Jose Magadia's attempt of responding the Article on "Are Jesus and Satan Brothers?" Here we'll see if he made a successful attempt or simply heresy of biblical theology. Let's find out -
In his first move, he simply copied Isaiah 14:12-16 and leave a question left unanswered. I will not add the rest of Isaiah words since it was just a copy but let find out what's the question that he failed to answer. (See below)
Lucifer was “a son of the morning”, but who was his father? Perhaps The Father? How many Fathers are there?
So here's the question after inserting Isaiah's words. He added different context after his question leaving the rest of Isaiah's word unanswered and twisted. Let see his next move -
Job 1
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
Question: Why was Satan among them?
Answer: Perhaps it was because he was one of the sons of God.
I don't know exactly how this one supports his understanding of the Isaiah's words, or perhaps he made an attempt to add this on the topic suggesting that it was part of my understanding. Or perhaps he doesn't know the term used in biblical theology. So far as I could see it has nothing to do on my article.
Lds Group love to say, “You don’t worship the Jesus of the Bible, Our(Lds) Jesus is the brother of the devil.”
Lds Group have to invent ways to try to redefine Jesus Christ of the bible based on their own understanding of the scriptures. Their lies are catching up with them.
Okay, so how was bubbling with your own ideology was a response to a simple question? You simply tries to lengthen a small Article puting words that doesn't make any sense. You just love to see long post and redundancies but never understood how and what the scriptures meant.
...mind you...
🔎 According to the scriptures:
The angels were created before man was created.
Lucifer was a covering cherub.
He is described in Ezekiel 28 as the king of Tyre starting at verse 11 through to verse 19. Verses 1-10 addresses the prince of Tyre who was an actual ruler of Tyre, a fortified impenetrable island which was extremely wealthy. Tyre was finally conquered by Alexander the Great.
👉 Ezekiel 28:14-17 NKJV 14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones. 15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you. 16 "By the abundance of your trading You became filled with violence within, And you sinned; Therefore I cast you as a profane thing Out of the mountain of God; And I destroyed you, O covering cherub, From the midst of the fiery stones. 17 "Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor; I cast you to the ground, I laid you before kings, That they might gaze at you.
It seems like you are trying to add Lucifer in a context that doesn't fit in biblical theology. Seriously bro? What's the context of the scripture and how was Satan or Lucifer was there?
Here's the context of that If you look closely from verse 11 as part of the prophecy. It was to be address to the King of Tyre and in verses Ezekiel 28:14-17 is a part of a prophecy directed against the king of Tyre, found in the Old Testament. This passage, along with the broader chapter, uses symbolic language to address the pride and downfall of the king, comparing him to a fallen angel or cherub.
In these verses, the king is depicted as being in Eden, the garden of God, covered in precious stones and anointed as a guardian cherub. This imagery symbolizes the king's once exalted state and close relationship to divine things. However, because of his pride and trade, he sinned, leading to violence and corruption. Thus, he was cast down from his high position by God.
The context here reflects a broader theme often found in scriptures about the dangers of pride and how it leads to a fall from grace. The symbolic use of Eden and a cherub likely serves to emphasize the height from which the king has fallen, showing that even those with great beauty and responsibility can be corrupted by pride and wickedness.
So was this all about Lucifer? Obviously, No!
Now, here the rest of his words -
Lucifer was created to be an angel. All angels were a separate creation from man.
And how was this supposed to be an answer? Why are you adding things that doesn't even there biblically. And as your ideology goes that angels were a separate creation. Maybe or maybe not, remember that God himself is the Father of all spirit and when I say all, that includes the angels (Hebrews 1:5). Those angels were not just sentient beings that we call in this world are animals. God would never do that to his children. Christ once said -
For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25)
The context of course is different but the subject is there were you fail to understand. Another fact was actually in your own INC belief and teaching who agree that Felix Manalo was the Choose Messenger of God and you call him as the Angel. That would make Felix Manalo a different being if you think of the same subject that "all angels are different beings".
Jesus was a man telling the truth, John 8:40...
⤵️ The man Christ Jesus WASN'T THERE as a different entity, because the man WASN'T CONCEIVED and BORN YET during God's creation. He was only there because He EXISTS in the mind of God(1Pet 1:20/ Rom 1:2-4/ Acts 2:23; 17:31) he is the central part on the grand design plan of God, ~ meaning that the Spirit of Jesus existed from all eternity as central part on the grand plan of God as the mediator between God and man (1Tim. 2:5) and for Him(Jesus) to rule and govern (Cols 1:15-17/ 1 Cor 15:27-28) of all God's creation. When the man Jesus was born, the scripture says that the man Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world is again the central part of the grand plan of God ~ BUT IT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED IN THE MIND OF GOD.
This had nothing to do with the article at all, and yet you try to add this in dodging the questions that I'd made for you to ponder. If you want me to respond your statement about Christ Divinity and Nature, it will be on different post, but as of this subject. None of those answers my question.
⤵️ Christ Jesus became a Son of God at his birth (Matthew and Luke) and annointed on his baptism (Mark) and for good measure at his resurrection (Paul).
Okay so what was this all about? How did it addressed the issue? Seems like you're trying to change the subject. We can arrange a different topic on this one. So it's irrelevant to open up a different subject that doesn't even a link on the issue.
