Comments from Monks Hobbit Blog "Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) logo: Christian or Masonic symbol?
Ivan (INC of Manalo member) said:
The nerve you have, Real29!!! LOL… You claim that the Roman Catholic Church is the same CHURCH established by Christ! FYI, your TRINITY DOCTRINE alone proves it OTHERWISE.
 |
| One of the Government Approved Catholic churches in the Middle East. The Catholic Church in Doha, Qatar is always full of worshipers on Fridays from different countries. Services are done as early as 5:00 AM until 8:00 PM. and traffic has to be anticipated. Qatar has Diplomatic Ties with the Vatican hence Catholics enjoy this unique privilege of worshiping God. Catholic members makes up the entire Christian population in the Middle East particularly in Qatar. Other churches recognized by the Islamic government of Qatar are the Anglican Church and the Orthodox churches. Most protestant churches including the Iglesia ni Cristo Church of Manalo is not recognized as legitimate for it was historically founded by a man in the Philippines (1914) claiming to be the "Last Prophet/Messenger" For Islam, the "last prophet" was no other than their Prophet Muhammad. |
RESPONSE: by Real29
January 6, 2013 at 9:51 PM
haha ivan, INC also claimed that,
PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: “Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo. [The Catholic Church which from the beginning was the Church of Christ.]”
[Let me add: PASUGO Hunyo 1940, p. 27: "Papaano ang pag-aalaga at pag-iingat sa pananampalataya? Wala tayong dapat gawin kundi manatili sa mga aral ng Dios na ating napag-aralan. Ito ang ginawa ng unang Iglesia. Sila'y nanatiling matibay sa aral ng mga Apostol. Ganito rin ang dapat nating gawin."]
Yes Ivan it is still the same Church which Jesus built with a promise
30 A.D., The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.
Matthew 16:18, John 19:34, Acts 2:1-4, 1Timothy 3:15
“I am with you ALL days, even until the end of the world.” (without gap)
Matthew 28:20
“…and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it.”
Matthew 16:18
“…and I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of Truth…”
John 14:16-17
“I will not leave you orphans.”
John 14:18
We know by its Antiquity. The Catholic Church is the only Christian Church which can trace its origins back for almost 2000 years. All other Christian denominations can only go back a few hundred years at most for their origins. Here are the founders and dates of some of the mainline Churches.
* 1521, Martin Luther started Protestantism by forming the Lutherans, when he broke away from the One True Church that had already existed for almost 15 centuries.
* 1521, Thomas Munser, a Catholic priest, started Anabaptists in the same year that Luther broke away. Protestantism started splitting within itself immediately. By 1600 there were 100 splits. By 1900 there were 1000, and today there are over 36,400. Where is the One Fold (John 10:16)?
* 1525, Mennonites started by Grebel, Mantz, and Blaurock in Switzerland.
* 1534, Henry VIII started the Church of England (Anglican).
* 1536, John Calvin, teaching predestination, formed the Calvinists.
* 1560, John Knox, who studied under Luther, started Presbyterians.
* 1582, Congregationalists started by Rob Brown, as a branch from Puritanism.
* 1609, John Smyth formed the Baptists in Holland.
* 1639, Roger Williams started the Baptists in America. They have since splintered severely.
* 1647, George Fox started the Quakers in England.
* 1739, John and Charles Wesley started the Methodists.
* 1770, Universalists were started by John Murray in New Jersey.
* 1774, Theophilus Lindley started Unitarians.
* 1789, Samuel Seabury started Episcopalians.
* 1793 to 1809, the Churches of Christ had four separate founders.
* 1803, Evangelicals were founded by Jacob Albright in Pennsylvania.
* 1830, Joseph Smith founded the Mormons in Palmyra New York.
* 1860, William Miller, a farmer, started the Adventists.
* 1863, Ellen Gould White started the Seventh-Day Adventists.
* 1865, William Booth started The Salvation Army.
* 1879, Mary Baker Eddy started Christian Scientists.
* 1879, Charles Russell started the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
* 1875, New Age was started by Helena Blavatsky. *COL 2:8
* 1895, French Abbe, Alfred Loisy and English Jesuit, George Tyrrell started Modernism.
Modernism was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in 1907.
* 1901, Pentecostalism was started in the United States.
* 1914, Felix Manalo started Iglesia ni Cristo.
* 1914, Assembly of GOD was started by a General Assembly in Arkansas.
* 1919, Church of the Nazarene was started by a Union at a General Assembly.
* 1930, Independent Churches of America (IFCA), a consortium of churches .
* 1934, Evangelical Reformed was started by Union at a General Assembly.
* 1952, L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology.
* 1965, Chuck Smith began Calvary Chapel.
* 1968, Disciples of Christ, separated from the Churches of Christ.
* 1974, Ken Gullickson started the Vineyard Christian Fellowship.
* Pentecostal Gospel, and other splinter Pentecostal groups, are some of the hundreds of new sects founded by mere men in the 20th century.
***1914, Felix Manalo started Iglesia ni Cristo. What makes INC different from others?
What makes it worst it that:
1- PASUGO Enero 1964, p. 6:
“Sino ang tunay na nagtayo ng Iglesia ni Cristo na lumitaw sa Pilipinas noong 1914? Hindi ang kapatid na si Manalo kundi ang Dios at si Cristo.”
PASUGO Agosto-Setyembre 1964, p. 5
“Kailan napatala sa Pamahalaan o narehistro ang INK sa Pilipinas? Noong Hulyo 27, 1914. Tunay nga na sinasabi sa rehistro na si Kapatid na F. Manalo ang nagtatag ng INK.”
PASUGO Enero 1964, p. 6:- “It is Christ and God who founded INC”
PASUGO Agosto-Setyembre 1964, p. 5- “It is brother F.Manalo who founded the INC”
Ivan, it is right to claim that the Catholic Church is the true Church because it been there for 20 centuries still standing against it’s false accusers and it has already thousands of martyrs who really followed Jesus until death (Luke 9:23). Ivan, I never heard INC was so humble that he let himself tortured or killed for the sake of their faith. Ivan, be sure you are at the true church “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.”
John 15:18-19
The Catholic Church is certainly not of the world, for it is:
A City set on a Mountain, Matthew 5:14.
A Dwelling Place for GOD, Ephesians 2:22.
A Spiritual House, 1Peter 2:5.
GOD’s Building, 1Corinthians 3:9.
Mount Zion, Psalms 2:6, Micah 4:7, Hebrews 12:22.
My Church, Matthew 16:18.
Our Mother, Galatians 4:26.
The Bride of Christ, Joel 2:16, John 3:29, Revelation 21:2.
The Body of Christ, Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:24.
The Church of GOD, Acts 20:28.
The Church of the Firstborn, Hebrews 12:23.
The City of the Living GOD, Hebrews 12:22.
The City of Truth, Zechariah 8:3.
The Congregation of Saints, Psalms 149:1.
The Daughter of the King, Psalms 45:13.
The dispenser of the Wisdom of GOD, Ephesians 3:7-11.
The final authority of GOD on earth, Matthew 18:15-18.
The Fold of Christ, John 10:16.
The Heavenly Jerusalem, Galatians 4:26.
The Holy City, Revelation 21:2.
The Holy Mountain, Zechariah 8:3.
The House of Christ, Hebrews 3:6.
The House of GOD, 1Timothy 3:15, Hebrews 10:21.
The Household of GOD, Ephesians 2:19.
The Kingdom of GOD, Luke 4:43.
The Kingdom of Heaven, Matthew 13:31.
The Lamb’s Spouse, Revelation 19:7,21:9
The New Jerusalem, Isaiah 65:18, Revelation 3:12,21:2.
The Pillar and Foundation of Truth, 1Timothy 3:
I am Napoleon Ford.I am one of Abe's GOOD Friend:) Im reading everything in your blog and ppls. wait for my comments....and....I hope you'll post every comment I will make. I'm assuring you that I will not use any offensive words against your Church. We will just discuss everything diplomatically.
ReplyDeleteHave a good day, Mr. Catholic Defender 2000
ahm by the way I am a member of the Church of Christ:)
Which of the many CHURCH OF CHRISTS do you belong?
DeleteThe Church of Christ-Iglesia ni Cristo founded by Felix Manalo in the Philippines? How historical and apostolic was this Church of Manalo?
Fr. Abe's "GOOD" friend?!! When did members of MANALO'S CHURCH be good with Fr. Abe?
DeleteOver reaction naman. Wag mo siyang questionin sa sarili mong blog. As far as I know may ilang pages ang dedicated kay Napoleon Ford entitled "Ang mga sagot sa Kayabangan ni Napoleon Ford" sa Splendor of the Church nung nandito pa sa blogspot. Don't make fun of yourself in your own blog. Doon sa blog na yun, si Ginoong Abe ay sumasagot kay Napoleon Ford like "ETO ANG SAGOT KO AND EVERYTHING HAHAHA", tapos walang reply na dumating. Hindi ko alam kung dahil ba yun sa hindi na siya bumalik o dahil hindi pinost ni Ginoong Abe. Pero mas malamang ang panghuli dahil pagka ang blogger ay natatalong tunay sa mga ganyang bagay, pati ang traces ng existence niya nawawala.
DeleteO teka lang, di pa nga ko nagtatanong kung ano-ano ng tanong ang ibinabato mo sakin., hehe, relax lang brod:) I hope you will post this again. Prove to me that you will post everything that I will post. Ahmm, friend talaga ko ni Abe. As a matter of fact, ilang page din ang ginugol nya para sakin. Umabot ata ng 10 parts un? im not xur e. Sa Splendor of the Church un. Nabanas lang ako kasi ung mga sagot ko na pangsupalpal sa kaniya, di nya pinopost. Just like what Ges Mundo said in his blog. Ahmm, wait lang, madami pa ko ginagawa, babalikan kita:D
ReplyDelete"Which of the many CHURCH OF CHRISTS do you belong?"
ReplyDeleteBakit? may iba bang Church of Christ sa ibabaw ng lupa maliban sa Iglesia ni Cristi sa Pilipinas? Pangalan pa nga lang , kami lang talaga, wala ng iba:) And yung second question mo, di ko muna yan sasagutin kasi di pa naman ako nagtatanong sayo. Blog mo to kaya ako po muna ang dapat magtanong hindi ung ako po ang tinatanong mo sa comment box mo:) Hirap kasi sa yo e nagpapakilala pa lang ako umaatake ka kaagad,. Napakahostile mo naman sa kin:) Relax lang, darating tayo jan:)
Hahahaha, ROMANS 16:16, kayo ba ang tinutukoy doon? Mangarap kayo!
DeleteThe LETTER OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS was written between AD 51-55. May mga "iglesia ni Cristo" na po noong binabanggit si APOSTOL PABLO.
Kahit anong copy-cat ng mga INC ni Manalo para gamitin ang TAGALOG name nito, hindi pa rin sila tunay dahil heto ang sabi ng OFFICIAL MAGAZINE ng INC Manalo na kinaaaniban mo!
PASUGO Mayo 1968, p. 7:
“Ang tunay na INK ay iisa lamang. Ito ang Iglesiyang itinayo ni Cristo. Kung mayroon mang nagsisibangon ngayong mga Iglesia at sasabihing sila man ay Iglesia ni Cristo rin, ang mga ito ay hindi tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo kundi huwad lamang." [ang pagdidiin ay akin lamang]
Ano raw?
Ang sabi ng Iglesia ni Cristong tatag ni Manalo, "kung mayroon mang nagsisibangon ngayong mga Iglesia at sasabihing sila man ay Iglesia ni Cristo rin, ang mga ito ay HINDI TUNAY na Iglesia ni Cristo kundi HUWAD LAMANG!"
Eh kailan nga ba naitatag ang Iglesia ni Manalo na nagsasabing sila rin ay mga "Iglesia ni Cristo"? Diba 1914?
Ano ang sabi ng PASUGO?
HUWAD ang Iglesia ni Cristo sapagkat silay'y sumulpot lamang kamakailan.
Saan at aliin ang TUNAY na IGLESIA NI CRISTO?
Heto naman ang sagot uli ng INC ni Manalo OFFICIALLY.
PASUGO Mayo 1954, p. 9:
“Alin ang tunay na Iglesia? Ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo sa Jerusalem."
Itinatag ba sa JERSUALEM ang Iglesia ni Cristo tatag ni Manalo?
HINDI PO.
Ang sabi ng Pasugo, ito'y tatag at REHISTRADO sa PILIPINAS...at si FELIX MANALO ang NAGTATAG at hindi si CRISTO.
PASUGO Agosto-Setyembre 1964, p. 5
“Kailan napatala sa Pamahalaan o narehistro ang INK sa Pilipinas? Noong Hulyo 27, 1914. Tunay nga na sinasabi sa rehistro na si Kapatid na F. Manalo ang nagtatag ng INK."
At kung talagang LOCAL lamang ang itinatag ni FELIX MANALO bakit ang CENTRAL nito ay nasa Pilipinas at WALA SA JERUSALEM?!@!!
PASUGO Hulyo 1971, p. 2:
“A permanent Central Office after 57 years establishment of the Church of Christ in the Philippines. This stands on a sprawling lot in Quezon City, at the corner of Cenral Avenue in Commonwealth Avenue."
KITAM?
Saan daw ba ang CENTRAL ng Iglesia ni Cristo kung ang INC sa Pinas ay LOCAL LAMANG?
Sabi ng pasugo ang CENTRAL ay nasa (ka)DILIMAN, Quezon City.
So kung ang INC sa pinas ay PEKE at tatag ito ng taong si FELIX MANALO, alin ang tunay na Iglesia ni Cristong sinasabi ni APOSTOL SAN PABLO sa mga taga-ROMA/
PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: “Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."
Hayun pala eh... so maliwanag na ba ito Ginoong Napoleon Ford?
You sir are speaking historically. How about spiritually?
DeleteTeka lang. Anong hong meron dito na pinupunto ninyo? "Ang Iglesia Katolika na SA PASIMULA ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."
DeletePakilinaw ho Catholic Defender. Tatanong lang.
Kung sasabihin kong nauuhaw ako, kailangan ko pa bang spelingin sa iyo kung ano ang kailangan ko?
DeleteINAAMIN ng INC ni Manalo na ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA ay siyang TUNAY na IGLESIA sa simula pa. At kung ito nga ay ang TUNAY NA IGLESIA NI CRISTO, lalabas na PEKE ang kanilang INC sapagkat HINDI PWEDENG DALAWA ang Iglesia ni Cristo.
Mas mas lilinaw pa ba sa sinasaad ng PASUGO? Hindi po ito opinion, OFFICIAL po itong IPINAHAYAG ng INC ni MANALO.
Mr. Dead man walking, what special kind of spirituality does Felix Manalo had to be considered among the ranks of prophets, sages and apostles?
DeleteNone of them RAPED any women. None of them built their own churches. None of their siblings or relatives maintained a CORPORATION CHURCH like what Felix Manalo founded!!!!
And all of them worked WONDER and MIRACLE proving God is on their side.
how about your "Last Sugo"?
Kung sasabihin kong nauuhaw ako, kailangan ko pa bang spelingin sa iyo kung ano ang kailangan ko?
DeleteNatural e kung maibigay ko sayo tubig e ang kailangan mo pla juice edi napahiya ako.Haizt:)
INAAMIN ng INC ni Manalo na ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA ay siyang TUNAY na IGLESIA sa simula pa. At kung ito nga ay ang TUNAY NA IGLESIA NI CRISTO, lalabas na PEKE ang kanilang INC sapagkat HINDI PWEDENG DALAWA ang Iglesia ni Cristo.
Ang nakasulat sa Pasugo namin, “Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo." TAKE NOTE: SA PASIMULA. Hindi sinabing " sa simula pa". Magkaiba kahulugan non for your info. Ikaw ha, dadayain mo pa kmi haXD. Yung amin, pinapakita namin na noong simula ang Iglesia ni Cristo na itinatag ni Cristo ay tunay, dalisay ang mga aral na sinusunod. Nung mamatay ang mga apostol, unti-unting natalikod dahil sa mga lason na aral na ipinasok ng mga bulaang propeta. Kaya ang Iglesia ni Cristo na itinatag ni Cristo noong pasimula, unti-unting naging Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana nang ang maghari ay puro na maling aral. That's our doctrine, yan din ang mensahe ng PASUGO namin na kinokopyahan mo. Hindi sinabi sa pasugo na, "ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA ay siyang TUNAY na IGLESIA sa simula pa". Parang sinasabi mo na sa simula pa lang kayo na ang tunay na Iglesia. DECEPTION na naman. Para kang si Talibong. hahaha:)
None of them RAPED any women. None of them built their own churches. None of their siblings or relatives maintained a CORPORATION CHURCH like what Felix Manalo founded!!!!
RAPE? Lakas ng loob mo ah. ISsue na naman ba about kay Trillanes? Luma na yan., binubuhay nyo pa e , nagfile na nga ng affidavit na binabawi nya lahat e. Hay naku, wala talaga kayong matakbuhan ano?:) At sa rape ka pa talaga tumakbo? Ilang mga babae ba ang binuntis ng mga POPE ninyo? naaktuhan pa nga sa kama na may kasiping na sawa ng ibang lalake?:) Dito na nga lang sa Pilipinas e, panahon nina Rizal., haha, u can't fool me. HISTORY is my field.
None of their siblings or relatives maintained a CORPORATION CHURCH like what Felix Manalo founded!!!!
The term “corporate” has to do with something relating to a corporation. In fact, the term “body corporate” was coined in the 15th century and simply means “corporation.” What is a corporation? A corporation is a unified body of individuals with a single purpose in mind. So? Anong masama kung tinawag sa PAPER na pinagbabatayan mo na Corporation Church kami? huh?
And all of them worked WONDER and MIRACLE proving God is on their side.
Un ba batayn ng pagiging tunay na Sugo?
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.
Aral ang batayan, kung nakabatay sa Biblia ang itinuturo at walang salungatan, tunay yun Ganun ba kayo? Mga aral nyo kontra sa Bible e.
John 5:36 For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me.
It's the work, not the wonders and miracles. because even Satan can make wonders and miracles like you:)
Teka ho muna Mr. Catholic Defender. Yes it is an Official Statement pero binabago niyo ho yung Official Statement eh. Walang ganyanan. That kind of argument is invalid. "SA PASIMULA ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo" hindi "sa pasimula PA" sabi mo dun sa comment mo. Yes hindi pwedeng dalawa. Alam mo kung ano ang sinasabi ko Mr. Catholic Defender, and you know it very well. I don't need to prove that to you. You're already arguing about that with somebody else... or at least you're delaying the inevitable with evasive answers.
Delete"Mr. Dead man walking, what special kind of spirituality does Felix Manalo had to be considered among the ranks of prophets, sages and apostles?
None of them RAPED any women."
That is true. What's your point? You base your answers on unconfirmed viral news that came out from nowhere? Silly. I'll leave it at that. (And no don't say that I am just putting the blame to some priests in the Catholic Church. I don't want to base your church with some not so faithful people.)
"None of their siblings or relatives maintained a CORPORATION CHURCH like what Felix Manalo founded!!!!"
Corporation Church? Ha! That is only your Opinion...
"And all of them worked WONDER and MIRACLE proving God is on their side."
Why would Wonders and Miracles be not in the True Church?
Only the true Church can do something that defies the beliefs of people (not the Miracles of inanimate objects crying blood or causing so-called unexplainable events).
My Questions were very simple. Yet you are trying to outsmart your enemy with irrelevant information and evasive answers... Nakakainis kasi tinatanong ko ho kayo pero you are not answering the question. You are just throwing accusations (like the second reply). Just answer the question. Show me about the spiritual welfare of the Catholic Church. You can take that as a question about your members or your doctrines then prove to me that those are all based in the bible. ALL.
"Hahahaha, ROMANS 16:16, kayo ba ang tinutukoy doon? Mangarap kayo!"
ReplyDelete- E sino YUN? kayo? Layo ng spelling brod:) hahaha
"Ang sabi ng Iglesia ni Cristong tatag ni Manalo, "kung mayroon mang nagsisibangon ngayong mga Iglesia at sasabihing sila man ay Iglesia ni Cristo rin, ang mga ito ay HINDI TUNAY na Iglesia ni Cristo kundi HUWAD LAMANG!""
Tama naman ang sabi ng Ka Felix. Tutol ba kami don? Sino ang tinutukoy nya dito na HUWAD? Edi yung nagpapakilala na Iglesia ni Cristo raw sila e sa spelling pa lang ng pangalan ng religion nila hindi na pumapasa.:) Common sense lang naman po Mr. Catholic Defender. Anong common meron ang IKAR sa Iglesia ni Cristo na itinatag ni Cristo e KUNG SA PANGALAN PA LANG E BAGSAK NA KAYO? Common sense brod:)
"PASUGO Mayo 1954, p. 9:
“Alin ang tunay na Iglesia? Ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo sa Jerusalem."
Itinatag ba sa JERSUALEM ang Iglesia ni Cristo tatag ni Manalo?
HINDI PO.
Matagal na tong argumento na to. Lumang tugtugin:) According to your question, pinapalitaw mo na hindi tunay ang Iglesia ni Cristo na lumitaw sa Pilipinas dahil sa hindi ito itinatag sa Jerusalem. That is only your opinion.
John 10:16 "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd."
Take note, "other sheep I have which are not of this fold". KUNG hindi pala tunay ang Iglesia ni Cristo sa Pilipinas dahil ang SABI MO hindi ito naitatag sa Jerusalem, LUMILITAW HINDI RIN PALA TUNAY ANG IBANG MGA TUPA NI CRISTO NA WALA PA NOON SA KAWAN NA ITINATAG NIYA SA JERUSALEM! Ganun ba yon Mr. Catholic Defender? Meron bang kinikilalang ibang mga tupa si Cristo na hindi tunay? :) Mahina ang proposition mo:)
""ANG SABI NG PASUGO", ito'y tatag at REHISTRADO sa PILIPINAS...at si FELIX MANALO ang NAGTATAG at hindi si CRISTO."
Ipakita mo na MISMONG PASUGO ang nagsabi nyan:)
At kung talagang LOCAL lamang ang itinatag ni FELIX MANALO bakit ang CENTRAL nito ay nasa Pilipinas at WALA SA JERUSALEM?!!!
Common sense, natural sa Pilipinas PINAREHISTRO bat mo hahanapin sa Jerusalem ung Central:) At isa pa, nasa Jerusalem pa ba ang IGLESIANG ITINATAG NI CRISTO NOONG UNANG SIGLO?.:)
"Sabi ng pasugo ang CENTRAL ay nasa (ka)DILIMAN, Quezon City."
Haha, corny mo ha. Punta ka dito ang liwanag kaya:)
"So kung ang INC sa pinas ay PEKE at tatag ito ng taong si FELIX MANALO, alin ang tunay na Iglesia ni Cristong sinasabi ni APOSTOL SAN PABLO sa mga taga-ROMA/"
Edi yung itinatag ni Cristo na Kaniyang Iglesia. Kaya nga ang banggit Iglesia ni Cristo. KAYO BA IYON? San banda? IGLESIA NI CRISTO compare mo ung name ng iGLESIA KATOLIKA APOSTOLIKA ROMANA. Ang layo:)
PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: “Ang Iglesia Katolika NA SA PASIMULA ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."
:) ANG LINAW O. Kailan raw? SA PASIMULA. Gusto mo malaman ano karugtong? Tuloy mo pagbasa ng PAsugo namin. Meron ka naman e, ayaw mo lang basahin, binabasa mo nga siguro, ayaw mo naman tanggapin. Ginagamit nyo ang PAsugo namin sa maling paraan, why don't you post the whole article if you are brave enough:)
Hayun pala eh... so maliwanag na ba ito Ginoong Napoleon Ford?
Ang labo kaya:) Naiinis pa ko,para kang si Abe. Ang hilig nyo sa mga sagot na "non sequitur" illogical answers:)
INAMIN naman ng INC ni Manalo Pasugo OFFICIALLY na ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA ay siyang IGLESIA NI CRISTO sa pasimula.
DeleteASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: “Ang Iglesia Katolika NA SA PASIMULA ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."
Kaya't LALABAS na ito pala ang TINUTUKOY ni Apostol Pablo na "IGLESIA NI CRISTO" sa ROMA 16:16.
Ginawa ko na ito sa ALIN ANG IGLESIANG BINABATI ng LAHAT NG MGA IGLESIA NI CRISTO?
Tanong ko sa iyo: NATALIKOD BA ANG IGLESIANG TATAG NI CRISTO upang magkaroon ng LEHITIMONG dahilan si Felix Manalo na ITATAG "muli" ang IGLESIANG kay CRISTO?
OO o HINDI.
Kung NATALIKOD na ganap ang IGLESIA NI CRISTOng tatag ni CRISTO, kailan ito nangyari? At saan sinasabi ng kasaysayan o ng Biblia na ito nga ay MATATALIKOD?
Dahil ang SABI ng PASUGO niyo ay HINDI NAMAN TALAGA NATALIKOD eh. Lalabas na PEKE si FELIX MANALO kung magkagayon.
At kung HINDI, e wala na tayong dapat pang pag-usapan.
Kung problema mo ay tungkol sa PASUGO QUOTES ko, well the BURDEN of proof is in your hands. PROVE ME WRONG by quoting the whole...
"INAMIN naman ng INC ni Manalo Pasugo OFFICIALLY na ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA ay siyang IGLESIA NI CRISTO sa pasimula."
DeleteAlam ko, kinokontra ko ba yan? But where did you get these thing?
Kaya't LALABAS na ito pala ang TINUTUKOY ni Apostol Pablo na "IGLESIA NI CRISTO" sa ROMA 16:16.
San mo nakuha ung conclusion na yan? Siguro nga naisip mo lang . Wla naman kaming sinasabing ganyan e. Panong magiging kayo yan? E sa aral na sinasampalatayanan ng Iglesia ni Cristo noon at sa aral ninyo wala kong makitang similarities. Kontra aral nyo sa aral nila noon.:) PANGALAN nga lang binago nyo e. Lapastangan pa kayo, di nyo man lang sinama pangalannng Panginoong Jesucristo sa pangalan ng religion nyo.
NATALIKOD BA ANG IGLESIANG TATAG NI CRISTO
OO.
upang magkaroon ng LEHITIMONG dahilan si Felix Manalo na ITATAG "muli" ang IGLESIANG kay CRISTO?
Correction. Wala kaming aral na ang KA Felix Y.Manalo ang nagtatag ng Iglesia ni Cristo sa Pilipinas. Kung ang pinababasehan mo ay ang REGISTRATION noong 1914, talagang ang dapat na nakasulat doon na founder ay yung present na pwedeng pumirma doon. Since Jesus Christ is already in heaven, pabababain mo ba si Jesus para lang pumirma doon? That's ridiculous. Natural, dahil hindi naman payag ang mga abogado na ang founder na pipirma sa registration ay absent, edi dapat ang ilagay na founder ay present. COMMON SENSE :) Hindi dahil ang Ka Felix Y. Manalo ang nakalagay doon na founder ay siya na na talaga ang founder ng Iglesia ni Cristo. HININGI LANG YUN NG PAGKAKATAON. SA PAPEL LANG YUN. We are not basing our doctrines on a piece of paper like the registration form that you are talking about. Yan ang takbuhan nyo e. :) Mag iisang daang taon na kami, pero yang tuligsa nyo na yan wa epek haha:)
Kung NATALIKOD na ganap ang IGLESIA NI CRISTOng tatag ni CRISTO, kailan ito nangyari?
DeletePagkamatay ng mga apostol, unti-unting nagaganap ang pagtalikod. Our Lord Jesus Christ has prophesied this apostasy.
Matthew 24:11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
Acts 20:29-30 29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. .
1 Tim. 4:1
But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall apostatise from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons
Ayan, maliwanag ang hula. Ngayon sasabihin mo, hindi naman nakasulat na lahat o ganap na natalikod, ang sabi lang naman " many " at " some ". Talaga naman na marami ang nadaya, pero MERON DING HINDI NADAYA. Baka naman sabihin mo kayo un ha, .:) Mangarap ka hindi kayo un. Ano nangyari sa mga hindi nadaya?
Matthew 24:9 " "Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers."
Ayan, hinuli sila, inusig, at PINATAY. Nawala na ang mga hindi nadaya. Sino natira? Edi yung maraming nadaya. Yung mga hindi nadaya pinatay, like the Apostles. E yung mga nadaya, sila ung nagpatuloy ng Iglesia. Hindi naman nawala ang organisayon e, nagpatuloy un, pero ung mga kaanib nila noon hindi na tunay. BAKIT? Dahil ito na yung mga nadaya. Masasabi mo pa ba na ito pa rin ang Iglesiang itinatag ni Crito gayong ang mga kaanib nito ay sumusunod na sa mga aral na ipinandaya sa kanila? NO.
