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)

REFUTING IGLESIA NI CRISTO®-1914: DID JESUS DENY HIS DEITY IN JOHN 14:28?

By Bro. Duane Cartujano

Jesus Christ took away his being God and became humble (Philippians 2:5-8).

"You must have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had. Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal's death on a cross."(Philippians 2:5-8)

Jesus came here not to give glory to Himself but to the Father.

He is not like many people who give glory only to themselves.

"Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God."(John 8:54)

Another New Testament scholar used by INC ministers to twist the truth in John 10:30 is the Book of D.A. Carson on “The Gospel According to John.”

Now, will Parba, Ventilacion and other INC Ministers still accept the statement of D.A. Carson?

"At a popular level, this clause is often cited, out of context, by modern arians who renew the controversy from the early centuries that is connected with the name of Arius. In the clause before us, the father is greater that I cannot be taken to mean that Jesus is not God, or that he is a lesser God; the historical context of Jewish monotheism forbids the latter, and the immediate literary context renders the former irrelevant" (The Gospel According to John by D.A. Carson, Page 507)

I just want to quote the comment of a highly respected Christian Scholar, Norman Geisler.

"The Father is greater than the son by office, but not by nature, since both are God. Just as an earthly father is equally human with, but holds a higher office than, his son, even so the Father and the Son in the trinity are equal in essence, but different in function. "(The Big Book of Bible Difficulties, Page 420)

When INC Ministers defended their wrong interpretation of John 1:1, they gathered what the scholar Dr. Daniel Wallace said.

Now, will Parba, Ventilacion and other INC Ministers still accept the statement of Dr. Daniel Wallace?

"In this context, it is obvious that Jesus is speaking with reference to his office, not his person. That is, the Father has great rank, but the Son is no less deity than is the Father. "(Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace, Page 111)

St. Paul Was a Catholic Priest

By Dr. James Taylor, Convert

Many protestants make the mistake of claiming St. Paul as the first protestant, instead of Martin Luther? Why? Well Paul was not one of the original 12 apostles, and seemed to go around the country planting churches. Some claim that each of these churches was autonomous, with no central authority like Peter, and that is certainly the model of many modern protestant churches. But that is not the correct assumption to make about St. Paul, who is VERY Catholic in his writing. Let's take a look at some his writings to see.

First, St. Paul did get his commission directly from Jesus Christ, on the way to Damascus. St. Paul didn't just stand up on his own one day and decide to become a preacher. Like Peter and the other 11 apostles, Paul was sent forth by Jesus Christ Himself. St. Paul even says in Romans 10:15 that no one can preach unless he is SENT. Sent by whom? Well, either by Jesus Himself, or one with the authority of Jesus Himself, which would be Peter. We know this from John 20:21, where Jesus says to Peter and the other apostles (the Church on earth), "As the Father has sent Me, so I send you." Jesus also gave Peter the Keys to His Kingdom, in a sign of authority, in Matthew 16:19, where Jesus says that whatever Peter and His Church bind on earth, or loose on earth, will be bound and loosed in heaven. In recognition of this, after Paul had spent 3 years in Arabia following his conversion, he went and submitted himself to the chair of Peter, in Galatians 1:18.

Powered by Translate

But being sent by Christ to preach to the Gentiles and being submissive to Peter were not the only Catholic things that Paul did. Paul was very keen on oral tradition, something that Catholics today say is just as important as sacred scripture. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul says to "hold fast to the traditions we taught you, either written or by WORD OF MOUTH. Most protestants today disagree with Paul, saying that all tradition in the Catholic Church is somehow evil.

Paul was also very outspoken on the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. In 1 Corinthians 10:16-21, St. Paul says that the cup of blessing is a participation in the blood of Christ (not "symbolic"), and the breaking of the bread is a participation in the body of Christ (not "symbolic"). He then goes on to compare the Eucharistic sacrifice of Christ with the Jewish sacrifice on the altar, as well as with the pagan sacrifices on the altar. Now either Paul doesn't know how to write properly and is using false comparisons with other altar sacrifices, OR the Eucharist is indeed a true sacrifice on an altar. Why else would Paul compare the Eucharist to other altar sacrifices? Most protestants don't even have an altar in their church (but they do have altar calls!). As if to emphasize his belief in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, Paul continues talking about it in the very next chapter, 1 Corinthians 11:23-30, where he says that whoever eats and drinks the Eucharist in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning THE BODY AND THE BLOOD OF JESUS (if it's just a symbol, then this would be impossible.) This is why Catholics who practice artificial contraception or who commit other mortal sins such as looking at porn HAVE TO GO TO CONFESSION FIRST before receiving the Eucharist. Otherwise, they are guilty of yet another mortal sin. Paul goes on to say that anyone who does not discern the Body of Christ in the Eucharist (therefore, NOT A SYMBOL) eats and drinks judgment on himself, and you could get sick and die. This is why non-Catholics are not invited to the Catholic Eucharist, because they do not believe it to be Jesus Himself. Just like in marriage, where the husband and wife become one flesh, in the Eucharist, Jesus becomes one flesh with us. And just like in marriage, there is a preparation before. In marriage, there is the Pre-Cana preparation; with the Eucharist, there is the RCIA preparation.

So what about the sacrament of confession? Did Paul ever say anything about this? Well, yes he did, in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21. Paul says that the ministry of reconciliation (forgiveness of our sins) was given to him by Christ. On behalf of Christ, Paul urges us all to be reconciled with God. Many protestants believe that they can confess their sins directly to God, and not go through a minister, but this philosophy is only to be found in the Old Testament, not the New Testament. For instance, we have St. John the Baptist hearing the people's sins prior to baptism in Mark 1:5, and in John 20:21-23, Jesus gives his priests the power to forgive sins. In James 5:16, he says to confess your sins to one another. And in Acts 19:18, many people came forward confessing their sins and evil practices. Confessing one's sins to a minister of reconciliation is very New Testament. Confessing your sins to God directly is the Old Testament way, and is no longer in force.

Paul also believed in personal mortification, like Catholics do during Lent. In Colossians 1:24, Paul says that he rejoices in his personal sufferings, and completes WHAT IS LACKING IN THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST, for the sake of the Church. Now this doesn't mean that Paul thinks that Jesus should have hung on the cross for 4 hours instead of 3 hours. What it means is that we, the Church Militant, in the true imitation of Christ, have to suffer with him, albeit not near as much. Why, because it helps build up the church. It is only through suffering that many people meet Christ. After all, when we are well off and well fed and healthy and living the good life, most people put their confidence in the things of this world, not Christ. By suffering, we come to know Christ as He came to know us - in bodily suffering. Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 9:27 that he mortifies his flesh, so that after preaching to us, he himself will not be disqualified. This not only reinforces the self-mortification aspect of Paul's teaching, it also refutes the heretical "once saved, always saved' teaching of protestants.

