ะะธั ัะตะณะพะดะฝั ั "ะฎัะธะน ะะพะดะพะปัะบะฐ"
ะะธะบะพะปะฐะตะฒัะบะธะน ะะฐะฝัะบ
ะะฝัะฐะนะดะตั UA
โ๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐ โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ค
This channel is dedicated towards defending the True Catholic faith and to teach catholics their True Faith and to realize it.
This channel is a Part of a Global Crusade. JOIN GLOBAL CRUSADE for Other Content LINK ๐
https://t.me/+vHkIuoh4e2BkZTVh
This channel is a Part of a Global Crusade. JOIN GLOBAL CRUSADE for Other Content LINK ๐
https://t.me/+vHkIuoh4e2BkZTVh
TGlist rating
0
0
TypePublic
Verification
Not verifiedTrust
Not trustedLocation
LanguageOther
Channel creation dateOct 21, 2023
Added to TGlist
May 24, 2024Latest posts in group "โ๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐ โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ค"
16.05.202515:00
WHY DID THE CHURCH IN CORINTH APPEAL TO ROME AND NOT JOHN THE APOSTLE ?
One of the earliest pieces of evidence for the papacy comes from around AD 96, during a crisis in the Church of Corinth. Some presbyters had been unjustly removed, and guess who they turned to for help? Not the Apostle John, who was still alive and living closer to them in Ephesus, but Clement, bishop of Rome (Pope Clement I). That's huge. Think about it: Why would a church bypass a living apostle nearby and appeal all the way to Rome unless Rome already held a special authority? Clement didn't respond casually either. His letter (known as 1 Clement) is firm, authoritative, and calls for obedience. He even warns of spiritual danger for those who ignore his instructions. And the Corinthians accepted it! In fact, they read his letter publicly in their church for decades afterward.
One of the earliest pieces of evidence for the papacy comes from around AD 96, during a crisis in the Church of Corinth. Some presbyters had been unjustly removed, and guess who they turned to for help? Not the Apostle John, who was still alive and living closer to them in Ephesus, but Clement, bishop of Rome (Pope Clement I). That's huge. Think about it: Why would a church bypass a living apostle nearby and appeal all the way to Rome unless Rome already held a special authority? Clement didn't respond casually either. His letter (known as 1 Clement) is firm, authoritative, and calls for obedience. He even warns of spiritual danger for those who ignore his instructions. And the Corinthians accepted it! In fact, they read his letter publicly in their church for decades afterward.
16.05.202515:00
This shows that even before the New Testament canon was closed, the Church already recognized a kind of primacy in Rome. The bishop of Rome was seen not just as another leader, but as a shepherd for the whole Church, long before it was formalized at later councils. Early papacy? It was already in motion.
Reposted from:
โ๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐ โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ค
16.05.202514:18
St Cyril the Head Presider of Ephesus clarifies and tells us what it means. He says that Explanations of the creed which are added are not innovative additions but necessary additions for the sake of clarity
Reposted from:โ๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐ โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ค
16.05.202514:18
EXPLANATION:
Papal Supremacy. The Power of a Pope is Higher than an ecumenical council.
Its true that At Ephesus they decided the Prohibition of Making of new Creeds .
But since the Supremacy of the Pope is Higher than the COUNCILS..... it is Possible since the Pope is Higher than the Council.... and the Council can NEVER be Higher than the Pope
Papal Supremacy. The Power of a Pope is Higher than an ecumenical council.
Its true that At Ephesus they decided the Prohibition of Making of new Creeds .
But since the Supremacy of the Pope is Higher than the COUNCILS..... it is Possible since the Pope is Higher than the Council.... and the Council can NEVER be Higher than the Pope
Reposted from:โ๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐ โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ค
16.05.202514:18
Oopsies, did St Jerome just say to the Pope he can order a new creed above and better than the nicene creed for everyone to submit to ๐๐๐
Reposted from:โ๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐ โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ค
16.05.202514:18
Firstly , Constantinople 1 Wouldn't be an Ecumenical council unless a Pope Validated and RATIFIED IT as a Council .It would have been a Mere Synod without Papal ratification
So what gave the Orthodox easterners the right to Add the the Latter half of the Creed to the existing Nicene Creed.
