria of making it holy and sacred is not limited to saying the action under His name alone.
In fact, the most important criteria is if the action done under His name is in "accordance to God's Will, Laws and Doctrine. This is the reason not all who call Him "Lord" would be acknowledged.
My Reply: Yes i agree, remember this "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Yes that's true not all who call Him "Lord" would be acknowledge, because "God looks into their hearts"
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 21, 2006 10:11:54 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Jul 21, 2006 10:11:54 GMT 10
|
|
ruth
Moderator
moderator in her designated rooms
Posts: 903
|
wedding
Jul 21, 2006 18:46:46 GMT 10
Post by ruth on Jul 21, 2006 18:46:46 GMT 10
umaatikabo na...hmmm..will I add value pa kung sumalo pa dito? basa basa na lang...
makiinom na lang ako sa pepsi ni hotty
|
|
|
wedding
Jul 23, 2006 1:14:38 GMT 10
Post by linsi on Jul 23, 2006 1:14:38 GMT 10
very well said supremo,
the only thing is how minds can be flexible to open up from what is true and from what is not. We can only present as much.
very well said.
Let me add it to you:
Those he chose are all ordinary men, may fishermen, tax collector etc etc. Walang pharisee, priest, king etc syang ginawang successor. God will chose anyone, ordinary or not, if those he chose are willing to obey and follow Him. That's the key of his chosing.
In addition to this
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are" Cor. I 27, 28).
This is an emphasis of God's choice of instruments. i agree that once the heart is willing for God, right there He elevates the level of faith so that he by his willingness could take the responsibility of a deacon, pastor, teacher, leader in the structure of the church...
I am always reminded that God chooses whom he wanted, Rahab the harlot was chosen to accomplish things for the will of God, in other words, God chooses whom he wanted to choose regardless of who you are, He only sees your heart at that moment if you are willing to obey what God wanted you to accomplish in His will, in His name...
To illustrate civil servants,judges who promote same sex marriage is an should i say ignorance? of the will of God, theirs is a ceremony contrary to the design of God and therefore could never be meritted as of God in contrast to those civil servants who perform marriage ceremonies in the name of God yet still many carelessly categorize them as one with those who are perverts and judging them as performing unholy ceremonies in which they are strictly not and therefore concludes that civil wedding in general could never be sacred regardless of anything setting the whole matter in a limited perspective.
we are talking here about the design of God, from God and of God in the earthly government structure..
on the other hand, this holds true similarly in the church now which is likened to a leavened bread, maraming paalsa at impurities at kokonte ang tunay na substance ng bread.( but this is another topic, the church)whom religious clergies and RCC priests alike imminently wed people who are immoral and fornicators using the name of God inside the church. (which they themselves hold dirt inside their own closets)
Bottomline: We are addressing the will of God, those God chooses, the ordinary men not kings, priests, pharisees and saducees...because Christ himself was clothed with humanity and simplicity out of the ordinary.
This is the will of God not about perverts and immorals from within and from without the church, but about the hearts that are willing to obey, to change, to repent and be used by God in His name inside and outside the church structures.
[/color]
|
|
|
wedding
Aug 11, 2006 14:33:06 GMT 10
Post by hottyfecehh on Aug 11, 2006 14:33:06 GMT 10
nawawaala si kuya bashik..... ganun din si friend supremo.... waaaaaaaa, lumitaw litaw naman kayo diyan....
|
|
migy
Moderator
moderator in his designated rooms
Posts: 2,544
|
wedding
Aug 12, 2006 23:22:25 GMT 10
Post by migy on Aug 12, 2006 23:22:25 GMT 10
Yan cge Hotty Roll Call mo sila...
|
|