In 1922 Felix Y. Manalo claimed to be the angel of the east and the last messenger of God. According to him, the Catholic Church committed apostasy and so God had to send him to restore the Gospel of Jesus to its purity.
"The Church of Christ which was apostatized after the first century was restored to its pristine purity by God by means of His last messenger, brother Felix Y. Manalo..."
Pasugo, July/August 1988, page 7
Felix Manalo then wrote the 27 Fundamental Beliefs of the Iglesia Ni Cristo. This was supposed to be the pristine purity Gospel of Jesus. This book was later revised by his son Erano Manalo.
Question: If Felix Manalo restored the pristine purity gospel of Jesus, why did his son Erano Manalo have to revise it? Was it to restore it to the more pristine purity Gospel of Jesus?
Was Erano another last messenger?
If his son Erano had to restore it to the pristine gospel, then it wasn’t the pristine purity Gospel of Jesus in the first place.
If his son Erano was another last messenger, then Felix Manalo was not a true last messenger of God.
Anyway, going back to the claim of being the angel of the east and the last messenger of God.
We include the verse related to his claim. Rev. 7:1-4.
1 After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth nor upon the sea nor on any tree.
2 And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the sign of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
3 Saying: Hurt not the earth nor the sea nor the trees, till we sign the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4 And I heard the number of them that were signed. An hundred forty-four thousand were signed, of every tribe of the children of Israel.
According to Felix Manalo’s interpretation, the four angels were the Big Four war ministers who signed the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. The winds mean war. And the sealing on the forehead means the preaching of the gospel of Jesus. The fifth angel, (the angel from the east) is him Felix Manalo and he cried out in a loud voice to the four angels to hold the winds until they have sealed the servants of God.
Let’s analyze it. (Suggestion: Bring a bottle of aspirins. You haven’t heard the greatest nonsense in your life, until you hear this.)
First, the events of the Treaty of Versailles occurred in 1919. Three years later, in 1922, Felix Manalo prophesied he was the angel from the east in 1919!
Prophecies were for the future. This prophecy was made for the past. It’s incredible! And it still did not fit him!
Second, Felix Manalo called Catholics and Protestants children of Satan. Of the Big Four war ministers who signed the Treaty of Versailles, two were Catholics and two were Protestants. How could he call these children of Satan angels?
Third, the sealing on the forehead is supposed to be the preaching of the gospel of Jesus. The Big Four prime ministers and president never preached the gospel nor any religion. How could he call them angels?
Fourth, the angel from the east (the fifth angel) was supposed to cry out in a loud voice to the four angels to hold the winds. How did Felix Manalo communicate to the Big Four war ministers in Versailles? Did he go to Versailles? I bet the Big Four never even heard of him.
Fifth, and how could Felix Manalo speak to the Big Four in Versailles, France in 1919, when he was supposed to be studying religion at the Pacific School of Religion (PSR) in Berkeley, California in 1919?
Sixth, and how could he be studying religion at the PSR, when PSR categorically denied ever having him Felix Manalo as their student in 1919?
Seventh, the four angels David Lloyd George of Britain, Georges Clemenceau of France, Woodrow Wilson of the United States, and Vittorio Orlando of Italy were supposed to hold the winds from destroying the seas, the mountains meaning hold or prevent war UNTIL they have sealed 144,000 servants of God. The Big Four haven’t sealed the forehead nor preached the gospel and World War II broke out in 1938. The Big Four (the four angels) failed to prevent war. Felix Manalo the alleged angel from the east failed to cry out to the four angels to hold the winds!
Holes, holes, holes!
No matter how the INC metaphorizes, rationalizes, twists the Scripture, this angel doctrine stinks to high heavens! All these lies cannot possibly from God. It can only come from the father of lies.
After knowing all these lies, how anyone in good conscience remain a member of this false church INC?
Here’s a post at this forum.
Jasbir's letter to the INC about Rev 7:1-3
October 26 2002 at 12:49 PM Bible Student (Login biblestudent3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of our alumni from this board, Jasbir Singh, (does he still post here) wrote a letter to the INC administration concerning Rev. 7:1-3. The editor's reply is popsted below. This can be found in the Oct. 2002 edition of "God's Message" magazine. (this is the all english version of the "Pasugo"). Since this is the official reply of the INC, then as far as I am concerned, not more input from me is needed. This goes to show how the administration is addressing current topics and therefore strengthening the souls of the members of the INC while, at the same time answering the detractors.
If you have a question to be addressed by the INC administration, you can e-mail them at pasugo@INC.org.ph
Bible Student
1 Timothy 6:12
True Christian
American Veteran
American Patriot http://student631.tripod.com/biblestudentspage/
-------------------------------------------------------
Did Felix Manalo speak with the Big Four?
The Iglesia Ni Cristo teaches that the angel ascending from the east mentioned in Revelation 7:1-3 is Felix Manalo, and the other four angels are the Big Four who played a significant role during World War I. Is there any historical or biblical proof that Felix Y. Manalo communicated with the Big Four to stop the war so that he could preach?
Jasbir Singh
jasbirsingh45@hotmail.com
Editor’s reply:
The Church of Christ never teaches that Brother Felix Y. Manalo physically (communicated?) with the Big Four. Such an assumption is a grave misconception of the doctrines we uphold.
There are statements in the Bible, especially those in the class of prophecies, that should not be taken literally. A particular case is that of Revelation 7:1-3.
The statement, “And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels” (the pronoun “he” refers to the angel ascending from the east) must not be understood in the literal sense. The crying out with the loud voice of the angel from the east to the four angels symbolizes the contrast between the work entrusted to the angel from the east and that entrusted to the four angels. The work of the former is to seal the servants of God on their foreheads, which is done through the preaching of the gospel (Eph. 1:13-14)-hence, a work of salvation. On the other hand, according to the prophecy, “to harm the earth” a work of destruction, is a power of the four angels or the “Big Four” were capable of exercising.
