TINATANONG KO ANG MGA ITO KUNG BAKIT MAGKAIBA ANG IMAGE NI ADAN AT NI JESUS NA SI JESUS ANG IMAGE NG DIOS NA HINDI MAKASAGOT KUNDI NAGNGAKNGAK LANG! - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

Now, when Jose Rodelio Retome Rata could not stand all the articles and questions regarding his Bigotry. He then shifts the subject to a question that he thinks will divert the main issue. And by the way, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata loves to divert the issue using a Red Herring Fallacy. And for you to know, a red herring fallacy is a tactic used to divert attention from the original topic of a discussion or argument by introducing an irrelevant, distracting piece of information. It is an informal, often intentional, fallacy designed to mislead or confuse, shifting the focus to a different, usually easier-to-discuss issue. Actually, to be fair, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata's question was confusing. I don't even know how he takes it literally, as if it were all about the actual image or the qualities. So I'll explain both of them in this article.

Now let's go back to his question and answer it since he will promise to prove his Credibility on this topic. Which means if I could answer his question, then he will stick to it and answer the article that I made prior to this one, and will not shift on the topic. But, if he can't prove his credibility, this will simply show he was a bigot in a Cultic Religion. So here we go -

KUNG MAY CREDIBILIDAD KA MAY NAISAGOT KA SA TANONG KO SAYO?
#.BAKIT MAGKAIBA ANG IMAGE NI ADAN AT NI JESUS NA SI JESUS ANG IMAGE NG DIOS?

So here's the question that he wants to promote, and since I didn't answer it on his first attempt, he assumes that I didn't know the answer. Funny, since it was actually in the article that I made the last time that proves this silly question. He seems to think that men were created in God's image, so it should be the same looks, like identical twins. I just hope he is not serious about this, cause I'm pretty sure his minister and he himself couldn't answer it straight. So, we will just dive into the answer.

Literally and Figuratively

Ok, here is the answer, let's go back first to the creation of man -

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. - Genesis 1:26

Take note, God did not use the word "in my own image, after my own likeness", but rather "in our image, after our likeness". This alone will prove that you don't read your scripture and don't understand the notions of creation. To say Adam was created in the exact image of God, or what or how he should look, is totally absurd, and the same goes with Christ and the Father. In the Scripture, Christ was figured to be like the image of God, as what you're trying to point out, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. So here's the list that might be problematic to you since alam ko naman na hindi mo pinapansin ang biblical context. So, baka sakali mababasa mo ito. Huwag mo gawing literal; ha, baka magkaproblema ka diyan. Tingnan mo muna kung ano ang context. -

John 12:45 - “He that seeth me seeth him that sent me.” Hindi ito nangangahulugan na literal na nakikita ng tao ang physical o bodily face ng Ama. Ang ibig sabihin nito, si Jesus Christ ang perpekto, buhay, at aktuwal na representasyon at manifestation ng character, nature, at will ng Diyos, hindi necessarily ang facial characteristics.
John 14:7-11 - “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” Hindi ito tumutukoy sa physical, face-to-face vision ng Diyos Ama bilang hiwalay na persona. Sa halip, ipinapahayag ni Jesus na Siya ang perpekto, tangible, at visible na representasyon ng invisible God.
Colossians 1:15 - “Who is the image of the invisible God.” Ang ibig sabihin nito, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, ay si Jesus Cristo ang eksaktong visible representation ng Ama—ang nakikita ng tao tungkol sa Diyos ay nakikita kay Cristo. Again, representation, not necessarily identical in facial attributes.
Hebrews 1:1-3 - “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” Hindi ito nangangahulugang nakita ng mga tao ang literal na mukha ng Ama sa human sense, kundi si Jesus ang nag-embody ng lahat ng tungkol sa Ama in human form - just like kanyang kaluwalhatian, likas, at kapangyarihan. But could also be translated literally as if Christ "was the express image" being guided by revelations, I'll explain later.
2 Corinthians 4:4 - “Christ, who is the image of God.” Ang verses na 'to ay nagsabi tungkol sa spiritual at theological reality na - si Jesus Christ ang perpekto at visible na representasyon ng invisible God, at sa pamamagitan ng ebanghelyo, nakikita ng tao ang kaluwalhatian ng Diyos kay Cristo. But not necessarily facial attributes.
Philippians 2:6 - “Who, being in the form of God…” sa basic na unawa, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, si Jesus ay kapareho sa nature, essence, at character ng Diyos Ama, hindi lang anyo kundi mismong pagka-Diyos ang ibinabahagi.

Now take note of this scriptural passage and the author. It is also important to understand the background of the author since this might be a contradiction to their testimony. Why? -

1. John, in his writing, remains in his stand that "no man hath seen God at anytime". He didn't wave on that, and for sure, he didn't know exactly the face of the Father. Also, Paul, in his epistles, like the above passages. It is also important to understand that Paul didn't see God the Father; the vision he received on the road to Damascus was ambiguous, and he had three different stories that didn't say anything about seeing God the Father, but were all about Christ. Which means, his writing might fail if you take it literally, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Pag-aralan mo rin kung ano ang kanilang patotoo at historical background. Di yang puro ka lang angas. But, as I have said lately, Christ might have the express image of the Father for some good reasons

2. The Apostles and Paul, who wrote the epistle, received lights and revelations from time to time, so I might sound heretical, but they might have seen Christ as the express image of the Father. We don't have any scripture to support that idea aside from those mentioned that Christ sits beside the Father or in the right hand of God, but it wasn't supported that much.

Sadali lang back to Genesis 1:26 muna at may nakalimuta ako. In Hebrew usage, the word Tselem (צֶלֶם) refers to a "shadow or phantom" or a physical representation, often used in ancient times to signify a king’s presence, such as a statue. It relates to the outward structure. Which means Adam might be the actual structure of a God. And also Demuth (דְּמוּת) means "likeness, resemblance, or similarity". It is derived from the root d-m-h (to be similar), suggesting a less physical, more abstract or relational similarity. I am not saying Adam's body statues that include facial features might be a resemblance to God's statue, but that is not always the case. As I have said, per scripture, "no man hath seen God".

However, there are also in the LDS also adopt the same terminology or teachings. Here are some of the lists that might interest you, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. -

Ether 3:14-16

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.
15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.
16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

So there's the answer: we are all created in the same image of God, not just Adam. And the creator was simply Christ. But to be fair, this is what we call Divine Investiture; Christ, at the same time, spoke on behalf of the Father. So, does this necessarily mean our image should be the same as the way it looks? I don't know about that, and it seems like your question makes no sense at all. Here's another one below -

D&C 20:17-28
18 And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;
19 And gave unto them commandments that they should love and serve him, the only living and true God, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship.

Now, let's add a new post from our VIP Friend Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, and he made an attempt to quote some scriptures on his stand. Let's check it out -

COLOSAS 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Again, it's not necessarily identical, but as I have explained a while ago, his nature and characteristic was indeed like the Father. Again, it was Paul who spoke that didn't see what God's face looks like, so it doesn't add up if you try to think it that way, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata.

