BRO. CENON BIBE MAKING A MINCE MEAT OUT OF RODIMUS THE COWARD
Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 10, 2009
Ever since Rodimus the Coward of the Bereans intensified his attack against the Catholic Faith and the Catholic apologetic group Defensores Fidei Foundation he found himself under heavy bombardment from various Catholic apologists. What incensed us is the fact that this Rodimus [I am not sure what he is. He claims to be a Robot so I consider him as ARTIFICIAL HUMAN BEING] issues terrible claims to the point of distorting historical truths and Biblical scholarships and is not ashamed of them because he is wearing a MASK.
Like a Demon who appears and disappears this Rodimus must be held accountable for the lies and distortions he is presenting on the net. I have slapped his artificial face on this Blog, Atty. Marwil Llasos brilliantly showed his ignorance and stupidities and here Bro. Cenon will show you his shallowness.
This exchange happened right in Rodimus’ own Blog.
Cenon Bibe Jr. said… I am not surprised by what RODIMUS did. I know of many “evangelicals” who also insist on seeing contradictions where there are none.
Why do they do such a thing?
What I have seen is that such evangelicals are so desperate to find fault in the Catholic Church that they invent discrepancies and attribute these to Catholics … in this case, to Catholic apologists.
And that has led me to seriously question the integrity of such so-called evangelicals: Who are they serving?
By creating lies just so they could attack it with more lies, do they serve the God of truth? Are they guided by the Spirit of Truth? Or are they just showing who their real father is?
Again, I am no longer surprised. February 15, 2009 3:17 AM
Rodimus said… Thanks Atty. Llasos for your response. You don’t have to post it all like that, you could just inform me that you have posted your response to your blog. I shall try to respond within the week if time permits.
Thanks also Mr. Bibe for your comment. I understand that you have to say things like that. It must really hurt when someone like me is able to pierce your “invunerable” defense. February 15, 2009 5:01 PM
Cenon Bibe Jr. said… I’m sorry if I had to be honest about how things are with some of you so-called evangelicals.
I know it hurts when you are confronted with the truth which Atty Llasos has detailed above.
Isn’t that the reason why evangelicals like you hide behind pseudonyms? You cannot show your faces where your claims and arguments are.
We Catholics put our names and faces on our beliefs because we are confident that these are incontrovertible. Unlike you so-called Bereans who must be so ashamed of your lies and concoctions that you dig a hole and bury yourself in it. But I don’t blame you for wanting to hide behind false identities. Sabi nga sa Pilipino, Mahihiya rin ako dahil sa mga ginagawa n’yo.
I know you know that.
God bless. February 15, 2009 9:44 PM
Rodimus said… I admire your confidence. But I do hope it’s not because you underestimating me. Afterall, it does not necessarily follow that I go by a codename means my arguments are false. I mean if I say God made the heavens and the earth, I’m sure that is right despite of my choice to use a codename. My codename is the least of your worries, Mr. Bibe. If you criticize me for it, then that’s an adhominem.
The truth hurts, Mr. Bibe. But it can set you free. February 15, 2009 11:50 PM
Cenon Bibe Jr. said… I have reason to be confident. My faith is a sure rock on which I can put my name, my face and life on.
I wish you could say the same for what you believe in.
Please do not think that I am just out to criticize you in regard to the fact that what you believe is not worth having your name on it. I think that reality is already fairly obvious.
What I am pointing out at the risk of stating the obvious is that it is only so convenient for someone hiding behind a fake name to concoct false claims against others.
You want to attribute adhominem to me?
How about striking someone who is out in the open while you hide in the dark? What do you call that?
Maybe what I am asking of you, Rodimus, is to be fair and honest enough to identify yourself while you make all your accusations.
In that way, we could respond to a real human being and not a ghost.
Your codename is indeed the least of my worries. What perturbs me is the fact that you have the tenacity to attack Catholics while you are safely curled up in your dark, tiny hole.
Yes, the truth like God made the heavens and the earth does not become false just because someone like you throws it around in an effort to make yourself look credible. Even the devil used scripture to make himself sound sane.
Show yourself and prove to us that you are ready and willing to engage in an honest to goodness discussion of your issues.