And speaking of the false "once saved, always saved" theory, Paul directly refutes it in Hebrews 10: 26-29, when he says that if you deliberately sin after being sanctified by grace, then you can expect nothing less than an ordeal of fire, because you have profaned the blood of the covenant (the Holy Eucharist) by which you were sanctified, and outraged the Holy Spirit. That certainly doesn't sound like once saved, always saved, and in fact, backs up St. Peter in 2 Peter 2:20-22.

St. Paul also believes in praying for the dead. He prayed for the dead Onesiphorus in 2 Timothy 1:16-18, asking not only blessings for his household, but for Onesiphorus to receive mercy at the final judgment.

Purgatory? St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:12 -15, that a man's work will be tested with fire on his judgment day. If the man has good works, then he will receive an immediate reward. if it is burned up, then he will eventually be saved, but only through fire. Since people who go to hell are never saved, then this can only be referring to the cleansing fire of purgatory.

St. Paul also didn't preach that the bible alone is his philosophy. Rather, in 1 Timothy 3:15, St. Paul says that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of truth, rather than sacred scripture, which many protestants hold up to be the pillar and bulwark of truth. Catholics agree completely with St. Paul here.

And St. Paul was not only celibate, he recommended celibacy. Many protestants mistakenly believe that celibacy leads to child abuse, which is crazy, because Jesus, St. John the Baptist, and St. Paul were all celibate. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8-22, that marriage is ok, but IT IS BETTER TO REMAIN UNMARRIED, because then you are trying to please the Lord, not your wife.

St. Paul didn't believe that good works were useless, filthy rags either, like some protestants preach. Rather, he believed that they were the fruit of our faith, like he says in Colossians 1:10 - "We should live a life pleasing to God, bearing fruit in every good work." Paul does condemn the useless works of the law like circumcision, in Romans 3:28. Luther mistranslated this "works of the law" into "good works," which does not agree with other scriptures like James 2:24, where God says that we are justified by works, and not by faith alone. It's sad how so many people today still believe Luther and not James. As if to emphasize his belief that salvation is not a one time decision, but a continuous journey until death, Paul says in Phillipians 2:12 to "WORK (there is that word again) out your salvation with FEAR AND TREMBLING." (This is not the cocky self assuredness that most protestants preach today!).

And finally, what about the Rapture? The rapture is a mistaken protestant belief that Jesus will come in secret, and snatch believers up to heaven, leaving everything else behind, including their clothes. Then there will be a 7 year tribulation, where the rest of us will get a second chance to be saved. This is NOWHERE to be found in scripture. St. Paul mentions the second coming of Jesus in 1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17. But Paul says that the dead will rise first, and that there will be a huge trumpet blast. So this event doesn't appear to be some secret snatching away of believers. Seeing the dead rise first with a huge trumpet blast is nowhere to be found in any of the "Left Behind" series of novels. And since the dead will rise first, we know that this will be the last day of human history. This is confirmed by St. John in John 6:40.

So don't let anyone try to hold St. Paul us as some kind of Protestant. St. Peter says in 2 Peter 3:16 that many of his writings are hard to understand, and many do so to their own destruction. This was true in the first century, in the 16th century when Luther and Calvin got it wrong, and it is still true today with all of the TV preachers preaching health and wealth as the Christian message..

THE CONFUSION CAUSED BY RAMIL PARBA USING HEBREW TEXT OF GENESIS 23:6 TO SHOW THE GREEK WORD, THEOS IN THE THIRD CLAUSE OF JOHN 1:1 IS NOT A NOUN BUT AN ADJECTIVE

Ni Kapatid na Duane

We can see in this video that Parba found it very difficult to distort the Bible verses using his questionable knowledge of biblical languages.

Since his explanation of John 1:1 is wrong, no New Testament scholar will agree with him that the Greek word "Theos" in John 1:1 is an adjective. He used the verse from the Old Testament where the Hebrew word, "נְשִׂיא אֱלֹהִים" or "mighty prince" in English was compared to the 3rd clause of John 1:1 "and the Word was God".

IF UNDERSTANDING OF HEBREW TEXT IS WRONG, WHAT MORE IF IT IS ABOUT SYNTAX?

When Ramil Parba read Genesis 23:6, we noticed he read the word, אֲדֹנִי (Adoni) as Adonay so he referred to Abraham as God. He was wrong from the start.

Is it right to use the Hebrew Word "נְשִׂיא אֱלֹהִים" or "n'si Elohim" from Genesis 23:6 to show that the Greek word Theos in the 3rd clause of John 1:1 is an adjective?

He used the Hebrew syntax since he wanted to rectify his wrong understanding about the Greek syntax?

שְׁמָעֵנוּ אֲדֹנִי, נְשִׂיא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה בְּתוֹכֵנוּ--בְּמִבְחַר קְבָרֵינוּ, קְבֹר אֶת-מֵתֶךָ; אִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, אֶת-קִבְרוֹ לֹא-יִכְלֶה מִמְּךָ מִקְּבֹר מֵתֶךָ.

(Genesis 23:6, Hebrew Bible)

First of all, Elohim is not an adjective in Genesis 23:6. As usual, think context. Genesis is an ancient narrative, in Hebrew, written in the sixth or fifth century BCE, in formal courtly language: “a prince of God.” As opposed to ancient narrative, John (half a millennium later) is making a solemn claim, in Greek, that Jesus is God and co-eternal with God. The Hebrew and the Greek cannot be compared on equal terms. The Hittites (polytheists!) are not thinking John's "God."

John specifically and dramatically is claiming that Jesus IS GOD.

John 1:1 is Greek, while Genesis 23:6 is Hebrew; so the rules of syntax are somewhat different.

Greek syntax works different than Hebrew syntax.

Ramil Parba is trying to confuse the issue by appealing to Hebrew syntax as a way to refute a point of Greek syntax.

That would be like suggesting a point in Spanish syntax could illumine an issue in French syntax—mixing apples and oranges.

The question about the syntax in John 1:1 is Greek, so the only kind of syntactical parallels that will count must be in Greek.

REFUTING RAMIL PARBA ON JOHN 1:1 by Bro. Duane

By Bro. Duane

Let us analyze in detail. This will only show that his assessment is very inappropriate.

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: Kaya nang suriin ito ng mga nagsipagsuri ito ang sinasabi nila about the function of the term theos or God in the third clause of John 1:1, ito ang ating mababasa sa, The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance & Environment sa page 99:

"The closing words of v.1 should be translated, 'the Logos was divine.' Here the word theos has no article, thus giving it the significance of an adjective."

My Response: We saw Ramil Parba quote the book, “The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance & Environment” which is on page 99.