HISTORICAL? Ok.
DeleteWarnings About Apostasy Fulfilled
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith...who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods, which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth" (I Timothy 4:1-3). Changes crept in slowly as small departures occurred; gradually became accepted over a generation or two; and then were used to justify even greater departures.
There began to be slight changes in the organization of the local church. One of the elders was made "the bishop". He was a "chief shepherd"; a position that you cannot read of in the covenant of Christ unless you are talking about Jesus Himself! Then there was a binding together of several churches into a common organizational structure called a "diocese". Again, this is an organization foreign to the pages of the New Testament. By the end of the second century, these departures were accepted by most as the way to do things. Ultimately, after many struggles, much carnality and over strenuous objections, one of these men got himself promoted to "universal bishop" or pope. It had taken six centuries but it had always been the logical conclusion of those first steps away from the Covenant centuries before.
Apostasy's Many Forms
"A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit" (Matthew 7:18). Many, many further changes took place as men felt freer and freer to do with the Scriptures whatever they wished. Changes in baptism, music, the Lord's supper, status of "saints", status of Mary, use of religious images, writing of creeds, religious holidays, penance, purgatory and development of the clergy are all things unheard of in the Covenant God had made with His church. Now, who are the heroes of faith? They are the ones who have cast aside man-made religious trappings and have returned in simple, God-fearing faith to Jesus through His word. God expects no less than that.
By Jon W. Quinn
From Expository Files 10.10, October 2003
What can you say about the Nicene Creed? Jan ginawang Diyos si Cristo diba? Aminin,:) 1st to 4th century wala pang malaganap na paniniwala na Diyos si Cristo until 325 A.D. At ang leader pa nga jan hindi pari kundi isang PAGAN emperor. And Christ's birthday was changed to Dec 25th? Nung una di naman Dec. 25, tsaka mali talaga, wala namang ganun sa Bible e. And the introduction of Easter (a pagan feast for Ishtar)? What is your opinion about that? Do you think that was okay? Christianized pagan beliefs? And what can you say about the Catholic Inquisition that extinguished other belief systems? E ito p nga ang ikakikilala sa mga bulaang propeta. ACTS 20:29 Hindi magpapatawad sa kawan Like Nero and the Catholic Inquisition. HEY THIS IS HISTORY. You should post this IF you are brave enough:)
SABI ng PASUGO niyo ay HINDI NAMAN TALAGA NATALIKOD
Wag ka nga gumawa ng kwento. Niloloko mo sarili mo e. Nasisiraan ka na ng bait:)
Kung problema mo ay tungkol sa PASUGO QUOTES ko, well the BURDEN of proof is in your hands. PROVE ME WRONG by quoting the whole...
Teka lang tama ka, the burden of proof is on my hands. Pero, ako ung naunang nagrequest na ipost mo ung whole article. Im one of your readers and this is your blog. It's not my obligation to post my evidences. It is your obligation for this is your blog and you are accountable in everything that you will post for your readers. You as a blogger must convince us that the infos that you are posting are correct. And the fact that you refused to post the whole article, that is the very PROOF that you are lying in public. Takot ka kasi:) I hope everything will be posted:)
Ay ang kulit ni Mama.
DeleteMagkaiba ang "sa pasimula" sa "sa pasimula PA"
"Dahil ang SABI ng PASUGO niyo ay HINDI NAMAN TALAGA NATALIKOD eh. Lalabas na PEKE si FELIX MANALO kung magkagayon."
Mr. Catholic Defender, saan nanggaling yan???
Sinisira mo sarili mong credibility eh! Gumagawa ka ng mga konklusyon MULA SA WALA.
Kung hindi natalikod ang tunay na IGLESIA, anong karapatan ni Felix Manalo upang magtatag ng panibagong Iglesia?
DeleteAt kung ang itinatag niya ay LOCAL lamang, bakit ang CENTRAL ay nasa Pilipinas at wala sa Jerusalem?
Mangarap kang kayo ang tunay!
Kung hindi natalikod ang tunay na IGLESIA, anong karapatan ni Felix Manalo upang magtatag ng panibagong Iglesia?
Delete- paulit-ulit paulit ulit? :) haha, sinagot ko na to lahat a. Hindi natalikod? Sino bang may sabing hindi natalikod? Edi kayo na mga natalikod:)
At kung ang itinatag niya ay LOCAL lamang, bakit ang CENTRAL ay nasa Pilipinas at wala sa Jerusalem?
- paulit-ulit paulit ulit? :) haha, sinagot ko na to lahat a. USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. Magpaparehistro ka ng sa Pilipinas taz hahanapin mo ung Central sa Jerusalem.
Mangarap kang kayo ang tunay!
At tsaka, anong klaseng mga sagot itong pinaglalalagay mo? Ang laki pa naman ng expectation ko. Akla ko pa naman maglalagay ka ng mga bagong pasabog na magpapatumba sa mga sinabi ko,. Kaso pinaasa mo ko e. nonsense ang mga sinabi mo:) Hindi pangarap to Mr. Catholic Defender. KAMI TALAGA ANG TUNAY. See where is the Church of Christ now. Kung talagang ang Ka Felix Y. Manalo lang ang nagtatag ng religion na to, hindi kami uunlad ng ganito. E kayo? Akala ko ba kayo tunay? Tingnan mo lagay ng Katolisismo ngayon. Papunta na kayo sa kabulukan. Ni wala na nga kayong kapangyarihan para mapasunod mga members ninyo. Paubos na nga yaman nyo e. Nung isang araw namasyal ako sa Intramuros. Gusto ko sana pumasok sa Manila Cathedral for sight seeing. But im dissapointed. Sarado kasi, renovation raw. E last year pa nirerenovate un. Tapos nakalagay pa dun sa board sa harapan, kung sino raw ang pwedeng magdonate. Kawawa namn kayo ano. Wala na bang nagaabuloy sa inyo?:)
DAhil paulit-ulit ang inyong mga katanungang NASAGOT NA NAMIN NG 1400 YEARS NA.
DeleteAng INC ni Manalo ay HINDI NA BAGO sa aming paningin at panlasa. Ang lahat ng inyong mga OBJECTIONS ay sinagot na BAGO pa mang ISINILANG si FELIX MANALO na PEKENG SUGO.
At anong ngalngal mo, heto magbasa ka ng OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS NAMIN, may links na po yan, Bible references etc.
From Vatican Site CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
From American Bishop Conference CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
From SCBorromeo CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
At marami pa.
At NAKAPRINT po yan at available sa LEADING BOOKSTORES nationswide and WORLDWIDE po in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES po...AVAILABLE!
Ginawa naming AVAILABLE sa maraming WEBSITES at BOOKSTORES para hindi niyo sasabihing NAGTATAGO kami ng aming mga aral.
At heto namang ang HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH LANTAD NA LANTAD oh.
HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH from Wikipedia
HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH from About.com
HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH in pdf
Ngayon ako naman ang hihingi.
BIGYAN mo nga kami link ng official teachings ng INC ni Manalo? or kahit ung FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS of the INC kahit in-print. Meron ba sa NATIONAL BOOKSTORES? Available ba in French, English, Arabic, Urdu, Latin, Greek, Russian, Chinese, Hindi, Turkish, etc?
MANGANGAMATIS KAYO DAHIL WALA!
Kamote ka pala e. Sinasabi mo nasagot mo na ang mga tanong ko. ASAN? Ung mga link na ibinigay mo sakin mga doctrine nyo un na matagal ng bulok. Matagal ng sira samin yan. Kaya nga kabisado ko na mga aral nyo e. At hanggang ngayon sa mga debate laban samin hindi ninyo kayang tindigan ng maliwanag ang aral nyo dahil talagang matagal na kayong nabubulok. Mga aral nyo puro bagsak na samin. Tapoz ibibigay mo pa sakin itong mga site na to na karamihan Katoliko ang gumwa.
DeleteWhy don't you post your answer? Nilalabo mo naman e. Akala ko ba matagal nyo ng nasagot? Sagutin mo ko sa blog mo huwag mo kong dalhin sa mga site nyo hahaha:) I don't need your books, meron kayong mga libro na hawak hawak ko and that is enough to destroy you. Speaking of Wikipedia. Wikipedia pa talaga ang gnamit mo which is questionable ang mga infos dahil pwedeng dagdagn yan ng kahit sino. And, wag mo na kong paikut-ikutin. Ang daming mga history books that prove your apostasy, your PAGAN ORIGIN. Kaya wag kang magmaang maangan jan, nasisiraan ka lang talaga ng bait:) Kung talagang SINAGOT MO NA ANG MGA TANONG KO POST YOUR ACTUAL ANSWER IN YOUR BLOG. DON't DECEIVE YOUR READERS BY TELLING THEM TO GO TO YOUR CATHOLIC SITES. E YUNG IBA JAN MAKAKITA LANG NG SITE AKALA MO NASAGOT NA TALAGA YUNG TULIGSA. IKAW MISMO ANG SUMAGOT, Bakit naduduwag ka na pakita mismo ang AKTUWAL NA SAGOT? :)haha
"BIGYAN mo nga kami link ng official teachings ng INC ni Manalo? or kahit ung FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS of the INC kahit in-print. Meron ba sa NATIONAL BOOKSTORES? Available ba in French, English, Arabic, Urdu, Latin, Greek, Russian, Chinese, Hindi, Turkish, etc?"
Then? Ano naman? Batayan ba yon? Nagyayabang ka lang di mo naman kayang sagutin yung tanong ko. SEE, Tama talaga si Ka Ges Mundo e, iniiba nyo issue di mo pa nga ko nasasagot:) HAhaha, prove to public na talagang totoo KATOLISISMO. SAGUTIN MO LAHAT NG IBINABATO KO SAYO:) nagmumukha ka lang tanga dito sa blog mo kung puro ka datdat wala ka namang maipakitang aktuwal na sagot mo:)
Ipinakita mo pa yung pdf ng HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Habang tinitingnan ko natatawa ko kasi ung pagkakaroon ng ibat ibang mga sanga ng Katolisismo, that only proves that you are not of God. Bakit? According to James 3:14-15
But if ye have bitter jealousy and faction in your heart, glory not and lie not against the truth.This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic.
The fact that many factions arose inside Catholic Church that is the very proof that you are not of God. Pinapatay nyo pa nga ung mga kumontra sa inyo e mga pari nyo rin naman yon. Sa Diyos ba kayo nyan?:) NO.
"The Catholic Church's practice of praying for the dead, and consequently the existence of Purgatory, goes straight back to what the Christians in the early centuries of the Church did- and what the Jews did before Christianity."
What the hell are you talking about? Purgatory? Can you find it in the Bible or even the details of it? Nasisiraan talaga kayo ng bait. Kaya galit na galit si Rizal sa inyo e:)
The Catholic Church's practice of honoring Mary goes back to the time of Jesus Christ. Jesus obeyed all the Commandments including the 4th, HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER( BUT NOT TO WORSHIP THEM!!!)
Nililiko mo naman ang utak ng mga nakakabasa nito. Sana pinakita mo rin sa knila kung anong year at anong Konsilyo ang nagpatibay na dapat sambahin si Maria para malaman rin nila na hindi pala si Cristo ang may utos na sambahin ang Kaniyang ina:) Kulang ka sa impormasyon brod:)
The Bishop of Rome, the Pope, has authority over all the other Bishops of the world.
Where the hell can you find this doctrine? Mukha mo Catholic Defender:)
Ano ba naman yan Mr. Catholic Defender! Nasan na yung sagot mo??? Ang ginagawa mo ibaon lang sa limot yung mga sinabi namin sa pamamagitan ng mahaba mong sagot eh. Please review what I asked and answer them. Not answering them alone makes you questionable.
DeleteYung iba sa mga nasa taas eh gawa gawa nyo lang din. Tapos Wikipedia? Lahat ng tao pedeng mag-edit dyan. Basahin mo ito please especially yung Bias Part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Kahit pa ang About.com eh. Based sa mga piling authors na nagpopost dyan. Not every information in the Internet is true. Kung too lahat ng nakalagay sa internet, maraming beses nang naguho at naghukom at natapos ang mundo. Three times Last Year. Tapos ang hamon mo labasan ng link?! May Link totoo na? Bigyan kita link patay na si Eli Buendia totoo na? Masyado kang dikit sa Internet.
Kung ang hinahanap mo ay Official Teachings ng Iglesia ni Cristo and its Fundamental Beliefs, magtanong ka sa Ministro. May print? Meron.
May BAGO pa ba sa mga argument ng INC ni Manalo? Nothing is new, COPY-CAT lang naman ang gma doctrines niyo which the Catholic church had answered long before Manalo was born.
DeleteMasyado kayong TAKOT as internet... walang official website. Ano ba ang kinatatakutan ng INC ni Manalo para ibunyag sa buong mundo ang kanilang COPY-CAT na aral?
Sige, kung talagang ALAM mo ang katuruan ng Iglesia Katolika, pwede bang ipaliwanag mo sa amin dito kung ano ang SANTISIMA TRINIDAD at kung ano ang IMACULADA CONCEPTION according to the teachings of the Catholic Church?
DeleteMaghihintay kami ng paliwanag officially from your cult.
Hindi ang IGLESIA ang TATALIKOD kundi mga tao. NATUPAD ITO KAY FELIX MANALO DAHIL SIYA ANG TUMALIKOD SA IGLESIA at NAGTAYO NG SARILING KANYA at pinangalanang "Iglesia ni Cristo" para katunog lamang.
DeletePERO PEKE PA RIN.
Warning. Hindi lahat ng tatak LEVI'S sa Divisoria ay genuine! Marami diyan ang PEKE.
Gusto mo ng orig, sa mall ka.
Kung iglesia lang naman ang pag-uusapan, kung gusto mo ng orig na CHURCH doon ka na sa may 2,000 years existence, huwag sa 98 years pa lamang, amoy pintura pa ang mga templo nilang tulisan.
Copy Cat? Having Simmilarities doesn't mean something is a Copy Cat. That is Your Opinion.
DeleteTakot sa Internet? Takot na ibunyag sa buong mundo ang aral? Get out of your house! Di ka kasi lumalabas ng bahay mo eh. Nakaupo ka lang sa harapan ng computer. Hindi pa pagbubunyag ng mga aral ang ginagawang pangangaral? Parang kahapon ka lang pinanganak ah. Walang balita sa Mundo?
You want me to Explain the Trinity and Immaculate Conception? Hindi ka nga lumalabas ng bahay mo. Kailangan mo pa akong magpaliwanag ng aral niyo para gamitin mo laban sakin. Pero sige. Challenge Accepted. But I'll just give a brief description.
Ayon na rin sa inyong pagtuturo, ang Trinity ay ang doktrina ninyo na nagsasabing Ang Diyos ay may tatlong persona, ang Ama, ang Anak, at ang Espiritu Santo. Ang tatlo ay magkaiba ngunit iisa sa substansya o esensya. Parang 1+1+1 = 1 ang pinapalabas dyan. Ayon narin sa iba niyong pari ito ay "Mystery" dahil hindi maipaliwanag papaanong ang tatlo ay naging isa. HIWAGA Kontra na yan sa Biblia. (Isa 44:8, Mal 2:10, Juan 17:3, 1).
Immaculate Conception. Doktrina niyo na si Maria ay laya mula sa Original Sin. Maling mali yan. Original Sin doesn't even exist Kontra yan sa Biblia (Deut 24:16). At kung sasabihin mo na may sinabi din sa bagong tipan na sila ay naging makasalanan dahil sa kanilang mga magulang, simple lang yun. Natutunan nila ang makasalanang pamumuhay sa kanilang mga magulang. Sheesh.
Official Statement from INC? Lumabas ka ng bahay mo, pumunta ka sa Ministro at magtanong ka. Ganun lang Kasimple.
"Hindi ang IGLESIA ang TATALIKOD kundi mga tao."
Ayun nga eh. Hindi nga ang Iglesia ang tatalikod kundi ang mga tao. Kaya ang mga kaanib sa Iglesia noon naubos dahil natalikod ang mga tao. Ito rin ang patunay na nagpanukala na si Cristo ukol sa mga tupa na wala pa sa kulungan ay hindi sa panahong iyon ang tinutukoy.(Juan 10:16).
Years of Existence? Sige pagbasihan mo ang Years of Existence baka bukas nasa Hinduismo ka na.
Hindi ang IGLESIA ang TATALIKOD kundi mga tao. NATUPAD ITO KAY FELIX MANALO DAHIL SIYA ANG TUMALIKOD SA IGLESIA at NAGTAYO NG SARILING KANYA at pinangalanang "Iglesia ni Cristo" para katunog lamang.
Delete- Puro ka datdat, opinyon mo lang namn yan. Yan lang ba ang isasagot sa mga Biblical facts at Historical facts na ibinato ko at itinatanong sayo? Kawawa ka naman. Anong klaseng Catholic Defender ka? What kind of answer is that? Sagot ba yan ng talagang may alam? Siguro nga wala ka talagang alam kaya hindi mo masagot-sagot ung mga tanong na ibinato ko sayo kaya ang gagawin mo na lang magsasalita ng kung anu-anong patutsada laban samin e hindi naman makita sa mga sinasabi mo ung mga logical answer at ebidensyang sumusuporta sa mga pinagsasabi mo. whhoa, ang haba nun:) Fliptop na lang tayo ano? Hahaha, joke:)
Ano ngayon kung 2000 years na kayo? E alam namam nating lahat, at kahit ikaw na talikod na kayo. Ang sagot nyo ba ay pang-aasar lang? E sa mga sagot ninyo , pag binasa wala namang kwenta sa simula pa lang.:) haha:)
Sige, kung talagang ALAM mo ang katuruan ng Iglesia Katolika, pwede bang ipaliwanag mo sa amin dito kung ano ang SANTISIMA TRINIDAD at kung ano ang IMACULADA CONCEPTION according to the teachings of the Catholic Church?
DeleteAng Trinidad ay ang Diyos raw ay may tatlong persona. Ilan baga ang persona ng Diyos? 3. Turan mo kung alin-alin. Diyos Ama, Diyos Anak, at Diyos Espiritu Santo. Sila raw lahat ay Diyos. Pantay pantay at walang pagkakaungus ungusan. Yan ang aral niyong bulok:) Biruin mo, ang pinakaunang naging Diyos sa mga ito ay ang Ama. Tapos noong 325 A.d. naging Diyos na rin ang Anak. Then, nung 381 A.D, naging Diyos na rin ang Espiritu Santo. at maraming daang taon pa bago nagawa ang opisyal na doktrina ng trinidad. Aba, umaasenso. Pantay-pantay raw. E ung Espiritu Santo nga e inuutusan ng Ama at Anak. Yung Anak inuutusan ng Ama. Asan ang pagkakapantay - pantay doon? At paano naging 1 ang 3? Sabi nila, anak ito ay isang MISTERYO:) Nabulunan ako bigla dun. Sabi ko dun sa pare, eee, mystery po ba un? Sabi nya, oo anak, ang mga bagay na ukol sa Diyos ay hindi natin nalalaman,. Malalaman lang natin un pag nakita natin sya ng mukhaan. Sabi ko, aaah, ok po. Pero sa loob loob ko, hindi mo pala nalalaman e, e pano mo nalamang Trinidad? Boplogs rin ung pari ano haha joke:)
Tapos nalaman ko na lang, na ang mga bagay ukol sa Diyos ay maliwanag dahil inihayag ito ng Diyos sa kanila. Roma 1:19. Sabi ng Diyos, walang Diyos maliban sa Akin. Isaias 44:8. Oo nga namn, ang liwa-liwanag e tapos sasabihing mistery raw. Ayun, idol ko na tuloy ung minstro:)
Tapos ung pari tinanong ko ulit, ano po ba yung Imaculada Conception? Sabi niya, si Maria na ina ni Jesus, sa pamamagitan ng biyaya ng Diyos, ay malaya na sa lahat ng kasalanan nang ipinaglihi niya ang ating Panginoon. Tapos sagot ko, nakasulat po ba sa Biblia un? Napakamot ang pare sa napapanot nyang ulo. Anak, hindi dahil wala sa Biblia ay hindi na totoo. Totoong wala sa Biblia ang aral na yun anak, katunayan nga 1854 lang daw un pinagtibay,. Pero, ang katwiran anak, dapat ang magdadala rin kay Jesus ay isang taong walang kasalanan. Sabi ko, aahh, oo nga no. Tapos pag-uwi ko, sabi ko eeee, pwede namang mangyari na kahit nagkasala si Maria ay maipagdalang tao nya si Jesus sa pamamagitan ng Espiritu Santo ng Diyos. Yun naman talaga ang nakasulat sa Biblia. Ipinaglihi niya si Cristo sa ilalim ng kapangyarihan ng Espiritu Santo. Kaya bat pa kailangang hindi nagkasala si Maria kung may patnubay naman sya? May mas lalakas pa ba sa power ni God? Kanino ko maniniwala? Sa Biblia, o doon sa aral na wala sa Biblia? Xempre sa Bible.haiz, tinanong ko ulit yung pari about kung bakit 19th century lang nagawa un. Sabi nya, kalimutan mo na lang yun anak, joke lang yun. hahaha:P
John 10:16 "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd."
ReplyDeleteJesus said to Peter: feed my sheep 3 times , thats what makes Peter the shepherd
If you read the Book of Acts, it was Peter who lead the Church
"I have other sheep" that means, not only the Jews but also the Gentiles "WE" are that other sheep...That's why the apostles went to different lands to preached the words of Jesus "He who hears you[Apostles] hears me [Jesus]" .It is not Iglesia ni Cristo, many many hears the words of God before 1914, they are the "other sheep(non-Jews)" and today that one Shepherd is the Pope
sa totoo lng po,sa doktrina ng INC,sabi wag magbintang kasi masama ito.pero why kinokompare ang INC at RC?why INC used or based their teachings to RC author para ba sabhing o ganyan ang sinsabi ng RC or ang nkahighlight p tlga mga negative part?dapat ipabasa nlng lhat ang lman ng libro.ganun din sa biblya,choosy angINC sa verses pero tanong ko lang bakit di nila pagnulaynulayan ang mga parables sa biblya o basahin din ng buo and not just the picked verses.kasi kung may nasa biblya nman mga sagot ng mga versea n pnili nila..closed minded kasi..mae
ReplyDelete"why INC used or based their teachings to RC author "
DeleteWhat?Nakabatay ba ang mga aral namin sa mga isinulat ng mga Katoliko? San mo po nakuha yang kaisipan na iyan? Bat kami magbabatay ng aral namin sa maling aral? Ikaw na rin maysabi, nakahighlight ang mga negative part. Why? Ayaw mo ba tanggapin na totoo naman talaga na maraming negative teaching ang KATOLISISMO? Pikit mata na lang ba kayong susunod sa mga maling aral na itinuturo sa inyo? Nakita nyo na nga na negative ipinagtatanggol nyo pa. Hayaan nyong sagutin ng mga pari nyo yan. Then icompare nyo alin ang tama. Kami o Kayo. Nakabatay ba sa Biblia yun? Oo naman.
"For all things are corrected by The Light and they are revealed, and everything that reveals is light."
Inihahayag lang namin ang maling aral ng Katolisismo.:)
"dapat ipabasa nlng lhat ang lman ng libro"
E kapag binasa yung buong libro aabutin tayo ng siyam siyam niyan, Isipin mo ang tinatanong ko lang " Inaamin ba ng mga paring Katoliko ang ginawang pagpapapatay ng Iglesia Katolika? Ang sagot lang don oo. E ang sabi ni John A. O' Brien, ...we frankly acknowledge the responsibility of the POPES in the use of torture and in the burning of thousands of heretics at the stake. ( The Truth About the Inquisition p. 49 ) Katoliko may sulat nyan. Ayan, inamin na nya, bat pa babasahin ang buong libro? What's the sense?
Ganito ba ginagawa ng mga paring Katoliko? NO. They will quote one of the lines of our PASUGO then THEY WILL CONCLUDE BASED ON THEIR DIRTY TACTICS. Isipin mo, nakita lang nila sa Pasugo namin. " Ang Iglesia Katolika NA SA PASIMULA ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo" ,. Tapos sasabihin nila "
Kaya't LALABAS na ito pala ang TINUTUKOY ni Apostol Pablo na "IGLESIA NI CRISTO" sa ROMA 16:16." Nabasa ba nila yan sa PAsugo namin? Out of nowhere lumitaw ung meaning nila. Un ang out of the context. Kaya nga natatakot sila na ipost ang buong article kasi nga salungat ang konklusyon nila sa sinasabi ng article namin. Yan ang maliwanag na panloloko.
E kami, nagtatanong lang kami, libro nyo ang sumasagot. At kahit bali-baliktarin, ung sagot ng libro nyo, un talaga ang sagot sa tinatanong namin. We are not using your books out of the context. WE ARE NOT DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM YOUR BOOKS> WE ARE JUST GETTING INFOS FOR OUR QUESTIONS.
ABout the verses of the Bible, hindi naman masama na basahin mo yung buong Biblia. Un nga lang goodluck sau kailan ka matatapos. At isa pa what's wrong if we are reading a verse and connecting it to other verses? Yun nga ang lalong nagpapatunay na ang Biblia hindi nagkakakontra-kontra ang sinasabi. Diba?:)
We are not close minded whoever you are anonymous. The fact that we are studying your doctrines is the very proof that we are not close - minded. Imagine, many former members of CATHOLIC church left your church because they found out that almost all of your doctrines are wrong. So who are the close-minded people? Sila yung ipinagtatanggol ung mga aral na sila na rin mismo ang maysabi na negative o mali. Haiz:)
Iglesia of Manalo are the most close minded and brain washed cult members in the world. DArkness for them is light. And light is darkness.
DeleteThey believe in a church that is completely a filipino church!!!!
Fools.
That sir is your Opinion. Why don't you observe? Your words are showing that you are the one that is Close Minded.
DeleteBy the way. Don't be a racist.
Agree Danny... they are the vilest people on earth! They think ALL CATHOLICS go to hell.
DeleteNow educate me on racism Mr. Deadman.
Mr. Riel Lopez, your answer is unbiblical.
ReplyDeleteIf you read the Book of Acts, it was Peter who lead the Church
Your proposition is open and unclear.if you are saying that Peter is a shepherd of the Church, there's no doubt about that. He was really one of the good shepherd of the Church of Christ. But if you are trying to say that Peter was the Executive Leader during the 1st century Church then you are wrong. It was not Peter, it's James.You should review your Bible history Mr. Riel:)
Jesus said to Peter: feed my sheep 3 times , thats what makes Peter the shepherd
You should know why Jesus said that to Peter. Remember that after the death of Jesus, Peter returned to his former job as a fisherman. He did not continue as an Apostle of Christ. And when Jesus was resurrected, He asked Peter if he LOVES our Lord Jesus Christ MORE THAN these things. WHAT ARE THESE THINGS? That is his job as a fisherman. Why did Jesus ask Peter about that? Because Peter left his duty as an apostle of Christ. That's why Peter was asked 3 times. The 3rd time, Peter bacame sad because he already perceived what our Lord Jesus Christ trying to say to him. TAKE CARE OF THE FLOCK. Even Apostle Paul said these words to the bishops of Ephesus in Acts 20:28 " Take heed therefore to yourselves and TO ALL THE FLOCK..."
It is not Iglesia ni Cristo, many many hears the words of God before 1914, they are the "other sheep(non-Jews)" and today that one Shepherd is the Pope
Many many huh. Sounds like " major major" anyway, again your answer is unbiblical. These " other sheeps " have the same characteristic with the early Christians. Remember they are just the other sheeps but still they are sheeps of Jesus. How can we recognize the sheeps of Jesus? According to Apostle Paul, " SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD, AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME,'" Acts 15:17. Take note, the non-Jews who are the other sheeps of Christ will be called by His name. What's the name? The precious name of our Lord Jesus Christ.We can recognize the other sheep by the name that they bear and that is the name of Christ. That's why the apostles called it the Church of Christ. How about the Catholic Church? Do you bear the name of Christ? Where is the name of Christ in the name of your religion? The so called holy roman catholic apostolic church. Where is the name of Christ there? huh? :)
A "Johny-came-lately" church trying to explain the bible eh kahit isang Bible Scholar wala kayo!!!!
DeleteAng Bible na ginagamit niyo ay AMIN, at wala kayong naiambag kahit tuldok!!!!
A "Johny-came-lately" church trying to explain the bible eh kahit isang Bible Scholar wala kayo!!!!