You mentioned something about the truth. What truth is that? The fact that you can’t refute our arguments so you resort to inventions and made up “contradictions?”That is the truth that you have to deal with, Rodimus; the truth that all you have are cooked up claims and nothing more.
You said it: The truth hurts. But it can set you free. February 16, 2009 10:09 AM
Cenon Bibe Jr. said… Excuse me, Rodimus. Is there anything wrong with your blog site?
I tried to see if new comments were added to your insistence that Atty. Marwil Llasos and Mr. Evert contradicted one another but I couldn’t find all the comments.
I am particularly worried about the complete and unedited response of Atty Llasos to your accusation. You only cited excerpts above. I think Atty Llasos–and all others who commented on your claims–deserve to have our reactions read. Don’t you?
What happened, Rodimus?
I hope everything is all right.
I am worried that the missing comments would lead people to believe that you deliberately removed the comments to hide the truth from readers of your blog. We wouldn’t want that would we?
In my reactions, I asked that you be transparent. I hope the seeming loss of the comments would not lead people to think that you are deliberately hiding something.Your credebility and that of your supposed ministry may be at stake if the comments are not restored soon.
Thanks. February 18, 2009 5:59 AM
Cenon Bibe Jr. said… Now, please allow me to share some thoughts on this issue.
First of all, is it my understanding that you are insisting that the word “brothers” (greek adelphoi)in Mt 13:55 means ONLY ONE THING? And that is BLOOD BROTHERS?
If that is your case then may I suggest you consult a Greek dictionary.
Strong’s Number 80 gives this meaning for ADELPHOS:
1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
6. brethren in Christ
a. his brothers by blood
b. all men
d. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
A simple reading of these definitions (take note MORE THAN ONE) of ADELPHOS (plural ADELPHOI) will tell you that BLOOD BROTHER is NOT the ONLY MEANING of the word.
Now, unless you can prove that the use of ADELPHOI in Mt 13:55 means ONE AND ONLY THING, which is BLOOD BROTHER, then your insistence on that meaning is FLIMSY.
If you can show any other verse to support your claim, then please do so. Otherwise, you are relying only on your gravely limited knowledge and understanding of ADELPHOI (ADELPHOS).
On the other hand, the Catholic positions provided by Atty Llasos and Mr. Evert only explain the wide range of meanings of the word.
Now, Biblical evidence strongly supports the Catholic position.
As Atty Llasos already pointed out, other verses identify some of the “brothers” mentioned in Mt 13:55 as NOT the CHILDREN of MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS but that of ANOTHER MARY.
The KJV (the favorite translation of many non-Catholics) states of Mt 13:55, “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, JAMES, and JOSES, and Simon, and Judas?” (emphasis mine)
In Mt 27:56 of the KJV again, it again mentions JAMES and JOSES.
The KJV says, “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES and JOSES, and the mother of Zebedees children.”
Who are they?
They are the SONS of another MARY.
What Mary? Is she the “wife” of Joseph?
Here is what John 19:25 says: “Mary the WIFE of CLOPAS.”
You claim to be a CPA. Maybe you can add 1 and 1 together to get 2. Right?
Meaning, the James and Joses mentioned as “brothers” (ADELPHOI) of Jesus in Mt 13:55 are NOT the SONS of MARY the mother of Jesus but SONS of ANOTHER MARY. Thus, they are NOT BLOOD BROTHERS of JESUS as you insist.
I think that is quite simple enough and one need not be a CPA to understand that.
Thank you. February 18, 2009 7:39 AM
You said:”I am worried that the missing comments would lead people to believe that you deliberately removed the comments to hide the truth from readers of your blog. We wouldn’t want that would we?”
As far as I know that before this new comment there were already 12 comments posted. Two here and 10 in the other article. I don’t know what other comments you are talking about. But if you’re going to imply that I deleted them then the burden of proof belongs to my accusers.
They are free to comment anytime.
In your next comment you said:”First of all, is it my understanding that you are insisting that the word “brothers” (greek adelphoi)in Mt 13:55 means ONLY ONE THING? And that is BLOOD BROTHERS?”
My answer is please read the article agains specially the ones colored green where I mentioned the word CONTEXT.
As to James and Joses, you know it does not necessarily follow that similar names refer to the same person. If you were to say the name Gloria to an American, what are the odds that he will point you to our President Arroyo and not Gloria Estefan or Gloria Gaynor?
