theologian(Login theologian)
Re: The Affidavit is not for you Theologist
No score for this post October 10 2005, 7:58 AM
Liwanag,
Tama ka dahil ang mga missionary lamang namin ang tumutulong hindi lang sa mga aids victim sa africa kundi pati na yung mga biktima ng mga civil war, matinding tag-init at iba pang kalamidad. Kaya mula pa noong 18th century ay ang kasaysayan ng Church of God ay maganda dahil known ang iglesia namin sa pagtulong hindi lamang pang spiritual kundi pang physical na bagay dahil marami kaming missioary ang tumulong mula sa mga tribal people sa mga kagubatan at kabundukan dito sa mundo hanggang sa mga eskimo sa antartica,
VS.
Antarctica is the fifth-largest and southernmost continent. Its position at the South Pole, together with its elevation and ice-and-snow cover, generates the coldest climate on Earth. It is more than half again as large as the United States and covers about 14,245,000 Ü (5,500,000 æ), including 1,640,000 Ü (633,200 æ) of floating ice shelves. At least a third of the coastline (about 30,000 km/18,600 mi) is hidden beneath perennial ice. The enormous ice sheet covers all but 2 to 3% of Antarctica and extends over the encircling ocean. If released by melting, this water would cause the sea level to rise more than 60 m (200 ft) worldwide.
The summer population is several thousand, but only a few hundred scientists and support personnel stay during the winter. They live in semipermanent bases, the largest of which is the U.S. base at McMurdo, Ross Island.
Most of the continent lies within the Antarctic Circle (lat. 66¡30' S). It is completely isolated by the Antarctic Ocean. The South Shetland Islands adjoin the Antarctic Peninsula. Other islands in the Antarctic region, but removed from the continent itself, include South Georgia, South Sandwich, South Orkney, Bouvet, Heard, Balleny, Scott, and Peter. These lie within the Antarctic Convergence, the fluctuating zone between about 48¡ and 60¡ south latitude where cold Antarctic surface waters descend below the warmer waters of the South Pacific Ocean, South Atlantic Ocean, and Indian Ocean. Islands such as the Kerguelen Islands that lie north of the Antarctic Convergence contain glaciers and glaciation and are considered loosely within the Antarctic region. Because sea ice is found along all coasts, protected harbors are not available to ships much of the year.
The continent may be subdivided into two major parts on the basis of topography and geology: west Antarctica, which is south of South America, and east Antarctica, in the Eastern Hemisphere. The boundary between them roughly follows the 0¡-180¡ meridian, from the east side of the Ronne-Filchner Ice Shelf in the Weddell Sea to the west side of the Ross Ice Shelf in the Ross Sea. These enormous floating masses of pack ice are derived mostly from glaciers discharging from the continent; the Ronne-Filchner Ice Shelf encompasses about 500,000 Ü (193,050 æ), and the Ross Ice Shelf about 538,720 Ü (208,000 æ). The Ross Ice Shelf alone is about equal to the area of Texas. Probably an additional 600,880 Ü (232,000 æ) of ice shelves fringe the coast of the continent.
In striking contrast to the ice cover are the "dry valley" areas of the continent, especially in Victoria Land, which receive little precipitation and do not have a continuous snow cover. The Transantarctic Mountains (2,000 to 4,572 m/6,562 to 15,000 ft) extend from Victoria Land southward along the west side of the Ross Sea to the Weddell Sea on the opposite side of the continent. Coal, uranium, and a variety of metallic minerals have been found on land but are not considered economically exploitable. Offshore petroleum and natural gas have more economic potential. Fishing boats take whale, seal, and krill (small protein-rich crustaceans) from the surrounding ocean. Growing controversy surrounding the issues of environmental protection and resource development in Antarctica was fueled by oil spills there in 1989.
ANTARCTIC LIFE
Most of the life on and around the Antarctic continent is supported by the sea, because the continent itself is barren. The life consists primarily of a few species of lichens and mosses; some small floating plants called phytoplankton, which occur in certain freshwater lakes in ice-free desert areas; and a few arthropods, the most numerous of which are several groups of mites. The sea, on the other hand, is extremely rich because in many areas water movement is vertical and brings nutrients from the bottom to the surface. These areas of upwelling supply nutrients for phytoplankton, which multiply quickly during the summer (October through February) and become food for small floating animals called zooplankton. Several species of zooplankton are important to the Antarctic marine ecosystem; however, the krill is usually recognized as the key. These shrimplike organisms feed directly on various small plants and are in turn an important food source for many fish, birds, and mammals. Due to the exploitation of certain Antarctic species, several agreements to conserve Antarctica's living resources have been signed.
A fairly large number of fish species are found in the Antarctic, but they are small in size or few in number. At present knowledge about the population dynamics and life history of the Antarctic fish is limited, and, hence, experts are uncertain about their general role in the ecosystem. Certain species are known to be primary users of krill; many others use food sources such as other species of zooplankton. Some are predatory on species of fish and squid. The cephalopods, which include the squid and the octopus, are relatively abundant in Antarctica and are known to be important in the diets of certain whales, seals, penguins, flying birds, and fish.
The birds of the Antarctic ecosystem include the penguin, albatross, and petrel. Seven species of penguins are confined to the pack ice region; they constitute more than 80% of the birds in the Antarctic region. The most common penguin is the AdŽlie, which nests in ice-free areas mostly on offshore islands around the Antarctic continent. The emperor penguin is considered typically Antarctic. The emperors are well known and nest much of their life on sea ice close to the continent but lay eggs and raise their young on land. Other species of penguin common in the Antarctic pack ice region are gentoo, chin strap, and king penguin. Flying birds, such as albatrosses and petrels, nest on various offshore islands and on rock outcroppings.
Antarctic marine mammals include the seal and the whale. The whales can be classified into two groups, the baleen and tooth whales. Four species of large baleen whalesÑthe blue whale, fin whale, sei whale, and humpback whaleÑinhabit Antarctic waters regularly; occasional inhabitants are the minke whale and southern right whale, two other species of baleen whales. Ten species of toothed whales are found in Antarctic waters. The two species considered most important are the large sperm whale, the only large-toothed whale to occupy the region, and the killer whale.
The following four species of seals are found in the pack ice region: the crabeater, the Weddell, the leopard seal, and Ross's seal. The crabeater seal is by far the most abundant and has been estimated to number around 20 million. Typically, the southern fur seal and the southern elephant seal are found farther north than the four species of true Antarctic seal, and they occupy sub-Antarctic islands during the pupping and breeding season.
Donald B. Siniff
Source: The 1999 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia THEOLOGASTER, ASAN DIYAN YUNG SIANSABI MONG "mga eskimo sa antartica?" HA?! NANANAGINIP KA YATA NG GISING EH! SINO NAMAN YUNG SINASABI MONG MGA NAKINABANG SA MGA missioary NA tulong NYO? MGA plankton? MGA whales, seals, penguins, flying birds, AT ISDA?!
--KIRA YAMATO, FREEDOM GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The Eskimo are the native inhabitants of Arctic and sub-Arctic coastal regions of North America and the northeastern tip of Siberia. Traditionally they lived in the territories of what are now four separate nations: the United States, Canada, Russia, and Denmark (Greenland). Current census data list 54,000 in Alaska (including some 10,000 AleutsÑcultural and linguistic relatives of the Eskimos who live in the Aleutian Islands); 32,000 in Canada; 40,000 in Greenland; and approximately 1,000 in Siberia.
The term Eskimo itself is a foreign word to Eskimos. It means "eaters of raw meat" and was used invidiously by the Algonquin and other Indian groups of eastern Canada in referring to their culturally different northerly neighbors. The Indian term was picked up by Europeans. The Eskimos' basic term for themselves means "real people" and has three dialectical variations: Inuit in Greenland and Canada, Inupiat in northern Alaska, and Yuit in southwestern Alaska and Siberia.
The Eskimo live in one of the most inclement regions of the world. Their land is mostly tundraÑlow, flat, treeless plains where the ground remains permanently frozen except for a few inches below the surface during the brief summer season. Although some groups are settled on rivers and depend primarily on fishing for subsistence, and others follow inland caribou herds, most Eskimo traditionally have lived primarily as hunters of maritime mammals (seals, walrus, and whales), and their culture has always been oriented to the sea for food and materials for clothing, shelter, and weaponry.
One of the most striking aspects of traditional Eskimo culture is its relative religious, social, and economic homogeneity across more than 8,000 km (5,000 mi) of Arctic expanse. There are some differences in traditional kinship systems, however. The basic language is divided into three major dialectical groupsÑInupik speakers in Greenland and Canada, Inupiaq speakers in northern Alaska to the Seward Peninsula, and Yupik speakers in southwestern Alaska and Siberia. The Inupik and Inupiaq dialects are mutually intelligible.
Settlement
Settlement patterns varied according to the location of particular groups, the time of year, and subsistence opportunities in a given area. Permanent villages of stone houses existed in Greenland, which marks the eastern fringe of Eskimo inhabited areas, as well as in Alaska and Siberia, where the houses were of driftwood covered with sod. In the central areas (Canada) there were no such permanently settled communities, although a given group usually returned to the same fishing or hunting site year after year.
In all Eskimo areas an annual subsistence cycle occurred in which groups spent the winter together in relatively large settlements and then dispersed into smaller family-size bands during the summer. In the summer, people would leave the permanent communities and live in animal-skin tents at favorite spots for seal hunting, fishing, or collecting birds, eggs, and plants. The igloo was used only during the winter, when villages were built on the firm ocean ice of the central Arctic to facilitate seal hunting through holes in the ice. Similar dwellings of snow were also used as temporary structures in Greenland and in parts of Canada and Alaska.
Religion and Art
Eskimo religion was animistic (see animism). It imputed spirits (or souls) to most animals and all important features of the landscape and physical environment, such as the weather. Human beings had several souls, or spiritual substances, one of which was the person's name. After death it was believed that the name and the personality of its bearer would enter the body of a newborn infant given that name.
To avoid their hostility, souls of the important subsistence animalsÑseals, walrus, whales, and polar bearsÑwere propitiated through extensive honorary customs and taboos. For example, one of the universal customs was for the successful hunter's wife to offer a dead seal a drink of water as a sign of hospitality when her husband brought the carcass to the entryway of the house. In some areas, especially western Alaska, complex annual ceremonies of thanksgiving were performed in honor of the souls of seals and whales.
The central religious figure was the shaman (called angakok in some of the central Canadian languages). His functions were comprehensive: to divine the reason for poor hunting, which often was believed to be brought on by a group member's breaking food or hunting taboos; to diagnose and treat sickness; and to serve as the general source of advice in coping with crises. Most groups believed that there was a ruler for each group of sea animals (for example, Sedna was the goddess of the seals in central Arctic groups), and there was also a vague deification of the forces of nature, such as the weather (personified in the name Sila).
Arts and crafts were expressed mainly in etched decorations on ivory harpoon heads, needlecases, and other tools; in skin sewing; in carved sculpture in ivory, tooth, or soapstone; in dancing and composing songs; and in storytelling. Also, elaborate wooden masks were made by some of the Alaskan Eskimos (see Indians of North America, art of the).
Cultures that focused on seal and walrus huntingÑthe distinguishing feature of what is now called Eskimo cultureÑincluded the Okvik and Old Bering Sea cultures; artifacts found in Siberia and on Saint Lawrence Island are dated at around the beginning of the Christian Era. To the east, in central Canada, remains of the Dorset culture of maritime mammal hunters have been found; it was probably a descendant of the Arctic Small Tool tradition. At about the end of the 1st millennium ¥, Thule culture, in which whaling became a central focus, developed in Alaska and began to spread eastward to Greenland. It was characterized by whale, walrus, and seal hunting; dogsled traction; and permanent stone or dirt houses and was the Eskimo cultural type first encountered by Europeans (the Vikings).
Based on farming and cattle- and sheep-raising, Viking (or Norse) settlements existed in southwestern Greenland from the 10th to the 15th centuries. They disappeared through sickness and depredation by the Eskimos, as well as drastic climatic changes.
Following a lapse of contact of two centuries, contact with Greenlanders began again in the 18th century, when Danish missionaries established religious, educational, governmental, and trade relations. Those relations were to set in motion influences and structural changes that had considerable impact in changing the traditional culture by the early 20th century.
Canadian Eskimos were first contacted by European explorers and whaling ships beginning in the 18th century, while in the west, it was Russian explorers and fur hunters who first saw the Alaskan and Siberian Eskimos. They were followed by other European explorers and then, during the 1800s, by commercial whaling ships in the North Pacific. The ships traded rifles, whiskey, and other goods for whalebone (baleen), oil, hides, and walrus ivory. Whaling rapidly declined around the beginning of the 20th century, and the western Eskimos turnedÑas had the Canadian Eskimos earlierÑto fox trapping as an auxiliary cash-producing occupation. From such contacts the Eskimo became involved in a monetary economy and increasingly coveted the superior technology found in rifles, steel knives, and other materials available through trade.
ESKIMO LIFE TODAY
Wherever they live, Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Siberia the Eskimos are now much involved in the modern world, and significant changes have occurred in all aspects of their way of life. Not only have they wholeheartedly adopted much of modern technology, but they also use imported food, clothing, and house forms. Similarly, their educational, recreational, economic, religious, and governmental institutions have been heavily influenced by the dominant culturesÑCanadian, American, Danish, and Russian (formerly Soviet).
Such changes were first apparent in Greenland. ThereÑfor exampleÑeducation, medical services, and local self-government began in the 19th century as part of an overall integrated and controlled program of protective governance by Denmark, following the reintroduction of missionaries in 1722. Another consequence of sustained contact was extensive intermarriages between Greenland Eskimos and Danes, to such an extent that now the term usually employed in referring to the people of Greenland is "Greenlanders."
Also, because the ocean currents started to warm about the beginning of the 20th century, seals and other maritime animals disappeared from the offshore waters of southwestern Greenland. Major shifts in subsistence patterns followed, with extensive development of the fishing industry and concentration of the formerly dispersed hunters into larger settlements, together with greater mechanization. Based upon both sociopolitical and economic developments, in the early 1950s, Greenland became a county of Denmark, with representatives in the Danish Parliament. Since 1979Ñthough still an integral part of DenmarkÑGreenland has had home rule and its own legislature. Concurrently, there has been a rise in political consciousness, such as the renaming of major settlements with Inuit terms to replace the Danish names.
Beginning in the early 1930s Eskimos living in what was then the USSR (the Yupik) became subjected to a planned program of modernization. While they still hunted walrus, seals, and whales, they did so as members of mechanized hunting work-groups called collectives, and their way of life was fundamentally transformed in the area of political, social, and religious values as well. With the recent Soviet political disintegration, it is unclear whether those major structural socioeconomic changes will endure.
Alaskan Eskimos have seen critical changes in their lives since the beginning of this century, when they were still mostly following a traditional way of life. Until the 1930s fox trapping was a major source of income, and schools and limited medical facilities were provided by the government and missionaries. Health conditions, however, remained well below those of the rest of the United States. World War II and subsequent developments related to national defense created opportunities for employment in construction and other jobs. Numerous Eskimos worked in the urban areas of Alaska as well as in southerly U.S. states. Many, however, have remained in substandard housing and at marginal economic levels and have exhibited many characteristics of social pathology.
For the last three decades, widespread economic, political, and social developments in Alaska have been especially momentous for Eskimos thereÑalthough not radically different in kind from similar events in Greenland, Canada, and Siberia. With the beginning of the industrialized world's expansion into the Arctic, a process was inexorably set in motion that over time made the physical and social environment much more complex and undermined traditional group-oriented values and a socioreligious orientation toward the land. Fueling the changes was the exploitation of oil resourcesÑwith resulting ocean pollution and the threat of disruption of traditional walrus and whale migration routes. Also, with the advent of statehood (1959), there were restrictions upon the harvesting of game animals, so important to Eskimos.
With statehood also came the issue of land ownership, particularly native land-rights claims. After the discovery of abundant oil reserves in Prudhoe Bay in 1968, petroleum companies began to make plans to transport crude oil overland to southern Alaska for transshipment. Alaska natives, however, were able to delay construction of a pipeline on the grounds that the land belonged to them. The impasse resulted in enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971, which conveyed money and land to Alaska natives in return for their relinquishing aboriginally based land claims.
By congressional dictate, however, Alaska natives were required to organize themselves and develop a corporate form of management of the newly legislated resources. Further, with the money received from the act, the corporations were mandated to establish profit-making businesses to provide for the betterment of the natives' educational, health, and social conditions as well as their general economic fortunes. In implementing such rapid changes, behavioral imperatives for human learning when confronted with a new conceptual and technical world were not necessarily taken into account.
Like those in Alaska, Eskimos in Canada have been greatly affected by changes in their relationship to the land since World War II. Defense installations, the search for oil and minerals, and a greater government consciousness of the need for educational, medical, and social developments have resulted in widespread changes in traditional life. Although in some isolated areas hunting and trapping are still carried on, most Canadian Eskimos have congregated in towns and settlements in search of wage labor as well as to take advantage of modern facilities. For many the cost has been high rates of alcoholism and other forms of social disruption.
In the early 1990s the wishes (and demands) of native inhabitants of the Canadian North were realized with the approval of a partially self-governing territory of Nunavut, to be carved from the Northwest Territories. The territorial agreement is to become effective in 1999.
As illustrated by the establishment of Nunavut, political consciousness and demands for more self-government have accompanied economic, technological, and social changes throughout the Arctic. There exists in all Eskimo groups a sense of ethnic pride that in recent decades has resulted in pan-Eskimo associations (as in the Inuit Circumpolar Conferences) as well as in local political organizations.
Charles C. Hughes
SOURCE: THE 1999 GROLIER MULTIMEDIA ENCYCLOPEDIA O ANO THEOLOGASTER SUCKER ASAN DIYAN YUNG SINASABI MONG ESKIMO SA ANTRACTICA?
WALA NUN! HAHA!
LOOKS LIKE YOUR STUPID CLAIM THAT THERE ARE ESKIMOS NI ANTARCTICA JUST GOT..
ANNIHILATED!
HAHA!
