Isaias 43:5, 'Far East' ba ang Orihinal na Nakasulat?

Napakalinaw na sa episode na ito ng mga kaibigan nating mga ministro ng INC na doon sa screen na ipinakita nila kung saan nagbigay ako ng komento na MALI na nilagyan ni Ventilacion ng "Far East" ang word na "Mizrach" sa Aleppo Codex ay tama naman talaga ang pahayag ko.

Noong sabihin ko na mali na nilagyan ng "Far East" ay yung sa screen mismo mula sa Aleppo Codex.

Ngayon, Hebrew ang pinag-uusapan, bakit gagamit ng translation na moffatt [sic] at good news [sic] para patunayan na May "Far" sa Hebrew ng Isaiah 43:5?

Translation ba ang ipinakita ni Ventilacion sa screen? Saan sa hebrew [sic] text ng Isaiah 43:5 ang hebrew [sic] word na "Rachoq"? Natapos lang ang programa nila na puro translation ang ginamit at hindi tinalakay sa hebrew [sic].

Ngayon, hintayin natin kung may ipapakitang hebrew [sic] text ang mga ministro ng INC kung saan naroroon ang hebrew [sic] word na "Rachoq" sa Isaiah 43:5. Ang Hebrew word na Mimizarch ay hindi rin “Far East”. Ang Mi ay tinatawag na "preposition," ibig sabihin ay "from". -Bro. D. Cartujano

Watch INC Video here!

Jesus is Not God (Ventilacion): Bro. Duane Cartujano's Response Regarding Matthew 24:36

Source: Facebook

RESPONSE TO JOE VENTILACION AND TO ALL ANTI-TRINITARIANS REGARDING MATTHEW 24:36

If anti-Trinitarians understand Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32, they will conclude that Christ is not God since it is only the Father who knows the second coming of the Son since if 1 John 3:20 will be the basis to compare Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32, it will appear the Father is not God according to these 2 verses.

The following is written in Revelation 19:12-30:

"His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God."

Almost all scholars know Christ is being referred to in this verse and his name is called “the Word of God”.

If we follow the arguments of anti-Trinitarians, it will appear the Father is not God since only the Son knows some things and it is clearly written in the verse, “no one knows but himself”.

Another verse from the Old Testament says, “But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”(Genesis 3:9)

When Adam and Eve went into hiding, why did God ask Adam, “Where are you?”

If He knew all things. God should have said, “What are you doing there?”

We know that the Father did not mean where they were hiding unless we follow the illogical arguments of anti-Trinitarians using 1 John 3:20. It will appear the Father is not God as well.

Does Christ know all things?

This is what the Apostle Peter said:

“He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.”(John 21:17)

It is clear that Apostle Peter told Christ, “Lord, you know everything”.

When Apostle Peter told Him “Lord, you know everything”, we will see that Christ did not rebuke Apostle Peter with his statement. Christ should have said, “You are wrong Peter since there are things that I do not know.”

DID JESUS PRE-EXIST BEFORE HIS BIRTH ON EARTH? by Bro. 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)

According to a commentary book of a textual scholar in page 386:

“Peter spoke of the Spirit of Christ indwelling the OT prophets who lived before the incarnation of the Son of God, when he became Jesus Christ of Nazareth. This means the Spirit of Christ existed before the incarnation; it also suggests that the Spirit of Christ is not bound by time---i.e., the Spirit of Christ is eternal.” (Page 386, A Commentary on the Manuscripts and text of the New Testament By Philip Comfort)

It is clear that in the generation of the prophets of the Old Testament, the presence of Christ guided them.

Third, It is very clear that John 8:58 is proof of the pre-existence of Christ.

Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am.”(John 8:58)

It speaks his self-existence; he is the First and the Last, ever the same, Revelation 1:8. Thus he was not only before Abraham, but before all worlds. John 8:58 contradicts Abraham, who "came into being" (genesthai, translated "was" in the NRSV), with Jesus, who purely is (which Jesus states in the first person, "I am," ego eimi). The statement brings to mind as classic pronouncement of the eternal being of God in the Old Testament: "Before the mountains came into being [genethenai, infinitive aorist passive of ginomai] and the earth and the world were formed, even from age to age, you are [su ei, the second-person equivalent of ego eimi]" (Psalms 90:2 [89:2 in Septuagint] ).

The Greek sentence here shows the same grammatical structure as John 8:58 and uses the same verbs to point out the same contradiction between what is created and mortal and the uncreated and eternal one.