Is that really written on page 99 of said book?

This is page 99 of the book mentioned by Ramil Parba.

"about the purifiying is connected with baptism, and we do know exactly what form it would take. It is introduced only to to give the Baptist the opportunity of declaring again his subordination to Jesus. The disciples of John endeavour to rouse in their master jealousy of Jesus. Probably the dispute was as to whethere Jesus baptism or John's was the more effective. vv. 31-36 are a comment and reflection of the Evangelist. All the ideas are most with elsewhere, in the other parts of the Gospel. They are suggested by the Baptist's wods in Ἐν, 27-30. "(The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance & Environment”, page 99.)

It is clear that it is not written in page 99!

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

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: The term "GOD" or "Theos" in John 1:1 doesn't function as NOUN but it does function as Adjective. That is a predicative adjective and it is not a predicative nominative. the Word Was GOD. "The" is an Article. "WORD" is the subject of the clause "was" is a linking verb. "GOD" this is predicative adjective. So the "GOD" is predicative adjective because of the absence of the article."

Is it correct? No! It was very, very WRONG!

Let us answer what he said one-by-one.

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: The term "GOD" or "Theos" in John 1:1 doesn't function as NOUN but it does function as Adjective."

My Response: This is incorrect. Theos is a noun. While adjectives (like “good,” “bad,” etc) can function in a number of ways, nouns always function as nouns (substantives). Liddell and Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, present no evidence of the use of θεὸς as an adjective, as follows: ὁ θεὸς, “God, in a general sense, θεὸς δώσει “God will give,” and in a particular sense, θεὸς τις “a god.” The noun, θεὸς, thus does not require a definite article to function as a noun, as follows: πρὸς θεῶν “by the gods.”

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: That is a predicative adjective and it is not a predicative nominative. the Word Was God.

My Response: This is a misunderstanding of what a “predicate adjective” is. A predicate adjective is an adjective acting substantially (like a noun) in the predicate position. This happens when nouns or adjectives are working with equative verbs (like “was” here).

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

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: Kaya nga naninindigan tayo at sinasang-ayunan yan ng ibang mga bible scholars, in fact even in the Greek Grammar talagang yung sabihin na logos dyan without the article sabi nila it functions as adjective at hindi po a noun or hindi po nominative in form.

Ramil Parba used the book of Professor Daniel B. Wallace, the Greek Grammar beyond the basics and quoted Page 269 which states.

“Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows:"What God was, the Word was (NEB), or "the Word was divine" (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, "divine" is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even meal. Thus "divine could be misleading in an English Translation. (Page 269, Greek Grammar beyond the basics, Daniel B. Wallace)”

My Response: What is the comment of a renowned New Testament scholar about this?

"I was shocked to learn that InC ministers had used my Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics in support of their heterodox beliefs."(Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics)

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

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: Pero maliwanag dito sa sinasabi nila na the word was divine, ang sabi nila e yun ang mas angkop na pagkakasalin tulad ng binanggit nya na salin ni James Moffatt.

"The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine."(John 1:1, James Moffatt Version)

My Response: What does the New Testament Scholar, Dr. Daniel Wallace said in his comment?

"Consequently, I have no problem translating it as ‘divine’ as long as we understand that only true deity is divine. "(Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics)

Now, here is my question: Is James Moffatt against Christ being God?

This is the information about James Moffatt.

James Moffatt was an orthodox Trinitarian who supported the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon Confession:

"The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means "The word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." Moffatt, Jesus Christ the Same, (Abingdon-Cokesbury), 1945, p.61.

Moffatt apparently did believe that "divine" signified that Jesus was "one and the same God" with ho theos.

Jose Ventilacion: Iglesia Ni Cristo Apologist Expert on Textual Criticism?

WHO IS DR. EUGENE ULRICH?
By Bro. Duane

Dr. Eugene Ulrich teaches and writes in the areas of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint. A member of the translation teams for both the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the New American Bible: Revised Edition, he also co-authored The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. He is one of the three General Editors of the Scrolls International Publication Project and Chief Editor of the Biblical Scrolls.

He was twice elected as President of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and was invited as a Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Recently, he was elected as President of the Catholic Biblical Association and as a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Here is my question to Iglesia ni Cristo:

Why is it that up to now, the iglesia ni Cristo of felix manalo does not have its own bible translated by an Iglesia ni Cristo minister specially Mr. Joe Ventilacion who claim to be someone who studied textual criticism?

Dr. Taylor Marshall: In defense of “I am not worthy” in the Roman Mass

by Dr Taylor Marshall

The Huffington Post recently published an article titled “Dear Pope Francis, End the Religious Ritual that Devalues Human Life” by Christine Horner.

Ms. Horner writes:

Every single day before communion, millions of Christians verbally declare one of the most destructive phrases in human history.

Stop the press.The tribunal of the Huffington Post’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has made a judgment. According to them, Catholics are daily reciting: “one of the most destructive phrases in human history.” How awful. Catholics are ruining their self-esteem daily by saying these words in public:

“Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

This statement, a recitation of Matthew 8:8, is one of the most destructive phrases in human history…and it has a long history. Every Roman Catholic Pope, bishop, priest, and pious laymen has been reciting this (biblical) phrase daily for over 1,300 years. Yet according to Ms. Horner this acclamation of “unworthiness” is one of the most destructive things a Christian can say.

She is incorrect, but I can see where she is coming form. Our American culture is a cult of self-esteem. In the United States, we are taught that depression, theft, rape, murder, racism, war, unemployment, etc. are essentially caused by a lack of self-esteem.

Dignus, Dignity, and the Imago Deo

Since our culture has lost its roots in the virtue tradition of Christendom, we no longer understand human dignity in terms of being conformed to the imago Dei (image of God). Our worth is no longer related to a divine being that loved to create us and loves to redeem us.

True human dignity relies on theism. When we say in Mass “Lord, I am not worthy, the Latin is “Domine, non sum dignus.” You don’t need to know Latin to see that dignus (Latin: “worthy”) is related to our English term “dignity.”

This is where Ms. Horner at the Huffington Post misses the mark. She claims that our saying, “Lord I am not worthy” is a form “negative reinforcement.” For her it confirms the alleged Catholic strategy of drowning people in guilt and unworthiness – which to her translates as fostering low self-esteem.

Self-Esteem or God-Esteem

The Huffington Post lacks the theological foundation to understand that promoting self-esteem without God-esteem is the path to destruction and sorrow. The “You go girl!” culture of self-affirmation and self-esteem trumpeted by secularist outlets like the Huff-Po for the last 30 years attempts to produce “esteem” from a collective. If enough people say, “You are so beautiful” then this will translate to a girl truly believing she is beautiful. If enough people just say, “You are so intelligent,” it will translate into intelligent people.

