The Fact And The Process Of Apostasy

APOSTASY IS A defection, a falling away from what one believed in, as apostasy from one’s religion, creed, or politics. Thus, one becomes an apostate as soon as he departs from his former belief, whatever it was. What undergoes change is not the person nor his nature but his beliefs.

In the field of religion, apostasy is one of the most controversial and confused terms. Reformers accused the Catholic Church of having departed from the original teachings of Christ. The Catholic Church turns the table on them by calling them apostates or separated brethren.

This article will determine the issue of who really departed from the truth or from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Two things must be made clear: a) what Christ and the Apostles taught and b) if the bishops who succeeded the Apostles in the administration of the Church continued such teachings or not. If they did, then there was no apostasy; if they did not, then there was an apostasy.


Christ’s Teachings Are In The Bible

Not all the things done by Christ and the Apostles were written (cf. Jn. 20:30-31). In fact there were some things that God did not want to be written (cf. Dan. 12:4; Rev. 10:4). The Apostles wrote down what they witnessed (cf. 1 Jn. 1:1-4). All such writings were inspired by God, should be used for doctrine, correction, instruction, and they make man perfect (cf. II Tim. 3:16-17). What were written are enough and nothing should be added to them nor subtracted from them (cf. Rev. 22:18-19) for what are written were written so that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that by believing we might have eternal life through His name (cf. Jn. 20:30-31). Apostle Paul adds that we must not go beyond what is written (cf. I Cor. 4:6). And if the Apostles did give instructions by word of mouth, such instructions were taken from what they had witnessed and such things they wrote down (cf. I Jn. 1:1-4).

Thus, the teachings of Christ and the Apostles on which we must remain if we are to be true Christians are written in the Bible, and for as long as we remain in them, we are truly Christ’s disciples (cf. Jn. 8:31) or Christians (cf. Acts 11:26).


The Process of Apostasy

The process of apostasy or the turning away from the teachings of God as written in the Bible, was already at work even during the times of the apostles (cf. II Thess. 2:7). Apostle Paul warned the Christian s for the burning of the city of Rome in A.D. 64. It is also very likely that Saint Peter and Saint Paul were put to death at Rome about this time… . in Galatia that those who teach doctrines different from what the Apostles already taught be accursed (cf. Gal. 1:6-9). But for as long as the Apostles were still alive and in control of Church administration, such forces of iniquity did not succeed in enticing the entire living members of the Church away from what the Apostles taught them (cf. II Thess. 2:7).

With the death of the Apostles, however, something happened to the Church of Christ:

“For the years after the record in Acts ends, evidence for the history of the Christian Church becomes more scanty. There began to be passing references to it in pagan writers. These writers make it seem likely that the Roman Emperor Nero blamed the Christian

“When the original Apostles died, the leadership of the Church was taken over by local pastors known as bishops. Under them were ministers of lower rank, known as presbyters and deacons. The Church organized the area of the Roman Empire into provinces. The bishops at the head of the Christian communities in the large cities such as Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Carthage ranked highest.” (The New Book of Knowledge, vol. 3, pp. 280-281)

Thus, when the Apostles died, not much was recorded on what went on in the Church of Christ but during this period of silence the administration of the Church fell into the hands of the bishops.

Apostle Paul describes the bishop as he was in the first century Church of Christ. His qualities are detailed in I Timothy 3:2-7 as:

“…blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?). Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” (King James Version)

Apostle Paul further says that a bishop should be “holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” (cf. Titus 1:9)

Thus, among other things, a bishop in the first century Church of Christ is a husband of one wife and a teacher of things taught by the Apostles and Christ, things that are written in the Bible.

The bishops that took control of the Church administration in the second century were of a different breed. They were priests who were not allowed to marry and taught things not coming from the Bible. Moreover, the bishops of the first century Church were not monarchical:

“In Acts 20:28, …the fact that there were several bishops in one community excludes the monarchical concept of the term…” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 585)

In spite of this clear evidence from the Bible that the original bishop in the Church of Christ was not monarchical, Catholic Church authorities inject the idea that the monarchical episcopate which prevailed in the second century must have come from oral tradition:

“Therefore, since there is no clear evidence in NT for a monarchical episcopate, this office, which was firmly established by the early decades of the 2d century must have been based on oral apostolic tradition going back ultimately to Christ.” (Ibid.)

A monarchical episcopate is defined as “one single bishop assisted by priests and deacons” (Ibid. p. 589), a thing that did not prevail during the time of the Apostles. In spite of this difference in administration between the first century Church of Christ and that of the second, Catholic authorities reject the first and accept the second:

“The testimony of Ignatius from the first decade of the 2d century, along with the evidence of the writers from the second half of that century and the earliest catalogs of bishops in the principal Churches – all of which trace a line of succession of individual bishops back to the apostolic age – satisfies most Catholic theologians that this form of Church government was the only one ever recognized as normal and regular.” (Ibid.)

