HOW MANY KINDS ARE TRUE GODS?

I know of two kinds, but most probably there are 3 if we include satan.

But i wont indulge elsewhere than on the two kinds you would be most interested in. Firstly, the divine gods. Secondly, the mortal gods. Both in their distinct and separate aspect, true gods.

Let me point out how there is two on the necessity to elaborate on the second kind rather than on the divine gods.

How was there two distinct true gods?

Firstly, moses was made a god.

Exodus 7:1
[1]And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Being made a god then he was a true god as obviously, god dont create counterfeits, right? He makes only real creation. Much so, he dont profess any leaning to false oaths as it say:

Zechariah 8:17
[17]And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD.

God dont make false oaths therefore to say that he made moses a god then that as literally is truth. Moses was a god and in truth a god, therefore, a true god.

Likewise when saying:

Psalms 82:6-7
[6]I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
[7]But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Being unable to commit false oaths, therefore god intended these people as gods in the true sense of the word, true gods. How come?

Cannot they be gods by name but not in essence true gods in their category as mortals?

1 Corinthians 8:5
[5]For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Clearly, the verses categorizes gods in these aspect:

1. Called gods by name only. These are not true gods.

2. Many gods which is not in the category of the first. Meaning, this includes true gods.

Therefore to say that some mortals are true gods is bec nowhere did god categorized them as simply “called gods by name only”, and bec god makes truthful oaths, therefore, calling some mortals gods is then a truthful oath, in essence, true gods.

Much so, moses was made a god therefore he was a true god. Can god make falsehood? Therefore moses was not a false god but in essence, a true god.

How could this reality distinguish the two kinds of true gods? Its bec god said this:

Isaiah 43:10

[10]Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

God is eternal. He has no “before me” and “after me” bec he has no beginning or end, so to say that no god was made before or after him was simply to say, he never made any god in whatever time of eternity. The problem is, he made moses a god. So it seems contradictory, therefore, to resolve it–context would suggest two kinds of true gods, the divine and mortal.

What god dont make before him or after him is a divine god. He somehow made mortals gods, in that essence as mortal gods distinct from divine gods yet in essence, both in their categories, true gods. How come?

Moses was made a true god.

Advertisements

WHY WAS JESUS CALLED “A MAN FROM HEAVEN”?

Indeed, he was called like that. Let me quote:

1 Corinthians 15:47
[47]The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

So was he a “true man”? Is it a literal man?

Nope. How could he be a literal man when he 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.

By saying, i came down from heaven, is a direct testament of preexistence. Its like saying i came from manila. The speaker is the one who came from manila therefore if he is a living entity here then he must also be a living entity where he came from bec it speaks of the same person. Its the same thing with christ, if he is a talking entity on earth then he must be a talking entity where he came from bec it speaks of the same person. By that we can say, he had preexistence as a living talking entity in heaven.

Coincidentally, john confirmed such reality. That preexistent living being was the word.

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.

That word was preexistent in the beginning with god, therefore, he was god. Much so as corroborated by John 1:18 in the manuscripts of john called P66 and P75 even in the syriac peshitta calling jesus as the only begotten god.

Being god, he cannot be man in nature.

John 4:24
[24]God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39
[39]Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

By this reality, the notion that jesus as a man came from heaven, is questionable. It only proves that when he was called as a man from heaven it was not in the literal sense. He was merely called man but not in essence man. Like he was called the word in john 1:1 but in reality is not a literal word. Its just an ascription to denote a deeper meaning, that he was the embodiment of the word. In relation, being called man is an ascription only relative how he was once inside a human form.

How do they challenge this?

They said, john the baptist too was from god, so they were asking? Did he literally came from god?

John 1:6
[6]There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

The thing is, if we consult greek terminology, there is no guarantee that it should be from God bec it could be by God. And seeing the reality of Jesus as a true god in john 1:18 the only begotten god then it speaks really of a literal coming from heaven to pursue the reality of preexistence when he said i came down from heaven.

Therefore, can we say that saying jesus is a man from heaven speaks of a literal man? Or should we see this in the biblical scope that he literally came from heaven being a true god himself?

It would be clarified by asking, did a literal man came from heaven? Was there a literal man with flesh and blood in heaven then came to earth entered mary’s womb and become a fetus?

Its impossible, right?

The only acceptable reason was, he was god in heaven (john 1:1-2,18) then come to earth (heb10:5), then indwells in a human host and born as jesus christ.

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:

ANG SUGO BA AY KATUMBAS NG ANGHEL?

