BRO. DUANE'S RESPONSE TO BRO. ELI SORIANO: Bobo ang mga Scholars ng Katoliko

Magkatulad ang Katuruan Ngunit Magkaiba ang Inaanibang Iglesia: Iglesia Ni Cristo® vs Saksi Ni Jehova

Kaawa-awang isipin na sa kabila ng pagkakaroon ng halos parehong katuruan ang Saksi ni Jehova na tatag ni Charles Taze Russell (Naiparehistro sa gobyerno ng USA noong 1884) at ng Iglesia Ni Cristo® na tatag ni Felix Manalo (Naiparehistro sa gobyerno ng USA-Pilipinas noong 1914) ay HINDI pa rin MAGKASUNDO sa kung alin sa kanilang dalawa ang tunay na tatag ni Cristo?

Bukod sa ang kanilang mga tagapagtatag (Charles T. Russell at Felix Manalo) ay nagtatalo kung sino ba talaga sa kanilang dalawa ang TUNAY na mga SUGO raw ng Diyos, sa kanilang mga katuruan, parehong-pareho ang kanilang turo na si raw CRISTO AY TAO LAMANG at kailanman ay HINDI naging DIYOS.

Sa lathala ng mga Saksi ay ganito ang sinasabi:

"Hindi kailanman inangkin ni Jesus na siya'y Diyos, ngunit inamin niya na siya ang ipinangakong Mesiyas, o Kristo. Sinabi rin niya na siya ang "Anak ng Diyos," hindi ang Diyos." (Ang Pinakadakilang Tao na Nabuhay Kailanman, p. 8-9)

Sa lathala naman ng INC™ sa kanilang opisyal na magasing Pasugo ay ganito:

“TAO rin ang kalagayan ng ating Panginoon Jesucristo sa Kanyang muling pagparito sa araw ng paghuhukom. Hindi nagbabago ang Kanyang kalagayan. Hindi Siya naging Diyos kailanman! TAO ng ipinanganak, TAO ng lumaki na at nangangaral, TAO ng mabuhay na mag-uli, TAO nang umakyant sa langit, TAO nang nasa langit na nakaupo sa kanan ng Diyos, at TAO rin Siya na muling paririto.” -PASUGO, Enero, 1964, p. 13 (Sinulat ni Emiliano Agustin)

Pero ayon sa Biblia, sinabi mismo ni Apostol San Pablo sa kanyang Sulat sa mga taga-Filipos na si Cristo sa KALAGAYAN ng Tao ay nasa kanya ang KALIKASAN ng pagka-Diyos.  Ang sabi niya, si CRISTO AY NASA ANYONG DIYOS, bagay na di niya inangkin, bagkus KANYANG HINUBAD.

"Mangagkaroon kayo sa inyo ng pagiisip, na ito'y na kay Cristo Jesus din naman: Na siya, bagama't nasa anyong Dios..." (Filipos 2:5-6)

Napakalinaw! Si Cristo ay NASA ANYONG DIYOS ngunit HINDI NIYA INANGKIN ang pagka-Diyos. Kaya't sa kanyang KALAGAYAN bilang TAO, siya ay nasusumpungan sa kanyang mga sinasalita na siya ay totoong Tao nga naman, NGUNIT HINDI NIYA SINABING "TAO LAMANG" siya! 

Si Hesus ay NAGPAKABABA. Siya ay NAGING MASUNURIN. Masunuring hanggang sa kamatayan. Hindi lamang natural na kamatayan kundi isang bukod tanging uri ng KAMATAYAN ~ ang kamatayan sa Krus.

Dahil dito, DINAKILA ng DIYOS AMA ang DIYOS ANAK sa Kanyang habang siya ay nasa KALAGAYAN ng TAO sapagkat naging masunurin at GINAMPANAN ang plano ng Ama para sa kaligtasan ng sanlibutan.

