 |
| Source: Malayang Komunikasyon |
ELIAS IBARRA wrote:
Lol,
Catholics are talking about Catholics!!! Thus, a former Roman Catholic priest, Adrian Hastings, has described the Roman Catholic Church as:
"Church of sinners and of fools."
Reference:(Hastings, Adrian. In Filial Disobedience, p. 126.)
Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
LOL!
INC ministerial candidates spoke of their fellow cultists too!
"The INC is Satan incarnate within the Philippines."
reference:(Mataro, Marcos)
ELIAS IBARRA wrote:
Base Typhoid,
Why was an insane Roman Catholic pope allowed to conduct a trial and judged a dead and rotting pope??? Now Showing, your syphilis and typhoid, and that of the two popes:
Probably for the same reason that your ancestors allowed a man who raped a juvenile member of his congregation while his wife was pregnant to become their leader. He didn't stop and yet, his stooges still ignored the truth.
To wit:
"1. Citing the case of People versus Trillanes, published in the Official Gazette, Volume I, No. 1, July 1954, p. 394, docketed as Case No. 8180, April 21, 1942. The Court of Appeals where Trillanes was acquitted. The appellate court upheld Trillanes and categorically called Manalo “a man of low morals”(“un hombre de baja moral’).
2. Further more:“…Manalo, took advantage of his position as head of the Iglesia ni Cristo, and …employed religion as a cloak to cover his…immoral practices; that he pretended to be the Messias sent by God; and that to persuade his victims, he cited the example of Solomon and his many wives”.
Yes, your cult was led by a man who is in ever way as bad as the worst Roman Catholic leaders.
ELIAS IBARRA wrote:
To: The Public
We, members of the Iglesia Ni Cristo do not talk a lot!!! We just build beautiful chapels for the glory of God!!! We purchase Roman Catholic and Protestant Chapels with empty pews!!!
Real Elias Ibarra
Guam
From topix.com -
Above you can read our slogan, which has nothing to do with truth.- That is the nature of slogans.
Now, the facts about us, the INC-Club:
We, beneficiaries and supporters of the INC-Club do not talk a lot which makes sense.
We are the Foreign Legion of the blasphemers and fight on foreign grounds for the benefits of the descendants of our sect founder, the Rapist Felix Y. Manalo, and a handful beneficiaries and supporters of our fraudent company.
Our lies, intimidations of our members and their families, the extortion of our fellows and paternalising them - all this keeps us in business!
We will keep on repeating falsehoods and lies as often until you will believe them, yes, furthermore, until you will take them for granted and think that they´re your own truths.
You can make sure of this all by just looking at our brainwashed and intimidated subjects.
We are really good in this! Your insecurity is our portal of entry!
Because of that we do not have anything to offer and merely take (your and your nearest kinsmen´s money), we base our right to exist on attacking other faiths, especially the Catholics and Protestants, who - unfortunately but understandable - don´t even give a four-letter-word starting with `f´ about our idiotic procedure.
And now back to normal:
If you want salvation, you only can get it by entering our club and be one of us, be like us.
We only want your best!
INC-Enterprise Ltd.
ahm i have some question, this is for you manolista:
ReplyDelete1. 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
1. Who is the leader of the church during 1st century according to the bible?
Delete- Of course our Lord Jesus Christ. He's the one who founded His Church therefore He is the leader of His Church.( Mat. 16:18 ) But when He ascended to heaven, he trusted His Church to His Apostles. But it doesn't mean He's not anymore the leader of His Church. He appointed His Apostles to overseer the whole Church. And the Executive Minister that time was Apostle James. Biblically, Acts 15:13,19. History proves that also. This fact is contradicting the UNBIBLICAL teaching of the Catholic Church that Peter was the one who succeeded Jesus in leading the Church. :)
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?
Why not? What kind of question is that? Of course yes. The Savior was born and it's the will of God for us to worship Jesus. ( Phil. 2:9-11 )
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
- YES.:) What's the matter?
4. What is the official Bible translation of the Iglesia ni Cristo?
- We have no official Bible translation. The Bible that you are using is also the Bible that we use.:)
5. Could an Iglesia ni Cristo Minister could preach with one bible translation alone?yes or no?
- Of course yes. Why not? The Last Messenger of God brother Felix Y. Manalo did that already.He used the Tagalog version of the Bible in refuting the unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic Church. :)
6. According to the bible, did the Apostles preached carrying at least 10 books?
Delete- It is not in the Bible. Then? What's the matter? Is there any Biblical doctrines that has been violated because of that?:)
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”?
- Revelation 7:2 Young's Literal Translation
" and I saw another messenger going up from the rising of the sun, having a seal of the living God, and he did cry with a great voice to the four messengers, to whom it was given to injure the land and the sea, saying,'Do not injure the land, nor the sea, nor the trees, till we may seal the servants of our God upon their foreheads.'
Read these verses WORD FOR WORD.:)
Yeah it's ok if you can't see the name of Brother Felix Y. Manalo and the Philippines in the Bible. Because, in prophecy, the name of the one who is being prophesied is not mentioned. Because how come that it will be a prophecy if it will mention the name of the person being prophesied?
For example, the Old Testament Prophesies toward Christ. Nowhere in the Old testament prophecies you will find the name of Christ. But when the prophecy was fulfilled, Jesus Himself declared that He is the fulfillment of the prophecy.(Isaiah 61:1-3; Luke 4:18-21 )
The same with John the Baptist. His name was never mentioned in the prophecy pertaining to him but when the prophecy was fulfilled, John Himself declared that He is the fulfillment of the prophecy. (Isaiah 40:3-4; John 1: 19-23 ) Also with Apostle Paul ( Isaiah 49:6; Acts 13:47 ) Therefore, it's ok if you can't find the name of brother Felix Y. Manalo or the name of the Philippines in the Bible. :)
8.Where in the bible that i could read that the “messenger” i mean felix Manalo is given the keys of
Delete“whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will beg loosed in heaven”?
Jesus said these words to His Apostles. Who are the Apostles? According to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, " I tell you the truth, anyone who welcomes my messenger is welcoming me, and anyone who welcomes me is welcoming the Father who sent me." John 13:20 NLT. Then he said to the disciples,
"Anyone who accepts your message is also accepting me. And anyone who rejects you is rejecting me. And anyone who rejects me is rejecting God, who sent me." Luke 10:16
The Apostles are the messengers of Christ. Therefore, His messengers that the duty is to propagate His words are the one who has the right to bind anything here on earth and this thing will be bound on heaven:)
According to Revelation 7:2, "..I saw another messenger going up from the rising of the sun, " Another messenger from the rising of the sun! Where is the rising of the sun? Of course in east. Where in east? In Greek, the term used here is " anatoles heliou" which is equivalent to the Hebrew term "mizrach" which is referring to Far East:) What vision took place when Apostle John said that he saw the other angel?
It was when " the kings of the earth, the nobles, the military commanders, the rich, the powerful, and every slave and free person hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains" Rev. 6:15
What is the fulfillment of this?
“The First World War was unlike any war in the past … This was the first war ‘in three dimensions’, the first war in which cities were bombed from the air and winged warriors fought among the clouds. Of course the airplanes of 1914 were not so fast, so formidable, nor so numerous as those of today. They were really more important as scouts (a kind of aerial ‘cavalry’), photographing enemy movements from above, … the soldiers had to turn themselves into beavers and moles and dig deep trenches … the British had invented the tank, or land battleship—an armored automobile which could move on rough ground because it was built like a tractor.” (World History by Arthur Boak, Preston Slosson, and Howard Anderson, pp.478-479)
The fulfillment is the first World War. Remember Jesus said that when the end is near, "
“You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains" Mat. 24:6-8.
Therefore, the another messenger will arise when the end is near which is being characterized by wars and humors of wars and the fulfillment of this is when brother Felix Y. Manalo was already preaching when the First World War took place. Is it a coincidence? No. It's not Ka Felix's fault that the First World war broke out during the beginning of his ministry:) And because Brother Felix Y. Manalo is a messenger of God he has the right to bind anything on earth that will be bound 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)?
DeleteYour statement cant be found in the Bible:) It's unbiblical:) Maybe what you are trying to say is when Jesus said to His disciples that "“And instruct them to keep everything whatever I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you every day, even unto the end of time. Matthew 28:20
I believe on these words of Christ. But take note! There's a condition that Christ is commanding to them. What is that? " INSTRUCT THEM TO KEEP EVERYTHING WHATEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU" That's the condition, But the thing is , the 1st century Church had turn away from the true faith. Historically, some of it's bishop taught unfamiliar doctrines. Ignacius of Antioch taught that Jesus is God. But the early Christians did not believe him. It was only until 325 A.D. at the council of Nicaea that the dogma about the deity of Christ was officially proclaimed. And it was the EMPEROR CONSTANTINE ( the hero of catholic) who decided that Jesus must be recognize as true God. take note, it was the PAGAN EMPEROR who decide on the matter of the apostatized Church.:) More than that, there were so many unfamiliar teachings that the Catholic added during the time after the apostles. For example the Christmas of December 25 WHICH IS PAGAN IN ORIGIN, the Easter celebration WHICH IS ALSO PAGAN IN ORIGIN. The worship of Mary and many more. Does it follow what Jesus said that "INSTRUCT THEM TO KEEP EVERYTHING WHATEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU" ?
Apostle Paul said, " No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons."
Catholicism is a product of combination of apostasy of the true church and the pagan activities:)
10. TODAY, what is the Church that Jesus built that lasted from the times of the apostles until now.?
If you are referring to the true Church of Christ built by Christ on the 1st century, it is no longer in existence,. It was apostatized. The Catholic Church that you mistakenly believe as the Church founded by Christ has deceived you for a very long time. Their doctrines and celebrations which are PAGAN IN ORIGIN are the very proofs of the apostasy of the Church founded by Christ during 1st century. Catholic Church was not founded by Christ,. It is the product of the apostasy of the 1st century Church and the influx of paganism within the Church :)
1. Who is the leader of the church during 1st century according to the bible?
Delete- Of course our Lord Jesus Christ.
>>>> HAHA you are contradicting Mr. Ventelation during the debate with Mr. Romero on January 2012 he said "James is the leader of the CHURCH"
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?
>>>>YOU DON'T BELIEVE JESUS IS GOD, SO YOU DISOBEYED THIS
Luke 4:8
8 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You are to worship the Lord your God and serve only him.
Why not? What kind of question is that? Of course yes. The Savior was born and it's the will of God for us to worship Jesus. ( Phil. 2:9-11 )
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
- YES.:) What's the matter?
>>>haha again
>>>>Luke 4:8
8 Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You are to worship the Lord your GOD and serve only HIM.
WORSHIP IS ONLY FOR GOD, IF YOU WORSHIP JESUS, YOU MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS GOD!
4. What is the official Bible translation of the Iglesia ni Cristo?
Delete- We have no official Bible translation. The Bible that you are using is also the Bible that we use.:)
>>> of course NONE! Because INC has to twist the scriptures:
for name game INC use LAMSA(alone) just to show "Chruch of Christ" Acts 20:28
for fake prophecy INC use Moffatt for "FAR EAST"
etc. . .INC A VERY FUNNY CULT
5. Could an Iglesia ni Cristo Minister could preach with one bible translation alone?yes or no?
- Of course yes. Why not? The Last Messenger of God brother Felix Y. Manalo did that already.He used the Tagalog version of the Bible in refuting the unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic Church. :)
whee??? where can i find tagalog bible with "church of Christ" in Acts 20:28??? (not translated from Lamsa)
6. According to the bible, did the Apostles preached carrying at least 10 books?
Delete- It is not in the Bible. Then? What's the matter? Is there any Biblical doctrines that has been violated because of that?:)
if your wise enough, thinking that the apostles are traveling places to places. they carry at least 1 book "the scriptures" INC can't do that, why? they have to show catholic sources and prove that they are wrong and INC is right...The Apostles didn't do that,,
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”?
- Revelation 7:2 Young's Literal Translation
>>>>I READ THE TRANSLATION ABOUT THAT, NO ONE ACCEPT THAT INTERPRETATION OTHER THAN IGLESIA NI CRISTO ! I WENT ABOUT TANK, AIRPLANES AHAHAHA LOL
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”?
No. It's not Ka Felix's fault that the First World war broke out during the beginning of his ministry:) And because Brother Felix Y. Manalo is a messenger of God he has the right to bind anything on earth that will be bound in heaven:)
>>>Funny, Manalo is God's messenger then the Church name should be Church of God, Apostles are sent by Christ (whom you believe that he is only a man), does it mean Manalo is greater than the apostles??? THE VOICE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO WILL BE THIS:THE PREACHING OF THE ALL THE IN 1ST CENTURY ARE IN VAIN ! AND THEIR DEATHS ARE IN VAIN, BECAUSE THE CHURCH WENT "APOSTASY" AND LASTED ONLY BY THE TIME WHEN THE LAST APOSTLES DIED..
so funny CULT
9. Do you believe that JESUS MADE A PROMISE THAT HE WOULD PROTECT HIS CHURCH UNTIL THE END OF TIME?(yes or no)?
DeleteYour statement cant be found in the Bible:)
>>>>GOD said: John 14:16-18...
"And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you FOREVER, the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you shall know Him, because He will dwell with you, and be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you."
There is that word 'FOREVER' again, which INCM either ignore or they teach, "it means temporarily",
YOU'RE MAKING JESUS A LIAR !WOE TO YOU INC!!!
10. TODAY, what is the Church that Jesus built that lasted from the times of the apostles until now.?
If you are referring to the true Church of Christ built by Christ on the 1st century, it is no longer in existence,. It was apostatized.
>>>Apostasy:
"Abandonment of ONE'S religious faith."
That is how one dictionary defines the word.
"The total rejection by a baptized person of the Christian faith he once professed."
That is how a second dictionary defines the word.
The Greek word used is "apostasia", and from a Greek dictionary its meaning is:
"a falling away, defection, forsake".
Notice that the definitions apply to individual persons ONLY and not to the entire Church.
Isn't that exactly what Holy Scripture says?
I just had a thought:
ReplyDeleteIf you could ask each one of the founders of their own churches, "By whose authority did you do this?"
What do you think they would have answered?
I know what I think they would have said. "GOD told me to".
That answer immediately brought this reply to mind:
"Well, why then didn't GOD say, "You must join My one and only Church"?
You will have to think awhile about these theoretical replies of GOD.
Could GOD really have told them to found other churches?
Recall what you have already learned from Holy Scripture. Put the pieces together.
Do you see an insurmountable error if GOD had actually told them to found their own church?
1. Jesus said He was the truth in John 14:6.
2. There can be only one truth, just as there is only one Jesus Christ.
3. Jesus prayed three times that we all be one in John 17:11,21-22.
4. GOD cannot contradict Himself. 2Timothy 2:13
5. How then could He pray in Scripture that we may be one, and yet tell the founders that we may be many?
6. So if those founders say that GOD told them to found other churches,
then it would have been impossible for GOD to have told them to do so.
7. Therefore it could not have been GOD who gave them that message.
8. However, could it have been GOD's adversary speaking to them, the great deceiver, the father of lies (John 8:44)?
9. Hasn't the adversary been trying to destroy GOD's only Church ever since it was founded by Jesus Christ?
10. What better way is there to do that other than by using a process called 'Divide and Conquer'?
Stupid:)
ReplyDeleteWho is stupid napoleon?
ReplyDeleteYou are so brave enough to post your stupid answers Riel Lopez:) You are asking me who is stupid? You are stupid:)
ReplyDelete>>>> HAHA you are contradicting Mr. Ventelation during the debate with Mr. Romero on January 2012 he said "James is the leader of the CHURCH"
I’m not contradicting Brother Ventilacion. Is it wrong to say that our Lord Jesus Christ is the leader of the Church since he is the head of His Church? You are dumb if you will say yes. Bro. Ventilacion and Mr. Romero were debating who was the APOSTLE of Christ THAT LED the Church during the 1st century. Apostle James was the leader of the Church in the sense that he was the Apostle that led the whole Church. THE APOSTLE OF CHRIST. Remember your proposition. You are just asking me who is the LEADER. You are not specific in your subject. :)
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?
>>>>YOU DON'T BELIEVE JESUS IS GOD, SO YOU DISOBEYED THIS
- Why is it against the Bible to worship Jesus even we don’t recognize Him as God? According to Philippians 2: 9-11 “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Therefore, it is the Father’s will to worship Christ. We will worship Christ if we were there when he was born because we are obeying God’s will. Nowhere in the Bible you can read that we must worship Christ for according to you He is God. It is only your opinion again :)
3. WORSHIP IS ONLY FOR GOD, IF YOU WORSHIP JESUS, YOU MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS GOD!
It only proves that you are a very high class ignorant man. According to Philippians 2: 9-11 “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Therefore, it is the Father’s will to worship Christ. We will worship Christ if we were there when he was born because we are obeying God’s will. Your proposition that we must believe that Jesus is God to worship Him is only YOUR OPINION:) NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE you can find that we have to worship Jesus for He is god. What we can read is we have to worship Him for it is the will of the Father in heaven. Understood? You IGNORANT?:)
4. - We have no official Bible translation. The Bible that you are using is also the Bible that we use.:)
>>> of course NONE! Because INC has to twist the scriptures:
for name game INC use LAMSA(alone) just to show "Chruch of Christ" Acts 20:28
for fake prophecy INC use Moffatt for "FAR EAST"
etc. . .INC A VERY FUNNY CULT
Why? Prove to me that Lamsa in wrong. Prove to me also that Moffat is wrong. And once you show me correct evidences that proving they were wrong, then I will show you the right evidences and the correct LOGIC why they are correct. Unlike you and your priest. It is already your practice to throw nonsense words to us when you have no answer to our argument. You are like a stupid ignorant man that keep on blabbering nonsense words when you can’t find anything that has sense to answer us. :)
I’m not contradicting Brother Ventilacion. Is it wrong to say that our Lord Jesus Christ is the leader of the Church since he is the head of His Church? You are dumb if you will say yes. Bro. Ventilacion and Mr. Romero were debating who was the APOSTLE of Christ THAT LED the Church during the 1st century.
Delete>>>>Yes you are,and i never said that you are wrong, and no one argue with u that Jesus is the head of the church we know that..
Therefore, it is the Father’s will to worship Christ. We will worship Christ if we were there when he was born because we are obeying God’s will. Nowhere in the Bible you can read that we must worship Christ for according to you He is God. It is only your opinion again :)
>>>Father's will?? Is he contradicting himself?
‘You are to worship the Lord your GOD and serve only HIM.'
No! Jesus is the Son of God,Therefore he is God that's why he was worshiped..It wasn't the Father's will that when the apostles worshiped him, let me give it back to you Napoleon THATS ONLY YOUR OWN OPINION. The Apostles worshiped him from
their own free will, there was no voice from the heaven telling the apostles that Jesus must be worshiped. And during that time, Jesus allowed the apostles to worship him.
It only proves that you are a very high class ignorant man
it is the Father’s will to worship Christ. We will worship Christ if we were there when he was born because we are obeying God’s will.
>>>it's ok if you call me ignorant, as long as I understand what I'm writing,When did we obey God's will? I don't understand you Napoleon ! you are so dumb, Jesus was worshiped when he was born and you chop-chopped the scripture, you didn't read from verse 6,
Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
It's very clear that Jesus is God, quoting Philippians 2:9-11, You jumped to conclusion, let's ask why did God exalted him to the highest place? Answer: because of his being obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross..is that your reason that we should worship Jeus??? What a dumb argument..that's only your own OPINION Jesus was already worshiped before he can walk, Jesus was already worshiped during his ministry, and he must be worshiped not only because his obedience, but because he is God before he was born and up to his death on the cross..
Why? Prove to me that Lamsa in wrong. Prove to me also that Moffat is wrong. And once you show me correct evidences that proving they were wrong,
Delete>>> Bible translation should not be contradicting, INC is making the Bible Version contradict each other. How??
When INC shows the Lamsa Version for Acts 20:2,8 the Isaiah 43:5-6 of Lamsa Version becomes wrong or inaccurate
When INC show a Moffat Version for Isaiah 43:5-6, the Acts:20:28 of Moffat becomes wrong or inaccurate
Why is it Napoleon? No other answer, it is because INC is famous of the Bible Twisting to deceiving people who are ignorant in the bible
Unlike you and your priest. It is already your practice to throw nonsense words to us when you have no answer to our argument. You are like a stupid ignorant man that keep on blabbering nonsense words when you can’t find anything that has sense to answer us. :)
>>How come it went to the priests? How about you chief debater Ventelation? I just recently discovered that when his trick that when his opponent has answered the question he will say "THATS YOUR OPIONION" even though his opponent read the answer directly from the bible,that how a DUMB debater, debate and knowing your answers you copied his trick and how come my words are nonsense when it caught your attention???
“ >>> Bible translation should not be contradicting, INC is making the Bible Version contradict each other. How??”
DeleteAre you sure? How many translation have you read already to say that Bible translations should not contradict each other? Don’t you know that the translators especially those who are translating the Bible through paraphrasing are giving their own interpretation for some verses? YOU ARE REALLY IGNORANT, tsk tsk tsk.
“
When INC shows the Lamsa Version for Acts 20:2,8 the Isaiah 43:5-6 of Lamsa Version becomes wrong or inaccurate
When INC show a Moffat Version for Isaiah 43:5-6, the Acts:20:28 of Moffat becomes wrong or inaccurate
Why is it Napoleon? No other answer, it is because INC is famous of the Bible Twisting to deceiving people who are ignorant in the bible”
Can you explain how this two translations contradict each other when we use those verses? :) And twisting the Bible? Who twisted the Bible? We, that just using the verses of the Bible and connecting it to other verses to show the unity of the Bible, or YOU WHOSE DOCTRINES GO DIRECTLY AGAINST THE BIBLE? STUPID OWN OPINION:)
“>>How come it went to the priests? How about you chief debater Ventelation? I just recently discovered that when his trick that when his opponent has answered the question he will say "THATS YOUR OPIONION" even though his opponent read the answer directly from the bible,that how a DUMB debater, debate and knowing your answers you copied his trick and how come my words are nonsense when it caught your attention???”
Your answer is nonsense that’s why it caught my attention:) haha, STUPID. Brother Ventilacion is saying that his opponent is just making his own opinion because like YOU, his opponents are drawing conclusion illogically:) Their conclusion are like your conclusion that can’t be found in the Bible that’s why.,, THAT IS ONLY YOUR OPINION:)
____________________________________
“I’m not contradicting Brother Ventilacion. Is it wrong to say that our Lord Jesus Christ is the leader of the Church since he is the head of His Church? You are dumb if you will say yes. Bro. Ventilacion and Mr. Romero were debating who was the APOSTLE of Christ THAT LED the Church during the 1st century.
Delete>>>>Yes you are,and i never said that you are wrong, and no one argue with u that Jesus is the head of the church we know that..”
-- How? DUMB:)
“
>>>Father's will?? Is he contradicting himself?
‘You are to worship the Lord your GOD and serve only HIM.'
Yes we have to worship God but it is not stated that ONLY Him!!:) We have to worship Christ because it is Father’s will. Are you contradicting the will of the Father for man to worship Christ? :)
“ No! Jesus is the Son of God,Therefore he is God that's why he was worshiped..It wasn't the Father's will that when the apostles worshiped him, let me give it back to you Napoleon THATS ONLY YOUR OWN OPINION. The Apostles worshiped him from
their own free will, there was no voice from the heaven telling the apostles that Jesus must be worshiped. And during that time, Jesus allowed the apostles to worship him.”
-- What the hell are you talking about? Can you read a verse in the Bible that the Apostles worship Christ because He is God? STUPID. Yes, Jesus allowed His apostles to worship Him, but does it mean he is God? PHILIPPIANS 2:9-11 it is Father’s will to
worship Christ.. Jesus is the Son of God. Does it mean that He is God also? STUPID!! Christians are also children of God. Does it mean that we are God also? STUPID:) You are saying that it is only my own opinion when I say that it is Father’s will to
worship Christ. Are you fool? I quoted it from Phil. 2: 9-11. It was clearly stated that it is the will of the Father to worship Christ by man. Then you are saying it’s my own opinion? So now, who is twisting the Bible? YOU MORON.
“
>>>it's ok if you call me ignorant, as long as I understand what I'm writing,When did we obey God's will? I don't understand you Napoleon ! you are so dumb, Jesus was worshiped when he was born and you chop-chopped the scripture, you didn't read from verse 6,
Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
It's very clear that Jesus is God, quoting Philippians 2:9-11, You jumped to conclusion, let's ask why did God exalted him to the highest place? Answer: because of his being obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross..is that your reason that we should worship Jeus??? What a dumb argument..that's only your own OPINION Jesus was already worshiped before he can walk, Jesus was already worshiped during his ministry, and he must be worshiped not only because his obedience, but because he is God before he was born and up to his death on the cross..”
-- 1st, you don’t understand what you are saying . You even said that Jesus died!!! That is the very proof HE IS NOT GOD!!! The true God is immortal!!
1 Timothy 1:17
“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
Slap that to your face. Phil 2:6? He( Christ ) being in very nature of God. Let’s take your argument for the sake of it.
"Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" (Ibid.).
That this verse has been either paraphrased or liberally rendered by some translators who believe that Christ is God is very evident in the following versions:
"Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God." (Contemporary English Ver.)
"Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God." (New Living Trans.)
"Who, though he was God, did not demand and cling to his rights as God." (Living Bible)
The most common explication of the verse by the advocates of the Christ-is-God doctrine is that God divested Himself of His divine nature and became man or, as some would put it, that God walked incognito on earth in the person of Jesus Christ.
Delete. Mere spiritual comparison of this verse with the other related verses plainly shows that such an interpretation, and its concomitant renderings, are wrong.
Two distinct beings
Verse nine, for example, states, "Wherefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name" (KJV).
The existence here of two distinct beings is undeniable:
-one is God, who "has highly exalted [Christ] and given Him the name which is above every name," and
-the other one is Christ, who has been highly exalted by God.
If "Christ was truly God," - as CEV rendered, how could He be "highly exalted ... and given ... the name which is above every name" by God? How could Christ and the God, who exalted Him, be both "truly God"?
In verse six itself, and using CEV, the mistranslation is quite obvious -
"Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God."
Again, the existence here of two distinct beings is very evident: one who "was truly God" and another one whom He "did not try to remain equal with."
User-friendly translations seek to make the Bible more readable and easier to understand, but if a verse is rendered in such a way that its original meaning is lost or twisted in the process, then that verse cannot be relied upon as God's Word. In view of this, strict accuracy,' achieved by faithfulness to the original languages in which a text was written is, therefore, to be immensely preferred to readability.
DeleteForm, Image: 'near synonyms'
The KJV renders the verse: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God."
The phrases "being in the form of God" (which is written) and "being God" (which is concluded) definitely do not mean the same thing. Just because Christ is "in the form of God," it does not necessarily mean that Christ "is God." In fact, not only do they mean two different things-they also are "spiritually incomparable." They are simply scripturally irreconcilable, considering the meaning of "form" and the fact that "form" and "image" (man, let it not be forgotten, was created in the image of God) are "near synonyms" (Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation,
According to The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, "form" ("morphe" in Greek) denotes an expression of "essential attributes" or "essential qualities" of God: "6. Being in the form of God (AV). Better, Though in his pre-incarnate state he possessed the essential qualities of God, he did not consider his status of divine quality a prize to be selfishly hoarded (taking harpagmos passively). Morphe, form, in verses 6 and 7 denotes a permanent expression of essential attributes, while schema, fashion (v. 8 ), refers to outward appearance that is subject to change" (p. 1324).
Wycliffe's commentary is corroborated by a more pronounced explanation by other Bible commentators, who say that "in the form of God" does not refer to the "divine essence" or "divine nature" but to "the external self-manifesting characteristics" of God. " ... Who subsisting (or existing, viz., originally: the Greek is not the simple substantive verb, to be) in the form of God (the divine essence is not meant: but the external self-manifesting characteristics of God, the form shining forth from His glorious essence. The divine nature had infinite BEAUTY in itself, even without any creature contemplating that beauty: that beauty was 'the form of God'; as 'the form of a servant' (vs. 7) ... " (Practical and Explanatory Commentary on the Whole Bible, p. 1305)
Contrary to the popular understanding that Christ's "being in the form of God" in Philippians 2: 6 means that Christ is God, the use by the Apostle Paul of the word "form" (which is synonymous with "image") to refer to Christ is in itself an unequivocal proof that Christ is man, for, of all creatures, it is really man who was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). "It has long been recognized that ... (form) and ... (image) are near synonyms and that in Hebrew thought the visible 'form of God' is his glory ... " (Christology in the Making: An Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation, p. 115).
Read it Riel Lopez to cover your ignorance in the Bible:)
-- 1st, you don’t understand what you are saying . You even said that Jesus died!!! That is the very proof HE IS NOT GOD!!! The true God is immortal!!
Delete1 Timothy 1:17
“Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
>>>>Rev. 1:17-18
17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.
This would be my last reply on this argument, i feel like I'm arguing with my younger brother a 5 year old younger brother!!! A man who understand the Bible!
++Who is the first and the last?
lets look verse 8
8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”
That's right! No other could say that "I am the first and the last" or "I am the Alpha and the Omega"
2 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
HE WILL COME SOON FOR
JESUS IS THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA, THE BEGINNING AND THE AND END, THE FIRST AND THE LAST! HE WAS ONCE DEAD,and now look, HE IS alive for ever and ever!
IF NAPOLEON STILL CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS, YOU ARE AN EVIDENCE OF THE DUMBNESS OF IGLESIA NI MANALO!!!
You said that Jesus was once dead right? Are you really dumb not to understand that the True God can not die? What if Jesus is Alpha and Omega? He is Alpha for He is FOREKNOWN by God before the foundation of the world. He is Omega in the sense that through Him God will judge men in the Day of Judgement. What is the connection of being an Alpha and Omega to the so called deity of Christ? Your illogical reasoning is very ridiculous?:)
Delete5. Could an Iglesia ni Cristo Minister could preach with one bible translation alone?yes or no?
ReplyDelete- Of course yes. Why not? The Last Messenger of God brother Felix Y. Manalo did that already.He used the Tagalog version of the Bible in refuting the unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic Church. :)
whee??? where can i find tagalog bible with "church of Christ" in Acts 20:28??? (not translated from Lamsa)
Why? Is Acts 20:28 the only verse in the Bible that we can find the Church of Christ? How about Romans 16:16 in Tagalog Version? And Galatians 1:21 in New Filipino Version? Maybe you don’t know this. You are looking for the tagalog Bible, here are the Tagalog Bibles that you can read IGLESIA NI CRISTO.:) I told you to study the Bible you IGNORANT:)
6. if your wise enough, thinking that the apostles are traveling places to places. they carry at least 1 book "the scriptures" INC can't do that, why? they have to show catholic sources and prove that they are wrong and INC is right...The Apostles didn't do that,,
Yes i’m wise. Then? What’s wrong? And are you sure that the Apostles didn’t bring any other books aside from the Old Testament?
2 Timothy 4:1 “ When you come, bring with you the cloak which I left behind at Troas at the
house of Carpus, and the books, but especially the parchments..”
Take note here, analyze it logically, Apostle Paul left his books in Troas. Again ignorance in the Bible.:) And basically, we have to show the darkness of the Catholic Church because...
Ephesians 5:13
"But everything can be tested by the light and thus be shown in its true colors; for whatever shines of itself is light."
We have to test all of your false doctrines by the light of Words of God in the Bible. Since many of your doctrines can’t be found in the Bible, therefore you are revealed by the Light. Your false doctrines were revealed by the Bible.
Then what’s wrong with using references? Why? Are you afraid to know the truth? Remember Jesus said that the truth shall set you free.:)
7. - Revelation 7:2 Young's Literal Translation
>>>>I READ THE TRANSLATION ABOUT THAT, NO ONE ACCEPT THAT INTERPRETATION OTHER THAN IGLESIA NI CRISTO ! I WENT ABOUT TANK, AIRPLANES AHAHAHA LOL
You are really dumb:). Where are your evidences that no one is accepting this translation except us? Don’t you know that even the Bible scholars are agreeing that one of the meaning of the word “angel” is Messenger? You are really ignorant about the Bible:)
The Bible uses the terms מלאך אלהים (malak Elohim; messenger of God), מלאך יהוה (malak YHWH; messenger of the Lord), בני אלהים (b'nai Elohim; sons of God) and הקודשים (ha-qodeshim; the holy ones) to refer to beings traditionally interpreted as angels. Later texts use other terms, such as העליונים (ha'elyoneem; the upper ones).
Why? Is Acts 20:28 the only verse in the Bible that we can find the Church of Christ? How about Romans 16:16 in Tagalog Version? And Galatians 1:21 in New Filipino Version? Maybe you don’t know this. You are looking for the tagalog Bible, here are the Tagalog Bibles that you can read IGLESIA NI CRISTO.:) I told you to study the Bible you IGNORANT:)
Delete>> you mean Gal 1:22, In Rom. 16:16 doesn't mean Iglesia ni Cristo founded by Manalo, St.Paul was referring to the people of Rome to the Romans. The true church was in Rome, members of the Church was Rome who were believer of Christ, and the people there was called Roman Catholics. and the dumbest argument of INC is "We are the True Church Because Our Name is Found in The New Testament" Boo! Thousand of Churches is already emerge before INC was born because their name is found in the Bible!
Yes i’m wise. Then? What’s wrong? And are you sure that the Apostles didn’t bring any other books aside from the Old Testament?
2 Timothy 4:1 “ When you come, bring with you the cloak which I left behind at Troas at the
house of Carpus, and the books, but especially the parchments..”
>>>>He left the books, what's the problem??? He could still preach without it, INC can't do that.,
You are really dumb:). Where are your evidences that no one is accepting this translation except us? Don’t you know that even the Bible scholars are agreeing that one of the meaning of the word “angel” is Messenger? You are really ignorant about the Bible:)
>>>I have no problem with that Napoleon, what's the matter with you?? Angels are messengers but a human messenger could never an angel, you are so dumb , i was talking about that translation "MANALO being that angel in the Revelations" whoah!! FUNNY AND IGNORANT INTERPRETATION!!! If ONE bible scholar accepted that interpretation, NO ONE AGREES WITH THAT Interpretation other that INC, show me evidence that one bible scholar that agrees with this interpretation before you use your dumb copied trick "that's your opinion"
>> you mean Gal 1:22, In Rom. 16:16 doesn't mean Iglesia ni Cristo founded by Manalo, St.Paul was referring to the people of Rome to the Romans. The true church was in Rome, members of the Church was Rome who were believer of Christ, and the people there was called Roman Catholics. and the dumbest argument of INC is "We are the True Church Because Our Name is Found in The New Testament" Boo! Thousand of Churches is already emerge before INC was born because their name is found in the Bible!
Delete-- -.- . Whoaaa!!I’m scared from your STUPID PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.
You said, “ The true church was in Rome, members of the Church was Rome who were believer of Christ, and the people there was called Roman Catholics.”