Hinde po. Ang anghel e isa lamang sa mga uri ng sugo. Ilan dito e propeta, teacher, priest at pastor. Wala po sa bible na ang sugo na tao e anghel. Alamin natin ibig sabihin ng sugo sa strongs dictionary published in the 1890’s. Itoy hango sa mga verses na ito: (Job 1:14; 1 Samuel 11:3 ; Lucas 7:24; 9:52), (Isaias 42:19; Hagai 1:13) (Malakias 2:7), (Apocalypsis 1:20)…

Hebrew: מלאך
Transliteration: mal’âk
Pronunciation: mal-awk’
Definition: From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher): – {ambassador} {angel} {king} messenger.

Greek: ἄγγελος
Transliteration: aggelos
Pronunciation: ang’-el-os
Definition: From ἀγγέλλω aggellō (probably derived from G71; compare G34; to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor: – angel messenger.

Sabi:

A. a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher)

B. a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor

Una, ang sabi sa A ang sugo e me iba ibang uri. Ito ay anghel, propeta, pari at guro. Pangalawa, sa B ang sugo e me dalawang uri. Ito ay anghel at pastor. So sa kabuuan ang mga sugo e anghel, propeta, pari, guro at pastor… so mali na sabihing pag sinabing sugo e katumbas na ng anghel kasi pwede rin itong propeta o pari etc…

Wala pong mababasa na kapag sinabing sugo e katumbas non e anghel. Kasi ayon sa strongs numbers na dictionary e ganito:

a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor

So ang sugo ay especially an angel at pag sinabing especially e hinde ibig sabihin e lahat ng sugo e anghel kundi most emphatically, anghel ang sugo pero merong iba maliban sa anghel na sugo rin. Ito ang patunay na hinde tama na sabihing katumbas ng sugo ang anghel, kasi merong iba na sugo maliban sa anghel ayon sa pagkagamit nito: especially an angel. Meaning, me ibang sugo na hinde anghel. Ito nga yung propeta, pari, guro at pastor. Walang mababasa na ang sugo e katumbas ng anghel. Wala pong mababasa na ang taong sinugo e anghel. Ang mga batayan nila e kinuha nila sa mga translation na nagsasabi ng ganito:

Mga Bilang, 20:16 – At nang kami ay dumaing sa Panginoon ay dininig niya ang aming tinig, at nagsugo siya ng isang anghel, at inilabas kami sa Egipto: at, narito, kami ay nasa Cades, na isang bayan na nasa dulo ng iyong hangganan: DS

Malachi 2:7
[7]For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the angel of the LORD of hosts.

Si moses at mga sacerdote ang tinutukoy na anghel pero tama bang salin ito?

Ang hebrew word na ginamit e eto:

Hebrew: מלאך
Transliteration: mal’âk
Pronunciation: mal-awk’
Definition: From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher): – {ambassador} {angel} {king} messenger.

Ang tama pong salin kung ibabatay sa hebrew definition e messenger na maaaring propeta na tumutukoy kay moses o teacher na tumutukoy sa mga sacerdote.

a messenger; specifically of {God} that {is} an angel (also a {prophet} priest or teacher):

Pero kailanman hinde tama ang anghel na tumutukoy kay moses at mga sacerdote dahil kailanman walang talata na tumutukoy sa tao bilang anghel. Kahit si john the baptist e anghel din daw pero mali ding salin yon.

Bakit?

Dahil kailanman walang talata na tumutukoy sa tao bilang anghel. Ang mababasa ay spirito ang mga anghel.

Hebrews 1:7,13-14
[7]And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
[13]But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
[14]Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

So saan mababasa na me taong anghel? Wala po.

Uulitin ko:

Wala pong mababasa na kapag sinabing sugo e katumbas non e anghel. Kasi ayon sa strongs numbers na dictionary e ganito:

a messenger; especially an angel; by implication a pastor

So ang sugo ay especially an angel at pag sinabing especially e hinde ibig sabihin e lahat ng sugo e anghel kundi most emphatically, anghel ang sugo pero merong iba maliban sa anghel na sugo rin. Ito ang patunay na hinde tama na sabihing katumbas ng sugo ang anghel, kasi merong iba na sugo maliban sa anghel ayon sa pagkagamit nito: especially an angel. Meaning, me ibang sugo na hinde anghel.

Ang kanilang depensa e dahil daw sa tulad nito:

maaari bang itawag sa isang tao ang salitang “anghel” , ayon naman sa kilalang Bible Dictionary?

