IS JESUS A MERE MAN?

I heard from a video broadcast of INC, that jesus is not a mere man bec though he is man, he is not an ordinary man but a special man. Therefore they are saying he is not a mere man.

My reaction is: though he is special and not an ordinary man, still he is a man so logically, he is a mere man analyzing it from their concept that he is man and special. Nothing suggests that he is more than man. By alluding to their references in context with their interpretation, they should have better stick to the concept that jesus is mere man bec if they insist that jesus is not mere man then its problematic seeing that jesus though he is special, still he is man–therefore a mere man.

But in correct interpretation, is jesus really a mere man?

John 6:38
[38]For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Hebrews 10:5
[5]Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

As you can see, as clearly stated, the one coming from heaven is the one and the same being talking on earth therefore by analogy, he too, was a thinking, talking being in heaven.

Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,

Jesus’ physical body came from the womb of mary.

Matthew 1:20
[20]But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

So as imperative, the undeniable question would be: When did jesus as a thinking, talking human being–a man–existed in heaven and then afterwards, came down to earth, entered Mary’s womb, became a fetus, conceived then begotten as mere man?

Its unlikely, right? The physical man came from the womb of mary.

So who is the thinking, talking being in heaven that came down from heaven and was incorporated to a human host and become jesus christ?

Obviously, its the verbo or the word.

John 1:1,14
[1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[14]And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

So is jesus a mere man?

Nope. He was the thinking, talking verbo–a god–in heaven, came down to earth then incorporated itself to a human host–and was born as jesus christ.

Hebrews 10:5
[5]Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

Advertisements

COMMENTARY: “Diyos ng INC nagsisinungaling?”

Ayon sa INC, Kaya daw ng dios magsinungaling dahil kaya niya lahat ng bagay. Una, kaya bang gawing ng dios lahat ng bagay? Kaya ba niyang magsuicide kahit na immortal siya? Natural hinde. So mali na kaya ng dios lahat ng bagay.
Pangalawa, sabi ng bible: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO LIE.

Hebrews 6:18
[18]That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

So paanong makakaya niyang magsinungaling e imposible nga siyang makapagsinungaling. Sabi ng INC DEFENDERS, KAYA NIYA PERO HINDE NIYA GAGAWIN.

Pero tanong: paano niya makakaya e walang paraan para makaya niya dahil imposible nga siyang magsinungaling?

Gayunpaman, sumagot sila. Eto sagot ni Allan Valenzuela:

Ang Dios na kinikilala ng Iglesia ni Cristo ay MAKAPANGYARIHAN SA LAHAT

Ang tanong ng grupo ni Eli Soriano gaya ni Dennis Butic ay kung may imposible ba sa Dios na makapangyarihan sa lahat?

Liwanagin muna natin. Ang salitang “IMPOSIBLE” ay may dalawang kahulugan.

Ang isang kahulugan ng salitang “IMPOSIBLE” ay “WALANG KAKAYAHAN, O KAPANGYARIHAN, O KAPASIDAD NA GAWIN”.

Ang isa namang kahulugan ng salitang “IMPOSIBLE” ay “HINDI KAILANMAN GAGAWIN”.

E di sagutin na natin. May imposible ba sa Dios na makapangyarihan sa lahat? Meron. ‘YUN ANG MGA BAGAY NA HINDI NIYA GAGAWIN KAILANMAN.

Kaya tama ang nakasulat sa Biblia na IMPOSIBLE SA DIOS ANG MAGSINUNGALING. Bakit? HINDI NIYA KASI GAGAWIN ‘YUN KAILANMAN SAPAGKAT ANG KATANGIAN NG DIOS AY BANAL AT TAPAT SA KANYANG MGA SALITA.

Isa pang halimbawa. HINDI GAGAWIN NG DIOS NA GAWING UNGGOY KAILANMAN SI DENNIS BUTIC. KAYA IMPOSIBLE SA DIOS NA GAWING UNGGOY SI DENNIS BUTIC.

Pero hindi dahil hindi gagawin ng Dios kailanman si Dennis Butic na unggoy ay nangangahulugan na walang kakayahan, kapangyarihan o kapasidad ang Dios na gawing unggoy si Dennis Butic.

Kaya ng Dios na gawing unggoy si Butic pero hindi Niya gagawin.

Lahat ng bagay ay posible sa Dios kung pag-uusapan ay kakayahan, kapangyarihan o kapasidad.

Gagawin ng Dios ang Kanyang ibig o nais na gawin. Huwag nating ipagawa sa Dios ang hindi naman Niya ibig o nais na gawin. At dahil sa ayaw o hindi gagawin ng Dios ay huwag naman nating hamakin at maliitin ang kakayahan, kapangyarihan at kapasidad ng Dios

Ang Dios ay hindi limitadong Dios.

