KAHIYA-HIYA NGA BA SA LAHAT NG LALAKI ANG MAGKAROON NG MAHABANG BUHOK? (PAGPAPALIWANAG KUNG BAKIT MAY PAGKA-MAHABA ANG BUHOK NI CRISTO SA MGA IMAHENG KATOLIKO)

bearded Christ at Commodilla catacombs (4th C.E) image from:wiki

Nakasasawang binabanatan ng mga erehe ang mga imahe ni Cristo sa Simbahan. Una na rito ang pagpansin nila sa haba ng buhok ni Cristo sa mga Katolikong imahe. Ayon sa kanila, imposible raw magkaroon ng ganoong haba ng buhok si Cristo dahil nga sa ipinagbawal ito ni San Pablo sa kanyang sulat sa mga taga- Corinto:

1 Corinto 11:14 (MBB) 

“ Hindi baga ang katalagahan din ang nagtuturo sa inyo, na kung may mahabang buhok ang lalake, ay mahalay sa kaniya?”

Una sa lahat, wala po tayong makikita sa nasabing talata na “Huwag kayong magkaroon man ng pagkahaba-habang buhok”. Wala po tayong makikita na direktang utos ni San Pablo na huwag magkakaroon ang sinuman ng mahabang buhok. Mapapansin sa nasabing talata na parang nagpaparinig si San Pablo sa pamamagitan ng sulat na “hindi angkop para sa mga taga- Corinto ang mga lalaking may mahabang buhok lalo na’t nagpapakita ito ng kahalayan.

Ngayon tumutukoy po ba ito kay Cristo at sa buong sambayanang Cristiano? Hindi po! Bakit naman po natin nasabi?

Sa sulat ni San Pablo, napakalinaw po na ANG PINAGSASABIHAN NI SAN PABLO AY ANG MGA TAGA-CORINTO AT HINDI PO SI CRISTO. Napakababa naman pala ni Cristo kung pagsasabihan lang pala ni San Pablo ng ganun. Pero hindi po nakatalaga ang nasabing epistula para kay Cristo kundi para sa sambahayang Cristiano na nasa CORINTO. ANG NASABING SULAT AY MAY ESPISIPIKONG PATUTUNGUHAN AT ITO ANG MGA TAGA-CORINTO NA NASA IMPLUWENSYA PA NG HELENISTIKO’T ROMANONG KULTURA.

LAHAT PO BA NG MAY MAHABANG BUHOK AY KAHIYA-HIYA?
Pakitunghayan na lamang po sa Biblia ang kasagutan:

Mga Bilang 6:5 (AB ) 

Sa lahat ng araw ng kaniyang pagkatalaga ay walang pang-ahit na daraan sa ibabaw ng kaniyang ulo: hanggang sa matupad ang mga araw na kaniyang itinalaga sa Panginoon, ay magpapakabanal siya; kaniyang pababayaang humaba ang buhok ng kaniyang ulo.

Malinaw po sa nasabing talata na ang taong hindi nagpapaahit ng buhok ay MISMONG MGA NAKATALAGA SA PAGLILINGKOD SA DIOS AT ANG MGA TAONG CONSEGRADO SA DIOS.  ITO ANG MGA TINATAWAG NA NAZAREO NA MAY PANATA RIN NA HINDI SILA MAGPAPAAHIT NG BUHOK.

Mga Bilang 6:2 

Salitain mo sa mga anak ni Israel, at sabihin mo sa kanila, Pagka ang sinomang lalake o babae ay gagawa ng isang tanging panata, ng panata ng isang Nazareo, upang tumalaga sa Panginoon:

Samakatuwid, tunay silang nagpapakahaba ng buhok at ng kanilang balbas bilang simbolo at distinksyon na sila’y nakalataga sa Dios. Hindi ba’t si Cristo ay nakatalaga rin sa Dios isang bagay na makikita sa kanya na Syang tumupad sa kalooban ng Ama?

Hebreo 10:7  

  Nang magkagayo'y sinabi ko, Narito, ako'y pumarito (sa balumbon ng aklat ay nasusulat tungkol sa akin.) Upang gawin, Oh Dios, ang iyong kalooban.

ano nga po ba ulit ang kalooban ng Dios sa mga nakalatalaga para sa Kanya? Bilang 6:5; Sa lahat ng araw ng kaniyang pagkatalaga ay walang pang-ahit na daraan sa ibabaw ng kaniyang ulo: hanggang sa matupad ang mga araw na kaniyang itinalaga sa Panginoon.

Ayan, malinaw naman po kaysa sa mineral water na ang mga lalaking may mahabang buhok ay hindi kahiya-hiya, datapuwat kinalulugdan pa nga ng Dios dahil sa kanilang pagiging consegrado sa Kanya. Halimbawa na lamang dito si Samson na may panatang Nazareo at maging si San Juan Bautista.

Ano nga po ba ulit ang tawag kay Jesus? Hindi ba’t tinatawag din syang Nazareno?

Mateo 2:23 

at doon nanirahan sa bayan ng Nazaret. Sa gayon, natupad ang sinabi ng mga propeta: “Siya’y tatawaging Nazareno.”

Ang pagtawag kay Jesus na Nazareno ay hindi lamang nauuwi sa kadahilanang taga- Nasaret sya. Mapapansin natin na wala ngi isang direktang binanggit sa propesiya na si Jesus, ang Anak ng Dios ay tatawaging Nazareno, pero bakit kaya naisipan ni San Mateo ang ganun?