“Angel a word signifying, both in the Hebrew and Greek, a “messenger,” and hence employed to denote any agent God sends forth to execute his purposes. It is used of an ordinary messenger (Job 1:14: 1 Sam. 11:3; Luke 7:24; 9:52), of prophets (Isa. 42:19; Hag. 1:13), of priests (Mal. 2:7), and ministers of the New Testament (Rev. 1:20)… The name does not denote their nature but their office as messengers.” (Meaning of Angel from Easton’s Bible Dictionary)

Sa Filipino,

“Anghel isang salitang nangangahulugan, pareho sa Hebreo at sa Griego, na isang “sugo”, na ito’y ginamit upang tukuyin ang sinomang kinatawan na sinusugo ng Diyos upang isagawa ang kaniyang mga layunin. Ito ay ginamit sa isang pangkaraniwang sugo (Job 1:14; 1 Samuel 11:3 ; Lucas 7:24; 9:52), ng mga propeta (Isaias 42:19; Hagai 1:13), ng mga saserdote (Malakias 2:7), at ng mga ministro ng Bagong Tipan (Apocalypsis 1:20)… Ang pangalan ay hindi tumutikoy sa kanilang kalagayan kundi sa kanilang tungkulin bilang mga sugo.”

Kung titingnan ang kanilang patunay na Easton’s Bible Dictionary e meron na siyang biblical interpretation na sabi anghel ang mga sugo, propeta, sacerdote at ministro, so ang tanong: Personal interpretation ba niya to o hinde? Own understanding ba niya ito o hinde?

Proverbs
[5]Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Halimbawa, ang sabi:

Ito ay ginamit sa isang pangkaraniwang sugo (Job 1:14; 1 Samuel 11:3 ; Lucas 7:24; 9:52), ng mga propeta (Isaias 42:19; Hagai 1:13), ng mga saserdote (Malakias 2:7), at ng mga ministro ng Bagong Tipan (Apocalypsis 1:20)…

Naipakita ko na sa taas yung hebrew at greek word na ginamit at itoy: malak at aggelos na tumutukoy sa sugo at ang mga uri ng sugo na hinde lamang anghel yung sugo, so ang tanong, bakit inihahalintulad ang anghel sa sugo gayong hinde naman?

Kaya hinde maiiwasang maitanong din, ito bang source nila e nagsasalita by inspiration o by private interpretation?

JEWISH SCRIPTURE CONFIRMED JESUS IS GOD

According to Paul, god cursed jesus christ bec he was hanged on a tree by referring to jewish scripture as he said:

Galatians 3:13
[13]Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made katara (cursed) for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Paul referred from this:

Deuteronomy 21:22-23
[22]And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree:
[23]His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Paul by referring from jewish scripture to say that jesus was cursed by god is confirming how the scripture refer to anyone cursed bec of being hanged on a tree as someone worthy of death. Therefore, jesus was worthy of death as per jewish scripture. For what reason was he worthy of death?

Bec as per the jews’ opinion jesus was making himself equal with god, as it say:

John 5:18
[18]Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

The reason why he was killed was he said he is the son of god, making god his father thus presenting himself as equal with god: but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God, as it say:

Mark 14:61-64
[61]But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
[62]And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
[63]Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
[64]Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Is god almighty blessed?

Genesis 9:26
[26]And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Thus when it say: are you the son of the blessed? It should be understood as: are you the son of god? And answering it he said, yes thus he was claiming god as his father therefore as per jewish perception, he made himself equal to god. That admission, made him guilty of death, bec as per jewish scripture, any prophet who advocate other god must die.

Deuteronomy 18:20
[20]But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

Paul referring to these scriptures and imputing it upon jesus, is an indirect claim that indeed jesus was worthy of death and by what reason than how jews perceived jesus’ words as a proclamation of his being god, which was punishable of death? Paul referring to these scripture and calling jesus cursed by god was acceding that jesus was worthy of death.

There is no other reason how he would be worthy of death in the jewish scripture than the concept of death bec of polytheism. Therefore his death bec jews perceived his words as presenting himself as another god is justified bec there is no other reason how he should be cursed–worthy of death than jesus preaching polytheism.

Or is there?

Bec his preaching that he is the son of god or in the jews’ perception is a testament of deity, is the reason why he was worthy of death concludes that god killed him bec of a former law that states that polytheists must be killed, which in fact, confirmed that jesus preached polytheism, though not in direct terms, but indirectly by calling himself “the son of god”.

If that is not the case, then how come Paul said jesus was worthy of death by calling him cursed by god? From what reason was he worthy of death, then as by Paul’s statement?

“BESIDE ME, THERE IS NO GOD” HOW TRUE?

