Buckingham Palace – Halaga 5.04 Billion US Dollars

 

Ang Buckingham Palace ay nagkakahalaga ng 5.04 Bilyong US Dollar.

 

Ang Buckingham Palace - ito ang nasa listahan, at inaangkin na ito ang pinakamahal na bahay sa buong mundo.

 

Ang palasyo ay pagmamay-ari ng pamilyang British Royal at isa sa isang bilang ng mga magagarang na pag-aari sa kanilang buhay.

 

Matatagpuan ito sa lungsod ng Westminster, London.

 

Ito ay binubuo ng 775 mga silid, 78 mga banyo, 92 opisina at 19 mga silid ng estado.

 

Ito ang naging opisyal na paninirahan ng monarkiya mula pa noong 1873.

 

Sa mga tuntunin ng laki, ang palasyo ay sumusuri sa humigit-kumulang na 828,000 square-foot at ang hardin lamang ay 40 ektarya.

 

Gayunpaman, sa kabila ng kahanga-hangang laki nito at pagkuha ng pamagat ng pinakamahal na bahay sa buong mundo, hindi pa rin ito ang pinakamalaking palasyo sa buong mundo.

 

Tinantya, na kung ang palasyo ay ipagbibili; magiging $ 5.04 bilyong US dolyar, ngunit malamang na hindi ito mangyari.

 

2. Antilla - $ 2 Bilyon

Ang Antilla, ang pangalawang pinakamahal na bahay sa buong mundo, ay matatagpuan sa Mumbai, India at nagkakahalaga ng $ 1 Bilyon.

Ito ay dinisenyo at itinayo ng firm na nakabase sa Chicago, ang Perkins & Will, at ang firm ng disenyo ng mabuting pakikitungo, Hirsch Bender Associates.

Ang pag-aari ay itinayo para sa Mukesh Ambani, ang Tagapangulo at Managing Director ng Reliance Industries Limited, isang kumpanya ng Fortune Global 500, at ang pinakamayamang tao sa Indias.

Ang 400,000 square square na gusali ay nakaposisyon sa kapitbahay ng Cumballa Hill ng Mumbai at nakatayo sa isang kahanga-hangang 27 palapag.

Itinayo din ito upang makatiis ng isang lindol na may lakas na 8 sa Richter scale.

Sa loob ng bahay, mahahanap mo ang anim na palapag na pulos nakatuon sa pag-iimbak ng kotse, isang istasyon ng serbisyo para sa mga kotse, isang templo, isang 50-upuang sinehan at siyam na mga elevator.

Mayroon din itong health spa, tatlong helipad, salon, ballroom at yoga studio, isang ice-cream room at maraming sinehan.

Kaya, kapag ang lahat ng nasabi at nagawa na, iniulat ni Antilla na nangangailangan ng isang kawani na hindi bababa sa 600 upang panatilihing maayos ang pagpapatakbo ng mga bagay.

 

3. Villa Leopolda - $ 750 Milyon

Ang Villa Leopolda ay ang pangatlong pinakamahal na bahay sa buong mundo.

Ang villa ay pag-aari ng biyuda, si Lily Safra, ng Lebanese Brazillian Banker, Edmund Safra.

Matatagpuan ito sa departamento ng Frances Alps-Maritime ng Cote d'Azur Region at sumakop sa humigit-kumulang na 50 ektarya.

Mayroon itong 11 silid-tulugan, 14 banyo, isang komersyal na greenhouse, helipad, panlabas na kusina at isa sa mga pinakamagandang swimming pool na makikita mo.

Ang pag-aari ay sikat sa sarili nito, dahil ito ang setting para sa pelikula ni Alfred Hitchcock noong 1955: To Catch a Thief.

Ang pangalan ng mga bahay ay nagmula sa orihinal na may-ari nito; Si King Leopold II ng Belgium at muling idisenyo noong 1920s ng Amerikanong arkitekto, si Ogden Codman Jr.

 

4. Villa Les Cèdres - $ 450 Milyon

Sumasakop sa pang-apat na puwesto sa amin ay ang Villa Les Cèdres, na matatagpuan sa Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat, France.

Tinatayang nasa $ 450 milyon, ang bahay na ito na malapit sa nagkakahalaga ng halos kalahating bilyong dolyar.

Ito ay unang itinayo noong 1830 at binili ni King Leopold II ng Belgium noong 1904.

Ito ay dating itinuturing na pinakamahal na bahay sa merkado noong 2017; ngunit mula nang naabutan ng susunod na tatlong mga pag-aari sa listahan.

Ang pag-aari ay nakatakda sa humigit-kumulang na 35 ektarya ng mga hardin, at ang pangalan nito ay nagmula sa maraming mga puno ng cedar na matatagpuan sa buong bakuran nito.

Ang bahay mismo ay halos 18,000 square square at binubuo ng 14 na silid-tulugan. Mayroon din itong laki ng paliguan sa laki ng Olimpiko at isang malaking kuwadra, sapat na malaki para sa 30 mga kabayo.