--CLOTHO BUER, RAIDER GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Kira,
Tinatanggap ko kung ano ang sinabi ng encyclopedia dahil tama naman. Pero alam mo naman siguro na ang sinasabi ng encyclopedia ay hindi detalye lalo tungkol na sa lugar (halimbawa nalang tungkol sa Pilipinas).
Kaya ngayon sabihin ko sa iyo ang isang pangyayari sa church history namin sa lugar ng Antartica. In 1947 nagkaroon ng expedition ang America sa Antartica for research and exploration. Dalawa sa aming american missionary na galing sa Alaska ang sumama dahil marami sa aming kaanib na eskimos (eskimos- ang common na tawag sa mga taong nakatira sa mga mayelong lugar)and na-recruit na sumama dahil ang mga eskimos ang expert na maging guide para sa pakipagsapalaran mayelong lugar.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
SI THEOLOGASTER SUCKER MAGPAPALUSOT NA LANG EH PALPAK PA HAHA! KAHIT ANONG GAWIN MONG MGA PALUSOT, HINDI MO PA RIN MAIKUKUBLI ANG MALING SINABI MO NA DIUMANO MAY MGA ESKIMO SA ANTARCTICA HAHA!
--ORGA SABNAK, CALAMITY GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
THEOLOGASTER, SA SUSUNOD NA MAGKU-KUWENTO KA, DAPAT LAGYAN MO NG INTRODUCTION NA "ONCE UPON A TIME" AT SA HULING BAHAGI NG KUWENTO MO LAGYAN MO NG "AND WE/THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER" HEHE!
--DEARKA ELSMAN, BUSTER GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Orga,
It is only a direct satement about our missionary work in antartica. But you cannot denied the truth about the history of the Church of God that we send two missionary in the 1947 exploration of antartica to continue the ministry of the word of God in the eskimos threre. Also you cannot denied the truth that in the history of your church Iglesia ni Cristo (name of church that youi cannot found in the good and reliable greek muscripts ang bible translations) that your founder Felix Manalo was beind accused or charged of rape in court by one of your member. Even the rape case was withdrawn by the complainant, in our law it does not necessarily mean that Felix Manalo was not guilty or he did not commited the crime he was being charged or acussed. Lastly you cannot hide and cover that shameful truth that happen to your founder Felix Manalo by just showing a piece of questionable affidavit.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
------------------
"Malapit na ang wakas ng lahat ng bagay; kaya't maging mapagtimpi kayo at panatilihing malinaw ang pag-iisip upang kayo'y makapanalangin. Higit sa lahat magmahalan kayo ng tapat, sapagkat ang pagmamahal ay pumapawi ng maraming kasalanan."
I PEDRO 4:7-8
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Sagot ko kay Liwanag dated Oct. 2,2005
Hindi ko na siguro kailangan i-email pa sa iyo, dahil kung talagang gusto mong matututo tungkol sa mga reliable at good copies sa mga hebrew at greek manuscripts pumunta ka nalang sa mga christian bookstore at marami kang mabibili na libro at copy tungkol doon at para malaman mo kung ano ang mga existing pa na reliable hebrew at greek maunuscrips na dapat talagang pag-aralan , at bumili kana rin ng mga hebrew at greek dictionary para hindi kana umaasa sa mga kamalian at kapalpakang turo sa inyo ni Manalo sa bibliya dahil walang alam namang sa mga existing hebrew at greek mauscript na dapat pag-aralan.
Napag-aralan na namin yang aramaic langauages na isa rin lamang translation sa bibliya at tungkol sa ibat-iba pang mga bible translation. Kaya lang for references and background only dahil hindi naman aramaic ang official languages sa bibliya at hindi rin sa aramaic language pinasusulat ng Diyos ang kanyang salita. Kaya doon naka-concentrate at naka-focus ang pag-aaral namin sa hebrew at greek which is the official languages sa bible at ginamit na salita ng Diyos para ipasulat niya ang kanyang bibliya, at naging official languages na sinasalita ng Panginoong Jesus at ng mga ng kanyang mga apostoles dahil ito ang naging salita sa kanilang panahon at hindi yang aramaic language at translation na ginawang palusot lamang ni Manalo sa maling aral niya sa Acts 20:28 which is only a dialect languages of some Jewish people and not the official language of the Jews.
Saka matagal konang sinasabi sa inyo na cool ako sa isang maginoong debate basta hindi bible translation ang masusunod kundi kung ano ang correct man sa bible translation at sa biblical interpretation sa talata ang dapat masunod ay kung ano ang correct hebrew at greek meaning at grammar. Dahil alam na alam ko ang style ninyong bulok kagaya ng ginawa ng inyong distrist minister na naka debate ko na walang palang alam pag-aaral sa correct hebrew at greek kagaya ni Manalo na kanyang amo, kaya puro na lamang pamilosopo at paggamit ng mga unreliable at poor bible translation para lamang mailulusot ang mga maling aral na natutunan niya kay Manalo. Kaya sa oras ng debate magdala ako ng mga hebrew at greek books at gusto ko na kung ano ang nasusulat sa tamang word meanings at grammar ay yan ang dapat masusunod. Dahil kung wala tayong basehan sa dapat nating sundin sa interpretation ay puro na naman pagpalusot sa paggamit ng mga poor bible translation ang aking maririnig na matagal na ninyong style na bulok para lamang maitatago at mailulusot ang maling aral ng amo ninyong si Manalo.
Klarong-klaro naman siguro itong sagot ko sa iyo noong pang Oct. 2, 2005 kaya lang hindi mo kinibo ang condition ko sa iyo tungkol sa isang maginoong debate, kaya hindi ko na kasalanan kung ayaw ninyonmg matuloy ang debate. Saka alam ko kung bakit ayaw ninyong pumunta at bumili sa mga christian bookstore dahil takot talaga kayong malaman ang kapalpakan ng aral na naituro sa inyo ni Manalo. Saka no problem with me kahit i-lock pa ninyo ang thread tungkol sa akin dahil hindi naman ako ang nagsimulang nag-open ng thread kundi kayo at ako ay sumasagot lamang. Sumasagot ako tungkol sa aral na pag-uusap, pero tumitira kayo ng personal dahil hindi ninyo kayang i-refute ang aral na sinasagot ko, kapag magantihan kayo ng personal umuusok naman kayo sa galit. Yan talaga ang style ninyong bulok kapag hindi na ninyo kaya ang naging kalaban ninyo rito. Saka natatakot at nagagalit lang kayo na mabasa ng mga neutral dito ang pag-expose ko sa maling mga aral ninyo na hindi kayang pagtakpan ng mga weak and poor translation na ginagamit ninyo at sa nakakahiyang pangyayari sa kasaysayan ng iglesia ninyo na hindi rin kayang pagtakpan ng isang questionable na affidavit lamang.
Liwanag,
Ang tagal naman ng 24 hours, kaya gawin mo ng 24 seconds para matapos na at malaman natin kung sino ang takot sa isang maginoong debate.
Liwanag,
Itulog mo nalang yang 24 hours mo para maliwanagan na yang isip mo na nadiliman sa mga maling aral ng amo mong si Manalo na puro palusot.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Orga,
It is only a direct satement about our missionary work in antartica.]
A STATEMENT THAT IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE!
[But you cannot denied the truth about the history of the Church of God that we send two missionary in the 1947 exploration of antartica to continue the ministry of the word of God in the eskimos threre.]
IN YOUR DREAMS!
[Also you cannot denied the truth that in the history of your church Iglesia ni Cristo (name of church that youi cannot found in the good and reliable greek muscripts ang bible translations) that your founder Felix Manalo was beind accused or charged of rape in court by one of your member. Even the rape case was withdrawn by the complainant, in our law it does not necessarily mean that Felix Manalo was not guilty or he did not commited the crime he was being charged or acussed. Lastly you cannot hide and cover that shameful truth that happen to your founder Felix Manalo by just showing a piece of questionable affidavit.]
AND YOU CAN'T SHOW ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE/S TO SUPPORT SUCH STUPID GOSSIP OF YOURS!
--KIRA YAMATO, FREEDOM GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Clotho,
It is only a direct satement about our missionary work in antartica. But you cannot denied the truth about the history of the Church of God that we send two missionary in the 1947 exploration of antartica to continue the ministry of the word of God in the eskimos there. Also you cannot denied the truth that in the history of your church Iglesia ni Cristo (name of church that youi cannot found in the good and reliable greek muscripts ang bible translations) that your founder Felix Manalo was beind accused or charged of rape in court by one of your member. Even the rape case was withdrawn by the complainant, in our law it does not necessarily mean that Felix Manalo was not guilty or he did not commited the crime he was being charged or acussed of. Lastly you cannot hide and cover that shameful truth in your church history that happen to your founder Felix Manalo by just showing a piece of questionable affidavit.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Clotho,
It is only a direct satement about our missionary work in antartica. But you cannot denied the truth about the history of the Church of God that we send two missionary in the 1947 exploration of antartica to continue the ministry of the word of God in the eskimos there. Also you cannot denied the truth that in the history of your church Iglesia ni Cristo (name of church that youi cannot found in the good and reliable greek muscripts ang bible translations) that your founder Felix Manalo was beind accused or charged of rape in court by one of your member. Even the rape case was withdrawn by the complainant, in our law it does not necessarily mean that Felix Manalo was not guilty or he did not commited the crime he was being charged or acussed of. Lastly you cannot hide and cover that shameful truth in your church history that happen to your founder Felix Manalo by just showing a piece of questionable affidavit.]
AH HAHA! KINOPY-PASTE LANG HAHA!
TO CLAIM IS ONE THING, BUT TO PROVE IS ANOTHER THING! HAHA!
AND THAT'S WHERE INC DETRACTORS REALLY SCREW UP! HAHA!
--SHANI ANDRAS, FORBIDDEN GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
TO CLAIM IS ONE THING, BUT TO PROVE IS ANOTHER THING! HAHA!
AND THAT'S WHERE INC DETRACTORS REALLY SCREW UP! HAHA!
--SHANI ANDRAS, FORBIDDEN GUNDAM PILOT
Sagot:
Itinataas mo uli ang tanong kaya ibinababa ko uli ang sagot. " To claim is one thing, but to prove is another thing " ang madalas sasabihin ng mga taong gusto lamang mailulusot at maitatago ang kanilang maling mga aral at ang nakakahiyang pangyayari na nagaganap sa kasaysayan ng kanilng iglesia. Dahil nga kapag gawing basehan ang church history, ang mga talata ng Bibliya at lalo na ang hebrew at greek ay talagang malalaman na maling-mali ang mga naging aral ni Manalo, kaya fake siyang sugo at fake ang kanyang iglesia na itinatag dito sa Pilipinas ( dahil kahit pangalan ay hindi matatagpuan sa bibliya )
Hindi katulad sa " Church of God " na talagang nadadakila ang Diyos sa naging church history dahil sa naisakatuparan ang utos ng Diyos sa pagpalaganap sa kanyang salita sa lahat ng parte ng mundo, wala kahit isang church leader kami na nasasangkot kahit sa ano pang klaseng eskadalo o accusation, at mapa-talata ng bibliya at lalo na sa hebrew at greek ay kayang patunayan na tama talaga ang mga naging aral sa bibliya.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
matalas
(Login matalas)
Re: THEOLOGASTER VS. ENCYCLOPEDIA
No score for this post December 22 2005, 8:02 PM
ano ba theologs!
mukhang nahihirapan ka ng maisip ang pagkakaiba ng MONOTHEISM AT UNITHEISM.
from ESKIMO OF ANTARTICA
Theo, bakit di' mo pinapansin yata itong...
MONOTHEISM AT UNITHEISM
na sinasabi ni bro. matalas?
Hindi ba napag-aralan ito ng mga ministro ninyong sabi mo'y mga doctorate?
Paki-pansin mo naman itong sinasabi ni bro. matalas, matagal konang nakikitang palaging sinasabi niya sayo ito eh pero ni hindi mo yata kinikibo? Taka lang????
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Sagot:
Itinataas mo uli ang tanong kaya ibinababa ko uli ang sagot. " To claim is one thing, but to prove is another thing " ang madalas sasabihin ng mga taong gusto lamang mailulusot at maitatago ang kanilang maling mga aral at ang nakakahiyang pangyayari na nagaganap sa kasaysayan ng kanilng iglesia. Dahil nga kapag gawing basehan ang church history, ang mga talata ng Bibliya at lalo na ang hebrew at greek ay talagang malalaman na maling-mali ang mga naging aral ni Manalo, kaya fake siyang sugo at fake ang kanyang iglesia na itinatag dito sa Pilipinas ( dahil kahit pangalan ay hindi matatagpuan sa bibliya )
Hindi katulad sa " Church of God " na talagang nadadakila ang Diyos sa naging church history dahil sa naisakatuparan ang utos ng Diyos sa pagpalaganap sa kanyang salita sa lahat ng parte ng mundo, wala kahit isang church leader kami na nasasangkot kahit sa ano pang klaseng eskadalo o accusation, at mapa-talata ng bibliya at lalo na sa hebrew at greek ay kayang patunayan na tama talaga ang mga naging aral sa bibliya.]
SI THEOLOGASTER TALAGA ANG HUSAY SA PAGKUKUWENTO NG FAIRY TALES HEHE! BESIDES, THE APOSTLES USED THE TERM "Church of God", TO DENOTE THAT THE CHURCH THEY BELONG TO IS OF GOD.
TAMA TALAGA ANG ARAL NG BIBLIA NA IISA LAMANG ANG DIYOS NA TUNAY. (II Kings 19:15, Isaiah 46:9, John 17:1-3, I Timothy 2:5)
SABI MO, HINDI MATATAGPUAN SA BIBLIA ANG PANGALANG "CHURCH OF CHRIST." ARE YOU REFERRING TO ALL THE VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE?
--NICOL AMALFI, BLITZ GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nicol:
SI THEOLOGASTER TALAGA ANG HUSAY SA PAGKUKUWENTO NG FAIRY TALES HEHE! BESIDES, THE APOSTLES USED THE TERM "Church of God", TO DENOTE THAT THE CHURCH THEY BELONG TO IS OF GOD.
TAMA TALAGA ANG ARAL NG BIBLIA NA IISA LAMANG ANG DIYOS NA TUNAY. (II Kings 19:15, Isaiah 46:9, John 17:1-3, I Timothy 2:5)
SABI MO, HINDI MATATAGPUAN SA BIBLIA ANG PANGALANG "CHURCH OF CHRIST." ARE YOU REFERRING TO ALL THE VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE?
--NICOL AMALFI, BLITZ GUNDAM PILOT
Sagot:
Nagpapatunay lang sa isang katotohanan ang talatang yan na tunay na Diyos at tao ang Panginoong Jesus dahil sa direct na pagkasabi "na tinubos niya sa sariling dugo", at ang pangalan talaga ng isang iglesia na mababasa direct sa bibliya ay "Church of God" at hindi "Church of Christ". Saka matagal ko ng sinasabi na ang final interpretation ko sa bibliya ay kung ano ang sinasabi sa hebrew at greek at hindi kung ano ang mga siansabi sa mga bible versions or translations, kaya ang nakalagay sa mga reliable greek manuscripts sa talatang yan ay "Church of God" at hindi "Church of Christ". Kaya tama talaga na ang "Church of God" ang matatagpuan sa bibliya at hindi "Church of Christ".
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Sagot:
Nagpapatunay lang sa isang katotohanan ang talatang yan na tunay na Diyos at tao ang Panginoong Jesus dahil sa direct na pagkasabi "na tinubos niya sa sariling dugo", at ang pangalan talaga ng isang iglesia na mababasa direct sa bibliya ay "Church of God" at hindi "Church of Christ". Saka matagal ko ng sinasabi na ang final interpretation ko sa bibliya ay kung ano ang sinasabi sa hebrew at greek at hindi kung ano ang mga siansabi sa mga bible versions or translations, kaya ang nakalagay sa mga reliable greek manuscripts sa talatang yan ay "Church of God" at hindi "Church of Christ". Kaya tama talaga na ang "Church of God" ang matatagpuan sa bibliya at hindi "Church of Christ".]
KUNG "Church of God" NGA ANG DAPAT NAKALAGAY SA ACTS 20:28, LILITAW ANG DIYOS ANG TUMUBOS SA IGLESIA NG KANYANG SARILING DUGO. EH SAAN MO NAMAN MABABASA SA BIBLIA NA ANG TUNAY NA DIYOS AY MAY DUGO?
--DEARKA ELSMAN, BUSTER GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Dearka:
KUNG "Church of God" NGA ANG DAPAT NAKALAGAY SA ACTS 20:28, LILITAW ANG DIYOS ANG TUMUBOS SA IGLESIA NG KANYANG SARILING DUGO. EH SAAN MO NAMAN MABABASA SA BIBLIA NA ANG TUNAY NA DIYOS AY MAY DUGO?
--DEARKA ELSMAN, BUSTER GUNDAM PILOT
Sagot:
Klarong-klaro talaga na mababasa sa bibliya na ang Diyos ay Espiritu at walang laman at dugo. Klarong-klaro rin na mababasa sa bibliya na ang Panginoong Jesus ay Diyos (John 1:1, Phil. 2:5-6, Titus 2:13), at isang Espiritu (I Pet. 1:10-11), at nagkatawang tao (John 1:14,Rom. 9:5, Phil. 2:5-7, ( I Tim. 3:16 ). Kaya ang Panginoong Jesus na Diyos ng magkatawang tao ay nagkaroon ng laman at dugo para itubos niya sa ating mga kasalanan sa pamamagitan ngpagpakamatay doon sa krus, kaya ito rin ang tama at ibig sabihin sa Acts 20:28 kung bakit ang Diyos ay tumubos sa kasalanan ng mga tao sa pamamagitan ng sarili niyang dugo, dahil nga siya ay nagkatawang tao.
