Eto po paliwanag ng isang INC member na si Allan Valenzuela:

“Dennis Butic is more likely to use the fallacy of strawman.

Walang aral ang Iglesia ni Cristo na ang humalili kay Kapatid na Felix Manalo bilang Pamamahala ay hindi sugo o walang karapatang mangaral ng mga salita ng Dios.

Ang Kapatid na Felix Manalo ay huling sugo sa sintido na siya ang huling kinasangkapan ng Dios para pasimulan ang HULING GAWAIN NG DIOS SA PAGLILIGTAS.

Ang Kapatid na Erano Manalo, at sa kasalukuyan ay ang Kapatid na Eduardo Manalo bilang kasalukuyang Tagapamahalang Pangkalahatan, kasama na ang lahat ng mga ministro ay mga sugo din ng Dios sa sintido na sila ay may karapatan na mangaral at magturo ng mga salita ng Dios, na nabahagi naman nila sa karapatan ng Kapatid na Felix Manalo, bilang huling kinasangkapan ng Dios na nagpasimula ng huling gawain ng Dios sa pagliligtas.

Napakaliwanag sa amin ng mga aral na aming sinasampalatayanan,at bunga lamang ng maling pagkaunawa ng iba tulad sa mga nadaya ni Eli Soriano palibhasa’y ang mas gustong paniwalaan at pakinggan ay ang mga huwad na tagapangaral tulad ni Eli Soriano na PINAGHAHANAP NG BATAS NG PILIPINAS, DAHIL SA SALANG PANGHAHALAY NG KAPWA LALAKE.”

Ito poy rebuttal niya sa FB post kong ito:

“AYON SA ARAL INC, HULING SUGO SI FELIX MANALO at yung sumunod sa kanya e hinde na sugo…

Ito daw ay tulad ni moses na sugo pero ang humalili sa kanya e hinde sugo.

Unang una, hinde po huling sugo si moses so marapat me kahalili at si joshua e sugo din.
si joshua na kahalili ni moses e sugo po…

Joshua 1:1-2,7-9
[1]Now after the death of Moses the servant of the LORD it came to pass, that the LORD spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ minister, saying,
[2]Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.
[7]Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.
[8]This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
[9]Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.”

Dahil itinatanggi niya ang ilang parte nito at sinasabing mga sugo din daw yung humalili sa huling sugo na sina Erano at Edwardo Manalo, ang tanong: Saan mababasa sa bibliya na ang huling sugo e me kasunod pa?

Eto po klaro ang sinabi niya:

“Ang Kapatid na Felix Manalo ay huling sugo sa sintido na siya ang huling kinasangkapan ng Dios para pasimulan ang HULING GAWAIN NG DIOS SA PAGLILIGTAS.”

So maliwanag po na huling sugo si manalo para sa huling gawain ng pagliligtas. So ibig sabihin, siya ang panggagalingan ng ituturo ng mga sumunod na sugo.




True. The word is a name of the lamb–the lord of lords and king of kings.

Revelation 19:13,16
[13]And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
[16]And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

Who is that lord and king?

Revelation 17:14
[14]These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

We all know that it refers to jesus. But then the book of revelation is a book of imagery–non literal in essence such as the woman great babylon is not a literal woman, therefore that someone bearing the name “word of god” is not a literal person. It could be a metaphor for the literal word of god.

These are possible arguments. But then the confirmatory factor that verifies the word in john 1:1 and revelation 19 as a name of jesus christ’s preexistent state was jesus calling himself “the truth”.

John 14:6
[6]Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 17:17
[17]Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

THE TRUTH is the word of god obviously. And saying he is that is confirming how he is the embodiment of the word of god. It validates how he has preexistence as word (god) in john 1:1 as he further justified it by saying:


It refers to the preexistent state of jesus as a thinking talking being. He was a thinking talking being in heaven as he is the same person talking on earth. It speaks of no other than the word in john 1:1 and revelation 19 confirms it as a name and john 14:6 confirms it as an embodiment of that preexistent being called god.


First of all, let us establish that jesus had preexistence.

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

For jesus to have said, he came from heaven implies preexistence.

Comparatively speaking, saying i came down from Baguio it logically manifests that the one talking here was talking likewise in Baguio as he is the same man talking here.

In like manner, saying i came down from heaven manifests that he was a thinking talking being in heaven as he was the same person talking on earth.

That spells, preexistence. It was not speaking about his human component but otherwise bec man in nature came from the womb.

Job 31:15
[15]Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

He being the god component of jesus existed as a thinking being prior to incarnation. That supports the idea that he was with god in the beginning as the word–a preexisting status.

