The "sign of the Cross is a mark of the Beast" says an Iglesia ni Cristo member

"...the sign of the cross which is the mark of the beast" says an Iglesia ni Cristo Manalo member using a pseudonym Big_Brother!

Comments were posted from THIS and THIS POSTS:

Big_Brother said... Hey Catholic Defender you think you pagans dont have logos either.. of course its easy for you to assume such nonsence about our logo why dont you attend our bible study and you can learn more about it before you go on thinking you know what you are talking about...what incororation do we have.. look at you pagans your pagain faith controls all the buisnesses in the philippines we dont have any corparate buisness we are all self supporting but you all are like corrupt gangsters March 29, 2011 1:21 PM

Hello Big_Brother, thanks for the valuable comments you wrote at Iglesia ni Cristo® Affirms the Doctrine of the HOLY TRINITY post. I am so happy that you recognize the influence of the Catholic Church in the Philippines in improving its economy.  I would like to think that without the Catholic Church perhaps Filipinos may have been another Sudan or Ethopia whose main existence relies on foreign donations.

I consider your comments too far from the perceived TRUTH we all share as Filipinos.  As you know, San Miguel Corporation, although it bears the name of a Catholic Saint (Archangel Michael) is owned and managed by a Catholic tycoon Mr. Danding Cojuanco.  He may be a Catholic but this corporation is NEVER  OWNED by the Catholic Church.  The PLDT, MERALCO, NAWASA, may have Catholic Businessmen and women but the Catholic Church DO NOT own them as you think.  If there are Catholic Institutions such as universities, colleges, highschools, they are not owned by the Catholic Church as an institution but they are owned by the school whose rights to run a business is protected by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and have the legitimate rights to require monies to run it's operations.

The part of the Catholic Church, through the local Catholic Bishops' Conference, OVERSEES its Catholic identity, but not its business operations.  As a Catholic institutions, they are expected to adhere to what the Catholic Church teaches in TRUTH and in HOLINESS. Deviation from Catholic teachings, universities and colleges and schools will cease to be associated with the Catholic Church but still they can run their business otherwise.

Now, we cannot compare the Catholic Church from the Iglesia ni Cristo Manalo its because there is no point of reference that they should be compared. But let me try to do so in the spirit of fairness and truth.

The Iglesia ni Cristo Manalo as a SINGLE ENTITY was REGISTERED in the Philippines at the same SEC office by its own founder, FELIX MANALO whom you consider as the "Last Messenger" just as Joseph Smith Jr. founder of Mormonism considered himself as the "Last Prophet"-- however both Smith and Manalo believed the original Church of Christ TOTALLY APOSTATIZED and that it NEEDED a "Last Messenger/Prophet" through Mr. Smith and Mr. Manalo. Total Apostasy cannot even be verified by existing historical facts and Bible scholars cannot even find a single verse in the New Testament that suggests its future occurence.

In fact, let alone your own PASUGO official magazine that confirms that fact:

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." [When was the INK registered in the Government? It was in July 27, 1914.  Truly, the register says it was Brother F. Manalo who founded the INK.]

It's because the REAL CHURCH of CHRIST wasn't FOUNDED in the Philippines but in JERSUSALEM.

PASUGO Mayo 1954, p. 9:

“Alin ang tunay na Iglesia? Ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo sa Jerusalem." [Which is the true Church? That Church that was built in Jerusalem.]

Your own Pasugo condemns your Iglesia as well:

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." [The true INK is only one. This is the Church built by Christ. If there are churches which also claim to be Iglesia ni Cristo, these are not real Church of Christ but they are fakes.]

If that's the case then we can trace that REAL CHURCH from the time of the Apostles to our present age but consulting PAGES of HISTORY. But unfortunately, most historical facts we can encounter were written by Catholics. That might frustrate you but let's face the fact. The Catholics were present when HISTORY UNFOLDED so they were WITNESSES. You and I cannot do something to correct that if it was a mistake that Catholics were present from those times witnessing history while it's unfolding before their eyes.

And a piece of warning from a Catholic Convert. Bl. Henry Cardinal Newman said "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant."

There I can understand why you are frightened to accept sound historical facts squarely.

