Home PEx Family and Society Realm of Thought
COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance.

FYM - Bird of Prey?

shock_and_aweshock_and_awe Member PEx Rookie ⭐
INC teaches that Brother Felix Y. Manalo is the "bird of prey" in Isaiah 46:11. Granting that this is true, is there a verse in the Bible that says that "bird of prey" had an offspring that will take over the church administration once the "bird of prey" passes away? And that offspring will have another offspring that will replace the former in the future? And so on and so forth?

I am just wondering why the Executive Ministers in the INC are all Manalos. And they also claim that James in Acts 15 was the first Executive Minister. Where in the Bible can we read that James is the first executive minister of the church founded by Christ?

I hope the INC members can answer?

Thanks.
«1345

Comments

  • FerdinandFerdinand Member PExer
    No, the bird of prey was Cyrus. All committed bible scholars agree with that. FYM stole that title and make it his own. :naughty:
  • tawkytawnytawkytawny Banned by Admin PExer
    Maybe what Manalo meant was "his bird will prey on unsuspecting and naive female followers of his cult"
  • tiburcioSaistiburcioSais mElaNChoLic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    gal 1:8, 9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
    screenshotf.pngg
    http://img573.imageshack.us/img573/2936/screenshotf.png
    click on the link and tick + for an enlarged view..
  • cretinous00cretinous00 The sea! The sea! PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    he approaches his female victims from the east? :lol:
  • FerdinandFerdinand Member PExer
    tawkytawny wrote: »
    Maybe what Manalo meant was "his bird will prey on unsuspecting and naive female followers of his cult"
    he approaches his female victims from the east? :lol:
    :rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
  • JaRvis_JayrenJaRvis_Jayren Mighty Fine PExer
    ...is there a verse in the Bible that says that "bird of prey" had an offspring that will take over the church administration once the "bird of prey" passes away? And that offspring will have another offspring that will replace the former in the future? And so on and so forth?

    Following your logic, is there a verse in the Bible that says the bird of prey will not have an offspring, or that the bird of prey will live long enough until Judgment day and that there will be no need for a leader after him?
    ...And they also claim that James in Acts 15 was the first Executive Minister. Where in the Bible can we read that James is the first executive minister of the church founded by Christ?

    Again, following your logic, is there verse in the Bible that James never had been the leader of the entire Church? Then why would the whole church submit to James' judgment. And if Peter was the overall leader of the church after Jesus, then why was term "sent" used when Peter went to Samaria? Imagine, Peter is superior over the apostles, yet, it is them who sent Peter (with John) to Samaria, instead of the other way around?
    Menorrah wrote: »
    Acts 8:14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria.

    The keyword is SENT. Peter, granting he has supremacy over everyone else in the church, he was SENT by the Apostles to Samaria? Why was he SENT by church officers who were subject to his authority (if he indeed was the overall leader of the church during those times)?
  • TLGTLG The Dark Knight PExer
    Again, following your logic, is there verse in the Bible that James never had been the leader of the entire Church? Then why would the whole church submit to James' judgment. And if Peter was the overall leader of the church after Jesus, then why was term "sent" used when Peter went to Samaria? Imagine, Peter is superior over the apostles, yet, it is them who sent Peter (with John) to Samaria, instead of the other way around?
    One explanation here is that James has jurisdiction in Jerusalem, he was not the leader of the church but since his jurisdication is in Jerusalem, and the event took place in Jerusalem, its only proper that the leader of that jurisdiction will have the final say.
    The keyword is SENT. Peter, granting he has supremacy over everyone else in the church, SENT to Samaria by the Apostles?

    Probably because Peter and John were the most well versed among the apostles. Even in acts when peter spoke, many joined the church!
  • JaRvis_JayrenJaRvis_Jayren Mighty Fine PExer
    gal 1:8, 9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed...

    The Bible says:

    "...there is one mediator...the man Christ Jesus..." 1 Tim. 2:5

    The Catholic Church says:

    ...Mary is our mediatrix...(969, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1994).