The problem for them is that this approach to esteem relies on a consistent collective that reinforces the message. This is why “bullies” are such a problem in the modern self-esteem cult. They are destroying the collective affirmation process. And then there is also the inconsistent messaging. Every one is told they are equally special and worthy, but the media outlets quietly suggest that some are more special and worthy. Taylor Swift, Robert Downey Jr, Jennifer Lawrence, Johnny Depp, Ryan Gosling, and Emma Stone seem be more worthy than the rest of us.

So where do we find find esteem or worthiness?

Worthiness, Suffering, and Martyrdom

When we look at Christianity at the turn of the 4th century, we find Christians standing up to the supreme arbitrator and law giver (the Roman Emperor) and the entire political/social collective (the Roman Empire) for the sake of a dignus that was not granted by collective, the media, the culture, or the secular state.

They discovered a divine dignus.

Saint Agnes of Rome cannot be persuaded to abandon Christ, her virginity, her modesty, or her virtue. Why is she so strong? Because the collective is coming together to affirm her?

No, she is so strong because she finds herself unworthy of anything outside of her life in Christo. Her esteem is thousands of times higher than the richest matrons of Rome – even higher than that of the senator or emperor himself. If Christ rose from the dead, and Christ is truly “under her roof,” well then she has it all.

The Huffington Post and the women’s mags at the supermarket checkout line are trying to lift “self-esteem” to empower people to love themselves and value themselves.

They are telling us, “Don’t say ‘I’m unworthy,’ but rather say ‘I am worthy of everything.’ Deep down inside say to yourself, ‘I have a perfect body. I’m rich. I’m popular. I’m basically Leonardo DiCaprio/Taylor Swift,’ and then you will be so!'”

But let’s be honest. That doesn’t work. And even if you are the sexiest or richest person of the year, does that translate to worthiness and happiness? Apparently not.

Liturgical Worthiness

Our liturgical affirmation Domine non sum dignus is not isolated. It is placed in a context. Let’s look at its location within the Roman Rite:

• Eucharistic Prayer

• Our Father

• “The peace of the Lord be with you always.”

• Agnus Dei

• “Lord I’m not worthy…”

• Reception of Communion

The acclamation, “Behold the Lamb of God” (John 1:29) by Saint John the Baptist is theologically proximate to “I am not worthy,” since John the Baptist also says, “even he who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie” (John 1:27).

The Christian who says, “I am not worthy” has just recited the Our Father, declaring that God is our Father. Not something we are inherently worthy of, but something He grants as a gratuitous gift. Next, the believer hears “The peace of the Lord be with you.” The liturgical context is essential familial, peaceful, and redemptive.

We do say, “I am not worthy,” but the “but” is important. We say, “but only say the word and my soul shall be cleaned.” This statement is an affirmation of hope!

And what is the next phrase that the priest proclaims to the Christian? He proclaims, “The Body of Christ,” and the believer receives the Eucharist. That is the word that makes clean. That is the word that makes worthy.

Conclusion on “Being Worthy”

Ms. Horner does a disservice by isolating one line of liturgical text from the whole of the Eucharistic liturgy. Most non-Catholics have no idea about its placement proximate to the Our Father, the peace, or the climax of Catholic liturgy in the reception of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Most non-Catholic readers do not understand that Christ enters “under the roof” of our mouths and that we become one in Him and He in us. Yet this is where we find our worthiness. When we esteem God, we find our dignity fully. God designed it that way.

Sadly, the cultural self-esteem cult of finding an ever larger and louder voice of affirmation will not transform a man or woman into something beautiful or truly worthy. Only God can do that for us. Without this Eucharistic miracle “under our roofs,” we will continue to be plagued by cultural decline, despair, and violence. With your kindness and love, share the Gospel with others. Invite them to Mass with you this Sunday. Let others see the hope that we have in the Eucharist.

Godspeed,

Taylor Marshall

How to Respond to the "New Atheism" By Trent Horn, A Catholic Convert, Apologist and Speaker

Photo source: Huffingtonpost

Ridicule of religion is the ethos of many modern unbelievers

By: Trent Horn

Source: Catholic Answers

In C. S. Lewis’s novel That Hideous Strength there is a scene where the non-religious protagonist, Mark, is instructed as “part of an exercise” to trample an image of a large crucifix. Because Mark is not a Christian, he is puzzled as to why he should bother with this exercise and not just leave this silly superstition alone. The professor who is leading the exercise tells Mark, “Of course it is a superstition: but it is that particular superstition which has pressed upon our society for many centuries. . . . An explicit action in the reverse direction is therefore a necessary step towards complete objectivity” (ch. 15). In other words, if religion is to be purged from society it cannot simply be ignored; it has to be ridiculed.

Lewis’s novel, published in 1945, was set in the future. Nearly seventy years later, that future is our present, and the author’s descriptions of religious ridicule pale in comparison to the current mockeries of Christianity found on the Internet. Yet while the vileness of the ridicule has increased, the attitude embodied by the professor remains the same. The best way to see how Lewis’s fiction has become prophecy is to contrast the “Old Atheism” with what some have called the “New Atheism.”

The “Old Atheism”

Throughout most of the twentieth century, public profession of atheism was synonymous with communism or the endorsement of totalitarianism. In a 1961 episode of The Twilight Zone titled “The Obsolete Man,” a librarian in a police state is executed for the crime of believing in God. Ultimately the librarian (portrayed wonderfully by the late Burgess Meredith) turns the tables on his executioner, but the image of a believer being crushed under the jackboot of totalitarian atheism was, at the time, not mere fiction. In his 1967 memoir, Tortured for Christ, Richard Wurmbrand describes how Soviet guards would tell prisoners, “I thank God in whom I don’t believe. Now I may indulge the evil in my heart” (p. 34).

These horror stories may have something to do with atheism’s low approval ratings. Gallup compared two polls conducted in 1958 and 2012 about people’s unwillingness to elect certain minorities to the U.S. presidency. In 1958, 38 percent were willing to elect an African-American and 18 percent were willing to elect an atheist. In 2012, while 96 percent were willing to elect an African-American, only 54 percent were willing to elect an atheist (Jeffrey Jones, “Atheists, Muslims See Most Bias as Presidential Candidates,” Gallup Polling, June 21, 2012).

Faced with such dismal levels of public approval, atheists felt the need to show believers that they were good people and not amoral communists. Beginning in the 1970s, the philosopher Paul Kurtz promoted what he called “secular humanism,” which focused on promoting human well-being without religion rather than converting people to atheism. Secular humanists even praised religion for its beneficial effects on society.