Best regards. February 18, 2009 9:13 PM
Cenon Bibe Jr. said… I’m glad that the comments that went missing from your other post are already back. I hope they don’t go missing again or that they happen in you other blogs where we respond to your claims.
As to your response to my other comment, you did mention the word “context” in your post but did not SHOW the context.
There is a vast difference between saying one thing and actually showing it.
And now that you’ve mentioned it, could you please show the context which would support your assumption that the use of the word “adelphoi” in Mt13:55 is limited to ONE AND ONLY THING: BLOOD BROTHERS.
Maybe you would appeal to your response to Atty Marwil.
In your rebuttal, you asked why the neighbor of Jesus did not mention the parents of “James, Joses, Simon and Judas” if they indeed were sons of another woman other than the Virgin Mary.
I guess you made a valid question, but one that shows your lack of knowledge or understanding of the BIGGER CONTEXT of Mt13:55.
In case you or some of your readers do not know, Mt13:55 is only a PART of a bigger body of writing–the entire Gospel written by Matthew. And in another part of his account, Matthew identified the MOTHER of James and Joses.
And according to Matthew, in chapter 27:56, they are the sons of ANOTHER MARY and NOT the VIRGIN MARY.
Then again, your defense is that “it does not necessarily follow that similar names refer to the same person.”
Your assumption may be valid if you are referring to people in general and to a vast and wide context, like in your analogy where someone were to mention a “Gloria” to an American.
Of course, the American–not knowing the CONTEXT of your mentioning “Gloria”–could easily think of any Gloria that she knows.
But your assumption simply can not apply to the Gospel of Matthew, where the CONTEXT is CLEAR and RESTRICTED.What is the CONTEXT of the mentioning of “James, Joses, Simon and Judas?
It is the NARRATION or STORY about JESUS, who Matthew is introducing to the readers of his Gospel.
Now, why did Matthew mention the “brothers” (adelphoi) of Jesus? Was it to describe his family tree?
No. What Matthew only wanted to show was that people or his neighbors knew his relatives. And for that purpose, Matthew did not need to mention all the members of his relative’s family. He only needed to state a few or them, like “James, Joses, Simon and Judas.”
So, to mention the relatives of Jesus without naming their parents is totally logical.
Why? Do you always mention the names of your aunts and uncles whenever you tell people about your cousins who are their children?
Of course not! Not unless the parents are really that important to what you are saying.
But as I have already pointed out, Matthew was not really interested in giving the entire family trees of the relatives of Jesus.
When Matthew pointed out that Jesus was the carpenter’s son and that His mother was Mary, that completely established the family of Jesus. Matthew no longer needed to mention his siblings if indeed He had any but which He did not have.
The mention of is relatives “James, Joses, Simon and Judas” was aimed at establishing the place from where He came from, or as how Atty Marwil put it, His kibbutz.
Now, another reason why Matthew mentioned the names of his relatives, James and Joses in particular, was because he was going to use them later on in his narrative to introduce another character in the story–the OTHER MARY.
In Mt13:55, Matthew introduced James and Joses as the relatives of Jesus.
Later, in Mt27:56, Matthew used them to introduce another relative of Jesus, the OTHER MARY, James and Joses’s mother, who was also near the cross.
In other words, Matthew used James and Joses as a link to the OTHER MARY.
That is a technique used by writers which other people, even CPA’s, would most likely understand. I am just not sure if you could.
Now, what would be illogical is if you are right in saying that the James and Joses in Mt27:56 are not the same ones in Mt13:55.
Why would Matthew mention another set of James and Joses from out of the blue? What would be the point if he did that?
If you are right, then the James and Joses in Mt27:56 would be totally irrelevant. In fact, even the OTHER MARY mentioned in the verse would also be totally irrelevant.
They would not have any value to the narrative and would only be a waste of ink and space. And Matthew’s mention of them, Rodimus, would be totally illogical.
But since the Gospel, which is guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, is logical, it is clear that the James and Joses in Mt13:55 are the same ones in Mt27:56 who are the sons of ANOTHER MARY and NOT of the VIRGIN MARY.