Where the hell did you find that? Oh again YOUR OWN OPINION:)
“the dumbest argument of INC is "We are the True Church Because Our Name is Found in The New Testament"
When did we say that? Oh again your STUPID OWN OPINION:) YOU ARE JUST HALLUCINATING. MAYBE YOU ARE HIGH IN DRUGS:)hehehe
“ >>>>He left the books, what's the problem??? He could still preach without it, INC can't do that.,
-- Hahaha, you’re crazy man. Brother Felix Y. Manalo preached without other books but the Bible. We can do that also.:) Our Bible is one. Your Bible is the one that we are using to show your unbiblical doctrines:) Hahaha, again YOUR STUPID OWN OPINION.:)
And regarding the books of apostle Paul, it seems like you already accepted the fact that Paul is using other books huh? So you also accepted that YOU ARE VERY IGNORANT IN BIBLE:)
>>>I have no problem with that Napoleon, what's the matter with you?? Angels are messengers but a human messenger could never an angel, you are so dumb , i was talking about that translation "MANALO being that angel in the Revelations" whoah!! FUNNY AND IGNORANT INTERPRETATION!!! If ONE bible scholar accepted that interpretation, NO ONE AGREES WITH THAT Interpretation other that INC, show me evidence that one bible scholar that agrees with this interpretation before you use your dumb copied trick "that's your opinion"”
Delete--- So this is what I wanted to say to you face to face. YOU ARE THE MOST IGNORANT AND DUMB PERSON I’VE EVER KNOWN!:)
You said, “ Angels are messengers but a human messenger could never an angel, you are so dumb ,” Then, SLAP THESE EVIDENCES AND SOME ARE CATHOLIC EVIDENCES TO YOUR FACE!!!:)
BIBLE SCHOLARS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES AGREE TO THIS TERM:
"Angel. This word, both in the Greek and Hebrew languages, signifies a messenger. It denotes office, and not the nature of the agent." (The Emphatic Diaglott, Appendix p. 872)
"They are called 'Angels,' from a Greek word which means a messenger. The word 'Angel,' therefore, does not express the nature of these spirits, but rather the offices. . . " (Discourses on the Apostles' Creed, by Rev. Clement H. Crock, p. 72)
"Angel: the guardian angel of the church, or the church itself; or, (and this is the common view), the Bishop of the church." (Translated from "Ang Bagong Tipan ng Ating Mananakop at Panginoong Jesucristo," (or The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Rev. 2:1, Footnote, by Rev. P. Juan Trinidad, p. 753)
Angels
By the word "angels" (i.e. "messengers" of God) we ordinarily understand a race of spiritual beings of a nature exalted far above that of man, although infinitely removed from that of God--whose office is "to do him service in heaven, and by his appointment to succor and defend men on earth… we find the phrase used of any messengers of God, such as the prophets, (Isaiah 42:19; Haggai 1:13; Malachi 3:1) the priests, (Malachi 2:7) and the rulers of the Christian churches. (Revelation 1:20) (Smith's Bible Dictionary)
Angels
(Latin angelus; Greek aggelos; from the Hebrew for "one going" or "one sent"; messenger). The word is used in Hebrew to denote indifferently either a divine or human messenger. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Angel, "messenger," is used of God, of men, and of an order of created spiritual beings whose chief attributes are strength and wisdom.( Scofield Reference Notes, 1917 Edition)
DeleteAngel: The original word, both in Hebrew and Greek, means MESSENGER, and is so translated, Matthew 11:10 Luke 7:24. It is often applied to an ordinary messenger, Job 1:14 1 Samuel 11:3 Luke 9:52; to prophets, Isaiah 42:19 Haggai 1:13; to priests, Ecclesiastes 5:6 Malachi 2:7; and even to inanimate objects, Psalms 78:49 104:4 2 Corinthians 12:7. Under the general sense of messenger, the term, angel is properly applied also to Christ, as the great Angel or Messenger of the covenant, Malachi 3:1, and to the ministers of his gospel, the overseers or angels of the churches, Revelation 2:1,8,12, etc. (ATS Bible Dictionary)
Angel: A word signifying, both in the Hebrew and Greek, a "messenger," and hence employed to denote any agent God sends forth to execute his purposes. It is used of an ordinary messenger (Job 1:14: 1 Samuel 11:3; Luke 7:24; 9:52), of prophets (Isaiah 42:19; Haggai 1:13), of priests (Malachi 2:7), and ministers of the New Testament (Revelation 1:20). (Easton's Bible Dictionary)
AN'GEL, n. Usually pronounced angel, but most anomalously. L. angelus; Gr. a messenger, to tell or announce.
1. Literally, a messenger; one employed to communicate news or information from one person to another at a distance. But appropriately,
2. A spirit, or a spiritual intelligent being employed by God to communicate his will to man. Hence angels are ministers of God, and ministring spirits. Heb. 1.
3. In a bad sense, an evil spirit; as, the angel of the bottomless pit. Math. 25. 1Cor 6. Rev. 9.
4. Christ, the mediator and head of the church. Rev. 10.
5. A minister of the gospel, who is an embassador of God. Rev. 2 and 3.
6. Any being whom God employs to execute his judgments. Rev. 16.
7. In the style of love, a very beautiful person. (King James Dictionary)
From the foregoing citations, it is clear that the word "angel" denotes the office and not the nature, that is, of a messenger of God.
WHAT NOW?hahahaXD. You are so STUPID in challenging me regarding that matter. HAhaha. SHAME TO YOUR FACE:)
Mr. Catholic Defender, pakipost po ha:)
8. >>>Funny, Manalo is God's messenger then the Church name should be Church of God, Apostles are sent by Christ (whom you believe that he is only a man), does it mean Manalo is greater than the apostles??? THE VOICE OF IGLESIA NI CRISTO WILL BE THIS:THE PREACHING OF THE ALL THE IN 1ST CENTURY ARE IN VAIN ! AND THEIR DEATHS ARE IN VAIN, BECAUSE THE CHURCH WENT "APOSTASY" AND LASTED ONLY BY THE TIME WHEN THE LAST APOSTLES DIED..
ReplyDeleteThe Church was founded by Christ. The name of the Church must follow the name of its founder. Since the Church is Christ’s body, and Christ is the head of it, logically, the Church must be called after the name of its head. Who is the head? Christ. ( Col. 1:18 ) Therefore it should be called CHURCH OF CHRIST. Christ recognizes only one God and that is the Father in heaven and not Himself. Christ recognize Himself as the one whom the father sent
John 17:1,3
“ After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
And, I will return your argument. You said that since brother Felix Y. Manalo is God’s Messenger, then the Church name should be Church of God. Then here’s my argument. If you are really of God, then why does the name of your Church is not Church of God? The ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. Where is God there?:)
You said that...THE PREACHING OF THE ALL THE IN 1ST CENTURY ARE IN VAIN ! AND THEIR DEATHS ARE IN VAIN, BECAUSE THE CHURCH WENT "APOSTASY" AND LASTED ONLY BY THE TIME WHEN THE LAST APOSTLES DIED..
They didn’t die in vain. Why? Because the Bible said,
“ I heard the voice from heaven saying, "Write, 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.'" "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors; for their works follow with them."”
They are blessed for they fought for the true faith. On the Day of Judgement they will receive eternal life. They were the brethren together with the Apostles who died from persecution. Who persecuted them? They were the false prophets. How can we recognize the false prophets? They were the one who will deceive the disciples of Jesus.
Matthew 24:11 “Many false prophets will rise up and lead multitudes astray;.”
How will they deceive the disciples? By teaching the doctrine of the devil. What are these doctrines of the devil? Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats,
1 Tim. 4:1-3
“But the Spirit speaks expressly, that in latter times some shall apostatize from the faith, giving their mind to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons and the hypocrisy of liars, whose consciences have been burned by a hot iron. 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.
What religion that possess these doctrines of the devil? THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH:)
Therefore YOUR CHURCH IS THE APOSTATIZE CHURCH. The lives and sacrifices of the brethren and the Apostles who died in persecution were not in vain. They will rather choose to die than to live inside an apostatize church that follows the doctrine of the devil.:)
herefore it should be called CHURCH OF CHRIST. Christ recognizes only one God and that is the Father in heaven and not Himself. Christ recognize Himself as the one whom the father sent
DeleteA DUMB ARGUMENT AGAIN, the True Church should be called what?
A group in Nottingham withdrew from the Scotch Baptist church in 1836 to form a Church of Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement
Poor argument, you are not the 1st to use that name
Take this case, you are in a shoe shop you want to find the shoes built by Christ, there are thousands of shoes, since there is only ONE pair of shoes built by Christ, what will you do? Look for it's name Christ's Shoes? NO! why not simply test it? Since Jesus is a master builder, and does not built a house on a sand, it must be founded in every centuries for "THE GATES OF HADES SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT" and it will always stand until his second coming. NO CHURCH COULD FIT ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS OTHER THAN THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH
If you are really of God, then why does the name of your Church is not Church of God? The ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH. Where is God there?:)
DeleteCatholic Church don't use name game, unlike other churches they are born from the bible the Catholic Church is born from the mouth of Jesus himself, before bible was formed, the Catholic Church is already there.
How will they deceive the disciples? By teaching the doctrine of the devil. What are these doctrines of the devil? Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats,
Delete>>>I'm a Catholic, I eat a lot of meat, my favorite is Ham and maybe soon I'm going to be married . Am I following the doctrines of the devil? I don't thinks so Napoleon , St. Paul was talking about the Gnostic people..
A 98 years old church claiming to be the ORIGINAL?
DeleteCome on! You cannot fool history!!! mangarap kayo mga Manalistas!
“A DUMB ARGUMENT AGAIN, the True Church should be called what?”
DeleteWhat argument are you talking about? Of course the true Church must be called after the name of its builder. Who is the builder? Christ. Therefore it should be Church of Christ. NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH:)
And so what if there were others who used the name of Church of Christ? Did we say that we are the 1st one to use this name? No. Even there were others who already used this name, the truth prevails, Isaiah 8:20
“ To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”
Even they possess the name Church of Christ, when they are not following the teaching of the Bible, they were false religion.:) LIKE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH:) You are saying that you are the true Church of Christ. How come? You have the DOCTRINES OF THE DEMONS then you are the true church of Christ? STUPID RIEL:)
“Take this case, you are in a shoe shop you want to find the shoes built by Christ, there are thousands of shoes, since there is only ONE pair of shoes built by Christ, what will you do? Look for it's name Christ's Shoes? NO! why not simply test it? Since Jesus is a master builder, and does not built a house on a sand, it must be founded in every centuries for "THE GATES OF HADES SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT" and it will always stand until his second coming. NO CHURCH COULD FIT ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS OTHER THAN THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH”
- I agree with you in the sense that we have to test the true Church. But when you said “it must be founded in every centuries for "THE GATES OF HADES SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT" and it will always stand until his second coming. NO CHURCH COULD FIT ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS OTHER THAN THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH”
I beg to disagree. Why? Yes, Hades shall not prevail against it. That’s why those who died already due to the persecutions were already waiting for their salvation. They will be saved from the second death which is in the lake of fire. ( Rev. 20:14) However, there were still able to remain alive in the Church. They were the unfaithful. They were the one who will be deceived according to the Savior. They were those who had been apostatized.
They were the one who continue the apostatized Church. And now, they are the ones who are claiming that they are the Church which is founded by Christ in 1st century. THE SO CALLED HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTATIZED ( APOSTOLIC ) CHURCH.:) Speaking of qualifications. In terms of doctrines. How come you will be qualified when you are the house of the DOCTRINES OF THE DEMONS?:)
>>>I'm a Catholic, I eat a lot of meat, my favorite is Ham and maybe soon I'm going to be married . Am I following the doctrines of the devil? I don't thinks so Napoleon , St. Paul was talking about the Gnostic people..
Delete-- Yes, you eat meat, and so what? Yes maybe soon you’re going to be married. Yes, one of the fulfillments of the 1 Tim. 4:1,3 is the Gnostic people. And so what? hahaha, I already heard this argument from Jesse Romero.( The DUMB CATHOLIC DEFENDER ).
The question is this? HOW ABOUT IN OUR TIME? Is not there a religion that contains doctrines of the demons that prohibit marriage and eating meat? Or let me ask it like this,
“ Do the Catholic Church upholds a doctrine that prohibits A CERTAIN MEMBERS of their Church to marry? And Do the Catholic Church also upholds a doctrine that commanding their members to abstain from meats for a certain period of time?
If your answer is NO, YOU ARE THE MOST DUMB STUPID PERSON I’VE EVER KNOWN:)
“ Catholic Church don't use name game, unlike other churches they are born from the bible the Catholic Church is born from the mouth of Jesus himself, before bible was formed, the Catholic Church is already there.”
Delete--????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What the F___ are you talking about? Catholic Church was born from the mouth of Jesus Himself? Where the hell in this world did you find this doctrine? Maybe, from the depths of hell-.-.STUPID RIEL LOPEZ. Please, save your face from shame.:)
________________________________
“A 98 years old church claiming to be the ORIGINAL?
DeleteCome on! You cannot fool history!!! mangarap kayo mga Manalistas!”
-- Mag aral ka ng kasaysayan. Isa ka pa e:) Dada ka ng dada dyan yan lang naman ang kaya mong gawin. Pikit-matang sumusunod sa mga pari ninyo. Hindi mo nga alam historically pano binuo yang mga DOKTRINA NYONG PAGANO E:)
Hahaha di ka naman siguro adik para mangarap ng gising sa tanghaling tapat. Doktrina niyo walang original. Kopya ni rapist felix mula sa ibang mga sektang inaniban niya. Paano naman maging hitorical ang Iglesia ni Manalo eh 98 years lang naman ang inabot nila so far. Ano bang tinitira mo at malakas ang tama?
DeleteDi talaga ako adik:)
DeleteDoktrina namin original. Tao si Cristo. Kaninong relihiyon namin kinopya yun? :) Adik ka pala e:) Rapist ba kamo? Kayo ang maraming rapist na popes:) Pati nga mga bata inaabuso ng mga pari nyo e.:)
History ba kamo? :) Ay naku marami ka pang kakaining bigas para lagpasn ako e sa mga sinasabi mo sakin ngayon e halatang wala ka namng nalalaman e:)
9. Do you believe that JESUS MADE A PROMISE THAT HE WOULD PROTECT HIS CHURCH UNTIL THE END OF TIME?(yes or no)?
ReplyDeleteYour statement cant be found in the Bible:)
>>>>GOD said: John 14:16-18...
"And I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you FOREVER, the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you shall know Him, because He will dwell with you, and be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you."
There is that word 'FOREVER' again, which INCM either ignore or they teach, "it means temporarily",
YOU'RE MAKING JESUS A LIAR !WOE TO YOU INC!!!
Stupid liar.:) You are not reading the verse. Where in the verse can you read the promise of Jesus that He would protect the church forever? NOWHERE. You just read the word forever then you conclude already that it is the promise of Christ that He would protect His Church forever. You are making conclusion out of nowhere:)
The promise was all about the Spirit of Truth WHOM THE WORLD CANNOT RECEIVE. Who is the master of this world?
1 John 5:19
We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.
The whole world is under the devil. Since Catholic Church is in possession of the doctrines of the devil, you are under the devil. So how come that the Catholic Church will possess the Spirit of Truth if your Church is under the Devil?:)
10.
>>>Apostasy:
"Abandonment of ONE'S religious faith."
That is how one dictionary defines the word.
"The total rejection by a baptized person of the Christian faith he once professed."
That is how a second dictionary defines the word.
The Greek word used is "apostasia", and from a Greek dictionary its meaning is:
"a falling away, defection, forsake".
Notice that the definitions apply to individual persons ONLY and not to the entire Church.
Isn't that exactly what Holy Scripture says?
The dictionary says, "Abandonment of ONE'S religious faith.". It said ONE”S religious faith. It does not say ONLY ONE. So where the hell did you get that the definition of apostasy only applies to an individual? YOU ARE DUMB:) Considering your nonsense definition, if apostasy only applies to individuals then what does Christ mean when He said
Matthew 24:10 “ "At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another.”
Many will fall away, and that words are also one of your definition of apostasy. Therefore it does not only applies to an individual. And how can we recognize those people who had been apostatize? By the doctrine they follow. What is that doctrine? No other than the doctrines of the devil that forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats. These doctrines will be found in your religion. Therefore your religion is the apostatized church. The fact that you possess the doctrine of the devil that had been the instrument to apostatized the 1st century church it only means that YOU ARE THE APOSTATIZED CHURCH:)
By the way, it seems like Mr. Catholic Defender is nowhere to be found. Where are you hiding huh?:) You should defend Riel Lopez who despite of his ignorance in the Bible is still giving his best to defend your apostatized church.:)
"And I will ask the Father and He will give you another advocate to dwell with you forever."
DeleteJohn 14:16
>>Forever sounds like a very long time to me. Why then do you insist it is not true? Did the Holy Spirit leave the Church which Jesus Christ founded? Did Jesus lie yet again?
"To Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus down through all the ages of time without end."
Ephesians 3:21
>>>Doesn't this say that the Church which Jesus Christ founded will last forever?
How on earth did the Catholic Church ever survive for almost two millennia? The answer to that one is easy, as Holy Scripture gives us the answers...
NAPOLEON SAID :"Where in the verse can you read the promise of Jesus that He would protect the church forever? NOWHERE."
Did you not know that Jesus Christ is the savior of His Body the Church?did he failed to protect his own body and went to APOSTASY?
"... just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body."
Ephesians 5:23
"So now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone. For if this plan or work is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of GOD, you will not be able to overthrow it. Else perhaps you may find yourselves fighting even against GOD."
Acts 5:38-39
>>>Isn't this the reason why the Catholic Church has lasted for almost 2000 years?
Napoleon,fighting against the Catholic Church else perhaps you may find yourselves fighting even against GOD..
By the way, it seems like Mr. Catholic Defender is nowhere to be found. Where are you hiding huh?:) You should defend Riel Lopez who despite of his ignorance in the Bible is still giving his best to defend your apostatized church.:)
>>You are ignorant Napoleon, a DUMB PERSON who can't even interpret the Bible without twisting it!
Kailan lang itinatag ang Iglesia ni Manalo?
DeleteTapos kayo ang original?
Hindi kami bobo!
"And I will ask the Father and He will give you another advocate to dwell with you forever."
DeleteJohn 14:16
>>Forever sounds like a very long time to me. Why then do you insist it is not true? Did the Holy Spirit leave the Church which Jesus Christ founded? Did Jesus lie yet again?
- You are speaking of nonsense Riel Lopez. Are you dumb? I answered this already.:) Of course, in the following verse it was said
" The world cannot receive him,..."
This world according to Apostle John is under the power of the devil that's why this world can't receive the Holy Spirit.( 1 John 5:19 ). Since your Church is the universal Church, and you possess the doctrines of the Devil, of course you can't receive the holy Spirit. Jesus did not lie that the world could not be able to receive the Holy Spirit. You are of the world, you are of the devil. the 1st century Church was guided by the Holy Spirit. But when the false prophets crept into the Church teaching them the doctrine of the demons, of course, would you expect that the Holy Spirit will remain in the Church? NO. The Israel was also guided by the Holy Spirit. but when they grieved the Holy Spirit because they did not follow anymore the commandments of the Lord and they apostatized from Him, the God was got angry to them and became their enemies. ( Isaiah 63:10, Dan. 9:11 ) The same with the 1st century Church. Yes, Jesus promised them the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But when they did not anymore follow the commandments of God, the Holy Spirit left them. The very proof that the Holy Spirit left them is the fact that they accepted the doctrines of the devil which is in your Church. Do you think the Holy spirit will dwell to a Church that follows the Doctrines of the Devil? Common sense. NO. Again I'll ask you. Are you stupid for you not to understand this?:)
"To Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus down through all the ages of time without end."
Ephesians 3:21
>>>Doesn't this say that the Church which Jesus Christ founded will last forever?
No.") because, the thing that will last forever according to the verse is the Glory of God that is manifested through the church. It was not said that the Church will last forever. It is the Glory of God. And it is not also stated in the verse that ONLY the Church is the instrument to manifest the glory of God. I said that because you might think that without the Church the glory of God will not be manifested. YOU SHOULD THINK AND READ CAREFULLY BEFORE MAKING ANY CONCLUSION:)
"Did you not know that Jesus Christ is the savior of His Body the Church?did he failed to protect his own body and went to APOSTASY?
Delete"... just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body."
Ephesians 5:23"
- I know that Christ is the Savior of the Church. HE WILL SAVE IT IN THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT NOT FROM THE APOSTASY. That's why according to Revelation 14:12-13
" This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Write this down: Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on. Yes, says the Spirit, they are blessed indeed, for they will rest from their hard work; for their good deeds follow them!"
Blessed are those who died who remain faithful to Jesus. Christ clearly said, His disciples will be persecuted and killed. Others will be deceived by the false prophets. The faithful died, the unfaithful remained. Therefore, those who remained were already deceived. They were APOSTATIZED
Those who died were already in rest and waiting for their salvation. That’s what it means that Christ is the Savior of His Church. He will save those who remain faithful to Him. Not the member of the CHURCH OF APOSTASY.:)
"So now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone. For if this plan or work is of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of GOD, you will not be able to overthrow it. Else perhaps you may find yourselves fighting even against GOD."
Acts 5:38-39
>>>Isn't this the reason why the Catholic Church has lasted for almost 2000 years.
NO. The Church of Christ during the times of the Apostles , I’ll repeat to you, was still the pure Church of Christ. However, when the Apostles died, false prophets crept into the Church and taught doctrines of the devils. That is the very proof of apostasy. You want evidences? YOU ARE THE EVIDENCES. YOU POSSESS THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEVIL.
The reason why the Catholic Church has lasted for many years is the FACT that the Catholic Church was able to unite with the STATE. YOU CONTROLLED THE KINGS AND EMPERORS THAT TIME. The HISTORY called it the UNION of the CATHOLIC CHURCH to the STATES. :) You don’t know it? Now you know Mr. IGNORANT in HISTORY.
Your doctrines was united with the pagan beliefs of the people of the empires that the Catholic Church conquered.:) That’s the very reason why you lasted for many years. It is not because of what you have think that it is the plan of God. How will God protect you when YOU POSSESS THE DOCTRINE OF THE DEMON?:)
Napoleon,fighting against the Catholic Church else perhaps you may find yourselves fighting even against GOD..
Hahaha, why don’t you pray to your god ( whoever are your gods )to save Catholicism from its deteriorating condition? Or pray to them to make Iglesia ni Cristo fall? :) Let’s see if there were gods that will listen to your HEATHEN LIKE PRAYER.:) And how come that God is protecting you when again, ill repeat to you, YOUR CHURCH IS THE HOUSE OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEMONS?:)
“>>You are ignorant Napoleon, a DUMB PERSON who can't even interpret the Bible without twisting it!”
Wow. :) Who is twisting the words of God? Is it I that just giving verses from the Bible and explaining it by other supporting BIBLE verses, and even HISTORICAL FACTS evidences, or YOU WHO IS JUST DRAWING ILLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS FROM THE BIBLICAL VERSES YOU ARE USING?:) Remember, every verse that you are showing were already answered by us. How about you? Did you explain already what is your side against the counter-attacks that we throw to you?:) What you are doing now is running from the arguments and going to a new argument. But still, you never answered most of my arguments.:)
So who is DUMB? Is it I or YOU? ITS YOU:)
“Kailan lang itinatag ang Iglesia ni Manalo?
DeleteTapos kayo ang original?
Hindi kami bobo!”
-- Speaking of Bobo. Eto argument dahil ba sa 1914 lang ang lumitaw ang Iglesia ni Cristo sa Pilipinas di na kami tunay? :) Patunayan mo using Bible. E kayo? Ang linaw linaw ng MGA ARAL NG DEMONYO sa BIBLIA E pero kayo SINUSUNOD NIYO ANG MGA ARAL NA ITO.
Mr . Catholic Defender , icorrect mo naman mga members pag history paguusapa. Alam ko naman na may pinagaralan ka at alam mong mali yang mga pinagnsasasabi ng members nyo. Problema sayo pinayagan mo lang na mali paniwalaan nila. WALA TALAGA KAYONG AWA SA MGA MEMBERS NYO:)
Nap, nasaan sa Bible ang pangalan ni Felix Manalo para malinaw hehehe. Nagpapatawa ka.
DeleteAng tinutukoy na Church kami yon. Maliban na kung may Iglesia ni Manalo na noon pang unang siglo hehehe
DeleteEdi hanapin mo :) Tsaka paanong kayo ung Church of Christ noon e pangalan nyo iba sa knila:) Ikaw ata sabog e:)
DeleteBakit ang Pilipinas ba ay hindi na umiiral noon bago pa man ito pinangalanan? Ang pulu-pulong lupain noon ay tinatawag nating PILIPINAS ngayon.
DeleteKatulad ng Iglesia noon, ay may kilala sa pangalang Iglesia Katolika ngayon at ito ang kinikilalang IGLESIA NI CRISTO noon pang una.
Hindi porke't kapangalan lang eh TOTOO na? Hindi lang naman KAYO ang may pangalang "Iglesia ni Cristo" or "Church of Christ". Ang daming nagsilitawan na. Yung nga lang ang TAGALOG na TAGALOG na registration nito na IGLESIA NI CRISTO kahit sa english ay TAGALOG pa rin ang KATAWAGAN ay yon ang PEKE, dahil wala tayong masusumpungang "IGLESIA NI CRISTO" sa greek or latin translation nito.
Ang IGLESIA NI CRISTO ay nakikita lamang sa TAGALOG version, eh bakit INC kayo ng INC kahit English article ang sinusulat?!!!
COMMON SENSE!!!
Remember, ang daming PEKE sa market na gumagamit din kaparehong pangalan.
Tandaan mo NAP FORD, ang sabi ng PASUGO niyo, OFFICIALLY, na KAMI ang IGLESIA NI CRISTO noon pang una...
DeletePASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: “Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."
HANGGANG NGAYON!!! At sabi ng PASUGO ay hindi pa NALILIPOL ang IGLESIA NI CRISTO nagsimula pa NOONG UNA....
Basa...
PASUGO, Abril 1966, p. 46:
“Ang totoo hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay patuloy na ginagawa ni Satanas ang pagpapasok ng mga maling aral sa Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula'y siyang Iglesia ni Cristo. Sadyang matalino at tuso ang diablo. Hindi niya ginawang biglaan ang pagtalikod sa Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo noong unang siglo."
Kitam?!
Kung ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA pala ay SIYANG TUNAY NA IGLESIA noon pang una... at HANGGANG SA KASALUKUYAN ay pinapasok pa rin ni Satanas ng maling aral, LUMALABAS na HINDI PA PALA NALILIPOL na ganap ito sapagkat nagpapapsok pa ng maling aral si Satanas HANGGANG SA KASALUKUYAN!!!!
So kung umiiral pa pala ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA NA SIYANG TUNAY NA IGLESIA NI CRISTO NOONG UNA eh di PEKE ang labas ng INC tatag ni FELIX MANALO ngayon!!!
Buwahahahahahaha...
STUPIDO:)
DeleteBasahing mo maigi pasugo namin ha?:) Para kang tanga jan para sabihin na kayo pa rin ang tunay na iGlesia. Noong una oo. E PINASOK NA NGA KAYO NG DIYABLO E TAPOS SASABIHIN MO TUNAY PA RIN. ANG BOBO MO NAMAN.:) KAYA NGA ANG ARAL NAMIN NATALIKOD KAYO TAPOS SASABIHIN MO TUNAY PA RIN KAYO, ANG BOBO MO NAMAN!:)
DAHIL BA HANGGANG NGAYON AY NAGPAPASOK PA RIN SI SATANAS NG MGA MALING ARAL SA INYO IBIG SABIHIN HINDI PA GANAP NA NAITATALIKOD? E GUSTO NIYA PASUKIN PA RIN KAYO PARA HINDI NYO NA MALAMAN ANG TOTOO E.:)
And for the sake of argument kunwari hindi pa kayo ganap na natalikod. Ang problema bahay ni Satanas relihiyon nyo.:) So pano naging tunay? LOL
And speaking of pangalan, pangalan niyo neto neto lang 18-19th century nabuo. Hindi nga alam ng mga apostol yang pangalan na yan e. May pangalan silang itinawag sa tuay na Iglesia tapos pinalitan nyo naman. Ang malupit dun mahigit 1000 years ang lumipas bago niyo tuluyang pinalitan ng pangalan. ngayon, tunay ba yan? Ang bobo mo naman:)
Ang BOBO mo naman:)
KUNG MAKATAWA KA PARA KANG TATAY MONG DEMONYO:)
affected ka masyado. kaawa-awang mga kaanib ng iglesia ni manalo!
Deletenapoleon fordJanuary 28, 2013 at 4:47 AM
ReplyDeleteAngel, "messenger," is used of God, of men, and of an order of created spiritual beings whose chief attributes are strength and wisdom.( Scofield Reference Notes, 1917 Edition)
Angel: The original word, both in Hebrew and Greek, means MESSENGER, and is so translated, Matthew 11:10 Luke 7:24. It is often applied to an ordinary messenger, Job 1:14 1 Samuel 11:3 Luke 9:52; to prophets, Isaiah 42:19 Haggai 1:13; to priests, Ecclesiastes 5:6 Malachi 2:7; and even to inanimate objects, Psalms 78:49 104:4 2 Corinthians 12:7. Under the general sense of messenger, the term, angel is properly applied also to Christ, as the great Angel or Messenger of the covenant, Malachi 3:1, and to the ministers of his gospel, the overseers or angels of the churches, Revelation 2:1,8,12, etc. (ATS Bible Dictionary)
Angel: A word signifying, both in the Hebrew and Greek, a "messenger," and hence employed to denote any agent God sends forth to execute his purposes. It is used of an ordinary messenger (Job 1:14: 1 Samuel 11:3; Luke 7:24; 9:52), of prophets (Isaiah 42:19; Haggai 1:13), of priests (Malachi 2:7), and ministers of the New Testament (Revelation 1:20). (Easton's Bible Dictionary)
AN'GEL, n. Usually pronounced angel, but most anomalously. L. angelus; Gr. a messenger, to tell or announce.
1. Literally, a messenger; one employed to communicate news or information from one person to another at a distance. But appropriately,
2. A spirit, or a spiritual intelligent being employed by God to communicate his will to man. Hence angels are ministers of God, and ministring spirits. Heb. 1.
3. In a bad sense, an evil spirit; as, the angel of the bottomless pit. Math. 25. 1Cor 6. Rev. 9.
4. Christ, the mediator and head of the church. Rev. 10.
5. A minister of the gospel, who is an embassador of God. Rev. 2 and 3.
6. Any being whom God employs to execute his judgments. Rev. 16.
7. In the style of love, a very beautiful person. (King James Dictionary)
From the foregoing citations, it is clear that the word "angel" denotes the office and not the nature, that is, of a messenger of God.
WHAT NOW?hahahaXD. You are so STUPID in challenging me regarding that matter. HAhaha. SHAME TO YOUR FACE:)
Mr. Catholic Defender, pakipost po ha:)
LOL Napoleon Basahin natin ang Biblia at kung ano ang nasusulat tungkol sa mga ANGEL. ok b ?
Hebreo 1:7 “Tungkol naman sa mga anghel ay sinabi niya, “Ginawa niyang hangin ang kanyang mga anghel, At ningas ng apoy ang kanyang mga lingkod.”
Hebreo 1:14 “Ano ang mga angel, kung gayon? Sila’y mga espiritung naglilingkod sa Diyos at mga sinusugo niya upang tumulong sa mga maliligtas.”
Lucas 20:36 “Hindi na sila mamamatay sapagkat matutulad sila sa mga anghel.”
- ano po b ang kalagayan ng mga anghel sa mga talatang Iyan?
:)
Ahmm, comment lang po
DeleteIn fairness namn sa mga ipinost ni Napoleon Ford. Kita naman po na hindi talaga nature ang pinatutungkulan ng anghel. Ang issue po nina Napoleon at Riel ay kung may mga Bible Scholars na pumapabor na ang anghel ay pwedeng tao. Nasagot naman po e, pwede po pala talaga na ang anghel ay tao according to the Bible scholars that mostly pa ay Catholics. Kung kokontrahin natin si Napoleon Ford e parang kinontra na rin natin ang Catholic Church.
Ayun po, nagbabasa lang po. Sana po maliwanagan na po talaga ako.... Ayoko pong magkamali san po ko aanib na religion...
Oo si felix manalo ay anghel na bumagsak sa impierno hahahahahahaha
DeleteAng mga anghel na tintukoy sa TALATANG IYAN ay mga espiritu. ANO NGAYON?:)
DeleteNabago na ba ang katotohanan na ang anghel ay pwedeng maging tungkulin ng tao?:)
---NAP
Hahaha gagawin nila lahat para maipagtanggol ang anghel na may anghit na rapist na huling sugo buwahahahahaha
Deletepeke ang aming sugo at siya ay rapist pa kaya huwag po kayong maniwala sa aming mga iglesia sapagkat ito ay iglesia ni manalo!
Delete--NAP
http://www.facebook.com/DidYouKnowAllAboutIglesiaNiCristo
ReplyDeleteShare This !!!
Ahm sorry Napoleon I have so much to tell, I just don't have time for now wait for my reply 2-3 days from now. Pre-fi is coming....
Arguing with Napoleon is like arguing with your 3 year old brother.
ReplyDeleteGOD has given each one of us the power to reason things out by using plain, simple common sense, yet Napoleon don't have one.
As they understand "THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT" is not applicable to the 1st century Church , yet it is applicable to the Iglesia ni Cristo. Napoleon said that "No where in the bible that Jesus said that he would protect his church forever"
"And I will ask the Father and He will give you another advocate to dwell with you forever."
John 14:16
In Matthew 28:20, Jesus promised that His Church would last every day in every century until the end of time.
Consequently, His Church has existed every day in every century from the day of its founding (in about 30 A.D.) until this very day. Despite the non-stop merciless persecution from within and from without for almost 2000 years, in every century since its founding, His Church has grown, prospered, and developed as all living things do. His Church now comprises about one sixth of the population of the entire earth.
It is an impossibility that this could have happened at all if it were an institution founded not by GOD, but by mere humans.
Jesus Christ truly is the Savior of His Body.
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her..."
Ephesians 5:25
"For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes it and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church..."
