SI CRISTO BA'Y NILALANG NG DIYOS AMA?

Originally Posted at Iglesia ni Cristo 33 A.D. blog

Ang TAO ayon sa Biblia ay NILALANG ng Diyos sa Kanyang wangis at larawan (Gen 1:27). MULA SA ALABOK ang LALAKI at BABAE ay NILALANG ng Diyos (Gen. 2:7)

Ang LIPI ni ADAN at EBA ay "mula sa ALABOK, hiningahan ng Diyos at nagkaroon ng buhay". (Katekismo ng Iglesia Katolika CCC § 262)

Samakatuwid ang lahat ng SALING-LAHI mula sa ating mga ninuno hanggang sa huling ipanganganak na lipi ni Adan at ni Eba ay mga TAO ~ LALANG ng DIYOS.

Ang isang malaking tanong sa mga kaanib ng Iglesiang tatag ni G. Felix Manalay ay ganito: Si CRISTO BILANG TAO ay NILALANG RIN BA NG DIYOS?

Sa mga palitan ng kuro-kuro ng mga kaanib ng INC™ 1914 at ng mga Katoliko, madalas nasasambit ng mga INC™ na si Cristo ay TAO LAMANG at SI CRISTO ay NILALANG ng DIYOS AMA.

Ngunit kung sila ay hinihingan ng patunay mula sa Banal na Kasulatan kung saan nasusulat na si Cristo ay NILALANG (created) ng Diyos Ama, sila ay nagagalit lamang sapagkat alam nila na WALANG TALATA sa Biblia na nagpapatunay na si Cristo ay nilalang nga ng Diyos Ama.

SI HESUS AY HINDI NILALANG (not created) NG DIYOS AMA AYON SA BIBLIA

Malinaw na sinasalungat ng Iglesia Ni Cristo® na tatag ni G. Felix Y. Manalo noong 1914 ang Biblia sapagkat WALANG turo ang Biblia na na si CRISTO AY TAO LAMANG kaya't Siya ay nilalang ng Diyos Ama.

Ang itinuturo ng Biblia ay si CRISTO AY NAGKATAWANG-TAO at wala ang salitang "TAO LAMANG". Ang "lamang" (only) na pilit ikinakabit sa pagiging tao ni Cristo ay pantakip lamang at pilit na pinalalabas na si Cristo ay "HINDI DIYOS kailanman" at Siya sa pasimula pa ay tao at  sa Kanyang pagbabalik tao pa rin siya tulad ng nasusulat sa kanilang opisyal na magasing Pasugo, Enero, 1964, p. 13 (Sinulat ni Emiliano Agustin);

“TAO rin ang kalagayan ng ating Panginoon Jesucristo sa Kanyang muling pagparito sa araw ng paghuhukom. Hindi nagbabago ang Kanyang kalagayan. Hindi Siya naging Diyos kailanman! TAO ng ipinanganak, TAO ng lumaki na at nangangaral, TAO ng mabuhay na mag-uli, TAO nang umakyant sa langit, TAO nang nasa langit na nakaupo sa kanan ng Diyos, at TAO rin Siya na muling paririto.”

TAO ang KALAGAYAN ni CRISTO at hindi raw Siya naging Diyos kailanman! Kalapastanganan! Mga mandaraya at mga sinungaling!  Kapansin-pansin na AYAW nilang TANGGAPIN at KILALANIN ang KALIKASAN NI CRISTO bilang Diyos.  Pilit nilang pinaniniwalaan na si Cristo ay tao at dinugtungan pa ng salitang "lamang". Halos maliitin at yurakan na nila ang Panginoong Hesus samantalang kanilang ipinagmamataas at pinagmamapuri na si Felix Y. Manalo ay isang ANGHEL daw, bagay na kahit sa isang kudlit ay hindi nababasa sa Biblia. Kahindik-hindik! Si Cristo, TAO LAMANG samantalang si Felix Manalo (na isang tao lamang) ay ANGHEL, mas mataas pa kay Hesus! Diyos ko po!

Ang sabi ng Biblia ay malinaw: Na si Cristo ay Tao sapagkat Siya an nagkatawang-tao.  Ngunit hindi sinasabi ng Biblia na na Siya ay Tao Lamang. Siya ay totoong TAO sa KALAGAYAN ngunit Kanyang KALIKASAN ay DIYOS! SIYA ang SALITA NG DIYOS (Juan 1:1), ang SALITANG NAGLALANG SA SANLIBUTAN (Juan 1:3), SI JESUS ~ SALITA ~ DIYOS ~ NAGKATAWANG-TAO!

Iyan ang pagbubuod ni Apostol San Juan ukol sa misteryo ng pagiging-tao ni Cristo.  Ito ay SINAMPALATAYANAN ng BUONG KAKRISTIANUHAN sa loob ng halos mahigit kumulang na 2,000 taon na ang nakalilipas.  Bilang katuparan sa mga hula ng pagdating nga mga bulaan propeta na magtuturo ng mali (Efeso 4:11-14), noong ang 1,914 may isinugong isa pang bulaang propeta at binuhay ang matagal nang patay na katuruan ni Arius na si Cristo ay hindi raw Diyos. 

Kung may isang bagay na natupad sa Biblia ay ang pagdating ng mga bulaang propeta tulad ni Felix Manalo at iba pa!

Hindi tayo tututol sa pagkaunawa ng mga kaanib ng INC™ 1914 tungkol sa Diyos: Na ang Diyos ay Espiritu  sapagkat ito naman ay nasusulat sa Juan 4:24.  Ngunit sa takdang panahong dapat nang ibunyag ng Diyos ang Kanyang dakilang panukala na ililigtas ang tao, ang Diyos na Espiritu ay nagkalaman (Juan 1:1), nagkaroon ng anyo (Filipos 2:5-8), at nagkaroon ng dugo (Gawa 20:28).

Sa kabuuan ng ating talakayan, wala po tayong masusumpungan sa Biblia na sinasabing SI CRISTO AY ISANG NILALANG NG DIYOS AMA. (The Jesus was created by God the Father). Kundi, ang ating mababasa ay ang DIYOS ang LUMALANG sa lahat sa PAMAMAGITAN ng Kanyang SALITA (Juan 1:3). Ang Salita ng Diyos ay isang Persona, NAGKATAWANG-TAO, namatay, nabuhay na mag-uli at MULING BABALIK bilang DIYOS (Pahayag 22:13).

