Sunday, 9 October 2011

Bakit nga ba "Churches of Christ" ang banggit sa Roma 16:16 sa Ingles?


Sabi ni Rholdrae,

“Bro, gusto ko lang sana malaman kung ano ang paliwanag sa Rome 16:16 bakit churches of Christ ito sa english at sa tagalog naman ay "lahat ng mga iglesia ni Cristo" kasi meron akong nabasa na ipinangtutuligsa na ginagamit yung roma 16:16 para malaman ang pangalan ng tunay na iglesia pero pag hango sa wikang ingles ay churches of Christ naman.

---------------------------------------------
  
      BAGAMAT ang Biblia ay bumanggit ng pahayag na “churches of Christ” o “mga iglesia ni Cristo”, tulad ng nasa Roma 16:16:

Romans 16:16  “Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.” [King James Version]

Roma 16:16 “Mangagbatian kayo ng banal na halik. Binabati kayo ng lahat ng mga iglesia ni Cristo. [Ang Biblia, 1905]

Hindi ito nangangahulugan na mahigit sa isa o marami ang iglesia o ang katawan ni Cristo. Binigyan diin ni Apostol Pablo na iisa lamang ang katawan ni Cristo o iglesia (Efeso 4:4; Colosas 1:18). Kung alin ang marami ay ang mga kaanib o miyembro ng katawan o iglesia na kanyang nilinaw sa kaniyang sulat sa mga taga Roma na ganito ang ating mababasa:

Roma 12:4-5 “Sapagka't kung paanong sa isang katawan ay mayroong tayong MARAMING MGA SANGKAP, at ang lahat ng mga sangkap ay hindi pareho ang gawain: Ay GAYON DIN TAYO, NA MARAMI, AY IISANG KATAWAN KAY CRISTO, at mga sangkap na samasama sa isa't isa.”

Ano ngayon ang nais ipahiwatig ng katagang “churches of Christ” o “mga iglesia ni Cristo” ?

Anong pangalan ang dapat itawag upang tumukoy sa kabuoan ng katawan ng mga nagsisisampalataya o mga tao ng Diyos? Para maiwasan ang pagiging bias at di isipin ang iisang panig lamang na pagpapaliwanag ating sipiin ang akalat ni G. Don De Welt.

“So that, not only is the expression “churches of Christ” justified, as applied to local congregations of believers; but “church of Christ” as a DESIGNATION OF THE WHOLE BODY OF HIS PEOPLE, lies implicit in its very constitution and history. The idea of it is not only scriptural, it is inseparable from the relation of Christ to the church.” (The Church in the Bible, p. 349)

Sa Filipino:

“Kaya nga hindi lamang ang katagang “mga iglesia ni Cristo” ang nagpapatunay, na ikinapit sa mga lokal na kongregasyon ng mga mananampalataya; Maging ang “iglesia ni Cristo” na ISANG KATAWAGAN NA TUMUTUKOY SA KABUOANG KATAWAN NG MGA TAO NIYA, ito’y maliwanag na nakabatay sa kaniyang pinaka alituntunin at kasayasayan. Ang kaisipang ito ay hindi lamang maka-kasulatan, ito ay hindi maihihiwalay sa kaugnayan ni Cristo sa iglesia.”

Ang katagang “churches of Christ” o “mga iglesia ni Cristo” ay tumutukoy sa mga lokal na kongregasyon, at hindi sa kabuoan ng mga mananampalatayang kabilang sa katawan o iglesia, ang Pangalang  “church of Christ” o “iglesia ni Cristo” ang siyang ginamit para rito. Sa kadahilanang ang pangalang ito ang tumutukoy sa pinaka alituntunin at kasaysayan ng Iglesia, at maliwanag na ipinapakita ang kaugnayan ni Cristo sa Iglesia. Ang mga ganitong pagpapaliwanag ay maka-kasulatan o maka-Biblia. Samakatwid ang pangalang Iglesia Ni Cristo, ay isang katotohanang hango sa Biblia na pinatutunayan ng mga Bible Scholars:

“He conferred authority in the Church; explained the importance of designating the organization by its PROPER NAME--the Church of Christ(The Great Apostasy, p. 12)

Sa Filipino:

“Kaniyang tinaglay ang pamamahala sa Iglesia; ipinaliwanag ang kahalagahan ng pagtawag sa organisasyon sa kaniyang MARAPAT NA PANGALAN—ang  Iglesia ni Cristo.”

Kung paanong ang Iglesia ay ang katawan ni Cristo, marapat lamang na ang opisyal na pangalan nito ay Iglesia ni Cristo. Batay sa mga kasulatan, ito ang marapat na pangalan ng organisasyong ito, gaya ng ipinapaliwanag ng isa pang Bible scholar na si J.C. Choate, na ganito:

“Name of the Church” If the church is to be scriptural, then it must have a scriptural name. As to the church, Christ promised to build it (Matt. 16:18), it is said that he purchased it with his own blood (Acts 20:28), that he was the saviour of it (Eph. 5:23) and the head of it (Col. 1:18). It is only natural that it would wear his name to honour its founder, builder, saviour, and head. So when Paul wrote to the church at Rome, and sent along the greetings of the congregations in his area, he said, the churches of Christ salute you (Rom 16:16). Then in speaking to the church at Corinth, “Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular” (I Cor. 12:27). But since the body is the church (Eph 1:22, 23), then he was simply talking about the church of Christ.” (The Church of the Bible, pp 27-28)

Sa Filipino:

 “Pangalan ng Iglesia” kung ang iglesia ay dapat maging maka-kasulatan, ito ay dapat may pangalang maka-kasulatan. At sa Iglesia, ipinangako ni Cristo na itatayo niya ito (Mat 16:18), sinasabing ito’y tinubos niya ng kaniyang dugo (Gawa 20:28), at siya ang tagapagligtas nito (Efe. 5:23), at siya ang ulo nito (Col.1:18). Kaya natural lamang na taglayin nito ang pangalan ng nagtatag, nagtayo, tagapagligtas, at ng ulo nito. Kaya nang si Pablo ay sumulat sa Iglesia na nasa Roma, at nagpadala ng pagbati sa mga kongregasyong sa kaniyang dako, sinabi niya “ binabati kayo ng mga iglesia ni Cristo” (Rom. 16:16). Pagkatapos nagsalita rin siya sa Iglesiang nasa Corinto, at sinabi niya, “kayo nga ang katawan ni Cristo, at bawat isa’y sama-samang mga sangkap niya” (I Cor. 12:27), at dahil sa katawan ni Cristo ang iglesia (Eph 1:22, 23), ang tinutukoy lamang niya sa kaniyang mga sinasabi ay ang iglesia ni Cristo.

Maging sa Norlie’s Simplified New Testament na isang salin ng Biblia, isang bahagi ng sulat ni Apostol Pablo sa mga taga Efeso ay isinalin sa isang paraan na ang pangalang ginamit ay church of Christ o iglesia ni Cristo imbes na body of Christ o katawan ni Cristo:

Ephesians 4:12 “The common object of their labor was to bring the Christians maturity, to prepare them for Christian service and the building up of the Church of Christ.” (Norlie’s Simplified New Testament)

Karaniwan sa mga salin ng Biblia tulad ng King James Version, Today’s English Version, New International Version, ang nasabing bahagi ng talata ay isinasalin bilang “body of Christ” o katawan ni Cristo. Dapat mapansin na ito’y nasa anyong pangisahan (singular form), at hindi “bodies of Christ” o mga katawan ni Cristo. Sa tuwing babanggitin ang katagang katawan ni Cristo sa Biblia, ito’y palaging nasa singular form. Sapagkat si Cristo ay nagtayo ng isa lamang Iglesia:

Matthew 16:18  “And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” [ASV]

Mateo 16:18  At sinasabi ko naman sa iyo, na ikaw ay Pedro, at sa ibabaw ng batong ito ay itatayo ko ang AKING IGLESIA; at ang mga pintuan ng Hades ay hindi magsisipanaig laban sa kaniya.”

Hindi sinabi ni Cristo na “I will build MY CHURCHES” o “Itatayo ko ang AKING MGA IGLESIA”, hindi ba? Kaya nga, kapag binabanggit ng Biblia ang katagang katawan ni Cristo ang tinutukoy lamang nito ay ang Iglesia ni Cristo.

Katawan ni Cristo   =   Iglesia ni Cristo

Iisang lang ang katawan, kaya iisa lang ang Iglesia, ang marami ay ang mga kaanib.

66 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Pakisagot nga po, bakit ipinagpipilitan nyo na Iglesia ni Cristo ang pangalan ng relihiyon ninyo samantalang hindi capitalized ang nasa Biblia? For your info, wala tayong mababasa na naka-capitalized ang iglesia which means hindi ito PROPER NOUN gaya ng inyong kini-claim.
      Anong ibig kong sabihin? Hindi yung sinasabi ninyong Iglesia ni Cristo ang pangalan ng iglesiang itinayo ng Panginoon.
      Nabulag na lang talaga kayo ng inyong mga ministro. Nakatago daw sa hiwaga ang Salita ng Diyos, isang mapanlinlang na pahayag. Hindi po Salita ng Diyos ang nakatago sa hiwaga kundi ANG SALITA AY MAY NAKATAGONG HIWAGA!
      Bakit? kasi nga ang salita ng Diyos ay kayang magbago ng buhay ng tao kahit gaano pa siya kasama.

      Delete
  2. Good day po sa lahat, Gusto ko sa itanong kay Aeriel kung sinabi ba ng mga Apostol o kaya'y ang Biblia na ang 'iglesia ni Cristo' ay ang ipinangalan sa Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo.

    Ang analogy po niyan ay ang aking anak. Siempre dahil Ang aking Pangalan ay Winnie. May tatawag nga sa akin anak na 'anak ni Winnie' at ito ay Tama in a sense na ang pangalan ko ay Winnie.

    Ngayon ay ganon din naman sa Iglesiang itinatag ng Panginoon Jesus Cristo. Ang Iglesia Katolika mismo ay tinatawag mismo ang kanyang sarili na iglesia ni Cristo,gaya rin ng anak kung ipinakikilala niya ang kanyang sarili sinasabi niyang 'ako'y 'ANAK ni Winnie' pero siempre ang Pangalan niya ay Mark.