Ephesians 5:29
I understand that INC cannot accept that the Catholic Church is the TRUE CHURCH for it has doctrines of the devil. Hmmm...the ministers done their dirty job well,. However someone like you is scriptural:
2 Peter 2:12
12 But these people(like INC etc.) 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.
Hahaha:) The way Riel Lopez answered me is the way of those who are running away for they do not know the right answer:)
DeleteCan you imagine what you are doing Riel Lopez? All of your accusation and questions were already answered by me. And here we are again. We keep on returning to your former question which were already answered. And what you are doing is you will give the verse and then you will give your own opinion to it. YOU ARE PRESENTING THINGS WITHOUT EVIDENCES. YOUR EVIDENCE IS YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING AND YOUR OWN OPINION. Until now, NONE OF MY EXPLANATIONS WERE DESTROY BY YOU. You keep on repeating that Christ promised the 1st century Church that He will protect it forever. But the thing is you are only using John 14:16 that according to you this is the verse where Jesus made His promise that He will protect His Church forever. But if we will read that verse clearly, your explanation is nowhere to be found. I'm asking you? ARE YOU DUMB NOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT VERSE? You use Matthew 28:20, you said that Jesus promised that His Church would last every day in every century until the end of time. But YOUR UNDERSTANDING CAN'T BE FOUND IN THAT VERSE. YOU ARE JUST MAKING YOUR OWN OPINION. AND I KNOW THAT YOU DID ACCEPT THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEMON. The question is just simple:
DOES THE TRUE CHURCH POSSESS THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEMON?
We are not doing dirty job. We are just exposing YOUR EVIL DOCTRINES.
But once again, I already know your dirty tactics. You will run away again from the issue and go to your former questions. That's what we called dirty tactics.
I'M CHALLENGING YOU, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVE TO EVERYONE THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCES THAT I PUT HERE IN THIS BLOG ARE WRONG? You can imitate my style when I answered your post concerning Apostle Peter. REMEMBER RIEL, NONE OF MY 50 ANSWERS WAS ANSWERED BY YOU.:)
YOU SAID THAT ARGUING WITH ME IS LIKE ARGUING WITH A 3 YEAR OLD CHILD? IT'S ok. At least, the question of a child can be considered as innocent. UNLIKE TO YOU. You have no common sense. The evidences were clearly shown to you, and you can't and no way you can disapproved it, but still you are clinging to the lies of the CATHOLIC CHURCH. That's what you are. You are blind and stupid.
"
GOD has given each one of us the power to reason things out by using plain, simple common sense, yet Napoleon don't have one. "
--- "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20
I'm telling you that you are only using your own interpretation. You know why? All of your questions were already answered. But still, you keep on returning to your nonsense questions. Why you are keep on doing that? Because your own explanations and interpretations were proven wrong...
"
I understand that INC cannot accept that the Catholic Church is the TRUE CHURCH for it has doctrines of the devil."
--- You are right. WE WILL NOT ACCEPT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR YOU POSSESS THE DOCTRINES OF THE DEMONS. Common sense Riel Lopez.
2 Peter 2:12
12 But these people(like INC etc.) 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.
--- You know this verse must be applied to you. You really don't understand what you are saying. The thing that was already explained clearly to you, for you is still the same because you do not understand it:)
--- Nap Ford
I'M CHALLENGING YOU, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVE TO EVERYONE THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCES THAT I PUT HERE IN THIS BLOG ARE WRONG? You can imitate my style when I answered your post concerning Apostle Peter. REMEMBER RIEL, NONE OF MY 50 ANSWERS WAS ANSWERED BY YOU.:)
Delete>>>I sometimes miss your answers, i don't have all the time I need, we don't have computer and I don't always have money for internet rental, I'm a 3rd yr. IT student. Let's settle this once and for all, I'll refute you, and put a number on your arguments.
12 But these people(like INC etc.) 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.
Delete--- You know this verse must be applied to you. You really don't understand what you are saying. The thing that was already explained clearly to you, for you is still the same because you do not understand it:)
This is the very problem of Manalo, he doesn't really understand about the Trinity, the Catholic Church that's why he left and keep throwing false accusation against the Catholic Church
I sometimes miss your answers, i don't have all the time I need, we don't have computer and I don't always have money for internet rental, I'm a 3rd yr. IT student. Let's settle this once and for all, I'll refute you, and put a number on your arguments.
Delete---- hahaha. Imagine YOU ARE JUST A 3RD YEAR I.T. STUDENT? Wooah., im wasting my time to you my dear. I understand now why you are posting things here out of your ignorance. And , you can't beat my answers Riel. I have already proven that your explanations are WRONG. You are just making your ALIBI.:)
This is the very problem of Manalo, he doesn't really understand about the Trinity, the Catholic Church that's why he left and keep throwing false accusation against the Catholic Church
--- How about the Catholic Church? DON'T YOU KNOW THAT EVEN THE POPE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SO CALLED "MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY"? Huh? You are blind in following things that even your leaders can't understand.
That is STUPIDITY. PLEASE USE YOUR COMMON SENSE.
--- NAP FORD
hahaha. Imagine YOU ARE JUST A 3RD YEAR I.T. STUDENT? Wooah., im wasting my time to you my dear. I understand now why you are posting things here out of your ignorance. And , you can't beat my answers Riel. I have already proven that your explanations are WRONG. You are just making your ALIBI.:)
Deleteyep! im just a student and you assumed that you refuted my post with your DOUBLE STANDARD ANSWERS!!!
How about the Catholic Church? DON'T YOU KNOW THAT EVEN THE POPE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE SO CALLED "MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY"? Huh? You are blind in following things that even your leaders can't understand.
That is STUPIDITY. PLEASE USE YOUR COMMON SENSE.
HAHA where did you get the idea that the POPE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY??WHOOA! you are making stories Nap! what do you called that a man who:
"Locked himself in his dimly-lit room and began poring over all the religious literature he had accumulated. For three days and tree nights, he immersed himself in an intensive study and reflection of the doctrines of various churches and compared their beliefs with the Bible."
(God's Message, Jul-Sep 1994, p.11-12).?
Manalo was making his own interpretation !!!
--- "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20
yep! im just a student and you assumed that you refuted my post with your DOUBLE STANDARD ANSWERS!!!
Delete-- I'm not using a double - standard answers:) I am just showing to you that being the FIRST is not a basis to become the leader. Almost the majority of your arguments is showing that Peter is first in a certain thing,. I used the example of Paul because in many instances Apostle Paul made things that Apostle Peter did not. I have proven already that neither the first nor the greatest is a basis to be the leader.:)
Luke 13:30
" Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last."
In short, your argument that Peter was the leader of the Church in the 1st Century because he is first in many things is already destroyed.:)
This answer of mine is almost the same answer in my 50 points. Now, here is the challenge PROVE ME THAT WHAT JESUS SAID CONCERNING THE LAST AND THE FIRST IS WRONG BECAUSE ONCE YOU PROVE ME THAT THIS VERSE IS WRONG, OK YOUR ARGUMENT THAT PETER WAS THE LEADER FOR HE IS THE FIRST IN MANY THINGS WILL BE ACCEPTED:)
( I have just remembered that you said Peter was the first one who proclaimed the divinity of Christ. I have proven you wrong because it is not Peter, it is Nathanael:):):))
---- NAP
HAHA where did you get the idea that the POPE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY??WHOOA! you are making stories Nap!
Delete-- What? I'm not like you Riel who is IGNORANT of many things. Do you want to prove me again that you are IGNORANT?:) Ok, again I will repeat this, SLAP THIS EVIDENCE TO YOUR FACE!:)
" The Trinity is a wonderful mystery. No one understand it. ( What the hell is this doctrine?!!!) The most learned theologians, the holiest Pope, ( XP ), the greatest saint, all are mystified by it as the child of seven."
Scott, Martin J., S.J., God and Myself, Nihil OPbstat: Arthur Scanlan, p. 118
-- Ehem ehem. I know Riel it is very shameful to your part to say that I am just making a story:) ( I remember the time when you posted bravely that a human can't be a messenger or angel:) You have just ran away from that issueXD ) Imagine, a Jesuit priest himself said NO ONE UNDERSTAND TRINITY. EVEN THE HOLIEST POPE:) Here is the challenge again, EXPLAIN AND PROVE TO ME THAT YOUR PRIEST IS WRONG IN SAYING THAT THE POPE IS ONE OF THE NO ONE THAT CAN UNDERSTAND TRINITY.XP
--- NAP
"Locked himself in his dimly-lit room and began poring over all the religious literature he had accumulated. For three days and tree nights, he immersed himself in an intensive study and reflection of the doctrines of various churches and compared their beliefs with the Bible."
Delete(God's Message, Jul-Sep 1994, p.11-12).?
Manalo was making his own interpretation !!!
-- From the Pasugo itself it was said " compared their beliefs with the Bible." So how come that Brother Felix Y. Manalo made his own interpretation? CAN YOU PROVE THAT RIEL?XD
--NAP
"Locked himself" = PRIVATE
Delete"an intensive study and reflection of the doctrines"= INTERPRETATION
HE is making a private interpretation! are you still dumb?
Pasensiya Riel, ganyan po kaming mga iglesia ni manalo. puro po kami panlilinlang at pandaraya. wala po kaming aral na sarili, lahat po kopya kopya lang. mas madali kaya ang mangopya kaysa gumawa ng sariling aral.
Deletesi felix manalo nga po kasi ang nagturo sa amin para mandaya. natural wala pong mangga na namumunga ng santol kaya ganon na rin kami. si felix manalo nagkulong po sia sa kwarto at nangopya ng doktrina. kaya ang kinalabasan ng iglesia ni cristo tatag ni manalo ay walang sariling aral.
sensiya na po, tao lang kaming mga kaanib ng iglesia ni manalo.
"Locked himself" = PRIVATE
Delete"an intensive study and reflection of the doctrines"= INTERPRETATION
HE is making a private interpretation! are you still dumb?
--- IT IS YOUR EXPLANATION AND YOUR OWN OPINION:) But you have no evidence that Brother Felix Y. Manalo made his own interpretation!!:)
If there is DUMB, IT IS YOU:). You know why? Imagine you keep on insisting that Ka Felix just made his own interpretation wherein the evidence that you showed it was clearly said THAT HE IS COMPARING IT ( YOUR DOCTRINES ) TO THE BIBLE!!:) What a DUMB person are you Riel?:)
And Riel, tell to the coward and gay catholic defender not to use my name in posting things here which is against my own side. THAT IS DECEIVING PEOPLE. LYING IN PUBLIC. DOING DESPERATE THINGS UP TO THE POINT USING MY NAME JUST TO SAVE HIS STUPIDITY AND DUMBNESS. YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT IS THE TRUE MARK OF THE DEMON. IS THAT THE KIND OF PERSON THAT YOU WILL FOLLOW RIEL?
---NAPOLEON FORD
---NAPOLEON FORD
Ayun po, nagbabasa lang po. Sana po maliwanagan na po talaga ako.... Ayoko pong magkamali san po ko aanib na religion...
ReplyDelete>>>NO BIBLE SCHOLAR EVER ACCEPTED THE INTERPRETATION OF "FELIX MANALO BEING THAT ANGEL IN THE REVELATIONS" Using the sources from Catholic to support the INC doctrine is called " Hypocrisy "
Jay, if you wanted to be in the true church, there's a clue:
All FAKE CHURCHES were founded by a human being, who was called a prophet or last messenger.
Ask yourself, who is the founder of the Catholic Church, how come it lasted so long? Who is it's founder?
READ THE BIBLE!
Lagi naman po akong nagbabasa ng Biblia. Yun nga lang nalilito po ako.
DeleteGinoong Riel Lopez, totoo naman po na walang Bible Scholar na magsasabing si Felix Manalo ang Anghel sa Apocalipsis. Pero marami na rin po akong nabasa na mga commentaries na nagsasabi na ang Catholi Church po daw yung Babaing patutot sa Apocalipsis. Yung nasa Apocalipsis 18 po. Tama po ba ang mga Bible Scholars doon? At pwede nyo po bang maipaliwanag kung bakit mali si Napoleon Ford? E tama naman po ata yung mga ebidensyang ipinakita nya e. Mali naman po atang sabihing mali sya kung naipakita naman talaga ang mga katibayan di po ba?
Ayun po. Ginoong Catholic Defender pakitulungan rin po ako. Mapagpayuhan niyo rin po sana ako. Nanghingi na rin po ako ng counsel sa mga elders. Sa inyo rin po humihingi ako. Lagi po ako sumusubaybay sa inyo. Papost po ulit. Salamat po
Yeah read the Bible and you will see that thename of the Catholic Church is nowhere to be found. Apostle Peter as the Chief Shepherd is nowhere to be found. Trinity is nowhere to be found. What you can found Catholic in the Bible is their DEMON'S DOCTrINES:)
DeleteWake up BOY!:)
Trinity is nowhere to be found. What you can found Catholic in the Bible is their DEMON'S DOCTrINES:)
Delete>>show me the word Phil. or Felix Manalo!!!!!
The doctrines about the Far East ( The fulfillment is the Philippines ) and the Servant of God from the Far East that will come from the "ends of the earth" ( The fulfillment is Brother Felix Y. Manalo ) are PROPHESIES OF THE BIBLE.
DeleteTHESE ARE PROPHESIES. Usually, a prophecy won't tell the name of the person or thing being prophesied. I'm advising you to made a research what is a prophesy so you can understand why the person's name being prophesied is not stated. How can we recognize those being prophesied when their name was not stated? THROUGH THEIR WORKS. I have answered already these arguments in the past weeks or months. And now you keep on returning to your same old arguments, tsk tsk tsk. That is DUMBNESS Riel Lopez.
--- NAP
Does Isaiah 43:5-6 apply to Felix Manalo? No! It applies to Israel the nation, the people of Isaiah to whom he was prophesying!
DeleteWhat is the context of Isaiah 43? The Filipino people or Israel? It is Israel!
Isa 43:1--But now thus saith the LORD that created thee, O Jacob, and he that formed thee, O Israel, fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine.
Isa 43:2--When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee.
Isa 43:3--For I am the LORD thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.
Isa 43:4--Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore will I give men for thee, and people for thy life.
Isa 43:5--Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;
Isa 43:6--I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;
Isa 43:7--Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.
Felix Manalo and INC central administration are thieves! They are Bible thieves. They have stolen a promise from the Israelites and applied it unto themselves.
Ahm, I'm warning you :) This arguments are very easy to answer:).And the answers for your argument will prove again how ignorant you are:) But before I will answer that, please give a feedback first to my challenges to you:) So that you can no longer run away again from the issue:) Don't tell me that you miss again my post XP
Delete---NAP
Hoy Catholic Defender, bakit di mo pa sinasagot yung tanong ni Jay Caguioa tungkol sa Katolisismo na babaeng patutot daw sa Apocalipsis 18 XP.
DeleteSAGUTIN MO NAMAN:)
--- NAP
Hoy Iglesia ni Manalo, bakit di mo pa sinasagot yung tanong namin tungkol sa pekeng sugo na isang manlilinlang at isang anti-kristo ayon na rin sa talata sa 2 juan 1:7?
Delete--NAP
I'm advising you to made a research what is a prophesy so you can understand why the person's name being prophesied is not stated. How can we recognize those being prophesied when their name was not stated? THROUGH THEIR WORKS.
DeleteI advice you to read the whole chapter of Isaiah 43 and identify who is the recipient of the prophecy! STUPID FAR-EAST INTERPRETATION!!!! Challenge: asked the 41,000 protestant denomination and eastern church if they would agree the interpretation of that prophecy! They would, only if you poison them...
Lagi naman po akong nagbabasa ng Biblia. Yun nga lang nalilito po ako.
DeleteGinoong Riel Lopez, totoo naman po na walang Bible Scholar na magsasabing si Felix Manalo ang Anghel sa Apocalipsis. Pero marami na rin po akong nabasa na mga commentaries na nagsasabi na ang Catholi Church po daw yung Babaing patutot sa Apocalipsis. Yung nasa Apocalipsis 18 po. Tama po ba ang mga Bible Scholars doon? At pwede nyo po bang maipaliwanag kung bakit mali si Napoleon Ford? E tama naman po ata yung mga ebidensyang ipinakita nya e. Mali naman po atang sabihing mali sya kung naipakita naman talaga ang mga katibayan di po ba?
Ayun po. Ginoong Catholic Defender pakitulungan rin po ako. Mapagpayuhan niyo rin po sana ako. Nanghingi na rin po ako ng counsel sa mga elders. Sa inyo rin po humihingi ako. Lagi po ako sumusubaybay sa inyo. Papost po ulit. Salamat po
hahahaha....link of the commentary please!
Hoy Iglesia ni Manalo, bakit di mo pa sinasagot yung tanong namin tungkol sa pekeng sugo na isang manlilinlang at isang anti-kristo ayon na rin sa talata sa 2 juan 1:7?
Delete--???????? :) Ahm, sorry, kasi yung argument MALAKING KATANGAHAN E:) Ahm, ang layo naman ata ng 2 Juan 1:7 sa bintang ninyo na ang Sugo ay manlilinlang at anti-Christ:). Ano ba paliwanag nyo dun? Di ba ang anti-Cristo ay ang mga nagtuturo na si Cristo ay hindi TAO?
For many deceivers have gone out into the world--men who do not acknowledge Jesus as Christ who has come in HUMAN nature. Such a one is 'the deceiver' and 'the anti-Christ.'
Ayan o, ang anti-Cristo sila yung nagtuturo di daw tao si Cristo. GANUN BA PAGTUTURO NAMIN? I told you, katangahan kasi yung argumento mo kaya di ko pinansin:)
Tska, KATANGAHAN TALAGA. GAMITIN BA NAMAN NIYO PANGALAN KO PARA SIRAAN ANG IGLESIANG IPINAGLALABAN KO E. :) Tingin niyo may maniniwala sa inyo?:) GUNGGONG:)
hahaha kami pa ngayon ang tanga eh heto't ibinilad mo na sa mundo ang malaking katangahan mo!
Delete"JESUS CHRIST COMING IN THE FLESH"
Eh kung tao na siya noon pa eh bakit kailangan pa niyang ipangalandakang coming in the flesh siya.
Tapos si Felix Manalo ay isang anghel!!!!!
Ang Dios pinagpipilitan niyong taong tao at hindi dios. Ang taong rapist na pekeng sugo ay ginagawa niyong sugo anghel na may anghit!
ang kakapal ng mga mukha. utak nasa talampakan!
Wow . so you are using my own name to promote STUPIDITY HERE huh? IF YOU ARE BRAVE ENOUGH AND NOT GAY, DO NOT USE MY NAME:) AHmm, NEVERMIND, NO ONE WILL BELIEVE YOU:)
DeleteNice strategy STUPID CATHOLIC DEFENDER, USING NAMES OF THEIR OPPONENTS TO SAVE THEIR SHAMES. I THOUGHT YOU ARE A RESPECTABLE DEFENDER THAT WILL POST HONESTLY EVERYTHING HERE.:) YOU HAVE PROVEN TO ME ALREADY YOUR DECEITFUL ACTS.
DeletePUBLIC!!! WHY DON'T YOU CLICK TO "MY NAME" ( Actually my name was already used by them. He like me so much that's why:) ) THAT IS POSTING THINGS WHICH ARE AGAINST ME:) ONCE YOU DO THAT, YOU WILL SEE THE DECEIVING AND DEVILISH ACTS OF CATHOLIC DEFENDER 2000. :)
Eh kung tao na siya noon pa eh bakit kailangan pa niyang ipangalandakang coming in the flesh siya.
Delete-- NATURAL, HINDI PA SIYA EXISTIDO NOON E:) ENGOT KA TALAGA:) DOKTRINA MO PINAPALAGAY MO DOKTRINA NAMIN? Hindi kami naniniwalang nagkatawang - tao ang Panginoong Jesus:)
I advice you to read the whole chapter of Isaiah 43 and identify who is the recipient of the prophecy! STUPID FAR-EAST INTERPRETATION!!!! Challenge: asked the 41,000 protestant denomination and eastern church if they would agree the interpretation of that prophecy! They would, only if you poison them...
Delete-- I'm warning you again:) Once I will post my answers here which are the explanations of the Bible Scholars, again your face will slap on the floor:) I'm telling you, don't be too brave for this issue:) ?You are nothing but an ignorant student pretending to be knowledgeable in Bible matters. Imagine, Peter was the first one to proclaim the divinity of Christ? The answer is in the Bible but the proof that you have not yet read the whole Bible is when you said that fallacy about Peter:) How much more to the Bible Scholars?:)
ANSWER FIRST MY OLD ARGUMENTS BEFORE GOING TO THIS ISSUE:)
DeleteBarnes' Notes on the Bible
And he cried mightily - Literally, "he cried with a strong great voice." See Revelation 10:3.
Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen - See the notes on Revelation 14:8. The proclamation here is substantially the same as in that place, and no doubt the same thing is referred to.
And is become the habitation of devils - Of demons - in allusion to the common opinion that the demons inhabited abandoned cities, old ruins, and deserts. See the notes on Matthew 12:43-45. The language here is taken from the description of Babylon in Isaiah 13:20-22; and for a full illustration of the meaning, see the notes on that passage.
And the hold of every foul spirit - φυλακὴ phulakē. A watch-post, station, haunt of such spirits - That is, they, as it were, kept guard there; were stationed there; haunted the place.
And a cage of every unclean and hateful bird - That is, they would resort there, and abide there as in a cage. The word translated "cage" is the same which is rendered "hold" - φυλακὴ phulakē. In Isaiah 13:21, it is said, "and owls shall dwell there"; and in Isaiah 14:23, it is said that it would be a "possession for the bittern." The idea is that of utter desolation; and the meaning here is, that spiritual Babylon - papal Rome Revelation 14:8 - will be reduced to a state of utter desolation resembling that of the real Babylon. It is not necessary to suppose this of the city of Rome itself - for that is not the object of the representation. It is the papacy, represented under the image of the city, and having its seat there. That is to be destroyed as utterly as was Babylon of old; that will become as odious, and loathsome, and detestable as the literal Babylon, the abode of monsters is.
Ayan po yung commentary. Ano po ang paliwanag niyo dito? Mr. Riel ano pong masasabi niuo sa pinost ni Ginoong Nap tungkol sa mga tao na pwedeng maging anghel. Mali po ba yung mga ebidensya doon?
You're doing a great job Riel. I admire you. I will save you conversation with INC's inconsistensies, lies and deceptions for future reference, May I? Robert
ReplyDeleteWow great job Riel. Can you show to us how did you answer the 50 points of Mr. Napoleon concerning Apostle Peter? I can't find the answers.XD
DeleteWow great job Riel. Can you show to us how did you answer the 50 points of Mr. Napoleon concerning Apostle Peter? I can't find the answers.XD
Delete>>>I would like to ask Nap, what is his stand concerning about the earthly head of Church after Christ, before we proceed
:) Nice question
DeleteTHERE IS NO EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH. Christ DID NOT GIVE RIGHTS TO ANYONE TO BE THE EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH. That IS SO UNBIBLICAL
CHRIST IS THE ONLY HEAD OF HIS BODY. HE JUST GAVE ONLY TO HIS APOSTLES THE RIGHT TO LEAD THE CHURCH BUT NOT TO BE THE EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH.
To command people to recognize a certain person as the earthly head of the Church is IRREVERENCE to Christ who is the only head of His Church. The so-called "earthly head" of the Church can't be found in the Bible:)
Be careful with your answers Riel, because I'm assuring you, you can't defend rightly your argument.:)
---NAP
THERE IS NO EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH. Christ DID NOT GIVE RIGHTS TO ANYONE TO BE THE EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH. That IS SO UNBIBLICAL
DeleteNo earthly head? then your 50points has NO POINT at all, you said it was James, prove to me that it was James that's the official stand of the INC and you know that, but what you are doing is disproving without proving anything.
What you are doing is like were are going to a painting contest you and I are contestants, you keep criticizing my painting but you have no painting at all, do you expect that you will win? Come on Nap i know you are a lot older than me don't be so foolish!
Looks like you're not comfortable with the word "EARTHLY HEAD" let me change, Peter is the appointed SHEPHERD before Jesus went to heaven ,
HOW?
John 21:15-17...
Three times in these verses Jesus Christ tells Peter to "Feed My Sheep", or to "Feed My Lambs". For proper understanding of these verses it is necessary to refer to the underlying Greek text.
In verse 16, the Greek word used for "feed" is "poimaino" (second person singular), which means, to act as a SHEPHERD, to rule, to govern, to pastor, or the presiding officer. It is the only time this Greek word is used in the Gospel of John. In verses 15 and 17, the Greek word used for "feed" is "bosko", which means to feed. So verses 15-17 say 'feed my lambs, shepherd my lambs, and feed my sheep'. Jesus told Peter alone to be the SHEPHERD of His flock.
In John 10:16, Jesus said, "...and there shall be one fold and ONE SHEPHERD." The Greek word used here is "poimen (masculine, singular)". Clearly, Jesus said in these verses that there will be only ONE SHEPHERD, and that shepherd will be Peter, the first Bishop of Rome and the first Pope.
One of the test for true Iglesia ni Kristo is: Apostolic Succession. If no apostle of Christ can be traced back, then who gave Felix Manalo the authority to preach? We'll, by himself? or worst by him who knows the scripture and can disguise as an angel of light?
DeleteSee for yourself,
"2Cor 11:12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
2Cor 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
2Cor 11:14 And no wonder, for even SATAN DISGUISES HIMSELF AS AN ANGEL OF LIGHT.
2Cor 11:15 So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds."
One of the test for true Iglesia ni Kristo is: Apostolic Succession.
Delete-- Where in the Bible will you read that this is one of the true test of the true Church?:) I'm challenging you to answer that Biblically:)
---NAP FORD
NAP SAID...
DeleteTHERE IS NO EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH. Christ DID NOT GIVE RIGHTS TO ANYONE TO BE THE EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH. That IS SO UNBIBLICAL
CHRIST IS THE ONLY HEAD OF HIS BODY. HE JUST GAVE ONLY TO HIS APOSTLES THE RIGHT TO LEAD THE CHURCH BUT NOT TO BE THE EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH.
To command people to recognize a certain person as the earthly head of the Church is IRREVERENCE to Christ who is the only head of His Church. The so-called "earthly head" of the Church can't be found in the Bible:)
Be careful with your answers Riel, because I'm assuring you, you can't defend rightly your argument.:)
CD2000:
NAP, please stop fooling yourself. Because Felix Manalo was confirmed by the Bible as the DECEIVER and the ANTI-CHRIST (2 John 1:7) for NOT ACKNOWLEDGING JESUS coming in the Flesh.
In 1 Tim 3:16, Jesus was even more obviously called GOD coming in the Flesh and yet Felix Manalo denied that BIBLICAL TRUTH.
Such a man is the DECEIVER and ANTI-CHRIST said 2 John. 1:7.
So that HE HAD DECEIVED you.
And that you believed that Jesus DID NOT appoint any "EARTHLY LEADER" of his Church?
What a fool!
This is what he said to Peter who is called CEPHAS -- ROCK!
"YOU ARE PETER and UPON THIS ROCK, I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH" (Mt. 16
"FEED MY SHEEP, TEND MY LAMBS" (John 21:17)
Jesus COMMISSIONED Peter....!!! THAT'S IN THE BIBLE!
Where can we find in the Bible that JESUS commissioned FELIX MANALO?
Mangarap kayo!! Yon lang ang kaya niyong gawin!!!! ang MANGARAP ng GISING sa TANGHALING TAPAT!!!!!
NAP SAID..
DeleteOne of the test for true Iglesia ni Kristo is: Apostolic Succession.
-- Where in the Bible will you read that this is one of the true test of the true Church?:) I'm challenging you to answer that Biblically:)
CD2000:
Pwes saan ba makikita sa Bible si Felix Manalo at ng kanyang mga anak at apo ang mamamahala sa "iglesia"!!!!
Biblical ka diyan! Kahit kudlit at titik, wala man lang mababasa sa Bible about Felix Manalo at ang kanyang TAGALOG REGISTERED TRADEMARK na INK tapos naging INC?!!!!
You were DECEIVED by the DECEIVER and ANTI-CHRIST FELIX MANALO (2 John 1:7), yon ang totoo!!!
WOOOAH:)
DeleteCatholic Defender, YOU ARE RUNNING AWAY FROM THE ISSUE:)
WHY DON'T YOU JUST ANSWER ME before going to another issue:)
Here is the Challenge:
DID CHRIST APPOINT ANYONE TO BE THE EARTHLY HEAD OF HIS CHURCH?
If your doctrine is Biblical, prove to me that Christ really appointed someone to be the HEAD of His Church:)
"YOU ARE PETER and UPON THIS ROCK, I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH" (Mt. 16
"FEED MY SHEEP, TEND MY LAMBS" (John 21:17)
--You are using theses verses. Here is the question
1. Did Christ tell Peter to be the head of His Church? :)
2. Jesus said, FEED MY SHEEP, TEND MY LAMBS. WAS ONLY APOSTLE PETER THE ONE WHO HAS THE DUTY TO FEED THE SHEEP OF JESUS? WHAT IS YOUR OPINION HERE?
" The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
It is very clear that all elders inside the Church have the responsibility to feed the flock:) AGAIN, WAS ONLY APOSTLE PETER THE ONE WHO HAS THE DUTY TO FEED THE SHEEP OF JESUS?:)
4. IF PETER IS THE EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO RIEL, THEN, IS IT RESPECTABLE FOR APOSTLE PAUL TO REBUKE PETER FACE TO FACE?:)
" But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly wrong."
5. IF PETER IS THE EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO RIEL, THEN, IS IT RESPECTABLE TO PETER TO BE SENT BY THE ELDERS IN JERUSALEM?:)
" Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent them Peter and John,
These are just only some of the arguments which Riel Lopez failed to answer:) So before twisting the issue CATHOLIC DEFENDER, ANSWER FIRST MY OLD ARGUMENTS:)
"Where can we find in the Bible that JESUS commissioned FELIX MANALO?"
-- We explained it already:) You want me to explain it again?:) SURE. BUT ANSWER FIRST MY OLD ARGUMENTS BEFORE RETURNING TO YOUR ARGUMENTS WHICH ALREADY ANSWERED BY ME:)
NAP SAID..
DeleteOne of the test for true Iglesia ni Kristo is: Apostolic Succession.
-- Where in the Bible will you read that this is one of the true test of the true Church?:) I'm challenging you to answer that Biblically:)
-- Hey you haven't answered me yet:) Don't tell me that you are running again:)
CD2000:
Pwes saan ba makikita sa Bible si Felix Manalo at ng kanyang mga anak at apo ang mamamahala sa "iglesia"!!!!
--- You are changing the issue!! :) Answer me first Catholic Defender before running away:)
" Pwes saan ba makikita sa Bible si Felix Manalo at ng kanyang mga anak at apo ang mamamahala sa "iglesia"!!!!
Biblical ka diyan! Kahit kudlit at titik, wala man lang mababasa sa Bible about Felix Manalo at ang kanyang TAGALOG REGISTERED TRADEMARK na INK tapos naging INC?!!!!"
-- That is a silly question:) Imagine, you are looking for the names of the people who existed thousands years after the Bible was made!! THAT IS STUPIDITY. But we have answer for that. But before that, ANSWER FIRST MY OLD ARGUMENTS:)
STUPIDO TALAGA TONG DEPENSOR KATOLIKO NA ITO:)
Thank you RIEL LOPEZ... and God bless.
ReplyDeleteNo earthly head? then your 50points has NO POINT at all, you said it was James, prove to me that it was James that's the official stand of the INC and you know that, but what you are doing is disproving without proving anything.
ReplyDelete--- Why there is no POINT? You haven't answered it. You are just running away. Where can you find the term EARTHLY HEAD in the Bible?:)
"What you are doing is like were are going to a painting contest you and I are contestants, you keep criticizing my painting but you have no painting at all, do you expect that you will win? Come on Nap i know you are a lot older than me don't be so foolish!"
-- You are so brave to say that don't expect me to win. HEY!! I have put many thing here that slap your face to the floor.:) YOU HAVEN'T PROVEN ANYTHING TO DESTROY MY ARGUMENTS. YOU ARE JUST FORGETTING THE ISSUES ONCE YOU ARE ASHAMED:)
IMAGINE!! YOU SAID HUMAN CAN'T BE ANGELS!!! HAHAHA I have posted many proofs to slap to your face THAT YOU ARE BADLY WRONG!!! Peter was the first to proclaimed the divinity of Christ?!!! AGAIN I HAVE PROVEN THAT YOU ARE WRONG!!Apostles are not bringing books with them? AGAIN I HAVE PROVEN THAT YOU ARE WRONG!:) You haven't proven that I am wrong in any sense Riel. ALL OF YOUR ANSWERS WERE ALREADY PROVEN WRONG BY ME. YOU ARE JUST DUMB NOT TO UNDERSTAND. That's why I will change my style.:) And I'm just 21, how come that I am older than you?:)
Looks like you're not comfortable with the word "EARTHLY HEAD" let me change, Peter is the appointed SHEPHERD before Jesus went to heaven ,
--- You change it? ohhh:) So you do accept that this term is not in the Bible because you changed it.:)
In John 10:16, Jesus said, "...and there shall be one fold and ONE SHEPHERD." The Greek word used here is "poimen (masculine, singular)". Clearly, Jesus said in these verses that there will be only ONE SHEPHERD, and that shepherd will be Peter, the first Bishop of Rome and the first Pope.
-- There is only one sheperd and that is Peter. VERY UNBIBLICAL AND CONTRADICTING THE BIBLE:)
"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: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers--not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;"
---^.^. Riel!! I thought there is only one shepherd?!!! See your ignorance?:) YOUR IGNORANCE IS PUTTING YOU TO SHAME!!!:) Here is the challenge, PROVE TO ME THAT PETER IS WRONG WHEN HE RECOGNIZED OTHERS AS SHEPHERD OF THE CHURCH:) AND ALSO PROVE TO ME THAT EARTHLY HEAD OF THE CHURCH IS IN THE BIBLE.:)
--- tsk tsk tsk. NAP
Yes! Human can't be angels because angels are immortals don't assumed that you already prove something just because I wasn't able to reply, these are the official stand of the CHURCH about ANGELS:
ReplyDelete329 St. Augustine says: "'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel.'"188 With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they "always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven" they are the "mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word".189
330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness.190
SEE? purely immortal they don't die! let's check the Wikipedia if Manalo the fake angel is immortal:
He had stomach ulcers which brought him constant pain that even medication did not help. On April 12, 1963 at 2:35 in the morning, Felix Ysagun Manalo died at the age of 76. He passed the leadership of the church to his son, Eraño de Guzman Manalo who was elected unanimously by the council of elders.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Manalo
End of your ANGEL story Nap!
Yes! Human can't be angels because angels are immortals don't assumed that you already prove something just because I wasn't able to reply
Delete-- You wasn't able to reply because you have no right explanation to reply:)
YOU ARE JUST MAKING YOUR ALIBI:) Even the evidence that you've posted is not destroying me:) See your evidence with Augustine? He did not say that Humans can't be angels:)
One more QUESTION.
DO YOU ACCEPT THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION OF CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT HUMANS CAN BE ANGELS?
