CFD (Ryan Mejillano) vs Kinawawang INC (Julius Cutin)

CFD (Ryan Mejillano) vs Kinawawang INC (Julius Cutin)

Tingnan po naman ninyo ang isa nanamang kinawawang Ministro ng INC-Manalo laban sa ating kapatid na si Bro. Ryan Mejillano ng Catholic Faith Defenders.
This four-part video is the supposed discussion turned debate between CFD Bro. Ryan and Minister Julius Cutin of INC(Manalo), Locale of Mintal, District of Davao. It was initiated by the INC (of Manalo) to trap Bro. Ryan thinking that the latter was just a petty and mediocre Catholic Christian. This happened at the residence of an INC member who was very desiroua few months before to engage Bro. Ryan in a debate with another INC (of Manalo) Minister.

Please notice the difference between a Catholic Christian and Iglesia Ni Cristo (Ni Manalo). Notice how an INC Minister delivers his part, his speeches, how he evades from the main topic that was agreed, how he first use foul words from the start to the end of these four videos.

Enjoy and reflect.

Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis.

All Rights Reserves
Video Duplication is for back-up purposes only.
Video Courtesy:




by Prof. Ramon Gitamondoc, CFD National Pres.


The Transfiguration of the Lord revealing His Divinity

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16).

I have read a post in the Splendor of the Church Ring of Fire Blog which contains arguments from an INC member refuting some verses which prove the divinity of Christ.  I personally took up the cudgel of answering these objections for several reasons.  Firstly, because as a Catholic I believe in the foundational doctrine of Christianity regarding the divinity of Christ and as St Peter admonishes “be ready always to satisfy every one that asks you a reason of that hope which is in you” (1 Peter 3:15).  Secondly, I find the arguments put forward worthy of refutation because by the manner it was given it seem that the objector is confident that he has successfully refuted the Catholic position.  Thirdly, because the case at hand illustrates the typical strategy used by the INC of quoting and interpreting isolated passages in order to prove their point.  The original post was partly written in English and partly in Tagalog.  In this response, I paraphrased his objections in order to make it more understandable and decent.  Let us now take a look at INC arguments.


INC objection:  Whoever is a child of God does not continue to sin, for God’s very nature is in him” (1 John 3:9 TEV).  Are Christians also God in this particular verse? 

From the way the question is posed it is safe to conclude that the INC is aware that there are scriptural passages which may be interpreted as Jesus having the nature of God [i.e., Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:6].  In order to evade this the INC attempts to make a false analogy:  If as 1 John 3:9 which says that the very nature of God is in the believer and this does not ipso facto make him God, so also those passages which speak about Christ having the nature of God do not prove that Christ is God.

The text cited above is rendered differently in other reputable bible versions:  “Whosoever is born of God commits not sin: for his seed abides in him” (Douay Rheims); “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him” (KJV); “No one who is begotten by God commits sin, because God’s seed remains in him” (NAB); “Those who have born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides I them” (NRSV).  If we use these renderings of the verse, the force of the INC objection is significantly diminished.  Of course, the INC will stick to the TEV rendering of this verse since this will best serve their purpose.  The INC is not only selective in their quotation of scriptural passages but also in the bible versions they will use in quoting a particular passage.  They do not usually go by the rules of textual criticism in determining whether a particular verse is translated accurately or not since to them the highest criteria for judging the accuracy of a text is whether or not it subscribes to their man-made doctrines which are constructed upon isolated proof texting.  It then becomes apparent that they are not mostly concerned with accuracy of their alleged proof as much as it’s effect to the unwary audience.     

Setting aside the issue on which is the more accurate rendition of this particular verse, this quotation from the TEV will not at all help the INC cause.  The fallacy of the INC lies in the fact that although it is said that God’s very nature is in the believer (1 John 3:9 TEV) and it is also said to be in Christ but each has it in a different sense.  God’s very nature is in the believer by way of partaking or sharing of the divine nature “By whom he has given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).  This partaking of the divine nature, which in Catholic theology is called the infusion of sanctifying grace into our souls, is the formal principle which makes us sons of God and objectively holy and pleasing before Him.  The fact that Jesus is called Son of God and we are also called sons of God does not put us in the same category as Jesus.  We are made sons of God by way of adoption, “you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). For the Spirit himself gives testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God.  (Romans 8:15-16).  On the contrary, Jesus is Son of God by nature, “No man has seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the Bosom of the Father, he has declared him” (John 1:18; “For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (Philippians 2:5-6).  However, the INC fails to make this all-important distinction which is a manifestation of a very shallow theology, if any.

INC objection:   If you believe that Jesus is God based on Colossians 2:9 because it says that “For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally”,will you also say that Christians are God since we can also read that “All the fullness of God might be filled in them (Ephesians 3:19 KJV)?

I would like to point out to the readers that this is typical INC strategy.  They will quote bible verses out of context, formulate a false analogy and build their doctrine out of it.  In response to this let’s do a contextual reading starting with verse 17 to 19 which reads:  “That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts: that, being rooted and founded in charity, you may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, to know also the charity of Christ, which surpasses all knowledge that you may be filled unto all the fullness of God.”  St Paul here teaches that the way to comprehend and gain a deep insight into the mystery of Christ is through sanctity [that is our souls is rooted and founded in charity] which is the way of the saints.  Christ who dwells in our hearts also enables us to grow ever deeper into his own mystery until we are filled unto the fullness of God [that is the measure of knowledge which God wants to reveal Himself to us].  In the same Epistle St Paul said:  “Untilwe all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto themeasure of the age of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13).  If we observe carefully St Paul substituted Christ [in Ephesians 4:13] for God [in Ephesians 3:19].  The “fullness of God” is equated with “fullness of Christ” in relation to the knowledge of the Son of God given to us.  Thus St Paul does not equate Christ with us but he equates Christ with God.

Let us now turn our attention to Colossians 2:9 which reads: “For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally.”  Once again, it is important to read this passage in its context.  In his Epistle to the Colossians, St Paul was warning the believers against men who practice superstitious worship paid to angels or demons by offering sacrifices to them from which they derive hidden knowledge [gnosis].  In so doing they also denied the supremacy of Christ who is the head both of angels and men.  In order to condemn them of their pretensions and warn the believers St Paul wrote: “Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally. And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power” (Colossians 2:8-10).  St Paul here upholds the supremacy of Christ [who is head of all principality and power] by asserting his divinity though he appeared in form of man [in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead corporeally].  Thus by an examination of the context of the passage it becomes crystal clear that this passage supports the divinity of Christ.  But context is foreign to INC interpretation of key Biblical passages. 



INC objection:  If you [Catholics] insist that the Son and the Father is God because Jesus said they are one based on your interpretation of John 10:30, will you also say that the disciples is God since they too are one as the Father and the Son are one (John 17:11, 21-22)?

The recurring fallacy of the INC in quoting verses out of context and failing to make proper distinctions is again manifest.  Once again, a contextual reading will reveal the error in the INC interpretation.  In John 17:11-22, Jesus was praying to the Father for his disciples.  In the verses surrounding John 10:30, Jesus was addressing the unbelieving Jews.

Let’s take a closer look first at John 10:30 where Jesus said “I and the Father are one.”  The traditional Catholic interpretation of this passage is that Jesus and the Father are two distinct persons based on the use of the plural linking verb ARE and that they share one divine nature based on ONE.  Let me explain why this interpretation is perfectly consistent within the context.  In the preceding verses Jesus speaks lengthily about himself as the Good Shepherd who takes care of his sheep and that those who belong to his fold listens to his voice.  In verse 14, Jesus says:  “I am the good shepherd: and I know mine, and mine know me.”  Using the INC line of reasoning [that is, if we don’t try to distinguish], since Jesus said “I know mine, and mine know me” are we to say then that our [his sheep] knowledge of Jesus is in the same measure as Jesus’ knowledge of us?  Of course not!  In verse 15, Jesus makes this astounding claim:  “As the Father knows me, and I know the Father and I lay down my life for my sheep.”  Unquestionably, the Father knows the Son perfectly.  Does the Son also know the Father perfectly?  If we look at parallel sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, we see that Jesus leaves no doubt about this.  Here is what Jesus declares:  “And no one knows the Son but the Father: neither does any one know the Father, but the Son” (Matthew 11:27).  What does Jesus mean here?  Do we not know the Father?  Of course, we do!  But not in the same measure as Jesus knows the Father.  While we know the Father in the measure that the Son reveals Him to us, Jesus knows the Father perfectly.  The Jews understood well the full impact of His words so that in verse 19, John wrote that “A dissension rose again among the Jews for these words.”  However their dissension did not deter our Lord from teaching to them what He has come to reveal.  In verse 28, Jesus delivers to them another one of his hard sayings:  “And I give them life everlasting: and they shall not perish for ever. And no man shall pluck them out of my hand.”  Says who?? Did Jesus just claim here that he is able to give life everlasting?  Yes, He did.  But isn’t this gift reserved for God ALONE to give?  Not only that, Jesus claims that no man shall pluck them [the elect] out of his hand.  Hand in biblical parlance is used to mean power which saves the just and judges evil men (see Exodus 6:1, 7:5, 9:3, 13:3 etc.).  Jesus can give everlasting life because he has the power to accomplish what he wills.  In verse 29, Jesus clarifies from whom He receives all that He has:  “That which my Father has given me is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father.” Notice the shift in the words “out of my [Jesus’] hand” in verse 28 to “out of the hand of my Father” in verse 29.  It is the same hand [power] of Jesus and the Father which gives life everlasting.  Jesus receives this power from the Father as the Son is said to receive all that the Father is [His nature].  In order to avoid any misgivings about Jesus receiving power from the Father that Jesus’ power is something delegated and not inherent, Jesus emphasizes in the verse 30:  “I and the Father are one.”  There is no escaping here that Jesus intended to drive home to his hearers his claim to divinity.  The Jews got this perfectly but they could not accept this astounding truth and for them this is blasphemy so they “took up stones to stone him” (John 10:31).  Had the Jews misunderstood Jesus then Jesus would have corrected them as He did in other occasions (Matthew 16:5-12; John 3:3-8; John 11:11-14).  In the succeeding verse, Jesus defended his words and gave reasons why we should accept his words at face value even if it cannot be fathomed by our finite understanding.

