Responding Ginoong Pantas "THEIR ‘FUN FACT’ IS NEITHER FACTUAL NOR FUN"



Recently I posted a fun fact of Joseph Smith's Supposed Revelation that has been fulfilled which was about the Meteor Storm that I made a claim that it was also included in INC's doctrine, which I honestly could tell that it isn’t even related to the emergence of their church in the Philippines. So, he made a statement thinking it is neither Factual nor neither Fun. So, let's talk about it and see what we can get -
   

THEIR ‘FUN FACT’ IS NEITHER FACTUAL NOR FUN
A certain individual, Jerry Nuñez Bustillo, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly known as Mormonism), recently shared what he labeled as a “fun fact” in a Facebook group titled The Restored Truths of the 𝗚𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹 of 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔 Christ vs INC Gospel, a space where defenders of faiths such as the Iɢʟᴇsɪᴀ Nɪ Cʀɪsᴛᴏ and Mormonism engage in discussion.
The Restored Truths of the 𝗚𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹 of 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔 Christ vs INC Gospel

Good to know you read and response this fun fact which I don’t even think it’s a big deal, but you fail to make a good response on my other post prior to this short OP. But let’s go ahead and tell me what was this all about -

In his post, he appears to suggest that the Leonid Meteor Storm of November 13, 1833 was one of the alleged fulfillments connected to the divine calling of Brother Felix Y. Manalo, and further implies that this is part of the Iglesia ni Cristo’s doctrine.

Let’s just say it was not part of the doctrine of the INC so the rest we are talking here were just unnecessary fuss. So why do INC quote it? And even if this was not about what it meant in your doctrine, does this meant that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled? Just to be fair, I haven’t made my post clear and precise in quoting the INC ideology or if this is not accurate, since I’m not quoting some known source such as their official website, then supposed it is just an INC opinion.

Frankly, THAT CLAIM IS INACCURATE. 👎 Before presenting such assertions (especially about another religion) it would have been prudent to verify them through official INC sources such as incmedia.org, iglesianicristo.net, pasugo.com.ph, etc. Doing so could have prevented a clear misrepresentation of what the Church actually taught.

Again, I’m not quoting any official site, so more accurately it was just quoted on your so-called defenders of faith maybe, or you may include yourself about it, but this doesn’t say anything that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled. So, the issue was not about who and how it was quoted, you just based yourself on certain ground that doesn’t even point out the real issue. Again, it’s true, I wasn't certain but let’s try to get some of the source about it. Let's check out some of the know sources that has been gathered to see if my claim it true and let’s get be real -



They do have an African Page Guide with this topic on Facebook and Just to be honest, this page is cool. I would like to have some guide like this one on Facebook. But I don’t know if you count it as official Page or maybe not. Anyways, to those who want to know about it and learn about the INC doctrine I preferred to have this one on your list, it will be good if you keep updating it and adding more doctrine. So, here’s the link below -https://www.facebook.com/groups/iglesianicristoevangelicalmissionafrica/learning_content/?filter=1601482870584257&post=476988594913771



There were other sources that quoted the same source adding it to one of the events that leads to Brother Felix Manalo's Calling. But I would not want to put all the sources here since it would take too much space just to prove the claim.

This one below was from Joseph Kavanagh's article regarding The Stars That Fall - and Mr. Manalo where he points out the exact claim about the 1833 Meteor Storm. I don't actually need to focus much on this since it is not actually relevant, what I actually want to point out that this was taken from the "Ang sulo sa Ikatitiyak sa Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana" which could be the early edition of the Pasugo if I'm not mistaken, you can correct me if I'm wrong. And, I guess this was made to attack the Catholic Faith and here they include the said event relating to Revelation 6:12-13. My question to you Ginoong Pantas, is this still part of INC article or not? I understand that doctrines may vary over time, so tell me if you have any knowledge about it or maybe it was just a personal opinion of Brother Felix Manalo. And just to be clear, when I say opinion which I do prefer to use since everyone is liable to it, is not a direct doctrine. And of course if Brother Felix Manalo has his own opinion as a human, it is subject to case study, like everyone does, which is also subject to changes. So, I understand if you don't take it as a doctrine, Ginoong Pantas, I'm not a close minded person. I just want to build a common ground first before we take it deeper.
CLARIFICATION OF THE ISSUE
It is true that the Iglesia ni Cristo cites Revelation 6:12–13 in connection with historical events such as the 1833 Leonid meteor storm. However, let us be precise:
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗡𝗖 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘅 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗼’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Okay, so let’s be straight here. You are telling me that you don’t agree on a simple post that said about the Leonid Meteor Storm as one of the known event of Felix Manalo's prophetic signs and claims,  and this time you agree that you people cited it? So, what was this all about? Which is which, Ginoong Pantas? Also, I never said that this event signaled the beginning of your so-call Brother Felix Manalo’s Divine Mission where you can’t even provide a detail of his call. So, now you have changed your mind that this was part of it, am I right? If so, then my post is accurate as I have said that it is one of those signs which I don’t even bother looking up some of the other claims, which you disagrees on it. You're confusing yourself, Ginoong Pantas. So, tell me straight, do you consider it as signs of the times, or, as always, you just don’t like the way I posted it that's because Joseph Smith made a prophecy about it?

But anyway, I get your point, either this may be an opinion or maybe something we can look for in relation to your doctrine. It’s not actually a big deal since everyone or even religious leader can make a certain options and study that might help them build up their testimony. So I'll stick to that as if it is not part of your doctrine.

That interpretation simply does not exist in official INC doctrine. Rather, the 1833 meteor storm is understood as one of the events associated with the OPENING OF THE SIXTH SEAL, alongside other historically documented phenomena:
I. The Lisbon earthquake (1755)
II. The darkening of the sun and moon (1780)
III. The falling of the stars (1833)
As stated and carefully explained by the Iglesia ni Cristo’s General Evangelist, Brother Bienvenido C. Santiago:
“𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗸𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 (𝙘𝙛. 𝗥𝗲𝘃. 𝟲:𝟭𝟮-𝟭𝟯). Those events occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries. The great earthquake occurred in Lisbon in 1755, the darkening of the sun and the moon in 1780 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝟴𝟯𝟯.” [𝘗𝘈𝘚𝘜𝘎𝘖: 𝘎𝘰𝘥’𝘴 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘦 — Iglesia Ni Cristo © November 1995, page 8]

Again, it is clear in your words “one of the events associated” which I don’t even care why you people made such claim. But here we are, you simply agrees on my statement. It is not just you INC people are using the same signs of the time and yet you exaggerate the simple post I made because of religious difference. The Seventh-day Adventist is even using the same event as part of the biblical prophecy and no question to that. The only thing what I see here was your interpretation of my presentation and I guess it is you who has the problem here.

Check out the Elder's Digest on this article from Seventh-day Adventist - https://www.eldersdigest.org/en/1999/1/meteor-showers-and-1833

This timeline alone already disproves Jerry’s claim. Why so? Because Bro. Felix Manalo was born in 1886, decades after these events. Clearly, they cannot mark the beginning of his mission.

Again, I’m not talking about the beginning of his mission, I don’t even know when and where he started his claim that he was the sugo of your church. You simply just overreacting on my Post that you don’t like. Why would you just accept the fact that you people know and use the same event? Telling me that those things were the beginning of his Missions or whatever you call and added it is irrelevant, I didn't even bother quote other things your church has ever claim?

SO, WHEN DOES THE MISSION BEGIN?
According to the same official source, the transition occurs at the END OF THE SIXTH SEAL, which also marks the BEGINNING OF THE SEVENTH SEAL. Brother Santiago continues:

“𝗔𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 (𝙘𝙛. 𝗥𝗲𝘃. 𝟲:𝟭𝟰-𝟭𝟳). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝟵𝟭𝟰. This war is also symbolized in the prophecy as the winds that were later seen being held by the four angels (𝘤𝘧. Rev. 7:1; Jer. 4:11-12, 19). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻 𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 ‘𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵.’” [𝘐𝘣𝘪𝘥., page 8]

Thus, the First World War (1914), AND NOT the 1833 meteor storm, is recognized as the prophetic marker tied to the time when Brother Felix Manalo’s mission begins, within INC’s teaching.

The so-called “fun fact” is neither accurate nor representative of Iglesia ni Cristo doctrine. Misrepresenting another group’s beliefs (whether intentional or not) only leads to confusion and unnecessary division. If we are genuinely interested in truth, then careful verification should always come first before publication.

It was just a specific quote that most of the religion is quoting, so what's the relevance of that so called claim that you got there on the subject that I opened up? Did I ever said other specific revelation that Brother Felix Manalo claimed that he has it, but he never fulfilled?

Just because I use the word Fun,
then this made this statement a parody,
or maybe malicious or perhaps exaggerated.
But it seems like he's missing the point that my intension
was all about the revelations that has been fulfilled.

Okay so again, This has nothing to do with the statement that I had made, and you simply like to broaden it thinking that I may have been wrong on my claim. And again, this is not about the beginning of Brother Felix Manalo’s claim that he fulfilled such revelation and starts the mark of his mission which again, I don’t even care. I just clearly said, it is one of those signs.