The prophesy in Revelation 7:1-3 can also be likened to the prophecy concerning John the Baptist who was “crying out” in the wilderness as he preached about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, which should not be understood in the literal sense:
“And he went into all the region around Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying: ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord; make His paths straight.”’.” (Lk. 3:3-4, NKJV)
Another biblical verse not to taken literally is Revelation 17:1. This verse mentions of a “a great harlot who sits on many waters” (NKJV). This expression must not be taken literally because a person cannot be sitting on water.
Apostle Paul likened the true church like a chaste virgin, a woman (II Cor. 11:2). Hence, the great harlot in Revelation 17:1 is a corrupt or false church. The many waters upon which the great harlots or false church sits upon represents “peoples, multitudes, nations and tongues” (Rev. 17:15, NKJV). Thus, the harlot sitting upon many waters is symbolic of a false church that is universal in scope.
Bear in mind that there are instances in the Bible when terms are not to be construed in a literal sense.
So what did Pasugo admit? “The Church of Christ never teaches that Brother Felix Y. Manalo physically (communicated?) with the Big Four. The statement, “And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels” (the pronoun “he” refers to the angel ascending from the east) must not be understood in the literal sense.”
If Felix Y. Manalo did not communicate (whether literally or non literally) with the Big Four, contrary to Rev. 7:2-3 “And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels”,
then it is very clear Felix Manalo wasn’t the angel ascending from the east”.
In conclusion. Felix Y. Manalo ain’t no angel! And INC is a false church of Christ!
The INC's interpretation is mind-boggling and utterly nonsensical
October 29 2002, 7:09 AM
The four angels are supposed to hold back the winds or war? Up to when? Until the angel from the east has done the sealing or preaching?
Butt the INC is still sealing or preaching up until now? But the four angels were unable to hold back the winds in 1939, the official year world war 2 started.
And it was not the four angels that let go the winds or war in 1939; it was Adolf Hitler of Germany, when he ordered a ligthning attack or "blitzkrieg" against Poland.
The point was that the big four had completely stopped the hostility of the first world war by signing the treaty of versailles, which officially ended that war.
From then on, the big four did not have any more power to hold back or let go the war, which was "four winds" according to the INC.
This is the major discrepancy of the angel doctrine.
Re: Forum Fact #4. Felix Manalo lied about being the angel from the east!
October 29 2002, 7:51 AM
First, the events of the Treaty of Versailles occurred in 1919. Three years later, in 1922, Felix Manalo prophesied he was the angel from the east in 1919!
>>>the prophesey wasn't made in 1922. It was made by Apostle John in the first century
Prophecies were for the future. This prophecy was made for the past. It’s incredible! And it still did not fit him!
>>>>The prophesy was made in the first century.
Second, Felix Manalo called Catholics and Protestants children of Satan. Of the Big Four war ministers who signed the Treaty of Versailles, two were Catholics and two were Protestants. How could he call these children of Satan angels?
>>>>others in the Bible were called angels who were not part of God's nation
Third, the sealing on the forehead is supposed to be the preaching of the gospel of Jesus. The Big Four prime ministers and president never preached the gospel nor any religion. How could he call them angels?
>>>>>not all angels function is to preach
Fourth, the angel from the east (the fifth angel) was supposed to cry out in a loud voice to the four angels to hold the winds. How did Felix Manalo communicate to the Big Four war ministers in Versailles? Did he go to Versailles? I bet the Big Four never even heard of him.
>>>>Again you missed the point. Rev 7:1-3 IS NOT LITERAL and the INC never claimed it was.
Fifth, and how could Felix Manalo speak to the Big Four in Versailles, France in 1919, when he was supposed to be studying religion at the Pacific School of Religion (PSR) in Berkeley, California in 1919?
>>>>See answer above
Sixth, and how could he be studying religion at the PSR, when PSR categorically denied ever having him Felix Manalo as their student in 1919?
Seventh, the four angels David Lloyd George of Britain, Georges Clemenceau of France, Woodrow Wilson of the United States, and Vittorio Orlando of Italy were supposed to hold the winds from destroying the seas, the mountains meaning hold or prevent war UNTIL they have sealed 144,000 servants of God. The Big Four haven’t sealed the forehead nor preached the gospel and World War II broke out in 1938. The Big Four (the four angels) failed to prevent war. Felix Manalo the alleged angel from the east failed to cry out to the four angels to hold the wind.
>>>>the Big Four held the wind as long as they were able to do so. When world War II broke out 2 were dead and only one was still in polotics.
No INC defender? This is the very foundation of INC. And no INC defender?
October 29 2002, 11:16 PM
Felix Manalo prophesied in 1922 that he was the angel from the east in 1919.
Webster dictionary explains: to prophesy:
To give instruction in religious matters; to interpret or explain Scripture or religious subjects; to preach; to exhort; to expound.
Prophecies are mostly for the future. Manalo prophesied for the past, yet it still did not fit him.
It shows that he was a phony prophet.
Where are the INC defenders? Are you going to save your angel?
that attributes the prophecies written in the Book of Revelation to Bro. Felix?
That book (and all prophecies contained therein) was written by Apostle John. In order for Rev. 7:1-3 to be a prophecy of Bro. Felix, then Bro. Felix would have written it.
The prophecy was Apostle John's not Bro. Felix's. Can't you see that?
Can you find even one other person to accredit the prophecey in Rev. 7:1-3 to Bro. Felix Manalo?
He was too late actually: he could have announced in 1914
October 29 2002, 10:17 AM
that the four angels in rev. 7:2-3 would be the four leaders or the big four that would stop that war then.
And what a pity, he did not preach his INC gospel to one of the big four, that was Woodrow Wilson, who was still alive when Felix Manalo visited the United States then.
Why? Felix Manalo lacked the confidence to convince Woodrow Wilson that he was one of the angels in Rev. 7:2-3. Had he convinced W. Wilson, this would have beeen the headline in all the leading newspapers then.