Going back to your REGISTRATION as a CORPORATION SOLE, says the registration, this Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) [formerly registered as Iglesia ni Kristo (INK)] is a CORPORATION SOLE owned by Felix Manalo. That's the reason why the INC (or INK) as a single whole institution is a Business Corporation. I am afraid but I would suggest you to refute these insider who knew much about how business is operated in your iglesia. Read Iglesia ni Cristo in a Nutshell.

Could be an EXAGGERATED article but that's EXACTLY what you wrote in your comments. YOU EXAGGERATED the sins of the ancient Church and dragged all Catholics as evil as those who have done evil. You forgot that the sin of Judas never affected the other 11 Apostles faithful to Christ. I hope you come back here and refute those damaging accusations written in that article.

Big_Brother said... yeah talk about cults, heck why is the pagan catholic church in almost every horror film from dracula to the omen, damien, advertised in movies heck yah you guys are stars and actors.. and the pagans like the their God the pope goes out to decive many as he can and he gave them a mark that is on their right hand and their forehead.. they do the sign of the cross which is the mark of the beast. if the pope told them to kneel down in front of some dog shit, and pray to it they probably would March 29, 2011 1:36 PM

That was heavy Mr. Big_Brother. So you believe that the CROSS of Christ is the MARK of the BEAST? Now I understand WHY your churches DO NOT have crosses in it.  Only the Devil is afraid of the Cross of Christ.  

Sorry Mr. INC, the Bible is saying otherwise (I Cor. 1:17-18):

"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the wisdom of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning. The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The Bible says "But to US who are being SAVED (THE CROSS) is the POWER OF GOD" which for you in the Iglesia ni Cristo Manalo is a SIGN of the BEAST!

In the Book of Deuteronomy 6:4-8 and Ezekiel 9:4 the Israelites were told to have markings on their forehead.  Some scholars believed that in Ezekiel 9:4, that mark was "X" (which means "taw" in the Hebrew characters (a sign of the cross)

Because it is the SIGN of our SALVATION, Christians from the ancient times until today honor the Cross of Christ.  Early CHURCH FATHERS, among them were Tertulian and Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem 386 A.D. stated:

Tertulian 220 A.D.:

"We Christians wear out our foreheads with the sign of the cross"

St. Cyril of Jerusalem 386 A.D. said:

Let us, therefore, not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ; but though another hide it, do thou openly seal it upon thy forehead, that the devils may behold the royal sign and flee trembling far away. Make then this sign at eating and drinking, at sitting, at lying down, at rising up, at speaking, at walking: in a word, at every act."

Theodoret of Cyrus 457 A.D. said:

"This is how to bless someone with your hand and make the sign of the cross over them. Hold three fingers, as equals, together, to represent the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. These are not three gods, but one God in Trinity. The names are separate, but the divinity one. The Father was never incarnate; the Son incarnate, but not created; the Holy Ghost neither incarnate nor created, but issued from the Godhead: three in a single divinity. Divinity is one force and has one honor. They receive on obeisance from all creation, both angels and people. Thus the decree for these three fingers..."

While Pope Innocent III 1216 A.D. said:

The sign of the cross is made with three fingers, because the signing is done together with the invocation of the Trinity. ... This is how it is done: from above to below, and from the right to the left, because Christ descended from the heavens to the earth, and from the Jews (right) He passed to the Gentiles (left). Others, however, make the sign of the cross from the left to the right, because from misery (left) we must cross over to glory (right), just as Christ crossed over from death to life, and from Hades to Paradise. [Some priests] do it this way so that they and the people will be signing themselves in the same way. You can easily verify this — picture the priest facing the people for the blessing — when we make the sign of the cross over the people, it is from left to right..."

• Tertulian lived 1,694 years before Felix Manalo founded his "true" church. 
• St. Cyril lived 1,528 years before Felix Manalo founded his "true" church. 
• Theodoret of Cyrus lived 1,457 years before Felix Manalo founded his "true" church. 
• Pope Innocent III lived 698 years before Felix Manalo founded his "true" church.

You can read more at New Advent.

Big_Brother said... and their is not any such thing in biblical scripture about that trinity why dont you look it up cover to cover where it mentions that God christ and the holy spirit is 3 gods in one.... March 29, 2011 1:48 PM

More evident was the name of FELIX MANALO never written in the Bible.  NOT even the words "Iglesia ni Cristo" is found in the Bible.

