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

👉🏻 ,

FORMAL DEBATE "Sola Scriptura vs Open Canon" with Jose Rodelio Retome Rata and Jerry Bustillo


Presenter: Jose Rodelio Retome Rata (INC) – Sola Scriptura
Opponent: Jerry N. Bustillo (LDS) – Open Canon
Date: (To be Announced)
Moderator: (To be Announced)
Platform: Single-thread or nested-thread format only
PART 1: INC PRESENTATION (Presenter)
Speaker: Jose Rodelio Retome Rata (INC)
Topic: Sola Scriptura (By Scripture Alone)
Length Requirement:
Minimum: 400 words
Maximum: 2,000 characters

Guidelines:
  1. Present the doctrinal position clearly.
  2. Stick strictly to the subject of Scriptural authority.
  3. No quotations from external authors or religious critics.
  4. No ad hominem, strawman, or diversionary arguments.
  5. No Scripture flooding. Don't quote the whole scriptural content, but rather the main points of the presentation.
Cross-Examination by LDS (Opposition)
Limit: 10 questions only
Rules:
  1. Questions must be based directly on the INC presentation.
  2. Closed or polar questions allowed with brief clarification.
  3. No follow-up arguments within the question.
  4. No change of subject.
List of Questions on the Actual Debate:
Question 1 - 
Question 2 - 
Question 3 - 
Question 4 - 
Question 5 - 
Question 6 - 
Question 7 - 
Question 8 - 
Question 9 - 
Question 10 - 
PART 2: LDS PRESENTATION (Opposition)
Speaker: Jerry N. Bustillo (LDS)
Topic: Open Canon
Length Requirement:
Minimum: 400 words
Maximum: 2,000 characters

Guidelines:
  1. Present the doctrine of continuing revelation and canon.
  2. Do not misrepresent the INC position.
  3. Avoid emotional or personal language.
  4. Focus on theological and scriptural reasoning only.
Cross-Examination by INC (Presenter)
Limit: 10 questions only
Rules:
  1. Questions must be based directly on the LDS presentation.
  2. Closed or polar questions allowed with brief clarification.
  3. No follow-up arguments within the question.
  4. No change of subject.
List of Questions on the Actual Debate:
Question 1 - 
Question 2 - 
Question 3 - 
Question 4 - 
Question 5 - 
Question 6 - 
Question 7 - 
Question 8 - 
Question 9 - 
Question 10 - 
PART 3: REBUTTALS

INC Rebuttal
Focus: Address claims made in the LDS presentation
Length: 250–300 words
Rules:
    1. Respond only to the presented arguments.
    2. No new doctrines introduced.
    3. Don't quote the whole scripture text, but rather the main points of the presentation. Scripture references are limited and explained briefly.
LDS Rebuttal
Focus: Address claims made in the INC presentation
Length: 250–300 words
Rules:
    1. Respond only to the presented arguments.
    2. No new doctrines introduced.
    3. Don't quote the whole scripture text, but rather the main points of the presentation. Scripture references are limited and explained briefly.
PART 4: CONCLUDING QUESTION (Analytical)
Moderator’s Question:
- One carefully worded analytical question was derived from both presentations.
- Each side responds once.
- No counter-questions allowed.
 
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Selection by Moderator Only

INC Audience Questions (5)
  1. Question - 
  2. Question - 
  3. Question - 
  4. Question - 
  5. Question - 
LDS Audience Questions (5)
  1. Question - 
  2. Question - 
  3. Question - 
  4. Question - 
  5. Question - 
Rules:
  • The audience may comment but not debate.
  • No deletions permitted without moderator approval.
PART 5: CLOSING STATEMENTS
INC Closing Statement
  • Summary of position
  • Final clarification
  • No new arguments
LDS Closing Statement
  • Summary of position
  • Final clarification
  • No new arguments
MODERATOR AUTHORITY & FINALE
The moderator may pause or end the discussion if the rules are violated.
Decision based on biblical exegesis, not popularity.

Records are archived by both parties and the moderator.
👉🏻 ,

The Creation - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata - Jehovah Issue Part 1


All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. - Matthew 11:27 NIV

Another Incoming Respose dito na naman tayo sa ating Copy-Paste written debate daw kung gusto nya pero puro copy paste ang gagawin at walang malalim na explaination. No other than Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, around of applause, everyone. LOL! Now we'll see his commentary na ang haba daw kuno pero galing lang sa copy paste biblical verse collection, makikita natin ngayon kung gaano siya ka galing sa usaping banal na kasulatan at matutunan natin ang kanyan creticism na may kabuluhan nga naman daw/kuno. So we will dive in and see what we can get -

Jerry Nuñez Bustillo NAGBASA KA NG MGA POST KO O BINUGAHAN MO LANG NG HANGIN?

Ang ganda ng Intro mga kapatid, ganito siya ka galing sa larangan ng Theology, wala kang katulad Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. LOL!

Creation
Under the direction of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the heavens and the earth. From scripture revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith, we know that in the work of the Creation, the Lord organized elements that had already existed. He did not create the world “out of nothing,” as some people believe.