Si Mario Joseph, isang dating Muslim Imam (pari) na nagbalik-loob sa TUNAY ka Iglesia (Katolika) ay nagsabi ng ganito:

[6:23] "And then about Jesus, when I read chapter 3 verses 45 to 55 verses, there are ten (10) points which the Qur'an makes about Jesus: The first thing the Qur'an says, kalimat al'ilh (كلمة الاله), the Arabic word which means "WORD OF GOD".  And the second thing, rawh allah (روح الله) which means SPIRIT OF GOD. And the third Eisaa Almasih (يسوع المسيح) which means JESUS CHRIST. So Qur'an gives the NAME OF JESUS: WORD OF GOD, SPIRIT OF GOD, JESUS CHRIST. 

[7:05] "So I think that He (Jesus) can GIVE LIFE. He gave life to mud, clay."

[7:16] "Continuously the Qur'an says that Jesus gave life to dead people; Jesus went to heaven; HE IS STILL ALIVE; and HE WILL COME AGAIN. When I saw all these things in Qur'an my thinking what the Qur'an says about Muhammad."

[7:30] "You know according to the Qur'an, the Prophet Muhammad is NOT the Word of God; NOT the Spirit of God; never spoke when he was two (2) years old; never created any bird with mud; never cured any sick people; never raised any dead people; he himself died, and according to Islam he is NOT ALIVE, and he will not come back."

[7:50] "I don't call Jesus God, you know. My idea was He's a Prophet but He is a prophet greater than Muhammad. So one day I went to my teacher, the one who taught me ten (10) years in Arabic College, and I asked him, "Teacher, how did God create the universe?" Then he said, "God created the universe through the Word. THROUGH THE WORD." Then my question: "WORD CREATOR OR CREATION?" Must clear it. My question: Whether the WORD OF GOD is CREATOR or CREATION? Qur'an says JESUS IS WORD OF GOD. If my teacher says that the Word of God is Creator, which means JESUS IS CREATOR. Then the Muslims must be Christians."  

[8:31] "Suppose he if he says the Word is creation, he will be trapped. You know why? He said everything was created THROUGH THE WORD. Suppose he said the Word is creation, then how did God created the Word?"

Ganito rin ang tanong natin sa mga kaanib ng iglesiang tatag ni Ginoong Felix Y. Manalo: Ang SALITA ba ay TAGAPAG-LALANG o NILALANG?  

Ang kanilang kasagutan marahil ay ang SALITA raw ay ISANG PANUKALA o PLANO (ng Diyos). Tanong pa rin natin ay ganito: ang isang PLANO ba ay UMIIRAL (existing BEING) na o nasa isip pa lamang ng nagpaplano? Kung ang Salita (Verbo) ay isang panukala o plano, ito ay nasa isip pa lamang ng nagpaplano, hindi sya existing being. Pero kung ang Salita (Verbo) ay isang existing being na, hindi siya plano o panukala kundi isa siyang umiiral na Persona.

At upang patunayan namin sa inyo mga kababayan na si Cristo bilang VERBO (Salita) ay HINDI PANUKALA o PLANO, KUNDI SIYA AY ISANG PERSONA mula sa pasimula pa, ating sipiin ang PAHAYAG NI CRISTO ukol sa KANYANG SARILI laban sa mga bulaang propeta tulad nina Ginoong Felix Y. Manalo.

Sa Juan 8:48-59 ay ganito: 

"Tunay na tunay kong sinasabi sa inyo, na BAGO PA LALANGIN SI ABRAHAM, AKO AY AKO NA!" (Isang pahiwatig na mahigit 500 taon nung kapanahunan niya sa kalagayan bilang tao, bago pa lalangin si Abraham SIYA ay NAROON [existing being] na!)

Heto pa ang nasa Juan 6: 62:

"Paano kung makita ninyo ang Anak ng Tao na UMAKYAT SA KINAROROONAN NIYA NOONG UNA?" (Isang pahiwatig na si Cristo ay Diyos bago pa sa pasimula na mababasa rin natin sa Juan 1:1)

Sa Kanyang mga pahayag ukol sa Kanyang kalikasan, NABABATID ng mga HUDYO na PINALALAGAY ni CRISTO na SIYA NGA AY DIYOS sa kabila ng kanyang kalagayan bilang tao. Dadampot sana sila ng bato upang patayin si Cristo ~ bilang kaparusahan sa mga umaalipusta sa kaisahan ng Diyos (blasphemy) sa Juan 10:32-33):

"Kaya winika sa kanila ni Jesus, 'Maraming kabutihan akong ginawa sa harp ninyo na gaing sa Ama; alin ba sa mga ito ang dahilan ng pagbabato ninyo sa akin?' Sinagot siya ng mga Judio, "Hindi ka namin binabato dahil sa gawang mabuti, kundi sa iyong paglait sa Diyos; sapagkat IKAW NA ISANG TAO LAMANG AY NAGPAPANGGAP NA DIYOS."(Si Cristo bilang isang matuwid na guro, inamin sana Niya na MALI ang kanilang iniisip tungkol sa Kanya, ngunit HINDI niya ginawa sapagkat alam niyang TAMA ang kanilang iniisip tungkol sa Kanya.)

Sa Juan 13:31-32 ay ganito naman ang pagpapakilala ni Cristo:

"Ngayon ay niluluwalhati na ang Anak ng Tao, sa kanya naman ay niluluwalhati ang Diyos. Kung ang Diyos ay niluwalhati na sa kanya, siya ay luluwalhatiin naman ng Diyos sa kanyang sarili at luluwalhatiin siya kapagdaka." (Ang Diyos ay luluwalhati kay Cristo sa Kanyang kalagayan bilang Tao, sapagkat sa Kanyang kalagayan, Siya ay Diyos sa kalikasang taglay niya bago pa lalangin ang sanlibutan).