Tatlo malamang ang dahilan ni San Mateo ditto:

1.)    Taga- Nasaret sya kaya naman bagay syang tawaging Nazareno

2.)    Maaaring galing ito sa salitang “NEZER” O NETZER NA MAKIKITA SA ISAIAS 11:1 SA WIKANG HEBREO

ISAIAH 11:1 

 w'yätzä cho†er miGëzayishäy w'nëtzer miSHäräshäywyif'reh

AT SA NASABING PROPESIYA DIN NABANGGIT NA SYA’Y TUNAY NA CONSEGRADO SA DIOS

ISAIAS 11:2 

At ang Espiritu ng Panginoon ay sasa kaniya, ang diwa ng karunungan at ng kaunawaan, ang diwa ng payo at ng katibayan, ang diwa ng kaalaman at ng takot sa Panginoon.

Ang salitang ito na “NEZER” AY MAY MALAKING KAUGNAYAN SA PANATANG NAZAREO:

Nezer- consecration, crown, Naziriteship (source: http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/5145.htm)

3.)    Si Jesus ay may panatang Nazareo at sa mauunawaan natin na sya’y may mahabang buhok.

Malamang, pinaglalaruan ni San Mateo ang salitang ito para iproklama si Jesus na TAGA-NASARET, ISANG NEZER NA UUSBONG AT ISANG NAZAREO NA CONSEGRADO SA DIOS.

SI JESUS BILANG ISANG NAZAREO AY KARAPAT-DAPAT NA MAGKAROON NG GANUNG BUHOK LALO NA’T PINAGBABAWALAN SA KANILA ANG MAG-AHIT HANGGA’T MAAARI.

Lev 19:27  

Huwag ninyong gugupitin ng pabilog ang mga buhok sa palibot ng inyong ulo, ni huwag mong sisirain ang mga dulo ng iyong balbas. 

Samakatwid, hindi po talaga bawal ang pagkakaroon ng mahabang buhok lalo na’t may mga utos pa nga ang Dios na magpahaba ng buhok ang iilan bilang tanda ng pagkakatalaga nila bilang malapit sa Dios at banal. Ang ibig sabihin lamang ni San Pablo sa sulat ay nakatuon sa particular na etnisidad (ethnicity) ng Kristyanismo at ito ang mga taga- Corinto na nasa ilalim ng impluwensyang Romano at Griego na kung saan ang buhok ng mga lalaki ay nagiging tanda ng homosekswalidad at iba pa. Hindi po tayo huhukuman ng Dios dahil sa buhok. Wala pong barberia dati para magpagupit ng buhok kung kaya’t lohikal nating masasabi na may mahabang buhok maging ang mga apostol ni Jesus lalo na rin po si Jesus dahil isa syang Nazareo.

KASAGUTAN SA SINUNGALING NA INC TUNGKOL SA PAPAL DYNASTY

BATANG TUPA:

ANG DYNASTY ay isang PAMILYA na kumokontrol ng kapangayarihan sa iisang Organisasyon o Bansa.. Tandaan more than one is many..kaya PAPATUNAYAN KO PO NA HINDI LANG ISANG BESES nagkaroon ng Dynasty sa Loob ng Catholicism...

1st Dyansty:

The Borgia family (Spanish: Borja or Borjia) became prominent during the Renaissance in Italy. They were from Valencia, the name coming from the family fief of Borja, then in the kingdom of Aragon, in Spain.
The Borgias became prominent in ecclesiastical and political affairs in the 15th and 16th centuries, producing two popes, Alfons de Borja who ruled as Pope Callixtus III during 1455–1458 and Rodrigo Lanzol Borgia, as Pope Alexander VI, during 1492–1503.
Especially during the reign of Alexander VI, they were suspected of many crimes, including adultery, simony, theft, bribery[citation needed] and murder (especially murder by arsenic poisoning).[1] Because of their grasping for power, they made enemies of the Medici, the Sforza, and the Dominican friar Savonarola, among others. They were also patrons of the arts who contributed to the Renaissance.

source: Arsenic: A Murderous History. Dartmouth Toxic Metals Research Program, 2009
Jump up ^ The Menorah journal, Volumes 20-23, Intercollegiate Menorah Association, 1932, page 163 

2nd Dynasty
The parentage of John XI is still a matter of dispute. According to Liutprand of Cremona (Antapodosis, ii. c. 48) and the "Liber Pontificalis,"HE WAS THE NATURAL SON OF Pope Sergius III (904–911), ("Johannes, natione Romanus ex patre Sergio papa," "Liber Pont." ed. Duchesne, II, 243). Ferdinand Gregorovius,[1] Ernst Dümmler, Thomas Greenwood (Cathedra Petri: A Political History of the great Latin Patriarchate), Philip Schaff, and Rudolf Baxmann[2] agree with Liutprand that Pope Sergius III fathered Pope John XI[3] by Marozia. If that is true, John XI would be the only known illegitimate son of a Pope to have become Pope himself. (Silverius was the legitimate son of Pope Hormisdas). On the other hand, Horace Kinder Mann,[4] Reginald L. Poole,[5] Peter Llewelyn (Rome in the Dark Ages), Karl Josef von Hefele, August Friedrich Gfrörer,[6] Ludovico Antonio Muratori, and Francis Patrick Kenrick[7] maintain that Pope John XI was sired by Alberic I of Spoleto, Count of Tusculum.

Source: Wikipedia.com

3rd Dynasty
One of two Legitimate sons of Pope Innocent I, born around 399. When his father (Pope Innocent) died in 417, there was no clear agreement of succession between either himself or his brother Eulalius.