"Two angels meet: Woodrow Wilson and the angel from the east"? And who knows, Wilson could have been converted by Felix Manalo to join his INC, had he tried to contact him.
But for all we know, Felix Manalo did not; its obvious he knew his claim to be appointed by God was patently false.
Defend your angel! It's Lesson 11 of your Fundamentals.
October 30 2002, 7:42 AM
Of course, everybody knows St. John wrote the book of Revelation (also known as the Apocalypse).
In 1922, Felix Manalo claimed or prophesied a prophesy of St. John to be the angel from the east in Rev. 7:2-3.
Q. What right do Brother Felix Y. Manalo and the ministers of the Church of Christ have in preaching the Gospel?
A. The bearer of the seal and the sealers have been prophesied.......................................................................................................................Rev. 7:2-3
Webster: to prophesy:
To give instruction in religious matters; to interpret or explain Scripture or religious subjects; to preach; to exhort; to expound.
Felix Manalo interpreted the Scripture of Rev. 7:2-3 that he was the angel from the east.
In the INC Bible, lesson 11 Felix Manalo is now the bearer of the seal of Rev: 7:2-3.
Does this mean that Erano Manalo no longer believed his father to be an angel that he revised the Fundamentals?
Defend your angel. Prove to the world that Felix Manalo was an angel!
If you don't believe in it yourself, why are you an INC?
If your post is about the Book of Revelation, everybody knows it was written by St. John.
What Felix Manalo did in 1922 was to use the prophecy of St. John to prophecy an event that happened in the past, that he was the angel from the east in 1919 in the Treaty of Versailles.
Webster defines to prophesy: To give instruction in religious matters; to interpret or explain Scripture or religious subjects; to preach; to exhort; to expound.
It's clear in the Rev. 7:2-3 that the angel from the east cried out in a loud voice to the four angels to hold the wind.
But Felix Manalo was not in France in 1919. He was supposed to be studying at PSR in 1919.
Therefore he did not communicate with the Big Four. Therefore he wasn't the angel from the east who cried out in a loud voice to the four angels.
Therefore he wasn't an angel at all.
Therefore he fooled the gullible INC members into believing he was an angel.
But the dictionary in the back of my King James bible defines prophesy this way:
(1) to speak by divine inspiration (2) to foretell
Therfore, Beo. Felix COULD NOT have "foretold" or "prophecied about the prophesey" since the the Prophesey of Apostle John had already happened. How could anyone "foretell" about something that happened in the past?
By the way, you are still stuck on insisting that the INC teaches Rev. 7:1-3 literaly even thogh it has been proven that it has never taught it that way. Time to get over it and move on.
Re: your INC founder Felix Manalo, did he or did he not claim to be the angel of the east and last messenger of God in Rev: 7:2-3?
>>>>yes
Pasugo says it’s not literal.
It's a cop out because Pasugo cannot prove it's a true claim. We proved it's false. FYM did not communicate with the Big Four. The true angel communicate with the four angels.
The foundation of your INC church is based on Felix Manalo. The son Erano Manalo even states it very explicitly so in the Pasugo.
>>>>where in Pasugo?
Pasugo, May-June 1986
"All the power and the glory which the church is enjoying result from the fact that when I assumed the position, the Church already had a firm and solid foundation laid by the late Executive Minister. The Church is now enjoying the fruits of his vision, his sufferings and sacrifices, his love and fortitude. Above all, everything is happening according to the will of God."—EGM
The foundation of the Catholic Church is based on Matt 16:18 when Jesus founded his church in 30 AD.
>>>>But then started teaching false doctrines
It’s the INC teachings that are false. Jesus promised to be with his church all days until the end of the world.
Bible Student. Are you calling Jesus a liar?
I believe in Jesus when he promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church.
>>>>this refers tro death
Open your KJV. It’s written Gates of hell, not gates of death
I BELIEVE IN JESUS.
Is your pay as INC minister so high that you are willing to sell your soul to a false prophet?
>>>>My pay as an INC minister? I am not a minister.
Are an INC deacon then? Why not work for Jesus instead of this liar Manalo?
your INC founder Felix Manalo, did he or did he not claim to be the angel of the east and last messenger of God in Rev: 7:2-3?
>>>>yes
Pasugo says it’s not literal.
It's a cop out because Pasugo cannot prove it's a true claim. We proved it's false. FYM did not communicate with the Big Four. The true angel communicate with the four angels.
>>>>You proved no such thing since you insist on taking the verse literaly.
Questions:
1. Who are the angels in this prophecy?
2. Is this prophecy to be taken literaly?
The foundation of your INC church is based on Felix Manalo. The son Erano Manalo even states it very explicitly so in the Pasugo.
>>>>where in Pasugo?
Pasugo, May-June 1986
"All the power and the glory which the church is enjoying result from the fact that when I assumed the position, the Church already had a firm and solid foundation laid by the late Executive Minister. The Church is now enjoying the fruits of his vision, his sufferings and sacrifices, his love and fortitude. Above all, everything is happening according to the will of God."—EGM
>>>>The foundation that Bro. Felix Manalo laid is not himself. The work started by Bro. Felix Manalo was already secured and firm when Bro. Erano Manalo took over the mantle of leadership. The point that Bro. EGM was driving at is not "who is the foundation of the Church" but the work which started by the Messenger of God was already on place when he died.
The foundation of the Catholic Church is based on Matt 16:18 when Jesus founded his church in 30 AD.
>>>>But then started teaching false doctrines
It’s the INC teachings that are false. Jesus promised to be with his church all days until the end of the world.
Bible Student. Are you calling Jesus a liar?
>>>>Where is the rosary in the Bible? Where is celebacy preached?
"A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well."
1 Timothy 3:12
"St. Epiphanius declares that 'he who leads a married life is not to be admitted by the Church to the order of Deacon, Priest, Bishop or sub-Deacon.'"
Faith of our Fathers, Page 329
Who are you following? The Bible or your so-called "saint"?