By that, your assumption against the Perpetual Virginity of Mary based on your reading of Mt13:55 falls flat on its face.
Thank you. February 21, 2009 10:46 AM
Rodimus: I’m very sure that in the context of Matthew 13:55 Jesus was in his HOMETOWN. So when you are in your hometown what is the probability that you are living with someone you do not know?
CB: What Matthew only wanted to show was that people or his neighbors knew his relatives. And for that purpose, Matthew did not need to mention all the members of his relative’s family. He only needed to state a few or them, like “James, Joses, Simon and Judas.”
Rodimus: What theory is going to support you on that? At least, mine came from experience and common sense. You can limit your narration in your closest family (parents and sibling). But if you extend it to your relatives, don’t you think that the uncle and aunt are more senior than your cousins?
CB: Now, another reason why Matthew mentioned the names of his relatives, James and Joses in particular, was because he was going to use them later on in his narrative to introduce another character in the story–the OTHER MARY.
Rodimus: Is that so? Then tell me, how was it possible that the Catholic Encyclopedia was able to provide a sibling relationship for Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene whereas the Bible does not mention who their parents are?
Furthermore, if James was a son of another Mary, why was he still addressed by Paul in Galatians as the brother of the Lord if Paul knew that he wasn’t Virgin Mary’s son? Aren’t the apostles also brothers of Christ, so why was James singled out? Of all the relationship he could use such as suggenis of the Lord, son of the Virgin’s sister, son of Mary’s sister just like Matthew said, Paul opted a more undefined relationship: adelphos of the Lord.
You know, when theories are inconsistent like the ones you’re giving it is an indicator of fraud. And we know very well that God cannot author fraud. February 21, 2009 5:43 PM
1. You said, “I’m very sure that in the context of Matthew 13:55 Jesus was in his HOMETOWN. So when you are in your hometown WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY THAT YOU ARE LIVING WITH SOMEONE YOU DO NOT KNOW? (emphasis mine)
With that, Rodimus, you are saying that the NEIGHBOR who made the statement ALREADY KNEW EVERYONE ELSE: the PARENTS and the COUSINS or RELATIVES.
You are then CONTRADICTING YOURSELF when you said that the NAMES of the PARENTS of James, Joses, Simon and Judas should have been mentioned.
If you are correct that EVERYONE KNEW EVERYONE ELSE in the HOMETOWN of JESUS, that REMOVES the NEED for the neighbor to mention the PARENTS of “James, Joses, Simon and Judas.”
Why state the obvious? Right?
And thus, YOU SUPPORT my stand that the neighbor NO LONGER NEEDED to MENTION the NAMES of the PARENTS of the RELATIVES.
THAT is COMMON SENSE. Your assertion that the PARENTS should have also been mentioned GOES AGAINST COMMON SENSE and is even CONTRARY to COMMON PRACTICE.
Why? Do you usually do a ROLL CALL of your RELATIVES’ ENTIRE FAMILY when you introduce one of their members?
People always tend to SIMPLIFY things. They will NOT MENTION the ENTIRE FAMILY when it is enough to mention one or a few known members of that family.
Where is it COMMON PRACTICE (your EXPERIENCE) that PARENTS should ALWAYS be NAMED FIRST before the CHILDREN are mentioned in a conversation? That is simply NOT COMMON SENSE as you claim.
You mention the parents if they are RELEVANT in the conversation. But if you are introducing the relatives of a person, the mention of ANY KNOWN RELATIVE or RELATIVES is sufficient.
And that is what the “neighbor” did when he was quoted in Mt13:55.
Lastly, on this point, your statement of the context of Mt13:55 DOES NOT SUPPORT your claim that “adelphoi” only meant BLOOD BROTHERS in the verse.
Your statement even betrays your assumption that adelphoi only meant BLOOD BROTHERS.
If the neighbor already knew the entire family of Jesus, it would have been IMPRACTICAL and ILLOGICAL for him to state the names of all his supposed brothers and sisters. The mention of His parents was enough to establish his FAMILY.
Instead, it was more logical to name the RELATIVES of JESUS in order to place Him in the BIGGER COMMUNITY.
So, you said it: “When theories are INCONSISTENT … it is an indicator of FRAUD. And we know very well that God cannot author fraud.”
Now, everybody knows where your getting your theories.