Juan 17:5;

"Ngayon, Ama, luwalhatiin mo ako sa harap mo ng KALUWALHATIANG TINAGLAY KONG KASAMA MO BAGO PA LALANGIN ANG SANLIBUTAN." (Punto! Si Cristo sa kalikasan niya bilang Diyos ay naroon na kapiling ang Diyos Ama bago pa lalangin ang sanlibutan. Patunay na ang Verbo (Salita) ay HINDI panukala ng Ama kundi Siya ay isang Persona kasama na ng Diyos Ama!) 

1 Juan 5:20-21

"Nababatid nating dumating ang Anak ng Diyos at binigyan tayo ng KAALAMAN upang MAKILALA ANG KATOTOHANAN. sa Kanyang Anak na si Jesucristo. SIYA ANG DIYOS NA TUNAY AT BUHAY NA WALANG HANGGAN." (Malinaw na ba?!)

Isang Kalunus-lunos na kasasapitan ng mga umaanib sa mga maling aral ng mga bulaang propeta tulad ni Ginoong Felix Y. Manalo.  

At bilang susog, ating sipiin ang PAGHAHATOL sa kanila ni Apostol San Juan (2 Juan 1:7):

"Sapagkat nagkalat sa daigdig ang MARAMING MANDARAYA na AYAW KUMILALA na si JESUCRISTO (Diyos) ay NAGKATAWANG-TAO; ganyan nga ang MANDARAYA at ANTI-CRISTO!" (Sa mga katulad nila na ayaw tanggapin ang kalikasan ni Cristo bilang Diyos na nagkatawang-tao (at nasumpungan sa kalagayan bilang tao), sila ay mga mandaraya, mga kampon ng kasamaan, mga kalaban ni Cristo, mga anti-Cristo!)

Sa mga nagsusuri pa rin hanggang sa kasalukuyan, lumisan na kayo sa mga iglesiang tatag ng TAO LAMANG at dumito na po tayo sa KAISA-ISANG IGLESIANG TATAG NI CRISTO. Sapagkat dito sa TUNAY NA IGLESIA, ang HALIGI AT SALIGAN NG KATOTOHANAN! (1 Tim. 3:15). Ang tunay na Iglesiang tatag ni Cristo ay walang iba kundi ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA ayon sa PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46.

DID JESUS PRE-EXIST BEFORE HIS BIRTH ON EARTH? by Duane Cartujano

Source: Facebook

First, it is clear in John 17:5 what Jesus told the FATHER. Jesus said “I had in your presence before the world existed.” This proves Jesus already existed before the world existed. Logos was with the Father.

Second, we can read in 1 Peter 1:11 that the phrase, “the Spirit of Christ within them”. "inquiring about the person or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory."(1 Peter 1:11)

Jesus Christ is the same God yesterday, God today and God forever! -Hebrews 13:8

DID CATHOLICS DECLARE 'LUCIFER' AS THEIR GOD?

From WIKIPEDIA:

The Exsultet has been the subject of numerous online conspiracy theory videos attempting to show that Catholic practice is actually devil-worship. These conspiracy theories usually show a recording of a deacon chanting the final portions of the Exsultet in Latin, captioned with a purported "translation" of the text into English with these or similar words:

His Flame dawning His own creation May I say, O'Lucifer [sic], who knows no setting Christ, your son, who came back from the dead and shed his peaceful light to the human race and is alive and reigns for ever and ever. R/ Amen.

Flammas eius lúcifer matutínus invéniat: ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum. Christus Fílius tuus, qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit, et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum. R/ Amen.

These conspiracy theorists selectively translate, poorly and ungrammatically, everything except the word lucifer ("light-bearer" or "Morning Star"), which is used in 2 Peter 1 and Revelation 2 and 22 as a title for Christ, attempting to use the term as a name for Satan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anti-Catholics (that includes all various protestant churches, cults, sects) has been using this video below that says "VATICAN DECLARED 'LUCIFER' AS THEIR GOD".

Honestly, there is NOTHING WRONG with that video. What is wrong is that, those DECEIVING PASTORS freaks out with those LATIN words "LUCIFER" that was being read during the EXULTET during the EASTER VIGIL Mass at the Vatican.

LUCIFER in Latin means LIGHT BEARER OR MORNING STAR in English.

Here is the Latin Exultet being read:

Orámus ergo te, Dómine,

ut céreus iste in honórem tui nóminis consecrátus,

ad noctis huius calíginem destruéndam,

indefíciens persevéret.

Et in odórem suavitátis accéptus,

supérnis lumináribus misceátur.

Flammas eius LUCIFER matutínus invéniat:

ille, inquam, lúcifer, qui nescit occásum.

Christus Fílius tuus,

qui, regréssus ab ínferis, humáno géneri serénus illúxit,

et vivit et regnat in sæcula sæculórum.

Deceivers interpret the LATIN EXULTED in English and RETAINS that word "lucifer" to prove that the Catholic Church are "devil worshipers". Consider the English translations of the Exultet.

Therefore, O Lord,

we pray you that this candle,

hallowed to the honor of your name,

may persevere undimmed,

to overcome the darkness of this night.

Receive it as a pleasing fragrance,

and let it mingle with the lights of heaven.

May this flame be found still burning by the MORNING STAR:

the one morning star who never sets,

Christ your Son,

who, coming back from death's domain,

has shed his peaceful light on humanity,

and lives and reigns for ever and ever.

May dugo ba ang Dios? Bakit "iglesia ng Dios" ang nasa salin ng inyong Biblia (Mga Gawa 20:28)?

Photo Source: STORIED THEOLOGY

Maraming salamat Bro. Gene sa pagpadala mo sa akin ng inyong conversation with a member of the Iglesia ni Manalo (INM). Pipilitin po nating i-refute ang kanilang oposition sa "church of God" over "church of Christ" na nakasulat sa Acts 20:28

PART 1

see bakit mo iniba? bakit naging KATHOLIKOS?? instead of Kath oleS

ok tanong ko sau yang sa greek EKKLESIA TOU THEOU o IGLESIA NG DIYOS? na BINILI NG KANYANG DUGO?? tatanggapin mo ba na DIYOS DUN AY MAY DUGO???

TANONG: tatanggapin ba natin na IGLESIA NI CRISTO ang nakalagay po dun sa GAWA 20:28?

SAGOT; OPO DAHIL si Cristo PO ang nagbuhos ng mahalaga niyang DUGO.

