Iglesia Ni Cristo Replies

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by edpobre
So, what's wrong about this? Didn't Christ establish only one church, "HIS church?" He called the church he BUILT, (Matt. 16:18), " MY church," didn't he?

Is there any other church out there who can HONESTLY say that that churchis the church founded by Christ?

Ed

The Catholic Church claims that, very honestly.

 

[Gunny]

My area of contention is that Iglesia ni cristo is stating that one can only be saved by the work of Jesus Christ, only if one is a member of Iglesia ni cristo.

This makes one think that the work of Jesus Christ upon the cross at Calvary is not sufficient in of itself for salvation.

This makes one come to the conclusion that the members of Iglesia ni cristo are privy to some secret knowledge apart from what God's Word states regarding the doctrine of Salvation.

 

[Kain]

Transliterated from Greek, italics show where the text was altered to make more English sense.

John 1: 1 - 3
In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. This was in the beginning toward God. All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being.

This takes on a whole new meaning from the versions found in common bible translations.

 

[LouisBooth]

"This takes on a whole new meaning from the versions found in common bible translations."

Umm..I've actually studied this text indepth and its pretty clear the way John wrote it that he very much ment to say Christ was God.

 

[Kain]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"This takes on a whole new meaning from the versions found in common bible translations."

Umm..I've actually studied this text indepth and its pretty clear the way John wrote it that he very much ment to say Christ was God.

Then John contradicted himself.

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by LouisBooth

I've actually studied this text indepth and its pretty clear the way John wrote it that he very much ment to say Christ was God.

How correct you are, Sir.

Amen, and Amen.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Then John contradicted himself."

Nope, not at all.

 

[Gunny]

I agree that Jesus Christ is God.

 

[Future Man]

John 1: 1 - 3
In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. This was in the beginning toward God. All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being.

This takes on a whole new meaning from the versions found in common bible translations.

....it would probably help to parse the actual GREEK instead taking out italics..

vs10 states the 'Word' created the world. Vs12 states that the 'Word' has a name i.e. 'Jesus' on which to believe. 1Jn1:1-2 says Jesus is THE Word, and Rev19:13 says the 'Word' is also His name.

".......and God was the Word".

God bless-FM

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by Kain
Transliterated from Greek, italics show where the text was altered to make more English sense.

John 1: 1 - 3
In the beginning was the word, and the word was toward God, and God was the word. This was in the beginning toward God. All came into being through it, and apart from it not even one thing came into being which has come into being.

This takes on a whole new meaning from the versions found in common bible translations.

Kain, here is this passage from the Interlinear Greek/English text. Perhaps you could enlighten us, from your "superior" knowledge of the Greek :o , how and where this text has been "altered" as you claim.

Stayed tuned for a knowledgeable exegesis of this text by Robertson and some commentary from the early church.

John 1:1 en {IN [THE]} arch {BEGINNING} hn {WAS} o {THE} logoV {WORD,} kai {AND} o {THE} logoV {WORD} hn {WAS} proV ton {WITH} qeoV {GOD,} kai {AND} qeoV {GOD} hn (WAS} o {THE} logoV {WORD.}
2 outoV {HE} hn {WAS} en {IN [THE]} arch {BEGINNING} proV ton {WITH} qeon {GOD.}
3 panta {ALL THINGS} di {THROUGH} autou {HIM} egeneto {CAME INTO BEING,} kai {AND} coriV {WITHOUT} autou {HIM} egeneto {CAME INTO BEING} oude {NOT EVEN} en {ONE [THING]} o {WHICH} gegonen {HAS COME INTO BEING.}

 

[Kain]

Originally posted by OldShepherd
Kain, here is this passage from the Interlinear Greek/English text. Perhaps you could enlighten us, from your "superior" knowledge of the Greek :o , how and where this text has been "altered" as you claim.

Stayed tuned for a knowledgeable exegesis of this text by Robertson and some commentary from the early church.

John 1:1 en {IN [THE]} arch {BEGINNING} hn {WAS} o {THE} logoV {WORD,} kai {AND} o {THE} logoV {WORD} hn {WAS} proV ton {WITH} qeoV {GOD,} kai {AND} qeoV {GOD} hn (WAS} o {THE} logoV {WORD.}
2 outoV {HE} hn {WAS} en {IN [THE]} arch {BEGINNING} proV ton {WITH} qeon {GOD.}
3 panta {ALL THINGS} di {THROUGH} autou {HIM} egeneto {CAME INTO BEING,} kai {AND} coriV {WITHOUT} autou {HIM} egeneto {CAME INTO BEING} oude {NOT EVEN} en {ONE [THING]} o {WHICH} gegonen {HAS COME INTO BEING.}

Your own quote shows where it's been altered by the square [] brackets. My source included some other words, but all in all, the intent remains the same. Greek can't be translated word-for-word into English and the structure needs to be altered to make more sense in English, just as I said.