Controlling substantial wealth and resources, both young princes ushered in a feud in the palaces and streets of Rome, with neither side willing to cede.

To spare the city from any more damage and bloodsheed, Galla Placidia famously asked Emperor Honorius to order his cousins to take their fight outside the walls of Rome- a city still recovering from the shock of the raid of Alaric.

Honorius sent an edict to both young men to cease hostilities and forced them both into temporarily exile. But Eulalius was the first to break his oath to his Theodosian cousin, the Emperor and returned to Rome. Honorius then used this as the pretext to select Boniface, exiling Eulalius. At the age of just 18, Boniface was elected Pope in 418.

source: one-evil.org

4th Dynasty
He was a legitimate son of Pope Hormisdas, born before his father entered the priesthood. Silverius was probably consecrated 8 June 536. He was a subdeacon when king Theodahad of the Ostrogoths forced his election and consecration. Jeffrey Richards interprets his low rank prior to becoming pope as an indication that Theodahad was eager to put a pro-Gothic candidate on the throne on the eve of the Gothic War and "had passed over the entire diaconate as untrustworthy".[2] The Liber Pontificalis alleges that Silverius had purchased his elevation from King Theodahad.

Source: Wikipedia.com

Kaya hindi totoo na walang Dynasty sa Roman Catholic.. KAtunayan halos Ama sa Anak ang nagiging Pope sa Roman Catholic....

Jose dela Cruz: 

Hindi ako makapaniwala sa mga lohika mo. Unang-una sa una mong pinost, MALINAW NAMAN PO NA KASINUNGALINGAN ANG NASA POST DAHIL ANG AMA NI POPE LEO THE GREAT AY SI QUINTIANUS AT HINDI SI POPE BONIFACE, SO ANG SINUNGALING MONG BINTANG NA MAY DINASTIYA KAY POPE LEO AY MALINAW PONG NAKONTRA NG KATOTOHANAN UKOL SA KASAYSAYAN.

Sa ikalawa mong pinost, hindi po naming tinatanggi na mayroon ngang iilang kahihiyan ang naidulot ng Borgia family pero paulit-ulit po naming sinabi na hindi ito kaylanman tinolerate ng simbahan lalo na’t sa pagtatapos ng kanilang pamumuno, ipinatupad kaagad-agad ang isang papal bull na nagbabawal sa mga ganitong gawi. ISA PA PO PALA, hindi po ako makapaniwala sa definition mo ng "many"[more than one=many] dahil kung ganun ang tamang definition, pati po pala ONE AND ONE HALF AY MAITUTURING NG MANY O MARAMI???

[2^ND DYNASTY?]

Ngayon, wala pong bago sa pinost nyo dahil inulit nyo na lang po ang isyu sa Borgia family so darako tayo ngaun sa ikalawang pinost nyo na patungkol kay Pope John XI. Una sa lahat, ang alam kong depinisyon ng Dynasty ay ganito:

“A succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in a certain field.” source:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dynasty

So ang qualification po sa pagiging dynasty ay isang tuloy-tuloy na succession mula sa una hanggang sa magiging anak nya. Ibig sabihin, pagkatapos ng termino ng isa, kaagad syang hahalinhan ng kanyang anak o kamag-anak. Ngayon, MAITUTURING BANG DINASTIYA ANG IKALAWA MONG PINOST??? HINDI PO, BAKIT?

1. UNA, hindi po tiyak na anak po sya ni Pope Sergius dahil ayon mismo sa pinagkunan mo “THE PARENTAGE OF POPE JOHN XI IS STILL A MATTER OF DISPUTE”. Ibig sabihin nagpapalagayan pa lamang ang mga istoryador kung anu ang tiyak na pinanggalingan ni Pope John XI, dahil may ibang record sa kasaysayan na SYA PO AY ANAK NI MAROZIA SA ASAWA NITONG SI ALBERIC. IBIG SABIHIN, WALA PONG KATIYAKAN NA SYA’Y ANAK NI POPE SERGIUS III DAHIL MAY ASSERTION NA ANAK SYA NI ALBERIC!

2. IKALAWA, SI POPE SERGIUS AY NAMUNO LAMANG HANGGANG 911 SAMANTALANG SI POPE JOHN XI AY NAGSIMULANG MAMUNO NOONG 931. PAPAANO PO TATAWAGING DYNASTY IYAN KUNG SI POPE JOHN XI AY NAMUNO LAMANG 20 YEARS PAGKATAPOS MAMATAY SI POPE SERGIUS? Napakalinaw po sa kasaysayan na si Pope Sergius ay HINALINHAN NI ANASTASIUS III NA ANAK NI LUCIAN, SINUNDAN PA ITO NINA POPE LANDO, JOHN X, LEO VI AT STEPHEN VIII, HINDI PO SILA MAGKAKAMAG-ANAK! WALA PONG NANGYARING DIRECT FAMILY SUCCESSION PARA TAWAGIN NATING DYNASTY ANG TERMINO NINA POPE SERGIUS AT NI JOHN XI! (refer to the definition of DYNASTY ABOVE)

[3^RD DYNASTY?]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, bumase ka na naman sa isang website na puro kasinungalingan ang laman. Hindi ba’t dyan ka rin kumuha sa kasinungalingan mo ukol kay Pope Leo the Great, pero sasagutin natin iyan. UNA SA LAHAT, SI POPE BONIFACE I PA ANG TINUTUKOY MO DAHIL SA PALAGAY KO SYA NGA?