DeleteAnd so? Layo namn ng sagot mo sa mga pinagsasabi ko Mr. Catholic Defender. Alam mo kung ako lang ung PAPA nyo, babatukan kita kasi wala ka namn ipinaliwanag sa mga sagot ko e,. Nang-aasar ka na lang wala ka na kasing maisagot:) Ano ngayon kung marami kayong Bible Scholar? Ang mga Bible Scholar ba ang batayan para masabing tunay ang Iglesia? Naturingan ngang mga Bible Scholar pero nung ipaliwanag ang Biblia, sumamba kayo sa rebulto, pwede kumain ng pagkaing may dugo, ipinangaral ang purgatorio, pusang aba san nila nabasa sa Biblia yan. Sila yung tinutukoy ni Apostol Pablo na laging nagsisipag-aral ngunit hindi nakararating sa pagkaalam ng katotohanan. :) Kaya nga wala kayong solid na maibatong tuligsa samin e. Lahat kasi ng argumento nyo nasasagot namin ng tama. E kayo? Pag wala na kayong maisip para mairefute ang mga sinasabi namin, ayan mang-aasar na lang si Catholic Defender. Parang bata pag wala ng maisagot:)
Ang Bible na ginagamit niyo ay AMIN, at wala kayong naiambag kahit tuldok!!!!
Kapal ng mukha mo.Hehe joke lang. Bakit? Kayo sumulat ng Biblia? Salita nyo nakasulat dyan para sabihin mo na inyo ang Biblia? Mukha mo. Ang Biblia na ginagamit mo ay ginagamit ko. At ang katunayan na hindi sa inyo ang Bibliang ginagamit mo hindi mo marefute ang mga talatang ibinabato ko sayo. KUNG talagang inyo yan gamitin mo para pabulaanan ang mga sinasabi ko. Kaso di mo kaya e, taga translate lang kayo pero kahit kailan hindi naging inyo ang Bibliang hawak niyo. Kaya nga sa history my mga pangyayari na ung mga scrbe nyo binabago ang ibangmga nakasulat sa Biblia para kunwari pabor sa aral niyo. Un lang naman ang kaya nilang gawin. Konting bago. Hindi pwedeng baguhin ang maraming salita dahil kapag ginawa nyo un, maraming aalma. Civil war tayo nyan. That is the very proof na hindi inyo ang Biblia. Kapalmoks:)
At wala kaming naiambag kahit tuldok? Ano ngayon? Ang mga apostol nga at si Cristo nung nangaral gamit ang Old Testament hindi nagdagdag o nagbawas sa mga nakasulat doon. Ipinaliwanag nila dahil sila ang mga Sugo ng Diyos. E kayo? Dagdag bawas kayo e:) Ung super Apocrypha nyo haha.:)
Mr. Napoleon Ford, that line of argument that "James was the leader of the Church" is not originated from Iglesia Ni Cristo, that argument was first used by many Protestant against Catholic Church long before INC was born (TRULY COPYCAT).in Acts 15:19, James was only expressing his own personal conviction after Peter declared the acceptance of the Gentiles.
Deleteany many huh. Sounds like " major major" anyway, again your answer is unbiblical.
OH? UNBIBLICAL??
look at these verse carefully before you say that I'm unbiblical
THE PRIMACY OF PETER (NOT JAMES)
* Matthew 16:19: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." The "power" of the keys has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (see Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament, a steward, or prime minister, is a man who is "over a house" (Gen 41:40; Gen 43:19;44:4; 1 King 4:6;16:9;18:3; 2 King 10:5;15:5;18:18; Isa 22:15,
Isa 20-21).
* Matthew 16:19: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law and, secondarily, to "condemn," "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (see Jn 16:13), as well as to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him pre-eminent.
* Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him "the first" (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)
* Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (see, for example, Gal 1:18-19; 2:7-8). Taken in context, Paul is in Jerusalem (2:1), the See of James. Protocol, even to this day is for the Bishop of the diocese to be mentioned first before any visitor is mentioned, even for the Pope. Saint Paul is merely following proper protocol in vs 2:9.
* Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, "Rock," solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42;
Mt 16:18).
* Peter is asked three times by Christ to feed His lambs, is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).
* Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith fail not" (Lk 22:32).
* Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).
* Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).
* Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
* Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
* Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Act 2:37-41;5:15).
Delete* Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money
(Mt 17:24-27).
* Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11) perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (Mt 4:19).
* Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).
* Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
* Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
* Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).
* Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost
(Acts 1:15-22).
* Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
* Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the Gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
* Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
* Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God
(Acts 5:2-11).
* Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
* Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
* Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1- 6).
* Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
* Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
* Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age
(an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
* The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter "without ceasing" when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
Delete* Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
* Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles
(1 Cor 15:4-5).
* Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29;
1 Cor 9:5).
* Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments
(Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67).
* Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples
(Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).
* Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).
* Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
* Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times
(162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas).
John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.
* Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel" - an example of "binding and loosing."
* Peter was the first "charismatic," having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).
* Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
* Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).
* Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Act 10:44-48).
* Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but had not traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.
* Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.
* Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."
* Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).
* Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pt 3:15-16).
* Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (pope) of the early Church, according to most scholars. "Babylon" (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.
now, who was the Chruch leader?????
Church Fathers were the closest to the Apostles and whatever we have, came to us through them.
DeleteTo qualify as a Church Father, four conditions had to have been met.
1. He had to have lived before the year 800. The last Father in the East was St. Damascene 674-749, and of the West was, St. Bede the Venerable 672-735.
2. He had to have followed the orthodox teaching, faithful to the true doctrines of the Church.
3. Sanctity, all major Fathers and most minor Fathers were canonized Saints, and lived virtuous lives.
4. He had to have the sanction of the Church, a general acceptance.
Primacy of Peter as written by the Church Fathers...
St. Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 4. J555-556, 251 A.D.
On him He builds the Church and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep (Jn 21:17); and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.
Indeed the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too are all the shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by the Apostles in single minded accord.
If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith?
If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?
Origen, Commentaries on John 5:3 J479a, 226 A.D.
Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ...
St. Cornelius I, Pope, Letter to Cyprian Epist 49. J546-546a, 252 A.D.
We are not ignorant of the fact that there is one GOD, and one Christ the Lord whom we confess, and one Holy Spirit; and there must be one bishop in the Catholic Church.
St. Cyprian, Letter to Quintas 71:1. J592a, 254 A.D.
For Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disagreed with him about circumcision, did not claim anything for himself insolently nor assume anything arrogantly, so as to say he held the primacy and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those more recently arrived.
Firmilian, Bishop, Letter to Cyprian 75:17 J602a, 255 A.D.
In this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and evident stupidity of Stephen; that although he glories so much in the place of his bishopric, and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church have been laid...
Eusebius, History of the Church 2:14:6. J651dd, 300 A.D.
In the same reign of Claudius, the all good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one of the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others to Rome.
Aphraates, Treatises 21:13 J693a, 336 A.D.
And Jesus handed over the keys to Simon, and ascended and returned to Him who had sent him.
St. Julius I, Pope, Letter to Bishops of Antioch 22:35. J806a, 337 A.D.
For what we have received from the Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you.
Damasus, Decree of Damasus 3. J910u,382 A.D.
The first see, therefore is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Catholic Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.
Delete*St. Ambrose of Milan, On Twelve Psalms 40:30+. J1261, 387 A.D.
It is to Peter himself that He says; "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church (Matt 16:18)." Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal.
St. Jerome, Letter to Pope Damasus 15:2, J1346,1346a, 374 A.D.
I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness, that is the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails...He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me.
*St. Augustine, Letter to Generosus 53:1:2. J1418, 400 A.D.
If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it (Matt 16:18)." Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, etc...
See this complete listing of the unbroken line of Popes.
*Augustine, Sermons 295:2+. J1526, 391 A.D.
Before His suffering the Lord Jesus Christ, as you know, chose His disciples, whom He called Apostles. Among these Apostles almost everywhere Peter alone merited to represent the whole Church. For the sake of his representing the whole Church, which he alone could do, he merited to hear, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven (Matt 16:19)."
St. Peter Chrysologus, Letter to Eutyches 25:2. J2178, 449 A.D.
We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it.
*St. Leo I, Pope, Letter to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne 10:1. J2178a, July 445 A.D.
But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the Apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most Blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles.
St. Leo I, Pope, Letter to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica 14:11. J2179a, 446 A.D.
Through them the care of the Universal Church would converge on the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.
St. Leo I, Pope, Sermons 4:2. J2191, 461 A.D.
From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the fathers of the Church.
Note: The references Jxxxx are from, 'The Faith Of The Early Fathers', by William A. Jurgens
If James, and not Peter, held the primacy as some would have us believe, then why is he not mentioned even once by a single Church Father or early writer as holding that office?
napoleon said:
DeleteDo you bear the name of Christ? Where is the name of Christ in the name of your religion? The so called holy roman catholic apostolic church. Where is the name of Christ there? huh? :)
DO YOU BEAR THE CROSS???
7 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—and not with clever speech, so that the CROSS of Christ would not become useless. 1 Corinthians 1:17
23 Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. Luke 9:23
INC HAS NO CROSS BUT A COMPASS, SYMBOL OF A MASONRY
ahm i have some question, this is for you manolista:COPY-ANSWER-PASTE
Delete1. Who is the leader of the church during 1st century according to the bible?
2. Read Matt2:2,11 ….if you were there, would you worship the baby Jesus just as what the 3 kings did? Yes or No?
3. Read Matt14:33 ….if you were at the same boat, would you worship the Son of God just as the Disciples did? Yes or No? Please read Luke 4:8 also
4. What is the official Bible translation of the Iglesia ni Cristo?
5. Could an Iglesia ni Cristo Minister could preach with one bible translation alone?yes or no?
6. According to the bible, did the Apostles preached carrying at least 10 books?
7.In Mal 3:1 the Lord said that he would send a “MESSENGER”. You believe that Felix Manalo is the last MESSENGER where in the bible I could read “MESSENGER” in any prophecy of God that Manalo claims.. it’s ok if I can’t see “Felix or Philippines”?
8.Where in the bible that i could read that the “messenger” i mean felix Manalo is given the keys of
“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beg loosed in heaven”?
9. Do you believe that JESUS MADE A PROMISE THAT HE WOULD PROTECT HIS CHURCH UNTIL THE END OF TIME?(yes or no)?
10. TODAY, what is the Church that Jesus built that lasted from the times of the apostles until now.?
as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:16
Iglesia ni Manalo are fools. They defend a corporation of Manalo more than the real Church of Christ which they admitted officially as the Catholic Church.
DeleteBlinded fools!
A "Johny-came-lately" church trying to explain the bible eh kahit isang Bible Scholar wala kayo!!!!
DeleteTRUE! INC HAS NO BIBLE SCHOLARS
A DEVELOPER OF THE SOFTWARE HAS MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN THE USER!
SOFTWARE-BIBLE
DEVELOPER-BIBLE SCHOLARS
USERS-IGLESIA NI MANALO
and the users are refuting the bible scholars! WHAT A STUPIDITY!
Corporation? Your nothing but Opinion Sir. The Church of Christ admitted officially as the Catholic Church?! Where? When? You mean that sentence from the Pasugo Issue? You make conclusions without even reading the article.
DeleteIf you will reply to a comment again Mr. Dany, reply something that will make sense or an argument not cursing and insults by itself.
These are my replies to Mr. Riel Lopez:)
DeleteMr. Riel Lopez, I’m agreeing with you in some points of your answer but beg to disagree to most of your answers.:) Let’s answer it one by one
1. “Matthew 16:19: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." The "power" of the keys has to do with ecclesiastical discipline and administrative authority with regard to the requirements of the faith, as in Isaiah 22:22 (see Is 9:6; Job 12:14; Rev 3:7). From this power flows the use of censures, excommunication, absolution, baptismal discipline, the imposition of penances and legislative powers. In the Old Testament, a steward, or prime minister, is a man who is "over a house" (Gen 41:40; Gen 43:19;44:4; 1 King 4:6;16:9;18:3; 2 King 10:5;15:5;18:18; Isa 22:15, Isa 20-21).”
We are not against on what had been said in the verse. But the question is this; Were these words only given to Apostle Peter and not to the other Apostles anymore? Yes or no? NO.
According to Matthew 18:!8 “ I tell all of you with certainty, whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven.”
Therefore it is not only to Apostle Peter these words are given by Christ but to all apostles :)
2. * Matthew 16:19: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." "Binding" and "loosing" were technical rabbinical terms, which meant to "forbid" and "permit" with reference to the interpretation of the law and, secondarily, to "condemn," "place under the ban" or "acquit." Thus St. Peter and the popes are given the authority to determine the rules for doctrine and life by virtue of revelation and the Spirit's leading (see Jn 16:13), as well as to demand obedience from the Church. "Binding and loosing" represent the legislative and judicial powers of the papacy and the bishops (Mt 18:17-18; Jn 20:23). St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him pre-eminent.
I answered this already. It was not only Apostle Peter to whom these word are given by Christ but to all Apostles.
Matthew 18:!8 “ I tell all of you with certainty, whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven.”
St. Peter, however, is the only apostle who receives these powers by name and in the singular, making him pre-eminent.
That is only your opinion.:)
3. * Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him "the first" (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)
Then? What’s the matter? Of course there is always first. And you should know that the verses where we can see the name of Apostle Peter first along with the names of the other apostles are in the synoptic gospels. ( Matthew, Mark, Luke ) These synoptic gospels include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and similar wording. This degree of parallelism in content, narrative arrangement, language, and sentence structures can only be accounted for by literary interdependence. According to many scholars, the first gospel written was by Mark. Then, Matthew and Luke just based their version to Mark. Also the book of Acts was written by Luke. No wonder why the verses that you are using to show that Peter’s name is always first have almost the same list because they are based in one version.:) You don’t know that? Now you know:)
4. * Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly preeminent in the entire context (see, for example, Gal 1:18-19; 2:7-8). Taken in context, Paul is in Jerusalem (2:1), the See of James. Protocol, even to this day is for the Bishop of the diocese to be mentioned first before any visitor is mentioned, even for the Pope. Saint Paul is merely following proper protocol in vs 2:9.
DeleteI answered it already. Where in the New Testament can you find that the name of Peter was mentioned first except from the synoptic gospel and the book of Acts whose writer was also one of the writers of the Synoptic Gospels? :) . And related to Galatians 2: 7-8, what i’m thinking is you are hiding something:) Why don’t you continue to read the next verses?:) huh?:)
Galatians 2:11-14 “ And when Peter came to Antioch, to the face I stood up against him, because he was blameworthy, for before the coming of certain from James, with the nations he was eating, and when they came, he was withdrawing and separating himself, fearing those of the circumcision, and dissemble with him also did the other Jews, so that also Barnabas was carried away by their dissimulation. 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?
It was clearly stated here that Apostle Paul stood up against Peter or rebuked him face to face. Is it respectable to do that in front of the so called chief bishop of the Church( According to you )? :) You are dumb if you will say yes:)
5. * Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, "Rock," solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42;
Mt 16:18).
And so? What’s the matter? :) And biblically, for your info Mr. Riel,it was not only Apostle Peter who received a new name from Christ.
Mark 3:17 “James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder);
I told you, you should review your Bible History. Or maybe you did not study the Bible.:)
6. * Peter is asked three times by Christ to feed His lambs, is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).
Where in the verse John 21:15-17 can you find the word CHIEF SHEPHERD? Nowhere.:) And again, that is only your opinion.:)
“even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).”
Where can you find in these verses that the other apostles have only subordinate roles? Again, OPINION:) Both Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter instructed the bishops of their time to be a good shepherd of the flock. What’s the difference between them? You’re just making the difference.:)
Again, it’s only your opinion:)
7. * Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his "faith fail not" (Lk 22:32).
DeleteSo what’s the matter? Jesus said this to Peter because .....
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
That thy faith fail not - The word "faith," here, seems to be used in the sense of religion, or attachment to Christ, and the words "fail not" mean "utterly fail" or fail altogether - that is, apostatize. It is true that the "courage" of Peter failed; it is true that he had not that immediate confidence in Jesus and reliance on him which he had before had; but the prayer of Jesus was that he might not altogether apostatize from the faith. God heard Jesus "always" John 11:42; it follows, therefore, that every prayer which he ever offered was answered; and it follows, as he asked here for a specific thing, that that thing was granted; and as he prayed that Peter's faith might not utterly fail, so it follows that there was no time in which Peter was not really a pious man. Far as he wandered, and grievously as he sinned, yet he well knew that Jesus was the Messiah. He "did know" the man; and though his fears overcame him and led him to aggravated sin, yet the prayer of Christ was prevalent, and he was brought to true repentance.
:)
8.* Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).
Then?
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Strengthen thy brethren - Confirm them, warn them, encourage them. They are in continual danger, also, of sinning. Use your experience to warn them of their danger, and to comfort and sustain them in their temptations. And from this we learn:
1. That one design of permitting Christians to fall into sin is to show their own weakness and dependence on God; and,
2. That they who have been overtaken in this manner should make use of their experience to warn and preserve others from the same path.
The two epistles of Peter, and his whole life, show that "he" was attentive to this command of Jesus; and in his death he manifested his deep abhorrence of this act of dreadful guilt in denying his blessed Lord, by requesting to be crucified with his head downward, as unworthy to suffer in the same manner that Christ did.
This is according to the scholars of the Bible. For us, what’s the big deal there? Apostle Paul said these word about Timothy,
“We sent Timothy, who is our brother and God's fellow worker in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith,”
Therefore, one of the primary of the ministers of the Lord is to strengthen the brethren. This duty is not only given to Apostle Peter.:)
9.* Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).
YOU ARE BADLY WRONG.:)
John 1:49 “Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."
Haizt:)
10. * Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
DeleteYou are wrong again.
Acts 26:12-19
“12“In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. 13At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. 14And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language,a ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ 15And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, 17delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you 18to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
19“Therefore, O King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,
Even Paul received divine knowledge about Christ through a special revelation to him. :)
11. * Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
Where in the verse you can find that Peter was regarded by the Jews as the leader and spokesman of Christianity? NOWHERE. Again, that is only your OPINION:)
12. * Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Act 2:37-41;5:15).
What? As a leader? Where in the verse? Again, that is only your OPINION:)
13. * Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money
(Mt 17:24-27).
What’s the big deal there? It was only Peter because it was only him whom a man asked if Jesus is paying tax. . And, what’s the big deal again?Haiz:)
14. * Christ teaches from Peter's boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11) perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (Mt 4:19).
Again, what’s the big deal? If Jesus taught in Peter’s boat does it make him as the leader of the Church? What’s the basis? The boat? What the fudge!:)
perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a "fisher of men" (Mt 4:19).
Again OPINION:) PERHAPS. Haiz:) You really don’t know where and when the term pope was used, haiz -.-
15. * Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).
So? Was the basis to become the leader of the Church is the first one to go to Jesus’ tomb?:)
16. * Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
Again, your OPINION:) Where is the term leader there? Remember “ go and tell His disciples and Peter...” Take note, it’s LIKE Peter was not among His disciples. Why?
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Tell his disciples and Peter - Why is not Peter included among the disciples? For this plain reason, - he had forfeited his discipleship, and all right to the honor and privileges of an apostle, by denying his Lord and Master. However, he is now a penitent: - tell him that Jesus is risen from the dead, and is ready to heal his backsliding, and love him freely; so that, after being converted, he may strengthen his brethren.
Now you know:)
17. * Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
DeleteWahaha:) Don’t you know that that is the very proof that Peter was the one who led the other apostles to abandon their apostleship?
The "bark" (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
You are using the boat as figure of the Church. Again that is unbiblical. The Church is figured as the body of Christ, a chaste virgin, but not a boat:)
18. * Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).
Are you reading? You are twisting the words of God. Peter jumped into the sea for he had taken off his clothes. tsk tsk tsk:)
19. * Peter's words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost
(Acts 1:15-22).
Then? What’s the matter there? Does it mean he was the leader then? :)
20. * Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
Then? What’s the matter there? Does it mean he was the leader then? :) Compare that to Apostle James when he gave his sole decision concerning the matter in the Council of Jerusalem.
Acts 15: 19 “"My judgement, therefore, is against inflicting unexpected annoyance on those of the Gentiles who are turning to God :)
21. * Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the Gospel" in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
What if he is the first? Does it make him the leader now? How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
22. * Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
Then? What if he is the first? Does it make him the leader now? How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
23. * Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God
(Acts 5:2-11).
Again, What if he is the first? Does it make him the leader now? How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
24. * Peter's shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
Then? How about Apostle Paul? “ 11God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.”
:) Don’t use miracles as the basis.:)
25. * Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
Then? What if he is the first? Does it make him the leader now? How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
26. * Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1- 6).
DeleteWhat’s the big deal?. Does it make him the leader now? Remember that Peter was in Joppa that time. And from jerusalem, Joppa is nearer to Ceasaria. Obviously, God will choose the nearest to Cornelius. And since Peter is an apostle, he has the right to teach Cornelius. Not by any meaning. And if you will talk about the right to teach about Christianity, God said about Paul,
Acts 9:15
“ 15But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.”
Does it mean that Paul was the leader then? No. It was the duty of all apostles to preach the Christianity.
27. * Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
Then? What if he is the first? Does it make him the leader now? How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
28. * Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
You spoke about catholicity. Where in the verse can you find the universality of the Church? Is there even one? No. Remember, that Peter was just narrating the vision sent to him by God. He was not INSTRUCTING them,. The point that he was criticize then that lead him in explaining everything to them that is the very proof that the one in Jerusalem is not in any way regard him as their leader. :) READ the preceding verse:)
29. * Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age(an angel delivers him from prison - Acts 12:1-17).
Then? What if he is the first? Does it make him the leader now? How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
30. * The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter "without ceasing" when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
Of course the whole Church must pray for him because he was one of the pillars of the Church. He is an Apostle. Even Apostle Paul demanded the Church to pray for him. Ephesians 6:18-19.And you missed some important information when peter was imprisoned. Don’t you know that when Peter was freed from prison by an angel, he immediately told the brethren to report everything to James?:)
Acts 12:17 “Motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he explained to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. "Report these things to James and the brothers," he said. Then he departed and went to a different place.
What can we notice here? Peter is giving a high recognition to James. :) If Peter was the leader that time, why would he go to different place and not to Jerusalem? :)
31. * Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
DeleteWhere did you read that Peter was the one who preside the Council of Jerusalem? Again you are twisting the words of the Bible. IF Peter was the one who presided that meeting , therefore he MUST be also the one who will decide on the matter. But it was not Peter. It was James!
Acts 15:19 “"My judgement, therefore, is against inflicting unexpected annoyance on those of the Gentiles who are turning to God :)
It was James who spoke here. NOT Peter. And if you read the whole chapter, never you can find that Peter laid down principles. He just told them that God had already made no distinction between Jews and Gentiled. It means that God is accepting them also. ( Remember Cornelius ). After Peter spoke, Paul and Barnabas told them about the miracles made by God to the Gentiles. After that, James spoke and he said “ MY JUDGEMENT”. Not of Peter or anyone else. It was ONLY JAMES’ JUDGEMENT.
So who is the leader now?:)
32. * Paul distinguishes the Lord's post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-5).
You forgot something. He distinguished also Lord’s appearance to James:)verse 7:)
33. * Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29;
1 Cor 9:5).
Then? Is that a basis? NO.:) God also separated Paul among the Apostles
“But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.”
Does it mean that Paul was the leader? No
34. * Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments
(Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67).
Then what’s the matter? Does it mean he’s the leader? Even in a company, spokesperson is different from the leader. haizt:)
35. * Peter's name is always the first listed of the "inner circle" of the disciples
(Peter, James and John - Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).
Matthew copied his version from MArk according to the scholars. So, no wonder why they have the same arrangement of names of the inner circles of Jesus. How about Galatian 2:9? James, Peter, and John?:) But for the sake of argument, so what if the name of Peter is always mentined first? haizt:)
36. * Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).
Then? What’s the matter? -.-You used the scene about the walking in the water. Don’t you know that that verses only show how little the faith of Peter? Oh come on read the whole story:) And he’s not the central figure there. It was Jesus.
37. * Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
Of course they should refute heresy. Then? What if he is the first? Does it make him the leader now? How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
38. * Peter's name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times
Delete(162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas).
John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.
And so what?-.- . Is that a basis? Again, How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
39. * Peter's proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the "House of Israel" - an example of "binding and loosing."
Again, it was not only given to Peter but to all of them.
Matthew 18:17 “"I tell all of you with certainty, whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven.”
40. * Peter was the first "charismatic," having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).
Again, How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
41. * Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
Again, How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
42. * Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).
Again, How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
43. * Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Act 10:44-48).
Again, How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
44. * Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called "visitation of the churches" (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but had not traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.
Again, How if I will use this kind of argument. Paul is the leader of the 1st Century Church since he has the most number of epistles to edify the Christians on their time. Are you going to accept that? of course no. That is not the basis. Not the first nor the most. :)
45. * Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.
DeleteThen what if he visited Peter? Remember that Peter is very known to them that time because he was one of the leading images of the Church that time. He was the oldest among them. We do not know the very reason why Paul visited him. And the Bible does not speak why Paul visited Peter. So you must keep your mouth shut if the Bible does not say anything.:)
46. * Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or "elders."
“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:”
Where is the implication here that Peter acts as the chief bishop? :) He said, AS A FELLOW ELDER. If he was the Chief, is why would he say “ a fellow elder”. He just wrote to his fellow elder then you will conclude that he is the chief bishop. What’s the connect? If I’ll tell you that even Paul wrote to the elders, would you accept that Paul is now the Chief Bishop? :) haiz-.-
47. * Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).
Paul interprets prophecy, James interprets prophecy, then Peter is the Chief leader for he interpret prophecy. What now? All of them are the chief Leaders? -.- What kind of argument are you talking about?
48. * Peter corrects those who misuse Paul's writings (2 Pt 3:15-16).
Then? Paul corrected Peter face to face. Gal. 2:11-14 :)
49. * Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (pope) of the early Church, according to most scholars. "Babylon" (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.
You do not know what are you talking about. Scholars are not certain if the Babylon there is Rome. That is only one of the probable meaning but still no one is certain. Don’t twist the information Mr. Lopez. What other evidences can you show that Peter went to Rome? What? The Groundless Catholic Tradition? Oh come on. You can’t find any true evidences that Peter went to Rome. :)
Oh yeah , I’m finally done. To conclude all of these things, it is not important who among the Apostles of Christ did the greatest, the most, the first, or whatever. We should always remeber what Jesus said,
Matthew 20:16 "So the last will be first, and the first will be last."
Being the first, or last, is not the basis of who led the 1st Century Church.
Aside from these, you should know that Peter and John were sent from Jerusalem,
Acts 8:14 “When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that the people of Samaria had accepted God's message, they sent Peter and John there.”
If Peter was the leader that time, why did the elders in Jerusalem sent Peter and John there? It was disrespectful to the leader of the Church.
We must base our faith on what is clearly written in the Bible of who is the Apostle that led the Church during 1st Century. He was the one to whom everyone is reporting to, he was the one who is rendering the final decision, and that is Apostle James. Acts 12:17, Acts 21:18-24, Acts 15:13, 19.
:)
To Dany,
DeleteIf you can't say anything that can destroy my arguments then shut up your big mouth. You are like a stupid man roaming around that keep on babbling nonsense words.:)
Catholic Defender has left a new comment on the post "Certainly the Catholic CHURCH is founded by Christ...":
ReplyDeleteMay BAGO pa ba sa mga argument ng INC ni Manalo? Nothing is new, COPY-CAT lang naman ang gma doctrines niyo which the Catholic church had answered long before Manalo was born.
Masyado kayong TAKOT as internet... walang official website. Ano ba ang kinatatakutan ng INC ni Manalo para ibunyag sa buong mundo ang kanilang COPY-CAT na aral?
-- You are speaking out of your ignorance:) bat ganun? hindi ko makita saan mo ipinost itong comment mo na to? :) May itinatago ka ba? ayaw mo ba mkita ng public na pahiyang pahiya ka na? Sabagay, sino nga ba naman ang gustong mapahiya sa public diba? Official website? Eto o ,
incmedia.org
ayan masaya ka na?:)
And copy cat na doktrina? San bang relihiyon namin kinopya ang aral na si Cristo ay tao? E unique nga kami among Christian religions dahil sa aral na yan e. San bang relihiyon namin kinopya ang aral na pagkakaisa? Meron ba kayo nun? haha, doktrina namin there is no Trinity. Kinopya rin ba namin un? Are you dumb Mr. Catholic Defender? Or you're just losing your mind?:) Post mo to mahiya ka naman:)
I hope everything will be posted Mr. Catholic Defender:)
ReplyDeleteHave a good day:)
YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE LETTERS OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS LIKE ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH BEING THE 1ST TO MENTION THE WORD "CATHOLIC". WELL ACKNOWLEDGE THIS:
DeleteSt Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", 3,1,1, 180 A.D., J208
"...in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church."
St Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", chapter III,
"...the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops."
Eusebius, "History of the Church", 2,14,6, 300 A.D., J651dd
In the same reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious providence which watches over all things guided Peter, the great and mighty one among the Apostles, who, because of his virtue, was the spokesman for all the others, to Rome."
Tertullian, "The demurrer against the heretics", chapter XXXII,1,
"...like the church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter."
Who has the authority to ordain priests? Only Bishops do. Clement was ordained by the Bishop of Rome, Peter.
I do acknowledge SOME of their testaments but I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR STATEMENT on your post. You know why? Their statement that Peter preached in Rome and founded the Church in Rome are examples of the biggest hoaxes in History. The statements of your Church Fathers are just based in the Groundless Catholic Tradition. Show us a big evidence that agreed by the historians that Peter really went in Rome.
DeleteIgnorant in History...
Mr. Catholic Defender,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate all of my answers so far are posted.
Have a good day.
TRUE! INC HAS NO BIBLE SCHOLARS
ReplyDeleteA DEVELOPER OF THE SOFTWARE HAS MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN THE USER!
SOFTWARE-BIBLE
DEVELOPER-BIBLE SCHOLARS
USERS-IGLESIA NI MANALO
and the users are refuting the bible scholars! WHAT A STUPIDITY!
- You are the stupid one Mr. Riel Lopez:) You just have your Catholic Bible scholars which teachings are nowhere to be found in the Bible and going against the Bible. Of course we are refuting them by using the Bible. How about you? You are refuting us with your ignorant words, nonsense words, unbiblical statements, and illogical conclusion that comes from your DUMB and STUPID mind.:)
For all I know, you came here in my blog ATTACKING the CATHOLIC CHURCH and her DOCTRINES without any BETTER EXPLANATION why people need to believe in the doctrines of INC church?
DeleteIf you claim that we know nothing about the Bible then what do you know about the CHURCH which FINALIZED the LIST (CANON) of the BIBLE you are worshipping?!!
MANALO's CHURCH proves nothing of its doctrines!
We came here in your blog to ask you questions. But the problem is, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS ASKING US QUESTIONS. Of course, I will answer you. And IN MY ANSWERS, I SHOWED MANY BIBLICAL VERSES AND HISTORICAL FACTS THAT GOING DIRECTLY AGAINST YOUR CHURCH. That's the reason why you will just answer us with your nonsense words because you can't answer us correctly anymore. :)
Delete"what do you know about the CHURCH which FINALIZED the LIST (CANON) of the BIBLE you are worshipping?!!"
-- Stupid. You just finalized the canon of the Scriptures because those books are the books that were already recognized by the Christians since the time after the apostles died.!!! And the very fact that there's nothing to do your so called " Canonization of the Scriptures " to your credibility is the FACT that almost all of your doctrines are going directly against what the Bible teaches.:)
MANALO's CHURCH proves nothing of its doctrines!
We already proved many things. From our humble beginning where are we now? Our doctrines already PROVED that YOUR DOCTRINES ARE UNBIBLICAL AND GOING AGAINST WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES. The evidences are here in your blog:) hahaha:)
DO YOU BEAR THE CROSS???
ReplyDelete7 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—and not with clever speech, so that the CROSS of Christ would not become useless. 1 Corinthians 1:17
23 Then he said to them all: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. Luke 9:23
INC HAS NO CROSS BUT A COMPASS, SYMBOL OF A MASONRY
Why are you asking for the symbol of the cross? That is the instrument used by the Jews to kill Lord Jesus then you are worshiping it. You shameless stupid. You even bear that stupid symbol with you. Cross is a symbol of shame to the Jews. And your bearing it with you. What kind of people are you? Stupid you. Joke:) haha. You know the symbol of the cross was used by the pagans centuries ago. And you copied it. Putting it as a symbol of Catholicism. No wonder, that only proves of your apostasy.
Concerning the verses that you used, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me" Take note of that. The disciples of Christ must take up their cross to follow Jesus. To what does the cross referring? To the hardships and suffering that we must endure in following Christ. If our Lord Jesus suffered many things, His disciples also must suffer it.
Geneva Study Bible
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross {g} daily, and follow me.
(g) Even as one day follows another, so does one cross follow another, and the cross is by the figure of speech metonymy taken for the miseries of this life: for to be hanged on the cross was the most grievous and cruel punishment that there was amongst the Jews.
Now you know:) And what is the compass you are referring to? Where the hell did you see that? :) Again, speaking out of nowhere:)
And where can we find in the BIBLE the SYMBOL of the INC Church of MANALO? Your Logo has no official explanation, what a mor*on.
DeleteMORON:) YOU MORON:) What's wrong with the symbol? Every symbols that constitute our logo represents Biblical characters.:) Ges Mundo already explained it. You just making yourself stupid and moron in saying that we have no official explanation for that matter.:)
DeleteIf James, and not Peter, held the primacy as some would have us believe, then why is he not mentioned even once by a single Church Father or early writer as holding that office?
ReplyDelete:) Hahaizt. You are really ignorant about history. Did you see the gaps of years between your Church Fathers to Peter? Where did they get their beliefs? Do you think it's from the Bible? Don't you know that during those times many councils already emerged to make unbiblical dogma?
" yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity."
Where in the Bible can you read this?
"If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?
Origen, Commentaries on John 5:3 J479a, 226 A.D."
These are all fabricated doctrines which can't be found in the Bible. Speaking of Origen. You know, Origen was the one who answered theie enemies that we must worship Christ because He is God!! This is very unbiblical. Nowhere in the Bible we can read that Christ must be worshiped for He is God according to you. What we can read is that we have to worship Him because it is the will of Father in heaven. ( Philippians 2:9-11)
"For what we have received from the Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you."
How come that they will receive something from Peter when he does not in any way went to Rome historically. You stupid who lack in knowledge in History.
"In this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and evident stupidity of Stephen; that although he glories so much in the place of his bishopric, and contends that he holds the succession of Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church have been laid...
Eusebius, History of the Church 2:14:6. J651dd, 300 A.D."
- Peter is not the rock wherein the church was built. It is our Lord Jesus not him.
1 Corinthians 3:11 "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ."
No other foundation but Jesus.:) Where will you put Peter now?
Speaking of Eusebius. Don't you know that Eusebius account is questionable? Why?
Eusebius used a variety of sources in his historical accounts; however, his sources were at time questionable. For example, in recording about the great historian Origen, Eusebius reports that Origen castrated himself to become a eunuch. However, Henry Chadwick, in his book The Early Church states, "Perhaps Eusebius was uncritically reporting malicious gossip retailed by Origen's enemies, of whom there were many.
The Bible already foretold that
Acts 20:30"
Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them."
Your Church Fathers are the fulfillment of this prophecy of Paul. They taught unbiblical teachings. The doctrines they made were very different from the pure doctrines taught by the apostles. They fabricated things and made Peter as their First Pope. Their teachings about Peter couldn't be found in the Bible.( about the CHAIR OF PETER, FOUNDATION OF CHURCH, where did they get all of these?)
These are the proofs of your apostasy. Your Church Fathers recognized Peter as their ancestor because they were already apostatized. No wonder they set aside James:)
How about the GAP between the foundation of the TRUE church to 1914 when a LUNATIC FAKE RAPIST LUST MESSENGER came out with his OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the SCRIPTURES he has no contribution to it?!!!
DeleteA FAKE SUGO who preached SALVATION could only be possible through BAPTISM IN THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO (of Manalo) and YET he himself was NOT even BAPTIZED in it?
A FAKE SUGO who condemned all RELIGIOUS IMAGES and yet after his death his own son ERANO erected his GRAVEN IMAGE in the CENTRAL?!!!
A FAKE SUGO who branded CHRISTMAS as PAGAN and yet his followers secretly were celebrating it?!@!!
A FAKE SUGO who hated ANYTHING CATHOLIC and yet uses GREGORIAN CALENDAR, ROMAN LETTERS, THE BIBLE, CATHOLIC CONTRIBUTION to SCIENCE, etc to its own advantage?!!!
HYPOCRITES!!!! HYPOCRITES!!!!
IGLESIA NI CRISTO doctrines were proven already to be UNBIBLICAL thousands of years before FELIX MANALO RECYCLED them.
DeleteNONE of the DOCTRINES of Manalo is ORIGINAL. They were all COPIED from his former affiliations.
NO wonder why you've got 4-10 million members (same statistics 7 years ago) because FEW are ATTRACTED to it.
People still know WHERE THE LIGHT IS ON... in the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Our light is post on HIGH PLACES for everyone to see, unlike the INC of Manalo, its doctrines are CAREFULLY HIDDEN SECRETLY in their central office.
LIARS!
Local lang daw ang ITINATAG ni FELIX MANALO! Eh bakit ang CENTRAL ay NASA PILIPINAS!!!
Sinong binobola niyo, SARILI NIYO!!!
“How about the GAP between the foundation of the TRUE church to 1914”
DeleteAccording to Romans 2:12, 14
“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.”
This is the right answer. Those people who sinned without the Law shall perish apart from the law. What is the Law? These are the words of God. How do we receive the Law or the words of God?
Ephesians 3:10
“His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,”
Therefore, without the Church, the words of God wouldn’t be received by anyone. Christ and the Apostles foretold the coming apostasy to the 1st Century Church.
Matthew 24:9-11
“ "Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray.”
1 Timothy 4:1-3
“ But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall apostatise from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons. These people are hypocrites and liars, and their consciences are dead. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by them who believe and know the truth.”
How great is the extent of this apostasy?
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4,6-7,9
“ Let no one in any way deceive you, for that day cannot come without the coming of the apostasy first, and the appearing of the man of sin, the son of perdition, who sets himself against, He who opposes and exalts himself against everything that is called God and religion, just as he will sit in the Temple of God, as God, and will show concerning himself as if he is God. And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the mystery of iniquity does already work: only he who now lets will let, until he be taken out of the way. The coming of the lawless one will be accompanied by the power of Satan. He will use every kind of power, including miraculous signs, lying wonders,”
According to the Apostle Paul, the one that led the apostasy was also the one who was IN the Church. How can we recognize him? “he will sit in the Temple of God, as God,” who is the fulfillment of this? THE POPE. ( POPE MEANS FATHER )
“ The Roman Pontiff not only takes to himself the office of “Vicar of Christ” but also the very title of the Godhead, “The Holy Father.”
- Richard Bennet, a devout Catholic priest. He now lives in Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
See the discourtesy made by the Catholic Popes to God!!! This is really the action of Satan who also once tried to make himself high as God.
When would the apostasy begin? Apostle Paul said, “ the mystery of iniquity does already work: only he who now lets will let, until he be taken out of the way.” The Apostles were still alive that time, but the apostasy was already taking place. When they were revealed? “ now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.” The Apostles were still there that’s why the one who led the apostasy was not yey revealed. but when the Apostles died, these evil ones revealed themselves. Who are the fulfillment of this? THEY WERE THE POPES WHO WERE CLAIMING THAT THEY WERE THE ONE WHO SUCCEEDED THE APOSTLES AFTER THEIR DEATH. :)
Moron:)
2. a LUNATIC FAKE RAPIST LUST MESSENGER came out with his OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION of the SCRIPTURES he has no contribution to it?!!!
DeleteWhat the hell are you talking about? You are always running to the Rape issue that was already proven lies by the public.:) Stupid. Personal interpretation huh? You know, the usual scenario during Ka Felix Y. Manalo is debating the Catholic Defenders during their time is that Catholic side was always ashamed because what they are saying were not found in the Bible and proven that that is only their OPINION. Haha. I remember when Brother Ventilacion said to Romero that he ( Romero ) was just only making his own opinion when he said that all of the apostles presided the council of Jerusalem.:) haha, THAT IS ONLY YOUR OPINION XD. And how come that we are just giving our own interpretation in the Bible when what we are doing is just ask question and then the a verse from the Bible will answer it.:)
A FAKE SUGO who preached SALVATION could only be possible through BAPTISM IN THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO (of Manalo) and YET he himself was NOT even BAPTIZED in it?
And so what? How about John the Baptist who is one of the greatest messenger of God Will he not be saved since no one baptize him?:) Huh? Moron:)
4. A FAKE SUGO who condemned all RELIGIOUS IMAGES and yet after his death his own son ERANO erected his GRAVEN IMAGE in the CENTRAL?!!!
haha, your like a stupid child asking nonsense question. As what you have said, RELIGIOUS IMAGES. Yes it must be condemned. Why? Because you are worshipping it.:) And that is going directly against what the Bible teaches.
Exodus 20: 4-5
“ You shall not make unto yourself any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the fathers' sin, to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,”
See? Graven images are not bad unless they were worship by man. That’s what you have done. You worship your graven images. How about us members of Iglesia ni Cristo? Do we worship the graven image of the Brother Felix Y. Manalo? :)
A FAKE SUGO who branded CHRISTMAS as PAGAN and yet his followers secretly were celebrating it?!@!!
Why? Historically your Christmas is really PAGAN of origin:) Is it wrong to teach the TRUTH about the paganism of Christmas?:) And about some followers that you are saying, we are not silent about that. We are expelling them out of the Church. We are not tolerating them:) They were just a few number. Still the majority of us are strictly not following your PAGAN CUSTOM:)
6. A FAKE SUGO who hated ANYTHING CATHOLIC and yet uses GREGORIAN CALENDAR, ROMAN LETTERS, THE BIBLE, CATHOLIC CONTRIBUTION to SCIENCE, etc to its own advantage?!!!
DeleteWho said that the Sugo hated anything from Catholic?:) Only you Moron. Ka Felix Y. Manalo hated all of your DOCTRINES. Not anything.:) We also hate some of your contribution to Science. Remember you almost put to death Galileo because he said that the Earth is not the center of the solar system:) The Bible? Again it is not your Bible you Moron. You just translated it. But still, It is the Words of God. You can’t change it even you already did it. But still, you can’t change it. That is the only proof the BIBLE IS NOT YOURS. If he hate anything from you, then why did he preach the truth to your members? AGAIN that is only YOUR OPINION YOU MORON:)
HYPOCRITES!!!! HYPOCRITES!!!!
What are you? A gay? hahahaXD
7. IGLESIA NI CRISTO doctrines were proven already to be UNBIBLICAL thousands of years before FELIX MANALO RECYCLED them.
Unbiblical in what sense? Haha, If you really proven it already, PROVE IT AGAIN ALREADY TO THE PUBLIC. As far as everyone knows, since the beginning of the Iglesia ni Cristo in the Philippines, NO OTHER RELIGION has proven any unbiblical in our doctrines. YOU ARE JUST HALLUCINATING STUPID:)
8. NONE of the DOCTRINES of Manalo is ORIGINAL. They were all COPIED from his former affiliations.
:) Your ridiculous. Where did we copy our doctrine that Christ is not God? Of course from the Bible and from the original faith of the early Christians. Remember the historical fact that the early Christians do not believe the deity of Christ:) We do not copy that from any stupid like you. Not from you. Not from the Protestants. But from the Bible. The doctrine of our unity. Did we copy that from you? Haha, stupid. The Doctrine about Ka Felix Y. Manalo, did we copy that from you? Commanding to abstain in eating blood? Is that a copy-cat doctrine huh? you moron? :) AGAIN THAT IS ONLY YOUR OPINION:)
9. NO wonder why you've got 4-10 million members (same statistics 7 years ago) because FEW are ATTRACTED to it.
Say that to your face.:) You are speaking out of your ignorance. Why? Do you have our record? Haha. We are not giving information about the profile of the church without the consect of our Executive Minister. So where did you get that ignorant info huh moron? :)
10. People still know WHERE THE LIGHT IS ON... in the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Our light is post on HIGH PLACES for everyone to see, unlike the INC of Manalo, its doctrines are CAREFULLY HIDDEN SECRETLY in their central office.
What kind of light are you? Light that comes from the lake of fire that is already prepared for you? hahaha. Do you think that you are a light when millions of your members already left your Church? How come you are the light? You can’t discipline your members even to the simple thing about their formal proper dress code in going to your Mass.:) I’m really right. Your light is from fire in the lake of fire of Satan:)
LIARS!
DeleteIt’s YOU MORON:) You already lied in the Public. I proved it already:)
11. Local lang daw ang ITINATAG ni FELIX MANALO! Eh bakit ang CENTRAL ay NASA PILIPINAS!!!
Stupido ka pala e. San mo ilalagay yung Central? Sa Dagat? UGOK. Natural narito yung mga nagparehistro edi kung nasaan sila naroon ang central. Katangatangatannga namn talaga:) Basahin mong maigi ung nasa registration stupido:) Hindi inilagay doon nabawal ilagay ang Central sa Pilipinas!:) GUNGGONG!:) JOKE hahaha:P
12. Sinong binobola niyo, SARILI NIYO!!!
Di kami nagbobolahan dito baliw. Sarili mo binobola mo. Mga miyembro mo binobola mo:) Oo nga pala, pansin ko lang, bakit ang konti ng mganagrereact sa mga sinasabi ko dito? Si Riel Lopez lang at si Danny. Si Danny nga di ko na makita e. Siguro nabasa nila wala kang kwenta sumagot . :)
Thanks sa pagpopost ng mga ito ha:)
These are all fabricated doctrines which can't be found in the Bible.
DeleteOF COURSE I CAN'T BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE, YOU IGNORANT!!!
HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT ALL OF IT WERE FABRICATED? DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE?
LET'S PLAY YOUR GAME NAPOLEON, GUESS WHAT?
THAT'S ONLY YOUR OWN OPINION!!!
Napoleon said:
DeleteWhat kind of light are you? Light that comes from the lake of fire that is already prepared for you? hahaha. Do you think that you are a light when millions of your members already left your Church? How come you are the light? You can’t discipline your members even to the simple thing about their formal proper dress code in going to your Mass.:) I’m really right. Your light is from fire in the lake of fire of Satan:)
I LIKE THIS GAME : WHERE IN THE BIBLE THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE LIGHT FROM LAKE OF FIRE OF SATAN?? LET'S TALK ABOUT FACT NAPOLEON, FACT OR
THAT'S ONLY YOUR OWN OPINION!!!
NAPOLEON SAID :
DeleteWhen would the apostasy begin? Apostle Paul said, “ the mystery of iniquity does already work: only he who now lets will let, until he be taken out of the way.” The Apostles were still alive that time, but the apostasy was already taking place. When they were revealed? “ now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.” The Apostles were still there that’s why the one who led the apostasy was not yey revealed. but when the Apostles died, these evil ones revealed themselves. Who are the fulfillment of this? THEY WERE THE POPES WHO WERE CLAIMING THAT THEY WERE THE ONE WHO SUCCEEDED THE APOSTLES AFTER THEIR DEATH. :)
Moron:)
NAPOLEON, THAT YOUR OWN OPINION,
IGLESIA NI MANALO IS A COPY CAT! IT'S NOT MY OPINION, THE EVIDENCE IS HERE:
Most leaders in mainstream Protestant churches have changed what was held from the start of the Reformation and backed away from teaching the APOSTASY of the Roman Catholic Church as it is the largest in the world, which is now felt to be divisive, and to belong to the more vehement quarrels of another day.
Some Anabaptist and Baptist groups have held that the Apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church was so complete as to nullify its claims to Christianity.
LDS Church members believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. was called by God to restore the true teachings of Jesus Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy
INC believed that Felix Manalo was called by God to restore the true teachings of Jesus Christ
HAHAHA....FELIX MANALO HAS NO ORIGINALITY AT ALL !!!!!
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ARE THE OTHER ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE CATHOLICS COPIED BY THE IGLESIA NI MANALO FROM OTHER PROTESTANT SECTS, BEFORE IGLESIA NI FELIX MANALO WAS BORN!!!
Napoleon is a classical example of INC of Manalo's DEEP HATRED and BIGOTRY against the Catholic Church.
DeleteClaiming to be "historical" in his knowledge and yet the Iglesia of Manalo was just recently founded.
During the first 300 years, there WAS NO BIBLE and yet there's already THE CHURCH which existed.
It was through this CHURCH which he CLAIMED to have BEEN APOSTATIZED right after the apostles died.
St. John died in the year 110AD... APOSTASY should have begun as CLAIMED by this MORON.
But the same CHURCH which he claimed to have been APOSTATIZED made and decided which BOOKS should be PART OF THE BIBLE they also are using.
If the CHURCH had apostatized from the death of the APOSTLE, what AUTHORITY does she has in COMPILING THE BIBLE?!!!!
INC ni Manalo are simple IDIOTS, they knew nothing in history and yet deceive many PRETENDING to be "experts" yet in their 98 years, NO MINISTER has been credited with BIBLE SCHOLAR.
And to this day, THEY ALL RELY on OUR BIBLES. They do not have their own!!!
ENGRATA!! IPOKRITO!!!
Stick that FACT in their THICK SKULL!!!
Kung LOCAL lang ang ITINATAG ni MANALONG PEKE dapat ang CENTRAL nito ay nasa JERUSALEM dahil ang sabi ng PASUGO ay ganito:
DeletePASUGO Mayo 1954, p. 9:
“Alin ang tunay na Iglesia? Ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo sa Jerusalem."
Eh ano naman ang nasa Pinas? Heto ang sabi ng Pasugo:
PASUGO Hulyo 1971, p. 2:
“A permanent Central Office after 57 years establishment of the Church of Christ in the Philippines. This stands on a sprawling lot in Quezon City, at the corner of Cenral Avenue in Commonwealth Avenue."
Su lumalabas na HINDI LOCAL ang itinatag ni FELIX na PEKE kundi ang pinaka-CENTRAL pala ay NASA PINAS!!
Kaya't nauunawaan natin ngayon kung bakit biglang UNREASONABLE ang mga sagot ni NAPOLEON, tulad ng paggamit ng mga salitang NAGSASALAMIN kung ANONG TUNAY na uri itong MAPAGPANGGAP na maalam.
Ang PEKE ay sa huli ay NABUBUNYAG din ang pagiging PEKE tulad nitong si Napoleon. Akalain mo sa una, disente, respetado, propesyonal, heto lumabas na rin ang TUNAY na KULAY, isa siang MAPAGPANGGAP-- TRADEMARK na po yan ng mga kaanib ng INC ni Manalo.
So ngayon, kung bakit nagagalit si Napoleon, sapagkat BUKING ang mga MALI-MALING aral ng INC ni MANALO.
At gagawin niya lahat upang ipagtanggol ang INC ni MANALO... pero gagawin nating lahat upang IPAGTANGGOL ang TUNAY na IGLESIA NI CRISTO.
Alin nga ba ang TUNAY at ORIGINAL na iglesia?
heto ang SAGOT ng PASUGO:
PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: “Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."
TUMPAK!
Basahin ANG KATOTOHANAN TUNGKOL SA INK-1914
I said
Delete“
When would the apostasy begin? Apostle Paul said, “ the mystery of iniquity does already work: only he who now lets will let, until he be taken out of the way.” The Apostles were still alive that time, but the apostasy was already taking place. When they were revealed? “ now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time.” The Apostles were still there that’s why the one who led the apostasy was not yey revealed. but when the Apostles died, these evil ones revealed themselves. Who are the fulfillment of this? THEY WERE THE POPES WHO WERE CLAIMING THAT THEY WERE THE ONE WHO SUCCEEDED THE APOSTLES AFTER THEIR DEATH. :)
Moron:)
Then Riel said
NAPOLEON, THAT YOUR OWN OPINION,
--- How come Riel?:) When I am saying to you that you are just making your own opinion, I am proving it by logic and Biblical evidences and Historical Evidences. Can you explain this argument more clearly than mine? Based on the verse, who is the fulfillment of the leader of apostasy? It is YOUR POPES. HISTORICALLY:)
IGLESIA NI MANALO IS A COPY CAT! IT'S NOT MY OPINION, THE EVIDENCE IS HERE:
Most leaders in mainstream Protestant churches have changed what was held from the start of the Reformation and backed away from teaching the APOSTASY of the Roman Catholic Church as it is the largest in the world, which is now felt to be divisive, and to belong to the more vehement quarrels of another day.
Some Anabaptist and Baptist groups have held that the Apostasy of the Roman Catholic Church was so complete as to nullify its claims to Christianity.
LDS Church members believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. was called by God to restore the true teachings of Jesus Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy
--- You and Catholic Defender said that our doctrines are all copy - cat. But the point is only the doctrine of the apostasy is what you are showing. I thought all of our doctrines are copy - cat? ARE YOU DUMB? Of course, the fact about apostasy is widely-known and generally accepted by many historians. And we, Iglesia ni Cristo has biblical verses concerning this. We believe in Bible. We believe about the prophecy of Christ and his Apostles about the coming apostasy. Therefore, we copy our doctrine about the Apostasy from the Bible and not from Protestants:) You have no even one evidence that we copy it from other religions. What you have shown is a fact that Apostasy is widely known long before and not what you are saying that we just copied it. STUPID ARGUMENT:)
“
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ARE THE OTHER ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE CATHOLICS COPIED BY THE IGLESIA NI MANALO FROM OTHER PROTESTANT SECTS, BEFORE IGLESIA NI FELIX MANALO WAS BORN!!!
-- So you are speaking without checking if what you are saying is correct? YOU ARE REALLY STUPID AND IGNORANT:)
“Napoleon is a classical example of INC of Manalo's DEEP HATRED and BIGOTRY against the Catholic Church.
DeleteClaiming to be "historical" in his knowledge and yet the Iglesia of Manalo was just recently founded.”
-- I do not have any hatred against the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact, I have so many Catholic friends. We are good friends for we are respecting each others belief. But you Catholic Defender, your blog is spreading an atmosphere of hostility against our belief. You are the one who started throwing of accusations against us. So who has a deep hatred between you and me? :) STUPID CATHOLIC DEFENDER.
What is the connect of my knowledge which is full of historical facts to the reemergence of the Church of Christ in the Philippines? Are you making an ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION again CATHOLIC DEFENDER?:)
“
During the first 300 years, there WAS NO BIBLE and yet there's already THE CHURCH which existed.
It was through this CHURCH which he CLAIMED to have BEEN APOSTATIZED right after the apostles died.
-- During the 1st century, the books that comprises the Bible were in existence already. You just canonized it because these were the widely-accepted books of the Bible. :) I answered this already right? Why are you keep on returning to your same old dumb argument? You are just showing to me that you are DUMB Catholic Defender.:)
“St. John died in the year 110AD... APOSTASY should have begun as CLAIMED by this MORON.
But the same CHURCH which he claimed to have been APOSTATIZED made and decided which BOOKS should be PART OF THE BIBLE they also are using.
If the CHURCH had apostatized from the death of the APOSTLE, what AUTHORITY does she has in COMPILING THE BIBLE?!!!!”
-- This is the clear evidence that the Bible which you claim as yours is not really yours. You have already apostatized that time. When you canonized the books of the Bible, you can’t do anything to change or manipulate any of its books to make it “ in - support” of your doctrines:). That’s why the only thing that you can do is to collect it. YOU JUST COLLECTED IT:) WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? YOU EVEN DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU HAVE COLLECTED:) THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEVIL WAS WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE BUT STILL YOU ARE PRACTICING IT YOU IDIOT:) That is the proof the Bible is not yours. You just collected it stupid:) And of course, because the Catholic Church is the remains of the Apostasy of the true Church, as the “only Christian Church” ( Is it really Christian?), you have the right to collect the books of the Bible. BUT you have NO AUTHORITY TO CHANGE its books.:)
“INC ni Manalo are simple IDIOTS, they knew nothing in history and yet deceive many PRETENDING to be "experts" yet in their 98 years, NO MINISTER has been credited with BIBLE SCHOLAR.
And to this day, THEY ALL RELY on OUR BIBLES. They do not have their own!!!”
-- ? Are you sure? STUPID. YOU and RIEL LOPEZ are both IGNORANT:). You do not know the profiles of our ministers. We are not like you that boasting themselves as “ Bible Scholars” but in reality YOU ARE DUMB in the Truth of the BIBLE. That is the very reason why until now none of my arguments was completely destroy by you in your own blog.:) You are just running from me, changing the issue, and attacking me with your UNSUPPORTED FABRICATED ACCUSATIONS:) I told you you’re a gay:) Hahaha:)
And “Your Bible”? STUPID:) It’s not yours. It’s of God. If the Bible is really yours, why until now your Super Apocrypha is not accepted by the majority? BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS NOT YOURS:) YOU MORON:)
“ PASUGO Hulyo 1971, p. 2:
Delete“A permanent Central Office after 57 years establishment of the Church of Christ in the Philippines. This stands on a sprawling lot in Quezon City, at the corner of Cenral Avenue in Commonwealth Avenue."