Let me help you quell that GREAT IGNORANCE in your soul by quoting what's our OFFICIAL teachings on the TRINITY which is CENTRAL to the entire teachings of Christianity, let me quote:

Catechism of the Catholic Church §198-231 "I Believe in ONE GOD." Our official Catechism proclaims there is ONLY ONE GOD (not three gods).  Your knowledge does not reflect truthfulness and is very deceiving.

The Catholic Church says there is ONLY ONE GOD in THREE DIVINE PERSONS (not 3 gods/Gods) §231 as you always accuse Catholics. Simply your ignorance is eating up your salvation.

"The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life. It is the mystery of God in himself. It is therefore the source of all the other mysteries of faith, the light that enlightens them. It is the most fundamental and essential teaching in the "hierarchy of the truths of faith". The whole history of salvation is identical with the history of the way and the means by which the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, reveals himself to men "and reconciles and unites with himself those who turn away from sin".

Therefore your belief that Catholics believed in 3 gods was baseless, a lie with the deep intention of DECEIVING many souls. It was a product of deep anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred from the time of Protestant reformation to the present age which YOU in the Iglesia ni Cristo Manalo scavenged and treasured.

.

Big_Brother said... and mr defender who told you we were not called christians how ignorant of you did you not even know the 1st century christians were also called church of christ... but what is a christian those who fallow christ wither we be called iglesia ni cristo or (church of christ) or christians either way what difference does it make? it is one and the same cause the church belongs to christ and we being members of his church which is his body are called christians.. i think you need to go back and re-read word for ford the holy scriptures.. March 29, 2011 1:57 PM

I think this equation is more accurate: Church = Christianity = Catholic Church!

For the record ancient Christians NEVER called themselves "Christians". It was those non-believers in Antioch who called the followers of Jesus as "Christians". It was recorded in Acts 11:26:

"For a whole year they met with the church and taught a large number of people, and it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians."

First century Christians belong to the ONE CHURCH and all churches belonged to that ONE CHURCH which was Christ's.  Those followers of Christ were simply were called "The Church" and if we TRACE HISTORY that CHURCH is no other than the CATHOLIC CHURCH. No other churches can trace its history back to the times of the apostles. Let alone the Iglesia ni Cristo Manalo who is just nearing to its Centenial year founding celebration (1914-2014).

Now, what kind of believers were these FOLLOWERS of CHRIST called "CHRISTIANS" by non-believers in Antioch? They believed in the following:

• Jesus is the Son of God. (Mt. 26:63) 
• Jesus is God (John 1; Phil. 2; Hebrews 1:8; ) 
• Jesus is I AM (Jn. 6:35; 8:58-59) 
• Jesus was Worshiped (Mt. 2:11; Mt. 14:32-33) 
• Jesus coming on the clouds (Mk. 14:62) 
• Jesus and the Father are ONE (Jn. 10:30-33) 
• Jesus didn't allow himself to be deceived (Jn. 20:27-29)

Although Jesus repeatedly claimed that HE IS A MAN and the Catholic Church believe in that truth also.  Nowhere in the Bible he DENIED being GOD. If those followers of Jesus were called CHRISTIANS (believing in the Divinity of Christ) I guess those who DENIED JESUS' DIVINITY are the least to be called as such.  That's because that's not the way how ancient Antiochians knew about Christians. That made the Christians UNIQUE among all mono-theistic religions of today. Their founder claimed DIVINITY!

In Islam, the reason why they DENIED Christians is because they knew that CHRISTIANS believed in the TRINITY.  Islam was founded by Muhammad between the year 610 A.D. - 632 A.D., One Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-two (1,282) years before Felix Manalo founded his "true" church.  The only problem with Islam is that for them, Christian's Trinity was the Father, Mary and Jesus according to Islam's Holy Book called the Qur'an.

Using the above CRITERIA, you INC are not considered to be followers of Christ or to be worthy of the name "Christians." Rather your opposition to Christ's Divinity, you must be called the anti-Christ.

The following comments below were extracted from What's in the INC Logo?

Big_Brother said... do you even know what a logo is.. is to identify who we are of course you dont have a logo only because you people belong to no one but your God the pope.. March 29, 2011 9:09 PM

Of course I know what's in a logo. That's the reason why I posted THIS POST about the Iglesia ni Cristo Logo because you have NO official explanation about it.

