Wednesday, 29 August 2018

A response to Joe Ventilacion’s THE TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION: TRUTH OR FALLACY?

by Gabby Lopez

Joe Ventilacion is a well know debater in the INC and I recognized his capabilities of conditioning the mind of his listeners which almost made me convinced of what he is saying. In fact, he is the first debater of INC that know while looking for INC debate in youtube 3 years ago. He helped a lot to understand the teaching of INC and my curiosity of their reasoning against the Catholic Doctrine. Recently, an INC member brought up a writing of Joe Ventilacion which I have not read before. It is a 3,000-plus-word article that is supposes to disprove the Catholic doctrine of Holy Trinity and the Incarnation which you can read here: THE TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION: TRUTH OR FALLACY?

Joe first shared that many people misunderstood their teaching and accused them for belittling Lord Jesus. I’ve notice that the first few paragraphs are trying to prove that Jesus was Man. He also brought up some peoples experiences before they become Iglesia ni Cristo that used to believe that Jesus is God and they ultimately believe that Jesus is man after they were presented with biblical basis. He is saying it as if to let anyone think that Catholic Church was only teaching that Jesus was God and the not a man.  Despite of how many years Joe is opposing the Catholic Doctrine he still fails to distinguish the difference between INC teachings and Catholic teachings about Jesus’ nature.

“We are aware that Jesus is Man.”

Joe gives so much important in assertion that Jesus is Man rather than proving that Christ is not God. Obviously, those people who were converted to INC after asking questions in the INC are ignorant of the Catholic Doctrine. This is one of the problems with INC reasoning when it comes to the belief about Jesus’ nature, they fail to recognize the doctrine of Catholic Church that Jesus is Man. Catholics believe that Jesus is one person that posses two nature: human and divine, this makes Jesus as a divine person. Since Jesus is a person with two natures, Jesus is both Man and God. Whether Mr. Ventilacion accept or reject his, he should recognize that this is what the Catholic Church is teaching about the nature of Jesus. And bringing up biblical proof that Jesus is man is good but a waste in trying to prove that Catholic Church is wrong for we also agree to that. Jesus is MAN! AMEN!

“Jesus is man therefore he is not God.”?

This is what follows in the minds of listeners of Joe. However, “Jesus is man therefore he is not God” is a wrong conclusion to come up with even if they bring up: Hos 11:9, Jn 4:24 and Luke 24:39. Before anyone decides to use that conclusion he must first know about nature. To simply say it, natures answers the question ‘what’. Man posses a human nature and God posses a divine nature. Natures are normally taken from parents for example, the son of dog is dog, the son of a cat is cat and surely, the son of God is God. However, Jesus did not have a human father so He could not be a human only. The substance of the body of Jesus was provided from the substance of Blessed Mary.  This is one of the examples that INC failed to or decided not to teaching among their members about natures and therefore they are misleading about the nature of Christ.

Now let’s consider the passages they used to deny the dual nature of Christ:

Hos 11:9 “..For I am God, and not a man”. Since Jesus is Man it seems that this verse gives the impossibility of Jesus as God but that is not true. INC failed to consider that this passage was written before Christ was born here on earth, it is the time when his Son did not assume the human nature yet. To have a rough analogy it is like saying I’m 15 years old, but of course years later will never be the same. It does not mean that God change, God remained as spirit in the person of the Father, just as God remained as saviour in the person of the Son.

Jn 4:24 “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth”. Since God is spirit and Jesus is man, is he no longer qualified as God? Not entirely true for God as spirit remains true in the person of the Father, Jesus recognize God as spirit for he is also a man and since man is under God that’s why Jesus also prays to the Father.

Luke 24:39 “Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."

Jesus is not trying to say here “See I have flesh and bones but God is spirit so I am not God, “The true context of this verse shows that Jesus indeed resurrected. Jesus here is trying to convince that he is not an apparition, but he indeed resurrected. This verse is not supposed to show up since it is an inevitable fact that Jesus is man, and man has flesh and bones.

Here are two verses that should prove to everyone that Jesus does not only posses human nature
Philippians 2:6-8:
"...though he was by nature GOD, did not consider being equal to GOD a thing to be clung to,
but emptied Himself, taking the nature of a slave and being made like unto men.
And appearing in the form of man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient to death, even to death on a cross."

Elucidation of Philippians 2:6-8;
1. He was by nature GOD.
2. He took the nature of a slave (man).
3. He was made like unto men.
 4. He appeared in the form of man. If he is already man, why take a form which he already is?

Apostles believed that Christ was man, and that belief still exists in the Catholic Church. What the INC taught that Jesus is only man and not God is not what the Apostles taught but Felix Manalo’s private interpretation. INC might deny that they believe Jesus is only a man because they believe that Jesus is a very special man, but the subject is about nature of Christ, not attributes. INC may only believe that Christ has one or two natures and since INC believe that Jesus has only one nature then it is only right to say that INC believe that Jesus is only a man (not God).


“If he were God, he could have said so when he was still here on earth”

It seems the INC beliefs are the only things that Jesus was speaking vocally such as he is man. Paul already gave the reason why Jesus did not ever say “I AM GOD” vocally. Paul describe Christ was doing “...Though he was by nature GOD, did not consider being equal to GOD a thing to be clung to”. Jesus gave us an example of humility and wants us to imitate his humility. Telling everyone that he is God would spoil his purpose of being an example of a humble man. That is why Christ sometimes addresses himself as the Son of Man instead of Son of God.

Hypostatic Union is grossly Unbiblical?


The oldest known icon of Christ Pantocrator - Saint Catherine's Monastery. The two different facial expressions on either side emphasize Christ's dual nature as both divine and human
Joe is really good in labelling the doctrines of the Catholic Church with fancy descriptions. Joe has huge guts in saying that there are no biblical verses that proves the Catholic Doctrines defined in the Church Councils instead of brining up how Catholic Church explained their doctrine and refute it. Is it really unbiblical or Joe just refused to bring up verses that prove the hypostatic union for his deception? Hypostatic Union is the mystery of the union of the divine nature of Christ with His human nature. Christ has two minds and two wills, united in the Divine Word. Fortunately, INC and Catholics both agree that Christ posses a human nature and he is man, so there will be and there should no dispute about that subject. The divine nature of Christ can be deduced in Jn 1:1"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with GOD; and the Word was GOD." 'In the beginning was', implies time, since eternity has no beginning, and it has no ending. "The Word", was already in existence when GOD created time in Genesis 1:1-5. Consequently, the Word existed before the beginning of time, He thus being outside of time. The Word already 'was' in the beginning. The Word is therefore eternal. Joe may bring up a version that suits their favor because the Bible becomes the dependent of their doctrine. That version states the verse as “Word was divine”. Even if that version replaced the word “God” with “divine”, the irrefutable fact that the Word existed before time and being eternal in this single verse proves that Christ who is the Word of God posses a divine nature therefore, God.

“The Word is Just A Plan”! 

The cry of INC when they are presented with John 1:1. But if the Word is just a concept, a mere idea, or a plan, the proper pronoun should have been “It” not “He”.  John fully knows that the Word is a Person, for in verse 1:10, John refers to the “true light” as a “He”, a real person: “He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him. He came to what was his own, but his own people 7 did not accept him” (Jn 1:10-11). Thus, if the John refers to the true light as a “He” and to the Word also as a He, and this Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14), then there is no doubt that John really refers to the Word as a person and not a mere concept.

The very powerful verse that gives me so much confidence about the divine nature of Christ is when the Bible states the fact that Christ from heaven and those who came from heaven is ABOVE ALL!:

John 8: 23 “But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.”

1 Cor 15:47 “The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.”

John 3:31 “The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. ” emphasis

A teaching that Jesus is not God defies the verses above that gives so much clarity about Jesus.

“THE FATHER IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD! Jn 17:1,3”

“ ... 'Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your Son, so that the Son may give glory to you ... And eternal life means to know you, the only true God, and to know Jesus Christ, whom you sent"

This is the main passage where INC get the idea that Jesus could not be God since even Christ in his prayer was teaching the Father is the only true God, therefore Jesus could not be God. This is how shallow INC can only understand the meaning of Christ prayer and making this passage as basis Gods true nature without considering the other verses. INC failed to realize it is more than that. 

First of all, the text speaks about the glorification of the Father by the Son, and the Son by the Father (v 1).
Secondly, it speaks about the son having authority over all human beings and having power to give eternal life (v2)
Thirdly, it speaks about the fact that knowing the one true god is inseparable from knowing Jesus Christ.

According to Hilary, Christ says, “you the only true God”, in a way that does not exclude another. He does not say without qualification, you the only, but adds and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. It is like saying: that they know you and Jesus Christ whom you have sent to be the one and only true God. This is a pattern of speaking that we also use when we say [in the Gloria]: “You alone, Jesus Christ, are the most high, together with the Holy Spirit.” No mention is made of the Holy Spirit because whenever the Father and the Son are mentioned, and especially in matters pertaining to the grandeur of the divinity, the Holy Spirit, who is the bond of the Father and Son, is implied.

 According to St. Augustine, the Apostle said that “Christ [is] the power of God and the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor 1:24). Now it is clear that we cannot call anyone God unless he has divine power and wisdom. Therefore, since these people held that the Father was wisdom, which is the Son, they held further that the Father considered without the Son would not be God. And the same applies to the Son and the Holy Spirit.