" Angels
(Latin angelus; Greek aggelos; from the Hebrew for "one going" or "one sent"; messenger). The word is used in Hebrew to denote indifferently either a divine or human messenger. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
:) hahaha
Yes! Human can't be angels because angels are immortals don't assumed that you already prove something just because I wasn't able to reply, these are the official stand of the CHURCH about ANGELS:
ReplyDelete- I have proven many things Riel:) YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU HAVE NOTHING TO ANSWER ME. YOUR EVIDENCE IS VERY EASY TO REFUTE:)
" 330 As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness.190
-- Who are the immortals? THE PURELY SPIRITUAL CREATURES ANGELS:) We do acknowledge that there are spiritual angels ( like Angel Gabriel and Archangel Michael ). But these spiritual angels are not only the angels.:) HUMAN CAN BE ANGELS ALSO. AND THAT IS ALREADY PROVEN BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND BIBLE SCHOLARS:) Here is my question:
1. Are you more intelligent than them when you said that humans can't be angels??:)
2. You said that what have you posted is the official stand of the Catholic Church. Then, what is your explanation when YOUR OWN CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA said
" Angels
(Latin angelus; Greek aggelos; from the Hebrew for "one going" or "one sent"; messenger). The word is used in Hebrew to denote indifferently either a divine or human messenger. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
:)
Which is the OFFICIAL STAND? Is it your OWN CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA's OFFICIAL explanation that angel can be divine or human? Or YOUR OWN OPINION THAT HUMAN CAN'T BE ANGELS?:) Remember, Augustine never said that human can't be angels.:)
ARE YOU SMARTER THAT YOUR OWN CATHOLIC LEADERS?:)
hahaha, SHAME TO YOU RIEL:)
---- NAPOLEON FORD
At gusto mo pang gamitin ang CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA against us!!
DeleteMr. Napoleon, that definition from our Encyclopedia does not apply to Felix Manalo. Show me one bible verse that clearly mentions his name and his commissioning and calling to the "angelic" or "messenger" role?
That alone should have SHAMED you too!
Have a little shame for RELYING HEAVILY on our OFFICIAL BOOKS and our BIBLE while you cannot even have your own reference OFFICIALLY.
And in order to use YOUR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS about this Church you are so against, here is what your PASUGO says about the CATHOLIC CHURCH and the INC which was founded only in 1914...
And I mean this is OFFICIAL!
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 Nobyembre 1940, p. 23:
“Iisa lamang ang tanging makapagtatayo ng Iglesiang magiging dapat sa Dios. Kung sino? -- Ang ating Panginoong Jesu-Cristo lamang! Sinumang tao-- maging marunong o mangmang-- ay walang karapatang magtayo..."
PASUGO Mayo 1968, p. 7:
“Ang tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo ay iisa lamang, ito ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo. Kung mayroon mang nagsisibangon ngayong mga Iglesia at sasabihing sila man ay INK rin ang mga ito ay hindi tunay kundi huwad lamang!"
PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: “Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."
ARE YOU SMARTER THAN YOUR OWN MINISTERS WHO WROTE THAT OFFICIALLY IN YOUR OFFICIAL MAGAZINE? :)
hahaha, SHAME ON YOU NAPOLEON FORD!
Hoy Catholic Defender na DUWAG at WALANG HIYA na MAKAPAL ANG MUKHA:) IPOST mo ung simabihan kitang DEMONYO. ISIPIN mo gagamitin mo sarili kong pangalan para siraan ang IGELSIA NI CRISTO NA aking ipinaglalaban? Ang kapal ng mukha niyo mga mandaraya talaga kayo, manang mana kayo sa tatay NIYONG DIYABLO!!:)
Delete---NAPOLEON FORD:)
Mr. Napoleon, that definition from our Encyclopedia does not apply to Felix Manalo. Show me one bible verse that clearly mentions his name and his commissioning and calling to the "angelic" or "messenger" role?
ReplyDelete--- Why did I say that your explanation applied to us? YOU ARE CHANGING THE ISSUE AGAIN!!:) THE ISSUE IS IF A HUMAN CAN BE ANGEL!!!:) YOUR OWN ENCYCLOPEDIA IS AGREEING WITH ME:) SO ? SHAME TO YOU CATHOLIC DEFENDER:)
And I mean this is OFFICIAL!
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 Nobyembre 1940, p. 23:
“Iisa lamang ang tanging makapagtatayo ng Iglesiang magiging dapat sa Dios. Kung sino? -- Ang ating Panginoong Jesu-Cristo lamang! Sinumang tao-- maging marunong o mangmang-- ay walang karapatang magtayo..."
PASUGO Mayo 1968, p. 7:
“Ang tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo ay iisa lamang, ito ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo. Kung mayroon mang nagsisibangon ngayong mga Iglesia at sasabihing sila man ay INK rin ang mga ito ay hindi tunay kundi huwad lamang!"
PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: “Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."
--- Where in this pages we said that CATHOLIC CHURCH IS STILL THE CHURCH OF CHRIST?:) Did we say that?
And is is very clear that our PAsugo said " Tunay nga na sinasabi sa rehistro na si Kapatid na F. Manalo ang nagtatag ng INK."
-- IT IS ONLY IN THE REGISTRATION FORM!:) Are you DUMB not to understand a simple statement like this?:)
You are using our Pasugo like a FOOL MAN WHO USE HIS SLIPPERS TO COVER HIS HEAD FROM THE RAIN:) No intelligent man will believe you STUPID CATHOLIC DEFENDER:)
So now, answer my old arguments:)
Catholic Defender, I'm losing respect at your blog. Using the name of your enemy to post something? People defending this blog is beginning to be desperate eh? Your humiliating yourself (Not in General but that certain person, whoever that is)...
ReplyDelete"Mr. Napoleon, that definition from our Encyclopedia does not apply to Felix Manalo."
So there is no question about that definition right? I thought a while ago you were denying that. I'm just curious, why are you saying that does not apply to Bro. Felix Y. Manalo? Any proof? Then a verse that clearly states his name? Eh baka matalikod ka pagka ginamit yang argumento mong yan ng Judaism. Our Lord Jesus Christ's name was not in the prophecies pertaining to him. Panindiganan mo pa yang argumento nyong yan, tatalikod kayo sa pinaglalaban niyo.
"That alone should have SHAMED you too!"
What is wrong with explaining beliefs with some statements that is not contradictory to the truth and from those people that you look at as authorities? (Not to mention that you yourself are doing the same)
"And in order to use YOUR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS about this Church you are so against, here is what your PASUGO says about the CATHOLIC CHURCH and the INC which was founded only in 1914...
And I mean this is OFFICIAL!"
Yes its Official. We have nothing against the statements. HOWEVER we are against how you use it, CUT IT TO PARTS WHERE IT SEEMINGLY CONTRADICTS WHAT OUR BELIEFS ARE. What you were saying a while ago? Shameful? Look who's the one speaking
"ARE YOU SMARTER THAN YOUR OWN MINISTERS WHO WROTE THAT OFFICIALLY IN YOUR OFFICIAL MAGAZINE? :)"
No he is not. Do you have the guts to risk the pride of your religion and twist the statements in Pasugo to your own to prove that you're right? Yes. DEFINITELY YES. That's what you just did.
Remember this Catholic Defender. Contextual Meaning has a very very different impact on Literal Meaning (and not understanding the distinction between the two even contributed to your false doctrines, to be specific, Christ's Divinity). Well... If you can't understand what did I just said, you can search it at your very reliable Wikipedia that anyone can edit and very very susceptible to bias.
Calling this an accusation will prove that someone ignorant.
hahaha nakakatawa naman ang mga iglesia ni manalo. May respect pang nalalaman. Kailan kayo nagkaroon gn respeto sa mga Katoliko ha?!
DeleteYour name does not even suggest any respect at all. Demand when you know the difference between brutes and apes.
DeleteWho is NAPOLEON FORD? Is he AUTHORIZED to REPRESENT the Iglesia ni Cristo (Manalo) by asserting his statements to be authoritative?
Well then, his filthy, nasty, name-calling strategy PERFECTLY suits your church. Ganyan na ganyan ang mga Ministro kahit sa OPISYAL na pahayag.
1- PASUGO Disyembre 1965, p. 5:
“Kaninong Ministro kung ganyan ang mga Paring Katoliko? Mga Ministro ni Satanas na Diablo."
2- PASUGO Oktubre 1959, p. 5:
“Mga magdaraya at anti-Cristo, ang mga nagtuturong si Cristo ay Dios."
3- PASUGO Agosto 1962, p. 9:
“Kaya ang tunay na anti-Cristo, ang mga Papa ng Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana. At ang tunay na ampon ng anti-Cristo ay ang mga Katoliko.”
4- PASUGO Oktubre 1956, p. 1:
“Ang Iglesia ni Cristo ay nagdaos ng pamamahayag sa Lunsod ng Davao. Nagsalita roon si Kapatid na Felix Manalo at ang kasama niyang mga Ministro. Ipinahayag doon ng mga nagsalita na ang Iglesia Katolika Romana ay hindi itinatag ni Cristo kundi itinatag ng Diablo."
Now EDUCATE ME ON RESPECT please!!!!
How filthy YOUR ministers are? Here is a transcript of ERAÑO MANALO commenting on your minister's filth behavior!!!
Delete“Ngayon, kung ang isang manggagawa, mga kapatid, sinungaling, hindi puwedeng manindigan. Kung ang isang manggagawa kakampi sa katiwalian, hindi puwedeng manindigan. Kung ang isang manggagawa siya pang nagtuturo ng katiwalian, eh lalong masamang manggagawa ito.
“Wala nang sariling paninindigan ay siya pang kasangkapan ng diablo. Eh sino ho iyang ganyang manggagawa? Maraming manggagawa natin, halos lahat ganyan.
“Hindi ho ba naman isang napakarahas na pagpaparatang iyan? Hindi. Kaya ko nalalaman sapagka't ang mga ulat na dumarating sa amin, hindi totoo. Bakit ho hindi naging totoo?
“Hindi sapagka't ang kapatid ang nagkamali kundi ang mga manggagawa ang siyang bumabago ng ulat para ilihis ang paniniwala ng pangangasiwa.
“Eh iyon ho bang mga tagapamahala nalalaman iyan? Nalalaman iyan ng karamihan. Pero nagkaisa ang mga manggagawa sa loob ng iglesia para linlangin at dayain ang pangangasiwa sa layunin nilang gumanda, kuminis ang bagay na marumi at ang bagay na hindi matuwid.
“Pero napakasama naman na ito palang mga tinustusang ito, ito pala naninira sa iglesia. NAPAKAGAGONG pangangasiwa, na gumagastos ka para sa maninira.
“Pero gusto kong masaktan kayo. Gusto ko na higit pa sa masaktan. Kung maaari ko lang DAGUKAN ang iba ay gagawin ko para maging matindi sa kaniya...
“Yung ibang mga kalihim sa probinsya, talagang wala eh, hindi abot ng kanilang kapasidad. Lalo na sa mga liblib na lugar, papaano makagagawa ng form 'yun?
“Kayong (Eh yong) manggagawa ngayon, inaasahan ko na kapatid, heto, mali ito, bakit ka mag-uulat ng hindi totoo? masama iyan.
“Eh hindi, yung kapatid mag-uulat ng totoo. Baguhin mo iyan! Eh ito ho ang nasa tuntunin. Ah, anong nasa tuntunin?
“Akin na iyan, pag hindi SUSUNTUKIN KITA! Iyan ang manggagawa natin ngayon. “MANLULUPIG! MANINIKIL NG KAPATID.
“Kaya ang iglesia'y naghihimagsik laban sa manggagawa sa nakikita nilang KATIWALIAN AT KATAMPALASANAN na hindi nila inaasahang mangyari.
“Ano ang sulat sa akin ng isang kapatid? Baka gusto ninyong ipabasa ko sa inyo. Hanggang ngayon wala pa po akong nakikitang MATINO na manggagawa sa kasaysayan ng buhay ko, LAHAT ho puro TIWALI. Masakit na salita.
“NASAKTAN AKO... sapagka't ako'y manggagawa rin. Pero hindi ko masita yung kapatid sapagka't alam kong nagsasabi siya, kung hindi man buong-buo na katotohanan eh NAGSASALITA SIYA NG TOTOO.
“Wala nang nagkaroon ng takot sa Dios na kahit isa para tumayo at manindigan sa panig ng katuwiran. LAHAT MANLULUPIG na ng katuwiran.
“Bakit? SUWELDO ang hinahanap, yung TULONG niya, yung BAHAY niya, yung KASAGANAAN niya, siguro, ang TINATAMASA niya pero ang iglesia ay ayaw na niyang pagsilbihan ng totoo.
“Pero isipin ninyo, dumadami tuloy ang ating form. Nagagalit kayo sa opisina. Pati mga taga-opisina kinakalaban ng ibang mga manggagawa. Kapag nag-uulat sa akin, nagagalit. Nasaan ninyo gusto... Papaano ang ating gagawin sa iglesia?
“Kayo ang maghahari sa iglesia? Hindi. TAMAAN KAYO NG KIDLAT AT KULOG bago mangyari iyan. [Kasi Manalo lang ang dapat na MAGHARI sa INC. Sa kanilang companya yan eh hahahaha] (Kung) Kaya sabi ko sa Dios, napakarami ho namang dapat BAHAING MANGGAGAWA, bakit hindi mo siyang binaha? PARA MALIPOL ang mga TAMPALASANG taong ito. Nadaig pa ang kasalanan ni Judas, iisang maestro ang ipinagkanulo. Iisa ang nagkanulo sa panahon ni Kristo pero NGAYON LAHAT NG MANGGAGAWA nagkakaisa ipagkanulo Dios.
continued....
Delete“Te' kayo, tingnan ninyo, mga kapatid, iyan ang tagapamahala sa Visayas at Mindanao. Nagpalitan tayo ng mga matatagal na sa pamamahala. Eh isa-isa, lumalapit sa akin, dumadaing sa akin. Kapatid, mayroon ho akong problema. Ano? Yun hong nakatala sa ating sa senso na mga pangalan ng kapatid, eh hindi ko naman ho makita (dito) ngayon sa aking destino.
“Ano kako ang ibig mong sabihin? Eh ang numero ho eh napakalaki pero sa katotohanan ho'y wala yung tao. Ang Camarines, este ang Sorsogon, hinihiling sa akin na alisin sa talaan ang kulang-kulang na apatnaraang tao eh kakaunti lang naman ang kapatid sa Sorsogon.
“Bakit? Tinignan ko sa ulat ang nakaulat na malamig eh mahigit lang isandaan. Pero ang aalisin eh apat na raan.
“Eh bakit, ano ho ba ang ginawa nung mga dating naroon? Aba'y e di binabago ulat. “Pinakikinis para huwag mapagalitan.
“Samakamatuwid eh malaman, ang sinasanggalang iyong sarili, hindi ang kapakanan ng iglesia. Eh iyon ho ba'y sa Sorsogon lang? Laganap iyan kung saan-saan. Maski sa Maynila, ANG MGA MANGGAGAWA RITO'Y MAGDARAYA. Sasabihin sa iyo, dinoktrinahan ko iyan. Hindi naman. Sasabihin sa iyo, (nabautismu...) iyan ho'y nasubok sa pagsamba, pero hindi totoo. Eh bakit?
“Nakita sa matatandang ministro, nakita sa matatandang manggagawa na iyon pala ang paraan para siya ay bumuti sa paningin ng pangangasiwa.
“Sila ang nagsasanggalang ngayon sa kapakanan! Pero hanggang kailan tatagal ang iglesia'y INAAWAY ng mga MANGGAGAWA, BINABABAG, MINUMURA, NILALAIT at PINIPILIT NA KAYO ANG GUMAWA NG LIKO? Saan kayo nakakita ng manggagawa, sa halip na siyang magtindig sa nakalugmok.
“Yung nakatayo ang ilulugmok para lamang gumanda ang kanyang sarili. Eh kung dito sa Maynila nangyayari iyon eh, eh di lalo na sa probinsya, lalo na sa malalayong lugar. Ay, tingnan ninyo sa Mindanao at sa Bisaya ngayon eh, at sa lahat ng mga... eh iba, mabibigla, mababagong bigla ang senso ng iglesia. Ano ang dahilan? Wala pala yung mga kapatid na iyon, sinasabi lang na naroon. Sino ho ang may gawa niyan? Yung magdarayang manggagawa. Hindi iyong kapatid. Yung kapatid, magkamali man, eh hindi sinadya. YUNG MINISTRO, SINASADYA.
“Tumawag ako ng pulong ng mga pamunuan sa Maynila para sabihin: Mga kapatid, tumulong kayo sa akin. Ayokong mamatay ang manggagawa; ang gusto ko ay pagtulong-tulungan nating sila'y buhayin. Sabihin n'yo sa akin kung ano ang ating maitutulong. Aba'y hindi ang sinabi sa akin kung ano ang maitutulong. Ang sinabi sa akin kung anu-anong KATIWALIAN. Ang sabi sa akin nung isa; Kapatid, tama ho ba na hindi ho itinuturo outline? Tuwing mamimili ho ng tatlong talata, tatanungin, o ano, naiintindihan mo ba iyan? Tama ho ba kapatid, bungkos-bungkos na mga katibayan, siya pumipirma, PINAPALSIKA ho niya pirma ng mga kinauukulang kalihim at mga katiwala ng gawain? Pinigil ko. Ni hindi ko itinanong sino gumagawa niyan.
“Bakit? Alam kong ang manggagawa sa Maynila. Mawawalan ng dangal kapag nalaman ng lahat, siya pala'y MAGNANAKAW at TAMPALASAN.
“Maski saan ka bumaling eh, wala kang makikitang liwanag. Bakit? Kumalat, lumalaganap iyang espiritung iyan na DAYAIN ANG ULAT, dayain ang ulat, LINLANGIN ANG PANGANGASIWA.
“Sayang ang papel. Katakut-takot ang nagagastos natin. Binabayaran natin ang mga empleyado sa opisina, hindi pala totoo ang sinisiyasat nila.
continued...
Delete“Dito ba magwawakas ang kamatayan ng mga ito? Sa tinagal-tagal ho ba ng iyong pagpapakasakit at pagpapakahirap, at iyon ang sugo sa huling araw, ay dito ba lamang ba matatapos ang kanilang buhay at takbuhin? Kundi ang manggagawa ang siyang lumulupig sa mga kapatid na gustong manindigan, tinatakot. Kaya nagkaroon tuloy ng paniniwala: Ang pinakamasamang tao ang mag-ulat. Ang pinakamasamang tao ang mag-ulat. Ang mabuti ang tahimik. Ang mabuti ang kunsintidor. Ang mabuti ang tiwali. Kaya hindi ako nagtataka, mga kapatid, kung bakit ang Dios pagod na pagod ng katatatag, talikod naman ng talikod ang tao.
“Ang tuntunin niya ang tinatalikuran. Ngayon, nagsasanay na naman ang mga manggagawa talikuran ang tuntunin! Pero sa ginagawa natin ngayon, sa ginagawa ng karamihang mga manggagawa kung hindi man lahat, anong ehemplo ang ipakikita sa may tungkulin?
“Papaano ko ngayon, papaano natin kokontrahin ang mga may tungkulin, magtapat kayo.
“Sasabihin ng may tungkulin: Ikaw ang salbahe eh. Lumilikom ka ng abuloy, wala namang pahintulot. Ikaw ang nagsabi sa amin na huwag na kaming magsusumbong. Papaano kami magtatapat eh ikaw ang gumagawa ng katiwalian? Papaano tayo makakalikha ng mabubuting may tungkulin? Papaano? Kung ganyan ang ating ipamumukha sa mga kapatid natin? Wala na kayong bibig diyan. Isipin ninyo sa Agusan, ilang beses, likom ng likom ng abuloy?"
"hahaha nakakatawa naman ang mga iglesia ni manalo. May respect pang nalalaman. Kailan kayo nagkaroon gn respeto sa mga Katoliko ha?!"
DeleteWhy? Is it not right to respect someone? I said that because all of my replies are posted, none are rejected (unlike someone with a coward attitude like that). Kaya madami talagang di rumerespeto sa inyo eh eto ata isang dahilan. Nagbibigay respeto na nga ang iba eh pinagsasabihan niyo pa ng kung ano-ano. Umayos ka naman Anonymus. Gumagawa ka ng sarili mong kahihiyan. Kung magsalita ka napakageneral, nalalaman mo ba lahat ng iniisip ng tao? Kaya nga ako nagpasalamat kay Catholic Defender eh at lahat ng reply ko eh napopost.
Mr. Cathollic Defender...
My Name? What about it? The Walking Dead? Its just a series running in America about zombie invasion. What about it? Don't pay attention at the account's name. That's not even near to my name.
"Who is NAPOLEON FORD? Is he AUTHORIZED to REPRESENT the Iglesia ni Cristo (Manalo) by asserting his statements to be authoritative?"
No. Does it change the fact that what he is saying is the truth we firmly believe that you can't even disprove? NO. Remember this Catholic Defender. He is not making official statements but is telling you what he has learned from the lessons. Miyembro palang yan kasuap mo ah. Ano bang tawag diyan sa statement mo? Isang Fallacy of Relevance (Ad Hominem Argument) na naglalayong sirain yung reputasyon ng tao na kausap para maniwala yung iba na yung sinasabi niya ang totoo regardless na yung sinisiraan niya ay nagsasabi ng totoo.
Dyan sa mga pahayag ng Pasugo. Alam mo Catholic Defender, pagka nagbubunyag ka ng katotohanan, hindi maiiwasan na may masasaktan. Pff... Tapos galing galing mo pang magpost ng mga ganitong page.
TAPOS PAGKA MAY KAUSAP KA WALA KA PANG IBANG GINAWA KUNDI BAGUHIN ANG USAPAN. EH KAHIT ISA SA MGA ITINANONG KO WALA KA PANG NASASAGOT. PAGKA MAY SINASABI AKO SA IYO EH BINABATO MO AKO LAGI NG IBANG ISSUE. KATULAD NIYAN.
Sinisingitan mo pa ng komentaryo, kaso mali pa!
Bigyan pa kita ng isang halimbawa sa mga kahulugan ng sentences ah na siyang dapat mong maintindihan upang maunawaan mo ano ba ang pinaparating dyan (pwera na lang kung ayaw mo talagang unawain). Pragmatics. Pag-aralan mo, at maiintindihan mo ako. Yan pa isang dahilan at naligaw kayo eh. Hindi niyo kasi iniintindi ang Literal, Conceptual, Contextual at Pragmatic meaning ng mga pahayag. Tapos, basahin mo ulit. READ BETWEEN THE LINES
Baka sabihin mo binabago ko usapan. Yung kinds of meaning itinuturo ko sa iyo para maintindihan mo ano ba kahulugan ng mga naririnig mo.
Mga argumento mo kasi puro fallacies.
Konti na nga lang talino mo eh di mo pa ginagamit sa tama. Pinagtatanggol ko pa ang kabulukan ng Iglesia ni Manalo!
Deletehahaha nakakatawa naman ang mga iglesia ni manalo. May respect pang nalalaman. Kailan kayo nagkaroon gn respeto sa mga Katoliko ha?!
DeleteKonti na nga lang talino mo eh di mo pa ginagamit sa tama. Pinagtatanggol ko pa ang kabulukan ng Iglesia ni Manalo!
--- Sino ba walang respeto satin? Kami na tinitira ninyo na nananahimik lang naman kami at nagpapakasipag sa aming mga paglilingkod sa Diyos, o kayo na wala ng ginawa kundi ang gumawa ng mga blog sa net para siraan ng kung anu-anong mga kasinungalingan ang Iglesia ni Cristo? Speaking of talino, pano naging konti? HINDI NYO NGA MAPATUMBA ANG MGA EBIDENSIYA KO E. KAYA PALA KONTI KASI DI NIYO KAYANG ITUMBA:)
---NAPOLEON FORD
Malinaw pala kahit sa mismong catholic encyclopedia na ang anghel ay maaring tumukoy kahit sa human being. So mali-maling talaga ang sinasabi niyo na "HUMAN CAN'T BE ANGELS." Kaya pala iniiba mo na ang isyu ng usapan dahil sa nahahayag na naman ang kamangmangan niyo at pagkontra sa mismong turo ng simbahan niyo.
ReplyDeleteGusto mo pang ibahin ang isyu para makatakas sa kahihiyan. OK susundan ka namin kahit diyan sa mga pamali-maling paggamit mo ng aming PASUGO kung aaminin ka na mali-maling ang sinasabi mo na "HUMAN CAN'T BE ANGELS."
Talaga namang may anghel na tao. Yung kapitbahay namin si Ka Anghel taong tao po siya pero di po siya sugo. Hindi po siya nagpanggap o nag-angking sugo siya. Pero Anghel po siya. Anghel ang pangalan, buwahahahahahahaa.
DeleteBe definition, it can be applied to everyone. Say if you tell me that I am a "messenger", I could be an angel. But do you think I am in real sense?
DeleteLet me put in another analogy.
Islam means "submission" to God (Allah). Does it mean when I submit myself to God I am a "Muslim"?
Applying the definition, yes I am "muslima", but religious meaning, no I AM NOT.
Now, apply that principle to the definition of "angel". Was FELIX MANALO an "angell"?!!!!!
Same application to you. Catholic - Katholikos meaning Universal. Your name says that your Church is Universal. BUT DOES IT MAKE SENSE?
DeleteI can apply that to you 5 more times.
Loool...
DeleteTest the waters first. It's just your halluciniations that the word CATHOLIC does not make any sense when in fact, the world is very attentive to the Catholic Church for more than, 2,000 years now.
When the Pope announced that he resigns, the world was shocked. But when the Manalos died, not even the President of America knew he was born...
See the difference?
Ooh? Mag-ingat ka sa sinasabi mo. Baka kainin mo sarili mong dila.
DeleteTapang mo magsalita ng walang ebidensya. Pano mo natiyak na di niya alam na di siya pinanganak? Kilalanin mo muna ang inaakusahan mo at sinasabihan mo na hindi niya kilala ang isang tao!
Why was the Catholic Church being given that much attention in the first place? Well. Not really 2000 years but almost. It all started from Constantine. That was the turning point where the Catholic Church started to gain power. Power that influenced events of the world that caused deaths of many, injustice, killings, deaths of many, injustice, power struggles, injustice, deaths and injustice! Kaya mga tao napailalim sa inyo mula noon kasi ginagawa niyo silang ingorante. Pero ngayon pagka titignan mo eh ikaw mismo ignorante eh. Salita ka ng salita di mo alam sinasabi mo.
Be definition, it can be applied to everyone. Say if you tell me that I am a "messenger", I could be an angel. But do you think I am in real sense?
DeleteLet me put in another analogy.
Islam means "submission" to God (Allah). Does it mean when I submit myself to God I am a "Muslim"?
Applying the definition, yes I am "muslima", but religious meaning, no I AM NOT.
Now, apply that principle to the definition of "angel". Was FELIX MANALO an "angell"?!!!!!
--- Alam mo ang dami mong mga pakulo e. Mga opinyon mong walang kuwenta. Ang dami mong mga example na ang layo sa issue ng angel.
Simple lang ang tanong:
TINATANGGAP MO BA ANG MISMONG PALIWANAG NG CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA NA ANG ANGHEL AY MAARING MAGING TAO?
Yan lang yan. At hindi ka pwedeng sumagot na hindi mo tinatanggap kasi lumilitaw kinokontra mo ang mismong pahayag ng simbahan ninyo. Kaya ang sagot mo ay OO.:) At ayun, tapos na ang issue pwede talagang tao ang anghel:)
---NAPOLEON FORD
When the Pope announced that he resigns, the world was shocked. But when the Manalos died, not even the President of America knew he was born...
DeleteSee the difference?
--- Nashocked ang buong mundo kasi nga under nila kayo. Sabi nga sa Biblia, the whole world is under the Devil. Nasa ilalim nila kayong mga DEMONIYO:) Nung magresign ang leader niyo, isang napakalaking KAHIHIYAN na naman iyon!!!:) Isipin mo, ung kinikilalang pastor diumano ng mga Katoliko nagresign sa pagaalaga sa kanila!!!!!!!!!:) Hahaha:)
---NAPOLEON FORD
Nagresign pala ang Papa niyo, nakakahiya yon, kung tunay siyang kahalili ni Apostol pedro dapat tularan niya si Apostol Pedro na kahit na mamatay ay hindi nagbibitiw sa tungkulin. Dyahi naman pala ang Papa niyo, eh ano kung may sakit siya dapat up to the last breath itataguyod niya ang obligasyon niya. May mga PApa pala kayo na umuurong sa pananagutan kapag nahihirapan na. Kahiya-hiya na naman ang simbahan niyo.
ReplyDeleteAminado na nga ang mga Catholic Authorities niyo na may anghel na tao pero panay pa rin ang palusot mo. Di ka ba nahihiya sa mga uri ng argumento na pinagsasabi mo. Sabagay kahit nga pala ang Papa niyo di nahiya na mag-resign sa trabaho niya. ikaw pa kaya ang mahiya sa mga pinagsasabi mo na kamangmangan.
ReplyDeleteSabi ng pari niyo ang Obispo ng Iglesia ay anghel. Maling-mali talaga ang sinasabi mo na "HUMANS CAN'T BE ANGEL" Catholic Defender ka ba talaga o isa ka rin palang Catholic Offender? Kasi ikaw na mismo ang lumalaban sa mga sinasabi ng mga Catholic leader niyo. Eh DI Catholic Offender ka nga!
Sino kayang anonymous yon na ang ginamit na katunayan na may anghel na tao ay yong daw kapitbahay niya na ang tawag niya ay Ka Anghel. Nakakatuwa naman ang sample niya. NAPAKA-IRRELEVANT! Sumagot pa na kunwari ay umaamin na may anghel na tao, napaka-impertinente naman ang sinasabi. Dinadagdagan lang ang kahihiyan ng mga Catholic Defender sa mismong blog pa naman niyo.
ReplyDeleteTY Catholic Defender at inilagay mo ang transcript ng tape ni Ka Eraño Manalo. ANg galing talaga niya na mamamahala sa INC walang kinukunsinti kahit na sino. kaya pala ang bilis ng pag-unlad ng INC dahil sa matino ang nangunguna at di pumapayag sa mga katiwalian. agad na sinasaway ang gumagwa ng mali at dinidisiplina. Di gaya sa Catholic church na ang napakaraming mga immoral na mga pari ay kinukunsinti at inuubos ang pera ng simbahan na bilyong dolyar na para bayaran ang kanilang mga ginawang kahayupan sa napakaraming mga kabataan. Yan ba ang ipagmamalaki mo na uri ng simbahan niyo. pati PAPA niyo ay nagresign na tuloy dahil di na niya msikmura ang mga kahayupan ng maraming mga pari niyo. Di niya na kayang sugpuin kaya nagresign na lang. Aminado na ang Papa niyo na di na niya kaya ang napakalalang problema ng simbahan niyo at lalo lang siyang magkakasakit kapag hinarap niya ang mga corruption at eskandalo sa simbahan niyo. Kahiya-hiya na naman ang Iglesia Katolika.
ReplyDelete[Was FELIX MANALO an "angell"?!!!!!]
ReplyDeleteYES, HE IS! Bro. FELIX Y. MANALO is an ANGEL sent by God to restore the true Church in these last days because the Catholic Church turn away from the teachings of God.
IS BENEDICT XVI AN ANGEL? DOES AN ANGEL OF GOD RESIGN IN HIS OFFICE?
ANG HINDI PAG-AASAWA NG PARI AYON SA 2 CORINTO 6:14-15 by Aquino Bayani - Page 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteSource: Splendor of the Church: http://www.splendorofthechurch.com.ph/2013/02/13/hindi-pagaasawa-ngpari/
orlando macuroy • 8 days ago
diba ang sabi ni pablo mas mabuti ng walang asawa pero hindi nya sinabi na huwag mag asawa ang mga saserdote. san nyo po mababasa na sinasabing huwag mag asawa ang mga saserdote?
at bakit ba ang iglesia ni cristo eh bawal mag asawa ng di kapananampalataya?
eto sagot;
“Huwag kayong makipamatok ng kabilan sa mga di magsisisampalataya: sapagka’t anong pakikisama mayroon ang katuwiran at kalikuan? o anong pakikisama mayroon ang kaliwanagan sa kadiliman?
“At anong pakikipagkasundo mayroon si Cristo kay Belial? o anong bahagi mayroon ang sumasampalataya sa di sumasampalataya?” (II Cor. 6:14-15)
bawal ba sa iglesia ni cristo ang mag asawa?
HINDI! bawal lang sa hindi kapananam palataya. Bakit?
eto sagot;
2
At pagka sila’y ibibigay sa harap mo ng Panginoon mong Dios, at iyong
sasaktan sila; ay lubos mo ngang lilipulin sila; huwag kang
makikipagtipan sa kanila, ni huwag mong pagpakitaan ng kaawaan sila:
3
Ni magaasawa sa kanila; ang iyong anak na babae ay huwag mong
papag-aasawahin sa kaniyang anak na lalake, ni ang kaniyang anak na
babae, ay huwag mong papag-aasawahin sa iyong anak na lalake.
4
Sapagka’t kaniyang ihihiwalay ang iyong anak na lalake sa pagsunod sa akin, upang
sila’y maglingkod sa ibang mga dios: sa gayo’y magaalab ang galit ng
Panginoon laban sa iyo, at kaniyang lilipulin kang madali.(deut. 7:1-4)
kaya kami binabawalan mag asawa sa di kapananam palataya, para huwag kaming mahiwalay sa tunay na paglilingkod.
AT PARA HUWAG KAMING MAGLINGKOD SA IBANG MGA DIYOS! GETS?
MAHIRAP NA BAKA MAHIKAYAT PA KAMING SUMAMBA SA MGA SANTO.
=====
Aquino Bayani >>>>>orlando macuroy • 6 days ago
(Sabi ni orlando macuroy: diba ang sabi ni pablo mas mabuti
ng walang asawa pero hindi nya sinabi na huwag mag asawa ang mga saserdote.)
Nakita nyo ang pagiisip ng pulpol na INC? Ang analisa ni INC
sa sinabi ni Pablo ay: mas mabuti ng walang asawa pwera ang mga saserdote. Baligtad ang utak ni INC!
ANG HINDI PAG-AASAWA NG PARI AYON SA 2 CORINTO 6:14-15 by Aquino Bayani - Page 2 of 2
ReplyDelete(Sabi ni orlando macuroy: san nyo po mababasa na sinasabing
huwag mag asawa ang mga saserdote?)
Ambobo2dmax talaga ang mga INC na ito. Ang mga saserdote o mga pari, gaya ng Panginoong Jesucristo at Pablo, ay parang mga bating na hindi makikipagtalik dahil sa kaharian ng langit:
“Sapagka’t may mga bating, na ipinanganak na gayon mula sa tiyan ng kanilang mga ina: at may mga bating, na ginagawang bating ng mga tao: at may mga bating, na nangagpapakabating sa kanilang sarili dahil sa kaharian ng langit. Ang makakatanggap nito, ay pabayaang tumanggap. MT 19:12”
(Sabi ni orlando macuroy: at bakit ba ang iglesia ni cristo eh bawal mag asawa ng di kapananampalataya?) Basahin nyo na lang ang mga walang kabuluhang ipinagdadada niya sa itaas. At ito ang kanyang konklusyon: (kaya kami binabawalan mag asawa sa di kapananampalataya, para huwag kaming mahiwalay sa tunay na paglilingkod.)