The Catholic Church DO NOT have LOGO but we have the CROSS as the SYMBOL of our SALVATION. It is the STRENGTH of GOD (I Cor. 1:17-18)!

Big_Brother said... Desperate Roman Catholic Church Trys (sic) to Poach Anglicans The recent announcements from the Vatican regarding the new policy of accepting disaffected Anglicans into the RC Church, should be viewed for what they are.... POACHING! We would like to remind our readers that in previous cases, particularly in the USA the RC Church has set up a few congregations in what they have referred to as the "Anglican Rite". Anglicans beware, there is really only one thing that this offer boils down to...SUBMISSION TO ROME! Did not the Reformation occur precisely to get away from the corruption of the Papacy? When you think about this offer.... BEWARE...The Vatican never makes an offer which does not have rich benefits in it for them. March 29, 2011 9:21 PM

See how IGNORANT this Iglesia ni Cristo member is.  For the record, the "Anglican Rite" was not "set up".  It was already EXISTING way back before his iglesia was founded in 1914.  It is the "rite" used by Anglican Church.  And because many Anglican members wanted to CONVERT to the Catholic Church, they asked the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI created a Personal ordinariate called the Anglicanorim Coetibus directly published officially in the Vatican site.

According to THIS SITE, the Anglican Rite had "existed in the Church of England from around 200 A.D., to the time of the Great Schism, and set forth by the "ancient catholic bishops and doctors," and especially as defined by the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church."

Therefore, your information about the "setting up" new rite called the Anglican Rite was not only erroneous but misleading and deceiving.

Don't you worry about ANGLICANS crossing the Tiber River, they finally found their real Home--ROME, and they are WILLING to submit themselves HUMBLY and OBEDIENTLY to the Vicar of Christ, the SUCCESSOR of PETER. They knew they need to be obedient to the LEGITIMATE successors, not those FAKE founders who PROCLAIMED themselves as "Last Messenger" or angels or prophets.

Those who CROSS the TIBER knew that the "Catholic Church is the TRUE CHURCH of CHRIST" says the PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46:

“Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo." [The Catholic Church in the beginning was the Church of Christ.]

You too, are being invited to come home back to this ORIGINAL Church of Christ which your Pasugo was saying-- the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH of CHRIST!

Big_Brother said... The Catholic Paganistic Church, where is the name of christ if you are the true church yeah right.. so right if you guys were on earth since 33AD and we came in 1914 just because you pagans were here longer doesn't help you to be saved. we came in 1914 because thats our lord jesus christ had prophesied it.. that we shall re-emerge once again your church had its time to decieve millions as the sand of the sea. but we iglesi ni cristo is Gods last Ark of hope. to snatch from you pagans to the true faith. before it is to late...and none of our doctrines have ever been changed …you fake banana worshiping monkeys... letting women become priest and homosexuals... you all blood suckers…whisky drinkers.” March 29, 2011 9:29 PM

Is that the OFFICIAL stand of the Iglesia in Cristo? I hope you are not misrepresenting them.

Thank you for admitting that your Iglesia "came" only in 1914.  You made our point easier to understand.  If your Iglesia just "came" in 1914, therefore you are NOT the original Church of Christ.  You CANNOT FOOL history!

According to your OFFICIAL magazine, the original Church of Christ should be:

• God sent 
• Christ was the founder 
• Christ alone has the right to build a Church! 
• Christ's Only Church is the legitimate. The rest are fakes. 
• This Church should be built in Jerusalem!

1- PASUGO Mayo 1963, p. 13:

“Noong tumalikod ang bayang Israel at sumamba sa diyus-diyosan ay nagsugo ang Dios upang magtatag ng Iglesia"

2- PASUGO Setyembre 1940, p. 1:

“Dapat malaman ng lahat, ayon sa Bagong Tipan, ang tunay na INK ay si Cristo ang nagtatag nito."

3- 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"

4- 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."

5- PASUGO Mayo 1954, p. 9:

“Alin ang tunay na Iglesia? Ang Iglesiang itinayo ni Cristo sa Jerusalem."

