Peanut Gallery: Menorrah vs. Totnak: The 1st Century Church completely apostatized

[cedric_errol]

Like the saying goes, "Huli man daw at magaling, naihahabol din." It is never too late to offer anything that is good.

Thanks to our dear moderators: Ateo and Mooch.

Congrats Tots.

[TLG]

congratz totnak... where's the thread? Gusto nong basahin ang desisyun ni mocchie?

edit: Already read moochie's decision, very straightforward!

[barokako]

Congratulations to totnak!

I wanted Menorrah to win but I already knew that his proposition is untenable. The qualification "completely apostatized" was not "completely" proven.

Naitumba po ni sir totnak ang tindig ni sir Menorrah na tuluyang nag-apostasya ang buong Iglesya sa panmamagitan ng pagbibigay ng tamang kahulugan nang mga salitang "heresy" at "apostasy". Doon po makikita ng mga mambabasa na ang ibig pa lang sabihin ni sir Menorrah ay nagkasala ang unang iglesya sa pamamagitan ng "heresy" at hindi "apostasy".



Kay ginoong Ischaramochie puwede po bang husgahan din ninyo ang debate ni Menorrah at XIII, kahit po napagkasunduan nilang walang moderator? Gusto ko po lamang makuha ang opinion niyo sir.

[Katholikon]

All my felicitations to Totnak for winning this debate grandly and greatly!

And my felicitations as well to Ischaramoochie for rendering a truly logical and correct decision, albeit already long over due!

But I do decry here the cowardly attitude of Ateo for not judging the debate in spite of the sun like clarity of the true winner of the debate: Totnak.

But I will not let Ateo's cowardice here dampen the victory of truth that has been Totnak's proposition: that the Lord Jesus Christ was in deed correct when He stated that, thus:

That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

(New Testament | Matthew 16:18)

Again, congratulations, Totnak!

[Katholikon]

And I would just like to congratulate the web designers of PEx for the new formats and the new design!

I love it, it is beautiful and colourful, unlike the drab and boring colours of the old format and design.

Kudos to the ones who made these beautiful changes to PEx!

[rezilauqe]

by Pasugo Mailbox on Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 9:06am ·

THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY says that God is the Savior, I Tim. 2:3. In your denial of the Godship of Christ you have a pseudo-savior. I Tim:2:5 explicitly states that Jesus Christ is a mediator not savior. It is Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, true God and true man who is and no one else.

Your insistence that Jesus Christ is only a man and is devoid of divinity is practically denying the veracity of a basic biblical truth—the Incarnation as revealed in Jn. 1:14 and Philippians 2:6-8. Except for the Iglesia ni Cristo, Christendom believes that Jesus Christ is true God and true man because he is God Incarnate. In denying this you have made liars of John and Paul and since their lies appear in the New Testament this is tantamount to saying that the Holy Bible, the Iglesia ni Cristo's sole rule of faith is tainted with lies.


Lutgardo P. Alquiros
Lucena City, Philippines


Editor's reply:
Your letter deals with an interesting topic, that the denial of the Godship of Christ allegedly yields a pseudo-savior.
I Timothy 2:3 indeed states God is our Savior. The Iglesia ni Cristo preaches that 1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Version) indeed states that Christ is a man, the mediator between God and men. The Iglesia ni Cristo preaches that also.

But what about Titus 1:4,3 which states that Jesus Christ is also our Savior? Do you deny that?

John 1:14 does not state that God became flesh. What it states is that the Word (or Logos) was made flesh. Your conclusion that the Word is God is taken from a mistranslation of John 1:1. The word had a beginning and thus cannot be God because God had no beginning (Ps. 90:1).

Thus, the Moffatt Version renders John 1:1 "... the Logos was divine" and Smith-Goodspeed renders it " .. .the Word was divine." Biblical scholars say that the Logos means word, thought., concept, and the expressions thereof (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1599). Also, the word. Logos means reason or plan (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia, p. 302). Thus Logos means thought, word, or plan of God, not God.

Philippians 2:6-8 does not say Christ is God but on the contrary it says Christ is man. He is indeed in the form of God; but so is Adam who was created in the image and likeness of God. (Gen. 1:26).

Christ is not equal to God. Not in power for the Father is greater than Christ (Jn. 14:28) nor in knowledge for there is something the Father knows that Christ does not know (Mark 23:32). But in holiness for God is holy (Hosea 11:9) and Christ is holy (Mark 1:24)—God cannot sin (Heb. 6:18) and Christ did not sin (II Cor. 5:21).