1 PEDRO 1:18-19Alam ninyo kung ano ang ipinantubos sa inyo sa walang kabuluhang pamumuhay na inyong minana sa inyong mga magulang. Ang ipinantubos sa inyo'y hindi ang mga bagay na nasisira o nauubos, tulad ng ginto o pilak, 19 kundi sa pamamagitan ng MAHALAGANG DUGO NI CRISTO. Siya ang korderong walang batik at kapintasan

PAHAYAG: Si Cristo po ang nagbuhos ng kanyang MAHALAGAN DUGO kaya nga ang IGLESIA ay tinawag na IGLESIA NI CRISTO dahil si CRISTO PO ANG NAGTAYO NG IGLESIA MATEO 16:18 hindi po IGLESIA KATOLIKA. 😉

TANONG; Ang Diyos po ba may DUGO?

SAGOT: wala pong laman at buto kaya po siya ay ESPIRITO

juan 4:24-Ang Diyos ay Espiritu kaya dapat siyang sambahin sa espiritu at sa katotohanan.

Lucas 24:39-Tingnan ninyo ang aking mga kamay at ang aking mga paa, ako rin nga: hipuin ninyo ako, at tingnan; sapagka't ang isang ESPIRITO WALANG LAMAN at mga BUTO, na gaya ng inyong nakikita na nasa akin.

PAHAYAG: Ang Diyos po ay Espirito meaning so say wala rin po syang DUGO. kaya hindi po puedeng ikapit ang IGLESIA NG DIYOS po dyan dahil po walang DUGO ang DIYOS ang may dugo si Cristo..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sa totoo lang, nakakalungkot talagang isipin na hindi nauunawaan ng mga Manalistas ang buong pagkaTAO at pagkaDIOS ni Cristo na kanilang pinapanginoon. Sa huling paghuhukom, sila 'yung tinutukoy ni Cristong “Lumayo kayo sa akin sapagkat ‘di ko kayo nakikilala..” (Mt. 7:21-23).

Una, sasagutin ko po sa abot ng aking makakaya bilang isang ordinaryong Katoliko itong mga paratang ng mga Manalista laban sa ating Panginoong Jesus. Bagama’t hindi po ako dalubhasa sa Cristology at Theology ay pipilitin nating ipaunawa sa kanila (at sa iyong kaalaman na rin) kung bakit naniniwala tayong (mga tunay na sumasamba kay Cristo) na siya (JESUS) ay TUNAY na DIOS at TUNAY na TAO.

TANONG: tatanggapin ba natin na IGLESIA NI CRISTO ang nakalagay po dun sa GAWA 20:28?

HINDI po! Sapagkat HINDI po iyan ang ORIHINAL na nakasulat sa Gawa 20:28, “iglesia ng Dios” po at HINDI “iglesia ni Cristo.” Sa kanyang saling Biblia si Lamsa po ay hindi sumangguni sa orihinal na wikang Griego na siyang pagkakasulat ng “Mga Gawa”. Sa Griego (Greek) po kasi, ay tan ekklasian tou Theou (church of God), HINDI po “tan ekklesian tou Christou (church of Christ)..” (Basahin ang Catholic Answers). 

Sino ba si George Lamsa? Bakit po siya dirinig-diri sa pagka-Dios ni Cristo?

Una, bagama't di naniniwala sa pagka-Dios ni Cristo, si Lamsa po ay hindi kaanib ng INM-1914. Siya po ay kabilang sa iglesiang “Assyrian Church of the East”. Hindi po sila nakaugnay sa mga Orthodox o mga Katoliko. Ang kanilang mga katuruan po ay hango sa schismatic na turo ng  Nestorianism  .

Si Nestor po, na pinagmulan ng maling aral na 'yan ay kinondena ng Iglesia sa KONSILYO NG EPHESUS noon Hunyo 22, 431 A.D.

Ang mga taga-sunod po ng Nestorianism ay mga taong naniniwala sa HIWALAY na naturalesa ni Cristo—isa bilang Dios at isa bilang tao. At ang samahang ito ay KINONDENA sa KONSILYO ng CHALCEDON noong Nobyembre 1, 451 A.D.

Kaya’t nagtaka si George Lamsa kung bakit ang “Dios daw ay may dugo” sa Gawa 20:28. Sapagkat di siya naniniwala sa pagka-Dios ni Cristo.

Sabi niya, hindi raw maaaring “iglesia ng Dios” ito sapagkat ang Dios ay walang dugo at hindi siya maaaring mag-alay ng wala siya. 

Kaya’t upang masolusyunan ang kanyang problema sa verse na ito, pinalitan niya ang “iglesia ng Dios” sa “iglesia ni Cristo (TAONG MAY DUGO)” na siyang ikinatutuwa ngayon ng mga kaanib ng INM-1914 sa pag-aakalang SILA ang tinutukoy doon ni George Lamsa.

TANONG; Ang Diyos po ba may DUGO?

Natural wala.

Pero may dugo ba si Cristo? Natural meron.

Bakit?

Sapagkat si Cristo ay TAONG TUNAY ngunit bilang tao ay hindi nangangahulugang siya’y di na Dios.

Heto ang sabi sa Filipos 2:5-11 (NAB)

“Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, who, though HE WAS IN THE FORM OF GOD (emphasis mine), did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, COMING IN HUMAN LIKENESS and FOUND HUMAN IN APPEARANCE, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. 

Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bewtowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those 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. 

Mangagkaroon kayo sa inyo ng pagiisip, na ito'y na kay Cristo Jesus din naman: Na SIYA, BAGAMA'T NASA ANYONG DIOS, ay hindi niya inaring isang bagay na nararapat panangnan ang pagkapantay niya sa Dios, Kundi bagkus hinubad niya ito, at NAGANYONG ALIPIN, NA NAKITULAD SA MGA TAO: At palibhasa'y NASUMPUNGAN SA ANYONG TAO, siya'y nagpakababa sa kaniyang sarili, na nagmasunurin hanggang sa kamatayan, oo, sa kamatayan sa krus.

Kaya siya naman ay pinakadakila ng Dios, at siya'y binigyan ng pangalang lalo sa lahat ng pangalan; Upang sa pangalan ni Jesus ay iluhod ang lahat ng tuhod, ng nangasa langit, at ng nangasa ibabaw ng lupa, at ng nangasa ilalim ng lupa, At upang ipahayag ng lahat ng mga dila na si Jesucristo ay Panginoon, sa ikaluluwalhati ng Dios Ama.