From the Bible, Matthew 16:18-19, JESUS prophesied that HIS CHURCH WILL NEVER APOSTATIZE:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The PROPHESY of Christ is that HIS CHURCH will NEVER APOSTATISE! Therefore the Iglesia ni Cristo DOES NOT fit that category of Christ's Church. Hindi pa nga kayo umaabot sa Sandaang taon!

And where did you get those information that the Catholic Church "ordained WOMEN and HOMOSEXUAL priests"? Let me help you with this:

Anglican Church ordained women priests and bishops

Anglican Gay Bishop marries his partner

Now, I think you have now a clearer idea why Anglicans are CROSSING the TIBER to full communion with ROME.

From what we've discussed, YOU ARE NOT THE REAL CHURCH historically and biblically, and therefore all your misleading doctrines should be EXPOSED to the LIGHT of TRUTH of Christ because they are DECEIVING millions that we, believers called Christians belonging to the REAL CHURCH of CHRIST should snatch people from your cult.

Big_Brother said... Near the end of the Middle Ages, corruption in the Catholic Church was a serious dilemma. Members of the clergy were supposed to be well educated, but many priests were illiterate and barely knew how to perform common religious services. Also, priest and nuns in spite of taking vows of chastity engaged in sexual relationships. Even the popes, innocent VIII (1492 A.D.) and Alexander VI, fathered and raised children. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/969734 March 29, 2011 9:31 PM

Wow! Very SELECTIVE historical facts.  How did you know about Pope Innocent VIII (d. 1492 A.D.) and Pope Alexander VI (d. 1503 A.D.) "fatherd and raised children" while you didn't know how FELIX MANALO (d. 1963 A.D.) abused WOMEN of his church which was just recent (1942 A.D.)?

Felix Manalo vs Rosita Trillanes - May rape ba o Wala?

Felix Manalo's Immorality

Although certain popes "fathered" children during those times, it was acceptable. The discipline of CELIBACY wasn't yet even implemented but many monks and priests already were practicing a Celibate Life.  Good thing is that NO POPE has ever changed our Catholic Doctrines. And what we proclaimed as DOCTRINES remained to be until to this day EVEN Protestants and Iglesias would object.

So you thought you didn't change any of your doctrines? WRONG:

• From INK to INC, you changed your name. 
• From opposing to idols to the erection of Felix Manalo's statue at Central 
• From not believing in Christmas to the famous PASUGO Disyembre 1957, p. 28, "Ang Diwa ng Pasko ay Kapayapaan" article 
• Conflicting dates about the founding of the Catholic Church:

By Emiliano Magtuto--PASUGO Nob. 1956, p. 18: -- 44 B.C.

By Benjamin Santiago -- PASUGO Peb. 1959, p. 1: -- 400 A.D.

By Benjamin Santiago -- PASUGO Ago. 1962, p. 3: -- 1870 A.D.

By Teofilo C. Ramos -- PASUGO Mar. 1956, p. 25: -- 1870 A.D.

By Joaquin Balmores -- PASUGO Peb. 1952, p. 9: -- 400 A.D.

• Who founded the Iglesia ni the Philippines? It's Christ (PASUGO Enero 1964, p. 6) vs It is Felix Manalo in 1914 (PASUGO Agosto-Setyembre 1964, p. 5) 
• Who founded the Catholic Church? It's Christ (PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46) vs. It's Satan (PASUGO Oktubre 1956, p. 1) 
• Total Apostasy (PASUGO Enero 1964, p. 2) vs Partial Apostasy (PASUGO Mayo 1968, p. 5) vs. There was no Apostasy (PASUGO Hunyo 1940, p. 27)
• Trinity was inventions vs Trinitarian Doxology of  the Iglesia ni Cristo

Big_Brother said... The "rotteness" of the Roman Catholic Church was at the heart of Martin Luther's attack on it in 1517 when he wrote the "95 Theses" thus sparking off the German Reformation. Why was the Roman Catholic Church so powerful? Its power had been built up over the centuries and relied on ignorance and superstition on the part of the populace. It had been indoctrinated into the people that they could only get to heaven via the church. March 29, 2011 9:35 PM

Oh, I thought it was the Iglesia ni Cristo who believes that non-Iglesia ni Cristo members are DOOMED to hell!

May the soul of Martin Luther rest in peace.