Let us aim for discussions grounded not in assumptions, but in verified teachings. 😉

If you like to aim for a good discussion with verified teaching, I’m good with it. You can go ahead on the group where were made a discussion. I don’t normally do the way you posted publicly, which I thinks was so immature and indecent.

NOW, CONCERNING JOSEPH SMITH’S “PREDICTION”
Jerry, in what he called the “interesting part,” added that their prophet, Joseph Smith, allegedly predicted the exact date of the meteor storm. He even encouraged readers to look it up from independent sources. 😅 So, as someone who actually checks claims, I did exactly that.

Yes, there is such a story. But once you examine it closely, it turns out to be historically weak, debated even among Latter-day Saint scholars, and generally not accepted by non-LDS historians.

And look what we got here? But it’s a fair claim in taking up notes on one of just the many source open online. There were already antagonist about the claim and it is already give everywhere even in your INC circle, so you should stop thinking on just quoting one source against the other. We do have our own biases, but to think you have to just stick on just one side simply makes you irrational. But anyway, thank you for taking time in making a claim that it is weak so I can clearly see how you people easily caught up to some of the unreliable source that has no ground on their own. We’ll get to it here -

One commonly cited account comes from later retellings. According to a narrative attributed to Ronald P. Millett, Joseph Smith supposedly said:

“According to a narrative provided by Ronald P. Millett via Latter Day Saints Magazine, at some point before November 1833, when the Leonid meteor storm took place, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁'𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗝𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗵 𝗦𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗵 (𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘃𝗲) 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁. “𝗙𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻,” 𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻.”

SOURCE:

The story continues that on the 39th night, while staying at someone’s house, the meteor storm occurred, astonishing those present. This account is tied to early LDS figures like Philo Dibble, who described the reaction of a supposed skeptic witnessing the event. Now, at first glance, that sounds impressive.

Did you read the full article of Ronald P. Millett's statement, or just simple copy-paste some part to make it sounds awesome? Here's the full article and link of that statement - https://latterdaysaintmag.com/1833-meteor-storm-a-precisely-synchronized-sign-and-wonder/

Okay so, what are you trying to point out here that Philo Dibble is one of the members during this event. This is not actually from his own words rather an experience from a members who happens to have encountered him. Philo Dibble wasn't a member during that time and he even skeptical to the church, he wrote when and how the event will occur according to what he heard during Joseph Smith's sermon and he made it known to Joseph Hancock who happens to be there that time on the last minute telling him that it will not fulfilled as he keep tracking on  the exact event.

But here’s the problem.
The so-called “prediction” is not a contemporary record. 👎 The main source for this claim (Philo Dibble) only wrote it down in 1892, which is decades after both the 1833 event and Joseph Smith’s lifetime. That alone should already raise serious caution.
(Check Philo Dibble’s “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘶𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 XXVII No. 1 © 1 January 1892, page 23)

And that’s obviously not a problem. Thinking that this has been written right after the event or decade and so on, does this mean the source is unreliable? Really? The time that it was taught by Joseph, it is not just one or two people present during his proclamation and Philo Nible is not even a member that time, and here you are questioning his words where the witnesses is even present during that time. What about you tell me how do people in these days still believe that the four Gospel written in the New Testament authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were even written soon after the original witnesses who were long gone in which some claimed witnesses is even questionable by scholars. It was passed down through Oral Tradition, which I think you or maybe some still believe it was the original, but even the true author of this 4 known Gospels is Anonymous and yet everyone, like you and me, still believe on it without knowing that it was only passed down by means of oral tradition. You need to be honest on this; Did you even think about that Ginoong Pantas? And here you are questioning with the original witnesses present at that time. Why was that Ginoong Pantas? You are just appealing to Genetic Fallacy which make it a bad choice in dealing this argument.

REALTALK ❗ There is no known written record from 1833 itself. NO diary entry from Joseph Smith predicting it beforehand. NO documented sermon from that time mentioning such a prophecy. NO contemporary witness account recorded at the time it supposedly happened. 👎 What we have instead is retrospective storytelling, accounts written long after the fact, which historians naturally treat with caution.

Is this the REALTALK that you’re talking about or you try to get the side of the critics? Seriously, which part is Real Talk? How do you know that it has no sermons from that time the Prophecy was mentioned? You simply say the journal entry were false just because there is no such thing as full documented Minutes of Meeting. Seriously? Do you do that in your congregations? Are you sure about that? You can’t even provide a historical background and witnesses of your claim Felix Manalo and how he made such claim fulfilled through him, and yet here you are thinking this people who wrote their journal and even publicly declares it happened were just simply false witnesses or a made up stories. Come on! And do you think they die for their false testimonies sake?
But, yeah… to make matters clearer: Joseph Smith DID write about the meteor shower, BUT only after it occurred, describing it as a sign. That is very different from predicting it in advance.
And that distinction matters a lot in serious historical analysis.

Are you sure about your claim bro? Do you have any evidence that this has been declared right after it happen? Can you lead me some sources where we can verify your claim? It seems like you want to just educate me to go right directly to the right source and here you are acting hypocrite about it.

SO WHAT IS THE FAIR CONCLUSION?
There IS a story claiming that Joseph Smith predicted the meteor shower. BUT (this is the real interesting part)… it comes from late sources. It relies on secondhand or recollected testimony. And, it lacks solid contemporary evidence.

The journal and date of the said claim were there in church history website, and it seem like you just doing a cock-and-bull story that you can’t even provide a reliable source. So, here’s the link of the source on their journal and check it out if you have time. And believe me you can not write a journal on the same amount of time and day specially if you think the matters is not relevant or special to you. So the date either when they record it is not an issue. The main issue there was the witnesses and the settings. I’d been writing journals and that’s not even the case, minsan nga lumapas na ng 3 or 5 araw bago mo pa masulat. And Again you’re just overreacting of your claim that you don’t even do.
Because of that, most historians (whether LDS or not) consider the claim historically uncertain at best. So, presenting it as a clear, established fulfilled prophecy is, at very least, an overstatement.

Uncertain at best. So, where’s your source? You haven’t provided a source on you claim and yet the link you provide were just a random mixed up music and entertainment stuff? LOL! So you're certain on it?

At the end of the day, if we’re going to talk about FACTS, then they should actually be grounded in reliable historical evidence, not just stories repeated long after the event.

So how do you define your sources? Seriously that's how you call it reliable? Here’s the site that you’d quoted and seriously how did you understand it?


No comments:

Pets or Family?

They were part of our Family.
They have different missions,
but they do serve the same Master and a God.
We all miss each other sometimes in our lives.



No comments:

About His Business By Elder Patrick Kearon Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Callings from the Lord
are tailor-made
for our growth,
as we humble ourselves,
look outward,
and learn that, indeed,
when we are in the service
of our fellow beings,
we are in fact
in the service of our God.
It really isn’t
where we serve
but how that matters
to the Lord.

About His Business
by Elder Patrick Kearon
of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste
No comments:

About His Business by Elder Patrick Kearon of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles


With those raised hands and encouraging smiles,
we were participating in common consent,
where we can choose to sustain,
by the raising of the right hand, those called to serve.
Common consent is not a mere formality
but a beautiful mix of our agency, unity, and faith.
It is a voluntary, personal commitment to support, uphold,
and help the Lord’s called servants in their responsibility,
whether bishopric member, Young Women adviser,
Sunday School teacher, or stake Primary president.
We sustain each other with our prayers,
our love, our patience, and our faith.

About His Business
by Elder Patrick Kearon
of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste
No comments:

About His Business By Elder Patrick Kearon Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Some callings are highly stretching,
while others may leave us wondering,
“Isn’t there more I could be asked to do?”
You might serve in a very visible role for a time,
only later to be called to quiet, unseen service—
or to support those with less experience.
When callings change in ways that deeply impact you
or your family, it can require great faith
and trust in the Lord while you adjust.

About His Business
by Elder Patrick Kearon
of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste
No comments:

Ginoong Pantas in his Private Conversation




So here's our conversation in response to his OP regarding the issue of the "missing" or Lost books of the Bible (text in read are my responses) -

Me: The Book of Mormon is Distinct that's why it is called "Another Testament", but if you want me to defend her stand, rather than go to the source itself, you may consider that the Book of Mormon also consists of some Missing Books. I'll give you an example - before the writing of the book was compiled, this group of people consisted of 2 families of the tribe of Joseph, who came from Jerusalem, and they were also prophets of that time before the exile. And sooner separated to the land for some purpose, so consider these prophets that time (Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel were there during that time period, and Lehi is unknown in the bible we have now), would you consider it in the bible if he was there? If not, why? Another thing is, before they voyaged to the Land we now call America, they brought with them the record of the Jews, with some writings of Isaiah, and some others who are not even known in the bible we have now, like Zenos, Zenok, Neum, Ezias, they quoted some of their words though not the entire writings and yet it is unknown in the bible but existed before the Babelonian Captivity where they carry it along with them. Of course, you won't consider it since you don't believe in the Book of Mormon, right? And you won't even consider having a little portion of studying it. Okay, so back to the issue, since you are dealing with someone who used to have their own opionions you should consider the source. I know a lot of INC's also were doing some opinions outside of your doctrine, of course, why would we stick to it if it's not the teachings?