2. You asked, “How was it possible that the Catholic Encyclopedia was able to provide a sibling relationship for Lazarus, Martha, and Mary Magdalene whereas the Bible does not mention who their parents are?”
How did the Catholic Encyclopedia determine that Lazarus, Martha and Mary are siblings? Because the BIBLE SAID SO in John 11:1-2.
Jn 11:1 says Mary and Martha are SISTERS. Verse 2 says Lazarus is the BROTHER of Mary.
You claim to be a CPA. Maybe you can add these things up.
If Mary and Martha are sisters, and Lazarus is the brother of Mary, then Lazarus is also the brother of Martha.
John did not need to mention their parents because the narration is already very clear as to their relationship.
The CONTEXT is clear that they are CHILDREN of the SAME PARENTS. There is no circumstance that will confuse them as cousins or merely relatives.
In fact, there is no other reference in the Bible that would show that they are not siblings. Unlike the case of James and Joses who were identified as the sons of ANOTHER MARY.
3. Why was James still addressed by Paul as “the brother of the Lord”?
Why? Did James cease to become a relative of Jesus to disqualify him to be called “brother” of the Lord? I don’t think so.
May I remind you of the meaning of “adelphoi.” It does not only refer to BLOOD BROTHER but to RELATIVES and even TOWNSMATES, among others.
So, there is little weight in your question. I would even think that you are only trying to confuse yourself as to something already very clear and established.
And now that you mentioned it, is James really another son of the Virgin Mary?
No. Should you not know, Mt13:55 has a parallel in Mark, Mk6:3.
In Mk6:3, Jesus is referred to as “THE SON of Mary.”
Take note of the DEFINITE ARTICLE “THE.”
DEFINITE ARTICLES refer to a particular noun.
So, when the DEFINITE ARTICLE was used to refer to Jesus as THE SON of Mary, that means that JESUS is THE ONLY SON of Mary.
That fact is make clearer when “James, Joses, Simon and Judas” are then mentioned.
Had James, Joses, Simon and Judas been sons of the Virgin Mary as well, then the DEFINITE ARTICLE on Jesus would be WRONG. Mark should have just said that Jesus was “A SON of Mary” and His (blood) brothers are …
Now, unless you want to accuse Mark and the Holy Spirit of “misleading” people, there is no way for you to understand mk6:3 except to agree that Jesus is THE ONLY SON of Mary.
So, you see, Rodimus, your objections to the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY do not have any legs to stand on.
That is why many non-Catholics are resorting to inventions in their vain attempt to disprove a well-established truth.
Thanks February 25, 2009 8:30 PM
Rodimus said… CB: If you are correct that EVERYONE KNEW EVERYONE ELSE in the HOMETOWN of JESUS, that REMOVES the NEED for the neighbor to mention the PARENTS of “James, Joses, Simon and Judas.”
Rodimus: What contradiction? All I am saying here is that when you are in your hometown you’re living someone you know very well. And with that attempted rebuttal of yours it sounds childish. If there is no need to mention the parents of James, Joses, etc. then neither should we mention Joseph and Mary. The neighbor should a have said, “Hey, this is Jesus, period.”
CB: If the neighbor already knew the entire family of Jesus, it would have been IMPRACTICAL and ILLOGICAL for him to state the names of all his supposed brothers and sisters. The mention of His parents was enough to establish his FAMILY.
Rodimus: Okay so why did the neighbor mentioned other people?
CB: If Mary and Martha are sisters, and Lazarus is the brother of Mary, then Lazarus is also the brother of Martha.John did not need to mention their parents because the narration is already very clear as to their relationship.
Rodimus: Thank you for telling me that the Roman Catholic apologists like you are using double standards. The only words that made you conclude that Lazarus, Martha, and Mary are siblings are the words adelphos and adelphi – nothing more. You did not do the same with James, Joses, etc. who are in the same hometown. Thanks for admitting your double standard.
CB: May I remind you of the meaning of “adelphoi.” It does not only refer to BLOOD BROTHER but to RELATIVES and even TOWNSMATES, among others.
Rodimus: Shall I apply that against Lazarus, Martha, Mary Magdalene? Ooops! You exposed your biases.