"Kaya siya naman ay pinakadakila ng Dios, at siya'y binigyan ng pangalang lalo sa lahat ng pangalan;  Upang sa pangalan ni Jesus ay iluhod ang lahat ng tuhod, ng nangasa langit, at ng nangasa ibabaw ng lupa, at ng nangasa ilalim ng lupa, At upang ipahayag ng lahat ng mga dila na si Jesuc isto ay Panginoon, sa ikaluluwalhati ng Dios Ama!" (Filipos 2:9-11)

Nawala ba ang pagka-Diyos ni Cristo noong siya ay nagkatawang-tao?  Hindi!

Sinabi ba ng Banal na Aklat na si Cristo ay Tao LAMANG?! Hindi!

Sinabi ba ng Biblia na si Cristo ay LALANG (created) ng Diyos Ama? Hindi!

Ang pagka-Diyos ni Cristo ay hindi naman parang isang damit na kapag hinuhubad ay nawawala. ang kanyang KALIKASAN bilang DIYOS ay hindi parang isang mantsa (stain) na kapag nilagyan ng bleach ay nawala na. 

Ang pagiging Diyos ni Cristo ay ang KANYANG KALIKASAN at ang Kanyang PAGIGING TAO ay Kanyang pinili ngunit kailanman ay HINDI nawala ang kanyang pagka-DIYOS mula bago pa lalangin ang sanlibutan hanggang sa kanyang pagparitong muli ay ang kanyang KALAGAYAN. 

Sa maikling salita, si Cristo ay TAO sa kalagayan ngunit DIYOS sa kalikasan! Totoong Diyos at Totoong Tao!

"At ngayon, Ama, luwalhatiin mo ako sa iyo rin ng kaluwalhatiang aking tinamo sa iyo bago ang sanglibutan ay naging gayon." -Juan 17:5

"...bago pa lalangin si Abraham, ako ay ako na!" -Juan 8:58

Halos mahigit 2,000 ang tanda ni Abraham kay Jesus ngunit sabi ng Hesus ay NAROON na siya bago pa man lalangin si Abraham.  

Kung Tao Lamang si Hesus, hindi niya aangkinin ang kanyang pag-iral (existence) 2,000 taon bago pa isilang si Hesus sa kalagayan bilang tao.

Ang sagot naman ng mga INC™ riyan ay si Hesus raw ay PLANO (Verbo) ng Ama kaya't ang plano raw ng Ama ay ang nagkatawang tao at hindi si Hesus (Juan 1:1-3).

Ngunit ang kanilang argumentong ito ay matutunaw sa sinag ng katotohanan ng Biblia. Sapagkat ang sabi ng Biblia ay ang VERBO AY DIYOS (Juan 1:1) ay NAGKATAWANG-TAO (Juan 1:14). At ang VERBONG DIYOS na ito na NAGKATAWANG TAO ay walang iba kundi si Jesus.

"Sapagkat nagkalat sa daigdig ang maraming mandaraya na ataw kumilala na SI JESUCRISTO AY NAGKATAWANG-TAO; ganyan nga ang mandaraya at ang anti-Cristo." -2 Juan 1:7

Kahindik-hindik nga naman ang mga tampalasan, mga sinungaling at mga mandaraya! Mga manlilinlang! Mga kalaban ni Cristo ~ mga ANTI-CRISTO!

Kaya't sa mga sumusuri, huwag magpalinlang. Huwag hayaan ang kanilang mga kasinungalingan at kamangmangan na sumakop sa inyong pananampalataya sa Iglesia Katolika! Sapagkat bago pa sila ay TAYO NA! Sila ay sulpot na mga manlilinlang tulad ng mga hula ng Biblia. Mapagmasid, magdasal upang hindi matangay at mag-aral ng Banal na Biblia ayon sa UNAWA ng Santa Iglesia at hindi ng mga bulaang propeta na ginagamit ang kanilang maling unawa upang ipaliwanag ang Banal na Kasulatan.