    May isa pa akong tanong kung pwede. Yong mga sinipi mong nagsasabi na ang Pangalan ng iglesia na itinatag ni Cristo ay'Iglesia ni Cristo', Pwede bang identify mo sila kung bakit importante ang kanilang opinyon, kasama na rin kung ano ang pangalan ng kanilang Religion.
    Pakiramdam ko kasi ay nagkataon lang na parepareho ang pangalan ng inyong religion kaya pareparehas din ang inyong argumento.

    How convinient at nadaya kayo sa pangalan na kinuha lang sa Biblia after almost 2000 years nang naisulat para lang magamit na pandaya sa mga tao. Kung ano ang intension ng mga kumuha ng pantawag sa kanilang iglesia galing sa Bible ay nagkakaisa silang mandaraya lamang.

    Dapat malaman ng mga INC na Iglesia na itinatag ng Panginoon ay nauna pa sa pagkasulat sa Bagong Tipan. Ang Iglesing ito ay dinescribed, at tinawag na Catholic Church. At alam niya na siya ang tunay na Iglesia ni Cristo.

    Para ngang isang bata o tao yan.(Catholic Church)
    Birthday : 33AD
    Birth place: Jerusalem
    Founder: Jesus Christ

    INC
    Birthday: 1914
    Birth place: Philippines
    Founder: Felix manalo

    Hindi ito maitatago at ang mga ito ay katotohan hindi niyo maitatangi.
    Parang ang Relong Rolex din, pag ito ay gawang Pinas ito ay siguradong Fake kahit pa sampung beses na nkadikit ang Pangalan Rolex.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Pinipilit nyong tama ang catholic eh sa diabo yang religion nayan! kayo ang lahat na mandaraya at ulupong. kayo ang sinasabi sa biblia na mga sanlibutan! sa bagay sabi ng diyos ang biblia ay nakatago sa hiwaga! kaya tama lang siguro na kayong lahat ay hindi magka unawa! mga sanlibutan! at diba ikaw na nagsabi sa inc sa philipines? catholic jerusalem? ayun ikaw na nagsabi ung catholic wala na iyan sumpa nayan dahil nagsitalikod na kayong lahat dahil mas ginusto nyo sambahin ang larawan at maglagay ng larawan at luhuran kaysa sa tunay na diyos! kayo nga ung mga taong hindi naniwala kay jesus noon. tingin ko kailangan mo talagang ma doktrinahan sa inc para makaunawa ka. at sabi mo philipinas ayun ikaw na nagsabi! sabi sa biblia ang panginoong diyos ay magpapadala ng ibang tupa sa malayong silanganan at papuntang kanluran hanganng masakop ang buong mundo! yang sugo nayan ay mangangaral daw sa unang dimagmaang pandaig dig. oh diba? kaya maliwanag na dapat sa philipinas muling babalik ang mga tunay na iglesia ni cristo! dun kasi pinadala ng ama ang kanyang sugo! ayun ay si ka felix manalo! MAHIRAP BANG UNAWAIN UN?? kaya kung simula palang ng religion nyo bagsak na wala nayan! sabi nanga sa biblia ang linaw linaw! uulitin ko baka kasi mag bulag bulagan nanaman kau dahil dinyo matangap ang katotohanan! sabi sa biblia "ANG DIYOS AY MAGPAPADALA NG IBANG TUPA! SA MALAYONG SILANGAN! SA ARAW NG DIGMAANG PANDAIGDIG! AT MANGANGARAL HANGGANG SSA DAKONG KANLURAN! yan bang sinabi ng diyos nayan natupad sa catholic o kahit anu manng religion sa buong mundo?? wala sa iglesia ni cristo lang natupad! dahil nga si ka felix manalo ang sugo ng diyos sa huling araw! bakit ba hindi nanaman kayo maniwala! sa bagay si jesus nga noon di pinaniwalaan ng catholic! ung sugo pa kaya. sige kung ayaw nyong maniwala jan nalang kau sa larawan sumamba! kahit sinabi naman ng diyos na kahit anung larawan wag kau maglalagay o sasamba! diba diyos nga ayaw nyong paniwalaan eh. hay nakuh. IGLESIA NI CRISTO ANG TOTOO! umanib na kayo


      ito ang tunay na religion panoorin nyo!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXU08lQGUh4

      Delete
    3. kung si felix manalo nga ang sinasabi nyong isinugo, paano mo ipapaliwanag ang bersikulong ito?


      Mateo 24:4 At sumagot si Jesus at sinabi sa kanila, Mangagingat kayo na huwag kayong mailigaw ninoman. 5Sapagka't marami ang magsisiparito sa aking pangalan, na mangagsasabi, Ako ang Cristo; at ililigaw ang marami.
      Mateo 24: 11At magsisibangon ang maraming bulaang propeta, at kanilang ililigaw ang marami.

      Mateo 24:24 Sapagka't may magsisilitaw na mga bulaang Cristo, at mga bulaang propeta, at mangagpapakita ng mga dakilang tanda at mga kababalaghan; ano pa't ililigaw, kung maaari, pati ng mga hirang.


      at ito ang magpapatunay.....................
      Mateo 24:36Nguni't tungkol sa araw at oras na yaon walang makakaalam, kahit ang mga anghel sa langit, kahit ang Anak, kundi ang Ama lamang.

      Delete
    4. maari ring si felix manalo ay bulaang propeta rin dahil walang nakakaalam na kahit anghel sa langit, kahit ang Anak, kundi ang Ama lamang.....

      Delete
    5. http://www.blogger.com/profile/00451500361129349655 sino kaba para humatol diyos KABA!.,.para sabihin mong sa diyablo ang relihiyong katoliko

      yang relihiyon mo nga ay anti-christ dahil ang paniniwala ninyo ay tao si kristo

      sige nga ilabas mo ang yabang mo

      Delete
  3. Well salamat WINNIE sa pagseshare mo ng iyong OPINYON,

    Lahat naman tayo ay malayang makapagbigay ng OPINYON natin sa mga BAGAY-BAGAY, but we INC MEMBERS does not based our BELIEFS on OPINION, Dahil KARUNUNGAN LANG NG TAO iyan.

    Niliwanag ng BIBLIA na:

    1 Corinto 2:5 Upang ANG INYONG PANANAMPALATAYA AY HUWAG MASALIG SA KARUNUNGAN NG MGA TAO, KUNDI SA KAPANGYARIHAN NG DIOS.”

    We based our BELIEFS in BIBLICAL and HISTORICAL FACTS.

    Sabi ni Cristo:

    Mateo 16:18 “At sinasabi ko naman sa iyo, na ikaw ay Pedro, at sa ibabaw ng batong ito ay itatayo ko ang AKING IGLESIA; at ang mga pintuan ng Hades ay hindi magsisipanaig laban sa kaniya.”

    Sa pagsasabi ni CRISTO na salitang “AKING IGLESIA”, aba’y hindi maaari na TAWAGIN ang Iglesiang ito sa PANGALAN ng iba. Kaya nga IGLESIA NI CRISTO eh, kasi nga kay CRISTO. Ang PANGALANG ito ay nagpapakilala kung sino talaga ang nagmamay-ari sa KANIYA.

    Ano pa ang matibay na katibayan na hindi ito matatawag sa IBANG PANGALAN.

    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.”

    Ang IGLESIA ay KATAWAN NI CRISTO kaya hindi maaari na PANGALANAN mo ito ng IBA.

    KATAWAN NI CRISTO = IGLESIA NI CRISTO

    Hindi mo pupuwedeng basta ikumpara lang sa ANAK mo ang IGLESIA, dahil ang IGLESIA NI CRISTO ay isang bahagi ni CRISTO na hindi mo PUWEDENG IHIWALAY sa kaniya. Si CRISTO ang ULO, ang IGLESIA ang KATAWAN.

    Tulad mo, maaari mo bang IHIWALAY ang KATAWAN mo sa IYONG ULO?

    Pero ang ANAK mo, puwedeng MAWALAY o MAHIWALAY sa iyo.

    Kaya mali ang PAGKUKUMPARA.

    Kung paanong ang KATAWAN mo, ay hindi maaaring TAWAGIN sa PANGALAN ng iba, dahil wala itong sariling PANGALAN,

    Marapat lamang na ang KATAWAN ay tawagin sa kung ano ang PANGALAN ng ULO.

    Tulad ng KATAWAN mo WINNIE? May iba pa bang PANGALAN iyan ng bukod sa iyong PANGALAN? Sige nge WINNIE, sabihin mo nga sa akin kung ano ang PANGALAN ng KATAWAN mo?
    Hindi ba’t ang PANGALAN na dinadala ng KATAWAN mo ay kung ano ANG PANGALAN MO.

    Kaya nga kung tawagin ay KATAWAN NI WINNIE at hindi kailan man pupuwedeng tawagin sa PANGALAN ng IBA dahil nakakabit sa iyo.

    Ang Iglesia ay KATAWAN ni CRISTO, at hindi ANAK ni CRISTO, kaya wala itong SARILING PANGALAN, ang PANGALANG DINADALA nito ay kung ano ang PANGALAN ng MAY-ARI sa kaniya.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mali ka Ryan.. Iglesia ng Dips o church of God and mababasa sa biblia.. Tinatago lang ng mga ministermno and katotohanang iyan.

      Delete
  4. May sinabi ka pang ganito Winnie:

    “May isa pa akong tanong kung pwede. Yong mga sinipi mong nagsasabi na ang Pangalan ng iglesia na itinatag ni Cristo ay'Iglesia ni Cristo', Pwede bang identify mo sila kung bakit importante ang kanilang opinyon, kasama na rin kung ano ang pangalan ng kanilang Religion.”

    Well ang masasabi ko lang sa iyo, when we use REFERENCES from other RELIGIONS we do not take and quote things out of their OPINIONS, kasi nga gaya nga ng sinabi ko sa iyo. Hindi kami nagbabatay sa OPINION ng iba.

    Kung gumagamit man kami ng mga REFERENCES, it does not mean na nagbabatay na kami ng paniniwala sa kanila, kundi kinukuha lamang namin ang kanilang mga TESTIMONIES upang patunayan na may KASANG-AYON kami sa aming ipinaninindigan, to prove na hindi kami lang ang nagsasabi noon at hindi kami BIAS.

    Tutal CATHOLIC ka, tanungin natin ang PARI ninyo, sa kung ano ba talaga PANGALAN ng Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo?

    Sasagutin tayo ng Paring Katoliko na si FRANCIS B. CASSILY:

    “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 B. 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.”