Kaya kapag tamang hebrew at greek ang pagbabasehan sa tamang ibig sabihin ng mga talata ng bibliya, ang lalabas ay ito ay naging bangungot sa mga naging aral sa iyo ni Manalo.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Sagot:
Klarong-klaro talaga na mababasa sa bibliya na ang Diyos ay Espiritu at walang laman at dugo. Klarong-klaro rin na mababasa sa bibliya na ang Panginoong Jesus ay Diyos (John 1:1, Phil. 2:5-6, Titus 2:13), at isang Espiritu (I Pet. 1:10-11), at nagkatawang tao (John 1:14,Rom. 9:5, Phil. 2:5-7, ( I Tim. 3:16 ). Kaya ang Panginoong Jesus na Diyos ng magkatawang tao ay nagkaroon ng laman at dugo para itubos niya sa ating mga kasalanan sa pamamagitan ngpagpakamatay doon sa krus, kaya ito rin ang tama at ibig sabihin sa Acts 20:28 kung bakit ang Diyos ay tumubos sa kasalanan ng mga tao sa pamamagitan ng sarili niyang dugo, dahil nga siya ay nagkatawang tao.
Kaya kapag tamang hebrew at greek ang pagbabasehan sa tamang ibig sabihin ng mga talata ng bibliya, ang lalabas ay ito ay naging bangungot sa mga naging aral sa iyo ni Manalo.]
OWS? ANG SABIHIN MO, HINDI NA UUBRA SA AMIN ANG MALING PAKAHULUGAN MO SA MGA TALATANG PINAGBABATAYAN MO HAHA! AT BANGUNGOT SA IYO ANG KATOTOHANANG WALA KANG MAIPAKITANG TALATA SA BIBLIA NA ANG TUNAY NA DIYOS AY MAY DUGO HAHA!
TO WIT: One God, the Father
We believe that the one and only true God is the Father, the Creator. We hold this belief because it is the doctrine taught by our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles (John 17:3, 1: I Corinthians 8:6). God is a Spirit (John 4:24), and, therefore, He has no flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).
There is no trinity of persons in God. Though the Bible speaks of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, never does it refer to all of them as gods nor as three persons in one God; rather, it points to the Father alone as the true God. The Son Himself emphasized that only the Father is the true God (John 17:3, 1) and that He himself is a man telling the truth which He received from God (John 8:40). The prophets also teach that we have only one Father who created us (Malachi 2:10); Isaiah 64:4, 8). He alone is God, there is no other God and no one is like Him (Isaiah 46:9)
God is from everlasting to everlasting, with no beginning or end (Psalms 90:2), immortal (I Timothy 1:17), and does not tire or become weary (Isaiah 40:28).
He alone is the creator of heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things therein, and the seas and all that is in them (Nehemiah 9:6)
The Lord Jesus Christ
The Iglesia ni Cristo believes that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Matthew 3:17), is the one and only Savior given by God (Acts 13:23). Christ is the sole mediator between God and men (I Timothy 2:5) and the only way to God (John 14:6).
But we do not subscribe to the belief that Christ is God-Man. He is man in nature according to His own testimony (John 8:40) and the teachings of His Apostles (I Timothy 2:5; Matthew 1:18).
The attributes of a human being were found in Christ. He hungered (Matthew 4:2), thirsted (John 19:28), became weary or tired (John 4:6), slept (Matthew 8:24), and died (Matthew 27:50; I Corinthians 15:3). However, Christ as distinct from all men, is the only one who did not sin (I Peter 2:21-22; Hebrews 4:15).
He has been exalted by God and given a name above all other names, that at the name of Christ every knee should bow, those in heaven, and those on earth (Philippians 2:9-11). He has been placed by God far above all principality, power, might and dominion, and every name that is named, and all things have been put under His feet (Ephesians 1:21-22). Christ will eventually subject all His power and authority to the true God (I Corinthians 15:27-28). He had in so many instances introduced Himself as the Son of God but never did He appropriate the title "God" nor "God the Son" for Himself because He is not God but man.
AND ONE MORE THING, PATI SI GEN. TIU HINDI SUMASANG-AYON SA TSISMIS MO NA DIUMANO MAY ESKIMO SA ANTARCTICA HAHA!
WEAR A COLLAR THEOLOGASTER SUCKER! YOU JUST GOT DOGGED AGAIN!
HAHA!
----ORGA SABNAK, CALAMITY GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Klarong-klaro rin na mababasa sa bibliya na ang Panginoong Jesus ay Diyos (John 1:1, Phil. 2:5-6, Titus 2:13), at isang Espiritu (I Pet. 1:10-11), at nagkatawang tao (John 1:14,Rom. 9:5, Phil. 2:5-7, ( I Tim. 3:16 ).]
JOHN 1:1
"IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1,NKJV)
Those who believe that Christ is God assume that Christ is the "Word" mentioned in this verse. However, it is quite plain that the name "Christ" is not even mentioned in this verse. Neither does the verse say that Christ preexisted in the beginning as God. The verse simply states that "IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
But isn’t it true that Christ is the fulfillment of the "Word" mentioned in John 1:1? He is indeed the fullfilment of the Word" in that verse. Hence, the "Word" was about Christ. But take note that this is not the same as saying that the "Word" was Christ Himself who existed in the beginning as an independent being.
Then why did the verse say that "IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God"?
"Who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world," (I Peter 1:20)
The "Word" which was about Christ is said to be "in the beginning" and "with God" because Christ was in the mind of God before the creation of the world. He was not yet a being then but only a thought in the mind of God. The "Word" in John 1:1 was not a being existing on its own, independent of God, but was simply a thought or a word in the mind of God. Thus, the verse states that "the Word was with God," being in the mind of God.
Why is it wrong to interpret the "Word" in John 1:1 as Christ,
pre-existing in the beginning as God? The verse clearly states that "the Word was with God." So if, aside from God, the "Word" were another God, there would be two Gods: one God with another God. One cannot accept the interpretation without doing violence to the biblical teaching on the absolute oneness of God.
Did the "Word" remain in the mind of God? Did it remain a thought or a plan in God’s mind?
"Which He promised before His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born on the seed of David according to the flesh." (Romans 1:2-3, NKJV)
Apostle Paul states here that Christ is the Son of God whom He had promised through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures. Clearly, then, the "Word" concerning Christ did not remain in the mind of God, because eventually He expressed that thought in the promise he made through His prophets.
Since when did God make a promise concerning Christ?
"So the Lord God said to the serpent: 'Because you have done this, You are cursed more that all cattle, And more that every beast of the field; And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.'" (Genesis 3:14-15)
This pronouncement which God made in the Garden of Eden right after the fall of man is about Christ. He is being referred to as the Seed of the woman. Another pronouncement God made concerning Christ is written in Genesis 17:7, thus:
"And I will establish covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." (King James Version)
This was addressed to Abraham with whom God made an everlasting cevenant. The covenant was not to be with Abraham alone but also with his seed. Who is the seed of Abraham? Apostle Paul explains in Galatians 3:16:
"Now that Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
Christ is the Seed of Abraham. When God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham, He said, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed." And that was an everlasting covenant that God would be God unto Abraham and to his Seed. Take note that the covenant stipulates that Abraham and his Seed shall deify God; God shall be God unto them, both to Abraham and his Seed, who is Jesus Christ. Far from being a God, Christ is someone who was destined to recognize the true God. As early as the time that the good news about Jesus Christ was being foretold, He was already distinguished from God.
So there was no pre-existent Christ. There was no Christ prior to the fulfillment of the plan of God concerning Him. What was there with God in the beginning was the word or the thought or the plan concerning Christ. Then why is it stated in John 1:1 that the "Word was God" It is because the "Word" or plan concerning Christ comes from God. Since the "Word" is of God, it shares the quality of God.
"For no word from God shall be void of power." (Luke 1:37)
The word of God is powerful. As God is powerful, so also is His word. So, the "Word" was God (in John 1:1) in the sense that it has the quality of God but not used as a noun but as an adjective. If it were a noun it would have had an article in the Greek text, not just theos (God), but ho theos (the God).
In both the James Moffatt and Edgar Goodspeed translations of the bible, this point is rendered more clearlythe Word was divine. "Divine" is definitely an adjective modifying the term "Word" So the term "God" in the phrase "the Word is God" indicates the quality of the "Word" The use of the term "God" here is analogous to the use of the term "gold" in the statement "Time is gold." "Gold" is not used here as a noun; it functions as an adjective modifying the term "time" to emphasize its value, i.e., golden. PHIL. 2:6-8
Ayon sa Filipos 2:6-7
"Na siya, bagamat NASA ANYONG DIOS, ay hindi niya inaring isang bagay na nararapat panangnan ang PAGKAPANTAY NIYA SA DIOS,
Kundi bagkus hinubad niya ito, at NAG-ANYONG ALIPIN, na NAKITULAD SA MGA TAO."
1. NASA ANYONG DIOS
Ano ang kahulugan ng salitang “nasa anyong Dios” sa pahayag na ito ni apostol Pablo? Nangangahulugan ba itong si Cristo ay tunay na Dios ayon sa kaniya?
Ayon kay apostol din kay apostol Pablo, si Cristo ay tao sa likas na kalagayan.
"Sapagkat may isang Dios at may isang tagapamagitan sa Dios at sa mga tao, ang taong si Cristo Jesus." (I Timoteo 2: 5)
Ang tunay na likas na kalagayan ng Dios ay Espiritu at walang anyo. Ayon mismo kay Cristo:
"Ang Dios ay Espiritu..." (Juan 4: 24), "...ang Espiritu’y walang laman at buto." (Lukas 24: 36)
"Sapagkat wala kayong nakitang anomang anyo ng araw nang magsalita ang Panginoon sa inyo." (Deut. 4: 14-16)
Si Cristo ay nasa anyong Dios sapagkat ayon din kay apostol Pablo, si Cristo ay larawan ng Dios.
"Upang sa kanila’y huwag sumilang ang kaliwanagan ng evanghelio ng kaluwalhatian ni Cristo, na siyang larawan ng Dios." (II Corinto 4: 4)
Sa salitang Griego, ang salitang "larawan" at "anyo" ay magkasingkahulugan.
"Anyo" (Tagalog)- "Form" (English)- "Morphe" (Greek)
"Larawan" (Tagalog) - "Image" (English)- "Eikon" (Greek)
Kung ang ating Panginoong Jesucristo ay larawan ng Dios, ito’y nagpapatunay lamang sa siya nga ay tunay na tao sapagkat, ang mga unang tao din ay nilikha na kalarawan ng Dios.
"At nilalang ng Dios ang tao ayon sa kaniyang sariling larawan, ayon sa larawan ng Dios siya nilalang; nilalang niya sila na lalake at babae." (Genesis 1: 26-27)
Ang tao ay nilalang na kalarawan ng Dios hindi sa literal na kahulugan kundi sa larawan ng kaniyang "KABANALAN".
"At kayo’y mangagbago sa Espiritu ng inyong pagiisip,
At kayo’y mangagbihis ng bagong pagkatao, na ayon sa Dios ay nilalang sa katuwiran at sa kabanalan ng katotohanan." (Efeso 4: 23-24)
At sa larawan ng "PAG-IBIG".
"Ayon sa pagkapili niya sa atin sa kaniya bago pa itinatag ang sanglibutan, upang tayo’y maging mga banal at walang dungis sa harapan niya sa pagibig.
Na tayo’y itinalaga niya nang una pa sa pagkukupkop na tulad sa mga anak sa pamamagitan ni Jesucristo sa ganang kaniya." (Efeso 1: 4-5)
Sapagkat ang Dios ay banal kaya ang tao’y pinapaging banal din ng Dios.
"Ngunit yamang banal ang sa inyo’y tumawag, ay mangagpakabanal naman kayo sa lahat ng paraan ng pamumuhay;
Sapagkat nasusulat, kayo’y magpakabanal; sapagkat ako’y banal."
(I Pedro 1: 15-16)
Subalit ang tao ay hindi nakatugon sa pagiging kalarawan ng Dios sa kabanalan dahil sa pagkakasala.
"Sapagkat ang lahat ay nangagkasala nga, at hindi nangakaabot sa kaluwalhatian ng Dios." (Roma 3:23)
"at sa ganito’y ang kamatayan ay naranasan ng lahat ng mga tao, sapagkat ang lahat ay nangagkasala." (Roma 5:12)
Sa lahat ng mga tao, si cristo lamang ang tanging nakatugon sa pagiging larawan ng Dios sapagkat siya’y hindi nagkasala (I Pedro 2:22).
2. PAGKAPANTAY NIYA SA DIOS
Tanging si Cristo lamang ang nakapantay sa Dios sa larawan ng kabanalan.
"Sapagkat nararapat sa atin ang gayong dakilang saserdoteng banal, walang sala, walang dungis," (Hebreo 7: 26)
"Na siya’y hindi nagkasala, o kinasumpungan man ng daya ang kaniyang bibig." (I Pedro 2: 22)
Sapagkat Ang Dios ay banal:
"Sapagkat nasusulat, kayo’y mangagpakabanal; sapagkat ako’y banal."
(I Pedro 1: 16)
Ang pagkapantay ni Cristo sa Dios ay sa kabanalan at hindi sa pagiging kalagayang Dios sapagkat ang tunay na Dios ay walang kapantay at walang kagaya.
"Kanino ninyo ako itutulad, at ipaparis at iwawangis ako upang kami ay magkagaya?" (Isaias 40: 25)
"Kanino nga ninyo itututad ang Dios? O anong wangis ang iwawangis ninyo sa kaniya?" (Isaias 40: 18)
"…sapagkat ako’y Dios at walang gaya ko." (Isaias 46: 9)
Kaya ang mga taong lingkod ng Dios ay itinalaga din noong una pa upang maging kalarawan ni Cristo sa kabanalan.
"Sapagkat yaong mga una pa’y kaniyang nakilala, ay itinalaga naman niya na maging katulad ng larawan ng kaniyang Anak, upang siya’y maging panganay sa maraming magkakapatid." (Roma 8: 29)
"At dahil sa kanila’y pinabanal ko ang aking sarili, upang sila naman ay magpakabanal sa katotohanan." (Gawa 17: 19)
3. NAG-ANYONG ALIPIN NA NAKITULAD SA MGA TAO
Bakit sinabi ni apostol Pablo sa si Cristo ay nakitulad sa tao kung siya rin ay totoong tao na sa kalagayan? Ano ba ang tinularan ni Cristo sa tao?
Si Cristo ay ginawang Panginoon ng Dios upang sundin ng lahat ng mga tao.
"Pakatalastasin nga ng buong angkan ni Israel, na ginawa ng Dios na Panginoon at Cristo itong si Jesus na inyong ipinako sa krus."
(Gawa 2: 36)
Ang ibig sabihin ng Panginoon ay sinusunod:
"At bakit tinatawag ninyo ako, Panginoon, Panginoon, at di ninyo ginagawa ang mga bagay na aking sinasabi?" (Lukas 6: 46)
Subalit sa halip na Panginoon, si Cristo ay nagpakababa sa kaniyang sarili sa pagsunod sa Dios.
"At palibhasa’y nasumpungan sa anyong tao, siya’y nagpakababa sa kaniyang sarili, na nagmasunurin sa Dios hanggang sa kamatayan, oo, sa kamatayan sa krus." (Filipos 2: 8)
"Gayon din naman ang Anak ng tao ay hindi naparito upang paglingkuran, kundi upang maglingkod, at ibigay ang kaniyang buhay na pangtubos sa marami." (Mateo 20: 28)
Siya ay nakitulad sa tao sa pagsunod sa Dios at hindi sa kalagayan sapagkat ang pagsunod sa Dios ay katungkulan ng lahat ng tao.
"Ito ang wakas ng bagay; lahat ay narinig: ikaw ay matakot sa Dios, at sundin mo ang kaniyang mga utos; sapagkat ito ang buong katungkulan ng tao." (Eclesiastes 12: 13)
Sa kabila ng kaniyang pagiging banal, siya ay nakitulad sa tao sapagkat siya’y itinuring ng Dios na makasalanan upang tubusin ang kasalanan ng lahat ng mga tao.
"… sa pagsugo ng Dios sa kaniyang sariling Anak na nag-anyong lamang salarin at dahil sa kasalanan, ay hinatulan ng Dios sa laman ang kasalanan." (Roma 8: 3)
"Yaong hindi nakakilala ng kasalanan ay kaniyang inaring may sala dahil sa atin: upang tayo’y maging sa kaniya’y katuwiran ng Dios."
(II Corinto 5: 21)
Sapagkat ang lahat ng tao ay nagkasala:
"Sapagkat ang lahat ay nangagkasala nga, at hindi nakaabot sa kaluwalhatian ng Dios." (Roma 3: 23)
Katulad din ng unang lingkod ng Dios na si Job, siya ay nakitulad sa tao hindi sa kalagayan kundi sa kaniyang pagiging matatag sa pagsunod.
"Nang magkagayon, ang Panginoon ay nagsalita kay Job mula sa bagyo: Suhayan mo ang sarili mo na tulad ng isang tao, tatanungin kita at tugunin mo ako."(Job 40:6-7, NPV)
Ang katumbas lamang sa ibang pangungusap "magpakatatag ka at tatanungin kita…"
Konklusiyon:
1.Ang paksa ng pahayag ni apostol Pablo ay hindi ang tungkol sa pagiging Dios ni Cristo kundi ang tungkol sa kaniyang pagpakababa sa pagsunod sa Dios na dapat sundin ng lahat ng mga Cristiano, Filipos 2: 5-12.
2.Ang salitang “anyong Dios” ay hindi tumutukoy sa literal na kahulugan sapagkat ang tunay na Dios ay espiritu at walang pisikal na larawan (Juan 4:24).
3.Ang tinularan ni Cristo sa tao ay ang pagiging alipin sa pagsunod sa Dios, sa kabila ng kaniyang pagiging Panginoon at pagiging banal.
4.Ang pagkapantay ni Cristo sa Dios ay hindi sa kalagayan kundi ang kanyang pagiging kalarawan sa kabanalan sapagkat siya ay hindi nagkasala. TITUS 2:13
One of the verses cited by those who believe that Christ is God is Titus 2:13, which says:
"Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." (NKJV)
From this verse, it has been claimed by those who believe in Christ’s deity that the phrase "great God" refers to the "Savior Jesus Christ." However, a closer examination of this verse will prove that it does not teach that Christ is God.