Now let us not forget that the Holy Trinity states that there are three persons in ONE GOD. When Jesus prayed to the Father it does not mean Jesus was speaking to himself or prayed to himself as what Joe believed what it means. Christ as a separate person prayed to the Father for he is also man. Christ who posses’ divine nature and human nature also performs things that only God can do and things that man usually do. Here are some of the attributes of the two natures of Christ:

As GOD in His Divine Nature
As Man in His Human Nature
He is eternally begotten, Gen 1:1-5, Jn 1:1.
He was born into time, Lk 2:7.
He is worshiped, Mt 2:2,11, 14:33.
He worshiped the Father, Jn 17:1-26.
He was called God, Jn 20:28, Heb 1:8.
He was called man Mk 15:39, Jn 19:5.
He was called Son of God, Mk 1:1.
He was called Son of Man, Jn 9:35-37.
He is prayed to, Act 7:59.
He prayed to the Father, Mt 26:39.
He is sinless, 1Pet 2:22, Heb 4:15.
For our sake He made him to be sin, 2Cor 5:21.
He knows all things, Jn 21:17.
He grew in wisdom, Lk 2:52.
He gives eternal life, Jn 10:28.
He died, Rom 5:8.
He is the fullness of deity, Col 2:9.
He has a flesh and bone body, Luke 24:39.

“Image of God, not God”?

According to Joe, Jesus is the image of God and the image or picture is not the very nature of what it represents but this is not entirely true. According to St. Augustine, the image of a thing may be found in something in two ways. In one way it is found in something of the same specific nature; as the image of the king is found in his son. In another way it is found in something of a different nature, as the king's image on the coin. In the first sense the Son is the Image of the Father; in the second sense man is called the image of God; and therefore in order to express the imperfect character of the divine image in man, man is not simply called the image, but "to the image," whereby is expressed a certain movement of tendency to perfection. But it cannot be said that the Son of God is "to the image," because He is the perfect Image of the Father.

“Hypostatic Union was invented by the Church Council, not from the Bible!”

Surprise! Church Councils are biblical so does the hypostatic union. Though some people are quite surprised that some Catholic Doctrines are formulated by several councils, most INC members are not aware that such councils are biblical. Church Council exercising their authority is well written in Acts 15. The scene in Acts 15 was about some people who were teaching that “..Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.”(Acts 15:1-2) This is to clarifying whether the Mosaic Law is still to be followed by Christians. Though the apostles had so much debate and discussion, decisions about the matter is still to be decided by the council by not a sole person who hides in a dim lit room and after three days and three night, he came up with a doctrine and believed to be the only correct interpretation of the Bible like what the leader and founder of Iglesia ni Cristo, Felix Manalo did. Not only he defied the warning of St. Peter (2 Pet 1:20) about private interpretation, he came up with doctrines with his own interpretation of the Bible without any authority prior to what he interprets in the Bible as his so called authority to preach for he is a messenger of God in these last days. Church Councils are only exercising their authority as the successors of the Apostles, “to bind and loose” Matt 18:18. And usually there are these people who introduce certain teachings that bring up confusions among Christians just like what happened in Acts 15 before a Church Council defines an official doctrine. Some people may pronounce the teachings defined in the council as unbiblical for they only became official after many years but it is what Christ have foreseen.
Doctrinal development is the on going teaching by the Holy Spirit to the only Church which Jesus Christ founded, the Catholic Church. Holy Scripture makes this abundantly clear:

"I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."
John 16:12-13 (emphasis)

These are powerful verses. We must examine them closely. Did you notice the futuristic tone in them? The word "will" indicates an emerging and ongoing process and with not a hint of an ending, and how many times was it repeated in just those two verses?

The first sentence implies that knowledge cannot come all at once, but slowly over time, simply because the wonders of GOD cannot be digested all at once by our puny human minds.

The last part is self explanatory when it says, "things that are to come", obviously more future tense.

Here is more on the all important second sentence which clearly says that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into all the truth. That statement excludes tens of thousands of churches simply because truth is one. Only one Church could possibly have all the truth.

Thus, Holy Scripture, the Word of Jesus Christ Himself, has clearly laid the foundation for greater understanding of revealed truth over time.


In summary, calling the Catholic Doctrines unbiblical is just caused by lack of study on the Catholic Doctrine or total denial of proofs. There are a lot of INC member there who feels they have acquired a tantamount of knowledge about Catholicism and the Bible when the fact is they never have. No doubt that this was caused by attending a doctrine class in INC. Doctrines of the Catholic Church have explanation with Biblical proofs and this proof cannot be acquired by attending Bible study in INC or doctrine class. Biblical evidence for Catholicism was well explained by numerous Catholic Apologists and Saints whose work and writings are available online and they are more reliable than Felix Manalo. Catholics should be confident in defending the Catholic without fear for we always have answers to these detractors for hundreds of years.

Here are some few links where I have been studying the Catholic Faith:

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Catholic Answer
The Catholic Treasure Chest by Bob Stanly
Summa Theologica by St. Augustine



[Typography and grammar error may be found. I would like to give thanks to Mr. Quirino Bob Stanly and the CFD which I may have quoted their statements. Just inform me so that I may give you credits,]

Monday, 2 July 2018

Dissected and Refuted: "The Fact and Process of Apostasy"



An unofficial INC blog has posted a long argument about Apostasy. It is one of the well documented article about INC arguments. It might also be the same arguments ministers can provide. This is from a blog post in theiglesianicristo.blogspot.com and see how it is dissected and refuted.

Thursday, 11 August 2016

5 Simple Facts about Christ that INC ministers will not talk about.


1. He is the Last Messenger.
Nope, not Manalo but Christ. While INC ministers are preaching about Felix Manalo’s title “the Last Messenger of God in these days”, they choose not to preach the whole idea of Hebrews 1:1-2 which says
“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.”
It’s very obvious that the title “Last Messenger in these last days is not referring to Felix Manalo but to Christ.”
2. He does not have a human father.
INC minister will just simply keep quoting about the humanity of Christ to reject the doctrine that Christ is God. While it is true that Christ is human, it does not rejects his divine nature nor make him “special man”. We have to consider the fact that it requires a father and a mother in order for a child to be born. The nature of the child is taken from both parents. Mary, the mother of Christ is human, that’ why Christ is human. But Christ’s Father is not human but God, possessing a divine nature, so Christ also have that divine nature. He is one person with two nature.
Since we know that he is God, he must be present before the time began and he must have a huge involvement during the creation. Where does he come from? Is his existence started here on earth or his existence is what started earth.
3. He is from heaven.
Who else is from heaven? Has there been any man that belongs to heaven and came here and still a man? INC has been hiding this very simple fact that should debunk their doctrine. The fact that Christ came from heaven means that he is God, the greatest of all.
John 3:31
“The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.”
Its look pretty obvious that Jesus was talking about God, because from above (heaven).
“But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.” John 8:23
This is such a striking truth that should destroy the falsehood of Manalo’s doctrine. While they have a lot of things to talk about the humanity of Christ, they have hidden a lot of things about the divinity of Christ.
4. Christ’s blood is God’s Blood.
Acts 20:28 is one the most quoted verses by INC minister and members, they are so proud that their name is found there. But here’s the problem, “Church of Christ” in Acts 20:28 can only be found in Lamsa Version, and the rest of the Bible versions they use for other verse says “Church of Christ”. Yes, they only pick the verses that fits to their teachings and who are they to verify which translation is correct and which translation is not correct?
This very verse they always quote proves that divinity of Christ by understanding its whole context.
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.- Acts 20:28
Elucidation: the Church of God was bought with (his)God’s blood. We know whose blood was spent for the forgiveness of sins and it was not the Father’s, but Christ’s, therefore Christ is God.
5. He owns what the Father owns.
I say “who owns the world”? You say “God”
“All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will receive from me what he will make known to you." - John 16:15
I say who owns the world, you say “Christ”
P.S.. tbgc

Saturday, 30 July 2016

Responses on Allan's Answers to 10 Difficult Questions

Allan is an INC member who does a lot of defending of INC teachings. I composed 10 core questions which is more on the validity of F. Manalo, their founder. His answers are mostly mere claims and terrible ones. See it for yourself


Question #1. Ginamit mo ang mga sitas nga Isa.41:9-14, Isaiah 43:5, saan sa contexto ng mga sitas ka nakakuha ng idea na ang propesiya na ito ay may kinalaman sa Iglesia na itinatag ni Cristo?

Answer: #1. Gaya ng aking naging presentation, ang tinutukoy sa Isaias. 41:9 ay ang tinutukoy na "UOD NA JACOB" batay sa Isaias. 41:14. Hindi ito ang Jacob na Binhi ni Abraham SA LAMAN sapagkat batay sa Genesis 49:33 bago pa ang hula ni Isaias, ang Jacob na tinawag ding Israel na Binhi ni Abraham SA LAMAN ay malaon nang namatay. Kaya ang "UOD NA JACOB" na tinutukoy ay ang "BINHI NI ABRAHAM SA PANGAKO". Napakaliwanag nang nakasulat sa Galacia 3:29 na ang mga KAY CRISTO ay mga Binhi ni Abraham sa pangako. Sino ang tinutukoy na mga Kay Cristo? Naniniwala ako na hindi ka tututol na ito ang mga kaanib sa Iglesia Ni Cristo Galacia 1:22, NPV. Kaya maliwanag na 'yung hula ukol sa LINGKOD NA TATAWAGIN AT PIPILIIN NG DIYOS NA MULA SA MGA WAKAS NG LUPA NA TINATAWAG NA "UOD NA JACOB" AY TUMUTUKOY SA TAONG MANGUNGUNA SA MGA WAKAS NG LUPA O MGA HULING ARAW SA PAGTATANYAG NG IGLESIA NI CRISTO.