    We can consider this statement of the Priest valid, kasi hindi niya ito OPINION, maliwanag niyang sinabi na:

    “Yes, from ALL HISTORY, both secular and profane, as well as FROM THE BIBLE”.

    Na mula sa lahat ng mga kasaysayan, pangsanglibutan man o hindi pangkabanalan, lalo na raw mula sa Biblia, ang ebidensiya na talagang nagtatag si Cristo ng isang Iglesia na mula sa mga unang panahon ay TINAWAG ng SUNOD SA KANIYA, ang ibig sabihin TINAWAG NG SUNOD sa KANIYANG PANGALAN, kaya nga dapat IGLESIA NI CRISTO.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pinatunayan ng PARI na ito ang ITINATAG, BINALANGKAS ng PANGINOONG JESUS, at ang iglesiang ipinangaral ng mga APOSTOL.

    Niliwanag ng PARI ang PANGALAN - ”CHURCH OF CHRIST o IGLESIA NI CRISTO

    At binigyan diin niya na ITO LAMANG ANG TUNAY NA IGLESIA, NA PINAG-UTOS NG DIYOS NA AMNIBAN NG LAHAT NG TAO.

    Kung IGLESIA NI CRISTO pala PANGALAN nung IGLESIA na itinatag ni Cristo noong 33 A.D. sa JERUSALEM, eh bakit hindi natin ito kinagisnan? Ano nangyari at ang lumaganap na relihiyon sa mundo ay ang IGLESIA KATOLIKA, at hindi IGLESIA NI CRISTO.

    “’CATHOLIC’ is the ancient name by which the CHURCH OF CHRIST has been known for nineteen centuries, THIS NAME WAS GIVEN TO HER not for reasons of controversy, to prove something, but because it identifies her uniquely. IT WAS FIRST USED BY ST. IGNATIUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH IN SYRIA, WHO WAS MARTYRED ABOUT A.D 110. THE CHURCH FOUNDED BY CHRIST IS HERE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, CALLED ‘THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’, a name clearly to denote the Church throughout the world in union with the see or diocese of Rome. It was stress the unity of the universal Church that ST. IGNATIUS INVENTED THE NAME.” (Roman Catholic, Rev. Edward Taylor, p.3)

    Hayun maliwanag na kaya pala NAWALA ang PANGALANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO o “CHURCH OF CHRIST” ay sapagkat pinalitan nila ang PANGALAN nito. At naging IGLESIA KATOLIKA na nga. At kung lalawak-lawakan pa natin ang pag-aaral ay hindi lang PANGALAN ang PINALITAN nila maging mga ARAL ay binago nila dahil sa naganap na PAGTALIKOD o APOSTASIYA sa UNANG IGLESIA, na ang naging resulta nga ay ang PAGLITAW ng IGLESIA KATOLIKA.

    Inimbento lamang ni IGNACIO ang PANGALANG Katolika na ipinalit sa pangalan ng IGLESIA NI CRISTO.

    Alagad ba ni Cristo si IGNACIO? Hindi! Apostol ba siya? Hindi rin!

    Kaya walang kinalaman ang sinomang Apostol sa Pangyayaring ito sa KASAYSAYAN.

    Eh dapat ba tayong magsalig sa mga KATHA o IMBENTO ng tao?

    2 Timoteo 4:4 “At IHIHIWALAY SA KATOTOHANAN ang kanilang mga tainga, at mga ibabaling sa KATHA.”

    Tito 1:14 “Na HUWAG MANGAKINIG SA MGA KATHA ng mga Judio, at sa mga utos ng mga tao NA NANGAGSISISINSAY SA KATOTOHANAN.”

    Kaya nga kapag ang isang ARAL o PANINIWALA ay galing lang sa KATHA o IMBENTO lang ng TAO, iyan ay nagsisinsay o nagliligaw lamang sa KATOTOHANAN.

    Mali na tawaging IGLESIA KATOLIKA o ano pa mang PANGALAN ang IGLESIA na itinatag ni CRISTO, dahil tulad sa KATAWAN mo na hindi pupuwede kailan man na TAWAGIN sa IBANG PANGALAN, ay ganiyan din ang IGLESIA, sapagkat siyang KATAWAN ni CRISTO at hindi ng iba.

    Well gaya nga ng nasabi ko na. Maraming salamat WINNIE sa iyong pagse-share ng iyong OPINYON.

    ReplyDelete
  6. magtatanong lang po ako.. kasi po ang ADD ay tinatawag na Iglesia ng Dios kay Cristo Jesus.. kung ganyan po ang pangalan ng relihiyon nila ay nangangahulugan lang ng Parehas lang ang Iglesia ni CRISTO at Iglesia ng Dios kay CRISTO JESUS.. salamat po

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. mali hindi parehas yan! sapagkat ang palatandaan ng totoong iglesia ay! sabi sa biblia! magpapadala ang diyos ng ibang tupa sa malayong silangan! sa unang digmaang pandaigdig! at makakarating sa dakonbg kanluran! yan ang kasaysayan ng iglesia ni cristo si ka felix manalo ang totoong sugo ng diyos sa mga huling araw! mababasa nyo yan sa biblia! ayan ang pinaka mahalagang palataan daan! mahusay nga ang ama sapagkat sinabi nya iyan para sinu mabn mangaya sa iglesia pangalan o anu pa! kung hindi naman nagsimula sa ganyan araw at ganyan pagkakataon hindi tunay un! ito panoorin mo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXU08lQGUh4

      Delete
  7. Anonymous, nagtatanong ka ba o nagbibigay ka ng iyong OPINYON?

    Hindi kailan man magiging PAREHAS LANG iyan sa PANGALAN,

    Dahil angIGLESIA NI CRISTO ay KATAWAN NI CRISTO, ito ANG PROPER NAME ng IGLESIA.

    Kung tinatawag man ito na IGLESIA NG DIYOS ng Biblia, ay upang ipakilala na ang IGLESIA NI CRISTO ay pag-aari rin ng DIYOS. Ipinapakita ng KATAWAGANG ito o DESIGNATION na ang IGLESIA NA KATAWAN NI CRISTO ay sa Diyos din.

    Dahil niliwanag ni Cristo iyan, na ang LAHAT ng KANIYA ay sa DIYOS rin.

    Juan 17:10 “AT ANG LAHAT NG MGA BAGAY AY IYO, AT ANG MGA IYO AY AKIN: at ako'y lumuluwalhati sa kanila.”

    Ganito inilarawan ni Cristo ang PAGMAMAY-ARI ng Diyos sa IGLESIA:

    Juan 15:5 “AKO ANG PUNO NG UBAS, KAYO ANG MGA SANGA: Ang nananatili sa akin, at ako'y sa kaniya, ay siyang nagbubunga ng marami: sapagka't kung kayo'y hiwalay sa akin ay wala kayong magagawa.”

    Juan 15:1 AKO ANG TUNAY NA PUNO NG UBAS, at ANG AKING AMA ANG MAGSASAKA.


    Ipinaliwanag ni CRISTO na ang mga KAANIB sa IGLESIA niya ay kaniyang MGA SANGA, at siya ang PUNO NG UBAS, at ang DIYOS ANG MAGSASAKA.

    Natural ang PANGALANG ipantatawag mo dun sa SANGA ay hindi PANGALAN nung MAGSASAKA kundi iyong PANGALAN nung mismong PUNO kung saan ito nakakabit o nakaugnay.

    Kaya ang “PROPER NAME” o ang MARAPAT na PANGALAN ay SANGA NG UBAS o SANGA NI CRISTO.

    Dahil hindi tayo makakadirekta sa Diyos Ama, maliban na dumaan muna tayo kay Cristo:

    Juan 14:6 Sinabi sa kaniya ni Jesus, Ako ang daan, at ang katotohanan, at ang buhay: SINOMAN AY DI MAKAPAROROON SA AMA, KUNDI SA PAMAMAGITAN KO.

    Kaya nga ang sabi niya:

    Juan 15:4-5 “Kayo'y manatili sa akin, at ako'y sa inyo. GAYA NG SANGA NA DI MAKAPAGBUNGA SA KANIYANG SARILI MALIBAN NA NAKAKABIT SA PUNO; gayon din naman kayo, maliban na kayo'y manatili sa akin. AKO ANG PUNO NG UBAS, KAYO ANG MGA SANGA: ANG NANANATILI SA AKIN, AT AKO'Y SA KANIYA, AY SIYANG NAGBUBUNGA NG MARAMI: SAPAGKA'T KUNG KAYO'Y HIWALAY SA AKIN AY WALA KAYONG MAGAGAWA.”

    Kaya nga para tayo ay matawag na IGLESIA NG DIYOS, ay hindi maiiwasan na tayo ay KUMABIT MUNA sa PUNONG si CRISTO bilang SANGA Niya.

    Sa madaling salita, kailangan munang maging kaanib ka ng IGLESIA NI CRISTO bago ka maging IGLESIA ng DIYOS.

    At sinasangayunan niyan maging ng isang kilalang BIBLE SCHOLAR na si MATTHEW HENRY

    “THERE IS NO ENTERING INTO GOD’S CHURCH BUT BY COMING INTO CHRIST’S CHURCH; nor are any looked upon as members of the kingdom of God among men but those that are willing to submit to the grace and government of the Redeemer.” (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. P 1030)

    Sa Filipino:

    “WALANG MAKAKAPASOK SA IGLESIA NG DIYOS MALIBANG PUMASOK SA IGLESIA NI CRISTO; maging ang sinomang mga itinuturing na mga kaanib ng kaharian ng Diyos sa gitna ng mga tao, malibang silay pumayag na magpasakop sa biyaya at pamamahala ng Manunubos.”

    Kaya nga ang OPISYAL NA PANGALAN ng Iglesia ay “IGLESIA NI CRISTO” at hindi “IGLESIA NG DIYOS KAY CRISTO JESUS”, dahil hindi kailan man mangyayari na makadirekta tayo sa Diyos maliban muna tayong dumaan, umugnay, sumangkap o umanib sa KATAWAN ni CRISTO na siya niyang IGLESIA.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Aerial,

    Thanks for the response, however, your OPINION with regards to your claim that the proper name of the Church that Jesus established is Church of Christ has no leg to stand.
    You stated that because it's Christ who founded then it follows that it's name should be Church of Christ.
    You also cited some individuals that agrees with you about the name'Church of Christ' . Yes they may agree with you and they themselves have their own religions with the same name,yes with the same motives and that is to deceived unsuspecting individuals.