TWO, NOT ONE
The phrase "great God" in Titus 2:13 does not refer to Jesus Christ. This is more easily understood by comparing two other versions of the Bible:
"As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13, New American Bible)
"Awaiting the blessed hope off the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13, Moffat Translation)
The proof that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two in number and not one was clearly expressed by Christ Himself:
"And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am no alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."(Jn. 8:16-18, NKJV)
THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD
In his prayer to the Father, Jesus Christ further revealed the identity of the only true God:
"And eternal life means to know you, the only true God." (Jn. 17:3, Today’s English Version)
The context reveals that the only true God referred to by the second personal pronoun "you" is the Father:
"After Jesus finished saying this, he looked up to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come…'." (Jn 17:1, Ibid)
The apostles also recognized the Father as the only true God: "Yet there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the creator of all things and for whom we live." (I Cor. 8:6, Ibid)
This was also the teaching of the old Testament prophets such as Malachi:
"Don’t we all have the same father? Didn’t the same God create us?" (Mal. 2:10, Ibid.)
In other words, the Bible teaches strict monotheism or the belief in only one God, who is the Father. If we were to accept that Jesus Christ is the One being referred to as the "great God," then we would have to accept that there are two Gods, God the Father and God the Son—a direct violation of biblical teachings.
GREATER GOD, LESSER GOD?
Furthermore, if we were to accept that the Son is also God, then there would be a greater God and lesser God because Christ taught that He is not equal to the Father:
"You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you'. If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father', for My Father s greater than I." (Jn. 14:28, NKJV)
Please note that the Father and the Son are not coequal, but that the Father is greater than the Son. This supremacy of God over Christ was also taught by Apostle Paul:
"But I want you to understand that Christ is supreme over every man, the husband s supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ." (I Cor. 11:3, TEV)
Also on the day of Judgment, Christ, the son, will place Himself under God’s rule:
"For the scripture says, 'God put all things under his feet'. It is clear, of course, that the words 'all things' do not include God himself, who puts all things under Christ. But when all things have been placed under Christ’s rule, then he himself, the Son, will place himself under God, who placed all things under him; and God will rue completely over all." (I Cor. 15:27-28, Ibid.)
SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST
Titus 2:13 also mentions that Jesus Christ is the Savior. But, inasmuch as Isaiah 43:10-11 also states that besides God, there is no savior, some erroneously conclude that Christ is God. Isaiah says:
"'You are My witnesses' says the Lord, 'And My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior'." (NKJV)
The argument goes this way: God is Savior and Christ is Savior; therefore, Christ is God. The error of such argument is revealed by further inquiry as how Christ became Savior. Is He inherently Savior? Apostle Peter said:
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." (Acts 5:30-31, Ibid)
Jesus Christ became our Savior because He was exalted by God to be so. The Lord Jesus Christ who was exalted is different from God who exalted Him. If the one who exalts is God, and Jesus Christ was exalted is also God, then there would be two Gods. Furthermore, the Bible states that Christ, the Savior, also has a Savior:
"During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." (Heb. 5:7, NIV)
Jesus Christ Himself also said:
"But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God." (Jn. 8:40, NKJV)
The fact that He is a man also proves that He is not God, because "God is not a man" (Num. 23:19, Ibid,)
IN conclusion, Titus 2:13 does not teach that Christ is God. To believe so would result in many contradictions. The great God in this verse refers to the Father as had been made clear by Apostle Paul in the beginning of his letter to Titus:
"To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior." (Titus 1:4, Ibid.)
Ref. God’s Message, Sept. 2002, pp. 8-9 "10Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, 11trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow."
--1 Peter 1:10-11 (New International Version)
THE VERSE SAYS "Spirit of Christ", NOT "Christ the Spirit." ROMANS 9:5
In the KJV, Romans 9:5 reads:
"Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." Or the way the RSV reads: "to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen."
In this version, it would appear that Christ is over all and is God for ever. The Father is over all Apostle Paul who wrote Romans 9:5 also wrote Ephesians 4:6 which states:
"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and in you all"(Ibid). The Father—and not the Son—is over all. In fact, if Christ the Son is above all, then this would contradict His own statement, "My Father is greater than I"(Jn.14:28, NKJV).If the Father is greater than Christ, Christ is not above all, then He cannot be the true mentioned in Romans 9:5. This is also proven by the fact that the Son will submit all authority to the Father, proving that He is under the Fathers authority and power:
"For 'He has put all things under his feet'. But when He says 'all thingsare put under Him', it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."(I Cor. 15:27-28, Ibid) As Further proof that Christ is not above all, Apostle Paul wrote that "the head of Christ is God"(! Cor.11:3.KJV)
Therefore the phrase, which was rendered in a way to prove that Christ is God over all, contradicts other parts of the bible, proving it was wrongly translated.
God blessed forever
Let us now analyze the part of the verse alleged to indicate that Christ is the God blessed forever. If we examine other statements of Apostle Paul, it is clear that the God who is to be blessed and praised forever is not Jesus Christ, the Son of God, but the Father:
"Blessed be the God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort."(II Cor. 1:3,NKJV)
Even in the same letter to the Romans, Apostle Paul taught that the god who should be praised is the Father:
"Then all of you together will praise God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."(Rom. 15:6 CEV)
This does not mean that Christ should not be praised or worshiped.In fact, all Christians are commanded to to worship and praise Jesus Christ:
"Then God gave Christ the highest place and honored his name above all others. So at the name of Jesus everyone will bow down, those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth. And to the glory of God the Father will openly agree,’Jesus Christ is Lord!"(Philip. 2;9-11, Ibid)
Christ should be praised and worshiped, not because He is God, but because it is for the Glory of God (Philip.2:9-11). Therefore, the Father—and not Christ—is mntioned in Romans 9:5 as God who should be blessed or praised.
A doxology to God
In Romans 9:5 of the RSV, Christ is not the one referred to as God:
"To them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed forever. Amen."
In the RSV, the segment that says "God who is over all be blessed forever" was rendered as a separate sentence, showing it to be a doxology or praise to God, the Father. According to The Interpreter’s Biblethe majority of modern scholars also accept the RSV rendition of the verse:
"This half verse has been the center of interminable controversy. The issue appears from a comparison of our two texts. Is God over all, be blessed forever (or the one who is over all, God blessed forever) a phrase in apposition with "Christ" and belonging in the same sentence as the rest of vs. 5(so the KJV and the RSV mg.), or is this phrase grammatically separate, a doxology to God at the end of the recital of privileges of Israel (so the RSV and most modern translators)? The question cannot be answered on the basis of Greek since it is a matter almost entirely of punctuation, and Greek MSS in the early period were not punctuated...but the choice is probably to be made between the KJV and the RSV translations. The majority of modern commentators favor the later because of the unlikelihood of paul’s having here referred to Christ as "God."( vol.9, p.540)
Note that the majority of modern commentators do not believe that Apostle Paul referred to Christ as God. This same observation was also noted y the translators who wrote A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans:
"Although there are strong grammatical arguments to the contrary, the USB textual committee prefers the reading represented in the TEV, principally on the basis that Paul elsewhere never calls Christ God. Most modern English translations prefer the rendering represented in the TEV (so RSV, NEB, NAB, Goodspeed, Moffat."(p.180)
According to his scholarly handbook, "most modern English translations prefer the rendering represented in the TEV." The reason for this preference is the same: "Paul elsewhere never calls Christ God" The Today’s English Version renders Romans 9:5 thus:
"They are descended from the famous Hebrew ancestors, and Christ, as a human being, belongs to their race. May God, who rules over all, be praised forever! Amen."
As the verse clearly states, Christ is a human being and not God. Comparing this to other books in the Holy Scriptures would reveal many verses that prove that God is not man (Hos. 11:9; Ezek. 28:2 ;Num. 23:9). Hence, Christ is not the One referred to as God in Romans 9:5. Those who try to use Romans 9:5 in proving that Christ is God are praising another Jesus different from the One preached by the apostles. 1 TIMOTHY 3:16
In KJV it says. "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory".
Ordinary Trinitarians continue to use this rendition of their God become man concept.They are unaware or if they are aware refuses to accept that Scholars, trinitarians among them,have long discarded this rendering in favor of a correct one. The word 'God' was replaced by the correct word 'who' in the new bible translations when they disccovered that the former was an alteration of the Greek manuscript (ref. John James Wetstein (1693-1754). Respected Textual critic and Greek scholar Bruce Metzger testifies on this in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:
"No uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century . . . supports qeoV; all ancient versions presuppose ÔV or ? and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading qeoV."
Henceforth almost all new biblical translations(trinitarians included) has in their main or in their footnotes the correct phrase "WHO was manifested in the flesh" instead. (RNKJV) And without controversy great is the mystery of reverence: who was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (Diaglott) A pillar and basis of the truth and confessedly great is the of the piety secret. Who was manifested in flesh, was justified in spirit, was seen by messengers, was proclaimed among nations, was believed among a world, was taken up in glory. Finally this quote out of the American Standard Version:
"The word God, in place of He who, rest on no sufficient ancient evidence. Some ancient authorities read which." (see the NRSV, RSV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NWT, BBE, Moffet, Rotherham, etc.)
Even learned Trinitarians have recognized this, and have discouraged this as proof of the Trinity.
--MU LA FLAGA, STRIKE GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Mu,
Sa mga sagot mo ay lalo lang nagpapatunay na ang aral ninyo ay puro palusot dahil nga kapag pag-aralan yang mga talata na ibinibigay mo lalo na ang John 1:1,14, Phil. 2:5-8 ,Rom. 9:5 at Titus 2:13 ( which is ay naibibigay ko na sa inyo )sa correct greek grammar at word meaning ay talagang palpak at maling-mali ang mga naging aral sa inyo ni Manalo. Kaya ang tamang hebrew at greek ay talagang naging bangungot sa aral ni Manalo dahil nga ng nagtatag ng iglesia dito sa Pilipinas noong 1914 ay walang alam sa mga languages na ito kaya puro tuloy mali ang mga naituturong mga aral sa bibliya.
Orga,
Pakisabi nalang na kay Gen. Tiu na magbasang at intindihing mabuti ang mga pino-post ko para naman maliwanagan ang isip niya na pinadilim sa maling aral na natatanggap niya mula kay Manalo.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Mu,
Sa mga sagot mo ay lalo lang nagpapatunay na ang aral ninyo ay puro palusot dahil nga kapag pag-aralan yang mga talata na ibinibigay mo lalo na ang John 1:1,14, Phil. 2:5-8 ,Rom. 9:5 at Titus 2:13 ( which is ay naibibigay ko na sa inyo )sa correct greek grammar at word meaning ay talagang palpak at maling-mali ang mga naging aral sa inyo ni Manalo. Kaya ang tamang hebrew at greek ay talagang naging bangungot sa aral ni Manalo dahil nga ng nagtatag ng iglesia dito sa Pilipinas noong 1914 ay walang alam sa mga languages na ito kaya puro tuloy mali ang mga naituturong mga aral sa bibliya.]
UHU ANG SABIHIN MO, IKAW ANG WALA ALAM SA TUNAY NA KATANGIAN NG TUNAY NA DIYOS HAHA! KATUNAYAN WALA KANG MAIPAKITANG KATUNAYAN NA ANG DIYOS ANG TUMUBOS SA IGLESIA SA PAMAMAGITAN DIUMANO NG KANYANG DUGO HAHA! FYI ANG TUNAY NA DIYOS AY ISANG ESPIRITU (John 4:24), AT ANG KATANGIAN NG ISANG ESPIRITU AY WALANG LAMAN AT BUTO (Luke 24:39) HAHA!
AT SHOOT NA SHOOT SA BUTAS NG ILONG MO YUNG SINASABI MONG "walang alam" AT "bangungot" DAHIL HANGGANG NGAYON WALA KA PA RIN MAIPAKITANG KATUNAYAN SA BIBLIA NA ANG BATAYAN SA PAGIGING TUNAY NG ISANG MANGANGARAL NG DIYOS AY DAPAT MAY alam sa mga languages HAHA!
[Orga,
Pakisabi nalang na kay Gen. Tiu na magbasang at intindihing mabuti ang mga pino-post ko para naman maliwanagan ang isip niya na pinadilim sa maling aral na natatanggap niya mula kay Manalo.]
UHU IKAW NGA DIYAN ANG HINDI NAKAIINTINDI SA MGA PINOPOST MO HAHA! GEN. TIU, INC KA RAW? HAHA!
NAKITA PO NINYO MGA KABABAYAN, GANYAN PO TALAGA KATINDI MGAPARATANG ANG MGA INC DETRACTORS HAHA! PATI YUNG MGA HINDI KAANIB SA INC, IPAGPIPILITAN NILA NA KAANIB SA INC HAHA!
TAMA SI GEN. TIU HAHA! YOUR BOGUS CLAIM THAT THERE ARE ESKIMOS IN ANTARCTICA JUST GOT..
ANNIHILATED!
HAHA!
--CLOTHO BUER, RAIDER GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Clotho:
UHU ANG SABIHIN MO, IKAW ANG WALA ALAM SA TUNAY NA KATANGIAN NG TUNAY NA DIYOS HAHA! KATUNAYAN WALA KANG MAIPAKITANG KATUNAYAN NA ANG DIYOS ANG TUMUBOS SA IGLESIA SA PAMAMAGITAN DIUMANO NG KANYANG DUGO HAHA! FYI ANG TUNAY NA DIYOS AY ISANG ESPIRITU (John 4:24), AT ANG KATANGIAN NG ISANG ESPIRITU AY WALANG LAMAN AT BUTO (Luke 24:39) HAHA!
Sagot:
Tama ka na ang katangian ng isang Diyos bilang isang Espiritu ay walang laman at buto. Kaya lang mali ang naituro sa inyo ni Manalo,dahil ang Diyos ng magkatawang tao( John 1:14, Phil. 2:5-7, II Tim. 3:16 ) ay nagkaroon ng laman at dugo para itubos niya sa ating mga kasalananan ( Acts 20:28 ), at ito ay walang iba kundi ang ating Panginoong Jesus ( Heb. 1:8, Titus 2:13, I John 5:20 ).
Clotho:
AT SHOOT NA SHOOT SA BUTAS NG ILONG MO YUNG SINASABI MONG "walang alam" AT "bangungot" DAHIL HANGGANG NGAYON WALA KA PA RIN MAIPAKITANG KATUNAYAN SA BIBLIA NA ANG BATAYAN SA PAGIGING TUNAY NG ISANG MANGANGARAL NG DIYOS AY DAPAT MAY alam sa mga languages HAHA!
Sagot:
Wala ka ring mababasa sa bibliya na hindi na kailangang mag-aral. Kaya nga iniuutos sa bibliya na "mag-aral ng mabuti" ( I Tim. 2:15 ), na ang ibig sabihin sa greek grammar ay "gawin mo ang lahat ng paraan" para maiintidihan mong mabuti ang salita ng Diyos para hindi ka maging kahiya-hiyang mangangaral. Kaya ng sundin namin ang utos sa talatang yan ay hindi lang Jewish history, culture, customs and traditions kundi pati na ang hebrew at greek ay pinag-aralan namin para talaga malalaman namin ang katotohanan sa salita ng Diyos. Pero si Manalo ay pati ang utos sa talatang yan ay hindi alam, kaya ng magtayo ng sariling iglesia dito sa Pilipinas ( dahil nasipa sa dating iglesia na kanyang kinilalala at pinaglilingkuran ) ay walang alam sa hebrew at greek dahil hindi nga nag-aaral, at gumagamit pa ng mga poor translations na bibliya dahil nga walang alam rin tungkol sa mga bible translations kaya tuloy naging kahiya-hiyang mangangaral dahil puro kamalian ang naituturo sa bibliya kanyang mga naging kaanib sa kanyang iglesia. Kaya nga ngayon ay naging bangungot sa kayang naging mga aral hindi lang ang magagandang bible translations kundi lalong-lalo na ang hebrew at greek dahil dito nakikita ang kapalpakan at kamalaian sa kanyang mga naging aral tungkol sa bibliya.
Clotho:
UHU IKAW NGA DIYAN ANG HINDI NAKAIINTINDI SA MGA PINOPOST MO HAHA! GEN. TIU, INC KA RAW? HAHA!
NAKITA PO NINYO MGA KABABAYAN, GANYAN PO TALAGA KATINDI MGAPARATANG ANG MGA INC DETRACTORS HAHA! PATI YUNG MGA HINDI KAANIB SA INC, IPAGPIPILITAN NILA NA KAANIB SA INC HAHA
Sagot:
Pasinsiya kana Gen. Tiu kung napagkamalan kitang kaanib ni Manalo. Pero payo ko sa iyo na pag-aralang mabuti ang mga nai-post dito at lalo na sa iyong pag-aaral sa bibiya para malalaman mo ang katotohanan sa salita ng Diyos at para malalaman mo kung sino rin rito ang nagsasasabi ng katotohanan tungkol sa salita ng Diyos.
Clotho:
TAMA SI GEN. TIU HAHA! YOUR BOGUS CLAIM THAT THERE ARE ESKIMOS IN ANTARCTICA JUST GOT..
ANNIHILATED!
HAHA!
Sagot:
Ito ay sagot lamang ng mga kaanib ni Manalo na hindi nakakaintindi sa ibig kung sabihin tungkol sa pagsasabi ng "mga eskimo sa Antartica". Pero ito rin ang masasabi ko sa inyo na "if the correct hebrew and greek grammar and word meaning will be na basis of final interpretatios in the Bible, the doctrine of Manalo will always and forever be annihilated".
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
<<<
THEO It is only a direct satement about our missionary work in antartica. But you cannot denied the truth about the history of the Church of God that we send two missionary in the 1947 exploration of antartica to continue the ministry of the word of Godin the eskimos threre
>>>
nakakatuwa talagang MAGKWENTO ito si THEO, di lang pam-PARLOR, pang BARBERO pa!!!
Dre, kids will LAUGH at you pag-narinig kang nagkukwento na may eskimo na nabubuhay sa ANTARCTICA?????????????
Baka nga meaning ng Eskimo di mo alam.... oo nga pala, yung meaning nga pala ng TITHING, di mo alam, Eskimo pa kaya....
WALA ka talagang CREDIBILITY dre.
Sr PPE. ka nga (Sr. Parang Process Engineer), o Sr. Process Engineer ka nga ba?
YUNG EXPLORATION PRE, EH GINAWA YUN FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AT HINDI FOR MISSIONARY MISSION!
Mali pa grammar mo, deny lang AT HINDI DENIED....