I assume kinuha nya ito sa Gospel Topic and Question, and I'm pretty sure hindi nya naintindihan dahil sa quote palang nya selected parts or Cherry-picked content thinking that it has no Biblical Reference. Ay ka-very Good naman. Now let's see what this is all about, sa quote nya -

The above sentences says about that Jesus Christ created everything under the direction of the Heavenly Father. Actually, this is not just an LDS Theology, even biblical Scholars and other Religious Organization understand the same concept, baka ikaw lang Jose Rodelio Retome Rata ang walang alam nyan. Also, nakalagay dyan na the world was created throught an existed matter or elements, this is called Creatio ex Materia (Creation out of Existing Matter). We believe that matters and elements are eternal and existed with God, and we do not believe in Creatio ex Nihilo (Creation out of Nothing).

The scripture is plain that everything was created "through him and by him and for him" tinatanong kita sa debate natin tungkol nya pero wala kang malinaw nasagot kaya ayon puro nalang walang connect mga sagot mo. Check mo ulit itong link para maalala mo - (https://bustillo-family.blogspot.com/2025/12/exchanges-details.html)

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16  For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him,
20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
- Colossians 1:15-20 (New International Version)

LDS, though we believe in Theophany, also LDS believe in Christophany, which basically means Christ existed with the Father and has his role long before the Creation of the World, which might also appear in some circumstances. There were reasons why he represents the Father in the Old Testament, which we simply call the Divine Investiture of Authority. Let me try using this scripture for you para may mapupulot ka na naman nakaalaman. Naniniwala ka ng walang nakakakita sa Ama as stated in John 1:18 (No man hath seen God at any time), but there are Prophet will simply contradict the statement of John, for example, on the list -
  • Moses (Exodus 33:11, 20-23) - lately lang napagusapan pero lihis ka ng lihis nito dahil ayaw mong tangapin na totoo ito "face to face, as one speaks to a friend". Obvious naman siguro na hindi may figure ang katawan ng Dios dyan pero hindi lang nya gusto makita ang kanyang mukha dahil sa kanyang Glory.
  • Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1-5) - Malinaw na nakita ni Isaiah ang Dios na nakaupo sa kanyang throne,
  • Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:1, 26) - Nakita nya in a vision ang Dios nakaupo sa throne nya (or ayon pa sa doktrina nyong INC na Vision = Dream kuno, di ba?
  • Micaiah (1 Kings 22:19) - Same with Ezekiel and Isaiah sits on His Throne
  • Job (Job 42:5) - His declaration, "My eye sees...".
  • John the Revelator (Revelation 4:2-3): Saw God on a throne in heaven 
So, palagay mo ano nga pala ito nakikita nila? Hindi ba ito counted sa turo nyo na nakikita nila kung ano ang figure ng Dios? So para sa inyo ang turo na yan ay nakikita lang nila isang Billboard lang na nakalutang sa alapaap para di makita ang itsura ng Dios? NGEE! May ganun!

Okay, balik tayo. Paano ngayon natin solutionan ang sinabi ni John sa John 1:18 (No man hath seen God at any time) dahil halos siguro lahat ng prophet na nabangit sigurado naman siguro sila sa kanilang nakita. Will, the answer is simple. Read the entire John 1:17-18 and analyze kung sino ang tinutukoy ni John, kulayan ko para makita mo explaination nito at di ka maguluhan at nakakahiya naman sayo VIP ka pa naman -

17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. - (Subjects)
18 No man hath seen God at any time; ("at any time" basically kasama dyan ang OLD TESTAMENT)
the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, (Highlights as Emphasis)
he (Jesus Christ on the Emphasis) hath declared him (the Prophet on the Subject).

Did you catch it, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? So John plainly explained that what the Prophet in the Old Testament saw, or even right after, until the Book of Revelation, they saw the Son who represents the Father. Kaya nga tinanong kita sa debate kung anong reason kung bakit pa nagdasal si kristo sabay sabi na makilala ang Ama na Tunay na Dios pero di mo naman pala alam ang explaination. Check mo ulit itong link para maalala mo - (https://bustillo-family.blogspot.com/2025/12/exchanges-details.html)

Dahil nakikita nila at ayon sa declaration ni John na ang Anak na si Christo ang nagpakita, ito yung sinasabi ko kanina na Divine Investiture of Authority at sa simply tawag nito in LDS terminology ay Pre-mortal Christ na kinikilalang si Jehovah sa Old Testament. So basically, nakausap na nila si Christo noon pa at sya mismo ang nag-guide sa kanila in behalf of the Father or under the direction of the Father since ang Ama naman talaga ang sinusunod and Christ was one with the Father (John 10:30). There are also reasons, why God chose to delegate the work to his Son that the Jews may believe that there is only One God to worship and that we understand that Monothiesm as they the Jews believe may come to the knowledge of Monolatry which means that God as the Father whom we worship is the one true God without denying that existence of Christ, who was also the God of the Old Testament (Isaiah 9:6), the God who will build his Church (Matthew 16:18) and the God who offers this world to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

If this is not enough, then let's go ahead sa ibang biblical verses to prove my claim. Let's use this scripture from Christ's words and let's get the important doctrine that Christ taught about his nature and existence before he was born. The Scripture was in Matthew 22:41-45, and I'll use the NIV version, so it will be easy for you to understand Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Let's jump in -

Whose Son Is the Messiah?
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.
43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’
45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”
46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

Christ was talking about the Psalm of David found in Psalm 110:1. Sa verses na binigay ko sa taas ay simply lang ang Discussion nila at binigyan sila ng challenge ni Christo na kung ang Messiah ay ang Anak ni David bakit ngayon si David ay tinawag nya ito Lord o Panginoon. Does it make sense to you, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Bakit kaya ano? Dati naba si Christo sa panahon ni David, o kaya nauna kay David? At kung si Kristo ang Anak ni David, sino bang Lord ang kinilala ni David sa Psalm 110:1? Ang Ama ba? Ngee! Nilinaw nga ni Kristo na ang Messiah ay maipanganak sa lineage ni David at parehong Messiah or Lord na kinikilala sa Psalm 110:1? Malamang siguro kapag nag-Bible Study kay Skip nyo yan para di sasakit ulo nyo Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Take Note: Walang ibang Lord na kinikilala ang Old Testament noon kundi ang Jehovah.

