The Iglesia Ni Cristo(Felix Manalo version)

[Dhugz]

Did you know that Felix Manalo didnt know that he is the Last Messenger when he established his Church? He Claimed that he is the Last messenger of God until 1922 because that is the invention of one of his disciple. Felix Manalo died with Ulcer, like Judas, he Died with bleeding Stomach. He have 2 wife, he persecute the Church, he have no knowledge about the Truth. He used his Religion to Threaten a judge. . . Iglesia NI Cristo Manalo’s Company is a totally Business. My revelation to that Anti-Christ Church is, there’s no other qualified to be the Head of their Church, but Manalo Family Only. It is the Hidden business of Manalo Family. And why Felix Manalo the False Christ and Prophet had confessed to a Catholic Priest? He Confessed that the Church he Established is false? Did he Confessed that he is confused with his Faith? Or Did He Confessed that he is in error when he Established his Church(INC)? Or he Confessed that his Church is still INComplete? his Knowledge is INComplete? Or he is INCorrect?!

 

[iwantobelieve]

The Iglesia Ni Cristo(Manalo) is one of the most influencial religious sects in the
philippines, their influence even extends to the political arena, come election time
presidential wanna be’s and other candidates for political office, go out of their way
to court the Iglesia Ni Cristo leadership for votes, because all members are allowed
to vote in only one way and that is what the Iglesia leadership chooses otherwise
errant members will be defellowshiped or remove.
this group is most virulently anti catholic and has led a lot of catholics away from the
faith. but a close examination of their teachings reveal Manalo to be false prophet…
please go to www.examineiglesianicristo.com

 

[Ad_Deum]

The Iglesia ni Cristo is truly an influential religion in the Philippines especially in times of political campaigning. Theologically speaking I do not agree much to thier beliefs because it is contrary to the Holy Scripture like the Jehovah’s witnesses. Ecclesial polity or governance I say that they have a good way of leading and governing their churches and chapels. In addition, I like the way they preached in Tagalog because it is real and deep. Other than that I am against their doctrines and the way they treat other non-members…

Good day

 

[Dhugz]

Yes, i agree that they have good Leading and governing over there Churches and to all members, it is the strategy of the Manalo Family to secure, and maintain the loyalty of their members to their new Christ, the Felix Manalo. . . . And of course to maintain their collections, as ive observed it is a business Church. . . . . . They dont have to publish their Pasugo online, because today they are aware that there’s a lot of Contradictions regarding to their interpretations to the passages of the Bible.

 

[read_me]

Did you know that Felix Manalo didnt know that he is the Last Messenger when he established his Church? He Claimed that he is the Last messenger of God until 1922 because that is the invention of one of his disciple. Felix Manalo died with Ulcer, like Judas, he Died with bleeding Stomach. He have 2 wife, he persecute the Church, he have no knowledge about the Truth. He used his Religion to Threaten a judge. . . Iglesia NI Cristo Manalo’s Company is a totally Business. My revelation to that Anti-Christ Church is, there’s no other qualified to be the Head of their Church, but Manalo Family Only. It is the Hidden business of Manalo Family. And why Felix Manalo the False Christ and Prophet had confessed to a Catholic Priest? He Confessed that the Church he Established is false? Did he Confessed that he is confused with his Faith? Or Did He Confessed that he is in error when he Established his Church(INC)? Or he Confessed that his Church is still INComplete? his Knowledge is INComplete? Or he is INCorrect?!

ohh… what a EXAGGERATED invented story?? haha is inc anti christ?? or that is you who believe that jesus is god?? haha well, this is what you call a PROPAGANDA, a very well clearly black propaganda, wheres the proof of your statements?? can you give me links in the internet or an informative website like wikipedia that inc church is just a bussiness, well, i will wait for that… someday…??? haha i hope you can show those evidences okay?? how about the priests in your church who well done those accusations?? well, dont believe me? i dont care if you dont believe me, because that stories are well in our history, in the philippines, yes! and do you know our national hero? jose rizal? who wrotes el filibusterismo and noli me tangere where a hundred years ago, the content of that is also attacking about the spanish government as well as the priest that done bad things a years ago… well, i just want to say, dont INVENT stories like that especially isnt true, right?? haha because it is obviously youre just having your propaganda, okay?

 

[Catholic4evr]

ohh… what a EXAGGERATED invented story?? haha is inc anti christ?? or that is you who believe that jesus is god?? haha well, this is what you call a PROPAGANDA, a very well clearly black propaganda, wheres the proof of your statements?? can you give me links in the internet or an informative website like wikipedia that inc church is just a bussiness, well, i will wait for that… someday…??? haha i hope you can show those evidences okay?? how about the priests in your church who well done those accusations?? well, dont believe me? i dont care if you dont believe me, because that stories are well in our history, in the philippines, yes! and do you know our national hero? jose rizal? who wrotes el filibusterismo and noli me tangere where a hundred years ago, the content of that is also attacking about the spanish government as well as the priest that done bad things a years ago… well, i just want to say, dont INVENT stories like that especially isnt true, right?? haha because it is obviously youre just having your propaganda, okay?

Felix Manalo’s ministers always say that alms giving to his church is pleasing, and it is second to the list, firstly being loyal to the church as the way to heaven. If you say INC is the true church, you are making Jesus Christ a: 1. fool, 2. Adulterer, 3. Liar. Let me explain briefly.