Our premise would be the INC’s concept of monotheism that when it say: Beside me, there is no god, speaks a clear invocation of monotheism and that in general terms, universal and a prescription for all mankind.
Lets check the reference point for such concept:

Isaiah 44:6
[6]Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Isaiah 44:8
[8]Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:21
[21]Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

First, let me establish that these words are prescriptive only for mosaic Israel as it say:

Hosea 13:4
[4]Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

Exodus 34:14
[14]For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

Moreover, during those time, israel was the only nation with a true god:

2 Kings 5:15
[15]And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.

Therefore, when it say “beside me there is no god” was logically for that only nation with a true god–israel therefore prescriptive only for them.

Therefore when it say:

Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any

It should have been emphasized as a prescriptive truth only for mosaic israel in terms of recognition for worship, that for mosaic israel there is no god beside god almighty they should recognize neither god knew any for them to worship. It should have been this way:

Is there a God beside me for israel? yea, there is no God; I know not any for israel to worship…

Did god lie therefore when he said, there is no god beside him, when fact is jesus is too a true god?

No. Its not a lie to prescribed himself only for israel to recognize as their only god for worship. It doesnt mean, he is the only true god. He only prescribed himself as their sole god to recognize for worship being the supreme authority. Its like this: though jesus and i are true god, you only have to recognize me as your god to worship. It doesnt mean, he is the only god bec even jesus is too a true god. And never did he prescribe jesus to be their god.

JOHN 1:18 no man hath seen god at anytime, THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD which was in the bosom of the father…

A site has this to say:

EARLY MSS ATTEST ITS VERACITY

μονογενὴς Θεὸς is represented in a great number of the earliest MSS, is prominent in the MSS that are considered to contain accurate texts, and is most probably what John actually wrote.

The following manuscripts support theos. This list conflates the evidence of those MSS which have an article (ho) and those without it (the latter is the text of Nestle-Aland):

  • Greek witnesses
    • Papyrus 66 [Papyrus Bodmer II] A.D. c. 200 (Martin), A.D. 100-150 (Hunger)
    • Papyrus 75 (A.D. 175-225)
    • Codex א – Sinaiticus (c. 330–360)
    • Codex B – Vaticanus (c. 325–350)
    • Codex C* – Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th C.)
    • Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 375 -380)
    • Codex L – Regius (A.D 701-800)
  • non-Greek witnesses
    • Bohairic Coptic [Codex Bodmer III] (A.D. 300)
    • Diatessaron (“Out of Four”) of Titan the Syrian [Arabic version] (c. 160-175)
    • Syriac Peshitta (A.D 150)
    • Adysh manuscript (A.D 897)-Gregordian-Georgian/Iberian version
    • Opiza manuscript (A.D 913)
    • Tbet’ manuscript (A.D 995)
  • Late Greek
    • Minuscule 423 (A.D 1556)

Irenaeus’ (A.D. 130-202) ‘unigenitus deus’ in his Against Heresies IV, 20, 11 is probably a John 1:18 quotation from an Old Latin MSS.

The Coptic versions is one of the earliest versions of the NT where huios is completely absent.

Wallace again:

At the risk of sounding repetitive, θεός shows up again outside the Alexandrian tradition (e.g., early Latin Fathers in the Gospels are Western witnesses)76 with relatively strong textual weight (per Ehrman’s argument). (ibid.)

In sum, externally, both readings enjoy wide geographical distribution, even though υἱός is relatively stronger in non-Alexandrian forms of text. Both readings co-existed in the second century, although weightier MSS support θεός. As a whole, then, I believe θεός is more probable due to the quality, antiquity, and transmissional history of the witnesses listed above. (ibid.)

In retrospect, I conclude that μονογενὴς θεός is the best reading given all the evidence we have internally and externally. As a result, it is highly probable that the text of John 1.18 calls Jesus θεός. (ibid.)

****

But how about it when they said, there is only one true god quoting:

John 17:3
[3]And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

The thing is, nothing is concrete with this verse as nowhere did it confirm an only true god of the whole universe, and having John proclaimed jesus’ divinity: the only begotten god then by context, it should have been interpreted in harmony. It could mean other things than “the only true god of the whole universe”. Therefore, its an ambiguous verse having the context of John 1:18.

It could be:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God (in heaven) and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent (on earth).

Clearly, nothing is concrete with any of the INC’s defenses of monotheism as fact is, it could be interpreted in a contextual way considering John 1:18’s the only begotten god.

It need logic to do so, for these to be in harmony.

The question is, what if John 1:18 the only begotten god is correct scripture, then the biblical interpretation aforementioned above is correct, or is it?

