If not, what then?

[jersen05]

I have reviewed a lot of Church of Chirst doctrines ever since I got interested in defending my faith. I have proven to my self that they are wrong. But this question came up to my mind…

*If they have twisted bible verses to prove their points, What is the true meaning of the verses they are using?

This is to help me help my CoC friend understand. Thank you every one

---

A little sharing

Everytime I pay my fare wich is 14 Pesos, I always give 15. then I tell my self,“its OK, maybe he needs it morethan I do”. Then comes a time that I am a little short on money. I payed my fare 15 pesos then waited for my change. then I looked up in the sky, “Sorry Jesus, Im a little short.” then come to my mind, “maybe thats why the driver gave me my change, because I NEED it.”. Once again I looked up and said, “Thank you Jesus.”.

 

[DavidFilmer]

*If they have twisted bible verses to prove their points, What is the true meaning of the verses they are using?

Sorry, you’ve gotta give us a bit more information.

For starters, the term “Church of Christ” is very ambiguous. Maybe you mean the “Churches of Christ,” a large collection of completely autonomous protestant Christian congregations. Or maybe you mean one of several Mormon congregations going by (some variation of) the name “Church of Christ.” Or maybe you refer to “Church of Christ, Scientist” (ie, Scientologists). Or maybe you are in the Philippines (you don’t cite your location) and you refer to the Iglesia ni Cristo (which, translated, means “Church of Christ”). Or many other possibilities. These groups twist Scripture in VERY different ways to reach VERY different conclusions.

The first supposition (the Churches of Christ) is more probable, since it is the largest. But these congregations are completely autonomous, so their beliefs (and intrepretations of Scripture) are entirely defined by whomever happens to be their minister. We have no idea what this particular minister might be saying about Scripture.

We would like to help you, but we need some specifics to go on.

 

[thistle]

I have reviewed a lot of Church of Chirst doctrines ever since I got interested in defending my faith. I have proven to my self that they are wrong. But this question came up to my mind…

*If they have twisted bible verses to prove their points, What is the true meaning of the verses they are using?

This is to help me help my CoC friend understand. Thank you every one

---

A little sharing

Everytime I pay my fare wich is 14 Pesos, I always give 15. then I tell my self,“its OK, maybe he needs it morethan I do”. Then comes a time that I am a little short on money. I payed my fare 15 pesos then waited for my change. then I looked up in the sky, “Sorry Jesus, Im a little short.” then come to my mind, “maybe thats why the driver gave me my change, because I NEED it.”. Once again I looked up and said, “Thank you Jesus.”.

We are not mind readers. What specific verses are you talking about?

 

[jersen05]

uhm. hello guys. the CoC or church of Christ that im talking about is the INC or Iglesia ni Cristo of Manalo here in the Phil. We often say that their bible translations are twisted once rite? so, if their translation of many verses in the bible are wrong, what then are the meanings of the verses they use?

and im planing to personaly talk to one of their ministers about the apostasy, help me on that too pls.

 

[DavidFilmer]

the CoC or church of Christ that im talking about is the INC or Iglesia ni Cristo of Manalo here in the Phil.

OK, thanks for specifying what you mean by “Church of Christ.” Iglesia ni Cristo is a quasi-uniteritian sect.

if their translation of many verses in the bible are wrong, what then are the meanings of the verses they use?

Sorry, but we still need a bit more to go on. Such as: Which verses, and how do they interpret them?

Like most protestant (or protestant-descended) sects, Iglesia ni Cristo has no authoratative dogmatic definition of specific passages. Maybe Eduardo Manalo’s particular flavor of the INC has particular uniform intrepretations, but those of us who do not reside in the Phillipines are not aware of these, so you need to lay it out for us.

 

[jersen05]

This is one of their doctrines about not eating blood. This verse realy clear, thats why i need help.

AC21:25 “But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.”

so, what does it says about eating blood? it tells us that we must not eat blood, so why does catholics alowed to eat blood?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jersen05,

This is one of their doctrines about not eating blood. This verse realy clear, thats why i need help.

so, what does it says about eating blood? it tells us that we must not eat blood, so why does catholics alowed to eat blood?

Non-Filipino Catholics may not know what you are talking about. Having a Filipina wife, I know you are talking about Dinogo-an - a broth made from cooked pig or cow’s(?) blood.

You can tell your friend that the purpose of the prescription (made in Acts 15 at the local Council of Jerusalem) was not a THEOLOGICAL teaching, but merely a disciplinary custom made for Gentiles in a PARTICULAR location where they were in regular contact with Jews and Jewish Christians who would have been scandalized by it.

The proper interpretation was given by St. Paul in I Corinthians 10:23-33.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jersen05]

thank you for your answer. i will try to explain this to my friend. but if you are still interested in helping, how will i convince my friend that eating blood is ok?