The quote in John 17:11, 21-22 where Jesus said “they may be one, as we also are” is not in anyway denying his substantial unity with the Father nor does it make us united substantially to the Trinity.  Our unity with one another and to God is only analogical to the unity within the Blessed Trinity.  The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in power and therefore essence.  This can be proven in Jesus great commissioning of his disciples: “Going therefore, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Mat 28:19).  Name here means power and authority as evident when we also read other passages of Scriptures (Mark 16:17; Acts 3:6; 4:7).  Notice the use of the singular “name” and not the plural “names.”  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit equally and wholly share this one name.  Furthermore, when speaking of God, His name also refers to His essence (Exodus 3:14).  What the passage from John 17:11, 21-22 simply mean is that the essential unity of Jesus and the Father is the vital principle of our unity with one another and with God. Jesus’ disciples are not united by any human affinity but by the grace of God.  They are united with one another in so far as they abide in Jesus and not by anything else. Once more, the INC fails to make the proper distinctions for whatever reasons.

INC objection:  In John 20:28 in which the Apostle Thomas said “My Lord and my God” we are sure that Jesus is not the God referred to here but the Father because if we read back to verse 17, we will notice that in this verse Jesus acknowledged who his God is.  He says:  “I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God.” The God of Jesus is the Father. Therefore, Jesus is not God.   

In my opinion John 20:28 can stand by itself without any further explanation.  Instead of confronting the direct meaning of the verse the INC evades it by jumping back to verse 17.  Before I address verse 17, let us first turn our attention to verse 28 and the immediate verse which precedes and follows it.  In verse 27, Jesus rebukes Thomas for his lack of faith and gave him proof of his resurrection saying, “Put in your finger hither and see my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be not faithless, but believing.”  Having no room to doubt, Thomas believes and makes his profession of faith to the risen Christ in verse 28: “Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God.” Then in verse 29, Jesus confirms this profession of faith saying:  “Jesus said to him: Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.”  It is truly amazing how one can miss the plain and simple meaning of this statement.  Jesus is Thomas’ Lord and God. Thomas saw Jesus in his risen humanity yet professed belief in Jesus’ divinity.  The verse does not say “Thomas answered and said to them” but “to him.” These words were addressed to Jesus and to no other. In dealing with John 20:28, the INC out rightly abandons their oft-repeated dictum not to add or subtract anything from the Bible.  For the INC when Thomas says to Jesus “My Lord and my God” Jesus is only Thomas’ Lord but not his God.  Let us keep in mind this line reasoning of the INC as this will come in handy in shutting up their back door exit. 

In an attempt to escape being trapped in a self-willed denial of verse 28 the INC harps back to verse 17.  They will assert that when Jesus said “I ascend to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God” he therefore acknowledges the Father to be his God and therefore Jesus is not God.  But wait a minute, did they not just tell us that when Thomas said to Jesus “my Lord and my God” that Jesus is only Thomas Lord but not his God and that Thomas was referring to two different persons [Jesus as his Lord and God as (well guess what?) his God]?  How then could they suffer from exegetical amnesia when it comes to verse 17 in which Jesus said “My Father… and my God” and tell us that in here Jesus is speaking about the same person who is his Father and at the same time his God?  The fact that Jesus addresses the Father as God is not in anyway a denial of his own divinity in the same way that the fact that the Father addresses his Son as God is a denial of Father’s divinity.  This will bring us to the answer to the next objection.

INC objection:  If in Hebrews 1:8 the Father acknowledges the Son as God, then it will come out that there will be a contradiction in God’s word since He has already declared “Have not I the Lord, and there is no God else besides me? A just God and a saviour, there is none besides me” (Isaiah 45:21).  He, in fact, repeated this twice in this particular passage.  That is why the correct translation in order to eliminate this contradiction is James Moffatt’s which reads: “But unto the Son, He saith ‘God is thy throne…’”

In an attempt to explain away Hebrews 1:8 the INC presumes to create a contradiction in God’s word but in reality the contradiction exists only in their mind and not in the word of God.  In order to understand why the INC avoids this particular verse, let’s read what it says:  “But to the Son: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of justice is the sceptre of your kingdom” (Douay Rheims);  “But unto the Son he saith; Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:  a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom” (KJV); “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne O God is for ever and ever; and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom” (NRSV); “but of the Son:  ‘Your Throne, O God, stands forever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom” (NAB).  In this passage of scriptures it is clearer than the noonday sun that the Father addresses his Son as God!  If this verse stands then the Catholic Church teaching on the divinity of Christ stands and all INC members should rush to the feet of Jesus in repentance for the sin of blasphemy!

Where the INC finds an alleged contradiction between the above rendering of Hebrews 1:8 and Isaiah 45:21 the Catholic finds that this can harmoniously be reconciled with the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity.  Since the doctrine of the Trinity states that each of the three divine persons is wholly, entirely and truly God then the fact that Father address his Son as God in Hebrews 1:8 presents no difficulty.  And since the doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the Son is not another God besides the Father but as Jesus Himself teaches that He and the Father are one (John 10:30) then it does not contradict Isaiah 45:21.  Furthermore, when we read in context Isaiah 45:21, God was reproving the people for worshipping idols:  “Assemble yourselves, and come, and draw near together, you that are saved of the Gentiles: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven work, and pray to a god that cannot save” (Isaiah 45:20).  It is in the context of condemning idolatry that God reminds the people that there is no God besides him.  In verse 22, God said, “Be converted to me, and you shall be saved, all you ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is no other.”  The God of spoke in the Old Testament appeared in the New Testament and bears the name of Jesus:  “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Romans 10:13).  I wish the INC will not stop at Isaiah 45:21 but will continue reading up to verse 24 where God said:  “For every knee shall be bowed to me, and every tongue shall swear.”  Upon reading this Philippians 2:10-11 easily comes to mind which says: “That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.”

In a desperate effort to salvage their position, the INC clings to the translation of James Moffatt: “But unto the Son, He saith ‘God is thy throne…’”  This is another glaring example of INC’s selectiveness in using a bible version that will best suite their purpose.  This will give us an idea that the INC is not interested in knowing the truth but in only defending their position at all cost and in whatever means.  This translation by Moffatt is at least doubtful if not badly inaccurate for several reasons:  1)Reputable bible versions such as the Douay Rheims, KJV, NRSV, NAB and many others render this particular verse as “Thy Throne, O God.”  2) These particular passage is actually a quotation from the Book of Psalms 45:6 where again in a host of reputable bible versions it is rendered as “Thy Throne, O God.”  3)  If we grant the Moffatt “But unto the Son, He saith ‘God is thy throne’” then this will make the Son greater than God since the one who sits on the throne is unquestionably greater than the throne on which he sits. 4) Ascribing a throne [dominion and authority] to the Son is proper since Jesus is called King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelations 19:16) and only God deserves this title (1 Timothy 6:15).  5)  The Moffatt translation is noted for altering passages which points to the divinity of Christ like in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 by removing the I AM;  In 1 Timothy 3:16 by changing “God was manifest in the flesh” into “He who was manifest in the flesh”; In Matthew 8:2 “worshipped” (KJV) or “adored” (Douay Version) is changed into “knelt.”  6)  In the same context the Son is given divine prerogative:  “And again, when he [Father] brings in the first begotten into the world, he [Father] says: And let all the angels of God adore him [Son]” (Hebrews 1:6).  Here the Father commands all the angels to adore his Son.  If the Son is not God, is the Father commanding us to worship a creature?  Of course for the INC they will teach that God alone is worthy of adoration but since God commands us to adore his Son then we should obey the Father anyway.  This is nothing but what someone calls double-think!

Finally, I would like to exhort all INC members to have an open mind.  Read and learn the arguments of Catholicism from people who are Catholic and who know very well the Catholic faith.  My prayers are for you!