Su lumalabas na HINDI LOCAL ang itinatag ni FELIX na PEKE kundi ang pinaka-CENTRAL pala ay NASA PINAS!!”
-- ENGOT KA TALAGA AnO?:) BASAHIN MONG MAIGI. Ayan o CENTRAL OFFICE. OPISINA. Alam mo ba ibig sabihin ng Opisina? Ayan paliwanag ko sayo,
“ a room, set of rooms, or building used as a place for commercial, professional, or bureaucratic work:”
Yung Central office ba ay LOKAL? :) DUMB:)
“Kaya't nauunawaan natin ngayon kung bakit biglang UNREASONABLE ang mga sagot ni NAPOLEON, tulad ng paggamit ng mga salitang NAGSASALAMIN kung ANONG TUNAY na uri itong MAPAGPANGGAP na maalam.
Ang PEKE ay sa huli ay NABUBUNYAG din ang pagiging PEKE tulad nitong si Napoleon. Akalain mo sa una, disente, respetado, propesyonal, heto lumabas na rin ang TUNAY na KULAY, isa siang MAPAGPANGGAP-- TRADEMARK na po yan ng mga kaanib ng INC ni Manalo.”
Unreasonable? Halatang halata naman ng mga matatalino at kahit hindi gaanong matalino na ikaw ang bobo sating dalawa.:) Ang lahat ng mga sinabi mo dyan, ay nagpapatunay ng mga HINDI MATATALINONG PALAGAY labamn sa akin. BAKIT? Nagawa mo na bang kontrahin ang mga BIBLICAL VERSES AT MGA HISTORICAL FACTS NA PINAULAN KO DITO SA BLOG MO? HINDI PA AT HINDI MO MAGAGAWA YUN. Puro ka lang pang-aasar, wala ka nman maisagot ng matino.:) Sino kayang nabunyag sating dalawa? Ako na ipinapaliwanag ang lahat THROUGH BIBLE, HISTORICAL FACTS, AND LOGICAL REASONING, o IKAW NA KUNG MANGATWUIRAN AY OUT OF NOWHERE, WLANG CONNECT, MGA LUMANG TUGTUGIN NA BINTANG SA AMIN, AT MGA ACCUSATION NA WALA NAMANG MAISUPORTANG EBIDENSIYA:) SYEMPRE IKAW ANG NABUKING GUNGGONG:) At About sa pagiging propesyonal, una Propesyonal ako makipag-usap, IKAW ANG HINDI. BASAHIN MO KAYA NAGING DALOY NG USAPAN NATIN SA BLOG MO:) Sino ba ang naunang mambato ng mga NONSENSE WORDS? Diba IKAW? IBINABALIK KO LANG SAYO:) Tapos bigla kang magpopost na akala mo sinong angbait-bait? DI MO MABIBILOG ANG ULO NG MGA NAGBABASA DITO:) Ang Nauuto mo lang ay yung mga member mo na hopeless na kaya ang ginagawa ay pikit-matang sumusuporta sayo. BASAHIN MO MGA USAPAN NATIN AT NANG MALAMAN MO SINONG MAY SENSE SATING DALAWA:)
“
So ngayon, kung bakit nagagalit si Napoleon, sapagkat BUKING ang mga MALI-MALING aral ng INC ni MANALO.
At gagawin niya lahat upang ipagtanggol ang INC ni MANALO... pero gagawin nating lahat upang IPAGTANGGOL ang TUNAY na IGLESIA NI CRISTO.”
--What the hell are you talking about? Kailan ba napatunayang mali kami? BALIW ka ba? Nasisiraan ka na ata ng bait e:) Saan banda kami nabuking? Dito pa nga lang sa blog mo nagmumukha ka ng tanga sakin e. Lalo na pag nagharap tayo sa debate:) Mga pangangatuwiran mo panganhgatuwiran ng bakla. Sabi ko nga sayo e, kung ako lang ang Pope ninyo , babatukan kita dahil wala kang kwentang Catholic Defender. Buti pa si Romero sayo, kahit papano may laman yung mga excuses nya kapag naiipit sya. E ikaw? Pangangatuwirang bakla ang ibinabato mo:) Tsaka wala ka pang napapatunayan na nadepensahan mo na relihiyon mo sakin. Lahat ng sagot mo ibinabato ko sayo at hanggang ngayon paulit ulit ka lang sa mga sagot mong naipaliwanag ko na pero hindi mo naman nakokontra yung mga paliwanag ko. Bumabalik ka lang sa nauna mong tuligsang walang kwenta.:) Hinahamon nga kita ipost mo mismo yung sagot ang ginagawa mo link ang ibinibigay. Haizt , tanga naman o:) PARA KANG ASO NA BUMABALIK PARA KAININ YUNG SUKA NYA:)
“
Alin nga ba ang TUNAY at ORIGINAL na iglesia?
heto ang SAGOT ng PASUGO:
PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: “Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."
TUMPAK!”
-- Nababaliw ka na nga:) Matagal ko na tong nasagot:) HINDI KA LANG TALAGA MARUNONG UMINTINDI. From the PHRASE ITSELF “ NA SA PASIMULA”. Intindido yan kahit ng mga di mataas ang pinagaralan. Haizt:) Sige ulit ulitin mo lang, nauulit lang ang iyong katangahan.:)
halatang wala nang maisagot itong kaanib ng Iglesia ni Manalo at puro pababa ng pababa ang tirada. Mga manalistas kapag cornered na eh puro personal na tirada na lang ang alam. hahahahaahha. mga talunan ang mga iglesia ni manoy.
DeleteKailan kami na cornered?:)
DeleteNiloloko mo sarili mo:)
Those who left the Church were the ignorant who became anti Catholics. They are the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, many will leave the fold. Felix was one of the fulfillments. These fake ignorant Catholics should leave the Church so that the words of Christ may be fulfille "the gates of hell will not prevail." Their LIES can never quench the TRUTH in HIS CHURCH. Million left but still millions are coming back.Some new converts,some reverts. Eh sa INC niManalo, hanggang ngaun wala silang official pronouncements kung ilan ba talaga sila! Ayon sa NSO 4 million lang sila!
ReplyDelete“Those who left the Church were the ignorant who became anti Catholics. They are the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, many will leave the fold. Felix was one of the fulfillments. These fake ignorant Catholics should leave the Church so that the words of Christ may be fulfille "the gates of hell will not prevail." Their LIES can never quench the TRUTH in HIS CHURCH. Million left but still millions are coming back.Some new converts,some reverts. Eh sa INC niManalo, hanggang ngaun wala silang official pronouncements kung ilan ba talaga sila! Ayon sa NSO 4 million lang sila!”
Delete--- IGNORANTE. Punta ka naman sa NSO e ni minsan sa buhay ko di ko nakitang nagbahay-bahay ang mga yan para tanungin “ Iglesia ni Cristo” po kayo? :) Lahat ng sinabi mo dyan OPINYON MO YAN. KULANG KA SA IMPORMASYON. Alam mo dapat itinutuo nyo sa mga member nyo na yung tumalikod na Iglesia ARAL NG DEMONYO SINUSUNOD. Tapos sabihin mo sa kanila, “mga anak tayo un”:) Bintang ka ng bintang samin wala ka naman maipakitang mga SUPPORTING BIBLE VERSES, O HISTORICAL MAN LANG:) MILLIONS ARE COMING BACK? IGNORANT KA TALAGA. MISMONG MGA STATISTICS AT MGA BALITA AT MGA PARI NYO NA RIN ANG NAGSASABI NA MILYON MILYON NA ANG UMAALIS SA INYO AT WALA NG PAG-ASA NA MAKABANGON PANG MULI:)
hahahahahaha pagalitan mo ang media sa pinas. Sila ang nagsasabing 4 million lang ang mga kaanib ng iglesia ni manoy
Delete"INC has been steadily spreading everywhere since its founding in the Philippines in 1914 by Felix M. Manalo, its Supremo, who died in 1963. It is a large, tightly knit indigenous Christian religious group that counts millions of members nationwide. According to the National Statistics Office in Manila, 2.3 percent of the entire Philippine population of 93 million is an INC affiliate. Its present head is Executive Minister Erano G. Manalo, the eldest son of Felix."
source: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/34205/south-dakota-ghost-town-now-owned-by-iglesia-ni-cristo
The three million-strong INC is one of a handful of religious groups courted by politicians of all stripes during election campaigns for its reported massive bloc vote that gives it huge political clout.
source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDRvSULhO4kBaxH1mqXGLgDmRFRQ?docId=CNG.cfcd37cf53571fe3837c4aed03e3a309.941
At ang karumaldumal na kulto sa pilipinas
http://phillipgarcia.wordpress.com/2009/01/30/behind-the-iglesia-ni-cristos-king-maker-role-a-chain-of-crimes-and-mythical-numbers/
"However, conspicuously missing were members of the four million-strong Iglesia Ni Cristo..."
source: http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/360194/corona-walks-out
Hahay:) Bat naman ako magagalit sa mga pinagsasabi mo?:) E yang mga source mo ey wala nmang mga sapat na batayan:)
DeleteAng dami na talagang tanga sa mundo:)
hahahahaha para mo na ring sinabi na ang media sa pinas ay walang credibility for reporting.
DeletePalibhasa kinonfirm lang na sandakot lang ang dami ng kaanib ng iglesia ni manoy eh singunaling na sila. at naging tanga pa ang mga nakikinig sa kanila.
Kung may mga tanga sa mundo ay ang mga bulag na sumusunod sa yapak ng isang rapist na sugo o lust sugo na walang sariling aral kundi nakaw niya sa ibang mga sektang kinaaniban niya bago sia nagtatag ng sarili niyang iglesia.
bugok ang katawagan sa mga kaanib ng iglesia ni manalo.
:) Ikaw yung TANGA na tinutukoy mo:) Alam mo bakit? E MAS MALIWANAG PA SA SIKAT NG ARAW MGA ARAL NG DEMONIYO SA RELIHIYON NIYO E. AT HAYAG NA HAYAG SA LAHAT ANG MGA PANG RE RAPE NG MGA PAPA NYO E PATI NGA BATA DIBA PINATULAN:)
DeleteSino tanga? IKAW:) At totoo naman diba, mababa ang credibility ng media sa Pilipinas. Alam mo kasi matuto kang magtanong sa mga matatalinong tao para hindi ka naloloko ng mga nasa palgid mo. Itanong mo sa knila kung talagang credible ang MEDIA natin sa Pilipinas:) Para naman kahit papano may malaman ka sa mga Social Studies:) Baka di mo rin alam yun ha:) Baka ikaw ang BUGOK nyan:)
I LIKE THIS GAME : WHERE IN THE BIBLE THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE LIGHT FROM LAKE OF FIRE OF SATAN?? LET'S TALK ABOUT FACT NAPOLEON, FACT OR
ReplyDeleteTHAT'S ONLY YOUR OWN OPINION!!!
- Wow:) I thought Mr. Riel Lopez will post again stupid evidences that proves his ignorance in history.:) Now, you are asking me for evidences or facts that you are the light that comes from the lake of fire. Ahmm, Riel Lopez, You should read the proposition of your priest. Catholic Defender said that you are the true light of the world. Where in the Bible can he read that? That is only his opinion.
According to Jude 1:23
"Save others by snatching them from the fire [of hell]. Show mercy to others, even though you are afraid that you might be stained by their sinful lives.."
According to the verse, we should save man from the FIRE. Who are in the fire? These are the people who have been contaminated by SINS. Who's the evil one who makes man to commit sins? Of course the DEVIL. The Devil and his people are in the fire. That's why we ( Iglesia ni Cristo ) must save man from the fire. Since you Catholic Church POSSESS THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEVIL, you are in the fire.:) Which fire is being referred to?
Revelation 20:14
" Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death."
This is the lake of fire. You Riel Lopez, you and your religion that possess the devil's doctrine is the fulfillment of this. Since you are in the fire, and fire produces light, YOU ARE THE LIGHT OF THE LAKE OF FIRE:)
You love my game? This is not a game.:) But since for you this is a game, YOU LOST IN THE GAME MR. IGNORANT AND MAN OF ILLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS:)
Lake of fire?
DeleteHere is a verse that confirms your Sugo to be in HELL.
2 John 1:7
"Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."
According to St. John, who testified about the Divinigy of Christ, GOD coming in the flesh, those who do not aknowledge Jesus (Divine) coming in the flesh are the DECEIVER and ANTI-CHRIST.
And such people are surely in hell. Felix is there already.
Where in the verse you can read that Christ is God?
DeleteDanny, you are " " :)
Can you contradict my explanation about who are the people that is in the lake of fire?:)
Where can we read that Felix Manalo is a "Last Messenger"? Or Lust Messenger hehehehe
DeleteNapoleon you are stupid!
Can you contradict what is written in 2 John 1:7 about the Deceiver and anti-christ who denies Jesus coming in the flesh?
Siya si Felix Manalo!
OF COURSE I CAN'T BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE, YOU IGNORANT!!!
ReplyDeleteHOW CAN YOU SAY THAT ALL OF IT WERE FABRICATED? DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE?
LET'S PLAY YOUR GAME NAPOLEON, GUESS WHAT?
THAT'S ONLY YOUR OWN OPINION!!!
-- FROM YOUR OWN MOUTH YOU SAID "IT CAN'T BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE":) SINCE IT CAN'T BE FOUND FROM THE BIBLE, IT WAS FABRICATED. COMMON SENSE XD. You Ignorant:)
"If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?
Origen, Commentaries on John 5:3 J479a, 226 A.D."
These are all fabricated doctrines which can't be found in the Bible."
Am I wrong in saying that this is a FABRICATED DOCTRINE? :) YOU WANT A PROOF? a FACT? A GOOD EVIDENCE? Here. SINCE THE CHAIR OF PETER CAN'T BE FOIUND IN THE BIBLE, THAT IS THE VERY PROOF THAT THIS IS A FABRICATED DOCTRINE!!! COMMON SENSE RIEL LOPEZ:) You Ignorant:)
Another GOOD example of FABRICATED DOCTRINES. The so-called deity of Christ. How come that there is a doctrine concerning the so - called deity of Christ? HISTORICALLY, It was only 325 A.D. IN THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA that the Catholic Church defined that JESUS IS TRULY GOD!!!!. This doctrine was CLEARLY FABRICATED. IF, this doctrine can be found in the Bible CLEARLY, why do the Catholic Church needed to call for a council to FABRICATE this doctrine?:) Do you know the answer? COMMON SENSE, IT CAN'T BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE.:) IT WAS FABRICATED!!:):):)
You want to play games? i don't want to play games with a stupid like you:)
Mr. Ignorant in History and Man of " Common sense nowadays is uncommon" :)
The DEITY of CHRIST is NOT fabricated. That's the very reason why JEWS put him to death "making himself equal with God" which is a blasphemous claim.
DeleteAmong all religiuos founders and sages, Jesus is UNIQUE because he's the only one who claimed DIVINITY, that ultimately caused his life to be the sacrificial lamb... and that's the very reason why MARTYRS and SAINTS chose death rather than to deny JESUS (DIVINE) COMING IN THE FLESH
The whole of John, testifies to that FACT.
As clear as the sun goes up and goes down, the doctrine about the claims of FELIX MANALO as the "Last messenger" was PURELY FABRICATED, or perhaps we could say "COPY-CAT" doctrine.
Before him, Mohammad claimed to be the Last Prophet/Messenger. That was hundred of years ago.
Next who claimed it was JOSEPH SMITH, the founder of MORMONISM. And Mormons believed FELIX MANALO copied his doctrines, temple, tabernacle etc from them.
Again, FELIX MANALO's claim was a FABRICATION!
:) You are ridiculous:) You are babbling nonsense words without efficient evidences. DEITY of Christ? NOT fabricated? If it was not fabricated, WHY IS IT ONLY ON 325 A.D. THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DEFINED THAT IT IS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT JESUS WAS TRULY GOD?
DeleteNONSENSE:) Prove by evidences that we just copied our doctrines:)
ang iglesia ni Manalo ang more ridiculous for having no logical explanation to its copied doctrines. kaya siguro tinatago niyo sa central hehehehe
DeleteTinatago sa Cntral? Our doctrines are widely known by many people tapos tinatago? Stupido
Delete----Nap Ford
For the first 300 years all believed in CHRIST as GOD. Until there came stupid people like you came and preached another Christ. So in order to make official, 325AD the CHURCH DECLARED officially about the DIVINITY of CHRIST. so you're ignorance is quite apalling.
Deletewhy not STAND UP, grow up, and START explaining your COPIED DOCTRINES rather than attacking ours.
Do you think YOUR DOCTRINES could be explained by attacking ours?
MORON!
Alam mo ikaw napipikon na ko sayo e:) Hindi ako napipikon sa mga panlalait mo sa Iglesia ni Cristo dahil alam ko naman na walang katotohanan ang sinasabi mo.
DeleteKaya ko napipikon kasi ang BOBO MO SOBRA sa HISTORY. DINODOKTOR MO PA ANG KASAYSAYAN E HINDI NAMAN TOTOO MGA SINASABI MO:) ANG GALING MO GUMAWA NG KUWENTO, STUPIDO KA TALAGA:) IGNORANTE KA PA.
Ang niloloko mo una sarili mo, tapos yung mga tagasunod mo na mga wala ring alam sa kasaysayan ng mundo, haizt.
:)
I don't need to explain our doctrines because it was already explained. All of your arguments were already answered. So why the hell you are keep in returning to your old arguments that showing your stupidity Catholic Defender:) You're always saying that our Doctrines are just copy - cat. But the thing is, I have challenged you to prove that all of our doctrines are just copied. But until now, you just showed us only one argument attacking our doctrines about Ka Felix Y. Manalo. You said that we copied it from other religions. But we answered that already. So how about the other doctrines of us? Are you running- out of fabricated accusations? Huh? STUPID MORON?:)
AND Here's THE THING, I HAVE POSTED MANY MANY MANY MANY BIBLICAL FACTS AGAINST YOUR ARGUMENTS AND MANY MANY MANY HISTORICAL FACTS AGAINST YOUR DOCTRINES BUT WHY UNTIL NOW YOU ARE NOT ANSWERING CORRECTLY MOST OF MY ARGUMENTS AGAINST YOU? YOU WILL JUST ANSWERED ME NONSENSE WORDS AND LIES. YOU CAN NOT EVEN SHOW ME A SOLID EVIDENCES THAT WHAT I HAVE SAID ARE WRONG:) YOU ARE RUNNING AWAY FROM THE ISSUE:) STUPID MORON:)
SO NOW STAND UP AND ANSWER ME LIKE A REAL MAN:) THAT IS IF YOU ARE REALLY A REAL MAN:) hahahha:)
We can explain our doctrines even if we would not attack you. Remember moron, you draw the first accusations against us, im just giving it back to you:)
Napoleon: DEITY of Christ? NOT fabricated? If it was not fabricated, WHY IS IT ONLY ON 325 A.D. THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DEFINED THAT IT IS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT JESUS WAS TRULY GOD?
ReplyDelete>>>Jesus was God from the very beginning Napoleon, The Catholic Church in 325 A.D only DECLARED that he was truly GOD so there will be no confusions among all the Christians and it should be followed because it is the "Pillar and Foundation of the Truth"(1 Tim 3:15) and once the Church declared, it can never be wrong! However you can never read "God the Son" or Jesus is God in the Bible. Just like I can't read Felix Manalo or Philippines in the Bible, you will go in a deep struggle of proving that he is the last "Messenger" and you can't do that using verses in the Bible because those name doesn't exist and if you do, it proves nothing! what are those verses? John 10:16? Isaiah 43:5-6? Isaiah 46:11? As I've read it, it doesn't support the side of INC. and if it does, INC will use a lot of Catholic references to support it! But wait,if INC said that Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil? Does the True Church use the references from the devil to support it's doctrine?That's Hypocrisy! you have to take some time thinking about this Napoleon
Let me use your own standards Mr. Napoleon.
DeleteIf the Iglesia ni Cristo is the "true" church, why is it founded only in 1914?
So here is the answer of Manalo's Church: That Felix Manalo FOUNDED only LOCALE. But that line of argument wont stand on a solid rock since the CENTRAL OFFICE of the Iglesia ni Cristo is in the PHILIPPINES.
If you accept that the TRUE CHURCH was founded by Christ in JERUSALEM, why is it that the CENTRAL is NOT in Jerusalem but in the Philippines?
Use your common sense and you will come up with a very clear answer.
And please allow me to EDUCATE your ENORMOUS IGNORANCE on history. What was DECLARED in 325 is NOT a FABRICATION but it's an AFFIRMATION of that EXISTING BELIEF on the DEITY of CHRIST.
The reason why the CHURCH of CHRIST had to sit in a COUNCIL was because there were some fake preachers WHO preached that CHRIST has dual and separate personality (as oppose to two natures but one person-- DIVINE and HUMAN).
So before you preach us your OWN CONFUSION and the CONFUSION of your FAKE SUGO, why not UNDERSTAND HISTORY according to its CONTENT and not according to your BIGOTRY and ANTI-CATHOLIC HATRED!
Grow up kid!
The Catholic Church in 325 A.D only DECLARED that he was truly GOD so there will be no confusions among all the Christians
Delete-- Declare? Who is the Catholic Church to declare a certain dogma which can't be found in the Bible? Are you really stupid Riel Lopez? You are accepting a doctrine that was ONLY DECLARED by a certain church? You are of the DEMON. Apostle Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4
" But I fear that somehow your pure and undivided devotion to Christ will be corrupted, just as Eve was deceived by the cunning ways of the serpent. 4You happily put up with whatever anyone tells you, even if they preach a different Jesus than the one we preach, or a different kind of Spirit than the one you received, or a different kind of gospel than the one you believed
Catholic Church DECLARED a new doctrine. THEY DECLARED IT BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE. That is the very proof that your Church is of the DEMON. You said that there was a confusion. The confusion arose because of the teaching of your bishops that Christ is God. If you will STUDY HISTORY, from 1st to 4th Century, the Christians were believing that Christ is human and not God. There was no confusion that time. Confusion arose when Alexander of Alexandria declared the so called Trinity in one of his sermon in the 4th century. It was challenged by Arius for it is not written in the Bible.
To cut the story short, the dogma about the deity of Christ was only begun during the 4th century and NOT FROM THE BEGINNING OF CHRISTIANITY.
"it should be followed because it is the "Pillar and Foundation of the Truth"(1 Tim 3:15)"
-- CAN YOU READ THE VERSE VERY CLEAR? Does it say that the belief about the so called deity of Christ is the pillar and foundation of truth? AGAIN, YOU ARE TWISTING THE BIBLE.
"However you can never read "God the Son" or Jesus is God in the Bible."
-- . That's why you are ignorant and fool to believe that Jesus is God.
"Just like I can't read Felix Manalo or Philippines in the Bible, you will go in a deep struggle of proving that he is the last "Messenger" and you can't do that using verses in the Bible because those name doesn't exist and if you do, it proves nothing! what are those verses? "
--- I answered this already right? Again you are just repeating and repeating your nonsense arguments. When the Bible speaks a prophecy, basically it does not mention the name of the person being prophesied. Jesus, Paul, John the Baptist, their names were never mentioned in the Old Testament. But they prove it that they are the fulfillment of the prophecy. Same with Brother Felix Y. Manalo. The verses concerning him don't mention his name because these are PROPHESIES:) What important there is the mission fulfilled and the fulfillment itself.:) I told you , you are IGNORANT concerning Bible things.:)
"INC will use a lot of Catholic references to support it! But wait,if INC said that Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil? Does the True Church use the references from the devil to support it's doctrine?"
--- LOL. Again you are SPEAKING OUT OF YOUR IGNORANCE:) Can you show me a basic doctrine of the Iglesia ni Cristo that uses a reference from THE Church of the Devil( Catholic Church) to support our doctrines? :)
We are using your references not to support our doctrines BUT TO SHOW TO ALL THAT EVEN YOUR CHURCH is TESTIFYING THE EVIDENCES AGAINST YOU:)
"That's Hypocrisy! you have to take some time thinking about this Napoleon"
--- How about you? Are you not Hypocrite? The Doctrine of the Demon are clearly stated in the Bible but still you are in the Church that practicing it.:)
----------------Nap Ford
IGNORANT CATHOLIC DEFENDER. YOU ARE TRYING ONCE AGAIN TO DECEIVE YOUR MEMBERS:)
DeleteCENTRAL OFFICE IS NOT A LOCALE:) From the name itself it is an OFFICE:)
Yes, the true Church was founded in Jerusalem. But we firmly believe that that Church was apostatized and you are the product of it.
Let me throw back your arguments to you. YOU ARE CLAIMING THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN BE TRACED BACK TO JESUS. THEN , WHY IS IT THAT THE CENTER OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN IN ROME AND NOT IN JERUSALEM? :)
"And please allow me to EDUCATE your ENORMOUS IGNORANCE on history. What was DECLARED in 325 is NOT a FABRICATION but it's an AFFIRMATION of that EXISTING BELIEF on the DEITY of CHRIST."
----- LOL. You can't fool me you IGNORANT. I'm already excelled in the history of this world.
According to HISTORY
"A History of God: “… Ang doktrinang si Jesus ay Diyos na nasa anyong tao ay hindi naging pinal hanggang noong ikaapat na siglo. Ang pagkakabuo ng paniniwala ng mga Cristiano tungkol sa pagkakatawang-tao (Enkarnasyon) ay isang unti-unti at masalimuot na proseso. Natitiyak natin na hindi kailanman inangkin ni Jesus na Siya’y Diyos (p.81). 9
History is not keeping its mouth shut. The Church affirmed the dogma for it was PROPOSED. Only in the 4th century the belief about the deity of Christ was proposed. ( Alexader of Alexandria )
"The reason why the CHURCH of CHRIST had to sit in a COUNCIL was because there were some fake preachers WHO preached that CHRIST has dual and separate personality (as oppose to two natures but one person-- DIVINE and HUMAN)."
---- Ignorant. The reason why the Church called for a council was to settle the so called Arian Controversy. Arius firmly believe that JESUS is Divine but not God. You are the one that is saying that Christ is true human and true God.
:) Once again im saying i have no hatred against you.:) HISTORY PROVES THAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST IS NOT WELL KNOWN UNTIL THE 4TH CENTURY.:) You better study more and deeply History:)
Hahaha an INC of Manalo member claiming to have been "EXCELLED IN HISTORY" and yet SIMPLE CITING of SOURCES he cannot even give?
DeleteWhat kind of "expertise" do you know when you cannot even quote your sources!
You're such a fool. The reason why you cannot quote your source is because you've got those information from ANTI-CATHOLIC and you have no proof.
You're exposing your IGNORANCE to the WORLD. At least nalalaman ng lahat ang INYONG KAB*B*HAN!!!!
Ikaw IGLESIA NI MANALO,
DeleteIpaliwanag mo nga rito kung bakit 1921 lang NALAMAN ni FELIX MANALO na HULING SUGO pala siya!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At 1921 lang niya ITINURO sa kanyang mga taga-sunod na SIYA PALA AY HULING SUGO hehehe.
Hahaha an INC of Manalo member claiming to have been "EXCELLED IN HISTORY" and yet SIMPLE CITING of SOURCES he cannot even give?
Delete-- Nagbabasa ka ba talaga? Hindi mo nakita yung page tsaka libro? :) Mas basag ka sakin kapag nilagay ko lahat jan, pasalamat ka nga e wala ko sa house ko now, kung andun lang ako no problem para iquote ko lahat ng gusto mong malaman.:)
It is a HISTORY BOOK. NOT AN ANTI-CATHOLIC BOOK:)STUPIDO ka talaga:)
My Ignorance? Hahaha, kahit kaninong matatalinong mga nagsipag-aral mo ipabasa ang mga nilagay ko about HISTORY di nila tututulan yan dahil totoo lahat ng yan. IKAW LANG NAMAN BOBO SA KASAYSAYAN ANG KUMOKONTRA JAN E:)
Patunayan mo na 1921 lang nalaman ng Ka Felix Y. Manalo na Sugo sya..:)
DeleteCge nga:)
Oi Iglesia ni Manalo, ikaw ang magpatunay kung kailan nalaman ni Felix Manalo na siya pala ay anghel na may anghit.
DeleteAral niyo yan, kaw ang magpatunay ugok!