[One of two Legitimate sons of Pope Innocent I, born around 399. When his father (Pope Innocent) died in 417, there was no clear agreement of succession between either himself or his brother Eulalius.]

Wala pong tala sa kasaysayan na ang AMA NI POPE BONIFACE I AY SI POPE INNOCENT I DAHIL ANG AMA PO NI POPE BONIFACE AY  ISANG PARI NA NAGNGANGALANG JOCUNDUS. LALO NA NAMAN PONG LUMILITAW NA SINUNGALING KAYO.

IKALAWA, WALA PONG DIRECT SUCCESSION NA NANGYARI DAHIL HINALINHAN PO SI POPE INNOCENT I NI POPE ZOSIMUS, SO HINDI PO SYA DYNASTY. ELECTION PO PWEDE PA.

[4^TH DYNASTY?]

ANG HULI MONG PINOST AY HINDI RIN PO DYNASTY DAHIL SI POPE HORMISDAS AY HINALINHAN NG 5 HINDI NYA KAANU-ANONG PAPA BAGO UMUPO ANG KANYANG ANAK NA SI POPE ST. SILVERIUS. EWAN KO BA SA IYO KUNG BAKIT GANYAN ANG UTAK MO??? HALATADO PONG WALANG DIRECT SUCCESSION SA PAGITAN NG DALAWA, IBIG SABIHIN, HINDI PO SILA DYNASTY DAHIL ANG DYNASTY AY:

“  a succession of rulers of the same line of descent”

source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dynasty

[1ST DYNASTY?]

SA 1ST DYNASTY, GANUN DIN PO ANG MAGIGING LOHIKA, MAAARI NGANG MAIMPLUWENSYA ANG BORGIA FAMILY PERO DALAWANG BORGIA LAMANG ANG NALUKLOK NA PAPA.. SI POPE CALLISTUS III AY NATAPOS MAMUNO NOONG 1458 AT ANG KAMAG-ANAK NAMAN NYA AY NAGSIMULANG NAMUNO NOONG 1492, INUULIT KO, WALA PONG NANGYARING SUCCESSION SA PAGITAN NG DALAWANG MAGKAMAG-ANAK DAHIL 34 YEARS PA ANG HININTAY BAGO MAGKAROON NG ISA PANG BORGIA SA KAPAPAHAN

CONCLUSION:

ANG 2^ND AND 3^RD ALLEGED DYNASTY AY PAWANG KASINUNGALINGAN SAMANTALANG ANG IKAAPAT AY HINDI MAITUTURING DYNASTY. ERGO, U ARE REFUTED! sa madaling salita, HUWAG NYONG ITULAD ANG AMING SIMBAHAN SA IGLESIA NI MANALONG PINAMUMUNUAN LANG NG PAMILYANG MANALO. (family business)

Are you "catholic"?

I remember someone told me: "the entire community of true believers in Christ regardless of their religious affiliations [e.g. Lutheran, Evangelicals, et al] is the genuine Catholic Church..."

MY REPLY: "catholic" or "universal" church was used by the Early Church Fathers [particularly St. Ignatius of Antioch; c. 1st century AD] to distinguish the then infant CHURCH from heretical churches having an array of contradicting doctrines and labelling themselves with the name of God, Jesus Christ or the apostles to appear that they are legitimate apostolic assemblies of believers (as it has been the case from then until now).

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.

— St. Ignatius of Antioch [death: c. 107 AD]
Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, J.R. Willis translation.

But we must insist that this word is not only implying UNIVERSALITY but also UNITY [cf. Jn 10:16, Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 12:13, Eph. 4:4-6]. It refers to the ancient faith "that has been believed everywhere, always and by all." It pertains to the ONE TRUE FAITH [cf. Eph. 4:5] which is once and for all delivered unto the saints [cf. Jude 1:3]. It expresses ORTHODOXY, HARMONY and complete UNION within ONE BODY OF CHRIST.

Now, do protestants and other "christian" denominations have such CATHOLICITY in the correct sense of the word?

Your guess is as good as mine. :)

THE HOLY INQUISITION IS INDEED HOLY PART 2

In the part 1 of the article, we have discussed numerous references proving the Biblical roots of the Inquisition and debunking the hoaxes about it.  Now, in this article, we are going to debunk the historical revisions and lies made by Protestants about the death toll of the Holy Inquisition, the other myths and legends regarding it and the Protestant version of Inquisition that also caused numerous casualties in the side of Catholics and Jews.

THE INQUISITION: SADISTIC OR NOT?

the emblem of Inquisition

The use of torture in the Inquisition was undeniably true but not an exaggerated fact in which according to Protestants, Inquisitors used various torture machines. In fact, the percentage of tortures used in the whole period of Inquisition was too small to define the whole Tribunal as a sadistic one. Pope Innocent IV issued the Ad extirpanda (Medieval Inquisition) which authorized the use of torture as a mean of interrogation and punishment but in a gentle way in which sadistic and bloody tortures were forbidden. It had been applied to the other Catholic version of Inquisition such as the one in Spain.

 Torture methods that resulted in bloodshed, births, mutilation or death were forbidden. Also, torture could be performed only once." 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Inquisition

Therefore, the Inquisition did not violate human rights as it humanely tried heretics. Perhaps, the Inquisition is more humane compare to the torture being used by ordinary enforcement agencies in Middle East! The use of torture throughout the Inquisition only comprised about 2% of all cases like what historical researches stated:

“The Spanish inquisition, however, engaged in it far less often and with greater care than other courts.” 