Dagdagan pa natin para marami tayo matutunan. John 8:48-59, this is an intense exchange with Christ and the Jewish Leader, and they try to dispute Christ about his work, na ang Devil was with him since alam naman na siguro natin regarding sa kanyang mga ginagawa during his ministry. The Jews opposed his works at hindi daw ito sumunod Laws, so the Jews thought that Christ was indeed galing sa Devil or possessed by the Devil. We will not go through sa lahat ng context regarding this Chapter, but if you have time to review Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, basahin mo nalang para hindi masyado mahaba at nakakahiya naman sayo. Okay, So Let's get straight to the point, -

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me.
55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

Now what do we have here? Siguro magtanong ka kung anong meron at parang wala lang sa teaching ng INC at skip nyo na naman yan. Basic lang, at magstart tayo dyan sa pinaka basic. Ang kinikilala ng mga Judio na Dios na tinawag ni Christo na Ama ay sya ang nag-luwalhati kay Christo. Hindi nila ito nakilala pero magtaka kayo bakit nasabi ni Kristo ito? Hindi nila kilala na mismo sa mga nakasulat sa kanilang batas or doctrina ay tinuturo na nila na ang Dios na nagiisa. May alam ka ba kung bakit Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Pero di na tayo mag-fucos dyan at palagay ko wala ka ring matinong sagot kung tatanungin kita. After a few words, Christ said that Abraham already knew Christ and his earthly life. Natural kung ikaw ba namang hindi naniniwala na dati nang kilala ni Abraham si Christo at di naman sila niniwala na may Christo na noon, sasabihin mo talaga nilang "Wala ka pa sa 50 edad nakita mo na si Abraham! Or sa ibang salita ang edad mo which is under 50 years old ay hindi pa sapat para makita si Abraham". Actually, it is a rhetorical argument since 50 years old is valued to be old enough to earn wisdom, full maturity, be valued or respected in their statement, since it's also the age of completion of active service. Di mo alam yan ano, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? So meaning para sa kanila, mga sinasabi ni Christ is more like of a Madman who speaks Madness, kaya nga nasabi pa nila na demon possessed si Christo. But when Christ insisted and told them that “before Abraham was born, I am!” dito na sila nagalit. And for what reason? Dahil ba na sinasabi ni Christo na existed na siya noon, together with the Prophets, or maybe something else, like maybe Christ was more valued on the days of Abraham and the rest of the Prophets? Also, there is no reason for them to stone Christ just to say such words, dahil isa dyan ay merong part sa Jewish belief that the souls God created before they came to word existed long before they were born, which is the Talmudic and Kabbalistic Traditions na naniniwala sila in Pre-existing of Soul na may pinaglagyan na tinatawag The Guf (Treasury of Souls). So Christ, though hindi sya nagtuturo ng Talmudic and Kabbalistic, is simply just consistent with his words in accordance with the known traditions that before Abraham was born, their souls were already there na nagkasama-sama, and for sure they knew who Christ was. So either way, if Christ teaches it or not, or simply made clear his doctrine about the laws and the prophets, there's no reason for them to stone him, so the question is, bakit pa siya babatuhin eh tradition and teaching na nila yan? The answer was right there in the words he used, which is "I am". This is actually heavy words para sa kanily, for some reasons that Christ uses the word seems obvious on their understanding that He meant to say that Christ was the "Eternal I AM" which is a clear reference to Exodus 3:14, the very reason why these angry Jews want to stone him dahil qualified sya to be stoned to death for blasphemy under Leviticus 24:16. The name Eternal I AM which is equevalent to the Tetragrammaton (YHWH יהוה) and of course the Jewish Tradition should only mention this name once in a year by a High Priest in the Holy of Holiest and 10 times at the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) by the same High Priest. Kaya napaka sagrado nito at hindi basta-basta nalang bangitin kaya nga hindi na nila ito binabangit at pinalitan nalang ng Adonai "My Lord" sa pagdasal at HaShem "The Name" naman on conversation. Pero nagawa ni Christo ipakilala kung sino sya, so sino ba naman hindi magalit yan kung pinakilala ni Christo na sya pala yun. Baka ikaw magalit karin Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. LOL!

Now, we already established that Christ was the same being that was known by the prophets of Old, and of course, the Savior, the Redeemer, the Creator, as the scripture uses to know him. So why do we question the Scripture about his son, who was the heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2), Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Why do we question Christ that through him and for him all things were created? Couldn't the Father create a world without Christ? And it gets more complicated. Mas lalo ka lang maguluhan kung hangang dyan lang ang limitation mo sa kaalaman ng banal na kasulatan.
 
There are also other references pero hindi ko na masyado habaan dito posibly it will be added on Part 2, at plan ko hati-hatiin ito at masyado mahaba, hoping na itong si Jose Rodelio Retome Rata may maisagot sa kanilang Bible Study.
 