1 Corinthians 15:47-49
King James Version
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

TINATANONG KO ANG MGA ITO KUNG BAKIT MAGKAIBA ANG IMAGE NI ADAN AT NI JESUS NA SI JESUS ANG IMAGE NG DIOS NA HINDI MAKASAGOT KUNDI NAGNGAKNGAK LANG!

Seriosly Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Do you really think you can take that literally? As if you know what God would look like?

1 Corinthians 15:47-49 - King James Version
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Was this all about Christ as the exact image of God? Short answer: Hindi lang. 1 Corinthians 15:47-49 is not primarily about Christ being the exact image of God (that idea fits better with passages like Colossians 1:15 or Hebrews 1:3). Ang focus dito ni Paul ay resurrection at transformation ng tao, gamit ang Adam-Christ contrast. So it has nothing to do with your question about "MAGKAIBA ANG IMAGE NI ADAN AT NI JESUS". Just because you'd seen the word image, you're thinking that it was all about facial identity similarity or whatever. This is not what the subject was all about. You're not making anysense. Here is the breakdown for you, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata -

The first man is of the earth, or earthy = Adam: mortal, physical, subject to death.

Adam: created innocent, unglorified, subject to the Fall
Adam reflected God’s image.

The second man is the Lord from heaven or heavenly = Christ: heavenly origin, source of resurrection life, and the first who obtains immortality or a resurrected body.

Christ: the exact image of the Father, glorified, divine, sinless
Christ perfectly embodies God’s image.

Colossians 1:15 - King James Version
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Again, as I have quoted this one already in the verses above, this is not about the literal facial image of Christ. I may be heretic in saying this, God and Christ were not,/ or may not be look-a-likes, but they do share the same qualities, essence, and as a being was a God. So they have in common and likeness in that sense, but not in a literal image.

KLARO DIYAN NA TINAGLAY NILA APOSTOL PABLO ANG LARAWAN NI ADAN NA TATAGLAYIN DIN NILA ANG LARAWAN NI CRISTO NA SIYANG LARAWAN NG DIOS MEANING MAGKAIBA NG LARAWAN SI ADAN AT SI JESUS.
GANITO KASI YAN!
NANG LALANGIN NG DIOS SI ADAN NILALANG SIYA SA LARAWAN NG DIOS.

So, you're saying it was literal, or the attributes and statues of God? Your explanation is confusing and vague. Cause we already knew that in Genesis 1:26-27, so what else do you mean about this Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

Genesis 1:26-27 - King James Version
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Oh yeah, right, now you quoted it. And again, this was already stated in my statement above. Take a closer look at it and tell me how this was all about a literal image and likeness?

Genesis 5:1 - King James Version
5 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

ANG LARAWAN NG DIOS NA TINUTUKOY NA DIYAN NILALANG SI ADAN AY HINDI SA PISIKAL NA LARAWAN KUNDI SA KABANALAN.

Could be or could also be of a different thing. Adam was created physically, and he didn't know good from evil yet, so it doesn't make sense to tell us Adam was created or "NILALANG SI ADAN AY HINDI SA PISIKAL NA LARAWAN KUNDI SA KABANALAN" when he can't distinguish which was right to follow, but to be fair, we could take that also as an answer since God is Holy and of course his creation does. There are also a lot of them, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Maybe he was actually the same image who knew. Just as I have said, we are not to take that literally as it is. Only Christ bears the Image of God. Christ was the perfect image of the Father, but in the Creation, we don't know exactly what Adam may have looked like, or maybe he was literally like the image of God. You see my point here, the answer to your question needs a revelation, and you don't have that kind of teaching or doctrine in your INC, and yet you think you're confident enough to take the scripture interpretation without knowing the context. You always fail that way if you keep doing that. So, for my point on this one, here's the idea for you -

1. Physical image (literal likeness)
In LDS belief, God the Father has a real, glorified body. Kaya, when Genesis says Adam was created in God’s image, it means: Adam’s body was patterned after God’s body. A bodily structure that has a face and limbs, the capacity to stand, speak, think, act, etc.

Kaya hindi invisible o abstract ang “image” - anyo ng tao ang anyo or statue ng Diyos, and Adam matched that form.

2. Spiritual image (divine nature) Adam was also created with: Moral agency (ability to choose) Intelligence. Capacity for love, righteousness, and a relationship with God. Meaning Adam was God’s literal spirit son placed into a physical body. So the “image” includes who Adam was inside, not just outside.

Psalm 17:15 - King James Version
15 As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness.
Ephesians 4:24 - King James Version
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

KLARO NA ANG WANGIS O LARAWAN NG DIOS NA DIYAN NILALANG SI ADAN AY ANG PAGIGING BANAL.

NAIWALA NI ADAN ANG LARAWANG IYAN NG DIOS DAHIL SUMUWAY SIYA SA UTOS NG DIOS NAGKASALA SIYA.

I don't understand why you chose that passage and connected it to the topic!? Ephesians 4:24 Paul was actually saying about to change into the way of righteousness, this has nothing to do with the topic of Man Created in the image of God. But to be fair, since this was also part of the plan, which is to restore man into righteousness and come unto Christ, it is important also to partake of the goodness of the Gospel that could help us to be more holy or righteous. Okay, so let's regard that as if it were, in a sense, God wants us to be holy, but though it is not totally related to the issue.

Genesis 3:17-19 - King James Version
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

IYAN ANG TINUTUKOY NI APOSTOL PABLO NA LARAWAN NI ADAN NA TINAGLAY NILA SAPAGKAT ANG LAHAT AY NAGKASALA.

The point you made is actually the result of "The Fall". Yes, it's true and no question about it. But if you think it was planned or created that way before the fall, it seems like you're trying to implement that God created unrighteous or cursed man in the beginning. That is not the point there; God's creation is perfect, and it was created through his goodness and holiness. So this was actually a different topic if you think it's your point, but as I have said, your question is confusing as to what area of theology we're to discuss. So I covered both of those possible topics as best as I could to satisfy your demand. But actually, you still fail to understand your scripture if you think that's how God created us.

1 Corinthians 15:49 - King James Version
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
Romans 5:12 - King James Version
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

HINDI NAKAABOT SA KALUWALHATIAN NG DIOS SA PAGIGING BANAL NA SIYANG TINUTUKOY NA LARAWAN NG DIOS NA DIYAN NILALANG SI ADAN SA PASIMULA SAPAGKAT ANG LAHAT AY NAGKASALA.

I don't know where you are referring to, and what kind of commentary was that. Yes, Adam fell that men might be brought to earth and experience earth life, but this doesn't mean God created man purposely as fallen. Why would God do that? The result of the fall caused our body to be imperfect and subject to sins and death; and yes, it's true, it was all because of the fall, but God's creation was perfect, and we are created in God's image; He didn't create man imperfectly or unfairly because it is predestined to be sinners. We don't believe that. We all have the potential to become like our Father, the reason why Christ came to redeem us from the Fall.

Romans 3:23 - King James Version
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

As I have said already, this was the effect of the Fall of Adam; this doesn't make sense to the subject.

SI CRISTO NAMAN ANG LARAWAN NG DIOS SA PAGIGING BANAL.

