I am writing and copy n pasting about the Iglesia Ni Cristo or should be called appropriately as Iglesia Ni Manalo in response to many who would like to know more about the cult of Manalo, who was not long ago had a very bitter conflict with another Philippine cult presided by Eliseo Soriano who is believed to be presently somewhere outside the country escaping an allegation and a court case of raping a male victim.
Iglesia ni Cristo or INM is a 20th century cultic organization who was founded by a man called Ka Felix Manalo. Felix Manalo is a self-proclaimed prophet who believed that he was a messenger from God as many false prophets had proclaimed like Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Apollo Quiboloy as "son of God" and his so-called Israel in Davao City, Mindanao, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, also a self proclaimed messiah, and many more. Like many cults Felix Manalo was led by the spirit of the anti-Christ and deny the divinity of Jesus Christ as "Son of God", Creator of All Things seen and unseen, the Almighty God. We know the Holy Scripture says that; "I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." - 2 John 1:7, 1 John 4:2.
I strongly believe that INM is a sponsored masonic cult by Masonic Illuminati Jesuits who came to create in this country, the so-called the Philippines, and established a Masonic government. Making the country as one of their major hub in this part of the world for a New World Order.
Please read below I copy n pasted from Letusreason.org for more in detailed understanding of what the INM believed and their errors. God bless!
IGLESIA NI MANALO: 20th Century Masonic Jesuit Illuminati Cult in the so-called Philippines.
Felix Manalo the 5th angel
His message is no different than the 7th day Adventists 3rd angels message of which he probably was influenced by when he studied with them. Rev 7:2: "Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea." Manalo claimed to be this angel.
How do they apply this prophecy to a Manalo? They claim the angel in this context means a human messenger. Angels do not preach the gospel so this must refer to a man. But we do find an angel preaching the gospel in Revelation from mid heaven Rev.14:6 "Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth-- to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people." I don't think he's using a plane! Angels are creatures that are spirits that dwell in heaven and do God's bidding to mankind on earth.
Rev.7:1: "After these things" Which they believe is the war described in Rev.6:12-15 which is the first world war, then Rev.7:1 there are four angels mentioned which are they interpreted as men.
Rev 7:2-3: "Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, saying, "Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads." Who are these other 4 angels who hold back the wind (war) they are:
1. Lloyd George of great Britain
2. Clemenceau of France
3. Orlando of Italy
4. Wilson of the U.S..
Manalo was already preaching "the gospel" in the Philippines so by deduction he is identified as the 5th angel to arise out of the east. Never mind that these other men were not believers, or part of Iglesia’s church. All this makes a very convoluted reasoning to prove something they think is relevant to them from the Bible. The logic of this claim completely fails when in v.2 states "He cried out to the other 4 angels "their is absolutely no evidence he (Manalo) communicated to these other 4 who are called by them angels. The U.S. did not enter the war until 1917 but Manalo points to the date of 1914 as crucial for the fulfillment, this would mean if he spoke to any it was 3 not 4. Not only this, but they participate in sealing 144,000 Jews for the tribulation. Where and when is the tribulation? Did these 4 men do this? Did Manalo do this, I don’t think so. Since when are sinful men called angels; angels that come from heaven?
Angels spoken of in the end of time in the book of Revelation come from heaven. Even if it says from the east it still has its origin in heaven Rev.10:1 "I saw still another mighty angel coming down from heaven, clothed with a cloud. And a rainbow was on his head, his face was like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire."
Far east or East
Acts 2:39 for the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are a far off…"this is a promise to Israelites and their generation Manalo interpreted this to mean gentiles but they came up with no explanation how Israelites become Gentiles. But they insist this is their members in the Philippine's. (read also Acts 2:22.)
There are 48 biblical verses that employ the term a far off and 30 verses that use far off but none of them refer to the Philippines or Far East. Genesis 22:4 and 37.18; Exodus 2:4, 20:18, 20:21, 24:I and 33:7. Jeremiah 23.23, 31:10, 46:27 and 51:50. A far also found in Mark 5:6,11:13,14:54 and 15:40. Luke l6:23, 17:12, 18:13, 22.54, 23:49 and in the book of Revelation, chapter 18 :10, 15 and 17 among others. This is more than enough to show that afar off has been misinterpreted by the INC. In the same way a far off (in the distance) is referred to in Luke 23.49 "And all his acquaintance and women that followed him from Galilee stood afar off beholding these things." This goes right along with Peters proclamation to the children of Israel in Acts 2:39 "the promise is for you and your children and all who are a far off, for whom the Lord our God will call."
The only thing that is afar off is their unique interpretation of this passage.
.jpg)
A pillar of the Iglesia belief is that its emergence in the Philippines was prophesied in the Bible. This idea is supposedly found in Isaiah 43:5-6, which states: "Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your offspring from the east, and from the west I will gather you; I will say to the north, 'Give up,' and the south, 'Do not withhold; bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the end of the earth.'