According to the teachings of LDS-Christ created the heavens and the earth but according to the teachings of the Bible the Father alone is the Creator of all things.

As state on your quote, the Father did through Christ under his direction, baka di mo naintindihan ang difference. The Father is the one who made the Plan, executes it through Christ, kaya nga nilinaw sa panimula ng John 1:1-4 na kasama na ng Dios si Kristo. Balikan mo nalang basahin ang part na yan sa taas. If you insist the show me your commentary about my statement and prove it wrong the we will move forward sa part 2. Anyway, moving forward, check out the verses below about the existence of Christ with the Father. I had chosen one and maybe madagdagan pa on part 2.

John 1 - English Standard Version
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

So was Christ present with the Father. Ang palusot nyo dyan nasa utak palang ng Dios si Christo. Sure ka ba na yan ang ibig sabihin ng context ayon sa sinasabi ni John? If so, then the rest of Christ's words regarding his existence gaya ng nabangit ko na nauna ay hindi totoo, which basically means Christ is not telling the Truth, that He was with the Father, dahil nga ang Christo nakilala nyo ginawa lang ng Dios na luwalhatiin o iangat. Kung sa ibang termino pa binigyan lang ng Position or tinaas lang ang Rank but the nature ay tao pa din. Palagay mo ba Jose Rodelio Retome Rata hindi magulo? Bakit ginawa lang nya kay Christo yan, bat hindi sa lahat? Think daw.

So, if you are selective in reading the Scriptures, you will never learn and understand the message inside the Book. Kaya kung magbasa ka wag kang magcherry-picked lang ng idea na gusto mo without knowing the context. You should understand the very root and how it was delivered, and the understanding of the author of the text. Kung ganyan lang style mo Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, baka tatanda ka nalang na walang natutunan.

1 Corinthians 8:4,6 King James Version
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
1 Corinthians 8:6 Good News Translation
6 yet there is for us only one God, the Father, who is the Creator of all things and for whom we live; and there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created and through whom we live.

Actually, the message was about the offering to idols or false gods. Alam mo naman siguro kung gaano ka jealus ang Dios sa bagay na yan. Natural God will prove his power and Dominion over other false gods. Also This simply helps us understand that Christ and the Father were distince being. Meaning they are not one person. The Father is Greater that Christ, that's why to avoid confusing titles we call God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ. But actually, both the Father and the Son hold the same title. Paul is just making it clear that they were different. If you think I missed something, then go back and read my statement above to clarify my claim.

God alone which is the Father is the Creator of all things no one help him. 
Isaiah 44:24 - Good News Translation
24 “I am the Lord, your savior;
I am the one who created you.
I am the Lord, the Creator of all things.
I alone stretched out the heavens;
when I made the earth, no one helped me.

If you just select only the Good part using that Translation without knowing the Context of the Scriptures, you will end up problematic. Christ was also the Lord, so what gives? Christ was also the Savior, so what gives? Christ also created all things, so what gives? But reading prior verse will help you realized youre just simply ignorant of the truth. God talks about idolatry, and we all know that God is a Jealous God; of course, God would want his people to shift from a different belief and idolatry, especially during this time while they were in exile or under Babelonian Governance. Buti nalang di mo tinuloy hangang huli at makilala mo si Felix Manalo na magrestore sa mga Judio sa Lupang Pangako.

Isaiah 64:4,8 - Good News Translation
4 No one has ever seen or heard of a God like you, who does such deeds for those who put their hope in him.
8 But you are our father, Lord. We are like clay, and you are like the potter. You created us,

Just as I have said, kung hangang cherry pick lang ang ginagawa mo, hinding hindi ka matututu kung ano ang contexto sa nakasulat. Remember, the Old Testament believed in just one God as the only being they worshiped or knew to be the Lord of all things, but this doesn't say anything about Christ being the creator. Of course, Christ was not yet known during this time, and Isaiah's words only show that God was simply the creator. You must also consider that Christ, as the Scripture said in Colossians 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," God the Father and Christ were one in their purpose, and Christ clearly states that in his teaching. So do we need to question Isaiah vs Christ just because they were inconsistent in their teachings? Who will you choose? 
 
It is clear that the Father alone is the Creator of all things.
Therefore the teachings of LDS that Christ was the Creator of the heavens and of the earth is a big lie.

No, it's not. Simply You just missed the point of the Bible and tried to use your own ideology, thinking it was right by just selecting the best of your collection. This is simply a failed copy-paste program of yours, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Sorry, you're wrong, and to be clear. We don't think the scripture is wrong at some point, but your interpretation and understand about the scripture is obviously too light. Try again Next time.