Big_Brother said... Actually there are over 20 different Catholic Churches that make up the worldwide Catholic Church. In addition to the Latin Rite (Roman) Catholic Church, the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches are in full communion with the Pope, and are part of the same worldwide Catholic Church. A true church should never have devision look how many different sects of the pagan catholic church.. But for us true christians of the iglesia ni cristo there is only one body one church one God one mediator our lord jesus Christ one of the requirements to being a true church is that the church should never have divisions take the pagans of the cathoic apostatized church for example.. March 29, 2011 9:53 PM

LOL. Sorry for that unconventional expression of outburst laughter.  I am certain there is something wrong with the transmission of factual information to members of the Iglesia ni Cristo.

So do you think having many churches outside the Philippines with the same FILIPINO congregation attending its services reflects that 'UNITY' in your Church? Hardly!

True enough, the Catholic Church of Christ have around 21 Different Rites but those RITES aren't DIVISIVE. Just as we speak different language doesn't mean we are divided.

The Catholic Church having 21 Different Rites is likened to a human body, which the head is not the hands and the hands is not the feet. Each part, though they differ have different functions and importance but STILL PART of the ONE BODY. Different language, different races, different countries, different cultures but they all BELONG to the ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH of CHRIST.

The Body cannot be all heads just as the body cannot be all hands. The CHURCH - the Body of Christ consists of DIFFERENT parts but UNITED under the HEAD-- his own Vicar, the Pope. Christ KNEW exactly why he said that the CHURCH is HIS BODY for that same analogy I have just discussed. Therefore having DIFFERENT RITES doesn't mean DIVISION. UNITY in the CATHOLIC CHURCH is more evident for having different members yet united under ONE CHURCH, ONE GOD, ONE SAVIOR, ONE BAPTISM, ONE LORD for we, Catholics are certain beyond any doubt that JESUS IS THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY and FOREVER (Heb. 13:8).

If Jesus was God before, he is GOD today and he will be GOD forever!

Big_Brother said... The Roman Catholic Church claims to have started in Matthew 16:18 when Christ supposedly appointed Peter as the first Pope. However, the honest and objective student of the Scriptures and history soon discovers that the foundation of the Roman church is none other than the pagan mystery religion of ancient Babylon. While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice… Ministers became "priests," and pagans became "Christians" by simply being sprinkled with water. This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism. March 29, 2011 10:16 PM

WRONG! According to PAGES of HISTORY:

"The History of the Catholic Church is traced by the Catholic Church to apostolic times. The history of the Catholic Church is an integral part of the history of Christianity and of Western civilization"

Read the TIMELINE of CHRISTIANITY and find for yourself where can you find that the Catholic Church was a religion of ancient Babylon (not Rome of the First Century A.D.), and where did Christians departed from the true faith.  You will see that PROTESTANTS and you church departed from the truth.

Big_Brother said... The Roman Emperor Constantine established himself as the head of the church around 313 A.D., which made this new "Christianity" the official religion of the Roman Empire. The first actual Pope in Rome was probably Leo I (440-461 A.D.)... the "Dark Ages" (500-1500 A.D.). Through popes, bishops, and priests, Satan ruled Europe, and Biblical Christianity became illegal. Throughout all of this, however, there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system. March 29, 2011 10:18 PM

Oh. Take these official pronouncements from your Iglesia ni Cristo.

• By Emiliano Magtuto--PASUGO Nob. 1956, p. 18: -- 44 B.C. 
• By Benjamin Santiago -- PASUGO Peb. 1959, p. 1: -- 400 A.D. 
• By Benjamin Santiago -- PASUGO Ago. 1962, p. 3: -- 1870 A.D. 
• By Teofilo C. Ramos -- PASUGO Mar. 1956, p. 25: -- 1870 A.D. 
• By Joaquin Balmores -- PASUGO Peb. 1952, p. 9: -- 400 A.D.

Which is which Mr. INC?

"there remained individual groups of true Christians, such as the Waldensens (sic) and the Anabaptists who would not conform to the Roman system." Why DID you NOT join the Waldensians and the Anabaptist groups if they are the remaining Christians?

Why are you still in that cult? I thought, TOTAL APOSTASY demands that NO ONE was left and that all Catholics and Protestants are doomed to hell?!

