Archive for category Iglesia ni Kristo [Manalo]

re: Now I get it of jo King [INC member]


I’m sorry that I got late in answering the blogpost of Mr. Jokingonlee [his post],. I first replied to one of his posts concerning the conversion of Charice Pempengco to the Catholic faith[ click here] and as I checked his blog, I accidentally saw another reply from him regarding the post I entitled “I get it” [click here]. So as a response, let me just reiterate to him points to ponder regarding my general statements about their members. See how he chose only the points of which he fits his standard .

a sneak peak of his blogpost

[On the tiara issue. Did the INC placed its point on the tiara or the title?]

yes, as what I posted in this blog, I pointed out the pasugo article of which the writer points out the tiara as one of the examples of how the pope is the 666, are you not aware about the debate between Mr. Karl Keating and Mr. Ventilacion in the 80’s?

                this part of the video illustrates how mr. Keating exposed the ignorance of the INC members concerning the tiara issue.

[As you may well know the Catholics authorities have a knack of CONCEALING and TRANSFERRING pedophile priest.]

what is the connection of the paedophile priests regarding the 666 mania? I am deeply worried as on how your intellectual capacity is ruined through the brainwashing techniques of your ministers. Let me remind you that not all priests are paedophiples. I would like also to correct the issue concerning the transferring of paedophile priests. We all know the reason as on why some priests were transferred to other diocese. One big reason is that they are still under investigation, once a priest was accused of pedophilia, they were given the chance to transfer the priest as to make the investigation vivid and without bias. The investigating team from the court and the diocese are autonomous but with connivance as to gather evidences as to whether the suspect should be damned to the jail or not. Once the trial is done and the judge announces that the suspect is convicted with paedophilia, the diocese shall call on the accused and must present him to the court for the final verdict and eventually his road to jail. You should study about that.

read more: source 1, source 2

[Re: https://apocalypsisjesuchristi.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/i-get-it/
They even DENIED the document of the  DONATION OF CONSTANTINE which mentions the disputed title. However it is now DENIED, It points clearly to the FACT that your authorities BENEFITTED from that DOCUMENT.]
the donation of constantine according from the historians is a FORGED DOCUMENT in order to give favor to the Church and the church never accepted that document to be valid since it cannot be found the archives of the vatican. the carbon dating of the document was questionable because it was dated to be written in the 8th century while Constantine lived in the 3rd century. According to  Heinrich Friedrich Karl Freiherr vom Stein in his book “Monumenta Germaniae Historica”,

” the Donation was widely accepted as authentic, although the Emperor Otto III did possibly raise suspicions of the document “in letters of gold” as a forgery, in making a gift to the See of Rome”.

source: click here

[on your second point. “Mr. Manalo’s disappointment of those freak pastors of their church.” Well, who wouldn’t be disappointed for freak pastors as you say. Thats why they are expelled.]
there were many cases that your ministers> I don’t know if you have read this one but I never heard them expelled in your ministry. [click here]

[You said “note: i did not see any records that they were expelled, there were even many INC members who committed crimes left to be INC until now. “
Well, it is not for public information dearest. It is being announced in an INC congregation not with any other church like yours dear. I’m sure you have heard of ex ministers who went to the fold of ADD. Whether you believe it or not dear it doesn’t mean we don’t do it. Or prove anything to  you.]

again, those who transferred were not abusive in their deeds, most of them are good servants of your church, they transferred to the ADD because of their opinion regarding the true faith that can be found in the Eli Soriano’s fold. There’s no issue with the conversion of them to the faith invented by Soriano but the point is the non-expulsion of your ministers even if they are allegedly accused of doing inhumane actions.

[It is not something we should be showing off as you would like us to do. We are not like your priest who threaten their own brethren publicly of excommunication in leading dailies. Like your brethren Noynoy. Just to prove something.]

you make me laugh with your statements. are you saying that the church had threatened him to be excommunicated? what I read in the newspapers is that, PNOY is only SUBJECTED to EXCOMMUNICATION if he still maintains his liberal point of view, it is different from PNOY is THREATENED of EXCOMMUNICATION. you have understand the terms used before stating your wanderings regarding the statements of the bishops and priests concerning PNoy’s stand concerning contraception.

here is a classical example from GMA NEWS report]

source: click here

[Sorry dearest but the INC is not like that.]

your church is like that, don’t you see how they turn out to be hypocrites once refuted?

[Come again dear “Proving their last resort every time they could not explain their faith:”
I believe that would be your faith. I had the pleasure of talking with many catholics like you and not one of you can point out WHERE in the BIBLE is the teaching of 3 persons in one god?]

actually there is a good place to start that kind of discussion. We can start from the simplest context in the Genesis concerning the existence of the holy Trinity in the Bible. Btw, I find it funny that you are stating doctrines that you consider to be unbiblical in your church while I was only generalizing my statements regarding the funny acts of your brethren in here.

[After all, a lot of catholics are indeed proud that the catholics translated the bible they would. So how come it is not that easy for a catholic to point to a verse in the bible that teaches about this?
Now i get it. Catholics simply don’t know. They don’t know that they are being fooled by their mentors.]

funny, because the Catholic Church really have the guts to compile, translate and propagate the Bible, are you not aware why your church cannot provide early Church documents and were not able to state antique evidences that it is connected to the Early Church? what your ministers can do is to cut and paste ideas from other churches. In addition, the fact is that you do not have any Manalo’s version of the Bible.  did you ever noticed that? tell me.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Answering an INC member about the conversion of Charice Pempengco to the Catholic Faith


I got busy lately when someone from the Iglesia ni Cristo Commented [eto ang source] in one of my posts regarding Charice Pempengco. I had the reply but it’s quick due to busy schedules. But anyway as to answer his/her article, please allow me first to post my reply to his/her comment that I posted

my updated reply:

                                                                             [Excuse me dear the INC are not fanatics. ]

I did not say that INCs are fanatics.

                                                                                   [We are all human like you.]

I did not even say that you are not human,

                                                                                   [We never said we are perfect.]

I never said you are perfect.

[the teachings of Christ and Apostles may be perfect but we as their followers are not. That is why we need salvation.]

so salvation comes from ???

[We are indeed saddened for the experiences Charice and her mother underwent from a person who should have been their defender. Who wouldn’t. That is why the INC leadership would not hesitate to expel the evil brethrens who do not abide by the teachings in the bible.]

her father remained to be an INC member until his death.