Check out other commentary below -
Was, I am (γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι)
It is important to observe the distinction between the two verbs. Abraham's life was under the conditions of time, and therefore had a temporal beginning. Hence, Abraham came into being, or was born (γενέσθαι). Jesus' life was from and to eternity. Hence the formula for absolute, timeless existence, I am (ἐγώ εἰμι). See on John 1:3; see on John 7:34.
Verily, verily - This is an expression used only in John. It is a strong affirmation denoting particularly the great importance of what was about to be affirmed. See the notes at John 3:5.
Before Abraham was - Before Abraham lived.
I am - The expression I am, though in the present tense, is clearly designed to refer to a past time. Thus, in Psalm 90:2, "From everlasting to everlasting thou art God." Applied to God, it denotes continued existence without respect to time, so far as he is concerned. We divide time into the past, the present, and the future. The expression, applied to God, denotes that he does not measure his existence in this manner, but that the word by which we express the present denotes his continued and unchanging existence. Hence, he assumes it as his name, "I AM," and "I AM that I AM," Exodus 3:14. Compare Isaiah 44:6; Isaiah 47:8. There is a remarkable similarity between the expression employed by Jesus in this place and that used in Exodus to denote the name of God. The manner in which Jesus used it would strikingly suggest the application of the same language to God. The question here was about his pre-existence. The objection of the Jews was that he was not 50 years old, and could not, therefore, have seen Abraham. Jesus replied to that that he existed before Abraham. As in his human nature he was not yet 50 years old, and could not, as a man, have existed before Abraham, this declaration must be referred to another nature; and the passage proves that, while he was a man, he was also endowed with another nature existing before Abraham, and to which he applied the term (familiar to the Jews as expressive of the existence of God) I AM; and this declaration corresponds to the affirmation of John Joh 1:1, that he was in the beginning with God, and was God. This affirmation of Jesus is one of the proofs on which John relies to prove that he was the Messiah John 20:31, to establish which was the design of writing this book.
58. Before Abraham was, I am—The words rendered "was" and "am" are quite different. The one clause means, "Abraham was brought into being"; the other, "I exist." The statement therefore is not that Christ came into existence before Abraham did (as Arians affirm is the meaning), but that He never came into being at all, but existed before Abraham had a being; in other words, existed before creation, or eternally (as Joh 1:1). In that sense the Jews plainly understood Him, since "then took they up stones to cast at Him," just as they had before done when they saw that He made Himself equal with God (Joh 5:18).
John 8:58. The misunderstanding of His words elicits from Jesus the statement: πρὶν Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι. “Before Abraham was born I am.” “Antequam Abraham fieret, Ego sum,” Vulgate. Plummer aptly compares Psalm 90:2, πρὸ τοῦ ὄρη γενηθῆναι … σὺ εἶ. Before Abraham came into existence I am, eternally existent. No stronger affirmation of pre-existence occurs, and Beyschlag’s subtle attempt to evade the meaning is unsuccessful.
58. Before Abraham was, I am] Here our translators have lamentably gone back from earlier translations. Cranmer has, ‘Ere Abraham was born, I am;’ and the Rhemish, ‘Before that Abraham was made, I am,’ following the Vulgate, Antequam Abraham fieret, Ego sum. See notes on ‘was’ in John 1:1; John 1:6. ‘I am’ denotes absolute existence, and in this passage clearly involves the pre-existence and Divinity of Christ, as the Jews see. Comp. John 8:24; John 8:28; Revelation 1:4; Revelation 1:8; and see on John 8:24.
Verse 58. - The reply of Jesus to this taunt is one of the most surprising and baffling kind on any hypothesis of our Lord's consciousness being limited as that of all other of the sons of men. He gives the solemn emphasis of the Αμὴν ἀμὴν once more - Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was born (came into being), I am. Abraham came into existence by birth (the Vulgate translates, Antequam fierat Abraham Ego sum): I am. Numerous attempts have been made to explain this climacteric utterance on some humanistic theory. The contrast is very remarkable between γενέσθαι and εἰμι. Jesus Christ declared his own timeless existence to have been in his consciousness before Abraham came into being at all. The "I am" reminds us repeatedly, when used by Jesus, of the "I AM THAT I AM" of Exodus 3:14, and the "thou art" of Psalm 90. (89:2, LXX.); Psalms 102:28. His human consciousness gave utterance to the awful depths of the eternal Ego. Now, some critics have limited it in its meaning to "I existed in the counsel of God."
👉🏻 ,

Tag ka ng Tag sa akin - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

✅
👉🏻

ITINUTURO NG MGA MORMON-LDS NA NAPARITO NA SI CRISTO NOONG UNANG SIGLO PA AT NAPAKITA SA IBANG MGA TUPA NILA DOON SA ANCIENT AMERICA - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

OK, ito na naman tayo at tagalogin ko na at may problema pala ito sa comprehension ang VIP natin na kaibigan. Kaya ito gawin na natin sa Tagalog na may halong kunting English. Tingnan nga natin ngayon kung ano na naman pinagsasabi ng ating matalik na kaibigan na si Jose Rodelio Retome Rata kung may bago na naman ba tayong matutunan. Hala sige pagtagbaw -
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?
[3 At samantalang siya'y nakaupo sa bundok ng mga Olivo, ay nagsilapit sa kaniya ng bukod ang mga alagad, na nagsisipagsabi, Sabihin mo sa amin, kailan mangyayari ang mga bagay na ito? at ano ang magiging tanda ng iyong pagparito, at ng katapusan ng sanglibutan?]
ITINATANONG NG MGA ALAGAD KUNG ANO ANG TANDA NG PAGPARITO NI CRISTO AT NG KAPUSAN NG SANLIBUTAN. SAMAKATUWID-ANG MULING PAGPARITO NI CRISTO AY KATAPUSAN NA NG SANLIBUTAN SAPAGKAT SIYA ANG HINIRANG NG DIOS PARA HUKUMAN ANG MUNDO.