What a nice excuse bobong historian. Dakdak ka ng dakdak eh wala ka palang source. Bobo ang mga manolistas. Puro sila nganga. kahit isang ministro wala man lang sa kanila ang naging huwaran ng lipunan. mga bobo, anghel niyo may anghit sa kilikili!!! maniac na anghel
Delete":) felix d cat? hahha, nagbabasa ka ba? ang dami dami kong nilagay na mga source sa page na to tapos sasabihin mo walang maibigay na source? ENGOT ka pala e:) And may anghit? Sige nga, try to prove your accusation:) Bakla ikaw un:) Remember mas malapit kilikili mo sa ilong mo kaysa ung kilikili ng iba:) And speaking of maniac, iisang religious office lang naman ang kilala kong mga manyakis sa mundo, and that is no other than the ROMAN CATHOLIC POPE:) Magbasa ka ng kasaysayan para hindi ka nagmumukhang TANGA:)
DeleteSabi ng catholic defender nyo, 1921 lang daw nalaman ng Ka Felix na Sugo sya, sabi ko naman patunayan nya. O Ikaw anonymous tingin mo sinong dpat magpaliwanag nun? Ako na hinahamon sya na ipaliwanag yun, o siya na nagbibigay ng isang impormasyon na wala namang ipinapakitang katunayan? Hahaha, learn to think BUGOK na anonymous:)
DeleteAng tatanga nyo naman mangatuwiran:)
Felix Manalo preached being the "Last Messenger" only in 1921 after Oria et.al. threatened his church with serious schism.
DeleteIf I am wrong, prove it.
Simple. Where are you evidences?:)
DeleteYou have no evidence?
Hahaha:)
In 1914 when Felix Manalo start preaching about the Iglesia ni Kristo and registered it in 1914, the "Last Messenger" doctrine was not yet realized.
DeleteHe only came up with the idea when Oria et.al threatened his church for schism to have a control of his founded church.
Now prove me wrong!
Read here IGLESIA NI CRISTO in pdf
DeleteThere is one thing that we should realize here.
DeleteCATHOLIC DEFENDER IS A DUMB READER:)
WhY?
Where in the pdf you gave to me, you can read that only when Ora made a rebellion against Brother Felix Y. Manalo the doctrine of " Last Messenger" realized? And where in your evidence it was shown that Brother Felix Y. Manalo only came up to that idea because of the rebellion of Ora?:)
Wow, even in a simple article you are twisting everything huh? THAT IS THE VERY PROOF THAT YOU ARE WRONG:) Next time you have to read first your evidence before posting it here.:)
---- NAP
One who feels more affected by a "dumb" reader is the MOST DUMB of all.
DeleteSo since you really read articles, read this ONE and see how Felix Manalo your sugo didn't believe he was the "Last Messenger" prior to 1914.
And since you really read articles you might want to consider reading the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Don't just read, DIGEST them.
Wooah:) Im not affected by your DUMBNESS Catholic Defender in the sense that I will be dumb too. It just IRRITATES me:)
DeleteAnd about the article Mr. DUMB Defender, the article is full of the author's opinion:) He will show the actual event and then he will give his opinion about that certain event. He's not showing evidences like you. He is also DUMB LIKE YOU.:) He is posting accusations which are already proven wrong like you.:) Why are you running to this articles? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCES CONCERNING YOUR ACCUSATIONS:) Dumb CATHOLIC DEFENDER.
---Nap
Really?
DeleteI don't think so. You've been glued to my blog for sometime and yet you say I'm dumb? Loooooooool.
Yes you are DUMB:)
DeleteYour Blog is just my pastime when I am doing nothing:) And here in your blog, we can read your DUMBNESS, STUPIDITY, and your NONSENSE accusations against us.
I am posting here my comments to help you realize that YOU ARE WRONG:)
--- NAP
Who needs your pontification? Your church is a FAKE church. Who would listen to you?
DeleteMy blog is very powerful because YOU'RE AFFECTED and YOU are GLUED in it.
Dumb?
Looool... thanks for the interest in a "dumb" blog.
Welcome. Im just IRRITATED because f your DUMBNESS. You know, the government is putting into a custody those who are crazy. Why? Are they crazy also because they are affected by them? No. They did that because it is their duty to protect normal person from the dangers that a psychopath crazy man can do to other.
DeleteJust like you:) I'm not affected by your STUPIDITY and DUMBNESS. I'm just preventing other people to believe in your stupid and dumb teachingsXD
---NAP
Loool you need to do that for 1.1 billion people on earth. Damn, you need to have thousands of lives before doing that.
DeleteBut you know what, your FAKE SUGO died without success.
For us Catholics we need to save souls from your FAKE SUGO.
Here is what the Bible says about your FAKE SUGO.
2 John 1:7
"Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist."
Did FELIX MANALO accept JESUS (divine) coming in the FLESH?
NO!
Therefore FELIX MANALO is the DECEITFUL ONE and the ANTI-CHRIST.
How about the followers of the FAKE SUGO FELIX MANALO?
2 John 1:10-11
"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; for whoever greets him shares in his evil works. "
Whoever receive FOLLOWERS OF MANALO'S CHURCH called the IGLESIA NI CRISTO, shares in his EVIL WORKS!!!!
BEWARE! Save your souls. Leave the IGLESIA NI CRISTO because that is a FAKE CHURCH!!!!
pra sa mga iglesia ni manalo, kapag di nila maintindihan ang isang turo, mali na.
Deletekapag di nila magustuhan ang isang tao bobo na, o kaya'y bading, kng ano anong paninira.
at ganon din ang kanilang turo. tama nga si catholic defender eh. nagiging tama lang ang iglesia ni cristo sapagkat para sa kanila mali ang iglesia katolika.
para bang ang tanong eh bakit puti ang kulay ng isang bagay. ang paliwanag ng mga iglesia ni manalo ay sapagkat ito ay hindi itim hahahaahahahaha maturingan bang matatalino ang ganyang klase ng utak!!!!!
your FAKE SUGO died without success.
Delete---????? :) STUPIDITY.
" Did FELIX MANALO accept JESUS (divine) coming in the FLESH?
NO!"
-- Are you sure?:) You are ridiculous:)
" Whoever receive FOLLOWERS OF MANALO'S CHURCH called the IGLESIA NI CRISTO, shares in his EVIL WORKS!!!!
BEWARE! Save your souls. Leave the IGLESIA NI CRISTO because that is a FAKE CHURCH!!!! "
---PURE OPINION.:) Beware of those people who are preaching based on their opinion. No IGLESIA NI CRISTO that will do that.:)
---NAP
Natural, bakit puti ang kulay ng isang bagay? Ksi hindi nga naman talaga itim ang kulay niya. ANONG MALI DOON?:) Wow NAKIKITA NG LAHAT ANG KATANGAHAN NI ANO...:)
DeleteNAPOLEON
ReplyDeleteFROM YOUR OWN MOUTH YOU SAID "IT CAN'T BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE":) SINCE IT CAN'T BE FOUND FROM THE BIBLE, IT WAS FABRICATED.
ME :what kind of argument is that? you assumed that everything was written in the bible? and if it's not? it is fabricated? for the sake of arguments let me ask some questions:
What are the historical facts of the early church that you accepted that are not found in the bible?
Do you believed that the term "Katholikos" was 1st mentioned by St.Ignatius of Antioch in 107 A.D?
ANALOGY:
I FOUND A ROCK, A VERY BEAUTIFUL SHAPED ROCK, I KEPT THE ROCK AND BROUGHT IT HOME, BECAUSE I LIKE IT SO MUCH,I NAMED IT "MARIO"
QUESTION:
DID I INVENTED THE ROCK OR JUST SIMPLY NAMED IT?
DID THE ROCK EXIST BEFORE I FOUND IT? OR IT EXIST WHEN I NAMED IT?
"what kind of argument is that? you assumed that everything was written in the bible? "
Delete--- Yeah, not everything is written in the Bible. BUT, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ADD ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.
Apostle Paul said,
" You should learn from us not to go beyond what is written in Scripture. Then you won't arrogantly place one of us in opposition to the other.
You know, that's arrogance to add anything which is not in the Bible. Why Apostle PAul said, NOT TO GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE SCRIPTURE? Because Apostle John said,
" Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
It is already enough what are written in the Bible. We don't need any books more that the Bible to be the foundation of our faith. We don't need any council to form a new dogma. The BIBLE IS ENOUGH TO ATTAIN SALVATION. That's why we members of the Church of Christ do not entertain any teachings which can't be found in the Bible:)
"Do you believed that the term "Katholikos" was 1st mentioned by St.Ignatius of Antioch in 107 A.D?"
--- I do believe in that.:)
"I FOUND A ROCK, A VERY BEAUTIFUL SHAPED ROCK, I KEPT THE ROCK AND BROUGHT IT HOME, BECAUSE I LIKE IT SO MUCH,I NAMED IT "MARIO"
QUESTION:
DID I INVENTED THE ROCK OR JUST SIMPLY NAMED IT?
DID THE ROCK EXIST BEFORE I FOUND IT? OR IT EXIST WHEN I NAMED IT?
--- It existed before you found it. But here is the 3rd Question. ARE YOU SURE THAT IT HAS NO ORIGINAL NAME SO YOU CAN JUST NAMED IT? :)
I know what you are trying to say to me. You are saying that your bishops just gave a new name for your Church. But the thing is this Riel, IT WAS NOT ONLY THE NAME, BUT ALSO THE DOCTRINES. THEY INTRODUCED NEW DOCTRINES WHICH ARE FOREIGN TO THE 1st Century Church:)
Add this to your analogy
YOU GAVE THE ROCK A NEW NAME. YOU CHANGED IT SHAPE, YOU PUT MANY DECORATIONS, YOU CHISELED AWAY MOST OF ITS PARTS.
QUESTION
DOES THE ROCK STILL THE ORIGINAL ROCK YOU FOUND? :)
NAPOLEON SAID:
DeleteFROM YOUR OWN MOUTH YOU SAID "IT CAN'T BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE":) SINCE IT CAN'T BE FOUND FROM THE BIBLE, IT WAS FABRICATED.
CD2000: Using your own set STANDARDS, therefore FELIX MANALO's LAST MESSENGER doctrine and TOTAL APOSTASY to ACCOMMODATE his self-made "sugo" title, were ALL FABRICATIONS since they are NOWHERE to be FOUND IN THE BIBLE.
Thank you.
What? How come that our doctrine about the Apostasy of the true Church in 1st century and the doctrine about Brother Felix Y. Manalo as the Last NMessenger of God in these last days are not in the Bible when WE ARE EXPLAINING ALL OF OUR DOCTRINES THROUGH THE BIBLE? Are you losing your mind Catholic Defender?:)
DeleteThank you too:)
----NAP
Before accusing me of losing my mind, show us the following:
DeleteWhere in the BIBLE we can find that the CHURCH of CHRIST will TOTALLY APOSTATIZE?
Where is FELIX MANALO in the Bible?
And if you can't better consult the experts, you might be losing your mind for believing in a FABRICATED man-made doctrines.
Where in the BIBLE we can find that the CHURCH of CHRIST will TOTALLY APOSTATIZE?
DeleteWhere is FELIX MANALO in the Bible?
--- I answered this already you fool. I HAVE EXPLAINED THIS ALREADY IN YOUR BLOG STUPID CATHOLIC DEFENDER. And now you keep on returning to your old arguments. WHY DON'T JUST ANSWER FIRST CORRECTLY MY EXPLANATION BEFORE RETURNING TO YOUR SAME OLD NONSENSE STUPID ARGUMENT. Sa totoo lang nagiikutan lang tayo dito. Kala mo di ko pansin yun? KAYA NAKAKATAWA KA KASI PARA KANG TANGANG PAULIT - ULIT SA MGA TANONG MO SAKING NASAGOT KO NA.
Stupido.
-- NAP
Bakit na nagrereklamo kung ulit-ulitin kong itatanong sa iyo?
DeleteAbout TRINITY, have we not ANSWERED it OFFICIALLY that you keep on bringing back the issue?
About the SAINTS, have we not ANSWERED it OFFICIALLY that you are still scandalized by it?
About the INQUISITION, have we not answered it before?
About PURGATORY, about MARY, about STATUES, have we not explained it OFFICIALLY that you keep on bringing the issue AGAIN and AGAIN?
Yes, we answered them OFFICIALLY!
How about you, WHERE IS YOUR OFFICIAL STATEMENT about our questions: Where is FELIX MANALO in the BIBLE? Where is the word "IGLESIA NI CRISTO" (as in Tagalog ha) in all bible Translations?!!!
At SINO KA NAMAN para bigyan namin ng SAYSAY at BIGAT ang iyong SINASALAYSAY?
Are you REPRESENTING the IGLESIA NI CRISTO with your statement?
If YES, then you have PERFECTLY DEMONSTRATED to the world HOW VILE and UNBECOMING members of the Iglesia ni Cristo are by using FOUL and FILTHY words and NAME CLLLING !!!!!
Thank you.
Nagrereklamo kasi di ka makaintindi.
DeleteAbout your doctrines, your expalanations are unbiblical. YES YOU EXPALINED IT. BUT YOUR EXPALNATIONS ARE FULL OF OPINION AND TWISTED EXPALANATIONS.
About our doctrines, official naman lahat e. wala naman kaming itinatago. Matagal ko ng sinagot yan at talagang MANGMANG ka lang at di mo maintindihan. Kapag sinagot ko yan ulit uulit na naman tayo. Matutulad lang ako sa yo na TANGA na di marunong umintindi.
And teka lang. Wala ka na bang maisagot sakin kaya tinitira mo na yung paraan ko ng pagsagot?
Haha. Nagbabait baitan ka na naman. E KUNG MERONG NAUNANG MAGBITAW NG MGA WALANG KUWENTANG PANANALITA AT AKUSASYON DITO IKAW YUN. BLOG MO TO E. WALA KA NG MATINONG MAISAGOT KAYA GANYAN NA TINITIRA MO SAKIN. NOONG UNA NGA MGA BELOW THE BELT ANG IBINABATO MO SA MGA NAMAMAHALA SAMIN E. PINATULAN LANG KITA TAPOS MAGREREKLAMO KA? PASALAMT KA NGA AT IKAW LANG ANG PINUPUNTIRYA KO. HINDI KO PA INILALABAS ANG BAHO NG MGA PINUNO NIYO DAHIL KAHIT PAPANO WALA SILANG ALAM DITO. E IKAW? PATI NAMAMAHALA NAMIN GINAGAWAN MO PA NG PAGE PARA PALITAWIN ANG MGA STUPIDO AT MGA WALANG KWENTANG MGA AKUSASYON MO. IBINABALIK KO LANG SAYO MGA SINABI MO. TAPOS MAGREREKLAMO KA NA PARA BANG NAPAKABANAL NA DI MARUNONG MAGSALITA NG MGA WALANG KWENTA.
IKAW ANG TUNAY NA IPOKRITO:) CATHOLIC DEFENDER IS A HYPOCRITE!!!
--NAP:)
NAP, ikaw ang may malaking problema. Isipin mo, wala na kayong ginawa kundi ang TIRAHIN ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA na sa PASIMULA ay siyang IGLESIA NI CRISTO ayon sa inyong OFFICIAL MAGAZINE PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46.
DeleteMas may BIGAT pa ba ang salaysay ng isang NAP FORD kaysa sa PASUGO? I dont think so.
At para di naman tayo UULIT ng UULIT sa aming paliwanag, HETO ang OFFICIAL CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA namin.
You can only understand CATHOLIC TERMS from US not from YOU moron!
Eh kayong mga IGLESIA NI MANALO meron ba nun?
Kahit BIBLE nga NAKIKIGAMIT na nga lang kayo eh kayo pa ang may ganang NAGMAMARUNONG!!!!
Dumb ba ang katawagan sa mga taong walang sariling BIBLIA pero kung umasta ay mas maalam pa sa may ari? Dumb ba tawg dun NAP? ^_^
Pulpol na historian kuno, heto UMPISAHAN mong magbasa
DeleteBLESSED TRINITY at umpisahan mogn INTINDIHIN ayon sa AMING PANG-UNAWA hindi sa pang-unawa ng isang PEKENG SUGO ok!!!
NAP, ikaw ang may malaking problema. Isipin mo, wala na kayong ginawa kundi ang TIRAHIN ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA na sa PASIMULA ay siyang IGLESIA NI CRISTO ayon sa inyong OFFICIAL MAGAZINE PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46.
Delete-- Kapal naman ng mukha mo Catholic Defender, Sino ba naunang nag-usig satin? AKO O IKAW?:) MGA TITLE PA NGA LANG NG PAGE MO DITO EBIDENSIYA NA E:) Nananahimik kami, ikaw naman para kang baklang sisigaw sigaw ng kung anu-ano dyan. Ngayong papatulan ka akala mo ang bait-bait.:)
-- Tsaka, please naman, wag mo ng ulit-ulitin yung paggamit ng Pasugo. HINDI naman ebidensya yan e. Kahit sinong matalino at marunong mag-isip ang makaiintindi na SA SIMULA LANG kayo:)
"At para di naman tayo UULIT ng UULIT sa aming paliwanag, HETO ang OFFICIAL CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA namin.
You can only understand CATHOLIC TERMS from US not from YOU moron!
-- Naiintindihan ko naman ang mga aral niyo:) Ang problema sayo pinapabasa mo sakin yan. E mali nga yung nakalagay e. KAYA NGA HINAHAMON KITA NA KAPAG SUMASAGOT KA SAKIN ILAGAY MO ANG MSMONG PALIWANAG MO DITO SA BLOG MO AT HUWAG MO KONG UTUSAN NA BASAHIN YANG ARAL NIYO. MATAGAL KO NG BASA YAN:) LUMILITAW TULOY NA TINATAKBUHAN MO LANG ANG ISSUE BY PUTTING YOUR BOOKS. BASAHIN DAW BASAHIN DAW, E HINDI MO NGA MAIPALIWANAG DITO SA BLOG MO E:) Saan banda ang katalinuhan doon Catholic Defender?:)
" Kahit BIBLE nga NAKIKIGAMIT na nga lang kayo eh kayo pa ang may ganang NAGMAMARUNONG!!!!"
-- LOL. Nakikigamit? Pag sinabing nakikigamit MERONG MAY-ARI.:) Here is the Challenge, SINO ANG MAY-ARI NG BIBLIA?:) Sagutin mo ha, iibahin ko na ang style ng pagtatanong sayo:)
"Dumb ba ang katawagan sa mga taong walang sariling BIBLIA pero kung umasta ay mas maalam pa sa may ari? Dumb ba tawg dun NAP? ^_^"
-- HINDI PO:) Mga apostol nga wala namang sariling Old Testament noon pero naipaliliwanag nila ang kasulatan e. Si Cristo nga mismo wala naman Siyang pangalang sa OLD TESTAMENT at HINDI naman SIYA ang sumulat ng OLD TESTAMENT pero naipaliwanag niya na ang OLD TESTAMENT sa Kaniya tumutukoy e. Si Juan Bautista nga at si APostol PAblo wala naman sinulat sa Old Testament pero ipinaliwanag nila ang mga hula sa OLD TESTAMENT na natupad sa knila e. HINDI KANILA IYON, PERO IPINALIWANAG NILA IYON, Ang mga nagtranslate ng mga OLD TESTAMENT ay mga JUDIO. Pero, MAS NAUUNAWAAN NG MGA APOSTOL ANG OLD TESTAMENT KAYSA MGA JUDIONG NAGSALIN NITO. IBABALIK KO SAYO ANG TANONG : DUMB BA ANG MAITATAWAG DOON?:) HINDI. E sinong BOBO? YUNG MGA NAGSALIN NG OLD TESTAMENT NA IPINAPATAY PA MISMO ANG KINATUPARAN NG ISINALIN NILA:) Mga JUDIO na ipinapatay si Cristo:) Kaya alam mo Catholic Defender delikado yung nagyayabang na sila raw ang nagsalin ng Biblia PERO HINDI NAMAN MAUNAWAAN AT IBA ANG ITINUTURO KAYSA DOON SA ISINALIN NILA:) Parang IKAW:)
--- NAPOLEON FORD
Pulpol na historian kuno, heto UMPISAHAN mong magbasa
DeleteBLESSED TRINITY at umpisahan mogn INTINDIHIN ayon sa AMING PANG-UNAWA hindi sa pang-unawa ng isang PEKENG SUGO ok!!!
-- Aaminin ko di ko talaga maintindihan ang aral niyo. ALAM MO KUNG BAKIT? MISTERYO nga kasi. Ang taong naniniwala sa bagay na hindi niya maintindihan KABOBOHAN ang tawag doon. MGA SANTO AT MGA LIDER NIYO NGA HINDI NAUUNAWAAN ANG TRINIDAD!!!Ako pa kaya na nagtataka?:)
Tsaka yung Catechism niyo e after ng paliwanag sa talata konklusyon agad. E yung konklusyon wala naman sa Biblia. EXAMPLE
" The mention of the Holy Spirit in the same series, the names being connected one with the other by the conjunctions "and . . . and" is evidence that we have here a Third Person co-ordinate with the Father and the Son, and excludes altogether the supposition that the Apostles understood the Holy Spirit not as a distinct Person, but as God viewed in His action on creatures.
--???? TOINKS. Saan nila nakuha yan?:)
PULPOL DAW AKO:) Hahaha, palibhasa kasi TOTOO mga sinasabi ko kaya PULPOL DAW AKO.Hahaha:) Wala pa nga kayong napatunayang mali ako e:) Tapos pulpol? We are talking History here. YOU CAN'T DEFEAT ME IN MY OWN FIELD:)
--- NAPOLEON FORD
It is already enough what are written in the Bible. We don't need any books more that the Bible to be the foundation of our faith.
ReplyDeleteME> We have no king but Caesar, John 19:15.
You have no need of the Catholic Church, as you have the Bible.
We don't need any council to form a new dogma. The BIBLE IS ENOUGH TO ATTAIN SALVATION. That's why we members of the Church of Christ do not entertain any teachings which can't be found in the Bible:)
ME>>>YOU DO NOT ENTERTAIN ANY TEACHINGS THAT FELIX MANALO WASN'T ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IN THE BIBLE!
2 Peter 2:12
12 But these people blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like unreasoning animals, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like animals they too will perish.
-- Yeah, not everything is written in the Bible. BUT, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ADD ANYTHING WHICH IS NOT WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.
ME> I'm talking about sacred traditions just like St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8,
of 107 A.D., "Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as
where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.
You since you said that you believe it, then why not believed the whole letter?
Analogy: you saw a lady , you like her eyes, you wanted to have a date with her, are you going to ask the lady that you wanted to date with her eyes?of course NO! you must date with the lady herself!
--- It existed before you found it. But here is the 3rd Question. ARE YOU SURE THAT IT HAS NO ORIGINAL NAME SO YOU CAN JUST NAMED IT? :)
ME> There were a lot of names:
A City set on a Mountain, Matthew 5:14.
A Dwelling Place for GOD, Ephesians 2:22.
A Spiritual House, 1Peter 2:5.
GOD's Building, 1Corinthians 3:9.
Mount Zion, Psalms 2:6, Micah 4:7, Hebrews 12:22.
My Church, Matthew 16:18.
Our Mother, Galatians 4:26.
The Bride of Christ, Joel 2:16, John 3:29, Revelation 21:2.
The Body of Christ, Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:24.
The Church of GOD, Acts 20:28.
The Church of the Firstborn, Hebrews 12:23.
The City of the Living GOD, Hebrews 12:22.
The City of Truth, Zechariah 8:3.
The Congregation of Saints, Psalms 149:1.
The Daughter of the King, Psalms 45:13.
The dispenser of the Wisdom of GOD, Ephesians 3:7-11.
The final authority of GOD on earth, Matthew 18:15-18.
The Fold of Christ, John 10:16.
The Heavenly Jerusalem, Galatians 4:26.
The Holy City, Revelation 21:2.
The Holy Mountain, Zechariah 8:3.
The House of Christ, Hebrews 3:6.
The House of GOD, 1Timothy 3:15, Hebrews 10:21.
The Household of GOD, Ephesians 2:19.
The Kingdom of GOD, Luke 4:43.
The Kingdom of Heaven, Matthew 13:31.
The Lamb's Spouse, Revelation 19:7,21:9
The New Jerusalem, Isaiah 65:18, Revelation 3:12,21:2.
The Pillar and Foundation of Truth, 1Timothy 3:15
But those were descriptive names, just like a baby, it doesn't have a name after birth, it will be decided later on
ME> We have no king but Caesar, John 19:15.
DeleteYou have no need of the Catholic Church, as you have the Bible.
--- Jews have their king and that is the Caesar. Jesus is a Jew that's why He said that GIVE TO CAESAR WHAT IS DUE TO HIM, AND GIVE TO GOD WHAT IS DUE TO GOD. Jesus did not based His teachings to Caesar but to God.:)
ME>>>YOU DO NOT ENTERTAIN ANY TEACHINGS THAT FELIX MANALO WASN'T ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IN THE BIBLE!
----????? WHAT ARE THOSE THINGS? CAN YOU GIVE EXAMPLE?
ME> I'm talking about sacred traditions just like St. Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8,
of 107 A.D., "Where the Bishop appears, there let the people be, just as
where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Undoubtedly the word was in use before the time of this writing.
You since you said that you believe it, then why not believed the whole letter?
--- Speaking of traditions Apostle Paul said
" Be careful not to let anyone rob you [of this faith] through a shallow and misleading philosophy. Such a person follows human traditions and the world's way of doing things rather than following Christ.
We must not follow any traditions of this world that is changing our faith to God:) The Catholic traditions are teaching doctrines of your Church Fathers which CAN'T BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE. ( example: CHAIR OF PETER ) I do believe to THE FACT THAT IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH WAS THE FIRST TO USED THE TERM " CATHOLIC ". That was proven by history. BUT I do not accept his teaching for most of his teaching are against the Bible. That's why it was called CATHOLIC TRADITIONS.
"But those were descriptive names, just like a baby, it doesn't have a name after birth, it will be decided later on"
--- Yeah, for the sake of argument let's say it has no name. But as what the Bible have said, all of the things written in the Scriptures are enough to attain salvation. And according to Revelation 22:18-19
" I testify to everyone who hears the prophetic words of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book. And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophetic book, God will take away his share of the tree of life and the holy city, written in this book.
Deut. 12:32
""So be careful to obey all the commands I give you. You must not add anything to them or subtract anything from them."
God's commandment is very clear. We MUST not add or subtract anything from his Commandments. Therefore, if a certain thing in the Bible was not given a name, we have no right to give it a name. If you do that, that is a violation of God,s Commandment.
THEY INTRODUCED NEW DOCTRINES WHICH ARE FOREIGN TO THE 1st Century Church:)
ReplyDeleteME>>>>
"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."
John 16:12-13
These are powerful verses. We must examine them closely. Did you notice the futuristic tone in them? The word "will" indicates an emerging and ongoing process and with not a hint of an ending, and how many times was it repeated in just those two verses?
The first sentence implies that knowledge cannot come all at once, but slowly over time, simply because the wonders of GOD cannot be digested all at once by our puny human minds.
The last part is self explanatory when it says, "things that are to come", obviously more future tense.
YOU GAVE THE ROCK A NEW NAME. YOU CHANGED IT SHAPE, YOU PUT MANY DECORATIONS, YOU CHISELED AWAY MOST OF ITS PARTS.
>>> there is nothing "new" in doctrinal development as enacted by the Catholic Church. It is simply a deeper understanding of what has previously been revealed by divine revelation. An acorn containing divine public revelation, called the 'deposit of faith', and left by GOD and His Holy Word to the primitive Church which Jesus Christ founded, has been undergoing an "unpacking" process by that same Church for the past 2000 years. That acorn has now grown into a large and beautiful oak tree, the Catholic Church. The unpacking process will continue indefinitely. See John 16:12-15.
The last prophet of public divine revelation was Jesus Christ and there will be no new public revelation revealed after Him.
See Hebrews 1:1-2.
QUESTION
DOES THE ROCK STILL THE ORIGINAL ROCK YOU FOUND?
I used the ROCK for the analogy of name. But the early church was an acorn. Over the past 2000 years the little acorn
has now grown into a magnificent oak tree.
The oak tree has all of the qualities of the acorn,
but the acorn does not have all the qualities of the oak tree
DeleteThese are powerful verses. We must examine them closely. Did you notice the futuristic tone in them? The word "will" indicates an emerging and ongoing process and with not a hint of an ending, and how many times was it repeated in just those two verses?
The first sentence implies that knowledge cannot come all at once, but slowly over time, simply because the wonders of GOD cannot be digested all at once by our puny human minds.
The last part is self explanatory when it says, "things that are to come", obviously more future tense.