MABUHAY PO ANG DIYOS AMA, ANAK AT ESPIRITU SANTO! MABUHAY ANG BANAL NA SANTATLO! MABUHAY ANG NAG-IISANG DIYOS AT ANG KANYANG BANAL NA IGLESIA KATOLIKA!

Ang Kasaysayan ng Tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo ay Hindi Nagsimula Noong 1914 A.D.

“Ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang Iglesia ni Cristo." -PASUGO Abril 1966, p. 46

Ang video na gawa ng INC™ sa ibaba ay isang kasinungalingan. HUWAG MAGPALINLANG!

Sa mga katulad nito, paalala ng isang DALUBHASA sa KASAYSAYAN ng KRISTIANISMO, ay ganito:

"Protestants advocate myths about this era because their movement depends on the belief that the Catholic Church is a corruption of the early Church, and hence that the Reformation was a return to the apostolic faith. One of the main anti-Catholic historical myths embraced by many Protestants is the belief in a Great Apostasy, which allegedly occurred when Constantine favored the Catholic Church in the fourth century and "Romanized" it to the point where it became so contaminated that it ceased to be Christian.  

Yet we know that the early Church was the Catholic Church and the real story of history illustrates the continuity of the Faith through the centuries." -(Steve Weidenkopf) The Real Story of Catholic History, Answering Twenty Centuries of Anti-Catholic Myths

Hindi ba't sounds familiar ang ganitong mga argumento ng mga INC™?

Ang tinutukoy po nilang kasaysayan ng Iglesia ni Cristo ay walang iba kundi ang Iglesia Katolika na sa pasimula ay siyang tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo.

Ayon sa mga mangangaral ng INC™ na tatag ni Felix Manalo noong 1914, naging "tunay" na raw sila sapagkat ang UNANG IGLESIA ni Cristo ~ ang IGLESIA  KATOLIKA ay NATALIKOD daw na "GANAP".  Kaya't noong sinimulan ni Ginoong Felix Manalo ang Iglesia Ni Cristo® na tinawag niyang "MY CHURCH" (FreePress, February 11, 1950) ay NAWALA na raw na ganap ang UNANG IGLESIA ni Cristo at ang KANYANG IGLESIA na raw ang tunay.

Hokus-pokus nga naman ang kasaysayan ng Iglesia Ni Cristo®. Bulag nilang tinatanggap ang isang malinaw na kasinungalingan na ang nais lamang ay linlangin ang mga kaanib sa TUNAY na IGLESIANG KAY CRISTO ~ walang iba kundi ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA at sila'y magsitalikod.

Hindi naman tayo dapat magtaka sapagkat bago pa man Mayo 10, 1886, ang araw ng pagsilang ng kanilang sugo, HINULAAN na ng Banal na Kasulatan ang PAGDATING ng mga MANDARAYA ~ silang mga mangangaral (kuno) na HINDI TANGGAP si Cristo (bilang Diyos) na naparito sa laman (tao).

"Sapagka't maraming magdaraya na nangagsilitaw sa sanglibutan, sa makatuwid ay ang mga hindi nangagpapahayag na si Jesucristo ay napariritong nasa laman. Ito ang magdaraya at ang anticristo." -2 Juan 1:7

Malinaw tayong binabalaan ni Apostol San Juan na ang mga mangangaral na TAONG-TAO LAMANG daw ang Panginoong Jesucristo ay mga ANTICRISTO o mga KALABAN ni Cristo.

At ano naman ang mangyayari sa pagdating ng mga MANDARAYANG mga MANGANGARAL na mga ANTICRISTO?

"At magsisibangon ang maraming bulaang propeta, at kanilang ililigaw ang marami." -Mateo 24:11

Marami raw silang mga MADADAYA at sila ay TATALIKOD sa TUNAY na Iglesia! TAO po ang TATALIKOD at HINDI ang IGLESIA! Isang malaking kasinunglaingan ang sasabihin nilang NATALIKOD na raw na GANAP ang Unang Iglesia. Kaya't ang paglitaw ng INC™ sa Pilipinas ay isang katuparan ng mga hula sa Biblia. Ang pagdating ng mga bulaang propeta at ang pagtalikod ng marami ay natupad sa kanila.