Nothing seems unusual. May bago ba? O baka gusto mo lang magcopy-paste, yung mema lang para may laman kunyari. Matthew 24 was simply his apocalyptic statement during his sermon in Mount Olive, also known as the Olivet Discourse. So ano bang gusto iparating ng ating kaibigan nito? Natural isa itong teachings ni Jesus Christ sa mga mangyayari sa hinaharap para matulungan ang mga early believers about sa kanyang pangalawang pagparito. Problema nga lang dito ni Jose Rodelio Retome Rata mukhang akala siguro nito hindi namin alam at yun na nga Book of Mormon lang daw binabasa namin kaya ayon mga post nya copy paste sa bible thinking di namin alam. Kakahiya naman sayo Jose.

Acts 17:31 - King James Version
31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
SA MULING PAGPARITO NI CRISTO NA SIYANG ARAW NG PAGHUHUKOM AY MASUSUNOG ANG BUONG LUPA.

Okay, so yan ba yung pinaglatad mo O dito na tayo sa 2 Peter. Nakalimutan mo yata ang Acts 17:13 o kasama na yan sa nauna? Confusing ka magcopy paste basta-basta mo nalang iwan na wala man lang malinaw na paliwanag sa doktrina nyo. Acts 17 simply states that there is a day that was set to judge the world, and no question about it, so para saan ito?

2 Peter 3:7 - King James Version
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
KAYA NGA AYON KAY APOSTOL PABLO PAPARITO SI CRISTO SA NAGLILIYAB NA APOY.

Okay, so dito na tayo. This is actually a normal teaching sa iba't-ibang secta at normally kung nagbabasa ka ng bibliya nakikita mo na to na part kung saan ang mga elements sa mundo ay magunaw sa subrang init. This is not actually new, nakikita naman na siguro ang unti-unting resulta ng climate natin ngayon, which basically walang problema if you present it as if it will come soon before the second coming. Malinaw naman sigur sa verse 10 "the Lord will come as a thief in the night" which means no man will ever know the exact timing. So for me, walang sense kung di mo naman pinapaliwanag ng maayos. Basta ka nalang humuhugot pero walang namang kinalaman sa pinaguusapan, ano ito mema lang?

2 Thessalonians 1:5-8 - King James Version
5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
YAN ANG MANGYAYARI SA MULING PAGPARITO NI CRISTO.

So ano to dugtong lang ba? Parang wala naman patunguhan tong post mo at wala naman akong nakitang contradiction regarding sa teaching ng simbahan regarding sa kanyang pangalawang pagparito. Unless kung meron kang gusto ipaabot na di kami naniniwala nyan. O baka meron kang nakitang turo na salungat sa turo sa pinaglalatad mo. Sa ngayon nakikita ko dito NONESENSE na commentary tapos ang proud mo sa sarili mo na nagpost ka ng ang hahaba na wala man lang laman. Ano ba ito Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, mema nalang ba?

ITINUTURO NG MGA MORMON-LDS NA NAPARITO NA SI CRISTO NOONG UNANG SIGLO PA AT NAPAKITA SA IBANG MGA TUPA NILA DOON SA ANCIENT AMERICA.
3 NEPHI 11:8-10,12-15
8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.
9 And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:
10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.
12 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude fell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them after his ascension into heaven.
13 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying:
14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.
15 And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.

Oh, dito tayo ngayon. Sige tingnan nga natin kung ano ba ang pinagsasabi ng ating VIP na si Jose Rodelio Retome Rata kung ano bang contradiction dito. Nako naman! kung Mabasa mo ang 3 Nephi 11, regarding ito sa time na nabuhay muli si Kristo at during this time andito pa siya sa mundo para ipakita nya sa mga naniniwala sa kanya na Buhay sya. At dahil ba dumaan sya sa Langit para magpakita din sa mga tao sa ibang lugar (gaya ng mga tao sa America) Second Coming na Agad? Sure ka ba sa pinagsasabi mo. Tandaan mo Jose Rodelio Retome Rata 40 days si Christo nagminister bago sya bumalik sa Ama -

Acts 1:3 (New International Version) After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

So ang Gusto mo palang mangyari dito everytime sya magpakita sa mga naniniwala nya second coming pala yun? Example dito mga nasa list sa baba (More of this at 1 Corinthians 15) -
  • Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35, Mark 16:12-13) - So ibig pala sabihin nito Second Coming na dahil Nagpakita sya sa mga naniniwala sa kanya at pinatunayan nya na Buhay sya? Sige daw, ipaliwanag mo at dito sa pangyayari na to nagpakita sya ng biglaan at walang nakakakilala sa kanya. So palagay mo Second Coming na ito, tama?
  • Nagpakita kay Simon Peter (Luke 24:34, 1 Corinthians 15:5) - So, paano na yan at nagpakita din sya kay Peter, Second Coming narin ba 'to?
  • The Ten Disciples (Upper Room - No Thomas) Luke 24:36-43, John 20:19-25, Mark 16:14 - Itong nagpakita siya sa ibang tagasunod nya na wala pa si Thomas, Second Coming narin ba? So ilan ba ang second Coming sayo Jose?
  • The Eleven Disciples (Upper Room - With Thomas) John 20:26-29, 1 Corinthians 15:5 - Ngayon ito nandito na si Thomas, sure na siguto ito na Second Coming sayo at pangalawang beses na sya nagpakita sa Apostoles nya nadagdagan nga lang ngayon at dito na si Thomas. So, Paano ba yan, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Ilang Second Coming na ba?
  • Seven Disciples at Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-14) - Baka it Second Coming na din para sayo Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. Di sya nakilala dito pero nakagawa pa ng Himala. So, Second Coming narin ba to?
  • On a Mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20) - Palagay ko ito na talaga ang Second Coming dahil ito yung huling instruction nya sa mga apostoles para maikalat ang kanyang ebanghelyo. So Second Coming din ito para sayo?
  • 500 Followers 1 Corinthians 15:6 - Malamang ito yung Sure na second Coming dahil ang daming nakakakita, palagay ko sa mga ito mapatunayan mo na ang Second Coming dahil nagpakita muli si Christo sa kanila.
  • James Christ Brother- 1 Corinthians 15:7 - Paano ito, nagpakita sya sa kanyang kapatid na si James? So, para sayo Second Coming na din, Tama ba Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?
  • Paul (on Road to Damascus) Acts 9:1-9, 1 Corinthians 15:8 - Ito Familiar naman siguro itong kwento ni Pablo na confusing para sa inyo. So, Second Coming na din siguro ito at nagpakita sya at nagsalita kay Pablo. Baka sure ball na to?
Sige nga isaisahin mo mga yan at ibat-ibang second coming yan. So paano mo mapaliwanag ngayon yan sa mga pinaglalatad mo? Kita mo kung gaano ka kahina kung biblical lang usapan. Di porket nagpakita si Christo Second Coming na. Feeling mo kasi makakita ka lang ng semilar thinking mo yun na agad, kapag ganyan ang INC thinking na yan ay madaling kayo mauto. 

