Well, this may be one of the superstar critics, as it was published as one of the first results in Google search. I observed this when typing a random criticism, and one of the results was this one from a Page called "KUYA jay TV". You may follow him to learn more about his content, but at this point, let's just take some known criticisms that he opened up on his clean wall. LOL! So let's dive into the content.To check on his commentary, just click on each heading. I categorized it to save some time if you're bored with long text. My commentary will be in RED, so it will be easy for you to check out. I may quote scriptures or sources that I will put on a different color so you may figure out that it is not my direct opinion.
And by the way, you can click again on the header to minimize it, just in case you don't want to read or scroll the whole thing on your computer or on the phone.
➤ Introduction: Ang aral ng mga Mormon tungkol kay Cristo
HALOS LAHAT NG pangkatin ng pananampalataya na nagpapakilalang Cristiano ay nag-uukol ng pagkilala at pagsamba sa Panginoong Jesucristo. Subalit mahalagang maging wasto ang pagtuturo at pagkilala tungkol sa Kaniya. Ang may maling pagtuturo ay wala sa katotohanan. At, ang katotohanan ang dapat maging saligan ng paglilingkod ng tao sa Diyos at kay Cristo.
Ang Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints na karaniwang tinatawag na MORMONS CHURCH ay nagpapahayag din ng pananampalataya tungkol kay Cristo.
This is just an introduction, so there's nothing more about this for starters. Just a little correction to that "karaniwang tinatawag na MORMONS CHURCH", we don't use that term actually, but most critics do. But yeah, as I have said, for starters, it's a common thing.
1 Samuel 12:24 " Matakot lamang kayo sa Panginoon, at maglingkod kayo sa kaniya sa katotohanan ng inyong buong puso; dilidilihin nga ninyo kung gaanong dakilang mga bagay ang kaniyang ginawa sa inyo."
Ang Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints na karaniwang tinatawag na MORMONS CHURCH ay nagpapahayag din ng pananampalataya tungkol kay Cristo.
This is just an introduction, so there's nothing more about this for starters. Just a little correction to that "karaniwang tinatawag na MORMONS CHURCH", we don't use that term actually, but most critics do. But yeah, as I have said, for starters, it's a common thing.
This has been all over in my blog, and I've responded to it a couple of times already, but for the sake of this one, let's deal with it. Check out my responses below, right after his commentary ↓
➤ Ipinanganak daw sa Jerusalem
Ano ang isa sa mga itinuturo ng mga Mormon tungkol kay Cristo? Ayon sa kanila, si Cristo ay ipinanganak ni Maria sa Jerusalem:
First of all, the author of the said scripture never went to Bethlehem; he never knew that Bethlehem ever existed. The only thing he knew was that his father originated in that place (which is Jerusalem), and taught him that the savior would soon be born somewhere in that region. The very reason why he uses the word "AT" Jerusalem, not "IN", which is supposed to be a wider region of Judah. By knowing the author of the context is evident that this kind of criticism was poorly constructed. An example in the scripture that I used sometime ago and was also posted in this blog was in 2 Kings 14:20 VS Luke 2:4. Check out the scriptures below -
And to think this isn't a good point, let's try this one. The record states about "lupain ng ating mga ninuno," or in English, "the land of our forefathers," which essentially conveys the writer's perspective that this was a reference to the broader region of Judah. And there's an ancient record that shows that this Jerusalem was the wider region of Judah, basically one of their known landmarks, and of course, Bethlehem was their town during their time.
Amarna Letter EA 290
Alma 7:10 Book of Mormon, p. 224 " Masdan, siya ay ipinanganak ni Maria sa Jerusalem, na siyang lupain ng ating mga ninuno."
Dito pa lamang ay mali na ang kanilang pagtuturo. Nakasulat sa Biblia na si Cristo ay ipinanganak sa Betlehem ng Judea. Ayon kay Apostol Mateo:
Mateo 2:1,4-5 " Nang ipanganak nga si Jesus sa Bet-lehem ng Judea sa mga kaarawan ng haring si Herodes, narito, ang mga Pantas na lalake ay nagsidating sa Jerusalem mula sa silanganan, na nagsisipagsabi, At pagkatipon sa lahat ng mga pangulong saserdote at mga eskriba ng bayan, ay siniyasat niya sa kanila kung saan kaya ipanganganak ang Cristo. At sinabi nila sa kaniya, sa Bet-lehem ng Judea: sapagka't ganito ang pagkasulat ng propeta."May limang milya ang layo ng Betlehem sa Jerusalem (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p.165). Ang Jerusalem ay ang kabisera ng Israel.