John 1:1-2
[1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[2]The same was in the beginning with God.

More so, he was the wisdom of god. And being that, he existed before creation.

1 Corinthians 1:24
[24]But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

The wisdom existed before creation.

Proverbs 8:12,22-31
[Ì wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.
[22]The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.
[23]I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was.
[24]When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water.
[25]Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth:
[26]While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
[27]When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
[28]When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
[29]When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
[30]Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him;
[31]Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.

That preexisting word or logos in greek has the nature of god. Nature in the sense that he has the shape of god before incarnation.

Philippians 2:6-7
[6]Who, being in the morphe (shape or nature) of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
[7]But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

That as having exact copy of bodily nature with god almighty.

Hebrews 1:3
[3]Who being the brightness of his glory, and the character (exact copy) of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Now that i have presented you with jesus’ preexistence, let us see how he is truly god.

JOHN 1:1-2,14,18

The word was god…in the beginning with god…the word become flesh…the only begotten god

Note how jesus being the word was god and was in the beginning with god, it conforms how he was the begotten god. Both in aspect of deity. It corroborates how the word was the begotten god, much so, that preexistence supports this idea.

The only begotten god is “monogenes theos” and is present in the early manuscripts like p66, p75, codex sinaiticus, syriac peshitta etc…

So to say that jesus is mere man is erroneous. He was both god and man.

I presented you with proofs that jesus prior to incarnation was a preexisting god. That is the first of his dual nature. This preexisting god came down to earth and he was prepared a human body.

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:

What will he do to the prepared body after coming from heaven?

Logically, he would indwell in it.

1 John 4:2
[2]Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come en (into) the flesh is of God:

This dual nature can be manifested through jesus’ words.

John 8:40
[40]But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.

That speaks of the prepared body as the human component of jesus.

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

That speaks of the preexisting god as his god component. By this we know, jesus was both god and man.


Sabi ni bro eli, pag hinde nababasa sa bible e dapat wag tanggapin. Dapat me batayan. At pag sinabing batayan e maaaring direct o indirect na mababasa.

Indirectly po e me mababasang MCGI. NOTE: INDIRECTLY.

Halimbawa ng indirect na batayan.

Pag sinabi ng bible, isles of the sea in the east.

Indirectly po tumutukoy sa pilipinas.

Isa pa, IBONG MANDARAGIT ay magdadala ng kaligtasan sa jerusalem.

Wala pong pangalan yan kung sino. Indirectly e tumutukoy ito kay kristo dahil siya nagdala ng kaligtasan sa jerusalem.

Isa pa, sabi ni pablo, pagkaalis niya e papasok ang mga lobo sa iglesia at maninira,

Wala pong direktang tinutukoy. Indirectly, tumutukoy po ito sa katoliko.

So kita dito na me mga indirect na pantukoy. Ganon din ang salitang MCGI e me indirect na pantukoy.

Philippians 2:13
[13]For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.


At sa gabay na ito, naging biblical ang MCGI.



For a statement to be true, it must have the incorporation of context with it, thus any statement proceeding out from Christ himself must be look at into with the help of context, so when he said:

Matthew 16:18
[18]And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

It must not be readily perceived as conclusive to say, its church of christ as official name. What context did clarifies the matter at hand, then?

It is by christ’s primary duty to be subject to god’s will, to obey it in complete submission.

Psalms 40:6-8
[6]Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
[7]Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
[8]I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

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

One of the will of god, jesus must execute is to relay god’s message verbatim as it say:

John 12:49-50
[49]For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
[50]And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

It is by this reason that i believe merits credibility that saying “my church” isnt conclusive by itself.

Matthew 11:27
[27]All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

John 5:30
[30]I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

It is not by jesus authority that he speaks these but upon the fact that it was delivered to him, therefore these are not his personal words.

All of jesus’ words in matters of doctrinal issues were the personal words of god, jesus only was here to relay as confirmed:

John 7:17
[17]If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Doctrinal matters are from god. Its purely god’s words and jesus claiming that he came to relay god’s personal words is logically in doctrinal matters therefore all of jesus words which has doctrinal essence were the words of his father, so to say, i build my church being itself doctrinal are the words of god.

Firstly, bec god is the masterbuilder, thus he built the church.

Hebrews 3:4
[4]For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

That as being the source of all things:

1 Cor 8:6

But to us there is one god, the father, of whom are all things…

Jesus is mere instrument:

1 Cor 8:6

And jesus christ, by whom are all things…

Secondly, bec the church was named church of god, named after the father, which church in its integral form, was the one persecuted by Paul. Therefore, church of god is an official name being ascribed to the integral church in judea.

Galatians 1:22-23

[22]And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

[23]But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.