[Regarding post of Flewen : https://apocalypsisjesuchristi.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/as-to-remember-charice-pempengcos-conversion-to-the-catholic-faith-from-iglesia-ni-cristo-manalo/#comment-186

Yes, we do clean our own dearest. But for some they took refuge in other faiths instead of trusting their leaders to help or guide them. Thats their decision. Its not that surprising. The INC leadership can only extend their hand but they cannot force a brethren to take it if they won’t. Charice and her Mother probably found comfort from famous personalities of your faith.]

because they know the truthfulness if you are in the Catholic Fold. The INC members who were boasting in the online world about their church were silence about Ms. Charice’s situation. Remember how her mother became a battered wife which is very saddenning and hilarious. This situation only shows that not all the time, that when a former non-INC becomes part of your fold, imperfections always exist in your church.
[And it wouldn’t be surprising their awe in meeting such influential and famous people who have extended their hand. Its not surprising if they decided to switch to your faith. it happens. People can easily be taken by such earthly glitters.]

actually, the reason why I exposed the life and conversion of Charice to the Catholic faith is only to tell to the people, that INC do not have solid unity amongst themselves. The attitude of her father and their conversion to the Catholic faith only shows also that conversion to the Catholic Faith is always visible in our country even if nominal Catholics also shift faith to other denominations/religion.

[As you can see the decision to convert was not borne out of FAITH but out of a VERY BAD EXPERIENCE. Not out of BELIEF but of VIOLENCE that has haunted them.]

actually, when I watched one of the episodes of SAKSI [when it was still in the early Primetime slot] regarding her conversion, she was actually excited and dreamed of to convert to the Catholic Faith after her mothers reversion. So when Charice with her brother were asked if they’re willing to convert, they answered affirmatively and with sincerity.

here is the video:

[Do remember that their are countless catholic wives who are being subjected to violence to the same magnitude if not greater. What have you done to prevent it?]

the Catholic Church provided Family and Life Apostolate for the victims of abuses from either husband, wife or children, they were given seminars, comfort and and husband-wife-children care programs that helped many couple to sustain and maintain their status and continue the sweetness of their relationship. But this is not popular because the church doesn’t need to publicize this kind of program because BECs [basic Ecclesial Communities] are there to advertise the programs of the church.

[You said “your predecessors started it all up by putting mud to the Catholic Church” referring to the papal tiara. We do not adhere to the Adventist point dear. We merely pointed what they knew. Remember however your mentors deny it.]

Your INC predecessors copied the accusation from the Seventh Day Adventists. They were the one who scandalized that issue in order to gain popularity during their glory years. That kind of accusation were formulated by them thru the leadership of Ellen White of which the modern day SDA theologians denied the claims already. However, since Mr. Manalo became once a member of the SDA, he inherited and learned those ideas and later on propagated also the issue as to contest the Catholic Church.

[It is a fact written also in the Donation of Constatine. Although this document is already being DENIED by your mentors. It was CLEARLY USED by your church and based on history the Cahtolic church BENEFITED from this document.
“The earliest known instance of the phrase Vicarius Filii Dei is in the Donation of Constantine, now dated between the eighth and the ninth centuries AD.” source wikipedia
So it is not exactly mud that was being thrown at you dear but FACTs written by your mentors then. But later DENIED. The said document was made IN FAVOUR of your POPES and of the Roman Catholic Church.
So please don’t blame us for that.]

VFD is a clear lie. the Donation of Constantine was verified to be a hoax created by the people who wanted a favor to the church. It is surprising that you still believe on a hoax. many Catholic bloggers also posted the pictures of the Tiara but until now, your cohorts were not able to provide proofs in your claim about the 666 dilemma. I am not going to blame you in person, but I can blame this to your leader.

please provide that this kind of inscription can be found in the tiara:

Pasugo article about the Papal Tiara

because this is the actual Tiara that the pope used:

[Regarding what you said “she sees brighter life as a Catholic than being an INC”. Well, that would be your personal opinion as you see something based on what you see now. You feel honored by a person of her status converting to your faith which is not surprising. But do consider those who were ABUSED by your PRIESTs and the MANY CATHOLICs being subjected to VIOLENCE by your fellow catholics.]

There were also abuses inside the INC, the only reason why the abuses of some priests became viral in the media world was because of Secularism. We all know that the Catholic Church is the most well-known Church as to compare from other Christian denominations in the world today. Even your church is nothing as to compare the splendor that the church have for so long. It was not also who claimed that she sees brighter life but it was her who said that she’s happy that she is one in faith now with her mother. So it is not my problem anymore sir.

[This is in no way mud slinging but a wake call.
A fellow INC of mine was likewise subjected to such VIOLENCE including her mother. If Charice and her mom were subject to a hammer. They were subjected to a bolo in their necks. As a friend I could not help but want to kick her husbands ass but a sober mind calls for another way and that is to take him to our church elders.]

so, it would be illogical to use the abuses of some priests just in order to justify your accusation against the Catholic Church. It would be unfair for us that Catholics will shut down exposing the abuses of your brethren while in your side, you are happy attacking the Catholic faith.Think about it.

[Violent characters of people whether in my faith or yours is not condoned by the teachings of Christ or the Apostles. The INC follows the teaching of the apostle to EXPEL THE EVIL BRETHREN.]

I cannot tell that because the father of Charice remained to be a member of INC even if how many times he did so many bad things to his family.

[I regret to say that it is not being done by your faith. Take a good look at what your mentors did when their fellow priests were found to be PEDOPHILEs. Instead of expelling them they TRANSFERRED them to another parishes where the ABUSES CONTINUED.]
see? you are ok with the attacks to the mistakes of Catholic Clergies while it is not ok for us to expose the imperfection of your people claiming to be the only saved individuals in the end times? that’s foolishness
[And your church PAID for the CRIMINAL ACTs to the point of bankruptcy.]

it is not just the Catholic Church suffers bankruptcy, i guess, your church do also suffer it too, though not in particular about sex maniac ministers, but all about the in-activeness of the people to contribute in your abuluyan.

Closed Iglesia ni Cristo Church structure in Pampanga

[Is this mud? or is this the TRUTH? well, judge for yourself. It is recorded in the COURT RECORDs of the US. My aunt whose a devout catholic in LA was so embarass when she knew the priest who officiated her marriage was convicted of rape and child molestation. She’s still a catholic but non practicing one which is not surprising]

funny, how do we call a sad truth? is it not a mud? tell me, when there were cases of bad priests in the Catholic fold, it is not that big as to compare to other churches who also suffer those kind of scenarios. See? it is ok for you to pinpoint individual mistakes of Catholics while for Catholics pinpointing the mistakes of INC members and ministers is not ok? where’s the balance there.