Iglesia argues that in this verse Isaiah is referring to the "far east" and that this is the place where the "Church of Christ" will emerge in the last days. This point is constantly repeated in Iglesia literature: "The prophecy stated that God's children shall come from the far east" (Pasugo, March 1975, p.6).
But the phrase "far east" is not in the text. In fact, in the Tagalog (Philipino) translation, as well as in the original Hebrew, the words "far" and "east" are not even found in the same verse, yet the Iglesia recklessly combine the two verses to translate "far east." Using this fallacious interpretation Iglesia goes on to claim that the far east refers specifically to the Philippines. Who authorized Mofatt to add the word far to east, when this phrase does not appear in the Greek scripture, Isaiah the prophet only uses East. This is clearly referring to Israel and their being brought back from their captivity into the land.
Consistently and logic seem to be missing on this. While they claim the word Trinity is not found in the Bible an will argue incessantly about this fact neither is the Island Philippine's, but no one would deny that it does exist!
Iglesia is so determined to convince its followers of this "fact," that it quotes Isaiah 43:5 from an inexact paraphrase by James Moffat which reads: "From the far east will I bring your offspring." Citing this mistranslation, one Iglesia work states: "Is it not clear that you can read the words 'far east'? Clear! Why does not the Tagalog Bible show them? That is not our fault, but that of those who translated the Tagalog Bible from English--the Catholics and Protestant" (Isang Pagbubunyag Sa Iglesia ni Cristo, 1964:131). The Iglesia thus accuses everyone else of mistranslating the Bible, when in fact it is Iglesia who is taking great liberties with the original language. They use the translations that have infamously been used by other cults such as Lamsa’s and Moffatts. Prior to 1923 the Moffat translation was the first to mention this term and is the only one that does, none did before 1923 nor after. This could only be true if the Tagalog version used by INC was translated from Moffatt's but it was not, so their claim of wrong translation is false.
Their "far east" argument is that the Philippines is the geographic center of the Far East, so the restored Church would come from the Philippines. The problem is that Philippine islands are not the geographic center of the Far East. The Far East includes China, Korea, Japan, East Siberia, the Indo-Chinese countries, and the Philippines. On a map of the Far East the Philippines is on the lower right hand corner. The geographic center would be in Southern China, not in the Philippines. Not only this but the question is who is God calling, its not anyone else but Israel. Certainly Philipino's’s are not Semetic or Israel. Isaiah is speaking of a regathering into their homeland "I will bring your descendants." Are Philipinos' descendent s of Israel?
They also teach God's messenger will be called from a far country in the east from the Islands of the sea using Isa.46:11: "Calling a ravenous bird from the east. A man who executes my counsel from a far country."
In Iglesia's’s doctrine Manalo is that bird who is to preach the true gospel and snatch the true believers as a ravenous bird from the false religions. If one looks at the way birds are used in scripture especially one of prey it is almost unanimously of Satan (Mt.13, Mk.4). As far as executing God's counsel; because one does God's purpose does not mean he is God's messenger. Look a Pharaoh that was raised up to accomplish His purpose. Also Joel 2 in it they are called God's army and yet they bring judgment on God's people, and are destroyed by God in the end.
5861 `ayit-a bird of prey, a swooper (Brown driver briggs ) to scream, to shriek; (Qal) to scream 2) to dart greedily, to swoop upon, to rush upon; (Qal) to dart greedily
Isaiah 46:11 refers to Cyrus as "a ravenous bird (called) from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country"; "probably in allusion to the fact that the griffon was the emblem of Persia; and embroidered on its standard" (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, I, 632) This is correct as far as history goes. Cyrus was used to have the Jews return from Babylon and although he is called Gods shepherd, (Isa. 45) he is not a good shepherd even though he was used by God. He allows Israel to rebuild the temple showing this all already took place in 539-536 B.C.. (compare Isa.46:11 and 44:28, 45:1)
This needs no comment and is self evident: if they want to wear this shoe it certainly fits.
What Do they Teach
Denying the deity of Christ
They teach Christ is only a man which had authority given to him using such scriptures Jn.8:40 and the numerous places Christ calls himself a man. Lk.24:36 where Jesus said to the mistaken disciples see a Spirit does not have flesh and bones so he is not a Spirit. He was correcting their wrong belief which proves he was not God (Also Hosea 11:9)
What they ignore is the context why they though the was a ghost, he just appeared in the room which no man can do. They argue against what we don’t believe. We do believe he was true man but he also was true God. Their argument is not with the church per se but the bible itself. Phil. 2 :5-11 solves all that challenges of his being subordinate. If one wants to look to Christ not being in this subordinate position the 2nd coming should be clear enough in Rev.17:14 "These shall make war with the Lamb and the Lamb shall overcome them; for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings."