    So, following the Bible, should the Catholic church be accursed? With the verse Tiburcio quoted, DEFINITELY SO...
  • tontontonton Let's stop and talk awhile. PExer
    How about praying birdie?
  • JaRvis_JayrenJaRvis_Jayren Mighty Fine PExer
    Again, following your logic, is there verse in the Bible that James never had been the leader of the entire Church? Then why would the whole church submit to James' judgment. And if Peter was the overall leader of the church after Jesus, then why was term "sent" used when Peter went to Samaria? Imagine, Peter is superior over the apostles, yet, it is them who sent Peter (with John) to Samaria, instead of the other way around?
    TLG wrote: »
    One explanation here is that James has jurisdiction in Jerusalem, he was not the leader of the church but since his jurisdication is in Jerusalem, and the event took place in Jerusalem, its only proper that the leader of that jurisdiction will have the final say.

    The matter which James decided on, it is a church-wide situation. It also affected the Gentiles. James handed down his decision, and everyone in the church submitted to it. The judgment of James should have required an approval from Peter if he was superior over James, but that wasn't the case.
    The keyword is SENT. Peter, granting he has supremacy over everyone else in the church, SENT to Samaria by the Apostles?
    TLG wrote: »
    Probably because Peter and John were the most well versed among the apostles. Even in acts when peter spoke, many joined the church!

    Probably...?

    Seems like he's not convinced with his own answer. And missed the point. Let me explain further...

    The word "SENT" is the key. Peter was not supreme over the Apostles. Again, Peter WAS SENT (with John) to Samaria. In Tagalog, isinugo or ipinadala, meaning Peter was subject to the authority of those who SENT him to Samaria. Otherwise, the word SENT would not have been applicable. Yet, that is what happened. Peter WAS SENT (with) John to Samaria by the Apostles.
  • MenorrahMenorrah Member PExer
    Read Galatians 2:10-12...there's a clue there who's the leader and who's the subordinate.
  • sophionsophion Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    early christianity simply did not have a supreme leader in the manner of the Pope and/or Manalo. Management of the church instead was shared by three people: James, Peter & John. But of the 3, Peter was the most favoured. jesus' pet.

    But it was Paul who defined christianity and founded most of its churches. So much that many historians give him the credit for being the founder of Christianity.
  • MenorrahMenorrah Member PExer
    sophion wrote: »
    early christianity simply did not have a supreme leader in the manner of the Pope and/or Manalo. Management of the church instead was shared by three people: James, Peter & John. But of the 3, Peter was the most favoured. jesus' pet.

    But it was Paul who defined christianity and founded most of its churches. So much that many historians give him the credit for being the founder of Christianity.

    Read Gal. 2:11-12.........

    1. Two men were sent from James.
    2. Paul blamed Peter.

    Enough said.
  • JaRvis_JayrenJaRvis_Jayren Mighty Fine PExer
    "When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong..." (Galatians 2:11)

    "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?'..." (Galatians 2:14)

    If Peter was superior over any other church official then, why would Paul be in his face in this manner, then?
  • sophionsophion Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Menorrah wrote: »
    Read Gal. 2:11-12.........

    1. Two men were sent from James.
    2. Paul blamed Peter.

    Enough said.

    ooops i've read the beginning verses instead of jumping to verse 11 right away! :lol:


    Here we go:

    Galatians 2

    1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

    6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along. 11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.


    Did early christianity have a supreme leader? or was it LEADERS?

    who were these "leaders". what i said: john, peter & james. the PILLARS

    who was in charge among them of preaching to the jews? PETER.

    so what about verses 11-12? he was afraid of what his fellow jews might say.
  • sophionsophion Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    If Peter was superior over any other church official then, why would Paul be in his face in this manner, then?

    basa:

    verse 6

    As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me

    sorry for them eh mas matapang si paul! :lol:
    and as history went, he was the one who defined christianity. not peter, not james, not john. :lol:
  • MenorrahMenorrah Member PExer
    James,Peter, and John were pillars...by rule of deduction, who sent Peter and John? JAMES
  • sophionsophion Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Menorrah wrote: »
    James,Peter, and John were pillars...by rule of deduction, who sent Peter and John? JAMES
    what are you referring to? which verse?
  • MenorrahMenorrah Member PExer
    read back its there...

    were not arguing who defined Christianity or not...we are trying to settle whether there was one leader.
  • sophionsophion Member PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Menorrah wrote: »
    read back its there...

    were not arguing who defined Christianity or not...we are trying to settle whether there was one leader.

    are you referring to this:

    11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

    ah i see that peter was already there before the 'certain men' from james arrived.

    also, one pillar cant lead another pillar. pillars must work together.

    paul was crystal clear, all 3 pillars decided on his fate.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file