Ginoong Pantas: Jerry Nuñez Bustillo

I don’t know kung maa-appreciate ko ba ang reply mo or what, but frankly you didn’t quite meet my question head-on, nag-drift ka lang eh.

My inquiry was very specific and sharply framed:

“Do Latter-day Saints assume that the so-called “missing books” of the Bible are fulfilled or represented by the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price?”

That’s a YES-OR-NO theological clarification. 😏

Instead of addressing the core issue, you shifted to explaining that the BOM is “another testament,” which is already standard LDS doctrine, at hindi na ‘yan parte ng tanong ko. You even introduced figures like Lehi and unnamed prophets to argue that other writings existed outside the Bible, which again is a different topic.

Ewan ko ah, but you also brought up names like Zenos and Zenok to support the idea of lost or non-biblical prophets, not whether these are the same as the “missing books” being discussed. Tapos ngayon ay magre-redirect ka toward belief and willingness to study LDS texts? Dude, that’s more of a rhetorical pivot than a direct answer. You see, you answered “There were other records and prophets not in the Bible.” But MY question is “Are those ‘missing books’ being identified with LDS scriptures?” Well, oo, related naman, but NOT identical question.

Alam kong alam mo (at ni Marites) na ang real tension na ni-raise ko is this: If someone says “the Bible has missing books”, and then says “the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are from God,” are they implicitly claiming those are the missing biblical books? 😅 You never clearly affirmed or denied that connection.

You simply widened the discussion to “There were other writings that existed.” Aminado ako, that’s a safer, more general claim, and it avoids being pinned down.

Oh siya… I understand your point about additional records. But to be clear (sana naman hindi ko na ‘to need i-reiterate) are you saying the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are the missing books of the Bible, or simply additional revelations outside of it?

Me: Ginoong Pantas, So when you ask "Mormon folks, what are your takes on this?" is a closed-end question, am I right, or you just don't want to hear a reason? So, what you are doing here is to simply ask a question that doesn't need further explanation/interpretation, and then what? You want to go on and on with the YES and NO categories? My answer is simple and easy to understand, and clearly, you don't like it. We have the biblical records of some lost books (Book of Jasher, the Acts of Solomon, Nathan, Gad, etc.); they are all there, so what's your point in asking the questions where it is already given?

Thinking you don't like my answer, or should I say it's a dumb answer, then what do you want us to expect from you, OP? See where it leads you? My answer to your question is clear. And if you want me to summarize my answer, I'll give it to you to satisfy your demand. It's a NO (No more buts for the sake of your demand).

Ginoong Pantas: Marites Palos Salinas

Don’t worry. Anyone can make mistakes, so I’m not here to put you down. Instead of directly criticizing your response, I chose to raise an inquiry in this group. As you acknowledged, you weren’t entirely certain of your answer and felt obliged to give a firm YES rather than leave the question open. I’m not holding that against you.

Jerry Nuñez Bustillo

Bweno, thank you for clarifying that your answer is NO. 👍 That actually helps. So just to be consistent, would it be accurate to say that the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are not restorations of any lost biblical books, but entirely separate revelations? 😉

Me: How do you want me to answer your question?

Ginoong Pantas: Jerry Nuñez Bustillo

Since I elevated the question to another height, you now have your own way to answer it according to your version of truth. But a direct or heads-on answer will be highly appreciated. Kumbaga, kung ano ‘yung core ng tanong, doon lang din dapat magse-circulate ang mood ng sagot. No need for unnecessary decorations unless the issue itself requires it.

Me: Ginoong Pantas Actually I have said enough, and you don't like it. so I have to do it again in a different approach to help you out.

So, here's the thing, when you say revelation, it simply means you have something received from heaven, either God or a messenger or even the Holy Ghost that manifests something like organization, declarations, or something that might help the people in some future event.

When you question as if the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price were revelation, yes, it does, but they were in different settings. The Book of Mormon was the record received from ancient people who once hid their writting in some areas of the land, While the Pearl of the Great Price is a separate history where they purchase a papyrus from someone who sells it during their time and Joseph was permited to receive a translation of Abraham using some of the Papyrus fragments that were lost in the great fire in chicago.

Ginoong Pantas: Jerry Nuñez Bustillo

Do you really think so? 😏 By the time you asked for my viewpoint on the “priesthood” and you also didn’t like my answer, nagreklamo ba ako? I understand that we come from different religions, with different beliefs and doctrines. But pointing out a correction when your response doesn’t align with my original question doesn’t mean I dislike your answer. I’m simply asking for a more direct and focused response to what we’re discussing. 👍

Anyway… you’ve clarified something important, and I appreciate that. From your explanation, it’s now clear that you consider both the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price as revelations, but not restorations of any known “missing books” of the Bible. That distinction is helpful enough.

However, this raises a separate issue. Ano ‘yon? Historical verification.

When we talk about writings outside the biblical canon, there are actually documented discoveries that scholars (regardless of religion) recognize as historically rooted. In fact, napag-usapan na namin ‘to ng katrabaho kong Mormon din na tinanggihan ako noong niyaya ko siyang magkape eh.

Here are the examples:

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain ancient Hebrew texts, including copies of biblical books and other Jewish writings, physically dated and examined by historians and archaeologists.

2. The Nag Hammadi Library preserves early Christian and Gnostic writings, again with manuscript evidence and academic study behind them.

3. Even references to lost works like the Book of Jasher or the Acts of Solomon are grounded in historical citation, meaning we know they existed because other ancient sources mention them.

Now, in contrast (huwag ka naman sanang mapipikon), the Book of Mormon is presented as a record of ancient civilizations, yet there are NO independently verified manuscripts, NO archaeological findings universally accepted by non-LDS scholars, and NO external historical references to the people or records it describes. 👎 The same issue applies to the Pearl of Great Price, lalong lalo na ‘yung Book of Abraham, where the surviving papyri fragments studied by Egyptologists DO NOT MATCH the claimed translation. 😏

So the question now isn’t whether you believe they are revelations because you’ve already said you do. The question is WHY should these be treated on the same level as historically attested ancient writings, when they lack independent archaeological or textual support? Hindi rin iyan nasagot ng katrabaho ko.

That’s actually the real point I’m trying to understand.

Me: Ginoong Pantas sorry, natulugan ko na ang comment mo, and I read it while at work, so hindi ko na nasagot agad.

I didn't complain as a response to your comment; you simply misunderstood my point, and that is the problem. You just like to just critic on someone's view while you don't even have the solution even on your own problem, and I already expected that. When you people couldn't answer the questions that I simply asked the last time, which were all about Priesthood, Revelation, and Authority, I don't even go beyond it since it is one of our differences, and clearly, you don't have the answer, and I respected that. And again, as I have said in my previous comment, where did this OP lead to? I did not complain or dislike your comment, I only dislike the way you think my reasons are unacceptable, but that's okay, I'm already aware of it, the reason why I answered you on the first place regarding the issue with a friend and that you only want a yes or no answer because I already knew where this all leads, then here we are digging deeper. But anyway its a good start, so I'll address your questions about it.

Yes, to be fair, it is not about the idea of the Missing book you knew in the scriptures since the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price were distinct writings outside of the known books and authors you have in your pocket. So when you said "missing books," automatically, as I understood it, those were the books mentioned in the scripture. For me, it's not actually necessary, but we'll just stick to that so we wouldn't bring out more confusion as of this time, but you can have my explanation later on. So your question is the Historical verification, okay, so let's get to it -

When you talk about the Biblical Canon as a Documented Discovery. Will No, not everything in the biblical canon has a corresponding, documented, and/or universally accepted archaeological or historical discovery. While there were some other biblical figures, locations, or events closely on 8BCE, there were many narratives lack of external evidence or validations. I'll use your example so we will be on the same page.

1. The Dead Sea Scroll is not one of the Biblical Missing canon. Are we still talking about the missing canon, or just go on in some mixed stuff or archaeology? Okay, I'll let you have it. The Dead Sea Scroll has been discovery in one of the Qumran Cave that has been a collection of Jewish writings from some Splinters they were known as Essenes. I don't need more space on detailing this to you; take your time on research. But you get the point, the discoveries we have now have nothing to do with the missing canon, but perhaps a copy of some old manuscript predating their time. And here's some trivia if you think that might be helpful, but it's okay if you don't like it. The Book of Mormon mentions "The Land of Jerusalem" is an unknown phrase of the Bible and is considered laughable by some critics, but the Scroll of Apocryphon of Jeremiah of the Dead Sea Scrolls mentioned the same Phrase. Now ask this: Did Joseph Smith copy it or the Essenes? There are other things, but I don't need to pull it out. So you get the point; Dead Sea Scroll in out of the topic when we're talking about the missing canon.

2. Yes, Nag Hammadi Library collected the Gnostic Writings, no comments about; so how do you understand the Gnostic Teachings? Was it related to any of the known and accepted scriptures you have today? Do you consider it an inspired writing? What is your point of pulling it out if it's not relevant to the topic? I would rather consider the Book of Mormon align the authorized Bible you have now, than taking more study on gnostic writings that need much wider evidence and reference.