Colossians 1:15 - King James Version

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
2 Corinthians 4:4 - King James Version
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

BANAL SI CRISTO NA HINDI SIYA NAGKASALA DAHIL PINABANAL SIYA NG DIOS.

Okay, so yeah, sure, we do believe that Christ was the only perfect man and was made holy, which shows an example for us all.

1 John 2:6 - New International Version
Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

I was the plan, and of course Christ was the express image of God, which he was not just created in just physical structure, but also has the qualities of God. You may sound confused if you use the word Christ was "Holy" and "Be made Holy". I could make both of its meanings relevant by accepting him as the son of God literally, and not just a mere creation. Which means he was with God from the Beginning, so the quality Christ has is no different than what God was all about.

1 Peter 2:21-22 - King James Version

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
John 10:36 - King James Version
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

ANG LARAWANG IYAN NI CRISTO AY TATAGLAYIN DIN NILA APOSTOL PABLO.

If you are talking about attributes and qualities, I do agree. But if you're talking about physically looking alike, which I found funny at first on your confusing question. I would disagree on that. But yes, as I have said, God created us with the qualities of a God; we can be humble, holy, or righteous because we have the capacity and attributes to become like him. Christ's word or a call for us to "be perfect even as our Father who is in heaven is perfect", doesn't make anysense if we don't have those qualities and capacity to do so.

Romans 8:29 - King James Version
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
1 Corinthians 15:49 - King James Version
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

PINABANAL SILA NG DUGO NI CRISTO DAHIL NAPATAWAD ANG KANILANG MGA KASALANAN.

This is actually a different topic, and I couldn't see how this made it relevant to the question you brought up. Ok, so yeah. That was soon after Christ performed atonement. We do know that through Christ's atonement, we will be able to have hope, peace, happiness, and so on. Christ was born and foreordained to become the saviour, and no question about that. Christ has the quality of the Father and was indeed the firstborn of all. So, what's the deal?

Hebrews 9:14 - King James Version
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Hebrews 9:22 - King James Version
22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

IYAN ANG IBIG SABIHIN NI APOSTOL PABLO NA TATAGLAYIN RIN NILA ANG LARAWAN NI CRISTO SA PAGIGING BANAL.

Again, the topic was all about the difference between Adam's and Christ's image. I just don't understand how this thing is relevant to the issue. We're not talking about the fall of Adam and the Atonement of Christ. If this were the case, then your question doesn't make any sense at all. So, okay, we will add that in some of the lines below, to satisfy your demand.

KAYA MAGKA-IBA NG LARAWAN SI ADAN AT SI CRISTO.
SI ADAN AY NAGKASALA KAYA HINDI NA SIYA KALARAWAN NG DIOS SA KABANALAN.

Oh come on, you're saying the appearance or the qualities? Adam was created in the same image as God and has the same qualities, but just because of the Fall, you judge him the same way as if there's no salvation for Adam. Who are you to say that? And what do you mean by "HINDI NA SIYA KALARAWAN NG DIOS"? Where did you find that in the scripture?

SI JESUS AY BANAL KAYA SIYA ANG LARAWAN NG DIOS SA PAGIGING BANAL.

Yes, no question about it, and yet you still believe he was just a human. So why did God choose Christ to have those qualities rather than all men? Was this all about unfair preferential treatment? If you go on and insist on this topic, you might be grilled on the same ground where you don't believe Christ in heaven was still a human.

Hebrews 1:3 - King James Version
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

KAYA HINDI SA PISIKAL NA WANGIS O LARAWAN NG DIOS NILALANG SILA ADAN KUNDI SA PAGIGING BANAL BAGO SILA MAGKASALA.

Actually, this is my point, but it turns out I have to get all the references right to answer your confusing question. And anyway, the short answer is we don't know the physical appearance of Adam, actually. No one could make a good portrait of his face and how it looks. Maybe he was indeed created physically with the same facial features as God, or maybe he looks like Christ. Who knew? But to tell us about the difference between Christ and Adam, yes, of course, we see a lot of difference. Christ was born in the Meridian of time to fulfil the atonement, while Adam was the first to be born to replenish the earth. There were a lot of story on his days and til the days of Christ, which he fulfilled the atonement to save us from the Fall of Adam. Everyone understood and knew that. I thought this was supposed to be a different theology of INC, but rather a simple combination of scriptural passages that sometimes may be taken out of context.

NAKAINTINDI KAYO MGA MOR-MOON LDS NA MAYAYABANG PERO MGA HANGIN NAMAN ANG LAMAN NG MGA ULO NINYO?

Yeah, of course, we understand that you're just a bigot and lame to quote scriptures, but it doesn't add up in your Theology. I can see how you fail every time you make a comment, because your commentary was so much as elementary. You're too childish and arrogant, and everyone understands that.

Not enough knowledge, but not enough brain space.

Ang Dios ay walang pisikal na wangis dahil isa itong espiritu na ang isang espiritu ay walang laman at mga buto kaya nga invisible. - Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

What are you thinking, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? The bible could be wrong ba o sadya lang na di mo inunawa binabasa mo? Is your head empty, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

This is actually a poor ideological question from Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, who believes the Bible that clearly says man was created in God's image, and now he questions it as if God is just a mere transparent bubble floating in the air. Keep up the Bible study, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata!

I challenged him to illustrate if God, according to the Bible, is invisible, then how did he create man in his own likeness and image? I'm pretty sure he will not answer this since he is too slow to comprehend and will just love to run away and divert the topic in the Red Herring Fallacy. But it's okay, it simply proves an INC Guy like him is weak in understanding biblical studies.

Sino ang nagtatanong sayo hambog?
Sumasagot kaba kapag tinatanong ka?

Say what? I did ask you a question, and now you want to throw it back, and obviously, you don't have the answer? None of the scripture references that you'd quoted doesn't make any sense on this subject. Pero pagbigyan kita. At once na masagot ko ang tanong mo, siguraduhin mo lang na may tama kang sagot dahil latad na latad na wala kang alam at puro ka lang dakdak.

Ang Dios ay walang pisikal na wangis dahil isa itong espiritu na ang isang espiritu ay walang laman at mga buto kaya nga invisible.

Sure, walang problema, paniniwala mo ’yan eh, ’di ba noong nagpakita ang Diyos kay Moses, guni-guni lang niya? Yan nga ang challenge ko sa’yo: anong basihan ng Diyos sa paglikha ng tao na kawangis niya? Ba't may wangis siya kung di naman pala siya nakikita? Naiintindihan ba ng Empty Brain mo ang tanong? Baka sagutin mo na naman ako ng tanong niyan? Yung tipong Ra-aetang@ lang ba.

John 4:24 - King James Version
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Naalala mo ba ang meme nito, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? O sadya lang talaga, literal lang din, ang gusto mong mangyari sa lahat ng banal na kasulatan. Sige nga, gawin mo nga sa INC chapel mo na iworship mo ang Dios in Spirit at iwan mo katawan mo sa bahay. Basahin mo nang maigi, pinaglatad mo, baka malito ka na naman sa tanong, at sagutin mo na naman ako ng tanong niyan.

Malamang di mo nagets ito, makitid utak mo eh.