WAG KA NA LANG MAG-MARUNONG DRE, LALO LANG INIHAHAYAG NG NASA TAAS ANG PAGKAPALALO MO.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Tama ka na ang katangian ng isang Diyos bilang isang Espiritu ay walang laman at buto. Kaya lang mali ang naituro sa inyo ni Manalo,dahil ang Diyos ng magkatawang tao( John 1:14, Phil. 2:5-7, II Tim. 3:16 ) ay nagkaroon ng laman at dugo para itubos niya sa ating mga kasalananan ( Acts 20:28 ), at ito ay walang iba kundi ang ating Panginoong Jesus ( Heb. 1:8, Titus 2:13, I John 5:20 ).]
PHIL. 2:6-7
Ayon sa Filipos 2:6-7
"Na siya, bagamat NASA ANYONG DIOS, ay hindi niya inaring isang bagay na nararapat panangnan ang PAGKAPANTAY NIYA SA DIOS,
Kundi bagkus hinubad niya ito, at NAG-ANYONG ALIPIN, na NAKITULAD SA MGA TAO."
1. NASA ANYONG DIOS
Ano ang kahulugan ng salitang “nasa anyong Dios” sa pahayag na ito ni apostol Pablo? Nangangahulugan ba itong si Cristo ay tunay na Dios ayon sa kaniya?
Ayon kay apostol din kay apostol Pablo, si Cristo ay tao sa likas na kalagayan.
"Sapagkat may isang Dios at may isang tagapamagitan sa Dios at sa mga tao, ang taong si Cristo Jesus." (I Timoteo 2: 5)
Ang tunay na likas na kalagayan ng Dios ay Espiritu at walang anyo. Ayon mismo kay Cristo:
"Ang Dios ay Espiritu..." (Juan 4: 24), "...ang Espiritu’y walang laman at buto." (Lukas 24: 36)
"Sapagkat wala kayong nakitang anomang anyo ng araw nang magsalita ang Panginoon sa inyo." (Deut. 4: 14-16)
Si Cristo ay nasa anyong Dios sapagkat ayon din kay apostol Pablo, si Cristo ay larawan ng Dios.
"Upang sa kanila’y huwag sumilang ang kaliwanagan ng evanghelio ng kaluwalhatian ni Cristo, na siyang larawan ng Dios." (II Corinto 4: 4)
Sa salitang Griego, ang salitang "larawan" at "anyo" ay magkasingkahulugan.
"Anyo" (Tagalog)- "Form" (English)- "Morphe" (Greek)
"Larawan" (Tagalog) - "Image" (English)- "Eikon" (Greek)
Kung ang ating Panginoong Jesucristo ay larawan ng Dios, ito’y nagpapatunay lamang sa siya nga ay tunay na tao sapagkat, ang mga unang tao din ay nilikha na kalarawan ng Dios.
"At nilalang ng Dios ang tao ayon sa kaniyang sariling larawan, ayon sa larawan ng Dios siya nilalang; nilalang niya sila na lalake at babae." (Genesis 1: 26-27)
Ang tao ay nilalang na kalarawan ng Dios hindi sa literal na kahulugan kundi sa larawan ng kaniyang "KABANALAN".
"At kayo’y mangagbago sa Espiritu ng inyong pagiisip,
At kayo’y mangagbihis ng bagong pagkatao, na ayon sa Dios ay nilalang sa katuwiran at sa kabanalan ng katotohanan." (Efeso 4: 23-24)
At sa larawan ng "PAG-IBIG".
"Ayon sa pagkapili niya sa atin sa kaniya bago pa itinatag ang sanglibutan, upang tayo’y maging mga banal at walang dungis sa harapan niya sa pagibig.
Na tayo’y itinalaga niya nang una pa sa pagkukupkop na tulad sa mga anak sa pamamagitan ni Jesucristo sa ganang kaniya." (Efeso 1: 4-5)
Sapagkat ang Dios ay banal kaya ang tao’y pinapaging banal din ng Dios.
"Ngunit yamang banal ang sa inyo’y tumawag, ay mangagpakabanal naman kayo sa lahat ng paraan ng pamumuhay;
Sapagkat nasusulat, kayo’y magpakabanal; sapagkat ako’y banal."
(I Pedro 1: 15-16)
Subalit ang tao ay hindi nakatugon sa pagiging kalarawan ng Dios sa kabanalan dahil sa pagkakasala.
"Sapagkat ang lahat ay nangagkasala nga, at hindi nangakaabot sa kaluwalhatian ng Dios." (Roma 3:23)
"at sa ganito’y ang kamatayan ay naranasan ng lahat ng mga tao, sapagkat ang lahat ay nangagkasala." (Roma 5:12)
Sa lahat ng mga tao, si cristo lamang ang tanging nakatugon sa pagiging larawan ng Dios sapagkat siya’y hindi nagkasala (I Pedro 2:22).
2. PAGKAPANTAY NIYA SA DIOS
Tanging si Cristo lamang ang nakapantay sa Dios sa larawan ng kabanalan.
"Sapagkat nararapat sa atin ang gayong dakilang saserdoteng banal, walang sala, walang dungis," (Hebreo 7: 26)
"Na siya’y hindi nagkasala, o kinasumpungan man ng daya ang kaniyang bibig." (I Pedro 2: 22)
Sapagkat Ang Dios ay banal:
"Sapagkat nasusulat, kayo’y mangagpakabanal; sapagkat ako’y banal."
(I Pedro 1: 16)
Ang pagkapantay ni Cristo sa Dios ay sa kabanalan at hindi sa pagiging kalagayang Dios sapagkat ang tunay na Dios ay walang kapantay at walang kagaya.
"Kanino ninyo ako itutulad, at ipaparis at iwawangis ako upang kami ay magkagaya?" (Isaias 40: 25)
"Kanino nga ninyo itututad ang Dios? O anong wangis ang iwawangis ninyo sa kaniya?" (Isaias 40: 18)
"…sapagkat ako’y Dios at walang gaya ko." (Isaias 46: 9)
Kaya ang mga taong lingkod ng Dios ay itinalaga din noong una pa upang maging kalarawan ni Cristo sa kabanalan.
"Sapagkat yaong mga una pa’y kaniyang nakilala, ay itinalaga naman niya na maging katulad ng larawan ng kaniyang Anak, upang siya’y maging panganay sa maraming magkakapatid." (Roma 8: 29)
"At dahil sa kanila’y pinabanal ko ang aking sarili, upang sila naman ay magpakabanal sa katotohanan." (Gawa 17: 19)
3. NAG-ANYONG ALIPIN NA NAKITULAD SA MGA TAO
Bakit sinabi ni apostol Pablo sa si Cristo ay nakitulad sa tao kung siya rin ay totoong tao na sa kalagayan? Ano ba ang tinularan ni Cristo sa tao?
Si Cristo ay ginawang Panginoon ng Dios upang sundin ng lahat ng mga tao.
"Pakatalastasin nga ng buong angkan ni Israel, na ginawa ng Dios na Panginoon at Cristo itong si Jesus na inyong ipinako sa krus."
(Gawa 2: 36)
Ang ibig sabihin ng Panginoon ay sinusunod:
"At bakit tinatawag ninyo ako, Panginoon, Panginoon, at di ninyo ginagawa ang mga bagay na aking sinasabi?" (Lukas 6: 46)
Subalit sa halip na Panginoon, si Cristo ay nagpakababa sa kaniyang sarili sa pagsunod sa Dios.
"At palibhasa’y nasumpungan sa anyong tao, siya’y nagpakababa sa kaniyang sarili, na nagmasunurin sa Dios hanggang sa kamatayan, oo, sa kamatayan sa krus." (Filipos 2: 8)
"Gayon din naman ang Anak ng tao ay hindi naparito upang paglingkuran, kundi upang maglingkod, at ibigay ang kaniyang buhay na pangtubos sa marami." (Mateo 20: 28)
Siya ay nakitulad sa tao sa pagsunod sa Dios at hindi sa kalagayan sapagkat ang pagsunod sa Dios ay katungkulan ng lahat ng tao.
"Ito ang wakas ng bagay; lahat ay narinig: ikaw ay matakot sa Dios, at sundin mo ang kaniyang mga utos; sapagkat ito ang buong katungkulan ng tao." (Eclesiastes 12: 13)
Sa kabila ng kaniyang pagiging banal, siya ay nakitulad sa tao sapagkat siya’y itinuring ng Dios na makasalanan upang tubusin ang kasalanan ng lahat ng mga tao.
"… sa pagsugo ng Dios sa kaniyang sariling Anak na nag-anyong lamang salarin at dahil sa kasalanan, ay hinatulan ng Dios sa laman ang kasalanan." (Roma 8: 3)
"Yaong hindi nakakilala ng kasalanan ay kaniyang inaring may sala dahil sa atin: upang tayo’y maging sa kaniya’y katuwiran ng Dios."
(II Corinto 5: 21)
Sapagkat ang lahat ng tao ay nagkasala:
"Sapagkat ang lahat ay nangagkasala nga, at hindi nakaabot sa kaluwalhatian ng Dios." (Roma 3: 23)
Katulad din ng unang lingkod ng Dios na si Job, siya ay nakitulad sa tao hindi sa kalagayan kundi sa kaniyang pagiging matatag sa pagsunod.
"Nang magkagayon, ang Panginoon ay nagsalita kay Job mula sa bagyo: Suhayan mo ang sarili mo na tulad ng isang tao, tatanungin kita at tugunin mo ako."(Job 40:6-7, NPV)
Ang katumbas lamang sa ibang pangungusap "magpakatatag ka at tatanungin kita…"
Konklusiyon:
1.Ang paksa ng pahayag ni apostol Pablo ay hindi ang tungkol sa pagiging Dios ni Cristo kundi ang tungkol sa kaniyang pagpakababa sa pagsunod sa Dios na dapat sundin ng lahat ng mga Cristiano, Filipos 2: 5-12.
2.Ang salitang "anyong Dios" ay hindi tumutukoy sa literal na kahulugan sapagkat ang tunay na Dios ay espiritu at walang pisikal na larawan (Juan 4:24).
3.Ang tinularan ni Cristo sa tao ay ang pagiging alipin sa pagsunod sa Dios, sa kabila ng kaniyang pagiging Panginoon at pagiging banal.
4.Ang pagkapantay ni Cristo sa Dios ay hindi sa kalagayan kundi ang kanyang pagiging kalarawan sa kabanalan sapagkat siya ay hindi nagkasala. JOHN 1:1
"IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1,NKJV)
Those who believe that Christ is God assume that Christ is the "Word" mentioned in this verse. However, it is quite plain that the name "Christ" is not even mentioned in this verse. Neither does the verse say that Christ preexisted in the beginning as God. The verse simply states that "IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
But isn’t it true that Christ is the fulfillment of the "Word" mentioned in John 1:1? He is indeed the fullfilment of the Word" in that verse. Hence, the "Word" was about Christ. But take note that this is not the same as saying that the "Word" was Christ Himself who existed in the beginning as an independent being.
Then why did the verse say that "IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God"?
"Who was foreknown indeed before the foundation of the world," (I Peter 1:20)
The "Word" which was about Christ is said to be "in the beginning" and "with God" because Christ was in the mind of God before the creation of the world. He was not yet a being then but only a thought in the mind of God. The "Word" in John 1:1 was not a being existing on its own, independent of God, but was simply a thought or a word in the mind of God. Thus, the verse states that "the Word was with God," being in the mind of God.
Why is it wrong to interpret the "Word" in John 1:1 as Christ,
pre-existing in the beginning as God? The verse clearly states that "the Word was with God." So if, aside from God, the "Word" were another God, there would be two Gods: one God with another God. One cannot accept the interpretation without doing violence to the biblical teaching on the absolute oneness of God.
Did the "Word" remain in the mind of God? Did it remain a thought or a plan in God’s mind?
"Which He promised before His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born on the seed of David according to the flesh." (Romans 1:2-3, NKJV)
Apostle Paul states here that Christ is the Son of God whom He had promised through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures. Clearly, then, the "Word" concerning Christ did not remain in the mind of God, because eventually He expressed that thought in the promise he made through His prophets.
Since when did God make a promise concerning Christ?
"So the Lord God said to the serpent: 'Because you have done this, You are cursed more that all cattle, And more that every beast of the field; And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.'" (Genesis 3:14-15)
This pronouncement which God made in the Garden of Eden right after the fall of man is about Christ. He is being referred to as the Seed of the woman. Another pronouncement God made concerning Christ is written in Genesis 17:7, thus:
"And I will establish covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." (King James Version)
This was addressed to Abraham with whom God made an everlasting cevenant. The covenant was not to be with Abraham alone but also with his seed. Who is the seed of Abraham? Apostle Paul explains in Galatians 3:16:
"Now that Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
Christ is the Seed of Abraham. When God made an everlasting covenant with Abraham, He said, "I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed." And that was an everlasting covenant that God would be God unto Abraham and to his Seed. Take note that the covenant stipulates that Abraham and his Seed shall deify God; God shall be God unto them, both to Abraham and his Seed, who is Jesus Christ. Far from being a God, Christ is someone who was destined to recognize the true God. As early as the time that the good news about Jesus Christ was being foretold, He was already distinguished from God.
So there was no pre-existent Christ. There was no Christ prior to the fulfillment of the plan of God concerning Him. What was there with God in the beginning was the word or the thought or the plan concerning Christ. Then why is it stated in John 1:1 that the "Word was God" It is because the "Word" or plan concerning Christ comes from God. Since the "Word" is of God, it shares the quality of God.
"For no word from God shall be void of power." (Luke 1:37)
The word of God is powerful. As God is powerful, so also is His word. So, the "Word" was God (in John 1:1) in the sense that it has the quality of God but not used as a noun but as an adjective. If it were a noun it would have had an article in the Greek text, not just theos (God), but ho theos (the God).
In both the James Moffatt and Edgar Goodspeed translations of the bible, this point is rendered more clearlythe Word was divine. "Divine" is definitely an adjective modifying the term "Word" So the term "God" in the phrase "the Word is God" indicates the quality of the "Word" The use of the term "God" here is analogous to the use of the term "gold" in the statement "Time is gold." "Gold" is not used here as a noun; it functions as an adjective modifying the term "time" to emphasize its value, i.e., golden. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,"
--II Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
WALANG SINASABI SA II Tim 3:16 na "ang Diyos ng magkatawang tao." TITUS 2:13
One of the verses cited by those who believe that Christ is God is Titus 2:13, which says:
"Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." (NKJV)
From this verse, it has been claimed by those who believe in Christ’s deity that the phrase "great God" refers to the "Savior Jesus Christ." However, a closer examination of this verse will prove that it does not teach that Christ is God.
TWO, NOT ONE
The phrase "great God" in Titus 2:13 does not refer to Jesus Christ. This is more easily understood by comparing two other versions of the Bible:
"As we await the blessed hope, the appearance of the glory of the great God and of our savior Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13, New American Bible)
"Awaiting the blessed hope off the appearance of the Glory of the great God and of our Saviour Jesus Christ." (Titus 2:13, Moffat Translation)
The proof that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two in number and not one was clearly expressed by Christ Himself:
"And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am no alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me. It is also written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of Myself, and the Father who sent Me bears witness of Me."(Jn. 8:16-18, NKJV)
THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD
In his prayer to the Father, Jesus Christ further revealed the identity of the only true God:
"And eternal life means to know you, the only true God." (Jn. 17:3, Today’s English Version)
The context reveals that the only true God referred to by the second personal pronoun "you" is the Father:
"After Jesus finished saying this, he looked up to heaven and said, ‘Father, the hour has come…'." (Jn 17:1, Ibid)
The apostles also recognized the Father as the only true God: "Yet there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the creator of all things and for whom we live." (I Cor. 8:6, Ibid)
This was also the teaching of the old Testament prophets such as Malachi:
"Don’t we all have the same father? Didn’t the same God create us?" (Mal. 2:10, Ibid.)
In other words, the Bible teaches strict monotheism or the belief in only one God, who is the Father. If we were to accept that Jesus Christ is the One being referred to as the "great God," then we would have to accept that there are two Gods, God the Father and God the Son—a direct violation of biblical teachings.
GREATER GOD, LESSER GOD?
Furthermore, if we were to accept that the Son is also God, then there would be a greater God and lesser God because Christ taught that He is not equal to the Father:
"You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you'. If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father', for My Father s greater than I." (Jn. 14:28, NKJV)
Please note that the Father and the Son are not coequal, but that the Father is greater than the Son. This supremacy of God over Christ was also taught by Apostle Paul:
"But I want you to understand that Christ is supreme over every man, the husband s supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ." (I Cor. 11:3, TEV)
Also on the day of Judgment, Christ, the son, will place Himself under God’s rule:
"For the scripture says, 'God put all things under his feet'. It is clear, of course, that the words 'all things' do not include God himself, who puts all things under Christ. But when all things have been placed under Christ’s rule, then he himself, the Son, will place himself under God, who placed all things under him; and God will rue completely over all." (I Cor. 15:27-28, Ibid.)
SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST
Titus 2:13 also mentions that Jesus Christ is the Savior. But, inasmuch as Isaiah 43:10-11 also states that besides God, there is no savior, some erroneously conclude that Christ is God. Isaiah says:
"'You are My witnesses' says the Lord, 'And My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no savior'." (NKJV)
The argument goes this way: God is Savior and Christ is Savior; therefore, Christ is God. The error of such argument is revealed by further inquiry as how Christ became Savior. Is He inherently Savior? Apostle Peter said:
"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." (Acts 5:30-31, Ibid)
Jesus Christ became our Savior because He was exalted by God to be so. The Lord Jesus Christ who was exalted is different from God who exalted Him. If the one who exalts is God, and Jesus Christ was exalted is also God, then there would be two Gods. Furthermore, the Bible states that Christ, the Savior, also has a Savior:
"During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission." (Heb. 5:7, NIV)
Jesus Christ Himself also said:
"But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God." (Jn. 8:40, NKJV)
The fact that He is a man also proves that He is not God, because "God is not a man" (Num. 23:19, Ibid,)
IN conclusion, Titus 2:13 does not teach that Christ is God. To believe so would result in many contradictions. The great God in this verse refers to the Father as had been made clear by Apostle Paul in the beginning of his letter to Titus:
"To Titus, a true son in our common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior." (Titus 1:4, Ibid.)