First of all, the author of the said scripture never went to Bethlehem; he never knew that Bethlehem ever existed. The only thing he knew was that his father originated in that place (which is Jerusalem), and taught him that the savior would soon be born somewhere in that region. The very reason why he uses the word "AT" Jerusalem, not "IN", which is supposed to be a wider region of Judah. By knowing the author of the context is evident that this kind of criticism was poorly constructed. An example in the scripture that I used sometime ago and was also posted in this blog was in 2 Kings 14:20 VS Luke 2:4. Check out the scriptures below -
And they brought him on horses: and he was buried (at) Jerusalem with his fathers in the city of David. - 2 Kings 14:20VS
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judæa, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) - Luke 2:4So what happened here? Was the City of David both in Jerusalem and Bethlehem?
And to think this isn't a good point, let's try this one. The record states about "lupain ng ating mga ninuno," or in English, "the land of our forefathers," which essentially conveys the writer's perspective that this was a reference to the broader region of Judah. And there's an ancient record that shows that this Jerusalem was the wider region of Judah, basically one of their known landmarks, and of course, Bethlehem was their town during their time.
Amarna Letter EA 290
El Amarna 290:15-21
(15-21)—And now, besides this, a town belonging to Jerusalem, Bit'NIN-URTA by name, a city of the king, has gone over to the side of the men of Qiltu. May the king give heed to 'Abdi-Heba, your servant, and send archers to restore the land of the king to the king.
The land they call Bit'NIN-URTA was most likely referred to in the Amarna Letters as Bethlehem, debated by most Scholars, as they do agree. This simply states that Bethlehem was located inside Jerusalem, or as I had said, it was the wider region of Judah, which was common in their times. So in relation to that, as the writer said about the location which he used the word "the Land of our forefathers", in which he spoke to as the only land that he knew in his time, which obviously, Bethlehem was part of it.
Now this one below seems to be out of standard doctrine, and I thought that it was all over in the teachings of the church. Little did he know that this had never been taught at all. Quoting the Journal of Discourses, thinking that this was a doctrine. The only problem was that it was even a third-hand account or could just be something else. Let's get to it below ↓
➤ Sa pagsasama raw nina Adan at Maria
Si Brigham Young, kinikilalang propeta ng mga Mormon, ay nagtuturo na si Jesus ay nilalang ni Adan na "Diyos." Nagkaroon daw ng kaugnayan si Adan kay Maria at ang naging bunga raw ay si Cristo Jesus. Ayon kay Ravi Zacharias, ganito ang nasusulat sa Journal of Discourses, Vol 1, pp. 50-51:
Sa Filipino na:
I don't know about this, and how this came up to be an issue, and I don't know how they added the source irrelevant to the issue. Check out this link to see where it was quoted and see for yourself how it was said. But let's get to it -
So here it is. First of all, Ravi Zacharias is not a Latter-day Saint, so how do you think his words were accurate? Where are those mostly just selected or cherry-picked articles for criticism? How do you know it was all about it? The Church did not teach about Adam as God the Father of Christ, and those statements taken from some source were just misinterpretations or misrepresentations. It was never published in the church or doctrine that has been taught and was changed, but rather an opinion like Ravi Zacharias. Now, what was the text all about, and how did this Ravi Zacharias misrepresent the idea from the Journal of Discourses? Below was the text taken from that link given above, so I'll put up some of the text and check it out for yourself, how it was said -
Sa Filipino na:
"Nang ipagdalangtao ng Birheng Maria ang batang si Jesus, nilalang Siya ng Ama sa Kaniyang wangis. Hindi Siya lalang ng Espiritu Santo. At sino naman ang Ama? Siya ang kaunaunahan sa pamilya ng tao ... Si Jesus, na ating nakatatandang kapatid, ay nilalang na nasa laman ng gayon ding katuhan ng nasa halamanan ng Eden na siyang ating Ama sa Langit.Taliwas sa itinuturo ng Mormon Church, walang sinasabi ang Biblia na si Cristo ay nilalang sa pamamagitan ng pagsasama ni Adan (ang diumano'y "Diyos") at ni Maria. Si Cristo ay nilalang hindi sa pamamagitan ng pag-aasawa kundi sa pamamagitan ng Espiritu Santo:
Pakinggan ninyo ngayon, o mga nananahan sa lupa, Judio at Gentil, banal at makasalanan. Nang ating Amang si Adan ay napasa halamanan ng Eden, naparoon siya na may makalangit na katawan, at isinaman si Eba na isa sa kaniyang mga asawa. Tumulong siya sa paglikha at pagsasaayos nitong mundo ... siya ang ating Ama at ating Diyos, at siya ang nag-iisang Diyos kung kanino tayo may kaugnayan. (Investigating the claims of Mormonism, pp. 24-25)
Mateo 1:18 " Ang pagkapanganak nga kay Jesucristo ay ganito: Nang si Maria na kaniyang ina ay magaasawa kay Jose, bago sila magsama ay nasumpungang siya'y nagdadalang-tao sa pamamagitan ng Espiritu Santo."Salungat din sa aral ng Diyos na nakasulat sa Biblia na si Cristo ay tawaging Anak ni Adan, na diumano'y ang Diyos. Si Adan na kinikilalang Diyos ng mga Mormons at matagal nang patay nang isilang si Jesus. Itinuturo ng Biblia na si Cristo ay anak ng Diyos na buhay:
Mateo 16:16 " At sumagot si Simon Pedro at sinabi, Ikaw ang Cristo, Ang anak ng Dios na buhay."
I don't know about this, and how this came up to be an issue, and I don't know how they added the source irrelevant to the issue. Check out this link to see where it was quoted and see for yourself how it was said. But let's get to it -
- https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD01/JoD01_0050.pdf
- https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD01/JoD01_0051.pdf
So here it is. First of all, Ravi Zacharias is not a Latter-day Saint, so how do you think his words were accurate? Where are those mostly just selected or cherry-picked articles for criticism? How do you know it was all about it? The Church did not teach about Adam as God the Father of Christ, and those statements taken from some source were just misinterpretations or misrepresentations. It was never published in the church or doctrine that has been taught and was changed, but rather an opinion like Ravi Zacharias. Now, what was the text all about, and how did this Ravi Zacharias misrepresent the idea from the Journal of Discourses? Below was the text taken from that link given above, so I'll put up some of the text and check it out for yourself, how it was said -
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, Jude 1:9 D&C 29:26 D&C 88:112 D&C 107:54 D&C 128:21 the Ancient of Days! Dan. 7:9,13,22 D&C 27:11 D&C 116:1 D&C 138:38 about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve Gen. 3:6 Moses 4:12 had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Luke 1:27 Alma 7:10 Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was Matt. 1:20 not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so [p. 51a]on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and overrighteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming 1 Tim. 3:16 “great is the mystery of godliness,” and tell nothing.
I'm unsure what the point of this next Topic is, and I'm also not sure about how it became an official Church teaching. Let's try to understand and answer this in a different approach ↓
➤ Nag-asawa raw sa Cana
Ipinangaral din ng mga tagapagturong Mormon na so Jesucristo ay nag-asawa sa Cana ng Galilea. Siya raw ang lalaking ikinasal kay Maria, kay Marta na kapatid ni Lazaro, at kay Maria Magdalena. Ganito ang pahayag sa mga sinipi ni Ravi Zacharias sa kaniyang aklat.
Salungat sa itinuturo ng Biblia ang mga aral na ito ng mga Mormon. Hindi totoong si Cristo ay asawa ni Maria, ni Marta na kapatid ni Lazaro, at ni Maria Magdalena. Hindi rin ang Panginoong Jesucristo ang ikinasal sa Cana ng Galilea. Si Cristo at ang Kaniyang mga alagad ay inanyayahan lamang na dumalo sa kasalanang yaon:
This is a totally misunderstood study, or should I say Criticism. First of all, we don't have a doctrine that Christ was even married, aside from assumptions that most of the Christian opinions naturally flow while diving into the scriptures. But none of it was ever taught, even in the scriptures. So why would you come up with such ideology?