Luke 24:39 - King James Version

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Of course, Christ is referring to the physical body that can be touched and seen with the natural eye, no question to that, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, and of course Christ is the First Fruit of Resurrection, the Apostle was the Special Witness to that, but that doesn't mean the Spirit can't be seen. Yun lang kasi kakayahan ng utak mo, di kaya ng ibang spirit at mismo ang Diyos magpakita sa tao dahil nga transparent lang sila. WOW, Fantastic ideology! The Body Christ now is simply called Immortal Embodied Spirit. Wala kasi kayong theology na ganyan dahil limit lang ang kaalaman nyo, o baka ikaw lang ang di nakakaalam, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

1 Timothy 1:17 - King James Version
17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Baka magulat ka na pa parihong Pablo nagsabi rin sa parehong epistle to Timothy na hindi rin nakikita si Cristo. Ay, iwan ko na lang kung di pa makabuhol-buhol ang utak mo niyan, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata.

1 Timothy 6:14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:
15 Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Ano sabi ni Pablo Jose Rodelio Retome Ra-aeta? "Nor can see" Tagalogin mo, baka di mo naintindihan. Kita mo kung gaano kahina ang makina ng utak mo, Jose Rodelio Retome Ra-aeta? Lahat ng bagay gusto mo literal, pero kahit anong bagay kaya ng Diyos kung ano ang gustuhin niya. Yun nga lang, nililimitahan niyo ang diyos niyo? Oh come on, Jose! Wag mong sabihing di talaga nakikita at nasa langit at parehong concept yan sa pinaglatad mo sa 1 Timothy 1:17 (invisible = can't be seen)

NGAYON-ANO ANG WANGIS NG DIOS NA HINDI NAKIKITA ABER?

Baka gusto mong sagutin 'yan kung nabasa mo na ang sagot ko? Masyado ka lang panatiko at ayaw mong mailahad na peke si Felix Manalo, natural love na love mo yun eh, di ba Jose Rodelio Retome Ra-aeta?

The Bigotry of Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

If Jesus is the one that created man in his own image why Jesus was seen by man because he was here on earth before? - Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

Now, what do we have here, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Have you found a new criticism that has always been debunked, Jose? It's already kaka-boring, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. So, come on, Jose. Give your very best. LOL!

Ether 3:15 - Book of Mormon
15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

This was another cherry-picked context from our friend Jose Rodelio Retome Rata on the Book of Ether. But, if you read the verses before this, you will come to understand that the brother of Jared saw the Lord, not just his finger that touched the stones, but this entire body that was shown and revealed by the Brother of Jared because of his Faith. (Ether 3:4-16, see text below -)

4 And I know, O Lord, that thou hast all power, and can do whatsoever thou wilt for the benefit of man; therefore touch these stones, O Lord, with thy finger, and prepare them that they may shine forth in darkness; and they shall shine forth unto us in the vessels which we have prepared, that we may have light while we shall cross the sea.
5 Behold, O Lord, thou canst do this. We know that thou art able to show forth great power, which looks small unto the understanding of men.
6 And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.
7 And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?
8 And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood.
9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this?
10 And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me.
11 And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?
12 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.
13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.
14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.
15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.
16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

According to this book of Mormon, God never showed himself unto man that he created in his own image.
According to the other page of this book Jesus is the one who created man in his own image.
Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth, D&C 14:9.
He created man, male and female, after his own image, D&C 20:18.
Doctrine and Covenants 20:18
18 And that he created man, male and female, after his own image and in his own likeness, created he them;

As expected, you don't know where to get the story straight. First of all, D&C or Doctrine and Covenants is not from another page of the Book of Mormon; it is a separate scripture, and Second of all, this is not a contradiction, since Biblically it was all there in the scripture (Colossians 1:16-17, John 1:3, and Hebrews 1:2, and some others). So, how was this even relevant to your claim?

Now-if Jesus is the one that created man in his own image why Jesus was seen by man because he was here on earth before?

This is just a silly question that hasn't been constructed clearly. Will you please reconstruct that Question, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Whoever asks that type of question that helps you put it on screen seems like joking at you. Poor guy, LOL! But let me help you out and clarify your statement. So, you said Jesus was the creator and was seen by man because he was here on earth before. Uhmm! I don't know about this, and how this question goes, but it seems like I couldn't even construct it straight. Ano ba ito sa simpleng Tagalog, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, para maintindihan ko? So far, nagkanda-utal-utal ka na sa pamumulot mo ng kahit ano-ano na lang para may maibato ka, pero wala namang tumama. Mahirap ba maghanap ng maikutya, Jose Rodelio Retome RaAeta?

Tagalog - "Kung si Hesus ang lumikha sa tao ayon sa Kanyang sariling wangis, bakit nakita ng tao si Hesus dahil narito na Siya sa lupa noon?" This question seems pointless, just like you're saying, why did John and the rest of the Biblical Reference use to say Christ created all things, and through him all things were created, whereas in INC teachings, he is not the creator, Right, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Good question, so any possible answer was simply disregard scriptural text about Christ. Do you mean it that way, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? This was already answered in my first article to you, and it seems like you're totally ignoring it, while it says a lot, so here's the deal

This is another contradicting teaching of the LDS church therefore their prophet and his companions were really a false prophet and false witnesses.

I don't see any contradiction in your ambiguous commentary and questions. Seems like you're over-stressing in fault-finding. I would rather recommend having a life instead of doing stupid things online and trolling around with your ideology, which is not even convincing. Nice try, but again you fail.

The Book of Mormon is irrelevant for a man to attain salvation because what were written in it were not the teachings of Christ and of the apostles but a mere words of Joseph Smith and his companions. - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. - John 21:24-25

Here's Jose Rodelio Retome Rata about the Scriptures as a whole, taking it as the only source of authority, where it seems he loves to translate the Scripture on his own ideology without knowing the context. Let's see what this was all about -

Hebrews 1:1-2 - King James Version
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Ok, so Context muna. Ang Hebrews ay isinulat para ipakita sa early Christians - lalo na sa mga Hudyo - na si Jesus Christ ang sentro at kaganapan ng lahat ng naunang paghahayag. Hindi nito binubura ang mga propeta; bagkus, ipinapakita na iisa ang pinanggagalingan ng revelation - ang Diyos - at patuloy Niya itong ibinibigay sa iba’t ibang panahon at paraan.

“At sundry times and in divers manners.” Ito ang mahalagang parte. Ibig sabihin, hindi lang isang beses nagsalita ang Diyos, at hindi rin sa isang paraan. Sometimes, sa pamamagitan ng mga propeta (like Moses, Isaiah, etc.), or visions, dreams, angels - and lastly, sa pamamagitan mismo ng Kanyang Anak na si Jesucristo. For Latter-day Saints, ito ay isang malinaw na pattern ng Diyos na ang patuloy na paghahayag (continuing revelation).