Ref. God’s Message, Sept. 2002, pp. 8-9 I JOHN 5:20
One of the verses used to support the belief that Christ is God is I John 5:20. Allegedly, this verse teaches that Christ is the true God as the name "Jesus Christ" precedes the statement "This is the true God and eternal life."
What must be realized is the fact that there are two different entities mentioned in the verse: (1) the Son of God who give us the understanding that we may know Him (who is true), and (2) the true God whom the Son would introduce. It must also be noted that as we are in Him (God) who is true, we are also in His Son Jesus Christ; thus, the Son is different from him (God) who is the true and who has a Son. The statement "this is the true God and eternal life" refers not to the Son but to Him - The Almighty God - whom the son introduced. Further the proof at this is recorded in John 17:1 and 3.
In this prayer of our Lord Jesus christ, when He said "...this is eternal life, that they may know You," He was referring to the Father, the only true God. Otherwise, He would have said "...that they may know Me, the only true God." But Christ pointed that He was the one sent by the Father. HEBREWS 1:8
In the the Revised Standard Version it say's:
"But of the Son he says, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom.'"
By admitting that God is calling His Son as "O God" in Hebrews 1:8, it appears that God contradicts Himself! He said in Isaiah 46:9 that He does not know any other God. However There is another rendition that Christ is God advocates hide everytime they use this verse as their alleged proof.
But others are frank enough to indicate it in the footnote of the RSV we quoted above it writes "GOD IS YOUR THRONE" exactly how it was rendered in the Old Testament where it was quoted in Psalms 45:6 of the Jewish Publication Society version of 1917.
The truth is that the term O THEOS is not found in the Hebrew Bible also called the Masoretic Text. The O THEOS was taken from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament Even there, according to B.F. wescott
"The LXX admits of two renderings: ho theos can be taken as a vocative in both cases (_Thy throne, O God,... therefore, O God, Thy God..._) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (_God is Thy throne,_ or _Thy throne is God..._), or in apposition to ho theos sou in the second case (_Therefore God, even Thy God..._)..."("The Epistle to the Hebrews," London, 1892, pp. 25)
In the Hebrew Bible, God is the throne of the Son which is a metaphor indicating that God is the source of the Son's throne or power. Jesus confirmed that in Matthew 28:18 when he proclaimed that "all power in heaven and on earth was given to me" and in Matthew 11:27, he said that "all things were given to him by the Father!" The source of his power and authority is God and on Judgment Day, the Son will be placed under God's rule (I Cor. 15:27-28 TEV).
Why will the Son be placed under God if he is of the same power with the Father? That is an intriguing question that Trinitarians could not explain but would only resort to hide behind the so-called mystery doctrine of the Divine Trinity.
MANY ATTEMPT TO prove that Christ is God by using verses in the Bible. One such verse they claim to be teaching about the deity of Christ is Hebews 1:8: "But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom'."(NKJV) Proponent's of Christ alleged diety argue that in this verse, God the Father is calling His Son God. But if this were true, then there would be two Gods-a conclusion that contradicts biblical verses which teach that there is only one true God, the Father (Jn.17:1-3; ICor.8:6; Mal.2:10). Therefore, there is something wrong about their understanding of this verse.
The following are other translations of this same verse:
"But of the Son he says, 'God is your throne forever and ever! And a righteous sceptre is the sceptre of his kingdom!'" (Goodspeed)
"He says of the Son, 'God is thy throne for ever and ever, thy royal sceptre is the sceptre of equity'." (Moffat Translation)
In the Goodspeed and Moffat translations, God the Father is not calling the Son God. Rather, God is telling the Son (Christ) that He (Father) is His (Son's) throne.
Thus, these two translations of Hebrews 1:8 do not contradict other passages of the Bible and hence, these translations of Hebrws 1:8 are correct. God does not recognize any other God
Why is it wrong to believe that the Father called Christ God in Hebrews 1:8? This is because God does not recognize any other God:
"Consult together, argue your case, and state your proofs that idol worship pays. Who made these things known long ago? What idol ever told you they would happen? Was it not I, the LORD? For there is no other God but me-a just God and Savior-no, not one!" (Is. 45:21, NLT, emphasis ours) God Himself teaches that there is no onther God besides Him. This one God who does not recignize any other God is the Father who created everything: "Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?" (Mal. 2:10, NKJV) Not only does God not recognize any other God, but he declared His uniqueness, proclaiming there is none like Him:
"Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me." (Is. 46:9,ibid.)
In fact, the next verse, Hebrews 1:9, in reference to Christ, clearly shows that Christ the Son recognizes God:
"You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions." (Ibid., emphasis ours)
Take note of the phrase "Your God." If the Son or Christ were God, it would appear that God has a God, ang thus, there would be two Gods.
While the father recognizes no one else as God, Christ recognizes the father as His God:
"Jesus said to her, 'Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My father; but go to My Brethren and say to them, "I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God"." (Jn.20:17, Ibid.)
'Thy throne, given of God'
Defenders of Christ's alleged deity further argue that the Almighty God cannot be merely a throne. So they ask, "How could the understanding that God is the throne of Christ be correct?" We should know that Hebrwes 1:8 is a prophecy about the coming Messiah in the form of a song quoted from psalms 45:7 which states:
"Thy throne, given of God, endureth for ever and ever; the sceptre of thy kingdom." (Jewish Publications Society of America Translation) Therefore, the equivalent of "God is your throne" is "Thy throne, given of God." The following verses clarify that the One to whom God will give His kingdom is the King:
"Beautiful words fill my mind, as I compose this song for the king. Like the pen of a good writer my tongue is ready with a poem. You are the most handsome of men; you are an eloquent speaker. God has always blessed you. Buckle on your sword, mighty king; you are glorious and majestic." (Ps. 45:1-3, TEV)
The fulfillment of this prophecy is Christ who was given the throne of David:
"You will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High God. The Lord God will make him a king, as his ancestor David was, and he will be the king of the descendants of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end!" (Lk. 1:31-33, Ibid)
In fact, Christ never taught that the authority or power He had was inherent in Him:
"Jesus drew near and said to them, "have been given all authority in heaven and on earth'."(Mt. 28:18, Ibid)
Instead , He acknowlegded the Father as the source os His authority:
"My Father has given to me authority over everything." (Mt. 11:27, NLT)
It is this God-given authority that Christ will hand over to God on the Day of Judgement:
"Then the end will come; Christ will overcome all spiritual rulers, authorities, and powers, and will hand over the Kingdom to God the Father. For christ must rule until God defeats all enemies and puts them under his feet. ...For the scriptures says, 'God put all things under his feet'. It is clear, of course, that the words 'all things' do not include God himself, who puts all things under Christ. But when all things have been placed under Christ's rule, then he himself, the Son, will place himself under God will rule completely over all." (I Cor. 15:24-25, 27_28, TEV)
Notice that Christ will place Himself under God so that God will rule completely over all. If Christ were God, it would appear that God is placing Himself under Himself-an absurdity.
Christ is man
While God's throne was given to Christ, this does not mean that God Himself is placed under Christ as the above verses attest. In fact, Christ sits at the right side of God's throne according to the same author of Hebrews 1:8:
"What I mean is that we have a high priest who sits at the right side of God's great throne in heaven." (Heb. 8:1, CEV)
The High Priest reffered to is Christ:
"That is why we have a great High Priest who has gone to heaven, Jesus the Son of God." (Heb. 4:14, NLT)
The High Priest who sits at the right side of God's throne is man in state of being:
"Here is the High Priest we need. A man who is holy, faultless, unstained, seperate from sinners and lifted above the very Heavens." (Heb. 7:26, Philips Translation)
"But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood." (Heb. 7:24, KJV)
Since Christ is man, then He is different from God because God is not man: "I will not execute the fierceness of My anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim. For I am God, and not man, The Holy One in your midst; And I will not come with terror." (Hos. 11:9, NKJV)
Hence, Christ, the High Priest sitting at the right of God's throne, is man and not God. Therefore, Hebrews 1:8 does not teach that Christ is God. Instead, it all the more proves the great difference between God and Christ
[Ito ay sagot lamang ng mga kaanib ni Manalo na hindi nakakaintindi sa ibig kung sabihin tungkol sa pagsasabi ng "mga eskimo sa Antartica". Pero ito rin ang masasabi ko sa inyo na "if the correct hebrew and greek grammar and word meaning will be na basis of final interpretatios in the Bible, the doctrine of Manalo will always and forever be annihilated".]
IN YOUR DREAMS (OR SHOULD I SAY, NIGHTMARES)! HEHE.
--YZAK JOULE, DUEL GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Janus,
Alam kung magaling kang Section Manager, pero sana lumipat ka ng ng Sun Power bilang Manager na para mapaganda mo ang ang kanilang operation. Kasi ang alam ko ay pabagsak na ang kanilang wafer manufacturing para sa kanilang mga electronics devices. Para siguradong hindi sila tuluyang magsara ay i-convert mo nalang kaya ang Sun Power bilang semiconductor company, at doon ang lahat ng engineers ay pagawin mo ng Executive Summary Report kung bakit bumagsak ang kanilang wafer manufacturing dito sa Pilipinas.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Ayon sa Filipos 2:6-7
"Na siya, bagamat NASA ANYONG DIOS, ay hindi niya inaring isang bagay na nararapat panangnan ang PAGKAPANTAY NIYA SA DIOS,
Kundi bagkus hinubad niya ito, at NAG-ANYONG ALIPIN, na NAKITULAD SA MGA TAO."
1. NASA ANYONG DIOS
Ano ang kahulugan ng salitang “nasa anyong Dios” sa pahayag na ito ni apostol Pablo? Nangangahulugan ba itong si Cristo ay tunay na Dios ayon sa kaniya?
Ayon kay apostol din kay apostol Pablo, si Cristo ay tao sa likas na kalagayan.
"Sapagkat may isang Dios at may isang tagapamagitan sa Dios at sa mga tao, ang taong si Cristo Jesus." (I Timoteo 2: 5)
Ang tunay na likas na kalagayan ng Dios ay Espiritu at walang anyo. Ayon mismo kay Cristo:
"Ang Dios ay Espiritu..." (Juan 4: 24), "...ang Espiritu’y walang laman at buto." (Lukas 24: 36)
"Sapagkat wala kayong nakitang anomang anyo ng araw nang magsalita ang Panginoon sa inyo." (Deut. 4: 14-16)
Si Cristo ay nasa anyong Dios sapagkat ayon din kay apostol Pablo, si Cristo ay larawan ng Dios.
"Upang sa kanila’y huwag sumilang ang kaliwanagan ng evanghelio ng kaluwalhatian ni Cristo, na siyang larawan ng Dios." (II Corinto 4: 4)
Sa salitang Griego, ang salitang "larawan" at "anyo" ay magkasingkahulugan.
"Anyo" (Tagalog)- "Form" (English)- "Morphe" (Greek)
"Larawan" (Tagalog) - "Image" (English)- "Eikon" (Greek)
Kung ang ating Panginoong Jesucristo ay larawan ng Dios, ito’y nagpapatunay lamang sa siya nga ay tunay na tao sapagkat, ang mga unang tao din ay nilikha na kalarawan ng Dios.
"At nilalang ng Dios ang tao ayon sa kaniyang sariling larawan, ayon sa larawan ng Dios siya nilalang; nilalang niya sila na lalake at babae." (Genesis 1: 26-27)
Ang tao ay nilalang na kalarawan ng Dios hindi sa literal na kahulugan kundi sa larawan ng kaniyang "KABANALAN".
"At kayo’y mangagbago sa Espiritu ng inyong pagiisip,
At kayo’y mangagbihis ng bagong pagkatao, na ayon sa Dios ay nilalang sa katuwiran at sa kabanalan ng katotohanan." (Efeso 4: 23-24)
At sa larawan ng "PAG-IBIG".
"Ayon sa pagkapili niya sa atin sa kaniya bago pa itinatag ang sanglibutan, upang tayo’y maging mga banal at walang dungis sa harapan niya sa pagibig.
Na tayo’y itinalaga niya nang una pa sa pagkukupkop na tulad sa mga anak sa pamamagitan ni Jesucristo sa ganang kaniya." (Efeso 1: 4-5)
Sapagkat ang Dios ay banal kaya ang tao’y pinapaging banal din ng Dios.
"Ngunit yamang banal ang sa inyo’y tumawag, ay mangagpakabanal naman kayo sa lahat ng paraan ng pamumuhay;
Sapagkat nasusulat, kayo’y magpakabanal; sapagkat ako’y banal."
(I Pedro 1: 15-16)
Subalit ang tao ay hindi nakatugon sa pagiging kalarawan ng Dios sa kabanalan dahil sa pagkakasala.
"Sapagkat ang lahat ay nangagkasala nga, at hindi nangakaabot sa kaluwalhatian ng Dios." (Roma 3:23)
"at sa ganito’y ang kamatayan ay naranasan ng lahat ng mga tao, sapagkat ang lahat ay nangagkasala." (Roma 5:12)
Sa lahat ng mga tao, si cristo lamang ang tanging nakatugon sa pagiging larawan ng Dios sapagkat siya’y hindi nagkasala (I Pedro 2:22).
2. PAGKAPANTAY NIYA SA DIOS
Tanging si Cristo lamang ang nakapantay sa Dios sa larawan ng kabanalan.
"Sapagkat nararapat sa atin ang gayong dakilang saserdoteng banal, walang sala, walang dungis," (Hebreo 7: 26)
"Na siya’y hindi nagkasala, o kinasumpungan man ng daya ang kaniyang bibig." (I Pedro 2: 22)
Sapagkat Ang Dios ay banal:
"Sapagkat nasusulat, kayo’y mangagpakabanal; sapagkat ako’y banal."
(I Pedro 1: 16)
Ang pagkapantay ni Cristo sa Dios ay sa kabanalan at hindi sa pagiging kalagayang Dios sapagkat ang tunay na Dios ay walang kapantay at walang kagaya.
"Kanino ninyo ako itutulad, at ipaparis at iwawangis ako upang kami ay magkagaya?" (Isaias 40: 25)
"Kanino nga ninyo itututad ang Dios? O anong wangis ang iwawangis ninyo sa kaniya?" (Isaias 40: 18)
"…sapagkat ako’y Dios at walang gaya ko." (Isaias 46: 9)
Kaya ang mga taong lingkod ng Dios ay itinalaga din noong una pa upang maging kalarawan ni Cristo sa kabanalan.
"Sapagkat yaong mga una pa’y kaniyang nakilala, ay itinalaga naman niya na maging katulad ng larawan ng kaniyang Anak, upang siya’y maging panganay sa maraming magkakapatid." (Roma 8: 29)
"At dahil sa kanila’y pinabanal ko ang aking sarili, upang sila naman ay magpakabanal sa katotohanan." (Gawa 17: 19)
3. NAG-ANYONG ALIPIN NA NAKITULAD SA MGA TAO
Bakit sinabi ni apostol Pablo sa si Cristo ay nakitulad sa tao kung siya rin ay totoong tao na sa kalagayan? Ano ba ang tinularan ni Cristo sa tao?
Si Cristo ay ginawang Panginoon ng Dios upang sundin ng lahat ng mga tao.
"Pakatalastasin nga ng buong angkan ni Israel, na ginawa ng Dios na Panginoon at Cristo itong si Jesus na inyong ipinako sa krus."
(Gawa 2: 36)
Ang ibig sabihin ng Panginoon ay sinusunod:
"At bakit tinatawag ninyo ako, Panginoon, Panginoon, at di ninyo ginagawa ang mga bagay na aking sinasabi?" (Lukas 6: 46)
Subalit sa halip na Panginoon, si Cristo ay nagpakababa sa kaniyang sarili sa pagsunod sa Dios.
"At palibhasa’y nasumpungan sa anyong tao, siya’y nagpakababa sa kaniyang sarili, na nagmasunurin sa Dios hanggang sa kamatayan, oo, sa kamatayan sa krus." (Filipos 2: 8)
"Gayon din naman ang Anak ng tao ay hindi naparito upang paglingkuran, kundi upang maglingkod, at ibigay ang kaniyang buhay na pangtubos sa marami." (Mateo 20: 28)
Siya ay nakitulad sa tao sa pagsunod sa Dios at hindi sa kalagayan sapagkat ang pagsunod sa Dios ay katungkulan ng lahat ng tao.
"Ito ang wakas ng bagay; lahat ay narinig: ikaw ay matakot sa Dios, at sundin mo ang kaniyang mga utos; sapagkat ito ang buong katungkulan ng tao." (Eclesiastes 12: 13)
Sa kabila ng kaniyang pagiging banal, siya ay nakitulad sa tao sapagkat siya’y itinuring ng Dios na makasalanan upang tubusin ang kasalanan ng lahat ng mga tao.
"… sa pagsugo ng Dios sa kaniyang sariling Anak na nag-anyong lamang salarin at dahil sa kasalanan, ay hinatulan ng Dios sa laman ang kasalanan." (Roma 8: 3)
"Yaong hindi nakakilala ng kasalanan ay kaniyang inaring may sala dahil sa atin: upang tayo’y maging sa kaniya’y katuwiran ng Dios."
(II Corinto 5: 21)
Sapagkat ang lahat ng tao ay nagkasala:
"Sapagkat ang lahat ay nangagkasala nga, at hindi nakaabot sa kaluwalhatian ng Dios." (Roma 3: 23)
Katulad din ng unang lingkod ng Dios na si Job, siya ay nakitulad sa tao hindi sa kalagayan kundi sa kaniyang pagiging matatag sa pagsunod.
"Nang magkagayon, ang Panginoon ay nagsalita kay Job mula sa bagyo: Suhayan mo ang sarili mo na tulad ng isang tao, tatanungin kita at tugunin mo ako."(Job 40:6-7, NPV)
Ang katumbas lamang sa ibang pangungusap "magpakatatag ka at tatanungin kita…"
Konklusiyon:
1.Ang paksa ng pahayag ni apostol Pablo ay hindi ang tungkol sa pagiging Dios ni Cristo kundi ang tungkol sa kaniyang pagpakababa sa pagsunod sa Dios na dapat sundin ng lahat ng mga Cristiano, Filipos 2: 5-12.