[Lastly, I agree we cannot force Charice if thats what she believed in. But what did she BELIEVED in? Did your mentors indoctrinated her prior to that ceremony? Guess not, you obviously didn’t point that out in your post, which should have been more important than the ceremony
She converted as you say due to violence she had experience not out of belief in your faith. And that is what I understand in your post.]

excuse me, before a non-Catholic teen/adult converts to the Catholic Church, they are given seminars in preparation to the RCIA [Roman Catholic Initiation for Adults]. The church never directly converts a certain non-catholic adult to become Catholic not unless they are given proper education to the faith they wanted to be with. That’s why most former non-catholics who became Catholics later on become Apologists of the Church. Like Stephen Ray, Atty. Marwil Llasos, Patrick Madrid etc etc who became the inspiration of non-catholics to convert themselves to the true Church made by Christ. You have to learn about it because it seems you forgot to analyze and you are underrating the system of the RCIA.

3 Comments

Exposing Iglesia ni Kristo 1: the bias of Mr. Ventilacion [3 versus 1?]


Leave a comment

I get it


Iglesia ni Kristo [manalo] members adamantly commented negative thoughts about my blog. Christian and his colleagues often say, “my blog is poor”, “lie” etc etc. But one thing for sure, they are the ones who is having a dilemma on how to defend their beliefs from being questioned by us, Catholic Defenders. These bloggers {namely: Aerial Cavalry, readme, christian, sidewinder} are officially ignorant to the Catholic doctrines and practices. As you are going also to check the blog of mr. readme and Aerial, both are just mere lies and malicious attempt to fool our fellow Catholics.

I read today the comment of mr. Aerial Cavalry to mr. readme’s blog, he denied several points I posted in my blog and tends to be choosy in refuting the rebuttals I stated in response to his accusations about the pope=666 claims.

Here are the points that he did not tackle or denied:

1. He never pointed out about the tiara issue.

[his alibi: it is not about the tiara’s enscryption but about the title used by the pope]

note: the pasugo publication, september 1976 will contradict his alibi because it has been their main topic on that said month and year.

2. He never pointed out about the videos concerning Mr. Manalo’s disappointment of those freak pastors of their church.

[his alibi: they have a process of expulsion to those bad ministers/members]

note: i did not see any records that they were expelled, there were even many INC members who committed crimes left to be INC until now. [proofs will be posted to another article]

On the other hand, Mr. Christian who happens to be a fanatic INC member, questioned the pasugo article I posted in this blog. He even posted the link of the Catholic Faith Defenders domain and pointed out about the footnote issue. According from his comment, the pasugo issue I posted is questionable because it has footnotes and its year published while the pasugo he have now doesn’t have.

Question: what year was that pasugo he read?

I remember when Mr. Karl Keating opened up this article to his debate versus Mr. Ventilacion, the one I posted in here is also the same to what he exposed. In connection, mr. Ventilacion did not opposed it because it really was published and he only alibied that the mistake is not within them but of the Seventh Day Adventists.

Sidewinder on the other hand, questioned my story about the INCs involvement in debates in Davao especially their beloved ministers of faith. He wanted me to identify them by name, but the truth is it is his tactic to degrade the factual events I experienced regarding the debate I experienced battling in verbatim to a deacon namely, Mr. Johnny Rasonable.

Plain fact: I cannot identify to him the names, but what I can assure to him that there were INC ministers engaging to debates in Rizal park, Davao City every Sunday before not until newly installed ministers are doing papogi points only in their locales leaving their deacons . If you like, you can hear religious debates every Sunday via Bombo Radyo-Davao via their website.: [click here]

I read also in other blogs their alibis when Catholic Defenders/ Defensores Fidei bloggers defended the Catholic faith by saying, “poor”, not good, hatred lang iyan, etc etc…

Proving their last resort every time they could not explain their faith:

Filipino Cult blog- [click here]

Splendor of the Church [Fr. Abe Arganiosa’s blog]- [click here]

Sarionton’s blog – [click here]

Now, I GET IT! they are all doing tactics.

15 Comments

As to remember Charice Pempengco’s conversion to the Catholic Faith from Iglesia ni Cristo [manalo]


I will post here the article made by the blog owner of Filipino Cults blog. Some parts of it will never be included because it has only slight focus on Ms. Charice’s conversion. now here is the article.

Obviously, Iglesia Ni Cristo was hurt about Charice Pempengco switch from
Iglesia Ni Cristo back to Roman Catholic. It’s a big media embarrassment for the
Iglesia Ni Cristo cult that a big star like Charice Pempengco turns her back to
the cult headed by the Manalo family. A Filipino blogger, Jay Teodoro, blogged
that the reason why Charice left Iglesia Ni Cristo is MONEY.

Charice
Pempengco Converts From Iglesia Ni Cristo to Catholic

While a bad-mouth, ill mannered INC cult member blogged that the
reason why Charice left INC is because of FAME. With Charice’s fame and busy
schedule, Charice can’t commit with the INC schedule being enforced to the INC
members. (bloc voting is also being enforced to Iglesia Ni Cristo
members)

MONEY and FAME is not the reason why Charice Pempengco left
Iglesia Ni Cristo. VIOLENCE. VIOLENCE is the reason why Charice and her mother
Raquel left the Iglesia Ni Cristo cult. Charice’s irresponsible father is Ricky
Pempengco, an Iglesia Ni Cristo member. Ricky Pempengco was totally dependent to
his parents and a sibling working in Japan. Ricky Pempengco, an Iglesia Ni
Cristo member, has a drug problem who often physically abused his wife, Raquel.
Charice’s mother, Raquel decided to leave her violent and irresponsible INC
member husband because Ricky threatened to kill her.

http://www.charicemania.com/2010/05/20/announcements/yes-looking-back-part-2/

“He
was holding a hammer, and he was choking me.” Raquel recalls.
“I was bleeding
profusely.”

The report says that after that incident, Charice and her mother never heard of
any news from the irresponsible and violent father who happens to be an Iglesia
Ni Cristo member. Raquel only converted from Catholic to Iglesia Ni Cristo
because Ricky, her husband was a member. But after her horrifying marriage
experience, she and Charice decided to leave Iglesia Ni Cristo and returned to
Roman Catholic.

This is the clear evidence why Charice and his mother
Raquel decided to leave Iglesia Ni Cristo. This is also the same reason why
other Filipino Catholics hate Iglesia Ni Cristo, the INC cult members does not
show Christian values to their fellow man. INC bloggers and cult members usually
attacks people and curse/malign others who are not INC members. What a shame.
This is actually where the INC members are actually good at; harassing and
maligning people. Look at the INC blogger, resbak/Conrad. He is a classic
example how INC member behaves in the internet. He does not even know how to
tell the truth about Charice’s violent, drug addict father because Ricky
Pempengco is an Iglesia Ni Cristo member. Resbak/Conrad is shielding/hiding the
fact that Charice’s father is a violent, drug addict, irresponsible Iglesia Ni
Cristo member. I have INC friends and I just like to tell you that Resbak/Conrad
and Charice’s father are embarrassment to Iglesia Ni Cristo.