“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son.” May nagsasabi na ito raw ay nangangahulugang tapos na ang revelation pagkatapos ni Cristo. Pero kung babasahin nang maigi, hindi sinasabi ng talata na “last message na ito”, kundi kung sino ang pinakamataas at sukdulang tagapagsalita: ang Anak. Sa LDS teaching, si Jesus Christ ay buhay at namumuno pa rin sa Kanyang Simbahan, at Siya rin ang patuloy na nagsasalita sa pamamagitan ng mga apostol at propeta (Ephesians 2:20; 4:11–14).

So anong Connection sa Latter-day Saints teaching. Oh ito para may idea ka -

First, si Jesus Christ ay pareho kahapon, ngayon, at magpakailanman, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, sa madaling salita, hindi siya nagbabago. (Hebrews 13:8).
Pangalawa, kung ang Diyos magsasalita o mag-utos man gaya noong panahon ng mga propeta niya, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, walang Biblical reason para tumigil Siya sa parehong paraan sa panahon ngayon. Baka ikaw pa ang unang makadiskubre na may biblical passage na nagsabing tumigil na ang Diyos sa pagtawag ng mga propeta o sugo sa panahon ngayon, gaya ni Felix Manalo. Ang problema nga lang, wala namang nagsugo sa kanya, di ba, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata.
And also, ang “latter days” mismo ay panahon ng restoration at additional revelation, hindi ng katahimikan ng langit.

Kaya ang modern prophets and apostles ay hindi kapalit ni Cristo, kundi Kanyang mga saksi at lingkod, tulad ng ginawa Niya noong New Testament times (Acts 3:21).

So, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, bakit hindi ito Sola Scriptura? Ang sola scriptura ay ideya na ang Bible lamang ang final at exclusive authority, at wala nang bagong revelation. Pero Hebrews 1:1–2 did not teach that, in fact, in summarising the context, ito makikita mong issue dyan Jose Rodelio Retome Rata -

Hindi pa kumpleto ang New Testament noong isinulat ang Hebrews.
Walang sinabi ang talata na “mula ngayon, lahat na turo at sa nakasusulat lang.”

Magkaroon ka ng problema sa Pasugo Magazine niyo niyan, Jose.

https://bustillo-family.blogspot.com/2021/02/pasugo-magazine.html

Again, and to make it short, at intindihin mo mabuti ang stand ko: Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, Hebrews 1:1–2 is not a proof-text for sola scriptura. Sa halip, ito ay patunay ng living God na may living voice, na nagsalita noon, nagsalita kay Cristo, at patuloy na nagsasalita sa huling mga araw - lahat ay patotoo kay Jesus Christ, ang Anak ng Diyos.

According to apostle Paul, God speaks through his Son Jesus Christ in these last days or in the Christian era meaning the teaching of Christ is the teaching of God.

No question to that at hindi naman yan ang point ng aking commentary.

John 7:16 - King James Version
16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

So again, hindi ito about sa sola scriptura. Ang sinasabi ni Jesus Christ dito ay ang source at authority ng Kanyang turo, hindi kung saan lang ito dapat mabasa. Klaro ang punto ni Cristo: ang doktrina Niya ay galing sa Ama, hindi personal opinion, hindi sariling idea - kundi divine authority.

Ipinapakita dito na si Jesus ay sinugo ng Ama at may kapangyarihang magturo sa Kanyang pangalan. Ang bigat ng Kanyang salita ay dahil confirmed ito ng Ama, hindi dahil naisulat na agad sa isang aklat. Sa madaling salita, ang authority ng salita ni Cristo ay nanggagaling sa Diyos, hindi sa isang text na makikita dahil nasabi at naisulat na.

At sa Latter-day Saints, consistent ito sa paniniwala na ang Diyos ay nagsasalita sa pamamagitan ng mga sinugo Niya. So, si Felix Manalo mo ba nakatanggap ng salita ni Kristo na galing sa Ama? So, kung sinugo siya, dapat ’yang ang dapat niyang matanggap na salita galing kay Cristo na nagmula sa Ama, meron ba? Kung si Cristo mismo ay nagsabing ang Kanyang doctrine ay galing sa Ama, then malinaw na revelation and divine authority at hindi Sola Scriptura ang foundation ng tunay na doktrina.

Before Christ ascended into heaven he sent his apostles to preach the words of God into the world.

Matthew 28:16,19-20 - King James Version
16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Which I do agree na ito'y direct na utos ni Cristo sa Kanyang mga apostol para maikalat ang Kanyang Ebanghelyo. Pero importante ring tandaan ang historical context. Una, ay sa panahon na ’yan, wala pa ang buong New Testament, at pangalawa, mas lalong wala pa ang compiled Bible na hawak natin ngayon. Ay! Iwan ko na lang sa 'yo, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, baka sa isip mo dyan completo na ang Bible eh hindi pa nga nakilala si Pablo sa panahon na 'yan.

Ang ginawa ng mga apostol ay hindi pamimigay ng isang aklat, kundi personal na pagpapatotoo or testimony kay Jesucristo - kung sino Siya, ano ang itinuro ni Cristo, at ano ang ginawa Niya. They were commanded to preach the gospel Christ taught, baptize, and teach people to observe His commandments. Ibig sabihin lang nito Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, sila ang living witnesses, at hindi merely readers or distributors of the scripture story.

Dito rin makikita na ang mga apostol ay also special witnesses of Christ - tinawag, sinugo, at binigyan ng authority ni Cristo. Ang pananampalataya ng unang mga Kristiyano ay naka-angkla sa apostolic testimony and authority, hindi sa completed Bible with Old and New Testament. Kaya malinaw: ang Great Commission ay tungkol sa Witnessing of Christ and His Gospel, hindi tungkol sa Sola Scriptura.

So therefore, the teachings of Christ and of his apostles which were written in the Bible should be the one that should be preach in all the world.

Wrong! Just where in the world did you get that idea, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Nasabi ko na kanina, baka magkaproblema ka diyan sa Pasugo nyo na nagtuturo ng Pure Gospel.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 - King James Version
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Again, ulitin ko ha Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Ang talatang ito ay hindi tungkol sa “Bible in General” na pareho sa hawak natin ngayon. When Paul wrote this, wala pang compiled New Testament. Kaya nang sabihin niya kay Timothy na alam niya ang “holy scriptures from a child” (v.15), malinaw na ang tinutukoy ay ang Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) na itinuro sa kanya ng kanyang ina at lola (2 Timothy 1:5).

Let's add some other reference para makita mo at baka magamit mo na feeling mo Complete Bible na, ito basa -

Luke 24:27 - Jesus explained “in all the scriptures” the things concerning Himself - again, Old Testament pa rin ito.
Romans 3:2 - “unto them were committed the oracles of God” - referring to the Jews and their scriptures, before the New Testament existed.
2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Paul tells believers to hold fast to teachings “whether by word, or our epistle” - showing that oral teaching and authority mattered, not text alone.

Kaya ang 2 Timothy 3:16–17 it teaches that scripture is inspired and profitable, yes—but hindi nito sinasabi na scripture lang ang authority, o na ang Bible ay naka-completo. Sa LDS understanding, this supports the idea that scripture works together with living teachers, apostles, and revelation, just like in Timothy’s time—not sola scriptura.

Apostle Paul says do not be carried away by a divers and strange doctrines or teachings.
Hebrews 13:9 - King James Version
9 Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.

Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, paglilinaw lang ha para ma-gets mo and stand ko. Ang verses na ginagamit mo, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, ay hindi nagsabi sa sola scriptura. Kung paulit-ulit lang ang verses nang hindi tama ang context, magkakaroon ka lang talaga ng maling interpretation n'yan, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Unawain muna kung kanino, kailan, at bakit ito sinabi bago ito gawing bato, o isang doktrinang wala naman sa mismong teksto. Hindi lahat ng quote ay automatic na suporta sa sola scriptura, especially na kapag hindi iyon ang subject ng talata. Hebrews 13:9 is a warning to be aware, but it doesn't mean the scripture you have now ay completo na dahil hindi yan ang pinagusapan.

The teachings of the apostles and of Christ are the true teachings.
2 Timothy 1:13-14 - King James Version
13 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.
14 That good thing which was committed unto thee keep by the Holy Ghost which dwelleth in us.

No problem with that, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Oh ito basahin mo para malaman mo kung ano nilalaman ng Book of Mormon -

2 Nephi 25:26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

So, sa palagay mo, problema ba, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Huwag ka kasi basta-basta manghusga kung di mo naman pala alam ang kabuuan. Copy-paste ka ng copy-paste pero hindi mo naman pala alam an historical background and context. Nagmumukha ka tuloy na wala kang alam, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, o baka totoo na wala kang alam.

The teachings of the apostles and of Christ were all written in the Bible.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 - King James Version
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Wrong! Only Few Apostle wrote the Bible; there were about 5-7 authorship on the bible that were written by the Apostles, and even questionable pa ang origin. For example, the Gospel of Mark and he was known traditionally as the author of the writing and one of Peter's companions, but not the apostle, also Luke was a companion of Paul and also not an apostle. The Book of the Hebrews was debated and was traditionally attributed to Paul. Also, Paul is not even the Original 12 but rather the Apostle to the Gentiles as his commission. Overall, we only have Matthew, Peter, James, John, Jude (or Judas not Iscariot) of the original twelve, of whom we know who wrote their own writings, and that was about 41.67% who happened to just write their own testimony about Christ in a short epistle. And to think it is complete is totally absurd, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. This simply shows you don't know the data of the scriptures. Ang kaya mo lang kasi gawing copy-paste ng tekstong na ang haba-haba pero walang laman. Diyan pa lang sa history na 'yan, bagsak ka na.

You will be saved if you obeyed all the teachings of Christ and of the apostles written in the Bible.
1 Corinthians 15:1-3 - King James Version
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Seriouly? Yan ba ang context sa binasa mo? So, noong nagsinabi pala si Cristo about "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" - John 5:39 (KJV), and FYI, sa panahon na yan, ang scriptures na gamit pa nila diyan ay Old Testament or TaNaKh (תַּנַ״ךְ), composed of - Torah (Law/Instruction), Nevi'im (Prophets), at Ketuvim (Writings), so ibig sabihin ba nito ay basahin lang natin ang Old Testament at para makaroon ng buhay na walang hangan? Ganun ba, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Sige daw assignment mo yan para may bago kang Kaalaman. Balikan mo ako kung may sagot ka na. Again, you're quoting a wrong scripture kung basihan natin yan, dahil kakasimula palang ng New Testament sa panahon na yan at hindi pa tapos, so basically you are refering the Old Testament Scripture.

So therefore, the Book of Mormon is irrelevant for a man to attain salvation because what were written in it were not the teachings of Christ and of the apostles but a mere words of Joseph Smith and his companions.

Again, you can not sustain that in the scripture. Nowhere in the Bible that says they don't need a revelation, and in fact, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God will never change his ways. Kung sa tingin mo mali ’yan, mas ’di mo dapat paniwalaan ang salita ni Felix Manalo at sa mga ministro mo na nagsasabi ng kung ano-ano para lang ipakilala si Manalo n’yong Angel ng Pinas. Bakit ako maniniwala, eh wala naman siyang authority o salita na galing kay Cristo para paniwalaan ko, at isa pa, kung sa nakasulat lang tayo, babasi, bakit niyo pa bigyan ng iba't ibang interpretation ang banal na kasulatan para lang i-exhibit si Manalo?

Again, you don't have proof sa pinagsasabi mo at wala sa tamang context ang pinaglalatad mo, so therefore, as I have said, you fail. Thank you and Good luck!

List of Comics

✅

We are Hiring!

Looking for a Job?
Join our Team.
We are Hiring!

Link Label for Jasher

✅

The practice perform in LDS church baptism of the literal dead by proxy is a false teaching. - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? - 1 Corinthians 15:29 - King James Version

So, here we go again on another assumption from our friendly Neighborhood INC, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, and, should I guess, this may be an out-of-context ideology from our friend. Let's find out -

The LDS church, they do baptism of the literal dead by proxy. They don't understand what apostle Paul meant to be in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Apostle Paul not referring to the literal dead, he is referring to those alive but counted dead in the sight of God because of their sins.

Wrong! Nice try, but let me give you the insights. I understand why 1 Corinthians 15:29 raises questions. It’s one of the most unusual writings Paul ever wrote, and Christians bago pa nagakaroon ng INC, ay matagal ng naguluhan nito for centuries. But to say Latter-day Saints “do not understand” Paul's word, or that this verse cannot possibly refer to the literal na mga patay or dead people, goes way further than the text itself or the historical background of the audience. Sa madaling salita, di mo alam ang context.

First, importante mong malaman kung ano ba ang history o pagkasabi ni Paul sa mga taga Corinthian. What is actually happening in 1 Corinthians 15, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Ako na mag-explain at parang nangamote ka pa. Paul's entire argument was about the literal resurrection of the dead; take note mo yan ha, at hindi ito metaphorical spiritual death. Meron sila practices regarding vicarious baptism or proxy, pero ang problema hindi sila naniniwala sa Resurrection. Kaya pagkasabi dyan ni Paul sa kanila, useless lang ang ginagawa nila kung di naman pala sila naniwala na mabuhay muli ang Patay. Which suggests plainly that hindi nila naunawaan ang resurrection, and if naintindihan nila ito, magkaroon din ng bisa ginagawa nila. Throughout the chapter kung nagbabasa ka at alam mo ang historical background, Paul keeps returning to the same point: if the dead do not rise, then faith, preaching, and hope are all empty or walang silbi dahil nga hindi sila naniniwala sa resurrection ng mga patay pero nagbinyag sila sa mga patay. Ngayon ito pansinin mo, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. When he suddenly asks, “Why are they baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?”, he is appealing to a practice connected to people who are actually dead, not to sinners who are still alive. Yung sinasabi mo na "Apostle Paul not referring to the literal dead..." That's a poor argument of misunderstood context, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata.

Ang explanation na ang “dead” dito ay ibig sabihin lang “spiritually dead dahil sa kasalanan” ay medyo hindi masyadong fit sa flow ng iniisip ni Paul or sa epistle nya. Sa mga succedding verses, hindi siya nagturo tungkol sa repentance, forgiveness, o spiritual renewal. Ang focus niya ay sa graves, resurrection, at kung ano ang nangyayari sa mga taong namatay na.