Critic: It's true that the term "Worm Jacob" is referring to the people of God and not necessarily sons of Abraham in flesh but also to believers of Christ. But never in the context that we can extract a slight idea that it talks about prophecy on rebuilding of the church built by Christ.

So to avoid the shame, Allan is jumping to a conclusion without any reasonable premise that:  "UOD NA JACOB" AY TUMUTUKOY SA TAONG MANGUNGUNA SA MGA WAKAS NG LUPA O MGA HULING ARAW SA PAGTATANYAG NG IGLESIA NI CRISTO.

__________________________

Question #2. Alin sa lahat ng mga sitas mo ay nag bigay idea na may paparating na pag litaw ulit specifically sa Iglesia na itinatag ni Cristo
Answer #2. Ang mga ginamit kong mga sitas ay MAGKAKAUGNAY at ginamit ko lahat upang patunayan na MAY LILITAW NA SUGO NG DIYOS SA MGA WAKAS NG LUPA O SA MGA HULING ARAW UPANG ITANYAG AT IPANGARAL ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO.

The answer is obviously a mere assertion without biblical verses to support his claim. What's much worse is, I was only asking for idea that can be taken from multiple verses and not literally looking for exact words. This is because we can never see any idea that from that Bible about the re-emergence of a church for any reason, the only emergence Jesus was talking about was emergence of false prophets/teachers which perfectly fits to F. Manalo. Infact Jesus even said |

"And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" Mt. 28:20

__________________________

Question #3. Kung ang Uod na Jacob ay tumutukoy sa mga sumasampalataya ni Cristo, saan ka kumuha ng ideya na may Sugo na may tinutukoy sa mga Propesiya?

Anwer #3.Sapagkat MAY INIATANG NA GAMPANIN kaya natitiyak natin na ang HINUHULAAN AY SUGO. Katunayan kung babasahin natin ang Isaias 41:15 ay heto ang nakasulat "Narito, aking ginawa kang bagong kasangkapang panggiik na matalas na may mga ngipin; iyong gigiikin ang mga bundok, at didikdiking durog, at iyong gagawin ang mga burol na parang ipa." Ang isa sa trabaho ng Sugo na lilitaw sa MGA WAKAS NG LUPA BILANG ISANG KASANGKAPANG PANGGIIK ay GIIKIN ANG MGA BUNDOK AT ANG MGA BUROL NA PARANG IPA. na tumutukoy sa mga pamuan ng kadiliman o sa maling relihyon (Efeso 6:12).

As we see, we cannot get any slight relevance from the verse Allan shows to what he was saying which is about Sugo:

Isaias 41:15 ay heto ang nakasulat "Narito, aking ginawa kang bagong kasangkapang panggiik na matalas na may mga ngipin; iyong gigiikin ang mga bundok, at didikdiking durog, at iyong gagawin ang mga burol na parang ipa."

INC members do always have answers when asked, but unfortunately, wrong answers. 

__________________________

Question #4.Kung ang WAKAS NG LUPA ay tumutukoy sa panahon at hindi lugar,Ang Reyna ng Timugan ba ay galing sa panahon ng Unang Pandaigdig na Digmaan (July 27, 1914). May natala ba sa kasaysayan na galing July 27, 1914 ang Reyna ng Timugan?

”Magbabangon sa paghuhukom ang reina ng timugan na kasama ng lahing ito, at ito'y hahatulan: sapagka't siya'y nanggaling sa mga WAKAS NG LUPA upang pakinggan ang karunungan ni Salomon;..” (Mateo 12:42)
Answer #4: Kaibigan, ang presentation ko ay ukol sa Isaias 41:9,14. Talagang ang stand ng Iglesia Ni Cristo sa Isaias 41:9 at sa Isaias 43:6 ang "ENDS OF THE EARTH " o "MGA WAKAS NG LUPA" ay tumtukoy sa panahon.. Wala kang mababasa sa presentation ko na ginamit ko ang Mateo 12:42.
Para patunayan ko sa iyo kaibigan na magkaiba ang tinutukoy na "MGA WAKAS NG LUPA" sa Isaias 41:9 at sa ginamit mo na Mateo 12:42 ay gamitin natin ang GOOD NEWS BIBLE (Catholic edition in Septuagint order)
Ganito ang pagkakasulat sa Isaiah 41:9
9I brought you from the ENDS OF THE EARTH;
I called you from its farthest corners
and said to you, ‘You are my servant.’
I did not reject you, but chose you.
Paano isinalin ang Mateo 12:42 sa saling ito? "ENDS OF THE EARTH' din ba?
42On Judgement Day the Queen of Sheba will stand up and accuse you, because she travelled all the way from her country to listen to King Solomon's wise teaching; and I assure you that there is something here greater than Solomon!
Wala na po 'yung "ENDS OF THE EARTH" at iyan ay mula sa saling GOOD NEWS BIBLE (Catholic edition in Septuagint order)
Kaya kung gagamitin natin ang CATHOLIC EDITION NG GOOD NEWS BIBLE ay maliwanag na MAGKAIBA ANG TINTUKOY SA ISAIAS 41:9 AT MATEO 12:42.

Allan obviously messed up with the paraphrasing here. In attempt to proving that "Ends of the Earth" refers to time, not place, he brought up the GNB version of  Matt 12:42. Before we point out the problem lets compare NIV and GNB

"The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here." Matthew 12:42 NIV

"On Judgement Day the Queen of Sheba will stand up and accuse you, because she travelled all the way from her country to listen to King Solomon's wise teaching; and I assure you that there is something here greater than Solomon!"-Matthew 12:42 GNB


If you take a look a it very carefully, in GNB, the "ends of the earth" was not replaced with "Judgement Day", but "all the way from her country". Therefore, in both Mt.12:42 and Is.41:9, the term "Ends of the Earth" refers to a place not time as what Manalo's interpretation to make him a messenger.

This is really one of the terrible errors Allan has done so far. 

_________________________

Question #5.Ginamit mo ang sitas sa Mateo 24:3-33, at sa verse 4-6, ay ito ang sabi
“4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed.”
Sinabi dito lilitaw ang mga bulaang propeta at ito rin ang panahon na sisiklab ang mga digmaan. Tanong ko ay, may kilala ka bang mang-aaral na lumitaw sa panahon digmaan noong 1914 maliban kay Felix Ysagun Manalo?

Answer #5 . Ang ginamit ko kaibigan ay Mateo 24:3 , 33 at Mateo 24:6-8.
Heto at isisipi ko ulit ang bahagi ng aking naging presentation diyan:
"Alin ang tinutukoy na "MGA WAKAS NG LUPA"? Ito ang panahon na malapit na ang pagparito ni Cristo o ng katapusan ng sanglibutan. Ang WAKAS NG LUPA ay ang Mismong Katapusan ng sanglibutan at ang “MGA WAKAS NG LUPA” ay ang panahon na si Cristo ay nasa mga pintuan na o malapit nang dumating.
“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?
Gayon din naman kayo, pagka nangakita ninyo ang lahat ng mga bagay na ito, ay talastasin ninyo na siya'y malapit na, nasa mga pintuan nga.” (Mat. 24:3,33)
Ano ang mga palatandaan na ang Panginoong Jesucristo ay nasa mga pintuan na o panahon na ng “MGA WAKAS NG LUPA”?
“At mangakakarinig kayo ng mga digmaan at mga alingawngaw ng mga digmaan; ingatan ninyo na huwag kayong magulumihanan: sapagka't kinakailangang ito'y mangyari datapuwa't hindi pa ang wakas. Sapagka't magsisitindig ang bansa laban sa bansa, at ang kaharian laban sa kaharian; at magkakagutom at lilindol sa iba't ibang dako. Datapuwa't ang lahat ng mga bagay na ito ay siyang pasimula ng kahirapan.” (Mat.24:6:8)
Ang isa sa mga palatandaan ay ang DIGMAANG UMAALINGAWNGAW. Isang DIGMAAN na AALINGAWNGAW O MAPAPABALITA. Kung mapapansin pa natin “sapagka't kinakailangang ito'y mangyari datapuwa't hindi pa ang wakas”. Bakit? Sapagkat may magaganap pa na panibagong Digmaan “Sapagka't magsisitindig ang bansa laban sa bansa, at ang kaharian laban sa kaharian;”. Ang katuparan nito ay ang UNANG DIGMAANG PANDAIGDIG (1ST WORLD WAR) na sumiklab noong July 27,1914 at ito ay sinundan ng IKALAWANG DIGMAANG PANDAIGDIG (2ND WORLD WAR). Ang UNANG DIGMAANG PANDAIGDIG ay tinawag ng kasaysayan na “the war to end all wars” (Story of the Great War, edited by Francis J. Reynolds, et al. New York: P.F. Collier and Son, 1916. Vol. 2, p. 291)."
Kaya para sagutin ko ang tanong mo na
"Sinabi dito lilitaw ang mga bulaang propeta at ito rin ang panahon na sisiklab ang mga digmaan. Tanong ko ay, may kilala ka bang mang-aaral na lumitaw sa panahon digmaan noong 1914 maliban kay Felix Ysagun Manalo?"
Wala akong tinindigan at ipinahayag sa aking presentation NA MAY SPECIFIC NA LILITAW NA BULAANG PROPETA NOONG JULY 27, 1914, KUNDI ANG PINATUTUNAYAN KO AY MAY LILITAW NA TUNAY NA SUGO SA MGA WAKAS NG LUPA NA ANG ISA SA PALATANDAAN AY ANG DIGMAANG UMAALINGAWNGAW NA SUSUNDAN NG ISA PANG DIGMAAN NA ANG KINATUPARAN AY ANG 1ST WORLD WAR NA SUMIKLAB NOONG JULY 27,1914 AT SA PETSANG ITO NAI-REHISTRO ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO NA SIYANG OPISYAL NA PAGKILALA NG BANSANG PILIPINAS UKOL SA KANYANG PANGANGARAL AT IPINANGANGARAL NA IGLESIA NI CRISTO.