Thus, the belief in Christ who is "God Incarnate" is truly a belief in a fake or "pseudo-savior." It is the believers of such doctrine —that Christ is God Incarnate—who have made liars of not only John and Paul but also of the prophets, the Apostles, Christ, and even God Himself who all say that Christ is man, chosen by God to be Lord and Savior and Judge on Judgment Day.

God's Message: January-February 1993| Volume 25| Number 11| ISSN 0116-1636| p. 2

[admiral__cidric]

INC started 1914. Enough said.

Talo ang INC sa debate.

by Pasugo Mailbox on Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 9:06am ·

THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY says that God is the Savior, I Tim. 2:3. In your denial of the Godship of Christ you have a pseudo-savior. I Tim:2:5 explicitly states that Jesus Christ is a mediator not savior. It is Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, true God and true man who is and no one else.

Your insistence that Jesus Christ is only a man and is devoid of divinity is practically denying the veracity of a basic biblical truth—the Incarnation as revealed in Jn. 1:14 and Philippians 2:6-8. Except for the Iglesia ni Cristo, Christendom believes that Jesus Christ is true God and true man because he is God Incarnate. In denying this you have made liars of John and Paul and since their lies appear in the New Testament this is tantamount to saying that the Holy Bible, the Iglesia ni Cristo's sole rule of faith is tainted with lies.


Lutgardo P. Alquiros
Lucena City, Philippines


Editor's reply:
Your letter deals with an interesting topic, that the denial of the Godship of Christ allegedly yields a pseudo-savior.
I Timothy 2:3 indeed states God is our Savior. The Iglesia ni Cristo preaches that 1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Version) indeed states that Christ is a man, the mediator between God and men. The Iglesia ni Cristo preaches that also.

But what about Titus 1:4,3 which states that Jesus Christ is also our Savior? Do you deny that?

John 1:14 does not state that God became flesh. What it states is that the Word (or Logos) was made flesh. Your conclusion that the Word is God is taken from a mistranslation of John 1:1. The word had a beginning and thus cannot be God because God had no beginning (Ps. 90:1).

Thus, the Moffatt Version renders John 1:1 "... the Logos was divine" and Smith-Goodspeed renders it " .. .the Word was divine." Biblical scholars say that the Logos means word, thought., concept, and the expressions thereof (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1599). Also, the word. Logos means reason or plan (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia, p. 302). Thus Logos means thought, word, or plan of God, not God.

Philippians 2:6-8 does not say Christ is God but on the contrary it says Christ is man. He is indeed in the form of God; but so is Adam who was created in the image and likeness of God. (Gen. 1:26).

Christ is not equal to God. Not in power for the Father is greater than Christ (Jn. 14:28) nor in knowledge for there is something the Father knows that Christ does not know (Mark 23:32). But in holiness for God is holy (Hosea 11:9) and Christ is holy (Mark 1:24)—God cannot sin (Heb. 6:18) and Christ did not sin (II Cor. 5:21).

Thus, the belief in Christ who is "God Incarnate" is truly a belief in a fake or "pseudo-savior." It is the believers of such doctrine —that Christ is God Incarnate—who have made liars of not only John and Paul but also of the prophets, the Apostles, Christ, and even God Himself who all say that Christ is man, chosen by God to be Lord and Savior and Judge on Judgment Day.

God's Message: January-February 1993| Volume 25| Number 11| ISSN 0116-1636| p. 2

[Totnak]

by Pasugo Mailbox on Tuesday, June 5, 2012 at 9:06am ·

THE BIBLE EXPLICITLY says that God is the Savior, I Tim. 2:3. In your denial of the Godship of Christ you have a pseudo-savior. I Tim:2:5 explicitly states that Jesus Christ is a mediator not savior. It is Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, true God and true man who is and no one else.

Your insistence that Jesus Christ is only a man and is devoid of divinity is practically denying the veracity of a basic biblical truth—the Incarnation as revealed in Jn. 1:14 and Philippians 2:6-8. Except for the Iglesia ni Cristo, Christendom believes that Jesus Christ is true God and true man because he is God Incarnate. In denying this you have made liars of John and Paul and since their lies appear in the New Testament this is tantamount to saying that the Holy Bible, the Iglesia ni Cristo's sole rule of faith is tainted with lies.