Secondly, Orson Pratt "THE SEER" is not the official doctrine of the LDS church, and most of his teachings were not accepted by the church, which even made corrections to his works. So obviously, this was just a mere opinion of a natural human being, but not a direct revelation, and was in fact seemed almost normal in that period. So yeah, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. But to be fair, I would love to hand you the document to help you out with your study. Check it out on the link below -
https://archive.org/details/seereditedbyorso01unse/page/158/mode/2up
And about the Journal of Discourse Document 2, page 82. This was actually a talk titled "The Marriage Relations," A Lecture by Orson Hyde, delivered at the General Conference, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854. The secondhand account was recorded by G. D. Watt. So what was this all about? Take note, as I have to say it once again, that the Journal of Discourses was not compiled as a doctrine of the church, and though most of the records and talks were directly or indirectly from the known Members of the church. And yes, as I have to say it again, it was not accepted as doctrine of the church; rather, most of it was merely opinions that may occur as a mere human. And Orson Hyde was no exception; this collection was collected and was even in the public as transparent as it is, so that everyone may know that not all opinions of the Church Leaders were accepted by the Church as the official doctrine. But sometimes people like you or some others, like this Ravi Zacharias, try to use it as one of the Church's official doctrines, while it was not even close. The only notable doctrine, or perhaps the revelations received for the General Members of the church, accepts it as a church document if the council of the Twelve Apostles and the Prophet would make a declaration in which they voted on it unanimously. For example,The Family: A Proclamation to the World
Again, just to be fair, here's the document about it for you to know the details. -
https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD02/JoD02_0082.pdf
And for the Record, we are not against the teaching of the Bible, and obviously, we don't teach about Christ's Marital Status or whatever you call it. We are open to revelations and interpretations, and we believe that things will be revealed in their own time, since we don't believe in a closed canon. But of course, if it's unnecessary for salvation, so why would we stick to it?
"Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee (Orson Pratt, "The Seer" ,p.159). ... If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women (Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene) were his wives." (Journal of Discourses, vol . 2, p.82) [Si Jesus ang lahat ng mga ginawa ni Cristo ay isinulat, walang pag-aalinlangan nating malalaman na ang mga minamahal na mga babaing ito (Maria, Martha, at Maria Magdalene) ay kaniyang mga asawa.](Investigating the claims of Mormonism, p.26)
Salungat sa itinuturo ng Biblia ang mga aral na ito ng mga Mormon. Hindi totoong si Cristo ay asawa ni Maria, ni Marta na kapatid ni Lazaro, at ni Maria Magdalena. Hindi rin ang Panginoong Jesucristo ang ikinasal sa Cana ng Galilea. Si Cristo at ang Kaniyang mga alagad ay inanyayahan lamang na dumalo sa kasalanang yaon:
Juan 2:1-11 "At nang ikatlong araw ay nagkaroon ng isang kasalan sa Cana ng Galilea; at naroon ang ina ni Jesus: At inanyayahan din naman si Jesus, at ang kaniyang mga alagad, sa kasalan. At nang magkulang ng alak, ang ina ni Jesus ay nagsabi sa kaniya, Wala silang alak. At sinabi sa kaniya ni Jesus, Babae, anong pakialam ko sa iyo? ang aking oras ay hindi pa dumarating. Sinabi ng kaniyang ina sa mga alila, Gawin ninyo ang anomang sa inyo'y kaniyang sabihin. Mayroon nga roong anim na tapayang bato na nalalagay alinsunod sa kaugaliang paglilinis ng mga Judio, na naglalaman ang bawa't isa ng dalawa o tatlong bangang tubig. Sinabi sa kanila ni Jesus, Punuin ninyo ng tubig ang mga tapayan. At kanilang pinuno hanggang sa labi. At sinabi niya sa kanila, Kunin ninyo ngayon, at inyong iharap sa pangulo ng kapistahan. At kanilang iniharap. At nang matikman ng pangulo ng kapistahan ang tubig na naging alak nga, at hindi niya nalalaman kung saan buhat (datapuwa't nalalaman ng mga alila na nagsikuha ng tubig), ay tinawag ng pangulo ng kapistahan ang kasintahang lalake, At sinabi sa kaniya, Ang bawa't tao ay unang inilalagay ang mabuting alak; at kung mangakainom nang mabuti ang mga tao, ay saka inilalagay ang pinakamasama: itinira mo ang mabuting alak hanggang ngayon. Ang pasimulang ito ng kaniyang mga tanda ay ginawa ni Jesus sa Cana ng Galilea, at inihayag ang kaniyang kaluwalhatian; at nagsisampalataya sa kaniya ang kaniyang mga alagad."
