ANG PAGBABAWAL BA UKOL SA PAGKAIN NG DUGO AY NAGPATULOY HANGGANG SA PANAHONG CRISTIANO?

Ang mga kumakain ng dugo o ng dinuguan ay gumagamit din ng mga talata ng Biblia para ipakitang may batayan din ang kanilang ginagawa. Ang dalawa sa mga talatang ito ay ang I Corinto 10:25 at Lucas 10:8. Tama ba ang kanilang pagkaunawa sa mga talatang ito? Mabuti ay suriin natin ang mga nilalaman ng mga talatang ito:

25 LAHAT ng ipinagbibili sa pamilihan ay KANIN NINYO, at huwag kayong magsipagtanong ng ano man dahilan sa budhi (1 Corinto 10:25).

8 At sa alin mang bayan na iyong pasukin, at kayo'y kanilang tanggapin, ay kanin ninyo ang mga bagay na ihain sa inyo: (Lucas 10:8).

Hindi natin tinututulan ang mga nakasulat sa I Corinto 10:25 at Lucas 10:8. Ang tinututulan natin ay ang maling aplikasyon at pakahulugan sa mga talatang ito. Mapapansin na walang binabanggit sa mga talatang ito na may direktang tagubilin si Cristo at si Apostol Pablo na kanin ang dugo. May nabasa ba tayong terminong “dugo” sa mga talatang ginagamit nila? Wala.

Kaya ang mga gumagamit ng mga talatang ito ay nagdaragdag sa nakasulat na ito ay bawal ng Diyos ayon sa 1 Corinto 4:6 na ang tagubilin ni Apostol Pablo ay:
“ . . . huwag magsihigit sa mga bagay na nangasusulat; upang ang sinoman sa inyo ay huwag magpalalo ang isa laban sa iba” (1 Corinto 4:6).

Ano ang tinutukoy ng salitang LAHAT sa banggit sa 1 Corinto 10:25 na “LAHAT ng ipinagbibili sa pamilihan ay kanin ninyo?” LAHAT NG IPINAGBIBILI NA PAGKAIN, sapagkat hindi naman lahat ng nabibili sa palengke ay pagkain!

Halimbawa, ang muriatic acid ay ipinagbibili din sa pamilihan pero pagkain ba ito? Hindi, ito ay lason. Kakainin mo ba o iinumin mo ba ang muriatic acid dahil sa ipinagbibili ito sa palengke? Ang totoo, kahit nga pagkain pa, pero kapag EXPIRED na o PANIS na ay hindi mo na rin kakainin dahil sa masisira ang tiyan mo, baka malason ka pa at baka madala ka pa sa hospital at kung hindi ka maagapan, gaya ng nangyari sa iba, ay baka mamatay ka pa! Kaya mag-ingat ka sa pagbili mo ng pagkain sa palengke, baka ang mabili mo ay PANIS. Tiyakin mo na talagang ang mabibili mo sa palengke upang kanin ay PAGKAIN.

ANG DUGO BA AY PAGKAIN?

Ang sagot ay HINDI. Ano ang katunayang ang DUGO ay HINDI pagkain? Ang sabi ng Diyos:

“Ngunit ang lamang may buhay, na siya niyang dugo, ay huwag ninyong kakanin” (Genesis 9:4).

Kung ang dugo ay pagkain, bakit hindi ito ipinakakain? Alin ang pagkain? Ang sabi ng Diyos ay ang mga ito ang makakain:

2 At ang takot sa inyo at sindak sa inyo ay mapapasa bawa't hayop sa lupa, at sa bawa't ibon sa himpapawid; lahat ng umuusad sa lupa, at lahat ng isda sa dagat, ay ibinibigay sa inyong kamay. 3 Bawa't gumagalaw na nabubuhay ay magiging pagkain ninyo; gaya ng mga sariwang pananim na lahat ay ibinibigay ko sa inyo (Genesis 9:2-3).

Ang dugo ba ay kasama sa mga ibinigay na pagkain? Sa kasunod na talata ay sinabi ng Diyos: Ngunit ang lamang may buhay, na siya niyang dugo, ay huwag ninyong kakanin (Genesis 9:4).

Kaya ang DUGO ay hindi ipinakakain kahit ito ay nakakain. Ang dugo ay hindi pagkain. Ano pa ang katunayang ang DUGO ay hindi pagkain, kahit na ito ay makakain? Iniutos din sa mga Israelita na:

“Kaya’t aking sinabi sa mga anak ni Israel, Sinoman sa inyo ay huwag kakain ng dugo, ni ang taga ibang bayan na nakikipamayan sa inyo ay huwag kakain ng dugo” (Levitico 17:12).

Ano ang dapat na gawin sa dugo dahil sa ito ay hindi pagkain kahit na ito pa ay nakakain?

“Gayon ma'y makapapatay ka at makakakain ka ng karne sa loob ng lahat ng iyong mga pintuang-daan, ayon sa buong nasa ng iyong kaluluwa, ayon sa pagpapala ng Panginoon mong Dios na kaniyang ibinigay sa iyo: ang marumi at ang malinis ay makakakain niyaon, gaya ng maliit na usa, at gaya ng malaking usa. Huwag lamang ninyong kakanin ang dugo; iyong ibubuhos sa lupa na parang tubig (Deuteronomio 12:15-16).

Ang utos ay IBUHOS sa lupa, hindi sinabing "ibuhos mo sa kaserola, dagdagan mo ng bigas, bawang, paminta, sibuyas at iba pa, pagkatapos ay iluto mo at kanin."

Kaya nang nilabag ng mga Israelita ang utos ukol sa pagbabawal ng pagkain ng dugo, ano ang kanilang nagawa sa harap ng Diyos? Paglililo o pagtataksil (1 Samuel 14:32-33).

32 At ang bayan ay dumaluhong sa samsam, at kumuha ng mga tupa, at mga baka, at mga guyang baka, at mga pinatay sa lupa: at kinain ng bayan pati ng dugo. 33 Nang magkagayo'y kanilang isinaysay kay Saul, na sinasabi, Narito, ang bayan ay nagkakasala laban sa Panginoon, sa kanilang pagkain ng dugo. At kaniyang sinabi, Kayo'y gumawang may paglililo: inyong igulong ang isang malaking bato sa akin sa araw na ito.

Sa Bibliang isinalin ng mga scholars na Katoliko at Protestante, ang kahulugan ng “paglililo” ay “malaking kataksilan.”

33 May nagsumbong kay Saul na ang mga tao'y gumagawa ng malaking kasalanan kay Yahweh - kumakain ng karneng may dugo. "Ito'y isang malaking kataksilan! sigaw ni Saul” (Magandang Balita Biblia).

Kaya nagtataksil sa Diyos ang mga kumakain ng dugo!

Ano naman ang ginagawa ng mga kumakain ng dugo para huwag silang mapagbintangan na nagtataksil sa Diyos? BINABRASO, o PINILIPILIT o BINABALUKTOK ng mga kumakain ng dugo ang mga talatang Lucas 10:8 at I Corinto 10:25 para i-justify ang kanilang paggawa ng malaking kataksilan sa Diyos kapag sila ay kumakain ng dugo! Kahit wala silang nabasa sa mga talatang ito na maaari nang kanin ang dugo ay pilit nila itong pinangangatuwiranan.

Ang “burden of proof” ay nasa mga nagsasabing puede nang kainin ang dugo. Saang talata sa Biblia, letra por letra, na ipinag-utos ng Diyos na “kanin ang dugo”? Bakit ang nakikita natin, sa halip na ipag-utos na kanin ang dugo, ay puro pagbabawal ng pagkain nito ang siyang nababasa natin sa Biblia?