3. Now you have it, so you have the Lost Book of the Bible (The book of Jasher, Acts of Solomon, etc.), those were grounded in historical citation, I agree. The Bible mentioned it and could be a good source to understand more fully about the scriptural writings, historicity, or doctrines that have been taught ever since. We know they exist, as you said, and that it is mentioned. But do you accept it? If not? What are the factors that hinder you from accepting it?

So you see, you open up a statement that is even more problematic in this conversation. If you do accept these writings as authentic or authorized by means of revelation, or should I say as the Holy Ghost guided your religion, why not create a religion that has both of these writings intact, rather than questioning the Mormonism that has a certain writing outside of biblical studies

Now you claim that the Book of Mormon is a record of ancient civilizations with no independent verified manuscript, yea sure, since it is written on gold plates and was taken away by an angel to protect the sealed part that was not yet translated. Yes, I do agree, no evidence has been found, but the number of witness who never denies their testimony of its existence, even if they separate themselves from the church, is clearly that it existed. If you think this is not enough evidence for you, try to ask for evidence of a huge number of people bondage from Egypt and parted the Red Sea just to cross to the promised land. Do you have it? Can you confirm that it happened? And for the Book of Mormon, there were known discoveries that have proven the travel of this group of People, there were known landmarks and places right before they crossed America, Joseph Smith didn't even know Jerusalem had a wall, but the writing does. So, why was that? Your issue that it has archaeological evidence is outdate and I would suppose you just borrowed it from some critics rather than just your own.

And about the Book of Abraham, as you have said that the papyrus fragments don't match or are more closely a funerary text, I'm aware of that. And since you know that it is a surviving papyrus, so more accurately, it's not the entire writings. Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Abraham the way you translate hieroglyphics to English; Joseph Smith didn't know that. It was used as a catalyst that helped him receive further light from the early events of Abraham. And the Fun part is, we do have the Apocalypse of Abraham now that you can download, which confirms Joseph Smith's writings that have parallels to it, such as the idols, his father, sacrifices, cosmology, and many others. Did Joseph Smith know any of this? How?

So, back to your question, whether I believe they are revelations because I say it so, then why should they be treated on the same level as historically attested ancient writings, when they lack independent archaeological or textual support? I answered it already on the subject. Thinking I am like the same people you encountered, that this thing has no answers at all, mind you, I'm actually just only scratching the surface. There are other things I could prove, but it doesn't make sense if we just stick to Evidence rather than Doctrines and Faith. That's not how God works.
No comments:

Ministering—"That Ye Love One Another; as I Have Loved You"


We may not be able to fix difficult or heartbreaking circumstances as we hope;
some changes are not ours to make.
But we can choose to love and minister as the Savior would.

Ministering by the Spirit invites the Savior’s healing
into our lives and the lives of those we minister to.
I often find peace, clarity, healing, and purpose when I minister.
I find the Savior when I minister. This is by divine design.

Ministering—“That Ye Love One Another; as I Have Loved You”
By Sister Kristin M. Yee
Second Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency
Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste
No comments:

Ito ang isa sa testimonya o patotoo ni Cristo patungkol sa kanyang ibang mga tupa... - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata



Now it seems Jose Rodelio Retome Rata a.k.a REBUKER seems like he wanted to share something from their teachings, and this will be a good start for a supposed good Christian like him (just assuming), preaching a doctrine of man. It's a good start, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Keep it up; perhaps you can help me understand the doctrine of Manalo and his Philippine church someday. LOL!

So, what do we have here? Let's examine what his so-called true doctrine of INC will teach us. Let's dive in -

Ito ang isa sa testimonya o patotoo ni Cristo patungkol sa kanyang ibang mga tupa at sa isang pastor na mangunguna sa kanyang ibang mga tupa.

Juan 10:16 Ang Dating Biblia (1905)
16 At mayroon akong ibang mga tupa, na hindi sa kulungang ito: sila'y kailangan din namang dalhin ko, at kanilang diringgin ang aking tinig; at sila'y magiging isang kawan, at magkakaroon ng isang pastor.

John 10:16 Easy-to-Read Version
16 I have other sheep too. They are not in this flock here. I must lead them also. They will listen to my voice. In the future there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Yeah, I can see that clearly. Two different versions, it's a good start as I have said, but it seems unnecessary while pointing only to just one translation. So what's the point of the Tagalog translation if you're not actually using it? But anyway, here's the deal: John 10 was his address to his disciples about some other sheep out of the land of Jerusalem, and to be fair, this translation may vary since Christ is not directly addressing a specific group, race, or place that might help us to point out what he meant. So yes, it needs a deeper understanding. But here's the catch, since Christ did address it as outside of his region, then this supposes other sheep must be in the Gentile land, far from his Country. So I guess the INC or LDS version of this story will lead us to it. Let's find out more -

KLARO DIYAN NA ANG 'OTHER SHEEP NI CRISTO' AY WALA SA 'FLOCK' SA PANAHON NIYA AT SA PANAHON NG MGA APOSTOL.

No, it's not. You simply assume that whenever the words "future" were used, then it always meant that Christ was referring to a future generation of a certain group, rather than the existing group where he fulfils it on his visitation at a certain point. As I have said, Christ did not specifically mention a group of people or a place in a certain period of time. Christ means this group of people already existed, and in the future (or more accurately, someday) he will gather them. So again, this assumption is not a direct Biblical translation, but rather it's your personal ideology because of the INC doctrine that you think you can add to it. You need further evidence to prove your claim about it. And the question is, DO YOU HAVE?

ANG 'FLOCK' AY WALANG IBA KUNDI ANG 'CHURCH OF CHRIST O 'IGLESIA NI CRISTO.'

And here we go again. You cannot back it up with just supporting an irrelevant scripture. You are appealing to False Assumption or Apophenia. This fallacy fails because the prooftext is missing some relevant requirements. See, for example, the given scriptures John 10:16. Christ clearly states "I have" and "I must bring," or you use the Easy To Read version that says "I must lead". So when did it happen? When did Christ show you that he came to this group of people and declare that they were the ones he had spoken to during his ministry? Can you provide proof that Felix Manalo or some others on your INC denominations that confirms this promise? Let me guess how you answer it: "That now how you interpret the scriptures". Oh yeah, sure, so if this is not how it was supposed to be, then prove it. Can you?

Acts 20:28 George M. Lamsa
28 Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the FLOCK over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the CHURCH OF CHRIST which he has purchased with his blood.

And this has always been the version that you love most. Just because of the word CHURCH OF CHRIST, then literally it was indeed the INC Philippines. Come on! Just when did George M. Lamsa translate the bible to Aramaic Peshitta told you that it was the Philippines INC? Was it the way you people translate the scripture? In Acts 20, Paul was talking about the Saints at Ephesians, especially the Elders (Acts 20:17-21), not the Philippines INC. This was specifically an epistle to them. Paul was aware that there were possibilities that he would be caught in prison because of his preaching (Acts 20:22-24). If you read the prior Chapter (Acts 19), you'll understand why the people of Ephesians were troubled and angry by Paul's words, and Paul left them and went to different places to continue his preaching. Paul was concerned and even warned them that there may be others who will soon lead them astray (Acts 20:25-31).

ANG MGA SHEEP NI CRISTO AY BINUBUO NG 3 BAHAGI NG MGA TAO.ACTS 2:39.
Acts 2:39 New King James Version
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

This is simply your own ideology. The scripture didn't say anything that such a third nation or group of people would exist aside from Jews and Gentiles. The Scripture you're using simply says about the Jews and their Generations which is extended to the nation of the Gentiles, not the other group outside of biblical terminology. Even in Paul's address about the Gospel will be known to the people of the Jews and the Gentiles will be grafted to it (see Romans 1:16, Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:14-16 also check out the Olive Tree Analogy at Romans 11), no such thing as 3rd part or group of people aside from them (Jews and Gentile) and it's such a weak argument.

ANG TINUTUKOY NG 'TO YOU' AY BUONG ANGKAN NG ISRAEL O LAHING ISRAELITA.ACTS 2:36,39.
Acts 2:36 New King James Version
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
Acts 2:39 New King James Version
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Using Acts 2:36,39 tied it up with 1 Corinthians 4:15, that I don't see anything to discuss, but yeah sure, no one disagrees on that, and it's plain as it is, so what's your point?

ANG TINUTUKOY NAMAN NA 'TO YOUR CHILDREN' AY ANAK NG MGA JUDIO O MGA ISRAELITA SA PANGANGARAL NG EVANGELIO SA PAMAMAGITAN NI APOSTOL PABLO ANG LAHING HENTIL.1CORINTO 4:15.
1 Corinthians 4:15 New King James Version
15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

This was just added for the sake of long text, thinking it would be more precise and authentic, but it's actually unnecessary.

ANG DALAWANG LAHI NA YAN AY NATAWAG NA NOONG UNANG SIGLO.ROMA 9:24.
Romans 9:24 Good News Translation
24 For we are the people he called, not only from among the Jews but also from among the Gentiles.

The Jews were actually called first, then came Christ, who preached the Gospel to them. The Gospel then preach outside soon after Christ made his proclamation to Spread the Gospel to every nation (Matthew 28:19). The Gentile of near surrounding areas were then taught about it and yeah no question about the history that you don't know, but it's okay, as long as you keep doing your research you can keep it up until you realized how fanatic you are in the ideology that doesn't even fit on Biblical Standards. So let's go ahead and see some more of your stuff -

KAPWA KABILANG SILA SA IISANG KATAWAN.EFESO 3:6.