This is how they tried to refute it:

JOHN 1:18 TRANSLATIONS
1. EARLY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS
Even Ignatius(35-110AD) who believe that Jesus is a God and Tertullian(160-220AD) who believes in Trinity used the term “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON”, because that is the ONLY translation they have during their time. If there is “ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD” translation during that time, I’m sure they would not give a second thought using that translation, for that “ONLY BEGOTEN GOD” translation will promote their doctrine. But there is “ONLY BEGOTTEN SON” translation during that time.
“only begotten Son”(Ignatius Bishop of Antioch; Syria Philippians II; ca. 110)
“only begotten Son”(Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons Gaul; Against Heresies III, 11.6 ; ca. 180)
“only begotten Son”( (Clement Alexandria; Pedagogue I, 3; ca. 200)
“only begotten Son”, “The Son alone knows the Father, and has Himself unfolded the Father’s bosom.” (Tertullian Africa; Against Praxeas VIII; ca. 212)

Granting that this is correct, doubt would still arise bec there are uncertainties whether Ignatius, Irenaeus, clement etc… had with them all existing manuscripts or if all of these had been translated then as conclusive basis to say, there was never a manuscript then that say, the only begotten god bec they have all manuscripts with them and translated as reference materials. But did they have all manuscripts as confirmatory?

Did they have all existing manuscripts as validating that indeed there is no the only begotten god in any of the manuscripts?

Therefore they must have used only what was available was to them during that time and was deprived of really authentic scripture–the john 1:18’s monogenes theos.

Fact is, the lack of confirmation of integral possession of all manuscript has weakened such opposition thereby strengthening the reality of Jesus deity by the fact that some manuscripts of John regarded him as the only begotten god.

WAS THOMAS IN A STATE OF SHOCK WHEN HE SAID MY LORD MY GOD?

We cannot read any direct attestation from Jesus that he is god. His words were incomplete during his earthly ministry so should we expect him to say these things? What we can read is an indirect claim of deity.

Here goes…

John 20:24-29
[24]But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
[25]The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
[26]And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
[27]Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
[28]And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
[29]Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

There are three possible reality on the statement that “bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed”. These are:

1. Bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed that i am alive.

2. Bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed that im both lord and god.

3. Bec thou hast seen me thou has believed that im alive and both your lord and god.

Verifying, was Thomas in a state of shock when he blurted, my lord my god?

Clearly, Jesus response is a confirmatory agent to what thomas reaction has to mean:

because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed

As pertinently, this response is a direct reaction to what thomas said, my lord my god, confirming that indeed thomas was in a state of belief rather than a state of shock, and being a pertinent response to thomas words, its quite clear now which of the three possibilities is the correct option for the chain of conversation.

I believe number 3 fits this chain of conversation as rather convincingly. Therefore, it was Jesus indirect attestation that he is god, bec if not, was jesus ignoring thomas words when he said my lord my god so to what basis did he responded with “bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed”?

It would be senseless if thomas words would be ignored as nothing as reference point would be the basis of jesus response. Therefore Thomas words must have been an expression of faith for Jesus to have responded in this way.

So when jesus responded, it should have meant this way:

because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed that im alive and your lord and god?

And being a pertinent response to thomas words, so when it say:

blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed

Its Jesus confirming the words of thomas that indeed he is god, bec it was confirmed as he implied, blessed are those who have not seen me yet believed as how thomas did: My lord my god!

So was Thomas in a state of shock?

How could it be when there was a precedent to this event. Prior, they already knew Jesus is god. They already preached John 1:1, 14 “the word was god. The word become flesh.”. So Thomas has already a preconceived idea that jesus is god so how could he be shocked?

And how could he be shocked when beforehand he was informed by the apostles that Jesus appeared to them to which he responded:

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

So how could he be shocked when he was informed prior to the event? There was already preconception–an idea beforehand–regarding Jesus appearance so it wont come as a shock for Thomas if ever he would appear again. Though Thomas was unbelieving yet still, there was preconception. With preconception, there would be no shock.

Comparatively when saying: the president is in our baranggay. You would answer: i dont believe you. And when you see him, would you say: oh my god! The president is in our baranggay, i didnt thought so!?

Sounds unseemly, right? There was already preconception, so you wouldnt be shocked. So is with the Thomas state of shock was, isnt it?

Clearly, Thomas was not shocked.

Lastly, there was a precedent already that would incite him not to be shocked but rather believing, that is, seeing the print of the nails and spear on his hands and side as it say:

John 20:27
[27]Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

That would incite him to rather believe as he sworn seeing the prints of the nails and spear on his hands and side is possible precedent for him to believe as he said:

John 20:25
[25]The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

Therefore having a precedent to believe he wouldnt be shocked so when he said: my lord and my god it cannot be out of shock. Its out of belief.