Source:Peters, Edward, Inquisition, Dissent, Heterodoxy and the Medieval Inquisitional Office, pp. 92-93, University of California Press (1989), ISBN 0-520-06630-8.

“Torture was used in two percent of the cases, and in less than one percent of the cases was it used a second time, never more than that. The torture lasted up to 15 minutes….”Executions and torture remained rare.” 

Source:Madden, Thomas F., The Truth About the Spanish Inquisition, Crisis Magazine, September 2003

Stephen Haliczer stated at his book about Spanish Inquisition that inquisitors rarely used tortures as a mean of interrogation. They only used it due to the difficulty of producing the requisite of two witnesses to the same act.

“In practice, the Spanish Inquisition used forms of torture that were common to the entire judicial system and undoubtedly more careful than the secular courts applying it. Moreover, in spite of the considerable discretion given to judges in the 1561 instructions, the repetition of torture was extremely unusual…” 

Source:  Haliczer, Stephen, Inquisition and society in the kingdom of Valencia, 1478-1834, p. 79, University of California Press, 1990

The torture machines used by the inquisitors were rack, garrucha and toca. These were rarely used for it is invalid for the Tribunal to accept forced confessions. The popular myth says that Inquisitors used bloody torture machines like heretic fork, stocks, pear, branks, wheels, breast ripper, and iron maiden. These are all false accusations because basically, the Church has forbidden bloody tortures and tortures that might result to mutilation (see statements above). Henry Kamen affirmed that those stuffs are myths with no factual and historical root!

“Some "popular" accounts of the inquisition (those that describe scenes of uncontrolled sadistic torture) are not based in truth. Torture was only ever used to elicit information or a confession, not for punitive reasons.”
Source: Kamen, Henry, “Spanish Inquisition”, p. 189

Perhaps, experts say that torture machines, as what popular myth has told us, are all hoaxes and not based in truth. For example, the iron maiden which according to them has spikes that can bring heretics to extreme pain is completely a hoax and never existed in medieval times and even in the period of Inquisition.

“It is believed to be fictional, although examples have been created for display.” 

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_maiden_(torture_device)

Iron maiden was just a misinterpretation of medieval “mantle of shame” that was made of tin and wood but without spikes.  Many historians ascertained those iron maidens together with other torture machines mentioned by popular myths are all products of imagination.

“ Johann Philipp Siebenkees created the history of it [iron maiden] as a hoax in 1793. According to Siebenkees'colportage, it was first used on August 14, 1515, to execute a coin forger.” 

Source:  Wolfgang Schild, Die Eiserne Jungfrau, 2002

Therefore, we can certainly agree that the Inquisition was not a sadistic tribunal, but rather, a humane one!

THE DEATH TOLL OF INQUISITION

Anti-Catholics always tell that the death toll during the Inquisition period is about 600,000 to 95,000,000 people. The last figure is a surprising one for it might kill the whole World Population during the medieval to New World period! It is ridiculous to say that Inquisition had killed in that huge number for it has no historical records at all.

The truth is that, historical accounts say that the death toll of Inquisition (from medieval to the end of Spanish inquisition) comprises only the 2% of the total of 150,000 cases. It does mean that the approximate no. of deaths is 3,000! Other historians say that in Spain alone (it has to be noted that it includes the other territories in Asia and America for it comprised the vast Spanish empire), between the period of 1530-1730, 1,250 persons were executed and it has to be noted that these were not only heretics but also sodomists, homosexuals, robbers, and criminals.

“William Monter estimates 1000 executions between 1530–1630 and 250 between 1630–1730.” 

Source: W. Monter, Frontiers of Heresy: The Spanish Inquisition from the Basque Lands to Sicily, Cambridge 2003, p. 53.

Between 1480 to 1530, Henry Kamen summed up the total casualties of about 2000 people. And if we are going to take the sum from 1480-1730, the total executions would be 3,250! The accurate range would be 3000 to 5000 and that figure was affirmed by the BBC documentary about Inquisition that was presented at the part 1 of this article. On the other hand, Italy, from the total of 75,000 cases, only 1250 resulted in a death sentence. That comprises the 1.7% of the total cases preserved by the Archived of Roman Inquisition.

"Out of 51,000-75,000 cases judged by Inquisition in Italy after 1542, around 1250 resulted in a death sentence." 

 Source: Andrea Del Col: L'Inquisizione in Italia. Milano: Oscar Mondadori, 2010, pp. 779-780. ISBN 978-88-04-53433-4.

In Malta, the inquisition was considered gentler for they considered  penance as the best punishment that can be inflicted against heretics.  (source:http://www.hmml.org/centers/malta/cathedral/aim.html)

On the other hand, the monarch-controlled Portuguese Inquisition only recorded 1808 executions during the period of 1540-1794 or 254 years.

From: Saraiva, António José; Salomon, Herman Prins; Sassoon, I. S. D. (2001) [First published in Portuguese in 1969]. The Marrano Factory: the Portuguese Inquisition and its New Christians 1536-1765. Brill. p. 102. ISBN 978-90-04-12080-8. Retrieved 2010-04-13.

It is proven in history that execution was rarely used by Inquisitors for they considered life, justice and humanity as the most important things.

Llorante proved the rare use of execution:

“Llorente cites an auto da fe of 1486 at Toledo, when seven hundred and fifty were condemned, but not one to capital punishment ; another of nine hundred, also without a death; another where three thousand three hundred were condemned, but only twenty seven suffered death.” 