Kahit sa panahong Cristiano ay ipinagpatuloy ng Diyos ang pagbabawal ng pagkain ng dugo. Kaya, nang magkaroon ng usapin ang mga unang Cristiano ukol sa mga Gentil ay kasama sa mga iniutos sa mga mananampalatayang Gentil na:

19 Dahil dito'y ang hatol ko, ay huwag nating gambalain yaong sa mga Gentil ay nangagbabalik-loob sa Dios; 20 Kundi sumulat tayo sa kanila, na sila'y magsilayo sa mga ikahahawa sa diosdiosan, at sa pakikiapid, at sa binigti, at sa dugo. 28 Sapagka't minagaling ng Espiritu Santo, at namin, na huwag kayong atangan ng lalong mabigat na pasanin maliban sa mga bagay na ito na kinakailangan: 29 Na kayo'y magsiilag sa mga bagay na inihain sa mga diosdiosan, at sa dugo, at sa mga binigti, at sa pakikiapid; kung kayo'y mangilag sa mga bagay na ito, ay ikabubuti ninyo (Gawa 15:19-20, 28-29).

Paano nila pinipilipit ang utos na magsilayo o magsi-ilag sa dugo para palitawin na maaari na raw kainin ang dugo? Ganito ang naging paliwanag nila:

Ayon po sa Strong's Greek Dictionary, ang ibig sabihin ng "Apechomai" ay 1) to hold one's self off 2) refrain 3) abstain, Sa tagalog ay 1) PIGILAN ANG SARILI 2) TUMIGIL MUNA 3) UMIWAS, Kaya pasensya na po hindi po "Bawal" ang nakasulat doon.

Ang ibinigay niyang meaning ng “abstain” sa Tagalog ay “umiwas” kaya hindi raw “bawal” ang nakasulat sa talata. Ang kaniyang conclusion: hindi bawal ang pagkain ng dugo. Really? Sundan natin ang kaniyang argumento:

Ang terminong “magsiilag” sa talatang 20 ay “abstain” sa Bibliang English. Hindi tayo tutol na ang isa sa kahulugan ng APECHOMAI, na siyang root word ng terminong Greek na APECHESTAI (“they abstain”) ay ABSTAIN, subalit tama ba ang kaniyang pagkaunawa ukol sa kahulugan ng pag-“abstain” o “pag-iwas”?

Abstain means “to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action of practice” (Webster’s Dictionary).

Kapag sinabing “abstain” o “umiwas” ay may kasamang “self-denial from an action or practice.” Kapag sinabing “abstain from drinking” – hindi ka iinom (ng alak), kapag sinabing “abstain from meat” – hindi ka kakain ng karne.

Kaya ang mga kaibigan nating Katoliko, kapag Biyernes Santo, ay hindi kumakain ng karne dahil ang ikalawang utos ng Iglesia Katolika ay “abstain from meat.” Kaya kapag sinabing “umiwas” ka sa karne, ay “huwag kang kakain ng karne.”

On the side note, ang nakakatawag ng pansin dito ay ang ipinagagawa ng mga paring Katoliko sa kanilang mga kaanib, na kung ano ang utos ng Diyos ay siya namang nilalabag. Ang utos ng Diyos ay maliwanag: “makakakain ka ng karne” at “huwag lamang ninyong kakanin ang dugo” (Deuteronomio 12:15-16). Binaligtad ito ng mga tagapagturong Katoliko. Kapag Biyernes Santo, ang utos sa mga Katoliko ay “huwag kang kumain ng karne” at “ang kainin mo ay ang dugo.” Baligtad ang ginagawa nila, kinokontra nila ang Diyos!

Kaya ipinag-utos ni Apostol Santiago sa mga Hentil na nag-Iglesia ni Cristo na huwag silang kumain ng dugo. Kaya, Hentil man o Hudyo, basta Iglesia Ni Cristo, ay bawal ang pagkain ng dugo.

Ano ang katunayang ang mga Hentil sa panahon ng mga apostol ay mga Iglesia Ni Cristo at hindi sila Katoliko? Ang sabi ni Apostol Pablo ay:

“At ito ang lihim: sa pamamagitan ng Mabuting Balita, ang mga Hentil, tulad ng mga Judio, ay may bahagi sa mga pagpapalang mula sa Diyos; mga bahagi rin sila ng iisang katawan at kahati sa pangako ng Diyos dahil kay Cristo Jesus” (Efeso 3:6 MB).

Pansinin na ang mga Hentil, kasama ng mga Judio, ay “mga bahagi rin ng iisang katawan.” Alin ang iisang katawan? Ayon sa Colosas 1:18, ang Iglesia ay katawan ni Cristo na si Cristo ang Pangulo. Kaya, nang binati ni Apostol Pablo ang mga kapatid na mga Hentil, ano ang pangalan ng Iglesiang kinabibilangan nila? Ganito ang kaniyang pahayag sa Roma 16:16 MB:

Magbatian kayo bilang magkakapatid kay Cristo. Binabati kayo ng lahat ng mga iglesya ni Cristo.

Ang mga sinulatan ni Apostol Pablo na mga taga-Roma ay mga Gentil (Roma 11:13) na mga tinawag ng Diyos (Roma 9:24) sa Iglesia (Colosas 3:15; 1:18) sa pamamagitan ng pangangaral ng ebanghelyo (2 Tesalonica 2:14), kaya ang mga Cristiano na taga Roma sa panahon ng mga apostol ay mga Iglesia Ni Cristo at hindi mga Katoliko gaya ng paniniwala ng iba.

Sa kabilang dako, ang terminong katholikos ay isang Greek term na ang kahulugan ay “universal.” Hindi mula sa Biblia ang pangalang ito kungdi ito ay inimbento ni Ignacio, isang Obispo sa Antioquia (Syria), noong 110 A.D. (matagal nang patay ang mga apostol, tapos na ring nasulat ang Biblia). Ang mga nagpapakilalang Cristiano noon pagkatapos ng panahon ng mga apostol ay tinawag na mga Katoliko.

Bakit kaya puede sa mga kaibigan nating Katoliko ang pagkain ng dugo samantalang ipinagbabawal ito ng Diyos? Ano ang sinasabi ng mga Catholic scholars ukol sa pagbabawal ng pagkain ng dugo? Ayon sa mga Catholic translators ng Douay-Rheim, sa footnote ng Acts 15:29 ay ganito ang kanilang paliwanag:

But this prohibition was but temporary, and has long since ceased to oblige; more especially in the western churches.Ano ba ang mga western churches?

WESTERN CHURCH
1. (Roman Catholic Church) the part of Christendom that derives its liturgy, discipline, and traditions principally from the patriarchate of Rome.
2. (Roman Catholic Church) the Roman Catholic Church, sometimes together with the Anglican Communion of Churches (thefreedictionary.com).

Ang Iglesia Katolika sa Pilipinas ay bahagi ng Roman Catholic Church na bahagi ng Western Churches. Sila pala ang nagpatigil ng pagbabawal ng pagkain ng dugo. Subalit sa Biblia ay wala tayong mababasa na ipinatigil ng mga Apostol ang pagbabawal ng pagkain ng dugo.

Hindi ba totoo na pinayagan na ng Diyos na kanin ang dugo ayon sa Gawa 10:10-16?

10At siya'y nagutom at nagnais kumain: datapuwa't samantalang nangaghahanda sila, ay nawalan siya ng diwa; 11At nakita niyang bukas ang langit, at may isang sisidlang, bumababa, gaya ng isang malapad na kumot, na nakabitin sa apat na panulok na bumababa sa lupa: 12Na doo'y naroroon ang lahat ng uri ng mga hayop na may apat na paa at ang mga nagsisigapang sa lupa at ang mga ibon sa langit. 13At dumating sa kaniya ang isang tinig, Magtindig ka, Pedro; magpatay ka at kumain. 14Datapuwa't sinabi ni Pedro, Hindi maaari, Panginoon; sapagka't kailan ma'y hindi ako kumain ng anomang bagay na marumi at karumaldumal. 15At muling dumating sa kaniya ang tinig sa ikalawa, Ang nilinis ng Dios, ay huwag mong ipalagay na marumi. 16At ito'y nangyaring makaitlo: at pagdaka'y binatak sa langit ang sisidlan.

Ang nasa Gawa Kapitulo 10:10-16 ay hindi dugo ang pinag-uusapan kungdi ang mga hayop, ang mga nagsisigapang at ang mga ibon na itinuturing noon na marumi kaya ayaw kainin ni Apostol Pedro. Ang sabi ng Diyos ay: “ang nilinis ay huwag mong ipalagay na marumi.”