The very reason why they believe that Felix Manalo is a messenger is also the reason why Felix Manalo is a false prophet. In trying to connect that "ends of the earth" is in relevance to near "judgement day", it will end up that F. Manalo came just in the right time as what Jesus mentioned when the false prophet will emerge and that is when there are rumors of wars exactly July 27, 1914.

Allan is playing blind here. Yikes.

_______________________

Question #6. Sinasabi mo sa iyong presentasyon
“ Siya ang tinutukoy na "UOD NA JACOB"(Isa.41:14)”
Sino itong “SIYA” na tinutukoy mo? At saan sa context ng sitas mo ito kinuha ang tinutukoy mong “SIYA”?

Answer #6: Para po maliwanag ay sipiin ulit natin ang aking sinabi sa bahaging iyan:
"Pinatutunayan ng Biblia na may Lingkod Siyang tinawag at pinili na LILITAW sa "MGA WAKAS NG LUPA".
“Ikaw na aking hinawakan mula sa mga wakas ng lupa, at tinawag kita mula sa mga sulok niyaon, at pinagsabihan kita, Ikaw ay aking lingkod, aking pinili ka at hindi kita itinakuwil;”(Isaias 41:9)
Siya ang tinutukoy na "UOD NA JACOB"(Isaias 41:14)
“Huwag kang matakot, ikaw na uod na Jacob, at kayong mga tao ng Israel; aking tutulungan ka, sabi ng Panginoon, at ang iyong Manunubos ay ang Banal ng Israel.”
"Yung salitang SIYA ANG TINUTUKOY NA "UOD NA JACOB" ay tumutukoy sa BINABANGGIT NA HULA SA Isaias 41:9. Ipinakikita ko dun kung sino ang tinutukoy sa Isaias 41:9, ang tinutukoy dun ay yung tinutukoy na "UOD NA JACOB" sa Isaias 41:14. Nasa INTRODUCTION part pa lang ako niyan kaibigan at NATURAL, VERY OBVIOUS na ang tintindigan namin na mga Iglesia Ni Cristo, 'yan ay NATUPAD SA KATAUHAN NG KAPATID NA FELIX MANALO AT SA KANYANG GAWAIN PINASIMULAN AT ITINAGUYOD.

His answer to this question is terribly empty. So just because its natural and very obvious?
_____________________

Question #7.Nag karoon na ba ng depinisyon ang salitang “far east” sa panahon ng lumang tipan? At ano ito?

Answer #7: Kung ang tinutukoy mo ay 'yung tinitindigan namin na "far east" na "MIZRACH" sa Hebreo ay 'yung nasa Isaias 43:5 at Isaias 46:11. Kaibigan 'yun po ay hula at ang Pangalang Pilipinas ay noon lamang 16th Century samantalang ang kabuuan ng Biblia ay nayari o naisulat na 1st Century pa lang. Kaya kung ang tanong mo ay nangangahulugan na hinahanap mo sa akin na ipakita ko sa iyo sa Lumang Tipan na Pilipinas nga ang katuparan ng "far east" sa Isaias 43:5 at Isaias 46:11 ay TILA NALIMUTAN MO YATA ANG KASAYSAYAN NG PILIPINAS.
Naninindigan kami na ang kinatuparan nito ay ang Bansang Pilipinas sapagkat hindi lamang sapagkat ang Pilipinas ay nasa MALAYONG SILANGAN kundi sapagkat dito lumitaw ang Iglesia Ni Cristo sa panahong itinakda ng hula, sa petsa ng Biblia ay "MGA WAKAS NG LUPA", sa petsa kalendaryo ay "JULY 27, 1914". Walang ibang dako o bansa sa MALAYONG SILANGAN na may lumitaw na Iglesia ni Cristo noong July 27,1914 kundi sa bansang Pilipinas lamang. Kaya tinitindigan namin na ang kinatuparan ng "FAR EAST" sa Isaias 43:5, Isaias 46:11 ay ang Pilipinas KAYA ANG KAPATID NA FELIX MANALO AY TUNAY NA SUGO NG DIYOS SA MGA HULING ARAW O SA MGA WAKAS NG LUPA.

Allan jumped to a conclusion again and did not give any standard reference for the meaning of "far east". He believes it Philippines just because.

_________________________

Question #8. Kung ang salitang “star bucks” na ibig sabihin isang literal na bituin na pera ay iba sa salitang “StarBucks” na ibig sabihin isang coffeehouse nang dahil ang unang salita ay isang common noun at ang pangalawa ay isang proper noun. Ano naman ang kaibahan sa salitang “far east” sa salitang “Far East.
Answer #8: Hindi ako authority diyan pero ang isasagot ko diyan ay ang general definition ng proper noun and common noun. Heto ang sinasabi ng link na ito:
Proper Nouns
These name specific people, places, things, or ideas.
They begin with a capital letter.
Sometimes, they contain two or more important words.
Common Nouns
They name people, places, things or ideas that are not specific.
They do not need to start with a capital letter unless they begin in a sentence.
Link:http://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/proper-nouns.html

To let Allan know,

"far east" is a common noun, it is simply referring to a direction and distance, nothing specific.
"Far East" on the other hand is a proper noun, this particular proper noun only came up around 12th century which refers to a group of country including Phil.

but what we can read in the Bible is "far east" (James Moffat) though rarely used, we can not give it a meaning which was only defined around 12th century.


The term Far East came into use in European geopolitical discourse in the 12th century, denoting the Far East as the "farthest" of the three "easts", beyond the Near East and the Middle East. For the same reason, Chinese people in the 19th and early 20th centuries called Western countries "Tàixī (泰西)"—i.e. anything further west than the Arab world.-Wiki
________________________

Question #9. Gumamit ka ng reperesnya upang mapatunayan na ang Pilipinas nga ay kabilang sa Far East na na ani mo ay tinutukoy sa Bibliya. Tanong ko ay, may reperensya ka ba sa sinasabi mo na ang Uod na Jacob ay ang Iglesia ni Cristo na naitayo noong 1914 sa Pilipinas?

Answer #9: Una, liliwanagin ko lang. Kung mayroon mang naitayo noong 1914 ang Kapatid na Felix Manalo ay ANG MGA LOKAL O KONGREGASYON NG IGLESIA NI CRISTO AT HINDI ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO. Pangalawa, ang katuparan ng "UOD NA JACOB" na ang REFERENCIA KO AY BIBLIA batay sa Isaias 41:9,14 ang KINATUPARAN AY ANG KAPATID NA FELIX MANALO NA SIYANG NANGARAL NG IGLESIA NI CRISTO. At para patunayan na Iglesia Ni Cristo nga ang kanyang ipinangaral, ang magiging referencia ko ay REHISTRO AT IBA'T IBANG BABASAHIN NA IPINANGANGARAL NG KAPATID NA MANALO ANG IGLESIA NI CRISTO UPANG TUMESTIGO SA SINASABI NG HULA SA BIBLIA.
Sa ikaliliwanag lamang po, HINDI MGA AKLAT REFERENCIA ANG SALIGAN NG AMING PANANAMPALATAYA NA ANG KAPATID NA FELIX MANALO AY SUGO NG DIYOS SA MGA HULING ARAW KUNDI ANG MGA SALITA NG DIYOS NA NAKASULAT SA BIBLIA. GUMAGAMIT LAMANG KAMI NG AKLAT REFERENCIA UPANG TUMESTIGO ANG MGA ITO NA NATUPAD ANG HULA SA BIBLIA AT SA GAYON AY HINDI MAGING SELF SERVING ANG PAGHAHAYAG NG IGLESIA NI CRISTO NG KATOTOHANAN.
Kung ang tintutukoy mong REFERENCIA ay aklat na nagpapatunay na si kapatid na Felix Manalo ang katuparan nang "UOD NA JACOB" sa Isaias 41:9,14, KUNG MAY GAGAWA "NUN NA HINDI KAANIB SA IGLESIA NI CRISTO EH NAPAKALAKI NG POSIBLIDAD NA 'YUN AY AANIB NA DIN SA IGLESIA NI CRISTO NA IPINANGARAL NG KAPATID NA FELIX MANALO at kung GAGAMITIN NA REFERENCIA ANG KANYANG AKLAT, ABA MAGIGING SELF SERVING NA 'YUN AT KUKUWESTIYUNIN MO TIYAK ANG MAGIGING PAGGAMIT NAMIN 'NUN KUNG SAKALING MAGKAGANUN. TIYAK NA sasabihin mo na KAANIB KASI SA INC ANG GUMAWA NIYAN.

What Allan wants to us to know that INC is the worm Jacob is simply because F.Manalo was preaching, INC was registered on that specific time. No proper answer was given.
_____________________

Question #10. Naniniwala ka ba na may kakahayan si Cristo na protektahan laban sa mga bulaan propeta na pumapasok sa kanyang Iglesia na syang tinutoring bilang, Katawan ni Cristo, Asawa ni Cristo, Kaharian ng Langit, Banal at Walang Kapintasan? Oo o Hindi.