One doesn't need "superior knowledge of the Greek" to come to that conclusion.

 

[Gunny]

Cult: A Theological Definition


Definition of a Christian Cult

 

[LouisBooth]

"Your own quote shows where it's been altered by the square [] brackets. "

theses are things that are IMPLIED in another language but to make it understandable in english they must be written explicitly. Like in spanish you don't have to write the "Yo" because its implied in the verb when its congigated correctly.

Tengo un zapato. or Yo tengo un zapto. Both are correct, but in english you must specify the I in the sentence. You can't just say. Have a shoe. You must say I have a shoe. It is not so in other languages. This doesn't alter the text, it makes it gramtically correct when translated.

 

[Caedmon]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
theses are things that are IMPLIED in another language but to make it understandable in english they must be written explicitly. Like in spanish you don't have to write the "Yo" because its implied in the verb when its congigated correctly.

Tengo un zapato. or Yo tengo un zapto. Both are correct, but in english you must specify the I in the sentence. You can't just say. Have a shoe. You must say I have a shoe. It is not so in other languages. This doesn't alter the text, it makes it gramtically correct when translated.

Right-o, ole chap...

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by Kain
Your own quote shows where it's been altered by the square [] brackets. My source included some other words, but all in all, the intent remains the same. Greek can't be translated word-for-word into English and the structure needs to be altered to make more sense in English, just as I said.

One doesn't need "superior knowledge of the Greek" to come to that conclusion.

There is a huge difference between being "altered", the implication being "false", and being translated correctly and efficiently into another language, supplying words not required in the original to make a more grammatical reading in the target language, Greek to English, in this case. As Louis has indicated by an example from Spanish. You do know the difference don't you Kain?

 

[OldShepherd]

A. T. Robertson taught post graduate Greek for 47 years. Wrote more than 40 books including a 1200 page Greek grammar and a 6 volume verse by verse exegesis of the N.T. quoted below.

Kain, before you blindly cut and paste another supposed scholar on this passage, as you did with John 8:58, perhaps you should do a quick search and see if other scholars have not refuted what you post. I will.

Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

In the beginning (en arch). Arch is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew be resh#th in Genesis 1:1. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. Was (hn). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of eimi to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (egeneto, became) appears in verse Genesis 14 for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in Genesis 8:58 "before Abraham came (genesqai) I am" (eimi, timeless existence).

The Word (o logoß). Logoß is from legw, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. Logoß is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (anima mundi) and Marcus Aurelius used spermatikoß logoß for the generative principle in nature.

The Hebrew memra was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in Proverbs 8:23. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (The Origin of the Prologue to St. John, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term Logoß, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence.

The term Logoß is applied to Christ only in John 1:1,14; Revelation 19:13; 1 John 1:1 "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in Hebrews 4:12. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2 Corinthians 8:9; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:17) and in Hebrews 1:2 and in John 17:5. This term suits John's purpose better than sopia (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the aeon Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics).

The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (sarx egeneto, verse John 14) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. With God (proß ton qeon). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. Proß with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other.

In 1 John 2:1 we have a like use of proß: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (paraklhton ecomen proß ton patera). See proswpon proß proswpon (face to face, 1 Corinthians 13:12), a triple use of proß. There is a papyrus example of proß in this sense to gnwston thß proß allhlouß sunhqeiaß, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., Vocabulary) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, Origin of Prologue, p. 8) that the use of proß here and in Mark 6:3 is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is Koin‚, not old Attic. In John 17:5 John has para soi the more common idiom.

And the Word was God (kai qeoß hn o logoß). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying o qeoß hn o logoß. That would mean that all of God was expressed in o logoß and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (o logoß) and the predicate without it (qeoß) just as in John 4:24 pneuma o qeoß can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 o qeoß agaph estin can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar_, pp. 767f.

So in John 1:14 o Logoß sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

 

[OldShepherd]

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book IV. (120 – 202 AD)

But by the law and the prophets did the Word preach both Himself and the Father alike [to all]; and all the people heard Him alike, but all did not alike believe. And through the Word Himself who had been made visible and palpable, was the Father shown forth, although all did not equally believe in Him; but all saw the Father in the Son: for the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father. And for this reason all spake with Christ when He was present [upon earth], and they named Him God. Yea, even the demons exclaimed, on beholding the Son: "We know Thee who Thou art, the Holy One of God."65 And the devil looking at Him, and tempting Him, said: "If Thou art the Son of God; "66 -all thus indeed seeing and speaking of the Son and the Father, but all not believing [in them].