Pansinin na ang tinutulan ni Apostol Pedro ay ang pagkain ng mga hayop, ng mga gumagapang at ng mga ibon, na marumi. Hindi ang tinututulan niya ay ang pagkain ng dugo. Ang mga hayop na noon ay marumi ay nilinis na ng Diyos kaya maaari nang kainin. Walang sinabi ang Diyos kay Apostol Pedro na maaari na niyang kanin ang dugo.

Ano ang katunayang ipinagpatuloy ng Diyos ang pagbabawal ng pagkain ng dugo sa panahong Christiano? Pansinin ang ibinigay ni Apostol Santiago na tagubilin sa harap nina Apostol Pedro, Pablo, Bernabe at mga matatanda sa Iglesia ukol sa mga Gentil :

“Kundi sumulat tayo sa kanila, na sila'y magsilayo sa mga ikahahawa sa diosdiosan, at sa pakikiapid, at sa binigti, at sa dugo.”

Tandaan na kasama si Apostol Pablo sa mga bumalik sa mga Gentil sa Antioquia para basahin ang sulat na ipinadala sa kanila ni Apostol Santiago. Nang sila ay nasa Antioquia na ay binasa nila ang sulat sa harap ng mga Gentil at ito ay ikinagalak nila (Gawa 15:30-31).

Si Apostol Pablo mismo ang nagbilin sa Gawa 21:25 na “Nguni't tungkol sa mga Gentil na nagsisisampalataya, ay sinulatan namin, na pinagpayuhang sila'y magsiilag sa mga inihain sa mga diosdiosan, at sa dugo, at sa binigti, at sa pakikiapid.”

Kaya, ang ibinilin ni Apostol Pablo sa mga Gentil sa Corinto na “LAHAT ng ipinagbibili sa pamilihan ay kanin ninyo,” ang tinutukoy niya ay ang lahat ng mga pagkain, na alam nating hindi kasama dito ang dugo. Alam niyang ipinagbawal sa mga Gentil ang pagkain ng dugo at siya mismo ang nagtagubilin sa kanila ukol dito kaya hindi siya ang unang kokontra sa kaniyang sarili. Hindi si Apostol Pablo ang uri ng ministro na susuway sa utos na ito ng Diyos para sa lahat ng mga tao lalo na sa mga Iglesia Ni Cristo.

Kaya hindi tayo nagtataka kung ang mga kaibigan nating mga Katoliko ay kumakain ng dugo dahil sa ang karamihan ay hindi naman nila nalalaman o nauunawaan na ito ay ipinagbabawal ng Diyos. Sikapin natin silang maanyayahan na dumalo sa ating International Evangelical Mission sa Septenmber 26, 2015 upang magkaroon sila ng pagkakataon na marinig ang mga dalisay na aral ng Diyos na ituturo ng ating Tagapamahalang Pangkalahatan, ang Kapatid na EDUARDO V. MANALO. Nawa ay patuloy tayong tulungan ng Diyos para lalong magningning ang Kaniyang katuwiran sapagkat Siya ang may nais na lahat ng mga tao ay makaalam ng katotohanan at maligtas (1 Timoteo 2:3-4). (2023)

THE TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION: TRUTH OR FALLACY?

One of the most misunderstood teachings believed in by the Iglesia Ni Cristo is about the true state of being of Christ. To us, the Lord Jesus Christ is a man (Acts 2:36, 22). People who are not familiar with what we believe about him would react negatively and would easily, without hesitation, classify us as antichrists, even without giving us the chance and opportunity to explain why we believe so. Some have even gone to the point of accusing us that we belittle or denigrate the Lord Jesus Christ because of what we believe about Him.

However, those who gave themselves the chance to ask the reason why the Iglesia Ni Cristo believes such doctrine eventually became members and were strong advocates of the scriptural teaching that Christ is not God. Upon learning the biblical answers to their questions, it became apparent to them that the Iglesia Ni Cristo is correct in believing that Christ is not God.

I made a survey of converts who were formerly Catholics and Protestants when I was assigned in the local congregation of San Francisco, California in 1988. Nine out of ten respondents told me that one of the major doctrines which convinced them to change their religion is the teaching about the true nature of Christ. Although they found it hard to believe that Christ is not God, however, through the biblical evidence that were presented to them by the ministers of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, they were ultimately convinced that their prior belief in Christ was clearly mistaken.

The frequently asked questions are: “why don’t you believe in the Trinity? Why do you believe that Christ is a man?”

The answers to these questions is from Christ himself, as it is written in the book of John wherein it is stated:

40 I am a man who has told you the truth which I heard from God, but you are trying to kill me. Abraham did nothing like that ((John 8:40, NCV).

After we read from the Bible the testimony of Christ about himself that he is a man, many were surprised with this revelation. It was a shocking surprise to some when they learned what Christ taught about himself. They were unaware that Christ introduced himself as a man!

It comes as a surprise since they were told from their early childhood that Christ is God. In fact, Catholics learned about this during their catechism classes and Protestants learned it during their Sunday schools. They did not know that the Bible does not say anything about the so-called divinity of Christ. They were simply told that he is God. It was during the time that they came to the bible study that they learned about Ignatius, a Catholic bishop of Antioch (c. 110 A.D.), was the first one to introduce this unbiblical teaching. Later on, the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. made it as an article of faith – that Jesus is truly God (Apostle’s Creed, p. 206).

However, the apostles who succeeded the Lord Jesus Christ continued to teach the doctrine that Christ is a man. We quote below the genuine apostolic teachings about Christ’s true nature:

“People of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus from Nazareth was a very special man. God clearly showed this to you by the miracles, wonders, and signs he did through Jesus. You all know this because it happened right here among you” (Acts 2:22 NCV).

“For there is only one God and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity—the man Christ Jesus” (1st Timothy 2:5 NLT).

Apostle Peter says that Jesus is a very special man. Apostle Paul teaches that Christ is a man. They both learned this truth from Christ who said that he is a man.

The statements of the two apostles run contrary to what the Council of Nicea had formulated about Christ. The creed which was ratified in the fourth century states that Christ is true God from true God. You could notice the direct contrast between the apostolic teaching and the Nicene Creed. The apostles said that Christ is a man, not an ordinary man, but a very special man. Apostle Paul taught that Christ is the one Mediator between God and man, and He is truly human. On the other hand, the creed says that Christ is God from God, true God from true God.

It should be clear to everyone interested in this subject that Christ never said that he is God. If he were God, he could have said so when he was still here on earth. However, not only that he did not issue such statement, but he emphatically proclaimed that he is a man telling the truth which he heard from God. So there is a God from whom he heard the truth. Why would he say that he heard it from God if he were that same God?

So, why is Christ not God? It is because the Bible says that God is not a man and man is not God. God’s nature is different from that of man. God is a spirit, a being without flesh and bones. Christ, being a man, has flesh and bones. Take note of his pronouncements about God and about himself in his own words:

“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24 KJV).

“Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have” (Luke 24:39).

Christ testified that God is a Spirit while he has flesh and bones. Therefore, since Christ is not a spirit, he is not God.

As presented in the Bible, God, is enormously different from Christ. The pronouncement in Numbers 23:19 is a stark contrast to the pronouncement of Christ in John 9:35-37.

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind” (Numbers 23:19 ESV).

35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” 36 He answered, “And who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?” 37 Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and it is he who is speaking to you” (John 9:35-37 ESV).

God is not man nor a son of man. Jesus said that he is a son of man, therefore, Jesus is not God.

To counter this argument, Catholic and Protestant apologists would cite the so-called Incarnation of God. Incarnation is a concept that is supposed to mean that God took a human form in the person of Jesus and is intimately connected with the Trinity doctrine. While the doctrine of the Trinity postulates that in one God there are three distinct, divine persons in one godhead – or three beings sharing one nature, on the other hand, the doctrine of incarnation reverses the order by saying that that there are two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ, a doctrine technically called as THE HYPOSTATIC UNION. It is important to understand the formulation of this doctrine since it became the foundation of the Trinity doctrine.