I believe in Jesus when he promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against his church.
>>>>this refers to death
Open your KJV. It’s written Gates of hell, not gates of death.
>>>>The word is "hades" which refers to the world of the dead
I BELIEVE IN JESUS.
>>>>I believe in Jesus too. The difference is I choose to follow Him.
Is your pay as INC minister so high that you are willing to sell your soul to a false prophet?
>>>>My pay as an INC minister? I am not a minister.
Are an INC deacon then? Why not work for Jesus instead of this liar Manalo?
If Felix Manalo is not the Messenger of God, then who is cause i know not all churches is the true one there has to be only one organization church. I'm fore sure it's not the Catholic Church for all the stuff they do like the crosses i know is not pleasing to God. For all that i read it breaks my heart i don't know what to believe. So what "Church Of Christ" is the true church of Christ cause it's title has to be "church of Christ" just as it says in Acts 20:28. So please tell me since you guys sound so right so it has to be one only church like inc that is one organization and not all churches because there's division so please reply back
In John Chapter 6 we can read about a well-documented apostasy that actually took place in the presence of Our Lord. Understanding the reason for this apostasy is extremely important. The true meaning of this particular chapter is one of the key differences between the Catholic Church and the LDS church. After hearing what Jesus said, many of His disciples refused to believe His discourses at Capernaum and no longer went with him. Martin Luther also rejected this doctrine which had been believed by all Christians for fifteen hundred years prior to the Protestant revolt against the Catholic Church. It is still taught and believed by the Catholic Church today.
The miracle of the loaves and fish. (John 6:1-15)
Jesus asks His disciples how they will buy bread so that the people can eat. The only thing available was five barley loaves and two fish from a young lad. Jesus took their simple offering. Using almost the exact same words ("gave thanks" or "eucharistia" in Greek) as are used in Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29, to describe the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, He performed a miracle and provided enough for five thousand to eat. He then instructed them to pickup the leftovers to show them (and us) that material resources are gifts of God and should not be wasted. Through this miracle, Jesus teaches His disciples to trust in Him whenever they meet up with difficulties in their apostolic endeavours in the future. He is also preparing them for what He is going to reveal to them in the discourses at Capernaum in which Jesus presents Himself as "the Bread of Life".
The discourse on the bread of life. (John 6:25-58)
Jesus starts out by telling the people that their attitudes are wrong. He indicates that if they have the right attitude they will be able to understand His teachings yet to come. He tells them that He is the Bread of Life, come down from heaven to give Himself sacramentally as genuine food. Through this discourse, Christ promised that He would give Himself, His own flesh and blood, in a real sense, as food and drink. Jesus is telling them many months prior to the Last Supper, that it will be His Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity truly present in the Holy Eucharist. He made it abundantly clear that His flesh was true food and His blood was true drink. He told them over and over again that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood in order to have life within them. This terminology was not being used simply as a figure of speech. To the Jews, the phrase "to eat someone's flesh" meant to hate and vengefully persecute, and "to drink someone's blood" meant to visit severe punishments on them. 11 Neither of these meanings would make any sense in the context of what Jesus was saying to them. Please read John 6:25-58 very carefully again and ponder in your heart what Jesus meant by speaking these words. Was He speaking about a symbolic action to be done in remembrance of Him or did He actually mean what He was saying?
"This Saying is Hard" (John 6:60-70)
Here's where the apostasy took place even as Jesus was speaking to the people. The disciples' reaction was one of disgust. How can He give us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink? "This saying is hard; who can listen to it?" Many of His disciples simply could not accept what He was saying to them and they walked away, never to follow Him again. Rather than calling them back or trying to explain that He didn't really mean it the way they interpreted His words, He turned to the Twelve and asked them, "Will you also go away?" That same piercing question from Jesus applies to us as much today as it did back then. Do we also find this saying hard to accept? Will we also turn and walk away from Our Lord? Do we not have the faith necessary to believe these words?
The Catholic Church has always taught that Jesus Christ is truly present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Holy Eucharist through the mystery of Transubstantiation. Compare this with the Mormon teaching that the bread and wine (water) are merely emblems or symbols (Moroni 4 and 5). However, to complicate things, (3 Nephi 18:28-29) warns us not to partake of the flesh and blood of Christ unworthily. So which is it in the LDS church, a symbolic action to be done in remembrance of the body and blood of Christ, or is the bread and wine (water) His true flesh and blood?
Death came into the world through the sin of Adam. Bread is first mentioned in the Old Testament when God gives punishment to Adam. "In the sweat of your brow, you shall eat bread" (Genesis 3:19). Scripture again uses the word bread in conjunction with the word wine, "Then Melchizedek, the king of Salem (Jerusalem), brought out bread and wine; for he was a priest of the Most High God" (Genesis 14:18). It is significant that God mentions bread in his punishment of Adam, because the new Adam, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22), identifies Himself as "The Bread of Life". In the Book of Hebrews we read that, "Jesus has - become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 6:20) Like Melchizedek, Jesus is the King of Jerusalem, and a High Priest of God who offers bread and wine. Christ continues through His Catholic priests to offer the sacrifice of His body and blood, under the appearance of bread and wine, according to the order of Melchizedek. It is at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29) that Jesus clarifies what He spoke of earlier during His ministry. He is the true "bread of angels" (Psalms 78:23-25). Christ gives us His body, blood, soul and divinity under the taste and appearance of a meal of bread and wine. Through faith we recognize that the Holy Eucharist only appears to be bread, "they recognized Him in the breaking of the bread." (Luke 24:35)
Conclusion
By the Power of the Holy Spirit, the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. He dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. He established a visible Church on earth to spread the Good News of His Gospel to all the nations, even until the end of time. He appointed Peter (Rock) to be the visible head of His Church on earth, to feed His lambs and to tend His sheep. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church on earth. Through apostolic succession we can be sure that the Priesthood power and authority of Jesus Christ has been maintained intact and protected by the Holy Spirit. The one holy catholic and apostolic Church has been on the earth continuously since the beginning of Christian history. The Church has remained steadfast in the faith through an unbroken chain of succession from the ancient days of the Apostles to the bishops of our Catholic Church today. God has given His Church Seven Sacraments to be channels of His grace, His life, and His power. The genuine early Christian doctrines and practices, as I have clearly shown, are the ones found in the Catholic Church, not in the LDS church. There is no evidence in the writings of the early Church Fathers to support the unique LDS doctrines such as pre-mortal existence, baptism for the dead, plural marriages, the plurality of gods, and the notion that man may become a god of his own world. I ask my LDS brothers and sisters, as well as any other honest, open-minded seeker of truth, to not only read what Barry and I have written in this debate, but to also search through other available resources in order to find the truth. God has provided all of the public revelations necessary for us to work out our eternal salvation. Jesus is the "way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). It is up to each of us to respond to His call and follow Him along the right path to holiness. I sincerely believe with all my heart that the correct path must ultimately lead to the Catholic Church, the one true Church established by Jesus Christ as a shining light to the world.