Dave Armstrong: Biblical Evidence for the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Source: National Catholic Register

Puto (1490–1576), “The Presentation of the Virgin Mary in the Temple of Jerusalem”

Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin” (CCC 510)

Dave Armstrong

Once upon a time, almost no Christians denied that Mary the mother of Jesus was perpetually a virgin: including Protestants. Of the early leaders of that movement, virtually all fully accepted this doctrine: including Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger, Turretin, and Cranmer. Moreover, most Protestant exegetes continued to believe it for at least another 350 years or so.

But today, for various reasons, things are very different, so it's helpful to revisit the biblical arguments, since the Bible is the authority all Christians revere in common. A surprising number can be found.

1) Luke 2:41-51 describes Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the temple at the age of twelve, for the required observance of Passover. Everyone agrees that He was the first child of Mary, so if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (or even one), why is there no hint of them at all in this account?

2) Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic have words for “cousin.” The New Testament was written in Greek, which does have such a word (sungenis), but Jesus and His disciples spoke Aramaic (a late version of Hebrew), and the Hebrew word ach is literally translated as adelphos, the literal equivalent of the English “brother.” In the Bible, it has a very wide range of meanings beyond “sibling”: just as “brother” does in English. Thus, it is routinely used in the New Testament to describe cousins or kinsmen, etc.

3) Jesus Himself uses “brethren” (adelphos) in the non-sibling sense. In Matthew 23:8 (cf. 12:49-50), He calls, for example, the “crowds” and His “disciples” (23:1) “brethren.” In other words, they are each other's“brothers”: the brotherhood of Christians.

4) In comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph (mentioned in Mt 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' “brothers”) are the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Our Lady's adelphein John 19:25. Assuming that there are not two women named “Mary” in one family, this usage apparently means “cousin” or more distant relative. Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. The most plausible interpretation of all this related data is a use of adelphos as “cousins” (or possibly, step-brothers) rather than “siblings.” We know for sure, from the above information, that James and Joseph were not Jesus' siblings.

It's not mere special pleading to argue in this fashion, nor an alleged “desperation” of Catholics who supposedly “read into” the texts their prior belief in the dogma of perpetual virginity. Plenty of Protestant exegesis and scholarship confirms these views: especially in older commentaries. For example, the prominent 19th century Commentary on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, states, regarding Matthew 13:55 (my italics added):

An exceedingly difficult question here arises - What were these “brethren” and “sisters” to Jesus? Were they, First, His full brothers and sisters? or, Secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or, Thirdly, Were they His cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . In addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, . . . prefer the third opinion. . . Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties.

5) The Blessed Virgin Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the Cross (John 19:26-27). Jesus certainly wouldn't have done this if He had brothers (all of whom would have been younger than He was).

6) Matthew 1:24-25 Joseph . . . knew her not until she had borne a son . . .

This passage has been used as an argument that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, but the same Protestant commentary also states (my italics again):

The word “till” [until above] does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different footing afterwards (as will be evident from the use of the same word in 1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20); nor does the word “first-born” decide the much-disputed question, whether Mary had any children to Joseph after the birth of Christ; for, as Lightfoot says, “The law, in speaking of the first-born, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before.”

John Calvin used the same counter-argument in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity. In fact, in his Harmony of the Gospels, commenting on Matthew 1:25, he thought the contention of further siblings based on this passage was so unfounded that he wrote, “No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.”

7) Jude is called the Lord's “brother” in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. If this is the same Jude who wrote the epistle bearing that name (as many think), he calls himself “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1:1). Now, suppose for a moment that he was Jesus' blood brother. In that case, he refrains from referring to himself as the Lord’s own sibling (while we are told that such a phraseology occurs several times in the New Testament, referring to a sibling relationship) and chooses instead to identify himself as James' brother.