Charice
Pempengco is an Iglesia Ni Cristo member, that’s a lie.
Charice’s father,
Ricky, is violent, drug addict Iglesia Ni Cristo member, that’s a
fact.

It’s quite disappointing to know that Charice’s father is a
monster, an INC member.

Who in the right mind would threaten to kill his
wife?

Who in the right mind would hold a hammer and choke

Who in the right mind would leave his family?

Ask Ricky Pempengco, an INC member.

read more: http://filipinocults.blogspot.com/2010/06/iglesia-ni-cristo-and-charice-pempengco.html

44 Comments

Answering aerial on 666- title of the pope.


he said:

“Kaya nga ang sabi ko pa nga ng aking sinipi ito ay: At dahil sa pinuna ng isa nating kapatid sa kaniyang COMMENTS section, na NAGKAKONTRAHAN ang kaniyang mga SINABI ay ganito ang kaniyang naging PALUSOT:
“oopss, there’s a mistake to my statement before, the one I am referring is the pope. THAT’S WHY I AM SPEAKING ALL THE TIME IN HERE ABOUT THE INCS CLAIM OF 666 AS THE TITLE OF THE POPE, NOT OF THE CHURCH. SO SORRY FOR THE TYPO ERROR HUH?”
Isa raw TYPO ERROR ang kaniyang nasabi, hehehehe.  Lumipas pa ang ilang sagutan namin at kung hindi pa may nag COMMENT na Kapatid, ay hindi pa niya mapapansin ang kaniyang pagkakamali, kahit na makikita ninyo sa kaniyang BLOG ay sinipi pa niya ang kaniyang SINABI na sinabi daw ng PASUGO NA ANG IGLESIA KATOLIKA ANG DIUMANO’Y ANG 666…kaya maliwanag na NAGPAPALUSOT para MAKAIWAS sa KAHIHIYAN ang magiting na CATHOLIC DEFENDER….”
 
sagot: there’s nothing wrong if someone who commits typo errors in the internet will ask for an apology, so in that case, I did it in order for the readers to understand what I mean, it is already a fact that I commented at the comment box that it is not my intention to confuse the readers regarding the mistake that I wrote that instead of writing “the pope” –I used “Catholic Church”— but the case is not about what I wrongly wrote but on the position that I stated to which I regard it to the pope and not to the Catholic Church. I won’t be able to emphasize it more since I already stated already the public apology through comment in my personal blog, is that not easy for you to understand? or your only way in order to insist that the description of Vicarius Filii Dei is really used by the pope as a title. remember, there is a difference between description and a title.
 
the dictionary states that:
 
description= label – a brief description given for purposes of identification; “the label Modern is applied to many different kinds of architecture”
 
 
title- (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a definite spiritual charge or office in the church, without appointment to which a candidate for holy orders cannot lawfully be ordained
 
 
As I said, though some knowledgeable latin writers had written Vicarius Filii Dei as a sort of description to the pope, in no ways you can see to ANY PICTURES OF THE TIARA that the kind of description is used to be the title of the pope.
 
Let me post again  pictures of the tiaras and some popes who it during their time:
 
 
 

the problem with the argument of Aerial is that he is not anymore emphasizing what the “Pasugo, September 1976 issue” stated in there, here’s the picture of their pasugo together on how they insisted that there’s an inscryption of Vicarius Filii Dei to the tiara.

this is a copy of their September 1976 issue of Pasugo

when we open the article, they argued that the pope is wearing a tiara that has an inscryption of Vicarius Filii Dei on its forehead:

Pasugo 1976 issue talks about the papal tiara

as we are going to zoom the page, they calculated it according to what I claim that the INC adhered to the accusations also of the Seventh Day Adventists regarding the title. Take note the title.

It is funny that Mr. Aerial cannot support their publication’s claims and resorted that it is not about how that title can be seen on the tiara but on how the authority is done. [rephrasing mine]. but the truth is that the pasugo issue had done it and made a big deal for that theory, now let the readers decide, how can a mere Mr., Aerial contradict the article written at the Pasugo? who is he, the head of Iglesia ni kristo [manalo]?

now he reiterated to us again, revelations 13, so since he is really trying to insist that the verse pertains to the pope, let me exegete the verse for the people’s enlightenment.

Rev. 13: 11 

” And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth: and he had two horns, like a lamb: and he spoke as a dragon.”

now, let me tell you readers that the verse is not speaking-alone to future events, but this is implying present events during the period of St. John the Evangelist’s preaching to the people in an apocalyptic way.

When the first line says:

“And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth”,  what does it mean? this speaks to the false prophets—they are those who preach another gospel contrary to the church made by Christ—twisting the gospel and twisting its meaning.

who are those false prophets?

2 Pet 2:1 [NIV] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves.

you can read on that passage that it demonstrate to false preachers who will divert the faithful to heresies and the like. Who are these false prophets nowadays?

simple, they are organized denominations who accused that there was a complete apostasy to the church made by Christ in the first century. The question is, where can we find in the Bible and History that those events happened?

The Bible is already clear that Jesus will never abandon His church and no evil will prevail against it.

Matthew 16: 18 [New Living Translation]

Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.

and who are those churches assumed that there was an apostasy[ complete apostasy] of the church made by Christ in the 1st century? I know you that you know also it Aerial.

Now, Mr. Aerial asserted that the meaning of representative will also define any particular cloning of the power of Jesus, that is false because as we can see, the definition itself would not define anything that the power/authority of theleader will also be possessed to a congressman.

 

If we will take a closer look to the definition of representative, we can read this:

 

Representative- adjective

  1. representing or serving to represent; specif.,
  2. picturing; portraying; reproducing

http://www.yourdictionary.com/representative

one might be confused to the word “portraying”, what is portraying?

Portray- to make a picture or portrait of; depict;

As you can see, since the pope portrays the authority vested on him, he only followed what the bible stated on the responsibility given to St. peter on the gospel. I already stated in here the verse and it is up for Aerial to understand what I the Bible says.

Now, what truly is being a representative? Is it all about cloning Jesus’ deeds? Or obeying the commandment and the authority vested on him? I think Aerial did not get this part.