This control of the Church administration by the bishops who began to teach different doctrines was the fulfillment of what Apostle Paul prophesied concerning the overseers (bishop):

“Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:30, KJV)

Soon after the bishops took over the administration of the Church in the second century, the doctrines of this Church began to be infected with poison:

“At first the history of the Roman Church is identical with the history of the Christian truth. But unhappily there came a time when streams of poison began to flow from the once pure fountain.” (The World’s Great Events, vol. 2, pp 163-164)


From Church of Christ To Catholic Church

The great apostasy did not consist in the destruction of the first century Church of Christ and the establishment of another one. It consisted in the deterioration of the Church established by Christ. As already mentioned, there was a sort of “news blockout” during the years immediately after the death of the Apostles. During this period the bishops took over the administration of the Church. When events began to be recorded again, what was revealed was a Church very different from what Christ founded:

“For fifty years after St. Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it rises about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church-fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.” (The Story of the Christian Church, p. 41)

The differences between what used to be the Church of Christ in the first century and the Church that was revealed in the second to the fourth centuries are profound:

“It is necessary to note that we should recall the reader’s attention to the profound differences between this fully developed Christianity of Nicaea and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth….What is clearly apparent is that the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth was a prophetic teaching of the new type that began with the Hebrew prophets. It was not priestly, it had no consecrated temple, and no altar. It had no rites and ceremonies. Its sacrifice was ‘a broken and contrite heart’. Its only organization was an organization of preachers, and its chief function was the sermon. But the fully fledge Christianity of the fourth century, though it preserved as its nucleus the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, was mainly a priestly religion, of a type already familiar to the world for thousands of years. The center of its elaborate ritual was an altar, and the essential act or worship the sacrifice, by a consecrated priest, of the Mass.” (The Outline of History, pp. 552-553)

These profound changes, made on the original teachings of Christ, dealt great violence on the teachings of the Bible for the purpose of enhancing the interests of the Catholic Church:

“Jesus too, being a Galilean, was of Aryan stock, a remarkable man whose teachings had, in the course of centuries, been deformed out of all recognition in the interests of the Catholic Church.” (The Vatican in the Age of Dictators, p. 168)

Adding insult to injury, Catholic authorities acknowledge such changes without shame and even with pride:

“We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn.” (The Spirit of Catholicism, p. 2)

“ ‘Without the Scriptures’, says Mohler, ‘the true form of the sayings of Jesus would have been withheld from us….Yet the Catholic does not derive his faith in Jesus from Scripture’.” (Ibid. p. 50)

Hence, those responsible for this apostasy of the first century Church of Christ were the bishops under whose administration these profound changes took place. The first bishop identified as having introduced changes into the Church was Ignatius, bishop of Antioch who was martyred in Rome about 110 A.D. He was the first to use the term Catholic Church in reference to the Church of Christ:

“The name Catholic as a name is not applied to the Catholic Church in the Bible. ..St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Christians of Smyrna about the year 110, is the first to use the name ‘The Catholic Church’ …” (The Question Box, p. 132)

This same Ignatius introduced the doctrine that Christ is both God and man. “He asserted unequivocally both the divinity and humanity of Christ, the Savior.” (New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 7, p. 353)

Ignatius is one of the so-called Antenicene Fathers who were divided into three groups, namely:
1. Apostolic Fathers – supposedly had personal contact with the Apostles or were instructed by their disciples. To this group belong Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyna, and Clement of Rome.
2. Greek Apologists – born of the Church’s reaction to paganism. To this group belong Justin Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus.
3. Theologians – to this group belong Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian.

These Church Fathers were the source of the teachings that the Catholic Church taught and implemented beginning the second century and formalized by the decrees of the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. Such persons were not immune from errors and yet, the apostatized church approved their teachings:

“Obviously much that Christ and the apostles preached was in time reduced to writing. Hence there grew up a library composed of men called ‘the fathers of the Church’. They were called so because in apostolic days the word ‘father’ also meant teacher of spiritual things, and these were among her earliest teachers. But, unlike the apostles, all of whom enjoyed infallibility, they were not immune from error nor inspired as the scriptural writers had been. In so far as they dealt with questions of faith and morals, much of what they wrote was approved by the Church, and thus, became part of written tradition.” (Whereon to Stand: What Catholics Believe and Why, p. 142)

As a result of the teachings of these early Church Fathers, the Church of Christ or Christianity became Roman Catholicism, the last and the greatest of the mystery religions:

“On that dies Domini, or Lord’s Day, the Christians assembled for their weekly ritual. Their clergy read from the Scriptures, led them in prayer, and preached sermons of doctrinal instruction, moral exhortation, and sectarian controversy…

“By the close of the second century, these weekly ceremonies had taken the form of the Christian Mass. Based partly on the Judaic Temple service, partly on Greek mystery rituals of purification, vicarious sacrifice, and participation through communion, in the death-overcoming powers, of the deity, the Mass grew slowly into a rich congeries of prayers, psalms, readings, sermon, antiphonal recitations, and, above all, that symbolic atoning sacrifice of the ‘Lamb of God’ which replaced, in Christianity, the bloody offerings of older faiths. The bread and wine which these cults had considered as gifts placed upon the altar before the god were now conceived as changed by the priestly act of consecration into the body and blood of Christ, and were presented to God as a repetition of the self-immolation of Jesus on the cross. Then, in an intense and moving ceremony, the worshippers partook of the very life and substance of their Saviour. It was a conception long sanctified by time; the pagan mind needed no schooling to receive it; by embodying it in the ‘mystery of the Mass’, Christianity became the last and the greatest of the mystery religions.” (Ceasar and Christ, pp. 599-600) 