Answer #10. OO SA PAMAMAGITAN NG TAPAT NA PAGSUNOD NG MGA KAANIB SA IGLESIA SA MGA UTOS O ARAL NG PANGINOONG DIYOS NA ITINURO NI CRISTO MAGAGAWA NI CRISTO PROTEKTAHAN ANG IGLESIA. Gaya nang nakasulat po dito kaibigan:
" 27Dinirinig ng aking mga tupa ang aking tinig, at sila'y aking nakikilala, at sila'y nagsisisunod sa akin: 28At sila'y binibigyan ko ng walang hanggang buhay; at kailan ma'y hindi sila malilipol, at hindi sila aagawin ng sinoman sa aking kamay. 29Ang aking Ama, na sa kanila ay nagbigay sa akin, ay lalong dakila kay sa lahat; at hindi sila maaagaw ninoman sa kamay ng Ama." (Juan 10:27-29)
Hindi lamang si Cristo ang po-protekta kundi maging ang Ama. Hindi sila maaagaw ng mga BULAANG PROPETA sa kamay ni Cristo at ng Ama KUNG TAPAT NILANG DIRINGGIN ANG MGA KAUTUSAN NI CRISTO. Kaya ang Unang Iglesia Ni Cristo ay NAGING GANAP ANG PAGTALIKOD DAHIL HINDI NAKAPANINDIGAN ANG LAHAT SA MGA KAUTUSAN NI CRISTO. Pumayag silang makapasok at maghari sa loob ng Iglesia ang mga maling aral, ang aral ng mga demonyo na ayon sa I Timoteo 4:1,3 ay IPINAGBABAWAL ANG PAG-AASAWA AT IPINAG UUTOS NA LUMAYO SA LAMANG KATI O KARNE na ang PANGUNAHING NAGTATAGUYOD NITO AY ANG IGLESIA KATOLIKA. Kaya KUNG MAY LUMITAW MAN NA IGLESIA KATOLIKA AY SA DAHIL ITO ANG NAGING BUNGA NG PAGTALIKOD NG UNANG IGLESIA.

Allan's answer is LABAN-BAWI, he said he's faithful to Christ that he can protect his church but believes that it was apostatized after less than 100 years. A man who truly believes that Christ can protect his church from teaching errors, then he should be looking for an old church that exists from the time of Christ up to now.

Allan is like trusting that the roof of his house can handle the rain but uses umbrella inside his house.

Saturday, 24 October 2015

Theological discussion with Joaquin Fajardo

Proposition: "Christ Pre-existed as God, attested by the Bible":
First Part:
Affirmative Side: 1000 words
Questions from Negative Side: 10 questions.
Negative Side: 1000 words
Questions from Affirmative Question: 10 questions.
Second Part:
Affirmative Side: 1000 words
Questions from Negative Side: 10 questions.
Negative Side: 1000 words
Questions from Affirmative Question: 10 questions.
Third Part:
Affirmative Side: 1000 words
Questions from Negative Side: 10 questions.
Negative Side: 1000 words
Questions from Affirmative Question: 10 questions.
Forth Part:
Affirmative Side: 1000 words
Questions from Negative Side: 10 questions.
Negative Side: 1000 words
Questions from Affirmative Question: 10 questions.
Fifth Part: Closing Remarks of the Affirmative Side 500 words
Closing Remarks of the Negative Side 500 words
Sixth Part:
Series of Question and Answer from both sides.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT:

The following statement should prove that Jesus Christ pre-existed as God. Before I proceed to my main points in proving that Christ pre-existed, let me clarify first the word “pre-existed”. Pre-existed means that the person Christ has already exist before he was born here on earth and he has the nature and attributes of God; divine, eternal and omniscient. In this case, it means that Christ was born twice: First, he was born eternally from the Father which means he was born outside time. Second, he was born here on earth. To prove this assertion biblically I will make this point by point to make it clearer.

1. Christ was the Word in the beginning. 

The biblical evidence of the pre-existence of Christ can be clearly seen in the first verse in chapter 1 in the book of John: “ ..In the beginning was the Word..”. The statement clearly suggest that the Word is outside time for in the “beginning WAS”. If we continue, “..and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. At the end part of the verse, John gave us the identity of Word, and that Word was “God”. In the later part of the chapter, John is not telling us that the Word is some kind of a passive and non-existent idea or a plan but a person who has a great role in creation.

“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life,and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.” – John 1:3-5

Things we can deduced from the verses:

1. All things were made through the WORD, which means he was creator
2. Without the WORD, there would be nothing, which also means he was a creator.
3. In the WORD was life.
4. The WORD is the light of all mankind.
5. Lastly, The WORD is person, John referred the Word as “He”, “Him”
John later revealed to us that the WORD was made flesh or became flesh which means the “Word become Man”. The identity of the Word is Christ Thus, God became Man. 

2. Christ surely asserted that he pre-existed.

“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.” John 8:54-58.

This is a powerful proof for the pre-existence of Christ. Due to the unbelief of the Jews, they ask how Jesus could saw Abraham he was not fifty years old yet. When the Jews said this, Christ did not correct the Jews but sustained this claim by telling them “Very truly I tell you” and claimed about his pre-existence and divinity: “before Abraham was born, I am”. The gravity of Jesus’ claim can be understood on how the Jews reacted to what he said. 

3. John the Baptist testified that Christ was before him

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ – John 1:29-30.

The passage might have nothing to do with the pre-existence of Christ unless we know a little detail about the age of John and Jesus. John the Baptist was 6 months older than Jesus yet John testified that Jesus was before him. This could only mean one thing and that would be John the Baptist knew that Christ pre-existed. 

4. Christ was speaking to the prophets for his coming.

“"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.” Malachi 3:1

A voice of one calling: "In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.- Isaiah 40:3

In Malachi 3:1, is in reference to the coming of Christ. It the Lord Almighty says that he will send a messenger to prepare the way before him. The Lord Almighty did not say “..prepare the way before my Son”, no but he says “BEFORE ME”. It is only therefore, that the Lord Almighty who was speaking to prophet Malachi was Christ. 

Even more for the divinity of Christ, Isaiah 40:3 which was prophecy in reference to John to prepare the way for Christ, “ John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’ Jn 1:23

John the Baptist did not only prepare the way for the Lord, but for God. As Isaiah 40:30 says “..make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”.

5. Christ had glory with the Father before the world began.

“And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” John 17:5.

This again is one of the powerful proofs of Christ’s existence for he cannot have the glory with the Father if he does not exist. Also, the glorification did not take place after the creation but before the world began. Thus proves the divinity of Christ.

1. Christ was the Word in the beginning. 
The biblical evidence of the pre-existence of Christ can be clearly seen in the first verse in chapter 1 in the book of John: “ ..In the beginning was the Word..”. The statement clearly suggest that the Word is outside time for in the “beginning WAS”. If we continue, “..and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. At the end part of the verse, John gave us the identity of Word, and that Word was “God”. In the later part of the chapter, John is not telling us that the Word is some kind of a passive and non-existent idea or a plan but a person who has a great role in creation.
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life,and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.” – John 1:3-5
Things we can deduced from the verses:
1. All things were made through the WORD, which means he was creator2. Without the WORD, there would be nothing, which also means he was a creator.3. In the WORD was life.4. The WORD is the light of all mankind.5. Lastly, The WORD is person, John referred the Word as “He”, “Him”John later revealed to us that the WORD was made flesh or became flesh which means the “Word become Man”. The identity of the Word is Christ Thus, God became Man. 
2. Christ surely asserted that he pre-existed.
“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.” John 8:54-58.
This is a powerful proof for the pre-existence of Christ. Due to the unbelief of the Jews, they ask how Jesus could saw Abraham he was not fifty years old yet. When the Jews said this, Christ did not correct the Jews but sustained this claim by telling them “Very truly I tell you” and claimed about his pre-existence and divinity: “before Abraham was born, I am”. The gravity of Jesus’ claim can be understood on how the Jews reacted to what he said. 
3. John the Baptist testified that Christ was before him
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ – John 1:29-30.
The passage might have nothing to do with the pre-existence of Christ unless we know a little detail about the age of John and Jesus. John the Baptist was 6 months older than Jesus yet John testified that Jesus was before him. This could only mean one thing and that would be John the Baptist knew that Christ pre-existed. 
4. Christ was speaking to the prophets for his coming.
“"I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.” Malachi 3:1
A voice of one calling: "In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.- Isaiah 40:3
In Malachi 3:1, is in reference to the coming of Christ. It the Lord Almighty says that he will send a messenger to prepare the way before him. The Lord Almighty did not say “..prepare the way before my Son”, no but he says “BEFORE ME”. It is only therefore, that the Lord Almighty who was speaking to prophet Malachi was Christ. 
Even more for the divinity of Christ, Isaiah 40:3 which was prophecy in reference to John to prepare the way for Christ, “ John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, “I am the voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’ Jn 1:23
John the Baptist did not only prepare the way for the Lord, but for God. As Isaiah 40:30 says “..make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”.
5. Christ had glory with the Father before the world began.
“And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” John 17:5.
This again is one of the powerful proofs of Christ’s existence for he cannot have the glory with the Father if he does not exist. Also, the glorification did not take place after the creation but before the world began. Thus proves the divinity of Christ.


QUESTIONS FROM THE NEGATIVE:

Question #1: In the verse John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.". Being honest my friend..
--- May mababasa po ba tayong "Cristo" o "Hesus" o "Anak" sa talatang nabanggit sa taas?