This is far too strange and implausible to believe. Moreover, James also refrains from calling himself Jesus’ brother, in his epistle (James 1:1: “servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ”): even though St. Paul calls him “the Lord's brother” (Gal 1:19).

It's true that Scripture doesn’t come right out and explicitly state that Mary was a perpetual virgin. But nothing in Scripture contradicts that notion, and -- to say the same thing another way -- nothing in the perpetual virginity doctrine contradicts Scripture.

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)

Sagot ni Bro. Duane kay Jose Ventilacion Di Umano sa mali-maling Greek Grammar (daw)

SAGOT SA KOMENTO NI JOSE VENTILACION NA DI UMANO AY MALI MALI ANG GREEK GRAMMAR KO DURING THE DEBATE

(Ni Bro. Duane)

Komokomento at binabanatan ako ng di umano'y nag-aral ng biblical languages sa harvard university at kinikilalang magaling sa biblical languages na si Jose Ventilacion ng mga INC members.

Ito ngayon ang sagot ko sa comment ni Ventilacion against sa akin.

Una, yung argument ko sa Greek ay sinasang-ayunan ni Dr. Eugene Ulrich, mentor ko sa Biblical languages at ng iba ko pang mga mentors na mga Professors din sa Biblical Languages e yung argument mo na nagfunction na adjective ang word na "theos" sa 3rd clause ng John 1:1 sinong Professor mo sa Harvard University ang sumasang-ayon dyan? I challenge you to show me their testimonies na sinasang-ayunan ng mga Professors mo ang arguments at mga grammar mo sa Biblical languages lalo na ang interpretation mo na si Felix Manalo ang Bird of Prey sa Isaiah 46:11.

Tanungin mo nga si Dr. Saley na kasama mo sa picture na isa mga Professors sa Harvard University kung sumasang-ayon sya sa interpretation mo? Sigurado ako mapapakamot sa ulo si Dr. Saley dahil maling mali ang interpretation mo tungkol sa Isaiah 46:11.

Pangalawa, at least ang Grammar ng Greek ko ay ibinatay ko sa mga textbook na Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics and A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament e yung mga grammar mo saang Greek Grammar Textbook mo pinulot?

Pangatlo, nakalimutan mo na yata ang isinagot mo kay Dr. James White noong tinatanong ka nya sa Grammar, ano nga ang isinagot mo sa kanya?, "We do not based our doctrine and teaching simply by means of grammar."

Kaya tigilan mo Mr. Ventilacion ang pagmamarunong mo sa Greek Grammar dahil lumalabas lang ang knowledge mo sa Greek kung ang mga kaharap mo ay hindi marunong.

Greek Bible Scholars Reacting to Bro. Duane's Debate with the Iglesia Ni Cristo® - Founded by Felix Manalo in 1914

Email Response from Dr. Darrell Bock with Comment

Email Response from Dr. Eugene Ulrich with comment on my recent debate with the Iglesia ni Cristo

Alam Niyo Ba na si Apostol San Pablo ay Isang Katoliko?

Ni Dr. James Taylor, Isang Nagbalik-loob sa tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo - ang Iglesia Katolika!

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.

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..

Si Ginoong Jose Ventilacion ba ay Tunay na Eksperto sa Biblia? Hamon ni Ginoong Duane - Isang Tagapagtanggol ng Tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo!

WHO IS DR. EUGENE ULRICH?
Ni 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?

Hamon ni Bro. Duane kay INC™ Defender Jose Ventilacion!

My Message for Joe Ventilacion (INC™) Regarding His Education At Harvard University

Source: The Splendor of the Church Blog

When Kuya Adviser posted his article on his FB page, Ventilacion posted comments on his FB page about me. He said I was challenging him and asking questions about textual criticism and that I have to study more about this topic.

He is simply boasting that he studied at Harvard University. He posted this on his FB Page conspicuously.

I am just wondering who among bible and textual scholars from Harvard University favor the interpretation made by Jose Ventilacion.

