Iglesia ni Cristo members.. lets help them

[janryboy]

Everyone seems to have his own question . I think I should as well.

newera, your ministers explains the sealing as membership to iglesia. My question; What is wrong with your angel’s arithmetic?i82.photobucket.com/albums/j253/inahsworld101/th_n.gif

In Revelation those who would be sealed are a 144,000 when in 1980 the INC membership is already a million (1997 Britannica). Strange i82.photobucket.com/albums/j253/inahsworld101/u.gif.

More profit?

ahehehe…of course every individual counts…block voting? nah…

 

[ladygenesis]

to all catholics here,i would advise you to get a copy of inc bible and compare it with catholic or protestant bible.there are certain verses in theirs ( inc) that were deleted especially those that support the divinity of christ.i only browse 2 pages and already discovered discrepancies.just my two cents.

 

[MatthewB]

to all catholics here,i would advise you to get a copy of inc bible and compare it with catholic or protestant bible.there are certain verses in theirs ( inc) that were deleted especially those that support the divinity of christ.i only browse 2 pages and already discovered discrepancies.just my two cents.

Is it the Lamsa translation? I know that is a favorite of thiers. They love if for the verse “church of Christ” which should be “church of God” and they change to “Church of Christ” to make it look like the name of the chruch instead of a description of it. Or do they have another translation? I know they claimed they can use any version of the bible, but seem to prefer certain ones depending on how they can manipulate the wording.

Course I wish I could get a copy of Ross Tipon’s book. I belive it has nothing to do with thier theology, but with the actions and I guess shows Manalo to be almost like a mob boss. I don’t know how true the stuff is and if he has info to back it up. I don’t like how the INC used bad resources, pseudo-history and other lies to attack the Catholic Church and other Christian churches so wouldn’t want something stuping to thier tatics.

 

[mongladz]

Their bible is actually the holy threenity. One purpose three distinct variations.

Lamsa, Moffat and Rylie

i82.photobucket.com/albums/j253/inahsworld101/th_heehee.gif

 

[newera]

mongladz Quote:

Perhaps it would be nice if I ask you, can you speak for your ministers and maybe set a formal debate?

Hahahaha… funny guy … we are waiting for somebody to have a formal debate… and now you are saying that many Catholics knocking infront of INC central to ask for a debate. bwahahahahahahahahahahaha…

 

[newera]

Is it the Lamsa translation? I know that is a favorite of thiers. They love if for the verse “church of Christ” which should be “church of God” and they change to “Church of Christ” to make it look like the name of the chruch instead of a description of it. Or do they have another translation? I know they claimed they can use any version of the bible, but seem to prefer certain ones depending on how they can manipulate the wording.

Course I wish I could get a copy of Ross Tipon’s book. I belive it has nothing to do with thier theology, but with the actions and I guess shows Manalo to be almost like a mob boss. I don’t know how true the stuff is and if he has info to back it up. I don’t like how the INC used bad resources, pseudo-history and other lies to attack the Catholic Church and other Christian churches so wouldn’t want something stuping to thier tatics.

So for you…what is the best translation for Acts 20:28? Church of God which he has purchased with his blood.

My question then is… who came here to purchase the Church with his blood? Is it the Father? or Christ?

Who is the Head of the Body?

 

[newera]

to all catholics here,i would advise you to get a copy of inc bible and compare it with catholic or protestant bible.there are certain verses in theirs ( inc) that were deleted especially those that support the divinity of christ.i only browse 2 pages and already discovered discrepancies.just my two cents.

For your info ladygenesis … we don’t have our own bible. You are accusing the INC, be careful of what you said.

 

[newera]

Quoting from the bible? INCs don’t have the right to use the bible.

I’m still waiting for your response.
Prove to me what is INC’s basis for knowing which books are inspired and those from not inspired. Tell me also WHEN did INC determined the canonicity of the Bible.

well I think, you cannot go sleep if I did not answer your question…ha …that’s a good sign for me… your always thinking of the INC answer…hhmmm

 

[MatthewB]

So for you…what is the best translation for Acts 20:28? Church of God which he has purchased with his blood.

My question then is… who came here to purchase the Church with his blood? Is it the Father? or Christ?

Who is the Head of the Body?

The best translation would be the correct translation, not the one we simply want.
letusreason.org/Iglesia3.htm

The following quote is from the above url

To get further “proof” of its name, Iglesia also cites from the Lamsa translation; (cited in Pasugo, April 1978) Acts 20:28: “Take heed therefore . . . to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with his blood”. The Lamsa translation is not based on the original language of Greek, the language in which the book of Acts and the NT were written, the phrase is “the Church of God” (ten ekklesian tou Theou) not “Church of Christ” (ten ekklesian tou Christou). Iglesia knows this, yet they purposely ignore this to mislead their members and others they proselytize.