17 Comments

Aerial on the True Church [part 2]


 

Nabasa ko ngayon lamang araw na ito ang sinasabing sagot diumano ni Aerial patungkol sa sinasabing hindi kuno Iglesiya katolika ang Iglesiyang tatag ni Kristo, at ngayon ay pagbibigyan ko ang hamon ng isang Manalista patungkol sa issue na ito.

eto ang link:

http://torch-of-salvation.blogspot.com/2011/08/sagot-kay-flewen-part-1-hindi-iglesia.html

 

topic: Sagot Kay Flewen Part 1: Hindi Iglesia Katolika ang Itinatag ni Cristo

sabi niya: Isang Catholic Defender na nagngangalang FLEWEN na may-ari ng Blog na:

https://apocalypsisjesuchristi.wordpress.com/

Ang aking nakadiskusiyon sa README BLOG, na nandidito ang LINK, upang makita ninyo ang aming buong napag-usapan:

http://readmeinc.blogspot.com/2009/09/guilt-of-idolatry.html

Hindi na niya sinagot sa blog ni Brod. Readme ang aking mga ipinost na comments, sa halip ay doon niya sa sariling Blog niya sinagot ang mga ito.

sagot: dahil nasa china ako ngayon at bawal ang blogger comments kaya sa free view sa www.ninjacloak.com lamang nababasa ang mga blog posts ni readme.

sabi mo: Well anyway, kung saan ba siya Masaya eh. Tutal ipinauso niya ang ANSWER IN YOUR OWN BLOG SCHEME na ito, kaya dito ko na rin sa BLOG ko sasagutin ang kaniyang mga argumento.

sagot: hindi ako ang nagpauso niyan, marami sa mga bloggers ang gumagawa rin ng istilo ko kung either gusto nilang i-publish ang kanilang mga rebuttals o tulad ng sitwasyon ko ngayon sa China o sa hindi pagiging komportable sa comment section ng isang blog kaya hindi ako ang nagpauso sa ANSWER IN YOUR OWN BLOG SCHEME.

sabi mo: Naghahambog si FLEWEN na diumano ay tinalo daw niya ang isang DIAKONO ng INC, ganito ang kaniyang sinabi:

“…..wala naman akong sinabi na natalo ang INC sa debate namin eh, NATALO ANG DEAKONO NINYO laban sa akin, gets?

sagot: hindi ko gagawin iyan kung hindi nag-dare ang isang commentator sa blog ni readme, naghahanap siya ng simpleng example at ang sarili kong experience ang ibinida ko para naman mas maging realistic ang pakikipagtalakayan namin at hindi lamang sa tinatawag na haka-haka.

sabi mo: At nang ating tanungin kung papaano niya natalo ang DIAKONO at kung anong paksa ang kanilang pinag-usapan? Ganito ang kaniyang naging sagot:

“aba aba,hindi ka pa rin naniniwala?sige,sampolan kita ng isa sa apat na aming pinag-diskusiyunan…ang patungkol sa encyclopedia…ang claim ng deakono ninyo, kayo nga raw ang tunay na Iglesia…humugot siya ng bersikulo…may nakatala nga raw na “terminong””Iglesia ni Kristo”…NGUNIT, nang nag-back-up ako ng tanong…”bakit sa encyclopedia na gawa ng mga hindi katoliko ay nagsasabing ang Iglesia Katolika ang sinasabing Iglesiyang tatag ni Kristo sa taong 33 AD habang ang naka-indicate sa inyo eh 1914, si Manalo ang may tatag sa sinasabi ninyong Iglesiya ni Kristo? sige nga, paki-explain nga?”

 

Ang diumano’y ISSUE na kanilang pinaglabanan ay kung ano ang Iglesiang itinatag ng Panginoong Jesus. Natural ang ating KAPATID na Diakono ay sa Biblia kukuha ng ipangpapatunay, dahil talaga namang dapat sa Biblia ka kukuha ng ipansasagot kapag RELIHIYON at PANANAMPALATAYA ang pag-uusapan, hindi po ba?

 

sagot: ang sabi ko, BIGYAN KITA NG SAMPOL, at ang encyclopedia ang unang ipinoste kong tugon sa request mo sa kung anong paraan natalo ang deakono mo. Kaya ko rin iyang patunayan sa Bibliya ngunit as of now, we shall focus first on the historical aspect.

sabi mo: At talaga namang mababasa sa Biblia na ang Iglesia na itinatag ni Cristo ay ang IGLESIA NI CRISTO noong Unang Siglo sa Jerusalem.

 

sagot: CHURCHES OF CHRIST po, halos lahat ng translation na nabasa ko sa mga Bibliya, mapa-katoliko o hinding bersyon nito, CHURCHES OF CHRIST po ang sabi, hindi Church of Christ lamang.

sabi mo: Kaya natalo niya diumano ang Diakono, na hindi naman tagapangaral ng evanghelio sa INC, sa pamamagitan ng kaniyang ebidensiya na makapagpapatunay na ang Iglesia Katolika ang iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo, sa pamamagitan ng ENCYCLOPEDIA. 

sagot: ang sabi ko, SAMPOL, hindi lang iyan ang rason kaya nga in order to make the discussion smooth, let us focus first on the historical proofs.

sabi mo: Kaya natalo ang DIAKONO at napatunayan ng magiting na CATHOLIC DEFENDER na ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA ang TUNAY NA IGLESIA sa tulong ng ENCYCLOPEDIA.

Hindi po ba nakakatawa ito?

sagot: hindi iyan nakakatawa aerial, dahil ang historical na ebidensiya ang siyang nagpapatunay sa biblical na katunayan nito, ngunit dahil nga ang sabi kong sampol ay ang encyclopedia, hindi kailanman ito katawatawa.

 

sabi mo: Para mapatunayan nila na sila ang tunay ay hindi Biblia ang kanilang binubuklat kundi aklat na gawa ng mga taong hindi naman kinasihan ng Panginoong Diyos. May alam kaya ang Diakonong iyon sa ENCYCLOPEDIANG sinasabi niya? Hmmm…

Ang ebidensiya ba ng pagiging totoo, ay sa Encyclopedia ka kukuha ng sagot, batay sa opiniyon nung nagsulat?

 

sagot: ang nagsulat ng encyclopedia ay di lamang ayon sa opiniyon ng niya kung hindi sa iba’t ibang resources na nagbibigay patunay sa inilahad ng may akda. batay na rin sa record ng encyclopedia, hindi lamang iisa ang nag-usisa nito para maging comprehensibo at balanse ang kanilang research kung hindi sa maraming sektor ng lipunan.

sabi mo: Nang ating itanong kung saang Encyclopedia niya kinuha ang kaniyang sinabi? Ganito ang kaniyang sinabi:

“I will cite the encyclopedia I used, but I cannot give to you the page since I am not bringing an encyclopedia but using only its online counterpart. According from the source: “…The Roman Catholic Church traces its history to Jesus Christ and the Apostles.” [though the original sentences used in the hard copy of it is different but still ended with the same conclusion].

Here:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507284/Roman-Catholicism

Ating balikan ang kaniyang sinabi na atin nang sinipi sa bandang itaas, tungkol sa kung ano ang nakalagay sa encyclopedia:

…”bakit sa encyclopedia na gawa ng mga hindi katoliko ay nagsasabing ang Iglesia Katolika ang sinasabing Iglesiyang tatag ni Kristo…”

 

Pansinin ninyo mga kapatid ang kaniyang sinabi na sinabi daw ng ENCYCLOPEDIA:

“…ANG IGLESIA KATOLIKA ANG SINASABING IGLESIYANG TATAG NI KRISTO…

 

Nang kaniyang ipakita sa atin ang kaniyang ENCYCLOPEDIA na kaniyang counterpart source diumano, ganiyan ba sinabi?