    You cited a book or an article from a Priest and you claimed that it is historical and based on the Bible, Why then that there is a missing part which is denoted by dots. I suspect that he said some more Historical and Biblical truth that denies your claim. Furthermore, He said that The Church founded by Christ is CALLED church of Christ . Well, The priest is RIGHT! we call the Catholic Church 'Church of Christ' like the good priest you quoted.
    But again he never said that it was named 'Church of Christ'.Your out of context use of his book is deceitful and with that it only backfire against your integrity and the whole INC as a whole.

    Another thing you mentioned in your response was about the origin of the name 'catholic' . You claim that it was invented by Ignatious, well that is not accurate.
    It so happen that I got a copy of a book, 'the faith of the early fathers'
    And nowhere that state that he invented it. The truth is , when he wrote his letter to the smyrneans and he used the word CATHOLIC addressed to the receipients as if that name'catholic' is already widespread and known to them,otherwise it would be illogical for him to intruduce it in his farewell letter.
    He died a martyr, he was fed to the lions.
    Not because it's him who is the first to used in writing then it follows that he invented it.

    Now, you said that the Church of Christ its name was changed into Catholic, Its doctrine was also changed. So you are basically admitting that the Catholic Church is the ORIGINAL CHURCH of CHRIST! You just Disagree with its Name and its doctrine( which you think its wrong).

    You are spot on Aerial, now you know Which Historical and Biblical Church of Christ the Catholic priest referring to. None other than the Catholic Church.

    Your other objection such as your analogy to my body and my head is very easy to put it in right order.
    My body has no proper name, if I die by beheading,they could call my body Winnie's body , but my body has no name.and Winnie's body is not a name at all.
    Apostasy? Yes but not total apostasy, nowhere in the Bible support that.

    Thank you and God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  9. TANONG KO LANG PO YUNG GAWA 20:28 lamsa Translation kasi po isa yan sa basehan natin na tayo ang tunay na iglesia ni cristo,di naman po sa nagdududa ako sa pagiging Iglesia Ni Cristo pero yung ibang relihiyon ay ang panlaban nila ay lamsa Translation lang daw ang Iglesia Ni Cristo na kalagay pero sa iba "IGLESIA NG DIOS" ang nakalagay. pahingi naman po ng explanation for that. plsss tungkol sa lamsa translation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. eto po yung sinasabi sa gawa 20:28 lamsa Translation:Ingatan ninyo ang inyong sarili at ang buong kawan, na rito`y hinirang kayo ng espiritu santo ng mga katiwala upang pakanin ang iglesia ni cristo na binili nya ng kanyang dugo..

    original gawa 20:28:Ingatan ninyo ang inyong sarili at ang buong kawan, na rito`y hinirang kayo ng espiritu santo ng mga katiwala upang pakanin ang iglesia ni diyos na binili nya ng kanyang dugo..


    pa help po..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Walang matibay na pundasyon ang Aral ng INC tungkol sa pangalan ng iglesia. Di nila maitatanggi sa kanilang palusot na iglesia ng dios any tinutukoy na pangalan ng tunay na iglesia. Namumulot ng paliwanag sa mga pari at ibang sekta protestante. Nalaman KO yan Kay soriano kaya ganyan na lamang ang galit nila sa ADD o church of God.

      Delete
  11. Well thanks again for showering me with your another OPINION, sorry I cannot say what you’re saying here were based on FACTS, because what you are saying were based on your SELF ASSESMENTS and ANALOGIES, and it seems that you don’t discerned what I have explained in my response, I am quite certain that you have just passively read my response and you did not read it thoroughly.

    Because you said this [emphasis mine]:

    “YOU CITED A BOOK OR AN ARTICLE FROM A PRIEST AND YOU CLAIMED THAT IT IS HISTORICAL AND BASED ON THE BIBLE, Why then that there is a missing part which is denoted by dots. I suspect that he said some more Historical and Biblical truth that denies your claim. Furthermore, He said that THE CHURCH FOUNDED BY CHRIST IS CALLED CHURCH OF CHRIST . Well, The priest is RIGHT! WE CALL THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 'CHURCH OF CHRIST' like the good priest you quoted.”

    Am I claiming that the statements of the Priest is from all History and based from the Bible? Am I the one who said that? Come on Winnie, was it logical to quote the WHOLE PAGE of a document for a portion of it already and clearly proved the point that we are trying to prove? Why don’t you tell that to your fellow Catholics in the internet, who oftentimes misquoting our PASUGO, and just showing a very very small protion of it, then they will most of the time give WRONG INTERPRETATIONS, and attack us based on how they understood it.

    So let’s go back on what the Priest had said, he started his stament by asking a question, didn’t he?

    “Did Jesus Christ establish a Church?

    Then he answered by saying this:

    “Yes, FROM ALL HISTORY, BOTH SECULAR AND PROFANE, AS WELL AS FROM THE BIBLE considered as a human document.”

    And followed by this statement:

    “we learned that Jesus Christ established a Church, WHICH FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES HAS BEEN CALLED AFTER HIM the Christian Church or THE CHURCH OF CHRIST…”

    It is VERY CLEAR that he is referring to the FIRST CENTURY CHURCH, by saying ” WHICH FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES” and the highlight of this statement is he clearly emphasized that the CHURCH was “CALLED AFTER HIM” - which is of course JESUSCHRST, that’s why it is called “CHURCH OF CHRIST” for this is a BIBLICAL FACT:

    James 2:7 “Do not they blaspheme the HONORABLE NAME BY WHICH YE ARE CALLED?” [ASV]

    And what is that HONORABLE NAME by which the EARLY CHRISTIANS were CALLED?

    Acts 4:10 “be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, THAT IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole.”

    Acts 4:12 “And in none other is there salvation: FOR NEITHER IS THERE ANY OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN, THAT IS GIVEN AMONG MEN, WHEREIN WE MUST BE SAVED.” [ASV]

    They were called by the HONORABLE NAME of CHRIST, which is the ONLY NAME given by GOD among men that has the power to save us.

    The EARLY CHURCH was CALLED BY THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, and by this reason they were persecuted, because they bear HIS name, as Jesus Christ has stated in the scriptures:

    Matthew 24:9 “Then shall they deliver you up unto tribulation, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all the nations FOR MY NAME'S SAKE.”[ASV]

    That’s why the Statement of your MENTOR which is a CATHOLIC PRIEST is BIBLICALLY ACCURATE and his statement “AS WELL AS FROM THE BIBLE” really does make sense since it is really supported by the BIBLE, that the EARLY CHURCH was indeed CALLED AFTER THE NAME OF CHRIST, that’s why it is CALLED CHURCH OF CHRIST.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Winnie you said:


    “You stated THAT BECAUSE IT'S CHRIST WHO FOUNDED THEN IT FOLLOWS THAT IT'S NAME SHOULD BE CHURCH OF CHRIST.”


    Well I said that, because that is absolutely correct, because based on the Bible and History of which one of your MENTOR approved that it NAME of the CHURCH established by CHRISTI is the “CHURCH OF CHRIST”.

    Winnie said:

    “You also cited some individuals that agrees with you about the name'CHURCH OF CHRIST' . YES THEY MAY AGREE WITH YOU AND THEY THEMSELVES HAVE THEIR OWN RELIGIONS WITH THE SAME NAME, yes with the same motives and that is to deceived unsuspecting individuals.”

    Perhaps you are right, though most of the time they are not named just plainly “CHURCH OF CHRIST”. But as I had already told you last time, that the basis of why we quote them is not because that it is their own opinions or that is our basis of our Belief, but they had shown their reasons of proving based on BIBLICAL FACTS, like your Priest for example, from which we show to prove that we are not the only one who have that belief- the CHURCH ESTABLISHED by CHRIST in THE FIRST CENTURY is indeed was called the “CHURCH OF CHRIST”.

    For when they talk about the CHURCH in the BIBLE in JESUS TIME, we are pretty sure that they are not referring to their own religions, for that would be absurd. They are referring of course to the ACTUAL CHURCH THAT CHRIST BUILT IN 33A.D. IN JERUSALEM. Of course we cannot deprive them to say that they are also the CHURCH established by Christ, for that is the claim of the majority of religions.

    Never did the INC say that the ENOUGH PROOF to be known as the TRUE RELIGION is that the NAME of your RELIGION is the “CHURCH OF CHRIST”.

    The NAME is only one of the IDENTIFYING MARKS among other PROOFS that we need to consider to determine which is the TRUE CHURCH among the others who claims of being so.

    And me being a FORMER CATHOLIC, understood this, that’s why I joined the INC not because of its NAME, but because of its DOCRINES.

    See NEXT>

    ReplyDelete
  13. For our Lord Jesus Christ, made it clear to us on how we will be able to discern which is at the side of the TRUTH:

    John 7:17-18 “If any man willeth to do his will, HE SHALL KNOW OF THE TEACHING, WHETHER IT IS OF GOD, OR WHETHER I SPEAK FROM MYSELF. He that speaketh from himself seeketh his own glory: BUT HE THAT SEEKETH THE GLORY OF HIM THAT SENT HIM, THE SAME IS TRUE, AND NO UNRIGHTEOUSNESS IS IN HIM.”

    It is by means of the TEACHINGS or DOCTRINES [not only by its NAME] we would be able to DISCERN who is telling and preaching the TRUE WORDS of GOD, or just plainly saying things from his own self.

    In order for you to IDENTIFY the TRUE CHURCH among those who claim that they are also the CHURCH OF CHRIST, is but plain and simple. If they are 100% IDENTICAL to the TEACHINGS of the FIRST CENTURY CHURCH, then you will be able to find your TRUE CHURCH.

    What do the FIRST CENTURY CHURCH teached and believed in?

    Eph 4:4-5 “One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. ONE LORD, one faith, one baptism. ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, WHO IS ABOVE ALL, AND THROUGH ALL, AND IN US ALL.”

    1 Cor 8:6 “YET TO US THERE IS BUT ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom are all things, and we unto him: and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”


    All taken from DOUAY RHEIMS VERSION a CATHOLIC BIBLE.

    It is clearly stated from the Bible what is the BELIEF of the FIRST CENTURY CHURCH primarily regarding GOD, they believed IN ONLY ONE GOD WHICH IS THE FATHER.

    And by this you can start CROSSCHECKING all those RELIGIONS that bear the NAME CHURCH OF CHRIST or claiming to be a CHURCH OF CHRIST.