This is a totally misunderstood study, or should I say Criticism. First of all, we don't have a doctrine that Christ was even married, aside from assumptions that most of the Christian opinions naturally flow while diving into the scriptures. But none of it was ever taught, even in the scriptures. So why would you come up with such ideology?
Secondly, Orson Pratt "THE SEER" is not the official doctrine of the LDS church, and most of his teachings were not accepted by the church, which even made corrections to his works. So obviously, this was just a mere opinion of a natural human being, but not a direct revelation, and was in fact seemed almost normal in that period. So yeah, I don't know how you came to that conclusion. But to be fair, I would love to hand you the document to help you out with your study. Check it out on the link below -
https://archive.org/details/seereditedbyorso01unse/page/158/mode/2up
And about the Journal of Discourse Document 2, page 82. This was actually a talk titled "The Marriage Relations," A Lecture by Orson Hyde, delivered at the General Conference, in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 6, 1854. The secondhand account was recorded by G. D. Watt. So what was this all about? Take note, as I have to say it once again, that the Journal of Discourses was not compiled as a doctrine of the church, and though most of the records and talks were directly or indirectly from the known Members of the church. And yes, as I have to say it again, it was not accepted as doctrine of the church; rather, most of it was merely opinions that may occur as a mere human. And Orson Hyde was no exception; this collection was collected and was even in the public as transparent as it is, so that everyone may know that not all opinions of the Church Leaders were accepted by the Church as the official doctrine. But sometimes people like you or some others, like this Ravi Zacharias, try to use it as one of the Church's official doctrines, while it was not even close. The only notable doctrine, or perhaps the revelations received for the General Members of the church, accepts it as a church document if the council of the Twelve Apostles and the Prophet would make a declaration in which they voted on it unanimously. For example,The Family: A Proclamation to the World
Again, just to be fair, here's the document about it for you to know the details. -
https://scriptures.byu.edu/jod/pdf/JoD02/JoD02_0082.pdf
And for the Record, we are not against the teaching of the Bible, and obviously, we don't teach about Christ's Marital Status or whatever you call it. We are open to revelations and interpretations, and we believe that things will be revealed in their own time, since we don't believe in a closed canon. But of course, if it's unnecessary for salvation, so why would we stick to it?
And here's one that seems interesting. Let's see what we can get.
Spoiler Alert: I may be direct at this point, which can sometimes be too harsh for our INC Friends. ↓
➤ Ang "Ama" ay ipinatutungkol daw kay Cristo
Ayon sa mga tagapagturong Mormon, ang terminong "Ama" ay tumutukoy sa Diyos, ang Ama, at kung magkaminsan daw ay ipinatutungkol kay Jesus:
"Sa kasulatan ang salitang Ama kung minsan ay ipinatutungkol sa Diyos, ang Ama, at kung minsan naman ay ipinatutukol kay Jesus..." [He that Receiveth My servant Receiveth Me- Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1979-80, p. 16]
If that's how the context says, I would probably agree, but I don't know what you're referring to. This is another misunderstood statement or misinformation. "We do believe in God the Eternal Father and His Son Jesus Christ..." and by this, there is in no way we could say Christ was the Father or maybe the same as the Father. What I'm thinking is, you don't understand the context. So let me elaborate that for you. We don't believe Christ was the Father, but sometimes Christ was addressed as the Father in a different sense, like Abraham, the Father of the faithful, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was the father of all faithful biologically; he only holds that title. So, about Christ, as the Scripture says that -
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. - Isaiah 9:6
Does this say about Christ? Of course it does, Isaiah already saw the Christ who will soon come down to save his people. So, what does The Everlasting Father mean when Isaiah quoted it about him? Well, there are a couple of reasons why he holds the title of father.