1. Fool- a wise man builds house on a rock, it is not destroyed by anything. Christ built a Church on a rock, so it would not be destroyed. If it is destroyed, He did not practiced what He preached by building the Church on sand.
2. Adulterer- One man, one wife. Christ is the Husband and the Church His bride. He did not provided well for his wife, so the Church died. He went back and married again (INC). The promises of the Bible do not apply to the first Church but to INC only.
3. Liar- Jesus promised that He will be with the Church He built on the rock forever to guide and strengthen her. He might have forgotten about it so the Church was destroyed, He came back and commissioned Manalo to start the church anew.

What ca you say about these statements.

Also, let me advise you that God and Jesus are more powerful than anyone. God will always protect the Church no matter what. God is wise, loyal and honest. Saying the Church apostatised is to say God lied about His promises to the Church Jesus built.

 

[read_me]

Felix Manalo’s ministers always say that alms giving to his church is pleasing, and it is second to the list, firstly being loyal to the church as the way to heaven. If you say INC is the true church, you are making Jesus Christ a: 1. fool, 2. Adulterer, 3. Liar. Let me explain briefly.

1. Fool- a wise man builds house on a rock, it is not destroyed by anything. Christ built a Church on a rock, so it would not be destroyed. If it is destroyed, He did not practiced what He preached by building the Church on sand.
2. Adulterer- One man, one wife. Christ is the Husband and the Church His bride. He did not provided well for his wife, so the Church died. He went back and married again (INC). The promises of the Bible do not apply to the first Church but to INC only.
3. Liar- Jesus promised that He will be with the Church He built on the rock forever to guide and strengthen her. He might have forgotten about it so the Church was destroyed, He came back and commissioned Manalo to start the church anew.

What ca you say about these statements.

Also, let me advise you that God and Jesus are more powerful than anyone. God will always protect the Church no matter what. God is wise, loyal and honest. Saying the Church apostatised is to say God lied about His promises to the Church Jesus built.

oh wait, first of all jesus is not the one you say liar, adulterer, and fool. it is the blind followers of wrong teachings like believing the trinity thats a fact that it is not in the bible. am i correct? hehe it is proven by some any other priest catholics… wait for my posts about trinity. and yes, i believe in you what you said, that “God and Jesus are more powerful than anyone. God will always protect the Church no matter what. God is wise, loyal and honest” i am surprised that you separate god with jesus, right? haha but i know catholics believe that jesus is god right??
well, it is because the priests made your church in wrong. like adding some doctrines that is not in the bible…

 

[read_me]

about the trinity…

Notwithstanding the ordinary members’ familiar belief, both Catholic and Protestant theologians readily admit that the term “trinity” is not in the Scriptures. Protestant theologian Augustus Hopkins Strong in his Systematic Theology writes: The term “trinity” is not found in Scriptures …[Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1907), p.304]
Catholic defenders, Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, in their popular work, Radio Replies, state:

The Bible does not use the word purgatory any more than it uses the word Trinity, …[Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, Radio Replies, Vol. III (Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1979), p. 224.]

As a matter of fact the term “trinity” cannot be found in the New nor in the Old Testament. "The word “Trinity” does not appear in the New Testament’ says a Catholic Catechism, “and the meanings of the words ‘person’ and ‘nature’, in the precise senses in which these words are used to bear the message of God, had to be carefully refined to bear that message rightly.” [Ronald Lawler, ed., The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, Nihil Obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, D.D. (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. 1976), p. 177.]

Joseph Phohle, author of The Divine Trinity: A dogmatic Treatise, admits that “it cannot be seriously maintained that the mystery of the Divine Trinity was clearly revealed in the Old Testament.” He observes that “the exact terms in which the [Catholic] Church has formally defined the dogma of the Blessed Trinity are not in the Bible,” and concludes, that it “may, therefore, in a sense be called unscriptural” (p. 22).

The invention of the term trinity is ascribed to Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian. About the year 180, almost a century after the death of the Apostles, Theophilus wrote three books in defense of “Christianity.” These books were collected in one volume under the title Ad autolycum. There Theophilus speaks of the “Triad of the Godhead” using a single Greek term “trias” and thereby went down in the history of the Catholic doctrines as the first theologian to have so articulated the Catholic Church’s conception of the trinity.

About the year 220, the term found expression in Latin literature in the writings of a certain Tertullian who used the term “trinitas” as the equivalent of the Greek “trias.” A.A. Hodge gives the etymology and meaning of the word trinity thus:

What is the etymology and meaning of the word Trinity, and when was it introduced into the language of the church?

The word trinity (Trinitas) is derived either from tres-unus, trinus, or from trias, three in one, or the one which is three, and the three which are one; not triplex - trinitas not triplicitas. This word is not found in the Scriptures.

… The Greek word trias was first used in this connection by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, in Syria, from A.D. 168 to A.D. 183. The Latin term Trinitas was first introduced by Tertullian, circum. 220 [A.A. Hodge, Outline of Theology: for Students and Laymen (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1879), p. 164.]

Gradually, the term - and the concept is obscurely represented - gained adherents. And it was not long before most of the early Catholic Church Fathers were speculating on this teaching producing an avalanche of literature that make the doctrine of the trinity seem to be a biblical precept to many readers of today. It was confounded by the introduction during those early centuries of such newly-coined words as “persona,” “substancia,” “hypostasis,” Such virtual theological overkill had done nothing more than to obscure the fact that the invention of the term trinity did not occur until the latter part of the second century and the early part of the third century and that it only came into the religious scene long after the death of the Apostles and after the last books of the New Testament were written.

So it must be stressed here that the Bible has nothing to do with the introduction of the term “trinity” into the language of the Catholic Church. The term, as far as the true Christians are concerned, is a radical innovation, a novel invention completely alien to the Holy Scriptures.