    You can start asking yourself WINNIE:

    Does the CATHOLIC CHURCH believed and teached that the FATHER IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD?

    If your answer is YES, then you are absolutely CORRECT to say that THE CATHOLIC CHURCH is indeed the CHURCH OF CHRIST since they are IDENTICAL in TEACHING and BELIEFS.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Another thing that caught in my attention is this statement of yours which says:

    “ANOTHER THING YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR RESPONSE WAS ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE NAME 'CATHOLIC' . YOU CLAIM THAT IT WAS INVENTED BY IGNATIOUS, WELL THAT IS NOT ACCURATE. It so happen that I got a copy of a book, 'the faith of the early fathers'
    And nowhere that state that he invented it. The truth is , when he wrote his letter to the smyrneans and he used the word CATHOLIC addressed to the receipients as if that name'catholic' is already widespread and known to them,otherwise it would be illogical for him to intruduce it in his farewell letter.”


    Sad to say that this is another PROOF that you MISREAD what I actually said in my RESPONSE. Never I did CLAIM that the TERM “CATHOLIC”, was INVENTED by ST>IGNATIUS, it’s yourCATHOLIC BOOK written by a PRIEST named EDWARD TAYLOR that said SO, as that I only quoted my dear:

    “’CATHOLIC’ is the ancient name by which the CHURCH OF CHRIST has been known for nineteen centuries, THIS NAME WAS GIVEN TO HER not for reasons of controversy, to prove something, but because it identifies her uniquely. IT WAS FIRST USED BY ST. IGNATIUS, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH IN SYRIA, WHO WAS MARTYRED ABOUT A.D 110. THE CHURCH FOUNDED BY CHRIST IS HERE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, CALLED ‘THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’, a name clearly to denote the Church throughout the world in union with the see or diocese of Rome. It was stress the unity of the universal Church that ST. IGNATIUS INVENTED THE NAME.” (Roman Catholic, Rev. Edward Taylor, p.3)

    Let me isolate where is that issue appeared in your PRIEST’s staments:

    “…a name clearly to denote the Church throughout the world in union with the see or diocese of Rome. It was stress the unity of the universal Church that ST. IGNATIUS INVENTED THE NAME.”

    It was your MENTOR, a Catholic Priest named EDWARD TAYLOR my dear who said so, that ST. IGNATIUS INVENTED the TERM ”CATHOLIC”, not me.

    So your statement which says:

    “YOU CLAIM THAT IT WAS INVENTED BY IGNATIOUS, WELL THAT IS NOT ACCURATE.”

    Is not actually for me but for your PRIEST, my dear, you can REPHRASE this and address this directly to your PRIEST - REV. EDWARD TAYLOR. For he is the one who actually said that, I just quoted it.

    And it is not my FAULT if it was not mentioned in the BOOK that you have. Probably they just forgot to mention, hehehehe.

    If the term “CATHOLIC” is not an INVENTED term, where did this TERM came from? Would you mind answering that WINNIE?

    Was it from JESUS? Or from the APOSTLES PERHAPS? Would you mind OPENING that CATHOLIC BOOK that you have and give me an ANSWER?
    Or you could PROBABLY open a CATHOLIC BIBLE, I know you would not DISAGREE that the BIBLE is also a RECORD OF HISTORY. Read it from a VERSE in that BIBLE, that we can read VERY CLEARLY the WORD “CATHOLIC.

    I will be waiting for your response, thanks anyway for visiting my BLOG, and GOD BLESS YOU TOO…

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kaibigang ANONYMOUS,

    Dun ko sasagutin sa kabilang THREAD ang tungkol sa LAMSA 20:28 na itinatanong mo.

    Thanks,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baket doon pa.. Siguro magreresearch ka muna ano.Alan no namang church of god and nakalagaysa gawa20:28 ng original ninto at di church of christ. 12 na talata ang binabanggit sa biblia church of god and nakalagay. I cor. 1:1 at 2 , gawa 20:28, 2 corinto 2: 1-2 ,galacia at tesalonica etc.

      Delete
  16. You said again Winnie:

    “Your other objection such as your analogy to my body and my head is very easy to put it in right order.

    My body has no proper name, if I die by beheading,they could call my body Winnie's body , but my body has no name.and Winnie's body is not a name at all.”


    Well, at this point I want I thank you for agreeing me on that issue, for it is BIBLICALLY and LOGICALLY SOUND to CALL the BODY by the NAME of its HEAD.

    This is EXACTLY what I’m trying to point out in my argument. As you can see very clearly in your example, even so that your body is separated from your head, it is quite in great significance that you becoming the HEAD of it is IRREPLACEABLE, that’s why there is no way we can call WINNIE’s BODY, the BODY of JENNIFER, or the BODY of SUSAN, or any other.

    Similar to the CHURCH which is the BODY of CHRIST, how could you call it the BAPTIST CHURCH, EPISCOPALIAN CHURCH, CATHOLIC CHURCH, PROTESTANT CHURCH, etc. Was the NAME of the OWNER of that BODY is BAPTIST, CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, etc?

    Never for the BODY of CHRIST, for it can never be owned by anyone except CHRIST himself.

    Similar to your body Winnie, it can never be identified as a property of somebody else since it is a part of yourself. That is why this is where other religion made a big mistake to think the CHURCH can be called in any other name for you cannot separate Christ from his Church since it is his OWN BODY.

    FOR A BODY CANNOT BE CALLED BY ANY OTHER NAME BUT THE NAME OF ITS HEAD.

    You said:

    “WINNIE'S BODY is not a name at all.”

    Well in one point I have to agree with that, because the “PROPER NAME” for the CHURCH is NOT “BODY OF CHRIST”, it is called the ”CHURCH OF CHRIST”.

    You said:

    “Apostasy? Yes but not total apostasy, nowhere in the Bible support that.”

    Before we proceed in this issue, would you mind defining the word “APOSTASY” for me? I need to know first what the meaning of Apostasy to you, to avoid confusion when I discuss what is being taught in the INC regarding this issue.

    Again regards, and thanks for sharing your OPINION.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dun sa Anonymous na nagtatanong tungkol kay Lamsa.

    Narito ang LINK:

    ANG GAWA 20:28 NA SALIN NI GEORGE M. LAMSA

    Nawa ay matulungan kang maunawaan mong lalo ang tungkol sa isyung ito.

    God bless...

    ReplyDelete
  18. SAME OLD SAME OLD AERIAL



    CHURCH in Acts 20:28 is NOT referring to the LITERAL PHYSICAL congregation.


    How do we know this?

    The CHURCH is the BODY... CORRECT??


    One MUST be of the CHURCH to be of the BODY.. CORRECT??

    Well look at your co-INC member on here in the chat box portion!

    CHRISTIAN admitetd that:

    NOT ONLY BABIES and the MENTALLY challenged are the ONES SAVED oUTSIDE the CHURCH


    Look it up on chat box history between him and me!


    THEREFORE


    CHURCH of CHRISI or CHURCH of GOD

    No matter which one you like


    IS NOT referring or CONDINED to a CONGREGATION


    The CHURCh is the ETERNAL CHURCH that is COOMPRISED of ALL that GOD ELECTS to be SAVED


    REGARDLESS if they are a MEMBER of an EARTHLY CONGREGATION


    REGARDLESS whehter they were WATER baptized!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oh Eric, you never get tired of spreading INC Blogs with your NONSENSE,

    The fact is, you did not understand any single lesson of the INC during your INDOCTRINATION, because you join the INC not because you BELIEVED in its Doctrines but because you granted the request of your Dying MOTHER IN LAW.

    And we cannot call that a NOBLE DEED, that’s a form of DECEPTION.

    You are like a FUNNEL without a HOLE, for how could you accept an explanation of an Ordinary members like us, since you did not accepted the teachings of our minister in person. That’s why Bro. README already BANNED you from his BLOG, because after answering your questions though you cannot refute our answers, you keepin’ on asking the same questions and saying the same thing over and over like a broken record. That is why many INC members who read your comments thinks that is just a waste of time discussing things with you, since you are like just a small can nothing inside but a small pebble. You are only capable of babbling NONSENSE and just creating NOISE, and nothing is SENSIBLE that we can get out of you.

    The main thing is you cannot indulge yourself discussing your PERSONAL BELIEFS in front of our minister because you are very much sure, that there is NO WAY, you can win your WEIRD BELIEFS and SELF FABRICATED DOCTRINES over our PREACHER, especially when it’s being scrutinized by our minister.

    And another thing, your FRIGHT that the INC Congregation where your wife is a member would oust her in the CHOIR, if you got excommunicated from the INC. Because the INC Congregation in your place will surely remove you in their membership once they found out how you spread tons of LIES over the Internet attacking the MOST BELOVED RELIGION of your WIFE.

    That’s why every time we ask you, what congregation your wife is registered? There is no way you could ever disclosed that information to us. Because you are still posing as an INC Member, in your area, that’s why you cannot convince anyone, there.

    Since you cannot attack the INC in front of you and very near you. You took advantage of the privilege offered in the internet – that you can say anything, attack anyone, without knowing your exact location and identity. There is freedom in the internet. YOU HAVE A VERY BIG FRUSTRATION BECAUSE YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO CONVINCE YOUR WIFE AND HER FRIENDS TO BELIEVE AND ACCEPT YOUR BIZZARE BELIEFS [Who would believe you anyway?]. That’s why it develop in you a grave eagerness that in one way or another you can get even with the INC, even here on the internet.

    This is the exact principle that you are following Eric:

    “IF YOU CANNOT ATTACK AN ENEMY IN THE FRONT, STAB HIM FROM BEHIND.”

    This is not BRAVERY, this act is known asTREACHERY

    Because you are still pretending as an INC Member, and NO ONE HAS A KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING HOW MANY LIES ALREADY YOU SPREAD OVER THE INTERNET among those INC Members who knew you personally.

    That is why we admire more those other people like Catholics, Protestants, and others, who diligently defend their faith in their religions that they believed in. At least they know where they are standing at. They are not CHEATERS, they are not PRETENDERS, they do not attack the INC from behind by becoming a FAKE MEMBER of the INC, and hide in the CLOAK of DISGUISE.

    Because that is the warning of Apostle Paul to the First Christians:

    Acts 20:30 “and FROM AMONG YOUR OWN SELVES SHALL MEN ARISE, SPEAKING PERVERSE THINGS, to draw away the disciples after them.”