In the Book of New Testament Scholar, Murray J. Harris, John (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament):

58 Ἀμὴν κτλ. 1: 51. Πρίν + acc. and infin., “before.” Γενέσθαι (aor. mid. infin. of γίνομαι) stands in sharp contrast with εἶναι: “Before Abraham came into existence/ was born, I AM.” A similar construction is found in Ps 89: 2, πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη γενηθῆναι . . . σὺ εἶ, “before the mountains came into existence, you exist.” Heb. ’ani hu’, “I existence (am) he” ( = Ἐγώ εἰμι in the LXX) was Yahweh’s self-designation (Isa 43: 10; 46: 4; 48: 12). The timeless εἰμί points to the absolute, independent, and eternal existence of Jesus; it places Jesus “in God’s existence beyond time, in his eternal present” (Schnackenburg 2: 223; he believes Exod 3: 14 [LXX], Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν, forms the basis of Jesus’ claim [2: 224, 494 n. 144]). Barrett spells out the implications of εἰμί this way: “I eternally was, as now I am, and ever continue to be” (352).

Fourth, If Christ is the power and wisdom of God and Christ did not exist during that time, it will show that God has no power and wisdom.

It is very clear Christ is the power and wisdom of God.

"but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."(1 Corinthians 1:24)

The belief of those who do not agree with the pre-existence of Jesus is illogical. Aside from this, we understand the verse proves Jesus is not just a man. Why? If He is the power and wisdom of God and he is just a man, why will God get wisdom from Him? Does this mean man is more intelligent than God? And, if he is the power of God and He is just a man, why will God get power from Him? Is man more powerful than God? 

Wisdom cannot be separated from the one who owns Wisdom. For example, if you have wisdom, can you separate this wisdom from you? The answer is NO.

Engr. Rafael Riorito O. Estorque's Article on Panoncillo (INC™) vs Cartujano (Catholic) Debate

7 VERSUS 1 – 1 IS THE WINNER? 

By Engr. Rafael Riorito O. Estorque

If we watch the debate, Mr. Cartujano admitted he was not able to provide a magazine xerox or answer the question of Mr. Panoncillo about the pasugo issue. Mr. Panoncilo was referring to page 11 of the book, Answering Iglesia ni Cristo. What about the SEVEN QUESTIONS asked by Mr. Cartujano? Can Mr. Panoncillo admit that he was not able to answer these since he gave irrelevant answers? INC members will surely say their minister gave correct answers. Yet, if we analyze the questions, was Mr. Panoncillo able to answer them?

1. Did Mr. Panoncillo provide a 3rd century manuscript with the words “MONOGENES HUIOS”? Mr. Cartujano showed a 3rd century manuscript with the words, "MONOGENES THEOS" through the projector during his first cross examination. Did Mr. Panoncillo show any 3rd century manuscript with the words “MONOGENES HUIOS”? NONE. What did Mr. Panoncillo do? He read the Jerusalem Bible (English translation) and his only answer was,"HINDI KUMO LUMA ANG MANUSCRIPTS AY YUN NA TAMA". Mr. Panoncillo did not show any book during the debate which stated the statement of textual scholars that support, “HINDI KUMO LUMA ANG MANUSCRIPTS AY YUN NA TAMA,” particularly John 1:18.

2. When Mr. Cartujano asked Mr Panoncillo about the Syntax of John 1:1c, "kai theos en ho logos", if it is common for a definite nominative predicate noun preceding a finite verb to be without the article. Was Mr. Panoncillo able to answer this? Only the ignorant will say this was answered by Mr. Panoncillo. What did he do? He just read the Tagalog translation of John 1:1. Is this the answer to the question of Mr. Cartujano? Why did Mr. Cartujano ask this? INC ministers often use John 1:1c because theos has no article in the 3rd clause of John 1:1c and it functions as an adjective!

3. Mr. Cartujano asked Mr. Panoncillo where he can read the word-for-word “SI JESUS AY HINDI DIYOS” in the Bible, since he also asked Mr. Cartujano the word-for-word that JESUS says “I AM THE TRUE GOD.” Was Mr. Panoncillo able to provide a verse? What was his answer? Mr. Panoncillo said, "You must prove that, not me.." See?

I heard the answer of Mr. Cartujano during the debate when he was asked where in the Bible you can read JESUS SAID, "I AM THE TRUE GOD."

Mr. Cartujano’s answer was Christ will not say that since the Jews forbid this according to the Jerusalem Talmud. He added what Christ said in John 8:54 that His Father gave him glory and in Hebrews 1:8, he was glorified by the Father and called "GOD".

4. When Mr. Cartujano asked Mr. Panoncillo if we look at the Original Manuscript like Codex Sinaiticus if Mark 16 is until 20 or only 8 verses, this was not answered by Mr. Panoncillo. What did he do? Mr. Panoncillo answered, "SANA AY NAGREKLAMO NA ANG PARI MO". And he referred to the hiligaynon translation and remarked.

5. Mr. Cartujano asked Mr. Panoncillo to refute Granville sharp in Titus 2:13 and he was asked by Mr. Cartujano to explain it grammatically that the person here refers to two persons and not just one. Was Mr. Panoncillo able to explain this? What did he do? Mr. Panoncillo said, "HINDI SA LAHAT NG PAGKAKATAON AY GRAMMAR!"