From Persecuted Church To Persecutor Church

The first century Church of Christ suffered persecution at the very moment of its inception. Christ was Himself crucified by the Jews; Stephen the deacon was stoned to death with the approval of Saul who was to become the Apostle Paul later. After the Jews came the Roman emperors, from Nero (54-68) to Diocletian (284-305). The persecution was in progress when the Church of Christ developed into the Catholic Church in the second century. Thus, those faithful to the Church of Christ in the first century were killed and wiped out by the second century in the Roman persecution. By the second century the Church of Christ had already apostatized into the Catholic Church but the Roman persecutions continued, and those getting killed were no longer true Christians but followers of the bishops called Catholics. Among the victims was Ignatius himself who began calling the Church of Christ Catholic Church. Even Popes were killed. A former Jesuit priest says:

“Between the death of Simon Peter the Apostle in A.D. 67, and the year 312, there were thirty-one popes, successors to Peter as bishops of Rome. Not one of the first eighteen popes died in bed. All perished violently.” (The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Church, p. 3)

These two centuries of intermittent persecutions led to the killings of thousands of Catholics still called by historians as Christians.

Emperor Constantine (306-337) stopped the persecutions, legalized and favored the Catholic Church and assumed control over it. Thus began a pro-Christian imperial policy which later turned into a policy of persecution of heretics and pagans:

“This pro-Christian imperial policy…began with Constantine, who favored the Christians and only tolerated paganism, hoping it to die a natural death. His three sons, however, who succeeded him at his death in 337, took a more resolute stance. This was especially true of Constantius, who was left sole ruler in 350. He aimed at total extirpation of paganism; he ordered the temples closed and imposed the death penalty for participating in sacrifices.” (A Concise History of the Catholic Church, p. 68)

“Meanwhile, Gratian was taking steps to stamp out paganism, and in 391 and 392 Theodosius issued stringent laws against idolatry. Sacrifice to pagan gods, whether in public or in private, was to be regarded as treason, and paganism gradually died out during the following century. The legal triumph of the Church over heresy and paganism and its evolution from a persecuted sect to a persecuting state church were complete.” (A Survey of European Civilization, p. 95)

Thus, the persecuted Church of Christ of the first century which became the persecuted Catholic Church from the second to the fourth century became allied with the Roman emperors in the fourth century and started persecuting not only pagans but also its own members who dared to refuse allegiance to it or who questioned its authority and teachings, members classified as heretics.

History records that by the 13th century, this persecution by the apostate Church surpassed in cruelty the persecutions done by the Roman emperors.

“The Inquisition lasted over two hundred years…If men or women or children refused to accept Christianity, they were tortured until they died.

“Even the early Christians, before Constantine, who were tortured and killed and fed to the lions in Rome, and who are known to us as Martyrs, were not treated more cruelly than the non-Christians during the Inquisition. (How the Great Religions Began, p. 214)


Conclusion

The true Church of Christ established by Christ in Jerusalem in the first century followed a set of tenets which Christ received from God, which the Apostles received from Christ, and which the Apostles committed into writing. Such written words make references to the Old Testament so that the true Church of Christ also recognizes the Old Testament as words of God. God commands that nothing should be added to nor subtracted from what has been written in the Holy Scriptures.

For as long as the Apostles were at the helm of Church administration, the Church followed to the letter all the commandments written in the Bible. But with the death of the Apostles, the bishops took control of the Church and they introduced teachings not drawn from what is written in the Bible but from tradition, writings of the so-called Church Fathers, theologians, and other sources.

By the second century, the bishops change the name of the Church, injected new doctrines into it, changed its hierarchy so that what emerged by the year 120 A.D. was a Church radically different in form and content from the Church during the time of Apostle Peter and Paul.

The apostasy did not consist in the establishment of a new Church but in the introduction of teachings foreign to it and not written in the Bible. The Church of Christ during the time of the Apostles became the Catholic Church of the bishops in the second century, persecuted by the Roman emperors until the fourth century, allied itself with the Roman emperors from that time on and became a persecutor Church, killing both pagans and alleged heretics with unspeakable cruelty.

This is the Church that turned away from Christ’s teachings as written in the Bible, the Church that took on teachings of men, the Church that apostatized, the Church that calls itself The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church.

Bibliography

Books:

Adam, Karl. The Spirit of Catholicism. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1954

Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1977.

Brunini, John Gilland. Whereon to Stand: What Catholics Believe and Why. New York: Dell Publishing Co., Inc., 1961.

Conway, Rev. Bertrand L. The Question Box. New York: The Paullist Press, 1929.

Durant, Will. The Story of Civilization, Part III: Ceasar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944.

Ferguson, Wallace K. and Geoffrey Bruun. A Survey of European Civilization. Bostan: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962.

Gaer, Joseph. How the Great Religions Began. London: The New American Library Limited, 1956.

Hurlbut, Jesse Lyman, D.D. The Story of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1969.

Martin, Malachi. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church. New York: Bantam Books, 1981.

Rhodes, Anthony. The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators, 1922-1945. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.

Wells, H.G. The Outline of History. New York: Garden City Publishing Company, Inc., 1931


General References:

New Catholic Encyclopedia, vols. 2 and 3. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1967.

The New Book of Knowledge, vol. 3. Connecticut:Grolier Inc., 1983.

The World’s Great Events, vol. 2:From BC 207 to AD 1190. New York: P. F. Gollier & Sons Corporation, 1948.

Siya ba ay Dios, o Tao?

 

Ang isa sa mga ikinatatangi ng mga aral na sinasampalatayanan ng Iglesia ni Cristo sa hanay ng mga relihiyong nagpapakilalang Cristiano ay ang nauukol sa tunay na likas na kalagayan ni Cristo.