HALATADO ANG KASINUNGALINGAN NG PROPETA NILANG SUMULAT NG BOOK OF MORMON DAHIL HINDI PA NAPARITONG-MULI SI CRISTO.

Halatadong Walang kang Alam at pinagpopost mo MEMA lang ba para kunyari may laman pero napatunayan din na walang sense ang pinaglalatad mo. Klarong-klaro na pambata lang ang alam mo pagdating sa diskusyon.
👉🏻 ,

NAKIKIPAG-USAP ANG DIOS KAY MOISES NG MUKHAAN SA PAMAMAGITAN NG HALIGING ULAP - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata


Now, here we go again. Another empty Eisegesis from our friend Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, who seems to be the Great Defender of the INC doctrine. We'll see what we can get and how his Eisegesis fits in biblical standards. Here we go -

Exodo 33:9-11,20 - Ang Dating Biblia (1905)
9 At nangyari, pagka si Moises ay pumapasok sa Tolda ay bumababa ang haliging ulap at tumitigil sa pintuan ng Tolda ang Panginoon ay nakikipagsalitaan kay Moises.
10 At nakikita ng buong bayan ang haliging ulap at tumitigil sa pintuan ng Tolda; at ang buong bayan ay tumitindig at sumasamba, na bawa't isa'y sa tabi ng pintuan ng kaniyang tolda.
11 At nakikipagsalitaan ang Panginoon kay Moises ng mukhaan, gaya ng isang taong nakikipagsalitaan sa kaniyang kaibigan. At siya'y bumabalik uli sa kampamento, datapuwa't ang kaniyang tagapangasiwang si Josue, na anak ni Nun, na may kabataan pa, ay hindi umaalis sa Tolda.
20 At kaniyang sinabi, Hindi mo makikita ang aking mukha: sapagka't hindi maaaring makita ako ng tao at mabuhay.
KLARO SA MGA TALATANG IYAN, NAKIKIPAG-USAP ANG DIOS KAY MOISES NG MUKHAAN SA PAMAMAGITAN NG HALIGING ULAP. KLARO DIN NA HINDI NAKIKITA NI MOISES ANG MUKHA NG DIOS DAHIL MAMAMATAY SI MOISES.

Yes, I can see that. Everyone can see that, and I guess this was something that you wanna chopped a selected verse, because the rest of the verses will simply contradict themselves. Let's go ahead and read the rest of it, shall we? Exodus 33:17,20-23

17 And the Lord said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.
...
20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
21 And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.


Seems like more interesting than your cherry-picked ideology, see how the Lord told Moses to see that He, as a God, has a body part visible to Moses. Of course, his face was supposed to be hidden for some reasons, but that doesn't say God has no physical form. We are indeed created in his likeness in his own image, which simply means that the human figure we have now was simply the same physical figure as God. Interesting, right, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? You may think this seems a contradiction in the next verses, while we already established that God shows his face in verse 11, and the next succeeding verse seems confusing. But the explainations on God's glory to its physical appearance are different. As Latter-day Saints, we believe that if God wanted to show his physical appearance, a man couldn't see it in a natural eye, but rather he needs to be transfigured. This was a different topic, so we will just respond to what our VIP friend wants to learn.

SAMAKATUWID-HINDI LITERAL NA NAKIKITA NI MOISES ANG MUKHA NG DIOS KUNDI NAG-UUSAP SILA NG HARAPAHARAPAN GAYA NG ISANG TAONG NAKIKIPAGSALITAAN SA KANYANG KAIBIGAN ANG DIOS MEANING ITINULAD LANG SA ISANG TAONG NAKIKIPAGSALITAAN SA KANYANG KAIBIGAN ANG DIOS HINDI SIYA ANG TAONG PINAGTULARAN.

OK, or maybe, so, how are you gonna explain the rest of the verses that I had posted? How was it possible that God could simply use a hand to cover Moses' eyes so he wouldn't perish at his sight? Was it the way you understood the scripture by simply chopping out some other verses? Good to know.