Kung babaguhin mo ang meaning ng “dead” into someting not literal sa isang verse lang, na walang kahit anong supporting statement mula sa mga text on the same chapter, mas marami kang problems na magawa nyan Jose kaysa sa masosolve mo. Parang shortcut na nagiging dahilan para maguluhan yung context kaysa maintindihan ito nang tama.

1 Timothy 5:6 - King James Version
6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
They are counted dead because of sins.
They need to be baptized because baptism is for the forgiveness of sins.

May mga passages tulad ng 1 Timothy 5:6 at Ephesians 2 na malinaw na gumagamit ng “dead” sa spiritual sense, at fully agree ang Latter-day Saints sa ganitong paggamit. Madalas kasi gamitin ng Scripture ang “death” metaphorically. Pero ang pagiging metaphorical ng isang word hindi ibig sabihin na palaging ganoon ang gamit niya. Context ang nagde-decide ng meaning, at sa 1 Corinthians 15, ang context ay walang dudang tungkol sa physical death at resurrection. Hindi mo ba napansin yan, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

Isa pa, it is worth na hindi kinokontra ni Paul ang practice na binanggit niya. Hindi niya ito kino-correct, hindi niya pinagwa-warn against, at hindi niya tinawag na false teaching. Ginagamit niya ito bilang supporting evidence para sa doctrine or belief about the resurrection. Dapat lang maging cautious ka, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata bago ka mag hocus-pocus or basta nalang i-dismiss ang practice without knowing the context. Kung mali talaga ‘yan, e mawawala ang lakas ng argument ni Paul. Parang sinasabi niya, “Tingnan mo, may practice sila na pagbinyag sa patay, di na kailangan yan dahil may resurrection naman so mali yang ginagawa nyong magbinyang sa mga patay.” which is even more problematic. Eh, kung ganon, bat pa tayo magpabinyag kung ang end result resurrection lang naman pala mahalaga. Oh di ba parang walang kwenta na ang ending, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

Acts 2:38 - King James Version
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Those had been baptized had been forgiven for their sins to be counted alive in the site of God.

At Tungkol naman sa Acts 2:38, we do agree or ang Latter-day Saints agree na ang baptism ay for the remission of sins, wala namang question dyan. Walang tayong pag-debatehan dyan since ito naman ang teaching regarding sa gospel ni Jesus Christ. Ang difference lang ay naniniwala rin and LDS na ang justice at mercy ng Diyos ay hindi natatapos lamang sa buhay na ito.

Kung ang salvation ay talagang naka-depend sa mga ordinances tulad ng baptism (see John 3:1-21), then logically, ang isang loving at just God ay kailangang mag-provide ng paraan para sa mga taong hindi kailanman nagkaroon ng pagkakataon or fair chance na tanggapin ang ordinances habang nabubuhay pa sila. Dyan pumapasok ang doctrine or ordinance ng baptism for the dead—hindi bilang pamimilit, kundi bilang pag-aalok.

But of course, sa understanding na ito, nananatili pa rin ang free agency. Walang sapilitan. Ang ordinansa ay ginagawa para sa kanila or sa mga namatay na, pero nasa kanila pa rin kung tatanggapin o tatanggihan nila ito dahil ang agency or kalayaan sa pagpili ng tao ay hindi ito kinuha kahit sila namatay na. Kaya para sa Latter-day Saints, ito ay isang expression ng mas wider na mercy ng Diyos, hindi paglabag sa justice niya. So mali ba ito? The scripture doesn't say anything na hindi na ito dapat gawin, and even Paul hindi nya ito tinangal sa kanilang practices.

Ephesians 2:1-6 - King James Version
1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

The scripture about Ephesians 2:1-6 is not actually the Case in 1 Corinthians 15, I don't see any relevance nito Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. You simple want to add that thinking na ito ay connected sa sulat ni Paul sa dalawang magkahiwalay na settings. Dito palang pinatunayan mo na wala kang alam base on Biblical Context and Exegesis rather you rely your own Eisegesis na wala namang connect sa principle na tinuro ni Paul. Okay ka lang, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

Therefore, the practice perform in LDS church baptism of the literal dead by proxy is a false teaching.

You haven't proved anything, and simply you just created a poorly constructed commentary. Nice Try Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Galingan mo pa.

This is another proof that the prophet of the LDS church was a false prophet.

1 John 4:1 - King James Version
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

At isa pa, ang pagtawag kay Joseph Smith na isang “false prophet” dahil lang sa issue na ito ay parang assumed na agad ang conclusion without really proving it. It's true, 1 John 4:1 tells believers to test spiritual claims; yes, malinaw ‘yan. Pero ang testing ay nangangailangan ng maingat na pagsusuri, hindi yung mabilisan na dismissal.

Historically speaking, maraming early Christians ang umamin na may umiiral na practice na parang baptism for the dead, kahit na kalaunan ay hindi sila nag-agree kung paano ito dapat intindihin o gawin (check out the Commentary below for more detail). So at the very least, ipinapakita nito na hindi basta galing sa wala ang idea - may historical conversation na nangyari. You can still reject the practice, pero fair lang na i-recognize na mas complex ang issue kaysa sa simpleng label agad, arrogante lang ang mag-assume that it is false just because the majority of Christianity did not practice the same old practices, gaya sa sinabi ni Paul sa 1 Corinthians 15. So palagay mo Jose Rodelio Retome Rata - Sino kaya itong arrogante na to?

Hindi mo kailangang tanggapin ang LDS teachings para ma-recognize na ang pagbasa nila sa 1 Corinthians 15:29 ay hindi naman careless o ignorant. At the very least, siniseryoso nila ang mismong words ni Paul sa kanyang immediate context, at nagtatanong sila ng isang honest at fair question:
Now ask this the same Question to you, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata: Bakit gagamit si Paul ng example na may kinalaman sa “Dead o mga Patay Literally” kung ang tinutukoy lang pala niya ay yung mga buhay na nagkasala?

In other words base on Biblical Context, hindi nila basta pinipilit ang interpretation. Sinusundan nila yung logic ng argumento ni Paul at ina-acknowledge na may kabuluhan o bigat yung sinabi niya. You may still disagree with their conclusion or this conclusion, pero mahirap sabihin na surface-level lang o walang respeto sa text ang approach nila, nakikita lang talaga na wala kang alam Jose Rodelio Retome Rata.