Ephesians 3:6 Good News Translation
6 The secret is that by means of the gospel the Gentiles have a part with the Jews in God's blessings; they are members of the same body and share in the promise that God made through Christ Jesus.
VS -
Ephesians 3:6 Easy English Bible
6 This is the message of God's good news: Gentiles, as well as Jews, may receive the good things that God has prepared for his children. We may all belong to the same group of God's people, like we are his body. Everyone who is united with Christ Jesus receives the good things that God has promised.

Again for heaven sakes Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, Christ did not said anything about other sheep to a specific nation, you simply assume that since the text show that they were "Co-Heirs" and "Members of one Body" so therefore they are the first group of people Christ mentioned on John 10:16 and you'll easily come up with the conclusion that the INC is indeed the other sheep, while it is not. That's a False Equivalence Fallacy, and for goodness sake, read and ponder the context of the scripture so you'll understand how and what it was all about. First of all, the Gospels preached during Christ's time were composed only of the Jewish nation, except for those of the gentile proselytes who adopted the Jewish Teachings. Christ never told or allowed them to preach the Gospel outside of the Jewish Family (Matthew 10:5-6), in which they focused their mission to the lost sheep. So when Christ declared that he had other sheep outside of the fold, he meant that there were people out there who may be of Jewish descent in a Gentile nation, or maybe a Gentile nation in general, but not the third group of people that doesn't sound Biblical. I do have the answer to this, but I would like to be fair in understanding the scripture on your level, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, so you'll understand that you belong in a religion that only uses and translates the scriptures on their own understanding without light and knowledge from heaven.

AYAN ANG LAHING JUDIO AT LAHING HENTIL AY KABILANG SILA SA PAREHONG GRUPO OR FLOCK.

Okay, so no need to worry as long as you don't insist that there were other nations aside from Jews and Gentiles using your eisegesis. So let's move on -

SAMAKATUWID-ANG FLOCK O CHURCH OF CHRIST NA TINUTUKOY NI JESUS SA PANAHON NIYA AT SA PANAHON NG MGA APOSTOL AY BINUBUO NG LAHING JUDIO AT LAHING HENTIL.

John 10:16 Easy-to-Read Version
16 I have other sheep too. They are not in this flock here. I must lead them also. They will listen to my voice. In the future there will be one flock and one shepherd.


Now it seems Jose Rodelio Retome Rata a.k.a REBUKER seems like he wanted to share something from their teachings, and this will be a good start for a supposed good Christian like him (just assuming), preaching a doctrine of man. It's a good start, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Keep it up; perhaps you can help me understand the doctrine of Manalo and his Philippine church someday. LOL!

So, what do we have here? Let's examine what his so-called true doctrine of INC will teach us. Let's dive in -

Ito ang isa sa testimonya o patotoo ni Cristo patungkol sa kanyang ibang mga tupa at sa isang pastor na mangunguna sa kanyang ibang mga tupa.
Juan 10:16 Ang Dating Biblia (1905)16 At mayroon akong ibang mga tupa, na hindi sa kulungang ito: sila'y kailangan din namang dalhin ko, at kanilang diringgin ang aking tinig; at sila'y magiging isang kawan, at magkakaroon ng isang pastor.
John 10:16 Easy-to-Read Version16 I have other sheep too. They are not in this flock here. I must lead them also. They will listen to my voice. In the future there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Yeah, I can see that clearly. Two different versions, it's a good start as I have said, but it seems unnecessary while pointing only to just one translation. So what's the point of the Tagalog translation if you're not actually using it? But anyway, here's the deal: John 10 was his address to his disciples about some other sheep out of the land of Jerusalem, and to be fair, this translation may vary since Christ is not directly addressing a specific group, race, or place that might help us to point out what he meant. So yes, it needs a deeper understanding. But here's the catch, since Christ did address it as outside of his region, then this supposes other sheep must be in the Gentile land, far from his Country. So I guess the INC or LDS version of this story will lead us to it. Let's find out more -

KLARO DIYAN NA ANG 'OTHER SHEEP NI CRISTO' AY WALA SA 'FLOCK' SA PANAHON NIYA AT SA PANAHON NG MGA APOSTOL.

No, it's not. You simply assume that whenever the words "future" were used, then it always meant that Christ was referring to a future generation of a certain group, rather than the existing group where he fulfils it on his visitation at a certain point. As I have said, Christ did not specifically mention a group of people or a place in a certain period of time. Christ means this group of people already existed, and in the future (or more accurately, someday) he will gather them. So again, this assumption is not a direct Biblical translation, but rather it's your personal ideology because of the INC doctrine that you think you can add to it. You need further evidence to prove your claim about it. And the question is, DO YOU HAVE?

ANG 'FLOCK' AY WALANG IBA KUNDI ANG 'CHURCH OF CHRIST O 'IGLESIA NI CRISTO.'

And here we go again. You cannot back it up with just supporting an irrelevant scripture. You are appealing to False Assumption or Apophenia. This fallacy fails because the prooftext is missing some relevant requirements. See, for example, the given scriptures John 10:16. Christ clearly states "I have" and "I must bring," or you use the Easy To Read version that says "I must lead". So when did it happen? When did Christ show you that he came to this group of people and declare that they were the ones he had spoken to during his ministry? Can you provide proof that Felix Manalo or some others on your INC denominations that confirms this promise? Let me guess how you answer it: "That now how you interpret the scriptures". Oh yeah, sure, so if this is not how it was supposed to be, then prove it. Can you?

Acts 20:28 George M. Lamsa28 Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the FLOCK over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the CHURCH OF CHRIST which he has purchased with his blood.

And this has always been the version that you love most. Just because of the word CHURCH OF CHRIST, then literally it was indeed the INC Philippines. Come on! Just when did George M. Lamsa translate the bible to Aramaic Peshitta told you that it was the Philippines INC? Was it the way you people translate the scripture? In Acts 20, Paul was talking about the Saints at Ephesians, especially the Elders (Acts 20:17-21), not the Philippines INC. This was specifically an epistle to them. Paul was aware that there were possibilities that he would be caught in prison because of his preaching (Acts 20:22-24). If you read the prior Chapter (Acts 19), you'll understand why the people of Ephesians were troubled and angry by Paul's words, and Paul left them and went to different places to continue his preaching. Paul was concerned and even warned them that there may be others who will soon lead them astray (Acts 20:25-31).

ANG MGA SHEEP NI CRISTO AY BINUBUO NG 3 BAHAGI NG MGA TAO.ACTS 2:39.
Acts 2:39 New King James Version
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

This is simply your own ideology. The scripture didn't say anything that such a third nation or group of people would exist aside from Jews and Gentiles. The Scripture you're using simply says about the Jews and their Generations which is extended to the nation of the Gentiles, not the other group outside of biblical terminology. Even in Paul's address about the Gospel will be known to the people of the Jews and the Gentiles will be grafted to it (see Romans 1:16, Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:14-16 also check out the Olive Tree Analogy at Romans 11), no such thing as 3rd part or group of people aside from them (Jews and Gentile) and it's such a weak argument.

ANG TINUTUKOY NG 'TO YOU' AY BUONG ANGKAN NG ISRAEL O LAHING ISRAELITA.ACTS 2:36,39.
Acts 2:36 New King James Version
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
Acts 2:39 New King James Version
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Using Acts 2:36,39 tied it up with 1 Corinthians 4:15, that I don't see anything to discuss, but yeah sure, no one disagrees on that, and it's plain as it is, so what's your point?

ANG TINUTUKOY NAMAN NA 'TO YOUR CHILDREN' AY ANAK NG MGA JUDIO O MGA ISRAELITA SA PANGANGARAL NG EVANGELIO SA PAMAMAGITAN NI APOSTOL PABLO ANG LAHING HENTIL.1CORINTO 4:15.
1 Corinthians 4:15 New King James Version
15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

This was just added for the sake of long text, thinking it would be more precise and authentic, but it's actually unnecessary.

ANG DALAWANG LAHI NA YAN AY NATAWAG NA NOONG UNANG SIGLO.ROMA 9:24.
Romans 9:24 Good News Translation
24 For we are the people he called, not only from among the Jews but also from among the Gentiles.

The Jews were actually called first, then came Christ, who preached the Gospel to them. The Gospel then preach outside soon after Christ made his proclamation to Spread the Gospel to every nation (Matthew 28:19). The Gentile of near surrounding areas were then taught about it and yeah no question about the history that you don't know, but it's okay, as long as you keep doing your research you can keep it up until you realized how fanatic you are in the ideology that doesn't even fit on Biblical Standards. So let's go ahead and see some more of your stuff -

KAPWA KABILANG SILA SA IISANG KATAWAN.EFESO 3:6.
Ephesians 3:6 Good News Translation
6 The secret is that by means of the gospel the Gentiles have a part with the Jews in God's blessings; they are members of the same body and share in the promise that God made through Christ Jesus.