Formulation of the concept

Two of the earliest leading proponents of the so-called incarnation of God were Tertullian (c. 169-230) and Origen (c. 185-254), considered as Church Fathers by the Catholic Church. Their ideas were highly considered when the doctrine of the hypostatic union was formulated into a creed in Chalcedon in 451.

Tertullian, in his work On the Flesh of Christ, says, “Thus the nature of the two substances displayed Him as man and God ... this property of the two states – the divine and the human – is distinctly asserted with equal truth of both natures alike ... The powers of the Spirit proved Him to be God, His sufferings attested the flesh of man” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, p. 525).

Origen, in his De Principiis, writes, “Secondly, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came (into the world), was born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the servant of the Father in the creation of all things – ‘For by Him were all things made’ - He in the last times, divesting Himself (of His glory), became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 240).

Both Tertullian and Origen claimed that Christ had dual nature - He is both man and God. This position had made a significant contribution to the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. It can be recalled that it was the Council of Nicea that declared that Jesus Christ is “true God and true man, true God from true God, begotten, not made.” Although unbiblical and incomprehensible, the belief that a true God would come from another God was favored by the more than 250 bishops, was formulated into a creed, and is now believed to be divinely inspired!

In the absence of clear and explicit biblical evidence, such a confounding and absurd doctrine had to rely on faulty inferences. Biblical verses were stretched in the attempt to prove that Jesus is both God and man. In spite of hundreds of years trying to refine it, the incongruity and incoherence still persist, with no lucid and explicit biblical pronouncements to back up the claim.

A complete absurdity

In the light of the Scriptures, one can clearly see the implausibility and the palpable absurdity of the position. The doctrine of Incarnation could not be proven as biblical because it contradicts the teachings of the Bible concerning the attributes of the true God. The Bible teaches that God is immutable, meaning He does not change. Take note of two biblical pronouncements which support this doctrine.

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God (Psalms 90:2).

I am the Lord, and I do not change; and you, children of Jacob, have not perished (Malachi 3:6 CEB).

Even in the New Testament, the apostles continued to uphold the doctrine that God is unchanging or He remains the same in the letter of James. He testified that:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning (James 1:17).

So, if Jesus is not God, who is the only one true God? Jesus didactically and emphatically taught about this while uttering his prayer:

“ ... '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’” (Jn. 17:1, 3, TEV) (emphasis mine).

Jesus taught through his prayer that the Father is the “only” true God. If there is only one true God and He is the Father, then the Trinity doctrine is nullified by this teaching of Christ. Jesus is not a Trinitarian. He never taught that there are three persons in one God.

The Bible records several instances of Jesus praying to the Father, showing to his disciples that like them, he is a man who needs help from God. The Apostle Paul testified, thus:

“In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety” (Hebrews 5:7 NASB).

If it were true that Jesus is both God and man, then his prayer would be nothing less than superficial. It would appear that he was praying to himself, which is truly an inconsistency. And why would Jesus, if he were the same God as the One to whom he was praying, pray to himself? The truth is, Jesus’ prayer is an expression of His dependence on the one God who can save him from death.

The doctrine of the hypostatic union is a matter of prejudice and manifestly absurd because it creates a distorted view about Jesus. Like a jigsaw puzzle whose missing parts could not be found, the arbitrary and convoluted ideas presented to defend it are nowhere to be found in the Scriptures. Its assumptions are inconsistent with the true knowledge about Jesus as presented in the Bible. Take for instance the case when at one point, Jesus acknowledged that:

“But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone” (Mk. 13:32, Ibid.).

Clearly, Christ is telling us he is not omniscient. Unlike God, Christ does not know the exact day and the hour of his Second Coming. And since Christ is not omniscient, then it appears that if he were God, he could only be so in an inferior and subordinate sense, a clear and gross inconsistency with the alleged equality between the Father and the Son. The verse clearly points to the supremacy of the Father as the Omniscient and the only true God since He alone knows the day and the hour of His Son’s coming.

If it were true that Jesus was God while he was still here on earth and an omnipotent one, how could we reconcile such claim to Christ’s admission in John 14:28 that “... My Father is greater than I”?

Such teaching is consistent with Paul's teaching that “. . . Christ is supreme over every man, the husband is supreme over his wife, and God is supreme over Christ” (1st Corinthians 11:3, TEV). Why would Paul issue such a statement if it were true that [the] God who is supreme over Christ is Jesus himself in a form of a man on earth? Such an inconsistency has left us with no option at all but to treat the doctrine of hypostatic union as a riddle devoid of a solution.

Pushed to the limits, hypostatic union defenders argue that the statement issued by Jesus while he was still on earth should not be construed as utterances by God since they contend that whatever Jesus said or did on earth, he did it as a man. However, after his resurrection, he allegedly came back to his former nature as God. This is short of saying that as a man, Jesus’ words should not be regarded as true but a statement of someone who had perjured himself.

Should we not give credence to his words because they were uttered by a man who has physically existed on earth? Christ himself confirmed that His words are true. Here's what he said:

But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God” (John 8:40, NASB).

Granting, without conceding, that Christ was speaking as a man, does it make his statements false? Who could dispute his statement that he is a man telling the truth? Everything that Jesus taught his disciples and was documented in the New Testament is the truth which he heard from God. Will God tell him things that are untrue? Jesus never lied. As Peter testified, “He committed no sin, and no one ever heard a lie come from his lips” (1st Peter 2:22, TEV).

After Christ's resurrection, He was mistakenly thought of as a spirit (Lk. 24:36-37). That event would have been an opportunity and a perfect timing for him to expose his true nature. He could have told his disciples the magic words that hypostatic union believers would love to hear; what really what they think he was; that, although he was covered with flesh, he is the same unseen God whom they serve and worship.

However, quite the contrary, what Jesus exposed at that time was the glaring truth that he is different from God. In an unequivocal statement, Christ declared that He is a human being with flesh and bones; not a spirit, therefore, not God (John 4:24). Jesus also told them after His resurrection that “I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God” (John 20:17).

Wouldn’t it be incomprehensible then to accept the position that Christ did not reveal himself yet as God before his resurrection but identified himself as such after he arose from the dead? The statements: “My Father,” “My God,” which were constantly and repeatedly uttered by Jesus while he was still on earth even before his resurrection, reverberated once more after his resurrection.
And once more, at this time that he was talking to Mary, he told her to relay the same message to his brothers: that he was ascending to his God, their God. There was no hint whatsoever that the disciples thought differently, or that Jesus would be ascending to himself!

Incarnation is grossly unbiblical

If we would believe in Jesus the way his early disciples did, we would not be committing serious mistakes fatally committed by those who formulated the doctrine of the hypostatic union in Chalcedon. The “hypostatic union” which was developed without a clear definition of how God could have become man, has so many serious flaws that made it illogical and unacceptable.

Is it true that Christ took another form after His resurrection? No. After His resurrection, Jesus did not change His nature. He was – and is – a man. Apostle Peter, during the day of Pentecost declared:

“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know” (Acts 2:22, NASB).

Apostle Paul, who was called by Jesus when He was already in heaven, testified that, “. . . there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5, King James Version).

Obviously, if Christ had indeed converted to his alleged former state or condition, that is, of being God in heaven, then Paul would have said otherwise that “the Mediator is Christ, who is now God.” Paul, in his letter to the Romans, delineates Christ’s role in heaven:

“... Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.” (Romans 8:34, NASB).

If Jesus Christ were the very God of the universe, then we would not need a Mediator. Christ’s function as a Mediator for his people which he fulfills even now that he is in heaven negates the allegation that Christ exists as God in heaven.

As we move fast forward to the Day of Judgment, when “all things” shall be placed under Christ’s rule, what will the Son do which proves that he is not the Almighty God? The Bible says:

“For the scripture says, 'God put all things under his feet'. It is clear, of course, that the words ‘all things’ do not include God himself, who puts all things under Christ. But when all things have been placed under Christ's rule, then he himself, the Son, will place himself under God, who placed all things under him; and God will rule completely over all” (1st Corinthians 15:27-28, TEV).

Christ’s position before, until, and even after Judgment Day, is that of being subordinate to the Father. And the reason is clear: “The Son will place Himself under God so that God [the Father] will rule completely over all.”