This voice has been trying to pollute this board with recycled garbage using the same argument and questions over and over. He moves from one thread to another for the same intent.. To fill up the boar with litters. No matter what explanation you give, he will not understand nor pay attention coz his mind is fixed to a closed frame.."To hate the INC and all its trachings."
So, lets' just ignore this voice from the graveyard..
>>>>You proved no such thing since you insist on taking the verse literaly.
Questions:
1. Who are the angels in this prophecy?
2. Is this prophecy to be taken literaly?
Very well, what’s the symbolic explanation of the verse Rev 7:2-3?
Pasugo says the four angels in this prophecy are the Big Four in the Treaty of Versailles. And the angel from the east is Felix Manalo.
So What’s your symbolic explanation?
How did Felix Manalo become angel from the east?
Pasugo, May-June 1986
"All the power and the glory which the church is enjoying result from the fact that when I assumed the position, the Church already had a firm and solid foundation laid by the late Executive Minister. The Church is now enjoying the fruits of his vision, his sufferings and sacrifices, his love and fortitude. Above all, everything is happening according to the will of God."—EGM
I see the glorification of Felix Manalo here. Not a word about Jesus. It’s a cult of Felix Manalo. But you are too brainwashed to see it.
>>>>Where is the rosary in the Bible? Where is celebacy preached?
Let me reprint KJV for you:
Matthew 16:18 :: King James Version (KJV)
Matthew 16
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
It’s very clear; and the gates of hell.
You distort the Word of God .It clearly says hell, it means hell. When the bible wants to mean death it says death.
You use the false messenger’s false interpretation of death.
>>>>I believe in Jesus too. The difference is I choose to follow Him.
You think you choose to follow him. You actually follow the teachings of Manalo not Jesus.
I’m not a priest because it’s not my calling.
You need a primer on Christian religion:
SCRIPTURE ALONE?
IS HALF OF THE STORY SUFFICIENT?
Can we agree that Holy Scripture is the inerrant Word of God? If you agree, please proceed.
If you have proceeded, then it means that you indeed believe that Holy Scripture is the inerrant Word of God. With that in mind, consider the following citation from the Bible which speaks of the Will of God for each of us:
"This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. " (Cf. 1 Timothy 2:3-4)
Therefore, it is the will of God Almighty that everyone seeks the Truth, regardless of whether it "feels good". Given that fact, let us proceed.
Nowhere in the Holy Scripture does it say Scripture Alone. However, there are several places where it says just the opposite.
“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25).
“do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things…stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”. (II Thess 2:5-15).
"And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2 Timothy 2:2)
"Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist. No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well. Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father. (Cf. 1 John 2:22)
"Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete. " (2 John 12)
"Demetrius receives a good report from all, even from the truth itself. We give our testimonial as well, and you know our testimony is true. I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face." (3 John 12-14)
HOLY SCRIPTURE & CATHOLIC TRADITION
The Church teaches that Holy Scripture (i.e. the Bible) is the inspired word of God. That is to say, written by man, but inspired by the Holy Spirit.
With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Pope in a decree, the Decree of Pope St. Damasus I issued at the Council of Rome. 382 A.D, declared which books of the Bible were canonical. He then gave St. Jerome, a Roman Catholic priest, the mission to translate them into the Latin Vulgate. This work was completed in 398 A.D. Several Councils confirmed the Decree of Pope St. Damasus I afterwards.
History has it that it took monks working arduously between 15 and 20 years to transcribe ONE complete Bible.
Gutenberg invented the printing press during the 15th century.
So for 1,500 years or so, how was the Gospel being handed down when there were little or no written copies of it? The answer lies in the citations above. By word of mouth and by the writings and teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. We call this handing down, "Catholic Tradition", and it is as much a part of the Deposit of Faith now as it was then. (n.b. traditio is Latin for "to hand down".).
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT
"Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Cf Matthew 16:15-19 Douay-Rheims)
Note: In the passage above, Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. The word "peter" means "rock". He gave charge (i.e. the keys) of His Church to Peter. The Bishop of Rome has always been the Pope, who is also the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and his tomb lies beneath the altar in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, Italy.
To the Apostles (the first Roman Catholic Bishops) he said: He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. (Cf. Luke 10:16 Douay-Rheims).
It is worthy of note that at last count there were 33.600 Christian denominations. As is clear in Holy Scripture, Jesus transferred only one set of keys to the kingdom of heaven…not 12…and certainly not 33.600.
Likewise, He chose one set of Apostles, not 33.600 sets.
(By the way, where in the Bible does it say that one can establish another church other than the one that Jesus Christ established? Why then were 33, 599 more established if the rule is Sola Scriptura?)
"Unless the LORD build the house, they labor in vain who build."
(Cf. Psalms 127:1)
IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THE MOTHER OF THE BIBLE OR THE DAUGHTER?
