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

Walay Rason | Praise And Worship | Cebuano Song | Victory Band With Lyrics

Hatag Uban Sa Kalipay -Sekrito Sa Panalangin - Bisaya Christian Song

Hatag Uban Sa Kalipay -Sekrito Sa Panalangin - Bisaya Christian Song.



Attribution: A song by Victory Band.

Is Peter's Primacy True and Was He The First Pope?

Is Peter's primacy based on reality or mere empty tradition? Was Peter the first pope? Nearly a billion Catholics from around the world believe in Peter's primacy and apostolic succession. To them the apostle Peter was the first pope, the chief of the apostles, and was given the keys to the Kingdom. The chief reason they believe in Peter's primacy is the way Roman Catholicism interprets Mt. 16:18: And I also say to you that you are Peter, and in this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Let's objectively test the popular Roman Catholic interpretation for Peter's primacy and apostolic succession by comparing it with facts about the Apostle Peter's life and doctrine,as recorded throughout the Scriptures. The following are related facts that must not be overlooked:

Peter Was Married and Couldn't Have Been a Pope

Now when Jesus had come into Peter's house, He saw his wife's mother lying sick with a fever (Mt. 8:14, NKJV). 

The Apostle Peter had a mother-in-law who was sick. This explicitly shows that the real Apostle Peter was a marriedman, for it is impossible to have a mother-in-law and not be married. If the Apostle Peter was the first pope, he was also a married man, but that is not allowed! Hence, Peter is immediately disqualified from the papacy. [1 Cor. 9:5 also shows Peter (or Cephas, Jn. 1:42) was married.]

Paul Didn't Believe Peter Was The First Pope

"When Peter came to Antioch, I [Paul] opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?" (Gal. 2:11-14).

The Apostle Paul openly opposed the Apostle Peter because Peter was in the wrong. St. Paul would never have openly opposed the Apostle Peter if he was the visible head of the church. Can you imagine a Catholic bishop publicly opposing the Pope today? This single incident alone shows it is impossible for the Apostle Peter to be the head of the church. Please read the aforementioned passage from Galatians again.

Peter Was Not In Charge of The Mother Church

If the Apostle Peter was the head of the church, why did St. James preside over the first and only church council cited in the New Testament (Acts 15:6-30)? The Apostle Peter was present, yet he was not in charge over this important council dealing with circumcision and its non-role in salvation! This is one of the most powerful and clear proofs that The Apostle Peter was not the first pope or head of the early church!

Peter Did NOT Consider Himself Head of the Early Church

Did the Apostle Peter consider himself to be the head of the early church? The following are his own words about himself:

To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed (1 Pet. 5:1).

So was Peter the first Pope? Again, how could he be since the Apostle Peter wrote to other elders as their equal and never mentioned any primacy that he uniquely had, which was supposed to have begun at the point of Mt. 16:18! Peter merely referred to himself as a fellow elder.(The Apostle John, likewise, referred to himself as an elder,2 Jn. 1.)

Peter Was Ordered By Others To Go To Other Places

"Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them..." (Acts 8:14).

If the Apostle Peter was the head of the apostles, he would have ordered other apostles to go to various places, but instead the Apostle Peter (and the Apostle John) were sent by the other apostles! Obviously, the Apostle Peter was not the designated head of the apostles!

Peter Did NOT Write Much Scripture If He Was Infallible

If the Apostle Peter was the head of the church (visibly), why did both the Apostle John and the Apostle Paul write more of the New Testament than he did? The Apostle Peter wrote 2 books of the New Testament (or 8 chapters), while John wrote 5 books (or 50 chapters) and Paul at least 13 books (or at least 87 chapters). Both John and Paul wrote much more of the eternal Word of God than Peter did.

Paul Worked Harder Than Peter 

If the Apostle Peter was the head of the apostles, why did Paul work harder for the Lord than the rest of the Apostles, including him?

But by the grace of God I [Paul] am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them--yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me (1 Cor. 15:10)?

If Peter Had The Primacy As The First Pope The Others Didn't Know It! 

If the Apostle Peter was the head of the apostles, certainly the other apostles would have known it. However, they didn't! This is apparent since they argued about which of them was the "greatest," even while Jesus was still living among them!

Then a dispute arose among them as to which of them would be greatest (Lk. 9:46).

Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest (Lk. 22:24).

NOTE: Clearly, this last passage occurred after Jesus spoke Mt. 16:18 and in Jesus' presence! Please notice that Jesus never corrected them by saying Peter was made the first pope at the point of Mt. 16:18! The other apostles never thought that verse uniquely exalted Peter above themselves, so why should we?