A Case Against The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Founded By Felix Manalo) Part II Divinity of Christ

A Case Against The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Founded By Felix Manalo) Part II Divinity of Christ

By: Bro. Isahel N. Alfonso


 A Case Against The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Founded By Felix Manalo) Part II Divinity of Christ



One of the distinctive teachings of the Iglesia Ni Cristo is their belief that Jesus Christ is just a man and not God. While they boast Felix Manalo as an angel sent by God, they ridiculed Jesus Christ by teaching and believing that He is only a man. They inherited their teaching that Jesus Christ is just a man from an ancient heretic named Arius. Arius was the one who vigorously defended the heretical teaching that Jesus Christ is just a man and not God. This brings us to another point where is the Iglesia ni Cristo during this great council (as founded by Felix Manalo) to defend their heretical doctrine that Christ is just a man? If they are the true Church  as what they claim then they should be the first one to raise a defense on this theological matter, yet, they are not able to do so because the Iglesia ni Cristo did not exists yet during those time.



The INC And The Divinity Of Christ

A close analysis on the contentions of the INC ministers on the nature of Christ will give us an insight that their arguments are not really arguments at all. If we are going to observe an INC minister preaching or debating about the nature of Christ notice that all the biblical passages that he will quote are the ones that will prove that Christ has a human nature thus they would emphasize on the qualities or elements that tells us that Christ is a man. Upon hearing statements from an INC minister that Christ is just a man we do not have to hassle and refute each and every scripture passage that they quote in proving that Christ is a man because the Catholic Church teaches that Christ has two natures, Human and Divine nature. The Catechism is very clear on this matter;

The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against heresies that falsified it. CCC 464

For an INC minister to prove that Christ is a man in front of a Catholic apologist is irrelevant in a debate concerning the nature of Christ for we Catholics do not deny the fact that Christ is a man. However what we do believe is that Christ is true God and true man. For the INC arguments to prosper they should be debating people who do not believe that Christ is a man, but in front of a person who believes that Christ is true God and true man their efforts in proving their cause is futile.

In our exposition we no longer have to prove that Jesus Christ has a human nature since this is part of the fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church about Christ. Our foremost concern is establishing the divinity of Christ using the Scriptures. There are numerous passages in the Bible that tells us that Christ is God but the INC ministers preferred to give a twisted and at times hilarious interpretations just to do away passages that clearly points to Christ’s divinity.

Let us start with the Gospel of John in proving the divinity of Christ, for John’s Gospel is highly theological and gives emphasis on Christ divinity. In the opening chapter of John’s Gospel we are told about the “Word” or logos in Greek.

In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 1:1

The Word that St. John is talking about in this passage is none other than but Jesus Christ, according to the New Testament Scholar Antonio Garcia-Moreno he said;

The Logos is neither a philosophical abstraction nor a divine being merely clothed with a human appearance, as the Docatae taught. For the Evangelist the Logos is the personal and pre-existent Christ who, in a specific moment in history, had taken unto himself a human nature.Antonio Garcia-Moreno, Jesus of Nazareth The King of the Jews: A study on Johannine Christology, p.62, 2010

In a debate between a Catholic apologist and a district minister of INC Rizalito Ocampo, the minister was asked “if Christ is not the Word in John 1:1, then who is it?” The only response that can be heard from the district minister was “in John 1:1 you cannot read Jesus Christ”. Such is not even an answer but an escape goat to avoid answering the the unanswerable question hurled to him. But how are we to know that the Word in John 1:1 is truly Jesus Christ?

John 1:1 is a very short passage yet it is very much sufficient to prove the divinity of Christ. Upon close reading of the passage it tells us of three important elements of the Word which is also applicable and belongs to Jesus Christ.



In the beginning was the Word

This passage points not to the time wherein the world was created but on the time before the world was created, this tells us about the preexistence of the Word. Jesus Christ on the other hand manifest his existence before the world was created in John 17:5 Jesus Christ said,

Now Father give me in your presence the same glory I had with you before the world begun. John 17:5

Jesus Christ is speaking here in the past tense which means that he was already with God before the world was created. This is a very clear and explicit words from Christ that he himself confess that he was with the Father before the world begun. So who are we to believe? The INC ministers or our Lord Jesus Christ himself? St. Paul in his epistles also affirms this truth, in his epistle to the Colossians he speaks about Christ preexistence.

He is the image of the unseen God, and for all creation he is the first-born, for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, thrones, rulers, authorities, powers all was made through him and for him. He is before all and all things hold together in him. Col.1:15-17

St. Paul is telling us that it was through Christ that everything was created and this would only be possible if Christ has a preexistence. But on the same passage Christ’s preexistence is affirmed with the words “He is before all”. 


And the Word was with God

This statement tells us of the distinction between the Father and the Son, some pseudo Christians believe that the Father and the Son are one and the same, this is a serious error concerning the relationship of the Father and of the Son. Since Christ has a preexistence as proved by the passages we quoted above this brings us to a logical conclusion that Christ is distinct from the Father. This distinction was already been prefigured in the Old Testament when God showed himself to Abraham under the appearance of three men.

Yahweh appeared to Abraham near the oak of Mamre. Abraham was sitting at the entrance to his tent, in the heat of the day, when he looked up and saw three men standing nearby. Genesis 18:1-2

In this passage we are told that Yahweh appeared to Abraham under the appearance of three men. But why three men? Because it is a revelation that there is one God in three distinct persons. In like manner Christ was with God in the beginning because they are distinct yet shares that nature of God. In the Gospel of Matthew such a distinction is also mentioned by the Gospel writer in Mt.28:18-19, Jesus Christ said,

Go therefore, and make disciples from all nations, Baptize then in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Mt.28:19

Notice that the Gospel writer wrote “in the name” not “in the names” which is plural, because the Gospel writer is referring only to one God in three distinct persons which is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.



And the Word was God

St. John when writing his Gospel carefully wrote “Word was God” and not “Word was a god” which would imply that Jesus Christ or the Word is a God lower than the Father as what the Jehova’s witnesses believed. He did not also write “Word was the God” because it would mean that the Father and the Son are one and the same. What St. John wrote was crystal clear “And the Word was God” referring to the nature of the Word which is divine. In St. Paul’s epistle to the Colossians he is telling them that Christ possess a divine nature, hence Christ is truly GOd.

For in him dwells the fullness of God in bodily form. Col.2:9

Such a fact is irrefutable but the INC ministers will surely find a way to beat around the bush and raise hilarious and illogical explanations regarding this passage. In Hebrews chapter 1 verse 8 it is no longer the apostles who professed Christ divinity but it was already the Father who is telling us that Christ is God. Who then shall we believe the INC ministers who are famous for deceiving people of God?

But of the Son we read this: Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever; a rule of justice is your rule. Hebrews 1:8

Beyond any reason of a doubt it is quite clear from the passages of the Holy Scripture that Jesus Christ is God. Any person who deliberately refuses to believe such truth will have nothing in the end of times but the fires of Hell.

A Case Against The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Founded By Felix Manalo)

A Case Against The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Founded By Felix Manalo)

By: Bro, Isahel N. Alfonso

 A Case Against The Iglesia Ni Cristo (Founded By Felix Manalo)

The Iglesia ni Cristo was founded by Felix Ysagun Manalo in the Philippines on July 27, 1914. The doctrines that they teach are anti-Christian since it goes against the basic tenets of Christianity like that of the Divinity of Christ, and he (Felix Manalo) is an angel sent by God as the last messenger. Since this cult has victimized so many innocent people bringing them to perdition it is an opportune time for us to establish our case against this cunning and deceitful group.


The INC And The True Church

While reviewing debates between Catholic apologists and INC ministers on the topicWhich Is The True Church. The INC ministers do not have any good arguments to prove that their Church as founded by Felix Manalo is the true Church of Christ. Their main contention when arguing their position is that the name of their Church which is Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ in English) is found within the pages of Scripture. They are argue that since Jesus Christ is the founder of the Church henceforth the true Church should also be named after Him thus the name of the true Church is Iglesia ni Cristo or Church of Christ. Quoting erroneous Bible translation like the of Lamsa just to the read the phrase “Church of Christ” then they would say that the name of their Church is Church of Christ and concluding that theirs is the true Church. Later on they would ask for the official name of the Catholic Church and ask the Catholic apologist whether he could find the official name of the Catholic Church within the pages of Scripture and if he cannot find it the INC minister would conclude that the Catholic Church is not the true Church since its name is not found in the Bible. Such a line of reason is very illogical since it would imply that the basis of a Church for being the true Church is whether its name can be found within the pages of Scripture and not on the person who founded such Church. If this is the case then the INC ministers has no reason not to accept those man made Churches as a true Church since they too patterned the name of the Church from phrases that can be found within the pages of Scripture.

The name of the Church is not basis for knowing whether such church is the true Church or not, the name of the Church is irrelevant in proving for the authenticity of the Church. Regardless whether the name of the Church is found in the pages of Scripture or not, if it is not founded by Jesus Christ then it is not the true Church. Granting without admitting that the name of the church founded by Felix Manalo is found in the pages of Scripture but the mere fact that it is not Christ who founded it then it is not the true Church. Felix Manalo is the true, real and only founded of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, it is not Jesus Christ who founded their Church, but only a man named Felix Manalo. Thus it is futile for his ministers to proclaim that their Church is the true Church.