The Bible never alludes to the so-called incarnation of God. After a careful examination and consultation with Scripture, the doctrine of God’s incarnation remains contrary to reason and unbiblical.

Concerning the Son, the Bible portrays Him in no uncertain terms. Instead of teaching that Christ is both God and man while He was still on earth, Apostle Paul testified that he [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature (Heb. 1:3), therefore, a visible image of an unseen God.

To put in a clearer perspective, an image such as a picture, is not the very self or the nature of what it represents. The image and the form or model from where it was derived, are two different entities. Since God is invisible and powerful (John 4:24; Genesis 17:1), His Son [Jesus] represented Him on earth as a tangible proof of His holiness and power (Hebrews 1:3), clearly demonstrated through the miracles, signs and wonders which God [the Father] performed through him (Acts 2:22, TEV). The Son likewise served as man’s way to God, then and now (John 14:6; Hebrews 13:8). Being at the right hand of God in heaven, Christ always lives to make intercession for his servants (Hebrews 10:12; 7:25, NASB).

There is no defense that could be produced to support the inconceivable doctrine that Jesus is both God and man. Without a clear and explicit biblical basis, believers of such teaching have to adopt the philosophies of Tertullian and Origen. Tertullian, the one who started this mess, was a pagan philosopher who embraced Christianity but later on became a heretic. Although he departed from the Catholic Church, his writings are still being used to explain the unbiblical doctrine of Christ’s having two natures which had led Catholics and Protestants to embrace another illogical doctrine which Tertullian termed as Trinity.

To describe it in simple terms, it is in vain to call the Chalcedonian formula and its related doctrine of the Trinity as a mystery; it is an absurdity and a fallacy, therefore, grossly unbiblical and is contrary to the truth.

All scriptural quotations were taken from the New King James Version unless otherwise indicated. (2023)

JESUS CHRIST: TWO NATURES, ONE PERSON? (The Fallacy of the Doctrine of Hypostatic Union)

A certain Gabriel Darwin Lopez who claims to be an online Catholic Faith Defender and has interest in discussing about religions and church doctrines had answered the article that I had posted on my Facebook account: THE TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION: TRUTH OR FALLACY? He claims that his personal goal is to be able to share his knowledge about the Catholic Church to Catholics and non-Catholics especially those who misunderstood the Catholicism. Written below is a part of his answer:

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 prove the Catholic Doctrines defined in the Church Councils instead of bringing 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? The 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.

In response to his criticism, I am posting an article that will expose the fallacy of the so-called doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. This doctrine is a humanly devised hypothesis, and a defective hypothesis cannot be saved by dubbing it as a divine mystery.

INTRODUCTION
The belief that Jesus Christ is God-Incarnate, although unbiblical, gains a large following even today. Proponents of this concept subscribe to a doctrine technically called the Hypostatic Union, meaning that there are two natures – both human and divine, subsisting in one person, the Lord Jesus Christ. For those who accept this formula, Jesus of Nazareth is one and the same person as God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. This concept was defined by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. The creed reads:

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all with one voice teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the Same perfect in Godhead, the Same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the Same [consisting] of a rational soul and body; homoousios with the Father as to his Godhead, and the Same homoousios with us as to his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of the Father before ages as to His Godhead, and in the last days, the Same, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to his manhood; One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, made known in two natures [which exist] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken away by reason of the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved, and [both] concurring into one Person (prosopon) and one hypostasis – not parted or divided into two persons (prosopa), but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, the divine Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from of old [have spoken] concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers has delivered to us (Grillmeier 1975:544).

WHY THE CREED WAS FORMULATED

Hick reported that the growing and developing church had to explain its beliefs to the Greek-speaking culture of the Mediterranean world, and at the same time to itself, in acceptable philosophical terms; and after Constantine’s conversion to Christianity the peace of the empire required a unitary body of Christian belief. Accordingly in 325 Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea for the purpose of restoring concord to church and empire; and it was here that the church first officially adopted from Greek culture the non-biblical concept of ousia, declaring that Jesus, as God the Son incarnate, was homoousios toi patroi – of the same substance as the Father. The political significance of this was that the Christian emperor now had the status of God’s viceroy on earth. Thus the contemporary historian Eusebius, writing about Constantine’s victory over his rival Licinius, says that Constantine and his son, under the protection of God, the universal King, with the Son of God, Saviour of all, as their leader and ally, drew up their forces on all sides against the enemies of the Deity and won an easy victory (Hick 1993:44-45).

The Nicene formulation was expanded, using the same philosophical conceptuality, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, affirming that Christ was homoousios with the Father as to his Godhead, and at the same time homoousios with us as to his manhood . . . made known in two natures [which exist] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation . . . And it is this Chalcedonian formulation that has ever since constituted the official Christian language about Christ (Hick 1993:45).

Questions regarding the nature of God’s incarnation in Jesus also proved troublesome. The theologians of Alexandria, Egypt, tended to emphasize the divinity of Jesus at the expense of his humanity, and their frequent opponents, those of the school of Antioch, Syria, emphasized Jesus' humanity at the expense of his divinity. On the Alexandrian side, Apollinarians argued that in the human Jesus the Logos had replaced his mind or spirit. This view amounted to a denial of the full humanity of Christ. Apollinarianism was condemned at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. From the Antiochene school emerged the 5th-century heresy of Nestorianism. Nestorians held that two separate persons were united in the incarnate Christ, and they rejected the Alexandrian title of Theotokos (God-bearer) for Mary. For Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople (present-day İstanbul), and his followers, Mary had been the mother of the human Jesus but not of the divine-human Son. In response to the challenge of Nestorianism, the councils of Ephesus, in 431, and Chalcedon, in 451, affirmed the title Theotokos. At Chalcedon, the incarnation was defined as being of “two natures, one person”- a formula that has remained standard Christian orthodoxy.

The Chalcedonian definition itself, however, led to further disagreement; an extremist faction within the Alexandrian school argued that the incarnate Son had but a single, divine nature (Monophysitism), and in this view, again, Jesus’ humanity was compromised. By the end of the 2nd century in Alexandria, the major city of Hellenistic Egypt, the Christian catechetical school headed by Clement of Alexandria had already acquired great fame. Origen, the founder of Greek Christian theology and biblical science, followed Clement as head of the school. In the 4th and 5th centuries, two bishops of Alexandria defended Christian orthodoxy – Athanasius, against Arianism, and Cyril, against Nestorianism.

Some Egyptian Christians, however, refused to follow the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon (451), which defined the person of Jesus Christ as being “one in two natures.” The doctrine of “two natures” appeared to them to imply the existence of two Christs, divine and human, and was therefore tainted with Nestorianism. They upheld the terminology of Cyril, who had spoken of “one incarnate nature of God the Word.” Those Egyptian Christians who rejected the Council of Chalcedon—a council accepted both in Constantinople and in Rome – faced charges of Monophysitism, the belief that Christ has only one nature rather than two. Only a few Alexandrians remained faithful to Chalcedonian orthodoxy (Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003).

THE PROBLEM OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION

The problem with the Chalcedonian concept of Christ is in the fact that the Council in effect merely asserted that Jesus was “truly God and truly man” without attempting to say how such a paradox is possible. Merely to assert that two different natures coexisted in Jesus without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, is to utter a form of words which as yet has no specified meaning. The formula sets before us a “mystery” rather than a “clear and distinct idea.” Further, this is not a divine mystery but one that was created by human beings meeting at Chalcedon in present-day Turkey in the mid-fifth century (Hick 1993:48).

IT IS A CONCEPT THAT IS AGAINST THE BIBLE

If Christ was one individual who was truly God and truly man, then the properties and activities of either the human or the divine nature might with equal truth be attributed to him. If God truly became man, while remaining God, one might say of him that God was born of the Virgin Mary, grew as a child, became an adult, and interestingly, God died on the cross. For some, they were able to accept this impossibility that God died. A Catholic Catechism reports:

“Because Jesus is one Person who lives in two distinct natures, one can truthfully say of the Son of God whatever is true of Him in either of His natures. He suffered and died in His human nature, and He is God, and so we may say that God suffered and died. This is literally true . . .” (Lawler 1976:100).