Deut.10:17 tells us that Yahweh is the LORD OF LORDS. Only if Christ IS Yahweh and the Father IS Yahweh do we have any consistency in scripture.
Undermining The Bibles authority and replacing it with mans
The INC organization constantly claims that the Bible is the sole source of their doctrines but they subtly undermine the Bible's reliability and ultimate authority. This is a common practice of organized heresies.
"...some of the verses of the Bible were wrongly translated." PASUGO, February 1973, p. 16.
"No, it is beyond man's power and intelligence to study and understand the truth, which is God's word (John 17:17), by himself, without the guidance of God's messenger." (PASUGO, November 1973, p., 19, 20.)
What they do is train people to hear the voice of their own shepherd instead of the true shepherd.
"A doctrine is not of God if it is different from what is written in the Holy Scriptures, or even if found written but is not the present truth it becomes vain before God if used as the basis for worshipping God." ( PASUGO, Jan. 1976, p. 12.)
It is common for authoritarian groups to undermine anything that might threaten their position as the ultimate source of truth in the, life of the member.
The INC organization teaches that Jesus is not the true God, nor is He God in bodily form. This does not make them different from other religions. Instead they become just one of the many religions to hold the view of denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.
"Revelation 12:9 reveals that Satan is the deceiver of the whole world. The belief that Jesus is God is worldwide. Coincidence?" (PASUGO, September/October 1979, p. 26)
The INC organization here implies that it is Satan that is deceiving the world into believing that Jesus is God. We have shown you facts that most of the world believes that Jesus is not the true God. What facts do the INC organization have to prove that the belief that Jesus is God in bodily form has been spread worldwide by Satan? In Satan's attempt to discredit Jesus he always gives Him less honor than He deserves, not.
The INC misquotes Dr. Charles C. Ryrie (A.B., Haverford College; T.M., TH.D, Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University Of Edinburgh). He served as professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary for many years and is best known for his work on the Ryric Study Bible. We will now read what the INC organization said to make it appear that Dr. Ryrie agreed with them.
"In the annotations of his Ryrie Study Bible he had this to say about the phrase in John 1:1 'and the Word was with God."'
"In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (that is, in communion with and yet distinct from God) (p.1599)."
"Therefore, when Dr. Ryrie says, that the Word is distinct from God he is saying the Word is not the same, but rather separate or different from God." (PASUGO, May/June 1984, p. 14 & 15)
We will now see what Dr. Ryrie really has written in the annotations of his Ryrie Study Bible (page 1599):
"In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (i.e., in communion with and yet distinct from God) and to be God (i.e., identical in essence with God)."
The INC organization not only stopped Dr. Ryrie's quote in the middle of his statement, but they also placed a period after the word God which makes it appear that the statement stops there! This deliberate act of misquoting completely changes what Dr. Ryrie said. The INC organization claims that Dr. Ryrie says the Word (Christ) is different from God. That is not what Dr. Ryrie said! Dr. Ryrie said that in John 1:1 Christ is identical in essence with God and to be God.(Taken from the one book written on their movement The Only True church by Robert Eliff p.79-82)
There are many an organization that uses dishonest methods to prove their doctrines, what does that say about the organization and its doctrines? Is the INC doctrine that Jesus is not God in bodily form is so weak that they change the words of those they quote? In the same manner as the JW's they vainly attempt to explain away passages of the Bible that clearly teach that Jesus is in fact God in a human body. It’s easy to convince their own members when no one will look further than their own publication. Since their members do not read the Bible on their own, nor are they encouraged to pursue their own studies.e
"The true church is determined and can be singled out from the false, by evaluating her doctrines... Preachers of the true church do not explain away the passages of the Bible, they merely articulate on what is written... False preachers do the contrary they obscure what the bible teaches by their own preaching .(Pasugo nov.p19 1973)
Following in the footsteps of other organized heresies, the INC organization has used Colossians 1:15 to try to prove that Jesus was a created being. In actuality, this passage clearly demonstrates that Jesus is the Creator! Let's study what they have said and then compare it to what the Bible says.
"Colossians 1:15 states very clearly, Christ is 'the firstborn of every creature,' and is therefore not the Creator."(PASUGO, January/February 1980, p. 37.)
'Apostle Paul clearly taught that our Lord Jesus Christ is man. He is different from God. He is not God, neither is He God-Man. Rather, He is a man mediating between God and men."(GOD'S MESSAGE / July - September 1994)
"The scriptures do not teach that Christ is the creator of all things." (PASUGO, March/April 1982, p. 26.)
Really! Col.1:15 certainly does as well as Jn.1:3 and many other passages. The real problem is that they do not read their bibles unless they are inside the Church or a study with an instructor
John 1:2-3: " He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through through Him, and without Him nothing was made without Him nothing was made that was made." This does not exclude e Father and the Spirit. Just as it says in Gen.1, in the beginning God created, therefore if Christ created then Christ is God. How they avoid this is hard to understand, yet avoid it they do. Like the many other anti-deity cults they must jump through numerous hoops to prove this is not true
Col. 1:16-19: " For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,' the fullness of what? Col.2:9 says of deity." What makes God -God was pleasantly and completely in Christ.