(Because the Creed we recite today is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed) .
If an Orthodox considers adding one word to the Creed to be "another creed," then wouldn't removing large chunks of the original Nicene Creed also qualify as "another creed"? If an Orthodox were to retort, "But the filioque clause is heretical, so it corrupts the Creed," then the Orthodox condemn themselves for being in communion with the Western Church, which taught the filioque. As Orthodox author Edward Siecienski notes, "by the late sixth century the filioque achieved a level of acceptance in the West bordering on unanimity,.
The Numerous Church fathers accepted the Filioque as well... the Orthodox have No reason to Reject it
So what gave the Orthodox easterners the right to Add the the Latter half of the Creed to the existing Nicene Creed.
(Because the Creed we recite today is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed) .
If an Orthodox considers adding one word to the Creed to be "another creed," then wouldn't removing large chunks of the original Nicene Creed also qualify as "another creed"? If an Orthodox were to retort, "But the filioque clause is heretical, so it corrupts the Creed," then the Orthodox condemn themselves for being in communion with the Western Church, which taught the filioque. As Orthodox author Edward Siecienski notes, "by the late sixth century the filioque achieved a level of acceptance in the West bordering on unanimity,.
The Numerous Church fathers accepted the Filioque as well... the Orthodox have No reason to Reject it
Reposted from:โ๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐ โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ค
16.05.202514:18
St Basil himself says that the creed of Constantinople 381 added to the nicene creed and even was open to additions about the incarnation.
Well well well, I guess the consensus of fathers support the addition of the Filioque after all
Well well well, I guess the consensus of fathers support the addition of the Filioque after all
Reposted from:โ๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐ โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ค
16.05.202507:03
Use this to shut the Anti-Catholic Protestants up.... since they're allergic to the truth and love to use Fallacious Reasoning to Justify their Wrongdoings
Deleted16.05.202511:15
16.05.202505:28
15.05.202518:28
Use The Argument to Disprove Islam and Silence the Stupid islamists
15.05.202518:24
DEBUNKING ISLAM (The QURANIC Dilemma Argument) ๐
15.05.202518:24
SO WHAT MUSLIMS ARE SUPPOSED TO BELEIVE ABOUT THE QURAN ?
They beleive its uncorrupt and Preserved ...... BUT VERSE 285 tells us to beleive this about All the Books!... when it says "We beleive in the ..... Books..and we make no distinction"
So if you're telling me that the Quran is Preserved , uncorrupted...... You're supposed to beleive the Same about the Other books as well ..... Therefore the New Testament And Old Testament are True By Default .
But here Muslims say that those Books are Corrupted ๐.... Why are you stupid Muslims going against your Quran? Your quran Confirms my Bible is true !
What This Means๐
If Muslims accept the Quran as true, they must also accept the Bible as true. But if the Bible is true, then Islam is false because it contradicts the core teachings of Christianity. If they claim the Bible is corrupt, they are denying their own scripture, which says Godโs words cannot be altered.
This argument forces Muslims into a logical dilemma:
1. If they trust the Quran, they must trust the Bibleโwhich disproves Islam.
2. If they reject the Bible, they must reject the Quran as well.
Either way, Islam collapses under its own claims. ISLAM THEREFORE IS FALSE
They beleive its uncorrupt and Preserved ...... BUT VERSE 285 tells us to beleive this about All the Books!... when it says "We beleive in the ..... Books..and we make no distinction"
So if you're telling me that the Quran is Preserved , uncorrupted...... You're supposed to beleive the Same about the Other books as well ..... Therefore the New Testament And Old Testament are True By Default .
But here Muslims say that those Books are Corrupted ๐.... Why are you stupid Muslims going against your Quran? Your quran Confirms my Bible is true !
What This Means๐
If Muslims accept the Quran as true, they must also accept the Bible as true. But if the Bible is true, then Islam is false because it contradicts the core teachings of Christianity. If they claim the Bible is corrupt, they are denying their own scripture, which says Godโs words cannot be altered.