Tiwarik talaga ang utak ni INC! Ang sinasabing “mga di magsisisampalataya” ay yong hindi sumasampalataya na si Cristo ay Diyos na nagkatawang Tao, at yon ay silang mga INC. Silang mga INC ang dapat iwasan ng mga sumasampalataya (II Cor. 6:14-15). Totoong di makita ang sariling muta. LOL.
At isa pa, ang II Cor. 6:14-15 ay hindi tuwirang tumutukoy sa pag-aasawahan kundi sa “makipamatok,” “pakikisama,” “pakikipagkasundo,” “anong bahagi mayroon” (Sa English: yoked, partnership, fellowship, accord, in common). Ang tamang berso na tuwirang tumutukoy sa pag-aasawahan ay ito:
“Datapuwa’t sa iba, ay ako ang nagsasabi, hindi ang Panginoon: Kung ang sinomang kapatid na lalake ay may asawang hindi sumasampalataya, at kung kalooban niyang makipamahay sa kaniya, ay huwag niyang hiwalayan. At ang babaing may asawang hindi sumasampalataya, at kalooban niyang makipamahay sa kaniya, ay huwag niyang hiwalayan ang kaniyang asawa. Sapagka’t ang lalaking hindi sumasampalataya ay nagiging banal sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang asawa, at ang babaing hindi sumasampalataya ay nagiging banal sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang asawa: sa ibang paraa’y ang inyong mga anak ay nangagkaroon ng kapintasan; nguni’t ngayo’y mga banal. Gayon ma’y kung humiwalay ang hindi sumasampalataya, ay bayaan siyang humiwalay: ang kapatid na lalake o kapatid na babae ay hindi natatali sa mga ganitong bagay: kundi sa kapayapaan kayo tinawag ng Dios. Sapagka’t paanong malalaman mo, Oh babae, kung maililigtas mo ang iyong asawa? o paanong malalaman mo, Oh lalake, kung maililigtas mo ang iyong asawa? 1 COR 7:12-16”
Nakita nyo ang kabobohan ng mga INC? Sabi nila, ipinagbabawal nila ang pag-aasawahan ng sumasampalataya at hindi sumasampalataya. Ang maling aral ng mga INC ay kabaligtaran ng turo ng Bibliya na hindi ipinagbabawal ang pag-aasawahan ng sumasampalataya at hindi sumasampalataya, at ipinagbabawal pa nga silang paghiwalayin ayon na rin sa 1 COR 7:12-16 sa itaas.
Kaya ayaw ng pamunuan ng INC na mag-asawa ang mga kampon nila sa mga sumasampalatayang Catolico ay baka mabuko ang mga maling mala-echaz na aral nila at mahikayat pa silang tumiwalag sa INC at mabawasan pa ang quota ng kahera nila. LOL.
(Sabi ni orlando macuroy: AT PARA HUWAG KAMING MAGLINGKOD SA
IBANG MGA DIYOS! GETS?)
Gets na gets, diyan na lang kayo sa INC na naglilingkod sa pekeng diyos na ang anak ay hindi diyos kundi isang tao lang. Ano yon? Si Zeus? Anak si Perseus na tao lang? LOL.
(Sabi ni orlando macuroy: MAHIRAP NA BAKA MAHIKAYAT PA KAMING SUMAMBA SA MGA SANTO.)
Keri lang, diyan na lang kayo sa INC at baka maligtas pa kayo ng mga dasal ng mga santo namin. Kawawa naman kayo.
NANINIWALA NGA BA ANG MGA MANOLISTA NA NAGKATAWANG TAO ANG PANGINOONG JESUCRISTO? by Aquino Bayani - Page 1 of 2
DeleteSource: The Splendor of the Church: http://www.splendorofthechurch.com.ph/2013/02/13/naniniwala-nga-ba-ang-mga-manolista-na-nagkatawang-tao-ang-panginoong-jesucristo/
orlando macuroy • 6 days ago
Hidi pu ba talaga naniniwala ang INC na si Cristo ay nagkatawang tao?
Ang Tutoo po Sumasampalataya po ang mga INC na Ang Panginoong JESUCRISTO ay Naging TAO nga po. Ayon Pu yan mismo sa JUAN 1:14.
ang Kaso ang Bintang ni Mr. Bloger eh Hindi Daw po Kame naniniwala.
CHEEZMAX LANG PU NYA YON!
Ayon pu jan sa JUAN 1:14 nag katawang Tao ang Verbo,
sino pu ba ang nagkatawang tao ang Diyos ba mismo o ang Verbo?
Diba Yoong Verbo?
Eh Ano ba ang Verbo? Diba Salita? Kaninong salita?
“SALITA NG DIYOS!”
kaya Doon sa Juan 1:1 na ” Ang Verbo Ay diyos” ang Ibig sabihin nyan “Ang Salita ng Diyos ay Diyos” Dahil ang katumbas ng Verbo sa talatang iyan ay “Salita ng Diyos”
at doon naman sa Juan 1:14 na ” Nagkatawang tao ang Verbo” ibig sabihin nyan”Nagkatawang tao ang Salita ng Diyos”
Ang nagkatawang tao ay ang “SALITA ng Diyos” hindi Ang”Diyos” mismo.
At yan ang katotohanang sinasampalatayanan namin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ngayon yoong sinasabi ni Mr. bloger na hindi daw kame Sumasangayon na nagkatawang tao Si Cristo, KASINUNGALINGANG BINTANG LANG YON!
Eh sino ba talaga ang Hindi Sumasang ayon sa talatang ito?
Diba Kayo?
ang sabi niyo ang Diyos mismo ang nagkatawang tao, ang sabi naman ng talata ang salita ng Diyos.
Oh ngayon sinu kaya ang malinaw na tumututol sa talata?
+++++
Aquino Bayani Orlando>>>>> macuroy • 6 days ago
Walang bait at talino talaga itong mga kampon ni Manalo, oo. Ambobobo2dmax! Suriin natin ang kapalpakan nila:
Una:
Ayon ke orlando macuroy, malinaw na tinatanggap ng INC na: “Ang Panginoong JESUCRISTO ay Naging TAO nga po. Ayon Pu yan mismo sa JUAN 1:14.” Samakatuwid, tanggap ng mga INC na ang Verbo sa JUAN 1:14 ay Ang Panginoong JESUCRISTO na Naging TAO nga po.
“At nagkatawang-tao ang Verbo, at tumahan sa gitna natin (at nakita namin ang kaniyang kaluwalhatian, kaluwalhatian gaya ng sa bugtong ng Ama), na puspos ng biyaya at katotohanan. JUAN 1:14”
Pangalawa:
[Noong una sabi ni orlando macuroy, “Ang Panginoong JESUCRISTO ay Naging TAO nga po. Ayon Pu yan mismo sa JUAN 1:14.” Ngayon, dito sa pangalawa, biglang about face siya; hindi na niya binabanggit ang Panginoong JESUCRISTO kundi ang Verbo na lang o "SALITA NG DIYOS!"]
Sabi ni orlando macuroy, ayun daw sa JUAN 1:14, ang nagkatawang tao ay ang Verbo (o SALITA NG DIYOS) at hindi ang Diyos (at hindi rin Ang Panginoong JESUCRISTO). Ito pa sabi niya:
kaya Doon sa Juan 1:1 na ” Ang Verbo Ay diyos” ang Ibig sabihin nyan “Ang Salita ng Diyos ay Diyos” Dahil ang katumbas ng Verbo sa talatang iyan ay “Salita ng Diyos” at doon naman sa Juan 1:14 na ” Nagkatawang tao ang Verbo” ibig sabihin nyan”Nagkatawang tao ang Salita ng Diyos”
Ang nagkatawang tao ay ang “SALITA ng Diyos” hindi Ang”Diyos” mismo.
At yan ang katotohanang sinasampalatayanan namin.
—
Eto tanong ko para sa mga INC: Ano bang ibig sabihin ng “SALITA ng Diyos”? Ito ba’y yong literal na salita na namutawi sa bunganga ng Diyos o ito ba’y isang bansag para sa Panginoong JESUCRISTO?
Sa Una, tanggap ng INC na ang Verbo ay bansag para sa Panginoong JESUCRISTO.
Sa Pangalawa, tanggap ng INC na ang Verbo o “SALITA ng Diyos”ay literal na salita na namutawi sa bunganga ng Diyos.
Ano ba mga tsong? Kontra kontra ang aral nyong echaz.
NANINIWALA NGA BA ANG MGA MANOLISTA NA NAGKATAWANG TAO ANG PANGINOONG JESUCRISTO? by Aquino Bayani - Page 2 of 2
DeleteMga INC, tuturuan ko kayo ng THEOLOGY 101, hane:
Ang “SALITA ng Diyos” ay HINDI LITERAL NA SALITA na namutawi sa bunganga ng Diyos dahil Ang Dios ay Espiritu (JUAN 4:24) at wala Siyang bunganga. Kaya ang “SALITA ng Diyos” ay BANSAG para sa Panginoong JESUCRISTO sapagkat si Cristo ang LITERAL NA SALITA NG DIYOS O TAGAPAGSALITA NG DIYOS (SPOKESGOD baga):
“At siya’y nararamtan ng damit na winisikan ng dugo: at ang kaniyang pangalan ay tinatawag na Ang Verbo ng Dios. APOC 19:13”
Sabi ni orlando macuroy: Ang nagkatawang tao ay ang “SALITA ng Diyos” hindi Ang”Diyos” mismo.
Weehh. Sipiin nga natin ang peyboret nilang biblia ni Lamsa:
“THE WORD was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word. JOHN 1:1”
Ano uli sabi Lamsa? AT DIYOS ANG VERBO NA YAON.
Semplang si INC. LOL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sabi ni orlando macuroy: Ngayon yoong sinasabi ni Mr. bloger na hindi daw kame Sumasangayon na nagkatawang tao Si Cristo, KASINUNGALINGANG BINTANG LANG YON!
Sabi ko: bobo2dmax talaga ang INC na ito. O di sige, sabi niya: Sumasangayon sila na nagkatawang tao Si Cristo, (ayon sa JUAN 1:14). E sino ba ang nagkatawang tao sa JUAN 1:14? Di ba ang Verbo? At ang Verbo ay bansag sa Panginoong JESUCRISTO. At di ba ang Verbo ay Diyos ayon sa JUAN 1:1?
“Nang pasimula siya ang Verbo, at ang Verbo ay sumasa Dios, at ang Verbo ay Dios. JUAN 1:1”
Ngayon, KASINUNGALINGANG BINTANG ba kung sabihing hindi sumasangayon ang mga INC na nagkatawang tao Si Cristo na Siyang Verbo at Diyos ayon sa JUAN 1:1? Hindi po, dahil iyan ang nagdudumilat na katotohanan: para sa INC, Si Cristo na Siyang Verbo na Diyos ay hindi naparitong nasa laman. Ang naparito raw sa laman ay ang pekeng Cristo nilang isang tao at hindi Verbo at hindi Diyos! Kaya’t tiyak na tiyak na ang mga INC ang katuparan ng mga anticristo!
“Dito’y nakikilala ninyo ang Espiritu ng Dios: ang bawa’t espiritung nagpapahayag na si Jesucristo ay naparitong nasa laman ay sa Dios: At ang bawa’t espiritung hindi ipinahahayag si Jesus, ay hindi sa Dios: at ito ang sa anticristo, na inyong narinig na darating; at ngayo’y nasa sanglibutan na. 1JUAN 4:2-3”
“Sino ang sinungaling kundi ang tumatanggi na si Jesus ay siyang Cristo? Ito ang anticristo, sa makatuwid ay ang tumatanggi sa Ama at sa Anak. 1JUAN 2:22”
ANG ISANG DIOS NA MAY TATLONG PERSONA ni Aquino Bayani – page 1 of 2
DeleteSource: The Splendor of the Church: http://www.splendorofthechurch.com.ph/2013/02/13/ang-isang-dios-na-may-tatlong-persona-ni-aquino-bayani/
Guest • 16 hours ago
eh duon po ba sa juan 1:1 na ang verbo ay kasama ang diyos, Kung ang verbo ay diyos sa kalagayan eh sino po ang diyos na kasama ng verbo kung ang diyos ay yuong verbo?
eh di lalabas dalawa ang diyos!
+++++
Aquino Bayani >>>>>Guest • 10 hours ago
Hindi ka ba nagbabasa ng Bibliya (Mt 22:29)? Dalawa ang Diyos, tatlo pa nga Sila e, kaya lang hindi na palagiang binabanggit ang Espiritu Santo pag binabanggit ang Ama at Anak dahil bigay na (given) na nagbubuhat Siya sa Ama (Jn 15:26). At sapagkat si Cristo at ang Ama ay iisa (Jn 10:30), kaya nagbubuhat din ang Espiritu Santo sa Anak. Ang tawag diyan ay filioque. Ang Ama ay Espiritu, ang Anak (bago magkatawang Tao) ay Espiritu at ang Espiritu Santo ay Espiritu – sila ang Tatlong Espiritu o Persona ng nag-iisang Diyos na Espiritu (Jn 4:24).
Balibaligtarin mo man ang Bibliya wala kang mababasang hindi posible sa Diyos, dahil walang imposible sa Kanya (Jer 32:17, 27; Mt 19:26; Mk 10:27; Lk 1:37, 18:27; etc). Imposible pa ngang pigilan ng kamatayan si Cristo e (Act 2:24).
Ngayon, kung walang imposible sa Kanya, imposible bang magkaroon ng Tatlong Espiritu o Persona ang nag-iisang Diyos? May pito pa nga Siyang Espiritu na binabanggit sa Apocalypse e (Apoc 3:1, 4:5).
Ngayon, balikan natin ang Juan 1:1-2 ng Amplified Bible:
1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. 2 He was present originally with God.
Ang beginning na binabanggit diyan ay noong [before all time] – ibig sabihin, sa eternity iyan bago ang paglalalang at oras ng daigdig (earth time). At pag eternity, ibig sabihin sa ikatlong Langit iyan o Paraiso (2 Cor 12:2-4) at hindi sa lupa o sa outer space na sakop ng light years. Pinatotohanan pa nga iyan ng Panginoong Hesukristo eh:
At ngayon, Ama, luwalhatiin mo ako sa iyo rin ng kaluwalhatiang aking tinamo sa iyo bago ang sanglibutan ay naging gayon. (Jn 17:5)
Ama, yaong mga ibinigay mo sa akin ay ibig kong kung saan ako naroroon, sila naman ay dumoong kasama ko, upang makita nila ang kaluwalhatian ko, na ibinigay mo sa akin: sapagka’t ako’y iyong inibig bago natatag ang sanglibutan. (Jn 17:24)
Ito pa ang patotoo ni propetang Micah:
Nguni’t ikaw, Beth-lehem Ephrata, na maliit upang lumagay sa libolibo ng Juda, mula sa iyo ay lalabas sa akin ang isa na magpupuno sa Israel; na ang pinagbuhatan niya ay mula nang una, mula nang walang hanggan. (Mic 5:2)
ANG ISANG DIOS NA MAY TATLONG PERSONA ni Aquino Bayani – page 2 of 2
DeleteAyon sa Juan 1:1-2, ang Word ay si Cristo, at si Cristo ay Diyos, kaya kung i-substitute natin ang Diyos sa Word, ganito ang kalalabasan ng naturang talata:
1 In the beginning [before all time] was God (Christ), and God (Christ) was with God, and God (Christ) was God Himself. 2 God (Christ) was present originally with God.
Ang tanging makakaintindi ng hiwagang iyan ng Juan 1:1-2 ay ang mga masugid at tapat na Katoliko lamang sapagkat nasa amin ang pagiisip ni Cristo (1 Cor 2:16), na wala sa inyong mga anticristong gaya ng INC, JW at LDS.
Gaya ng nasabi ko na, dalawa ang Diyos (at Tatlo) pero Sila ay iisang Espiritu lang. Noong isugo ng Diyos Ama ang Diyos Anak ay ganito ang sinabi:
v8Nguni’t tungkol sa Anak ay sinasabi, Ang iyong luklukan, Oh Dios, ay magpakailan man; At ang setro ng katuwiran ay siyang setro ng iyong kaharian. v9Inibig mo ang katuwiran, at kinapootan mo ang kasamaan; Kaya’t ang Dios, ang Dios mo, ay nagbuhos sa inyo, Ng langis ng kasayahang higit sa iyong mga kasamahan. v10At, Ikaw, Panginoon, nang pasimula’y inilagay mo ang kinasasaligan ng lupa, At ang mga langit ay mga gawa ng iyong mga kamay: v11Sila’y mangapapahamak; datapuwa’t ikaw ay nananatili: At silang lahat ay mangalulumang gaya ng isang kasuutan; v12At gaya ng isang balabal sila’y iyong bibilutin, At sila’y mapapalitang gaya ng kasuutan: Nguni’t ikaw ay ikaw rin, At ang iyong mga taon ay di matatapos. (Heb 1:8-12)
Sa verse 8, tinawag ng Diyos na Diyos ang Anak. Sa verse 9, sinabi ng Diyos na Siya ang Diyos ng Diyos na Anak. Sa verse 10, tinawag ng Diyos na Panginoon ang Diyos na Anak. Ngayon, bakit tatawagin ng nag-iisang Panginoong Diyos na Diyos at Panginoon ang Anak kung hindi Sila iisang Diyos at iisang Panginoon, aber?
Ito ang Shema ng mga Hudyo noon, ngayon at magpakailanman (At ito din ang aming pananampalatayang Katoliko):
Dinggin mo, Oh Israel: ang Panginoon nating Dios ay isang Panginoon. (Dt 6:4)
Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord [the only Lord]. (Dt 6:4, Amplified Bible)
E, sino ba ang nag-iisang Panginoon na Diyos? Siya’y ipinakilala ng Espiritu Santo kay Elisabet sa ganitong paraan:
v41At nangyari, pagkarinig ni Elisabet ng bati ni Maria, ay lumukso ang sanggol sa kaniyang tiyan; at napuspos si Elisabet ng Espiritu Santo; v42At sumigaw siya ng malakas na tinig, at sinabi, Pinagpala ka sa mga babae, at pinagpala ang bunga ng iyong tiyan. v43At ano’t nangyari sa akin, na ANG
INA NG AKING PANGINOON ay pumarito sa akin? (Lk 1:41-43)
Ang ipinagdadalang Tao ng Mahal na Birheng Maria ay ang Diyos na nagkatawang Tao (Jn 1:14; 1 Tim 3:16, KJV) – ang Diyos na Anak na sinugo ng Diyos na Ama na nasa Paraiso.
Ngayon, kung hilong hilo ka na, subukan mong intindihin ito:
Pag i-split ang uranium-235 atom, magiging dalawa ang uranium-235 atom na walang pagkakaiba ni konti man lang sa orihinal na uranium-235 atom. Pag i-split mo uli yong orihinal na uranium-235 atom, magkakaroon uli ng isa pang parehong parehong uranium-235. Kaya meron ng tatlong uranium-235 atom na walang pinagkaiba sa isa’t-isa at sa orihinal.
E, sino ba ang naglalang ng mga atomo? Hindi ba ang Diyos ang naglalang ng lahat lahat? Kung nangyayari sa uranium-235 ang pag-split na walang pagbabago, ano pa kaya ang magagawa ng may lalang noon? Intiende?
Amen.
Angels in the Bible: They are mentioned over 300 times throughout the Bible, both as good
Deleteand demonic...
1. As the serpent in Eden (GEN 3:1-15).
2. They guarded the entrance to Eden (GEN 3:24).
3. They came to Abraham and Sarah and promised them a son (GEN 18:1-14).
4. They destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (GEN 19:1-25).
5. One brought food to Daniel in the lions den. (DAN 14:33-39, not in KJ).
6. St. Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Virgin Mary (LK 1:26-38).
7. One told Joseph to take the child and His Mother to Egypt (MT 2:13-14).
8. They aided Jesus and His disciples (MT 4:11, LK 22:43, ACTS 5:19, 12:7).
9. One appeared to Mary Magdalen at the sepulcher (JN 20:12-13).
10. They appeared to the Apostles (ACTS 1:10-11).
11. To St. Paul (ACTS 27:23-24).
12. They require supervision and are judged (1COR 6:3, 2PET 2:4).
13. GOD is sometimes reluctant to trust them (JOB 4:18).
14. They can be false teachers: Gal 1:8
15. They sometimes appear as humans[this is unlike felix manalo] (GEN 19:1-25, HAG 1:13, MAL 2:7).
16. They bring GODS' messages to man (MT 1:20, LK 1:11,26,2:9, ACTS 8:26).
Ahhhhmmm, pwede bang malaman sino ba tong Aquino Bayani na nagsasabing bobo raw kami?:)
DeleteHaha, kung bobo ako mas bobo ka. You want a proof na bobo ka talaga? IKAW ang proof:) Hehe:)
Sabi ni ABAYANI, or let me call you ABE para maikli:)
"
Tiwarik talaga ang utak ni INC! Ang sinasabing “mga di magsisisampalataya” ay yong hindi sumasampalataya na si Cristo ay Diyos na nagkatawang Tao, at yon ay silang mga INC."
--- Saan kaya niya nabasa sa Biblia na ang tinutukoy na di sumasampalataya ay ANG MGA HINDI SUMASAMPALATAYA NA SI CRISTO AY DIYOS NA NAGKATAWANG - TAO.? :) Wala ka namann mababasang ganun sa BIBLIA e. IT MEANS BOBOCOP, ah este BOBO ka pla:) Siguro ang iniisip mo ay yung 2 Juan 1:7 ano?:) LUMANG TUGTUGIN na yan brod:) Wala namang nakalagay doon na si Cristo ay DIYOS na nagkatawang-tao:) GUNI GUNI mo lang yan:) OPINION MO LANG YAN:) Bakit nga pala dumadayo dito mga taga Splendor of the Church? kumusta mo ko kay ABE ha:) Sabihin mo MISS ko na sya:) EEEWWW:)
"
Kaya ayaw ng pamunuan ng INC na mag-asawa ang mga kampon nila sa mga sumasampalatayang Catolico ay baka mabuko ang mga maling mala-echaz na aral nila at mahikayat pa silang tumiwalag sa INC at mabawasan pa ang quota ng kahera nila."
---- Ngggeeeekkk:) Mukha mo. Kahit pa araw-araw pa kayo magmisa sa harapan ng mga member namin di kami aanib sa inyo. Bat kami aanib sa inyo e ayun nga, may aral kayo ng DEMONIYO:) Speaking of kahera? Wala kaming kahera:) E kayo? NAMAMALIMOS NG MGA DONASIYON PERO SAWA NA MGA MIYEMBRO NIYO SA INYO:) SARILI NIYO NA LANG ANG NILOLOKO NIYO PARA SABIHING MILYON - MILYON DIUMANO ANG NANUNUMBALIK SA IGLESIA KATOLIKA:) MUKHA MO:)
" Gets na gets, diyan na lang kayo sa INC na naglilingkod sa pekeng diyos na ang anak ay hindi diyos kundi isang tao lang. Ano yon? Si Zeus? Anak si Perseus na tao lang? LOL."
---ANONG KLASENG PALIWANAG TO?:) Dahil ba ang anak ng tunay na Diyos ay isang tao ibig sabihin ba nun peke na ang Ama? Dahil si Cristo anak ng Diyos, Diyos na rin Siya? Weeeew, ayoko na, naasar ako sayo kasi ang BOPLOGS MO:) Edi dalawa na Diyos niyan!!!! Sabi nga ng AMA, " WALANG IBA LIBAN SA AKIN, AKO'Y WALANG NAKIKILALANG IBA" :)
" Keri lang, diyan na lang kayo sa INC at baka maligtas pa kayo ng mga dasal ng mga santo namin. Kawawa naman kayo."
--- Cge dasal ka lang. Gusto mo lahat ng pari magdasal sa mga santo nyo for us. Wag nyo tigilan tingnan natin kung may mangyayari samin:) Kahit ilang libong araw kayo magdasal araw-araw hahaha:) WALANG TUNAY NA DIYOS NA MAKIKINIG SA INYO:) LOOK AT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH NOW, PUNONG _ PUNO NG KAHIHIYAN:)
" Sa Una, tanggap ng INC na ang Verbo ay bansag para sa Panginoong JESUCRISTO.
DeleteSa Pangalawa, tanggap ng INC na ang Verbo o “SALITA ng Diyos”ay literal na salita na namutawi sa bunganga ng Diyos.
Ano ba mga tsong? Kontra kontra ang aral nyong echaz."
---:) Saan kayang madilim na kanto ng simbahan napulot ni ABE ang DIUMANOY aral DAW namin NA ang Verbo ay BANSAG sa ating Panginoong Jesus?:) BANSAGGGGGG!!:) Mukha mo basag:) Wag ka ngang nambibintang ng kung anu-ano puro ka lang OPINYON:)
Ano ang salita? Tama, ito ang literal na salita ng Diyos. Alin ang salita na nasa Juan 1:1,14? Ito ay ang salita ng Diyos na tumutukoy sa PAGKAKAROON NG CRISTO sa PANAHONG CRISTIANO:) Hindi tinutukoy ng SALITA ang CRISTO na DIUMANOY MAY KALAGAYAN na!! Ayan nasagot na kita ABE:)
Kaya, asan ang kontradiksyon? GUNI - GUNI mo lang yun:)
Ang “SALITA ng Diyos” ay HINDI LITERAL NA SALITA na namutawi sa bunganga ng Diyos dahil Ang Dios ay Espiritu (JUAN 4:24) at wala Siyang bunganga. Kaya ang “SALITA ng Diyos” ay BANSAG para sa Panginoong JESUCRISTO sapagkat si Cristo ang LITERAL NA SALITA NG DIYOS O TAGAPAGSALITA NG DIYOS (SPOKESGOD baga):"
--- HINDI RAW LITERAL NA SALITA!!:) Tingnan mo nga naman ang demoniyo:) Makilala talaga dahil kapag nagturo PURO KASINUNGALINGAN AT OPINIYON:)
Isaias 55:11
" so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
Ayan o!!!:) SALITA NA LUMALABAS SA BIBIG NG DIYOS!!!:) So? pano ba yan? Sabog na yung sinabi mo na " HINDI LITERAL NA SALITA na namutawi sa bunganga ng Diyos " :)
Ikalawa, " si Cristo ang LITERAL NA SALITA NG DIYOS O TAGAPAGSALITA NG DIYOS (SPOKESGOD baga):"
--- Ano ba ang katumbas ng SALITA sa Hebrew? Ito ay DABAR. Ano kahulugan nun?
" The noun dabar refers, first, to what is said, to the actual "word" itself"
nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament p. 391
Samakatuwid, ang salita ay ang mismong salita. WALANG KALAGAYAN:) WALANG PERSONA:) WALANG SPOKESGOD:) Kaya paanong magiging si Cristo na may kalagayan ang salita??????:) OPINION MO LANG YAN:)
" “At siya’y nararamtan ng damit na winisikan ng dugo: at ang kaniyang pangalan ay tinatawag na Ang Verbo ng Dios. APOC 19:13”
Delete--- Ang liwanag o. ANG KANIYANG PANGALAN!!!! Hindi sinabing SIYA ANG VERBO NG DIYOS!!! PANGALAN NIYA YUN AYON SA TALATA!!!:) Halimbawa, pangalan mo ay " Verbo ng Diyos", ibig bang sabihin ikaw ang Verbo? MUKHA MO:)
"
“THE WORD was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word. JOHN 1:1”
Ano uli sabi Lamsa? AT DIYOS ANG VERBO NA YAON.
Semplang si INC. LOL."
----:) Ano naman kung ang Salita ay Diyos?:) Hindi naman sinabing si Cristo ay Diyos:) At lumilitaw lang talaga na WALA KANG ALAM KUNG LALALIMAN NATIN ANG PAG-AARAL NA ITO:) For your info, according to
Idiom-book of New Testament Greek, p.116
" It is necessary without the article ( theos not " ho theos " ) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does NOT IDENTIFY HIS PERSON!!!"
Boom!!! ayun pala siya o. Hindi PERSONA ang tinutukoy ng terminong DIYOS sa ikatlong sugnay ng Juan 1:1 kundi ITO AY ISANG PAGLALARAWAN SA SALITA!!!:) Kaya nga ang sabi sa
Aid to bible Understanding, p.919 at 1669
" other translator's, also recognizing that the Greek term is used as an adjective TO DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE WORD!!!, therefore render the phrase: " the Word was Divine ". ALL THESE RENDERING HIGHLIGHTS THE QUALITY OF THE WORD, not his identify with his Father, the Almighty God"b
Ayun pala kasi pala kasi pala kasi siya ooohh:) ADJECTIVE pala yun:) Kya ung salita na tumutukoy sa pagkakaroon ng Cristo ay Banal at hindi DIYOS SA KALAGAYAN:) Alam mo na????:)
" Hindi ka ba nagbabasa ng Bibliya (Mt 22:29)? Dalawa ang Diyos, tatlo pa nga Sila e, kaya lang hindi na palagiang binabanggit ang Espiritu Santo pag binabanggit ang Ama at Anak dahil bigay na (given) na nagbubuhat Siya sa Ama (Jn 15:26). At sapagkat si Cristo at ang Ama ay iisa (Jn 10:30), kaya nagbubuhat din ang Espiritu Santo sa Anak. Ang tawag diyan ay filioque. Ang Ama ay Espiritu, ang Anak (bago magkatawang Tao) ay Espiritu at ang Espiritu Santo ay Espiritu – sila ang Tatlong Espiritu o Persona ng nag-iisang Diyos na Espiritu (Jn 4:24)."
--- Ikaw ang di nagbabasa ng Biblia:) Sabi nga ng Diyos AKO AY ISANG GANAP NA DIYOS!!!!!:) Pag sinabing ganap, hindi yung ilang daang taon muna ang lumipas bago naging Diyos ang Anak, after ng anak more tha 50 years ulit ang lumipas bago naging Diyos ang Espiritu Santo! ISANG MALAKING KATANGAHAN YUN ABE!!!! Tapos sasabihin mo pa, hindi nga lang laging nababanggit ang Espiritu Santo:) WEEEW. NAPAKAUNFAIR NAMAN NG MGA Diyos NIYO:) Akala ko ba walang pagkakaungusan? Akala ko ba pantay-pantay?
QUESTIONS ( SAGUTIN NIYO LAHAT HA :) )
E BAT DI LAGING NABABANGGIT ANG DIUMANOY 3rd PERSON?
BAT DI SABAY - SABAY NAGING DIYOS?
BAKIT YUNG 2ND PERSON INUUTUSAN NG 1ST PERSON?
BAKIT YUNG 3RD PERSON INUUTUSAN LANG NG 1ST at 2ND?
AKALA KO BA PANTAY-PANTAY!!!!!!:) PUSANG ALAS NA ARAL YAN:) AT BAKIT KAHIT PAPA NIYO DI MAINITINDIHAN YANG ARAL NIYO NA YAN!!!!!:) GINAGAWA NIYTO DI NIYO MAINITINDIHAN? ANO TO DAYAAN? hahaha:)
Oo nga pala, panghuli., HOY CATHOLIC DEFENDER 2000, bakit pumasok ang comment ng ABE na to sa usapan natin ha? ANO TO CHANGING TOPIC ULIT? ANO TO TAKBUHAN NA NAMAN? ANO TO DAYAAN? hahaha, MGA MANDURUGAS TALAGA KAYO:) PATI PANGALAN KO GINAGAMIT NINYO!!!:)
Ipost mo to lahat haXD
Riel said
Delete" Angels in the Bible: They are mentioned over 300 times throughout the Bible, both as good
and demonic...
1. As the serpent in Eden (GEN 3:1-15).
2. They guarded the entrance to Eden (GEN 3:24).
3. They came to Abraham and Sarah and promised them a son (GEN 18:1-14).
4. They destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (GEN 19:1-25).
5. One brought food to Daniel in the lions den. (DAN 14:33-39, not in KJ).
6. St. Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Virgin Mary (LK 1:26-38).
7. One told Joseph to take the child and His Mother to Egypt (MT 2:13-14).
8. They aided Jesus and His disciples (MT 4:11, LK 22:43, ACTS 5:19, 12:7).
9. One appeared to Mary Magdalen at the sepulcher (JN 20:12-13).
10. They appeared to the Apostles (ACTS 1:10-11).
11. To St. Paul (ACTS 27:23-24).
12. They require supervision and are judged (1COR 6:3, 2PET 2:4).
13. GOD is sometimes reluctant to trust them (JOB 4:18).
14. They can be false teachers: Gal 1:8
15. They sometimes appear as humans[this is unlike felix manalo] (GEN 19:1-25, HAG 1:13, MAL 2:7).
16. They bring GODS' messages to man (MT 1:20, LK 1:11,26,2:9, ACTS 8:26). "
Sagot ko
Wala naman kaming tutol sa mga TALATA NG BIBLIA na iyan:) May anghel na espiritu sa kalagayan at yun ay ang mga anghel na taga-langit:) MAY MGA ANGHEL DIN NA TAO SA KALAGAYAN:) AT YAN ANG HINDI MO KAYANG TUTULAN. DAHIL MISMONG CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA NINYO AT MGA PARI NIYO ANG NAGPALIWANAG NA ANG ANGHEL AY TUMUTUKOY SA TUNGKULIN ATR HINDI SA KALAGAYAN:)
INIIBA MO NA NAMAN ANG ISSUE E. SIMPLE LANG NAMAN ANG DAPAT MONG SAGUTIN:)
TINATANGGAP MO BA ANG PALIWANAG NG SARILI NIYONG CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA NA ANG ANGHEL AY MAARING MAGING TAO? hahaha, Hirap na hirap ka no? Loko ka kasi e, SALITA KA NG SALITA DI MO NAMAN ALAM SINASABI MO:) Ayan tuloy IPIT NA IPIT KA NA!!!:)
AKALA KO BA PANTAY-PANTAY!!!!!!:) PUSANG ALAS NA ARAL YAN:) AT BAKIT KAHIT PAPA NIYO DI MAINITINDIHAN YANG ARAL NIYO NA YAN!!!!!:) GINAGAWA NIYTO DI NIYO MAINITINDIHAN? ANO TO DAYAAN? hahaha:)
Delete---The Trinity is not the teaching, in spite of some of its critics, that there are three gods, nor is it the teaching that one person is three persons. Such statements would be illogical and impossible. Instead, the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God in three persons or, to put it another way, in the one substance of divinity, in the one being that is God, there are three co-eternal, co-existent, simultaneous persons: The Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit.
Riel said
Delete" ---The Trinity is not the teaching, in spite of some of its critics, that there are three gods, nor is it the teaching that one person is three persons. Such statements would be illogical and impossible. Instead, the doctrine of the Trinity states that there is one God in three persons or, to put it another way, in the one substance of divinity, in the one being that is God, there are three co-eternal, co-existent, simultaneous persons: The Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit.