The Second Humanist Manifesto affirmed, “In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals.” The Manifesto went on to point out that while religion can hinder society, so can many nonreligious ideologies that are not based on humanism (Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, “Humanist Manifesto II,” 1973). But this attitude of congenial disagreement changed for many people on September 11, 2001.

The “New Atheism”

I remember getting ready for school on that fateful day when my dad ran into my bedroom and turned on the television. Because I went to high school in Arizona, the attacks were in progress by the time I woke up. I stared in disbelief as the news replayed over and over again the surreal sight of the World Trade Center collapsing into a pile of dust. How could 19 human beings (the 9/11 hijackers) do something so terrible? The answer from the New Atheists was simple: Religion alone has the power to cause people to do such terrible things.

In 2004 American atheist Sam Harris, after reflecting on the September 11 terrorist attacks, published The End of Faith. In the book, Harris argued that religion is a form of mental illness and not part of a rational worldview. He writes, “[I]t is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions.” (p. 70). In 2006 British biologist Richard Dawkins went so far as to claim that religious education for children is child abuse: “Even without physical abduction, isn’t it always a form of child abuse to label a child a possessor of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about?” (The God Delusion, p. 354). These books were followed by others, such as Christopher Hitchens’ God Is Not Great and philosopher Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as Natural Phenomenon. Before Hitchens died in 2011, these authors were known as the “four horsemen” of the “New Atheism.”

What made these atheists “new” weren’t their arguments against religion but their attitude that religion should be reviled. At the 2012 “Reason Rally,” about 10,000 atheists gathered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., where Dawkins instructed them regarding Christians: “Mock them, ridicule them in public. . . . Don't fall for the convention that we’re all too polite to talk about religion” (Lillian Kwon, “Atheists Rally for Reason; Urged to Mock the Religious,” The Christian Post, March 24, 2012).

Ridiculing religion

To be fair, there are atheists who do not see religion as a bad thing and don’t support ridicule as a way to combat it. Atheistic philosopher Walter Sinnott-Armstrong writes, “Like law, science, art, and guns, religion is a powerful tool that can be used for great good as well as for great evil. I have no desire to obstruct the benefits of religion” (William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist, 82).But other atheists think this “accommodation” is dangerous. Harris writes, “I hope to show that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss” (The End of Faith, 15).

Catholic Answers: Born Again - The Bible Way

Article Source: Catholic Answers by Tim Staples

October 4, 2013

“Have you been born again, my friend?” Thousands of Catholics have been asked this question by well-meaning Fundamentalists or Evangelicals. Of course, by “born again” the Protestant usually means: “Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior through the recitation of ‘the sinner’s prayer?”” How is a Catholic to respond?

The simple Catholic response is: “Yes, I have been born again—when I was baptized.” In fact, Jesus’ famous “born again” discourse of John 3:3-5, which is where we find the words “born again” in Scripture, teaches us about the essential nature of baptism:

Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicode'mus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

At this point, a Fundamentalist or Evangelical will respond almost predictably: “Baptism does not save you, brother; John 3:5 says we must be born of water and the Spirit.” The Catholic will then be told the “water” of John 3:5 has nothing to do with baptism. Depending on the preference of the one to whom the Catholic is speaking, the “water” will either be interpreted as man’s natural birth (the “water” being amniotic fluid), and “the Spirit” would then represent the new birth, or the water would represent the word of God through which one is born again when he accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior.

Amniotic Fluid vs. Baptismal Water

To claim the “water” of John 3:5 is amniotic fluid is to stretch the context just a smidgen! When we consider the actual words and surrounding context of John 3, the waters of baptism seem to be the more reasonable—and biblical—interpretation. Consider these surrounding texts:

John 1:31-34: Jesus was baptized. If you compare the parallel passage in St. Matthew’s gospel (3:16), you find that when Jesus was baptized, “the heavens were opened” and the Spirit descended upon him. Obviously, this was not because Jesus needed to be baptized. In fact, St. John the Baptist noted that he needed to be baptized by Jesus (see Matthew 3:14)! Jesus was baptized in order “fulfill all righteousness” and “to give knowledge of salvation to his people in the forgiveness of their sins,” according to Scripture (cf. Matt. 3:15; Luke 1:77). In other words, Jesus demonstrably showed us the way the heavens would be opened to us so that the Holy Spirit would descend upon us… through baptism.

John 2:1-11: Jesus performed his first miracle. He transformed water into wine. Notice, Jesus used water from “six stone jars … for the Jewish rites of purification.” According to the Septuagint as well as the New Testament these purification waters were called baptismoi (see LXX, Numbers 19:9-19; cf. Mark 7:4). We know that Old Testament rites, sacrifices, etc. were only “a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). They could never take away sins. This may well be why “six” stone jars are specified by St. John—to denote imperfection, or “a human number” (cf. Rev. 13:18). It is interesting to note that Jesus transformed these Old Testament baptismal waters into wine—a symbol of New Covenant perfection (see Joel 3:18; Matthew 9:17).

John 3:22: Immediately after Jesus’ “born again” discourse to Nicodemus, what does He do? "... Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized." It appears he baptized folks. This is the only time in Scripture we find Jesus apparently actually baptizing.

John 4:1-2: Jesus’ disciples then begin to baptize at Jesus’ command. It appears from the text, Jesus most likely only baptized his disciples and then they baptized everyone else.

In summary, Jesus was baptized, transformed the “baptismal” waters, and then gave his famous “born again” discourse. He then baptized before commissioning the apostles to go out and baptize. To deny Jesus was teaching us about baptism in John 3:3-5 is to ignore the clear biblical context.

SVMMA APOLOGIA: Did the Pope claim to be 'God'?

Excellent apologetics by SVMMA APOLOGIA against anti-Catholic rhetorics by 'Born Again' groups from some Evangelicals who, until now are very harsh against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ and its doctrines, and the Pope the Successor of St. Peter! -CD2000

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

DID THE POPE CLAIM TO BE GOD?

In a more aggressive effort by the anti-Catholics to destroy the Holy Catholic Church, they accused the Pope Himself, the Successor to St. Peter, claiming to be God. Below are the quotations they used which are taken from an alledged Catholic sources:

1. “The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.” Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, “Cities Petrus Bertanous”.

2. Pope Nicholas I declared: ” the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who ,being God, cannot be judged by man.”(Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para)

3. The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, He is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.” Catholic National July 1895

4. “We hold upon this earth the place of Almighty God” Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20,1894

5. ”All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” On the authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17

6. These words are written in the Roman Canon Law 1685: "To believethat our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is tobe deemed heretical."Father A. Pereira says: "It is quite certain that Popes have neverapproved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in thegloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in1580 by Gregory XIII."

HOWEVER, are those claims really true? Well, to be presented below are the responses taken from authentic sources. It's time for the truth to be revealed:

⚫ACCUSATION 1:

"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth."

-Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, "Cities Petrus Bertanous," attributed to Pope Pius V.

RESPONSE:

As for the identity of this mysterious 'Petrus Bertanous', this author personally tends to believe that this refers to a certain 16th-century Dominican named Petrus Bertanus Fanensis (aka Pietro Bertano; November 4, 1501, Nonantola-March 8, 1558, Rome), who once served as bishop (later cardinal) of Fano in Italy -- the present-day diocese of Fano-Fossombrone-Cagli-Pergola — and who, among with other Dominicans, was apparently one of the leading prelates at the council of Trent and was an orator and advocate at that same council.

However, Michele Ghislieri, O.P. only ascended to the Chair of Peter in January 7, 1566, about eight years after Pietro Bertano died. How could someone who is not then a pope make a statement about the papacy, much less someone who was dead at the time Ghislieri became pope?

Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC™) Magazine PASUGO Boasted Ventilacion over Mr. Jesse Romero in a Debate

[Watch: Jesse Romero vs Jose Ventilacion. Visit the official website of Mr. Jesse Romero; as of March 2015, no official website for Jose Ventilacion]

‘Church Of Christ’ Reaffirmed in Debate as the True Church
By Gene N. Abella

An audience estimated to 2,000 filled to standing-room-only capacity the Fox Theatre in the City of Visalia in Northern California during a public debate held on January 20, 2012 between a group representing the Roman Catholic Church and the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ).

The topic of the debate was “Which is the True Church?” Taking up the cudgels for the Catholic Church was Mr. Jesse Romero, a lay Catholic evangelist and retired Los Angeles deputy sheriff who was brought in by the Lumen Christi, a Catholic men’s Bible Study group in Visalia, with two associates helping him. Representing the Iglesia Ni Cristo ws Brother Jose J. Ventilacion, a minister of the gospel and an instructor at the College of Evanglical Ministry in the Philippines, with fellow-ministers Rolando Dizon and Rommel San Pedro assisting him.

Mr. Jesse Romero, anchored his stand that “the Catholic Church is the true church” in the Catholic doctrine that Apostle Peter is the foundation stone of the church and was the first pope of the Catholic Church, thereby establishing the papacy which continues up to this day. He asserted that Apostle Peter was appointed as, what he called, “Prime Minister” when our Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 16:19, thus: And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”.

Mr. Romero asserted that Apostle Peter alone was given the figurative key, which he said was a badge of authority given to him by Christ. With this authority, the concluded, Apostle Peter had primacy over the other apostles, as purportedly evidenced by our Lord Jesus Christ always calling on him first, and on one occasion saying to him “Feed my sheep” three times. All these, he assumed, support his statement that Apostle Peter was the Prime Minister of Christ’s kingdom on earth which, he said, is permanent and extends to this day, with the popes as Peter’s successors.

When cross-examined about who presided over the Council of Jerusalem in 50 A.D., Romero said it was Apostle James. However, when shown a Catholic reference which claims that it as Apostle Peter who presided over that council, he later claimed, in order to avoid embarrassment, that “all the apostles” presided. Brother Jose Ventilacion refuted that position by citing Acts 15:19 in which Apostle James said, “it is my judgment” which proves that only one made the final judgment. Thus, Apostle James is the leader of the Church, not Apostle Peter. In other instances, Apostle Peter, himself, recognized James s the leader when he said “Go, tell these things to James and to the brethren” (Acts 12:16-17, New King James Version) when the people in the house of Mary were surprised to see him out of prison where he was kept by King Herod, but was released by an angel sent by the Lord. Apostle Paul, also recognized the leadership of James as can be read in Galatians 2:9.

Brother Ventilacion countered Mr. Romero’s stand by reading verses directly from the Holy Scriptures such as Acts 20:28 (Lamsa Translation), which show that it is by the name “Church Of Christ”—not Roman Catholic Church—that the apostles called the Church built or established by Christ (Matt. 16:18).

Brother Ventilacion emphasized that to regard Apostle Peter as the foundation stone of the true Church is contrary to biblical truth and a usurpation of the authority and supremacy of the Lord Jesus Christ. This he proved by reading Ephesians 2:20 which shows that Jesus Himself is the chief cornerstone and I Corinthian 3:11 which says, “For God has already placed Jesus Christ as the one and only foundation, and no other foundation can be laid” (Today’s English Version).

To cap his presentation, Brother Ventilacion went on to explain that the reestablishment of the Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church Of Christ) in the Philippines in 1914 is the fulfillment of prophecies in the Bible. It is the third group referred to in the prophesy in Acts 2:39, New King James Version, thus: “For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” “You” in the verse refers to the Jews (first group), and “your children” to the Gentiles (second group) who joined the Church during the time of the apostles (Rom. 9:24). “Afar off” refers to the Far East (Isa. 43:5, Moffat Translation), in the islands of the sea (Isa. 24:15, NIV), particularly the Philippines (Asia and the Philippines, p. 169).

With the promise of Almighty God when he said “Fear not for I am with you; I will bring your descendants from the east, And gather you from the west” (Isa. 43:5, NKJV), the Iglesia Ni Cristo has grown and spread dramatically and is now firmly established in more than 90 countries and territories around the world, teaching the pure gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, recognizing “only one God, the Father, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” who is the foundation stone of the Church.

Brother Ventilacion ended his discourse with an open invitation to the nonmembers present to join the Iglesia Ni Cristo, the true Church established and owned by our Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12, Ibid.)

Source: PASUGO: God's Message, pp. 19-20

Former Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) - Alfie Angeles - Bumalik sa pagiging Katoliko

Isang malaking PASABOG ng isang DATING IGLESIA NI CRISTO na ngayo'y BUMALIK sa INANG IGLESIA! Salamat po kay Bro. Atty. Marwil Llasos, OP at mga kasamahan sa TV Maria at KNOW THE TRUTH sa kanilang talino at dedikasyon sa pagpapalaganap ng pananampalatayang Katoliko.

Basic Apologetics for Everyone

By Aloysius Kayiwa-Staff Apologist 

(Source: The Splendor of the Church Blog)

What is Apologetics? Apologetics is a branch of Theology. It comes from an ancient Greek word (apologia) which literally means an apology. An apology (an ancient sense of the word) meaning to make a reasoned defense or justification of something. In the New Testament the word apologia is found at many places such as Act 22:1, 1 Peter 3:15 etc.

“In your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence. ” (1 Peter 3:15, RSV)

Apologetics is all about knowing why we do what we do and believe what we believe. It is building the case for our Faith, learning how to explain and defend our Faith with confidence and ease. Apologetics is an important part of the Church’s work. In Jude 3 we are told to "Contend for the faith, which was once for all delivered to the saints."

To my Catholic brothers and sisters,we should always remember these facts:

1. The Bible is a Catholic book!

2. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church gave it to the world!