By simple deduction...
The Catholic Church was founded at the end of Christ's
ministry on earth, or about 29-30 A.D..
The first book of the New Testament was not even written
until about 20 years later.
The Catholic Church could not possibly have come from the Bible.
Instead, the Bible came from the Catholic Church.
Consequently, the Catholic Church is the mother of the Bible, and not the daughter.
By the time Revelation, the last book of the Bible, was written around 100 A.D.,
the Catholic Church was already on its fifth Pope, St. Evaristus.
VoiceintheWilderness (Login VoiceintheWilderness)
Posted Nov 4, 2002 12:11 PM
>>>>You proved no such thing since you insist on taking the verse literaly.
Questions:
1. Who are the angels in this prophecy?
2. Is this prophecy to be taken literaly?
Very well, what’s the symbolic explanation of the verse Rev 7:2-3?
Pasugo says the four angels in this prophecy are the Big Four in the Treaty of Versailles. And the angel from the east is Felix Manalo.
So What’s your symbolic explanation?
How did Felix Manalo become angel from the east?
>>>>Just answering my question with a question. Why not answer my question with an answer?
In regards to the rest of what you posted:
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Rev. 22:18-19
"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up."
Gal. 1:11
"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Mt. 15:9
"These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings."
Col. 2:22
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
2 Tim. 4:3
"They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men. And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"
Mark 7:7-9
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
Col. 2:8
"Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."
Col. 2:23
1. Is this why your so-called saint taught opposite of what the Bible said about marriage?
2. Have you nailed yourself to the cross yet like so many other Catholics have done before in the Philippines?
Nowhere in the Holy Scripture does it say Scripture Alone. However, there are several places where it says just the opposite.
“There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (John 21:25).
“do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things…stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”. (II Thess 2:5-15).
"And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well. (2 Timothy 2:2)
>>>>You proved no such thing since you insist on taking the verse literaly.
Questions:
1. Who are the angels in this prophecy?
2. Is this prophecy to be taken literaly?
>>>>Just answering my question with a question. Why not answer my question with an answer?
Be reminded that your Felix Manalo angel is on trial here. Not me. My interpretation of Rev. 7:2-3 does not matter. If you cannot prove that your beloved Felix Manalo was an angel, then it proves that he lied about being the angel from the east. So let’s try again.
What’s the symbolic explanation of the verse Rev 7:2-3?
Pasugo says the four angels in this prophecy are the Big Four in the Treaty of Versailles. And the angel from the east is Felix Manalo.
So What’s your symbolic explanation?
How did Felix Manalo become angel from the east?
In regards to the rest of what you posted:
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book."
Rev. 22:18-19
Who’s adding to them? The Bible is a Catholic Book. The Catholic Church is the one who has been preserving it for centuries.
"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up."
Gal. 1:11
The gospel of Manalo, like the requirement of membership in the INC for salvation, is man made.
"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
Mt. 15:9
Yep, the teachings of Manalo are commandments of men.
"These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings."
Col. 2:22
Yep, Felix Manalo had no authority from God, so they are Felix Manalo commands and teachings.
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."
2 Tim. 4:3
Yep, they will believe Felix Manalo instead of the word of Jesus.
"They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men. And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"
Mark 7:7-9
Yep, they worship Jesus as mere man as taught by a phony angel named Manalo.
"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
Col. 2:8
Yep, the teachings of Manalo are hollow and shallow and deceptive and are based on basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. The Trinity of God is against the basic principles of this world.
"Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence."
Col. 2:23
Yep, the INC appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
1. Is this why your so-called saint taught opposite of what the Bible said about marriage?
Wrong Mr. Bible Student. I see that you have not read the hyperlink. Please double click. http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ109.HTM
2. Have you nailed yourself to the cross yet like so many other Catholics have done before in the Philippines?
Now, now Mr. Bible Student. You are being ridiculous. Haven’t you seen some Americans carry their cross and walk the streets? So what does it prove? There are some crazy Americans and crazy Filipinos too. No Christian churches teach their members to literally bear their cross and be nailed on the cross.
Enough diversion, Mr. Bible Student. Defend your beloved angel Felix Manalo. Prove to us that he is the angel from the east! Many people here are waiting for your brilliant defense. After all, you are Bible Student, the bible expert of INC! Give us a symbolic explanation of Rev. 7:2-3!
is the same answer as what was answered in the letter to Jasbir in the Oct. 2002 issue of the God's Message magazine. You simply refuse to accept it and yet you have no alternative interpretation of Rev. 7:1-3.
A classic case of "I don't know what it means but it CAN'T mean what the INC says it means!"
Very funny (actualy it's not)
"The Bible is a Catholic Book. The Catholic Church is the one who has been preserving it for centuries."
Are you kidding me? Don't you know that it was the Catholic Church that at one time forbade Catholics from owning Bible and held Bible burnings? Study your history. Do you think it is a coincidence that when the printing press was invented the Bible was one of the first books to be printed on it and this was around the time of the reformation?
It was because people started reading the Bible and found out that much of what the Catholic church taught was not in it.
By the way, nowhere in the Bible does it say that other books should be used as scripture. What are you? A Mormon now?
"Are you kidding me? Don't you know that it was the Catholic Church that at one time forbade Catholics from owning Bible and held Bible burnings? Study your history. Do you think it is a coincidence that when the printing press was invented the Bible was one of the first books to be printed on it and this was around the time of the reformation?"
Mr. Bible Student. You make accusations without supporting evidence. Where did you get this idea that the Catholic Church forbade owning the Bible and held Bible burnings? From your angel Felix Manalo? I would appreciate it if you can prove it.
Please be reminded that the Catholic Church in the 3rd Century selected, compiled and authenticcated which manuscripts are inspired and which are not. (The Protestants and the Iglesia Ni Cristos had nothing to do with it.) Then it asked St.Jerome to translate them into Latin into what's now called the Latin Vulgate.