Question #2: in the last statement of John 1:1 "..and the Word was God..."
--- Was the term God used as a Noun or an Adjective?

Question #3: Instead of of the following:
"In the beginning was the (Son), and the (Son) was with God, and the (Son) was God." or "In the beginning was the (Jesus Christ), and (Jesus Christ) was with God, and (Jesus-Christ) was God."
--- Why John used the term "Word" in his writings?

Question #4: As the definition of coexist below:
co·ex·ist (kō′ĭg-zĭst′)
intr.v. co·ex·ist·ed, co·ex·ist·ing, co·ex·ists
1. To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.
--- Do Son (Jesus Christ) coexist by his father?

Question #5: You posted John 8:54-58 to proved that Christ have pre-existed as God.
--- Do you believed that Abraham saw Jesus Christ as God?

Question #6: Multiple Choice: in the term "Seeing" and "saw":
--- how can he((Jesus) be seen by Abraham?
A. By eyesight (Personal face to face)
B. Through mind (Vision/Revelation)
C. None of the above. (Please provide the answer)

Question #7: in the statement ".. Abraham saw his day.."
--- What is the term HIS DAY referring to?

Question #8: Ginamit mo ang (Mal. 3:1, Isaiah 40:3) para iproved na ang Diyos o Panginoon (Pertaing to God) nga personally ang pinaghanda ng daan ni Juan. Ito bang (Mal. 4:5) na nagsasabi na si Elias na propeta ang ipapadala ng Diyos sa dakilang araw niya.
--- Is it Prophet Elijah who PERSONALLY sent by God before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the lord?

Question #9: You are using John 17:5 to proved also that Christ pre-existed as God. According to the verse (John 17:5.)
--- Ano yung kaluwalhatian(glory) na sinasabi sa talata na IBINIGAY kay Cristo mula pa noong una?
QUESTIONS FROM AFFIRMATIVE:

ANSWERS TO 9 OUT OF 10 QUESTIONS FROM Joaquin Fajardo

Question #1: In the verse John 1:1


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.". Being honest my friend..
--- May mababasa po ba tayong "Cristo" o "Hesus" o "Anak" sa talatang nabanggit sa taas?

MY ANSWER: I never asserted that “Christ” is mentioned in the verse above. What I am saying is that the identity of the Word is the Son which was revealed in verse 14: “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” 

Question #2: in the last statement of John 1:1 "..and the Word was God..."
--- Was the term God used as a Noun or an Adjective?

MY ANSWER: God is a being, not some kind of description to be called as an adjective. John unequivocally expressed that the Word is a divine being by saying “the Word was God”.

Question #3: Instead of of the following:
"In the beginning was the (Son), and the (Son) was with God, and the (Son) was God." or "In the beginning was the (Jesus Christ), and (Jesus Christ) was with God, and (Jesus-Christ) was God."
--- Why John used the term "Word" in his writings?

MY ANSWER: John used word “Logos” Word from a Jew named Philo and viewed the word as the “mind, image, and shadow of God.” He further qualified the Logos as the creative power of God, an agent in God’s creative work, similar to the Word spoken by God in the Book of Genesis. Somehow, he linked Greek philosophy with Hebrew theology. Interestingly, Philo called the Logos “the Man of God.” 

Moreover, both Philo and John maintained, albeit from different perspectives, that the Logos was the creative power of God (John 1:3). But it was John who established the Logos as God himself (John1:1). It is no coincidence that John re-interpreted Philo’s “Man of God” as the “Man-God” Jesus Christ. Though pagan Greek philosophers gave it varied interpretations, thought, plan, etc. Philo “Hebrewized” the pagan “Logos”, but John “Christianized” it, and gave it a definitive IDENTITY in JESUS CHRIST, the Logos MADE FLESH.

Question #4: As the definition of coexist below:
co•ex•ist (kō′ĭg-zĭst′)
intr.v. co•ex•ist•ed, co•ex•ist•ing, co•ex•ists
1. To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.
--- Do Son (Jesus Christ) coexist by his father?

MY ANSWER: YES, taken from the same passage in John 1:1. “In the beginning was the Word”. The meaning is: that the "Word" (who was later revealed as the Son) had an existence before the world was created. Followed by “the Word was with God” which denotes that the Word exist together with God before the world was created. See John 17:5; "And now, O Father, glorify thou we with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." See also John 1:18; "No man hath seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." See also John 3:13; "The Son of man, which is in heaven." 

Question #5: You posted John 8:54-58 to proved that Christ have pre-existed as God.
--- Do you believed that Abraham saw Jesus Christ as God?
MY ANSWER: The key in understanding what Jesus really meant in that passage is how his listeners reacted and how Christ responded to their reactions.

Christ said: Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
The Jews reacted: “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

Now Jews actually think that Abraham really saw Jesus. What the Jews think could be wrong but we know that they understood Christ correctly by how Jesus answered them

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Here Christ supported the understanding of the Jews to the words of Christ by saying “Very truly I tell you”

Christ did not rebuke them when they were thinking that they Abraham really saw Jesus. Christ would rebuke when people wrong think what Jesus is doing or saying, for example:

Jn 8:48The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritanand demon-possessed?”
49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus,

Question #6: Multiple Choice: in the term "Seeing" and "saw":
--- how can he((Jesus) be seen by Abraham?
A. By eyesight (Personal face to face)
B. Through mind (Vision/Revelation)
C. None of the above. (Please provide the answer)
MY ANSWER: “: Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”

Though this is an unrecorded scene, Christ could not more express that Abraham really saw him by eyesight and not a prophetic vision: “..he saw it and was glad.”


Question #7: in the statement ".. Abraham saw his day.."
--- What is the term HIS DAY referring to?
MY ANSWER: The word “day,” here, is used to denote the time, the appearance, the advent, and the manner of life of the Messiah. Luke 17:26; “as it was in the days of Noah so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.” –Barnes Notes

Question #8: Ginamit mo ang (Mal. 3:1, Isaiah 40:3) para iproved na ang Diyos o Panginoon (Pertaing to God) nga personally ang pinaghanda ng daan ni Juan. Ito bang (Mal. 4:5) na nagsasabi na si Elias na propeta ang ipapadala ng Diyos sa dakilang araw niya.
--- Is it Prophet Elijah who PERSONALLY sent by God before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the lord?

My ANSWER: No, but it was not the person Elijah who will come before the Lord but John the Baptist Luke 1:17 says John "will go before him [the Lord] in the spirit and power of Elijah.".

Question #9: You are using John 17:5 to proved also that Christ pre-existed as God. According to the verse (John 17:5.)
--- Ano yung kaluwalhatian(glory) na sinasabi sa talata na IBINIGAY kay Cristo mula pa noong una?

MY ANSWER: The glory is the fullness of joy and honor that the Father and Son have shared before the world began. A notion of happiness, or everything which could render the condition blessed.- Barnes’ Notes.

You may now proceed to your negative statement of the proposition.


NEGATIVE:

Again thanks to everyone, especially to Riel Lopez, for giving me this opportunity to share my faith. Bilang negatibo sa paksang nakahain, hindi kailangan ng negatibo na magpatunay, bagkus kailangan ng negatibo na suriin ang lahat ng mga bagay na itinatayo ng apirmatibo upang mas maunawa ng marami kung paano ba dapat ito intindihin at magkasundo ang buong banal na kasulatan.

TANDAAN: Hindi dapat labagin ang nasusulat na:

"..for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me," (Isaiah 46:9) 

Pag masdan na ginamit ang singular "I" bilang singular subject pronoun, at singular object pronoun na "me". Which is pertaining to only one entity na siyang nagsasalita sa talata. Hindi tatlo sa isa which is uniplural form. Kaya mali kagad na sabihin na ang Ama at Anak ay co-exist tulad ng sagot ni Riel. Maraming lalabagin sa logic at talata.

JUAN: 1:1c
--- Sa mga talatang nabanggit partikular na sa (Juan 1:1c) aminado ang aking kadiskusyon na walang mababasang "...The Son was God" o "..Jesus Christ was God" sa kahit anong salin nito, maging sa manuskripto ng griego. Ikalawa bakit ko itinatanong sa ating kaibigan kung anong klaseng salita o gamit ang terminong "God" sa "..The Word was God.."? Ito ba ay noun o ito ba ay adjective? Lets analyze:

In the statement "..The Word was God"
The Word = Noun
God = Adjective

Bakit Adjective ang terminong "God"? because, there is no definite article used "The". The term God(adjective) is used to describe the subject the Word(Noun). Bakit importanteng malaman ito? Sapagkat HINDI pala ito sagot sa "the word was (Who)" kundi sagot sa "the word was (what)". Ang terminong "God" sa (Juan 1:1c) ay isang description at hindi name o noun. Kaya pano ito i-tinaranslate ng ibang scholar? tulad ni Dr. James Moffat iniliwat niya ang (John 1:1c) ng "The Word was Divine" o "Godlike". Bakit "Divine"?, sapagka't walang salitang mula sa Dios na di may kapangyarihan (Lucas 1:37). Natural na kung ano ang Diyos ganun din ang kanyang salita kaya "The Word was God(Adjective: Divine or Godlike)". Sa Juan 1:1c lang ba nagkaron ng pagkakataon na maging adjective ang terminong "God"? Hindi, mababasa rin ito sa Genesis 23:6 na kung saan ang terminong "Elohim" sa hebrew na katumbas sa greek na "Theos" bilang God ay isinalin ng mga translator tulad ng KJV na "mighty".