    What you are doing is not a NEW THING for it is just part of history repeating. Because it’s TRUE that you are also a member of the INC and that makes you ONE OF US or AMONG US, and yes you speak PERVERSE THINGS. The only difference is sad to say is “YOU CANNOT CONVINCE ANYONE”! That’s an undeniable fact.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So if you want to indulge again yourself in a discussion with me

    You need to follow the RULES.


    1. You need to answer all the questions that is being asked on you. If you do not know the answer or you cannot give an answer, you will admit point blank and say: “I do not know the answer”.

    2. You need to PROVE the INC’s Doctrine FALSE by defeating me on every issue according to the PROPER ORDER, based on the ARRANGEMENT in the INC Official BIBLE LESSONS MANUAL that you LEARNED. (1) The Bible is the Word of God (2) The True God (3) The True Nature of Jesus Christ etc…etc…etc… So we will start on LESSON No. 2 – about the TRUE GOD, since we both agree that the BIBLE is the Word of GOD. if you win on this topic, then we will move on to the NEXT TOPIC.

    3. You need to stick to the topic that is being discussed, and do not insert issues that is not related to the topic that we are discussing.

    4. You need to show documented proofs to support your stand on the Issue.

    5. Use your Bible, by not only giving me chapters and verses but by quoting the VERSES.

    6. If I ask you to show me a proof from the Bible, you will quote the passage as your answer, if you cannot show me the verse, you have to admit directly and say “It’s not in the Bible.”


    I WILL FOLLOW THESE RULES!!!

    If you cannot follow all of that rules, stop visiting my BLOG, for you are just a waste of my precious time, and I will SURELY DELETE ALL YOUR MESSAGES that you will post here starting TODAY

    I have the right to give you THESE RULES for this is my BLOG and NOT YOURS. If you want a place where your rules are being followed, CREATE YOUR OWN BLOG and don’t disturb mine.

    MY BLOG! MY RULES! Don’t you ever forget that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hanggang blog lang naman kayo.Kahit si Manalo di magwawagi sa katwiran at karunungan dala ni bro. Eli Soriano..Maraming mangagawa, minister at members ng INC ang nakausap sa kanilang bible exposition para magtanong ngunit lahat sila napahiya at nasupalpal ni eli.Panoorin nyo sa YouTube i-type mo bro. Eli debate at hanapin no mga inc na nakausap nya butata. Kaya pala ang dami nyong paiwas at black propaganda para do matuloy ang debate dahil malalagay sa malaking kahihiyan ang iglesiang tayo ni manalo sa pilipinas..Baket live naman sila soriano sa TV at baket do nyo hamunin on national TV kong talagang di kayo umiiwas. Iyong mga dating handog, diakono at dyakonesa , mangaawit atbp.maytungkulin sa INC NASA ADD na, katunayan pumunta ka ng Apalit lingo-linggo may mga INC member doon na nababautismuhan.

      Delete
  21. maari po bang magtanung, tanung ko lang po ung tungkol sa krus at triangle na nakalagay sa puntod ni Charles Taze Russell. ano po ba ang ibig sabihin ng triangle na nakalagay sa puntod nya???

    ReplyDelete
  22. Walang nakalagay na Cross at Triangle Sister, Kundi Cross and Crown. Sa kaniyang puntod may nakalagay na Pyramid bilang bantayog.

    Hayaan mo, medyo busy pa ako sa work ko, bibigyan ko ng pagkakataon na masagot iyan.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Eric,

    The only way you can indulge in a DEBATE with me, is here,

    So go read back those that I stated above.

    If you cannot abide with that RULES.

    STOP COMMENTING NONSENSE, MY FAKE BROTHER IN THE INC. For I will DELETE it, like I just did now.

    Well, it's quite a relief you know, hehehehehe.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'd been very busy and wasn't able to respond as soon as I wanted.
    It is very interesting topic to discuss about the so called name of the church founded by Christ.

    One thing for sure, nowhere in the Bible that it says,'Christ's Church is named 'Church of Christ', like I said from my previous argument that His church was referred or 'CALLED' church of Christ. The words NAME and CALLED could be use interchangeably but not the same word.
    You and I or anyone else could be CALLED in many ways but I got my Proper name. I could be called base on; my description, my job, my colour, my rank, my native place, or my group where I am a member.

    When we say proper NAME it is more specific and therefore it denotes singularity.Christ's church was called christian church, church of God, church of Christ, and other else. These are not PROPER names although they are mentioned in the Bible and in history. In fact these are all pointing to only one CHURCH although it was called in many ways. Yes, this is the Catholic Church.

    Aerial, you said that Christ's church he founded was changed to Catholic ,and Christ's Church doctrines were also CHANGED. Then you simply admitting that
    WE are the TRUE Church of Christ and you're just don't agree with Christ's Church doctrines and it's name and description as Catholic.

    It was the Catholic Church who was CALLED and still call itself church of Christ. Even by the book you cited, it tells you the TRUTH to it.( the book written by Rev. Cassily)
    As i said before that the use of the word 'catholic' to described the church of Christ is not invented by Ignatius. It is true however, that he was the first person to use in written form to described the church of Christ as 'catholic'.

    Let me quote St Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrneans:
    'Wherever the bishop appears,let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is,there is the Catholic Church'.

    Concerning those new cults that name their churches Church of Christ, and the use of the same argument for justifying ther existence. Well, as you said that their opinion is just as good as the other Church of Christ next door and may I add that ,And yours is equally weak.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Oh Winnie it’s so nice to have you back. It’s quite a while ha, well as usual you are still using an opinion based argument. After I have shown you Biblical reasons why the Church established by Christ is called by its proper name the CHURCH OF CHRIST. Well you’re a typical Catholic, for the BIBLE for you is never enough. That’s why you rely more on your Church Father writings instead of refuting what I just explained to you using the Bible. For there is no way I Catholic could use the Bible to prove that she is the TRUE CHURCH.

    You said this time:

    “One thing for sure, nowhere in the Bible that it says,'Christ's Church is named 'Church of Christ', like I said from my previous argument that His church was referred or 'CALLED' church of Christ. The words NAME and CALLED could be use interchangeably but not the same word.
    You and I or anyone else could be CALLED in many ways but I got my Proper name. I could be called base on; my description, my job, my colour, my rank, my native place, or my group where I am a member.”


    Well I have shown you several verses, and even proved to you the Biblical reasons why it is called the CHURCH of CHRIST for the Early Christians were called after the NAME of Christ. And due to this name that they carry, they were persecuted. Remember they were not persecuted under the name CATHOLIC but by the name of Christ, as Christ had said:

    Matthew 24:9 “then they shall deliver you up to tribulation, and shall kill you, and ye shall be hated by all the nations BECAUSE OF MY NAME;” [Youngs Literal Translation]

    See? They were persecuted not because they were CATHOLICS but they are member of Christ’s Church which was named the CHURCH OF CHRIST, and that name bears CHRIST name.

    Well of course not all the words you call a PERSON is his PROPER NAME. But all the words that you use to call a person, as his rank, designation, identification, is indeed a NAME.

    And even so you said that the PROPER NAME to call the CHURCH OF CHRIST is the CATHOLIC CHURCH, why then that WORD does not exists in the Bible? If it’s for a fact that it is the correct way to call the CHURCH in the FIRST CENTURY, why Christ did not used it? Why no one among the APOSTLES used it or call the First Century Church by that NAME? Can you show me a documented evidence that can prove without doubt that the religion of the Early Christians was indeed called by its PROPER NAME the CATHOLIC CHURCH as you believed it is?

    That’s why I told you, when we talk about facts we need proofs. I have shown you a proof that even your Priest agreed that during the First Century the Church was called after the name of Jesus, the Christian Church or the Church of Christ. So it’s your turn to prove to me that during the First Century the Church that was Established by Christ in Jerusalem in 33 A.D. was recognized and was called the CATHOLIC CHURCH, not based on assumptions and speculations but based on undeniable fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hindi ako katoliko pero saan mo rin naman mababasa ang salitang iglesia ni cristo sa mga original at matatandang manuskrito ng biblia.Huwag kang tumakbo sa ibang salin tulad ng Kay lamsa dahil di iyan ang ginamit ni Felix na batayan ng pangalan ng iglesiang pinarehistro nya kundi ang Nasa Roma 16:16.Ganyan kasi any Aral nyo at pangangatwiran kapag di sangayon sa gusto nyong mangyari patalon- talon kayo ng salin ng biblia para makaiwas..Alam mo ba na yang paborito nyong salin Kay lamsa sa gawa20:28 ay dios si kristo na mababasa sa Roma 9:4-6..Nagulat kayo and?

      Delete
  26. As you continue,

    “Aerial, you said that Christ's church he founded was changed to Catholic ,and Christ's Church doctrines were also CHANGED. Then you simply admitting that WE are the TRUE Church of Christ and you're just don't agree with Christ's Church doctrines and it's name and description as Catholic.”

    How can I admit a religion who does not teach the original doctrines of Christ and the Apostles the TRUE CHURCH?

    The TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST obeys the Lord Jesus Christ’s teachings:

    John 8:31 “So Jesus said to those who believed in him, "IF YOU OBEY MY TEACHING, YOU ARE REALLY MY DISCIPLES;” [Good News Bible]

    John 8:31 Jesus told the people who had faith in him, "IF YOU KEEP ON OBEYING WHAT I HAVE SAID, YOU TRULY ARE MY DISCIPLES.” [Contemporary English Version]


    And obeys the teachings of the Apostles. They have a strict commandment regarding this:

    Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should PREACH TO YOU A GOSPEL THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE WE PREACHED TO YOU, MAY HE BE CONDEMNED TO HELL!” [Good News Bible]

    See my dear Winnie? How could you call a religion TRUE, if it is teaching a doctrine different from the teachings of the Apostles. And you can enumerate a lot of Catholic’s Doctrines that were totally a diversion and not identical at all to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.

    Yes Biblically and historically speaking the CHURCH OF CHRIST that was established in the first century became the CATHOLIC CHURCH, after they turn their back to the Original Teachings of Christ and the Apostles they are no longer considered as the TRUE CHURCH. The ONE TRUE CHURCH that was established in the FIRST CENTURY have become an APOSTATIZED CHURCH a fulfillment of the Prophecies recorded in the Scriptures.

    The CATHOLIC CHURCH is not the TRUE CHURCH because it does not keep and obey the ORIGINAL TEACHINGS of Christ and the Apostles. The teachings that she upholds as of today were just man-made doctrines or dogmas and not Biblical.