Kinikilala ng Iglesia ni Cristo ang mga katangian at karangalang taglay ni Cristo – Panginoon (Gawa 2:36), Tagapagligtas (Gawa 5:31), Tagapamagitan (I Tim. 2:5), pangulo ng Iglesia (Efe. 5:23, Magandang Balita Biblia), Anak ng Diyos (Mat. 3:17).

Kaya, mataas ang pagkalilala at pagpapahalaga ng Iglesia ni Cristo kay Cristo dahil ito ang itinuturo ng Biblia. Ngunit sa kabila ng mga katangiang taglay Niya, hindi Siya ang tunay na Diyos. Ang aral na ito ng Iglesia ni Cristo tungkol kay Cristo ay hindi matanggap ng marami dahil inaakala nila na ang orihinal at naunang mga aral ng mga unang Cristiano ay tunay na Diyos si Cristo na nagkatawang-tao.

Kaya, kapag ipinangangaral ng Iglesia ni Cristo na si Cristo ay hindi Diyos, nagkakaroon agad ng maling isipan ang ibang tao na ang ganitong aral ay ibang-iba sa mga aral ng mga unang Cristiano sa panahong nabubuhay pa ang mga apostol.

Kung susuriing mabuti ang Biblia at maging ang mga natala sa iba’t ibang aklat ng kasaysayan ay lubos na mauunawaan na ang itinuturo ng Iglesia ni Cristo na si Cristo ay tao at hindi tunay na Diyos ang siyang nauna at orihinal na paniniwala ng mga unang Cristiano.

Ang pananampalatayang ang Ama ang kaisa-isang tunay na Diyos ang siyang itinuro mismo ni Cristo: “Pagkasabi ni Jesus nito, tumingala Siya sa langit at nagsabi, ‘Ama, dumating na ang oras. Luwalhatiin Mo ang Iyong Anak upang luwalhatiin Ka rin ng Iyong Anak… At ito ang buhay na walang hanggan – ang makilala Ka nila, Ikaw na kaisa-isang tunay na Diyos, at si Jesu-Cristong sinugo mo” (Juan 17:1, 3, Salita ng Buhay).Tiniyak ng ating Panginoong Jesucristo na ang Ama lamang ang dapat kilalaning kaisa-isang tunay na Diyos.

Patungkol naman sa Kaniyang sarili, sinabi ng Anak na Siya’y “sinugo” ng Diyos.

Ukol naman sa Kaniyang likas na kalagayan, ganito ang pagtuturo mismo ng Panginoong Jesucristo na mababasa sa Juan 8:40

“Datapuwa’t ngayo’y pinagsisikapan ninyo akong patayin, na taong sa inyo’y nagsaysay ng katotohanan, na aking narinig sa Dios…”

Hindi ba’t ang higit na nakakaalam ng tunay na likas na kalagayan ni Cristo ay walang iba kundi Siya mismo? Malinaw ang Kaniyang pahayag mula sa Biblia na Siya ay tao. Ito rin ang katotohanang itinuro ng mga apostol (I Tim. 2:5; Gawa 2:22-23, MB; Mat. 1:18)

PATOTOO NG MGA MANANALAYSAY

May tala sa kasaysayan na nagpapatunay na noong simula, naniniwala ang mga Cristiano na si Cristo ay tao sa likas na kalagayan. Ganito ang pahayag ng historyador na si Bernhard Lohse na sinipi sa isang aklat: “… Gaya ng isinulat ng isang mananalaysay ng Iglesia, na si Bernhard Lohse, sa kaniyang Motive im Glauben (Motivation for Belief):

‘Ipinagunita sa atin ni Ario na si Jesus, tulad ng pagpapakilala sa kaniya sa mga Ebanghelyo ay hindi isang Diyos na lumakad sa lupa, kundi isang taong totoo. Mangyari pa, sa kaniyang pagiging tao ay pinatunayan ni Jesus ang lubos niyang pakikisama sa Diyos.’ ” (The Jesus Establishment, p.175) 1

Sa isang aklat kasaysayan ay binanggit kung ano ang paniniwala kay Cristo ng mga tinatawag na Apostolic Fathers na sumunod sa panahon ng mga apostol – Siya ay isang banal na tagapagpahayag ng kaalaman ng tunay na Diyos. Walang sinasabi sa tala ng kasaysayan na kinikilala na noon na si Cristo ay Diyos:

“Ang karaniwang Cristianismo… ay kumikilos sa higit na mga payak na kaisipan. Ganap na tapat kay Cristo, kinilala nito na siya, unang-una bilang banal na tagapagpahayag ng kaalaman ng tunay na Diyos at tagapagpahayag ng isang bagong batas ng simple, marangal at mahigpit na moralidad. Ito ang palagay ng mga tinatawag na ‘Apostolic Fathers’, maliban kay Ignacio…” (A History of the Christian Church, p. 37) 2

Pinatunayan naman ng isang aklat na tinatawag na Old Roman o Apostles’ Creed (humigit-kumulang taong 100 AD) na walang tinataglay na paniniwala tungkol sa Cristong Diyos ang mga unang Cristiano. Ano ang sinasabi sa Kredong ito? Si Cristo ang bugtong na Anak na ipinanganak sa pamamagitan ng Espiritu Santo at ni Birhen Maria. Walang binabanggit sa kredong ito ukol sa Cristong eksistido na noon pang una. Kaya, batay sa mga tala ng kasaysayan, nang mga panahong iyon ay wala silang tinataglay na paniniwalang si Cristo ay Diyos (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, p. 190-191) 3

Ang paniniwalang si Cristo ay tao ang orihinal na paniniwala ng mga unang Cristiano. Kaya, sa pagtuturo ng Iglesia ni Cristo na si Cristo ay tao, itinataguyod lamang nito ang orihinal na paniniwala na mga unang Cristiano.