Historically and Biblically speaking the Catholic Church is the only true Church of Jesus Christ. The establishment of the Church as founded by God was prophesied by the prophet Daniel he said;

In the time of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom never to be destroyed or delivered up to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and put an end to them. And it will endure forever. Daniel 2:44

There are two important facts that can be deduced from this prophecy of Daniel first is that God will be the one who will established His kingdom here on earth and secondly this kingdom will last forever. These facts point us to the establishment of the Church, the kingdom of God here on earth by Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus Christ said;

And now I say to you: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church; and never will the powers of death overcome it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you unbind on earth shall be unbound in heaven.Matthew 16:18-19

The prophecy of the prophet Daniel finds its fulfillment in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus Chris is the God (Jn.1:1. Rom.9:5, Ti.2:13) who will establish His kingdom here on earth and His kingdom or Church will endure forever for this Church is no religious building or a group of people professing the same faith rather this Church is His mystical body (Col.1:18, Eph.1:22), and He is perpetually present in His Church when He said that I will be with you until the end of time (Mt.28-20). This Church which professed to be the true Church is the Catholic Church. In the early days of Christianity the Church that Jesus Christ founded was called Catholic;

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the Apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the CATHOLIC CHURCH. . . St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans

At the early days of Christianity there is only one Christian Church and that is the Catholic Church. Thus the Catholic Church has more legitimate reasons for claiming to be the true Church than the Iglesia Ni Cristo which was founded by Felix Manalo. The Church of Felix Manalo is unheard of prior to 1914 not an iota or even a speck of stain ever points to the Church of Felix Manalo. For the INC to substantiate their claim as the true Church they should provide us with solid historical evidences that their Church is the Church that Christ founded in Matthew 16:18-19 and not some silly name game. But as far as truth is concerned the INC minsters failed to prove their case that their Church is the true Church of Christ.

Bro.Wendell Talibong (CFD) VS Ramil Parba (INC.M) Final

Bro.Wendell Talibong (CFD) VS Ramil Parba (INC.M) Final


DEBATE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (Bro.Wendell Talibong) VS INC(MANALO) (Ramil Parba) ON AUGUST 5 2006 IN BOHOL.(Malaman ang Katotohanan na ang SANTA IGLESIA KATOLIKA APOSTOLIKA ROMANA ang Tunay na Iglesia ni Kristo)


Igsoon palihog tan-awa kini ug inubanan sa Espirito Santo ikaw makahatag ug hukom kon kinsa sa duha ka debatedor ang na pildi ug nang limbong…

Bro.Wendell Talibong (CFD) VS Ramil Parba (INC.M)

Bro.Wendell Talibong (CFD) VS Ramil Parba (INC.M)


DEBATE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (Bro.Wendell Talibong) VS INC(MANALO) (Ramil Parba) ON AUGUST 5 2006 IN BOHOL.(Malaman ang Katotohanan na ang SANTA IGLESIA KATOLIKA APOSTOLIKA ROMANA ang Tunay na Iglesia ni Kristo)



“Executive Minister of Iglesia Ni Cristo Back to the True Church”

“Executive Minister of Iglesia Ni Cristo Back to the True Church”

By Bro. G-one Paisones

May nabasa po akong isang aklat na maganda at magagamit sa mga evangelization at apologetics purposes ng mga Catholic Apologist at lahat ng mga Katoliko. Ang aklat na ito ay ang “Paano Ninyo Sasagutin” ni Fr. Ben Carreon (Unang Aklat). Ang naturang aklat ay naglalaman ng mga sagot at information na dapat mabasa ng lahat ng mga Katoliko sa boung Pilipinas. Ang aklat na ito ay mabibili sa mga St. Paul stores.

Madalas na nating naririnig at nababasa na may mga Katoliko na winaksi ang kanilang pananampalataya bilang Katoliko na hindi man lang nila nalalaman ang stand ng doctina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica; ika nga ignoranting mga Katoliko. Ang ilan sa kanila ay umanib sa Iglesia ni Cristo na itinatag ni Felix Manalo noong 1914. Ang isa sa mga information na nakuha ko sa aklat (“Paano Ninyo Sasagutin”) ay makatutulong upang tatagan ang paniniwalang Katoliko at malaman ang Doctrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica basi narin sa Biblia, Apostolic Tradition at sa Banal na Santa Iglesia Catolica; at maging sa mga karagdagang standard references ay narito:

Paano Ninyo Sasagutin

St. Paul Publication

7708 St. Paul Road, ASV

Makati, Metro Manila

Tel.:88-97-70* 85-50-82

(1st Printing, 1966)

(Revised Edition, 1986)



Pahina 128-129

Sino ang Humirang kay Manalo?

Ni Fr. Ben Carreon

(Emphasis Added)

 Totoo ang iyong (Quirico Porras) sinasabing ang ginawa ng mga Kapatid nating nahihiwalay sa mga sektang Saksi ni Jehova at Iglesia ni Kristo ay pulos panlilinlang sa mga Katolikong alanganin ang paniniwala at kulang ng kaalaman sa relihyon. Una: malaking kasinungalingan ang sinasabi ng mga iglesya (Iglesia ni Cristo) na sila ang pinakauna sa lahat ng relihyon. Sang-ayon sa Encyclopedia of the Philippines, Vol. 10, 1936 edition, pahina 432-433, sinulat ni Zoila Galang, ang Iglesya ay itinatag noong 1914, sa Punta, Sta. Ana, Maynila ni Felix Manalo.

<!–[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]–><!–[if !vml]–>1 123569219l “Executive Minister of Iglesia Ni Cristo Back to the True Church”<!–[endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>


Isa rito sa 18 “hinirang ng Diyos” ay si Mr. Igmidio Zabala, dating Superintendente ng mga Iglesya sa Central Luzon, na ngayon ay nagbalik na sa pagka-Katoliko at ang sabi niya’y hindi totoo na sila’y hinirang ng Diyos. Ang humirang sa kanila ay si G. Manalo. Sa “katunayan,” sudlong pa ni Mr. Zabala, “ano mang oras ay naiaalis ni Manalo ang sino man sa amin. Siya ang nag turo sa aming kung ano ang ituturo namin sa mga kaanib sa sariling pakahulugan niya sa mga talata ng Bibliya. Siya ang nagbibigay ng sweldo sa amin.” Bakit sasabihing Diyos ang humirang sa 18 ito?

<!–[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]–><!–[if !vml]–>1 870220757l “Executive Minister of Iglesia Ni Cristo Back to the True Church”<!–[endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>

 Samaktwid, sang-ayon na rin sa tinatawag ni Manalong “hinirang ng Diyos” na si Mr. Zabala, hindi totoong Diyos ang humirag sa mga ministro ng Iglesia, at gayon din hindi totoong Diyos ang humirang kay Felix Manalo. Mayroon bang Diyos na pabagu-bago ng patakaran?

At samakatwid, sang-ayon na rin kay Manalo, ang Iglesya ay natayo sa Punta, Ata. Ana, Maynila noong 1914 at hinirang ng Diyos ang kanyang mga ministro noon ding mga petsang yaon. Paano itong magiging “pinakauna” sa lahat ng relihyon? Mahina yata sa arithmetic ang ating mga kapatid na iyan.

<!–[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]–><!–[if !vml]–>1 637249019l “Executive Minister of Iglesia Ni Cristo Back to the True Church”<!–[endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>


Pahina 135

Ang Tunay na Sugo

We are very haapy to have Mr. Igmidio Zabala as a guest columnist in Paano Ninyo Sasagutin. A well-known figure in Manila, he broadcast in DZST as one of the Tinig ni Mang Huwan and writes a column in Sentinel. Mr. Zabala’s name is in the Philippines Encyclopedia as one of the original 18 Ministers of the Iglesya ni Kristo, in which sect he labored for over twenty years, rising to executive position in Luzon until he came back to the Catholic Church a few years ago. A small autobiography has been published: “Ako ay naging Ministro ng Igleya ni Kristo” in which he traced his many years with Felix Manalo and his later disillusionment. The small book has been sold out and no copy is available. We wrote the publishers to request. If they don’t we are planning to serialize it here in the Mindanao Cross.


<!–[if gte vml 1]> <![endif]–><!–[if !vml]–>1 781112240l “Executive Minister of Iglesia Ni Cristo Back to the True Church”<!–[endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>

Usas mga Punoan sa Iglesia ni Cristo, Mibulag human Maila kon unsa kini!

Usas mga Punoan sa Iglesia ni Cristo, Mibulag human Maila kon unsa kini!