As a matter of fact, this is one instance in a series of gradual but very discernible changes that occurred in the doctrines of the true Christ Church after the death of the Apostles. Such changes indicated falling away or departure from the faith. They clearly reflected in the writings of the early Catholic Church Fathers.

Louis Berkhol noted that -
It is frequently remarked that in passing from the study of the New Testament to that of the Apostolic Fathers one is conscious of a tremendous change … And this is no wonder, for it means the transition from the truth given by infallible inspiration to truth reproduced by fallible pioneers. [Louis Berkhol, The History of Christian Doctrines (Michigan: Mallby, Inc., 1937), p. 38].

Consider, for instance, the introduction of the teaching that presents Christ as the true God. It has no biblical foundation. Rather, it contradicts every biblical teaching on the absolute oneness of God.

The New Testament never taught that Christ is the true God. Some Catholic theologians came to realize this after attempting to find biblical support for the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Raymond Brown testifies that -

 

[read_me]

continuation…

Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like MK. 10:18 would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus w as called God in the earliest layer of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in nay epistle written before 58. [Raymond Brown, Jesus God and Man (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 19670, p. 30]

It is quite true. The New Testament never called Jesus God simply because it would contradict the teaching it has already set, in no uncertain terms, that Christ is man; and the very fact that Christ is man is sufficient proof that He is not God.

So it is indeed remarkable that, after the death of the Apostles, a teaching so different from what they preached crept into the mainstream of the early Christian belief.

The New Testament teaches that Christ is man, whereas, “The oldest surviving sermon of the Christian * church after the New Testament opened with the words: ‘Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God’ … Clearly it was the message of what the church believed and taught that ‘God’ was an appropriate name of Jesus Christ.” [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), p. 173).]

Rudolf Bultmann, a well-known theologian, observes that “it is only with the Apostolic Fathers that free unambiguous reference to Jesus Christ as ‘our God’ begins” [Raymond Brown, Jesus God and Man, p. 29.].

These confirm Berkhol’s observation that “in passing from the study of the New Testament to that of the Apostolic Fathers one is conscious of a tremendous change.” The change from the Apostles’ belief that Christ is man to the early Catholic Church Fathers’ belief that He is God is indeed a tremendous one.

It should not surprise us though, for the Apostles had forewarned that deceivers would come preaching “another Jesus, whom we have not preached” (II Cor. 11:4). We now know that fulfillment of that prophecy.

Now, take note that we are not actually digressing from the subject we set out to discuss here, namely, the trinity. The doctrine of the so-called trinity is very closely related to the doctrine of the so-called deity of Christ. As a matter of fact the two doctrines have, what we may call, a symbiotic relation. If they are valid at all, this “validity,” too, is interdependent, so that they are from the very start doomed to crumble together.

To trace the origin of the doctrine of the trinity one has to begin with the doctrine of the so-called deity of Christ. After all, as Shedd puts it:

The construction of the doctrine of the Trinity started not so much from a consideration of the three Persons, as from a belief in the deity of one of them, namely the Son. This was the root of the most speculative dogma in the Christian system. [William G.T. Shedd, D.D., History of the Christian Doctrine, Vol. I (Minnesota: Klock and Klock Christian Publishers, 1889), p. 262.]

We have seen that it was not until after the death of the Apostles that the doctrine of the deity of Christ emerged. It w as introduced by the early Catholic Church Fathers, and the Apostles had nothing to do with them nor with their teachings. This fact poses a very pertinent question: Why did the early Catholics, the so-called Christians of the second and third centuries, teach that Christ is the true God?

During the second and third centuries the Church was severely persecuted by both the Greeks and the Jews. One particular object of such attacks was the Christian practice of worshipping Christ. The Jews denounced such worship as utter polytheism. This is understandable, considering the Jews’ strict adherence to the Old Testament teaching on the absolute oneness of God. The Greeks, on the other hand, denounced the Christians as atheists. Church historian Williston Walker puts it thus:

The charges brought against the Christians were atheism and anarchy. Their rejection of the old gods seemed atheism; and their refusal to join in emperor-worship appeared treasonable. [Williston Walker; A History Of The Christian Church, 3rd ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s, 1970), p.43).

Some of the contemporary philosophers charged them with polytheism too:
Thus Celsus, a scoffing philosopher of the third century, contended that the Christians had no right to criticize the polytheism of the pagan world since their own worship of Christ was essentially polytheistic. ‘The Christians,’ he declared, ‘worshipped no God; no, not even a demon, but only a dead man … If they do not wish to worship the pagan gods,’ he said, 'why should they not rather pay their devotions to some of their own prophets than to a man who had been crucified by the Jews?" [Rev. John A. O’Brien, Ll. D., The Faith of Millions, Nihil Obstat: Rev. Edward A. Miller, Imprimatur: John Francis Noll (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1939) p. 99.]

It was in the process of answering this hostile criticism, that the early Catholic Church Fathers came up with the teaching that presents Christ as God. That, certainly, was a great blunder! They could have simply retorted that the Christians worship Christ not because He is God but because it was the will of God. As it is written in Philippians 2:9-11:

For this reason God raised him to the highest place above and gave him the name that is greater than any other name. And so, in honor of the name of Jesus all beings in heaven, on earth, and in the world below will fall on their knees. And all will openly proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (TEV)*

 

[read_me]

continuation…

Had they held fast to that teaching, maybe, just maybe, they would not have fallen away from the pristine Christian faith. But it seems that they did not want to justify their act of worshipping Christ using only the express teachings of the Apostles. Or perchance they did not feel such teachings were convincing enough.