Sa loob, mahahanap mo ang mga kristal na chandelier, ginintuang gawa sa kahoy, mga kuwadro na langis ng ika-19 na siglo at isang librong naka-panel ng kahoy na mayroong isang lugar sa rehiyon ng 3,000 na mga libro.

 

5. Les Palais Bulles - $ 390 Milyon

Pagdating sa numero limang, ay ang Les Palais Bulles, sa halagang $ 390 Milyon.

Ginawa ang "Bubble Palace", ang Le Palais Bulle ay dinisenyo ng Hungarian Architect, Antti Lovag at itinayo sa isang lugar sa rehiyon ng 1975-1989.

Ang palayaw nito ay nagmula sa isang serye ng mga bilog na silid na tumingin sa ibabaw ng dagat ng Mediteraneo.

Ang inspirasyon ng Lovags para sa disenyo ng pag-aari ay nagmula sa pinakamaagang mga tirahan ng mans; gayunpaman, ang tirahan na ito ay seryosong na-upgrade na may ilang mga talagang kaginhawaan ng nilalang.

Halimbawa, ang pag-aari ay may tatlong mga swimming pool, maraming mga hardin at isang 500-upuan na ampiteatro na itinayo sa bakuran ng bakuran.

Ang Bubble Palace ay kasalukuyang pagmamay-ari ni Pierre Cardin, isang taga-Italyano na taga-disenyo ng fashion sa Pransya.

Pangunahing ginagamit ang pag-aari bilang isang holiday home para kay Pierre, kasama ang isang kamangha-manghang lugar para sa mga pagdiriwang at kaganapan, tulad ng noong ipinakita ni Dior ang koleksyon ng cruise doon sa isang panloob / panlabas na fashion show.

 

 

 

Petros: Are Rocks and Stones The Same As Catholics Would Have Us Believe?

Petros: Rocks and Stones

Question:

Please comment on the following argument which I read on a Catholic website. It can be summarized like this:

• Jesus spoke Aramaic. So, what Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha, I will build my Church.’
• The Aramaic word kepha is translated Petra or Petros in Greek. The two words are synonyms in first century Greek.
• Jesus could not have said, ‘You are Petra, and on this Petra, I will build my Church’ because that would have entailed giving Simon a feminine name. So, Jesus changed the ending of the noun to render it masculine. “You are Petros, and on this Petra, I will build my Church.”
• That is the real reason why Jesus employed two different words and not as Protestants argue, that ‘this rock’ may refer to something or somebody else other than Peter.

Answer:

The question about the papacy is broader than the interpretation of Petros and Petra in Matthew 16:18. Do not be fooled by Catholic apologists who make a big deal about ‘this rock’ as if the papacy is vindicated if it could be proved that ‘this rock’ refers to Peter. This passage says nothing about universal jurisdiction, successors or Roman bishops.

Even if this can be conclusively proven (and I think it cannot), it does not confirm the papacy, i.e. the universal rule of the bishop of Rome over the whole Church. In fact, there is a sense in which the Apostle Peter, together with the other apostles and the prophets, from the foundation of the church because the Gospel was first given to them. It has nothing to do with the claimed universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as the Roman apologist would have us believe.

But let me just deal with the convoluted Aramaic/Greek argument that you kindly sent to me

It is true that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. But how do the Catholic scholars know what Jesus said in the Aramaic language since all the existing manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are written in Greek? You realize that this business of what Jesus must have said in Aramaic is pure speculation. I don’t know what Jesus’ original words in Aramaic were, neither do our Catholic friends. Should we build an argument – indeed the structure of the church of Jesus Christ – on mere speculations?

The Catholic apologist bends over backward to convince us that Petros and Petra are similar Greek words that mean the same thing. They say that it is merely a question of different gender ending. The truth of the matter is that these are two distinct Greek words with similar, but not the same meaning. According to the Greek Lexicon, Petros is “a rock or stone,” whereas Petra is ” rock, cliff or ledge.” Jesus illustrates the meaning of Petra as a massive foundational rock: “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock” (Matthew 7:27).

Still, assuming they know what Jesus originally said in Aramaic, the Catholic apologist goes on to explain why Jesus employs the two different Greek words. He puts these words in the mouth of a Protestant missionary:

“Wait for a second,” he said. “If kepha means the same as Petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this Petra, I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something entirely different from Petra?”

To this the Catholic apologist answers triumphantly:

“Because he had no choice,” I said. “Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic, you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek, you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.”

So that’s why He uses Petros! Not to give Simon a feminine name!

But I’m sure that the reader can think of a third option. Contrary to the Catholic apologist assertion, He had another choice!

Why not use Petros in the second part of the sentence if the Holy Spirit wanted to make it clear that He was building His church on the son of Jona, and avoid the gender problem? If Petra and Petros mean the same thing (as the Catholic apologist insists), Jesus could have said:

“Thou art PETROS and upon this PETROS I will build my church.”