 Source: Some Lies and Errors of History by the Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D.; Notre Dame, Indiana: The Ave Maria; 7th edition; 1893; pp. 143-187.
 

Now, we might consider the death toll in Inquisition is in the range of 5,000 to 9,000 and this includes the Church-sponsored Roman Inquisition and medieval Inquisition and the monarch-sponsored Spanish and Portuguese Inquisition. 9,000 is far different compare to 95,000,000 at anti-Catholic version. It is so ridiculous to come up in that huge number for it is proven that the maximum occurrence of execution is only 2% and the total number of cases is only 150,000!

THE COUNTERPART OF HOLY INQUISITION: THE PROTESTANT VERSION OF INQUISITION

Catholics were not the only ones who used Inquisition to combat heresy but also Protestants who used it to combat Catholics, Jews and the other Protestants and heretics. Perhaps, there is an historical account that the death toll during Protestant Inquisition is far bigger compare to the statistics we have shown above.

Ulrich Zwingli ordered the burning of Catholic monasteries and cathedrals:

"Their progress was marked by the destruction of churches and the burning of monasteries. The bishops of Constance, Basle, Lausanne and Geneva were forced to abandon their sees."
 From: Werke, Weimar, v.15, p.276 / Belfort Bax, The Peasants' War in Germany, London: 1899, p.352.

John Knox forbade the use of Mass particularly attending it:

"It was . . . forbidden to say Mass or to be present at Mass, with the punishment for a first offence of loss of all goods and a flogging; for the second offence, banishment; for the third, death." 

 From: Zwingli's Works, v.7, pp.174-84.

Luther ordered to persecute Catholic clergy:

"If I had all the Franciscan friars in one house, I would set fire to it . . . To the fire with them!"” 

 Source: Bretschneider, ed., Corpus Reformation, Halle: 1846, 2, pp.17 ff. / February, 1530.

Ulrich Zwingli urged death against other Protestant teaching other than his doctrines:

"Young Bible students he once mentored were now advocating more radical reform . . . refusing to have their babies baptized, citing his own earlier ideas . . . In January, 1525, Zwingli agreed that they deserved capital punishment . . . for tearing the fabric of a seamless Christian society." 

 From: Ruth, John L., "America's Anabaptists: Who They Are," Christianity Today, October 22, 1990, p.26

The quotes above are from: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?8553-The-Protestant-Inquisition-quot-Reformation-quot

Luther even tried to suppress Catholicism through urging the governments who swore allegiance to him to wage war against Catholics:

" If the fury of the Romanists goes on in this way, it seems to me that no remedy is available, unless the Emperor, the Kings, and Princes should put on full strength to wage war against these pests of the whole world, and decide the question, no longer with words, but with the sword Why do we not wash our hands in their[Catholic] blood?''
 Source: p.36, "LUTHER'S OWN STATEMENTS CONCERNING HIS TEACHINGS AND ITS RESULTS", O' Connor, Henry S.J., 1884, Benzinger Brothers, 3rd American Edition

Luther also tried to suppress other Protestant teachers who were against him:

"Whoever teaches differently from what I have taught herein, or condemns me for it he condemns God and must be a child of Hell."  

Source: Ibid. p.40

It was not only the Catholic Church who became victims of this persecution but also our fellow Jews who according to Luther were devilish. Catholic church did not persecute Jews but these Protestants did!

" First, their synagogues or schools are to be set on fire, and whatever will not burn, is to be covered and heaped over with earth, so that never again shall one find stone or cinder of them left. And this is to be done in order to honour our Lord and Christianity, so that God may see that we are Christians..."

"Secondly, their houses are likewise to be broken down and destroyed, for they do exactly the same in them as they also do in their schools."

" Thirdly, all their Prayer Books and Talmuds are to be taken away from them, in which such idolatry, lies, curses, and blasphemies are taught."

" Fourthly, their Rabbis (Priests) are to be forbidden, under pain of capital punishment, to teach any more "

"Fifthly, the Jews are to be entirely denied legal protection when using the roads in the country (Das man den Juden das Geleid vnd Strasse aufifhebe), for they have no business to be in the country”

source: Ibid. p.34-35

The Protestant schismatic Anglican Church in England , on the other hand, persecuted the Catholic Church that led to the execution of 72,000 Catholics in the kingdom. King Henry VIII ordered these executions that brought St. Thomas More to martyrdom. Moreover, he also ordered the destruction of Catholic relics including the incorruptible bodies of the saints.

It continued to Queen Elizabeth I who had executed her sister Queen Mary of Scots. To unify her kingdom, she even tried to suppress Catholicism in Ireland and Scotland.

Oliver Cromwell who is responsible in English civil war also persecuted Catholics through beheading King Charles I, a Catholic king. He is also responsible from beheading of thousands of Cavaliers (alliance of King Charles I) and the oppression of Irish Catholics through his contemporaries William, the Orange and his wife.

The persecution continued even after the World War one and World War Two that led to the migration of Irish. How many Catholics died in the hands of their Protestant and Anglican persecutors? Not only the Catholics, but also innocent women were killed by Protestants just because of their fanaticism and their beliefs in witches in which for the Catholic Church is unreasonable to believe with!

 “To justify the killings, Protestant Christianity and its proxy secular institutions deemed witchcraft as being associated to wild Satanic ritual parties in which there was much naked dancing, and cannibalistic infanticide.” 

 Source: The Dark Side of Christian History by Helen Ellerbe.