    Well, unless you can prove to me that what I said are FALSE, well go ahead.

    Let’s start with your Primary doctrine – your belief about GOD. Cardinal Gibbons have this to say:

    “In this one God there are THREE DISTINCT PERSONS,—the FATHER, the SON, and the HOLY GHOST, who are PERFECTLY EQUAL TO EACH OTHER” [James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers, page 14]

    Can you prove to me that this is an Original Doctrine of Jesus Christ and the Apostles? The table is yours Ms. Winnie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. para po matigil na ang debate eto po ang basahin nyo ang buong katotohana.....

      http://www.thename.ph/

      Delete
  27. You said again Winnie,

    “As i said before that the use of THE WORD 'CATHOLIC' TO DESCRIBED THE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS NOT INVENTED BY IGNATIUS. It is true however, that he was the first person to use in written form to described the church of Christ as 'catholic'.”

    You firmly believed that the word CATHOLIC IS NOT INVENTED BY IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH. Although your Priest confirms this as I quote again:

    ‘THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’, a name clearly to denote the Church throughout the world in union with the see or diocese of Rome. It was stress the unity of the universal Church that ST. IGNATIUS INVENTED THE NAME.” (Roman Catholic, Rev. Edward Taylor, p.3)
    So I will quote again and again what the Priest name EDWARD TAYOR said:

    “ST. IGNATIUS INVENTED THE NAME.”

    So if I am a CATHOLIC right now, who would I believe? YOU or the Priest? Who is the authority when it comes to your Church’s Doctrines, was it you or your PRIEST?

    So by saying that IGNATIUS did not INVENT the term CATHOLIC, are you proving to us that EDWARD TAYLOR your Priest and Mentor is a grave LIAR?

    For it is clear that it is not my statement that you’re trying to prove FALSE, it was His.

    Biblically speaking, this is another sign that you are not in a TRUE CHURCH, for there is no UNITY in your CHURCH, as you have proven now.

    The Bible said:

    1 Corinthians 1:10 “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, THAT YE ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, AND THAT THERE BE NO DIVISIONS AMONG YOU; BUT THAT YE BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGMENT.” [King James Version]

    So by OPPOSING what your Priest had said, that is a sign of DISUNITY, and a DIVISION or SPLIT among you Catholics for you are not UNITED in your FAITH.

    For you believe that the term CATHOLIC is not an INVENTION of IGNATIUS and yet an authority from your Church said that it is.

    It is another SIGN that you are not a MEMBER of the TRUE CHURCH since you allow VARIATIONS of BELIEFS to Rise among you.

    The Bible said as I quote again:

    ”THAT YE ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING”

    “BUT THAT YE BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGMENT”

    For the TRUE CHURCH is UNITED in “ONE FAITH” not “DIFFERENT BELIEFS”.:

    Eph 4:4-6 “One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling.
    One Lord, ONE FAITH, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.”


    That’s why the INC Members believed in only ONE FAITH, we don’t CONTRADICT each other, for we are UNITED as ONE. Because that is what our Lord Jesus Christ want us to become:

    John 17:22-23 “I have given them the glory that you gave me. I DID THIS SO THAT THEY ARE UNITED IN THE SAME WAY WE ARE. I am in them, and you are in me. SO THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNITED. In this way the world knows that you have sent me and that you have loved them in the same way you have loved me.” [God’s Word Bible]

    Anyway, since you are insisting that the term CATHOLIC is not an INVENTION of IGNATIUS though your Priest said so, would you mind answering these questions?

    1. If it is not an invention of Ignatius, where the word “CATHOLIC” came from?

    2. Why the term “CATHOLIC” is not found or written in the Bible?

    3. Does the Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and the First Century Christians ever used this term to call the Church where they belong?


    I would be delighted if you could show me REPUTABLE EVIDENCES not just PLAIN OPINIONS to support your answers.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bro, i'm back again with a question. Ano ang paliwanag na mali ang pinagbabatayan ng mga gumagamit ng talatang ito

    And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
    Romans 4:5


    Thanks again in advance!

    ReplyDelete
  29. we're very much excited on waiting to madam wennie for laying her biblical thought......oppssssssss PLAIN OPINIONS...........to answer 1 to 3 of mr.aerial's questions


    thank u mr. aerial for very well elightenment

    ReplyDelete
  30. hindi poh tayu .... nag tutung galian poh .... eto lang poh para malaman ang nilalaman sa biblia ..para d tau madaya .. god bless
    sa lahat ng I.N.C :)

    ReplyDelete
  31. sir aerial pwedi po bang pakitalakay po niyo dito ang ukol sa SABBATH? ipinag uutos pa ba ito sa panahong cristiano?

    sa;amat sir

    ReplyDelete
  32. kung kayo po ay may tunay na pananamplataya isang aklat lang po ang inyong gagamitin at iyon po ay ang banal na kasulatan na sinulat ng mga propeta at apostol at hndi kung ano ano pang referensya pa.at hndi napo kung kanikanong salin pa.san po natin mababasa na kailangan mo munang pumasok sa iglesia ni cristo para ka maging iglesia ng dios?alin po ba ang tunay na iglesia na tinatawag sa kanyang pangalan at ano po ba ang habilin ng ating panginoong hesukristo at dapat nting ugaliin sa mga huling araw? 1 Timoteo 3:15-16 iglesia ng dios..kulang..iglesia ni cristo..kulang padin..diba po ba dapat ea ung nakasaad sa 2 Tesalonica 2:14

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://torch-of-salvation.blogspot.com/2011/10/tungkol-sa-gawa-2028-na-salin-ni-george.html

      Delete
    2. basahin mo po yan, bka makatulong sayo...

      Delete
  33. pano naman po ang ibang talata na sinulat ng mga unang lingkod na salitang dios ang nakadugtong sa iglesia???gnawa narin po bang kristo ni lamsa?

    ReplyDelete
  34. bwuhahaha BKIT TUTOL BA KAME SA MGA KATAGANG "IGLESIA NG DIOS"??

    sino ba yung tinutukoy jan na IGLESIA NG DIOS?...yung grupo ba ni Soriano na natatag sa BULACAN SA PANGUNGUNA NI PEREZ??hehhee

    HINDI PA PINAPANGANAK SI SORIANO may salita nang "IGLESIA NG DIOS" sa Biblia..at ang tinutukoy dun eh yun ding mga kaanib sa "IGLESIA NI CRISTO" dahil sabi ni Cristo lahat ng sakanya eh sa Ama,,

    ReplyDelete
  35. soriano ? db ang dating daan yan ?
    sige nga, ipaliwanag mo kung kailan at paano lumitaw yan

    ReplyDelete
  36. soriano, ano ka ba ?
    minister ?
    meron bang ministrong nagmuMURA ?

    ReplyDelete
  37. reply lang kay ms winnie di kasi convinced sa kung ano ba talaga tunay na name ng tunay na Iglesia tinatra ng Panginoong JesuCristo much better kung sa fundamental doktrines na pinaniniwalaan niya ang pagusapan baka sakali bigyan ng Ama ng liwanag ng pangunawa para maunawaan niya aral sa loob ng INC

    ReplyDelete
  38. I love this website! I shared it with all my friends on facebook. Im so proud to be an INC member

    ReplyDelete
  39. hi sana mabasa ito ni aerial tanung lang ang life ba ay unfair or fair bkit my mga tao na hindi nakaka alam ng katotohanan bakit hindi nila maintindihan ung true meaning ng katotohanan and bkit namamatay na hindi man lang nya narinig ang katotohanan is this fair or unfair based on bible.. thanks sana my sumagot

    ReplyDelete
  40. ang tanong mo bakit hindi lahat nakakaalam ng katotohanan? dahil mayron pong dios sa sanglibutang ito na bumubulag sa kanilang isipan 2 corinto 4:4.yog pong namatay na hindi nakarinig ng katotohanan or inosenti. ang DIOS AY NAG BIGAY sa kanila ng chance na mabuhay ulit sa pagbabalik ng panginoong jesus kapag syay mag hari na sa kaharian ng DIOS.GAWA 24:15 NA MAY PAG ASA SA Dios,NA SYA RIN NAMANG HINIHINTAY nila ,na magkakaroon ng pagkabuhay na maguli ng mga ganap at gayon din ng mga di ganap.ang DIOS AY HINDI UNFAIR o nagtatangi ng tao gawa 10:34.nag dipende po yon sa isang tao kung paano gamitin nya ang kanyang freedom sa buhay.kaya ang dapat natin pag toonan ng pansin mag aral tayo sa biblia para malaman natin kung ano ang mga layunin NG DIOS PARA SA MGA TAO.KUNG MALAMAN MO ITONG MGA KATOTOHANAN MASUSUMPONGAN MO NA ANG BUHAY AY HINDI UNFAIR.AT MAY KAHULOGAN ANG BUHAY NATIN NGAYON.salamat po

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. para po matigil na ang debate eto po ang basahin nyo ang buong katotohanan.....

      http://www.thename.ph/

      Delete
  41. churches of christ ang nakalagay sa Roma 16:16 peru majority ng ginamit ni pablo ay church of God. ibig ba sabhin si Kristo ay God?

    1 Corinthians 1:2
    To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours

    1 Corinthians 10:32
    Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God

    1 Corinthians 11:16
    If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God

    1 Corinthians 11:22
    Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God by humiliating those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? Certainly not in this matter!

    1 Corinthians 15:9
    For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God

    at marami pa pong ginamit sa knyng mga libro.

