Catholic Faith Defenders Inc. (Catholicam Fidei Defensor)

Immaculate Conception Cathedral Parish
Ozamiz City, Philippines
Contact Website Administrator +63918-564-4961
Bro. Wendell P. Talibong, CFD

Thursday, September 27, 2007

The IGLESIA NI CRISTO founded by Felix Y. Manalo, the anti-Christ

THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO FOUNDED BY FELIX Y. MANALO, THE FILIPINO ANGEL WITHOUT WINGS

Q: What are the oneness deceptions of the Iglesia ni Cristo?
A: They are oneness of body, spirit, hope, Lord, faith, and God, as specified in Eph. 4:4-6:

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." (Eph.4:4-6 NKJV)

Felix Y. Manalo has been teaching that the Iglesia ni Cristo is a true church based on its alleged conformance with the oneness prescribed in the Ephesian verses. Looking with a magnifying glass, however, what the Iglesia preaches is different from what it practices. Let's look at each of these:

One body?

Manalo teaches the one body specified in the verse is the Church of Christ or Iglesia ni Cristo. This is a lie. The one body according to the teaching of Apostle Paul is no other than Jesus Christ's flesh and bones body. Let's read the verse:

"For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones." (Eph.5:30 NKJV)

Manalo is a liar who lives on deceptions. The true one body is not his Iglesia ni Cristo cult, but, Jesus Christ's own body of flesh and bones.

One Spirit?

Manalo teaches that the Iglesia ni Cristo has one Spirit. This is a lie. How can the Iglesia ni Cristo has one Spirit when it uses many versions and translations of Bibles whose authors have conflicting spirits of translations? The following are examples of Manalo's Bible versions and the specific verses in which they are used:

1. Acts 20:28 (Manalo uses only Lamsa Translation);
2. Col. 3:15 (Manalo uses the Revised Standard V.);
3. Eph.2:15 (Manalo uses only the New King James V.);
4. Isaiah 43:5-6 (Manalo uses both Moffatt and NKJV. Moffatt for the word, "Far East," and NKJV for the "west" word);
5. Eph.5:23 (Manalo uses the Today's English V.);
6. John 10:9 (Manalo uses the Revised English Bible)
7. Col.1:25 (Manalo uses the Rotherham Emphasized Bible);
8. Heb.10:25-27 (Manalo uses the New King James V.)

In Manalo's Iglesia ni Cristo, for every verse, there is a required Bible Version or Translation to be used.
Manalo has to use different versions in order to easily pervert the Scriptures. This is evidence enough that the Iglesia ni Cristo is of the devil because a true church needs only one Bible version or translation.

Other than practising many spirits in the use of the Bible, what else is another evidence that the Iglesia ni Cristo has different spirit from that which was taught by the Apostles?

"By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God." (1 Jn.4:2-3 NKJV)

Bear in mind that those who are of God confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, meaning, Jesus Christ is not originally human, but when He came to earth, he came as a human. Since the Iglesia ni Cristo categorically fights that Jesus Christ is a man, absolutely and never was he at one time a God, Manalo's cult is therefore not of God. The Iglesia ni Cristo has a different spirit, an evil spirit.

Manalo's demagoguery of Rev. 7:1-3

Manalo teaches that Rev. 7:1-3 is the prophesy portion of his third group. Question is, why would the third, if any, would violate God's Bible presentation? It has always been the presentation of naming first the Jews as the first group, then comes the Gentiles as the second group. If there is a third group such as Manalo's Church of Christ group, it should be presented right after the Gentiles, is it not?

Here are the proofs:

"even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Rom.9:24 NKJV)

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jews first and also for the Greek." (Rom. 1:16 NKJV)

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28 NKJV)

Take note that Jews precede the Gentiles always in the presentation. If there will be third group, it should be found right after the Gentiles.

According to the above three verses, there are only two races that have the promise of salvation namely: Jews and Gentiles (or Greek). The Gentile race covers all other races other than Jews. There is no third group that we can see being included. This means that the Iglesia ni Cristo group is unauthorized, meaning, it was not planted by Christ. Who do you think planted this bad seed tares third group of Manalo? It is planted by the devil! The Iglesia ni Cristo cult is of the devil!

11 comments:

alfred said...

Cephas or Christ

Good day to you. We Catholics believe that the foundation stone of the Church whom Christ built the Church as it is written in Matthew 16:18 is Peter. Jesus changed the name of Apostle Simon (Peter) to Cephas (John 1:35-42), which is translated, a stone. Both Cephas (Aramaic and Peter (Greek) mean the same. Simon’s name was changed to Cephas or Peter, because he was later to be given a special role, to be the foundation o the Church. Quoting Matthew 16:18, Christ said to Peter, “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church.” Are these facts not clear to you that Peter is the foundation of the Church? Why do you insist your wrong belief when you believe that the Bible is the sole basis of your faith? You contradict your own teachings, thus, you do not have the right to preach the gospel!!!