How then did they answer their detractors? O’Brien states:
Origen, the greatest of the early Christian writers, defended the Christians from the attacks of Celsus. This he did, not by denying the charge that they worshipped Christ but by showing that the Savior was worthy of such adoration because He was God. “The gods of the pagans,” he answers Celsus, “were unworthy of worship: the Jewish prophets had no claim to it; on the other hand, Christ was worshipped not as a mere man, but as the Son of God, as God Himself …” [John O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, p. 99.]

That answer might have been convincing to the pagans. Paul Johnson i n his book A History of Christianity states that the teaching of “the divinity of Christ gave Christianity its tremendous initial impact and assisted its universality.” But it certainly was not in line with the thought of the Apostles. The Jews were not happy either. Monotheists as they were, the Jews rejected any teaching that might jeopardize their cherished belief in the numerical oneness of God. And so, to quote Johnson again:

…it left Christian Theologians with a dilemma: how to explain the divinity of Christ while maintaining the singularity of God. Were there not two Gods? Or, if the concept of the Spirit were introduced as a separate manifestation of divinity, three? [Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, p. 89]

Catholic theologians and apologists were therefore compelled to come up with a viable explanation that would extricate them from their dilemma. The dilemma consists in these: If they say Christ is man, it might appease the Jews but would enrage the Greeks; and if they say Christ is God, it might appease the Greeks but would enrage the Jews. So if only they could think of an explanation that would satisfy the Greeks without obviously departing from the Jewish belief in the oneness of God …

It seems that the only recourse left for them was to pursue the concept of the trinity which was advanced by Theophilus and Tertullian. They must have thought it useful in establishing the relation of the Son to the Father. They tried to prove that although the Son is God and the Father is God, too, yet they are only one God. Well, they tried hard, all right.

So in 325 A.D., at the Council of Nicaea they affirmed the official Catholic belief that Christ is God. And now that the so-called Second Person of the Trinity has arrived, the “Third Person” must not be far behind. Thus, 56 years later (381 A.D.) at the Council of Constantinople, the so-called Third Person finally took its place in the trinitarian concept of the Catholic Church [Rev. Clement H. Crock, Discourses On the Apostles’ Creed, Nihil Obstat: Arthur J. Scanian, S.T.D., Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal Hayes (New York: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1938), p. 206.].

It should be noted that the Holy Spirit, the so-called Third Person of the trinity, was not regarded or even called God in the past.

Theologian Joseph Pohle attests that "the Bible nowhere expressly calls the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity ‘God’ …’ (The Divine Trinity, p. 109).
Jaroslav Pelikan, author of The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), remarked that -

At Nicea the doctrine of the Holy Spirit had been disposed of in lapidary brevity: “And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit.” Nor does there seem to have been a single treatise dealing specifically with the person of the Spirit composed before the second half of the fourth century. [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100 - 600), p. 211.].

It is clear then that the invention of the doctrine of the deity of the Holy Spirit should be ascribed to the Council of Constantinople. This was invented to support the doctrines of the trinity and the deity of Christ.

So here in a classic case of reasoning in a circle. An error was committed by the introduction of the doctrine of the deity of Christ which meant a departure from the pristine Christian faith. Now, realizing that there was no backing out anymore, they tried to remedy the situation by positing another theory, another error in the making: the teaching of the trinity which in turn has a built-in error in itself, i.e., the teaching that presents the Holy Spirit as the true God.

Since two wrongs do not make a right, such teachings are hardly defensible. The defense of those teachings, if at all there is one, depends on circular reasoning. Thus, to prove the doctrine of the deity of Christ they adduce to the so-called trinity, and to prove the doctrine of the trinity they adduce to the so-called deity of Christ. Now, that is a vicious cycle, if we may say so.

It is also interesting to note that although the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity began in the fourth century, it was completed only in the seventh century.

 

[read_me]

continuation…

The most complete formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in a Creed since the times of the Fathers is found in the Symbol of the 11th Synod of Toledo (675), which is composed mosaic-like out of texts from the fathers (above all from St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Isidore of Seville), and of former Synods (especially that of the 6th Synod of Toledo, 638). [Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah J. O’Sullivan, D.D., Imprimatur: Cornelius (Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1960), p.53)]

And this brings us to another question: Why did it take the Catholic Church so many centuries to complete its formulation of the doctrine of the trinity?

Lack of agreement among the early Catholic Fathers who attempted to organize the still “inchoate doctrine concerning the relation of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit” prolonged and “gave scope to acrimonious disputes,” says John Noss. [John B. Noss, Man’s Religions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1949, p. 624.]

This was due largely to the fact that the early Catholic Church Fathers themselves did not understand what they were talking about. Says Berkhof:

The early Church Fathers, as we have seen had no clear conception of the Trinity. [Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrine, p. 83]

Naturally their teachings would not agree with one another. So while they intended to prove that the three distinct Persons in the trinity are perfectly equal to each other, their early theologians and apologists did not seem to be headed towards that direction.

For instance, according to Justin Martyr, the son is subordinate to the Father and is called “second god” - a lower level of divinity. As a matter of fact, history attest that -
Before the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) all theologians viewed the Son as in one way or another subordinate to the Father, even so the Spirit is subordinate to the Son. Says Berkhof:

Origen went even farther by affirming that as the Son is subordinate to the Father, even so the Spirit is subordinate to the Son. Says Berkhof:

Origen went even father in this direction by teaching explicitly that the Son is subordinate to the Father in respect to essence, and that the Holy Spirit is subordinate even to the Son. [L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Michigan Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1939, p. 82]

This was another way of saying that there is no co-equality in the persons of the trinity.
Space does not allow us to discuss here in minute detail the hairsplitting disputes that punctuated the evolution of the doctrine of the trinity. But anyone with even an elementary knowledge on the emergence of the Catholic doctrine will think twice before he contradicts the fact that conflicts in the early centuries over this doctrine became so grave as to endanger even the stability of the roman empire. “Doctrine,” says Jaroslav Pelikan, “often seemed to be the victim - or the product of Church politics and of conflicts of personality.”