Other Commentary outside LDS Teachings

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers - The practice known as baptism for the dead was absurd if there be no resurrection. To practise it and to deny the doctrine of the resurrection was illogical. What shall they do? i.e., What explanation shall they give of their conduct? asks the Apostle. There have been numerous and ingenious conjectures as to the meaning of this passage. The only tenable interpretation is that there existed amongst some of the Christians at Corinth a practice of baptising a living person in the stead of some convert who had died before that sacrament had been administered to him. Such a practice existed amongst the Marcionites in the second century, and still earlier amongst a sect called the Corinthians. The idea evidently was that whatever benefit flowed from baptism might be thus vicariously secured for the deceased Christian. St. Chrysostom gives the following description of it:—“After a catechumen (i.e., one prepared for baptism, but not actually baptised) was dead, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then coming to the bed of the dead man they spake to him, and asked whether he would receive baptism, and he making no answer, the other replied in his stead, and so they baptised the ‘living for the dead.’” Does St. Paul then, by what he here says, sanction the superstitious practice? Certainly not. He carefully separates himself and the Corinthians, to whom he immediately addresses himself, from those who adopted this custom. He no longer uses the first or second person; it is “they” throughout this passage. It is no proof to others; it is simply the argumentum ad hominem. Those who do that, and disbelieve a resurrection, refute themselves. This custom possibly sprang up amongst the Jewish converts, who had been accustomed to something similar in their own faith. If a Jew died without having been purified from some ceremonial uncleanness, some living person had the necessary ablution performed on them, and the dead were so accounted clean.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible - Else what shall they do ... - The apostle here resumes the argument for the resurrection which was interrupted at 1 Corinthians 15:19. He goes on to state further consequences which must follow from the denial of this doctrine, and thence infers that the doctrine must be true. There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost. The various opinions which have been entertained in regard to this passage, together with an examination of them, may be seen in Pool's Synopsis, Rosenmuller, and Bloomfield.

Matthew Poole's Commentary - A very difficult text, and variously expounded. The terms baptize, and baptism, signify no more in their original and native signification, than to wash, and a washing: the washing of pots and cups, in use amongst the Jews, is, in the Greek, the baptisms of pots and cups. But the most usual acceptation of baptism in Scripture, is to signify one of the sacraments of the New Testament; that sacred action, by which one is washed according to the institution of Christ, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It is also metaphorically used by our Saviour in the Gospels, Matthew 20:22,23 Mr 10:38,39 Lu 12:50, to signify a suffering for the name of Christ. And it is also used thus metaphorically, to signify the action of the Holy Ghost in cleansing and renewing our hearts, Matthew 3:11,12Jo 3:5. The last usage of the term is by no means applicable here. The question is: Whether the apostle meaneth here only: Why are men washed for the dead? Or why are men baptized religiously for the dead? Or why are men baptized with blood for the dead? For the popish notion, that baptism here signifies any religious actions, as fastings, and prayers, and penances for those that are in purgatory, there is no such usage of the term in Scripture; for though in Scripture it signifies sometimes sufferings from the hands of others, as in Matthew 20:22,23 Mr 10:38,39, yet it no where signifies penances, or such sufferings as men impose upon themselves for the dead. Nor doth Paul here say: To what purpose do men baptize themselves? But why are they baptized for the dead?

1. Those that think the term here signifies washing, what shall they do who are washed for the dead? Tell us, that it being a custom in many countries, for neatness and cleanliness, to wash dead bodies, the primitive Christians used that ceremony as a religious rite, and a testification of their belief of the resurrection. That such a custom was in use amongst Christians, is plain from Acts 9:37: but that they used it as religious rite, or a testimony of their taith in the resurrection, appeareth not. And though it be uper twn nekrwn, yet they say uper is so used, Romans 15:8, for the truth of God, expounded by the next word, to confirm the promises.

2. Those that think, that by baptizing, in this text, the sacrament of baptism is to be understood, give us more than one account. Some say, that whereas they were wont in the primitive church, before they admitted persons into a full communion with the church, to keep them for some time under catechism, in which time they were called catechumeni; if such fell sick, and in danger of death, they baptized them; or if they died suddenly, they baptized some other for them, in testimony of their hope of the joyful resurrection of such a person to eternal life. Now admit this were an error of practice in them, as to this ordinance; yet if any such thing were in practice in this church, the argument of the apostle was good against them. But how shall any such thing be made appear to us, that there was such an early corruption in this church? Others say, that some, believing the resurrection, would upon their death beds be baptized, in testimony of it, from whence they had the name of clinici. Others say: To be baptized for the dead, signifieth to be baptized when they were dying, and so as good as dead. Mr. Calvin chooseth this sense: but the question is: Whether the Greek phrase uper twn nekrwn will bear it? Others tell us of a custom in use in the primitive church, to baptize persons over the graves of the martyrs, as a testimony of their belief of the resurrection. That there was anciently such a custom, I doubt not; and I believe that the custom with us in reading of prayers over dead bodies at the grave, doth much more probably derive from this ancient usage, than the papists’ praying for the dead; but that there was any such custom so ancient as the apostles’ times, I very much doubt. There are yet two other senses given of this difficult phrase, either of which seemeth to me much more probable than any of these. To the first we are led by the next verse:

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges - 29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead] St Paul now abruptly changes the subject, and appeals to the conduct of Christians as a witness to their belief. This is again a passage of extreme difficulty, and it would be impossible to notice one tithe of the explanations which have been proposed of it. We will only touch on three: (1) the natural and obvious explanation that the Apostle was here referring to a practice, prevalent in his day, of persons permitting themselves to be baptized on behalf of their dead relatives and friends. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Tertullian, in the third century, mentions such a practice as existing in his time. But there is great force in Robertson’s objection: “There is an immense improbability that Paul could have sustained a superstition so abject, even by an allusion. He could not have spoken of it without anger.” The custom never obtained in the Church, and though mentioned by Tertullian, is as likely to have been a consequence of this passage as its cause. Then there is (2) the suggestion of St Chrysostom, that inasmuch as baptism was a death unto sin and a resurrection unto righteousness, every one who was baptized was baptized for the dead, i.e. for himself spiritually dead in trespasses and sins; and not only for himself, but for others, inasmuch as he proclaimed openly his faith in that Resurrection of Christ which was as efficacious on others’ behalf as on his own. There remains (3) an interpretation suggested by some commentators and supported by the context, which would refer it to the baptism of trial and suffering through which the disciples of Christ were called upon to go, which would be utterly useless and absurd if it had been, and continued to be, undergone for the dying and for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:6; 1 Corinthians 15:18). The use of the present tense in the verb baptized, the close connection of the second member of the sentence with the first, and the use of the word baptized in this sense in St Matthew 3:11; Matthew 20:12, are the grounds on which this interpretation may be maintained.

Vincent's Word Studies - What shall they do (τί ποιήσουσιν)
What will they effect or accomplish. Not, What will they have recourse to? nor, How will it profit them? The reference is to the living who are baptized for the dead.

Baptized for the dead (βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν)

Concerning this expression, of which some thirty different explanations are given, it is best to admit frankly that we lack the facts for a decisive interpretation. None of the explanations proposed are free from objection. Paul is evidently alluding to a usage familiar to his readers; and the term employed was, as Godet remarks, in their vocabulary, a sort of technical phrase. A large number of both ancient and modern commentators adopt the view that a living Christian was baptized for an unbaptized dead Christian. The Greek expositors regarded the words the dead as equivalent to the resurrection of the dead, and the baptism as a manifestation of belief in the doctrine of the resurrection. Godet adopts the explanation which refers baptism to martyrdom - the baptism of blood - and cites Luke 12:50, and Mark 10:38. In the absence of anything more satisfactory I adopt the explanation given above.

Other Sources

Response from a Post by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata a.k.a. (Rebuke Ker)

LDS Meme

Social Meme

Meme News