Courtesy of Bro. Allan O. Salada

melncarolina gabriel Usas mga Punoan sa Iglesia ni Cristo, Mibulag human Maila kon unsa kini!
(Pinupo ang unod gikan sa sidestreets Magazine,
Abril 1982 pahina 6-9 ug gikan ni Gng. Aurora Piasan)
Si Dr. Melanio P. Gabriel mao ang President of the Head deacons sa Iglesia ni Cristo, siya mao ang labaw’ng Tigdumala sa tanang mga lay leaders sa tibuok Nasod ug bisan sa gawas sa nasud sa mga INK, nahimong deakono sa maong pundok sa duha ka kongregasyon nga labing kubos may sakop nga mga 6,000. siya maoy tigpasiugda sa pundok sa mga minyo sulod sa INK nga gitawag og “buklod”. Siya usab ang tigsusi sa kalihokan sa tanang mga Ministro sa INK sa Tibuok Nasud, labot pa niini siya gitudlo pa gayud nga Chief of the secretariat sa Central office ug piniyalan sa mga butang nga confidential and not so godly things. usa usab siya sa mga punoan sa Family Planning, ang Medical and Global clinic.
up Usas mga Punoan sa Iglesia ni Cristo, Mibulag human Maila kon unsa kini!
Si Dr.Melanio Gabriel usa gayud ka Doctor sa Medisina, nakagraduwar siya sa tuig 1960 sa UP, usa sa mga napulo ka mga batan-on nga nakakuha sa labing taas nga grado. Natawo siya sa Marso 24, 1937 sa Tondo, Manila. Naminyo siya ni Carolina A. Tiangco, kinsa duna silay upat ka mga Anak. duna silay kaugalingong Ospital nga anaa sa Ronn-Carmel 115 M. Ponce, Caloocan City. Ang iyang Asawa Doctora usab. Ang iyang pagkasakop sa INK nagsugod sa iyang Apohan nga giila nga usa sa unang mga sakop sa INK sa tuig 1915, sanglit giila man nga natukod ni Felix Manalo ang INK sa 1914.
untitled2 Usas mga Punoan sa Iglesia ni Cristo, Mibulag human Maila kon unsa kini!
Ang Iglesia ni Cristo (ni Manalo) nagtuo ug nagtudlo nga si Kristo tawo ug tawo lang gayud, dili Dios.
Si Dr. Gabriel miingon, “bisan unsa pa ang imong kahimtang ug paghupot sa tag-as nga ranngo ug mga titulo- apan kon si Kristo, dili nimo Ginoo ug Dios- kawang ang tanan! Ang Dios gayud maoy hinungdan sa akong paggula sa INK, bisan pa sa hataas kong katungdanan sa INK, apan wala ko hikaplagi ang matuod gayod nga kalinaw. Apan unsa man tuod ang imong mapaabot nga kalinaw kon ikaw nagpasipala ug nagpahiubos ni Kristo, ang Anak sa Dios? Dili lang kay nasamok ko sa dili diniyos ko nga kinabuhi kondili sa mga kauban kong dagkong mga Punoan sa INK kinsa mipasibantug nga ang among iglesia” mao ug wala nay laing matuod”. si Gng. Aurora Piasan kinsa taga Manila miasoy nga si Dr.Gabriel misalmot sa Catholic Charismatic (Renewal) sa Manila ug siya usa karon ka aktibo nga Lider ug nagdumalag mga Bible study sa iyang panimalay ug nangulo usab sa Charismatic sa Ali Mall sa Cubao nga tinambongan duol sa libo ka mga tawo. may programa siya sa estasyon sa Radio nga Katoliko ang Radio Veritas.
Religious Dynasty Usas mga Punoan sa Iglesia ni Cristo, Mibulag human Maila kon unsa kini!
Si Dr. Gabriel Nakaangkon sa Panggukod sa mga INK ni Manalo, gisalikway siya uban sa iyang Pamilya ug gisabwag nga siya naghimog daghang mga “Pamakak” tungod sa iyang pagbulag sa INK. walay hunong ang makalilisang nga paghulga sa iyang kinabuhi. gisabwag ang mga tinumo-tumo nga sugid aron pagbuling sa iyang ngalan aron ang mga tawo dili na motuo kaniya. usa ka gabii sa bulan sa  Agosto, samtang nagsakay siya sa kotse kauban sa iyang Asawa, usa ka bomba giitsa ngadto kanila, maayo gani wala sila maunsa. kapin sa duha ka gatus niya ka mga paryenti nga sakop usab sa INK, gihulga nga kon mosunod sila ni Dr.Gabriel, mao usab ang ilang isilot, isalikway ug mahiagom sa iyang dangatan. laing dugoong hitabo didto sa Puerto Azul gisugat siya sa kanhi kauban niya sa INK, usa kanila misukmag kaniya ug gitionan siyag rebolber ug gipugos sa paggula sa maong dapit. Salamat nga usa ka Receptionist misiyagit sa kalisang, gumikan niini wala mahinayon ang makuyaw nga hitabo. “ug daghan pa kaayong mga Pugoso nga hitabo, apan nasayud ako nga nga ang Ginoo nanalipud kanako. wa’ sab ko mahadlok nga Mamatay, total ang kinabuhi ko naa na kaniya,” matud sa Doctor. Si Dr.Gabriel karon gibati sa tumang kaseguroan diha sa Matuod nga Pagtuo ug sa Pagdawat ni Jesukristo nga Ginoong Dios ug Manluluwas. kay ang Biblia nagtudlo nga ang tawo nga tawo lang, dili gayud makatubos sa kalibotan sa tanang mga sala,”.. matod pa sa Biblia: Ikaw tawo… ingon sa usa ka tawong kusgan nga dili Makaluwas?” (Jeremias 14:9).
14 Usas mga Punoan sa Iglesia ni Cristo, Mibulag human Maila kon unsa kini!
ug Usa ra ang manluluwas nga mao ang Dios…” (Isaias 45:21). Sanglit si Kristo, Manluluwas, nan, matuod gayud siya nga Dios nga nagpakatawo (Juan1:1,14). “Nagtinguha ako nga kining akong testimonyo ug mga sinulat mahiabot unta kanila (mga INK). Nasayud ako nga may uban kanila nga sa tago mitambong sa akong mga tigom. kadaghanan kanila sa among nabatian, nangatawo pag-usab sa bag-ong kinabuhi. sa pagkatinuod ang Pagsunod ni Kristo ingon nga imong Ginoo ug Dios, usa ka kasinatian nga dili katumbasan tungod kay diha ni Kristo ug uban ni Kristo mahuptan mo ang katagbawan!.

Minister of Manalo was Put to Jail

Rizalino Ocampo to spend 2 months in prison for punching lawyer at hearing

 Minister of Manalo was Put to Jail

By Justin K. Vestil

Friday, February 4, 2011

Retrieve from:

Courtesy of: Sunstar News Paper

AN Iglesia ni Kristo minister will spend two months and a day in jail after the court convicted him of serious disturbance for punching a lawyer.

This happened during a hearing on a libel case he filed against three reporters in 2000.

Ocampo, who is expected to serve a jail sentence of two months and a day and to pay a fine of P1,000, is appealing his case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). His case is scheduled for regular raffling.

Bacalso, who served as legal counsel of DyMF Bombo Radyo, accused Ocampo of allegedly punching him during a clarificatory hearing on the libel complaint the INC minister filed against his clients.

Ocampo filed a libel case against then Bombo Radyo reporters Gerardo “Gerry” Auxilio and Ruphil Bañoc. Bombo Radyo station manager Greman “Jojo” Solante was also included in the complaint.

Bacalso alleged that while he and his clients were attending the hearing, Ocampo suddenly punched him in the back. The attack was made in front of Cebu Provincial prosecutors Federico Pansoy, Vicente Mañalac and Anatalio Necessario.

Ocampo’s attack against Bacalso led to a commotion between the three reporters and more than 100 supporters of the INC who were waiting outside the hearing area.

Bacalso alleged that Ocampo attacked him when he raised to the panel a Supreme Court decision on a libel case filed by the INC against Rosita Trillanes in the 1940s.

The decision had cleared Trillanes of making allegations that one of INC’s founders, Felix Manalo, raped her. The INC filed a libel case against her because she made the allegations without filing a rape complaint against their founder.

Bacalso presented the SC decision as part of documentary evidence for their case.
In her decision, Tecson convicted Ocampo as he was identified not just by Bacalso but by three witness who saw the INC minister hit the lawyer.

Tecson said the main point is that through his act, Ocampo incited the commotion between INC and the complainants during the hearing.

“Whether it was by hitting or simply tapping on the back of Atty. Bacalso by the accused, the fact remains, this particular act of hitting or tapping caused the commotion inside the room where the clarificatory hearing was conducted,” she added.

Auxilio and Bañoc have since left Bombo Radyo, 11 years since they were charged with libel. Auxilio is now working for Radio DySS as a commentator, while Bañoc, now a lawyer, is the station manager of Radio DyHP.

Solante has since retired from broadcasting and is serving a second term as barangay captain of Villahermosa in Tudela, Camotes. He is also the Association of Barangay Councils president of Tudela town.

The INC minister accused the three broadcasters of issuing derogatory and libelous remarks against him over a radio program of Bombo Radyo.

Published in the Sun.Star Cebu newspaper on February 05, 2011.

Muntik ng Maligaw ng Landas, Salamat sa CFD

Muntin ng Maligaw ng Landas, Salamat sa CFD

Karanasan ni: harlem jude

A new comment on the post “OPEN LETTER TO AN IGLESIA NI CRISTO MEMBER By: Esteban Raymundo” is waiting for your approval

Author : harlem jude (IP: ,
E-mail :
URL    :
Whois  :
if i didn’t know what my religion is ay mapapa-convert na kami ng INC… (–,) i’m reading some of our CATHOLIC FAITH DEFENDERS’ writings all over the philippines… and that strengthen my faith..

the INC’s and other non-catholics are forcing me to
leave the church and come with them with their doctrines..
but i am a full-blooded roman catholic..
they’re saying they too are a full-blooded catholic
but had left the church because they had opened their eyes
and found the true religion…

then i told them, i don’t want to be converted.
i’m on the true religion…
and i don’t throw stones to your faith,
i’m only defending my faith against your
wrong accusations…

those who don’t know much of
their faith are easily be fooled. (–,)

Catholic Faith Defenders Vs. Iglesia ni Cristo Debate

Catholic Faith Defenders Journal (January 1982) Page 32

(By: G-one Paisones CFD member)

Catholic Faith Defenders of the Philippines Inc.