The thing is others were putting doubt to it by saying: if thomas knew that he is god why did he flee during jesus arrest when he knew he was already with god almighty?

Sounds convincing, right? Yet they knew too that jesus is powerful he can calm storms or wither a tree, yet why did they still run away?

Of course, its human nature. Seeing that jesus is not doing anything and being in a helpless situation, having qualms about it, they run. Its normal.

But what is undeniable is, jesus admitted his being god though in indirect terms, yet its a remarkable progress to how he would be socially known, much so by his apostles and us, his true disciples.

Jesus is really a true god as confirmed by this event. Much so, other verse corroborates it:

JOHN 1:18 THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD… (monogenes theos in the manuscript of john P66 and P75)

WAS THOMAS IN A STATE OF SHOCK WHEN HE SAID MY LORD MY GOD?

We cannot read any direct attestation from Jesus that he is god. His words were incomplete during his earthly ministry so should we expect him to say these things? What we can read is an indirect claim of deity.

Here goes…

John 20:24-29
[24]But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.
[25]The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
[26]And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
[27]Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
[28]And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
[29]Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

There are three possible reality on the statement that “bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed”. These are:

1. Bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed that i am alive.

2. Bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed that im both lord and god.

3. Bec thou hast seen me thou has believed that im alive and both your lord and god.

Verifying, was Thomas in a state of shock when he blurted, my lord my god?

Clearly, Jesus response is a confirmatory agent to what thomas reaction has to mean:

because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed

As pertinently, this response is a direct reaction to what thomas said, my lord my god, confirming that indeed thomas was in a state of belief rather than a state of shock, and being a pertinent response to thomas words, its quite clear now which of the three possibilities is the correct option for the chain of conversation.

I believe number 3 fits this chain of conversation as rather convincingly. Therefore, it was Jesus indirect attestation that he is god, bec if not, was jesus ignoring thomas words when he said my lord my god so to what basis did he responded with “bec thou hast seen me thou hast believed”?

It would be senseless if thomas words would be ignored as nothing as reference point would be the basis of jesus response. Therefore Thomas words must have been an expression of faith for Jesus to have responded in this way.

So when jesus responded, it should have meant this way:

because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed that im alive and your lord and god?

And being a pertinent response to thomas words, so when it say:

blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed

Its Jesus confirming the words of thomas that indeed he is god, bec it was confirmed as he implied, blessed are those who have not seen me yet believed as how thomas did: My lord my god!

So was Thomas in a state of shock?

How could it be when there was a precedent to this event. Prior, they already knew Jesus is god. They already preached John 1:1, 14 “the word was god. The word become flesh.”. So Thomas has already a preconceived idea that jesus is god so how could he be shocked?

And how could he be shocked when beforehand he was informed by the apostles that Jesus appeared to them to which he responded:

The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

So how could he be shocked when he was informed prior to the event? There was already preconception–an idea beforehand–regarding Jesus appearance so it wont come as a shock for Thomas if ever he would appear again. Though Thomas was unbelieving yet still, there was preconception. With preconception, there would be no shock.

Comparatively when saying: the president is in our baranggay. You would answer: i dont believe you. And when you see him, would you say: oh my god! The president is in our baranggay, i didnt thought so!?

Sounds unseemly, right? There was already preconception, so you wouldnt be shocked. So is with the Thomas state of shock was, isnt it?

Clearly, Thomas was not shocked.

The thing is others were putting doubt to it by saying: if thomas knew that he is god why did he flee during jesus arrest when he knew he was already with god almighty?

Sounds convincing, right? Yet they knew too that jesus is powerful he can calm storms or wither a tree, yet why did they still run away?

Of course, its human nature. Seeing that jesus is not doing anything and being in a helpless situation, having qualms about it, they run. Its normal.

But what is undeniable is, jesus admitted his being god though in indirect terms, yet its a remarkable progress to how he would be socially known, much so by his apostles and us, his true disciples.

Jesus is really a true god as confirmed by this event. Much so, other verse corroborates it:

JOHN 1:18 THE ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD… (monogenes theos in the manuscript of john P66 and P75)

TAO BA SI HESUS NONG UMAKYAT SA LANGIT AT TAO BANG BABABA?

Sabi ng mga INC e si hesus tao ng umakyat sa langit at taong bababa sa kanyang pagbabalik. Ginagamit nila ito bilang patunay:

Acts 1:11
[11]Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

So kita dito, na kung paanong nakita si hesus umakyat e ganon din sa kanyang pagbabalik e makikita siya. Ang tanong, meron ba siyang laman at buto sa puntong umaakyat na siya sa langit?