Nakita niyo?

Mismong Biblia ang nagpapatunay na si Cristo ay NASA ANYONG DIOS ngunit hinubad niya ito at nagpakababa, sa ANYONG TAO NA KATULAD NATIN..

Sa makatuwid, si Cristo ay DIOS na nasa ANYONG TAO kaya’t SIYA AY MAY DUGO. At kahit na siya’y may dugo ay DIOS pa rin siyang tunay.. sapagkat ITO ANG KANYANG ANYO bago pa man siya'y NAGKATAWANG-TAO.

Sumatotal: Ang mga nakasulat sa Gawa 20:28 "iglesia ng Dios" ay hindi dapat palitan ninuman sa kadahilanang HINDI siya naniniwala sa pagka-Dios ni Cristo sapagkat ito ay PAMBABABOY sa Salita ng Dios at may pananagutan silang malaki sa araw ng paghuhukom (Rev. 22:19)

At dahil napag-usapan na rin natin ang pamimilit ng mga INM na si Cristo ay HINDI DIOS, isang malaking katanungan sa kanila kung bakit SINASAMBA NILA SI CRISTO na TAO?!

Hindi ba’t ang pagsamba ay nauukol LAMANG sa Dios at hindi sa tao?

Kung si Cristo ay TAO LAMANG wala siyang karapatang sambahin siya. At kung si Cristo ay tao lamang siya na mismo ang magbabawal sa tao na sambahin siya. 

Ngunit sa ating mga TUNAY na nakakakilala kay Cristo, si CRISTO AY DIOS na TUNAY. At kung siya’y DIOS nararapat lamang na siya'y SAMBAHIN!

May paglabag ba sa Biblia kung sambahin si Jesus?

Wala po! Kundi inuudyukan at inaanyayahan pa nga tayong SAMBAHIN siya!

Bakita kaya?  Sapagkat alam ng mga nagsulat ng Biblia na si CRISTO ay DIOS na tunay!

May paglabag ba sa iniuutos ng Dios na pagsamba sa DIOS lamang at hindi tao?

Wala!

Sa Filipos 2:5-11, binanggit bang dalawa ang Dios noong si Cristo ay nasa ANYONG DIOS bago magkatawang tao?

Hindi rin po.

Sinabi lamang na sa pangalan ni Jesus, ang “lahat ng tuhod, ng nangasa langit, at ng nangasa ibabaw ng lupa, at ng nangasa ilalim ng lupa, At upang ipahayag ng lahat ng mga dila na si Jesucristo ay Panginoon, sa IKALULUWALHATI NG DIOS AMA.

Sa ikaluwalhati ng DIOS AMA (sapagkat may DIOS ANAK) – IISANG DIOS pa rin!

Pangalawang tanong sa mga kaanib ng INM-1914: Kung si Cristo ay TAO LAMANG bakit siya'y LUMUSOT SA DINGDING at BIGLANG NAGPAKITA sa mga apostoles (Jn. 20:11-19) o kaya'y NAGPAPAKITA SIYA SA IBA'T IBANG LUGAR AT TAO SA PAREHONG ORAS AT PAREHONG PANAHON (1 Cor 15:6)? 

Katangian ba ito ng isang TAO LAMANG??!! Pakipaliwanag nga mga MANLILINLANG na MANGANGARAL ng Iglesia ni Cristo (Registered Trademark)?

Kaya't SI MANALO at ng kanyang INC-1914 and dapat nating ITAKWIL-- lahat ng kanilang mga turo sapagkat ang kanilang turo ay PUNO ng PANLILINLANG at PANDARAYA! Hindi gawain ng tunay na Iglesia ang gawain ng kadiliman!

Para sa karagdagang kaalaman, mangyaring basahin ang mga sumusunod:

-DIVINITY OF CHRIST mula sa Catholic Answers
-I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST mula sa Official Catechism of the Catholic Church
-INCARNATION & DIVINITY mula sa Catholic Faith Blog
-THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST mula sa Catholic News Agency Apologetics

The central claim of Christianity is that God became one of us 2000 years ago

Prophetic writings several hundred years before His birth called Him Mighty God, Prince of Peace, Mighty Counselor, Father Forever, God With Us. He referred to Himself as the Way, the Truth, the Life. St. Paul said that in Him we live, and move, and have our being. -NewAdvent Blog

Iglesia ni Cristo's Understanding of the Catholic Church and her doctrines

Despite the fact that CATHOLIC TEACHINGS and HISTORY can be found in many OFFICIAL CATHOLIC SITES often or almost always, members of the so-called "Iglesia ni Cristo" (Church of Christ in Tagalog), founded by Felix Manalo in 1914 as a Corporation Sole accuse the Catholic Church of having altered ancient apostolic teachings but a close scrutiny of historical facts and biblical texts concerning Catholic doctrines confirm the TRUTHFULNESS of all her teachings. Their GROSS DISHONESTY and their desire to DECEIVE can be easily seen under the light of honesty on the part of serious truth seekers. Let it be known that members of the INC of Manalo cult were seriously "brain-washed" by their equally misinformed paid ministers so they will never know the TRUTH which has been preached for more than 2 millennia now..

Are you sure the Catholic Church never changes her doctrines? First, during the time of Christ and the Apostles; the earlier Christians did not consider Christ as God. Yes, He never sinned and possess special qualities. He performed miracles GIVEN by God. As for the Trinity, it was invented long after Christ has ascended to heaven and the Apostles died. From baptism by immersion, the Catholic Church changed it to sprinkling of water out of convenience. What used to be just a policy, the “Celibacy Law” became a law. There are many more changes from the original teachings of God. Correction: Celibacy Law was first made as an OPTION then made into law. By the way, the Popes also erred disproving their infallibility. Some successors to the Pope rebuked the predecessors’ policies and laws. (Source: Monk's Hobbit)

CATHOLIC CHANGED CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES(?)