VS -

Ephesians 3:6 Easy English Bible
6 This is the message of God's good news: Gentiles, as well as Jews, may receive the good things that God has prepared for his children. We may all belong to the same group of God's people, like we are his body. Everyone who is united with Christ Jesus receives the good things that God has promised.

Again for heaven sakes Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, Christ did not said anything about other sheep to a specific nation, you simply assume that since the text show that they were "Co-Heirs" and "Members of one Body" so therefore they are the first group of people Christ mentioned on John 10:16 and you'll easily come up with the conclusion that the INC is indeed the other sheep, while it is not. That's a False Equivalence Fallacy, and for goodness sake, read and ponder the context of the scripture so you'll understand how and what it was all about. First of all, the Gospels preached during Christ's time were composed only of the Jewish nation, except for those of the gentile proselytes who adopted the Jewish Teachings. Christ never told or allowed them to preach the Gospel outside of the Jewish Family (Matthew 10:5-6), in which they focused their mission to the lost sheep. So when Christ declared that he had other sheep outside of the fold, he meant that there were people out there who may be of Jewish descent in a Gentile nation, or maybe a Gentile nation in general, but not the third group of people that doesn't sound Biblical. I do have the answer to this, but I would like to be fair in understanding the scripture on your level, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, so you'll understand that you belong in a religion that only uses and translates the scriptures on their own understanding without light and knowledge from heaven.

AYAN ANG LAHING JUDIO AT LAHING HENTIL AY KABILANG SILA SA PAREHONG GRUPO OR FLOCK.
Okay, so no need to worry as long as you don't insist that there were other nations aside from Jews and Gentiles using your eisegesis. So let's move on -
SAMAKATUWID-ANG FLOCK O CHURCH OF CHRIST NA TINUTUKOY NI JESUS SA PANAHON NIYA AT SA PANAHON NG MGA APOSTOL AY BINUBUO NG LAHING JUDIO AT LAHING HENTIL.
John 10:16 Easy-to-Read Version
16 I have other sheep too. They are not in this flock here. I must lead them also. They will listen to my voice. In the future there will be one flock and one shepherd.
I already explained this one, so you can go back to where I made the statement. You are wrong, and Christ did not include the Gentile during his proclamation, but as I have said he could meant this as a Lost Tribe in a Gentile nation or a Gentile nation/people itself and even if I have a specific answer on this doctrine, I will remain neutral at this moment for you to understand that this is not how it meant.

ANG IBANG MGA TUPA NI JESUS AYON DIYAN AY HINDI SA 'FLOCK O CHURCH OF CHRIST' NA NAROROON KUNDI SA FUTURE PA MAGIGING ISANG 'FLOCK O CHURCH OF CHRIST.'

And again, I already made my statement about this. Wrong! The sheep that Christ mentioned here were already a group of people in his present time, "I HAVE," and just because the word "future" was used, you simply assume that this group of people (which is the other sheep) will be established in the future, and where's your proof that Christ fulfils that promise in the Philippines? You haven't. So no, it is not the Future INC. Too much redundancy.

SAMAKATUWID-HINDI SA PANAHONG UNANG SIGLO ANG IBANG MGA TUPA NI JESUS.

SILA ANG IKATLONG BAHAGI NA BUMUBUO SA MGA TUPA NI JESUS NA LILITAW SA MALAYONG DAKO AT MALAYONG PANAHON AYON SA KAUGNAY NA HULA.ACTS 2:39.

Acts 2:39 RIEU TRANSLATION
39 For it was to you that the gift was promised, to you and your children, and to all those in DISTANT TIMES AND PLACES whom the Lord our God shall call.

This is such a pain in your brain, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. You'd been duped, and at the same time you became fanatic to a teachings that don't even align with Biblical standards. I already made a statement on this one, and if you want to go back just go ahead and read my statement above. Acts 2:39 This is the promise of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness, as it says in verse 38, is for the Jewish audience, their children, and "all who are far off" (referring to future generations and Gentiles) whom God calls. Let me quote the scripture for you so you'll understand -

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” - Act 2:38-39 NIV

Now tell me, what was the subject all about and who was the audience? If you read from the start (Acts 2:14-41), you will come to realize this was only addressed to a specific group of people in a certain period of time, but the promise was extended to their generation and to the Gentile who does the same thing or whom God will call. So, let's wrap it up. Was it about the group of people in the Philippines? I don't think so. You simply don't know your scripture well, and you people were easily deceived because of that cherry-picking style of study. That doesn't work.

AYON SA KAUGNAY NA HULA ANG MALAYONG DAKO AY MALAYONG SILANGAN AT ANG MALAYONG PANAHON AY ANG PANAHONG TINATAWAG NA ENDS OF THE EARTH.

Isaiah 43:5-6 New King James Version
5 Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your descendants from the east, And gather you from the west;
6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ And to the south, ‘Do not keep them back!’ Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth—

And here we go again, in another out-of-context study of your ideology. Did you read the verse before that?  I will quote to you the entire context so you will again understand to whom this was and what it meant -

But now, this is what the Lord says— he who created you, Jacob, he who formed you, Israel: “Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine.
2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze.
3 For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead.
4 Since you are precious and honored in my sight, and because I love you, I will give people in exchange for you, nations in exchange for your life.
5 Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west.
6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’ Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth —
7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.”
8 Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf.
9 All the nations gather together and the peoples assemble. Which of their gods foretold this and proclaimed to us the former things? Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say, “It is true.”
10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
11 I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.
12 I have revealed and saved and proclaimed— I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “that I am God.
13 Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?” - Isaiah 43:1-13 NIV

So, let's go ahead, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. What was this all about? To whom was this addressed? Does it say that these people whom the Lord calls from the far east are a Gentile People? Or was it Jews in a Gentile Nation? So go ahead, take your time answering the simple questions.

AYAN 'EAST FROM AFAR' MAGMUMULA ANG MGA ANAK NG DIOS MEANING 'FAR EAST' SA PANAHONG 'ENDS OF THE EARTH.'

Sure, you can do whatever you want if that's what you think, then provide me with evidence that you, the people from a far country, which is the Philippines, were the People mentioned in Isaiah 43, and go ahead and provide an apocalyptic declaration from your Messenger that God calls him to gather these people in the Philippines. Do you have?

ANG BANSANG PILIPINAS AY NASA DAKONG MALAYONG SILANGAN O FAR EAST.

"The Philippines were Spain's share of the first colonizing movement in the Far East; the name means the 'islands of Philip' and refers to that grim ruler, King Philip II." WORLD HISTORY BY: BOAK, SLOSSON AND ANDERSON PAGE: 445

So, what's the relevance of this World History Book on the Scripture according to the Context? Does it mean that just because the Philippines was in the Far East, does it mean it automatically fulfil Biblical promise from the words of Isaiah? Seriously? That's how you understand that scripture? We don't argue that the Philippines was indeed on the East side, and there are many others aside from the Philippines; the only thing that I disagree was the interpretation of the biblical passage that doesn't even sound prophetic. You people should know your scripture well since it is the only book you use every time you gather, and yet you're too slow to know how the context works. This will be a challenge to you, and I would like to include myself in that. If you want to make a declaration of any biblical interpretations, you should back it up with a direct revelation that it was indeed fulfilled in your religion. Simply quoting it and taking it out of context is just too clumsy.

ANG PANAHON NAMAN NA 'ENDS OF THE EARTH' AY PANAHON NA MALAPIT NA ANG 'END OF THE EARTH O KATAPUSAN NG MUNDO.'

Matthew 24:3 King James Version
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

ANG PAGBABALIK NI JESUS AY SIYA RING KATAPUSAN NG MUNDO.

Oh yeah, sure, I get that, so what's the relevance to that on Isaiah's Prophecy to the Jews and a promise to restore them to their land? So why are we now jumping on a different topic?

ANG UNANG TANDA NA IBINIGAY NIYA NA MALAPIT NA ANG KANYANG PAGBABALIK NA SIYA RING KATAPUSAN NG MUNDO AY ANG 'FIRST WORLD WAR.

Matthew 24:6-8 New King James Version
6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

Matthew 24:33 New King James Version
33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!


Now it seems Jose Rodelio Retome Rata a.k.a REBUKER seems like he wanted to share something from their teachings, and this will be a good start for a supposed good Christian like him (just assuming), preaching a doctrine of man. It's a good start, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Keep it up; perhaps you can help me understand the doctrine of Manalo and his Philippine church someday. LOL!

So, what do we have here? Let's examine what his so-called true doctrine of INC will teach us. Let's dive in -

Ito ang isa sa testimonya o patotoo ni Cristo patungkol sa kanyang ibang mga tupa at sa isang pastor na mangunguna sa kanyang ibang mga tupa.
Juan 10:16 Ang Dating Biblia (1905)16 At mayroon akong ibang mga tupa, na hindi sa kulungang ito: sila'y kailangan din namang dalhin ko, at kanilang diringgin ang aking tinig; at sila'y magiging isang kawan, at magkakaroon ng isang pastor.
John 10:16 Easy-to-Read Version16 I have other sheep too. They are not in this flock here. I must lead them also. They will listen to my voice. In the future there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Yeah, I can see that clearly. Two different versions, it's a good start as I have said, but it seems unnecessary while pointing only to just one translation. So what's the point of the Tagalog translation if you're not actually using it? But anyway, here's the deal: John 10 was his address to his disciples about some other sheep out of the land of Jerusalem, and to be fair, this translation may vary since Christ is not directly addressing a specific group, race, or place that might help us to point out what he meant. So yes, it needs a deeper understanding. But here's the catch, since Christ did address it as outside of his region, then this supposes other sheep must be in the Gentile land, far from his Country. So I guess the INC or LDS version of this story will lead us to it. Let's find out more -

KLARO DIYAN NA ANG 'OTHER SHEEP NI CRISTO' AY WALA SA 'FLOCK' SA PANAHON NIYA AT SA PANAHON NG MGA APOSTOL.