You are not a faithful Iglesia member for going against your official position against Catholics and Protestants!

Big_Brother said... The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against "being lords over God's heritage" in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter's first epistle he stated that he was simply "an apostle of Jesus Christ," not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1). The Roman papacy and priesthood is just a huge fraud to keep members in bondage to a corrupt pagan church. March 29, 2011 10:19 PM

• Was St. Peter in Rome? 
• Peter Roman Residency
• List of Popes from Peter to Benedict XVI - 265 all in all

You want to use St. Peter's Epistle against himself. That's ridiculous!

Big_Brother said... The Worship of Mary Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and was sinless all of her life. She is worshiped in the Catholic church as the "Mother of God" and the "Queen of Heaven." St. Bernard stated that she was crowned "Queen of Heaven" by God the Father, and that she currently sits upon a throne in Heaven making intercession for Christians. The Bible teaches otherwise. In the Bible, Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us. She said herself that she needed a "Saviour" (Lk. 1:47)… The Bible never exalts Mary above anyone else. Neither should we. March 29, 2011 10:22 PM

The Bible exults Mary above anyone else: Luke 1:28;42-45

"Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you... Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."

There you are, Mary was called "FAVORED ONE" -- not two, or three but ONE and that she (Mary) was BLEST among ALL WOMEN. That's what the Bible says.

If the angel called her "FAVORED ONE" or "FULL of GRACE" (in some translations), Mary must have a unique role in the Salvation of mankind. She allowed herself to be the 'CARRIER' of the LIVING LAW who is Jesus and that SHE's the NEW ARK OF THE COVENANT for holding the SON of GOD in her womb.

God didn't invade her privacy. Nor God forced himself on her. God found favor in her, that AMONG all WOMEN she's found to be BLEST, worthy of that SALVIFIC PLAN of God.

As the Angel Gabriel praised her with a "queenly greetings" of "HAIL" so must we too salute her with our fervent "Ave Maria".

The Book of Revelations 12, prophesied the "Woman Clothe with the Sun"

Could that be Mary, the Mother of Jesus EXULTED? or any holy woman you thought of having given birth to a Son who rules the Universe? For us, there is NO OTHER WOMAN exulted but MARY, the MOTHER of JESUS, the SON of God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the same YESTERDAY, TODAY and FOREVER (Heb. 13:8)

Big_Brother said... Image Worship The Catholic religion is filled with all sorts of symbols, images, and relics. The Catechism of the Council of Trent states these words: "It is lawful to have images in the Church, and to give honor and worship unto them..." It's lawful to honor and worship images? Not according to God's word. Exodus 20:4-5 says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image… Image worship is unscriptural and will end with the eternal damnation of those who practice it (Rev. 14:11) March 29, 2011 10:31 PM

The official Catechism of the Catholic Church states that:

§2132 "The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

Catholics DO NOT WORSHIP images.  I hope that should be clear.

Exodus 20:4-5 God forbids to make any graven images but elsewhere in the Old Testaments, God allowed the use of graven images like in Exodus 25:20 (Read Images in the Old Testament) in temples and worship such that he commanded Moses to curve an image of Cherubims on top of the Ark of the Covenant.

• Numbers 21:9 -Brazen serpent 
• Numbers 8:4; 1 Kings 6:18; 7:36 - There were carved and moulded garlands of fruit and flowers and trees 
• 1 Kings 10:19-20 - The king's throne rested on carved lions 
• 1 Kings 7:25, 29 - Lions and bulls supported the basins in the temple 
• Ezekiel 1:5; 10:20 - Especially there are the cherubim, great carved figures of beasts (, where they are called beasts), that stood over the ark of the covenant (Exodus 25:18-22; 1 Kings 6:23-8; 8:6-7, etc.). 
• Ezekiel 41:19, Exodus 25:20 - The human heads of the cherubim 
• Judges 8:27; 17:5; 1 Samuel 19:13 - The ephod was certainly once a statue of human form 

Big_Brother said... Well my fellow man Mr. Defender, defender of sexual abuse, pedofilia, and all corruption.. and idol worshiping.. yeah you guys are the true church the true false church…satan is working in you... March 29, 2011 11:06 PM

Thank you for exposing yourself here and hopefully you represented the Iglesia ni Cristo as they deserve. God bless.