Exodo 33:11 - Ang Dating Biblia (1905)
11 At nakikipagsalitaan ang Panginoon kay Moises ng mukhaan, gaya ng isang taong nakikipagsalitaan sa kaniyang kaibigan. At siya'y bumabalik uli sa kampamento, datapuwa't ang kaniyang tagapangasiwang si Josue, na anak ni Nun, na may kabataan pa, ay hindi umaalis sa Tolda.
INUNAWA ITO NG ISANG MORMON-LDS NA ISANG LITERAL NA TEACHER AT SEMINARY TEACHER SA RELIHIYON NILA NA LITERAL NA ISANG TAO ANG DIOS.
NAKAKAHIYA ANG PAGKA-TEACHER NG TAONG ITO!

Just another Name-Calling Strategy to get the attention of the others and to humiliate the opposers, not even addressing the issue. What a shame! I'll help you out on that one

GINAGAMIT NIYA ANG TALATANG ITO PARA ISANGGALANG ANG ARAL NILA NA HINDI DAW NILA ITINUTURO NA ISANG 'MAN O TAO' SI JESUS NA BUMABABA MULA SA LANGIT.

This is actually literal; God can simply show his physical figure to whoever he wants if it's necessary to obtain faith in him or to show his greatness. Why would you limit God's capability by your own interpretations not even align biblically? This is not actually a contradiction, but rather God is simply avoiding his Glory to be in contact with the human eye that might end up their lives since his Glory is not just a natural light of the sun that you can simply say is just a bright light. For me, this glory was as the succeeding verses show that God wants Moses, his servant, to avoid looking on. like on verse 18 -
 Exodus 33:18 And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory.
But God did not even attempt to make it to be seen by Moses -
 Exodus 33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
So, it is not actually his physical appearance that is deadly, but the entire Glory of God that could end the life of Moses. The direct eye contact from man or Moses to God, as I have said, could end his life, for God's is full of Glory -
Matthew 6:22-23 (MSG Version) Your eyes are windows into your body. If you open your eyes wide in wonder and belief, your body fills up with light. If you live squinty-eyed in greed and distrust, your body is a musty cellar. If you pull the blinds on your windows, what a dark life you will have!

I don't think this is hard to understand, or maybe you don't want to understand, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata. To me, I could simply say that you limit your understand about the nature of God, and in those limitations, your doctrine fails. Your god cannot make himself known and do whatever he wants, while my God can do all things beyond human imaginations can do. If God wanted to be shown or not, it is his will to do that, not your ideology. Your poor and powerless god can't even make himself appear to Felix Manalo, so why are you still there on your bigotry?

Take note of the following verses he used below. I'm already laughing at this point. Why would you choose this one? Come on, bro, do something better than this one; this made my day. LOL!

3 NEPHI 11:8-10,12-15
8 And it came to pass, as they understood they cast their eyes up again towards heaven; and behold, they saw a Man descending out of heaven; and he was clothed in a white robe; and he came down and stood in the midst of them; and the eyes of the whole multitude were turned upon him, and they durst not open their mouths, even one to another, and wist not what it meant, for they thought it was an angel that had appeared unto them.
9 And it came to pass that he stretched forth his hand and spake unto the people, saying:
10 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, whom the prophets testified shall come into the world.
12 And it came to pass that when Jesus had spoken these words the whole multitude fell to the earth; for they remembered that it had been prophesied among them that Christ should show himself unto them after his ascension into heaven.
13 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto them saying:
14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.
15 And it came to pass that the multitude went forth, and thrust their hands into his side, and did feel the prints of the nails in his hands and in his feet; and this they did do, going forth one by one until they had all gone forth, and did see with their eyes and did feel with their hands, and did know of a surety and did bear record, that it was he, of whom it was written by the prophets, that should come.


Seriously? Just because you see the phrase or word Man you simply address it as a normal person in an unexplained phenomenon? Do you really read the scriptures that way? Come on, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, there must be a good explanation for that one, rather than simply quoting and stating it as if it were just an underrated event. If you see someone who jump of the 20-story building and survived on the fall, would you call him a "God falls from the Building"? Will maybe, because he survived, but for a normal person, of course not, a normal person would simply call someone he didn't know a Man, a Woman, a Child, and so on. If (in this event) it were an angel, a demon, or a prophet, and let's say a God or whatever, to someone who could simply distinguish a human form descending from above, why would they call it another being if they had seen a being that simply looks like a human? Does God have a different physical figure so you can easily say it is God without knowing what it was? So far, I found your post so hilarious and poor.

Glen Mari R. Lamis-KAHIT MAGLUPASAY KAPA KLARO ANG TURO NG AKLAT NINYO NA TAO SI JESUS NA NAKIKITA NG IBANG MGA TUPA NINYO NA BUMABABA MULA SA LANGIT NA BIGLANG ITINURO NG AKLAT NINYO NA DIOS NG BUONG DAIGDIG SI JESUS KAYA SALUNGATAN DIBA SEMINARY TEACHER?

And look at you thinking you had won something in a poor study. What a joke! Was there any better than this one? I only cover some parts of your poor study, not even the entire bible that would simply disaggree on your ideology. The Bible would simply laugh at you for the way you understood the context. Nice try, but you fail.
👉🏻 ,

List of link Label with Saraijah

✅
👉🏻

About Saraijah Sisgon Bustillo

✅
👉🏻

Label with Next & Previos Button

👉🏻
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)