Sabi ko naman
Wala akong sinabing ipaliwanag mo ang Trinidad. MATAGAL KO NG ALAM IYAN GUSTO MO AKO PA MAGPALIWANAG:):) Ang gusto kong masagot mo ay eto. Heto ka na naman e, tinatakbuhan mo ang issue e:):) TAKBUHIN KA TALAGA E
Sabi ng Pari niyo, ang tatlong personang iyan ay walang pagkakaungusan:):) PANTAY-PANTAY RAW:)
Ang ibinato kong tanong ay ito
Kung pantay-pantay , bakit mas nahuli pang pinagtibay ng Iglesia Katolika ang pagiging Diyos ni Cristo kaysa sa Ama??:)
Bakit after 56 years matapos gawing Diyos si Cristo, ginawa niyo na ring Diyos ang Espiritu Santo???:)
Akala ko ba pantay-pantay? Bakit hindi sila magkakasabay na naging Diyos???:)
Akala ko ba pantay-pantay? Bakit yung Anak ay inuutusan ng Ama?:):)
Akala ko ba pantay-pantay? Bakit ang Espiritu Santo, inuutusan ng Ama at ng Anak??:):) UNFAIR NAMAN ATA IYON:):)
Bakit kahit PAPA niyo di yan maintindihan????:):) Ang tagal ko ng ISINAMPAL SA MUKHA MO IYAN:):) Naalala mo pa ba nung ang tapang tapang mong hamunin ako kung san daw mababasa na hindi maunawaan ng Papa ang Trinidad??:):) Hahaha, matagal ko ng ipinost yun dito at hanggang ngayon , NAGTATANGA TANGAHAN KA at DI MO PINAPANSIN:):):)
Yan ang mga ibinato kong tanong saiyo:) WALA KONG SINABING IPALIWANAG MO ANG DOKTRINA MO:) MATAGAL KO NA KAYONG BASA:):) Kaya wag ka ng tumakbo ha:):) KASI HAHABULIN LANG KITA:):):)
Hahaha:)
Kung pantay-pantay , bakit mas nahuli pang pinagtibay ng Iglesia Katolika ang pagiging Diyos ni Cristo kaysa sa Ama??:)
Delete----Read Acts 15 ...This is what we call the 1st Ecumenical Council, the issue was about circumcision when the controversy about
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.
and the decision was made by the Coucil was that the Gentiles should not be obliged with Jewish Law, this is an example of binding and loosing decision which was an authority given by Christ(and by the way Felix Manalo was not given an authority to bind and loose unless he is a successor of the apostles)
the decision about the Gentiles was not raised until the controversy of
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.
This is what happened in 325 AD in Nicea
THE CONTROVERSY:
Arianism -Christ was a pure creature; made out of nothing; liable to fall; the Son of God by adoption, not God by nature:
There is what we call a doctrinal development started at Jerusalem
Do you believe Jesus Christ is one person with two natures?
This was defined at the Catholic Council of Chalcedon in 451.
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit to be consubstantial with the Father and the Son?
This was defined at the Catholic Council of Constantinople in 381.
All of the above are results of "Doctrinal Development" as performed by the Catholic Church.
Bakit after 56 years matapos gawing Diyos si Cristo, ginawa niyo na ring Diyos ang Espiritu Santo???:)
----DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT, IVAN YOU FOOLISH BOY!! YOU FAILED TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE ACORN BECAME THE OAKTREE. . .
Akala ko ba pantay-pantay? Bakit hindi sila magkakasabay na naging Diyos???:)
Delete----BOBO KA KASI KAYA DI MU MAINTIDIHAN,TANONG NG TANONG AT WALA KANG NAKUHA NA SAGOT KASI HINDI NAG-HANAP NG KATOTOHANAN AT DAHIL WALA KANG NAKUHANG SAGOT,,,,MALI NA KAAGAD???DEMONYO NA KAAGAD???
Akala ko ba pantay-pantay? Bakit yung Anak ay inuutusan ng Ama?:):)
----BOBO KA KASI KAYA DI MU MAINTIDIHAN,TANONG NG TANONG AT WALA KANG NAKUHA NA SAGOT KASI HINDI NAG-HANAP NG KATOTOHANAN AT DAHIL WALA KANG NAKUHANG SAGOT,,,,MALI NA KAAGAD???DEMONYO NA KAAGAD???
Akala ko ba pantay-pantay? Bakit ang Espiritu Santo, inuutusan ng Ama at ng Anak??:):) UNFAIR NAMAN ATA IYON:):)
----BOBO KA KASI KAYA DI MU MAINTIDIHAN,TANONG NG TANONG AT WALA KANG NAKUHA NA SAGOT KASI HINDI NAG-HANAP NG KATOTOHANAN AT DAHIL WALA KANG NAKUHANG SAGOT,,,,MALI NA KAAGAD???DEMONYO NA KAAGAD???
Bakit kahit PAPA niyo di yan maintindihan????:):) Ang tagal ko ng ISINAMPAL SA MUKHA MO IYAN:):) Naalala mo pa ba nung ang tapang tapang mong hamunin ako kung san daw mababasa na hindi maunawaan ng Papa ang Trinidad??:):)
----marunung ka ba talagang magbasa??? it says "THE MYSTERY" of the TRINITY---no one can understand it...can you really understand a MYSTERY???
I pity you, but let me enlighten your mind..
If I talk about "LIFE"---of course i can understand what is life
If I talk about "MYSTERY OF LIFE"-- and try to understand it fully, it's like I'm putting the whole ocean in my pocket :)
Hahaha, matagal ko ng ipinost yun dito at hanggang ngayon , NAGTATANGA TANGAHAN KA at DI MO PINAPANSIN:):):)
------HAHAH PARA KANG BATANG TANGA NA NAGPAPAPANSIN NG BAGONG T-SHIRT AT WALANG PUMAPANSIN
Sabi ko
Delete" Akala ko ba pantay-pantay? Bakit hindi sila magkakasabay na naging Diyos???:) ...
Akala ko ba pantay-pantay? Bakit yung Anak ay inuutusan ng Ama?:):)... Akala ko ba pantay-pantay? Bakit ang Espiritu Santo, inuutusan ng Ama at ng Anak??:):) UNFAIR NAMAN ATA IYON:):)
Ano sagot ni Riel???
" -BOBO KA KASI KAYA DI MU MAINTIDIHAN,TANONG NG TANONG AT WALA KANG NAKUHA NA SAGOT KASI HINDI NAG-HANAP NG KATOTOHANAN AT DAHIL WALA KANG NAKUHANG SAGOT,,,,MALI NA KAAGAD???DEMONYO NA KAAGAD???
Sabi ko naman
"TANONG NG TANONG AT WALA KANG NAKUHA NA SAGOT"
-- E DI INAMIN NA NI RIEL NA HINDI NIYA KAYANG MASAGOT MGA TANONG KO!!!!:):):) Kaya sino ang BOBO??? hahaha, IKAW YUN BOOM:)
" KASI HINDI NAG-HANAP NG KATOTOHANAN"
-- Hindi ako naghahanap ng katotohanan??? hahaha, RIDICULOUS:):) Kaya nga nagtatanong kasi nga naghahanap ng katotohanan!!!:):) ANG BOBO MO TALAGA BOOM!!!:):)
" DAHIL WALA KANG NAKUHANG SAGOT,,,,MALI NA KAAGAD???DEMONYO NA KAAGAD???"
-- OO naman:):):) BAKIT???:):) Ano ba ang katangian ng TUNAY NA MANGANGARAL???
1 Peter 3:15
" But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have"
Ayan, dapat laging nasasagot ang tanong kapag may nagtatanong tungkol sa pag-asang nasa atin!!! E HINDI MO MASAGOT YUNG MGA ISSUE KO SA TRINIDAD:) Kaya kanino yon??? SA DIYABLO YUN:) Dahil ba sa hindi masagot ay sa Diyablo na? HINDI NAMAN:) ANG PROBLEMA KASI SA ARAL NIYO....MISTERYO RAW!!!:):):) PARA RAW DAGAT NA HINDI MAILAGAY SA BULSA:):)
E napakalinaw ng aral ng Biblia tungkol sa Diyos
" What can be known about God is clear to them because he has made it clear to them.
Ayan, CLEAR!! MALINAW!!! WALANG MISTERYO!! Bakit maliwanag??? Sapagkat ipinahayag na ito ng Diyos sa kanila!! ANO PAHAYAG NG DIYOS??
" Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."
Ayan!! Ang linaw!!! Walang ibang nakikilalang Diyos ang tunay na Diyos:):):) IYAN ANG NAPAKALIWANAG NA PAHAYAG NG DIYOS:) HINDI MISTERYO IYAN:) ANG MISTERYO AY LABAG SA ITINUTURO NG BIBLIA NA ANG MGA BAGAY NA UKOL SA DIYOS AY MALIWANAG:):)
E bakit di mo masagot yung mga itinanong ko sa itaas??? KASI NGA DI MO KAYANG SAGUTIN. KASI NGA MALI ARAL NIYO. KASI NGA WALA SA BIBLIA. KASI NGA LABAG SA ARAL MISMO NG MGA APOSTOL LALO NA NG ATING PANGINOONG DIYOS:):) Kaya dahil sa hindi mo masagot dahil ang aral niyo ay labag sa Biblia, kanino kayo??? SA INYONG AMANG DIYABLO:):):):):)
" Bakit kahit PAPA niyo di yan maintindihan????:):) Ang tagal ko ng ISINAMPAL SA MUKHA MO IYAN:):) Naalala mo pa ba nung ang tapang tapang mong hamunin ako kung san daw mababasa na hindi maunawaan ng Papa ang Trinidad??:):)"
DeleteSabi ni Riel
" -marunung ka ba talagang magbasa??? it says "THE MYSTERY" of the TRINITY---no one can understand it...can you really understand a MYSTERY??? "
Sabi ko naman
Marunong ako magbasa, marunong ako umintindi:) Kaya nga ang dami kong mga ebidensiyang isinasampal sa mukha mo e:):)
Ano ba ang issue natin tungkol sa PAPA NIYO at sa TRINIDAD??? Naalala mo pa ba nung sabihin mo sakin ito ng may buong pagmamayabang???:):)
HAHA where did you get the idea that the POPE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE TRINITY??WHOOA! you are making stories Nap!
--Haha, gumagawa raw ako ng kuwento???
" The Trinity is a wonderful mystery. No one understand it. ( What the hell is this doctrine?!!!) The most learned theologians, the holiest Pope, ( XP ), the greatest saint, all are mystified by it as the child of seven."
Scott, Martin J., S.J., God and Myself, Nihil Obstat: Arthur Scanlan, p. 118
Ayan ang issue:) Sabi mo gawa-gawa ko lang ang kuwento na ang Papa niyo mismo hindi maintindihan ang Trinidad:):) E NAPATUNAYAN KO AT ISINAMPAL KO PA SA PAGMUMUKHA MO ANG AKLAT-KATOLIKO NINYO NA NAGPAPATUNAY NA KAHIT ANG PAPA NIYO HINDI MAINITINDIHAN ANG ARAL NIYO!!!:):)
Edi tapos na issue::):):) PANALO NA Ko:) TANGGAP MO NA ULIT ANG KATANGAHAN MO:):):) Inamin mo na e, na walang makauunawa sa Trinidad:) KAYA BINABAWI MO NA NA GUMAGAWA LANG AKO NG KUWENTo:):) KINAIN MO NA ANG SARILI MONG SALITA:) PARA KANG KUMAIN NG KANIN NA MAINIT AT NUNG NAPASO KA INILUWA MO AT KINAIN MO ULIT:):) PARA KANG ASONG MATAPOS SUMUKA AY BINABALIKAN ANG SUKA NIYA AT KINAKAIN ITO ULIT:):):) GANUN KA RIEL:):) hahaha, ISIPIN MO SUNUD-SUNURAN KA SA ARAL NA DI MO MAUNAWAAN???? ANONG TAWAG DON???
ISANG NAPAKALAKING KATANGAHAN:):):)
Sabi ko
DeleteBakit after 56 years matapos gawing Diyos si Cristo, ginawa niyo na ring Diyos ang Espiritu Santo???:)
Riel said
----DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT, IVAN YOU FOOLISH BOY!! YOU FAILED TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE ACORN BECAME THE OAKTREE. . .
Sabi ko naman
Ayan , ginamit pa nila ang nagyari sa Jerusalem:) TINGNAN MO NGA NAMAN ANG GAWAIN NG MGA DEMONIYO:):)
Doctrinal development ba ang nangyari doon??? E sinunod lang nila ang NAKASULAT SA HULA NOON???
Acts 15:15-17
" The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things'
Ayan, ang naging desisyon ng Unang Iglesia ay nakabatay SA MGA HULA NG MGA UNANG PROPETA!!!:) At take note: HINDI SILA GUMAWA NG DOKTRINA!!!!!:):):) DAHIL KUNG DOKTRINA ANG GINAWA NILA, EDI HINDI NA SANA NAGPAHALAS ANG MGA JUDIO NOON!!!:):):) ANG GINAWA NILA AY PAGHATOL SA ISANG DI-PAGKAKAUNAWAAN!!!!:):) HINDI SILA GUMAWA NG MGA BAGONG DOKTRINANG WALA SA BIBLIA!!!!:):):) TANDAAN MO NA ANG CIRCUMCISION AY KAUGALIAN NG MGA ISRAELITA!!!:):):) ANG SABI NI CRISTO
" "Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in.
Ayan, ang Kautusan ng mga Judio ukol sa Circumcision ay hanggang sa pangangaral lang ni Juan Bautista:):):) Kaya ang naging desisyon ng UNANG IGLESIA ay nakabatay sa itinuro ng Panginoong Jesus:):):)
HINDI SILA GUMAWA NG MGA BAGONG ARAL!!!!
HINDI SILA GUMAWA NG MGA BAGONG DIYOS:):):)
HINDI SILA NAG-ISIP NG KING ANU-ANO PARA GAWING DALAWA ANG NATURE NI CRISTO KASI HINDI TINURO NI CRISTO YUN!!!N!!!!:):):)
HINDI NILA INISIP NA DIYOS ANG ESPIRITU SANTO!!!
ANG TANGA MO TALAGA RIEL!!!:):)
NAAASAR AKO SA TERMINO MONG DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT!!!! ISA LANG KASI IBIG SABIHIN NUN!!! BINABAGO NIYO ANG MGA SIMPLENG ARAL NG BIBLIA!!! MGA DEMONIYO TALAGA KAYO!!
Ano ang isang simpleng aral ng Biblia??
WALANG IBANG DIYOS MALIBAN SA AMA!!!!
ANO ANG DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT NA GINAWA NG IGLESIA KATOLIKA???!!!
ANG DIYOS DAW AY IISA PERO MAY TATLONG PERSONA!!! ISANG ARAL NA WALA SA BIBLIA!!!!! DOCTRINAL DEVELOPMENT RAW???? DOCTRINAL ALTERATION YUN TANGA!!! MGA DEMONIYO TALAGA KAYo!!:):) Dapat lang talagang MABUNYAG LAHAT NG MGA DEMONIYONG ARAL NIYO:):)
At huwag mo ng uulitin sakin yang analogy mo sa OAK TREE na iyan DAHIL MATAGAL NA KITANG IPINAHIYA SA ANALOGY MONG KATANGAHAN NA IYAN:):):)
hahaha:)
[Was FELIX MANALO an "angell"?!!!!!]
ReplyDeleteYES, HE IS! Bro. FELIX Y. MANALO is an ANGEL sent by God to restore the true Church in these last days because the Catholic Church turn away from the teachings of God.
IS BENEDICT XVI AN ANGEL? DOES AN ANGEL OF GOD RESIGN IN HIS OFFICE?
>>>>>no where in the bible that God would appoint an angel from the Phil.
Benedict is not an angel, angels are immortals does an angel dies???
Di ka ba talaga marunong umnitindi ha Riel Lopez? Kaya ka nasasabihan ng BOBO kasi ayaw mo tanggapin ang katotohanan na MARAMING MGA BIBLE SCHOLARS AT MISMONG CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA NA NINYO ANG NAGSASABING PWEDENG TAO ANG ANGHEL!!!! :) Tapos magtatanong ka kung namamatay ba ang anghel? KABOBOHANG TANONG iyan:)
Delete" no where in the bible that God would appoint an angel from the Phil."
--- Stupidong tanong ito. Bat mo hahanapin sa Biblia ang pangalan ng isang bansa na naibigay lang noong 16th Century? Common sense naman!!! Nag-iisip ka ba talaga ha Riel Lopez???:) Tianatagalog na kita baka kasi kaya di mo maintindihan English kasi mga sagot ko:)
Which is the OFFICIAL STAND? Is it your OWN CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA's OFFICIAL explanation that angel can be divine or human? Or YOUR OWN OPINION THAT HUMAN CAN'T BE ANGELS?:) Remember, Augustine never said that human can't be angels.:)
ReplyDelete>>>The word ["one going" or "one sent"] (not the angel as you assumed to be Felix Manalo )is used in Hebrew to denote indifferently either a divine or human messenger. Augustine never said that humans can be angels. They are purely spiritual, immortal..and I don't think that any angels you mentioned in the Revelations refers to Manalo too funny. . .there may be human messengers of God but they are not angels.
Riel said
Delete"
>>>The word ["one going" or "one sent"] (not the angel as you assumed to be Felix Manalo )is used in Hebrew to denote indifferently either a divine or human messenger. Augustine never said that humans can be angels. They are purely spiritual, immortal..and I don't think that any angels you mentioned in the Revelations refers to Manalo too funny. . .there may be human messengers of God but they are not angels."
Sagot ko
Wala akong pake sa sagot ng peke niyong santo na si Augustino!!! ANG TANONG KO ANG SAGUTIN MO!!! Ano ba talaga ang paliwanag ng IGLESIA KATOLIKA?!!!! CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA's OFFICIAL explanation that angel can be divine or human? o ANG OPINYON MO NA HINDI PWEDENG MAGING TAO ANG ANGHEEL????!!!!
Hahahaha:) IPIT KA NA!!!:)
Wala akong pake sa sagot ng peke niyong santo na si Augustino!!! Ano ba talaga ang paliwanag ng IGLESIA KATOLIKA?!!!! CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA's OFFICIAL explanation that angel can be divine or human? o ANG OPINYON MO NA HINDI PWEDENG MAGING TAO ANG ANGHEEL????!!!!
DeleteHahahaha:) IPIT KA NA!!!:)
you said Remember, Augustine never said that human can't be angels.:)
and
Wala akong pake sa sagot ng peke niyong santo na si Augustino!!!
are you relying on Augustine now???
St. Augustine says: "'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel.
Your explanation about angel came from a Catholic saint. ???
you insist that humans can be angels. Ok no dispute therfore there are humans who are also angels right who are they?, can you please name them?? but of course do not include Felix Manalo he is a fake angel
Riel said
Delete" are you relying on Augustine now??? ... Your explanation about angel came from a Catholic saint. ??? "
I said
Napakabobo naman ata Riel Lopez para magrely ako sa explanation ng Santo niyo.:) Sabi ko nga diba? WALA AKONG PAKE SA SAGOT NG PEKE NIYONG SANTO" . Tapos ngayon magtatanong ka kung nagrerely ako sa santo niyo? Ang BOBO mo naman:)
Ayan, ayan ayan:):):) Sabi ni Riel
" Ok no dispute therfore there are humans who are also angels right who are they?"
Edi tapos na ang usapan:):):) EDI TANGGAP MO NA ANG KATANGAHAN MO NANG IPNAGMAMAYABANG MO SAKING SABIHIN ITO
>>>I have no problem with that Napoleon, what's the matter with you?? Angels are messengers but a human messenger could never an angel, you are so dumb
Ayun!!:):) Ako pa talaga ang BOBO:) O ayan ha, ALAM MO NA KUNG SINO ANG BOBO SATING DALAWA. IKAW LANG YUN:):):) Salita ka kasi ng salita di mo alam mga pinagsasasasabi mo:):):) EDI LUMITAW NA KATANGAHAN MO NGAYON??:):P TANGGAP MO NA KABOBOHAN MO DIBA:)
Eto sagot ko sa tanong mo ( pangalanan ko raw yung mga taong anghel:) )
Sinong isang halimbawa
" At pagkaalis nila ay nagsimula si Jesus na magsalita sa karamihang tao tungkol kay Juan: 'Ano ang nilabas ninyo sa ilang upang makita? ... Isang propeta baga? Tunay, pinatototohanan Ko sa inyo, na mahigit pa sa isang propeta. Sapagka't siya ang binabanggit sa nasusulat: "Narito, sinugo Ko ang Aking anghel na magpapauna sa Iyo. Upang ihanda ang Iyong daraanan"
Mateo 11:7-10 Bagong Tipan ng ating Mananakop at Panginoong Jesucristo by Fr. JUAN TRINIDAD
Ayun o, si Juan Bautista:) Pari mo pa ang nagsalin niyan. ALAM MO ANG KATANGAHAN NA NAKIKITA NG LAHAT, E YUNG KINOKONTRA MO ANG MISMONG PALIWANAG NG MGA PARI NIYO NA ANG TAO AY PWEDENG MAGING ANGHEL!!!:):):)
Nakaka offend ka sa kanila Riel:) Kinokontra mo sila!!:):) hahaha
Ayan, tapos na ang issue ng humans can be angel also:):) Tinanggap na ni Riel ang kaniyang pagkabobo:):):)
hahaha..lumalabas na ang pag ka ipokrito mo...hmmmm mayroon ka bang maipakita na referensya na hindi galing KATOLIKO o ang referensya galing sa KATOLIKO lang ang iyong magagamit para mapanindigan na ANGHEL SI MANALO???
DeletePeke raw ang mga SANTO hahaha... si FELIX MANALO ang pekeng SUGO... dahil kahit kudlit ay hindi man lang siya nabanggit sa Biblia... at ayon sa STANDARD ng INC ni Manalo, kapag wala sa biblia ay HINDI na ARAL ng Dios!
DeleteTumpak!
May pagtatalo pa ba tayo riyan?
DUMB CATHOLIC DEFENDER SAID
Delete" Peke raw ang mga SANTO hahaha... si FELIX MANALO ang pekeng SUGO... dahil kahit kudlit ay hindi man lang siya nabanggit sa Biblia... at ayon sa STANDARD ng INC ni Manalo, kapag wala sa biblia ay HINDI na ARAL ng Dios!
Tumpak!
May pagtatalo pa ba tayo riyan?"
Sabi ko naman
Anong klaseng sagot ito???:):):) Nakakahiya naman sakin diba:) Ipinost ko lahat ng mga talata at mga ebidensiya ng kasysayan para palitawin na MALI ang mga aral ninyo PAGKATAPOS ITO LANG ANG IPAPAKITA NIYO SAKIN???:):):) BOPLOGS KA TALAGA:):):)
Speaking the the so-called " standard " ng Iglesia ni Cristo. Ang aral nami ay ganito " KAPAG ANG ARAL AY WALA SA BIBLIA HINDI ARAL NG DIYOS YON:):):) Doktrina namin tungkol sa Ka Felix Y. Manalo ay pawang nakasulat sa Biblia!!:):) Kaya nga kapag nagdodoktrina kami tungkol sa SUGO NG DIYOS SA MGA HULING ARAW, hindi kami nagtuturo na hindi gamit ang Biblia.:):) ANG KAHALALAN NG SUGO AY NASA BIBLIA. WORD FOR WORD:):) Baka naman itanong pa ninyo ang NAPAKATANGANG TANONG NA BAKIT WALA SA BIBLIA ANG PANGALAN NG KA FELIX MANALO AT NG PILIPINAS???? Pag tinanong mo pa yan, MASAHOL KA PA SA TANGA:):):)
Riel said
Delete" hahaha..lumalabas na ang pag ka ipokrito mo...hmmmm mayroon ka bang maipakita na referensya na hindi galing KATOLIKO o ang referensya galing sa KATOLIKO lang ang iyong magagamit para mapanindigan na ANGHEL SI MANALO???"
Sabi ko naman
O mga bloggers!!:) Halata naman na wala nang maisagot ang Riel na ito:):) PALIBHASA KASI NAPATUNAYAN NG MALI SYA AT NAIPIT SYA SA SARILI NIYANG KATANGAHAN:):)
Ano ba ang binitawan niyang issus na naghatid sa kaniya sa kaniyang katangahan??
"
>>>I have no problem with that Napoleon, what's the matter with you?? Angels are messengers but a human messenger could never an angel, you are so dumb
Haha, ako pa daw talaga ang Bobo:):)
BAKIT KA NAGHAHANAP NG REPERENSYANG ANGHEL ANG KA FELIX MANALo???:) E diba kinokontra nyo nga kami???? ANG BOBO MO NAMAN:):):) hahaha.
ANG ISSUE AY MALINAW SA PAGITAN NATING DALAWA
" May tao ba na anghel???" ANG SABI MO HINDI PWEDE MANGYARI YON!!!
PINATUNAYAN KO NAMAN GAMIT ANG SARILI MONG RELIHIYON NA ANG TAO PWEDENG MAGING ANGHEL:):):):):):)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA said
" Angels
(Latin angelus; Greek aggelos; from the Hebrew for "one going" or "one sent"; messenger). The word is used in Hebrew to denote indifferently either a divine or human messenger. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
:)
HUMAHABOL KA PA NG TABLA E TALO KA NA NGA. NAPATUNAYAN NA NG LAHAT NA TANGA KA NGA. ISIPIN MO KINOKONTRA MO MISMON G MGA PARI MO???:):) Mr. Riel Lopez a.ka.a. CATHOLIC OFFENDER:):):)
BOOO:):):):):):):)
In Greek, the term used here is " anatoles heliou" which is equivalent to the Hebrew term "mizrach" which is referring to Far East:) What vision took place when Apostle John said that he saw the other angel?
ReplyDelete>>>>Nap, should we use Greek for our arguments? If I show you Greek verse you will use Aramaic ..If i show you Peter , you will show me All the Apostles, James and Paul...
"no where in the bible that God would appoint an angel from the Phil."
Delete- Are you smarter than God to give assurance because of that? CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT HE WILL NOT DO THAT? Anyway... If what you are saying is Word per Word then there is none. However, if not then THERE IS! That's what NAP was proving... No. He ALREADY PROVED that to you but you can't accept. That was like a month ago. It's funny that your third comment is a reply to that, posted after a month.
"The word ["one going" or "one sent"] (not the angel as you assumed to be Felix Manalo )is used in Hebrew to denote indifferently either a divine or human messenger. Augustine never said that humans can be angels. They are purely spiritual, immortal..and I don't think that any angels you mentioned in the Revelations refers to Manalo too funny. . .there may be human messengers of God but they are not angels."
- Have nothing to say more than your Opinions? And... What did you say? "I don't think that any angels you mentioned in the Revelations refers to Manalo". That alone proves that your stand has a shaky foundation. YOU DON'T THINK IT IS However, it is the truth. Unfortunately for you your thoughts are different from God's.
"Nap, should we use Greek for our arguments? If I show you Greek verse you will use Aramaic ..If i show you Peter , you will show me All the Apostles, James and Paul..."
- What's your point? It's just like you saying "Pagka ginagamitan kita ng Theory, ginagamitan mo ko ng Facts" (that certainly applies to what you just said about the Apostles).
Nap, should we use Greek for our arguments?
Delete---Bakit? :) Natatakot ka?:) Hindi mo ba alam na ang wikang Griego ay ang wika kung saan isinulat ng mga apostol ang Bagong Tipan?:) At dahil sa ito ang wikang ginamit nila noon, pinakamabuting gawin ang kunsultahin ang wikang ito, upang maliwanagan tayo sa mga salita sa Biblia na pinagtatalunan natin ngayon:) Bakit? Mali ba ako na " anatoles helio " ang Greek word na ginamit sa " sikatan ng araw" sa Apoc. 7:2-3? Mali ba ako na ang anatoles helio ay katumbas rin ng terminong Hebreo na " mizrach" na tumutukoy sa MALAYONG SILANGAN? :) Kapag sinabi mong mali ako, Gunggong ka, kaBOBOhan. Hindi ka nag-aral. Yun ay pag sinabi mong mali ako:)
Kung ako sayo wag ka na lumaban sakin, NAKAKAAWA ka lang:) Nagmamarunong ka e wala ka namang kaalam - alam:)
The Walking Dead, did you mean this?:
DeleteTherefore, the another messenger will arise when the end is near which is being characterized by wars and humors of wars and the fulfillment of this is when brother Felix Y. Manalo was already preaching when the First World War took place. Is it a coincidence? No. It's not Ka Felix's fault that the First World war broke out during the beginning of his ministry:) And because Brother Felix Y. Manalo is a messenger of God he has the right to bind anything on earth that will be bound in heaven:)
IT IS FALSE, MAYBE YOU SHOULD TAKE TIME AND READ THE VERSES ABOUT MANALO'S CLAIMS
Firstly, the prophecies (Isa.41:8-9,Isa. 46:11-13,& Rev.7:2-3) mentioned have no fufillment verses. A prophesy that has no fulfillment confirmation (2 Pet.1:19 NKJV),is a fake. Secondly, Felix Y. Manalo can not be the messenger of God because God has already appointed His Son Jesus Christ as His messenger (Jn.5:37). Christ's reign as Messenger of God extends to the end of the age (Mt.28:20 NKJV0. If Manalo insists he is a messenger of God, he absolutely is referring to his devil god who is the father of all liars (Jn.8:44) and god of this world (2 Cor.4:4). Manalo is a messenger of the devil.
A prophecy that has no fulfillment confirmation is a fake... Hey Riel, you questioning the Bible now? Those prophecies by the prophet Isaiah, the Apostles (specifically John according to your questioning) are fake??? No. You just can't accept them. Now now, your picking what you want to believe in the Bible eh? Tsk tsk.
DeleteAnyway Riel, where in the dark corners of your house did you find that conclusion of yours? Making your INTERPRETATIONS? You people can't even disprove that some of your doctrines were of the devil, some of your doctrines rooted from the false translation of the bible (latin vulgate - a very good example is your dogma about the immaculate concepcion), and even an unexplainable mystery of the trinity! Why did I say that? To divert the topic? No. Then what was that all about? Don't tell me Riel that your so called authorities that teach FALSE DOCTRINES can give confirmation to prophecies. Who then can have the authority to teach about the Words of God? Someone sent. You sure your so-called authorities of yours who can't even make a logical explination about your mystery doctrines that are not found in the Bible are sent by God? Don't reply to me that "IT IS FALSE" with your jumpy conclusions out of the Universe.
Firstly, the prophecies (Isa.41:8-9,Isa. 46:11-13,& Rev.7:2-3) mentioned have no fufillment verses. A prophesy that has no fulfillment confirmation (2 Pet.1:19 NKJV),is a fake. Secondly, Felix Y. Manalo can not be the messenger of God because God has already appointed His Son Jesus Christ as His messenger (Jn.5:37). Christ's reign as Messenger of God extends to the end of the age (Mt.28:20 NKJV0. If Manalo insists he is a messenger of God, he absolutely is referring to his devil god who is the father of all liars (Jn.8:44) and god of this world (2 Cor.4:4). Manalo is a messenger of the devil.
DeleteI said
Ang lahat ng mga pinagsasasabi ni Riel ay bunga ng kamangmangan:)
Sabi niya " Firstly, the prophecies (Isa.41:8-9,Isa. 46:11-13,& Rev.7:2-3) mentioned have no fufillment verses."
:) Natural!!! Ang mga panahon na tinutukoy jan ay " ends of the earth " at yung isa ay sa dulo ng ika-6 na tatak nangyari!!! Ang mga panahon na iyan ay pawang sa mga wakas ng lupa o sa panahong malapit na ang Araw ng Paghuhukom. ANg Biblia ay tapos na 1st century pa lang. KAYA BAKIT MO HAHANAPIN SA BIBLIA ANG KINATUPARAN? PARANG ANG BOBO MO NAMAN:)
" A prophesy that has no fulfillment confirmation (2 Pet.1:19 NKJV),is a fake."
Saan mo naman nabasa jan sa talata na ang hula na di natupad ay peke?DEMONIYO KA TALAGA. ISIPIN MO HULA G DIYOS SASABIHIN MO PEKE?:) TSK TSK TSK.
" Felix Y. Manalo can not be the messenger of God because God has already appointed His Son Jesus Christ as His messenger (Jn.5:37)"
E sino ka ba para pangunahan ang Diyos? May magagawa ka ba kung ang Diyos ay muling magsusugo maliban kay Cristo? Ang mga apostol ay mga Sinugo. Ibig bang sabihin nun peke sila sapgkat ang pagiging Sugo ni Cristo ay hanggang sa katapusan ng sanlibutan? SINUNGALING KA TALAGA tsk tsk tsk.:) MALIWANAG ANG SABI NG DIYOS,
" I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you."
May Sugong hinuhulaan sa mga wakas ng lupa!:) Sino iyon?? Siya ang Sugo ng Diyos na mangangaral bago dumating ang END OF THE EARTH na siyang pagdating muli ni Cristo:) Kanino natupad? SA KAPATID NA FELIX Y. MANALO:) Tapos sasabihin mo hindi pwedeng maging Sugo???:) NAGMAMARUNONG KA PA SA DIYOS SA GINAWA MONG IYAN. PARA KANG SI SATANAS. KAYA INIHAGIS SA LUPA NAGMAMATAAS KASI SA DIYOS!Sabagay tatay mo un:)
" If Manalo insists he is a messenger of God, he absolutely is referring to his devil god who is the father of all liars (Jn.8:44) and god of this world (2 Cor.4:4). Manalo is a messenger of the devil."
PURE OPINION:) Kung ang Ka Felix ay Sugo ng TATAY mong Diyablo, BAKIT ANG KARAMIHAN AY INUSIG, KINUTYA, ANG SUGO NOONG SIYA'Y NAGSISIMULA PA LANg? Diba sabi mo, yung TATAY mo diyos ng mundong ito? EDI DAPAT PALA MINAHAL AGAD NG MARAMI ANG KA FELIX? GANUN BA NANGYARI? HINDI. GINAMIT NG TATAY MONG DIYABLO ANG KANIYANG MGA ANAK SA IGLESIA KATOLIKA PARA USIGIN AT HAMAKIN ANG KAPATID NA FELIX Y. MANALO!:) Bakit kayo ang ginamit? Kasi nga ang TATAY MONG DIYABLO ay diyos ng mundong ito!!:) UNIBERSAL!! KATOLIKO!!DIYOS NIYO ANG TATAY NIYONG DIYABLO, KAYA KAYO ANG UNANG UMUSIG AT HUMAMAK SA KAPATID NA FELIX Y. MANALo:):):)
Kaso palpak kayo e.:) HINDI NIYO NAMAN KAMI NAPATUMBA:)
Bakit di niyo kami napatumba?? Ang PANGAKO NG DIYOS SA KA FELIX Y. MANALO ay ito:
" So do not fear, for I am with you; do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you; I will uphold you with my righteous right hand. "All who rage against you will surely be ashamed and disgraced; those who oppose you will be as nothing and perish."