I asked Dr. Eugene Ulrich, a former professor at Harvard University who among his colleagues do not agree with King Cyrus referring to “Bird of Prey” in Isaiah 46:11. It is clear that Ventilacion does not concur with this and instead, he makes it appear that Felix Manalo is the one just like what his Church is doing.

Here is the email response of Dr. Eugene Ulrich:

By the way, Dr. Eugene Ulrich is one of my mentors in Biblical Languages.

Now, you studied at Harvard but you did not follow your professors and mentors in textual criticism who said explicitly that Cyrus is really being referred to as the Bird of Prey in Isaiah 46:11 and yet, it is Manalo whom you are pointing at.

It is clear you studied at Harvard University not to learn from the experts and it is not for you to boast about it. So, you do not follow what you learned.

You attended the SBL Annual Meeting and you were given the go-signal by your Executive Minister, Eduardo V. Manalo.

If it was Dr. James Richard Saley who delivered the lecture and you attended that, participated and listened; is it not a slap on your face as a result of what is written in your Pasugo Magazine?

I asked Dr. Eugene Ulrich if he knows Dr. James Richard Saley. Dr. Eugene Ulrich told me they are good friends and he presumes Dr. Saley is a Protestant.

Does Dr. James Richard Saley know that you taught your listeners that Felix Manalo is the Bird of Prey in Isaiah 46:11? Can you ask him if he agrees with your interpretation? 🙂

So, Joe Ventilacion listened to a Protestant whom you addressed as Devil. And, you studied at Harvard University wherein some professors are Protestants.

I give you 2 weeks to answer my post at splendor that INC members can read. I pray that you will be enlightened as well as them someday or they will soon realize your false teachings.

Answer the following because you studied textual criticism at Harvard University:

1. Who are the Bible Professors and Textual Scholars from Harvard University favor your interpretation that Felix Manalo is the Bird of Prey in Isaiah 46:11?
2. Who are the textual scholars from Harvard University who taught you that you translated Mizrach in Isaiah 43:5 of Aleppo Codex as “Far East”? Give me the names of at least 3 textual scholars.
3. Who are the textual scholars from Harvard University whom you can prove translated the Greek word (Logos) in John 1:1 to “idea” as you did?
4. Who are the textual scholars (at least three) from Harvard University who can give testimonies that your LAMSA Translation is Accurate?

I will wait for your reply, Joe Ventilacion.

And, if you are boasting that we need to square off in a debate, do not give me any conditions that I should pay for the venue rental since there are many public venues which are free.

Just tell me when and I will submit my proposal to the nearest INC Local.

Prove that the LAMSA is accurate using Greek text and testimonies of Aramaic scholars if you are really intelligent in textual criticism and that I still need to study.

Sincerely,

Bro. Duane

Felix Y. Manalo: "Pagkasugo' Inihayag

Mula sa Tumbukin Natin

PLUMA NG BATA SAID:
Ang mga hula ng katuparan ng pagkasugo kay Ka. Felix Manalo?
Ilalahad ko po.

I. Place of origin
Isaiah 46:11
11 From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that I will bring about;
what I have planned, that I will do.


CENON BIBE:
MAWALANG GALANG na po.

SINO po ba ang tinutukoy diyan? Si Felix Manalo po ba?

Hindi po.

Ang TINUTUKOY diyan ay si HARING CIRO ng PERSIA.

Ang KAUSAP din po ng DIYOS sa ISAIAS 46:11 ay mga ISRAELITA na NASAKOP at NADALA sa BABILONIA. Tingnan ninyo sa SUMUSUNOD na TALATA sa ISAIAS 46:13.

ISAIAH 46:13
I bring near my deliverance, it is not far off, and my salvation will not tarry; I will put salvation in Zion, for Israel my glory.

TINGNAN po NINYO, ZION at ISRAEL ang BIBIGYAN ng SALVATION of KALIGTASAN.