NOT a Hint Of Apostolic Succession

NOTE: Even IF the Bible taught Peter was the chief apostle and pope, which is does NOT, there is not a hint in Scripture of any apostolic succession!Unfortunately, apostolic succession has led to present-day Popes, who have said that Mary is the sinless, ever Virgin, mediatrix and dispenser of all grace, Queen of heaven, Mother of God, Mother of mercies, etc., but the Apostle Peter never taught that way.

Peter's Primacy is Mythical. He Was NOT The First Pope

Besides all of the aforementioned evidence, we must also ask what were the Apostle Peter's doctrinal beliefs about salvation? According to him, Mother Mary plays no role at all in salvation. We do NOT first go to her to get to Jesus. If we needed to, Peter would have certainly known and taught so, but he didn't. Again, he NEVER mentioned the Catholic mother of God in either of his two epistles or any sermons he preached, as recorded in Acts! How incredibly different he was from Pope John Paul II and his volume entitled, Theotokos, which means mother of God! Let's look at the eternal record. Peter said of Jesus:

Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).

To him all the prophets witness that, through his name, whoever believes in him will receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43).

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they (Acts 15:11).

The Apostle Peter exalted Jesus and faith in his name for salvation with no mention of Mary, even in an indirect way! The focus was on Jesus and him alone for salvation. Again, the Apostle Peter NEVER mentioned Mary in either of his two books of the New Testament. Peter also never thought Mary was co-redeemer, like the present popes! Peter was clear about that:

He himself [JESUS] bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. (1 Pet 2:24)

As with the other apostles, the Apostle Peter likewise never mentioned the sacraments, church membership, attending mass, praying the Rosary, or any other Catholic distinctive as having any role in salvation at all! What then should we believe about Peter's Primacy and the proper interpretation of Mt. 16:18 when we consider the sum total of Scripture? This is certain: The Bible is eternal truth and it doesn't allow for the popular pope-exalting Roman Catholic interpretation of Mt. 16:18. Furthermore, Scripture was given to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus:

And how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:15-17)

We are to go by the Bible and use it for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). The Bible alone is final authority.Jesus said that the Word of God will be our judge (Jn. 12:48), and the Word of God teaches that we must repent and place all (100%) of our trust in Jesus for our salvation (Jn. 3:18; Acts 20:21; 26:20; etc.). Baptism, holy communion, good works, church membership, subjection to the Pope, praying the Rosary and Mary cannot save us, according to the Bible! So why not believe the Bible? Could there be anything wrong with repenting and trusting Jesus 100% for salvation?

Peter's Primacy, Apostolic Succession and the Amplified Bible

Regarding Mt. 16:18, the Amplified Bible says:

I tell you that you are Peter [Petros, masculine, a large piece of rock], and on this rock [petra, feminine, a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church....

Peter is "a large piece of rock," but the church is built on petra which means "a huge rock like Gibraltar"! Peter is also masculine gender and not feminine gender as petra is. The misuse of this verse has led people to wrongly believe that the church was built on St. Peter, who was supposed to have been the visible head of the church and the first Pope. From that came the invention of apostolic succession leading to many popes, who have taught many spiritually deadly things. For example, popes have taught Mary has a role in salvation! Clearly, that is not the mother of Jesus. Hence, such a wrong belief about Peter from Mt. 16:18 has led to other false ideas and doctrines regarding how one finds salvation, which in turn has led to the damnation of many.

When We Compare Scripture With Scripture

In summary, it is impossible to embrace the correct interpretation of Mt. 16:18 without considering the aforementioned facts of Peter's life and doctrines. Sadly, when one considers the sum total of the evidence, it must be stated that a distortion of Mt. 16:18 and the unfounded belief in apostolic succession has led to the spiritual destruction of multitudes over the centuries. Dear reader, don't let this happen to you or your Catholic friends! (Click here to purchase our book, Is This The Mary Of The Bible?) Remember, Peter's primacy is not factual. In fact, such a false belief has led to the dangerous Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303) unam sanctam decree! Again, get the myth of Peter's primacy for your own good.

What Is New Life In The Bible?

You are maybe wondering about New Life. I will try to explain here and I hope that you can understand the Biblical New Life which is the most important thing here on earth.

"Go, stand in the temple courts," he said, "and tell the people the full message of this new life."

Acts 5:20

The Bible declares that there is a New Life that we must tell the people the full message of it. This means that New Life is very important, and let the people know what it is. Many people do not understand the Biblical New Life and if you are one of them, please take time to read this article and I pray that you will be enlightened.

I will begin with these questions: What is Biblical New Life means, who has it, who gives it and how to have it? These are the questions that we must find the answers. Ignorance to the answers of these questions would make you wonder the real meaning of life.

Life is meaningful. It is a wonderful thing we had; unless you understand the meaning of life you will not enjoy the reality of it and your life would be meaningless.