-- We do accept what is in the verse. But remember, these words of Christ were given to the Apostles. They are the one that will be guided by the Holy Spirit when they are preaching. And their teachings are already written in the Bible. And if anyone will add to their teachings, that is a direct violation to God's law. We can't add anything to it. We MUST NOT do that.
">>> there is nothing "new" in doctrinal development as enacted by the Catholic Church. It is simply a deeper understanding of what has previously been revealed by divine revelation. An acorn containing divine public revelation, called the 'deposit of faith', and left by GOD and His Holy Word to the primitive Church which Jesus Christ founded, has been undergoing an "unpacking" process by that same Church for the past 2000 years. That acorn has now grown into a large and beautiful oak tree, the Catholic Church. The unpacking process will continue indefinitely. See John 16:12-15.
The last prophet of public divine revelation was Jesus Christ and there will be no new public revelation revealed after Him.
See Hebrews 1:1-2."
--- What are you saying that there is nothing new? Was it a teaching of the Apostles or even Christ to worship Mary? To recognize the Pope as the Chief Shepherd or the Vicar of Christ on earth? Or to teach that God has 3 persons? These are the doctrines that was just known by the early Christians after the death of the Apostles ( and some was hundred of years later!) .These are the things foretold by Apostle Paul as
" Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.
These are just the teachings of your Church Fathers. We can't found these teachings in the mouth of the Apostles and Jesus Christ.
And about the thing that you said as " unpacking process", you are trying to say to me that the unpacking process continued to the Catholic Church. That is unbiblical. The revelation of the Holy Spirit to the Apostles has been done in the Day of Pentecostes and everytime Jesus personally reveals something to them through dreams and visions WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE. That's why Apostle Paul said
" What can be known about God is clear to them because he has made it clear to them.
That's why Apostle John said everything that was written in the Bible can lead us to eternal life. Apostle Paul said that we must NOT GO BEYOND what is written in the Scriptures. Why did they say these? Because God has made it clear to us. The words of God are written in the Bible. We do not need anything but the Bible as the foundation of our faith. That's why any teachings which CAN'T be found in the BIBLE MUST NOT BE ACCEPTED BY MAN. That's why Apostle Paul said that we must See to it that no one takes us captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. Man will not be saved if he will base his faith to the teachings which can't be found in the Bible.:)
About your analogy, you are saying that the acorn became a magnificent oak tree. As what have you said, " THE ACORN DOES NOT HAVE ALL THE QUALITIES OF THE OAK TREE" Therefore, the original acorn is totally different from the magnificent oak tree right?:) The magnificent oak tree added many different qualities to the acorn that's why the acorn can't have all of the qualities of the oak tree. Compare that to the Church built by Christ. The Catholic Church( which you have said that the magnificent oak tree) added many different qualities to the original Church. That' why the original church does not have all the qualities of the oak tree. Yes they are both Church. But the thing is Catholic Church is totally different from the original Church because she added many different things to the original Church.:) To progress is not bad. But the thing is, many teachings of the Catholic Church are not found in the original church. ( and those are the things that has been added by the catholic church to the original Church )
DeleteApostle PAul said in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4
" But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ. For if someone comes along and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or should you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you are all too willing to listen."
Apostle Paul warned the early christians that their minds might be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity towards Christ. The early christians are just simple. They have simple faith towards Christ. They did not add anything to the doctrines during the time of the Apostles. However, Paul also said that they are too willing to listen to other gospel. That's why Apostle Paul had the sense of fear. No wonder why the original Church was apostatized because many of its members were easily listen and deceived by different gospels taught to them. Those different teaching led many to fall away from the simple faith they have on Christ. Those different gospels are the things added to the church of 1st century that results to apostasy. Every time they follow different gospel from what the Apostles taught, apostasy takes place. As what you have said, you are the "magnificent oak tree that possess many qualities which can't be found to the original Church" From your own mouth you simply implied that you are not the original Church :)
----------- Nap Ford
"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth;
for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak,
and he will declare to you the things that are to come."
John 16:12-13
"I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready,..."
1Corinthians 3:2
Notice the future tense of these verses, 'you cannot bear now the things I have to say to you'.
'He will guide you, and declare to you the things that are to come'. 'Even yet you are not ready'.
In John 16:7, Jesus said that He would have to go away first before the Spirit would come.
Just three chapters later in John 19:18, Jesus was crucified but the Spirit of Truth still had not yet come.
In Acts 2:2-4 at Pentecost, the Spirit did come and filled the Apostles with infused knowledge,
and immediately after, an emboldened and enlightened Peter, began his discourse in Acts 2:14.
The unpacking of the little acorn of truth had begun.
All of this happened almost 2000 years ago.
Ever since then, the 'unpacking' of truth, layer by layer, from the little acorn
has been an unending and continuing process through the teaching Church which Jesus Christ founded.
The book of Acts recorded the humble beginnings of this primitive teaching Church,
and of its expansion over all of the earth as commanded by Jesus Christ.
"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you;
and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem (local) and in all Judea and Sama'ria
(expanding to surrounding territories) and to the end of the earth (world wide)."
Acts 1:8
And so? Does the Catholic Church has a part in it? Does the Holy Spirit guide them to preach the DOCTRINES OF THE DEMONS to be a part of the Church?
DeleteAnswer me Riel Lopez!!!
:)
NAp Ford
Felix Manalo was a man of low morals sabi ng Court of Appeals... may rapist ba na galing sa dios ang turo? hahahahaha
Delete:) Pelix, lumang tugtugin na yan. Lokohin mo na lang yung mga tangang maloloko mo:)
DeleteIbabalik ko syo. Tunay ba ang Iglesia Katolika na aral ng demonyo ang itinuturo?:)
Napoleon Said: And so? Does the Catholic Church has a part in it? Does the Holy Spirit guide them to preach the DOCTRINES OF THE DEMONS to be a part of the Church?
Deleteyou mean this?
1 Timothy 4:3
3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
The Church doesn't have these two doctrines, and I tell you why.
First celibacy of the priests and bishops is neither doctrine nor dogma but a discipline imposed by the Western (or Latin) Catholic Church. In the Eastern Catholic Church married men can be ordained as priests (Catechism of the Catholic Church # 1580).
Does celibacy have biblical support? In Matthew 19:12 Christ mentioned those who make themselves eunuchs (not married) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, if they are able to receive it. While Paul is not against marriage – For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion (1 Corinthians 7:9), he wished all were as he was (i.e. unmarried, 1 Corinthians 7:7) and told the unmarried and widows to remain single, provided they can exercise self-control (1 Corinthians 7:8). The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided (1 Corinthians 7:32-34) and he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better (1 Corinthians 7:38). Being celibate and being married are both gift from God given to each person according to His plan, i.e. not all of us is called for celibacy. God is not against celibacy – He commanded prophet Jeremiah neither to take a wife nor to have children (Jeremiah 16:1-2).
Drung Lenten we Catholics are well aware of the obligation to abstain from meat on Fridays until the Easter season and i know that you know very well what does "FASTING" means.
Actually it is the Iglesia ni Cristo who posses these two doctrines of the devil:
Delete1 Timothy 4:3
3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
First, INC forbids their members to marry Catholic Christians,
Second, they abstain from certain foods [like DINUGUAN] which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
Therefore, INC is a Church of the Devil because it has the doctrines of the Devil.!!!
anonymous na iglesia ni manalo pano maging tunay ang iglesia ni cristo kay manalo eh napatunayang manggagahasa ang inyong sugo? Sa sugo pa lang peke na eh ung inc pa kaya? bolahin mo ang lelang mong panot.
DeleteWow!!!XD Riel Lopez is DUMB and STUPID:)
DeleteForbidding to marry to non-believers is a doctrine which can be found in the Bible:)
2 Corinthians 6:14
"Do not unite in marriage with unbelievers:"
See it is the doctrine of the Bible not to unite in marriage with the unbelievers!:) What is the reason?
Apostle Paul continued 15
" How can righteousness be a partner with wickedness? How can light live with darkness? What harmony can there be between Christ and the devil? How can a believer be a partner with an unbeliever?"
It is obvious. We can not be united to you because you possess the devil. Your are practicing the DOCTRINES OF THE DEVIL:)
OUR DOCTRINE CONCERNING FORBIDDING OUR MEMBERS NOT TO MARRIED NON-BELIEVERS IS THE COMMANDMENT OF THE BIBLE.:) It is not a doctrine of the demon.:) That's why your argument is very poor. You can not defend your accusation because your accusation to us is contradicting the teaching of the Bible concerning the non-marriage to non-believers:)
Second, about DINUGUAN:) DINUGUAN is not the food which is being referred to in the 1 Timothy 4:3. Once again YOU ARE TWISTING THE SCRIPTURE:) The Bible clearly says
" Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful and by them that have known the truth. " Douay Rheims Translation
Imagine, YOUR OWN CATHOLIC VERSION OF THE BIBLE CLEARLY STATED THAT MEAT IS THE FOOD BEING REFERRED TO AS THE FOOD THAT WILL BE PROHIBITED TO EAT BY THE TEACHERS OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEMON:) Not dinuguan:)
SPEAKING OF DINUGUAN. Our doctrine concerning not to eat dinuguan is CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE:)
Deut. 12:23
"But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat."
IT IS THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD NOT TO EAT BLOOD.:)
What is Dinuguan? "Dinuguan (Pork Blood Stew) or Dinardaraan in Ilocano is a Filipino dish usually made from the blood, entrails and meat of a pig. "
Shame to you Riel Lopez. Maybe you've got nothing to do to answer me rightly that's why you are accusing your doctrines of demons to us like a DUMB and STUPID.:)
--- NAP
The Biblical verses that you quoted in "support" for the so called celibacy, are in NO WAY PROVING THAT JESUS CHRIST COMMANDED OR DISCIPLINED HIS APOSTLES TO BECOME CELIBATE:) REMEMBER, Apostle Peter whom you RECOGNIZED AS YOUR FIRST POPE IS A MARRIED MAN:) So as APOSTLE JAMES and the other apostles. THEY WERE MARRIED. If your popes and your priest are the successors of Peter, WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET YOUR DISCIPLINE?:)
DeleteYou said that Celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline:)
Let's accept it for the sake of the argument. The question is this:
" Why is it that for all many things that a priest can practice as his discipline they choose a practice which is a DOCTRINE OF THE DEMON?
This is a very important question because WE CAN RECOGNIZE THE FALSE PROPHETS BY THEIR DOCTRINES OF THE DEMONS. YOU POSSESS IT. YOUR PRIEST ARE RECOGNIZED FOR BEING A CELIBATE WHICH IS A PRACTICE IN THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEMONS.
And this is a big point. You are saying that celibacy is a discipline?
What is a discipline? According to NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY
" noun
1 a lack of proper parental discipline: control, training, teaching, instruction, regulation, direction, order, authority, rule, strictness, a firm hand; routine, regimen, drill, drilling.
Discipline is a teaching. Celibacy is a discipline. Celibacy is a teaching. Apostle Paul said;
" The Spirit says clearly that in later times some believers will desert the Christian faith. They will follow spirits that deceive, and they will believe the teachings of demons. They will try to stop others from getting married and from eating certain foods. God created food to be received with prayers of thanks by those who believe and know the truth."
I am giving emphasis to the word "others" for not everyone in the Catholic Church are forbidden to marry, ONLY THE CATHOLIC PRIESTS WHO ARE PRACTICING THE DISCIPLINE OF CELIBACY WHICH IS A TEACHING OF THE DEMON:)
And about your fasting during Lenten season, it seems like you are agreeing that abstinence from meat during those times is really a DOCTRINE of the Catholic Church. And that is good you are accepting the truth because no way you can contradict that fact. YOU MUST ALSO ACCEPT THE TRUTH THAT ABSTINENCE FROM MEAT IS ALSO A DOCTRINE OF THE DEMONS.:) And THOSE WHO APOSTATIZED FROM THE TRUE FAITH CAN BE RECOGNIZED AS THOSE WHO HAVE THE DOCTRINE OF ABSTAINING FROM MEATS. YOU HAVE IT IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTATIZED CHURCH:)
THEREFORE, YOU ARE PRACTICING THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEMON AND YOU ARE THE EVIDENCES OF THE APOSTASY.:)
--- NAP
o? di nga? napatunayan ba talaga? nung napatunayan na wala bang umamin na di totoo sinasabi nila? hahaha san planeta mo ba nakuha yang mga sinasabi mo ha pelix?:) uwi ka na don sa planeta mo, di ka bagay ditoXD
Deleteand by the way, im not anonymous, I am NAPOLEON FORD:)
Forbidding to marry to non-believers is a doctrine which can be found in the Bible:)
Delete2 Corinthians 6:14
"Do not unite in marriage with unbelievers:"
>>>>you are the non-believers! we believe that Jesus is God, and you don't how could say that we are unbelievers?cuz we don't believe that Manalo is a messenger? THATS another story! STILL YOU POSSES THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEVIL!
Second, about DINUGUAN:) DINUGUAN is not the food which is being referred to in the 1 Timothy 4:3. Once again YOU ARE TWISTING THE SCRIPTURE:) The Bible clearly says
" Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful and by them that have known the truth. " Douay Rheims Translation
>>>let me ask you 1st, do you think that Douay is accurate? if yes, lets take a look at the acts 20:28 of Douay, oh? it becomes inaccurate? oh! you INCM is TRUE CULT!
STILL YOU POSSES THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEVIL!
SPEAKING OF DINUGUAN. Our doctrine concerning not to eat dinuguan is CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE:)
Deut. 12:23
"But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat."
>>>>>>16“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’
STILL YOU POSSES THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEVIL!
IT IS THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD NOT TO EAT BLOOD.:)
DeleteWhat is Dinuguan? "Dinuguan (Pork Blood Stew) or Dinardaraan in Ilocano is a Filipino dish usually made from the blood, entrails and meat of a pig.
let me add, if INC is still following this, then you should be still killing sheep and goats for your sins, why are you not doing this, it's a commandment right?
kunyari lang ang mga yan. kung makikikain nga sila eh naguuwi pa ng dinuguan!!! mga plastik at ipokrito mga yan!
DeleteAnd this is a big point. You are saying that celibacy is a discipline?
DeleteWhat is a discipline? According to NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY
" noun
1 a lack of proper parental discipline: control, training, teaching, instruction, regulation, direction, order, authority, rule, strictness, a firm hand; routine, regimen, drill, drilling.
>>link please!
you are the non-believers! we believe that Jesus is God, and you don't how could say that we are unbelievers?cuz we don't believe that Manalo is a messenger? THATS another story! STILL YOU POSSES THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEVIL!
Delete---We are the true believers. You know why? Jesus CLEARLY STATED IN THE BIBLE THAT THE ONLY TRUE GOD WHOM MAN MUST RECOGNIZE IS NO OTHER THAN THE FATHER. WE BELIEVE ON HIM.HOW ABOUT YOU? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER? NO. BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE UNBIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.:) SO WHO ARE THE UNBELIEVERS? YOU:) How come that we possess the doctrines of the demons when it was already proven in many times THAT YOU POSSESS IT?:) Again, YOU ARE MAKING YOUR OWN OPINION:)
About your OFFICIAL TRANSLATION. I DID NOT say that your translation is accurate:) I'M JUST SHOWING TO YOU THAT YOUR STUPID MIND IS CONTRADICTING YOUR CHURCH OWN INTERPRETATION ABOUT THE FOOD OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEMON:) YOU SAID THAT IT IS DINUGUAN. YOUR LEADERS SAIS IT IS MEAT. I'M ASKING YOU. WHO SHALL I BELIEVE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR LEADER? IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOUR LEADERS TEACHING:) THAT IS STUPIDITY RIEL:)
"16“Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17“Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’
STILL YOU POSSES THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEVIL!"
-- I DO ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT CHRIST SAID. SO WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH THIS HUH? We possess the doctrines of the devil? STUPID RIEL:) Pure OPINION. A poor man who can't defend everything he said. IMAGINE OUT OF MY 50 POINTS UNTIL NOW YOU DID NOT ANSWER ANYTHING!!! Then you are running to this issues without answering my previous arguments? THAT IS THE MARK OF THE TRUE " FALSE RELIGION ".:)
??????????? HEY!! I have a question too. Why are you changing the issue? The issue is about Dinuguan,then why are you twisting the topic to killing sheep and goats? ahmmm, it seems like you do acknowledge that you are violating God's commandment.:)
DeleteAbout your issue, why don't you ask your priest because even you you are not practicing that.:) That's an ignorant question.:)
Hahaha, may bagong tangang pumasok dito para sabihing naguuwi raw kami ng dinuguan:) Mga kumag talaga kayo. Wala kasi kayong maisagot kaya puro paninira lang ginagawa niyo:)
--NAP
The reason why I am posting your comments is because I want to world to know how FILTHY and UNBECOMING are members of this cult called the IGLESIA NI CRISTO founded by a FAKE MESSENGER, a DECEIVER and ANTI CHRIST according to 2 John 1:7 for DENYING CHRIST coming in the FLESH.
Deleteyou PERFECTLY REPRESENT the SENTIMENTS of the IGLESIA NI CRISTO!!!
Nice REPRESENTATION indeed!
IT IS THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD NOT TO EAT BLOOD.:)
DeleteWhat is Dinuguan? "Dinuguan (Pork Blood Stew) or Dinardaraan in Ilocano is a Filipino dish usually made from the blood, entrails and meat of a pig. "
THERE! Im not changing the issue you were talking about commandment of GOD! or maybe you are just making an alibi? now let me ask, why did INC didn't follow GOD's commandment of killing sheep for sin offering
Leviticus 4:35
35 They shall remove all the fat, just as the fat is removed from the lamb of the fellowship offering, and the priest shall burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. In this way the priest will make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.
and if you notice 1 Tm 4:3 didn't say abstain meat "for a certain period of time" and
"CERTAIN MEMBERS of their Church" you are adding the scriptures you know that it's not allowed!
and let me add Christ was mentioning about celibacy, was he teaching a doctrine of the devil? you don't think so , it says clear:
Matthew 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
When speaking of the life of Celibacy, our Jesus would have undeniably seemed a little hard to swallow at first since as Jesus points out “Not all can accept this teaching; but those to whom it has been given.” Yet what is interesting about Jesus' words here is that he goes on to explicitly states that “There are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let him accept it that can.” (Mk 19:11). So the ultimate motive that Our lord appeals to is “for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven”. The Church in asking of her priests to make this sacrifice also appeals to the same supernatural motive “For the same of the Kingdom of Heaven”.
And this is a big point. You are saying that celibacy is a discipline?
DeleteWhat is a discipline? According to NEW OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY
" noun
1 a lack of proper parental discipline: control, training, teaching, instruction, regulation, direction, order, authority, rule, strictness, a firm hand; routine, regimen, drill, drilling.
>>link please!
--- It is a book:) If you want other book, you can find it also here
Oxford American Writer's Thesaurus :)
Catholic Defender
DeleteDo you think you can deceive now your readers?:) NO. If they will read everything here they will understand who is filthy between the two of us.:) You are just GIVING YOUR PURE ACCUSATIONS:) WITHOUT EVIDENCES:) AND LYING IN THE PUBLIC. THAT IS THE TRUE MARK OF A DEMON:)
---NAPOLEON FORD
THERE! Im not changing the issue you were talking about commandment of GOD! or maybe you are just making an alibi? now let me ask, why did INC didn't follow GOD's commandment of killing sheep for sin offering
Delete-- You are not changing the issue ACCORDING TO YOU. So here is the question, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT GOD PROHIBITS TO EAT BLOOD?
We are not following God's commandment of killing sheep for sin offering because it is only for the Israelites:) It is only for them and not for Christianity. PROOF? The first century church did not do anything like that. A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER:) Nowhere in the New Testament you can read that the early Christians was ordered by God to kill sheep for their sins.:) And this is your question in your mind, " How about the blood? Isn't it that just like the killing of sheep is only for the Israelites, forbidding to eat blood is also only for them? NO. PROOF? HERE
" Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. Acts 15:20
" As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
Therefore, up to the time of Christianity, God forbids us to eat blood.:)
"and if you notice 1 Tm 4:3 didn't say abstain meat "for a certain period of time" and
"CERTAIN MEMBERS of their Church" you are adding the scriptures you know that it's not allowed!
--- What? We are not teaching that " abstaining from meats only for a certain period of time or for certain members of their Church" We are not teaching that. YOU ARE PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH:) The doctrine of the Demons is clear. ABSTAINING FROM MEAT!!! Even if it is forever or only for a certain period of time, THE DOCTRINE IS CLEAR. ABSTAINING FROM MEATS. YOU HAVE IT. YOU HAVE THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEMONS.:)
Speaking of Matthew 19:12., we are not against it.:) What we are against is the teaching of forbidding to marry. YOU HAVE IT:) YOUR PRIESTS ARE PRACTICING IT. And, until now, you are silent in the argument that your FIRST POPE is a MARRIED MAN:) CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY PETER IS NOT CELIBATE?:)
--NAP
The Book of Acts:
ReplyDeleteActs is divided into 3 main sections and fulfills GOD's plan for worldwide salvation for all people.
The first covenant was the Adamic Covenant - Marriage, Gen 3:16-19.
The second was the Noahic - the Family, Gen 9:8-17.
The third was the Abrahamic - the Tribal, or uniting of many families, Gen 17:1-8.
The fourth was the Mosaic - many tribes united in a National Covenant, Gen 19:4-6.
The fifth was the Davidic - the National Kingdom Covenant - many nations, 2Sam 7:14-16,23:5.
You can see the pattern here, each covenant encompassed a larger and larger group of people, so the next covenant must include more than many nations.
The sixth - the New Covenant... 2Cor 3:6, Worldwide, Universal, all encompassing, Catholic.
It is the evolution of the Catholic Church, and of the rules it must follow for all time.
All of the covenants preceding this one were for GOD's chosen people, the Hebrews and Jews.
Now, Gentiles enter into salvation history for the first time.
This all begins to unfold in Acts 1:8, "..but you shall receive POWER when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem (local), and in all Judea and Samaria (spreading out), and even to the very ends of the earth (worldwide, Universal, Catholic).
These are the three main sections of Acts...
Acts 1:1 to 8:5 is about the Church in Jerusalem.
Acts 8:5 to 13:1 is about the Church spreading to Judea and Samaria.
Acts 13:1 to 28:31 is about the Universal Church of GOD, the Catholic Church.
The Apostles preached to the Gentiles (Act 14:20) but met with opposition for doing this
(Acts 15:1-5), so they called the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6) to deal with the matter.
Then in Acts 15:7-11, Peter voiced his authority, and after, "The whole meeting quieted down
(Acts 15:12). This was the first example of "Rome has spoken, The matter is settled."
About the so called " 3 MAIN SECTIONS OF ACTS ":)
DeleteCan you imagine how dumb is the one who made this? The missionary missions of Apostle Paul comprise almost half of the Book of Acts BUT YOU DID NOT EVEN PUT IT IN THE MAIN SECTIONS OF THE BOOK OF ACTS:) Riel Lopez, " WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET THAT EXPLANATIONS? HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT INTERPRETATION?:)
ACTS 15:12? ""Rome has spoken, The matter is settled."?
Riel, I don't know how you come up with this stupid explanation. Where in this verse you can find that Peter settled the arguments?.:) Was he the one who said " IT's MY JUDGEMENT"? You are speaking of nonsense
--- NAP
In Acts 15:7, Peter said, "Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through (JAMES MOUTH? NO!) 'MY MOUTH'[PETER'S MOUTH] the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe." Peter recounted his supremacy, as GOD had given it to him in Mt 16:18-19. In Lk 22:31-31, Jesus said, "Simon, behold Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and do you when once you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Here Jesus appointed Peter to strengthen the others, another clear sign of his supremacy. Finally, in Jn 21:15-17, it is Peter, and only Peter, to whom the Lord commands three times to feed his flock.
DeletePeter was the supreme Apostle. The present day supreme Bishop, the Bishop of Rome, is the Pope, Peter's direct successor in a long line of Popes.
Before you explain nonsense things Riel, prove me wrong first about the answers I have posted concerning your points of Apostle Peter.
DeleteRemember? MY 50 POINTS ANSWERS? Until now you're not answering those things:) And now, your current explanation about the so-called "supremacy of Peter" was already answered by mine in that 50 POINTS. You are returning again to your nonsense arguments.:)
---NAP
YOUR 50 POINTS?? your answers are all NON-SENSE!! if not Peter then who?
Deleteyour answers were: James, all the Apostles, then Paul???YOU ARE USING DOUBLE STANDARD
How could we settle about who is the leader of the church after Christ if your answers are three???
I showed you verses concerning about the Peter being the leader of the Church yet you don't have a solid proof that it was James, to all the Apostles or Paul!
Acts 15:7, during the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem...
And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them,
"Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe."..
Who made the choice? GOD did. Who did GOD choose? He chose Peter.
[NOT JAMES OR THE APOSTLES BUT PETERS MOUTH! WHATEVER GOES OUT IN PETERS MOUTH, IT IS THE DECISION!!] AND YOU KNEW THAT HE SPOKE FIRST, WAS THERE ANY QUARRELS AFTER WHAT PETER SAID! NO! THE MATTER IS ALREADY SETTLED!
YOU SAID IT WAS JAMES? BECAUSE HE SAID "IT IS MY JUDGEMENT"?????
in Greek interlinear the word "κρίνω-krinō" can be translated as "OPINION"
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
My sentence - Greek: I judge κρίνω krinō that is, I give my opinion. It is the usual language in which a judge delivers his opinion; but it does not imply here that James assumed authority to settle the case, but merely that he gave his opinion, or counsel.
That we trouble not them - That we do not molest, disturb, or oppress them by imposing on them unnecessary fires and ceremonies.
where in the bible that Jesus gave authority to James (in him alone) for him to render judgement? none! ZERO!
YOUR 50 POINTS?? your answers are all NON-SENSE!!
Delete-- It is nonsense for you because you can't answer it:) What are you doing is just STUPIDLY SAY " IT IS NONSENSE IT IS NONSENSE " wherein you can't disapproved it through the Bible:) The verse that you are using is already explained:) YOU ARE JUST RETURNING TO YOUR SAME OLD ARGUMENTS:) NOW HERE IS THE CHALLENGE, CAN YOU PLEASE DISAPPROVED MY 50 POINTS ONE BY ONE BEFORE SAYING THAT THOSE ARE NONSENSE?:)
"your answers were: James, all the Apostles, then Paul???YOU ARE USING DOUBLE STANDARD"
--Just because I used all of them does it mean I'm giving a double - standard answer? The question is, WHY DID I USE ALL OF THEM? I used Apostle James to prove to you that it was James and not Peter the Apostle who is the leader of the Church that time. I used all of the Apostles to prove to you that it is not only Peter but all of them was promised by Jesus that whatever they will bind here in Earth will be bounded in heaven.
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
I used Apostle Paul as an example to you to show you that it is not being the first nor the greatest, is the basis in becoming the leader of the Church. Paul made more achievements to Peter in many instances but it is not the basis. IT SEEMS LIKE YOU DON"T UNDERSTAND THE 50 POINTS ANSWER, OR MAYBE YOU'VE GOT NOTHING TO ANSWER THAT'S WHY YOU ARE SHOWING THAT MY ANSWERS ARE DOUBLE STANDARD:)
"How could we settle about who is the leader of the church after Christ if your answers are three???"
-- Where in my answers I answered that there are 3 leaders? CAN YOU PROVE THAT WITHOUT TWISTING MY ANSWERS?
"I showed you verses concerning about the Peter being the leader of the Church yet you don't have a solid proof that it was James, to all the Apostles or Paul!"
-- Hey hey, are you losing your mind? Your verses is already explained by me.:) You are just running away from my explanations. I'll give you a very simple reason, Peter told the brethren to report to James everything happened. James is the one who settled things in the council of Jerusalem and not Peter:) Paul reported to the elders in Jerusalem and to James. These events only show the leadership of James in the Church:)
"Acts 15:7, during the first Church Council, the Council of Jerusalem...
And after a long debate, Peter got up and said to them,
"Brethren, you know that in early days GOD made choice among us, that through MY mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe."..
Who made the choice? GOD did. Who did GOD choose? He chose Peter. [NOT JAMES OR THE APOSTLES BUT PETERS MOUTH! WHATEVER GOES OUT IN PETERS MOUTH, IT IS THE DECISION!!] AND YOU KNEW THAT HE SPOKE FIRST, WAS THERE ANY QUARRELS AFTER WHAT PETER SAID! NO! THE MATTER IS ALREADY SETTLED!