Savior
They agree that mans basic problem is sin and they agree that Christ's death is the only solution to the problem. but they teach the only way to appropriate the benefits of Christ's death is through the Church and its messenger, so they are indirectly denying salvation is by Christ's atonement on the cross obtained through repentance and faith.
Isa.19:20: "And he shall send them a Savior." We find in Isa. 63:8 it states of God "so he became their Savior." When we come to the New Testament we find who that Savior is.
Lk.2:11: "For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior who is Christ the Lord." Notice he says the Savior is born, God who is savior, meaning the Son of God came in the flesh. Emmanuel God with us. Titus 2:13 Jesus is called our great God and savior. (Titus 3:6; 2 Tim.1:10) "The Lord Jesus Christ our Savior." 1 Tim.4:10, 2 Pt.1:1 "Of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. "In the OT it is clear that God alone is Savoir.( Isa.41:3,11; 45:15, 49:26, Hos.13:4) their is no contradiction in the Scripture.
Passages such as Jn.17:3 That "this is eternal life that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." They claim the only true God is the father, not Christ. Despite the controversy over the only true God and Jesus being equal, there are other passages that clarify this. The same John also wrote 1 Jn.5:20: "And we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ this is the true God and eternal life." There is no father mentioned in this passage. If the Son is the true God then doesn’t that make him eternal, possessing eternal life as his personal nature? Of course it does, this is the clear teaching of scripture but this can’t be seen if one does not read the scripture. as they receive instruction only from their services, messengers and magazine. It works for the JW’s and it does for Iglesia.
Scriptures they camp on are Jn.10:29 and my father is Greater than all Jn.14:28, Showing that Christ cannot be God.
In Jn.13:16 it states "A servant is not greater than their master." If taken as they teach and one would use their own mind instead of what they were trained in, the flaw becomes evident. Since Jesus is less than the Father in nature this would mean the disciples are less in nature than Jesus who is to them only a man. But this verse is speaking of position not nature. This is found by the meaning of the word greater and in the Greek and in the logical context in those passage and the overall teaching of scripture. They then go to Jn.5:37 the father sent Jesus to prove he can’t be God if he is sent. Jn.20:21-22: "As the Father sent me, I also send you. Again if this were a statement of nature then when Jesus sends out the disciples who are different than himself they would be less in nature than him being not human. Once again all one has to do is show where Jesus was sent from (heaven) to solve this dilemma. Did Jesus as a man preexist in heaven, not likely that anyone would concede to this interpretation.
Jn.7:29: " I am from Him and He has sent me." John 16:16,17,:28 states, "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world, again I leave the world and go to the Father. "The Fathers location is in heaven.
John 6:38 Jesus states, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of HIM WHO SENT ME."
Jn.6:33 "For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
John 6:62: "What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? Jn. 8:23 "You are from beneath, I am from above, you are of this world, I am not of this world."Jn3:31 "He who comes from above is above all... 1 Cor.15:47: "the first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second man is the Lord from heaven. Here again is showing the origin of the Son coming from above. Who does Iglesia think came from heaven? For this they simply avoid an answer and go back to their stance Jesus is a man (only).
They consistently set up simple straw man arguments and knock them down with ease. They bring attention to the hard passages that take more time to explain and immediately dismiss them as they insert their meaning as plain and clear. Their teaching is basically to counter all of Christianity
Eph.4:6: "One Father in you all? Do they believe God is in someone? No.
Jer.23:6 calls a man the Lord our righteousness = In the NT we find Christ is our righteousness
Resurrection
Since God cannot die Jesus died therefore he is not God. But while we use the phrase God died what we mean is Christ the man did. God cannot die but gave up the body he lived in. They also claim who raised him Acts.2:32 God did Rom.6 the father did neglecting what Jesus said of himself Jn.2:19: "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up." v. 21 he was speaking of the temple of his body
Jn.10:17-18: "Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." It is inconsequential whether he received the instruction from the Father. He is involved in raising up himself in body, so for one to do this they must still be living as Spirit to accomplish this.
What of the clear statements that Christ said he is Lord of the Sabbath. Meaning he is the creator who rested on the 7th day. Why is it so crucial to know him and he to know us in Mt.7:21, does God want us to have a relationship with only a man or himself. Would God tell us to pray in a mans name or even a prophets no matter how great they were. Of course not, we invoke the name above all names in prayer, how could that be only a mans. Yes he is a man, but not only a man as he is deity as proven in the transfiguration.
Afterlife
They borrowed soul sleep from the 7th day Adventists where a person has no consciousness after death. This is directly traced to their influence Manalo had when he was trained. Not even in the early church did the false teachers came up with this one.