Ilang dekada na bang pinigilan, siniraan, inusig ng Iglesia Katolika ang IGLESIA NI CRISTO?:) Mag SESENTENARYO na lang kami hanggang ngayon nang-uusig pa rin kayo:) PERO UN NGA, MGA PALPAK!!!:) HINDI KASI KAMI KAYA NG TATAY NIYONG DIYABLO:) Kaya ikaw Riel Lopez, magpaturo ka pa sa tatay mo para mas lalong lumitaw ang kahangalan mo dito:) hahaha:)
Whooaa.. The Walking Dead,,,,you have a very bad understanding about the meaning of the word :"PROPHECY" "DOGMA" and "DOCTRINES". . i can't argue with you in that situation...
Delete:) Natural!!! Ang mga panahon na tinutukoy jan ay " ends of the earth " at yung isa ay sa dulo ng ika-6 na tatak nangyari!!!
Delete---hey NAP, read :
Luke 11:31
The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom; and now something greater than Solomon is here.
ang alam ko, hindi galing 1914 ang Queen of the South :)
Hey Nap, FYI The "ends of the earth" refers to the mentioned four points of the earth, which are: north, south, east, and west.A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF FALSE INTERPRETATION OF MANALO
DeleteREAD Luke 11:31
The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.
as far as i know, the Queen of the South did not came from 1914!!!!
Manalo does not want you to know that the prophecy is owned by Israel. Verse 8 has the name of the owner of the prophecy so he has to hide it. The pronoun "you" of Verse 9 pertains to Israel as stated in Verse 8. Those who were taken from the ends of the earth (the ends are the four points of the earth, the north, south, east, and west of Palestine) were the Israelites or Jews who were exiled to those territories by their conquerors, the Assyrians and Babylonians. When the Assyrians were in power, the Assyrians owned the territories around Palestine. When the Babylonians defeated the Assyrians, they became the new owners of those territories where the Israelites and Judeans were exiled to. When the Persians under Cyrus defeated the Babylonians, the Israelites were allowed to return back to Jerusalem (Israel).
How else does Manalo pervert Verse 9? He converts again the phrase, "ends of the earth" as a time. As was mentioned , the phrase "ends of the earth" is not time but place because of the presence of the preposition "from." If the phrase is taken as time, it will be a time that is left hanging because it has a "from" but there is no "to." Manalo is therefore hanging and dangling on a cliff.
Riel said
Delete"
READ Luke 11:31
The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.
as far as i know, the Queen of the South did not came from 1914!!!!"
Sabi ko naman
Hindi naman kami tutol na ang " ends of the earth " ay tumutukoy sa sa dako:):) PERO HINDI LANG ITO SA DAKO TUMUTUKOY:):):)Aba si Riel gumagamit na ng mga talata:) YUN NGA LANG HINDI TO GOOD EXAMPLE:):):) Bakit???
Bakit mo naman inuugnay iyan sa ends of the earth sa Isaias 41:9-10 e talagang magkaiba ang ENDS OF THE ARTH SA MGA TALATANG IYAN??:):) Talagang ang Reyna ng Seba ay galing din sa Ends of the Earth pero LUGAR ANG TINUTUKOY SA TALATANG IYAN AT HINDI PANAHON:):)
PERO, HINDI LAHAT NG ENDS OF THE EARTH SA BIBLIA AY TUMUTUKOY LANG SA DAKO!!!:) ITO ANG ISANG MAGANDANG EBIDENSIYA
" 1. end ... 4. the most distant place or time that can be imagined" the ends of the earth
Collin's Paperback Dictionary p.225
Ayan, malinaw na hindi lang pala LUGAR ANG TINUTUKOY NG END KUNDI MAGING PANAHON:):):)
Sa Isaias 41:9-10 hindi lugar ang tinutukoy dahil ang Hebrew term na ginamit sa " ends of the earth " sa mga talatang iyan ay " qatsvey ha'arets" . Ang Wakas ay tinumbasan sa Hebrew ng " qatseh " ANo ba ang qatseh?
" qatseh... Second qatseh can signify a " temporal end " , such as the end of a period of time"
Nelson's Expository Dict. of the Old Testament p.113
Ayun, ang Hebrew term na ginamit sa " wakas " sa Isaias 41:9 na " qatseh" ay maaring tumukoy sa wakas ng isang yugto ng panahon:):):) AYAN, mag-aral ka muna ha bago ka PUTAK NG PUTAK DIYAN:):) BAGO KA BUMARIL SIGURADUHIN MONG NAKAMAMATAY ANG BALA MO:):)hahaha, nakakatawa ang pagiging ignorante mo:)
Riel said
" Manalo does not want you to know that the prophecy is owned by Israel. "
Sabi ko naman
PAULIT-ULIT KA NA NAMAN:):) GUSTO MO IPAMUKHA KO ULIT SAYO ANG KAIGNORANTEHAN MO???:):) Ayan o
Sabi mo, ang kausap ng Diyos sa mga HULA ni Isaias ay ang bayang Israel. Malinaw na sa aklat rin ni Isaias ay sinabi ng Diyos,
" Therefore I have profaned the princes of the sanctuary, and have given Jacob to the curse, and Israel to reproaches.
Maliwanag na itinakuwil na sila ng Diyos diyan:) AT PARA SA IYONG KAALAMAN
eto basahin mo ang paliwanag ng mga Bible SCHOLARS TUNGKOL SA MGA HULA NI ISAIas
" throughout the Old Testament it is Israel that is called and separated to be people of God. ...It is to this people and of this people as the people of God that the prophets speak. Then Christ comes: and with His coming all these things that said of Israel are transferredto the New Testament people of God., THE BELIEVERS IN JESUS CHRIST, all those who are men of faith like Abraham, the CHURCH OF CHRIST within which all distinctions and divisions cease.
---Prophecy Interpreted: Essays in Old Testament Interpretation by Geoffrey Chapman p. 26-27
Ayan, EDI NAULIT NA NAMAN ANG KATANGAHAN MO:) PINOST KO NA NGA KASI ITO DI KA PA RIN NATUTO:):) Lahat ng ipinangako ng Diyos sa Israel noon ay NAILIPAT SA MGA SUMASAMPALATAY KAY CRISTO, SPECIFICALLY SA IGLESIA NI CRISTO):):)
Ayan, mag-aral ka kasi:):) NAGMUMUKHA KANG TANGA SAKIN E:):)
Riel said
Delete" How else does Manalo pervert Verse 9? He converts again the phrase, "ends of the earth" as a time. As was mentioned , the phrase "ends of the earth" is not time but place because of the presence of the preposition "from." If the phrase is taken as time, it will be a time that is left hanging because it has a "from" but there is no "to." Manalo is therefore hanging and dangling on a cliff. "
Sabi ko naman
Inuunawa mo pla ang mga hula ng Diyos based sa GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE NITO:):) KATANGAHAN DIN IYON:) HINDI LAHAT NG HULA AY DAPAT UNAWAIN NG GANON:):)
Example
Jer. 31:15
" This is what the LORD says: "A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because her children are no more."
Ang sabi sa hula, NARINIG SA RAMA ANG PAG-IYAK NI RAQUEL DAHIL INIIYAKAN NITO ANG PAGKAMATAY NG KANIYANG MGA ANAK. Kung ang pagbabasehan natin ay ang GRAMMATICAL STRUCTURE MO, lilitaw hindi natupad ang hulang ito:) Bakit??? Sapagkat nauna pang mamatay si Raquel kaysa sa kaniyang mga anak!!!!:):) Ano ba kinatuparan nito?? ITO AY NATUPAD NANG IPAPATAY NI HERODES ANG MGA SANGGOL SA BETHLEHEM:):) Tingnan mo sa Bethlehem nangyari at hindi sa Rama!!:)
Yan kasi ang MALI MO. INUUNAWA MO SA LITERAL NA KAHULUGAN ANG MGA HULA!!!!:):) MALING PAGKAUNAWA IYAN:):)BAKIT MALI PAGKAUNAWA MO???
" And how can they preach unless they are sent? "
Hindi ka kasi Sinugo:):) Ikaw nga mismo e, HINDI KA NANINIWALA NA MAY TAONG ANGHEL O SINUGO:):) Kaya di nakapagtataka kung bakit mali ang pagkaunawa mo:):) hahaha:) AYAN EDI LUMITAW NA NAMAN ANG KATANGAHAN MO:):):)
Yon bang anghel ng Iglesia na binabanggit sa Apocalipsis Chapter 2, Tao ba yon o Spirit?
ReplyDeleteBakit? Mali ba ako na " anatoles helio " ang Greek word na ginamit sa " sikatan ng araw" sa Apoc. 7:2-3? Mali ba ako na ang anatoles helio ay katumbas rin ng terminong Hebreo na " mizrach" na tumutukoy sa MALAYONG SILANGAN? :)
ReplyDelete---Good, kasi pagtignan natin ang Gawa 20:28 sa salitang greigo, wala akong makitang Church of Christ :) ang wikang Griego ay ang wika kung saan isinulat ng mga apostol ang Bagong Tipan diba?
Tama:) Wala ka talagang makikitang " CHURCH OF CHRIST " kasi nga CHURCH OF CHRIST itself is not GREEK WORDS:) ENGLISH PO IYAN. haha, anyways ayusin mo kasi sumagot:) Kaya ka nagmumukhang tanga e:)
DeleteSige nga, ito tanong
Mali ba sabihin na ang tamang pagkakasalin ng Gawa 20:28 ay Iglesia ni Cristo?
2. Kung sasabihin mong mali, bakit mali? E ANG TALAGANG TUMUBOS NAMAN SA IGLESIA SA PAMAMAGITAN NG KANIYANG DUGO AY WALANG IBA KUNDI SI CRISTO!!!!
1 Peter 1:18-19
" For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of CHRIST, a lamb without blemish or defect."
Ayan:) Ulit ang tanong. MALI BANG SABIHIN NA SI CRISTO ANG BUMILI SA IGLESIA SA PAMAMAGITAN NG KANIYANG SARILING DUGO?:)
3. Ano ang likas na kalagayn NG TUNAY NA DIYOS? Diba Espiritu? Kapag Espiritu, MAY DUGO BA YON???:)
SAGUTIN MO YAN HA, para naman kahit papano ay matuto ka:)
Sige nga, ito tanong
DeleteMali ba sabihin na ang tamang pagkakasalin ng Gawa 20:28 ay Iglesia ni Cristo?
2. Kung sasabihin mong mali, bakit mali? E ANG TALAGANG TUMUBOS NAMAN SA IGLESIA SA PAMAMAGITAN NG KANIYANG DUGO AY WALANG IBA KUNDI SI CRISTO!!!!
---MALI:) WALA AKONG MAKIKITANG "Iglesia ni Cristo" kundi "iglesia ni Cristo"
--- In the Lamsa, what is written there is only "church of Christ" (a common noun). The correct translation of Acts 20:28 as found in familiar Bible versions such as King James, is "church of God," which is the correct translation of the Greek "ekklesia tou Dieu." Why can't we find the name Church of Christ (proper noun) in the Bible? The reason is because the name of the church established by Christ in the first century is called the "Way." This proper noun name is what is written in the Acts of the Apostles.:)
There was no organization called Church of Christ during the Apostles' time because it did not exist. It came into existence only in 1914 when it was founded by Felix Y. Manalo. Therefore, it is a lie that the first century Christians were members of the Church of Christ or Iglesia ni Cristo.
3. Ano ang likas na kalagayn NG TUNAY NA DIYOS? Diba Espiritu? Kapag Espiritu, MAY DUGO BA YON???:)
DeleteSAGUTIN MO YAN HA, para naman kahit papano ay matuto ka:)
--The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":(2 Pt 1:4) "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.":)
Riel said
Delete" Mali ba sabihin na ang tamang pagkakasalin ng Gawa 20:28 ay Iglesia ni Cristo?
2. Kung sasabihin mong mali, bakit mali? E ANG TALAGANG TUMUBOS NAMAN SA IGLESIA SA PAMAMAGITAN NG KANIYANG DUGO AY WALANG IBA KUNDI SI CRISTO!!!!
---MALI:) WALA AKONG MAKIKITANG "Iglesia ni Cristo" kundi "iglesia ni Cristo"
Sabi ko naman
O ayan kitang kita na ang KATANGAHAN ni Riel:) Mali daw na sabihin na Iglesia ni Cristo kasi wala siyang makitang IGLESIA NI CRISTO sa talata:) hahaha, HINDI MARUNONG UMINTINDI ANG TAONG ITO:):):)
Ang linaw ng tanong ko: MALI BANG SABIHIN NA IGLESIA NI CRISTO ANG NASA GAWA 20:28 KUNG SI CRISTO NAMAN TALAGA ANG TUMUBOS DITO??
MALI RAW sabi ni Riel
UGOK KA TALAGA:) YAN ANG KATUNAYANG DEMONIYO KA:) YUNG TAMA GINAGAWA MONG MALI:) Paano magiging mali ang tawaging IGLESIA NI CRISTO ang nasa Gawa 20:28 e TALAGANG SI CRISTO NAMAN TALAGA ANG NAGBUHOS NG DUGO PARA SA KANIYANG IGLESIA!!
Wala ka talagang COMMON SENSE:):):)
--- In the Lamsa, what is written there is only "church of Christ" (a common noun). The correct translation of Acts 20:28 as found in familiar Bible versions such as King James, is "church of God," which is the correct translation of the Greek "ekklesia tou Dieu." Why can't we find the name Church of Christ (proper noun) in the Bible? The reason is because the name of the church established by Christ in the first century is called the "Way." This proper noun name is what is written in the Acts of the Apostles.:)
DeleteSabi ko naman
Talaga lang ha??? " "ekklesia tou Dieu."??? SAANG MANUSCRIPT MO NAMAN NAKUHA YAN?? YUNG MODERN??? hahaha, bat di mo hanapin sa PINAKA NAUNA kung yan ba talaga ang nakasulat:):):) Nakakabanas ka talaga. Ipapakita mo pa sakin yan E MATAGAL KO NG PINAG-ARALAN IYAN:):) Alam ko rin kung saang mga kopya mo poinagkukuha yang mga yan:):) MAGPOPOST KA PA NG MGA ANSWER MO E PURO MGA WALANG KUWENTA NAMAN ANG PINAGKUHANAN MO:):):)
Riel said
" Why can't we find the name Church of Christ (proper noun) in the Bible? The reason is because the name of the church established by Christ in the first century is called the "Way." This proper noun name is what is written in the Acts of the Apostles.:)"
Sabi ko naman
Ito ang mga tanong
Sinong nagturo sayo na ANG PANGALAN NG IGLESIA ITINAYO NI CRISTO AY " THE WAY"??? INTERPRETASYON MO LANG YAN:):):)
SINO BA ANG TUMAWAG SA KANILA NG PANGALAN NA IYON???
MABABASA MO BA SA BIBLIA NA ANG PANGALANG ITINAWAG NG MGA APOSTOL SA IGLESIA NI CRISTO AY " ANG DAAN"??:):) MAGPAKITA KA NG MGA TALATA NA ANG MGA APOSTOL MISMO ANG TUMAWAG SA KANILA NG GANON:):):)
KALOKOHAN MO LANG IYAN:):):)
Riel said
" There was no organization called Church of Christ during the Apostles' time because it did not exist. It came into existence only in 1914 when it was founded by Felix Y. Manalo. Therefore, it is a lie that the first century Christians were members of the Church of Christ or Iglesia ni Cristo. "
Sabi ko naman
Ano raw??? WALA DAW IGLESIA NI CRISTO NOONG UNAHG SIGLO???
TANONG PARA KAY RIEL NA TANGA
1. Kung walang Iglesia ni Cristo noon, saan napaanib ang mga unang Cristiano noon?
2. Ano ang OPINYON mo nang sabihin ni Apostol Pablo sa Roma 16:16 " na ang IGLESIA NI CRISTO ay bumabati sa inyo"?? WALA BANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO NA ALAM SI APOSTOL PABLO NOON?:):)
3. Anong SARILING PALIWANAG mo, nag sabihin ni Apostol Pablo na " hindi pa ako kilalang personal sa mga IGLESIA NI CRISTO sa Judea" Galacia 1:22 NPV ??? :):) WALA BANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO SA TALATANG IYAN:):)
4. Ano ang OPINYON MO sa talatang ito?
1 Corinthians 12:12
" ... For just as the human body is one and yet has many parts, and all its parts, many
as they are, constitute but one body, so it is with the Church of Christ. ... Ayun!!!:):) WALA BANG CHURCH OF CHRIST DYAN????:):):)
5. ITO ANG PINAKAMATINDING TANONG PARA KAY RIEL KONTRADIKSYON:):) a.k.a. Mr. CATHOLIC OFFENDER:):):)
Sabi mo walang Iglesia ni Cristo sa panahon ng mga apostol:):):) SINONG PANINIWALAAN KO??? IKAW NA PURO KATANGAHAN ANG MGA KONKLUSYON??? O ANG PARI MO NA GUMAWA NG GANITONG PROPOSISYON
The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol.3 p. 744
" In the writings of the New Testament the words are sharply distinguished. With them " ecclesia " denotes the CHURCH OF CHRIST":):):):):):):):)
Ayan, ISAMPAL MO ULIT SA PAGMUMUKHA MO:):):) Kontrahin mo pa ang mga papa at pari niyo:):):) ANO BA TALAGA RELIHIYON MO??? IGLESIA KATOLIKA KA BA??? IPINAPAHIYA MO LANG SARILI MO DAHIL ANG MGA PINAGSASASABI MO HINDI ARAL NG RELIHIYONG KUNWARI IPINAGLALABAN MO:):):):):)
O baka Katoliko ka nga. YUN NGA LANG BOPLOGS KA SA MGA MALALALIM NA IMPORMASIYON TUNGKOL SA ARAL NIYO:):):) hahaha SAGUTIN MO YAN HA:)
Riel said
Delete" The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":(2 Pt 1:4) "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God. "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.":)
Sabi ko naman
SINUNGALING:):):) PATUNAYAN MO NGA SA LAHAT NA IYAN NGA ANG SINASABI NG TALATA??? DEMONIYO KA TALAGA:):) YOU ARE TWISTING THE SCRIPTURES!!!:):):)
Nagkatawang-tao raw ang Anak ng Diyos para TAYO RIN DAW AY MAGING MGA DIYOS???!!! ANONG URING PAGKAUNAWA IYAN:) EDI DADAMI DIYOS NIYAN????:):)
Ano ba sinasabi sa 1 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.
Ayun naman pala. Dapat nating tandaan na ang tao ay NILIKHANG KALARAWAN NG DIYOS. KALARAWAN SA PAG-IBIG AT KABANALAN. PERO DAHIL SA ANG TAO NAGKASALA, HINDI NIYA NARATING ANG URING BANAL. SINO LAMANG ANG NAKARATING SA URING ITO? ANG PANGINOONG JESUS LAMANG. SAMAKATUWID =, KAILANGAN NG TAO ANG MAKAISA SI CRISTO PARA MAKARATING SILA SA URING BANAL. PAANO IYON??? PUMASOK SA KATAWAN NI CRISTO NA IYON ANG IGLESIA!! KANINONG IGLESIA? KAY CRISTO. PAANO TAWAGIN?? IGLESIA NI CRISTO.
KAYA ANG TINUTUKOY DIYAN NA " PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE " AY ANG MGA NAKIPAG-KAISA KAY CRISTO NA IYON ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO. HINDI TOTOO ANG SINASABI NI RIEL NA
" For the Son of God became man so that we might become God"
KADEMONIYOHAN YANG PINAGSASABI MO RIEL. MANLOLOKO NG TAO:):):)
Kanino bang aral ang DIUMANO'Y PAGKAKATAWANG-TAO NG DIYOS??
"
When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form! Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker."
Ayan, SA MGA PAGANO PALANG PAG-IISIP IYAN:):):) SA DEMONIYO PALA TALAGA KAYO:):):) hahaha
Catholic defender surrender ka na ba? Napakasimpleng tanong lang kung yong anghel na binabanggit sa Apocalipsis 2 ay tao o espiritu hindi mo na masagot. hanggang diyan ka na lang ba? Lalaban-laban ka sa INC ng katuwiranan wala ka naman palang ibubuga kundi magpatay malisya. Kawawa naman ang simbahan niyo, lagi na lang napapahiya kapag INC na ang pumatol sa mga pamali-maling aral niyo.
ReplyDeleteCatholic defender surrender ka na ba? Napakasimpleng tanong lang kung yong anghel na binabanggit sa Apocalipsis 2 ay tao o espiritu hindi mo na masagot. hanggang diyan ka na lang ba?
Delete----kung tao, alam mu ba yun kung sino???
TANONG:
1. ang ibong mandaragit sa Isaiah 46:11 si Manalo? o si Cyrus?
2. Saan makikita ang pangalang "Iglesia ni Cristo " sa bibliya?
3. ang "iglesia ni Cristo" ba na makikita sa bibliya, common noun? or proper noun?
Lalaban-laban ka sa INC ng katuwiranan wala ka naman palang ibubuga kundi magpatay malisya. Kawawa naman ang simbahan niyo, lagi na lang napapahiya kapag INC na ang pumatol sa mga pamali-maling aral niyo.
----kawawa talaga ang mga Katoliko, yun naman ang sinabi ni Jesus eh..
John 15:18-21
“If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you... If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you... because they do not know Him who sent Me."
John 16:1-4
“These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble. They will put you out of the synagogues [today it might be from churches]; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me. But these things I have told you, that when the time comes, you may remember that I told you of them."
John 17:14-18
"I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one."
Galatians 5:11
"And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased."
--KAWAWA KAMI, PERO HINDI KAMI PINABAYAAN NI JESUS..(Matt. 28:20)
at heto halos 2000 years na kami .
NAP, SILENCE is not a sign of retreat or defeat. It's a sign of courage for it allows you to stop talking and think of the TRUTH in the Catholic Church we have been presenting to you. While you're blabbering why not SILENCE your mouth and use your brains for a while and start pondering on the DEFEANING and IRRESISTIBLE TRUTH in the CATHOLIC CHURCH which from the beginning is the CHURCH OF CHRIST said your official magazine?
DeleteRiel said
Delete"
--KAWAWA KAMI, PERO HINDI KAMI PINABAYAAN NI JESUS..(Matt. 28:20)
at heto halos 2000 years na kami .
Sabi ko naman
SINUNGALINg:):):) ANG LAKAS LAKAS NIYO KAYA.........DATI:):):) hahaha, humigit-kumulang 2000 taon din kayong naging malakas DAHIL SA PAKIKIAPID NG SIMBAHAN SA ESTADo:):)
Ang tunay na Iglesia IISA LANG ANG ASAWA AT IYON AY SI CRISTO.
PERO ANG IGLESIA KATOLIKA NAKIAPID!!! SA MGA HARI SA LUPA:) Pero ngayon pabagsak na kayo:):):) Di na pinapansin mga sigaw niyo:):) hahaha:):) PAUBOS NA KAYO:) MILYON-MILYON NA NAWAWALA SA INYO:):):) ANG DAMI NIYO PANG DAPAT BAYARAN NA MGA INABUSO NG MGA PARI NIYO!!!:):)
At tsaka diba ANG LAKAS LAKAS NINYONG MANG-API SA AMIN????:):) PERO SA KABILA NG MGA PANG-AAPI NINYO, HINDI NIYO KAMI NAPATUMBA:):):)
Iyan ba ang ginagabayan ng ating Panginoong Jesucristo????
Gagabayan ba ng Panginoong Jesus ang NAGTATAGLAY NG ARAL NG DEMONIYO???? GUNGGONG:):):)
KAHIT MAGDASAL PA KAYO NG NAPAKATAGAL, ITO ANG SIGURADO, WALANG TUNAY NA DIYOS NA MAKIKINIG SA INYO:):) MERON LANG, AT YUN AY ANG INYONG AMANG DIYABLO:):):)
DUMB CATHOLIC DEFENDER SAID
Delete" NAP, SILENCE is not a sign of retreat or defeat."
Sabi ko naman
Kailan kaya nanahimik ang mga apostol kapag may mali silang aral na narinig???:):) Si Apostol Pablo nga e, noong naroon siya sa athens, nag-init ang kaniyang kalooban ng makita niyang ang mga tao ay sumasamba sa mga rebulto!!:):) KAYA ANG TUNAY NA MANGANGARAL NAGSASALITA KAPAG MAY MALI SA PALIGID NIYA HINDI NANAHIMIK KAPAG NAIIPIT NA:):):) hahaha
While you're blabbering why not SILENCE your mouth and use your brains for a while and start pondering on the DEFEANING and IRRESISTIBLE TRUTH in the CATHOLIC CHURCH which from the beginning is the CHURCH OF CHRIST said your official magazine?
DeleteSabi ko naman
Sa simula lang naman e:) TANGA KA TALAGA DI KA MARUNONG UMINTINDI:):)
Kapag di pala makaintindi ang isang tao ay para sa iyo ay TANGA!
DeleteWell, you have just DEMONSTRATED that to us. Since you CANNOT COMPREHEND our DOCTRINES and twisted it to suit your evil agenda, therefore ikaw na rin ang nagsabing TANGA ka!
Thanks for that humility to accept who you are ^_^
DUMB CATHOLIC DEFENDER SAID
DeleteKapag di pala makaintindi ang isang tao ay para sa iyo ay TANGA!
Well, you have just DEMONSTRATED that to us. Since you CANNOT COMPREHEND our DOCTRINES and twisted it to suit your evil agenda, therefore ikaw na rin ang nagsabing TANGA ka!
Sabi ko naman
Hahaha:) Mukhang naririndi na ang tenga ni CATHOLIC DEFENDER dahil sa sinasabi kong TANGA SIYA:):) Kung tutuusin nga kulang pa iyan e:):) Diba sa simula pa lang tinatawag niyo kaming kulto?? Mga MANOLISTA, Iniinsulto niyo ang pinakamamahal naming SUGO:) Hindiu niyo kami iginalang, TINATAWAG NIYO PA KAMING MGA BUGOK:) HUWAG MO KONG GAWING TANGA, MATAGAL NA KONG KALABAN NI ABE:):) ALAM KO MGA ISTILO NI ABE:):) Akala ko nga nung mawala blog nya e mawawala na ang mga katulad niya sa mundo,. ANDIYAN KA PALA:) AT KULANG PA IYAN KUNG IKUKUMPARA NIYO ANG PAGGAMIT NG PANGALAN KO PARA SIRAAN ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO:):):) MGA MANLOLOKO NG TAO:):) MGA DEMONIYO:):)
Well kung sino man ang naunang bumitaw sa atin ng mga offending words WALANG IBA KUNDI KAYO YUN:):)
Gusto ko lang naman iblaik yung mga bagay na hindi akin:):) hahaha:):) And I swear to you, HABANG NAGPOPOST AKO SA BLOG MO, YAN ANG ITATAWAG KO SAYO:):)
Di mo maintindihan??? TAMA NAMAN DIBA??:) TANGA ANG TAWAG DUN:):)
At wala ka na bang maisagot kundi yan????:):) Diba ang sipag sipag mo dati magpaulan samin ng mga offending words???:):) Bat ngayon hindi na??? NAGBAIT-BAITAN KA NA BA???:):):)
Hahaha, WALANG MANINIWALA SAYO DUMB CATHOLIC DEFENDER:):)
A NAP FORD who BRAGGED before saying HE WROTE BOOKS against the Catholic Church but NONE he can even mention a TITLE among his supposed written "BOOKS"!!!
DeleteAnd the same NAP FORD who BRAGGED he is EXPERT in HISTORY having PhD loool.
Puro ka YABANG! Nasaan na ang titles ng mga aklat mo?!!! ang kakapal ng mukha, puro kayabangan lang.. hangin lang ang utak. Kaya pala maingay!!!
May MATALINO bang gumagamit ng NAME-CALLING?!!!
DeleteThat's the genuine TRADEMARK of IGLESIA NI MANALO members!!!
NAP FORD said...
Delete"Sabi ko naman
SINUNGALINg:):):) ANG LAKAS LAKAS NIYO KAYA.........DATI:):):) hahaha, humigit-kumulang 2000 taon din kayong naging malakas DAHIL SA PAKIKIAPID NG SIMBAHAN SA ESTADo:):)
Ang tunay na Iglesia IISA LANG ANG ASAWA AT IYON AY SI CRISTO.
PERO ANG IGLESIA KATOLIKA NAKIAPID!!! SA MGA HARI SA LUPA:) Pero ngayon pabagsak na kayo:):):) Di na pinapansin mga sigaw niyo:):) hahaha:):) PAUBOS NA KAYO:) MILYON-MILYON NA NAWAWALA SA INYO:):):) ANG DAMI NIYO PANG DAPAT BAYARAN NA MGA INABUSO NG MGA PARI NIYO!!!:):)
At tsaka diba ANG LAKAS LAKAS NINYONG MANG-API SA AMIN????:):) PERO SA KABILA NG MGA PANG-AAPI NINYO, HINDI NIYO KAMI NAPATUMBA:):):)"
CD2000:
Nap, para naman medyo malinaw sa iyo kugn alin ang TUNAY na IGLESIA NI CRISTO... heto ang OFFICIAL na sabi ng inyong PASUGO:
PASUGO Nobyembre 1940, p. 23:
“Iisa lamang ang tanging makapagtatayo ng Iglesiang magiging dapat sa Dios. Kung sino-- ang ating Panginoong Jesu-Cristo lamang! Sino mang tao-- maging marunong o mangmang, maging dakila o hamak-- ay walang karapatang magtayo ng Iglesia"
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."
PASUGO Mayo 1954, p. 9:
“Alin ang tunay na Iglesia? Ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo sa Jerusalem."
Anong mga PALATANDAAN na ang isang IGLESIA ay TUNAY sa PEKE?
Sabi ng Pasugo, official magazine ng INC ni Manalo ay ganito:
1. Dapat HINDI tatag ng tao, maging marunong o mangmang
2. Dapat HINDI kailan lang naitatag
3. Dapat sa JERUSALEM ito nagumpisa.
Tanong?
Ang Iglesia ni Cristo ba sa Pinas ay HINDI tatag ng tao?
Sagot:
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."
Hayon pala!
SAbi ng PASUGO si FELIX MANALO ang NAGTATAG ng INK, ayon daw sa kanyang PAGKAREHISTRO.
Tanong?
Tao ba si Felix?
Sagot: OO taong tao siya, at ang kanyang agnas na bangkay ay nakalibing pa rin sa Central
Kung gayon anong katayuan ng INC na tatag ni Felix Manalo sa Pinas?
Sagot ng Pasugo
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."
Tanong: Bakit, kailan ba naitatag ang INK sa pinas?
SAgot: 1914
Napatunayan na ng PASUGO na ang INK ay PEKE, HUWAD lamang!
So alin ang tunay na IGLESIANG kay CRISTO/
PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46: “Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo."
Opo!
Ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA po ang HISTORICALLY na IGLESIA NI CRISTO, wala n apong iba!!!!
SALAMAT PASUGO!
Page 1 of 9
ReplyDeleteSource: The Splendor of the Church:
http://www.splendorofthechurch.com.ph/2013/02/13/ang-isang-dios-na-may-tatlong-persona-ni-aquino-bayani/
Bayani Aquino> izzil dore Page
(izzil dore: parang malabo ang sinasabi ninyo dahil ayon sa inyo ay "iisa ang Dios" pero sabi nyo uli "dalawa, tatlo pa nga". so, ano ba talaga ang tama? …saan nyo naman nalaman na may 3 distinct separate individual spirits o persons ang dios?)
Bayani Aquino: Ito, pag-aralan niyong maigi, hane, nang mahimasmasan kayong mga anti-Trinitarian:
Nag search ako ng “Almighty” sa electronic bible at lumabas ang 83 verses na tumutukoy lahat sa Dios. Kaya tunay na ang Dios ang nag-iisang “ALMIGHTY.” Ang ibig sabihin ng “Almighty” ay: having absolute POWER over all; at: relatively unlimited in POWER. Gets niyo?
Kagaya ng hindi alam ng mga mangmang sa kapangyarihan ng Dios, ang Dios ay hindi sakop ng pambatang arithmetic na 1 god + 1 god + 1 god = 3 gods. Oobra lang yan sa mga bopol, gaya ng 1 manalo + 1 manalo + 1 manalo = 3 manalos. Kung por letra naman: tatlong tig-6, eh di 666 ang labas. Lol.
Para sa ALMIGHTY GOD, ito lang ang angkop sa Kanya: 1 GOD raised to the POWER OF 3 GODS = 1 GOD. Sa Tagalog: Isang DIOS na itinaas sa KAPANGYARIHAN NG TATLONG DIOS ay nananatiling Isang DIOS pa rin. Kahit na nga ba: 1 GOD raised to the POWER OF INFINITE GODS = 1 GOD pa rin ang resulta. Mag-aral kasi kayo ng Calculus para maintindihan niyo ang Infinite God, ok? Huwag magbabad at magkasya na salingpusa na lang habang-buhay. Move on, mga kapatid.
-----
Sa pasimulang walang hanggan, ang Dios lang ang umiiral, na ibig sabihin, ang Dios lang ang bukod tanging existido sa walang hangganang kawalan at kalawakan. At ninais ng Dios na maglalang. Pero bago Niya inumpisahan ang paglalang, ipinanganak muna ng Dios ang Kanyang panganay at bugtong na Anak na si Cristo na nasa Kanyang sinapupunan:
{“Yours is princely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendor before the daystar*, like the dew I begot you." Ps 110:3, NAB}
*NAB Footnote: Before the daystar: possibly an expression for before the world began (Prov 8:22).
{Nguni't ikaw, Beth-lehem Ephrata, na maliit upang lumagay sa libolibo ng Juda, mula sa iyo ay lalabas sa akin ang isa na magpupuno sa Israel; na ang pinagbuhatan niya ay mula nang una, mula nang walang hanggan. Mic 5:2}
{Walang taong nakakita kailan man sa Dios; ang bugtong na Anak, na nasa sinapupunan ng Ama, siya ang nagpakilala sa kanya. Jn 1:18}
{Sapagka't kanino nga sa mga anghel sinabi niya kailan man, Ikaw ay aking Anak, Ikaw ay aking ipinanganak ngayon? at muli, Ako'y magiging kaniyang Ama, At siya'y magiging aking Anak? At muli nang dinadala niya ang panganay sa sangkalupaan ay sinasabi, At sambahin siya ng lahat ng mga anghel ng Dios. Heb 1:5-6}
Ang Bibliya ay napakalinaw: Ang Dios ay nagkaroon ng panganay at bugtong na Anak mula pa nang pasimulang walang hanggan nang wala pang ni isang nilalang.
Page 2 of 9
ReplyDeleteTanong 1: Bakit kailangan pang magkaroon ng Anak ang Dios?
Sagot 1: Para masakop ng Dios ang uncreated at created worlds. Ang Ama ay maiiwan sa Langit para mangangasiwa sa lahat ng mga lalalangin ng Anak at ng mga hindi mabilang na ibang gawain na hindi natin kayang arukin (Jn 5:17). Ang Anak naman ang isusugo ng Ama sa sangkalupaan para lalangin ang lahat lahat (Jn 1:3; Act 3:15; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2, 6) at para magkatawang-Tao nang Siya’y maaring mamamatay para sa katubusan ng mga magkakasalang sangkatauhan (Gal 4:4-5; Rom 3:24; 1 Cor 1:30; Heb 2:9).