Karl Damon Baldwin

MY REPLY:

We do not deny that Jesus changed the name of Apostle Simon to Cephas or Peter which means a stone. To conclude however that it is because he will hold the title as the foundation of the Church is to resort to a personal interpretation of the Scriptures, which leads to destruction (II Peter 3:16).
The context shows that the rock foundation is Christ Himself (Mt. 16:13-18). In fact, the verse even shows that Peter is indeed different from the rock which upon the Church was built. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible renders the verse, thus:
“And I tell you, you are Peter {Greek [Petros or stone]} and on this rock {Greek [Petra or massive rock]} I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”
Check out I Peter 2:4-5, 9, it says that God’s people are also called living stones but it does not mean that they are the rock upon which Christ built His Church. Peter never taught that he was the foundation of the Church. The truth is, he himself taught that it was Christ who was the chief cornerstone or the rock foundation of the Church He built (I Pet. 2:5, 7, NKJV; Acts 4:10-11)
But you might argue again that when Christ ascended to heaven, Peter became the foundation of the Church. Let us clarify this, when Jesus built His Church, He is the rock upon the Church was built and not Peter as Peter himself said, from the above cited verses of his writings contrary to what you believed and mentioned earlier. Laying another foundation stone upon the Church as you contend is another violation to the teachings of the Apostles. This was iterated by Paul in his teachings:

“For no other foundation can anyone lay than that what is laid, which is Jesus Christ (I Cor. 3:11, NKJV)

It is clear therefore, that the foundation laid was Jesus Christ and no other foundation can anyone lay except that what is laid.

Built upon the wrong foundation is bound to collapse (Lk 6:49, Rev. 14:8)

We hope that this truth enlightens you. God bless you.

alfred said...

Cephas or Christ

Good day to you. We Catholics believe that the foundation stone of the Church whom Christ built the Church as it is written in Matthew 16:18 is Peter. Jesus changed the name of Apostle Simon (Peter) to Cephas (John 1:35-42), which is translated, a stone. Both Cephas (Aramaic and Peter (Greek) mean the same. Simon’s name was changed to Cephas or Peter, because he was later to be given a special role, to be the foundation o the Church. Quoting Matthew 16:18, Christ said to Peter, “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church.” Are these facts not clear to you that Peter is the foundation of the Church? Why do you insist your wrong belief when you believe that the Bible is the sole basis of your faith? You contradict your own teachings, thus, you do not have the right to preach the gospel!!!

Karl Damon Baldwin

MY REPLY:

We do not deny that Jesus changed the name of Apostle Simon to Cephas or Peter which means a stone. To conclude however that it is because he will hold the title as the foundation of the Church is to resort to a personal interpretation of the Scriptures, which leads to destruction (II Peter 3:16).
The context shows that the rock foundation is Christ Himself (Mt. 16:13-18). In fact, the verse even shows that Peter is indeed different from the rock which upon the Church was built. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible renders the verse, thus:
“And I tell you, you are Peter {Greek [Petros or stone]} and on this rock {Greek [Petra or massive rock]} I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.”
Check out I Peter 2:4-5, 9, it says that God’s people are also called living stones but it does not mean that they are the rock upon which Christ built His Church. Peter never taught that he was the foundation of the Church. The truth is, he himself taught that it was Christ who was the chief cornerstone or the rock foundation of the Church He built (I Pet. 2:5, 7, NKJV; Acts 4:10-11)
But you might argue again that when Christ ascended to heaven, Peter became the foundation of the Church. Let us clarify this, when Jesus built His Church, He is the rock upon the Church was built and not Peter as Peter himself said, from the above cited verses of his writings contrary to what you believed and mentioned earlier. Laying another foundation stone upon the Church as you contend is another violation to the teachings of the Apostles. This was iterated by Paul in his teachings:

“For no other foundation can anyone lay than that what is laid, which is Jesus Christ (I Cor. 3:11, NKJV)

It is clear therefore, that the foundation laid was Jesus Christ and no other foundation can anyone lay except that what is laid.

Built upon the wrong foundation is bound to collapse (Lk 6:49, Rev. 14:8)

We hope that this truth enlightens you. God bless you.

alfred said...

You say that the Lamsa is the only one that render the verse of Acts 20:28 Church of Christ. This means that your criticism to the Iglesia ni Cristo does not even hold water. If we can show you other translations aside from Lamsa, what? but the fact is, there are many.! Granting that the Lamsa is the only one that render the verse Church of Christ, let us scrutinize the verse: "Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers to feed the "church of Christ which He purchased with His blood."