PATOTOO PA NG IBANG MGA AWTORIDAD

Sinasang-ayunan ba ng mga awtoridad Katoliko ang katotohanan na hindi nga tinawag na Diyos si Cristo noong una? Sa aklat na pinamagatang Ang kabanalbanalang Isangtatlo: Ang Diyos ng mga Kristiyano ay matatagpuan ang ganito: “Kaya’t hindi maaring sabihin na tinatawag nang Diyos si Jesus noong mga kaunaunahang araw ng kristiyanismo” (p.32) 4

Hindi Diyos ang Panginoong Jesucristo sapagkat hindi raw maaaring sabihin na tinatawag nang Diyos si Jesus noong mga kauna-unahang araw ng Cristianismo. Bakit? Ayon naman sa ibang mga nagsuri “… malaya na ngayong tinatanggap kapuwa ng mga Protestante at Katolikong teologo at tagapagpaliwanag ng doktrina: na batay sa nakakalap na pangkasaysayang impormasyon, hindi inisip ni Jesus na taga-Nazaret na Siya’y Diyos…”

(The First Coming, p.5) 5

Kung ni hindi pala inisip ni Cristo na Siya’y ay Diyos, paano, kung gayon, nagkaroon na paniniwala na si Cristo raw ay tunay na Diyos?

Sa aklat-Katoliko na At Nagsalita ang Diyos sa Pamamagitan ng Kaniyang Anak, “Ipinahahayag ng ilang dalubhasa na utay-utay na binalangkas ng Simbahan ang pananampalataya sa pagka-Diyos ni Jesus na impluho ng mga ibang relihiyon” (p.181) 6.

Ayon naman sa ibang mga mananalaysay, bumangon ang  paniniwalang si Cristo ay tunay na Diyos nang lumaganap ang Katolisismo sa mga bansang pagano (The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, p.90). 7

Ayon sa isang historyador, ang pinakaunang nagpahayag na Diyos si Cristo pagkatapos na panahon ng mga manunulat ng Bagong Tipan ay si Ignacio ng Antioquia – isa sa tinaguriang unang ama ng Iglesia: “Ang kauna-unahang panahong nalalaman na si Jesus ay diniyos ay pagkatapos ng panahon ng mga manunulat ng Bagong Tipan, sa mga sulat ni Ignacio, sa pasimula ng ikalawang siglo” (Systematic Theology, p. 305). 8

Ayon sa aklat na A History of God: “… Ang doktrinang si Jesus ay Diyos na nasa anyong tao ay hindi naging pinal hanggang noong ikaapat na siglo. Ang pagkakabuo ng paniniwala ng mga Cristiano tungkol sa pagkakatawang-tao (Enkarnasyon) ay isang unti-unti at masalimuot na proseso. Natitiyak natin na hindi kailanman inangkin ni Jesus na Siya’y Diyos (p.81). 9

Ikaapat na siglo na nang pormal at opisyal na ipahayag ng Iglesia na isang alituntunin ng pananampalataya na si Jesus ay tunay na Diyos. Sa aklat ng Iglesia Katolika na Discourses on the Apostles’ Creed, ay ganito ang isinasaad:

“Kaya halimbawa, noon lamang 325 A.D. sa Konsilyo ng Nicea nang ipaliwanag ng Iglesia sa atin na isang alituntunin ng pananampalataya na si Jesus ay tunay na Diyos.” (p.206) 10

ANG IPINAGPAUNA NG MGA APOSTOL

Dapat ba nating ipagtaka kung may lumitaw at lumaganap na paniniwala tungkol sa Panginoong Jesucristo na ibang-iba naman sa ipinangaral ng mga apostol? Hindi, sapagkat ito’y ipinagpauna ni Apostol Pablo:

“Nguni’t ako’y natatakot, baka sa anomang paraan, kung paanong si Eva ay nadaya ng ahas sa kaniyang katusuhan, ang inyong walang malay at malinis na mga pagiisip na kay Cristo ay pasamain. Sapagka’t kung yaong paririto ay mangaral ng ibang Jesus, na hindi namin ipinangaral, o kung kayo’y nagsisitanggap ng ibang espiritu na hindi ninyo tinanggap, o ibang evangelio na hindi ninyo tinaggap, ay mabuting pagtiisan ninyo” (II Cor. 11:3-4)

Kaya, buhay pa ang mga apostol ay ipinagpauna na nila na may mga magtuturo sa mga unang Cristiano ng iba sa kanilang ipinangaral. Ang ganito ay hidwang pananampalataya at hindi ikaliligtas (Gal. 5:19-21)

Bagaman sa pananaw ng marami ay ibang-iba ang mga aral na sinasampalatayanan ng Iglesia ni Cristo tungkol kay Cristo – na Siya’y tao sa likas na kalagayan at hindi Diyos – ay hindi naman ito naiiba sa katotohanang itinuturo ng Biblia. Ang pagtuturong si Cristo ay tao at hindi Diyos ay pagbabalik sa orihinal na mga aral na sinasampalatayanan ng mga unang Cristiano.