Dipolog Chapter Dipolog City

Views and Comments on the CFD Public Debate with

The Iglesia ni Cristo and Rally at the ZN Cultural and

Sports Center, Dipolog City on December 12-13, 1981

Tema sa Debate

  1. Pamatud-an ko nga ang Iglesia ni Cristo nga giwale ug giparehistro ni Igsuon Felix Manalo sa tuig 1914 maoy matuod nga Iglesia nga gitukod ni Kristo ug pagaluwason sa adlaw sa paghukom sumala sa Biblia ug mga referencia.

(TAGALOG: Patutunayan ko na ang Iglesia ni Cristo na pinahayag (Preached) at pinarehistro (Registered) ni kapatid Felix Manalo sa taong 1914 ang tunay na Iglesiang itinatag ni Cristo at ang ililigtas sa araw ng paghahatol ayon sa Biblia at mga referencia.)

2.Pamatud-an ko nga ang Santo Papa sa Roma mao ang mapintas nga mananap nga nagdala sa numero 666 sumala sa Biblia ug mga standard nga referencia.

(TAGALOG: Patutunayan ko na ang Santo Papa sa Roma ay ang mabangis na hayop na nagdadala ng numerong 666 ayon sa Biblia at mga standard na referencia.)

Affirmative Side

Iglesia ni Cristo Team

1. Bro. Mateo Liwanag

2. Bro. Avelino Tongol

3. Bro. Avelino Mosquida

4. Bro. Felizardo Pama

5. (Anonymous)

Negative Side

Catholic Faith Defenders Team

1. Bro. Socrates Fernandez

2. Bro. Marcelo Bacalso

3. Bro. Teofilo Tumulak

4. Bro. Alfonso Resuento

5. Bro. Luis Baquirquir


Atty. Josie Sar. Pacatang

Atty. Senen O. Angeles

(With tagalog translation)

Sa Sinugdanan sa Lantugi, nagtuo ang mga Catholic Faith Defenders nga by team ang paagi sa lantugi. Apan human sa unang stand sa Division Minister sa Iglesia ni Cristo- Mateo Liwanag, mipasiatab nga sa ikaduhang barog siya lang gihapon ang mosulti ug pakamangon kuno niya ang lima ka sakop sa Catholic Faith Defenders Team. Tungod niini, nakahukom ang mga Catholic Faith Defenders nga dili nalang usab ilisan si Bro. Atty Marcelo Bacalso sanglit man usab ang speaker sa Catholic Faith Defenders aron dili makaingon ang mga tawo nga gitabangan ang Ministro sa INC. Laktud nga pagkasulti, si Bro. Atty Bacalso ug si Bro. Mateo Liwanag lamang ang mga speaker hangtud natapus ang lantugi.

(TAGALOG: Sa panimula sa debate, naniwala ang mga Catholic Faith Defenders na by team ang debate. Pero pagkatapos sa unang tindig ng Division Minister ng INC-Mateo Liwanag, nangungutyang nasabing s’ya parin ang titindig sa ikalawang tindigan (stand) at pagagapangin daw nya ang limang kasapi ng Catholic Faith Defenders Team. Dahil dito, naka-deklara ang mga Catholic Faith Defenders na hindi nalang nila papalitan si Bro. Atty. Bacalso sapagkat sya ang naunang speaker sa panig ng Catholic Faith Defenders team para hindi makapagsabi ang mga tao na pinagtulungan ang ministro ng Iglesia ni Cristo. Sa madaling salita, si Bro. Atty. Bacalso at si Bro. Mateo Liwanag lamang ang mga speaker hanggang sa matapos ang debate.)

Aron gayod sa paghatag ng katin-awan sa atong mga kaigso-onan nga wala makasaksi sa maong lantugi among gipanlimbasogan pagpatik dinhi ang resulta kon nahimong sangputanan pinaagi sa nahipos nga mga pahayag kun komentaryo sa pipila ka mag tawo nga dili Katoliko aron maoy mohukom sa walay pagdapig sa usag-usa:

(TAGALOG: Para mabigyan ng malinaw na impormasyon ang ating mga kapatid na hindi naka saksi sa naturang debate aming pinag tyagaan ang pagsulat ditto sa resulta sapamamagitan ng pagkuha ng pahayag at komentaryo sa mga kapatid nating hindi Katoliko para huhusga ng walang kinakampihan sa bawat isa:)

EULOGIO BUSCA (United Church of Christ in the Philippines) – Dipolog City

“Una ko kadtong higayon nga nakadungog ug naka saksi nga ang mga Katoliko nanalipod pinaagi sa usa ka Formal Public Debate dinhi sa tibuok Mindanao ug nakadayeg ako sa mga Catholic Faith Defenders. Sa maong lantugi gisaksihan sa tulo ngadto sa upat ka libo ka mga tawo nga nagkalain-lain ang tinuhoan, ako moingon sa walay lipod-lipod sanglit dili man ako Katoliko nga ang Division Minister sa Iglesia ni Cristo nga si Mateo Liwanag wala gayud makapabarug ni makapamatuod sa duha ka tema nga gilantugian human dugmoka sa Catholic Faith Defenders ang iyang tanang argumento pinaagi sa mga kasaligan nga referencia nga gigamit ni Atty. Marcelo Bacalso.”

“Sa laing bahin, nakadayig usab ako sa kabugnaw ug tinaw nga manubag ni Bro. Socrates Fernadez sa mga pangutana nga gipasupot sa mga Sabadista sa panahon sa ilang rally. Akong namatikdan usab nga wala nay laing Iglesia ni Cristo nga mibalik aron sa pagpakita sa mga Katoliko human watas-watasa ang ilang banggiitang debater nga si Mateo Liwanag.”

(TAGALOG: Una palang akong nakarinig at naka saksi na ang mga Katoliko ay nag dedepensa sa pamamagitan ng isang Formal Public Debate dito sa buong pulo ng Mindanao at ako ay humanga sa Catholic Faith Defenders. Sa naturang debate nasaksihan sa tatlo hanggang apat na libong taong may ibat-ibang relihiyon o pananampalataya; ako ay nagsasabi na walang pinapanigan sapagkat hindi ako Katoliko na ang Division Minister ng Iglesia ni Cristo na si Mateo Liwanag hindi naka tindig o naka patunay sa dalawang tema ng debate pagkatapos nailampaso (Totally destroyed) ng Catholic Faith Defender ang lahat ng mga argumento(ni Mateo Liwanag) sapapagitan ng mga mapagkakatiwalaang referencia na ginamit ni Atty. Marcelo Bacalso.”

“Sa ibang banda, humanga ako sa magandang at malinaw na pagsagot ni Brad. Socrates Fernandez sa mga tanong sa kanya ng mga Sabadista sa panahon sa kanilang (CFD) rally. Napansin ko din na wala ng Iglesia ni Cristo na bumalik para pagpakita sa mga Katoliko pagkatapos ilampaso ang kanilang pinakamagaling na debater nasi Mateo Liwanag.”)

EMILIO BENGUA (Sabadista) Dipolog City (Was aired in DXDR sa kanilang programa 12/20/81)

“Nakadayeg ako sa kaligdong ug kabugnaw nga manubag ni Brad Soc Fernandez sa dihang ako nangutana sa ilang public rally niadtong December 13, 1981 didto sa ZN Cultural and Sports Center.

(TAGALOG: Humanga ako sa tama at totohanang pag sagot ni Brad Soc Fernandez ng akoy nag tanong sa kanya sa kanilang public rally noong December 13, 1981 doon sa ZN Cultural and Sports Center.”)

Tanong Galing sa Member ng Iglesia ni Cristo-Manalo

Author: jenny
E-mail :
URL    :
Whois  :
excuse me..tanong ko lang sa mga CATHOLIC mayroon bng nakasulat sa bible na IGLESIA KATOLIKA APOSTOLIKA ROMANA??if meron den i will convert to your religion, tska patunayan nyong hindi bawal kumain ng dugo,hindi bawal ang pagsamba sa mga diyos diyosan,bawal na pag aasawa ng pari, hindi bawal ang fiesta,,,and for the information of all,kea lang naman po kayo nang uusig is that nabubulgar na ang mga maling aral niyo,,and thank God,,kasi tama ang nakasulat sa bible,na kung pinag uusig ang panginoong Hesukristo kami man din,,so,makinig muna kayo ng totoong aral bago kayo mang usig,,kayo din!!!para sa kaalaman din ng iba wala kaming nilalabag sa mga utos ng Diyos,,if meron po kayong mapatunayan na meron kameng nilalabag den ipagsigawan niyo sa buong madla,,but for sure wala naman kayong mapapatunayan..dats ol..hope na magliwanag ang inyong nabubulagang puso..



Bro. G-one T. Paisones

Bro. Noel D. Paisones Sr.