First, He was the Father of the Creation, the scripture says that Christ was the First of all the creations, and that everything was made by him and of him. It was made because he exists, and so the creation began because of him, so that's one of those, and below were the scriptural references about Christ as the creator -
John 1:1-3, 10 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Ephesians 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Second, he was the Father of Salvation. We all know about the story of Adam, the first man who brought death and sin. Though we needed to experience both sin and death to understand the importance of Christ's atonement, yes, Christ came to save us from Sin and Death, the second Adam, as we call it. It was his resurrection that gave us hope that all of us someday will also rise again, even that Sting of Death, and freed us from it. So Christ was the Father of Salvation.
For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.
For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. - 1 Corithians 15:16-22
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him. - Hebrews 5:9
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. - Acts 4:12
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. - John 14:6
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. - 1 Peter 1:3
But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. - 2 Timothy 1:10
This simply means that because of Christ, we don't need to be afraid of death. We all experience hardships and death that might be on different levels of pain. But through Christ's atonement, we all have hope towards salvation and immortality, and Life Eternal.
As Isaiah says, The Everlasting Father. He has the divine attributes or the eternal nature. We all know the Light of Christ and how it influences us to come closer to him. He has the eternal role as the Savior and Redeemer. He shows as an example for everyone to be a participant in perfection. He holds both the titles of the 'Son of Man' and 'the Son of God', which indeed is the mediator for us to God and will be the judge of our Eternal souls to obtain Everlasting Life.
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. - John 8:12
In him was life; and the life was the light of men. -John 1:4
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16
Maling ipatungkol kay Cristo ang salitang "Ama." Hindi kailanman inangkin ni Cristo na Siya ang Ama. Si Cristo ay anak ng Diyos:
Lucas 1:35 " At sumagot ang anghel, at sinabi sa kaniya, Bababa sa iyo ang Espiritu Santo, at lililiman ka ng kapangyarihan ng Kataastaasan: kaya naman ang banal na bagay na ipanganganak ay tatawaging Anak ng Dios."
Again, I don't disagree if you try to see how the context of the scripture says it, but it has nothing to do with his title. As I have given the example of Abraham as the Father of the Faithful, with some others like Adam, the Father of the Human race. That doesn't mean they became our father biologically; rather, it was a title. Also, using the Scripture like Luke 1:35 has nothing to do with it since we do believe Christ was indeed the Son of God. Again, this is Poorly Constructed Criticism.
Itinuturo ng mga propeta na iisa ang Ama, ang iisang Diyos:
Malakias 2:10 " Wala baga tayong lahat na isang ama? hindi baga isang Dios ang lumalang sa atin? bakit tayo nagsisigawa ng paglililo bawa't isa laban sa kaniyang kapatid, na nilalapastangan ang tipan ng ating mgamagulang?"
Yes, no question about it, but again, as I had explained already, this has nothing to do with his title. Like quoting Acts 17:28-29, which says -
For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device."
So yeah, God is the literal Father of our Spirit, and Christ was his Son, which means we do have the potential to become like them. Christ did his part as an example that we may be one with them. So this has nothing to do with Christ's title as the "Everlasting Father".
Ipinangaral din ng mga apostol na iisa lamang ang Diyos-ang Ama.
And nothing's new about it. We do have in common. We do believe in God the Eternal Father and his Son Jesus Christ and in the Holy Ghost... Exactly, yes, God is our Father in Heaven.Efeso 4:6 " Isang Dios at Ama ng lahat, na siyang sumasa ibabaw sa lahat, at sumasa lahat, at nasa lahat."