Catholic and Protestant apologists would go to the distance in trying to defend a false doctrine by accepting without any hesitation that the God of the universe died! This position greatly contradicts or truly violates one of the innate attributes of God which is immortality. The Bible says in 1 Timothy 1:17:

Now to the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)

THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

The Bible clearly defines the attributes of God. He is immutable or unchanging (Malachi 3:6). The doctrine of Incarnation which means that God took a human form: that is, from being a pure spirit, he became flesh and blood; violates the doctrine of God’s immutability. The biblical proof that even when Christ was here on earth, God did not change his form and his true nature is clear from the teaching of Christ that God is a spirit (John 4:24), a being without flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Apostle Paul clarified that the eternal God is invisible (1 Timothy 1:17). If it is true that Christ took a human form, the change from being a spirit to a human being entailed an enormous change and clearly demonstrates that the so-called Incarnation of God is going against the biblical teaching concerning the true nature of God.

Secondly, the Bible teaches that the true God is omniscient or all-knowing (1st John 3:20). If Christ was a God-Man on earth, there should not be any limit to his knowledge since supporters of this doctrine contend that Jesus remained God even though he became a man. If the concept is true, proponents would have to accept that Jesus had two minds, one human and one divine. A perplexing question which becomes a big dilemma for them would be to explain which mind was in control during Christ’s earthly life. Was the human mind conscious that Jesus was God the Son incarnate? Where is the dividing line between the divine mind and human mind? And what does it mean to be divine? Part of the biblical answer is that being divine consists in being the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and self-existent creator of everything that exists. Was the divine mind in full operation or it took a back seat while the human mind was operating?

If the answer would be “both minds were operating simultaneously” then why would Jesus, as God the Son, being omniscient, deny any knowledge of his second coming? (Matthew 24:36 NIV). It would appear then that an all-knowing God lied in front of his disciples while doing a lecture on his second coming. That would make him a pretender and a pathological liar of the highest caliber!

The Bible emphasizes that God is omnipresent or ubiquitous (Psalm 139:8-10). This poses a problem to those who support the idea that Jesus, as a God on earth, exists in heaven as the Second Person of the Trinity due to his being an omnipresent God. How could one reconcile this idea with the biblical teaching that Christ has to ascend to heaven and be seated at the right hand of God if he was there previously? The idea of ascension suggests that he was not there yet prior to his ascension. Another intriguing situation that remains unsolved is the idea that if Jesus had a preexistence before his incarnation and dwelt on earth as both human and divine, how can the one undivided self be at once unlimited (in heaven) and limited (on earth)?

When proponents of the Chalcedonian creed are shown of biblical records that manifest the apparent contradictions of a being who is God and yet lacks the attributes of God, all that they can do is to offer analogies which fail to reach the key issue, and then appeal to mystery. As one Catholic author states:

“The Incarnation, for example, is not understood by any mortal intelligence. The Incarnation means that God became man. How this was accomplished we do not know . . . we believe it . . . not because we understand this mystery . . .” (Scott 1927:10).

Thus even if one were to grant the possibility of God becoming incarnate as a physically human being who is (always or sometimes) conscious of being divine, and thus eternal, omnipotent and omniscient, still this would not be the Jesus of the Bible. If Jesus was a God-Man on earth, how would one reconcile the statements of Christ recorded in the Scriptures that prove his glaring differences with the Father? He emphatically taught that “the Father is greater than I!” (John 14:28). Was he an inferior God compared to the Father when he was here on earth? What becomes of the Catholic doctrine that the Father and the Son are equal if one is greater than the other?

How would one reconcile the divinity of Christ with his prayer in which he didactically emphasize to his disciples that they should recognize his Father in heaven as the only true God (John 17:1-3)? Would a God on earth be praying to another God other than himself? If that was the case, one God would be here on earth and another God was in heaven – the One whom the God-Man was praying to. The truth is, Jesus prayed to God and was conscious that he was doing the will of the Father (Matthew 26:39).

If it is true that God became a man and he retained his divine nature while he was on earth, then why is there a need for him to be “anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and power?” Why would the Scriptures say that “God was with him” if it is true that he was a God on earth? (Acts 10:38).

The Bible does not mention of a divine nature within Christ which comprises the other half of his person. Instead, it emphatically asserts that “God was in Christ” (2nd Corinthians 5:19). Jesus Himself said so on numerous occasions (John 10:38; 14:10-11; 17:21). Apostle Peter echoed the same point when said that “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, who went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him” (Acts 10:38). God, who is a separate entity from Christ, is with him by means of the Holy Spirit.

This fact was also clarified by Peter in his sermon during the day of Pentecost, in which he stressed that “Listen to these words, fellow Israelites! Jesus of Nazareth was a man whose divine authority was clearly proven to you by all the miracles and wonders which God performed through him” (Acts 2:22 TEV). Again, it is not the divine nature of Christ that performed the miracles but God himself, an omnipotent being who is distinct from Christ. It was Him who proved the divine authority of Jesus by the miracles that He performed through him.

If the assertion that the Son is one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, then Christ would not have said, “the Father did not leave me alone” (John 8:29). His statement affirms the biblical fact that He and the Father are not of one substance (cf. Luke 24:39). This was reinforced by His admittance that “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Would an intelligent mind accept the concept of hypostatic union and disregards these unequivocal statements of Jesus concerning the true God?

Thus, Chalcedonian Christology is a humanly devised hypothesis, and a defective hypothesis cannot be saved by dubbing it as a divine mystery.

Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references were taken from the New King James Version.

REFERENCES

Grillmeier Aloys, S.J., Christ in Christian Tradition, Volume 1, Second Revised Edition, translated by John Bowden, John Knox Press, Atlanta (1975)

Hick, John, The Metaphor of God Incarnate, Christology in a Pluralistic Age, Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, Kentucky (1993)

Lawler, Ronald, ed., The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., Huntington, Indiana (1976)

Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Scott, Martin J., S.J., Things Catholics Are Asked About, P.J. Kennedy & Sons, New York (1927) (2023)

TOTOO BA ANG PARATANG NA MAS KINIKILALA NG MGA IGLESIA NI CRISTO SI KAPATID NA FELIX Y. MANALO KAYSA SA ATING PANGINOONG JESUCRISTO?

Ang mga tumutuligsa sa Iglesia Ni Cristo ay umimbento ng mga paratang upang mapigilan ang mga tao na makinig sa mga aral ng Diyos at huwag silang maganyak na magpatuloy ng pagsusuri sa mga aral na itinuturo sa mga nagnanais na umanib sa Iglesia Ni Cristo.

Ang isa sa mga ipinaparatang sa amin ay ang ukol sa pagkakilala namin sa karapatan ni Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo. Sinasampalatayan ng Iglesia Ni Cristo na siya ang katuparan ng hinuhulaang “anghel” na magmumula sa Silangan sa Apocalipsis 7:2-3. Paano nila pinilipit ang katotohanang ito?

Ang “anghel” daw ay mas mataas sa “tao” kaya si Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo na anghel ay mas mataas daw sa ating Panginoong JesuCristo. Bakit? Dahil sa sinasampalatayanan natin na si Cristo ay “tao” sa Kaniyang likas na kalagayan (dahil Siya mismo ang nagpatotoo nito sa Biblia nang sabihin niya sa Juan 8:40 na “ako’y TAO na nagsasaysay ng katotohanan”) kaya ang wrong conclusion nila ay mas mataas daw ang pagkakilala natin kay Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo kaysa sa ating Panginoong JesuCristo.

Tandaan natin na ito ay isang paratang lang at walang katotohanan. Bakit ko sinasabi na ito ay isang paratang lamang at walang katotohanan? Una, wala tayong aral o doktrina na mas mataas si Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo sa ating Panginoong JesuCristo. Ikalawa, hindi nangangahulugan na dahil si Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo ay “anghel” ay mas mataas na siya sa ating Panginoong Jesucristo.