No, it's not. You simply assume that whenever the words "future" were used, then it always meant that Christ was referring to a future generation of a certain group, rather than the existing group where he fulfils it on his visitation at a certain point. As I have said, Christ did not specifically mention a group of people or a place in a certain period of time. Christ means this group of people already existed, and in the future (or more accurately, someday) he will gather them. So again, this assumption is not a direct Biblical translation, but rather it's your personal ideology because of the INC doctrine that you think you can add to it. You need further evidence to prove your claim about it. And the question is, DO YOU HAVE?

ANG 'FLOCK' AY WALANG IBA KUNDI ANG 'CHURCH OF CHRIST O 'IGLESIA NI CRISTO.'

And here we go again. You cannot back it up with just supporting an irrelevant scripture. You are appealing to False Assumption or Apophenia. This fallacy fails because the prooftext is missing some relevant requirements. See, for example, the given scriptures John 10:16. Christ clearly states "I have" and "I must bring," or you use the Easy To Read version that says "I must lead". So when did it happen? When did Christ show you that he came to this group of people and declare that they were the ones he had spoken to during his ministry? Can you provide proof that Felix Manalo or some others on your INC denominations that confirms this promise? Let me guess how you answer it: "That now how you interpret the scriptures". Oh yeah, sure, so if this is not how it was supposed to be, then prove it. Can you?

Acts 20:28 George M. Lamsa28 Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the FLOCK over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the CHURCH OF CHRIST which he has purchased with his blood.

And this has always been the version that you love most. Just because of the word CHURCH OF CHRIST, then literally it was indeed the INC Philippines. Come on! Just when did George M. Lamsa translate the bible to Aramaic Peshitta told you that it was the Philippines INC? Was it the way you people translate the scripture? In Acts 20, Paul was talking about the Saints at Ephesians, especially the Elders (Acts 20:17-21), not the Philippines INC. This was specifically an epistle to them. Paul was aware that there were possibilities that he would be caught in prison because of his preaching (Acts 20:22-24). If you read the prior Chapter (Acts 19), you'll understand why the people of Ephesians were troubled and angry by Paul's words, and Paul left them and went to different places to continue his preaching. Paul was concerned and even warned them that there may be others who will soon lead them astray (Acts 20:25-31).

ANG MGA SHEEP NI CRISTO AY BINUBUO NG 3 BAHAGI NG MGA TAO.ACTS 2:39.
Acts 2:39 New King James Version
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

This is simply your own ideology. The scripture didn't say anything that such a third nation or group of people would exist aside from Jews and Gentiles. The Scripture you're using simply says about the Jews and their Generations which is extended to the nation of the Gentiles, not the other group outside of biblical terminology. Even in Paul's address about the Gospel will be known to the people of the Jews and the Gentiles will be grafted to it (see Romans 1:16, Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:14-16 also check out the Olive Tree Analogy at Romans 11), no such thing as 3rd part or group of people aside from them (Jews and Gentile) and it's such a weak argument.

ANG TINUTUKOY NG 'TO YOU' AY BUONG ANGKAN NG ISRAEL O LAHING ISRAELITA.ACTS 2:36,39.
Acts 2:36 New King James Version
36 “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
Acts 2:39 New King James Version
39 For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

Using Acts 2:36,39 tied it up with 1 Corinthians 4:15, that I don't see anything to discuss, but yeah sure, no one disagrees on that, and it's plain as it is, so what's your point?

ANG TINUTUKOY NAMAN NA 'TO YOUR CHILDREN' AY ANAK NG MGA JUDIO O MGA ISRAELITA SA PANGANGARAL NG EVANGELIO SA PAMAMAGITAN NI APOSTOL PABLO ANG LAHING HENTIL.1CORINTO 4:15.
1 Corinthians 4:15 New King James Version
15 For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

This was just added for the sake of long text, thinking it would be more precise and authentic, but it's actually unnecessary.

ANG DALAWANG LAHI NA YAN AY NATAWAG NA NOONG UNANG SIGLO.ROMA 9:24.
Romans 9:24 Good News Translation
24 For we are the people he called, not only from among the Jews but also from among the Gentiles.

The Jews were actually called first, then came Christ, who preached the Gospel to them. The Gospel then preach outside soon after Christ made his proclamation to Spread the Gospel to every nation (Matthew 28:19). The Gentile of near surrounding areas were then taught about it and yeah no question about the history that you don't know, but it's okay, as long as you keep doing your research you can keep it up until you realized how fanatic you are in the ideology that doesn't even fit on Biblical Standards. So let's go ahead and see some more of your stuff -

KAPWA KABILANG SILA SA IISANG KATAWAN.EFESO 3:6.
Ephesians 3:6 Good News Translation
6 The secret is that by means of the gospel the Gentiles have a part with the Jews in God's blessings; they are members of the same body and share in the promise that God made through Christ Jesus.

VS -

Ephesians 3:6 Easy English Bible
6 This is the message of God's good news: Gentiles, as well as Jews, may receive the good things that God has prepared for his children. We may all belong to the same group of God's people, like we are his body. Everyone who is united with Christ Jesus receives the good things that God has promised.

Again for heaven sakes Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, Christ did not said anything about other sheep to a specific nation, you simply assume that since the text show that they were "Co-Heirs" and "Members of one Body" so therefore they are the first group of people Christ mentioned on John 10:16 and you'll easily come up with the conclusion that the INC is indeed the other sheep, while it is not. That's a False Equivalence Fallacy, and for goodness sake, read and ponder the context of the scripture so you'll understand how and what it was all about. First of all, the Gospels preached during Christ's time were composed only of the Jewish nation, except for those of the gentile proselytes who adopted the Jewish Teachings. Christ never told or allowed them to preach the Gospel outside of the Jewish Family (Matthew 10:5-6), in which they focused their mission to the lost sheep. So when Christ declared that he had other sheep outside of the fold, he meant that there were people out there who may be of Jewish descent in a Gentile nation, or maybe a Gentile nation in general, but not the third group of people that doesn't sound Biblical. I do have the answer to this, but I would like to be fair in understanding the scripture on your level, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, so you'll understand that you belong in a religion that only uses and translates the scriptures on their own understanding without light and knowledge from heaven.

AYAN ANG LAHING JUDIO AT LAHING HENTIL AY KABILANG SILA SA PAREHONG GRUPO OR FLOCK.

Okay, so no need to worry as long as you don't insist that there were other nations aside from Jews and Gentiles using your eisegesis. So let's move on -

SAMAKATUWID-ANG FLOCK O CHURCH OF CHRIST NA TINUTUKOY NI JESUS SA PANAHON NIYA AT SA PANAHON NG MGA APOSTOL AY BINUBUO NG LAHING JUDIO AT LAHING HENTIL.
John 10:16 Easy-to-Read Version
16 I have other sheep too. They are not in this flock here. I must lead them also. They will listen to my voice. In the future there will be one flock and one shepherd.

I already explained this one, so you can go back to where I made the statement. You are wrong, and Christ did not include the Gentile during his proclamation, but as I have said he could meant this as a Lost Tribe in a Gentile nation or a Gentile nation/people itself and even if I have a specific answer on this doctrine, I will remain neutral at this moment for you to understand that this is not how it meant.

ANG IBANG MGA TUPA NI JESUS AYON DIYAN AY HINDI SA 'FLOCK O CHURCH OF CHRIST' NA NAROROON KUNDI SA FUTURE PA MAGIGING ISANG 'FLOCK O CHURCH OF CHRIST.'

And again, I already made my statement about this. Wrong! The sheep that Christ mentioned here were already a group of people in his present time, "I HAVE," and just because the word "future" was used, you simply assume that this group of people (which is the other sheep) will be established in the future, and where's your proof that Christ fulfils that promise in the Philippines? You haven't. So no, it is not the Future INC. Too much redundancy.

SAMAKATUWID-HINDI SA PANAHONG UNANG SIGLO ANG IBANG MGA TUPA NI JESUS.
SILA ANG IKATLONG BAHAGI NA BUMUBUO SA MGA TUPA NI JESUS NA LILITAW SA MALAYONG DAKO AT MALAYONG PANAHON AYON SA KAUGNAY NA HULA.ACTS 2:39.
Acts 2:39 RIEU TRANSLATION
39 For it was to you that the gift was promised, to you and your children, and to all those in DISTANT TIMES AND PLACES whom the Lord our God shall call.

