Recently, I met members of a group called Iglesia ni Cristo (Tagalog for "Church of Christ"). After I looked them up and watched some debates between them and other Christian churches, I observed that while English speakers in their group support their teachings using a number of Bible translations, the Lamsa Bible seems to be the one they most often reference.

What are the main reasons Iglesia ni Cristo uses the Lamsa Bible and how is this translation viewed by "mainstream" scholars with a traditional approach to biblical scholarship?


Iglesia ni Cristo (English: Church of Christ; abbreviated as INC) is an international Christian denomination religion that originated in the Philippines. It was registered and preached in 1914 by Felix Manalo,who became the first executive minister [1].

This new sect Iglesia Ni Cristo ( English: Church of Christ) is just 100 years old.They are avid Unitarians.Their Unitarian Theology is identical to Socinus than to Arius.

The Lamsa Bible is an English translation of the Aramaic Bible by George Lamsa [2].

The main reasons INC uses the Lamsa Bible is because it suits their theology.

The Lamsa Bible contains the exact phrase "church of Christ" in Acts 20:28 whereas all Greek MSS reads " ekklessia theou."

INC strictly teaches its doctrines in terminology that is found only in the Bible.

They use Acts 20:28 twofold purpose:

1) To deny the divinity of Christ [ it wasn't God's blood].

2) To affirm their claim that the name of the only true church is church of Christ.[For INC other churches whose name is not church of Christ is automatically a false church].


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iglesia_ni_Cristo

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamsa_Bible

  • Thank you! And the answer to: how is this Bible viewed among "mainstream" scholars with a traditional approach to biblical scholarship? is?
    – user13992
    Feb 23 '15 at 19:36

The Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) uses George M. Lamsa's translation of the Bible –particularly in Acts 20:28– because, in the explanation of Lamsa himself (who by the way, not a member of this church), it is Christ who purchased or redeemed the church by his own blood and not God. Because God, according to the Apostle in John 4:24, is Spirit and by that God doesn't have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39) and by definition does not have blood to pour for the church. Yet again it is not God but Christ who purchased His church with his own blood.

  • 1
    Welcome to Christianity.SE. For a quick overview, please take the Site Tour. Thanks for offering an answer here. Can you provide some references to church materials that support your statements here? If so, it would be a much better answer. See: What makes a good supported answer? Jul 3 '16 at 7:27

You must log in to answer this question.