The one God we should serve as Christ did, yes, it was the Father. But as the context goes, this has nothing to do with the divinity of Christ. Jesus Christ was also the Son of God, and as the title said, he was indeed a God as a being. It doesn't make any sense for Christ to pray for his Father, stating he was the only God, while he already did pray to the one true God. So, what gives? As I have said, this scripture has nothing to do with his divinity as the Son of God, but rather Christ honors the Father as above him, and that he was sent from Him, that the people may know about God the Father and Christ as the Son who descended below every creature. More Scriptures about this are found here. Just selected a few of them to lessen the space -
Ipinakilala ng Panginoong Jesucristo na ang Ama lamang ang dapat makilala na iisang tunay na Diyos.Juan 17:1,3 " Ang mga bagay na ito ay sinalita ni Jesus; at sa pagtingala ng kaniyang mga mata sa langit, ay sinabi niya, Ama, dumating na ang oras; luwalhatiin mo ang iyong Anak, upang ikaw ay luwalhatiin ng Anak. At ito ang buhay na walang hanggan, na ikaw ay makilala nila na iisang Dios na tunay, at siyang iyong sinugo, sa makatuwid baga'y si Jesucristo."
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."John 10:30 - I and my Father are one.John 20:28 - And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.Colossians 2:9 - For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.Philippians 2:6 - Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
This has already been explained, and I'm not sure if you're still referencing the same thing. If you want to go back, then go ahead and try to analyze the words that I put and see if this has nothing to do with Christ as the Creator. Everything that has been created would be made without him, so I don't know how you are going to contradict that scripture using some other passage of Scripture stating Christ wasn't the creator. But to be fair in LDS belief, we also believe that there was not just one who organized things to form a world of living creatures. So yeah, Christ was there. If you want to learn more about it, try to analyze this scriptureSa kabilang dako, ipinangangaral ng mga tagapagturong Mormon na si Jesucristo ang Lumalang. Siya raw ang tinatawag na walang hanggang Ama sa langit at lupa:Sa Filipino na:" Si Jesucristo, bilang Lumalang, ay tinatawag na Ama ng langit at lupa sa lahat ng pagkakataon ... at dahil ang kaniyang mga nilalang ay may katangiang pangwalang hanggan, Siya ay nararapat na tawaging walang hanggang Amang langit at lupa."[He that Receiveth My servant Receiveth Me- Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1979-80, p. 94]
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell? - Proverbs 30:4"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... - Genesis 1:26
Labag sa aral ng Biblia na si Cristo ay tawaging walang hanggang Ama ng langit at lupa. Ang Panginoong Jesucristo ay hindi maaring maging Diyos na Lumalang sapagkat kabilang Siya sa mga nilalang. Ito ay pinatutunayan ng Biblia:Colosas 1:15 " Na siya ang larawan ng Dios na di nakikita, ang panganay ng lahat ng mga nilalang."
No, it's not. You simply choose some part that might be good for you, or something just your organization chooses as only doctrine taught, but as I have explained already, you may go ahead on top of this commentary. You simply said Isaiah was wrong in calling him the Everlasting Father. That's shameful for a prophet who misrepresents the doctrine of Christology. Again, go back to the post above and try to see if it contradicts the scripture, since it was all in the same scripture that we normally use.
Those same lines and explanations and but seem to have different biblical views. So let's elaborate it here and make it more meaningful.Itinuturo ng Biblia na ang Diyos ang mag-isang lumikha ng lahat ng bagay:Efeso 3:9 (MBB) " at magpaliwanag sa lahat kung paano isasagawa ng Diyos ang kanyang lihim na plano. Sa mga nakaraang panahon ay inilihim ito ng Diyos na lumikha ng lahat ng bagay."
Ang Diyos na Lumalang na lumikha ng lahat ng bagay ay ang Diyos na kinikilala ni Cristo- ang Ama:Juan 17:3,1 "Ang mga bagay na ito ay sinalita ni Jesus; at sa pagtingala ng kaniyang mga mata sa langit, ay sinabi niya, Ama, dumating na ang oras; luwalhatiin mo ang iyong Anak, upang ikaw ay luwalhatiin ng Anak. At ito ang buhay na walang hanggan, na ikaw ay makilala nila na iisang Dios na tunay, at siyang iyong sinugo, sa makatuwid baga'y si Jesucristo."