“…The Roman Catholic Church traces its history to Jesus Christ and the Apostles.”

 

Na kung ating tatagalogin ay ganito ang isinasaad:

“…Inuugat ng Iglesia Katolika Romana ang kaniyang kasaysayan mula kay Jesu Cristo at mga Apostol.”

 

Ibig sabihin ang Iglesia Katolika ang naguugat ng kaniyang history mula sa panahon ni Cristo at ng mga Apostol. May sinabi ba ang sumulat niyan na ang Iglesia Katolika ay itinatag ni Cristo noong Unang Siglo sa Jerusalem?

sagot: pansinin kung papaano gustong baluktutin ni Aerial ang kanyang pagsasabing hindi kuno tatag ni Kristo ang Iglesiya katolika. Sa pamamagitan lamang ng common sense, mababasa natin ang salitang “trace”…ibig sabihin “makikita”, bakit pa tututulan ang ganitong realidad na aminado ang britannica sa katotohanang makikita/ inuugat ang kanyang kasaysayan mula sa kapanahunan ni Kristo?

 

logic: dahil lang ba walang nakasaad na Unang Siglo o sa Jerusalem sa parteng iyan, ibig sabihin hindi ito tatag ni Kristo? patawa ka ba?

tandaan ang keyword: “TRACE”—> walang tumututol diyan kahit mga protestante.

 

sabi niya: Di ipakita niya sa atin kung may sinabing ganun, kasi iyon ang sinabi niya dun sa DIAKONO na diumano’y tinalo niya sa debate eh. Ating balikan ang kaniyang sinabi:

…”bakit sa encyclopedia na gawa ng mga hindi katoliko ay nagsasabing ang Iglesia Katolika ang sinasabing Iglesiyang tatag ni Kristo…”

Kaya nga maitatanong natin sa kaniya:

ANG IGLESIA KATOLIKA BA AY NANINIWALA NA GALING ITO SA JERUSALEM?

 

sagot: OO, lahat ng mga Catholic resources ay nagsasabing ang Iglesiya katolika ay naitatag ito sa Jerusalem, ang Iglesiyang gawa ba ni manalo, galing ba sa jerusalem? obvious.

 

sabi mo: PAKISAGOT MO ITO FLEWEN. SAAN BA TALAGA NAG-ORIGINATE ANG CATHOLIC CHURCH SA JERUSALEM BA O SA ROMA?

 

sagot: sa Jerusalem, ngunit marami ang sumampalataya nito sa Roma kaya nailipat ang sentro ng Kristiyanismo sa Roma nang hindi tinanggap ng marami sa mga taga-Jerusalem ang magandang balitang hatid ni HesuKristo sa atin. Napansin mo siguro na sa halos lahat ng mga events after Christ’s death and ressurection, ang pinaka-highlight nito ay ang Roma dahil ito rin dati ang sentro ng paganong imperyo.

sabi mo: Ating kunin ng buo ang bahaging iyon na sinabi ng Encyclopedia, may mahalagang bagay tayong dapat na mapansin na pinutol ng kaibigan nating Catholic Defender:

“The Roman Catholic Church traces its history to

Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Over the course of centuries it developed a highly sophisticated theology and an elaborate organizational structure HEADED BY THE PAPACY, the oldest continuing absolute monarchyin the world.”

 

Source:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/507284/Roman-Catholicism%E2%80%9D

Maliwanag na sinasabi diyan na ang Iglesia Katolika ay PINANGUNGULUHAN ng KAPAPAHAN o PAPACY, ang PAPA ang kanilang kinikilalang ULO,

 

sagot: the definition did not imply the past but also the present situation of the church made by Christ. It is true that the church presently is headed by an earthly Vicar which is the pope but its headship does not include grandeur but only his responsibility to become the spokesperson of Christ, since Jesus is not physically present nowadays.

sabi mo: Kaya kailangan niyang patunayan sa atin na ang Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo noong Unang Siglo, ay pinangunguluhan ng PAPA, o ang PAPA ang kinikilalang ULO nito. Saan sa Biblia mababasa iyan kaibigang FLEWEN?

sagot: Mat. 16: 18-19

 

sabi mo: Kung mapapatunayan mo na ang PAPA nga ang kinikilalang ULO ng mga Unang Cristiano noong FIRST CENTURY, ay mapapatunayan at walang kaduda-duda na tatag nga ni Cristo ang Iglesia Katolika.

 

sagot: si Kristo ang may tatag ng Kanyang Iglesiya [Matt. 16:18-19] na binigyang autoridad Niya si San Pedro [unang papa] na alagaan at pakainin ang kanyang mga tupa [John 21:15-17]

sabi mo: Diyan na papasok ngayon ang kanilang CLAIM na si APOSTOL PEDRO ang KAUNA-UNAHANG PAPA ng Iglesia. Pero ang malaking tanong ay ito:

May mababasa ba sa Biblia na si PEDRO ay kinilalang PAPA ng mga UNANG CRISTIANO at naging ULO ng IGLESIA noong PANAHON NG MGA APOSTOL?

 

sagot: OO, kung pagbabatayan natin ang tamang exegesis, mababasa mo ang mga scenario na kung saan si San Pedro ang nangunguna sa lahat ng mga apostol:

Matthew 10:2

And the names of the twelve Apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, 3 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, 4 Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Mark 3:16-17

16 And to Simon he gave the name Peter: 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he named them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder. 18 And Andrew and Philip, and Bartholomew and Matthew, and Thomas and James of Alpheus, and Thaddeus and Simon the Cananean: 19 And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

 

sabi mo: Muugat ba sa panahon ng Bagong Tipan o panahon ng mga Apostol ang pagkakaroon ng PAPA?