This argument forces Muslims into a logical dilemma:
1. If they trust the Quran, they must trust the Bibleโwhich disproves Islam.
2. If they reject the Bible, they must reject the Quran as well.
Either way, Islam collapses under its own claims. ISLAM THEREFORE IS FALSE
15.05.202518:24
THE ISLAMIC DILEMMA ARGUMENT (DEBUNKING ISLAM)
REGARDING THE ABOVE QURANIC VERSE ๐
Firstly Muslims say we beleive in allah and what was revealed to us. ... ( what is revealed to you... means to follow the Quran) so the quran tells you to beleive what is revealed to you
NOTE : The QURAN As Quoted above in Surah 2:136 Says WE MAKE NO DISTINCTION..... SO WHAT IS GIVEN TO US AND GIVEN TO THEM (Abraham ,Moses and Jesus) IS BOTH PRESERVED.....
Meaning the Muslim View that the Quran had to be preserved also has to have the Preservation that the books of Abraham, Jesus and Moses are true and preserved as well.. Surah 21:48 of the Quran explicitly states that Moses Got the Zikr (ุฐูููุฑ) ..... Well Moses Getting the Zikr (ุฐูููุฑ) isn't actually The quran.... But the Torah (Old testament) ....
AND in Surah 21:105 of the Quran "
In fact the Quran In Surah 21:48 directly states that Moses Got the Zikr(ุฐูููุฑ)
And Surah 21:7 Literally says Muhammad TO verify his revelations by asking the Jews and Christians ๐
SO, the Old Testament and New Testament is PRESERVED. ... and Proven True since according to the quran (See below๐)
now go to Chapter 2 verse 285...
BUT The quran says that true beleivers Beleive in those Books of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and lastly Muhammad For Muslims.
The Quran explicitly affirms that the Torah (Old Testament) and the Injil (Gospel/New Testament) are revelations from God:
โข โIndeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light.โ (Surah 5:44)
โข โAnd We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light.โ (Surah 5:46)
AND Surah 29:46
BASICALLY Muhammad relies on the Jews and Christian's Books to Prove his False Religion......
โขโSay, โWe have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and what was given to Moses and Jesus.โโ (Surah 2:136)
REGARDING THE ABOVE QURANIC VERSE ๐
Firstly Muslims say we beleive in allah and what was revealed to us. ... ( what is revealed to you... means to follow the Quran) so the quran tells you to beleive what is revealed to you
NOTE : The QURAN As Quoted above in Surah 2:136 Says WE MAKE NO DISTINCTION..... SO WHAT IS GIVEN TO US AND GIVEN TO THEM (Abraham ,Moses and Jesus) IS BOTH PRESERVED.....
Meaning the Muslim View that the Quran had to be preserved also has to have the Preservation that the books of Abraham, Jesus and Moses are true and preserved as well.. Surah 21:48 of the Quran explicitly states that Moses Got the Zikr (ุฐูููุฑ) ..... Well Moses Getting the Zikr (ุฐูููุฑ) isn't actually The quran.... But the Torah (Old testament) ....
AND in Surah 21:105 of the Quran "
And We have already written in the Psalms after the Reminder (Zikr(ุฐูููุฑ)) that 'the land shall be inherited by My righteous servants.'" (Surah 21:105)NOTICE how the quran admits that the book of Psalms of the Old testament were written After the Zikr(ุฐูููุฑ) . SO LOGICALLY FOLLOWING .... THIS ZIKR(ุฐูููุฑ) CANNOT BE THE QURAN .
In fact the Quran In Surah 21:48 directly states that Moses Got the Zikr(ุฐูููุฑ)
"And We had already given Moses and Aaron the criterion, and a light and a Reminder (Zikr) for the righteous." Surah 21:48
And Surah 21:7 Literally says Muhammad TO verify his revelations by asking the Jews and Christians ๐
"And We sent not before you [Muhammad], except men to whom We revealed. So ask the People of the Reminder (Zikr(ุฐูููุฑ)) if you do not know."
SO, the Old Testament and New Testament is PRESERVED. ... and Proven True since according to the quran (See below๐)
now go to Chapter 2 verse 285...