While they do teach the 2nd coming of Christ they do not teach any millennial reign on earth. It is these areas that there is little information on since no one leaves to tell about it except a few.
Source: Letusreason.org Pls click HERE for more info about the INM Philippine Cult.
Iglesia ni Cristo or INM is a 20th century cultic organization who was founded by a man called Ka Felix Manalo. Felix Manalo is a self-proclaimed prophet who believed that he was a messenger from God as many false prophets had proclaimed like Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Apollo Quiboloy as "son of God" and his so-called Israel in Davao City, Mindanao, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, also a self proclaimed messiah, and many more. Like many cults Felix Manalo was led by the spirit of the anti-Christ and deny the divinity of Jesus Christ as "Son of God", Creator of All Things seen and unseen, the Almighty God. We know the Holy Scripture says that; "I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." - 2 John 1:7, 1 John 4:2.
I strongly believe that INM is a sponsored masonic cult by Masonic Illuminati Jesuits who came to create in this country, the so-called the Philippines, and established a Masonic government. Making the country as one of their major hub in this part of the world for a New World Order.
Please read below I copy n pasted from Letusreason.org for more in detailed understanding of what the INM believed and their errors. God bless!
IGLESIA NI MANALO: 20th Century Masonic Jesuit Illuminati Cult in the so-called Philippines.
Felix Manalo the 5th angel
His message is no different than the 7th day Adventists 3rd angels message of which he probably was influenced by when he studied with them. Rev 7:2: "Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea." Manalo claimed to be this angel.
How do they apply this prophecy to a Manalo? They claim the angel in this context means a human messenger. Angels do not preach the gospel so this must refer to a man. But we do find an angel preaching the gospel in Revelation from mid heaven Rev.14:6 "Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth-- to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people." I don't think he's using a plane! Angels are creatures that are spirits that dwell in heaven and do God's bidding to mankind on earth.
Rev.7:1: "After these things" Which they believe is the war described in Rev.6:12-15 which is the first world war, then Rev.7:1 there are four angels mentioned which are they interpreted as men.
Rev 7:2-3: "Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, saying, "Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads." Who are these other 4 angels who hold back the wind (war) they are:
1. Lloyd George of great Britain
2. Clemenceau of France
3. Orlando of Italy
4. Wilson of the U.S..
Manalo was already preaching "the gospel" in the Philippines so by deduction he is identified as the 5th angel to arise out of the east. Never mind that these other men were not believers, or part of Iglesia’s church. All this makes a very convoluted reasoning to prove something they think is relevant to them from the Bible. The logic of this claim completely fails when in v.2 states "He cried out to the other 4 angels "their is absolutely no evidence he (Manalo) communicated to these other 4 who are called by them angels. The U.S. did not enter the war until 1917 but Manalo points to the date of 1914 as crucial for the fulfillment, this would mean if he spoke to any it was 3 not 4. Not only this, but they participate in sealing 144,000 Jews for the tribulation. Where and when is the tribulation? Did these 4 men do this? Did Manalo do this, I don’t think so. Since when are sinful men called angels; angels that come from heaven?
Angels spoken of in the end of time in the book of Revelation come from heaven. Even if it says from the east it still has its origin in heaven Rev.10:1 "I saw still another mighty angel coming down from heaven, clothed with a cloud. And a rainbow was on his head, his face was like the sun, and his feet like pillars of fire."
Far east or East
Acts 2:39 for the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are a far off…"this is a promise to Israelites and their generation Manalo interpreted this to mean gentiles but they came up with no explanation how Israelites become Gentiles. But they insist this is their members in the Philippine's. (read also Acts 2:22.)
There are 48 biblical verses that employ the term a far off and 30 verses that use far off but none of them refer to the Philippines or Far East. Genesis 22:4 and 37.18; Exodus 2:4, 20:18, 20:21, 24:I and 33:7. Jeremiah 23.23, 31:10, 46:27 and 51:50. A far also found in Mark 5:6,11:13,14:54 and 15:40. Luke l6:23, 17:12, 18:13, 22.54, 23:49 and in the book of Revelation, chapter 18 :10, 15 and 17 among others. This is more than enough to show that afar off has been misinterpreted by the INC. In the same way a far off (in the distance) is referred to in Luke 23.49 "And all his acquaintance and women that followed him from Galilee stood afar off beholding these things." This goes right along with Peters proclamation to the children of Israel in Acts 2:39 "the promise is for you and your children and all who are a far off, for whom the Lord our God will call."
The only thing that is afar off is their unique interpretation of this passage.
Iglesia argues that in this verse Isaiah is referring to the "far east" and that this is the place where the "Church of Christ" will emerge in the last days. This point is constantly repeated in Iglesia literature: "The prophecy stated that God's children shall come from the far east" (Pasugo, March 1975, p.6).