To smooth out the differences, no less than Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire interfered to ensure that a compromise be reached.

It was in this spirit that Constantine (and the great majority of his successors) approached his role in Church politics. He was to be a mediator, a role he was good at and enjoyed. From Eusebius’s description of Constantine presiding at the Council of Nicea in 325 and at other great ecclesiastical gatherings we see the emperor in his element, arranging elaborate ceremony, dramatic entrances and processions and splendid services. He brought his skill in public relations to the management of Church affairs. It was a far cry from the days of the “pillars” and the council of Jerusalem. Constantine, in fact, may be said to have created the decor and ritual of Christian concillar practice. He tried also to set the tone of debate: eirenic, concillatory, urbane. It was he who insisted, as a formula for compromise, the insertion of the phrase ‘consubstantial with the Father’ in the creedal agreement. [Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York: Atheneum, 1979) p. 88,]

No wonder, it took the Catholic Church so many centuries before they were able to come up with a complete formulation of the doctrine of the trinity. It was because of the lack of agreement among them which was due largely to the fact that they did not even have a clear conception and understanding of what they were talking about in the first place.

Now, here is another question: After finally completing their trinitarian formulation, does it mean they now have a clear understanding of their doctrine of the trinity?
Let us quote the candid confession of Martin J. Scott, S.J.:

 

[SalomeBintullah]

about the trinity…

Notwithstanding the ordinary members’ familiar belief, both Catholic and Protestant theologians readily admit that the term “trinity” is not in the Scriptures. Protestant theologian Augustus Hopkins Strong in his Systematic Theology writes: The term “trinity” is not found in Scriptures …[Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1907), p.304]
Catholic defenders, Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, in their popular work, Radio Replies, state:

The Bible does not use the word purgatory any more than it uses the word Trinity, …[Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, Radio Replies, Vol. III (Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1979), p. 224.]

As a matter of fact the term “trinity” cannot be found in the New nor in the Old Testament. "The word “Trinity” does not appear in the New Testament’ says a Catholic Catechism, “and the meanings of the words ‘person’ and ‘nature’, in the precise senses in which these words are used to bear the message of God, had to be carefully refined to bear that message rightly.” [Ronald Lawler, ed., The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, Nihil Obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, D.D. (Indiana: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. 1976), p. 177.]

Joseph Phohle, author of The Divine Trinity: A dogmatic Treatise, admits that “it cannot be seriously maintained that the mystery of the Divine Trinity was clearly revealed in the Old Testament.” He observes that “the exact terms in which the [Catholic] Church has formally defined the dogma of the Blessed Trinity are not in the Bible,” and concludes, that it “may, therefore, in a sense be called unscriptural” (p. 22).

The invention of the term trinity is ascribed to Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian. About the year 180, almost a century after the death of the Apostles, Theophilus wrote three books in defense of “Christianity.” These books were collected in one volume under the title Ad autolycum. There Theophilus speaks of the “Triad of the Godhead” using a single Greek term “trias” and thereby went down in the history of the Catholic doctrines as the first theologian to have so articulated the Catholic Church’s conception of the trinity.

About the year 220, the term found expression in Latin literature in the writings of a certain Tertullian who used the term “trinitas” as the equivalent of the Greek “trias.” A.A. Hodge gives the etymology and meaning of the word trinity thus:

What is the etymology and meaning of the word Trinity, and when was it introduced into the language of the church?

The word trinity (Trinitas) is derived either from tres-unus, trinus, or from trias, three in one, or the one which is three, and the three which are one; not triplex - trinitas not triplicitas. This word is not found in the Scriptures.

… The Greek word trias was first used in this connection by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, in Syria, from A.D. 168 to A.D. 183. The Latin term Trinitas was first introduced by Tertullian, circum. 220 [A.A. Hodge, Outline of Theology: for Students and Laymen (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1879), p. 164.]

Gradually, the term - and the concept is obscurely represented - gained adherents. And it was not long before most of the early Catholic Church Fathers were speculating on this teaching producing an avalanche of literature that make the doctrine of the trinity seem to be a biblical precept to many readers of today. It was confounded by the introduction during those early centuries of such newly-coined words as “persona,” “substancia,” “hypostasis,” Such virtual theological overkill had done nothing more than to obscure the fact that the invention of the term trinity did not occur until the latter part of the second century and the early part of the third century and that it only came into the religious scene long after the death of the Apostles and after the last books of the New Testament were written.

So it must be stressed here that the Bible has nothing to do with the introduction of the term “trinity” into the language of the Catholic Church. The term, as far as the true Christians are concerned, is a radical innovation, a novel invention completely alien to the Holy Scriptures.

As a matter of fact, this is one instance in a series of gradual but very discernible changes that occurred in the doctrines of the true Christ Church after the death of the Apostles. Such changes indicated falling away or departure from the faith. They clearly reflected in the writings of the early Catholic Church Fathers.

Louis Berkhol noted that -
It is frequently remarked that in passing from the study of the New Testament to that of the Apostolic Fathers one is conscious of a tremendous change … And this is no wonder, for it means the transition from the truth given by infallible inspiration to truth reproduced by fallible pioneers. [Louis Berkhol, The History of Christian Doctrines (Michigan: Mallby, Inc., 1937), p. 38].

Consider, for instance, the introduction of the teaching that presents Christ as the true God. It has no biblical foundation. Rather, it contradicts every biblical teaching on the absolute oneness of God.