Dear Jenny,

Sa hindi pa natin sasagutin ang tanong mo ay dapat nating malaman na si Cristo lang ang nagtatag ng Kanyang iglisya (Mat. 16:18); itoy naitatag N’ya sa kanyang kapanahonan ( Mat. 18:17); itoy Kanyang katawan (Col.1:18); Sya ang manliligtas ng iglisya (Efe 5:23); ito’y itinayo nya sa saligan ng mga apostol (Efe 2:20); itoy sasamahan Nya hanggang sa katapusan ng sanlibutan (Mat. 28:20) at bibigyan Nya ito ng patnubay(Juan. 14:16-17) at ang patnubay, ang Espiritu Santo na magtuturo sa iglisya ng lahat ng bagay at magpapaalala ng lahat ng sinabi ni Cristo (Juan. 14:26)

Ang tunay na iglisyang itinatag ni Cristo ay magpasahanggang sa ngayon ay narito pa at hindi ito kalian man tatalikod at mawawalang parang bula (Mat. 16:18) (Mat. 28:20) (Juan. 14:16-17,26)

Sa kapanahunan natin ngayon may mahigit na sa 33000 kristianong denomenasyon (sekta); at lahat nag-aangkin na sila raw ang totoong iglisyang itinatag ni Cristo. Sa 33000 sekta isa lang ang tunay na iglisiang Itinatag ni Cristo. Ang tunay na iglesya:

-Si Cristo ang nagtatag

-Naitatag ni Cristo ang kanyang iglisya sa kanyang kapanahonan

-Hindi ito madadaig ng Kamatayan

-Sa mga panahon ng mga Apostol hanggang sa ngayon ay existed itong Kanyang iglesya

-Ang iglisyang ito ay can trace back its origin to the apostles.

Ang iglisyang that can trace back its origin to the apostles ay ang Roman Catholic Church (Pasugo Magazine –April 1965- page 41) (The World book Encyclopedia-1986 page 580) (The World Alamanac & Book of Facts-1966 page 501).

Ang Pasugo pa mismo ang nag patunay na ang Roman Catholic Church ay ang isa at tanging makapagpabalik ng dugtong nito sa mga apostol. Narito ang kanilang pahayag “So we don’t question the claim of the Catholic Apologist, that the Catholic Church alone could trace back its origin to the apostles” -à itoy inilathala ni Brod. C. P. Sandoval sa Pasugo Magazine –April 1965- page 41.


st peters basilica

Tanong #1: Mayroon bang nakasulat sa bible na Iglisya Katolika Apostolica Romana?

àSagot po natin ay mayroon pong mababasa sa Biblia na Iglisya Katolika Apostolica Romana.

Mababasa natin ang Iglesia (Church) (ἐκκλησία): Mat. 16:18 “18} And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (KJV).

Mababasa natin ang Katolika (Catholic) (καθ’ ὅλης): James 1:1 “Catholic Epistles of St. James the Apostles” (Douay Rheims Version).

Mababasa natin ang Apostolica (Apostolic): Mat.10:39 “Apostolic discourse” (Jerusalem Bible); Act. 1:25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs (TNIV).

Mababasa natin ang Romana (Roman): Rom. 1:1 “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans” (KJV)

Kapatid na Jenny baka isipin mo na ang word na Catholic ay mababasa lamang sa Catholic Bible; narito po ang karagdagang ebedinsya sa na mababasa talaga ang word na Catholic sa Bible:

Catholic or General Epistles (Introduction of the Greek New Testament –Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft- Page 48)

Catholic Epistles- A term applied to the Epistles of James, Peter, John and Jude. It goes back to the early church father, but how it arose is unknown. The most commonly accepted explanation is that these epistles were addressed, not to individual churches or persons but to a number to the church at large, i.e., the universal church (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible, Page 108)

Kapatid na Jenny kung gusto mo ay sa isang citas lang sa biblia natin babasahin ang na Iglisya Katolika Apostolica Romana; ang sagot parin natin ay MAYROON MABABASA at MAIINTINDIHAN.

The Jerusalem Bible: ROMANS “The letter of Paul to the Church in Rome” Chapter 1, Verse 7-8 “ To you all, then, who are God’s beloved in Rome, called to be saints, may God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ send grace and peace. First I thank my God through Jesus spoken of all over the world.”

The Greek New Testament: Roma 1:8 Πρῶτον μὲν εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ μου διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν ὅτι πίστις ὑμῶν καταγγέλλεται ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ,

Roma 1:8 ………………………he pistis humon KATAggelletai en holo to kosmo,

Novum Testamentum Latine : Roma 1:7-8 7omnibus qui sunt Romae dilectis Dei vocatis sanctis gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro et Domino Iesu Christo 8primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Iesum Christum pro omnibus vobis quia fides vestra adnuntiatur in universo mundo.

à dito ating makikita na ang Iglisya sa Roma ang may maramin bunga at narinig ang pananampalataya nito sa buong (Universal or catholic) mundo. At mapapansin sa itaas na sa Roma 1:1,6-8 mababasa at maiintindihan natin na may nabangkit na Iglesia, Roma, Universa or Catholic (Paki tingnan sa ibaba ang masusing explanation) at itoy Apostolica dahil si San Pablo ang sumulat nito sa Roma, at si San Pablo ay Apostol.

CATHOLIC-universal (Webster’s II New Riverside Pocket Dictionary, Page 45)

CATHOLIC-members of the Universal or Catholic Church (Webster’s New School & Office Dictionary, Page 142)

CATHOLIC-or Universal (Introduction to the Catholic Epistles of James, Douay Rheims Version)

Luke 4:14 (Novum Testamentum Latine) -UNIVERSAM

Luke 4 :14 (Novum Testamentum Graece) -kaq olhV (KATHOLIS)

1 Cor. 14:23 (Novum Testamentum Latine) 23si ergo conveniat universa ecclesia in unum et omnes linguis loquantur intrent autem idiotae aut infideles nonne dicent quod insanities.

Gawa 9:31 ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ 9:31 Greek NT: WH / NA27 / UBS4 with Concordance
μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ Γαλιλαίας καὶ Σαμαρείας εἶχεν εἰρήνην οἰκοδομουμένη καὶ πορευομένη τῷ φόβῳ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ τῇ παρακλήσει τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐπληθύνετο.

Gawa 9:31 Mababasa natin sa Grego ang EKKLESIA KATHOLIS (ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης) – which correspond to Catholic Church.

Liban sa Biblia ang KASAYSAYAN ay nag papatunay rin na ang Roman Catholic Church ay ang iglesyang itinatag ni Cristo-Jesus. Dapat malaman ng ating mga giliw na mga kapatid na mga non-catholic na ang HISTORY-is the study of the past particularly the written record of the human race, but more generally including SCIENTIFIC and ARCHAELOGICAL discoveries about the past. At ang Bible mismo ay isang HISTORICAL Books.

More than 1900 years ago, Jesus Christ the Son of God, come upon earth to save mankind. After His atoning death on the cross He rose glorious and immortal. Before leaving this world to go to the Father, our Lord founded the Catholic Church and gave to that church the command to “teach all nations” (The Old World and America by Furlong-Page 100).

Grollier Encyclopedia –volume V, page 106: “Catholic Church (Gr. Katholikos, universal, general). Term generally applied to the Divine society founded by Jesus Christ, and endowed by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost.”

The New Webster’s Dictionary of the English Language (International Edition): Page 155: CATHOLIC- of the original Christian Church before the schism between East and West (ORTHODOXY)// of the Roman or western church after this schism and before the Reformation.

Information Almanac 1988 –Page 724: Roman Catholics- Traditionally, by Jesus who named St. Peter the 1st vicar; historically in early Christian proselytizing and the conversion of imperial Rome in the 4th century.

International Encyclopedia Volume 15,Page 520: Roman Catholic Church – there are two equally valid definitions of the Catholic Church comparable to the twofold nature of Jesus Christ its founder.

At marami pang ibang mga Standard references na nag papatunay na si Cristo talaga ang founder ng Roman Catholic Church tulad ng:

-World Almanac and Book of Facts –1986 Edition- Page 243-

-New Book of Knowledge Encyclopedia –Volume 18, Page 287-

-Young Student Encyclo.–Weekly Reader Book- Vol. 18, Page 2021/2121

àNasagot po ang tanong #1


(Image Link:

#2: Patunayan nyong hindi bawal kumakain ng dugo

Noon ang dugo ay ginagamit ng mga Israylita para sa alay dahil sa kanilang kasalanan kayat itoy ipinagbawal kainin (Leviticus 17:10-11 And whatsoever man [there be] of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.)

Kahit na sa panahon ng mga apostolis ang dugo ay ipinagbawal dahil itoy kanilang napanunod sa relihiyong Judaismo ng Kanilang mga magulang (Act 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.)