But the phrase "far east" is not in the text. In fact, in the Tagalog (Philipino) translation, as well as in the original Hebrew, the words "far" and "east" are not even found in the same verse, yet the Iglesia recklessly combine the two verses to translate "far east." Using this fallacious interpretation Iglesia goes on to claim that the far east refers specifically to the Philippines. Who authorized Mofatt to add the word far to east, when this phrase does not appear in the Greek scripture, Isaiah the prophet only uses East. This is clearly referring to Israel and their being brought back from their captivity into the land.
Consistently and logic seem to be missing on this. While they claim the word Trinity is not found in the Bible an will argue incessantly about this fact neither is the Island Philippine's, but no one would deny that it does exist!
Iglesia is so determined to convince its followers of this "fact," that it quotes Isaiah 43:5 from an inexact paraphrase by James Moffat which reads: "From the far east will I bring your offspring." Citing this mistranslation, one Iglesia work states: "Is it not clear that you can read the words 'far east'? Clear! Why does not the Tagalog Bible show them? That is not our fault, but that of those who translated the Tagalog Bible from English--the Catholics and Protestant" (Isang Pagbubunyag Sa Iglesia ni Cristo, 1964:131). The Iglesia thus accuses everyone else of mistranslating the Bible, when in fact it is Iglesia who is taking great liberties with the original language. They use the translations that have infamously been used by other cults such as Lamsa’s and Moffatts. Prior to 1923 the Moffat translation was the first to mention this term and is the only one that does, none did before 1923 nor after. This could only be true if the Tagalog version used by INC was translated from Moffatt's but it was not, so their claim of wrong translation is false.
Their "far east" argument is that the Philippines is the geographic center of the Far East, so the restored Church would come from the Philippines. The problem is that Philippine islands are not the geographic center of the Far East. The Far East includes China, Korea, Japan, East Siberia, the Indo-Chinese countries, and the Philippines. On a map of the Far East the Philippines is on the lower right hand corner. The geographic center would be in Southern China, not in the Philippines. Not only this but the question is who is God calling, its not anyone else but Israel. Certainly Philipino's’s are not Semetic or Israel. Isaiah is speaking of a regathering into their homeland "I will bring your descendants." Are Philipinos' descendent s of Israel?
They also teach God's messenger will be called from a far country in the east from the Islands of the sea using Isa.46:11: "Calling a ravenous bird from the east. A man who executes my counsel from a far country."
In Iglesia's’s doctrine Manalo is that bird who is to preach the true gospel and snatch the true believers as a ravenous bird from the false religions. If one looks at the way birds are used in scripture especially one of prey it is almost unanimously of Satan (Mt.13, Mk.4). As far as executing God's counsel; because one does God's purpose does not mean he is God's messenger. Look a Pharaoh that was raised up to accomplish His purpose. Also Joel 2 in it they are called God's army and yet they bring judgment on God's people, and are destroyed by God in the end.
5861 `ayit-a bird of prey, a swooper (Brown driver briggs ) to scream, to shriek; (Qal) to scream 2) to dart greedily, to swoop upon, to rush upon; (Qal) to dart greedily
Isaiah 46:11 refers to Cyrus as "a ravenous bird (called) from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country"; "probably in allusion to the fact that the griffon was the emblem of Persia; and embroidered on its standard" (Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, I, 632) This is correct as far as history goes. Cyrus was used to have the Jews return from Babylon and although he is called Gods shepherd, (Isa. 45) he is not a good shepherd even though he was used by God. He allows Israel to rebuild the temple showing this all already took place in 539-536 B.C.. (compare Isa.46:11 and 44:28, 45:1)
This needs no comment and is self evident: if they want to wear this shoe it certainly fits.
What Do they Teach
Denying the deity of Christ
They teach Christ is only a man which had authority given to him using such scriptures Jn.8:40 and the numerous places Christ calls himself a man. Lk.24:36 where Jesus said to the mistaken disciples see a Spirit does not have flesh and bones so he is not a Spirit. He was correcting their wrong belief which proves he was not God (Also Hosea 11:9)
What they ignore is the context why they though the was a ghost, he just appeared in the room which no man can do. They argue against what we don’t believe. We do believe he was true man but he also was true God. Their argument is not with the church per se but the bible itself. Phil. 2 :5-11 solves all that challenges of his being subordinate. If one wants to look to Christ not being in this subordinate position the 2nd coming should be clear enough in Rev.17:14 "These shall make war with the Lamb and the Lamb shall overcome them; for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings."
Deut.10:17 tells us that Yahweh is the LORD OF LORDS. Only if Christ IS Yahweh and the Father IS Yahweh do we have any consistency in scripture.
Undermining The Bibles authority and replacing it with mans
The INC organization constantly claims that the Bible is the sole source of their doctrines but they subtly undermine the Bible's reliability and ultimate authority. This is a common practice of organized heresies.
"...some of the verses of the Bible were wrongly translated." PASUGO, February 1973, p. 16.