The Church was purchased with the blood of God. Christ is truely God. As CS Lewis points out Christ was not just a good teacher because he claimed to be God so he was either A) God or B) Insane.

 

[Milliardo]

For your info ladygenesis … we don’t have our own bible. You are accusing the INC, be careful of what you said.

I think she meant your own translation, though that’s not entirely accurate since you depend on the Lamsa translation of the Bible, which fits Felix Manalo’s views.

Are you sure what you are saying?.. Dont you know that it is a LAW or doctrine of the Catholic Church.

what about the nuns?

Question: does the Church forbid everyone to marry? You might have a case if she does; you simply don’t if she doesn’t. So, is that a yes or no?

Funny ha, or maybe you did not know what your taking about… Is there a baptism on the time of Moses and Isaiah? were talking here of Baptism

Baptism is the initiation into Christian life. This is very basic. Are Moses and Elijah Christians? Now, if Felix Manalo was not baptized into the INC, isn’t it reasonable to say he is an outcast of the INC himself, having not been initiated into it? Isn’t that ironic?

 

[newera]

Milliardo Quote:
Question: does the Church forbid everyone to marry?

I 'm not saying that Catholic church forbid everyone…but the doctrine of forbidden to marry was found in catholic church specially on the priest after ordination.

Baptism is the initiation into Christian life. This is very basic. Are Moses and Elijah Christians?

Your right… baptism is the initiation during our Christ era. But it was not implemented during Moses and Elijah…

Even praising God during Moses is different than Christian era.

Now for Manalo’s time he was called by God to one’s more to regroup God son’s and daugther in these last days. God already appointed him to baptize everyone… he doesnt go through baptism anymore. Same with John the Baptis… he was appointed to baptized our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[newera]

The best translation would be the correct translation, not the one we simply want.
letusreason.org/Iglesia3.htm

The following quote is from the above url

The Church was purchased with the blood of God. Christ is truely God. As CS Lewis points out Christ was not just a good teacher because he claimed to be God so he was either A) God or B) Insane.

blood of God??? God is spirit don’t you know that… spirit has no flesh and bones. Why don’t you read some books, and you will found out that the LAMSA version in Acts 20:28 is the right one.

 

[newera]

The best translation would be the correct translation, not the one we simply want.
letusreason.org/Iglesia3.htm

The following quote is from the above url

The Church was purchased with the blood of God. Christ is truely God. As CS Lewis points out Christ was not just a good teacher because he claimed to be God so he was either A) God or B) Insane.

letusreason.org/Iglesia3.htm …why you point me to this link? … this is not an INC website… the one who write this link are those who criticize the INC Doctrines , surely they are telling their own interpretation.

 

[newera]

Is it the Lamsa translation? I know that is a favorite of thiers. They love if for the verse “church of Christ” which should be “church of God” and they change to “Church of Christ” to make it look like the name of the chruch instead of a description of it. Or do they have another translation? I know they claimed they can use any version of the bible, but seem to prefer certain ones depending on how they can manipulate the wording.

Course I wish I could get a copy of Ross Tipon’s book. I belive it has nothing to do with thier theology, but with the actions and I guess shows Manalo to be almost like a mob boss. I don’t know how true the stuff is and if he has info to back it up. I don’t like how the INC used bad resources, pseudo-history and other lies to attack the Catholic Church and other Christian churches so wouldn’t want something stuping to thier tatics.

What if I showed you another bible translation (beside LAMSA) that it is written the word Church of Christ. what would you do?

 

[newera]

Everyone seems to have his own question . I think I should as well.

newera, your ministers explains the sealing as membership to iglesia. My question; What is wrong with your angel’s arithmetic?i82.photobucket.com/albums/j253/inahsworld101/th_n.gif

In Revelation those who would be sealed are a 144,000 when in 1980 the INC membership is already a million (1997 Britannica). Strange i82.photobucket.com/albums/j253/inahsworld101/u.gif.

More profit?

Maybe you just heard it, and not understand what it is all about.

 

[newera]

However, like Moses and Isaiah, John likewise predated Jesus’ ministry and proclamation of the gospel. So what applies to John logically should apply to Isaiah and Moses as well, hence it would lead to questions like who baptized Isaiah, and Moses, although such questions would ultimately lead to absurdities like “who baptized Adam?”.

I agree it is funny.

I don’t know were get those logic. I 'm sure it is not biblical. John and Moses have different time. There is no baptism in time of Moses. that’s why asking who baptized Moses is a big question mark.

When did the baptism start?? in time of Moses ? or John?

 

[newera]

Your response doesn’t prove anything new era. What is wrong with your response was that your church REQUIRES baptism as a pre-requisite for salvation. Manalo wasn’t baptized in your church (exempted???).