In 1582 the Catholic Church was the first to come out with the English version with Douay Rheims. This was in the time of the Gutenberg invention.
30 years later, in 1611 the Protestants published the King James Version.
It's like this year 2002, we receive the Douay Version.
Then you have to wait until year 2032 to get the KJV.
Incidentally, Felix Manalo calls Catholics and Protestants children of Satan. The bibles then are the books of the children of Satan. Tje KJV you use is therefore a book of the children of Satan. Why is there no pristine INC Bible, as book of the angel Felix Manalo?
According to Mohammed, angel Gabriel dictated to him the Koran.
If Felix Manalo was truly an angel from the east, why didn't he have his own pristine bible dictated to him by God or another angel, instead of relying on the bibles of the children of Satan?
The INC angel doctrine collapses. You have been duped Mr. Bible Student.
"With the influence and support of Archbishop Arundel, a synod ot oxford in July 1408 forbade the reading of Wycliffe's Bible:
'It is a dangerous thing,...as witnesseth blessed St Jerome, to translate the text of the holy Scripture out of one tongue into another; for in the translation the same sense is not always kept, as the same St. Jerome confesseth, that athough he were inspired...yet oftentimes in this he erred; we therefore decree and ordain that no man hereafter on his own authority...translateany text of scripture into English or any other tongue, by way of a book, pamphlet or teatise; and that no manread any such book, pamphlet or treatise, now lately composed in the time of John Wycliffe or since, or hereafterto be set forthin part or whole, publicly or privately, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be approved by the ordinary of the place or if the case so require, by the council or provincial. He that shall do contrary to this shall likwise be punished as a favourer of heresy and error'
People who were caught reading this Bible were liable to forfeiture of thier 'and, cattle,life and goods,' and yet it is also recorded that the price of borrowing a Wycliffe Bible for an hour every day for a period of time to do a course in reading was a load of hay. The threat of severe penalties had the reverse effect of rousing curiousity among the people to know what the forbidden Bible said."
The Journey from Text to Translation, by Paul Wegner Pages 283-284.
There is more to the story. Would you care to research the 1415 Council of Constance before we continue?
One technique in in asserting one's belief is to disregard any explanation of the others and insist that his point has not been answered or disproved.
This is attract attention from and convince others that his point is correct.
And this the thing being done by this voice from the smokey mountain...
Despite all the proofs and explanations raised by different posters here, and even from the Pasugo and other INC publications that he reads, he pretends not to understand them, and inisists that there is no explanation given..
So I guess its a waste of time as a passage in the bible says "...dont throw pearls to the pigs.."
As a distinguish alumnus of U.P., you are invited to speak before 5,000 students at the school auditorium. The students ask you, "Mr. Mikel why do you believe Felix Manalo was the angel of the east of the Rev. 7:2-3? "
How would you explain it?
You can give a simple explanation or symbolic explanation. The students are silent and wait for your answer.
I will give the same answer and explanations as given by other brother posters here and from Pasugo and other INC publications.
The intelligent alumni from the audience would be amazed and enligtened and would not aske the same question again.
But the imbecile ones would insist "What's your answer? We want it answered the way we want it answered or else we will not accept your answer."
And i'll tell them "Go home stupid ones. You are not worth to be alumni of this school."
I graduated from Univ. of the Philippines (is other UP in the Phil.?)
And my answer would be this..
"Ladies and gentlemen....
I am not an evangelist, or a minister or authorized preacher of the Church. If you want a deeper, complete, precise answer to your questions regarding our doctrines, I will invite an INC minister for you.
However, I can give you a sort of an outline as I understand our techings regarding your question.
1. Define first what is the meaning of the word Angel.
It literally means a messenger
2. So your question is reduced to "Why we believe that
F.Y.Manalo is a messenger?"
3. He preached the words of God. He gave correct and
pristine meaning of the words of God in the Bible.
He was instrumental in the resurgence of the true
Church of Christ in the Philippines
4. He is the fulfillment of God's prophecy in
Rev. 7:2-3
5. We believe all this because it is written in the
Bible and affirmed by history and facts.
As I said before, if you want a more detailed explanations of these, an INC minister would be willing to talk to you.."
4. He is the fulfillment of God's prophecy in
Rev. 7:2-3
How?
How did he become the angel of the east of Rev. 7:2-3?
BTW.
Is Univ. of the Phil. a state university?
The Philippines is 80% Catholic. Therefore your education is subsidized 80% by Catholics and 1% by INC.
Also I have been to your INC bible studies. It is not bible study. It is INC indoctrination. Your minister jumps from one verse to another grossly misinterpreting bible passages. It is only for brainwashed simpletons.
True bible studies like the RCIA is a give and take exchange of information. In the case of INC, it's one sided. It's for the uneducated Filipinos. I saw one American mental retard though.
I already had 6 years of Theology studies. I don't need your shallow distorted bible interpretations. Thank you.
all knowing Chito Papa who now resides in America. Woe to the poor uneducated Filipinos because you could never convince mighty Chito of your logic and intellectual capacity. You may graduate from UP but still you are from a 3rd world country. Only he and his kind is capable of knowing things. He indeed thus study Theology.
Ad hominem. Attack the person, instead of addressing the issue.
November 8 2002, 4:32 AM
Ok Mr. Rod,
Why don't you defend your angel?
If you truly believe that your beloved angel Felix Manalo was the angel from the east of Rev. 7:2-3, just give us a simple or symbolic explanation why you believe that this man was really an angel.
If you cannot, then it only proves you are just another brainwashed simpleton. You have nothing to contribute. You are useless member of a false church.
Did you say, 6 years in theology? That's a big problem!
November 16 2002, 3:07 PM
You are not learning! Don't you think your wasting your time in that theological school?
Your question about the angel in Rev. 7:2-3 reflects your non-understanding of the scriptures. Is there any refunds? if it does, then take it! a friendly advise.