Wala po dahil kailanman e hinde makakabahagi ang me laman at dugo sa langit:

1 Corinthians 15:50
[50]Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

So ibig sabihin, walang tao kailanman na makakarating sa langit. Ang mga kristyano, e mamanahin ang langit:

Matthew 25:34
[34]Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

Ibig sabihin e wala silang laman at dugo sa panahong nasa langit na sila. Ganito rin ang mangyayari kay hesus dahil magkakaparehas sila ng kapalaran, mawawala yung laman at dugo nila, at itoy pareparehas nilang dadanasin dahil magkakatulad sila:

Philippians 3:21
[21]Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

Kaya kung ang mga kristyano e walang laman at dugo sa langit e ganon din si hesus. At dahil magkakaparehas silang me glorious body kaya pareparehas din sila sa kapalaran. Magiging parang anghel sila:

Matthew 22:30
[30]For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

So ang para bang anghel at walang laman at buto e tao pa rin?
Hinde na po kasi by nature, hinde na nila taglay ang nature ng isang tao kaya hinde na sila tao sa panahong nasa langit sila.

Katunayan, walang isang verse na sigurado ang nagsasabing me tao na maninirahan sa langit o makakarating man sa langit, dahil ang makakarating lang don e yung me katawang panglangit at ang mga ito e hinde sinasabing mga tao pa rin.

1 Corinthians 15:49
[49]And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Though ang tao pagkabuhay na muli sa patay e magkakaroon siya ng spiritual body pero ang tanong kailan siya magkakaroon nito: immediately pagkatapos mabuhay muli o pagkatapos ng ilang araw pagkabuhay na muli?

1 Corinthians 15:44
[44]It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Si hesus nong mabuhay muli e me laman pa at buto so kita dito na wala pa siyang spiritual body pagkatapos mabuhay muli, nagkaroon lang siya ng spiritual body 40 days after niyang mabuhay muli nong paakyat na siya sa langit, nong mawala na ang laman at dugo niya:

1 Corinthians 15:50
[50]Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

So kung paanong umakyat siya sa langit na walang laman at dugo ganon din siya pagbaba niya. Wala siyang laman at dugo pero nakikita pa rin siya so tao ba ang ganon?
Hinde na di ba?
Ang batayan nilang si hesus e tao na sa langit e dahil me mababasang ganito:

Hebrews 10:12
[12]But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Acts 17:31
[31]Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Sabi,

A. BUT THIS MAN SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD.

B. HE WILL JUDGE THE WORLD BY THAT MAN

Pinalalabas nila na tao yung nakaupo sa kanan ng ama at tao yung huhukom sa judgment day. Pero kung titingnan sa greek text kung totoong MAN ang sinasabi e wala pong kasiguraduhan.

Una tingnan natin yung greek word na ginamit:

Greek: αὐτός
Transliteration: autos
Pronunciation: ow-tos’
Definition: From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind; backward); the reflexive pronoun self used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons: – her it (-self) one the other (mine) own said ([self-] the) same ([him- my- thy-]) self [your-] selves she that their (-s) them ([-selves]) there [-at -by -in -into -of -on -with] they (these) things this (man) those together very which. Compare G848 .

So kung itranslate natin, pwede itong ganito:

A. BUT THIS SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD

So hinde sinasabing MAN yung uupo sa tabi ng dios. Walang sinabing ganon, di ba? Pangalawa, tingnan din natin yung greek word na ginamit sa pangalawa:

Greek: ἀνήρ
Transliteration: anēr
Pronunciation: an’-ayr
Definition: A primary word (compare G444); a man (properly as an individual male): – fellow husband man sir.

So kung itranslate, pwede itong ganito:

B. HE WILL JUDGE THE WORLD BY THAT HUSBAND…

So kita dito na hinde pa rin MAN yung hesus na hahatol sa judgment day kundi husband. Husband po ng iglesia si hesus.

Revelation 19:7-8
[7]Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
[8]And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

Anong napatunayan natin? Si hesus nong pumunta sa langit e hinde na tao. Bakit? Kasi wala na siyang nature ng totoong tao. Wala siyang laman at dugo…

THERE IS SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH

Firstly, you have to answer this question before you proceed reading my argument: ARE SINLESS PEOPLE SAVED?

Of course, you would say, they are as they cannot be condemned. The question is, are there sinless people outside the church?

Of course, right? What is their judgment?

