Franz Luigi Lugena
Bro. Ramon gave a very solid defense of the primacy of St. Peter. Si Parba mukhang nahilo at laging out of topic. Unang tanong palang niya sablay na. Ano daw ang pangalan ng Iglesiang tinayo ni Cristo. Hanggang sa unang tindig ni Parba Iglesiang tinayo ni Cristo pa rin sinasabi niya. Kaya sinabihan siya ni Bro. Ramon, pwedeng yan na rin ang pagdebatihan basta’t umamin si Parba na hindi niya kayang tutulan na si San Pedro ang visible head ng Simbahan. Hindi kinagat ni Parba. lolz
Puro iwas din si Parba. Hindi niya kinanti yung argumento ni Bro. Ramon na si San Pedro ay tinawag na kepha ni Cristo sa Juan 1:42. Malaki ang problema niya dito dahil nagpapatunay eto na si San Pedro ang bato/kepha sa Mateo 16:18. Ayaw niya kantiin yung Juan 1:42 kasi kepha ang nakasaad dun, walang grammatical gender dun.
BAHAGI NG KAGANAPAN SA DEBATE SA CEBU COLISEUM
IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS ROMAN CATHOLIC
MR RAMON GITAMONDOC BAKIT PO INIWASAN AT AYAW NYONG SAGUTIN ANG TANONG SAINYO SA PABORITO MONG TALATA SA DEBATE KAHAPON NA (MATEO 16:18) ? KUNG TALAGANG SA DIYOS KAYO AT PROUD KAYO AT NAKATITIYAK KAYO NA IGLESIA KATOLIKA NGA ANG ITINAYONG IGLESIA SA (MATEO 16:18) E BAKIT PO HINDI NYO SINAGOT ANG TANONG NI MR. RAMIL PARBA NA KUNG ANO ANG PANGALAN NG IGLESIANG ITINAYO NI CRISTO SA (MATEO 16:18)? GINAWA PO NYO AY PANAY IWAS NYO AT TANGI SA TANONG NA ITO AY NAGDULOT NG KAHIHIYAN AT SAMPAL SA PANGKALAHATANG SIMBAHANG KATOLIKA. BAKIT KAMO? DAHIL YON PO ANG PRUWEBA NA HINDI IGLESIA KATOLIKA ANG ITINAYO NI CRISTO TRULY KATOLIKA IS UNBIBLICAL O WALA SA BIBLIA AND THEREFORE HINDI PO ITO SA DIYOS.
IGLESIA NI CRISTO VS ROMAN CATHOLIC
MR RAMON GITAMONDOC BAKIT PO INIWASAN AT AYAW NYONG SAGUTIN ANG TANONG SAINYO SA PABORITO MONG TALATA SA DEBATE KAHAPON NA (MATEO 16:18) ? KUNG TALAGANG SA DIYOS KAYO AT PROUD KAYO AT NAKATITIYAK KAYO NA IGLESIA KATOLIKA NGA ANG ITINAYONG IGLESIA SA (MATEO 16:18) E BAKIT PO HINDI NYO SINAGOT ANG TANONG NI MR. RAMIL PARBA NA KUNG ANO ANG PANGALAN NG IGLESIANG ITINAYO NI CRISTO SA (MATEO 16:18)? GINAWA PO NYO AY PANAY IWAS NYO AT TANGI SA TANONG NA ITO AY NAGDULOT NG KAHIHIYAN AT SAMPAL SA PANGKALAHATANG SIMBAHANG KATOLIKA. BAKIT KAMO? DAHIL YON PO ANG PRUWEBA NA HINDI IGLESIA KATOLIKA ANG ITINAYO NI CRISTO TRULY KATOLIKA IS UNBIBLICAL O WALA SA BIBLIA AND THEREFORE HINDI PO ITO SA DIYOS.
Prof. Ramon Gitamondoc
To Christian Jako Braganza: Thank you for your question. If you have watched the debate you would already have known the reason why I refuse to answer the first question of Mr Parba for the simple reason that the question is out of order. In formal debates one has to abide by certain rules of engagement signed by both parties and one of this is that the debaters should not digress from the topic.