Kaya lang nila ito ginagawang “issue” laban sa amin ay dahil sa inililigaw nila ang mga tao na hindi alam kung ano ba ang kahulugan ng terminong “anghel.” Bakit ba si Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo ay kinikilala naming anghel? Ano ba ang ibig sabihin na si Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo ay isang anghel? Ang ibig sabihin nito siya ay “Sugo” (ng Diyos) sapagkat ang terminong anghel, na galing sa wikang Griyego, ay “sugo” ang kahulugan sa wikang Pilipino. Maging ang mga autoridad ng Iglesia Katolika ay nagpapatunay ukol dito:

“They are called ‘Angels', from a Greek word which means messenger. The word ‘Angel’, therefore, does not express the nature of these spirits, but rather the offices...” (Crock, Clement H., Discourses on the Apostles’ Creed, New York, Joseph F. Wagner, © 1938, p. 72)

Alam kaya ng mga kaibigan nating Katoliko na nagpaparatang sa amin na ang kahulugan ng salitang “anghel” ay “sugo”? Baka naman sadyang inililigaw lang nila ang mga tao? Alam ba nila na ang terminong “anghel” ay hindi tumutukoy sa kalagayan kungdi sa tungkulin? Kaya, si Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo ay anghel sapagkat ito ang kaniyang tungkulin: siya ay “sugo” ng Diyos.

PAANO RAW MAGIGING ‘ANGHEL” ANG ISANG TAONG KATULAD NI KAPATID NA FELIX Y. MANALO?

Bakit ito ang kanilang itinatanong? Dahil sa kanilang maling akala na ang tao ay hindi maaaring maging anghel. Ano ang katunayang mali ang paniniwalang ang tao ay hindi maaaring tawaging “anghel”? Sa Biblia ba ay may mga tao na tinawag na anghel?

MGA TALATA SA BIBLIA NA ANG TERMINONG ANGHEL AY TUMUTUKOY SA MGA TAO

Sa Santiago 2:25, ang terminong Griyego na “tous angelous” ay isinalin na “mga sugo” at ito ay tumutukoy sa mga tao na isinugo ni Josue kay Rahab.

Sa Lucas 7:24, ang terminong Griyego na “tōn angelōn” ay isinalin na “mga sugo” at ito ay tumutukoy sa mga tao na isinugo ni Juan.

Sa Lucas 9:52, ang terminong Griyego na “angelous” ay isinalin na “mga sugo” at ito ay tumutukoy sa mga tao na isinugo ng ating Panginoong JesuCristo sa unahan ng Kaniyang mukha at nagsipasok sa isang nayon ng mga Samaritano.

Kaya isang malaking pagkakamali na akalain na ang tao ay hindi maaaring tawaging anghel.

Maging sa Malakias 2:7 ng Douay-Rheims Version (official Catholic version), ang saserdote ay tinawag na “the angel of the Lord of hosts.” Ipinaliwanag din ng mga awtoridad Katoliko sa footnote ang kahulugan ng terminong “angel” sa talatang ito ay:

“2,7: The angel: the minister and messenger…”.

Ang ministro ba ay tao? Oo. Kung gayon, hindi maling tawagin na si Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo ay anghel sapagkat siya ay isang tao at isang ministro. Lahat ba naman ng tao ay maaaring tawaging anghel? Hindi. Sinong tao ang maaaring tawaging anghel? Ang tao na isinugo ng Diyos.

Sa Mateo 11:7-10 (Douay-Rheims Version), si Juan Bautista ay tinawag na “angel”.

7 And when they went their way, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: What went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind?
8 But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold they that are clothed in soft garments, are in the houses of kings.
9 But what went you out to see? a prophet? yea I tell you, and more than a prophet.
10 For this is he of whom it is written: Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.

Tandaan nating mabuti na si Juan Bautista ay isang tao. Ayon sa Juan 1:6 (BSP) ay ganito ang sinasabi ukol sa kaniya: “May taong sugo ang Diyos – Juan ang kaniyang pangalan.”

Kaya ang Biblia ay nagtuturo ukol sa mga tao na tinawag na anghel. Isang malaking kamangmangan sa panig ng mga tumutuligsa sa Iglesia Ni Cristo ang sinasabi nilang hindi maaaring tawaging anghel ang isang tao na katulad ni Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo. Subalit, bagamat itinuturo naming anghel si Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo ay wala kaming itinuturo na mas mataas siya sa ating Panginong JesuCristo.

Gaano kataas ang pagkakilala namin sa ating Panginoong JesuCristo? Kinikilala namin na wala ng iba pang nilalang ang Diyos na mas mataas sa ating Panginoong JesuCristo. Sino ba ang nagtaas sa Kaniya sa ibabaw ng lahat ng mga nilalang? Ganito ang sinasabi sa Biblia:

Kaya naman, siya’y itinampok ng Diyos at binigyan ng pangalang higit sa lahat ng pangalan, Anupat ang lahat ng nilalang na nasa langit, nasa lupa, at nasa ilalim ng lupa ay maninikluhod at sasamba sa kanya. At ipahahayag ng lahat na si Jesu-Cristo ang Panginoon, sa ikararangal ng Diyos Ama (Filipos 2:9-11 MB).

Ayon sa Biblia, itinampok o itinaas siya ng Diyos. Lahat ng nilalang ng Diyos ay dapat sambahin ang ating Panginoong JesuCristo. Kaya, lahat ng Iglesia Ni Cristo ay sumasamba sa ating Panginoong JesuCristo, kasama naming sumasamba kay Cristo si Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo noong siya ay nabubuhay pa. Kaya paano nila ngayon pararatangan ang Iglesia Ni Cristo na mas mataas ang pagkakilala namin kay Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo? Siya mismo ang nagturo sa amin na dapat naming sambahin ang ating Panginoong JesuCristo.

Ngunit dapat ninyong tandaan na kaya namin sinasamba ang ating Panginoong JesuCristo ay sapagkat utos ito ng Diyos, at ang pagsamba sa kaniya ay sa ikararangal o ikaluluwalhati ng Diyos Ama.

PAREHO BA ANG KAPANGYARIHAN NG AMA AT NG ANAK?

Magkapantay ba sa kapangyarihan ang Ama at ang Anak? Hindi. Mas mataas ang kapangyarihan ng Ama kaysa sa Kaniyang Anak. Ano ang katunayan mula sa Biblia na mas mataas ang Ama na siyang tunay na Diyos kaysa sa Kaniyang Anak? Ganito ang pagtuturo ni Apostol Pablo:

Ganito ang sinasabi ng Kasulatan: “Ang lahat ng bagay ay lubusang pinasuko sa kanya ng Diyos.” (Ngunit sa salitang “lahat ng bagay,” maliwanag na hindi kasama rito ang Diyos na siyang naglagay ng lahat ng bagay sa ilalim ng kapangyarihan ni Cristo.) At kapag ang lahat ay nasa ilalim na ng kapangyarihan ni Cristo, ang Anak naman ang paiilalim sa kapangyarihan ng Diyos na naglagay ng lahat ng bagay sa ilalim ng kapangyarihan niya. Sa gayon, lubusang maghahari ang Diyos sa kalahat-lahatan (1 Corinto 15:27-29 MB).

Maliwanag ang sinasabi ng Biblia: “ang Anak naman ang paiilalim sa kapangyarihan ng Diyos.” Sino ba ang Anak? Di ba ang ating Panginoong JesuCristo? Kanino siya paiilalim? Sa kapangyarihan ng Diyos. Iba ang Diyos na naglagay ng lahat ng bagay sa ilalim ng kapangyarihan ni Cristo kaysa kay Cristo na paiilalim sa kapangyarihan ng Diyos!

Kaya nagkakamali ang mga tagapagturong Katoliko sa kanilang pagtuturo na ang ating Panginoong JesuCristo ay tunay na Diyos. Kailanman ay hindi itinuro ng ating Panginoong JesuCristo na siya ay tunay na Diyos. Ipinakilala niya sa atin nang siya ay manalangin sa Ama na nasa langit na Siya lamang ang “kaisa-isang tunay na Diyos” (Juan 17:3 SNB).

Sinasamba ng mga tunay na Iglesia Ni Cristo ang tunay na Diyos at ang ating Panginoong Jesucristo. Kasama sa mga sumamba sa ating Panginoong JesuCristo si Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo kaya hindi siya mas mataas kay Cristo.