Si CIRO po ang TINAWAG ng DIYOS mula sa SILANGAN (ang PERSIA po ay nasa SILANGAN ng ISRAEL) at SIYA ang TUMUPAD sa PLANO ng DIYOS na PALAYAIN ang mga ISRAELITA sa BABILONIA.

Si FELIX MANALO po ay WALANG GINAWA para PALAYAIN ang mga ISRAELITA mula sa BABILONIA.


+++

PLUMA NG BATA SAID:
Isiah 43:5
5 Do not be afraid, for I am with you;
I will bring your children from the east
and gather you from the west.


CENON BIBE:
Muli po, ang KAUSAP DIYAN ng DIYOS ay ang mga ISRAELITA. SILA ang BINIBIGYAN ng PANGAKO ng KALIGTASAN at MULING PAGSASAMA-SAMA.

Noon po kasing panahon na iyan (597 BC at 597 BC) ay NASAKOP ng BABILONIA ang ISRAEL at KINUHA ang mga TAO ROON at DINALA sa BABILONIA at IBA PANG LUGAR.

NAGKAWATAK-WATAK at NAGKALAT ang mga ISRAELITA.

Kaya po ang PANGAKO ng DIYOS sa ISAIAH 43:5 ay TITIPUNIN ULI ng DIYOS ang mga ISRAELITA na NAIKALAT sa EAST at WEST.

NANGYARI po IYAN noong DUMATING ang IBONG MANDARAGIT (si CIRO) at SINAKOP ang BABILONIA (538 BC).

Pagkatapos niyon ay PINAUWI o PINABALIK ni CIRO ang mga ISRAELITA sa ISRAEL.

WALA pong KINALAMAN si FELIX MANALO riyan.


+++

PLUMA NG BATA SAID:
Isaiah 24:15
15 Therefore in the east give glory to the Lord;
exalt the name of the Lord, the God of Israel,
in the islands of the sea.
******ang nabasa ko po.. Far country in the east, composed of islands. Parang Pilipinas un ah.


CENON BIBE:
Una po, sa ORIHINAL na HEBREW ng ISAIAH 24:15 ay WALANG BINANGGIT na "EAST" o "SILANGAN," na sa HEBREW ay MIZRACH.

Ang BINANGGIT ay "BAURIM" o MGA APOY o LIWANAG.

So, HINDI po NECESSARILY "EAST" ang tinutukoy kundi "LUGAR na MARAMING APOY."


Pangalawa, WALA pong KINALAMAN ang PILIPINAS diyan.

Kung tatanggapin po natin na "East" ang nariyan ay HINDI PILIPINAS ang MATUTUKOY kundi JAPAN.

JAPAN po ang NASA EAST ng ISRAEL.

Ang PILIPINAS po ay nasa SOUTHEAST. Kaya po HINDI LALAPATAN ng SINASABI NINYO.


+++

PLUMA NG BATA SAID:
II. Time of Emergence
Isaiah 41:9
9 I took you from the ends of the earth,
from its farthest corners I called you.
I said, ‘You are my servant’;
I have chosen you and have not rejected you.
Isaiah 43:6
6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’
and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’
Bring my sons from afar
and my daughters from the ends of the earth —
Isaiah 42:10
10 Sing to the Lord a new song,
his praise from the ends of the earth,
you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it,
you islands, and all who live in them.
Matthew 24:33
33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[a] is near, right at the door.
****lagi kong nababasa yang "ENDS OF THE EARTH" o Mga wakas ng lupa. Anu ba ibig sabihin noon?


CENON BIBE:
Ang "ENDS OF THE EARTH" po riyan ay tumutukoy sa mga LUPAIN na nasa DULO o KANTO ng MUNDONG ALAM ng mga ISRAELITA.

Partikular po riyan ang mga BAYBAYIN (COASTLANDS) at ISLA na nasa MEDITERRANEAN SEA at mga BANSA tulad ng BABILONIA at PERSIA.

HINDI po KASAMA ang PILIPINAS DIYAN.