Let us hear from the one rabbi:

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 say, a blind person is sinless. Meaning, in the spiritual sense. A blind person is spiritually blind. It speaks about his ignorance of the truth. Or that, his understanding is obscured:

Ephesians 4:18
[18]Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

It speaks about the blindness of the eyes of understanding that when opened shall have hope. Meaning, blindness is in regards to the lack of understanding. Therefore, being blind is the lack of understanding.

Ephesians 1:18
[18]The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

An example are idolaters who are ignorant of the truth. God winks at their idolatry. He overlooks it.

Acts 17:29-30
[29]Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.
[30]And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

Another spiritual blindness is manifested by paul:

1 Timothy 1:12-13
[12]And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
[13]Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

Unbelief bec of ignorance is excusable. Fact is, paul was excused even without repentance. Therefore, to be spiritually blind is to be ignorant of the truth, as bro eli soriano said: ignorance of the law excuses anyone.

It corroborated what jesus said that blind people are sinless. So being outside the church, do you think there is no salvation for them?

Nope. God said, they are blessed and to be blessed in the eyes of god is to be saved.

Psalms 32:2
[2]Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Therefore, for a blind person outside the church to be blessed, is a direct proclamation that there is salvation outside the true church of god.

IGLESIA NI CRISTO BA TONG IBANG TUPA NA WALA PA SA KAWAN?

Ang topic e sino tong “other sheep outside the fold”?

John 10:16
[16]And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Hayaan nating ang bibliya magpapaliwanag. Ano tong fold o kawan na sinasabi? Ito bay iglesia?
Pero paanong kung pumasok ka o lumabas sa kawan e ligtas ka pa?

So iglesia nga kaya ang tinutukoy?

John 10:7,9,16
[7]Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
[9]I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
[16]And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

So alin tong kawan na pwedeng pumasok don at lumabas at ligtas ka pa rin?

Sa puntong “other sheep”, sino sila? Sila ba yung INC ni manalo?

Hinde po.
Sila yung wala sa iglesia na tatawagin din para maging kristyano simula sa panahon ni hesus hanggang ngayon ayon dito:

Acts 2:38-39
[38]Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[39]For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Sino tong “other sheep”?

Sabi, AS MANY AS THE LORD SHALL CALL… Iyan ay tumutukoy sa panahong una hanggang sa huli. Fact is, naganap ito simula sa panahong una ng maconvert sila sa iglesia. Sila yung “other sheep”.

Acts 2:40-41
[40]And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
[41]Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

At sabi, TO ALL THAT ARE AFAR OFF. Ito rin ay kabilang sa other sheep yung nasa malayong lugar at panahon na tumutukoy sa ating lugar at panahon.

Sino sila?
Ito bay INC o MCGI?

Ayon sa gawa 20:28 e binili ni hesus ang iglesia ng dios sa pamamagitan ng kanyang dugo so kita dito na IGLESIA NG DIOS ang tunay na iglesia. Dito tatawagin ang “other sheep” na nasa panahon natin.

Anong patunay na IGLESIA NG DIOS ito? Ito kasi ang iglesiang inusig ni pablo sa kanyang kabuuan.

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.

Kita dito kung sino ang persecuted ni paul: the churches in judea. Ito ay maraming local churches. Anong pangalan nitong maraming local churches in judea na persecuted ni paul?

Galatians 1:13
[13]For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

CHURCH OF GOD PALA ANG PANGALAN NG MGA CHURCHES IN JUDEA NA PERSECUTED NI PAUL. Singular church na tumutukoy sa maraming local churches meaning, ito ang official name ng iglesia dahil ipinangalan ito sa kabuuan ng mga local churches.

So kita dito, na church of god ang tunay na pangalan ng iglesia so ayon sa gawa 20:28 e dapat e iglesia ng dios ang binili ni hesus sa pamamagitan ng kanyang dugo.

Anong palatandaan kung sino ito?
Sila ay nasa mga isla sa silangan.

Isaiah 24:14-15
[14]They shall lift up their voice, they shall sing for the majesty of the LORD, they shall cry aloud from the sea.
[15]Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the east, even the name of the LORD God of Israel in the isles of the sea.

Ano pa?

Malachi 1:11
[11]For from the EAST even unto the WEST my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

Ang iglesiang ito ay maguumpisa sa east papuntang west. So kanino natupad ito?

Aling iglesia ang tinatawag na church of god, maguumpisa ito sa mga isla sa east at pagkatapos lumaganap sa west?

Walang iba na kinatuparan dito sa east na me church of god na nagumpisa sa mga isla sa east na lumaganap papuntang west maliban sa grupo ni bro eli.

Kami ay mcgi pero ang tunay naming pangalan ay church of god…