There, the third option! That way any ambiguity would have been avoided – if indeed Jesus wanted to identify the foundation rock with the apostle Peter! Needless to say, that is not what Jesus said. Rather, He said:

“Thou are PETROS, and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”

Christ insisted on a distinction! At the very least we can say that the rock upon which the church is built could refer to something other than Peter.

Two different words to distinguish between Peter and the rock

So, rather than speculate on Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, we should study the inspired words of the Holy Scriptures, and in Matthew 16:18, the Holy Spirit employed two different words to distinguish between ‘Peter’ and ‘the rock.’ That is what we can say with certainty.

I hope you can see the emptiness of the Catholic argument. They want it to sound that it is, of course, clear that Jesus built His church on Peter. It is not so. And though any Catholic reading this article may not be inclined to trust me, I would appeal to you to listen to St Augustine’s explanation of this message:

“For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ, and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation, no man lay that this is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” (Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John).

“This rock” is Peter’s confession; the rock, the foundation is Jesus Christ!

Copyright Dr. Joe Mizzi. Permission to copy and distribute this article without textual changes.

Is Salvation Earned By Good Works Or By Faith Alone?

Faith alone doctrine has been debated for more than 500 years ago already. This view was known from the reformation in 16th century, after the doctrine of faith plus good works is necessary for salvation was being emphasized.

Although the words “Faith Alone” is not found a word for word in the Bible, still it can be explained well. Nevertheless, it does not mean it’s in error if we understand the implications in many instances in the Bible.

However, many have adopted the faith alone’s view in many Christian denominations today.

In the other hand, many of the Christian denominations and cults don’t believe about faith alone can save. They most likely adhere that faith plus good works are necessary for salvation.

In fact, a particular denomination I heard explaining that faith alone’s view is in error and it must be rejected. So they emphasized that you ought to do good works to be saved.

This view should be looked upon to see which is right or wrong and or in error.

Questions To Ask About Faith Alone Cannot Earn Salvation

---

Allow me to ask questions, and I need the correct answers. If my questions have no clear answers, then faith alone is enough to earn salvation.

My Questions:

If faith plus good works can save;

1. How much good works we must be doing to earn salvation?
2. Is salvation a gift or not?
3. If salvation is a gift why would you pay it with good works?
4. If faith plus good works earn salvation, do you agree that it is not already a gift but a reward for your good works?
5. Can anyone give an amount of good works to be saved?

If you have the answers, please write them down in the comment area below.

An Examination Of Ephesians 2:10

---

Some of the unbelievers of faith alone would quote Ephesians 2:10 to prove that good works are necessary for salvation and not just faith alone.

Ephesians 2:10 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

10 “For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.”

You will see the error of the Anti-Faith alone in this verse. They thought that this verse is necessary for salvation without looking to the context.

Their view of salvation looks like this: God’s grace + faith + good works = salvation.

Is that correct?

To Find Out What Is The Right View about Faith Alone VS. Faith Plus Good Works

---

Take a look; this verse did not say that we are to do good works to be saved. Notice what it says, HE HAS MADE US, CREATED IN CHRIST JESUS FOR THE GOOD WORKS…… (Past tense)

Therefore, we need to understand in the first hand, that we are sinners. Before we become believers of Christ, we are not yet in Christ. So, we are not made and created in Christ until we believe in Him.

Before we are created in Christ, all our good works and our righteousness are not credited. In fact,
Isaiah said, our righteousness is as filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).

So, when that being made and created for good works took place. Is that after you did good works or after you believe or having faith in Christ? Of course, after you have faith in Christ. So it would meant God’s Grace + Faith + salvation/made/created = good works.

In fact, I read one who wrote, who said that Protestant don’t read Ephesians 2:10 and that’s not true.

We most likely emphasize this verse as the result of salvation.

Christ saved you on the cross (Past tense), then if you have faith in him you are saved from the power of sin Colossians 1:13, “Who hath delivered (saved) us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:”

Therefore, you are no longer under the power of sin, and you will not obey the sin as your master. Now you have a new master which is Jesus Christ that you ought to follow. That’s the reason why you are now doing good works.

Most importantly, it will take place after putting your faith in the finished work of Christ on the cross for your salvation.

Conclusion

---

Finally, you believe that you are already saved and is now under the Lordship of Christ. So you should have to follow him. That’s what Ephesians 2:10 meant to say.

(Visited 39 times, 1 visits today)

Early Christian Believers Have no Church Building For Worship

Early Christian Believers gathered in their homes for worship. The church building was not actually their mean concern during Bible time in the book of Acts.

 There are varying forms of worship in all religions. Here we can understand the Biblical way of Worship.

Is Church Building for Worship the Main Concern of the Apostles with the Early Christians?

 #ChurchBuilding #BibleBelievers #ChristianChurch

Here's the answer: Watch it!





 ► WATCH MY OTHER VIDEOS https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCywpQp871Nm44X8mOaDWQ0A