JUAN 1:3
--- Ang (Juan 1:3) ay hindi ko na masyado babalangkasin sapagkat hindi usapan sa paksa kung si Cristo ba ay manlilikha o hindi. Para magbigay ng insight sa talatang ito, hindi sinasabi ng talata na si Cristo ay manlilikha kundi "...ang lahat ng bagay ay nilikha sa pamamagitan niya" (SND). Ang terminong "pamamagitan" o "dia" sa wikang griego ay nangangahulugan rin na "by reason of", to cut it short hindi manlilikha si Cristo kundi si Cristo ang rason kung bakit nilikha ang lahat ng nga bagay. Sapagkat hindi si Cristo ang manlilikha:

"Iyan pa ba ang igaganti ninyo kay Yahweh, Kayong mga haling at mga walang isip? Di ba siya ang Ama ninyong lumikha sa inyo, At gumawa sa inyong isang bansa?" (Deuteronomio 32:6)

Susi sa pagkakaunawa:
- Ama ninyong lumikha sa inyo, HINDI sinabing "..Ama, Anak at Espiritu Santo ninyong lumikha sa inyo.."

JUAN 8:54-58
--- Ito ay hindi rin nangangahulugan na si Cristo ay may kalagayan ng Diyos o tinutukoy na siya ay Diyos, Lets Analyze: 

(1) "..before Abraham was born, I am" 

" Jesus saith to her, 'I AM [he], who am speaking to thee." (John 4:26,YLT), Ano yung sinasabi ni Jesus na I AM?, basahin natin sa ibang salin. The woman said, "I know that THE MESSIAH will come. He is THE ONE WE CALL CHRIST. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." . "I AM THAT ONE," Jesus told her, "and I AM speaking to you now." (John 4:25-26, CEV)

Ang kini-claim pala ni Jesus na "I am", "I am he" at "..I am that one" ay yung parating na Messiah at Kristo na tumutukoy sa kanya, "hindi pala yung pagkakaron ng pre-existence as God tulad ng sinasabi ni Riel. Hindi rin ito naunawa ng mga hudyo na nag-udyok para batuin siya. Ang mga salitang "..before Abraham was born, I am" ay nangangahulugan lamang na bago pa si Abraham (Juan 8:58) bago pa si Juan Bautista(Juan 1:29-30) ay una nang pinili si Cristo "..He was chosen before the creation of the world," (1 Peter 1:20).

(2) "Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw ...”

Sabi po ni Riel "..Abraham really saw him by eyesight", ito po ay mali sapagkat wala pang taong nabubuhay ang nakakita sa Diyos (Exodo 33:20). So ibig sabihin hindi nga yung pre-existence as God ang nakita ni Abraham. Kundi yung muling pagparito ni Cristo na yan ang araw ni Cristo o araw ng wakas (1 Cor 1:7-8).

MALACHI 3:1 AT ISAIAH 40:3
--- Unang una wala tayong mababasa na si Cristo ang nagsasalita sa mga talatang nasa taas. Ikalawa hindi porket ang nakalagay sa talata na ang "Diyos" ang siyang ipaghahanda ng daan, ang Diyos din ang siyang gaganap nito. Tulad ng sinasabi sa propesiya ni Malakias sa (Mal. 4:5) na ipapadala ng Diyos si Elias, aminado si Riel na hindi si Elias ang katuparan nito kundi si Juan Bautista daw, sapagkat ang espiritu ni Elias ay na kay Juan Bautista (Luke 1:17). Ganun din ang Malakias 3:1 at Isaiah 40:3, hindi mismo ang Diyos ang ipinaghanda ng daan ni Juan Bautista kundi si Hesus, sapagkat tulad ni Juan Bautista na may espiritu at kapangyarihan ni Elias , si Hesus ay may Espiritu at kapangyarihan din ng Diyos Ama:

"nang mabautismuhan si Jesus, pagdaka'y umahon sa tubig: at narito, nangabuksan sa kaniya ang mga langit, at nakita niya ang ESPIRITU NG DIYOS na bumababang tulad sa isang kalapati, at LUMAPAG SA KANYA;" (Mateo 3:16 )

Ang (Juan 17:5) ay puedeng maitanong sa akin ng apirmatibo para aking malinaw sapagkat kulang sa word limit.

Thanks!
Joaquin Fajardo

QUESTIONS FROM AFFIRMATIVE:

hank you for sharing giving your insights regarding the pre-existence of Christ and for your patience for waiting for my questions. 

Question #1: If there is an idea in the Bible that God had any pronouncement FROM THE Father he is the only one God, 
like God is saying. “I am God, the Father, the only one God”, where can we found this in the Bible?

Question#2: "..for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me," (Isaiah 46:9) 

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:”- Gen 1:26

We both agree that God is alone, but who are these persons he is referring when he said “LET US”, “OUR IMAGE”, “OUR LIKENESS”. These phrases suggest more than one person is involved during the creation. If God is the Father alone, who is this other person specifically involved during the creation?

Question#3: Since you disagree that the identity of the Word is Christ in John1:1, sino ang Verbo kung hindi si Cristo?

Question #4: Kung hindi existado si Cristo sa hindi pa nilikha ang mundo, sino ang tinutukoy na “SIYA” sa sitas na ito?

“.. at alin man sa lahat ng ginawa ay hindi ginawa kung wala SIYA.” Juan 1:3

Question#5 : ”You said that the Hebrew word “Elohim” which translated “Theos” in greek were also used as an adjective. My question is, is there a Dictionary that can give us a definition of the greek word “theos” which can be used as an adjective?

Question#6: Anong katotohanan ang tinutukoy ni Cristo na sinangayonan niya dito??

“Sinabi sa kanila ni Jesus, Katotohanan, katotohanang sinasabi ko sa inyo,..”

Question#7 : Sa Malachi 3:1 at Isaiah 40:3, ang pagkakakilanlan ba ng ipaghanda ay Dios o Ama?

Question#8 : In parallel to Elijah and John,you said it was prophesize that Elijah will come before the almighty God but it was another person named John who fulfilled the prophecy yet Christ confirmed that Elijah “ ..already came, and they did not recognize him” Matt 17:12
Do you agree that the one who is being prepared by John according to Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is God yet another PERSON? 

Question:#9: If Christ did not pre-exist, how come John said that Christ is before him when the fact is Christ is few months younger than John?

“ ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ – John 1:29-30.”

Question# 10: “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” John 17:5.

How did Christ had the glory with the Father before the world began if he did not exist before the world began?

Thank you in advance for your answers Joaquin Fajardo



ANSWERS FROM NEGATIVE:

QUESTION #1: If there is an idea in the Bible that God had any pronouncement FROM THE Father he is the only one God, like God is saying. “I am God, the Father, the only one God”, where can we found this in the Bible?

Answer:
--- Ang tanong na ito ay panibagong paksa na dapat talakayin bukod dito, sapagkat ng isulat ni Isaiah ang kanyang aklat sa chapter 46:9 na sinasabi ng Diyos na: "..for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me," ay makikita kung ilang "entity" lamang ang nagsasalita dito sa pamamagitan ng pag aaral sa mga terminong ginamit tulad ng "I" and "me" which is denoted to singular pronoun. At kapag singular pronoun ang ginamit tumutukoy lamang ito sa iisang entity na siyang ISANG INDIBIDWAL LAMANG ANG NAGSASALITA. Kaya ang usapin sa Isaiah 46:9 ay hindi sa term na "God" kundi sa mga pronoun na ginamit dito. At kaya kung ang tanong mo ay kung may mababasa bang sinabi ng Ama na "I am God, the Father, the only one God” walang mababasang letra por letra na ganyan kundi esensya meron na yan nga ang Isaiah 46:9 na tumutukoy sa iisang inbidwal na speaker na dapat alamin ng tao kung sino at ito ay titindigan ko na nagpepertina ito sa Ama.

QUESTION#2: "..for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me," (Isaiah 46:9) 

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:”- Gen 1:26

We both agree that God is alone, but who are these persons he is referring when he said “LET US”, “OUR IMAGE”, “OUR LIKENESS”. These phrases suggest more than one person is involved during the creation. If God is the Father alone, who is this other person specifically involved during the creation?

Answer
--- Ang Genesis 1:26 po ay hindi po tumutukoy sa dami ng manlalalang/manlilikha dahil sa mga terminong "us" and "our" kundi ito po ay tumutukoy sa "audience" sa kung sino ba ang kasama ng manlalang jan sa talata na yan. Tandaan natin na ISA LAMANG ang manlalalang ANG DIYOS AMA (Deuteronomio 32:6).

Kung gayon bakit sinabi ng Diyos na "Let us" at "Our image"? sapagkat noon pa man e bago pa ang lahat ng mga bagay ay nalikha na ng Diyos ang kanyang Kerubin at Serafin (Gen. 3:24). At may makikita tayo sa isang senaryo na kapag usaping "us" patungkol sa langit ay tumutukoy ito sa mga Serafin at Kerubin ng Diyos "..Whom shall I send? And who will go for US?” And I said, “Here am I. Send me!" (Isaiah 6:2,6,8). in other statement, ng sabihin ng Diyos na "lalangin natin", katulad lamang ito sa terminong "basahin natin ang nakasulat sa..." madalas ito sabihin ng mga tagapagturo ngunit ang tagapagturo lamang ang nagbabasa sa kung ano ang nakasulat, sapagkat nais niyang magkaron ng partisipasyon ang audience sa kanyang binabasa. At bakit naman "our image", sapagkat kung anong larawan ang Diyos na yan ay ang pagiging banal, ganun din ang larawan ng mga Anghel na kanyang kausap.