1 Cor 1:20 What happened to those wise people? What happened to those experts in the Scriptures? What happened to the ones who think they have all the answers? Didn't God show that the wisdom of this world is foolish?
1 Cor 2:6 We do use wisdom when speaking to people who are mature in their faith. But it isn't the wisdom of this world or of its rulers, who will soon disappear.
CCF_Thomas
Member since Jun-11-02
129 posts, 7 feedbacks, 14 points Jun-29-02, 06:26 AM (US Central Time)
"Man-made religions"
Friends in Christ,
The man-made religious tradition of "sola scriptura" is a trap that Catholics are baited into time after time by separated Christians. It is a trap, because with "sola scriptura" (and without a legitimate teaching authority) any individual can form his own set of "scriptural" beliefs and doctrines.
Before I returned to the Church, some years ago, when I was searching for the true Chritian faith, I was dismayed to find that EVERY denomination I looked into, each and EVERY ONE, claimed to be "Bible-believing Christ-honoring" and faithful Christian churches. Yet they disagreed with one another! How could this be! Yet this is the result of individualistic "sola scriptura", which allows every man to interpret Scripture as he sees fit, and deduce truth as it seems to him. This is clearly doctrinal "bad fruit", since truth does not contradict itself.
Catholic apologetics can show Scriptural verses that support the truth of the Faith, but the proof of Catholic doctrine rests upon the foundation of the truth that Christ established: His Church. A "show me the verses" challenge, from an individualistic "sola scriptura" separated Christian, will never be answered to his satisfaction, apart from the enlightening grace of the Spirit in his heart and mind. This is because an individual can always find "scriptural support" for his divergent opinions, to his satisfaction, if he wants to. If this were not the case - if individualistic "sola scriptura" were in fact a reliable guide to truth - then we would have only one Protestant Church, instead of the thousands that we now suffer with.
It is wisely said that the truth deserves to be presented in its fullness. The Catholic truth insists that Christ reveals Himself in and through His Church, with three channels of revelation: Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. These three together insure doctrinal fidelity. Any one "channel" separated unto itself, separated from the three, is open to misinterpretation and therefore error.
How do we present the Catholic truth to those who will not acknowledge the necessary three channels of revelation? How do we talk with those who keep insisting on separating Scripture from the Church? Good questions! I suggest that we need to speak always in the mode of the hearer - yet we cannot allow truth to be restrained to false restrictions, false premises such as "sola".
If Felix Manalo lied that he was angel from the east and we believe he did, then his teachings are no longer credible.
FYM has no proof that he was the angel from the east. The story of the Treaty of Versailles does not match the story of Rev. 7:1-4.
The Big Four in the Treaty of Versailles do not match the four angels of Rev. 7:1-4.
Felix Manalo did not communicate with the Big Four.
The angel from the east communicated with a loud voice to the four angels to hold the winds.
Germany, restarted the war, ignoring the Big Four.
In Rev. 7:2-3, the angels are still holding the winds.
It does not compute. Manalo was a liar. The INC was the false church of Christ.
Jan, concentrate on the thread. Defend your angel.
November 8 2002, 5:24 PM
We have proven that FYM lied about studying at PSR.
We have proven that FYM had no authority to found a church. Therefore the INC is an illegitimate church. Perhaps like the many illegitimate love children of FYM walking around.
eWatson completely shattered the worm Jacob doctrine of INC. FYM wasn't a worm Jacob either.
Now the topic here is that FYM lied about being the angel from the east.
Pasugo says it's symbolic. Well, what does that mean?
How did FYM symbolically in a loud voice communicate with the Big Four in the Treaty of Versailles?
Who let go of the winds of war? Who restarted the World War? The Germans. They are not even a member of the Big Four. So how does all these tie up together? How does FYM become the angel of the east?
If you cannot defend your angel, then at least explain to us why you still believe in this false church.
SOLD! It's final! Felix Manalo LIED about being angel from the east.
November 22 2002, 6:05 AM
The INC members have not put up any credible defense at all. All they say is that it is symbolic!
This means they have no rational explanations for the outrageous claim of their founder. Yet they believe him. Really pathetic bunch of people. They have surrendered their God given brains to think. They are sadly but appropriately called "brainwashed simpletons."
Since Felix Manalo claim to have been anointed by ministers of Satan. Then it must be true that makes him truly a minister of Satan.
Therefore he's not really an angel from the east. He's actually an angel from hell. All his lies bear witness to his true color.
NINE threads unanswered by detractors for weeks, and VITW claims 'SOLD'!
November 22 2002, 11:43 AM
Question is, VITW, what are you selling? It ain't truth, as is CLEARLY EVIDENT, since the majority of the threads in this topic are answered by INC DEFENDERS with NO reply by detractors for WEEKS...and you claim 'SOLD'!
Whatcha selling, VITW? You wouldn't be making a claim and then be pretending that nobody's said anything in return, now would you?
Is it snake oil you're selling? It ain't truth that you're selling, we can see that much....
Bro. Glenn Cessor
Proverbs
9:7 - He that reproveth a scorner getteth to himself shame: and he that rebuketh a wicked man getteth himself a blot.
9:8 - Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.
Forum Fact #4 Asked for any rebuttal. You did not rebut.
November 22 2002, 5:07 PM
In fact, this is the first time you commented on this post, when it was already closed!
Should I be responsible for the other questions on the other threads?
The topic here is very clear. Felix Manalo lied about being the angel from the east.
You have not contested it. You kept quiet all the time. So don't be a cry baby. It is finished. It is established. Mr. Felix Manalo lied about being the angel from the east!
I have closed this thread.
Meanwhile, I suggest you do your best to rebut Mr. eWatson. I suggest you get Mr. Philosopo, Mr. Truthfinder, and Mr. Bible Student to assist you.
I am sure Mr. eWatson does not mind.
Sorry to say, if God is not on your side, even if you take 10 years of debating lessons at the New Era University in Manila, you will still lose.
There is no defense against Truth. The only weapon you have is more lies.