The so-called invention of new doctrines, which refers to the Church's proclamation of new dogmas, is the most baseless and ridiculous charge of all--for those ``new'' dogmas of the Church were actually old doctrines dating back to the beginning of Christianity. In proclaiming them to be dogmas, the Church merely emphasized their importance to the Faith and affirmed that they are, in truth, part and parcel of divine revelation. The Catholic Church followed the same procedure when, in the fourth century, she proclaimed the New Testament to be divinely revealed. Hence it is obvious that the Catholic Church did not fall into error during the Middle Ages as some people allege, for if she had, she could not have produced those hundreds of medieval saints--saints the calibre of St. Francis, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Clare, St. Anthony, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Elizabeth and St. Vincent Ferrer (who performed an estimated 40,000 miracles).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

Why do Catholics believe that God is three Persons, called the Holy Trinity? How can God be three Persons and still be one God?

Catholics believe there is one God consisting of three distinct and equal divine Persons--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--because on numerous occasions God has described Himself thus. The Old Testament gives intimations that there are more than one Person in God. In Genesis 1:26, God says, ``Let us make man to our image and likeness.'' In Isaias 9:6-7, God the Father revealed the imminent coming into the world of God the Son. In Psalms 2:7, we read, ``The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.'' And in the New Testament, God reveals this doctrine even more clearly. For example, at the baptism of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father was heard: ``This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.'' (Matt. 3:16-17). In Matthew 28:19, God the Son commanded the Apostles to baptize ``in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'' And in 1 Cor. 12:4-6, the Bible refers to God with three names: Spirit, Lord, and God-- corresponding to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Three divine Persons in one Godhead may be incomprehensible to the human mind, but that is to be expected. How can man fully comprehend God's infinite make-up when he cannot fully comprehend his own finite make-up? We have to take God's word for it. Also, we can satisfy ourselves as to the feasibility of God's triune make-up by considering various other triune realities. The triangle, for example, is one distinct form with three distinct and equal sides. And the clover leaf is one leaf with three distinct and equal petals. There are many physical trinities on earth, therefore a Spiritual Trinity, who is God in Heaven, is not against human reason--it is simply above human reason.

THE DEITY OF JESUS

Why do Catholics believe that Jesus Christ was God the Son--the Second Person of the Holy Trinity? Would it not be more reasonable to believe that He was a great and holy man... a religious leader of exceptional talent and dedication... a prophet?

Catholics believe that Jesus was God the Son, incarnate in human flesh, firstly because God's physical manifestation on earth, plus all the circumstances of that manifestation, were prophesied time and again in Divine Revelation, and Jesus fulfilled that prophecy right to the letter; secondly, because He claimed that He was God (John 10:30, 14:9-10 and numerous other passages), and He never deceived anyone; thirdly, because He proved His divinity by His impeccable holiness and the flawless perfection of His doctrine; fourthly, because only God could have performed the miracles He performed miracles such as walking on the sea, feeding five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish, and, after His death on the Cross, resurrecting Himself from His own tomb; fifthly, because only God could have, in the brief space of three years, without military conquest, without political power, without writing a single line or traveling more than a few score miles, so profoundly affected the course of human events; sixthly, because only God can instill in the soul of man the grace and the peace and the assurance of eternal salvation that Jesus instills.-Read more at Augustine Club

ON PRIESTLY CELIBACY

Celibacy is Scriptural

Fundamentalists will tell you that celibacy has no basis in the Bible whatsoever, saying that Christians are called to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This mandate speaks to humanity in general, however, and overlooks numerous passages in the Bible that support the celibate life. In 1 Corinthians, for example, Paul actually seems to prefer the celibate life: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . . Those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (7:27-34). This is not to say that all men should be celibate, however; Paul explains that celibacy is a calling for some and not for others by saying, "Each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:7).

Jesus Himself speaks of celibacy in Matthew 19:11-12: "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." Again, the emphasis is on the special nature of celibacy, one for which not all men are suited, but one that nevertheless gives glory to "the kingdom of God."

Perhaps the best evidence for the scriptural support of celibacy is that Jesus Himself practiced it!

Celibacy is historical.

Most people assume that the celibate priesthood is a convention introduced by the Church fairly late in history. On the contrary, there is evidence that even the earliest Church fathers, such as St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and St. Jerome, fully supported the celibate priesthood. The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy. Even the wording of these documents suggests that the councils were not introducing a new rule but rather maintaining a previously established tradition. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on the subject, saying that "clerical continence" was a tradition reaching as far back as apostolic times. While later councils and popes would pass similar edicts, the definitive promulgation of the celibate, unmarried priesthood came at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 under Pope Gregory VII. Far from being a law forced upon the medieval priesthood, it was the acceptance of celibacy by priests centuries earlier that eventually led to its universal promulgation in the twelfth century.

Celibacy emphasizes the unique role of the priest.

The priest is a representative of Christ, an alter Christus. In this respect, the priest understands his identity by following the example of Jesus, a man who lived His life in perfect chastity and dedication to God. As Archbishop Crescenzio Sepe of Grado explains, "[A priest's] being and his acting must be like Christ's: undivided" (The Relevance of Priestly Celibacy Today, 1993). As such, the sacramental priesthood is holy, something set apart from the rest of the world. Just as Christ sacrificed His life for His bride, the Church, so too must a priest offer up his life for the good of Christ's people. -Read more at Augustin Club or read at Catholic Answers

BABPTISM BY IMMERSION ONLY?

Physical Difficulties

After Peter’s first sermon, three thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41). Archaeologists have demonstrated there was no sufficient water supply for so many to have been immersed. Even if there had been, the natives of Jerusalem would scarcely have let their city’s water supply be polluted by three thousand unwashed bodies plunging into it. These people must have been baptized by pouring or sprinkling.

Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies (an opening into the airway in the throat) or in negative pressure ventilators (iron lungs). Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed, and may not wish to defer baptism until their recovery (for example, if they are to undergo further procedures).

Other difficulties arise in certain environments. For example, immersion may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos. Or consider those in prison—not in America, where religious freedom gives prisoners the right to be immersed if they desire—but in a more hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.

What are we to do in these and similar cases? Shall we deny people the sacrament because immersion is impractical or impossible for them? Ironically, the Fundamentalist, who acknowledges that baptism is commanded but thinks it isn’t essential for salvation, may make it impossible for many people to be baptized at all in obedience to God’s command. The Catholic, who believes baptism confers grace and is normatively necessary for salvation, maintains that God wouldn’t require a form of baptism that, for some people, is impossible.