 

sagot: OO, ayon na rin sa plano ni Hesus at ginawa rin ni San Pedro:

Acts 1:15-26

In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty): 16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: 17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18 And he indeed has possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. 19 And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. 21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us, 22 beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection. 23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24 And praying, they said: You, Lord, who know the heart of all men, show whether of these two you have chosen, 25 to take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas has by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

 

sabi mo: Ating basahin ang pagtatapat ng isang OBISPO ng Iglesia Katolika:

“Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I HAVE FOUND NO TRACE OF THE PAPACY AS IT EXISTS AT THIS MOMENT.” [Bishop Strossmayer’s Speech (in the Vatican Council of 1870), p. 4]

Sa Filipino:

“Ngayon, pagkatapos na mabasa ng buo ang Bagong Tipan, Aking ipinahayag sa Diyos, na nakataas ang aking kamay sa dakilang krusipiho, na wala akong nakitang bakas ng KAPAPAHAN na ito’y umiral sa panahong ito.”

sagot: kasagsagan ito ng debate patungkol sa papal infallibility. Ang speech na ito ay sadyang assumption lamang ng obispo at hindi kailanman huling salita ng Iglesiya patungkol sa papal infallibility. Ayon sa Catholic Encyclopedia eto ang sinabi:

 

“At the Vatican Council he was one of the most notable opponents of papal infallibility, and distinguished himself as a speaker. The pope praised Strossmayer’s “remarkably good Latin.” A speech in which he defended Protestantism made a great sensation. Afterwards another speech, delivered apparently on 2 June, 1870, was imputed to him. It is full of heresies and denies not only infallibility but also the primacy of the pope.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14316a.htm

now, let us finish the story in order to let the readers know how partial Aerial is in citing sources, according from the Catholic Encyclopedia it states that:

“Finally, on 26 December, 1872, he published the decrees of the council in his official paper. At a later date he repeatedly proclaimed his submission to the pope, as in his pastoral letter of 28 February, 1881, on Sts. Cyril and Methodius, expressing his devotion to the papal see at times in extravagant language. “

This is the evidence that he concealed and accepted the final decision of the council concerning the issues of papal infallibility and the papacy. Sorry Aerial, you are so partial.

 

sabi mo: Sinabi ni Bishop Strossmayer, sa kaniyang talimpati sa harap ng maraming Obispo noong 1870 sa Vatican, na hindi siya nakakita ng bakas na nagkaroon ng KAPAPAHAN noong panahon ng Bagong Tipan. Samakatuwid walang PAPA noong panahon ng mga APOSTOL.

Dagdag pa niya:

“Finding no trace of the papacy in the days of the apostles I said to myself, I shall find what I am in search of in the annals of the church. Well, I say it frankly I HAVE SOUGHT FOR A POPE IN THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES, AND I HAVE NOT FOUND HIM.” [Bishop Strossmayer’s Speech (in the Vatican Council of 1870), p. 10]

Sa Filipino:

“Dahil sa hindi ako nakakita ng bakas ng kapapahan sa mga araw ng mga apostol, sabi ko sa aking sarili, aking hahanapin sa aking paghahanap sa mga salaysay ng Simbahan. Matapat kong sasabihin NA AKO’Y NAGHANAP NG ISANG PAPA SA UNANG APAT NA SIGLO, PERO HINDI KO SIYA NATAGPUAN.”

 

sagot: it has been refuted and your partiality leads you to the fallacy of ignorantiam, who the heck will agree to your statement if you are not telling to us the whole story after the Vatican Council I? huh?

sabi mo: Well, matututulan ba niya ang sinabing iyan ng kanilang OBISPO? So maliwanag kung gayon na ang IGLESIANG ITINATAG NI CRISTO AY HINDI PINAMUMUNUAN O PINANGUNGULUHAN NG ISANG “PAPA” dahil walang PAPA NA UMIIRAL BAGO ANG IKAAPAT NA SIGLO. Maliwanag iyan.

KAYA HINDI NAGING PAPA KAILAN MAN SI PEDRO, NI NAGING ULO MAN SIYA NG IGLESIA…
sagot: the bishop rebuked his own faulty assumptions that’s why he ended still loyal and never stated negative thoughts about the papacy anymore.

 

sabi mo: Dahil ang kinikilalang ULO ng Iglesia ng mga Apostol ay si CRISTO:

Colosas 1:18

“AT SIYA ANG ULO NG KATAWAN, SA MAKATUWID BAGA’Y NG IGLESIA; na siya ang pasimula, ang panganay sa mga patay; upang sa lahat ng mga bagay, ay magkaroon siya ng kadakilaan.”
sagot: walang akong hinindi-an sa katotohanang si Kristo ang Ulo ng Iglesiya, ngunit dapat din nating tanggapin na si Kristo ay pumili ng spokesperson para maging tagapamahagi at tagapangalaga ng Kanyang mga tupa.

sabi mo: Kaya napakalabo ng pag-aangkin nilang ang Iglesiang Itinatag ni Cristo noong Unang Siglo ay ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA.

Nang ating itinanong kay FLEWEN kung bakit hindi mabasa sa Biblia, kahit sa Bibliang Katoliko ang PANGALANG “IGLESIA KATOLIKA”, ganito ang kaniyang naging sagot:

“Now, when you asked about on why it is not written in the Bible? Again, we should not argue on word play. Technically, you used the name-call of “Iglesia ni Kristo” [Church of Christ] which is admittedly not registered to God Himself but to the state-alone, but take note that there were hundreds of churches outside the Catholic Church who also used that term. Mr. Karl Keating already emphasized it that in U.S.-alone, there were many sects who uses that name-call as to define themselves as the true church. Now, let me cite to you examples of churches who also used your argument.

The Churches of Christ. [

www.church-of-christ.org]
The Church of Christ (Latter day Saints) [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ_(Latter_Day_Saints)]
The United Church of Christ [
www.ucc.org]
Church of Christ (non-denominational) [
http://www.roundlakechurchofchrist.com/]
Church of Christ [
http://newtestamentchurch.org/]
Churches of Christ [
http://church-of-christ.org/churches/Philippines/Philippines.htm]
Church of Christ [independent] [
http://www.church-of-christ.com/good_news.htm]

These are some of the hundreds more listed who used the term church/es of Christ. So the wordplay that you wanted to deal with me is non-sense and has nothing to do with the veracity of who,what and where the true Christ’s Church is.”

 

Hindi kailan man itinuro ng IGLESIA NI CRISTO na kapag ang PANGALAN ng isang IGLESIA ay IGLESIA NI CRISTO [CHURCH OF CHRIST] ito ay TUNAY NANG IGLESIA. Isa lamang ang PANGALAN SA PAGKAKAKILANLAN NG PAGIGING TUNAY, AT HINDI LAMANG ITO ANG KATIBAYAN NG PAGIGING TOTOO.

 

sagot: kaya nga mali ang wordplay Aerial, sa puntong ito, ikaw na rin ang nagrefute ng sarili mong argumento, why was it your debaters were so much in asking on where can we find the word Catholic or the Catholic Church in the Bible if your statement now is telling us that “the Iglesia ni kristo [Manalo] is not teaching about the idea na hindi porket may nakalagay na Iglesia ni Kristo eh sila na ang tunay? double standard na naman iyan Aerial.

sabi mo: Dahil alam na alam naman namin na marami ang nag-aangkin at gumamit ng PANGALANG iyan, kasi nga NASA BIBLIA iyan.