The New Testament never taught that Christ is the true God. Some Catholic theologians came to realize this after attempting to find biblical support for the doctrine of the deity of Christ. Raymond Brown testifies that -

Are the words “Iglesia Ni Cristo” in the Bible? If not, Iglesia Ni Cristo is an unbilical innovation, according to your reasoning.

 

[SalomeBintullah]

continuation…

Jesus is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like MK. 10:18 would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus, there is no reason to think that Jesus w as called God in the earliest layer of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in nay epistle written before 58. [Raymond Brown, Jesus God and Man (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 19670, p. 30]

It is quite true. The New Testament never called Jesus God simply because it would contradict the teaching it has already set, in no uncertain terms, that Christ is man; and the very fact that Christ is man is sufficient proof that He is not God.

So it is indeed remarkable that, after the death of the Apostles, a teaching so different from what they preached crept into the mainstream of the early Christian belief.

The New Testament teaches that Christ is man, whereas, “The oldest surviving sermon of the Christian * church after the New Testament opened with the words: ‘Brethren, we ought so to think of Jesus Christ as of God’ … Clearly it was the message of what the church believed and taught that ‘God’ was an appropriate name of Jesus Christ.” [Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), p. 173).]*

The claim that Jesus is never referred to as God in the New Testament is false, as anyone who’s ever read the New Testament knows. See John 1:1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:14-18 confirms that the Word is Jesus. But I imagine that Iglesia Ni Cristo, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, intentionally fudges the translation of this verse.

 

[SalomeBintullah]

continuation…

The most complete formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in a Creed since the times of the Fathers is found in the Symbol of the 11th Synod of Toledo (675), which is composed mosaic-like out of texts from the fathers (above all from St. Augustine, St. Fulgentius, St. Isidore of Seville), and of former Synods (especially that of the 6th Synod of Toledo, 638). [Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah J. O’Sullivan, D.D., Imprimatur: Cornelius (Illinois: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1960), p.53)]

And this brings us to another question: Why did it take the Catholic Church so many centuries to complete its formulation of the doctrine of the trinity?

For that matter, why did it take Iglesia Ni Cristo to come into existence? If the Church apostatized some time in the early centuries, why would God wait until 1914 to restore the Church? Either He’s incompetent or He just didn’t care all that much.

Nonetheless, the answer to the question about why it took the Church to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity is that full understanding takes time to develop. Just like a child growing older and coming to understand things more clearly, so the Church as she grew older was able to understand God more fully.

 

[SalomeBintullah]

Are the words “Iglesia Ni Cristo” in the Bible? If not, Iglesia Ni Cristo is an unbilical innovation, according to your reasoning.

I meant “unbiblical innovation,” whoops.

 

[read_me]

The claim that Jesus is never referred to as God in the New Testament is false, as anyone who’s ever read the New Testament knows. See John 1:1. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:14-18 confirms that the Word is Jesus. But I imagine that Iglesia Ni Cristo, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, intentionally fudges the translation of this verse.

oh, yah! ALWAYS and ALWAYS, the john 1:12-18 again!!! that verse is the only one i think the evidence of the people who says that jesus is god, right?? hehe and because of others misunderstood about that, they just believe to it. because you know?? others are not truly understand what is in the bible, you know why?? it is because some or most of the verses in the bible are always understand LITERALLY. like what that john 1:14-18 is… huh…
ok… this was my post in other forum in here, just to show you what really means that verse,

every catholic or other religions that is believing of trinity, they will give you the one and only verse in the bible… in john 1:1 "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god"and this is their only evidence that jesus is god. noticed it? haha well, ive got these answer from the other site because i had a research about it…

…what is spoken of in john 1:1,14 as being with god in the beginning is the “word”. hence, in order to understand the real message of john 1:1,14, we should first clarify the meaning of the term “word”. does it really refer to a “pre-existent christ” as others allege? no! the holy scriptures prove instead that the “word” refers to gods “promise” to send his son, which he “announced” before:

“which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his son, who was born of a descendant of david according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:2-3, new american standard bible, emphasis ours)
“which he announced before through his prophets in holy writings-- concerning his son,(who is come of the seed of david according to the flesh”(Rom. 1"2-3, youngs literal translation, emphasis ours)

Moreover, Ryrie study bible explains that logos, the greek equivalent of the term “word” in john 1:1 14 means a “thought or concept” (p. 1599). these terms–promise,announcement,thought,concept–refer to things that are abstract,not yet concrete, or not yet “made flesh”. this is similar to a blueprint for a house, which is only a plan and not yet constructed material house. clearly, then, the term “word” in john 1:1 14 is not christ himself but the “foreknowledge” or plan of god concerning christ:
“foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, he has been manifested in the last times for your sakes.” (I pet. 1:20, confraternity version, emphasis ours)
This pronouncement of apostle peter that christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world” explain the statement in the gospel according to john “in the beginning was the word”. hence, what was there in the beginning was not christ himself but gods “word” or foreknowledge of him. “foreknowledge” is defined by the dictionary as “knowledge of a thing before it happens or exists.”(webster new universal unabridged dictionary) if christ had already been existing before the foundation of the world, then there would not any need to “foreknow” him.
therefore the fact that christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world disproves his so-called pre-existence.
what does the clause “and the word became flesh” mean then? the “word” which was only a thought or plan in the beginning was fulfilled when mary gave birth to jesus (gal.4:4) who is “truly man” (I tim. 2:5) or “indeed flesh” (gen. 6:3) we should not forget that it was the “word” which became flesh and not god himself. John 1:1,14 therefore does not in any way teach that god became man or that christ is god incarnate.
so why then did apostle john state in john 1:1 that “the word was god”? it is because god is almighty or powerful (gen. 35:11) and so are his words (luke 1:37). thus, the “word was god” indeed, but not in the sense that the “word” is another divine being aside from god, but that it possesses the qualities and attributes of god. in john 1:1 the word “god” in the clause “the word was god” is used not as a noun but as an adjective. that is why in other renditions of the bible, such as moffatt and godspeed, john 1:1 states: “the word was divine”…