Nota: Ang mga reperensiya sa wikang Ingles ay isinalin sa wikang Filipino.

Sanggunian:
1 Lehmann, Johannes. The Jesus Establishment. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1974

2 Walker, Williston. A History of the Christian Church. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970

3 Wolfson, Harry Austryn. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1964.

4 Sevilla, Pedro., S.J. Ang Kabanalbanalang Isangtatlo: Ang Diyos ng mga Kristiyano. Philippines: n.p., n.d

5 Sheehan, Thomas. The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God became Christianity. New York, USA: Random House, Inc. 1986

6 Sevilla, Pedro  C., S.J. At Nagsalita ang Diyos sa Pamamagitan ng Kanyang Anak. Quezon City, Philippines: n.p., n.d.

7 Davies, A. Powell. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls. USA: Penguin Books, USA, Inc., 1956.

8 Strong, Augustus Hopkins, D.D., LL.D., Systematic Theology. Philadelphia: The Judson Press, 1907.

9 Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, New York: Ballantine Books, 1993.

10 Crock, Clement H. Rev., Discourses on the Apostles’ Creed, New York City: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1938

Source: PASUGO, God’s Message; May 2010 edition, Volume 62, Number 5, ISSN 0116-1636, p. 20-22, by MICHAEL M. SANDOVAL

The Father is Saviour, and Jesus is Savoiur is Jesus God?

If Jesus saviour, Jesus Christ is not God then why do we need Him if we have the Father for salvation? If He is just a man, how can a man give salvation?

It is true that God the Father is saviour (Isaiah 45:21-22) and that Jesus Christ is also a saviour(John 4:42;Ephesian 5:23)However to assume that Christ is also God because He is a saviour is to ignore the teachings of the bible on how He became saviour:

“It was Jesus, a descendant of David, whom God made the saviour of the people of Israel, as He promised”(Acts 13:23TEV)

“Him God has exalted to his right hand to be Prince and saviour, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins” (Acts 5:31 NKJV)

Clearly, therefore, Christ is saviour because He was exalted and made as such by God. Now, if Christ being made saviour made Him God, then comes the absurd conclusion that Christ became God because He was made as such by another God.

The bible also teaches that Christ Himself needed salvation from God(Heb.5:7) Could this have meant that one God “offer up prayers and supplications” “to another God “ who was able to save Him from deaths? Surely not, as this directly contradicts the doctrine of the bible that “there is one God, the Father of whom are all things”(1Cor.8:6)

To further ask, “why do we need Jesus if we already have the Father for salvation?” and “ How can a man (Jesus) give salvation” is to overlook, to say the least, the biblical pronouncements on the manner through which the Father will grant salvation. The Father will grant salvation through “ the man” He has ordained, Jesus Christ. The bible explains thus;

“ and now all glory to Him who alone is God, who saves us through Jesus Christ our Lord....”(Jude 1:24, Living bible)

“Because He (God) has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the man He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead”(Acts 17:31 NKJV)

As Jesus was ordained or appointed to be “the man” through whom God will judge the world, it is Him (Christ) who will come on the “end of the age”(Matt.24:3,NKJV) to bring judgement on all(Jude 1:14-15, TEV).

Jesus will grant salvation or the right to “inherit the kingdom” to His sheep (Matt. 25:31-34) or the members of His Church (John 10:16; Acts 20:28 Lamsa translation;Eph.5:23) because God gave Him the authority to give eternal life(John 17:2), indeed, Christ became Saviour by virtue of the authority given to Him by the God the Father. With regards to the nature of Christ’s being the bible explicitly declares of Him through whom salvation is to found;

“...... Jesus of Nazareth was a man whose divine authority was clearly proven to you by all the miracles and wonders which God performed through Him......”

Salvation is to be found through Him alone; in all the world there is no one else whom God has given who can save us” (Acts 2:22; 4:12 TEV)

Dahil Tinawag na Alpha at Omega “King of Kings at “Lord of Lords” sa Apocalipsis 1:8; 22:12-16; 17:14 Dios na?

  

Itong mga talatang ito ang ginagamit ng ilang Theologians lalo na ng mga Trinitarians na batayan para patunayan na ang Panginoong Jesuscristo ay Dios din.

Sa paniniwalang ito lalo na ng mga Trinitarians, ay malaki ang kanilang dapat ipaliwanag kung bakit ang Holy Spirit na sa paniniwala nila ay kapantay din ng Ama at ng Anak, ay hindi tinawag na Alpha at Omega King of Kings at Lord of Lords?

Hanggang ngayon po wala pa silang paliwanag ukol sa Holy Spirit kung bakit hindi tinawag ng gayon.

Kung susundin natin ang ganyang pangangatuwiran na dahil sa tinawag sa magkahalintulad na titulo ay Dios na?

Ilang mga halimbawa ,

Si apostol Pedro din pala ay magiging Dios din dahil tinawag din sa katawagang kahalintulad ng sa Panginoong Jesucristo na “BATO” o “Stone”.