The one new man is Christ and His Church (Eph. 2:15) Christ is the head of the Church(Col. 1:18)He Himself built (Mt. 16:18)therefore, the Church is the Body of Christ the body is the Church of Christ! Its official name is called Church of Christ named after its head who is Christ. (Rom. 16:16) Now, why do we use the Lamsa version instead of other versions? Original versions states Church of the Lord(Maran). The Lord here does not refer to God but to Christ. Why? It was Christ who shed His blood and not God (I Pt. 1:2; Eph. 5:25). God is spirit in state of being (Jn. 4:24) this means that He has no flesh and bones as well as blood (Lk. 24:39)The pronoun "He" purchased with His blood in the verse refers to the Lord(Maran) Christ. There is still no rule to compel that when one is alone then his stand would be wrong.

Church Defender said...

You know what, here's the deal, a defender of the devil got the thickest face on earth by defending the anti-Christ at www.resbak.com

You will find his argument funny and his really expert in personal assassination just like other Iglesia ni Felix Manalo are.

Ritz said...

Iglesia ministers are arrogant yet lack depth in the knowledge of the scriptures.

Even a theology student of one seminary in any part of the country let it debate with a 25 year practicing minister, the ministers are arguing like a student in grade school.

The trainings for these ministers are for the income generation of the MANALO CLAN rather than what they claim that it is for the church of Christ.

Just observe, they don't open a LIVE PHONE IN QUESTIONS in all their programs. Not even a website to open up blogs for inquiries on their deceptive doctrines.

My wife who's a former INC now is a devote Catholic, can't believe how she and her family was lured into the fake and self serving church of Manalo.

I always defend the Catholic Church and Im proud and happy to see blogs and websites for this Catholic Defenders. GOD BLESS YOU.

cbesplago said...

Hay kawawa naman kayong mga Iglesia Apostolica Romana o Mga Paganomg Romano. Hinde kayo nakakaintindi ng simpling pagbabasa

KeyAuror55 said...

Acts 20:28 in Greek

προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς καὶ παντὶ τῷ ποιμνίῳ, ἐν ᾧ ὑμᾶς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἔθετο ἐπισκόπους, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποιήσατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.

Acts 20:28 in Latin
Attendite vobis, et universo gregi, in quo vos Spiritus Sanctus posuit episcopos regere ecclesiam Dei, quam acquisivit sanguine suo.

Acts 20:28 in English
Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost has placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he has purchased with his own blood.


ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ
ecclesiam Dei
Church of God

all ancient translations of the Bible have "Church of God" in Acts 20:28 not "Church of Christ." This is contrary to what the Lamsa version which reads Church of Christ. Also, there are more translations that use Church of God. So why do INC keep on insisting the usage of Church of Christ in Acts 20:28? To prove that their name is biblical? So what if your name is in the Bible? Are you sure that it is the modern INC founded by Manalo whom St. Paul refers to in Acts 20:28? No, it is the Church in Ephesus.

So, who's distorting the Bible now?

KeyAuror55 said...

And who gave INC (as well as other sects who break away from the Roman Catholic Church) the Holy Bible? Who decided which books should be in the Bible and in what order? Manalo? Luther? Calvin? Any preacher? No! It's the Catholic Church through the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, guided by the Holy Spirit.

If it is the Church who gave you the Bible, why won't you listen to her official interpretation of the Bible, as inspired by the Holy Spirit? Why do you keep on attacking her using her own work? Can't you not send her a thank-you note?

KeyAuror55 said...

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.

In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum.

In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.

John 1:1

Just apply your reading comprehension skills on this verse to know that Jesus is God. He, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit form the Holy Trinity, One God in three distinct persons, yet consubstantial in nature. This is an ancient and biblical doctrine, more ancient than INC of Manalo.

James said...

To the author:
Is that all you've got? How can you explain Catholics worshiping statues that are made of woods. How can you explain trinity? If Mary the mother of Christ gave birth to a God then that would make her a God as well right? And that also makes Mary "mother of God's" ancestors Gods. I'm pretty sure her ancestors are also your ancestors and my ancestors and that would make us Gods. No wonder why you guys do whatever you want because you think you are GODS.
Just do what you keep on doing catholic gods, may the true God and the only God (not the trinity nor any saints that you are worshiping because you think that they are also gods) have mercy on you.

akura said...

to james, you've only shown that you know nothing about the scriptures, about catholic faith and the church.. you are just basing everything from your own understanding, from hearsay and false accusations, suggestions ko lang ha, you must know Him better, read the Bible, NOT THE BIBLE REVISED BY YOUR OWN CULT, ay sorry, religion pala.. puro kayo akusa.. wala namang basehan... NAKITA NYO BA? or do you even know why use such kind of terms? Be thankful that the catholic church was established, eh kung wala, wala kayong basis wala kayong tutularan.. wala kayong bibliya.. nagsisimula kayo ng arguments tapos sa bandang huli kayo ang magagalit... forgive me Señor for i have sinned... Amen..