3. There is nothing in the Bible that contradicts anything in the Catholic Faith.

4. There is nothing in the Catholic Faith that contradicts anything in the Bible.

These are important facts to keep in mind because a lot of time people will quote loads of passages from the Bible to “claim” that the Catholic Church is wrong. As a Catholic Christian, you should point to them that you believe everything the Bible says, however, you disagree with their private interpretation of those passages.

The reasons you do not agree with their personal interpretations are:

I. The Bible verse has been taken out of context.

II. They are reading into the Biblical text what isn’t there in order to force the interpretation of the text to conform to certain preconceived ideas or theories.

If you are ever asked a question about the Catholic Faith that you cannot answer, don’t worry. There is an answer, you just need to go and find it. Use that situation as an opportunity to learn about your faith. Ask a Catholic Priest, a Catechist, an Apologist or get some good Catholic books and CDs that explain the Faith. As Catholic Christians, we need to read the Bible, study it, and pray it daily. It is our book. We need to use it to bring our precious separated brothers and sisters back to the Church. Also learn to detect heretical doctrines(1 Timothy 4:16, 2 Timothy 4:3) promoted by cults like Jehovah’sWitnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Ang Dating Daan, Iglesia Ni Cristo, Mormons etc who exploit people with fabricated fantasies disguised as “gospel”. The condemnation of these wolves like Eli Soriano has been long hovering above them and their destruction has not been sleeping( 1 Peter 2:1-3)

Some basic Apologetics rules and advice:

1. Pray to the Holy Spirit to give you wisdom to choose your words and courage to share your faith.

2. Learn a little bit more about your Faith each and every day by reading the Scripture,Church History and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

3. Aim at winning souls (for Christ) not arguments.

4. Always remember that the conversion of hearts is the job of the Holy Spirit not you. Just plant the seeds and let the Holy Spirit take care of the rest.

If you keep these things in mind, then you are on the right path of becoming a very effective Apologist and Evangelist for the Catholic Faith. Thank you.

An Open Letter to All Catholics: Beware of the Iglesia Ni Cristo® or INC™

Dear all Catholics,

Do you have a relative, classmate or a friend who is a member of the cult called “Iglesia ni Cristo”? There are a lot of things you need to know about this cult because someday, if you join this cult it will turn you to someone you are not. It will make you an unreasonable false accuser. Members of Iglesia ni Cristo are required to invite non-members to visit the nearest INC chapel. They usually don’t discuss doctrines with you but rather, they will let you go to their nearest local for you to hear their teachings. They want you to go to their chapel not only because of their teachings but also for you to see the beauty of their chapels, discipline and brotherhood but do not be deceive, the devil do not appear to you in red tall horn with fire but they will appear to you as everything you want. There are some things that you should know before you accept any invitation for their Bible Lesson and that is to study you Catholic Faith. One of the weaknesses of those Catholics or even devout Catholics who left the Catholic Church and joined INC is the lack of explanation behind the mysteries of the Catholic Faith. As a result, they will believe whatever the INC ministers about Catholicism and they are speechless and unable reason out because of their lack of knowledge about Catholic Faith. Some will unreasonably attack INC with lack of knowledge about the Catholic Faith, as a result a persecutor of INC becomes an INC member. You do not want to happen to yourself.

This is what will happen if you will accept an invitation from Iglesia ni Cristo.

“The Name Game”

You will sit and listen to the INC ministers reading the Bible from one verse to another and talks about salvation and the life of man and it’s ending is for you to know that the name of the Church that can save you written in the Bible is “church of Christ”(Acts 20:28 Lamsa only) and it is also the name of their church “Iglesia ni Cristo”, therefore you must join INC in order to be saved. Do not be deceived, what is written in the Bible is the church is necessary for salvation and whoever will enter it and obey the commandments of God will be saved. If you follow the line of thinking of INC ministers, you would drink the contents of a bottle labeled as “drinking water” without thinking if it’s water or not. There is only one church built by Christ and Christ promised that it will last forever. He said “I am always with you until the end of time” c.f (Matt 28:20). Only the Catholic Church is the church that exists from the 1st century until today. Therefore, the church which Christ built is the Catholic Church. It is also Traditional, St. Ignatius a student of St. John the Apostle named the church “Catholic Church”. The church built by Christ was mentioned by many names, the name “church of Christ” is only a descriptive name of the church built by Christ. If you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you’ll see that it was also used to refer the Catholic Church

Catechism of the Catholic Church 811 "This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic…"

Iglesia ni Kristo in the Philippines is only built in 1914 by Felix Manalo. It is so unreasonable to join a church because you can find its name in the Bible especially it can be read in Lamsa Version. Do not join INC just because you think that you do not belong to the “Church of Christ”, you are already in the Church of Christ, the original one the Catholic Church which was protected by God for almost 2000 years.

“The Apostasy”

The name game is not enough to convince you so probably you will raise the questions,

“What happen to the church which Christ built”?

“Why the Catholic Church is not the true church’?

The INC ministers will quote some Bible verses that speak about apostasy where members of the church will abandon the true faith and some were killed to prove that the church which Christ built was gone after the end of the 1st century. However, it only speaks about the individual members of the church not the church itself, that’s what apostasy means. Whenever a person abandons his faith, he is an apostate and committed apostasy. They are trying to prove that apostasy is fulfilled by the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church invented many doctrines by the council. One thing that they failed to understand about the church build by Christ is it was likened as a mustard seed (Matt 13:31-32). The kingdom of God which is the church will grow and will undergo development. Its development can be seen in the book of Acts where they gather together and had a council to settle a doctrine ( see Acts 15), that’s why the development of the Church doctrine is also through a council. And it cannot teach wrong doctrines

Apostasy is the opposite of the promises of Christ:

Christ promised the he will be with his church until the end of time - Matthew 28:20

Christ promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it – Matt 16:18

Christ promise that he will send his Counselor to be with his church forever - John 14:16-18

Christ promised that the church will be guided into all truth - John 16:13

And according to Paul, the glory of the church will last to all generations forever and ever. - Ephesians 3:20-21

Apostasy is the weakness of all their teachings. If you can refute it, the rest of their teachings cannot stand especially about the doctrine about of Last Messenger.

