Bakit nanginginig sa takut si Eli Soriano na makipagtalakayan kay Fr. Darwin Gitgano?

 

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

Monk's Hobbit: 'Is Iglesia [N]i Cristo the Church of Christ?'

By Bro. Quirino M. Sugon Jr. MONK'S HOBBIT

Fr. Daniel J. McNamara, S.J., during one of our walks years ago, told us: “The Iglesia ni Cristo is neither a church nor of Christ.” It is worthwhile to ponder on his words as Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) celebrates its 95th Anniversary last July 27, 2009–95 years after Felix Y. Manalo made the INC into a corporation with him as the executive minister last July 27, 1914.

A true church of Christ has four marks: one, holy, Catholic, apostolic (c.f. Catechism of the Catholic Church Art. 811 ). If one of these does not hold, then the Iglesia ni Cristo is a false church of Christ.

1. Is the Iglesia ni Cristo one? The INC is united in doctrine and even in voting. No wonder many politicians who wished to be reelected this coming 2010 elections are all congratulating INC in its 95th anniversary. The INC passed the first test.

2. Is the Iglesia ni Cristo holy? The Catholic Church has produced numerous saints: beggars and kings, scholars and soldiers, old and young. Can the INC name at least one–only one–person in all its history whom they consider as a saint, a man or woman worthy of emulation, whose life reflected the radical message of the gospel–a Mother Teresa, an Ignatius of Loyola, a Francis of Assisi? The INC can give none.

3. Is the Iglesia ni Cristo catholic? Catholicity simply means universal. The INC is universal in space: the INC is now found in many countries and its mission is to convert the whole world. But the INC is not universal in time: where was INC in the first centuries of Christianity, when the truths of the Faith were debated and clarified? The INC was not there. It is true that INC proclaims an affinity with the teachings of Bishop Arius (AD 250-336), the founder of Arianism, a heresy which denies the divinity of Christ. But between Arius and Manalo is 1,600 years of absence.

Catholic also means “according to totality” or “in keeping with the whole” (Catechism of the Catholic Church Art. 830):

The Catholic Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry of apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of Parousia.

The INC also claims this catholicity, for they also adopt the following catholic doctrine:

Outside the church there is no salvation.

I remembered one of INC’s television show called Tamang Daan, the Right Way in contrast to Eli Soriano’s Dating Daan or the Old Way. In their show, one of INC’s argument to support their doctrine is a quotation from a catholic author: “Outside the Church of Christ there is no salvation.” The two INC ministers–always two since two is the sign of Socratic dialogue for knowing the truth–will tell the readers that the text they are quoting has the imprimatur of the Catholic Church. Then they make a twist of Faith: translate this sentence in Filipino and you will see that “Outside Iglesia ni Cristo there is no salvation.” Oh, what a proof.

4. Is the Iglesia ni Cristo apostolic? To be apostolic, the INC must be founded by an apostle, in the same way as the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Apostles Peter and Paul. But the fact that INC only celebrated its 95th founding anniversary means that INC could never be founded by an apostle. An apostle was a person sent by Christ with the authority to preach the Kingdom of God (c.f. Mt 10). The apostles in turn ordained bishops and gave them authority to govern the church, as Timothy was ordained by Paul through the laying of the hands:

Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate. (1 Tim 4:14)

And these bishops in turn ordain new bishops to take their place. The Roman Catholic Church, for example, is apostolic because it traces its apostolic lineage from St. Peter, the first bishop of Rome, to the present pope, Pope Benedict XVI. But who ordained Manalo? Who laid hands on him? No one. He ordained himself. Oh, I made a mistake. Protestant pastors ordained him (full story by Emily Jordan). But INC never recognizes the Protestant faith. Mainline Protestants at least believes on the Divinity of Christ, which the INC reject. This itself poses a question on the validity of the Manalo’s ordination. (The validity of the Protestant minister’s apostolic succession is a separate issue.) So effectively, no one ordained Manalo. He ordained himself.

5. Thus, the Iglesia ni Cristo posesses only one mark of the true Church of Christ: it is one, but it is not holy, nor catholic, nor apostolic. Let us not be deceived. Not all those who are named Manny Pacquiao can box like the real Manny Pacquiao. Not all those who calls themselves the Church of Christ or Iglesia ni Cristo is the true Church of Christ. Only the Catholic Church is. The Church of Iglesia ni Cristo is a false church, an Anti-Church. The Christ of Iglesia ni Cristo is an Arian idol, an Anti-Christ. Let us not be deceived.

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!

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.] 

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.

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?