Dito po sa Juan 1:42 si apostol Pedro ay tinawag na “Stone”

“ And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus saw him, He said, You are Simon the son of Jonah; you shall be called Cephas (which translated is, A stone)”.[KJV]

Samanatalang ang Panginoong Jesus naman ay tinawag ding “Stone” sa Gawa 4:10-11

“ be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, in this name does this man stand before you whole. This is the Stone which you builders have counted worthless, and He has become the Head of the Corner.” [KJV]

Nakita na po natin na parehong tinawag na “STONE” si Apostol Pedro at ang Panginoong Jesuscristo pero nangangahulugan po ba ito na Dios din sa apostol Pedro?

Magpatuloy po tayo....

Sa ganyang kaisipan pa din na kung susundin natin na dahil sa may pagkakapareho ng katawagan ay Dios na, eh di lahat pala ng Kristyano ay Dios na rin?

Bakit po? Kasi po sa 1 Pedro 2:4-5 lahat ng Kristyano ay tinawag na “ living STONE”

Sipiin po natin ang talata...

“ For having been drawn to Him, a living Stone, indeed rejected by men, but elect, precious with God;you also as living stones are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” [KJV]

Nakita na po natin kung ano ang samang ibubunga kung sakaling paniniwalaan natin na dahil may magkaparehong katawagan ay pareho na ng kalagayan? Katulad po ni Cristo at ng Dios, at ni Cristo at ni apostol Pedro? Mas higit po ni Cristo at ng lahat ng Kristyano?

Maaring sabihin po ninyo na magkaiba naman ng kahulugan ang mga iyan?

Tama po kayo!

Iyan po ang pinakapunto ko na, hindi komo tinawag sa magkaparehong katawagan ay magkapareho na ng kalagayan.

“ALPHA AT OMEGA” Ang una at huling letra ng Greek alphabet. Ito ay parehong ikinabit sa Panginoong Jesus at sa Ama na Siyang tunay na IISANG DIOS, na ang ibig sabihin ay “UNA AT HULI”. Iyan po ay may magkaibang kahulugan ayon sa pagkakabit sa kanila.

Ang Ama ay “ALPHA” dahil sa Kanya nagmula ang lahat (1Corinto 8:6) at “OMEGA” dahil Siya ang nagtakda ng paghuhukom (Gawa 17:31; 1Corinto 15:28) o ng katapusan (Mateo 24:36)

Sa kabilang banda naman ang Panginoong Jesucristo ay “ALPHA” dahil Siya ang “panganay sa lahat ng nilalang” (Colosas 1:15) panganay sa lahat ng nilalang hindi ibig sabihin Siya ay pinakaunang tao sa mundo, panganay in the sense na bago pa lalangin ang mundo “nauna” na siya sa isipan ng Dios. Nauna Siya sa “plano” ng Dios. (1Pedro 1:20 salin ni Juan Trinidad)

OMEGA ang Panginoong Jesus dahil sa pamamagitan Niya huhukuman ng Dios ang sanlibutan sa araw ng paghuhukom (2 Corinto 5:10; Gawa 17:31).

Bakit tinawag na Lord of Lords at King of Kings?

Ipinaliwanag po ng biblia na Siya maghahari at “ lilipulin na niya ang lahat ng paghahari, at lahat ng kapamahalaan at kapangyarihan.”

Kung magkagayo'y darating ang wakas, pagka ibibigay na niya ang kaharian sa Dios, sa makatuwid baga'y sa Ama; pagka lilipulin na niya ang lahat ng paghahari, at lahat ng kapamahalaan at kapangyarihan. Sapagka't kinakailangang siya'y maghari hanggang mailagay niya sa ilalim ng kaniyang mga talampakan ang lahat niyang mga kaaway “ (1Corinto 15:24-25)

Ayon sa paglalarawan ng biblia ang pagiging King of Kings at Lord of Lords ng Panginoong Jesucristo ay mas mababa doon sa Ama na Siyang tunay na Dios, at sa pagpapatuloy ng biblia...

“ Sapagka't kaniyang pinasuko ang lahat ng mga bagay sa ilalim ng kaniyang paa. Datapuwa't kung sinasabi, ang lahat ng mga bagay ay pinasuko, ay maliwanag na itinangi yaong nagpasuko ng lahat ng mga bagay sa kaniya. At kung ang lahat ng mga bagay ay mapasuko na sa kaniya, kung magkagayo'y ang Anak rin ay pasusukuin naman sa nagpasuko ng lahat ng mga bagay sa kaniya, upang ang Dios ay maging lahat sa lahat. “ (1 Corinto 15:27-28)

Kaya po ang Alpha at Omega, Kings of Kings, Lord of Lords ay may pagkakaiba ang kahulugan at pagkakagamit. So kung i-a-argue nila na Dios ang Panginoong Jesucristo dahil taglayNiya ang ganoong titulo ito ay isang maling argumento at pangangatuwiran. Ito ang tinatawag ng mga logician na "fallacy of equivocation".

Who's God sits on the throne, Is it Jesus? The Father, or the Trinity God of the Trinitarians?

 

Let us examine some of the verses that the Christ-is-God proponents used as a supporting evidence that Christ is God and is the Second person of the so called Trinity God. One God in Three Persons!

We will not discuss, whether the word “TRINITY” is in the bible because if you are a regular bible reader, you will agree with me that it cannot be found on the bible.

So, instead of arguing with the word Trinity we will examine some of the verses they are using to prove the Trinity and that Christ is God.

Let us start with this...

"Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne [of God]."   (Rev. 5:6, NIV)

Trinitarians also imply that the slain Lamb (obviously the resurrected Christ) must be God because He is in the center  of God's throne in this verse.

The question now will be like this: 

 Are they correct?


 Is Christ God because the verse mentioned He is in the center of the throne?

Our answer is NO! He is maybe mentioned as in the center of the throne but not the who sits on the throne.

There is never any doubt that the one seated on God's throne in Rev.4 and 5 is God the Father.

Let us qoute Rev.4:10-11: 

"They [the 24 elders] lay their crowns before the throne and say: `You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things."  (Rev. 4:10-11 NASB.)

The Lamb is never called God, nor does he sit on the throne of God in these two chapters.

The Lamb is clearly differentiated from God:

"And I heard every creature in heaven, on earth, in the world below, and in the sea---all living beings in the universe---and they were singing: "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb, be praise and honor, glory and might, forever and ever!" (GNB)

So why is the Lamb standing in the center of the throne of God?

Well here is how it reads in the original Greek:

 "And I saw in midst of the throne (en meso tou thronou) ... lamb standing...."

Thayer tells us of this NT Greek word meso::

"in midst of, i.e. in the space within, tou thronou [`the throne'] (which must be conceived of as having a semicircular shape [c-shaped]: Rev. iv. 6; v. 6."

Thayer continues with an explanation of Rev. 5:6 that meso means

"between the throne and the four living creatures and the elders (i.e. in the vacant space between the throne and the living creatures [on one side] and elders [on the other side], accordingly nearest the throne."

(p. 402, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House.)

 
Another trinitarian New Testament expert A. T. Robertson also takes this to mean:

 "before" or in front of the throne. (Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. vi, p. 328.)

Here some of many  trinitarian translations use "between" here rather than "in the center of".

 "between the throne and the four living creatures"

(1) RSV

(2) The Jerusalem Bible

 (3) NASB

 (4) NAB (1970 ed.)

 (5) NRSV

 (6) The Amplified Bible (1965)

 (7) MLB (1969)

 (8) Beck's The Holy Bible in the Language of Today (1976)

 (9) C. B. Williams' New Testament in the Language of the People (1963)

 (10) REB(

11)Living Bible.

But no matter how you wish to translate en meso tou thronou, it is obvious that the Lamb's being there does not make him God.

Simply look at Rev. 4:6 and the complete Rev. 5:6.

We have seen in Rev. 4:6 that the four living creatures are en meso tou thronou just as the lamb is in 5:6...

 If that means the Lamb is God, then it also means the four living creatures are God!

Trinitatrians your God now will not be a Trinity, but Sixnity, The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit, The Four Living Creatures! Absurd and Rediculous!

A further examination of Rev. 4:6 reveals this additional information concerning "en meso tou thronou" and the throne of God.

Let us take a look at the KJV rendition:



 "in the midst of the throne and around the throne."



This could mean that they are positioned around the throne so that each one is standing in the center of each side.

For that reason, the translators of TEV and GNB translated it:

"surrounding the throne on each of its sides."

CBW and Beck both translate:

 "in the middle of each side of the throne."

This understanding and these renderings by modern trinitarian Bibles correlate well with Ezekiel's vision of God's throne at Ezek. 1:15-22 where the 4 living creatures (Cherubs) are stationed at each corner of the throne (or chariot which supports the throne).

It could also mean the four living creatures are in the central position in heaven.

For this reason, The Jerusalem Bible reads:

"in the center, grouped around the throne itself."

The above gives us good evidence for determining what en meso tou thronou may mean for the position of the Lamb in Rev. 5:6.

Or merely examine all of the scripture in question. Rev. 5:6 reads literally in the Greek:

"And I saw in midst of the throne [en meso tou thronou] and of the four living [creatures] and in midst of [en meso] the older persons lamb having stood as having been slaughtered."

Again we see the four living creatures in the "midst" of the throne, and also the Lamb is in the "midst" of the 24 elders. The 24 elders, then, must also be in the "midst" of the throne with Jesus.

 So, this trinitarian "evidence" means the 24 elders are God too!

 Worse!

It's getting worse my dear Trinitarians!

Is it really the Trinity sits on the throne?

Let us take a look at Revelation 21:3

"And I heard a loud voice from the throne. saying, `Behold the tabernacle of God is among men and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His peoples, and God Himself shall be among them."

Is the loud voice from the throne is of God?

Let us furhter study....

Let us take a look in verse 5:

"And He who sits on the throne said, `Behold I am making all things new.'

(NASB)

We have seen that although the first voice was from the throne, it was still not from God.

The second voice was from the one who sits on the throne from God.

This is very clear that God is the one sitting on the throne, no one else!

Another vision of God in heaven is noteworthy.

 "Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw God's glory and Jesus standing at the right side of God."  ( Acts 7:55, TEV.)

 

If Christ is part of the so called Trinity, one God in three distinct persons then why is it in the verse we can read that He is standing at the right side  of God?

Is this a different Jesus?

 Of course not! That is the same Jesus, the Son of God.

Very clear in this verse Christ is not God.

So, who sits on the Throne?

My answer is, it is the Father Who is the ONLY TRUE GOD (John 17:1,3)

(Disclaimer: This is just my own view, and not the official doctrine of INC. If you are interested to know more about the doctrines of Iglesia Ni Cristo, please don't hesitate to visit our locale nearest you.

Our minister is more than happy to serve you.)