Jesus on the other hand INSISTED that He be baptized by John, despite being the Son of God Himself.

What a privilege. Manalo was exempted from baptism but Jesus was not!

And all you did was “answer” my question with another question, in other words, you simply evaded giving a categorical answer. **I **deserve a categorical answer first, simply because **I **asked the question first. If you don’t have an answer then honestly say so and I will not bother insisting any response from you on the same point.

As I’ve said before, you should ask the help of one of your ministers.

Unlike “Prophet” Felix Manalo, St. John did not establish nor claim to be reestablishing any sect or denomination of any kind, nor did he claim to be the “last” messenger of God, nor did he claim to be an “angel” of Revelation. John did not set up a “church” and had it “registered” with the Securities and Exchange Commision as a “Corporation Sole” nor did John have a son who succeeded, and inherited his position as head (and new prophet??) of a religious sect (a mere one out of thousands of existing sects). John did not engage in jumping from one religion to the other, much less become a minister of four different religious denominations. And finally, John was cruelly martyred, while Manalo died a very ordinary death.

What a difference!

Maybe you did not get my point. Why are you comparing Felix Manalo and John. Surely, they come up with different lifestyle.

What they have in common is God appointed them to do baptism, that’s it.

Manalo was exempted from baptism same with John. Don’t compare each one of them, because they are not the same.

*What a privilege. Manalo was exempted from baptism but Jesus was not! * That’s right… that a privilege. Why Christ went thru baptism?? first God appointed John to do the baptism, our Lord just follow what God wants to do. second. our Lord Jesus is the Head of the Body his Church, he just a true example of doing baptism.

When you get baptize, who will rise up first? obcurse the head (Jesus) will rise up first and then the body… that’s why he (Jesus) should undergo baptism. Because before God… Jesus and the Church is one new man, Christ is the head and church is the body.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Maybe you did not get my point. Why are you comparing Felix Manalo and John. Surely, they come up with different lifestyle.

What they have in common is God appointed them to do baptism, that’s it.

Manalo was exempted from baptism same with John. Don’t compare each one of them, because they are not the same.

*What a privilege. Manalo was exempted from baptism but Jesus was not! *That’s right… that a privilege. Why Christ went thru baptism?? first God appointed John to do the baptism, our Lord just follow what God wants to do. second. our Lord Jesus is the Head of the Body his Church, he just a true example of doing baptism.

But if Jesus is the head of His Church, then Jesus should have been exempted, and could have, with right reason asked for exemption from the Father, but He didn’t because He wanted to serve as an example to others.

If Christ as Head of His Church (which you acknowledged) was not exempted, then with more reason Ka Felix, a mere part of that same Church (as he says), should not claim such lofty privilege for himself. Ka Felix should have obediently followed Christ’s example and had himself baptized in his own church, as all Christians are required to do, but unfortunately, he didn’t.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Maybe you did not get my point. Why are you comparing Felix Manalo and John. Surely, they come up with different lifestyle.

What they have in common is God appointed them to do baptism, that’s it.

Manalo was exempted from baptism same with John. Don’t compare each one of them, because they are not the same.

Yes John and Ka Felix aren’t the same. John was indeed apponted by God to call men to repentance and baptize them with water as recorded in the Gospels, but we can’t seem to find Felix Manalo’s name anywhere in the New Testament as being commanded by God to do the same thing, baptize.

 

[RobedWithLight]

What if I showed you another bible translation (beside LAMSA) that it is written the word Church of Christ. what would you do?

If I may respectfully butt in, there are 14 versions of the Bible which either refer to “churches” or “assemblies” of Christ, which are PLURAL, not singular as regards Romans 16:16.

1. Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you. (American Standard Version)
2. Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.(King James Version)
3. Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you.(New King James Version)
4. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you. (New American Standard Version)
5. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you. (English Standard Version)
6. Greet each other in Christian love. All the churches of Christ send you their greetings.(New Living Translation)
7. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ send greetings.(New International Version)
8. Be sure to give each other a warm greeting. All of Christ’s churches greet you. (Contemporary English Version)
9. Salute one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.(21st Century King James Version)
10. Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you. (Revised Standard Version)
11. Salute one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you. (Webster’s Translation)
12. Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the assemblies of Christ salute you. (Darby Translation)
13. salute one another in a holy kiss; the **assemblies **of Christ do salute you.(Young’s Literal Translation)
14. Greet one another with a holy kiss. The assemblies of Messiah greet you. (Hebrew Names Version)

Nowhere do we find “Church” of Christ(singlular) but churches of Christ or assemblies of Christ (plural). If you are to be strict with how most translations say it, the Iglesia should be known as Iglesias ni Cristo, not Iglesia ni Cristo.

So now, where do we go from here ?