Kaya, sa mga kaibigan naming mga Katoliko na nakabasa ng paliwanag na ito, sana ay huwag kayong mahadlangan sa inyong pagsusuri sa mga aral na sinasampalatayan ng Iglesia Ni Cristo. Magpatuloy kayo sa pakikinig upang malaman ninyo ang tunay na katotohanan ukol sa Diyos at sa ating Panginoong JesuCristo, maging ang ukol sa pagka-sugo ni Kapatid na Felix Y. Manalo. (2023)

IS IT TRUE THAT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST?

An empty claim was made by the Roman Catholic Church when they advertised lately on CNN, in conjunction with the Pope’s visit here in the United States, that it was Jesus Christ himself who established their church. Devoid of biblical evidences to prove this contention, the Catholic Church had to use biblical citations which when examined thoroughly, are going beyond what is written, reading things that are not there in the text. Tradition, instead of the Bible, is their source to highlight their claim.

An example of such claim is the concept that Peter was made Pope by Jesus Christ when he (Peter) was told that “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18). After even reading that verse a thousand times, still you could not find anything in this verse that would tell you Peter is being made a Pope.

In another instance, Jesus told Peter three times to feed his sheep (John 21:15-17). Catholic apologists would go beyond what is written by claiming that Jesus Christ is directly installing Apostle Peter as the Pope! Again, you may read the verses a million times but nothing there in these verses that would make us say that Peter was the first Pope!

There is no question when it comes to the Church built by Christ since the Bible tells us that Christ really established a Church. Was it called the Catholic Church when it was built? No. There is nothing in the Bible that suggests it was called the Catholic Church. In fact, even Catholic authorities themselves admit that it was called the Church of Christ. Let me quote what a Jesuit priest wrote in his book:

5. Did Jesus Christ establish a Church?
Yes, from all history, both secular and profane, as well as from the Bible considered as a human document, we learn that Jesus Christ established a Church, which from the earliest times has been called after Him the Christian Church or the Church of Christ (Cassily, Francis B., S.J., Religion: Doctrine and Practice for use in Catholic High Schools. 12th and Revised edition, Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1934, p. 442-443.).

Francis Cassily points out that this name is from the Bible. Is he correct? Does the Bible really mention of the term Church of Christ? Apostle Paul said:

Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to feed the church of Christ which he has purchased with His blood (Acts 20:28 LAMSA Translation).

Take note that Apostle Paul mentioned the term “Church of Christ” in this verse. Also the verse says that the Church is the “flock” to be fed with the spiritual food which is the word of God (Matthew 4:4). The same Church was purchased or redeemed by the precious blood of Christ.

WHEN DID THE CHURCH START?

The Church started during Christ’s ministry here on earth. Contrary to what some Catholic and Protestant theologians claim that the Church started only during the day of Pentecost, there was already a “flock” during the time of Christ. He says to them: “fear not, little flock” (Luke 12:32). These are the people who were baptized into the Church as reported by John in his Gospel:

Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John” —although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized (John 4:1-2 NRSV).

Even before the day of Pentecost, around one hundred twenty of them were gathered and they devote themselves to prayer (Acts 1:13-15). This is a proof that there were already disciples or members of the Church even before that day. Luke reported that about three thousand souls were added to the Church during the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1, 41-42, 47). He likewise reported that the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem (Acts 6:7). The Church encountered a great persecution (Acts 8:1) so they were scattered (vv. 4-5). However, those who were scattered traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch spread the gospel so a great number who believed turned to the Lord (Acts 11:19-21). In Antioch, the disciples were first called Christians (v. 26).

Through the ministry of Apostle Paul and his companions, churches or congregations were established in the Gentile world (Romans 16:4, 16). However, there is no report of Apostle Peter being in Rome to give credence to the tradition concocted by Catholic apologists that he went there in Rome and established the Church. It was Apostle Paul who went to Rome since he is an apostle to the Gentiles while Apostle Peter was the apostle to the Jews (Galatians 2:8-9).

DID THE CHURCH ESTABLISHED BY CHRIST CONTINUE TO EXIST AS AN ORGANIZATION THAT UPHOLDS THE TEACHINGS OF GOD?

When Jesus Christ was still here on earth, He warned His disciples that they should be careful not be deceived by the false prophets (Matthew 24:11). Apostle Paul mentioned of those who will not spare the flock after his death (Acts 20:29). He likewise warned the bishops that there will be those who shall arise and speak perverse things to draw away the disciples after them (vv. 17, 30 ASV).

What are these perverse things that the false prophets shall speak in order to draw away the disciples after them? These are the doctrines of the devils mentioned by Apostle Paul in his first letter to Timothy wherein he says:

Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth (1st Timothy 4:1-3, Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition).

Do we find these two (2) doctrines of the devil in the world today? If we do, then the prediction concerning the falling away or the apostasy of the first century Church of Christ indeed came to pass or fulfilled. In my previous public debates with the representatives from the Roman Catholic Church, I asked them a tough question about the doctrines of the devils that Apostle Paul mentioned in 1st Timothy 4:3: “do you have any of these two doctrines?” Although Catholic defenders tried to wiggle out from answering the question, it is quite obvious that these two demonic teachings are found in the Roman Catholic Church. Written below are their acceptance that they are indeed promoting these two doctrines:

“Although celibacy is not expressly enforced by our Savior, it is, however, commended so strongly by Himself and His apostles, both by word and example, that the Church felt it her duty to lay it down as a law. The discipline of the Church has been exerted from the beginning in prohibiting Priests to marry after their ordination.” (Gibbons, James Cardinal. The Faith of our Fathers. New York: P.J. Kennedy and Sons, 1917, p. 328)

“What does the second commandment of the Church order us to do?
It orders us to fast and abstain from flesh meat on certain days of the year.” (A Seminary Professor. Manual of Christian Doctrine: Comprising Dogma, Moral, and Worship. New York: Lassale Bureau, 1949, p. 317)

The Roman Catholic Church prohibits its priests and nuns to marry. There is also a command to her members to abstain from flesh meat in certain days of the year. So, even if they would deny that they are not in custody of the doctrines of the devils, the truth remains that they are upholding these two doctrines.

Even Apostle Peter predicted that:

“But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their riotousnesses, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of” (2nd Peter 2:1-2 DR).

Hence, both Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter explicitly predicted that “false teachers” or “false prophets” will appear to teach lies in order to lead the disciples astray, corroborating the pronouncement made by our Lord Jesus Christ. The true Church of Christ in its genuine form during the time of Christ and the apostles shall be transformed into a Church that upholds false doctrines or teachings after the demise of the apostles. When the apostles were gone, the turning away from the faith predicted by the apostles began to unfold.

You may recall that the disciples or the members of the Church of Christ were first called “Christians” in Antioch. However, a bishop by the name of Ignatius in the year 110 invented the term “Catholic” as another name for the disciples in that city. From that time, the name “Catholic Church” became synonymous with the Christian group until the Council of Trent added the term “Roman” to the name, thereby producing the name Roman Catholic Church. Let us also remember that the Roman Emperor Constantine made Christianity as the religion of the empire in the fourth century and the bishop of Rome became the head of the Catholic Church. A Catholic book says that “The Church is called Roman Catholic because its chief ruler is the lawful bishop of Rome.” (Catholic Catechism. Part II. Catholic Trade School, Manila, 1961, p. 146a).

In 1870, at the First Vatican Council, the name Roman Catholic Church was proposed but it was rejected. The bishops who were assembled then unanimously decided upon this official name: THE HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC, ROMAN CHURCH.

How many Catholics know that the official name of their Church is a complete departure from the name mentioned in the Scripture? It is a name which is a far cry from the term mentioned in the Bible. Jesus Christ and His apostles have nothing to do with that name.

What is the importance of the name of Jesus Christ? Apostle Peter explained:

“Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12 NKJV).

Now, tell me, is the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church established by Jesus Christ? If you answered NO, you have understood very well this article. I thank you for reading it and hopefully, it would change your mind to reconsider your position if you are still in accord with the Roman Catholic Church.

Do you want to know more about the true Church of Christ? Please visit iglesianicristo.net

Unless otherwise indicated, Scriptural quotations were taken from the New King James Version.

(c) joe vintelacion (2023)