 

[w_stewart]

The issue on eating blood is also true among JW’s. I would like to believe that Manalo’s teaching on this matter was heavily influenced by JW.

 

[ricko]

thank you for your answer. i will try to explain this to my friend. but if you are still interested in helping, how will i convince my friend that eating blood is ok?

As stated earlier, it was not a law from God binding on all. A group of Jews called the “Judaizers” were upset that the Gentiles were not following Jewish customs. The Council decided to ASK those Gentiles in three locations to refrain from among other things the drinking of blood. This ruling was only to placate the Jews. When the last Judaizer died about 100 yrs later so did the requirement.

Also the bible speaks very clearly about eating and drinking.

“Eat whatever is sold in the market…” 1 Cor 10 -27
“A man of sound faith knows he can eat anything…” Romans 14:2
“Everything created by God is good and nothing is forbidden” Can’t remember book

 

[NHInsider]

Jewish law prohibited the consumption of blood because blood, as the locus of life, was sacred to God. This is why kosher slaughtering requires draining the blood thoroughly from the meat. This is why the Jews were so scandalized by Jesus’ emphatic statements about the necessity of drinking His blood.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, and some other sects, do not accept that the Church had the authority to set aside the Jewish dietary restrictions (as they do not accept the authority of the Church, period).

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is one of their doctrines about not eating blood. This verse realy clear, thats why i need help.

so, what does it says about eating blood? it tells us that we must not eat blood, so why does catholics alowed to eat blood?

The blood of animals is from a being lower than humans.

Jesus Christ is not an animal; He is God incarnate, and His blood elevates us so that we might partake in His divine life.

Big difference.

 

[jersen05]

ok.

As stated earlier, it was not a law from God binding on all. A group of Jews called the “Judaizers” were upset that the Gentiles were not following Jewish customs. The Council decided to ASK those Gentiles in three locations to refrain from among other things the drinking of blood. This ruling was only to placate the Jews. When the last Judaizer died about 100 yrs later so did the requirement.

how can i explain that? where are the verses in the bible that tells that?

 

[mardukm]

ok.

how can i explain that? where are the verses in the bible that tells that?

Here is a point by point analysis of how you can respond:

(1) Where does the statement by the elders in Jerusalem to St. Paul in Acts 21:25 come from?

ANSWER: It comes from the Council of Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 15. Compare Acts 21:25 with Acts 15:29.

(2) Does the Council of Jerusalem state that the judgment (to abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood) is intended for ALL Gentiles?

ANSWER: NO! The Council specifically says that it is ONLY for the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia? Read Acts 15:23

(3) Were there other Christians besides those in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia?

ANSWER: YES! There were also Christians in Rome (see Epistle to the Romans), in Ethiopia (see Acts 8), Samaria (see Acts 8), Cyprus (see Acts 11), Phoenicia (see Acts 11), Pamphylia (see Acts 14), and Pisidia (see Acts 14).

(4) So if there were no Jews or Judaizers around, then these rules did not need to be followed?

ANSWER: Exactly! Except for the rule on unchastity, of course, which was not a rule just in response to the Jews and Judaizers, but a general Christian teaching.

(5) How do we know that these rules were only given because the Jews and Judaizers were complaining, and not because it was the law of the Church in general?

ANSWER: Because that is what the Jerusalem elders told St. Paul in Acts 21 (read Acts 21:20-26)

(6) Did St. Paul himself believe that he needed to abstain from meat offered to idols or not eat blood?

ANSWER: NO! And he explained this in his letter to the Corinthians (read I Corinthians 10:23-33). St. Paul says that we can eat anything set before us if we do it while giving thanks to God. The conscience of such a person is clear. And look what else St. Paul teaches us: “Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a feast or a new moon or sabbath.” (Colossians 2:16)

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jersen05]

Catholic: it was only in 3 groups of gentiles to forbid to eat blood.
INC(Manalo): Yes, but back then, that 3 groups of gentile was the only christian gentiles!

what should i say next? i got blocked by that defense…

 

[w_stewart]

Catholic: it was only in 3 groups of gentiles to forbid to eat blood.
INC(Manalo): Yes, but back then, that 3 groups of gentile was the only christian gentiles!

what should i say next? i got blocked by that defense…

Let them produce the evidence that supports that claim.

 

[mardukm]

Catholic: it was only in 3 groups of gentiles to forbid to eat blood.
INC(Manalo): Yes, but back then, that 3 groups of gentile was the only christian gentiles!

what should i say next? i got blocked by that defense…

I see you got stuck at point#2. That’s why you need to read on to point#3 which addresses exactly what you are talking about.

Blessings