QUESTION#3: Since you disagree that the identity of the Word is Christ in John1:1, sino ang Verbo kung hindi si Cristo?

Answer:
--- Tulad nga po ang sagot ko sa taas ang (Juan 1:1c) ay hindi po sagot sa "The Word was (Who)" kundi sagot sa "The Word was (What)" dahil ang terminong God ay adjective at hindi noun, na siyang naging descriptive term para sa terminong "The Word" na siya namang noun. Ang "Verbo" o "Salita" ay walang kalagayan sa panimula, kundi ang "Verbo" o "Salita" ay inuuri pa lamang sa kung anong uri ang Diyos ganun din ang uri ng "Verbo" o "Salita (Basahin ang tindig ko sa taas) na siya namang sumasa Diyos (Juan 1:2)". Sa simpleng sintido kapag nagsalita ang Diyos, hindi nangangahulugan na ang kanyang Salita ay may kalagayan. Kundi ang "Salita" ng Diyos ay inalintulad o inuuri sa kanya. Kaya nga ang depinisyon niyan sa greek dictionary ay "divine utterance" (3056 lógos).

QUESTION #4: Kung hindi existado si Cristo sa hindi pa nilikha ang mundo, sino ang tinutukoy na “SIYA” sa sitas na ito?

“.. at alin man sa lahat ng ginawa ay hindi ginawa kung wala SIYA.” Juan 1:3

Answer:
--- ang terminong "siya" ay HINDI LAMANG nangangahulugan sa isang inbidwal na may existensya sa kalagayan, kundi ginagamit din ito sa mga "inanimate object". Ang termininong "houtos" at "autos" ay mayoridad ng isinasalin bilang "he" and "him" sa wikang english kadalanasan sa v2 at v3 batay sa tinutukoy nito .Pero, ang hindi alam ng marami na ang "houtos" at "autos" ay inililiwat din sa "this" at "it" sa tagalog ay "nito" at "ito" upang tumukoy rin sa inanimate object. Kaya pag masdan natin maige:

“.. at alin man sa lahat ng ginawa ay hindi ginawa kung wala SIYA.” Juan 1:3

Una batay nga sa taas na sagot ko, hindi sa kung (sino) ang tamang tanong sa talata kundi (ano) ang "logos". The Word was (What)?. Kaya i-analisa natin:

Kapag ginamit ang tanong na (Sino): Sino ang tinutukoy na "siya" sa talatang (Juan 1:3) dibat, ang sagot ay yung "Salita/Word/Logos"?!. Nakita niyo na ang mali? Alin ang mali? Ang mali dito sa tanong na ito ay hindi puede gawing tanong ang "sino" sapagkat wala namang kalagayan ang terminong "Salita o Logos" sapagkat ang depinisyon nito e "divine utterance"(#3056) na lumalabas sa bibig ng Diyos. Basahin sa greek ang (Juan 6:60) na kung saan ginamit ang "Logos/Salita", "Houtos" at "autou" na siyang tumutukoy sa inanimate object at hindi sa existensya na mayroong kalagayan. Kaya yung "siya" na tinutukoy sa talatang (Juan 1:3) ay hindi tumutukoy sa may kalagayang inbidwal kundi tumutukoy sa kung "ano" ang salita.

“.. at alin man sa lahat ng ginawa ay hindi ginawa kung wala ITO (Ito o siya = autos ).” (Juan 1:3), kaya bakit tamang isipin na yung "siya" ay katumbas ng "ito"? sapagkat ang pinatutungkulan pala ng terminong "Word o Salita" ay patungkol sa "ano" at hindi patungkol sa kung "sino".
QUESTION#5 : ”You said that the Hebrew word “Elohim” which translated “Theos” in greek were also used as an adjective. My question is, is there a Dictionary that can give us a definition of the greek word “theos” which can be used as an adjective?

--- Answer:
Meron read: (Liddell Scott Lexicon: See image below). Kapag po ang "God" ay hinanap bilang adjective sa mga diksyonaryo ang termino po nito ay nababago rin bilang "Divine", bakit po sapagkat batay sa pag aaral, idinedeklarang adjective ang isang statement dipende sa grammatical construction of the phrase (An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, by CFD Moule). Kapag daw ang artikulong "Theos" ay walang "Ho" at may kasamasang noun, ang "Theos" ay nagpepertina din as adjective.

QUESTION#6: Anong katotohanan ang tinutukoy ni Cristo na sinangayonan niya dito??

“Sinabi sa kanila ni Jesus, Katotohanan, katotohanang sinasabi ko sa inyo,..”

--- Answer:
Ang sinasabi po ni Hesus jan na "katotohanan, katotohanang.." ay ang mga salita ng Diyos:

"Pakabanalin mo sila sa pamamagitan ng iyong katotohanan. Ang iyong salita ay katotohanan." (Juan 17:17, SND)

QUESTION#7 : Sa Malachi 3:1 at Isaiah 40:3, ang pagkakakilanlan ba ng ipaghanda ay Dios o Ama?

--- Answer:
Tama, sapagkat kung paano pinaghanda ni Juan ng daan si Hesus na sinugo ng Ama, ang pinaghanda niya ng daan ay ang Diyos Ama na nagsugo kay Hesus. Sapagkat kung sino man ang tumatanggap sa kanyang sinugo(Hesus), ay tinatanggap ang Ama na siyang nagsugo:

"Katotohanan, katotohanang sinasabi ko sa inyo: Ang tumatanggap sa sinumang susuguin ko ay tumatanggap sa akin. Ang tumatanggap sa akin ay tumatanggap sa kaniya na nagsugo sa akin." (Juan 13:20)

QUESTION#8 : In parallel to Elijah and John,you said it was prophesize that Elijah will come before the almighty God but it was another person named John who fulfilled the prophecy yet Christ confirmed that Elijah “ ..already came, and they did not recognize him” 

Matt 17:12
Do you agree that the one who is being prepared by John according to Malachi 3:1 and Isaiah 40:3 is God yet another PERSON? 

--- Answer:
Syempre hindi, ipinaliwanag ko na sa taas e. Tignan mo sayo ah, hindi inamin ni Juan na yung Elias na binabanggit ay siya:

At sa kaniya'y kanilang itinanong, Kung gayo'y ano nga? Ikaw baga'y si Elias? At sinabi niya, Hindi ako. Ikaw baga ang propeta? At siya'y sumagot, Hindi. (Juan 1:21)

E bakit kamo? sapagkat hindi naman talaga siya yung MISMO na si Elias ang tinutukoy, kundi yung espiritu at kapangyarihan ni Elias ay nasa kanya lamang (Luke 1:17). Ganyan din yung kay Hesus na tinalakay ko na po sa taas.

QUESTION:#9: If Christ did not pre-exist, how come John said that Christ is before him when the fact is Christ is few months younger than John?

“ ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ – John 1:29-30.”

--- Answer:
Sinagot ko na po ito sa taas ng sabihin ni Juan "..he was before me." ay hindi nangangahulugan as pre-existence God. Kundi nangangahulugan na naunang pinili si Cristo sa lahat ng bagay (1 Peter 1:20). Natural lang pala na sabihin ni Juan at Abraham na "..he was before me." sapagkat si Cristo pala ang kauna unahan sa lahat ng mga nilalang na pinili, kaya rin pala ".. the firstborn over all creation." (Col. 1:15). So dito palang lumalabas na mali nanaman si Riel pano naging co-exist ang Ama at Anak kung creation lang pala si Cristo. Yan ang sinasabi ko mga trinitarian na yan.

QUESTION# 10: “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” John 17:5.

How did Christ had the glory with the Father before the world began if he did not exist before the world began?

--- Answer:
Sa katotohanan totoo namang nakalaan na kay Hesus ang glory na tinutukoy jan bago pa lalangin ang lahat ng mga bagay. Pero tinamo niya ba ito by his existence as God? Mali. Sapagkat ano ba yung "Glory o kaluwalhatin" na ibinigay kay Cristo, na buhat ng pasimula ay maluwalhati na? Read (Juan 17:2)

John 17:2
"Kung paanong BINIGYAN mo siya ng KAPAMAHALAAN sa lahat ng tao..."

Kapamahalaan pala yun. Ang titulo ng pamumuno. Yun yung Pangalang CRISTO na ibig sabihin ay THE ANOINTED ONE. Nandun na yung TITULO na hinihintay ang pagkapanganak ng PAGLALAPATAN na si JESUS. Kaya pala, "kaluwalhatiang aking tinamo sa iyo bago ang sanglibutan ay naging gayon.". Hindi masamang sabihin ni Hesus na kahit wala pa siyang existencia ay natamo niya na ang kaluwalhatian na yun sapagkat noon palang pala e nakaplano ito ukol sa kanya, yan yung "name" o "pangalan" yan yung maluwalhati na ng una. 

"He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and HIS NAME IS THE WORD OF GOD." - (Rev. 19:13)

Yan yung pangalang "Cristo" na namana niya sa Diyos (Heb. 1:4), yung kapamahalaan at titulo pala ang may pre-existence hindi yung kalagayan. Kaya tama lang naman din na sabihin ni Hesus na TINAMO nya na yung Kaluwalhatian na yun dahil IPINANGANAK na sya nung panahong SABIHIN nya yang nasa (Juan 17:5). 

E baka sabihin ni Riel na hindi yung "pangalan" ang maluwalhati kundi yung kanyang kalagayan bilang Diyos, pakibasa ang (Isaiah 43:7)