This New Life is so very important to God. This is the life that God desires that all people should have. This life is so very precious that it is paid by the death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What is New Life?

Some believe it is a new religion. Some believe it is a life being changed from bad habits into good habits. Some believe that it is a life saved from accidents and others believe that it is a life that has been fulfilled the New Year’s resolution.

What this New Life Is?

None of the above beliefs got the answer. You may have a nice religion but do not have this New Life. You may have changed your bad habits into good habits and still you do not have this New Life. You maybe are saved from death, sickness and accident but you still do not have this New Life. And you may have fulfilled the New Year’s resolution in a long period of time and you still do not have this New Life.

New Life is called in the Bible “Eternal Life.” In John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”(NIV)

The Bible says, whoever believes on the Son of God shall not perish but have eternal life. Eternal life is not our human life, eternal life is not long life but life without end. This is the New Life in the Bible.

To Whom It Is Addressed?

The answer is, those already have the temporal life; a man of sin. A man has this life the human life a temporal life. In order for a man who already has the temporal life to have the Eternal life he must believe on Him (Jesus Christ.) In other words, if a man who already believed on the only begotten Son of God has already received eternal life. 1 John 5:12-13 supports it, you can read it below.

If a man already has received the eternal life, it means he has another life in him that is eternal and this is the New Life. That is what New Life means in the Bible.

New Life is called in the Bible “Spiritual Life.”“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit...“ John 3:6

The old life is born of the flesh, which is the human life the old life. But that is born of the spirit is “Spirit” is what the bible says. It is clear that the life that is born in the flesh is flesh which means the old life we had. But that is born in the spirit is spirit which it means Spiritual life and that is the New Life.

Notice; both life, the old and the new has its beginning and its beginning is being born. The Bible says that which is BORN of the flesh is flesh – human life or natural life and that which is BORN of the Spirit is spirit. The old life is being born in the flesh and the same way the Spiritual Life/New Life is being born in the Spirit, in other words born again.

Who has this New Life?

Many people believe that this New Life is received after the death of the old life – physical death, which means a life in heaven. That is why many people pray for the dead that say “Lord give Him (the dead) eternal life.” 

In 1 John 5:12-13 it says. “He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

According to what is written in the Bible, “…He that has the son has Life.”What is this life? Simple; it is not the human life the old life but it is the New Life. It is because many people who do not have the son but still they have the life the old life. So the life here indicates the New Life that is given to those who has the Son.

In verse 13, it says, “...These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life “

Who already have eternal life? Those who believe on the name of the Son of God the Lord Jesus Christ. Are they still alive? Of course. It was not written to the dead but to the people who are still alive? If we say to the dead it makes no sense.

Who gave this New Life?

In 1 John 5:11“And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” It is God who gave the New Life through our Lord Jesus Christ and it is already given (pastence) to those who has the Son.

Who received this New Life or Eternal Life?

Again in verse 13, it says,“These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life.” New Life or Eternal Life is already given by God to those who believed on the name of the Son of God. 

Those who accepted and believed on Jesus Christ are now children of God.

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”(John 1:12-13)

In order that a life should be in existence, it must be first be born. Those who are born again are born of God, and that kind of life is not like that which is born of the flesh or born of blood and or born of the will of man but born of God and this is called the New Life.

The New Life is the one which is born of God in you. The old life is the one which is born of the human will, which is our human or temporal life.

To become a child of God it is necessary to believe on the name of the Son of God the Lord Jesus Christ. When you believed, God will give you the power to be born in the spirit and when you are being born in the spirit you now become a child of God.

Do you believe on the name of Jesus Christ? Did you receive him as the only way to have this New Life? Well, if so, you have this New Life in you. The God kind of life which is eternal or spiritual life, it is the gift of God.

Romans 6:23; ”For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

But if you are not sure that Jesus Christ becomes your personal savior and Lord, you can pray with this prayer guide, and please do it prayerfully.

Lord God Almighty. I come to you in the name of Jesus Christ. I come to you with all the sins I've committed. I admit I am a sinner. I ask for your forgiveness. Please cleanse my body, soul and spirit from all the sins I have committed. I believe your Son Jesus Christ died on the cross for MY sins and all those that believe in his name. I also believe that he rose from the dead so that I, too, may have victory over the works of the devil. I confess and accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and ask him to come into my heart and give me a new life that’s after your will and purposes. I want to serve you and obey all your ways. I want to live for you every day of my life. Please lead and guide me by your Holy Spirit into righteousness. 

Thank you Lord, for the work of your Son Jesus shedding his blood for me and for hearing and answering my prayer. I’m now considered your son through the work of your Son Jesus. I have a New Life. I have been born anew and by faith I believe it. In Jesus’ name, I have prayed. Amen.