As you can see in the debate I posed my objection to the moderator and left it to him to decide on whether I have to answer the question or not. The moderator sustained my objection and told Mr Parba to reform his question. Had the moderator overruled my objection then I would have acceded to his ruling whether or not it would be adverse to my position.
As you might have observed, despite the ruling of the moderator in my favor Mr Parba still continue to explain his side when he was already told to reform his question and thereby violating another rule of the debate which stipulates that the ruling of the moderator must be respected. In this debate Mr Parba showed neither respect to me nor to the moderator.
Now, had the debate been about the true Church then I would have happily answered the question of Mr Parba that the Church founded by Christ in Matthew 16:18 is called in Scriptures by many identifying names such as Church of God (which occurs more often in Scriptures that church of Christ), church of the saints, church of the gentiles, and the identifying name church of Christ is just one of them. In fact the Catholic Church has applied the name Church of Christ as referring to herself in her official documents such as the documents of the Second Vatican Council, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and even in the earlier magisterial teachings. This she did long before the INC of 1914 saw the light of day. This is not surprising since the Catholic Church as admitted by your Pasugo is the original Church founded by Christ.
Today the name Church of Christ is used not only by the INC but also by other counterfeit churches of recent origin. This is why the Catholic Church which is the original Church of Christ adopted the official name of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The reason for this is that while the human founders like Manalo and Campbell have named their man-made churches as the Church of Christ the four distinguishing marks of the true Church can only be found in the Catholic Church. Thus your church, the INC, just copied the name to justify its claims to be the true church but it cannot prove that it has the distinguishing marks of unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity which Christ willed his church to have. Do not be so naive into thinking that since your sect is called the Iglesia ni Cristo that it is really the church founded by Christ himself. History will bear out clearly that your sect is just 100 years old compared to the Catholic Church which can trace its origins back to the time of the apostles (admitted by your Pasugo).
If you have a follow-up question I will be glad to answer.
As you can see in the debate I posed my objection to the moderator and left it to him to decide on whether I have to answer the question or not. The moderator sustained my objection and told Mr Parba to reform his question. Had the moderator overruled my objection then I would have acceded to his ruling whether or not it would be adverse to my position.
As you might have observed, despite the ruling of the moderator in my favor Mr Parba still continue to explain his side when he was already told to reform his question and thereby violating another rule of the debate which stipulates that the ruling of the moderator must be respected. In this debate Mr Parba showed neither respect to me nor to the moderator.
Now, had the debate been about the true Church then I would have happily answered the question of Mr Parba that the Church founded by Christ in Matthew 16:18 is called in Scriptures by many identifying names such as Church of God (which occurs more often in Scriptures that church of Christ), church of the saints, church of the gentiles, and the identifying name church of Christ is just one of them. In fact the Catholic Church has applied the name Church of Christ as referring to herself in her official documents such as the documents of the Second Vatican Council, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and even in the earlier magisterial teachings. This she did long before the INC of 1914 saw the light of day. This is not surprising since the Catholic Church as admitted by your Pasugo is the original Church founded by Christ.
Today the name Church of Christ is used not only by the INC but also by other counterfeit churches of recent origin. This is why the Catholic Church which is the original Church of Christ adopted the official name of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The reason for this is that while the human founders like Manalo and Campbell have named their man-made churches as the Church of Christ the four distinguishing marks of the true Church can only be found in the Catholic Church. Thus your church, the INC, just copied the name to justify its claims to be the true church but it cannot prove that it has the distinguishing marks of unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity which Christ willed his church to have. Do not be so naive into thinking that since your sect is called the Iglesia ni Cristo that it is really the church founded by Christ himself. History will bear out clearly that your sect is just 100 years old compared to the Catholic Church which can trace its origins back to the time of the apostles (admitted by your Pasugo).
If you have a follow-up question I will be glad to answer.