Lutgardo P. Alquiros
Lucena City, Philippines


Editor's reply:
Your letter deals with an interesting topic, that the denial of the Godship of Christ allegedly yields a pseudo-savior.
I Timothy 2:3 indeed states God is our Savior. The Iglesia ni Cristo preaches that 1 Timothy 2:5 (King James Version) indeed states that Christ is a man, the mediator between God and men. The Iglesia ni Cristo preaches that also.

But what about Titus 1:4,3 which states that Jesus Christ is also our Savior? Do you deny that?

John 1:14 does not state that God became flesh. What it states is that the Word (or Logos) was made flesh. Your conclusion that the Word is God is taken from a mistranslation of John 1:1. The word had a beginning and thus cannot be God because God had no beginning (Ps. 90:1).

Thus, the Moffatt Version renders John 1:1 "... the Logos was divine" and Smith-Goodspeed renders it " .. .the Word was divine." Biblical scholars say that the Logos means word, thought., concept, and the expressions thereof (Ryrie Study Bible, p. 1599). Also, the word. Logos means reason or plan (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Micropaedia, p. 302). Thus Logos means thought, word, or plan of God, not God.

Philippians 2:6-8 does not say Christ is God but on the contrary it says Christ is man. He is indeed in the form of God; but so is Adam who was created in the image and likeness of God. (Gen. 1:26).

Christ is not equal to God. Not in power for the Father is greater than Christ (Jn. 14:28) nor in knowledge for there is something the Father knows that Christ does not know (Mark 23:32). But in holiness for God is holy (Hosea 11:9) and Christ is holy (Mark 1:24)—God cannot sin (Heb. 6:18) and Christ did not sin (II Cor. 5:21).

Thus, the belief in Christ who is "God Incarnate" is truly a belief in a fake or "pseudo-savior." It is the believers of such doctrine —that Christ is God Incarnate—who have made liars of not only John and Paul but also of the prophets, the Apostles, Christ, and even God Himself who all say that Christ is man, chosen by God to be Lord and Savior and Judge on Judgment Day.

God's Message: January-February 1993| Volume 25| Number 11| ISSN 0116-1636| p. 2

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:5-8 KJV

the statement of Paul in the above epistle didn't end with "being in the form of God" but rather, it was followed by "thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"....what does that tell us? it simply means that even if Jesus proclaims Himself as equal to God, it won't be taken against Him.....

also, "form" is entirely different with "likeness" thus, again, your comparison is completely faulty....

Jesus is in the form of God....not just "in the likeness" of God.....by using the noun "form", Paul is telling us that Jesus is God both in structure and distinction.....unlike the noun "likeness" which is used to commonly denote outward appearance.......

[Gunnar]

Interestingly, wala pa yata nag rereact sa mga miyembro ng INC.

[Totnak]

^^ nakikipagpulong pa si Rizalito sa mga kapwa niya ministro :P

[goat1230]

not sure kung naireport na ni krams to kay menorrah

[Totnak]

I'm wondering what is there to report to....

[Menorrah]

thanks to Ischaramochie for the insightful decision...first time I lost in a debate with a Roman Catholic opponent just because I didnt attack the orthodox church enough but the judge is satisfied that enough proof was given for the apostasy of the RCC...

If I gonna lose, I want to lose this way...by the way, 1054 AD was more than 600 years difference from 4th century...hope you know what it means....

thanks...

[Ischaramoochie]

Kudos to both debaters for being good sports. I hope others would be able to emulate what they have done.

[rezilauqe]

"The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who would try to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind. But he who would deny the Trinity would lose his soul"

(Harold Lindsey and Charles J. Woodbridge, A handbook of Christian truth, pp 51-52).

[krams2]

Interestingly, wala pa yata nag rereact sa mga miyembro ng INC.

bakit naman hinihintay niyo pa ang reaction namin? nilagay na ang decision diba medyo di ko lang nagets bakit si ateo parang hindi ata nakapagdecide

hindi ako sure

anyway magpost ako ng magandang panghuling tanong sa mga tagabasa ng debate hihi

[rezilauqe]

Jesuit priest C.F. Blount states in his book The Blessed Trinity:

"the dogma of the Blessed Trinity is a mystery in the fullest sense" . . . . "it cannot be proved by reason, . . . nay, it cannot be even be proved to be possible"

[Rev. C.F. Blount, S.J., The Blessed Trinity (London: Catholic Truth Society), p.2.]