Christian IV, a Protestant King of Denmark had thousands killed because of his witch-hunt. 30,000 were killed because of witchery in Britain alone and over 100,000 in Protestant Germany! This is far different compare to 9,000 total deaths in Holy Inquisition! 72,000 deaths is far worse compare to Spanish-sponsored Inquisition!

This only means that these alleged oppressed people also persecuted us in a worse way than we did to them!

CONCLUSION:

WE CAN CERTAINLY CONCLUDE THAT

•           THE DEATH TOLL IN THE INQUISITION PERIOD HAS A VERY SMALL FIGURE COMPARE TO THE NUMBER OF CATHOLICS PERSECUTED BY THE PROTESTANTS
•            THE INQUISITION WAS INDEED A HUMANE TRIBUNAL FOR IT NEVER USED ANY BLOODY TORTURE MACHINES
•          THE PROTESTANT INQUISITION IS WORSE THAN CATHOLIC INQUISITION
•           THE CATHOLIC INQUISITION IS THE MOST HUMANE COURT IN EUROPE:

 "Amazingly, before 1530 the Spanish Inquisition was widely hailed as the best run, most humane court in Europe." SOURCE: http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.

CRISTIANONG WALANG RELIHIYON?

MATTHEW 16:17-19 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (KJV)

Palaging pinipilit ng mga BA at ng mga kakampi nilang Baptists ang doktrina nilang “NO RELIGION CAN SAVE YOU” (NRCSY). Ano nga ba ang sinasabi ng Biblia ukol dito.

Sinabi ni PANGINOONG JESUS sa Juan 14:6;

Juan 14:6Sumagot si Jesus, “Ako ang daan, ang katotohanan, at ang buhay. Walang makakapunta sa Ama kundi sa pamamagitan ko. (MBB)

Nasaan ba ang katotohanan? Ito ba’y nasa kahit saan?

Tingnan natin ang sulat ni SAN PABLO sa 1 Timoteo 4:16,

1 TIMOTEO 3:15-16(MBB)upang kung hindi man ako makarating agad ay malaman mo kung ano ang dapat na maging ugali ng mga taong kabilang sa sambahayan ng Diyos na buháy, sa iglesya na haligi at saligan ng katotohanan. 

Hindi maikakaila na napakadakila ng HIWAGA NG ATING RELIHIYON: Siya’y nahayag nang maging tao, pinatunayang matuwid ng Espiritu, at nakita ng mga anghel. Ipinangaral sa mga Hentil, pinaniwalaan ng lahat, at itinaas sa kalangitan.
 

Sa sinabi ni San Pablo, malinaw na ipinapahayag na ang katotohanang binabanggit dito ay si Jesus na Sya naming pinapangaral ng Relihiyon. Ibig sabihin, ang katotohanan ay ipinapahayag ng Relihiyon sapagkat ang katotohanan ay nasa loob ng Relihiyon.

SAAN NAMAN KAYA NILA NAKITA ANG NRCSY?

Magbasa pa nga tayo ng mga talata sa Biblia!

Sinabi ni PANGINOONG JESUS sa Juan 10:9

Juan 10:9Ako nga ang pintuan. Ang sinumang pumapasok sa pamamagitan ko’y maliligtas. 

Kailangan palang PUMASOK muna. Pagpasok ba naman kaya ang ginagawa nila sa pagtanggap lamang kay JESUS? Hindi iyon sapat sapagkat kailangang PUMASOK! Hindi lamang nahihinto sa pagtanggap kay JESUS bilang Personal na Tagapagligtas ang pananampalataya kundi ang pagpasok mismo kay JESUS!

SAAN NAMAN NGAYON MAPAPABILANG ANG PUMASOK KAY JESUS?

basahin natin ang Juan 10:16;

Juan 10:16Mayroon akong iba pang mga tupa na wala pa sa kulungang ito. Kinakailangang sila’yipasok ko rin at papakinggan naman nila ang aking tinig. Sa gayon, magiging ISA NA LAMANG KAWAN AT ISA ANG PASTOL.

 Sa pagpasok kay Cristo, nangangahulugan din pala itong pagpasok sa isang KAWAN. Ano nga ba ang KAWANG ITO?

basahin natin sa Gawa 20:28;

Ingatan ninyo ang inyong sarili at ang buong kawan, sapagkat sila’y inilagay ng Espiritu Santo sa inyong pag-iingat. Pangalagaan ninyo ang iglesya ng Diyos Panginoon. na kanyang tinubos sa pamamagitan ng dugo ng kanyang Anak. 

Kitam? Sinabi “sa kawan” at hindi “sa mga kawan”. Nangangahulugan na iisa lamang ang kawan, ang IGLESIA! Papaanong mapapaliwanag ng mga Baptists ang napakaraming Baptist churches na hindi nagkakasundo?

Hindi agad sila qualified dahil napakaraming kawan ang naitatag nila gayong ang Simbahan na Totoo ay dapat iisa. Isang sekta nga lang ang pinapangaral ni San Pablo e.

GAWA 24:5(MBB)Natuklasan naming ang taong ito’y nanggugulo. Ginugulo niya ang mga Judio saan man siya magpunta, at siya’y isang pasimuno ng sekta ng mga Nazareno.

Si San Pablo ay hinuli dahil sa syang pasimuno ng sekta ng NAZARENO, ang Iglesya, samakatuwid ang Relihiyon! Nangangahulugang si San Pablo mismo ay nagpapakilala ng isang sekta, isang relihiyon.