This is such a pain in your brain, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. You'd been duped, and at the same time you became fanatic to a teachings that don't even align with Biblical standards. I already made a statement on this one, and if you want to go back just go ahead and read my statement above. Acts 2:39 This is the promise of the Holy Spirit and forgiveness, as it says in verse 38, is for the Jewish audience, their children, and "all who are far off" (referring to future generations and Gentiles) whom God calls. Let me quote the scripture for you so you'll understand -

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” - Act 2:38-39 NIV

Now tell me, what was the subject all about and who was the audience? If you read from the start (Acts 2:14-41), you will come to realize this was only addressed to a specific group of people in a certain period of time, but the promise was extended to their generation and to the Gentile who does the same thing or whom God will call. So, let's wrap it up. Was it about the group of people in the Philippines? I don't think so. You simply don't know your scripture well, and you people were easily deceived because of that cherry-picking style of study. That doesn't work.

AYON SA KAUGNAY NA HULA ANG MALAYONG DAKO AY MALAYONG SILANGAN AT ANG MALAYONG PANAHON AY ANG PANAHONG TINATAWAG NA ENDS OF THE EARTH.
Isaiah 43:5-6 New King James Version
5 Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your descendants from the east, And gather you from the west;
6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ And to the south, ‘Do not keep them back!’ Bring My sons from afar, And My daughters from the ends of the earth—

And here we go again, in another out-of-context study of your ideology. Did you read the verse before that?  I will quote to you the entire context so you will again understand to whom this was and what it meant -

But now, this is what the Lord says— he who created you, Jacob, he who formed you, Israel: “Do not fear, for I have redeemed you; I have summoned you by name; you are mine.
2 When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and when you pass through the rivers, they will not sweep over you. When you walk through the fire, you will not be burned; the flames will not set you ablaze.
3 For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I give Egypt for your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead.
4 Since you are precious and honored in my sight, and because I love you, I will give people in exchange for you, nations in exchange for your life.
5 Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west.
6 I will say to the north, ‘Give them up!’ and to the south, ‘Do not hold them back.’ Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth —
7 everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.”
8 Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf.
9 All the nations gather together and the peoples assemble. Which of their gods foretold this and proclaimed to us the former things? Let them bring in their witnesses to prove they were right, so that others may hear and say, “It is true.”
10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
11 I, even I, am the Lord, and apart from me there is no savior.
12 I have revealed and saved and proclaimed— I, and not some foreign god among you. You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “that I am God.
13 Yes, and from ancient days I am he. No one can deliver out of my hand. When I act, who can reverse it?” - Isaiah 43:1-13 NIV

So, let's go ahead, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. What was this all about? To whom was this addressed? Does it say that these people whom the Lord calls from the far east are a Gentile People? Or was it Jews in a Gentile Nation? So go ahead, take your time answering the simple questions.

AYAN 'EAST FROM AFAR' MAGMUMULA ANG MGA ANAK NG DIOS MEANING 'FAR EAST' SA PANAHONG 'ENDS OF THE EARTH.'

Sure, you can do whatever you want if that's what you think, then provide me with evidence that you, the people from a far country, which is the Philippines, were the People mentioned in Isaiah 43, and go ahead and provide an apocalyptic declaration from your Messenger that God calls him to gather these people in the Philippines. Do you have?

ANG BANSANG PILIPINAS AY NASA DAKONG MALAYONG SILANGAN O FAR EAST.
"The Philippines were Spain's share of the first colonizing movement in the Far East; the name means the 'islands of Philip' and refers to that grim ruler, King Philip II." WORLD HISTORY BY: BOAK, SLOSSON AND ANDERSON PAGE: 445

So, what's the relevance of this World History Book on the Scripture according to the Context? Does it mean that just because the Philippines was in the Far East, does it mean it automatically fulfil Biblical promise from the words of Isaiah? Seriously? That's how you understand that scripture? We don't argue that the Philippines was indeed on the East side, and there are many others aside from the Philippines; the only thing that I disagree was the interpretation of the biblical passage that doesn't even sound prophetic. You people should know your scripture well since it is the only book you use every time you gather, and yet you're too slow to know how the context works. This will be a challenge to you, and I would like to include myself in that. If you want to make a declaration of any biblical interpretations, you should back it up with a direct revelation that it was indeed fulfilled in your religion. Simply quoting it and taking it out of context is just too clumsy.

ANG PANAHON NAMAN NA 'ENDS OF THE EARTH' AY PANAHON NA MALAPIT NA ANG 'END OF THE EARTH O KATAPUSAN NG MUNDO.'
Matthew 24:3 King James Version
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
ANG PAGBABALIK NI JESUS AY SIYA RING KATAPUSAN NG MUNDO.

Oh yeah, sure, I get that, so what's the relevance to that on Isaiah's Prophecy to the Jews and a promise to restore them to their land? So why are we now jumping on a different topic?

ANG UNANG TANDA NA IBINIGAY NIYA NA MALAPIT NA ANG KANYANG PAGBABALIK NA SIYA RING KATAPUSAN NG MUNDO AY ANG 'FIRST WORLD WAR.
Matthew 24:6-8 New King James Version
6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
Matthew 24:33 New King James Version
33 So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!

I just couldn't picture what you are trying to say here, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, but to be fair, Christ made a statement of the Signs of the Time, and we don't have a problem with that. Everyone knows that even the other sects that also disagree on your ideology have the same term of the second coming. And as a Christian, preparation is always what matters. So what's the big deal in quoting it?

SAMAKATUWID-ANG PANAHONG 'ENDS OF THE EARTH' NA NANGANGAHULUGANG MALAPIT NA ANG 'END OF THE EARTH O KATAPUSAN NG MUNDO' AY MAGSISIMULA SA PAGSIKLAB NG FIRST WORLD WAR. ANG FIRST WORLD WAR AY SUMIKLAB NOONG JULY 27, 1914.

"The first great campaign on the southeastern battle grounds of the Great War began on July 27, 1914, when the Austrian troops undertook their first invasion of Serbia..." THE STORY OF THE GREAT WAR: HISTORY OF THE EUROPEAN WAR FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES,VOL.2 BY: FRANCIS J. REYNOLDS PAGE: 291

Again, so what's the relevance of the history of war has to do with Isaiah's Prophecy, or does this has to do with Christ Prophetic warning about war? Why would this be relevant? Does the scripture say something that the church must organize after that time period? Or Isaiah's Prophecy about the gathering of the lost tribe must be after the world war? Why are you people referring to this?

ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO AY NAIPAREHISTRO NI KA FELIX SA BANSANG PILIPINAS NOONG JULY 27, 1914. SUMASAMPALATAYA KAMING MGA INC NA ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO NA LUMITAW NOONG JULY 27, 1914 SA BANSANG PILIPINAS ANG IBANG MGA TUPA NI JESUS SA PANGUNGUNA NG ISANG PASTOR NA SI KA FELIX ANG KINATUPARAN.JUAN 10:16.

So, when registering the Name "Iglesia Ni Cristo" on a specific date, will it prove that this was the fulfilment of the Prophecy? Or you are referring me to some of your ideology of Time and days Equivalence on God's time. If you think about it, and for sure it was all about it, then you are wrong. God did not make a specific amount of time as to when the restoration occurs. Just because you register it on the date you love most, that doesn't say anything about the restoration year. You are trying to randomly pick a certain event of the scriptures and then make a good computation that this was the exact point of the emergence of your INC church. Nice Try! Go ahead and read the entire Prophetic words of Christ in Matthew 24; there are lots of different crises or events, and it didn't lead you to the restoration, but rather it was all about his coming. So if you're referencing the war as the starting point, then consider the rest of those events must be fulfilled, or should I say be revealed (if it's ongoing) by the messenger of INC. Did he have it? Again, quoting the scripture that's not even relevant to the prior issue seems like a mixed-up ideology. I simply call it Internal Inconsistency. You can't even prove the former setting, then here you are inserting a new setting that's not even in a case, which obviously shifts the burden. Just as I have said, it's too clumsy, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata.

Ang testimonya o patotoo ni Cristo ay siyang espiritu ng hula.

Pahayag 19:10 Ang Dating Biblia (1905)
10 At ako'y nagpatirapa sa kaniyang paanan upang siya'y aking sambahin. At sinasabi niya sa akin, Ingatan mong huwag gawin iyan: ako'y kapuwa mo alipin at ng iyong mga kapatid na mayroong patotoo ni Jesus: sumamba ka sa Dios: sapagka't ang patotoo ni Jesus ay siyang espiritu ng hula.

So yeah, sure, I agree, and how do you know it was fulfilled? Do you have evidence that Felix Manalo and the INC were the fulfilment? Just when did God make a statement to Felix that he was, and he fulfilled the Prophecy through him? Or maybe, some scriptural context aside from that hocus-focus ideology? Do you have it?

Samakatuwid-tumanggap si ka Felix ng awtoridad na mangunguna sa ibang mga tupa ni Jesus sa pamamagitan ng hula o testimonya ni Cristo.

Oh really, so when you register a Church name in a Certain Period of time not even relevant to scriptural context, then the authority is given? Did God said that or it's just you Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?

Links: Check out some other responses on the same subject -
https://bustillo-family.blogspot.com/2023/01/neil-andi-anderson-pretended-to-know.html
No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)