"No, it is beyond man's power and intelligence to study and understand the truth, which is God's word (John 17:17), by himself, without the guidance of God's messenger." (PASUGO, November 1973, p., 19, 20.)
What they do is train people to hear the voice of their own shepherd instead of the true shepherd.
"A doctrine is not of God if it is different from what is written in the Holy Scriptures, or even if found written but is not the present truth it becomes vain before God if used as the basis for worshipping God." ( PASUGO, Jan. 1976, p. 12.)
It is common for authoritarian groups to undermine anything that might threaten their position as the ultimate source of truth in the, life of the member.
The INC organization teaches that Jesus is not the true God, nor is He God in bodily form. This does not make them different from other religions. Instead they become just one of the many religions to hold the view of denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.
"Revelation 12:9 reveals that Satan is the deceiver of the whole world. The belief that Jesus is God is worldwide. Coincidence?" (PASUGO, September/October 1979, p. 26)
The INC organization here implies that it is Satan that is deceiving the world into believing that Jesus is God. We have shown you facts that most of the world believes that Jesus is not the true God. What facts do the INC organization have to prove that the belief that Jesus is God in bodily form has been spread worldwide by Satan? In Satan's attempt to discredit Jesus he always gives Him less honor than He deserves, not.
The INC misquotes Dr. Charles C. Ryrie (A.B., Haverford College; T.M., TH.D, Dallas Theological Seminary; Ph.D., University Of Edinburgh). He served as professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary for many years and is best known for his work on the Ryric Study Bible. We will now read what the INC organization said to make it appear that Dr. Ryrie agreed with them.
"In the annotations of his Ryrie Study Bible he had this to say about the phrase in John 1:1 'and the Word was with God."'
"In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (that is, in communion with and yet distinct from God) (p.1599)."
"Therefore, when Dr. Ryrie says, that the Word is distinct from God he is saying the Word is not the same, but rather separate or different from God." (PASUGO, May/June 1984, p. 14 & 15)
We will now see what Dr. Ryrie really has written in the annotations of his Ryrie Study Bible (page 1599):
"In this verse the Word (Christ) is said to be with God (i.e., in communion with and yet distinct from God) and to be God (i.e., identical in essence with God)."
The INC organization not only stopped Dr. Ryrie's quote in the middle of his statement, but they also placed a period after the word God which makes it appear that the statement stops there! This deliberate act of misquoting completely changes what Dr. Ryrie said. The INC organization claims that Dr. Ryrie says the Word (Christ) is different from God. That is not what Dr. Ryrie said! Dr. Ryrie said that in John 1:1 Christ is identical in essence with God and to be God.(Taken from the one book written on their movement The Only True church by Robert Eliff p.79-82)
There are many an organization that uses dishonest methods to prove their doctrines, what does that say about the organization and its doctrines? Is the INC doctrine that Jesus is not God in bodily form is so weak that they change the words of those they quote? In the same manner as the JW's they vainly attempt to explain away passages of the Bible that clearly teach that Jesus is in fact God in a human body. It’s easy to convince their own members when no one will look further than their own publication. Since their members do not read the Bible on their own, nor are they encouraged to pursue their own studies.e
"The true church is determined and can be singled out from the false, by evaluating her doctrines... Preachers of the true church do not explain away the passages of the Bible, they merely articulate on what is written... False preachers do the contrary they obscure what the bible teaches by their own preaching .(Pasugo nov.p19 1973)
Following in the footsteps of other organized heresies, the INC organization has used Colossians 1:15 to try to prove that Jesus was a created being. In actuality, this passage clearly demonstrates that Jesus is the Creator! Let's study what they have said and then compare it to what the Bible says.
"Colossians 1:15 states very clearly, Christ is 'the firstborn of every creature,' and is therefore not the Creator."(PASUGO, January/February 1980, p. 37.)
'Apostle Paul clearly taught that our Lord Jesus Christ is man. He is different from God. He is not God, neither is He God-Man. Rather, He is a man mediating between God and men."(GOD'S MESSAGE / July - September 1994)
"The scriptures do not teach that Christ is the creator of all things." (PASUGO, March/April 1982, p. 26.)
Really! Col.1:15 certainly does as well as Jn.1:3 and many other passages. The real problem is that they do not read their bibles unless they are inside the Church or a study with an instructor
John 1:2-3: " He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through through Him, and without Him nothing was made without Him nothing was made that was made." This does not exclude e Father and the Spirit. Just as it says in Gen.1, in the beginning God created, therefore if Christ created then Christ is God. How they avoid this is hard to understand, yet avoid it they do. Like the many other anti-deity cults they must jump through numerous hoops to prove this is not true
Col. 1:16-19: " For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell,' the fullness of what? Col.2:9 says of deity." What makes God -God was pleasantly and completely in Christ.