6. When Hebrews 1:8 was tackled, Mr. Cartujano asked Mr. Panoncillo, if he agreed to the translation, “Your throne, O God”. The answer of Mr. Panoncillo is the right translation is “God is your throne”. Likewise, he mentioned Psalms 45:6, so Mr. Cartujano asked him since Psalms was originally written in Hebrew. He was asked by Mr. Cartujano to explain the accentuation in the Masoretic text where there should be a pause between “throne” and “God”. Mr. Panoncillo answered, "HINDI ITO PANAHON NG PAGPAPALIWANAG".

7. Mr. Cartujano asked about the use of verse in the Old Testament because Mr. Panoncillo said some verses have a similar line, “Is there a God Beside me?”He was asked by Mr. Cartujano the meaning of the Hebrew word, “Yotzrei-fesel”. This was not answered by Mr. Panoncillo. The next statement of God was “Is there a God Beside me?” Since Mr. Panoncillo gave irrelevant answers, this was repeated by Mr. Cartujano. What is the meaning of “yotzrei-fesel?” He failed to give an answer.

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

Ipinako ba si Jesus sa Krus o sa Isang Tulos?

Isa sa mga isyung ibinabato ng mga Saksi ni Jehovah sa mga kaanib sa TUNAY na Iglesia ni Cristo - ang Iglesia Katolika - ay patungkol sa uri ng pagkamatay ni Jesus.

Kung siya ba ay IPINAKO SA KRUS o siya ay PINAHIRAPAN sa isang TULOS lamang?

Ating sangguniin ang sinasabi ng isang magaling na apologetics o tagapangtanggol ng Santa Iglesia na si Bro. Duane sa kanyang FB Page na Questions and Answers - Christian Apologetics:

Dear Bro. Nelson C. Vidal Jr.,

According to Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Lord Jesus was crucified on a torture stake and not the cross.

If we read there is no problem with the verse.

“The God of our fathers raised Jesus, whom you killed by hanging him on a tree.”(Acts 5:30)

Let us look at the twisted points of those who want to alter the verses in the Bible.

HANG – The question is, was crucified on the cross not hanged? Did they see anybody crucified on the cross whose feet are still stepping on the ground?

TREE - The question is: Was the Cross made for Jesus made of plastic? It is understandable that the cross used to crucify Jesus was made of wood?

The Jehovah's Witnesses should study a bit of logic before they try to twist the verses in the Bible.

Also, here is a portion of the P75 manuscript (3rd century manuscript of the Gospels on papyrus).

We can read the Greek words bastazei ton stauron which I encircled.

The staurogram merges the Greek letters tau-rho representing parts of the Greek words for “cross” (stauros) and “crucify” (stauroō) in Bodmer papyrus P75. Staurograms are the earliest images of Jesus on the cross. They predate other Christian crucifixion images by 200 years

This is what we can see clearly. This proves the views of Jehovah’s Witnesses are wrong

Sincerely in Christ,

Bro. Duane Cartujano

[Dito po nababasa ang orihinal na katugunan ni Bro. Duane.] 

"JEHOVAH" ba ang PANGALAN ng DIYOS?

Sinulat ni Bro. Duane Cartujano

Jehovah’s Witnesses state that God’s true name is “Jehovah.”

This is a big deception!

“Jehovah” is based on the form in the MT: the consonants of YHWH and the vowels of Adonai (AdOnAi) reduced A-vowel (“e”), long O, and long A).

“Jehovah” is not a name or a Hebrew word. It is a conflation of YHWH and Adonai.

It is the (uneducated) combination of “the consonants of YHVH with the vowels of AdOnAi.”

That is, the word is YHWH, something like Yahweh. Out of respect, the sacred name became unpronounceable, so they substituted Adonai in the vocalization to alert readers to say Adonai when the text was read out loud.

According to Jewish Tradition, there is a restriction in reading YHWH.

That is why Adonai (אדֹנִי) was used instead of YHWH.

Adonai is used by the Jews every time they want to read the name of God.

There is a dominant tradition among Jews about tetragrammaton יהוה and this should be read as Adonai.

“Jehovah” is not a word; it is an erroneous mix of two different words by people who know Elementary Hebrew but not much else and see that combination in the Masoretic Text and presume that the form with those consonants and those vowels is the correct name but is simply is not.

Jehovah is incorrect; it is a mixture of qere (aDONAI) & kethiv (YHWH): the consonants of YHVH with the vowels of AdOnAi (which the MT does, it vocalizes the four consonants as if “adonai” to keep one from pronouncing the name). YeHoVaH (the “a” in adonai is a shewah).

According to a respected and famous Jewish scholar, Professor Lawrence Schiffman (leading scholar of ancient Judaism):

“Jehovah has no possibility of truth Y-H-W-H is more accurate as it assumes no vowels.”|

What can the Jewish Encyclopedia say about this?

The Jewish Encyclopedia said clearly that the word Jehovah is “mispronunciation”.

According to a popular dictionary.

JEHOVAH – An incorrect transliteration of Yahweh. (Page 522, The New Websters Dictionary of the English Language)