The Messenger หนfirmlyหบ believes in what has been revealed to him from his Lord, and so do the believers. They หนallหบ believe in Allah, His angels, *His Books*, and His messengers. หนThey proclaim,หบ โWe make no distinction between any of His messengers.โ And they say, โWe hear and obey. หนWe seekหบ Your forgiveness, our Lord! And to You หนaloneหบ is the final return.Notice... They Beleive in Allah's BOOKS.. books is plural๐ . And Quran Chapter 2 Verse 285 says that WE MAKE NO DISTINCTION ....... BETWEEN ANY OF HIS MESSENGERS ..... (when you Muslims tell me that the books of Abraham , Moses and Jesus are Corrupt then you are making a distinction Which ultimately proves your quran False!)
BUT The quran says that true beleivers Beleive in those Books of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and lastly Muhammad For Muslims.
The Quran explicitly affirms that the Torah (Old Testament) and the Injil (Gospel/New Testament) are revelations from God:
โข โIndeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light.โ (Surah 5:44)
โข โAnd We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah. And We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light.โ (Surah 5:46)
AND Surah 29:46
"If you [Muhammad] doubt what We have revealed to you, then ask those who've been reading the Book before you." (Surah 29:46)
BASICALLY Muhammad relies on the Jews and Christian's Books to Prove his False Religion......
Surah 5:48: "And We have sent down to you the Book (this Quran) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Muhaymin (superce and witness) over it (old Scriptures)."This verse states that the Quran confirms the previous scriptures and is a witness over them. This also means that the Quran guarantees the preservation of the previous scriptures. THEREFORE THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT IS TRUE... BIBLE IS TRUE .
Records
16.05.202523:59
1.7KSubscribers24.05.202423:59
0Citation index09.05.202523:02
562Average views per post02.05.202515:01
344Average views per ad post18.04.202523:59
27.03%ER09.05.202520:01
33.69%ERRPopular posts โ๐๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ก๐ ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐ โ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ค
17.04.202503:15
Holy Thursday, also known as Maundy Thursday, commemorates the events of the Last Supper, where Jesus shared His final meal with His disciples before His crucifixion. On this day, He instituted the Sacrament of the Eucharist, giving His body and blood under the appearance of bread and wine, and commanding His followers to "do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). This day also highlights the institution of the priesthood, as Jesus, by washing the feet of His disciples, set an example of humility and service, instructing them to love and serve one another. Holy Thursday marks the beginning of the Easter Triduum, a time of reflection on the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ, and is observed with solemn Masses, foot-washing ceremonies, and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, recalling Christ's sacrificial love for humanity.
Happy Holy Thursday
Happy Holy Thursday
16.05.202515:00
WHY DID THE CHURCH IN CORINTH APPEAL TO ROME AND NOT JOHN THE APOSTLE ?
One of the earliest pieces of evidence for the papacy comes from around AD 96, during a crisis in the Church of Corinth. Some presbyters had been unjustly removed, and guess who they turned to for help? Not the Apostle John, who was still alive and living closer to them in Ephesus, but Clement, bishop of Rome (Pope Clement I). That's huge. Think about it: Why would a church bypass a living apostle nearby and appeal all the way to Rome unless Rome already held a special authority? Clement didn't respond casually either. His letter (known as 1 Clement) is firm, authoritative, and calls for obedience. He even warns of spiritual danger for those who ignore his instructions. And the Corinthians accepted it! In fact, they read his letter publicly in their church for decades afterward.
One of the earliest pieces of evidence for the papacy comes from around AD 96, during a crisis in the Church of Corinth. Some presbyters had been unjustly removed, and guess who they turned to for help? Not the Apostle John, who was still alive and living closer to them in Ephesus, but Clement, bishop of Rome (Pope Clement I). That's huge. Think about it: Why would a church bypass a living apostle nearby and appeal all the way to Rome unless Rome already held a special authority? Clement didn't respond casually either. His letter (known as 1 Clement) is firm, authoritative, and calls for obedience. He even warns of spiritual danger for those who ignore his instructions. And the Corinthians accepted it! In fact, they read his letter publicly in their church for decades afterward.
Reposted from:
โ๐ฃ๐ ๐ฅ โ๐๐ฅ๐
10.05.202503:13
Another example of prots not knowing Holy Scripture
Log in to unlock more functionality.