Pero kung ang PAG-UUSAPAN NATIN ay ang CLAIM niya na ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA ang itinayo ni CRISTO noong panahong nandito pa siya sa lupa, at buhay pa ang mga Apostol, ganito ang PATOTOO ng isang PARI ng IGLESIA KATOLIKA, tungkol sa kung ano ba talaga ang PANGALAN ng Iglesiang itinatag ng Panginoong Jesus:

“Did Jesus Christ establish a Church? Yes, from all history, both secular and profane, as well as from the Bible considered as a human document, WE LEARN THAT JESUS CHRIST ESTABLISHED A CHURCH, WHICH FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES HAS BEEN CALLED AFTER HIM THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OR THE CHURCH OF CHRIST… this church, founded and organized by Jesus Christ and preached by the apostles, is THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, it is the only true church and the one which God orders all men to join.” [Religion: Doctrine and Practice, by Rev. Francis Cassily, pages. 442-443 and page 444]

Salin sa Filipino:

“Si Jesu Cristo ba ay nagtatag ng Iglesia? Oo, mula sa lahat ng kasaysayan, kapuwa pangsanglibutan at hindi pangkabanalan, lalo na mula sa Biblia na itinuturing na isang dokumentong makatao, ATING NATUTUNAN NA SI JESU CRISTO AY NAGTATAG NG IGLESIA, NA MULA SA MGA UNANG PANAHON AY TINAWAG NG SUNOD SA KANIYA ANG IGLESIA CRISTIANA O ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO…ang Iglesiang ito, itinatag at binalangkas ni Jesu Cristo at ipinangaral ng mga apostol, ay ang Iglesia ni Cristo, ito lamang ang tunay na iglesia na pinagutos ng Diyos na aniban ng lahat ng tao.”


sagot: it is well known to the fact that the Church made by Christ is sometimes called as the Church of Christ, granted fact na iyan, but the priest NEVER identified the term as pertaining to the church made by Manalo, it is because, the priest is implying to the church made by Christ as christian Church or Church of Christ in its identity but if we are going to study more the facts about his claims, in short he is describing the veracities of the Catholic Church= True Church of Christ. You are misquoting it kasi eh para mag-wordplay na naman.

sabi mo: Tinatanggap namin ang sinabing iyan ng PARI dahil maliwanag niyang sinabi na:

“Oo, mula sa lahat ng kasaysayan, kapuwa pangsanglibutan at hindi pangkabanalan, LALO NA MULA SA BIBLIA na itinuturing na isang dokumentong makatao”

 

Mula sa lahat ng kasaysayan, lalo na mula sa BIBLIA, kaya malinaw na HINDI OPINYON o PALAGAY lamang iyan ng PARI. Ang sinabi niyang ANG IGLESIA NA ITINATAG NI CRISTO AY TINAWAG NG SUNOD SA KANIYA AY ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO, ay suportado ng BIBLIA at ng KASAYSAYAN.

Hindi kagaya ng mga CATHOLIC DEFENDER na KAILANGAN PANG MAGRETOKE NG BIBLIA, para lang may mabasa na salitang “IGLESIA KATOLIKA” sa Biblia. Kasi nga wala ito sa Biblia:

Panoorin ninyo ang bahagi ng debate nina Wendell Talibong at Bro. Ramil Parba sa Bohol:

TIME: 3:32 – Niretoke ang MATTHEW 16:18 ng CONFRATERNITY VERSION na ang nakalagay na ay:

Matthew 16:18 “…upon this rock, I WILL BUILD MY HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC ROMAN CHURCH…”
sagot: it is obvious that even if we will not use the so-called tampered version or not, it will still result that the Catholic Church is the true church made by Christ, I watched the full stream of that video in the Catholic Faith defenders website and I found out one thing, Mr. Ramil Parba’s last resort is again using the word-play scheme if where can we find in the Bible-alone the term Catholic Church, so on that opportunity, since the debate was obvious won by Mr. Windell Talibong, [as my judgement] and granted the request of the literalist interpreter, Mr. Parba, he just shown a confraternity version that mentions about the Catholic Church since the opponent is not already cooperating in citing or proving the encyclopedia sources of the Catholic debater is false.

sabi mo: Ganiyan nila ipagtanggol ang kanilang pananampalataya, may kahalong PANDARAYA….

Ngayon papaano makikilala ang TUNAY NA IGLESIA NI CRISTO sa mga nagpapakilalang IGLESIA NI CRISTO o CHURCH OF CHRIST sa ngayon?

Efeso 4:4-6 “MAY ISANG KATAWAN, at isang Espiritu, gaya naman ng pagkatawag sa inyo sa isang pagasa ng pagtawag sa inyo; Isang Panginoon, isang pananampalataya, isang bautismo, ISANG DIOS AT AMA NG LAHAT, NA SIYANG SUMASA IBABAW SA LAHAT, AT SUMASA LAHAT, AT NASA LAHAT.

Ang TUNAY NA IGLESIA NI CRISTO, na KATAWAN niya ay nagtataglay ng IISANG PANINIWALA na MAY ISANG DIYOS AT AMA NG LAHAT, NA SIYANG SUMASA IBABAW NG LAHAT, AT SUMASA LAHAT, AT NASA LAHAT…

sagot: bagay iyan bersikulong iyan sa Iglesiya katolika, kailan lang ba kayo nabuo eh ni hindi ka makakapagpatunay na kayo ay tatag sa unang siglo eh dahil aminado ang mga kabaro mo, 90+ years pa lamang kayo.

sabi mo:Samakatuwid ang PANINIWALA ng TUNAY NA IGLESIA AY IISA LANG ANG DIYOS, WALANG IBA KUNDI ANG AMA.

Diyan natin sukatin ang mga IGLESIA ngayon na nagpapakilalang IGLESIA RIN NI CRISTO.

Tiyak na tiyak na hindi na makakasama ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA diyan na RELIHIYON ni FLEWEN, kasi UNA, hindi NAMAN SILA IGLESIA NI CRISTO, ikalawa, HINDI NAMAN SILA NANINIWALA NA ANG AMA LANG ANG NAG-IISANG DIYOS NA TUNAY….

 

sagot: iyan, judgemental ka na, church-salvation ba kamo ang partida mo ngayon? aba, hindi yata iyan biblikal pre. At isa pa, Iglesiang tatag ni kristo nga ang Iglesiya katolika, ikaw lang ang may malikot na panaginip kaya hindi mo ito kayang tanggapin.,

 

Roma 1:1-9

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God. 2 Which he had promised before, by his prophets, in the holy scriptures, 3 concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh, 4 who was predestinated the Son of God in power, according to the spirit of sanctification, by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead: 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name: 6 Among whom are you also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you and peace, from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ

8 First, I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all: because your faith is spoken of in the whole world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you:

 

 

5 Comments