+++

PLUMA NG BATA SAID:
Matthew 24:6-7
6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
****WARS. Digmaan. "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places."
***e kailan ba lumitaw ang INC? kaalinsabay ng unang DIGMAANG PANDAIGDIG tama PO BA?


CENON BIBE:
HINDI KO po TUTUTULAN kung TINUTUKOY NINYO na INC ang SINASABING LILITAW sa PANAHON na IYAN.

Pero ANO po ba ang SINABI ng PANGINOON na LILITAW diyan? Ang TUNAY bang IGLESIA?

HINDI po.

Ang TINUTUKOY pong LILITAW sa PANAHON na TINUTUKOY ng PANGINOON sa MATTHEW 24:6-7 ay ang MGA BULAANG PROPETA at BULAANG MANGANGARAL.

MATTHEW 24:4-5, 11, 24-26
Jesus answered them, "Beware that no one leads you astray.

For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Messiah!' and they will lead many astray.

And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.

For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce great signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

Take note, I have told you beforehand.

So, if they say to you, 'Look! He is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look! He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.

So, KUNG INC po ang SINASABI NINYONG LUMITAW sa PANAHON na IYAN ay HINDI PO AKO TUTOL.

SASANGAYON pa po AKO.

INC Wawasakin Rebulto ni Manalo

Mula kay Kapatid na Cenon Bibe ng Tumbukin Natin

MAY MATAPANG pong PANUKALA ng KAANIB ng INC ni MANALO na nagpapakilalang JANINE BUENAVENTURA.

Kaugnay po ito sa REBULTO ni FELIX Y. MANALO.

Sabi po ng KAANIB ng INC: (July 29, 2012 3:14 PM)

GUSTO mo GUMUWA ka ng REBULTO ni ka FELIX ihahampas pa namen sa HARAP mo yon eh.... BAKA maipalo ko na sa ULO mo HEHEHE peace........ Eh ung mga SANTO mo kaya!? KAYA mo kayang BASAGIN sa HARAP ko ung mga YON? anu DEAL? SABAY NATING ihian ang mga REBULTO nyo at REBULTO ni FYM? anu DEAL? on

MARAMING SALAMAT po sa PANUKALA NINYO.

NASA INYO po YON kung GUSTO NINYONG WASAKIN ang REBULTO ni FELIX Y. MANALO.

Pero KUNG TOTOO at SERYOSO po KAYO ay PUWEDE po bang YUNG NASA CENTRAL NG INC ang IHIAN at WASAKIN NINYO?

Yun po ba ay PUWEDE NINYONG PALUIN sa ULO?

GANOON po pala ang GUSTO NINYO e.

KAMI po ay HINDI SISIRA ng IMAHEN ng mga SANTO dahil IGINAGALANG po NAMIN ang mga PAALALA sa MGA BAYANI ng DIYOS.

Pero KUNG KAYO po ay HANDANG BASTUSIN at WASAKIN ang REBULTO ni MANALO ay HIHINTAYIN po NAMIN ang PAGBASTOS na GAGAWIN NINYO.

SANA po MAI-VIDEO NINYO at MAI-POST sa YOUTUBE para MAS MAGANDA.

SALAMAT po.

Sagot sa mga Nag-aangkin ng pagiging Iglesia ni Cristo

Mula sa FB ni Kapatid na Duane Cartojano

Tatang Larry Mallari: Dating Kaanib ng INC™, ngayo'y Kaanib ng Tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo - ang Iglesia Katolika

From Persecutor to Defender Part 1
From Persecutor to Defender Part 2

TUNAY NA DIYOS ANG PANGINOONG JESUS! TINUTUTULAN NG MGA IGLESIA NI CRISTO®-1914

The Catholic Church Strikes Back....

...but not in the way some would expect! Here comes the Catholic Church!!!

Bakit ang mga Protestante ay nagiging kaanib ng tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo- Katoliko

Dr. Scott Hahn: Kwento ng kanyang pagbabalik-loob sa Iglesia ni Cristo

GISING, MGA KAANIB NG IGLESIA!