[krams2]

not sure kung naireport na ni krams to kay menorrah

hindi naman ako reporter ha hehe

hindi ko nasabi sa kaniya ang final decision mas nauna ata siyang nakapagbasa ang tagal kasi ng decision at nawala na ang thrill pati ako nawalan ng gana at syempre sobrang dalang na lang ako makakapagpost dito

[rezilauqe]

Several reasons why the doctrine of Trinity is false ...

The Dictionary of the Bible - Edited by James Hastings (1963), PAGE 1015:
The Christian doctrine of God (q.v.) as existing in three Persons and one Substance is not demonstrable by logic or by scriptural proofs.

Dictionary of the Bible - by John L. McKenzie S.J., (1965), PAGE 899:
The Trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of persons and nature which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible.
The Trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and other such as essence and substance were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.

The Encyclopedia Americana - 1956, VOL. XXVII, PAGE 294L:
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was (and still is) strictly Unitarian (Oneness - believing that God is only one).
The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early (Originally Apostolic) Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was on the contrary, and deviation from this teaching."

The Encyclopedia of Religion, Vol. 15, 1987:
Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity,
Further, exegetes and theologians agree that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity.
Some theologians have concluded that all post-biblical Trinitarian doctrine is therefore arbitrary (based on or subject to individual judgment or preference). While it is incontestable (obviously true) that the doctrine cannot be established on scriptural evidence alone."

[krams2]

anyway tapos na ang debate at nakapagdecision na ang moderator
may achievement na si totnak lolz at naalala ko lang before pa magsimula tong debate na to

ang sabi ko kapag nanalo si totnak pwede na siyang maghamon ng live debate nasabi naman din ni ka mennorah na hindi lalaban si totnak ng live sa INC and that is FOR SURE! kahit yung mga tagadabiryins din puro forums at ayaw ng harapan

simple truth sa ROT kung sino pa ang mahilig maghamon dito ng debate sila yung ayaw humarap ngg mukhaan uki payn

ito ang tanong ang mga NAIWAN na tanong sa aking ISIPAN kung hindi completely apostasized ang Katoliko

asan na itong sinasabi mismo ng mga APOSTOL at ni Cristo na siyang PAMANTAYAN ng Tunay na Samahang Tinatag ng Panginoong Jesus ang pagsama ba ng HS sa Katoliko ay WALANG CONDITION? parang Born Again ba yan na maniwala ka lang ligtas ka na kahit masama na ang ginagawa mo maniwala ka lang praise the lord aleluya na lang ganun na lang ba yun?

PAGKAKAISA

Juan 17:21 at 23 ay nakasulat:

"Upang silang lahat ay maging isa; na gaya mo Ama, sa akin, at ako'y sa iyo, na sila nama'y sumaatin: upang ang sanglibutan ay sumampalataya na ako'y sinugo mo. Ako'y sa kanila, at ikaw ay sa akin, upang sila'y malubos sa pagkakaisa; upang makilala ng sanglibutan na ikaw ang sa akin ay nagsugo, at sila'y iyong inibig, na gaya ko na inibig mo."

tanong? Paano makikilala ng sanlibutan ang kay Kristo kung walang PAGKAKAISA?

condition: PAGKAKAISA
resulta ng Condition: upang makilala ng sanglibutan na ikaw ang sa akin ay nagsugo, at sila'y iyong inibig, na gaya ko na inibig mo."

efeso 4:5 ONE FAITH.......

may isang pananampalataya ba ang Katoliko? Tanungin niyo muna sa sarili niyo kung sinong Pananamapalataya merun kayo ORTHODOX o ROMANO? LOLZ

parehas ba? asan na ang ONE FAITH????

SCHISM

1 Corinthians 12:25 NO SCHISM in the BODY

hello ORTHODOX and ROMAN? Schism sure talaga walang apostasy Nasan na si HS na sinasabi niyo? sino ang sasamahan ni HS si orthodox o si roman? SINO? lolz ulit uki payn

at yung pinakaMALUPIT

Efeso 5:27
27 Ginawa niya ito upang ang iglesya ay maiharap niya sa kanyang sarili bilang isang maluwalhating iglesya na walang anumang dungis ni kulubot man upang ito ay maging banal at walang kapintasan.

juice ko po MALUWALHATI daw WALANG ANUMANG DUNGIS O KULUBOT BANAL at WALANG KAPINTASAN

pasok ba lahat ang pamantayang ito sa Katoliko? ito DAW ANG INAASAHANG BABALIKAN NI CRISTO

Nakakahiya NAMAN sa Panginoong JESUS yan pagbalik ITO PALA YUNG HINDI INIWANAN NG HS juice ko po penge po