Baptism in the Early Church

That the early Church permitted pouring instead of immersion is demonstrated by the Didache, a Syrian liturgical manual that was widely circulated among the churches in the first few centuries of Christianity, perhaps the earliest Christian writing outside the New Testament.

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner" (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form, since he says one is only sprinkled and thus comes up from the water "not much (or not at all) the cleaner."

Ancient Christian Mosaics Show Pouring

Then there is the artistic evidence. Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell. Tile mosaics in ancient churches and paintings in the catacombs depict baptism by pouring. Baptisteries in early cemeteries are clear witnesses to baptisms by infusion. The entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, and in monumental evidence—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion.

Other archaeological evidence confirms the same thing. An early Christian baptistery was found in a church in Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth, yet this baptistery, which dates from the second century, was too small and narrow in which to immerse a person. -Read more at Catholic Answers

Is USA and Western media becoming more afraid of Islam?

"I see this in other news outlets and on TV, too. Sober-looking newsmen and newswomen mention Mohammed as The Prophet Mohammed. No ifs, ands or buts. I hear it on the BBC World Service, too.

"Now, if Muslims want to believe that Mohammed is The Prophet, God bless them. Fine and dandy. If anyone wants to believe that, good luck to him or her. But why does our mainstream media here in the USA, an overwhelmingly Christian country, refer to Islam's prophet as "The Prophet"?

"Have you ever seen any major newspaper here in the USA refer to Jesus Christ as "The Son of God, God Incarnate, The Lord Jesus Christ"? Can you imagine the New York Times running a story about a crucifix resting in urine at an "art gallery" as an offense against "The Lord Jesus, Son of God"? Can you imagine any large newspaper in this country running a story about the Pope and referring to him as "The Holy Father, The Bridge Between Heaven and Earth"? Or about Mary, as "Holy Mary, Mother of God"? It would never happen." Read more at Facing Islam...

Jesus Christ or Felix Manalo? Christ's Church or Manalo's INC?

They can't be both true!

Should be one is saying the truth while the other saying lies about the truth!

Or still one is a true God while the other is a fake messenger!

Jesus can't be both the truth while he being a "failure" Savior. Nor Felix Manalo can be a false messenger while fulfilling Jesus' failed mission.

But we know Jesus.

If Jesus is the TRUTH, everyone re-telling Jesus Christ words are LIARS.

And at the end of the day Jesus is a real God and Felix is a fake messenger!

Behold the INC LOGO, symbol of new "salvation".

What the INC Church of Manalo can do?

INC of Manalo can buy earthly properties but NOT heaven.

INC of Manalo can buy the world but not our souls.

INC of Manalo can re-tell history but not our memories.

INC of Manalo can preach another gospel but not our Bible.

INC of Manalo can build fancy beautiful temples but not our hearts!

INC of Manalo can formulate new teachings but not our Apostolic traditions.

INC of Manalo can introduce another Christ but not our God.

INC of Manalo can establish a new religion but not Christianity

INC of Manalo can deny the Trinity but not their own doxology.

INC of Manalo can convert people but not our faith.

INC of Manalo can win debates but not our intelligence.

INC of Manalo can lie and deceive but not our Catechism.

INC of Manalo can claim numbers but not salvation.

INC of Manalo can celebrate anniversaries but not our 2000 Jubilee

INC of Manalo can rejoice at FYM's birthday but not of Jesus birth celebration.

INC of Manalo can register as many Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) but not the Cross of Christ.

INC of Manlao can have FYM as their Shepherd and new god but not our Lord Jesus Christ the only one Shepherd, Savior and God!

Pope's Book: Jesus of Nazareth NOW in bookstores

Title: Jesus of Nazareth
Author: Josef Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
Languages: English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and 20 more languages
Nature: Spiritual Meditation (not a doctrine; no way an exercise of the Magisterium)
Copies: 1.2 million so far.

A Letter to Pasugo and the Iglesia ni Cristo's response

As a cult, we all know that the the Iglesia ni Cristo® hates anything Catholic. In its Pasugo publication Vol. 62, Issue No. 1, January 2010, something is so odd to see.

The title of this year’s first publication was: Brother Eraño G. Manalo IN MEMORIAM. Highlighted words/phrase and added numbers in each paragraph are mine for an easier reference.

Take note of the following:

The date: January 2010 Anno Domini (A.D.--Year of the Lord) – our present Calendar is called the GREGORIAN CALENDAR, named after Pope Gregory XIII which is used as the International Standard Calendar to measure a month and a year.

The words “IN MEMORIAM” are LATIN words which literally means “In Memory of” in English. Latin is the ancient language of Rome and the Roman Empire but it's now considered a dead language. Only the Catholic Church uses it in all official pronouncements of the Church.

But that’s not what I am mostly interested. I am interested on how an Iglesia ni Cristo Minister answer a question by a certain reader from India (if it was true). Let me copy verbatim the question and how the editor answered.

THE LETTER:

Not in the New Testament

1. I’ve been reading Bible commentaries and other related literature since last year. I find it odd that what many Christians know about Jesus Christ mostly come from the New Testament, when in fact Christ himself said that things were written about Him in the Law of Moses and the Prophets (Luke 24:44). Does your church take account of the Old Testament passages about Christ? Are there such passages saying that Jesus is tasked to establish a church – your church for that matter?

Salman Singh
Maharashtra, India

Let me assume that Mr. Salman Singh is a real person from India. If that's the case, Mr. Singh (by his name) should be a decent from the state of Punjab where Singh is a not just a family name but it has some religious resemblance (Sikhism). I would like to believe that this Mr. Singh is not a Christian and so the response of the Iglesia ni Cristo should be particularly sensitive to who Mr. Singh is. Anyway, let's read the Editor's response:

Editor’s reply:

2. The books that have become what is now known as the New Testament were written by contemporaries of our Lord Jesus Christ or those who lived to witness His mission on earth and its continuance to the time of the apostles. Hence, while we do acknowledge that there are also things written about Christ “in the Law of Moses and the Prophets,” or in the Old Testament, this does not in any way preclude the importance of the New Testament, especially in so far as the chronicling of Christ’s life and ministry is concerned.