2.Ang salitang "anyong Dios" ay hindi tumutukoy sa literal na kahulugan sapagkat ang tunay na Dios ay espiritu at walang pisikal na larawan (Juan 4:24).
3.Ang tinularan ni Cristo sa tao ay ang pagiging alipin sa pagsunod sa Dios, sa kabila ng kaniyang pagiging Panginoon at pagiging banal.
4.Ang pagkapantay ni Cristo sa Dios ay hindi sa kalagayan kundi ang kanyang pagiging kalarawan sa kabanalan sapagkat siya ay hindi nagkasala.
Sagot:
Matagal ko na kayong pinagbigyan sa aral ninyo ( na ang morphe ay image )sa talatang ito na kaya hindi tunay na Diyos ang Panginoong Jesus dahil nga siya ay nasa "anyong Diyos" lamang (v:6). Kaya lang dapat rin na hindi ninyo tanggapin na tunay na Tao ang Panginoong Jesus dahil nga siya rin ay nasa "anyong tao" rin lamang ( v:7 )
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Sagot:
Matagal ko na kayong pinagbigyan sa aral ninyo ( na ang morphe ay image )sa talatang ito na kaya hindi tunay na Diyos ang Panginoong Jesus dahil nga siya ay nasa "anyong Diyos" lamang (v:6). Kaya lang dapat rin na hindi ninyo tanggapin na tunay na Tao ang Panginoong Jesus dahil nga siya rin ay nasa "anyong tao" rin lamang ( v:7 )]
ANG ARAL NA ANG PANGINOONG JESUCRISTO AY TUNAY NA TAO AY NAKABATAY SA ITINUTURO NG BIBLIA AT HINDI SA KONGKLUSYON LAMANG NG SINUMAN.
There is only one God, and Christ Jesus is the only one who can bring us to God. Jesus was truly human, and he gave himself to rescue all of us
1 Timothy 2:5 (Contemporary English Version)
--MU LA FLAGA, STRIKE GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Mu,
If correct hebrew ang greek will be the basis of final interpretations in the bible, the doctrine and teaching of Mr. Manalo will always and foreever be annihilated. Kasi nga mapapatunayan sa hebrew at greek na hindi lang palpak at maling-mali ang naging aral ni Manalo kundi nagiging kontra-kontra pa.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Mu,
If correct hebrew ang greek will be the basis of final interpretations in the bible, the doctrine and teaching of Mr. Manalo will always and foreever be annihilated. Kasi nga mapapatunayan sa hebrew at greek na hindi lang palpak at maling-mali ang naging aral ni Manalo kundi nagiging kontra-kontra pa.]
AS USUAL THEOLOGASTER SUCKER IS DAYDREAMING AGAIN HAHA! YUNG SINASABI MONG kontra-kontra ang naging aral, THAT'S YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBOR ELI SORIANO HAHA!
Matalas,
Kumusta na ang pag-manage mo sa Ice Plant ni Manalo sa Antartica, balita ko kumita raw ng malaki. Huwag mo lang kalimutan na ipadala agad ang kita sa sa kanya sa Central para hindi ka niya madagukan.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Ang kahulugan ba ng ECHAD sa "One(echad) flesh" ay pareho sa "One(echad) God"?
Heeeee.....
Theologaster sucker: Kanickz,
Pareho lang!]
SO WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU READ THAT?
[Matalas,
Kumusta na ang pag-manage mo sa Ice Plant ni Manalo sa Antartica, balita ko kumita raw ng malaki. Huwag mo lang kalimutan na ipadala agad ang kita sa sa kanya sa Central para hindi ka niya madagukan.]
AH HAHA SI THEOLOGASTER SUCKER NAPIKON NA NAMAN HAHA! COOL KA LANG, WAG KANG HOT HAHA! PALIBHASA PRIDE ANG PINAIIRAL MO SA SARILI MO HAHA! KUNG AKO SA IYO TANGGAAPIN MO NA ANG PAGKAKAMALI MO SA TSISMIS MO NA DIUMANO MAY ESKIMO SA ANTARCTICA HAHA!
WEAR A COLLAR THEOLOGASTER SUCKER! YOU JUST GOT DOGGED AGAIN!
HAHA!
--ORGA SABNAK, CALAMITY GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
<<<THEO>>>
Alam kung magaling kang Section Manager, pero sana lumipat ka ng ng Sun Power bilang Manager na para mapaganda mo ang ang kanilang operation. Kasi ang alam ko ay pabagsak na ang kanilang wafer manufacturing para sa kanilang mga electronics devices. Para siguradong hindi sila tuluyang magsara ay i-convert mo nalang kaya ang Sun Power bilang semiconductor company, at doon ang lahat ng engineers ay pagawin mo ng Executive Summary Report kung bakit bumagsak ang kanilang wafer manufacturing dito sa Pilipinas.
-----
Theo, are you resorting in diverting the issue (kasi di ka pa nakakapag re-search... hanggang ngayon...)? Or DI MO LANG TALAGA ALAM ANG SAGOT?
1. MERON BA TALAGANG ESKIMO SA ANTARCTICA?
2. MERON BA TALAGANG NAGANAP NA MINISTRY MISSION OF GOD SA ANTARCTICA PARA SA MGA ESKIMO?
3. pasingit na tanong, na di mo sinasagot hanggang ngayon.... ANO IBIG SABIHIN NG TITHING?
ITAYO MO NAMAN ANG CREDIBILITY MO PRE!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
TANONG ULI.... THEO, RE-BUILD YOUR CREDIBILITY MAN! BE A MAN! MAN!
1. MERON BA TALAGANG ESKIMO SA ANTARCTICA?
2. MERON BA TALAGANG NAGANAP NA MINISTRY MISSION OF GOD SA ANTARCTICA PARA SA MGA ESKIMO?
3. pasingit na tanong, na di mo sinasagot hanggang ngayon.... ANO IBIG SABIHIN NG TITHING?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Janus,
Magaling ka namang section manager, kaya pakibasa nalang ng mabuti ang paliwanag ko tungkol sa "Eskimo sa Antartica" at kung bakit nagkaroong kami ng "missionary" doon.
Saka huwag mo ng itanong sa akin ang meaning ng tithes para lang mailulusot mo ang maling aral sa inyo ni Manalo tunkol sa abuluyan. Dahil sa dami ng abuluyan na pinatutupad niya sa inyo ay talagang sumusobra pa sa tithing sa Bibliya.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
THEO: "Matagal ko na kayong pinagbigyan sa aral ninyo ( na ang morphe ay image )sa talatang ito na kaya hindi tunay na Diyos ang Panginoong Jesus dahil nga siya ay nasa "anyong Diyos" lamang (v:6). Kaya lang dapat rin na hindi ninyo tanggapin na tunay na Tao ang Panginoong Jesus dahil nga siya rin ay nasa "anyong tao" rin lamang ( v:7 )
Sagot:
Theo,
Napakalinaw nga ng paliwanag na ang pagiging "Anyong tao" ni Cristo ay sapagkat inari siyang maysala ng Dios.
Basa,
"… sa pagsugo ng Dios sa kaniyang sariling Anak na nag-anyong lamang salarin at dahil sa kasalanan, ay hinatulan ng Dios sa laman ang kasalanan." (Roma 8: 3)
"Yaong hindi nakakilala ng kasalanan ay kaniyang inaring may sala dahil sa atin: upang tayo’y maging sa kaniya’y katuwiran ng Dios."
(II Corinto 5: 21)
Kaya sa Fil. 2:5-8, walang literal na anyo don. Gets?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Kanickz:
Ang kahulugan ba ng ECHAD sa "One(echad) flesh" ay pareho sa "One(echad) God"?
Theo:
Pareho lang!
Kanickz:
1. Hindi ba ang "one flesh" ay binubuo ang two flesh (lalaki at babae)?
2. Kung pareho ang kahulugan sa "one God" ayon sa 'yo, therefore tinatanggap mong na ang "one God" ay binubuo ng three Gods (father, son, holy spirit)?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Janus,
Magaling ka namang section manager, kaya pakibasa nalang ng mabuti ang paliwanag ko tungkol sa "Eskimo sa Antartica" at kung bakit nagkaroong kami ng "missionary" doon.
Saka huwag mo ng itanong sa akin ang meaning ng tithes para lang mailulusot mo ang maling aral sa inyo ni Manalo tunkol sa abuluyan. Dahil sa dami ng abuluyan na pinatutupad niya sa inyo ay talagang sumusobra pa sa tithing sa Bibliya.]
AS USUAL SI THEOLOGASTER SUCKER IS DAYDREAMING AGAIN HAHA! MGA INC DETRACTORS TALAGA OO, HINDI MARUNONG TUMANGGAP NG PAGKAKAMALI NILA HAHA!
INC DETRACTORS REALLY SUCK NOWADAYS! HAHA!
--CLOTHO BUER, RAIDER GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Kanickz,
Ang dalawang katawan ( husband and wife )ay naging "united and together as one flesh", kaya ang ang tatlong Diyos ( Father, Son and Holy Spirit )ay naging "united and together as one God".
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Kanickz,
Ang dalawang katawan ( husband and wife )ay naging "united and together as one flesh", kaya ang ang tatlong Diyos ( Father, Son and Holy Spirit )ay naging "united and together as one God".]
SO WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU READ THAT?
--NICOL AMALFI, BLITZ GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Theo: Ang dalawang katawan ( husband and wife )ay naging "united and together as one flesh", kaya ang TATLONG DIOS ( Father, Son and Holy Spirit )ay naging "united and together as one God".
Kanickz: Ayon sa wakas, umamin din si Theo mga kapatid!
"NA ANG KANIYANG ISANG DIOS, AY BINUBUO NGA NG TATLONG DIOS!"
ito ay salungat sa kaniyang unang ipinahayag sa aming debate noong Sept, 2005:
Pansinin mga kapatid.
THEO:Ito ay hindi kailan man mapapasingalingan at mapamalian ng sino man dahil ito ang katotohanan na galing na mismo sa bibliya na salita ng Diyos, at ang katotohanang ito ay ang 3 persona na "united and together as one God". Kaya ang katotohanang aral tungkol sa trinity ay hindi lang nagsimumula sa conucil of necea kundi sa panahon pa ng wala pang simula dahil nag-exist nga ang isang Diyos sa 3 persona. Ang hamon ko nalang sa iyo ay kung kaya mong gawan ng tamang mathematical formula ang Diyos na "united and together as one God at ang mag-asawa na "united and together as one flesh, ay saka na siguro natin malalaman kung tama ang bilang ninyo sa trinity na 3 ang lalabas na Diyos. Saka kung may mailalabas ka dito na credible, respected and acknowledge author sa hewbrew at greek dictionary na kayang pamalian ang definition sa "echad" na united and together as one ay panalo kana sa thread na ito.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Kanickz,
Gusto mo kasi noon na ilagay ang "echad" na one flesh at one God sa mathematical formula kaya hinamon kita na gawin yun. Kaya lang alm ko na matagal na itong ginamitan ni Manalo ng normal mathematical formula para lang mapapasinungalingan niya ang trinity o united and together as one God. Ito ngayon ang lalabas sa matehimatical formula ni Manalo na unbiblical dahil againts sa sinabi ng bibliya:
Ito naman ang sinasabi sa bibliya which is the biblical Formula na naging bangungot sa aral ni Manalo:
1. husband (1 flesh) + wife (1 flesh) = 1 flesh
2. Father (1 God) + Son (1 God) + Holy Spirit (1 God) = 1 God
Kaya tama ang definition sa hebrew word na "echad" sa bible na 1 flesh at 1 God na "united and together", at ito ay talagang nagpapatunay sa biblical teaching sa Father, Son and Holy Spirit na "united and together as one God. Kaya ang sabi sa Matt. 28:19 na "in the name" at hindi "in the names" dahil nga ang Father, Son and Holy Spirit ay "united and together as one God" na katulad ng husband and wife na "united and together as onne flesh".
Kaya kahit ano pang klaseng paraan ang gawin ni Manalo ay hindi niya kayang mapapasinungalingan ang bibilical na aral na ang Father, Son and Holy Spirit ay "united and together as one God". Kaya if correct hebrew and greek word will be na na final basis of interpretations, the doctrine of Manalo will always and forever be annihilated.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Napakalinaw nga ng paliwanag na ang pagiging "Anyong tao" ni Cristo ay sapagkat inari siyang maysala ng Dios.
Basa,
"… sa pagsugo ng Dios sa kaniyang sariling Anak na nag-anyong lamang salarin at dahil sa kasalanan, ay hinatulan ng Dios sa laman ang kasalanan." (Roma 8: 3)
"Yaong hindi nakakilala ng kasalanan ay kaniyang inaring may sala dahil sa atin: upang tayo’y maging sa kaniya’y katuwiran ng Dios."
(II Corinto 5: 21)
Kaya sa Fil. 2:5-8, walang literal na anyo don. Gets?
Sagot:
Nakakatawa talaga ang ang aral sa inyo ni Manalo dahil hindi lamang komontra sa right and balance teaching of the bible kundi komontra pa sa hebrew, greek, english, tagalog and bisayan correct gramamar. Kaya ito ang masasabi ko sa aral ni Manalo na talagang "Gets na Gets ko"
1. Right and balance teaching of the Bible, the doctrine of Manalo "Gets" annhilated.
2. Corrrect hebrew, greek, english, tagalog, bisayan grammar, the doctrine of Manalo "Gets" annihilataed.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
AS USUAL UMANDAR NA NAMAN ANG PAGIGING TSISMOSA ESTE TSISMOSO NI THEOLOGASTER SUCKER HAHA!
[2. Father (1 God) + Son (1 God) + Holy Spirit (1 God) = 1 God
Kaya tama ang definition sa hebrew word na "echad" sa bible na 1 flesh at 1 God na "united and together", at ito ay talagang nagpapatunay sa biblical teaching sa Father, Son and Holy Spirit na "united and together as one God.]
SO WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU READ THAT?
[Sagot:
Nakakatawa talaga ang ang aral sa inyo ni Manalo dahil hindi lamang komontra sa right and balance teaching of the bible kundi komontra pa sa hebrew, greek, english, tagalog and bisayan correct gramamar. Kaya ito ang masasabi ko sa aral ni Manalo na talagang "Gets na Gets ko"
1. Right and balance teaching of the Bible, the doctrine of Manalo "Gets" annhilated.
2. Corrrect hebrew, greek, english, tagalog, bisayan grammar, the doctrine of Manalo "Gets" annihilataed.]
AS USUAL YAN NA LANG ANG KAYANG SABIHIN NI THEOLOGASTER SUCKER HAHA! PAANO KASI KAHIT SA COVER NG BIBLIA WALANG MABABASA NA DIUMANO ANG FATHER, SON AND HOLY SPIRIT AY "UNITED AND TOGETHER AS ONE GOD" HAHA!
--SHANI ANDRAS, FORBIDDEN GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
New year na di ka pa rin nagbabago. Andami mo pa ring daldal, wala namang basihan. Pa grek-grek ka pa, e simpleng tagalog nga ang labo ng paliwanag mo e.
Tuloy natin.
1. Kung literal ang "anyong Dios" at "anyong tao" sa Fil. 2:5-8, alin kay cristo ang anyong Dios at alin sa kaniya ang anyong tao?
2. Noong sinabi mong,..."kaya ang TATLONG DIOS (Father, Son and Holy Spirit )ay naging "united and together as one God."... hindi ba binilang mo nga na 3 nga ang Dios mo?
3. Bakit sinasabi mong hindi pwedeng bilanging 3 ang Dios noon? Yan ba ang new years resolution mo? Heeee....
Kakatuwa ka talaga Theo....
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Kanickz:
New year na di ka pa rin nagbabago. Andami mo pa ring daldal, wala namang basihan. Pa grek-grek ka pa, e simpleng tagalog nga ang labo ng paliwanag mo e.
Sagot:
Saan mo naman nakuha na puro daldal at walang basihan ang aral naming "united and together as one God". Ang dami ko ng naibigay na katibayan sa mga talata ng bibliya na nagsasabi na Diyos ang Ama, Anak at Banal na Espiritu, kaya sila "united and together as one God". Hindi lang sa mga talata ng bibliya kundi mga katibayan rin sa pamamagitan ng pagkuha ng tamang hebrew at greek grammar at word meaning na lalong nagpapatunay na tama talaga ang aral na "united and together as one God" sa bibliya. Hindi katulad sa aral ni Manalo sa inyo na kinukuha lamang sa mga translations ng bibliya (mga poor translations pa). Palibhasa ng magtatag ng sariling iglesia sa Pilipinas noong 1914 ay walang alam sa hebrew at greek kaya maling-mali at palpak ang mga aral na tinuturo niya sa kanyang iglesia.
Kanickz:
Tuloy natin.
1. Kung literal ang "anyong Dios" at "anyong tao" sa Fil. 2:5-8, alin kay cristo ang anyong Dios at alin sa kaniya ang anyong tao?
Sagot:
Saan mo naman nakuha na tama ang translation sa "morphe" na "image" o "anyo" sa Phil. 2:5-8, na kaya payag ako na literal ang ibig sabihin sa pagkagamit sa "anyo" talatang yan.
Kanickz:
2. Noong sinabi mong,..."kaya ang TATLONG DIOS (Father, Son and Holy Spirit )ay naging "united and together as one God."... hindi ba binilang mo nga na 3 nga ang Dios mo?
Sagot:
Pinagbigyan lang kita na sa term mo na na nakuha kay Manalo na "tatlong Diyos", para mabigyan na kita ng tamang biblical formula na Father + Son + Holy Spirit = 1 God, kaya klarong-kalro na ang pagbilang ko sa kanilang 3 ay 1 Diyos dahil nga sila ay "united and together as one God"
Kanickz:
3. Bakit sinasabi mong hindi pwedeng bilanging 3 ang Dios noon? Yan ba ang new years resolution mo? Heeee....
Sagot:
Kasi gusto mong bilangin ko sila noon na 3 Diyos para maipalabas mo na ang paniniwala namin talaga ay 3 ang Diyos at maipapalabas mo rin na tama ang aral sa inyo ni Manalo. Saka matagal ko ng sinasabi sa inyo na hindi paniniwala namin na 3 ang Diyos, dahil nga kahit ang Ama, Anak, at Espiritu ay 3 distinct person na parehong Diyos, ay ang tama at biblical pa rin na pagbilang sa kanila ay 1 Diyos dahil nga sila ay "united and together as one God".