 

[thirdn6]

oh, yah! ALWAYS and ALWAYS, the john 1:12-18 again!!! that verse is the only one i think the evidence of the people who says that jesus is god, right?? …
…every catholic or other religions that is believing of trinity, they will give you the one and only verse in the bible… in john 1:1 "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god"and this is their only evidence that jesus is god…

Readme, read this…

(RSV) Luke 4 1 And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit 2 for forty days in the wilderness, tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing in those days; and when they were ended, he was hungry. 3 The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” 4 And Jesus answered him, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone.'" 5 And the devil took him up, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, 6 and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory; for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. 7 If you, then, will worship me, it shall all be yours." **8 And Jesus answered him, "It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’”**9 And he took him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here; 10 for it is written, He will give his angels charge of you, to guard you,' 11 and On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”
12 **And Jesus answered him, “It is said, `You shall not tempt the Lord your God.’” **13 And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.

So, tell me. Who was being tempted here? Did Jesus commit blasphemy in verse 12?
Verse 3 says it all and even the devil knew it!!!

 

[SalomeBintullah]

oh, yah! ALWAYS and ALWAYS, the john 1:12-18 again!!! that verse is the only one i think the evidence of the people who says that jesus is god, right?? hehe and because of others misunderstood about that, they just believe to it. because you know?? others are not truly understand what is in the bible, you know why?? it is because some or most of the verses in the bible are always understand LITERALLY. like what that john 1:14-18 is… huh…
ok… this was my post in other forum in here, just to show you what really means that verse,

every catholic or other religions that is believing of trinity, they will give you the one and only verse in the bible… in john 1:1 "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god"and this is their only evidence that jesus is god. noticed it? haha well, ive got these answer from the other site because i had a research about it…

…what is spoken of in john 1:1,14 as being with god in the beginning is the “word”. hence, in order to understand the real message of john 1:1,14, we should first clarify the meaning of the term “word”. does it really refer to a “pre-existent christ” as others allege? no! the holy scriptures prove instead that the “word” refers to gods “promise” to send his son, which he “announced” before:

“which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his son, who was born of a descendant of david according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:2-3, new american standard bible, emphasis ours)
“which he announced before through his prophets in holy writings-- concerning his son,(who is come of the seed of david according to the flesh”(Rom. 1"2-3, youngs literal translation, emphasis ours)

Moreover, Ryrie study bible explains that logos, the greek equivalent of the term “word” in john 1:1 14 means a “thought or concept” (p. 1599). these terms–promise,announcement,thought,concept–refer to things that are abstract,not yet concrete, or not yet “made flesh”. this is similar to a blueprint for a house, which is only a plan and not yet constructed material house. clearly, then, the term “word” in john 1:1 14 is not christ himself but the “foreknowledge” or plan of god concerning christ:
“foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, he has been manifested in the last times for your sakes.” (I pet. 1:20, confraternity version, emphasis ours)
This pronouncement of apostle peter that christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world” explain the statement in the gospel according to john “in the beginning was the word”. hence, what was there in the beginning was not christ himself but gods “word” or foreknowledge of him. “foreknowledge” is defined by the dictionary as “knowledge of a thing before it happens or exists.”(webster new universal unabridged dictionary) if christ had already been existing before the foundation of the world, then there would not any need to “foreknow” him.
therefore the fact that christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world disproves his so-called pre-existence.
what does the clause “and the word became flesh” mean then? the “word” which was only a thought or plan in the beginning was fulfilled when mary gave birth to jesus (gal.4:4) who is “truly man” (I tim. 2:5) or “indeed flesh” (gen. 6:3) we should not forget that it was the “word” which became flesh and not god himself. John 1:1,14 therefore does not in any way teach that god became man or that christ is god incarnate.
so why then did apostle john state in john 1:1 that “the word was god”? it is because god is almighty or powerful (gen. 35:11) and so are his words (luke 1:37). thus, the “word was god” indeed, but not in the sense that the “word” is another divine being aside from god, but that it possesses the qualities and attributes of god. in john 1:1 the word “god” in the clause “the word was god” is used not as a noun but as an adjective. that is why in other renditions of the bible, such as moffatt and godspeed, john 1:1 states: “the word was divine”…

Is that seriously the best you can do? That’s pretty weak, my friend. You did not address John 1:1 hardly at all, merely posted completely irrelevant verses. That is what is known as a red herring, and it is a very obvious rhetorical fallacy. And your grammatical “analysis” of John 1:1 is atrocious. “‘The word was god’ is used not as a noun but as an adjective”? Did it never occur to you that I might, possibly, be an English major and that I might, possibly, know a thing or two about how grammar works in any language? The Greek (transliteration) is: “en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.” Theos is a noun. “The word was divine” is merely the interpretation of those two translators and is not actually found in the original Greek. In fact, a literal translation of the Greek makes it even clearer; it says that “God was the word.” It doesn’t get much more obvious than that.

Catholics do indeed agree that the Word (Jesus) is divine. You are extremely confused about the doctrine of the Trinity, I see. You don’t understand it at all. Trinitarians do not believe that there are three gods, nor have we ever believed this. We believe that there are three persons in one God, co-equal and co-eternal, of the same essence, distinct but not separate.