⤵️ According to the holy scriptures:
Lord Christ Jesus was born a MAN, raised and live a MAN, died a MAN, resurrected a MAN, ascended to heaven a MAN, seated at the right of God a MAN and in his second coming - a MAN. His natural state has never changed (1 Cor. 15:21-45,47-49/ Romans 8:3).
Let me just give you a short response on this different subject you try to insist. You're wrong if you do think Christ never change his state. Remember the time during Christ words in his prayer to the Father he said this -
John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
Notice on the highlighted words. In this short scripture alone gives us light and understanding about Christ Nature before he was born. The word he said "with the Glory I had with thee..." Which means he was there before and had the same glory with the Father before the world was created. So Christ is the same being as before, now and beyond. Basically I'm saying he is the same Yesterday, Today and Forever. He is not a human before he was born and the word human as we call it mortal and imperfect being. So please stop insisting your own ideology and INC doctrine that doesn't even support the Bible.
1 John 4:2-3
Contemporary English Version
2 and you can know which ones come from God. His Spirit says that Jesus Christ HAD A TRULY HUMAN BODY. 3 But when someone doesn't say this about Jesus, you know this person has a spirit that doesn't come from God and is the enemy of Christ. You knew this enemy was coming into the world and now is already here.
This is the most awkward INC moment that I'd ever read. Actually the King James version use a different words on this one but let's take a look what this all mean.
Let's read some of the commentaries of biblical scholars about this text and how Christianity views it.From Barnes' Notes on the Bible -
(1) it is not the obvious interpretation.
(2) it is unusual to say that Jesus "had come in the flesh," though the expression "the Son of God has come in the flesh," or "God was manifested in the flesh," would be in accordance with the usage of the New Testament.
(3) this would not, probably, meet the real point in the case. The thing denied does not appear to have been that Jesus was the Messiah, for their pretending to be Christian teachers at all implied that they admitted this; but that the Son of God was "really a man," or that he actually assumed human nature in permanent union with the divine. The point of the remark made by the apostle is, that the acknowledgment was to be that Christ assumed human nature; that he was really a man as he appeared to be: or that there was a real incarnation, in opposition to the opinion that he came in appearance only, or that he merely seemed to be a man, and to suffer and die. That this opinion was held by many, see the Introduction, Section III. 2. It is quite probable that the apostle here refers to such sentiments as those which were held by the "Docetae;" and that he meant to teach that it was indispensable to proper evidence that anyone came from God, that he should maintain that Jesus was truly a man, or that there was a real incarnation of the Son of God. John always regarded this as a very important point, and often refers to it, John 19:34-35; John 20:25-27; 1 John 5:6. It is as important to be held now as it was then, for the fact that there was a real incarnation is essential to all just views of the atonement. If he was not truly a man, if he did not literally shed his blood on the cross, of course all that was done was in appearance only, and the whole system of redemption as revealed was merely a splendid illusion. There is little danger that this opinion will be held now, for those who depart from the doctrine laid down in the New Testament in regard to the person and work of Christ, are more disposed to embrace the opinion that he was a mere man; but still it is important that the truth that he was truly incarnate should be held up constantly before the mind, for in no other way can we obtain just views of the atonement.
And some others from Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary to sustain this matter.
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh—a twofold truth confessed, that Jesus is the Christ, and that He is come (the Greek perfect tense implies not a mere past historical fact, as the aorist would, but also the present continuance of the fact and its blessed effects) in the flesh ("clothed with flesh": not with a mere seeming humanity, as the Docetæ afterwards taught: He therefore was, previously, something far above flesh). His flesh implies His death for us, for only by assuming flesh could He die (for as God He could not), Hebrews 2:9, 10, 14, 16; and His death implies His LOVE for us (Joh 15:13). To deny the reality of His flesh is to deny His love, and so cast away the root which produces all true love on the believer's part (1 John 4:9-11, 19). Rome, by the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, denies Christ's proper humanity.
Did you catch it Jose Magadia? Did you notice how the scholars schooled you on your understanding about biblical theology?
Acts 1:10-11
New International Version
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? THIS SAME JESUS, WHO HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM YOU INTO HEAVEN, WILL COME BACK IN THE SAME WAY YOU HAVE SEEN HIM GO INTO HEAVEN.
DID YOU SEE THAT, Jesus WILL COME BACK as HUMAN BEING as attested by the scriptures.
This is a total foolish interpretation as I see it. How in the world does it says he will come back as human being? Jesus had already conquered death and pain and was now immortal, how does it defines a human?
And if you insisted that kind of ideology, that Christ will comeback as human. Then you're against what Paul has said in
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
There's only One being will appear in the last days, and that is the Christ, it is not His Father and everyone accepted that same teachings even INC. So, do you think Paul was wrong? Have you ever wonder why this INC doctrine doesn't supports biblical bases, but rather create confusions and contradictions? Have you ever wonder that to yourself Jose Magadia?
Moving forward to end this commentary, let's go ahead a make a conclusion.
Clearly again, Lds Group once more proved that they have the doctrine of the devil.
Nope, Clearly you fail to understand the scriptures. So it is a Fact that INC didn't study the scriptures and only copy paste to whatever source they think seems fit in their doctrine. All in all this INC doctrine is not based on biblical evidence and theology, but rather a heresy, and see how you dodge the subject in inserting a different topic just to avoid your failure in understanding the article. You fail but you can still do it the second time if you want to
Returning my response: Mind you... PEACE...