For the true God did confess the commandment of the law as the word of God, and called no one else God besides His own Father.

And again, he indicates that He who from the beginning founded and created them, the Word, who also redeems and vivifies us in the last times, is shown as hanging on the tree, and they will not believe on Him. For he says, "And thy life shall be hanging before thine eyes, and thou wilt not believe thy life."129 And again, "Has not this same one thy Father owned thee, and made thee, and created thee? "130

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-62.htm


The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (130 AD)

For who that is rightly taught and begotten by the loving57 Word, would not seek to learn accurately the things which have been clearly shown by the Word to His disciples, to whom the Word being manifested has revealed them, speaking plainly [to them], not understood indeed by the unbelieving, but conversing with the disciples, who, being esteemed faithful by Him, acquired a knowledge of the mysteries of the Father? For which58 reason He sent the Word, that He might be manifested to the world; and He, being despised by the people [of the Jews], was, when preached by the Apostles, believed on by the Gentiles.59 This is He who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old, and yet who is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints. This is He who, being from everlasting, is to-day called60 the Son; through whom the Church is enriched, and grace, widely spread, increases in the saints. furnishing understanding, revealing mysteries, announcing times, rejoicing over the faithful.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-08.htm#P636_112351

Athanasius ON THE INCARNATION OF THE WORD (319 AD)

Then He also points out the reason why it was necessary for none other than God the Word Himself to become incarnate; as follows: "For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and through Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through suffering;" by which words He means, that it
belonged to none other to bring man back from the corruption which had begun, than the Word of God, Who had also made them from the beginning.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm


The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians (30-107 AD)

But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,53 but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For "the Word was made flesh."54 Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1093_206499

Clement of Alexandria Exhortation to the Heathen [a.d. 153-193-217.]
the Word of God, on whose account we date from the beginning; for "in the beginning was the Word." Well, in as much as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things; but in as much as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power, he has been called by me the New Song. This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man-the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal. For, according to that inspired apostle of the Lord, "the grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ."11

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-50.htm#P2691_785581

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by humblejoe

So, what's wrong about this? Didn't Christ establish only one church, "HIS church?" He called the church he BUILT, (Matt. 16:18), " MY church," didn't he?

Is there any other church out there who can HONESTLY say that their church is the church founded by Christ?

Ed

The Catholic Church claims that, very honestly.

At least the Catholic Church is HONEST about what they believe in. How about Protestants? Why can't they say that the church they belong to was the one founded by Christ? Aren't they SURE about what they believe in?

Ed

 

[edpobre]

Originally posted by gunnysgt
My area of contention is that Iglesia ni cristo is stating that one can only be saved by the work of Jesus Christ, only if one is a member of Iglesia ni cristo.

This makes one think that the work of Jesus Christ upon the cross at Calvary is not sufficient in of itself for salvation.

This makes one come to the conclusion that the members of Iglesia ni cristo are privy to some secret knowledge apart from what God's Word states regarding the doctrine of Salvation.

The Bible teaches that Christ purchased the CHURCH of Christ with his own blood (Acts 20:28 Lamsa).

The Bible teaches that Christ loved the CHURCH so much that he GAVE his life for it (Eph. 5:25).

The Bible teaches that Christ is the SAVIOR of the CHURCH, his body (Eph. 5:23).

Bible PROPHECIES point to the IGLESIA NI CRISTO as the CHURCH that Christ PURCHASED with his own blood, the CHURCH that Christ GAVE his life for, the CHURCH that Christ will SAVE.

Everyone who DESIRES to be SAVED is INVITED to ENTER the CHURCH that Christ will SAVE on judgment day.

Ed

 

 

[Gunny]

Originally posted by edpobre
Bible PROPHECIES point to the IGLESIA NI CRISTO as the CHURCH that Christ PURCHASED with his own blood, the CHURCH that Christ GAVE his life for, the CHURCH that Christ will SAVE.
Everyone who DESIRES to be SAVED is INVITED to ENTER the CHURCH that Christ will SAVE on judgment day.
Ed

We got it ED, EVERYONE HAS TO ENTER IGLESIA NI CRISTO WHICH WAS FOUNDED BY FELIX MANALO WHO IS GOD'S MESSENGER/PROPHET.

ANOTHER MESENGER/PROPHET PROVIDING US WITH HIS PERSONAL EXTRA-BIBLICAL SECRET REVELATIONS.

OOHRAH!!!!