And John 1:1 and John 1:12-18 are hardly the only verses we use to support Christ’s divinity. I’m thinking you haven’t engaged with Trinitarians who read their Bibles very much. See this list of Bible verses in which Jesus both implicitly and explicitly affirms that he is God.

Oh, and thank you ever so much for condescending to tell me that I don’t know much about the Bible and that I just blindly believe what I’ve been told.

 

[Catholic4evr]

oh wait, first of all jesus is not the one you say liar, adulterer, and fool. it is the blind followers of wrong teachings like believing the trinity thats a fact that it is not in the bible. am i correct? hehe it is proven by some any other priest catholics… wait for my posts about trinity. and yes, i believe in you what you said, that “God and Jesus are more powerful than anyone. God will always protect the Church no matter what. God is wise, loyal and honest” i am surprised that you separate god with jesus, right? haha but i know catholics believe that jesus is god right??
well, it is because the priests made your church in wrong. like adding some doctrines that is not in the bible…

Whether we separate Jesus and God does not matter, we understand what we believe. That is the reason why we answer your challenges to the Church. Please understand that history and logic will always support the Catholic truth forever.

If you say the Bible is holy and the Word of God, who told you that? If you follow the 66-book canon instead of the 73-book canon, who told you that? How did the Christians have the Bible? Did you know that Jesus Christ built a church to deposit and spread the truth and never left the “bible” for understanding the truth?

If the Catholic Church apostatised in the 3rd century, Jesus Christ did not protected the Church as He promised.

I am surprised that the promises Jesus gave to the Church did not apply forever to the orginal Church, but has to apply to the INC as well. Jesus Christ built 2 churches, instead of one, according to your doctrines. The first is on Peter, the rock and second on Manalo, the winner (of what?).

 

[Catholic4evr]

oh, yah! ALWAYS and ALWAYS, the john 1:12-18 again!!! that verse is the only one i think the evidence of the people who says that jesus is god, right?? hehe and because of others misunderstood about that, they just believe to it. because you know?? others are not truly understand what is in the bible, you know why?? it is because some or most of the verses in the bible are always understand LITERALLY. like what that john 1:14-18 is… huh…
ok… this was my post in other forum in here, just to show you what really means that verse,

every catholic or other religions that is believing of trinity, they will give you the one and only verse in the bible… in john 1:1 "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with god and the word was god"and this is their only evidence that jesus is god. noticed it? haha well, ive got these answer from the other site because i had a research about it…

…what is spoken of in john 1:1,14 as being with god in the beginning is the “word”. hence, in order to understand the real message of john 1:1,14, we should first clarify the meaning of the term “word”. does it really refer to a “pre-existent christ” as others allege? no! the holy scriptures prove instead that the “word” refers to gods “promise” to send his son, which he “announced” before:

“which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his son, who was born of a descendant of david according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:2-3, new american standard bible, emphasis ours)
“which he announced before through his prophets in holy writings-- concerning his son,(who is come of the seed of david according to the flesh”(Rom. 1"2-3, youngs literal translation, emphasis ours)

Moreover, Ryrie study bible explains that logos, the greek equivalent of the term “word” in john 1:1 14 means a “thought or concept” (p. 1599). these terms–promise,announcement,thought,concept–refer to things that are abstract,not yet concrete, or not yet “made flesh”. this is similar to a blueprint for a house, which is only a plan and not yet constructed material house. clearly, then, the term “word” in john 1:1 14 is not christ himself but the “foreknowledge” or plan of god concerning christ:
“foreknown, indeed, before the foundation of the world, he has been manifested in the last times for your sakes.” (I pet. 1:20, confraternity version, emphasis ours)
This pronouncement of apostle peter that christ was “foreknown before the foundation of the world” explain the statement in the gospel according to john “in the beginning was the word”. hence, what was there in the beginning was not christ himself but gods “word” or foreknowledge of him. “foreknowledge” is defined by the dictionary as “knowledge of a thing before it happens or exists.”(webster new universal unabridged dictionary) if christ had already been existing before the foundation of the world, then there would not any need to “foreknow” him.
therefore the fact that christ was foreknown before the foundation of the world disproves his so-called pre-existence.
what does the clause “and the word became flesh” mean then? the “word” which was only a thought or plan in the beginning was fulfilled when mary gave birth to jesus (gal.4:4) who is “truly man” (I tim. 2:5) or “indeed flesh” (gen. 6:3) we should not forget that it was the “word” which became flesh and not god himself. John 1:1,14 therefore does not in any way teach that god became man or that christ is god incarnate.
so why then did apostle john state in john 1:1 that “the word was god”? it is because god is almighty or powerful (gen. 35:11) and so are his words (luke 1:37). thus, the “word was god” indeed, but not in the sense that the “word” is another divine being aside from god, but that it possesses the qualities and attributes of god. in john 1:1 the word “god” in the clause “the word was god” is used not as a noun but as an adjective. that is why in other renditions of the bible, such as moffatt and godspeed, john 1:1 states: “the word was divine”…

Try reading Philippians, you will find there that God and Jesus are of the same essence/nature. You have to look for yourself as I believe you haven’t read any Bible yet, but just rely on the teachings of your ministers.

Did you know how come we have a Bible to read? I know you don’t care as long as the doctrines being taught by the INC is shown in the Bible. Your so-called administration also hides the truth about the accuracy of any Bible translation as long as the verses support the so-called truths that you preach.

Also, I wonder why you haven’t replied to my post. I asked you a fairly simple question, yet you are unable to answer. That’s because your doctrines are illogical, twisted, most of all, contrary to history and grammatical rules.