-----
Tanong 2: Ano ang kalagayan ng Anak nang Siya’y ipinanganak ng Dios (begotten by God)? Siya ba ay Espiritu rin gaya ng Dios na Espiritu (Jn 4:24), o isang tao lang na gaya ni Adam na tao lang?
Sagot 2: Ang sabi ni propeta Micah, Si Cristo ay nagbuhat mula nang una, mula nang walang hanggan (Mic 5:2; cf Ps 110:3, NAB). Nang si Cristo’y nagkatawang-Tao at pinangalangang Jesus, sinabi Niyang nakapiling na Niya ang Dios bago pa ang anumang paglalalang at bago natatag ang sanglibutan (Jn 17:5, 24). Sinabi rin ni Jesu-Cristo na nakita niya ang pagkahulog ni Satanas mula sa langit na nangyari noong walang hanggan (Lk 10:18; Rev 12:4). Kaya, malinaw na ang Anak (Cristo) ay mula sa sinapupunan ng Dios, mula sa pasimulang walang hanggan - noong wala pa ni isang nilalang na espiritu, kaluluwa, tao o maging sanglibutan man (Col 1:15). Samakatuwid, tiyak na tiyak na ang Anak ay Uncreated Spirit at hindi lalang-na-espiritu (created spirit) dahil sa napakasimpleng katotohanan na ang Anak ang maglalalang sa lahat lahat (Jn 1:3). Imposible na lalangin ng Anak ang sarili Niya kaya’t Siya’y ipinanganak ng Dios (begotten by God). At sapagkat Siya’y literal na Anak ng Dios (begotten of God) at hindi Siya isang nilalang lang, Siya’y Dios din. Dios mula sa Dios. Ang Anak (Cristo) ang pangalawang Espiritu o Persona ng Dios (Jn 1:1). Ang hiwaga ng dalawang Dios na iisa ay inihayag ng Panginoong Jesucristo kay Juan nang ang apostol ay umakyat sa langit (2 Cor 12:2-4; Rev 4:1-3). Kung kaya pagbaba ni apostol Juan sa lupa mula sa langit, isinulat niya bilang pang-unang talata ng kanyang evangelio ang misteryo ng dalawang Dios na iisa, na existido na mula pa sa pasimulang walang hanggan:
{Nang pasimula siya ang Verbo (Cristo), at ang Verbo ay sumasa Dios, at ang Verbo ay Dios. Ito rin nang pasimula'y sumasa Dios. Jn 1:1-2, Ang Biblia}
{In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. He was present originally with God. Jn 1:1-2, Amplified Bible}
{BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE existed, there was Christ, with God. He was always been alive and is himself God. Jn 1:1-2, The Living Bible}
{THE WORD was in the beginning, and that very Word was with God, and God was that Word. The same was in the beginning with God. Jn 1:1-2, Lamsa Translation}
Samakatuwid, ang kalagayan ng Anak nang Siya’y ipinanganak ng Dios (begotten by God) sa pasimulang walang hanggan ay Espiritu (Uncreated Spirit) sapagkat ang Anak ay Dios at ang Dios ay Espiritu (Jn 4:24). Kaya ang kalagayan ng Anak nang dinadala Siya ng Dios sa sangkalupaan para maglalang ay Espiritu (Heb 1:6) at Espiritu rin ang kalagayan ng sinugong Anak na ipinanganak ng Mahal na Birheng Maria na totoong Ina ng Dios (Gal 4:4). Sa katunayan, “Ang huling Adam (Cristo) ay naging espiritung nagbibigay buhay (1 Cor 15:45).”
Page 3 of 9
ReplyDeleteJUAN 1:1-2
Napakahalagang isaulo at isapuso ang tamang kahulugan ng Jn 1:1-2 nang hindi mapahamak ng mga bulaang mangangaral ang inyong mga kaluluwa:
Ang ibig sabihin ng CRISTO ay tumutukoy sa DIOS NA ANAK NG DIOS mula pa sa pasimulang walang hanggan. Ang CRISTO ay DIOS. Pag sinabing CRISTO, ibig sabihin DIOS. Pag sinabing Jesus o Jesu-Cristo, ibig sabihin, ang Cristo o Dios na nagkatawang-Tao na pinangalangang Jesus. Kapag ika’y tumanggi na si Jesus ay siyang CRISTO o DIOS, ika’y sinungaling at anticristo:
{Sino ang sinungaling kundi ang tumatanggi na si Jesus ay siyang Cristo? Ito ang anticristo, samakatuwid ay ang tumatanggi sa Ama at sa Anak. 1 Jn 2:22}
[Pansinin: Ang ibig sabihin ng “ang tumatanggi sa Ama at sa Anak” ay “ang tumatanggi sa Banal na Trinidad” sapagkat pag binanggit ang Ama at Anak ay binanggit na rin ang Espiritu Santo na “inherent” at nagbubuhat sa Ama at sa Anak (Filioque). Kaya napakalinaw po: Ang tumatanggi na si Jesus ay siyang Dios (Cristo), at ang tumatanggi sa Ama at sa Anak (Banal na Trinidad), ay ang anticristo. Tandaan po natin ito nang maiwasan ang mga anticristong naglipana sa lipunan natin ngayon.]
-
Kung para sa iyo, si Jesus ay ang CRISTO (DIOS), ika’y pinagpala at anak ng Dios:
{Ang sinomang nananampalataya na si Jesus ay siyang Cristo ay ipinanganak ng Dios: at ang bawa't umiibig sa nanganak ay umiibig din naman sa ipinanganak niyaon. 1 Jn 5:1}
-
Sabi ng mga anticristo, ang TAO NA CRISTO ang nagkatawang-Tao, at HINDI ang DIOS NA CRISTO. Wala pong tao na Cristo. In fairness, kung unggoy-unggoyan ang usapan, mayroon ngang tao na cristo: yong nasa sabungan at yong dios-diosang cristo ng Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah Witness, Latter Day Saints, atbp.
Kapag sinabing Cristo, Siya’y Dios na kasama ng Dios sa pasimula (Jn 1:1):
{Mga minamahal, huwag kayong magsipaniwala sa bawa't espiritu, kundi inyong subukin ang mga espiritu, kung sila'y sa Dios: sapagka't maraming nagsilitaw na mga bulaang propeta sa sanglibutan. Dito'y nakikilala ninyo ang Espiritu ng Dios: ang bawa't espiritung nagpapahayag na si Jesucristo (DIOS) ay naparitong nasa laman ay sa Dios: At ang bawa't espiritung hindi ipinahahayag si Jesus (DIOS), ay hindi sa Dios: at ito ang sa anticristo, na inyong narinig na darating; at ngayo'y nasa sanglibutan na. 1 Jn 4:1-3}
{Maraming mandaraya na lumitaw sa sanlibutan, yaong mga hindi kumikilala na si Jesu-Cristo (DIOS) ay naparito sa laman; ito ang mandaraya at ang anti-Cristo. 2 Jn 1:7}
(Emphasis akin)
Babala: Hwag kayong padadala sa mga mapaglinlang na pangungusap at liko-likong paliwanag ng mga bulaang pastor na si Jesu-Cristo ay isang tao at hindi Diyos, baka pati kayo’y mapabilang sa hanay nilang mga anticristo at sama-sama kayong magdurusa sa impierno ng walang puknat na pahirap hanggang sa walang hanggan. Ingat po.
Page 4 of 9
ReplyDeleteAng naniniwala’t tumatanggap na si Jesus ay si Cristo na Dios ay ang mga totoong nagsisisampalataya – sila’y mga pinagpala ng Dios. At ang naniniwala’t tumatanggap na si Jesus ay si Cristo na HINDI DIOS ay ang mga hindi nagsisisampalataya – sila’y ang mga taong may maling pananampalataya, mga anticristo at hindi pinagpala ng Dios.
Ano ba ang pananampalataya?
Ang sabi ng Biblia’y ganire:
{Ngayon, ang pananampalataya ay siyang kapanatagan sa mga bagay na hinihintay, ang katunayan ng mga bagay na hindi nakikita. Heb 11:1}
Samakatuwid, kung si Jesus ay tao, hindi na kailangan ang pananampalataya sapagkat ano ang supernatural sa pagiging tao ni Jesus? Wala, di ba? Kasi pare-pareho tayong mga tao, di ba? Pero, kung si Jesus ay Dios, iyan ang kailangan ang pananampalataya sapagkat supernatural ang kalagayan ni Jesus na Dios na hindi nakikita.
Paano ba natin pakikitungohan ang mga hindi nagsisisampalataya na si Jesu-Cristo ay Dios? Ang sabi ng Biblia’y itakwil sila’t huwag pakisamahan:
{Ang taong may maling pananampalataya pagkatapos nang una at ikalawang pagsaway ay itakuwil mo; Yamang nalalaman mo na ang gayon ay napahamak, at nagkakasala at siya'y hinahatulan ng kaniyang sarili. Tit 3:10-11}
{Huwag kayong makipamatok ng kabilan sa mga di nagsisisampalataya: sapagka't anong pakikisama mayroon ang katuwiran at kalikuan? o anong pakikisama mayroon ang kaliwanagan sa kadiliman? 2Cor 6:14}
Ang pag-aasawahan ng nagsisisampalataya at di nagsisisampalataya ay hindi ipinagbabawal ng Biblia. Ang nagbabawal niyan ay ang mga anticristong samahan gaya ng Iglesia ni Cristo ni 3 manalos. Ipinagbabawal pa ngang paghiwalayin ang mag-asawang nagsisisampalataya at di nagsisisampalataya, eh. Tingnan niyo kung bakit, basa:
{Datapuwa't sa iba, ay ako ang nagsasabi, hindi ang Panginoon: Kung ang sinomang kapatid na lalake ay may asawang hindi sumasampalataya, at kung kalooban niyang makipamahay sa kaniya, ay huwag niyang hiwalayan. At ang babaing may asawang hindi sumasampalataya, at kalooban niyang makipamahay sa kaniya, ay huwag niyang hiwalayan ang kaniyang asawa. Sapagka't ang lalaking hindi sumasampalataya ay nagiging banal sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang asawa, at ang babaing hindi sumasampalataya ay nagiging banal sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang asawa: sa ibang paraa'y ang inyong mga anak ay nangagkaroon ng kapintasan; nguni't ngayo'y mga banal. Gayon ma'y kung humiwalay ang hindi sumasampalataya, ay bayaan siyang humiwalay: ang kapatid na lalake o kapatid na babae ay hindi natatali sa mga ganitong bagay: kundi sa kapayapaan kayo tinawag ng Dios. Sapagka't paanong malalaman mo, Oh babae, kung maililigtas mo ang iyong asawa? o paanong malalaman mo, Oh lalake, kung maililigtas mo ang iyong asawa? 1 Cor 7:12-16}
Page 5 of 9
ReplyDeleteAng pagiral o existensiya ni Cristo sa pasimulang walang hanggan ay pinatotohanan ng Dios mismo (Ps 110:3, Heb 1:10, NAB); ng Panginoong Jesucristo mismo (Lk 10:18; Jn 17:5, 24); ni propeta Micah (Mic 5:2); ni apostol Juan (Jn 1:1-2); ni San Pedro (1 Pt 1:20); at marami pang iba.
Ang aral na nagkaroon lang daw ng existensiya si Cristo nang Siya’y ipaglihi at ipanganak ni Maria ay aral na galing sa Diyablo. Iwasan ninyo ang mga hibang na mga bulaang pastor na nagtuturo ng mga ganyang hiduwang pananampalataya para hindi kayo madamay sa kanilang tiyak na kapahamakan (2 Pt 2:1).
Ang nagkaroon ng existensiya sa sinapupunan ng Mahal na Birheng Maria ay ang katawang-tao lang ni Cristo na Kanyang (Cristo) inari, binuhay at naging Siya mismo at pinangalanan Siyang Jesus o Jesu-Cristo nang Siya’y ipanganak (Heb 10:5; Mt 1:25). Kaya nga tunay na Ina ng Dios si Maria sapagkat si Cristo o Dios ang pumasok at nagkatawang-Tao sa kanyang sinapupunan at kanyang ipinaglihi, dinala ng siyam na buwan at ipinanganak na Taong-Dios (Jn 1:14; 1 Tim 3:16, KJV). Kaya po ang aral ng lahat ng mga Protestante na hindi Ina ng Dios ang Mahal na Birheng Maria ay isa pang hiduwang pananampalataya na aral galing sa Diyablo (2 Pt 2:1). Iwasan po natin ang lahat ng mga Protestante na nangangaral ng mga hiduwang pananampalataya.
-
Tanong 3: Literal ba na ang Anak (Cristo) ay Espiritu at Siya’y nagmula sa Langit mula pa sa walang hanggan?
Sagot 3: Aba’y opo, maliban sa mga nabanggit na sa itaas, ito pa po ang mga literal na patotoo ng Biblia. Basa:
{Gayon din naman nasusulat, Ang unang taong si Adam ay naging kaluluwang buhay. Ang huling Adam ay naging Espiritung nagbibigay buhay. Bagaman ang ukol sa Espiritu ay hindi siyang una, kundi ang ukol sa lupa: pagkatapos ang ukol sa Espiritu. Ang unang tao ay taga lupa na ukol sa lupa: ang ikalawang tao ay taga langit. 1 Cor 15:45-47}
{At sa kanila'y kaniyang sinabi, Kayo'y mga taga ibaba; ako'y taga itaas: kayo'y mga taga sanglibutang ito; ako'y hindi taga sanglibutang ito. Jn 8:23}
{Na walang ama, walang ina, walang tandaan ng lahi, at walang pasimula ng mga araw ni katapusan ng buhay man, datapuwa't naging katulad ng Anak ng Dios, ay nanatiling saserdote magpakailan man. Heb 7:3}
Page 6 of 9
ReplyDeleteTanong 4: Kung existido na ang Anak sa pasimulang walang hanggan, bakit hindi siya ipinakilala sa Lumang Tipan?
Sagot 4: Sapagkat hindi pa maiintindihan ng mga sinaunang tao noon kung papaanong ang nag-iisang Dios ay mayroong Anak na Dios din. Hindi ba’t magpahanggang ngayon ay mas marami pa rin ang hindi nakakaintindi ng hiwagang iyan? Sa katunayan, ang Dios mismo ay hindi lubos na nakikilala ng mga tao sa Lumang Tipan at ito ang patotoo:
{Ang Dios, na nagsalita nang unang panahon sa ating mga magulang sa iba't ibang panahon at sa iba't ibang paraan sa pamamagitan ng mga propeta, Ay nagsalita sa atin sa mga huling araw na ito sa pamamagitan, ng kaniyang Anak, na siyang itinalaga na tagapagmana ng lahat ng mga bagay, na sa pamamagitan naman niya'y ginawa ang sanglibutan. Heb 1:1-2}
{Sapagka't ibinigay sa pamamagitan ni Moises ang kautusan; ang biyaya at ang katotohanan ay nagsidating sa pamamagitan ni Jesu-cristo. Walang taong nakakita kailan man sa Dios; ang bugtong na Anak, na nasa sinapupunan ng Ama, siya ang nagpakilala sa kanya. Jn 1:17-18}
Sa Lumang Tipan, batid ni Agur na existido ang Ama at Anak pero siya’y nahihiwagaan sa Dalawa at napagkamalan pa niyang ang Ama ang bumaba sa lupa at hindi ang Anak:
{Ang mga salita ni Agur na anak ni Jache; ang sanggunian. Sinabi ng lalake kay Ithiel, kay Ithiel, at kay Ucal: Tunay na ako'y hangal kay sa kaninoman, At walang kaunawaan ng isang tao: At hindi ako natuto ng karunungan, Ni mayroon man ako ng kaalaman ng Banal. Sino ang sumampa sa langit, at bumaba? Sino ang pumisan ng hangin sa kaniyang mga dakot? Sinong nagtali ng tubig sa kaniyang kasuutan? Sinong nagtatag ng lahat ng mga wakas ng lupa? Ano ang kaniyang pangalan, at ano ang pangalan ng kaniyang anak kung iyong nalalaman? Pro 30:1-4}
Batid din ni David na existido na ang Panginoong Cristo, kaya siya’y nagsabing:
{Sinabi ng Panginoon sa aking panginoon, Umupo ka sa aking kanan, Hanggang sa aking gawing tungtungan mo ang iyong mga kaaway. Ps 110:3}
Ang sinabi ni David ay ginamit ni Jesus para tanungin ang mga Fariseo kung kaninong anak Siya (si Cristo). Nabutata ang mga Fariseo sapagkat ang tamang sagot ay ang Dios ang may Anak kay Cristo. Tunghayan niyo ang mga pangyayari:
{Habang nangagkakatipon nga ang mga Fariseo, ay tinanong sila ni Jesus ng isang tanong, Na sinasabi, Ano ang akala ninyo tungkol kay Cristo? kanino bagang anak siya? Sinabi nila sa kaniya, kay David. Sinabi niya sa kanila, Kung gayo'y bakit tinatawag siya ni David na Panginoon, sa espiritu, na nagsasabi, Sinabi ng Panginoon sa aking Panginoon, Maupo ka sa aking kanan, Hanggang sa ilagay ko ang iyong mga kaaway sa ilalim ng iyong mga paa? Kung tinatawag nga siya ni David na Panginoon, paanong siya'y kaniyang anak? At wala sinomang nakasagot sa kaniya ng isang salita, ni wala sinomang nangahas buhat sa araw na yaon na tumanong pa sa kaniya ng anomang mga tanong. Mt 22:41-46}
Palaisipan: Sabi ni Jesus, “Kung tinatawag nga siya ni David na Panginoon, paanong siya'y kaniyang anak?” Hindi ba’t tinatawag nga rin ng Dios na Panginoon si Cristo (Heb 1:10), kaya paanong si Cristo ay Anak ng Dios?
Sagot: Hindi ba’t tinatawag nga rin ng Dios na Dios si Cristo (Heb 1:8); at tinatawag nga rin ni Cristo na Dios ang Ama (Jn 20:17)? Kung kaya tinatawag nga rin ng Dios na Panginoon si Cristo sapagkat ang Dios at si Cristo ay iisa (Jn 1:1, 10:30). Si David ay natural ancestor ni Cristo kaya tinawag Siyang Anak ni David (Mt 1:1). Alam ni David na ang Anak ng Dios ay Dios din kaya tinawag niyang Panginoon.
Dahil kung hindi Dios ang pagkakilala ni David sa Anak, at tinawag niyang Panginoon, ay lalabagin niya ang Shema ng mga Hudyo: {Dinggin mo, Oh Israel: ang Panginoon nating Dios ay isang Panginoon. Dt 6:4}
Page 7 of 9
ReplyDeleteTanong 5: Kailan umiral ang Espiritu Santo?
Sagot 5: Ang Espiritu Santo ay likas (inherent) sa kalagayan ng Dios, kaya Siya’y Dios din – ang pangatlong Espiritu o Persona ng Dios. At sapagkat ang Dios ay mula sa walang pasimula hanggang sa walang hanggan (Ps 106:48), at ang Espiritu Santo ay nagbubuhat sa Dios (proceeds from the Father, Jn 15:26), Siya, kasama ang Anak (Cristo), ay mula rin sa walang pasimula hanggang sa walang hanggan. Co-existent ang tatlong Espiritu o Persona ng Dios (Ama, Anak, Espiritu Santo) sapagkat Sila’y galing sa iisang Dios, kaya’t Sila’y iisang Dios. At dahil katotohanang ang Ama at Anak ay kapwa ang Alpha at ang Omega, ang una at ang huli, at ang pasimula at ang wakas, ay isang pagpapatunay lang na ang Ama at Anak ay iisang Dios (Jn 10:30). Hindi pwedeng magkaroon ng dalawang Alpha at Omega, dalawang una at huli, dalawang pasimula at wakas, dalawang Dios, o tatlong Dios, sapagkat kakanselahin ng isa’t isa ang isa’t isa. Samakatuwid, tunay na ang Ama, ang Anak, at ang Espiritu Santo ay iisang Dios sapagkat hindi Sila nag-kakanselahan. Katunayan, sa wakas ng panahon, umiiral pa rin Silang tatlong Espiritu o Persona ng iisang Dios. Basa:
{At ipinakita niya sa akin ang isang ilog ng tubig ng buhay,na maningning na gaya ng bubog, na lumalabas sa luklukan ng DIOS at ng CORDERO. Rev 22:1}
{At ang ESPIRITU at ang kasintahang babae ay nagsasabi, Halika. At ang nakikinig ay magsabi, Halika. At ang nauuhaw, ay pumarito: ang may ibig ay kumuhang walang bayad ng tubig ng buhay. Rev 22:17}
Sa umpisa ng panahon, pagkatapos isugo ng Dios na nasa Langit ang Anak sa sangkalupaan upang umpisahan ang paglalalang (Heb 1:6), sa Genesis ay unang binanggit ang Dios Anak (Cristo) at ang Espiritu Santo:
{Nang pasimula, nilikha ng DIYOS ang langit at ang lupa. Ang lupa ay walang anyo at walang laman, at binalot sa kadiliman ang kalaliman samantalang ang ESPIRITU NG DIOS ay kumikilos sa ibabaw ng mga tubig. At sinabi ng DIYOS, "Magkaroon ng liwanag," at nagkaroon ng liwanag.” Gen 1:1-3}
Pansinin: Ang nagsalita ay ang Anak (Cristo) at hindi ang Ama, sapagkat Si Cristo ang literal na Verbo ng Dios (Jn 1:1; Heb 1:1-2; Rev 19:13). Para sa anong kadahilanan at tatawaging Verbo o Salita ng Dios si Cristo kundi Siya’y ang literal na tagapag-salita ng Dios (Jn 12:49), di ba?
Page 8 of 9
ReplyDeleteHango sa: DEFINITIVE EDITION
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
THE DOGMA OF THE HOLY TRINITY
253 THE TRINITY IS ONE. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity.” The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i. e. by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.
254 THE DIVINE PERSONS ARE REALLY DISTINCT FROM ONE ANOTHER.
“God is one but not solitary.” “Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” THE DIVINE UNITY IS TRIUNE.
255 THE DIVINE PERSONS ARE RELATIVE TO ONE ANOTHER. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: “In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.” Indeed “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.” “Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.”
256 St. Gregory of Nazianzus, also called “the Theologian,” entrusts this summary of Trinitarian faith to the catechumens of Constantinople:
Above all, guard for me this great deposit of faith for which I live and fight, which I want to take with me as a companion, and which makes me bear all evils and despise all pleasures: I mean the profession of faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I entrust it to you today. By it I am soon going to plunge you into water and raise you up from it. I give it to you as the companion and patron of your whole life. I give you but one divinity and power, existing one in three, and containing the three in a distinct way. Divinity without disparity of substance or nature, withour superior degree that raises up or inferior degree that casts down… the infinite co-naturality of three infinites. Each person considered in himself is entirely God… the three considered together…. I have not even begun to think of unity when the Trinity bathes me in its splendor. I have not even begun to think of the Trinity when unity grasps me….
Page 9 of 9
ReplyDelete(izzil dore: o inaamin nyo na na marami kayong sinasambang mga dios?)
Bayani Aquino:
Oo, inaamin kong tatlo ang sinasamba kong Dios pero alam kong Sila’y iisang Dios. Isang DIOS na itinaas sa KAPANGYARIHAN NG TATLONG DIOS na nanatiling Isang DIOS pa rin. May angal?
Ang sabi ng Dios sa mga anghel, sambahin ang Anak (Heb 1:6). Ang sabi ng Dios sa lahat ng nangasa langit, at ng nangasa ibabaw ng lupa, at ng nangasa ilalim ng lupa ay lumuhod sa pangalan ni Jesus (Phil 2:10). Kung sa pangalan pa lang ni Jesus ay luluhod na lahat ng nilalang, eh di lalo na kung nasa harap na natin mismo si Jesus – hindi lang tayo luluhod, kundi magpapatirapa at magsasamba pa!
Tinawag ng Dios na Dios ang Anak (Heb 1:8). Tinawag naman ni San Pedro na Dios ang Espiritu Santo (Act 5:3-4). At sinabi rin ng Panginoong Hesukristo na bautismuhan ang lahat ng mga bansa sa pangalan ng Ama at ng Anak at ng Espiritu Santo (Mt 28:19) – na isang pagsamba sa Banal na Trinidad. Kaya inuulit ko: sumasamba ako sa Ama, sa Anak, at sa Espiritu Santo na iisang Dios! Intiende?
+++++
Ito ang pananampalataya naming 1 bilyong mahigit na Katoliko sa nag-iisang Dios na may Tatlong Espiritu o Persona na dinarasal, 24/7, sa aming mga Banal na Misa at Rosaryo sa buong sandaigdigan:
Profession of Faith
(Nicene Creed)
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Amen!
UY! Sumagot daw kunwari, di raw siya nagre-retreat, nagmamagaling pa pero umiwas na naman na sagutin ng tuwiran ang mga relevant na tanong namin.
ReplyDeleteYON BANG ANGHEL SA APOCALIPSIS 2, TAO BA YON O SPIRIT?
Naniniwala ka ba na si Benedict XVI ay "angel of God"? YES or NO
Ilan ba ang HEAD NG CATHOLIC CHURCH? ISA? DALAWA? TATLO?, ETC.?
Kaya mo bang patunayan ang mga akusasyon mo na rapist si Ka Felix Manalo na kaharap ang ministro namin? O naduduwag ka na humarap sa ministro namin dahil sa alam mo na naninira ka lang at kailanman ay di mo kayang patunayan ng harapan ang akusasyon mo?
Buking na yan style mo na sinisikap mong ibahin ang usapan para lang maitago ang iyong kahihiyan. Akala mo ba ay kaya mong dayain ang lahat ng mga tao. Ipinakita na ni brod Gesmundo ang masama at kahiya-hiya na paraan mo ng pakikipagmatwiranan. Eto yong link:
http://readmeiglesianicristo.blogspot.com/2012/12/answering-catholic-defenders-part-1-by.html
Sagutin mo na muna ang mga tanong namin o kaya ay umamin ka muna na mali ang inyong paniniwala ukol sa anghel at nagpaparatang ka lang kay Ka Felix Manalo pero di mo kayang patunayan na kaharap ang ministro namin at sasagutin ko yang issue na pinatutunog mo. Marami na ang gumamit niyan, ang iba ay kaanib na rin sa INC gaya ko at ang iba na matigas ang puso ay tinapangan na lang ang mukha sa matinding kahihiyan.
Alex,
DeleteObviously you're not here to SEEK for the TRUTH but to ENGAGE in a debate.
Felix Manalo was found guiilty of IMMORALITY not only by the court of appeals who branded him a "MAN OF LOW MORALS" or in Tagalog, isang taong MABABA ANG MORALIDAD.
There is a substantial reason why the COURT BRANDED him as such. And for sure the court just couldn't issue an official statement if the RAPE case for your Fake Sugo is just a hearsay...
Lastly, member of the church where he was a member before published a letter where Felix was KICKED-OUT of this church after its administrators FOUND HIM GUILTY of abusing women and impregnated women.
When he founded his church, the accusation of ROSITA TRILLANES is just a confirmation, though she retracted but the first and the second reasons why your FAKE SUGO was to be seen as GUILTY of IMMORALITY.
Yan ba ang "SUGO"?
Di bale na, we have lots of priests who erred and sinned like your Last Sugo but thanks be to God, they ceased to be in the ministry, lest to be perpetually considered as "SINLESS" Last Messengers amidst the fact that they are guilty of immorality while in their ministry to "serve God" and not their carnal desires...
If you dont believe, then PROVE to us that your Lust Sugo este Last Sugo is NOT GUILTY of IMMORALITY!
Remember Leslie Wolf? Any response from that damaging letter? And the COURT OF APPEALS... please....
We will wait.
Sabi ko na sagutin mo muna kung ano ang tanong namin. Marunong ka ba ng Tagalog? kasi laging English ang sagot mo, pero di mo naman sinasagot ang tanong namin. Sinabi ko na yang mga tanong mo ay sasagutin ko kung sasagutin mo muna ang mga tanong namin. Puro ka lang iwas eh. Umamin ka na lang kasi sa mga kamalian at paninira mo na di mo naman pala kayang patunayan. Babanggit-banggit ka ng mga paninira laban kay Ka Felix Manalo pero ng tanungin ka ng ilang simpleng tanong pa langKunwari pa raw ay ayaw ng debate eh ano ba ang ginagawa mo, di ba nakikipag-argumentuhan ka sa amin? Pero nang patulan ka namin, di ka naman pala marunong ng maayos na usapan. Di ka ba nahihiya sa idinidisplay mo na paraan ng pagtatangol sa simbahan niyo? Alam mo ba ang maayos na argumentasyon? Palagay ko ay marami ng nakababasa sa blog mo ang pinagtatawanan ka na sa ginagawa mo na pakikipagdiskusyon sa amin na mga INC. Di mo ba nararamdaman yon?
ReplyDeleteAba'y delikado na yan. kapag tinapatan ko pa ng talata yang ginagawa mo ay lalo ka lang masasaktan. Kaya "SAGOT NA" Catholic Defender, SAGOT NA, PLEASE!. Marami na ang naghihitay sa sagot mo sa mga tanong na ito:
YON BANG ANGHEL SA APOCALIPSIS 2, TAO BA YON O SPIRIT?
Naniniwala ka ba na si Benedict XVI ay "angel of God"? YES or NO
Ilan ba ang HEAD NG CATHOLIC CHURCH? ISA? DALAWA? TATLO?, ETC.?
Kaya mo bang patunayan ang mga akusasyon mo na rapist si Ka Felix Manalo na kaharap ang ministro namin? O naduduwag ka na humarap sa ministro namin dahil sa alam mo na naninira ka lang at kailanman ay di mo kayang patunayan ng harapan ang akusasyon mo?
Ito pa yong isang nakapost na tanong ukol sa issue mo na paninira laban kay Ka Felix Manalo:
If you are one of her (Rosita Trillanes) children will you still stay in the church if the leader of this church (INC) rape your mother?
STUPID DUMB CATHOLIC DEFENDER SAID
ReplyDelete"
Lastly, member of the church where he was a member before published a letter where Felix was KICKED-OUT of this church after its administrators FOUND HIM GUILTY of abusing women and impregnated women."
SAbi ko naman
Maari mo bang patunayan sa buyong mundo na totoo yang sinasabi mo???:):):) MAGPAKITA KA NG MGA EBIDENSIYA DIYAN SA KADEMONIYOHANG KASINUNGALINGANG IBINABATO MO:):):) MAGLABAS KA NG EBIDENSIYA TANGA:):):) KAPAG ANG INILABAS MO AY ANG TUNGKOL KAY ROSITA TRILLANES, SIGURADONG SIGURADOO SINUNGALING KA TALAGA:):):)
Ang issue kay Rosita Trillanes ay matagal ng tapos:) Katunayan namatay siyang IGLESIA NI CRISTO:) Ang mga sinasabi niyo na isinulat ni wolfe AY PAWANG ALEGASYON LAMANG.:) PATUNAYAN NIYO NA TALAGANG MERONG NANGYARI PANG-AABUSO SA IBANG MGA BABAE SA IGLESIA NI CRISTO:):)
HUWAG ANG IPAPAKITA NIYO SAKIN AY ANG MGA SULAT LANG NG TAO NA DIUMANO AY KILALANG KILALA ANG KA FELIX Y MANALo:):):) AT ANG WALANG KUWENTANG PALIWANAG NI ESTEBAN RAYMUNDO AY KATULAD NG NASABI KO NA, WALANG KUWENTA:):) NAKABATAY SA SARILI NIYANG PAGKA-UNAWA SA MGA PANGYAYARI PERO WALA NAMAN SIYANG NAPATUNAYANG KAHIT ANO:):):)
IISA LANG ANG DULO NG PANGYAYARI KAY ROSITA TRILLANES, ANG KANIYANG PAMILYA AY NANATILING IGLESIA NI CRISTO AT NAMATAY NA IGLESIA NI CRISTO:):):)
LAHAT NG MGA PANINIRA NIYO AY PAWANG PAMIMINTANG NG ISANG DEMONIYONG RELIHIYON PARA KAMI AY MAPATUMBA:):):) NAGPAPAKITA NGA KAYO BG MGA SULAT PERO SECOND-HAND LANG:):) WALA NAMAN KAYONG MAIPAKITANG MISMONG DOKUMENTO NA ANG KA FELIX AY TALAGANG GUMAWA NG MGA BAGAY NA INYONG IBINIBINTANG!!:):):) AT INUULIT KO, KUNG ANG IPAPAKITA NIYONG MGA DIYARYO O KUNG ANU-ANONG MGA PAPEL NA MAY KAUGNAYAN KAY ROSITA TRILLANES.... hahaha, MGA TANGA MATAGAL NG SINAGOT IYAN:):):) AT YUNG SA COURT OF APPEALS??? MGA TANGA !! NAKAUGNAY KAY ROSITA TRILLANES IYAN:):):)
Bat di niyo kami tularan??? KAPAG SINABI NAMING RAPIST ANG MGA PAPA TALAGANG MALINAW ANG EBIDENSIYA:):):) KAPAG SINABI NAMING PEDOPHILE ANG MGA PARI TOTOO YUN:):):) KAPAG SINABI NAMING BINUBUNTIS NG MARAMING MGA PAPA AT PARI ANG MGA MADRE SA KUMBENTO TOTOONG TOTOO YUN!!:):) YAH ANG HIRAP SA INYO E. TINITIRA NIYO SUGO NAMIN E HINDI NIYO BA NAKIKITA MGA PAPA AT MGA PARI NIYONG MGA MANYAKIS????!!!!!:):):)
HAHAHA, ALAM NA ALAM NAMING MGA HISTORIANS IYAN:):):) KAYA KAPAG HAHANAPAN MO KO NG EBIDENNSYA MAG-INGAT KA:):) BAKA ANG MAIPOST KO DITO AY HIGIT PA SA KAMANYAKANG NALALAMAN MO hahaha:):):)
KUNG KAMANYAKAN LANG, NUMERO UNO ANG KAPAPAHAN:):):) KUNG PAGIGING MAMAMATAY-TAO LANG, NUMERO UNO ANG KAPAPAHAN. KUNG PAGIGING MAGNANAKAW, NUMERO UNO RIN ANG KAPAPAHAN:):):) LAHAT NG URI NG KASALANAN AY NASA INYO NA:):):) WALA NG HAHANAPIN PA:):):)
I would like to invite Napoleon Ford at
ReplyDeletehttp://monkshobbit.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/is-iglesia-ni-cristo-the-church-of-christ/#comment-5451
prove to me that you are not trying to win an argument without personal attacks and foul words. and by the way you should comment in english do not use tagalog or else your comment will not be posted...I already read your comments above, I will reply those later...I don't know i hope i can have another vacant time to answer those and by the way you said
"And I'm just 21, how come that I am older than you?:)"
FUnny:)