--- I'm not against that God has chosen Peter as one of those who will preach to the Gentiles.( Peter is referring when he preached to Cornelius who is a Gentile) BUT NOWHERE IN THE VERSE YOU CAN READ THAT PETER RENDERED THE DECISION!!:) Here is the challenge, CAN YOU READ IN THE WHOLE CHAPTER 15 OF THE BOOK OF ACTS THAT PETER SAID IT IS MY DECISION?:)
"WHATEVER GOES OUT IN PETERS MOUTH, IT IS THE DECISION!!]"
--- It is only your opinion:)
"YOU SAID IT WAS JAMES? BECAUSE HE SAID "IT IS MY JUDGEMENT"?????
Deletein Greek interlinear the word "κρίνω-krinō" can be translated as "OPINION"
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
My sentence - Greek: I judge κρίνω krinō that is, I give my opinion. It is the usual language in which a judge delivers his opinion; but it does not imply here that James assumed authority to settle the case, but merely that he gave his opinion, or counsel.
That we trouble not them - That we do not molest, disturb, or oppress them by imposing on them unnecessary fires and ceremonies. "
--- Wow, so you are now using Bible scholars huh? I'm assuring you that the scholars are not in unity in saying that James is just giving his opinion, and he is not in the authority. YOU WANT THE PROOF? Here is the proof:
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Wherefore my sentence is - Διο εγω κρινω, Wherefore I judge. There is an authority here that does not appear in the speech of St. Peter; and this authority was felt and bowed to by all the council; and the decree proposed by St. James adopted.
--- No wonder why many translations of the Bible did not render this verse as " my opinion ":). And, for the sake of the argument. Even IF Apostle James just gave his own opinion, STILL HIS SO CALLED OPINION WAS THE DECREE FOLLOWED BY THE COUNCIL:) That is the very proof that the whole Church is following him. And speaking of your stand that James just gave his opinion. You are saying that James just gave his opinion, THEN WHY IS IT IN THE DOUAY - RHEIMS VERSION OF THE BIBLE, WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL CATHOLIC VERSION OF THE BIBLE, THE ACTS 15:19 WAS RENDERED AS,
[19] For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted.
If the Catholic stand is that James just gave his opinion, why did they translate that verse as " I JUDGE " instead of " my opinion ".:) Here is the challenge, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY?:) ARE THE CATHOLIC TRANSLATORS WRONG IN TRANSLATING IT AS " I JUDGE "? :)
"where in the bible that Jesus gave authority to James (in him alone) for him to render judgement? none! ZERO! "
--- As what I have already said, ALL OF THEM ARE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH.
""I tell all of you with certainty, whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven. "
That's why Apostle Paul also said,
" I have become its servant, according to God's administration that was given to me for you, to make God's message fully known,
All of the Apostles was given the authority, but there must be one voice among them. The fact that James gave HIS DECISION ( and not his opinion:) ) and it was followed by the whole Church, that is the very proof that He is the administrator of the 1st Century Church:)
--- NAP
If the Catholic stand is that James just gave his opinion, why did they translate that verse as " I JUDGE " instead of " my opinion ".:) Here is the challenge, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY?:) ARE THE CATHOLIC TRANSLATORS WRONG IN TRANSLATING IT AS " I JUDGE "? :)
DeleteNo problem, I can explain you why,
Meriam-Webster Dictionary:
1judge verb \ˈjəj\
intransitive verb
1
: to form an opinion
2
: to decide as a judge
Catholics translators have no problem of translating it as "judge" because judge and opinion are not opposite, they have close meaning. James was expressing his own opinion after Peter gave the declaration
Acts 15:14
Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
the greek word is:
ἐξηγήσατο-exēgēsato used to bind decision it's the same word in
Jn 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
the word "declare" weigh more than the word "judge" for rendering decision,
Like:
"The US declared war to the Philippines".(joke)
or "The PAG-ASA declared that there will be no classes tommorow"
Therefore, James was supporting Peter's declaration through giving his personal conviction. .
" I have become its servant, according to God's administration that was given to me for you, to make God's message fully known,
There's always a higher table in every table:) The Pope has the highest table here on earth.
Therefore the right term is judge and Not " OPINION"?:)
DeleteNapoleon: As what you have said, you are the "magnificent oak tree that possess many qualities which can't be found to the original Church" From your own mouth you simply implied that you are not the original Church :)
ReplyDeleteMe >when you were a baby, you don't know how to walk, to talk,to run, and now you're grown up, you can walk,talk and run. Question is it still the same you? or the grown up "YOU" is not the original when you were a baby?
Remember that no human could stay baby forever, no seed planted that is still seed after time, no acorn that is planted and stay an acorn.
Therefore, you do accept that the true Church changed over the period of time. You said that it grew up. Yes. It acquire the DOCTRINES OF THE DEMONS through time:) IT ACQUIRED PAGANS TRADITION THROUGH TIME:) And what is the product? THE SO CALLED " HOLY " ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH:) Around of applause:) Common sense please:)
Delete-------Nap
Actually it is the Iglesia ni Cristo who posses these two doctrines of the devil:
Delete1 Timothy 4:3
3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
First, INC forbids their members to marry Catholic Christians,
Second, they abstain from certain foods [like DINUGUAN] which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.
Therefore, INC is a Church of the Devil because it has the doctrines of the Devil.!!!
Nap. That's your own opinion.
DeleteHey Nap, what are the those two doctrines you are talking about?
ReplyDeleteAre you DUMB? You already stated it right? And you already explained to me that those DOCTRINES of yours are not of the demon. And what have you done is you throw back to me your DOCTRINES:) And that is STUPIDITY. That's why I have answered already your accusations to us that we have that doctrines of demons. I proved already that you ARE WRONG. Until now you have no response to that:)
DeleteIs not there a religion that contains doctrines of the demons that prohibit marriage and eating certain foods?? Or let me ask it like this,
Delete“ Do the INC upholds a doctrine that prohibits ALL MEMBERS of their Church to marry[specially with Christians Catholics who are TRUE BELIEVERS of Christ]?
And Do the INC also upholds a doctrine that commanding their members to abstain from CERTAIN FOODS [LIKE DINUGUAN] which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.?
If your answer is NO, YOU ARE THE MOST DUMB STUPID PERSON I'VE EVER KNOWN:)
Do the INC upholds a doctrine that prohibits ALL MEMBERS of their Church to marry[specially with Christians Catholics who are TRUE BELIEVERS of Christ]?
ReplyDelete-- WE ARE NOT PROHIBITING OUR MEMBERS TO MARRY:) THAT IS A PURE ACCUSATION. WE PROHIBIT THEM NOT TO MARRY WITH NON BELIEVERS FOR IT IS THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD. NOT THE DEVIL.:)
And Do the INC also upholds a doctrine that commanding their members to abstain from CERTAIN FOODS [LIKE DINUGUAN] which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.?
--We ARE PROHIBITED NOT TO EAT DINIGUAN FOR IT IS IN THE BIBLE:) BUT DINUGUAN, AS THE CERTAIN FOOD TO BE ABSTAIN 1 TIMOTHY 4:3 IS VERY UNBIBLICAL:) CAN YOU PROVE THAT IT IS DINUGUNAN?:) Why do you have to prove that? BECAUSE ALL SCHOLARS AND TRANSLATORS ARE IN UNITY THAT MEAT WAS THE FORBIDDEN FOOD IN the verse. ARE YOU GOING TO CONTRADICT THEM?:) ARE YOU GOING TO CONTRADICT YOUR OWN CHURCH WHO TRANSLATE THAT AS MEAT?:) I'M CHALLENGING YOU PLEASE PROVE TO EVERYONE THAT IT IS DINUGUAN COMPARE TO MEAT:)
VERY PURE OPINION. ANSWERS LIKE A DESPERATE MAN WHO GOT NOTHING TO DO BUT TO RUN:)
--- NAP
--We ARE PROHIBITED NOT TO EAT DINIGUAN FOR IT IS IN THE BIBLE:)
ReplyDelete--Im sorry, typographical error:) We are prohibited to eat Dinuguan:) Sorry:)
--- NAP
For the sake of Nap for always crying about his 50 points double standard..I'll give you a chance
ReplyDeleteWe are not against on what had been said in the verse. But the question is this; Were these words only given to Apostle Peter and not to the other Apostles anymore? Yes or no? NO.
According to Matthew 18:!8 “ I tell all of you with certainty, whatever you prohibit on earth will have been prohibited in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will have been permitted in heaven.”
Therefore it is not only to Apostle Peter these words are given by Christ but to all apostles :)
Yes, in Mat. 18:18 the Apostles were permitted to bound and loose but only St.Peter was given the keys, the rest of the apostles were never given the keys,that means Peter has a primacy among the twelve. The authority given to Peter is different from the authority of the Apostles, e.g,..the President has always have the higher authority over the senators, and your Executive Minister has higher authority over the ministers, and i don't think Erano Manalo gave the authority of the Church to all the ministers not to one person.
Then? What’s the matter? Of course there is always first. And you should know that the verses where we can see the name of Apostle Peter first along with the names of the other apostles are in the synoptic gospels. ( Matthew, Mark, Luke ) These synoptic gospels include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and similar wording. This degree of parallelism in content, narrative arrangement, language, and sentence structures can only be accounted for by literary interdependence. According to many scholars, the first gospel written was by Mark. Then, Matthew and Luke just based their version to Mark. Also the book of Acts was written by Luke. No wonder why the verses that you are using to show that Peter’s name is always first have almost the same list because they are based in one version.:) You don’t know that? Now you know:)
Feeler, i already know that! It is one of the attributes of Peter being the Leader of the Church.but of course we should take off Paul out of the picture as a leader of the Church, because the Church is already there before he became an Apostle
It was clearly stated here that Apostle Paul stood up against Peter or rebuked him face to face. Is it respectable to do that in front of the so called chief bishop of the Church( According to you )? :) You are dumb if you will say yes:)
Yes, and i'm not dumb, Paul rebuked Peter because of what??? because of his teaching or writing? NO! Just because Paul rebuked Peter, that it doesn't mean he disrespect Peter!
And so? What’s the matter? :) And biblically, for your info Mr. Riel,it was not only Apostle Peter who received a new name from Christ.
ReplyDeleteMark 3:17 “James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder);
I told you, you should review your Bible History. Or maybe you did not study the Bible.:)
Fool! subject of the argument was not talking about new name i'm talking about Peter being the only one who was named "ROCK" upon the Church was built! This is one of the reason I did't respond your replies , you are reading out of context!
Where in the verse John 21:15-17 can you find the word CHIEF SHEPHERD? Nowhere.:) And again, that is only your opinion.:)
“even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).”
Where can you find in these verses that the other apostles have only subordinate roles? Again, OPINION:) Both Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter instructed the bishops of their time to be a good shepherd of the flock. What’s the difference between them? You’re just making the difference.:)
Again, it’s only your opinion:)
Jesus is the shepherd, he said there will be one Shepherd, Peter was asked to feed the lambs 3 times, that makes him the Shepherd, don't they have subordinate roles?
Using your line of argument, looking for exact words in the bible, let me give it back to you, I where in the bible could you read "Executive Minister" as the leader of the Church?
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
That thy faith fail not - The word "faith," here, seems to be used in the sense of religion, or attachment to Christ, and the words "fail not" mean "utterly fail" or fail altogether - that is, apostatize. It is true that the "courage" of Peter failed; ......
I don't know what are you trying to prove or disprove here
This is according to the scholars of the Bible. For us, what’s the big deal there? Apostle Paul said these word about Timothy,
“We sent Timothy, who is our brother and God's fellow worker in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith,”
Therefore, one of the primary of the ministers of the Lord is to strengthen the brethren. This duty is not only given to Apostle Peter.:)
of course this is the duty of all the Apostles,! what i'm trying to say is from Jesus himself said to Peter to strengthen the brethren, which is a call for responsibility to Peter!
John 1:49 “Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."
the problem was, Nathansel's confession was not recognized Jesus knows the heart of every men and Nathanael was not blessed, unlike Peter's confession, why did Jesus asked who he was when Nathaeal already confess who he was? And why did't Nathanel spoke up again when Jesus asked them who he was?
Even Paul received divine knowledge about Christ through a special revelation to him. :)
Again, we have to take off Paul out of the picture, it's very clear he's not the leader it's a principle of ELIMINATION, i always do this during multiple type of exams, i know you know what is that!
Yes, in Mat. 18:18 the Apostles were permitted to bound and loose but only St.Peter was given the keys, the rest of the apostles were never given the keys,that means Peter has a primacy among the twelve. The authority given to Peter is different from the authority of the Apostles, e.g,..the President has always have the higher authority over the senators, and your Executive Minister has higher authority over the ministers, and i don't think Erano Manalo gave the authority of the Church to all the ministers not to one person.
ReplyDelete--- Where the hell did you get your explanation that the authority given to Peter was different to other Apostles? :) Imagine, you are just using your OWN INTERPRETATION TO EXPLAIN THIS ( using presidents etc. ):) I NEED A BIBLICAL EXPLANATION NOT YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION:)
Speaking of keys, I remembered when you said that keys denote the right to give permission inside the Church. If that is your explanation, then the problem is settled!:) Why? Was only Peter the only one who was given by Christ the right to give and take permissions inside he Church? NO
" "I tell you the truth, whatever you forbid on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.
So?:)
I just remember also that aside from 50 points, there are a number of arguments that I have thrown to you. KINDLY ANSWER ALL OF THOSE ALSO:)
Feeler, i already know that! It is one of the attributes of Peter being the Leader of the Church.but of course we should take off Paul out of the picture as a leader of the Church, because the Church is already there before he became an Apostle
ReplyDelete-- ? Sure? You know that already? Hahaha. You said that it is one of the attributes of Peter of being the leader of the Church. Question:
1. WHERE IN THE BIBLE YOU CAN READ THAT BEING THE FIRST OF PETER DENOTES HIS LEADERSHIP?:)
2. I'M WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER IN THIS QUESTION. WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION WHEN JESUS SAID THAT THERE ARE LAST THAT WILL BE THE FIRST, AND THERE WERE FIRST THAT WILL BE LAST?:)
" Yes, and i'm not dumb, Paul rebuked Peter because of what??? because of his teaching or writing? NO! Just because Paul rebuked Peter, that it doesn't mean he disrespect Peter!
-- He was rebuked because of his actions:) IMAGINE, THE SO CALLED LEADER OF THE CHURCH WAS REBUKE BY A LOWER LEVEL APOSTLE? hahaha, THAT IS DUMBNESS!!!:) YOU KNOW, IF PETER WAS THE LEADER OF THE CHURCH, HE MUST BE RESPECTED IN EVERYTHING HE DID. APOSTLE PAUL MUST BOW BEFORE HIS LEADER IF PETER IS REALLY THE LEADER. BUT THE THING IS HE REBUKE HIM FACE TO FACE!!:) IS THAT A PROPER ACCORD TO A SO CALLED LEADER:) ANSWER THAT RIEL:) But please, don't make illogical and stupid expalanations:)
Fool! subject of the argument was not talking about new name i'm talking about Peter being the only one who was named "ROCK" upon the Church was built! This is one of the reason I did't respond your replies , you are reading out of context!
ReplyDelete--- STUPID:)
Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, "Rock," solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42;
Mt 16:18).
" among the apostles receives a new name"
-- IS THIS PART IS NOT ALSO A SUBJECT OF YOUR ARGUMENT?:) Am I wrong to say that Peter was not only the Apostle who received new name? ANSWER THAT:)
Jesus is the shepherd, he said there will be one Shepherd, Peter was asked to feed the lambs 3 times, that makes him the Shepherd, don't they have subordinate roles?
ReplyDeleteUsing your line of argument, looking for exact words in the bible, let me give it back to you, I where in the bible could you read "Executive Minister" as the leader of the Church?
--- " he said there will be one Shepherd "
QUESTION:
1. WHERE IN THE VERSE OR IN THE BIBLE YOU CAN READ THAT PETER IS THE ONLY ONE SHEPHERD, AND ACCORDING TO YOU ALSO THE CHIEF SHEPHERD:)
2. THE TERM EXECUTIVE MINISTER WILL NOT CONTRADICT ANY DOCTRINES IN THE BIBLE . CATHOLICS ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A LEADER IN THE 1ST CENTURY CHURCH. THE THING IS, WHEN YOU SAID " ONE SHEPHERD" AND " CHIEF SHEPHERD" REFERRING ACCORDING TO YOU TO PETER, THAT IS ALREADY AGAINST WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES:) THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU TO READ AND PUT HERE THAT PETER WAS THE " CHIEF SHEPHERD" BECAUSE IT IS CLEARLY AGAINST WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES:) I'M CHALLENGING YOU AGAIN, PROVE TO ME THAT JESUS COMMISSIONED PETER AS THE ONLY SHEPHERD OF HIS CHURCH AND THE CHIEF SHEPHERD OF IT:)
" of course this is the duty of all the Apostles,! what i'm trying to say is from Jesus himself said to Peter to strengthen the brethren, which is a call for responsibility to Peter!"
-- OK. It's clear. My QUESTION IS, Why are you using this fact that Peter is the leader of the Church that time when his call is also the call of all ministers?:)
" the problem was, Nathansel's confession was not recognized Jesus knows the heart of every men and Nathanael was not blessed, unlike Peter's confession, why did Jesus asked who he was when Nathaeal already confess who he was? And why did't Nathanel spoke up again when Jesus asked them who he was?"
=== PUER OPINION:) That makes me sick. YOUR EXPLANATIONS MAKES ME SICK:) PURE UNBIBLICAL!!. WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET THAT?? ANSWER ME:)
" Again, we have to take off Paul out of the picture, it's very clear he's not the leader it's a principle of ELIMINATION, i always do this during multiple type of exams, i know you know what is that!"
--- I'm not saying that Paul is the leader because he received special revelation from Jesus. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THIS, It is not because Peter received especial revelation from Christ he is already the leader because like him, Paul also received especial revelation THAT IS NOT THE BASIS!!:) Remember, everything you posted was arguments supporting your claim that Peter is the leader:) NOW YOU KNOW:)
Felix Manalo as the leader of his church, before he died did he gave the authority to all ministers or to his son alone? ?
ReplyDelete""Felix Manalo as the leader of his church, before he died did he gave the authority to all ministers or to his son alone? ?"
DeletePALIWANAG MO MUNA MGA TANONG KO BAGO KA GUMAWA NG BAGONG ISSUE:) TUMATAKBO KA NA NAMAN E:)
Pero para sayo sige. IPALIWANAG MO MUNA KUNG ANONG AUTHORITY ANG TINUTUKOY MO:)
QUESTION:
ReplyDelete1. WHERE IN THE VERSE OR IN THE BIBLE YOU CAN READ THAT PETER IS THE ONLY ONE SHEPHERD, AND ACCORDING TO YOU ALSO THE CHIEF SHEPHERD:)
I CANT FIND MANALO THE LAST MESSENGER. I CANT ALSO FIND THAT GOD HAS AN ANGEL FROM PHIL. THAT WOULD REBUILT HIS CHURCH ..BECAUSE NO ONE COULD DESTROY THE CHURCH...
2. THE TERM EXECUTIVE MINISTER WILL NOT CONTRADICT ANY DOCTRINES IN THE BIBLE . CATHOLICS ALSO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A LEADER IN THE 1ST CENTURY CHURCH. THE THING IS, WHEN YOU SAID " ONE SHEPHERD" AND " CHIEF SHEPHERD" REFERRING ACCORDING TO YOU TO PETER, THAT IS ALREADY AGAINST WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES:) THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU TO READ AND PUT HERE THAT PETER WAS THE " CHIEF SHEPHERD" BECAUSE IT IS CLEARLY AGAINST WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES:) I'M CHALLENGING YOU AGAIN, PROVE TO ME THAT JESUS COMMISSIONED PETER AS THE ONLY SHEPHERD OF HIS CHURCH AND THE CHIEF SHEPHERD OF IT:)
SIMPLE, HE WAS THE ONLY APOSTLES WHO WAS ASKED JESUS TO TAKE CARE OF THE LAMB THREE TIMES, YOU CAN'T FIND CHIEF SHEPHERD IN THE BIBLE BUT THATS WHAT IT MEANS,..HOWEVER I CAN'T FIND "MANALO THE LAST MESSENGER" IN THE BIBLE .THE WORD PHIL. IS NOT EVEN CLOSE
My question:)
Delete1. WHERE IN THE VERSE OR IN THE BIBLE YOU CAN READ THAT PETER IS THE ONLY ONE SHEPHERD, AND ACCORDING TO YOU ALSO THE CHIEF SHEPHERD:)
Riel's answer
I CANT FIND MANALO THE LAST MESSENGER. I CANT ALSO FIND THAT GOD HAS AN ANGEL FROM PHIL. THAT WOULD REBUILT HIS CHURCH ..BECAUSE NO ONE COULD DESTROY THE CHURCH...
ANALIZATION
Si Riel Loppez ay HIDI MARUNONG SUMAGOT:) Ang tanong ko ay simple. SAAN SA BIBLIA MABABASA NA SI APOSTOL PEDRO ANG NAG-IISANG PASTOL AT ANG PANGULONG PASTOR?!! Nakita nyo pano sumagot ang taong to? Ang isinagot tungkol kay Ka Felix Y. Manalo!!E hindi naman yan ang issue natin ah!!! STILO ITO NI ABBE!!!:) TUMATAKBO SA ISSUE!!!:) BINABAGO ANG ISSUE:) Ayaw nila sagutin kasi ito ang panampal sa kanila:
Sino ang itinuro ni Apostol Pedro na PANGULONG PASTOR?
1 Peter 5:4
And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
Ayan, may tinutukoy si Apostol Pedro na PANGULONG PASTOR na hinihintay nila ang muling pagpapakita. Wala namang pagtatalo na si Cristo ang tinutukoy rito. Si Apostol Pedro MISMO na kinikilalal ninyong CHIEF SHEPHERD ang nagpapatunay na ang PANGINOONG JESUS ANG PANGULONG PASTOR!!!!!:) ISAMPAL mo to sa MUKHA MO RIEL LOPEZ:)
Riel said
" SIMPLE, HE WAS THE ONLY APOSTLES WHO WAS ASKED JESUS TO TAKE CARE OF THE LAMB THREE TIMES,"
Sagot ko
Matagal ko na tong sinagot tong argumento nyang ito. Hindi ko malaman kung itong si Riel Lopez ay hindi marunong magbasa o hindi marunong umintindi. ANO NGAYON KUNG 3 BESES SIYA TINANONG NG PANGINOON??? Dahil ba dun ay CHIEF SHEPHERD na siya? Pag sumagot ka ng OO, KATANGAHAN yun. BAKIT? E napatunayan ko na e, SI APOSTOL PEDRO MISMO ANG NAGPATUNAY NA ANG PANGULONG PASTOR AY SI CRISTO AT HINDI SIYA!!!!:)
Riel said
" HOWEVER I CAN'T FIND "MANALO THE LAST MESSENGER" IN THE BIBLE .THE WORD PHIL. IS NOT EVEN CLOSE"
SAgot ko
Ang proposiyon na ito ay ISANG NAPAKALAKING KATANGAHAN. Sinagot ko na ito sa wikang Ingles pero di nya rin naintindihan:) Paano ko nalaman? E kasi tinatanong niya ulit e:) Kung naintindihan mo ko di mo na sasabihin ulit iyan:) Ito sagot ko dyan. KAMANGMANGAN , KAESTUPIDUHAN ANG HANAPIN MO ANG PANGALAN NG ISANG TAO NA LUMITAW LAMANG SA LUPA MAHIGIT ISANG LIBONG TAON NA ANG LUMIPAS MATAPOS MAISULAT ANG BUONG BIBLIA!!!:) Bat mo hahanapin ang pangalan ng Ka Felix Y. Manalo e 1886 lang naman siya ipinanganak samantalang ang Biblia tapos na 1st Century pa lang?:) KABOBOHAN ang tawag doon Riel Lopez:) Ganyan din sagot ko sa issue mo about sa Pilipinas.:)
O ito, IBABATO KO SAYO:) Diba sabi nyo, kayo ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo? E bakit iba PANGALAN niyo? Pangalan ng Tagapagligtas hindi niyo isinama sa pangalan niyo? Sabi nga ni apostol Pedro. " WALANG IBANG PANGALAN SA ILALIM NG LANGIT NA SUKAT IKALIGTAS NG TAO":). TSK TSK TSK:)
1. WHERE IN THE BIBLE YOU CAN READ THAT BEING THE FIRST OF PETER DENOTES HIS LEADERSHIP?:)
ReplyDeleteThe Law of First Mention...
When something is first mentioned in the Bible, the meaning of it remains the same throughout the rest of the Bible.
When GOD gave authority to someone in Scripture, HE changed the name of that person.
1. GOD renamed Abram to Abraham when He made him the 'Father of a Multitude of Nations', in Gen 17:5. HE gave Abraham 'primacy' over all other men.
2. GOD renamed Sara to Sarah when HE made her the 'Mother of Nations' in Gen 17:15-16. HE gave Sarah 'primacy' over all other women.
3. GOD renamed Jacob to Israel, the name of the Jewish Nation, and Jacob became the first Israeli in Gen 32:29, 35:10.
4. GOD renamed Simon to Peter in Matt 16:18, thus giving him 'primacy' over all of the Apostles. Why else would GOD give a new name to Simon?
The 'Law of First Mention' as applied to Abraham, Sarah, and Israel, works very well indeed. Why then do you believe it does not work for Simon-Peter?
2. I'M WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER IN THIS QUESTION. WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION WHEN JESUS SAID THAT THERE ARE LAST THAT WILL BE THE FIRST, AND THERE WERE FIRST THAT WILL BE LAST?:)
it refers to the Gentiles, the most mean and abject, afar from God, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, called last of all; these shall be first, and sit down among patriarchs and prophets, men of the first rank here on earth, in the kingdom of heaven, and enjoy the same glory and happiness with them:
and there are first which shall be last: the Jews, who were first the visible professing people of God, to whom the oracles of God, and outward privileges and ordinances were given; who had the Messiah first sent to them, and the Gospel first preached among them; these shall be last, be rejected and despised, and shut out of the kingdom of heaven, they thought themselves heirs of, and expected to enjoy;)
The Law of First Mention...
DeleteWhen something is first mentioned in the Bible, the meaning of it remains the same throughout the rest of the Bible.
When GOD gave authority to someone in Scripture, HE changed the name of that person.
1. GOD renamed Abram to Abraham when He made him the 'Father of a Multitude of Nations', in Gen 17:5. HE gave Abraham 'primacy' over all other men.
2. GOD renamed Sara to Sarah when HE made her the 'Mother of Nations' in Gen 17:15-16. HE gave Sarah 'primacy' over all other women.
3. GOD renamed Jacob to Israel, the name of the Jewish Nation, and Jacob became the first Israeli in Gen 32:29, 35:10.
4. GOD renamed Simon to Peter in Matt 16:18, thus giving him 'primacy' over all of the Apostles. Why else would GOD give a new name to Simon?
The 'Law of First Mention' as applied to Abraham, Sarah, and Israel, works very well indeed. Why then do you believe it does not work for Simon-Peter?
---Wow!!! Nakita nyo na ba paano TUMAHI ng BAGONG DOKTRINA SI RIEL LOPEZ?:) ANG TANONG KO LANG NAMAN AY ITO:)
NASA BIBLIA BA ANG TINATAWAG MO NA LAW OF 1ST MENTION?
KANINO MO NATUTUNAN IYAN? SA CATHOLIC CHURCH BA? O BAKA NAMAN OPINIYON MO LANG IYAN?
:)
SIMPLE LANG NAMAN YAN E. PABAGSAKIN MO MUNA YUNG MGA ARGUMENTO KO BAGO KA MAGPOST NG KUNG ANU-ANONG WALANG KUWENTANG " LAW " NA IKAW LANG ANG GUMAWA!!! NOW I HAVE PROVED ALREADY. YOUR A DEMON RIEL LOPEZ:) IMAGINE, YOU ARE EXPLAINING THINGS IN THE BIBLE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN LAW????:)
" You are of your father, the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and doesn't stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks on his own; for he is a liar, and its father."
YOU ARE SPEAKING IN YOUR OWN INTERPRETATION:) YOU ARE INTERPRETING THE BIBLE ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING:) IMAGINE? THE LAW OF FIRST MENTION?????!!!! STUPIDO KA !!!:) YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL:)
I just remember also that aside from 50 points, there are a number of arguments that I have thrown to you. KINDLY ANSWER ALL OF THOSE ALSO:)
ReplyDelete---Please review what you wrote, your arguments were so weak they don't prove anything.