Kung himayin natin sinabi niya, basically, sinasabi niyang may mga imposible sa dios, dahil kahit kaya niyang gawin e ayaw niyang gawin. Kaya imposible niya daw akong gawing unggoy dahil itoy isa sa mga bagay na ayaw niyang gawin. Pero, ika kaya daw niya. Pero totoo ba ito?

Una, pinauna ko ng imposible sa dios magsinungaling. Paanong imposible? Dahil ba kaya niyang gawin ngunit ayaw lang niyang gawin?

Proverbs 8:7-9
[7]For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
[8]All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
[9]They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.

Kaya, pala imposible siyang magsinungaling, dahil katotohanan ang lahat ng salita niya, walang liko, walang bulaan. So paano pa niya makakayang magsinungaling e imposible niyang makaya dahil katotohanan lahat ng salita niya?

Imposible daw dahil kaya niya ngunit ayaw niya lang.

Talaga namang ayaw niya dahil imposible niyang makaya. Me assurance na nga na katotohanan lahat ng salita niya so imposible talagang makaya niyang magsinungaling–dahil totoo nga lahat sasabihin niya so paano niya makaya ngunit hinde niya gagawin?

Sabi niya:

Kaya tama ang nakasulat sa Biblia na IMPOSIBLE SA DIOS ANG MAGSINUNGALING. Bakit? HINDI NIYA KASI GAGAWIN ‘YUN KAILANMAN SAPAGKAT ANG KATANGIAN NG DIOS AY BANAL AT TAPAT SA KANYANG MGA SALITA.

Mistulang inamin niyang, ayaw ng dios talagang magsinungaling dahil imposible niyang makaya dahil banal at tapat siya sa salita. Kung katangian niya yon, paano pa niya makaya?

Paanong kaya niyang magsinungaling e katangian na ng dios ang maging makatotohanan?

Psalms 33:4
[4]For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.

Sabi pa niya:

Gagawin ng Dios ang Kanyang ibig o nais na gawin. Huwag nating ipagawa sa Dios ang hindi naman Niya ibig o nais na gawin.

Saan kaya mababasa na ayaw ng dios magsinungaling kaya imposible siyang magsinungaling?

MCGI’s NEW TRUTH AND PROGRESSIVE KNOWLEDGE

Knowledge, foremost, has to be progressive until it reaches perfection. Meaning, knowledge has to be flexible or changing til it reaches its final state wherein knowledge is fixed. While it is necessary true that truth is inerrant, it doesnt necessarily imply that preachers are likewise, too. Fact is even apostles erred in doctrine when they had at one time adhered to the law of moses as effectual doctrine when during these times, it was an invalid law, as it say:

Acts 21:18-24
[18]And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present.
[19]And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.
[20]And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:
[21]And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
[22]What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come.
[23]Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them;
[24]Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

As it testified, The apostles requested paul to falsify the accusation that he apparently teaches people to refrain from Moses and its customs to prove that indeed it was the opposite, as it say:

[24]Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

By saying:

and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing

It implies, the apostles wanted a guarantee that paul never rejected Moses and its customs as he was accused of:

And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.

They required him to keep the law of moses:

but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

By this, it logically implied the apostles adherance to the law of Moses, which if we are to note was earlier invalidated by jesus as it say:

Luke 16:16

The law and the prophets were until john…

Paul then went on in correcting their false stand as he wrote:

Hebrews 7:12
[12]For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Clearly, it testified that the apostles was indeed in error. Faulty, it implied a state of spiritual imperfection. Yes, perfection is not yet realized in the church but as notably, was an aspiration.

Hebrews 6:1-4
[1]Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

2 Corinthians 13:9
[9]For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection.

New truth therefore would emerge to complement the concept of progressive and flexible knowledge until such a time that we reach perfection as it say:

Isaiah 29:24
[24]They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.

Perfection would come after impurities such as doctrinal errors are purged like silver or gold is purged. Look at how the church should progress. It needs a purging stage as it say:

Zechariah 13:8-9
[8]And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the LORD, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.
[9]And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The LORD is my God.

We made doctrinal errors. Thats a fact. Its bec we havent reach yet perfection. It needs to be purged like gold or silver. Faulty, are we then wicked? No, we were blind and being that, we were sinless as it say:

John 9:41
[41]Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

It was so as reflected by bro eli’s confirmation:


So if you are offended bec at some instances bro eli made errors, you shouldn’t be. The apostles made errors, how much so bro eli?

IS PETER THE AUTHOR OF 1ST AND 2ND PETER?

Certainly, Peter was the author. Doubts arise from academic scholars who through their theoretical views implanted confusion but in matters of biblical context relative to reality, there is undeniable proof to this conclusion, that without ambiguity, peter wrote the books.