Kanickz:
Kakatuwa ka talaga Theo....
Sagot:
Hindi naman ikaw ang nakakatawa kundi ang nakakatawa ay ang aral sa inyo ni Manalo dahil maling-mali at palpak pa.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Sagot:
Saan mo naman nakuha na puro daldal at walang basihan ang aral naming "united and together as one God". Ang dami ko ng naibigay na katibayan sa mga talata ng bibliya na nagsasabi na Diyos ang Ama, Anak at Banal na Espiritu, kaya sila "united and together as one God". Hindi lang sa mga talata ng bibliya kundi mga katibayan rin sa pamamagitan ng pagkuha ng tamang hebrew at greek grammar at word meaning na lalong nagpapatunay na tama talaga ang aral na "united and together as one God" sa bibliya. Hindi katulad sa aral ni Manalo sa inyo na kinukuha lamang sa mga translations ng bibliya (mga poor translations pa). Palibhasa ng magtatag ng sariling iglesia sa Pilipinas noong 1914 ay walang alam sa hebrew at greek kaya maling-mali at palpak ang mga aral na tinuturo niya sa kanyang iglesia.]
AH HAHA SI THEOLOGASTER SUCKER WALANG MAIPAKITANG TALATA SA BIBLIA NA DIUMANO ang Ama, Anak at Banal na Espiritu AY "united and together as one God" HAHA! KAYA YUNG SINASABI MONG "walang alam" AT "maling-mali at palpak ang mga aral na tinuturo", SHOOT NA SHOOT YAN SA BUTAS NG TENGA MO HAHA!
[Sagot:
Pinagbigyan lang kita na sa term mo na na nakuha kay Manalo na "tatlong Diyos", para mabigyan na kita ng tamang biblical formula na Father + Son + Holy Spirit = 1 God, kaya klarong-kalro na ang pagbilang ko sa kanilang 3 ay 1 Diyos dahil nga sila ay "united and together as one God"]
SO WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU READ THAT?
[Sagot:
Kasi gusto mong bilangin ko sila noon na 3 Diyos para maipalabas mo na ang paniniwala namin talaga ay 3 ang Diyos at maipapalabas mo rin na tama ang aral sa inyo ni Manalo. Saka matagal ko ng sinasabi sa inyo na hindi paniniwala namin na 3 ang Diyos, dahil nga kahit ang Ama, Anak, at Espiritu ay 3 distinct person na parehong Diyos, ay ang tama at biblical pa rin na pagbilang sa kanila ay 1 Diyos dahil nga sila ay "united and together as one God".]
SO WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU READ THAT?
[Sagot:
Hindi naman ikaw ang nakakatawa kundi ang nakakatawa ay ang aral sa inyo ni Manalo dahil maling-mali at palpak pa.]
OO TAMA, ang nakakatawa ay ang aral NIYO dahil maling-mali at palpak pa HAHA!
WEAR A COLLAR THEOLOGASTER SUCKER! YOU JUST GOT DOGGED AGAIN!
HAHA!
--ORGA SABNAK, CALAMITY GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
para kang kwitis na di maganda ang pulburang nailagay ah.... tapos bumangga sa bubong....
ka-simple ng tanong ko di masagot! ulitin ko uli THEO....
1. Meron ba O walang ESKIMO sa ANTARCTICA?
THEO: Magaling ka namang section manager, kaya pakibasa nalang ng mabuti ang paliwanag ko tungkol sa "Eskimo sa Antartica"
Sa madaling salita, WALANG ESKIMO SA ANTARTICA, DI BA THEO??? WALA NAMAN TALAGA, KASI TAGA ALASKA, TAGA ARCTIC CIRCLE, COASTAL WATERS... YUNG MGA YUN, DI BA???
2. MERON BA TALAGANG NAGANAP NA MINISTRY MISSION OF GOD SA ANTARCTICA PARA SA MGA ESKIMO?
THEO: wala nga, kasi wala namang ESKIMO dun... WALA DI BA THEO?
SA MADALING SALITA, KWENTONG BARBERO LANG YUN... WALA KA TALAGANG GINAWANG RESEARCH... VERY BASIC PRE.... TALO KA NG BATA.... SR ENGINEER KA PA NAMAN... TAKE NOTE HA, SENIOR ENGINEER! TALO KA NG BATA
3. ANO IBIG SABIHIN NG TITHING?
THEO: huwag mo ng itanong sa akin ang meaning ng tithes para lang mailulusot mo ang maling aral sa inyo ni Manalo tunkol sa abuluyan.
Sa madaling salita, HINDI MO ALAM ANG IBIG SABIHIN NG TITHES. SINO BA SA ATIN ANG NAGPAPALUSOT HA THEO???
TAPOS MERON KA PANG "ORIGINAL TRANSCRITPTION NG GREEK AND HEBREW ANG KELANGAN NYONG BASAHIN" NA NALALAMAN?
ILAN PA KAYANG MALI ANG SINASABI MO? NAKOW THEO, DI KAPANIPANIWALA....
BUNGI NA PALAKOL MO PRE.... HASAIN MO NAMAN.... DAPLIS EH!
ALAM MO BA TALAGA SINASABI MO? O HINDI?
ISANG PAGKAKATAON PA PRE...
MASASAGOT MO BA O HINDI?
1. MERON BA TALAGANG ESKIMO SA ANTARCTICA?
2. MERON BA TALAGANG NAGANAP NA MINISTRY MISSION OF GOD SA ANTARCTICA PARA SA MGA ESKIMO?
3. pasingit na tanong, na di mo sinasagot hanggang ngayon.... ANO IBIG SABIHIN NG TITHING?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Janus:
1. Meron ba O walang ESKIMO sa ANTARCTICA?
THEO: Magaling ka namang section manager, kaya pakibasa nalang ng mabuti ang paliwanag ko tungkol sa "Eskimo sa Antartica"
Sa madaling salita, WALANG ESKIMO SA ANTARTICA, DI BA THEO??? WALA NAMAN TALAGA, KASI TAGA ALASKA, TAGA ARCTIC CIRCLE, COASTAL WATERS... YUNG MGA YUN, DI BA???
Sagot:
Pasinsiya kana talagang bobo lang ako sa geography, ang eskimo pala ay talagang nakatira sa Saudi Arabia.
Janus:
2. MERON BA TALAGANG NAGANAP NA MINISTRY MISSION OF GOD SA ANTARCTICA PARA SA MGA ESKIMO?
THEO: wala nga, kasi wala namang ESKIMO dun... WALA DI BA THEO?
SA MADALING SALITA, KWENTONG BARBERO LANG YUN... WALA KA TALAGANG GINAWANG RESEARCH... VERY BASIC PRE.... TALO KA NG BATA.... SR ENGINEER KA PA NAMAN... TAKE NOTE HA, SENIOR ENGINEER! TALO KA NG BATA
Sagot:
Pasinsiya kana uli talagang bobo lang ako sa church history namin, hindi pala sumama sa exploration ang 2 missionary namin sa antartica noong 1947 kundi sa Jolo pala.
Janus:
3. ANO IBIG SABIHIN NG TITHING?
THEO: huwag mo ng itanong sa akin ang meaning ng tithes para lang mailulusot mo ang maling aral sa inyo ni Manalo tunkol sa abuluyan.
Sa madaling salita, HINDI MO ALAM ANG IBIG SABIHIN NG TITHES. SINO BA SA ATIN ANG NAGPAPALUSOT HA THEO???
TAPOS MERON KA PANG "ORIGINAL TRANSCRITPTION NG GREEK AND HEBREW ANG KELANGAN NYONG BASAHIN" NA NALALAMAN?
Sagot:
Pasinsiya kana uli dahil talagang bobo ako sa english kaya hindi ko alam ang meaning sa tithing, ang alam ko lang kasi ay ang hebrew at greek word sa tithing at kung ano ang meaning.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Sagot:
Pasinsiya kana talagang bobo lang ako sa geography, ang eskimo pala ay talagang nakatira sa Saudi Arabia.
Sagot:
Pasinsiya kana uli talagang bobo lang ako sa church history namin, hindi pala sumama sa exploration ang 2 missionary namin sa antartica noong 1947 kundi sa Jolo pala.
Sagot:
Pasinsiya kana uli dahil talagang bobo ako sa english kaya hindi ko alam ang meaning sa tithing, ang alam ko lang kasi ay ang hebrew at greek word sa tithing at kung ano ang meaning.]
OK UMAMIN NA SA WAKAS SI THEOLOGS HEHE.
"NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR." HEHE.
--DEARKA ELSMAN, BUSTER GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
... ISANG KATUPARAN NA WALANG KASIGURUHAN LAHAT NG MGA SINABI MO....
Janus:
1. Meron ba O walang ESKIMO sa ANTARCTICA?
THEO: Magaling ka namang section manager, kaya pakibasa nalang ng mabuti ang paliwanag ko tungkol sa "Eskimo sa Antartica"
Sagot:
Pasinsiya kana talagang bobo lang ako sa geography, ang eskimo pala ay talagang nakatira sa Saudi Arabia.
Janus:
3. ANO IBIG SABIHIN NG TITHING?
THEO: huwag mo ng itanong sa akin ang meaning ng tithes para lang mailulusot mo ang maling aral sa inyo ni Manalo tunkol sa abuluyan.
Sagot:
Pasinsiya kana uli dahil talagang bobo ako sa english kaya hindi ko alam ang meaning sa tithing, ang alam ko lang kasi ay ang hebrew at greek word sa tithing at kung ano ang meaning.
>> A SIGN OF DEPRESSION....<<
ILAN PA KAYA ANG HINDI MO ALAM THEO? PALAGAY MO???
I REST MY CASE...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The confession of Jaffi Theologian: "It is also true that the Bible did not refer the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as Gods or three person as one God,
All the while we are talking to a lunatic who insist that his doctrine of "united and together as one God" is his battle cry when all of a sudden he admits it is not Biblical.
Kalabg
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
So tutol ka sa saling "in the form of God" sa Fil 2:5-8 sa kabila ng napakaraming salin na ganito? Sige ilabas mo ang tamang salin kung mali ito at tingnan natin kung hindi ka lalabas na naman na kakatuwa sa mga itatanong ko sa 'yo.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Kalabog,
Hay nako kahit klarong-klaro na ay hindi ka talaga maka-Gets!
Ulitin ko nalang ang sinsabi ko na "It is also true that the Bible did not refer the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as Gods or three person as one God, kay nga ang sabi ko ay "Gods" dahil nga ang lalabas na aral ay marami ang Diyos at ang "three person as one God" dahil lalabas na aral ay "oneness", kaya nasabi ko na hindi mababasa ang mga ito sa bibliya.
Pero klarong-klaro na mababasa sa bibliya na hindi kayang pasinungalingan ni Manalo ay Diyos ang Ama, Diyos ang Panginoong Jesus at Diyos ang Banal na Espiritu dahil nga "they are united and together as one God".
Ano na-Gets mona?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
[Kalabog,
Hay nako kahit klarong-klaro na ay hindi ka talaga maka-Gets!
Ulitin ko nalang ang sinsabi ko na "It is also true that the Bible did not refer the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as Gods or three person as one God, kay nga ang sabi ko ay "Gods" dahil nga ang lalabas na aral ay marami ang Diyos at ang "three person as one God" dahil lalabas na aral ay "oneness", kaya nasabi ko na hindi mababasa ang mga ito sa bibliya.
Pero klarong-klaro na mababasa sa bibliya na hindi kayang pasinungalingan ni Manalo ay Diyos ang Ama, Diyos ang Panginoong Jesus at Diyos ang Banal na Espiritu dahil nga "they are united and together as one God".
Ano na-Gets mona?]
SO WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU READ THAT?
--YZAK JOULE, DUEL GUNDAM PILOT
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Have you seen an amateur magician perform a simple illusion that you just couldn't figure out until someone showed you how it worked and then it seemed so simple? You scratched your head and thought about it but you just couldn't figure out how the illusionist pulled it off. But once you discovered how the trick worked, it no longer seemed so mysterious. And then you felt like a total fool for being so easily duped by such a simple thing. And then you realize how the illusionist hoodwinked you to see things one way when the reality was something else altogether. Illusions are usually very simple and yet very effective things. The best illusions are usually very subtle illusions just one step away from the truth. The biggest and best deceptions do not look like deceptions.
Trinitarians love to go on and on musing to themselves, and loudly exclaiming to others, how the the Trinity is a deep mystery that just cannot be fully comprehended with the human mind. This doctrine they themselves have reasoned out from the Scriptures is an unfathomable mystery they say. It is incomprehensible to human understanding they say. It is a wonderous thing how can God be three yet one they say. Our human minds know the sum of three things do not make one thing and this is why Trinitarians tell us the Trinity is too deep for us to understand with our limited human mind. But is it really? What if I told you it was nothing but an illusion, a very simple trick?
They must create a dichotomy between "person" and "being" out of necessity because God is referred to in terms which we normally understand as terms for a singular person. So they create a dichotomy between "person" and "being" where a person is one singular individual and a being is not necessarily one singular individual. All they are doing here is making their three person God a one entity "it."
One person is one being but one being is not necessarily one person, just as bananas are fruit but fruit are not necessarily bananas. Hence, they can refer to God "as if" he were one person because this three person God is a one being "it" which they will must call "He", and in the back of their minds remind themselves "He" is a three persons "them." Although it is obvious to anyone these mental gymnastics are obviously designed to protect a doctrine, this kind of thing, in a sensible manner, is no a mystery at all either.
If indeed the Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scriptures but inferred by logic and reason of those Scriptures, then it must also be a logical and reasonable doctrine and to claim their own logic and reason cannot be understood by the same logic and reason by which they understood it to be revealed in the Bible is apallingly ridiculous.
This is how Trinitarians develop the doctrine of the Trinity and create a Triune God. Neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit can really be called "God" by identity, that is, "the God" or "the one God," since "the God" in Trinitarianism is necessarily all three together, "the one God." But the term "God" is also used as a synonym for "deity" of nature. So, one simply says, "the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God" meaning "the Father is divine, the Son is divine, the Holy Spirit is divine." Here they explain God by what God is rather than who God is. The Trinitarian God is in fact not a who, but a what, the nature of deity that all three identities share. This is easily seen in the statement, "three persons, one substance," which means "three who-s but one what." However, there is a serious problem for Trinitarians. God is normally described in the Bible in singular person terms such as, "I," "He", "Me," and "Him." This is where the words "paradox" and "mystery" become necessary to the Trinitarian.
Trinitarians will be quick to note a paradox is not a contradiction but an apparent contradiction. However, what they conveniently forget is that a paradox is an apparent contradiction that can be shown not to be a contradiction. This they cannot do. And thus, the word "mystery." When Trinitarians are confronted with the simple Biblical fact that YAHWEH God is portrayed as a uni-personal "I," "Me," "He," and "Him" father figure in the Bible.
Kalabg
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nicol,
Nakakatawa talaga ang aral ni Manalo sa inyo. Imagine Mr. Manalo violated and go againts the correct language grammar of hebrew, greek, english and our very own language pilipino para lang mailulusot niya ang kanyang maling aral sa bibilya. Not only the correct language grammar but also Mr. Manalo violated and go againts historical and archeological evidences of the bible para lang uli mailulusot niya ang kanyang maling aral sa bibliya. Yan ba ang klaseng tao na kinilala ninyong sugo at huling sugo para ipagkatiwala ninyo ang inyong mga kaluluwa, na kitang-kita naman sa klase ng kanyang aral na talagang walang alam sa bibliya. Kaya common sense lang Bay, common sense lang!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Kamille,
Nakakatawa ka rin pala. Basahin mo nga at pag-aralan ang context sa mga talatang yan at tingnan natin kung lalabas ba na hindi Diyos ang Panginoong Jesus. Huwag mong sabihin na sisirain mo rin ang tamang context para mailulusot mo ang maling aral sa inyo ni Manalo.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Pasinsiya kana talagang bobo lang ako sa geography, ang eskimo pala ay talagang nakatira sa Saudi Arabia.
__________________________________
theologian: talagang ang utak mo ay nasa talampakan - ISIULAT BA NAMAN NA ANG ESKIMO AY TALAGANG NAKATIRA SA SAUDI ARABIA - pero may naamoy na ako kay theologs... sa takbo ng kaniyang theological tendencies ... mukhang (secret muna)
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
theologian (Login theologian)
Re: THEOLOGASTER VS. ENCYCLOPEDIA
No score for this post January 29 2006, 3:04 PM
Kamille,
Nakakatawa ka rin pala. Basahin mo nga at pag-aralan ang context sa mga talatang yan at tingnan natin kung lalabas ba na hindi Diyos ang Panginoong Jesus. Huwag mong sabihin na sisirain mo rin ang tamang context para mailulusot mo ang maling aral sa inyo ni Manalo.
AH HAHA SI THEOLOGIANNE BAKLA HINDI NA KAYANG DEPENSAHAN ANG KANYANG BOGUS CLAIM NA MAY ESKIMO KUNO SA ANTARCTICA HAHA!
O Pastor Murrel mangangaral na bulaan.
Kapag ikaw ay nagturo kay Theo na sa bibliya ay isang mangmang at napakayabang ngunit walang alam.
Hahamakin niya ang lahat sundin ka lamang.
Talakayan ng mga duktrina at sinasabi ni Eli Soriano at ng kanyang Ang Dating Daan.
Ano mang mga isyu tungkol kay Eli Soriano ng Ang Dating Daan ay pwedeng pag-usapan dito. Lahat ng taga-pagtangol ng Ang Dating Daan ni Eli Soriano ay ina-anyayahan na ipagtangol ang anumang sa inaakala nyong di wasto ang mga sinasabi dito sa forum na ito at makaka-asa kayong di mawawala o di mabubura ang inyong mga kasagutan.
Ang maaari lang mabura o ma-delete ay ang mga sumusunod....
1.Malicious codes
2.Mga pics na hindi na katangap-tangap
3.Nang-gugulo lamang sa forum
Listahan ng IP Kaanib sa Ang Dating Daan ni Eli Soriano na nangugulo dito sa forum.....
g