Therefore, when jesus said i will build my church he was only relaying the father’s personal words, bec fact is, the true church is called, church of god. “My church” speaking of my being relative or in reference to the father as possessive pronoun.

Therefore, to say that the church is named after christ based on this utterance: i will build my church as official name is a weak argument.


Sa Iglesia ni Manalo kain sila ng kain ng balut, di po ba? Ang isa sa sangkap ng balut e dugo na ayon sa mga apostol e bawal kainin.

Acts 21:25
[25]As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Iyang pagbabawal sa pagkain ng dugo e nauugat sa kautusan ni moses at ito ngayon ang ipinagdedepensa ng mga manalista na ika, pinapatulo ba yung dugo ng balut?

Ibinatay nila yan sa kautusan ni moses na bago kainin ang isang hayop e kakatayin muna at patutuluin ang dugo.

So ang tanong nila, pinapatulo ba ang dugo ng balut bago lutuin at kainin?

Leviticus 17:12-14
[12]Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.
[13]And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.
[14]For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.

Sabi pa nila, ang pinapatulo ang dugo e hinde yung sisiw ng balut kundi yung hayop o ibon na nahuhuli, meaning, buhay at gumagalaw, so hinde kasama balut dito. So pwede na daw kainin ang balut kasama dugo nito.

Isipin nyo po to: kahit patuluin mo ang dugo ng hayop me dugo pa ring naiiwan sa laman at itoy nakakain natin, meaning, yung dugo lang na pwedeng alisin ang bawal kainin.

Tanong: yung dugo ba ng balut e pwedeng alisin bago iluto? Pwede po, pero hinde na balut ito, so pwedeng alisin yung dugo nito, meaning, bawal itong kainin kasi pwede naman palang maalis, so bakit mo intentional kainin yung dugo e pwede palang maalis?

Logic po tayo mga kababayan.

Ang bawal kainin na dugo e yung pwedeng maalis na dugo. Ang dugo ng balut e naaalis po, so bawal kainin.

Pero tingnan nga natin yung pangangatwiran nila na ang bawal kainin na dugo e yung napatutulo lang?

Etong verse sa levitico e walang sinasabing yung bawal e yung napatutulo, kundi in specific terms na dugo perse, meaning, hinde lang yung napatutulo ang bawal kundi basta dugo.

Leviticus 7:26-27
[26]Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
[27]Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.

Meaning, basta dugo e bawal kainin kasi hinde naman sinabi sa levitico 7:26-27 na pinapatulo ito, di ba? So bawal din ang balut kahit hinde napatutulo ang dugo nito dahil ayon sa kautusan, basta dugo, bawal kainin. Una, pwede namang alisin yung dugo ng itlog bago iluto… at dahil dugo ito, so bawal ang balut.


Iglesia ni Cristo whenever faced with the challenge: which is the true chuch would most likely quote Lamsa’s translation of Acts 20:28 which reads,

“The church of christ which he purchased with his own blood”

Its rather church of christ they say than church of god. Bec if it is church of god then its wrong. They then readily supplement it with a question: does god have blood? And often they solicit the supporting commentary of George Lamsa which reads:

“The Eastern text reads: “the Church Of Christ which he has purchased with his blood. Jewish Christians could not have used the term “God”, because in their eyes God is spirit, and spirit has no flesh and blood. It was Jesus of Nazareth who shed his blood on the cross for us, and not God.”[George M. Lamsa, New Testament Commentary, pp. 149 – 150]

Understanding the underlying reason to this conclusion would suggest it this way: “he purchased with his own blood” implies its precedent church of god as suggestive of ownership by which the owner god refers to the pronoun “he” who purchased the church with his own blood therefore brought out the idea of god having blood, but does god have blood?

Obviously, he has none therefore to have thought in this way, that god purchased the church by his blood is in a way erroneous therefore we cannot accept god as the purchaser. It could mean otherwise. Considering context, we have a clearer view how it should be explained:

Acts 20:18-19,21,28
[18]And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,
[19]Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews:
[21]Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
[28]Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he (the lord) hath purchased with his own blood.

As clearly illustrated, if we consider context, the lord jesus christ is the preceding subject in verse 19 and confirmed in verse 21 called as lord therefore to have said he hath purchased logically refers to the lord as preceding context, therefore the lord jesus purchased the church of god by his blood. It never indicated by any slight notion that god has blood. It was referring actually to what context said as lord. That as only referring to Jesus.

So to ask, does god have blood, is in disregard of context, and employing bias for one’s own faith, so to say that church of christ is the right translation for Acts 20:28 is now in jeopardy seeing that it lacks foundation of certainty.