Firstly, their is a signature that confirmed the author as it say:

1 Peter 1:1
[1]Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

Internal evidence confirms it further:

1 Peter 5:1
[1]The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

The author confirmed firstly that he is apostle peter through identification. Secondly, he was a witness of christ’s suffering which further the thought that indeed this is apostle peter. But is this sufficient as validation? It may be insufficient thus let us explore the biblical context as material evidence to the authenticity of the books.

God promised this:

Psalms 102:12,18
[12]But thou, O LORD, shalt endure for ever; and thy remembrance unto all generations.
[18]This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.

It say, the remembrance of god lives on unto all generation through a specific manuscript or writing material. Through it people will praise God.

Question: As far as history goes, which manuscript have been extant as a religious material instrumental to the remembrance of god?

The bible, right? Since its inception, say 4th century AD, it is the only religious material in biblical context that was meant for the remembrance of God. Furthermore, it indicated its uniqueness as stated:

Isaiah 34:16
[16]Seek ye out of the SEPHER (MANUSCRIPT) of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her REUTH (ADDITIONAL ONE) for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

The distinct characteristic of this manuscript of god is firstly, it dont need additional religious materials. Secondly, it is described in its historical fulfillment as “gathered”. Nothing of such sort have been a reality than biblical manuscripts. Historically, there is only one considered as manuscript of god gathered as one collective truth that dont need additional religious materials than the bible. It was described as written for the remembrance of god unto all generation. Therefore the bible in its correct text, was the promised manuscript meant for the remembrance of god unto all generation. First of all, it dont speak of the old testament manuscripts as it still needs the gospel. Only the complete bible fulfills what is termed as “dont need additional one”.

Coincidentally, nothing in history provides factual reality in this sense, to have god remembered and praised unto all generation than through the bible. So logically, the bible is the fulfillment of the promise that a manuscript that dont need additional religious materials was written for the remembrance of god unto all generation. Therefore, being the fulfillment of the prophecy, then the bible is the manuscript of god, and being that, then it is truthful.

The books of peter was included in the bible listing, therefore by critical analysis, it could be nothing other than truthful. The books of peter is therefore truthful being a manuscript of god. It is therefore Peter speaking in these manuscripts.

Relatively, peter confirmed paul’s words that he is a true apostle therefore making paul indeed a true apostle by virtue of peter’s attestation.

2 Peter 3:15-16
[15]And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
[16]As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

BRO ELI CALLED ME AN IMPOSTOR

Read the attached document first:

TO SIS JANE ABAO
APPOINTED BY BRO ELI AS HEAD OF INTERNET WATCH

Dearest sister, im writing you this letter out of brotherly love to clarify on matters of misunderstanding that have been exposed sometime ago in twitter which based upon, you utilize to further your personal rejection of me as a brother. Indeed, you need to moved on from archaic matters wherein bro eli accused me of the following:
IMPOSTOR
NOT GENUINE
MAY SAYAD
Utilizing this, as invocation for your personal decision to reject me as a brother, it is rather farfetched, misunderstood and misleading seeing that youre already a dignitary of the church and influential whereas you may provoke a voluminous action from brethren in like manner as your rejection. I dont want you to mislead people with your apparently jump to conclusion remedy. I say, its jump to conclusion, as nothing in bro eli’s words impart the thought that im a fake brother. He simply said: impostor. To what context it was said was unclear. Does he indeed meant me as an impostor brother or just merely an impostor teacher having at the time the tendency for me to preach my own adverse teaching. We were polar opposite in some instances wherein i debated him for reason, logic and truth to be exposed and through it i may learn. Sometimes, i posted in his account adversarial points with the purpose of elucidating myself through his answers, to be refuted in return thereby through it i may learn. It was all for learning process, my way of educating myself. It was not ill motivated yet now i guess its a wrong move thus presently, i reformed my religious approach.
Now once and for all, i wanted things to be clarified with finality whether brother eli indeed rejected me as a brother or not, thus it is with concern that i request for you to clarify this matter. Did bro eli indeed called me impostor brother or he meant impostor in other terms, such as impostor teacher? Without clarity, it is of utmost concern for me, how you would influence others to be in like mentality with you–to possibly, be in error. So if possible, please clarify. What did bro eli meant when he said that im an impostor? Bec at face value, it is unclear.
The recurring doubt is, if bro eli indeed rejected me as a brother, why didnt he excommunicated me? Maybe bec he meant impostor in other terms than fake brother.

Without resolution on this matter, i would always be at the cesspool of suspicion wherein doubt on my credibility as a brother would always be dominant–and much so, lingering.

Sincerely,
Denn

Note: please send this to sis jane.