“The Error of Bible Alone”

Iglesia ni Kristo believes that the Bible alone is the sole basis of faith. If it’s not written in the Bible, they will reject it. By nature we Catholics believe that the Bible is the word of God. There are some Catholics falsely believe that the teachings of God are all written in the Bible alone and this becomes an advantage for the INC ministers. Ministers will show Catholic teachings that are not found in the Bible such the term “Trinity” “Purgatory” and even the word “Catholic”. This is one thing that every Catholics should understand the Catholic Church do not use the Bible alone as the basis of faith, but also in Traditions (2 Thess. 2:15) and “Magisterium” which is also known as “teaching authorities” (Mat 16:18;Matt 18:18). The doctrinal terms may not found in the Bible but its definition is found there, therefore it is Biblical, Catholic means “universal, all nations” it is the idea of Christ about the Church. “make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:19) ” The belief of Bible alone is not biblical and ironically, the term “Bible Alone” is nowhere found in the Bible. If they are consistent with their belief that they reject everything that is not written in the Bible, they should reject the doctrine about “Last Messenger”, such term is not found in the Bible.

“A personal interpretation”

INC ministers will appear in Americana suit while holding the Bible. This is a powerful way for you to believe that what they preach to you is the WORD OF GOD. But keep in mind that the Word of God was already preached by the Catholic Church long before the Bible was finished. When the author of the book of Revelations was still writing in 100AD, the Catholic Church is already on its 5th pope, St Evaristus. The Bible was collected, recognized, canonized and preached by the Catholic Church long before Felix Manalo was born. So whenever you hear an INC preach, what he preached is nothing but a personal and absurd interpretation of Felix Manalo of the Bible yet it is very convincing if you don’t read the Bible or you did not study about the Catholic Faith and its history. Like, protestant preachers, they believed that they only preach what is written in the Bible and they don’t use their own words but that is not true. Every preacher must have always an interpretation whether it’s from him or from the others.

‘’The Image Worship”

INC ministers accuse the Catholics for worshiping idols, and they want you to accuse the Catholics too and they do it through using Catholic Book. Two things are needed to know here:

a. Religious images of the Catholic Church are not idols. Idols means false gods and the INC ministers are aware that Catholic Church teaches only one God, the Holy Trinity and calling the images of the Catholic Church as idols is already an intellectual dishonesty, which means INC ministers are aware that they are lying.

b. Kneeling does not always mean worshiping; kneeling is also a sign to show honor, respect and sincerity. In fact, during ordination, ministers are kneeling in front of Manalo yet they deny they are not worshipping Manalo. With that, we can conclude that INC ministers are contradicting themselves from what they say with what they do.

There are a lot of Catholic book to know the teachings about the Catholics Church and it is unwise to study the truth about Catholicism from an anti-Catholic.

These are only few things to learn for before you visit an INC chapel. You may appreciate their financial management, you may appreciate their unity brother hood and discipline which they are so proud of but do not accept their Bible interpretation. “We should respect other people as persons made in the image of God, but this does not mean that we allow their false teachings to propagate. Charity demands that we correct errors and proclaim the truth. The salvation of souls is at stake. If a sheep falls in a ditch, we must lift it out. If a man falls into error, we must help him recognize his folly.. For a man is more valuable than a sheep”. –Dr. Quirino M. Sugon

If you are searching for more info about the Catholic Faith, just kindly visit the following site:

http://www.catholic.com/

http://www.thecatholictreasurechest.com/

http://www.apologete.com/

http://www.splendorofthechurch.com.ph/

Equip yourself with enough knowledge about Catholicism before you visit INC so that you might know that the church needs you. You need to learn about your Catholic Faith not only for yourself or to challenge debates, but for your Catholic Brothers and sisters so that they too may understand behind the mystery of the Catholic Faith. If you find it hard to understand the Catholic Teachings, keep on going and have faith because even the apostles too were having difficult times understanding Christ yet they still follow him.The term "cult" may a little bit hard for them but for 100 years INC referred as idolaters and pagans. God bless.

Your Brother in Christ,

Gab

by Riel Lopez (Catholic Lay Apologist)

Which is the True One Church? A debate between a Catholic Apologist and an Iglesia ni Cristo Minister

Jesse Romero (Roman Catholic) vs Jose Ventilacion (INC) Debate

Why MUSLIMS remain SILENT amidst Islamic Terrorists ISIS killing spree on Christians in Islamic States

Fr. Samir: "we have now reached the most ferocious brutality in the history of Islam"

Boys look at the site of a car bomb attack in Baghdad, Iraq, Aug. 1. One Anglican official said more than 1,500 people were killed in Iraq in late July in violence perpetrated by the Islamic State extremists. (CNS photo/Wissm al-Okili, Reuters)

"...we have now reached the most ferocious brutality in the history of Islam. Never before have we witnessed this degree of barbarity. The question is: Is this Islam? Or is it an aberration? Certainly it originates in the Islamic tradition. But on the other hand, we certainly cannot say that this is Islam. In other words, it is a derivative of Islam: they hope to bring about the “caliphate”, [as in] the famous period from the turn of the tenth century to the thirteenth, and this is a mistake. Many Muslims say so; I repeat: their great thinkers are opposed to it. The tragedy is that Muslims do not dare engage in self-criticism: in other words, the people silently go along with it. I don’t see [anyone saying] what even the Vatican Commission for interreligious dialogue says in the document that it issued on Tuesday, August 12: These things are unacceptable! It is the clearest document that I know of; it does not use diplomatic expressions; it is very balanced but strong. And it says: How long are you going to remain silent? Let the imams speak up! And not only the imams: the crowd, the Muslim people go into the public squares when there is a minor political “cause” involving others, against others; but when it is about Islamic questions, they may think that something is not right, but they do not go into the streets over that." -Egyptian Jesuit Father Samir Khalil Samir, a professor of the history of Arab culture and Islamology at Saint Joseph University in Beirut

SCOTT HAHN: Why a Protestant Pastor became Catholic!

Was Peter the "Other Man" in Rome? – A Mystery in St Paul’s Romans

From Dr. Taylor Marshall's Canterbury Tales

Peter Crucified Upside Down in Rome

Most Protestant scholars contest that Catholic claim that Saint Peter was the first bishop (pope) of Rome. They go so far as to say that Peter never even visited Rome.

As we prepare to celebrate the feast of Saint Peter and Saint Paul (June 29), we should take a look at this objection.

I argue that there is plenty of evidence of Peter’s presence not only in tradition, but also in Sacred Scripture. 

I refer to the mystery of the “another man” in Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

[the following is a free selection from my book The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholicism]

As one reads the thirteenth chapter of Romans, one cannot help but see a concern in Paul’s mind about the tenuous state of the Roman Church in relationship to Imperial Rome. Once already the emperor had exiled all Jews from the city on account of “Chrestus” – a Roman mispronunciation of “Christus.” Perhaps Paul was worried that the current emperor Nero Caesar might hear rumors that “Chrestus” was once again stirring up rebellion in the imperial city—this time not only among the Jews but also among the non-Jews. Paul therefore exhorts the Roman Christians to “be subject to the governing authorities,” and to honor the Roman Caesar in things pertaining to civic duties (Rom 13:3-7).