3. Quite surely, the things written about Christ in the Old Testament are never contradictory to what is recorded in the New Testament. In fact, the New Testament gives testimonies to the prophecies written about Christ in the Old Testament as having been fulfilled in Him—and these include pronouncements presaging Christ’s establishment of the Church He would build and will save.

4. For instance, in Deuteronomy 18: 18-19, Moses recorded God’s prophecy, thus:

5. “I will send them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will tell him what to say, and he will tell the people everything I command. He will speak in my name, and I will punish anyone who refuse to obey him.” (Deut. 18: 18-19, Today’s English Version)

6. This is pronouncement would later be interpreted in the New Testament as a prophecy concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, as given in Acts 3:20-23:

7. “And that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The LORD YOUR God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.” (NKJV)

8. Note that one of the messages spoken by Christ concerns His Church and its significance for man’s salvation. In Matthew 16:18, He pronounced that He would build His Church so that the power of death shall not prevail against it. In John 10:9, He specifies that anyone who wants to be saved must enter “into the fold through [Him]” (John 10:9 , Revised English Bible). The fold He refers to is the Church of Christ (Acts 20:28, Lamsa Translation). Clearly, these teachings of Christ as chronicled in the gospels affirm that He is the Prophet being referred to in Deuteronomy, whose teaching people should hear, lest they be utterly destroyed or unsaved on the day of Judgement (1 Cor. 5:12-13; Rev. 21:8).

9. A prophecy recorded in the book of the prophet Isaiah also foretold about the election of Christ and the members of His Church. In Isaiah 60:1, God declared:

10. “Also your people shall all be righteous They shall inherit the land forever, The branch of My planting, The work of My hands, That I may be glorified.” (NKJV)

11. Take note that God here prophesied about His “planting and the “branch of [His] planting” who would have the right and privilege to glorify Him and would be appointed to become His heirs. The New Testament informs us that Christ identified Himself as “God’s planting” by pronouncing, “I am the Real Vine and my Father is the Farmer” (John 15:1, The Message). He further clarified that “His branches” are the people who belong to Him:

12. “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.

13. “You did not choose Me,, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.” (John 15:5, 16, NKJV)

15. Christ being “the vine” and those who belong to Him being “the branches” were equated by Apostle Paul to Christ being “the head” and His Church being “the body”, thereby ascertaining that the people who belong to Christ—those mentioned in Isaiah 60:21 as “the branch of [God’s] planting”—are the members of the Church that Christ established:

16. “And He is the head of the body, the church…” (Col. 1:18, NKJV)

17. “For as we have many members in one body, but all the members do not have the same function, so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another.” (Rom 12:4-5, NKJV)

18. What we have presented here are just a few of the many things written about Christ in the Old Testament that are attested to by pronouncements recorded in the New Testament, particularly those concerning His establishing of His Church—the true Church of Christ.

There is a lot of confusion in the part of Mr. Richard J. Rodas' as its Editor-In-Chief. Paragraph 8, quoted Mt. 16:18 which he wrote "the power of death" shall not prevail.

New American Bible: ".. the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it"

Douay-Rheims Bible: "..and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Jerusalem Bible: "...the gates of the underworld can never overpower it."

New King James Version: "...the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

New International Version: "... the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

In all five different versions of the Bible, they preclude that Christ's Church WILL not be overcome by the powers of death, hades, hell, netherworld. It is always in the future tense "WILL" because His Church would NEVER apostatized yesterday, today and forever for this is the promise of Christ to Simon Peter, the first Pope.

Now, let's compare paragraphs 7 to the rest of the paragraphs.

In Paragraph 7, the pronoun He refers to God who spoke to the prophets about Jesus Christ. Irrespective of its position in the sentence, the editor kept the pronoun He in big letter "H" and "e" in reference to God (not god).

Now, open your eyes and read the rest of the editor's response in the other paragraphs, the He (God) and He (Christ) has no distinction. God (He) and Jesus Christ (He) are given the same emphassis irrespective of its position in the sentence. And as a reader, I would interpret this according to Christian understanding of the Holy Trinity. And as a Catholic, those same emphasis given to He (for God) and He (for Christ) mean one and the same. That God and Jesus are One and that there is really ONE GOD-- in three divine person.

The confusion of PASUGO's Editor-In-Chief only highlights that of the truth in the Catholic Church that God and Jesus are ONE.

I hope Mr. Singh has opened his eyes and see the confusion of the Iglesia ni Cristo Minister as a guiding truth to his quest toward the right path to Jesus Christ, through His True One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church affirmed by the same PASUGO in its publication dated April l 1966, p. 46: "Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo. [The Catholic Church in the beginning was the true Church of Christ.]"

But wait. Have you notice something else? How many different versions of the Bible did they used Those highlighted in blue shows how they shifted from one translation to the other but never they quoted any Catholic version Bible.

Specifically, Iglesia ni Cristo loves the Lamsa Translation when they quote Acts 20:28.

Why?

It's because only in Lamsa Translation, Acts 20:28 was interpreted as "Church of Christ "instead of "Church of God" which originally written in Greek, "the church of God" (tan ekklasian tou Theou) not "the church of Christ" (tan ekklasian tou Christou)" [read more HERE and in YouTube]

Who is George Lamsa? Why the Iglesia ni Cristo loves his translation very much? Read LetUsReason. However, let's understand that George Lamsa belongs to the Nestorian church which his theological position on Christology was condemned by the Council of Chalsedon in 8 October to 1 November 451 A.D. Iglesia ni Cristo found an ally.

Thanks to Pasugo's Editor, it reveals the truth we all wanted. Praise God no one can hide the blinding light of truth in Jesus Christ and God.

To HIM, be the glory forever!

Eucharistic Miracles, Jesus is Really Present

"Take, eat my body and drink my blood and be saved."(John 6:53-57)

I always believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. That's one reason why I have to fast at least an hour before taking the communion or to carefully examine myself if I am worthy enough to take Christ's Holy Body and Blood into my whole being.

Friends, if you are in doubt of Jesus' Real Presence, you might want to confirm your faith again by reading scientific facts on Eucharistic Miracles at The Real Presence.