    ReplyDelete
  42. ganyan po ba ang turo ng iglesia ni cristo...ang ipilit ang sariling interpretasyon?di po ganyan ang ating panginoong hesus..hindi po cya nakikipagtalo sa khit kanino....mahiya po kau.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. alin ba ang ipininpilit? ikaw ang mahiya. kung mayrong sa tingin mo na "pinipilit" ng INC irefute mo at sagutin sa pamamagitan ng mga verses ng biblia

      Delete
    2. para po matigil na ang debate eto po ang basahin nyo ang buong katotohana.....

      http://www.thename.ph/

      Delete
  43. Good day Bro,
    Marami akong natutunan sa iyo sa mga tuligsa sa atin ng iba't ibang religion. Araw-araw akong nagbabasa at very interesting lahat ng topic. Bro request ko lang sana maipost o mai-topic dito yung paliwanag natin sa Apocalipsis tungkol sa Ikapitong tatak pati na rin yung computation sa tumutukoy sa kalahating oras mula 1918-1939. Hintayin ko Bro and more power! Mabuhay ang INC

    ReplyDelete
  44. Isang grupo ng mga taong nagkakatipon para sa isang partikular na layunin o gawain. Sa Bagong Sanlibutang Salin, ang salitang Hebreo na kadalasang isinasalin bilang “kongregasyon” ay qa·hal′, na nagmula sa isang salitang-ugat na nangangahulugang “tipunin.” (Bil 20:8; Deu 4:10) Malimit itong gamitin may kinalaman sa isang organisadong lupon, anupat masusumpungan sa mga pananalitang “kongregasyon ng Israel” (Lev 16:17; Jos 8:35; 1Ha 8:14), “kongregasyon ng tunay na Diyos” (Ne 13:1), at “kongregasyon ni Jehova” (Bil 20:4; Deu 23:2, 3; 1Cr 28:8; Mik 2:5). Ang qa·hal′ ay tumutukoy sa iba’t ibang uri ng pagtitipon ng mga tao, halimbawa, para sa relihiyosong kadahilanan (Deu 9:10; 18:16; 1Ha 8:65; Aw 22:25; 107:32), para asikasuhin ang mga usaping pambayan (1Ha 12:3), at para sa pakikipagdigma (1Sa 17:47; Eze 16:40). Sa aklat ng Eclesiastes, si Solomon ay ipinakikilala bilang ang “tagapagtipon” (sa Heb., qo·he′leth). (Ec 1:1, 12) Bilang hari, tinitipon niya ang taong-bayan upang sumamba kay Jehova, anupat ang isang kapansin-pansing halimbawa ay nang tipunin niya sa bagong-tayong templo sa Jerusalem ang kaniyang mga sakop.—1Ha 8:1-5; 2Cr 5:2-6.

    Sa Kristiyanong Griegong Kasulatan, ang salitang Griego na isinalin bilang “kongregasyon” ay ek·kle·si′a, na pinagkunan ng salitang Ingles na “ecclesia” at ng salitang Tagalog na “iglesya.” Ang ek·kle·si′a ay nanggaling sa dalawang salitang Griego, ang ek, nangangahulugang “labas,” at ang ka·le′o, nangangahulugang “tawagin.” Samakatuwid, tumutukoy ito sa isang grupo ng mga taong tinawag o tinipon, maaaring sa opisyal o sa di-opisyal na paraan. Sa Gawa 7:38, ito ang salitang ginamit upang tukuyin ang kongregasyon ng Israel, at ginamit din ito para sa “kapulungan” na sinulsulan ng panday-pilak na si Demetrio laban kay Pablo at sa mga kasamahan niya sa Efeso. (Gaw 19:23, 24, 29, 32, 41) Gayunman, pinakamadalas itong gamitin upang tukuyin ang kongregasyong Kristiyano. Ikinakapit ito sa kalipunan ng mga kongregasyong Kristiyano (1Co 12:28); sa isang kongregasyon na nasa isang lunsod na gaya ng Jerusalem (Gaw 8:1), Antioquia (Gaw 13:1), o Corinto (2Co 1:1); o sa isang espesipikong grupo na nagtitipon sa isang tahanan (Ro 16:5; Flm 2). Kaayon nito, binabanggit din ang indibiduwal na mga kongregasyong Kristiyano o ‘mga kongregasyon ng Diyos.’ (Gaw 15:41; 1Co 11:16) May ilang bersiyong Ingles na gumamit ng “church” sa mga tekstong tumutukoy sa kongregasyong Kristiyano, gaya sa 1 Corinto 16:19. (AS; KJ) Ngunit yamang ang pagkaunawa ng marami sa “church” ay isang gusali para sa mga relihiyosong serbisyo sa halip na isang kongregasyong nagsasagawa ng pagsamba, ang salin na “church” ay maaaring magbigay ng maling ideya.

    Sa Septuagint, ang salitang Griego na ek·kle·si′a ang kadalasang ginagamit bilang salin ng salitang Hebreo na qa·hal′, gaya sa Awit 22:22 (21:23, LXX).

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Grabe ang paggamit nyo ng salitang Dios!
    Walang paggalang!
    Pilit nyong pinalilitaw na tama ang relihiyon nyo. Buti pa ang pangalan ng grupo nyo capitalized samantalang ang salitang Dios ay small letter sa inyo.
    Hindi nyo ba napapansin o sadyang hindi pinapansin ang pangalan ng grupo nyo kung talagang iyan nga ang tamang pangalan ng church na itinayo ng Dios? Nag aral ba kayo ng tamang paggamit ng salita? Pareho ba ang iglesia at Iglesia? Baka sabihin nyo pareho lang.
    Alam nyo ba ang common noun at proper noun?
    Common noun ang tawag sa mga pangngalan na nag uumpisa sa small letter samantalang Proper noun naman ang pangngalan na naguumpisa sa capital letter.

    Halimbawa:
    Pag sinabing doktor, ito ay hindi tumutukoy sa isang certain person.
    Ngunit pag sinabing Doktor Jose Rizal, maliwanag na ito ay tumutukoy sa isang siguradong tao .
    Ano ngayon ang gusto kung makita nyo?
    Ang ginagamit na pangalan ng inyong relihiyon na sinasabi nyo na siyang tamang pangalan ng itinatag daw ni Cristo ay hindi tumpak, bakit? Kung ang nakasulat sa Roma 16:16 ay capitalized, maniniwala ako na iyon nga ang pangalan ng itinatag ng Dios na iglesia. Kaso napakaliwanag na common noun ang nakalagay patunay na ito ay hindi tumutukoy sa isang certain group of believers.
    Base daw sa Biblia ang mga ipinangangaral, oo nga naman kaso piniilipit nyo.
    Hindi raw ayon sa karunungan ng tao, ano ba ang ibig sabihin ng paggamit nyo ng ibat ibang mga pahayag ng ilang mga tao. Hindi lang yun, ang paggamit ng ibat-ibang salin ng Biblia ay isang kwestyonableng bagay.
    Kahit nga ang pahayag ng sinasabi nyong maling relihiyon ay ginagamit ninyo para palitawin na tama ang inyong sinasabi.

    ReplyDelete
  47. At para po sa inyong kaalaman, ang nagtayo po ng tunay na iglesia ni Cristo ay hindi si Cristo mismo. Bakit ko nasabi? Pakibasa po ng buo yung talatang pinagbasehan nyo:
    Mateo 16:17-18
    At sumagot si Jesus at sa kaniya'y sinabi,Mapalad ka, Simon Bar-Jonas: sapagka't hindi ipinahayag sa iyo ng laman at ng dugo, kundi ng aking Ama na nasa langit.
    At sinasabi ko naman sa iyo, na ikaw ay Pedro, at sa ibabaw ng batong ito ay itatayo ko ang aking iglesia; at ang mga pintuan ng Hades ay hindi magsisipanaig laban sa kaniya.

    Tanong: Sino raw ang nagtayo?
    Sagot: si Cristo raw.
    Ibig sabihin iisa ang nagtayo at ang pinagtayuan?

    Tanong uli: Sino ang nagpahayag kay Pedro?
    Sagot: si Cristo rin daw kasi siya ang nagtayo.
    Hindi ba malinaw na ang nagpahayag ay hindisa pamamagitan ng laman at ng dugo kundi ng Ama?

    Tanong uli: Sino ang pinagtayuan?

    Liwanagin natin.
    Sa sulat ni Apostol Juan ay nakasaad:
    "Sapagkat ako'y hindi nagsasalita na mula sa aking sarili; kundi ang Ama na sa akin ay nagsugo, ay siyang nagbigay sa akin ng utos, kung ano ang dapat kong sabihin, at kung ano ang dapat kong salitain." -Juan 12:49

    Sa talatang iyon ay makikita na si Cristo ay hindi nagsasalita ng sa ganang kanyang sarili, kaya naman nung magsalita siya sa harap ni Pedro ay sinabi niya na :
    " Mapalad ka Simon Bar-Jonas sapagkat hindi ito ipimahayag ng laman at ng dugo kundi ng aking Ama na nasa langit."
    Malinaw na ang mensahe ay galing sa Ama na pinadaan sa kanyang tagapagpahayag na si Cristo. At napakalinaw din na ang Ama ang nagtayo sa binanggit na :
    "sa batong ito..."a
    Tanong :
    Sino yung bato na pinagtayuan?
    Sa sulat ni Apostol Pablo ay nakasaad ang ganito:

    ""At lahat ay nagsiinom ng isang inumin ding ayon sa espiritu; sapagka't nagsiinom sa batong ayon sa espiritu na sumunod sa kanila: at ang batong yaon ay si Cristo."
    Sino daw yung bato?Hindi bat si Cristo?
    Kaya kung sasabihin nati na si Cristo ang nagtayo dahil siya ang nagsalita ay lalabas lang na napakaliteral namanmag isip ng mga mimistrong nagtuturo sa inyo.
    Iba ang nagtayo sa pinagtayuan, mahirap bang intindihin yun?


    ReplyDelete
  48. Do you need a loan? apply with us now with amount needed

    Email us today for your personal loans
    Wicklaurelscapitalsoughtfirms@gmail com

    ReplyDelete

Any accusation attacking an individual or an organization without adequate proofs and evidences, will be DELETED, be responsible in what you are saying at all times.

ATTENTION TO THOSE WHO LEAVE COMMENTS IN THIS BLOG:

I think it’s about time to avoid confusion to anyone, that I will no longer allow anybody commenting in this blog posting as ANONYMOUS, regardless of his Religion and Affiliations. Any comments under the name of ANONYMOUS will be DELETED.

Any comments attacking a PERSON [Ad Hominem], instead of defending his Faith with honor and respect will be DELETED. Never accuse a person or an organization that we have no proper proofs or evidences to support our accusations. Hearsays and fabricated stories with a motive of hurting and dishonoring somebody [either an individual or an organization] will no longer be allowed and be tolerated in this Blog.

If anyone feels that what I have imposed is not fair? There is nobody stopping you in making your own Blog and rules that you so desire. I have all the rights to impose any rules for the sake of orderliness of this Blog as it is written in the Scriptures: “Everything must be done in a proper and orderly way.” [1 Cor 14:40, GNB].

My BLOG, My RULES…

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

NET 25 - Iglesia Ni Cristo Network