GAWA 24:14
Nguni't ito ang ipinahahayag ko sa iyo, na ayon sa Daan na kanilang tinatawag na sekta, ay gayon ang paglilingkod ko sa Dios ng aming mga magulang, na sinasampalatayanan ang lahat ng mga bagay na alinsunod sa kautusan, at nangasusulat sa mga propeta; (ADB)

Sa isang translation sa Mabuting Balita

Gawa 24:14
“Tinatanggap kop o na ang pagsamba ko sa Diyos ng aming mga ninuno ay ayon sa Daan na ipinapalagay nilang maling sekta.”

Ano nga ba ulit ang Daang ito?

Juan 14:6Sumagot si Jesus, “Ako ang daan, ang katotohanan, at ang buhay. Walang makakapunta sa Ama kundi sa pamamagitan ko. (MBB)

Si JESUS ang DAAN! Ibig sabihin, ang pananampalataya mismo kay JESUS ay isang SEKTA, isang RELIHIYON! Isang RELIHIYON ng mga CRISTIANO. Isang IGLESIA lamang ang manatili na Syang totoo at tunay na kinasihan ng DIYOS.

So, papaano ngayon mapapaliwanag ng mga NON- SECTARIANS na Born Again ang “NRCSY”? papaanong mapapatunayan na mahal nila ang Diyos kung tinatanggi nila ang existence ng tunay na religion? Wew naman! Ang dami naming mali sa pananamplataya nila. Mahal daw nila ang Panginoong Jesu- Cristo sa pamamagitan ng personal relationship pero ayaw nilang tanggapin ang Sekta ng Nazareno! Patawa naman talaga masyado ang mga non- sectarians na ito!

EFESO 1:22-23,

 Ipinailalim ng Diyos sa paa ni Cristo ang lahat ng bagay, at ginawa siyang ulo ng lahat ng bagay para sa iglesya.  Ang iglesya ang katawan at kapuspusan ni Cristo, na siya namang pumupuno sa lahat ng bagay.

Ang kulit naman masyado ng mga non- sectarians na ito! Hindi pala kumpleto ang kanilang pananampalataya. Mahal daw nila ang Panginoong Jesu- Cristo gayong AYAW NILA NG KATAWAN NYA NA SYANG NAG- IISANG IGLESYANG INALAYAN NYA ng KANYANG SARILING DUGO! Gusto lang nila ang ULO, AYAW NILA NG KATAWAN. MASYADONG INComplete.

Ang sabi pa nila, kahit sino raw pwedeng maligtas basta’t kilalanin mo lang si JESUS bilang PERSONAL NA TAGAPAGLIGTAS. Kahit ano raw ang relihiyon mo maliligtas ka basta tanggapin lang daw si Jesus. INComplete talaga e.

EFESO 4:4May iisang katawan at iisang Espiritu, tulad ng may iisang pag-asa nang kayo’y tawagin ng Diyos.
 

E papanung kahit ano raw na relihiyon ay maliligtas, e nag- iisa nga lang ang katawan. Wew! Papaanong maliligtas ang nasa ibang relihiyon e ang tanging katawan na tinutukoy sa Biblia ay nag- iisa lang?! maliligtas kaya ang mga non- sectarians na hindi kabilang at hindi tinatanggap ang existence ng TOTOONG RELIHIYON?

EFESO 5:23Sapagkat ang lalaki ang ulo ng kanyang asawa, tulad ni Cristo na siyang ulo ng iglesya, na kanyang katawan, at siyang Tagapagligtas nito.

Nakalagay, “na KANYANG KATAWAN”. Ibig sabihin, IISA LANG ANG KATAWAN NA ILILIGTAS NYA! IISA LANG NA IGLESIA ANG KANYANG ILILIGTAS. ILILIGTAS NYA ANG NAG- IISANG SEKTA. ANG SEKTANG NAZARENO, ANG TUNAY NA IGLESIA NG DIOS!

So ano ang mangyayari sa mga non- sectarians na hindi kumikilala sa sektang itinatag ni JESUS ayon sa

MATEO 16:18At sinasabi ko sa iyo, ikaw ay Pedro, at sa ibabaw ng batong ito ay itatayo ko ang aking iglesya at ang pintuan ng daigdig ng mga patay ay hindi magtatagumpay laban sa kanya.

Malay ko kung papaano ang salvation nila. Ganito ang sabi ng Biblia e.

1 CORINTO 5:12Kung sabagay, wala akong karapatang humatol sa mga hindi Cristiano; ang Diyos ang hahatol sa kanila. Hindi ba’t ang mga nasa loob ng iglesya ang dapat ninyong hatulan? Sabi nga sa kasulatan, “Itiwalag ninyo sa inyong samahan ang masamang tao.”
 

Basta ang DALISAY NA RELIHIYON AY NASA BIBLIA

Basahin ang Santiago 1:27:Ang dalisay na relihion at walang dungis sa harapan ng ating Dios at Ama ay ito, dalawin ang mga ulila at mga babaing bao sa kanilang kapighatian, at pagingatang walang dungis ang kaniyang sarili sa sanglibutan. (ADB)

Remember the etymological meaning of religion:

"state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegere "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere"read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare"to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin isreligiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. [Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885]

Modern sense of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher, unseen power" is from 1530s.

Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion

Nakalagay, ito ay nanggaling sa Latin word na religare na nangangahulugang idugtong at ikabit muli ang naputol na relasyon sa Dios.

Papaanong makapapanampalataya ang isang mananampalataya hangga’t hindi nakakabit muli ang relasyon nito sa PANGINOON? Kaylangan ng Relihiyon dahil ito mismo ang mainam na sangkap para sa isang relasyon ng isang Cristiano sa Dios.