Savior
They agree that mans basic problem is sin and they agree that Christ's death is the only solution to the problem. but they teach the only way to appropriate the benefits of Christ's death is through the Church and its messenger, so they are indirectly denying salvation is by Christ's atonement on the cross obtained through repentance and faith.
Isa.19:20: "And he shall send them a Savior." We find in Isa. 63:8 it states of God "so he became their Savior." When we come to the New Testament we find who that Savior is.
Lk.2:11: "For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior who is Christ the Lord." Notice he says the Savior is born, God who is savior, meaning the Son of God came in the flesh. Emmanuel God with us. Titus 2:13 Jesus is called our great God and savior. (Titus 3:6; 2 Tim.1:10) "The Lord Jesus Christ our Savior." 1 Tim.4:10, 2 Pt.1:1 "Of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. "In the OT it is clear that God alone is Savoir.( Isa.41:3,11; 45:15, 49:26, Hos.13:4) their is no contradiction in the Scripture.
Passages such as Jn.17:3 That "this is eternal life that they may know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." They claim the only true God is the father, not Christ. Despite the controversy over the only true God and Jesus being equal, there are other passages that clarify this. The same John also wrote 1 Jn.5:20: "And we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ this is the true God and eternal life." There is no father mentioned in this passage. If the Son is the true God then doesn’t that make him eternal, possessing eternal life as his personal nature? Of course it does, this is the clear teaching of scripture but this can’t be seen if one does not read the scripture. as they receive instruction only from their services, messengers and magazine. It works for the JW’s and it does for Iglesia.
Scriptures they camp on are Jn.10:29 and my father is Greater than all Jn.14:28, Showing that Christ cannot be God.
In Jn.13:16 it states "A servant is not greater than their master." If taken as they teach and one would use their own mind instead of what they were trained in, the flaw becomes evident. Since Jesus is less than the Father in nature this would mean the disciples are less in nature than Jesus who is to them only a man. But this verse is speaking of position not nature. This is found by the meaning of the word greater and in the Greek and in the logical context in those passage and the overall teaching of scripture. They then go to Jn.5:37 the father sent Jesus to prove he can’t be God if he is sent. Jn.20:21-22: "As the Father sent me, I also send you. Again if this were a statement of nature then when Jesus sends out the disciples who are different than himself they would be less in nature than him being not human. Once again all one has to do is show where Jesus was sent from (heaven) to solve this dilemma. Did Jesus as a man preexist in heaven, not likely that anyone would concede to this interpretation.
Jn.7:29: " I am from Him and He has sent me." John 16:16,17,:28 states, "I came forth from the Father and have come into the world, again I leave the world and go to the Father. "The Fathers location is in heaven.
John 6:38 Jesus states, "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of HIM WHO SENT ME."
Jn.6:33 "For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
John 6:62: "What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? Jn. 8:23 "You are from beneath, I am from above, you are of this world, I am not of this world."Jn3:31 "He who comes from above is above all... 1 Cor.15:47: "the first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second man is the Lord from heaven. Here again is showing the origin of the Son coming from above. Who does Iglesia think came from heaven? For this they simply avoid an answer and go back to their stance Jesus is a man (only).
They consistently set up simple straw man arguments and knock them down with ease. They bring attention to the hard passages that take more time to explain and immediately dismiss them as they insert their meaning as plain and clear. Their teaching is basically to counter all of Christianity
Eph.4:6: "One Father in you all? Do they believe God is in someone? No.
Jer.23:6 calls a man the Lord our righteousness = In the NT we find Christ is our righteousness
Resurrection
Since God cannot die Jesus died therefore he is not God. But while we use the phrase God died what we mean is Christ the man did. God cannot die but gave up the body he lived in. They also claim who raised him Acts.2:32 God did Rom.6 the father did neglecting what Jesus said of himself Jn.2:19: "Destroy this temple and I will raise it up." v. 21 he was speaking of the temple of his body
Jn.10:17-18: "Therefore does my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." It is inconsequential whether he received the instruction from the Father. He is involved in raising up himself in body, so for one to do this they must still be living as Spirit to accomplish this.
What of the clear statements that Christ said he is Lord of the Sabbath. Meaning he is the creator who rested on the 7th day. Why is it so crucial to know him and he to know us in Mt.7:21, does God want us to have a relationship with only a man or himself. Would God tell us to pray in a mans name or even a prophets no matter how great they were. Of course not, we invoke the name above all names in prayer, how could that be only a mans. Yes he is a man, but not only a man as he is deity as proven in the transfiguration.
Afterlife
They borrowed soul sleep from the 7th day Adventists where a person has no consciousness after death. This is directly traced to their influence Manalo had when he was trained. Not even in the early church did the false teachers came up with this one.
While they do teach the 2nd coming of Christ they do not teach any millennial reign on earth. It is these areas that there is little information on since no one leaves to tell about it except a few.
Source: Letusreason.org Pls click HERE for more info about the INM Philippine Cult.
Post a Comment