Ngunit unti-unti’y namulat o nakita ng mga Apostolis na itong mga PAGKAIN ay walang kaugnayan hinggil sa Kaligtasan bagkus ang nabubuhay sa Grasya ng Dios; “sapagkat ang pag-pasok ng tao sa kaharian ng Diyos ay hindi nababatay sa kinakain at inumin kundi sa pagiging matuwid, pagkakasundo-sundo at kagalakan na pawing kaloob ng Espiritu Santo” (Roma 14:17 Tagalog Popular Version or TPV)

Ipinagtibay ni San Pablo na huwag hamakin ang kumakain ng kahit lamang gulay, at huwag naming hatulan ng kumakain lamang ng gulay ang kumakain ng kahit ano, sapagkat siyay tinanggap ng Diyos. (Roma 14:3 TPV)

Ang prinsipyo na ito ay sinimulan ng panginoon… “Kayo man baga’y wala ring pang-unawa? Tugon ni Jesus. Hindi ba ninyo alam na hindi nakapagpaparumi sa tao ang kinakain nya, sapagkat hindi naman pumapasok iyon sa kanayang puso, kundi sa tiyan at pagkatapos ay idudumi. (Sa pagkasabi nito’y para nang ipinahayag ni Jesus na maaring kanin ang lahat ng pagkain) Marcos 7:18-19

Eze. 39:17-21(KJV) And, thou son of man, thus saith the Lord GOD; Speak unto every feathered fowl, and to every beast of the field, Assemble yourselves, and come; gather yourselves on every side to my sacrifice that I do sacrifice for you, [even] a great sacrifice upon the mountains of Israel, that ye may eat flesh, and drink blood. Ye shall eat the flesh of the mighty, and drink the blood of the princes of the earth, of rams, of lambs, and of goats, of bullocks, all of them fatlings of Bashan. } And ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken, of my sacrifice which I have sacrificed for you. Thus ye shall be filled at my table with horses and chariots, with mighty men, and with all men of war, saith the Lord GOD. And I will set my glory among the heathen, and all the heathen shall see my judgment that I have executed, and my hand that I have laid upon them.

Leviticus 10:18 Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy [place:] ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy [place,] as I commanded.

àDito malinaw kapatid na Jenny na ang dugo ay ipapakain.

Ark Of The Covenant LauraSotka (Image Link:

#3: Hindi bawal ang pagsamba ng dios-diosan?

At tungkol naman sa mga dios-diosan, siguro ang ibig mong sabihin ay ang mga imahe ng mga santo. Ang mga mga imahe ng mga santo ay hindi dios-diosan sapagkat hindi sila kinikilalang Diyos ng mga Katoliko at hindi ito ang doctrina ng santa Iglesia Catolica na mga Dios ang mga ito.

Kung may mga katolikong kumikilala na ang mga imahe ay Dios, sila ay nagkasala na tinatawag ng ADOLATRIA ayon narin sa batas ng Santa Iglesia Catolica.

Ito ang tunay na turo ng Santa Iglesia Catolica hingil sa mga imahen:

“We honor sacred images in order to show our veneration for the person the represent, not to adore them as gods.” (My Catholic Faith, Page 191)

“We do not pray to the crucifix, to the images and relics of the saint but to the person they represent” (Catholic Catechism, Number 565)

Hindi ba malinaw na ang aral ng Santa Iglesia Catolica na ang mga imahe ay hindi sinasamba bilang Diyos.

At ano naman ang pahayag ng mga protestante tungkol sa pagsamba ng dios-diosan:

Idolatry –the worship of false gods (NIV Compact Dictionary of the Bible, Page 266)

At ano ang sabi ni San Pablo 1 Cor 8:4 “So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world”

Siguro sasabihin ng mga ministro ni Manalo at nang ibang protestante na paggawa ng mga imahe ng mga santo ay pagsamba ng mg adios-diosan ay nagkakamali sila.

At kung sasabihin rin ng mga ministro ni Manalo mali ang pag gawa ng mga imahe; ang sagot natin jan ay hindi lahat.

Ang Diyos pa mismo ang nagpagawa ng mga imahe ng mga anghil Ex 25:18-22 “And thou shalt make two cherubims [of] gold, [of] beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. {25:19} And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: [even] of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. {25:20} And the cherubim shall stretch forth [their] wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces [shall look] one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubims be. {25:21} And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. {25:22} And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubims which [are] upon the ark of the testimony, of all [things] which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.

Ark of the Covenant 2

At sa templo pa ng Diyos ipalalagay ang mga banal na imahe 2 Cron 3:1, 7, 10-13(KJV) “Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where [the LORD] appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite. {3:7} He overlaid also the house, the beams, the posts, and the walls thereof, and the doors thereof, with gold; and graved cherubims on the walls.10 And in the most holy house he made two cherubims of image work, and overlaid them with gold. {3:11} And the wings of the cherubims [were] twenty cubits long: one wing [of the one cherub was] five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing [was likewise] five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub. {3:12} And [one] wing of the other cherub [was] five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house: and the other wing [was] five cubits [also,] joining to the wing of the other cherub. {3:13} The wings of these cherubims spread themselves forth twenty cubits:

At ang utos ng Diyos na doon tayo sumamba sa kanya, sa lugar na pinili ng Diyos, ito ay ang kangyang templo na may imahe 2 Cron 7:15-16(KJV) Now mine eyes shall be open, and mine ears attent unto the prayer [that is made] in this place. {7:16} For now have I chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever: and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually.

Mailinaw na malinaw kapatid na ipinag utos ng Diyos na doon sumamba sa kanyang templo (structural) na may mga imahe (Ex 25:18-22) (2 Cron 3:1, 7, 10-13) (2 Cron 7:15-16)…….sumunod ba kayo rito?

#4: Bawal na pag-aasawa ng mga pari?


Ang aral ng Katoliko tungkol sa Celibacy o ang hindi pag-aasawa ng mga pari alang-alang sa Diyos ay nasa Biblia at turo ito ng Panginoong Jesus.

Ang sabi ni apostol Pablo sa 1 Cor. 7:8, 32-33 (KJV) “{7:8} I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. {7:32} But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: {7:33} But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife.

àAt pakakatandaan natin na si Apostol San Pablo ay Pari-Roma 15:16 (Cebuano Popular Version)

Ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo ay ganito rin ang itinoro sa Mat. 19:12 (KJV) “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive [it,] let him receive [it.”

àAt pakakatandaan natin na ang Panginoon Jesu-Cristo ay Pari- Heb. 3:1 (Cebuano Popular Version.)

2720458150 d440ee4c0d

#5: Hindi bawal ang fiesta?

Ang Fiesta – ito po ay otos at toru na mababasa natin sa Biblia

1 Cor 5:8 (KJV) “8} Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth.

Sa katunayan ay namimista ang Panginoong Jesu-Cristo taon-taon Luke 22:1, 78 (KJV) “{22:1} Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover. {22:2} And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. {22:7} Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed. {22:8} And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.

Ang Fiesta ng Santa Iglesia Catolica ay ang pagdiriwang at pag-alaala sa mga Santo, kay Santa Maria at mismo sa Dios.

At hindi po totoong kami ay nang-uusig sa Iglesia ni Cristo ni Manalo bagkos ang mga ministro ang nang-uusig sa mga Paring katoliko.

At kapatid kong tongkol naman sa debate ng Iglesia ni Cristo Team VS Catholic Faith Defensers Team, pawing puro makatutuhanan po ang mga isinulat naming.

Kapatid na Jenny hindi po kami bulag, sa katunayan wala ho kaming kahit isang kosing na matatanggap sa mga Pari, gusto lang namin na maiparating ang tamang aral ng Santa Iglesia Catolica.

Kapatid na Jenny wag ho sana kayong maghusga sa amin…Suriin mo ang Docrina ng Santa Iglesia Catolica ng taos puso…tiyak ko na gagaya Karin nila…


Ang Nagbanging Pagtulan-an sa INC

Ang Nagbanging Pagtulan-an sa INC

Ni Bro: Wendell Talibong

Ang panagbangi sa PASUGO sa Iglesia ni Cristo nga gitukod ni Felix Manalo nagpaila sa ilang pagka pirated nga Iglesia ni Cristo.
Gipanghimakak sa Iglesia ni Manalo nga nakadawat silag ayudang panalapi gikan sa gawas sa atong nasod alang sa ilang mga kapilya. PASUGO July 1997, p. 10: “the Iglesia has supported itself purely with its own resources from the start, entirely without outside assistance. As Brother Erdy has emphasized, ‘all our chapels, from the smallest to the biggest, have been built through the voluntary contributions of our brethren, with the grace of God. Not a single centavo has come from a foreign source.” Ang Nagbanging Pagtulan an sa INCApan ang Pasugo July 1964, p. 182, nag-angkon nga miadto si Felix Manalo sa America aron pagpangitag pundo alang sa ilang main chapel: “Felix Manalo sailed for America with the secretary of the Church at the time, Cirilo Gonzales. The secretary was to act as intrpreter for the executive minister, who was supposed to deliver a series of lectures in Indiana. Thus did the religious leader hope to raise funds for a main chapel of the Iglesia ni Cristo.”

 Ang Nagbanging Pagtulan an sa INC

Giinsister sa INC nga ilang gibarugan nga dili si Manalo ang Founder sa Iglesia ni Cristo sa PASUGO /August 1995, p.3 : “The Iglesia ni Cristo stands firm in its teaching that Christ (not Brother Felix Y. Manalo) is the founder of the Church.” Ang Nagbanging Pagtulan an sa INC

 Ang Nagbanging Pagtulan an sa INC
Apan sa laing bahin, giangkon usab sa ilang PASUGO May 1997, p. 11, Thomas C. Catangay, nga si Manalo mismo ang founder sa INC. : “…Brother Felix Y. Manalo is the founder of the Iglesia ni Cristo.”

 Ang Nagbanging Pagtulan an sa INC
 Ang Nagbanging Pagtulan an sa INC