Ephesians 3:9 simply states "the God created all things by Jesus Christ", how was that meant, just God the Creator and not Christ? This seems to me that you simply overlook some passages of the scripture, or should I say select the best part to satisfy your Unitarian view. That's not gonna work here. The scripture wasn't made to be simply cherry-picked for the good parts that you like and disregard the rest. You're simply taken out the rest of the text of the scriptures in that sense.
Ibang-iba ang Cristo na ipinakikilala ng mga tagapagturong Mormon kaysa sa tunay na Cristong itinuturo ng Biblia. Ang ganitong maling pagkakilala kay Jesus ay ipinangamba na ni Apostol Pablo noon pa man:2 Corinto 11:3-4 "Nguni't ako'y natatakot, baka sa anomang paraan, kung paanong si Eva ay nadaya ng ahas sa kaniyang katusuhan, ang inyong walang malay at malinis na mga pagiisip na kay Cristo ay pasamain. Sapagka't kung yaong paririto ay mangaral ng ibang Jesus, na hindi namin ipinangaral, o kung kayo'y nagsisitanggap ng ibang espiritu na hindi ninyo tinanggap, o ibang evangelio na hindi ninyo tinanggap, ay mabuting pagtiisan ninyo."
Again, you misrepresent the scriptures. You are teaching a different Gospel than the teachings of the bible. Why are you doing that? You can't simply say these LDS people were wrong while you don't even know the context of the scriptures. If someone might teach the wrong doctrine and a different Christ, that must be you, just simply trying to collect information that you're not even aware of the context. See where you people fail? If you missed every word on the scriptures that I gave, then you go back to your Sunday School and be indoctrinated.
I have seen this picture somewhere in some INC member's post where they try to assume that these missionaries were now indoctrinated and will soon be a part of their organization. I haven't heard the update on this one.
And here's another one. There were more of them, actually, and I remember one of the Elders made a clarification on one of the posts. I won't add it here since it's irrelevant to the issue.
Some add-ons in the comment section; I have no time to respond to any of them, and it makes no sense to open up a discussion when they couldn't even provide a detailed context. So, I just added some part of it here.
➤ From Comment Section
|
| I don't seem to see that in the testimonies of those who have learned the real teachings and the blessings they received by abiding by the Principles and Ordinances of the Gospel. I don't know how come you'd been walking 18 years, which is not actually a big deal for me, but for those years, you never learn the difference between the Priesthood and Authority, the Plan of Salvation, and the Fruit of the Restoration. All I see here is just trolling around just to make some noise. |
|
| Yeah, sure, and to help you recap, we don't believe in it. Simply, you're just here to make a comment that you didn't know how the church and teachings work. But it's good to hear something from you, at least you made an effort to make those Long, Senseless Words. |
|
| Okay, so here you are again. So you did teach the Book of Mormon(s). The main problem was, did you yourself read and pray about it? How did you come to the conclusion that it was wrong? What's your understanding of it? Also, what's with that Place (Hong Kong)? I don't seem to understand how you work with missionaries and then go to different places, like Hong Kong? Are you sure about that? So far as I could tell, for those 18 years, you could be a Missionary, an Elders Quorum President, or a Bishop. But it seems like you didn't have that improvement during those years. I could simply tell you're just an ordinary random guy with a low to average understanding of Theology and or Christology, not even close to understanding the Standard Church Doctrine, so yeah, of course, I could simply say yes, you will probably be an easy target for name removal, nothing new. |
|
| Seriously? How in the World did you get that idea? Oh yeah, right, you're an Asgardian? |
To those who want to know where to find the Original post of these criticisms, See Below.↓
➤ Link to this post
The link to this criticism is on his page, and check out for yourself how poorly it was studied. I'll be posting his commentary on this post might be on the next blog article, and hopefully he may respond to it.
For more content like this, visit http://truth-reflects.blogspot.com, where I recommend that you go directly to it. Also, don't forget to share, leave a comment, subscribe, and everything that made it possible to continue my work. It could take a huge amount of time to gather information and make possible changes to any article on my page. I don't need any monetary help, but rather just simple support. Thank you, and have a nice day.
No comments:
Post a Comment