CB: So, when the DEFINITE ARTICLE was used to refer to Jesus as THE SON of Mary, that means that JESUS is THE ONLY SON of Mary.
Rodimus: Read my article again:
While the article “the” can signify the one and only, it doesn’t always mean that way in other sentences. In John 4:5, Joseph is mentioned to be THE SON of Jacob, are we to conclude that Jacob had no other children? Moreover, Jesus was referred as “a son” in Luke 1:31 and not “your only child”, so why not conclude Mary has other children subsequent to Christ?
If I were you Mr. Bibe, stop making up spurious theories. You’re only making it obvious that Roman Catholic arguments are self-serving and inconsistent. February 25, 2009 9:44 PM
Cenon Bibe Jr. said… Childish, Rodimus?
Your attempt at a rebuttal is what’s childish.
You said, “If there is no need to mention the parents of James, Joses, etc. then NEITHER SHOULD WE MENTION JOSEPH AND MARY. The neighbor should have said, “Hey, this is Jesus, period.” (emphasis mine)
In your vain attempt to respond you turned a blind eye or pretended not to read my explanation on why the neighbor mentioned the parents of Jesus.
I said, “You mention the parents if they are RELEVANT in the conversation.”
In the case of introducing the FAMILY of Jesus, the names of the parents of Jesus was not only relevant but necessary.
Thus I also said, “The mention of His parents was enough to establish his FAMILY.”
And, “it would have been IMPRACTICAL and ILLOGICAL for him to state the names of all his supposed brothers and sisters.”
Why did the neighbor not say “Hey, this is Jesus, period”?
In Hebrew, the name Yashua o Yeshua (Jesus) was quite common and thus it had to be made clear “which” Yashua was being referred to.
And how did people do that?
By mentioning their parents. Again, that explains why it was necessary to mention the parents of Jesus.
Anyone familiar with the Bible most probably knows that. For children were more often intoduced by stating who their parents were. For example, Mt1:1, “Jesus Chritst the son of David, the son of Abraham;” or Mt4:21, “James the son of Zebedee;” or Mt 16:18, “Simon son of Jonah.”
Now, why was it not necessary to mention in Mt13:55 the parents of James, Joses, Simon and Judas?
I already answered that.I said, “It was more logical to name the RELATIVES of JESUS in order to place Him in the BIGGER COMMUNITY.”
And as I have already pointed out, the MOTHER of James and Joses was indeed identified: She was the OTHER MARY and NOT the VIRGIN MARY.
So, the concerns that you have raised have so far been addressed already.
It is apparent that your defense and rebuttal rest on pretending not to read what I already stated and on repeating claims that have already been belied.
Why is that, Rodimus? I hope you are not a disciple of Dr. Joseph Goebels–Hitler’s propagandist–who believed that repeating a lie often enough will make people believe it to be the truth.
2. Double standard, Rodimus?
Again, you simply ignored my explanation on how we Catholics established that Mary, Martha and Lazarus are BLOOD BROTHERS and SISTERS.
And again, you are imputing malice where there is none.
But I am glad, Rodimus, because people who reading our exchange are seeing more clearly how desperate and futile your claims are.
The point on the use of “adelphoi” and “adelphai” has already been well explained in my rebuttal.
It referred to RELATIVES on Jesus in Mt13:55 because the CONTEXT points to that meaning. It referred to BLOOD SISTERS and BROTHER in the case of Mary, Martha and Lazarus because the CONTEXT point that out.
So, contrary to what you’re imagining, there are no double standards there and no biases. You simply just cannot accept simple facts.
3. Now, here is one clear indication of deception on your part.
You pointed to Lk1:31 where you said that Jesus was referred to “a son.”
Does the verse actually claim that Jesus was “a son” AMONG MANY?
NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Here is what the verse says in the KJV: “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth A SON, and shalt call his name JESUS.”
Where does it say there that Jesus will be “a son” AMONG MANY?
NOWHERE, but ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION and in your FALSE CLAIMS.
I say you attempt to deceive because you are using Lk1:31 OUT OF CONTEXT.
The verse does not point to Jesus as “as son” AMONG MANY, but it is only stating a FACT that MARY will be bearing ONLY ONE SON–JESUS CHRIST.
And taken in the proper context, Lk1:31 even supports our stand that JESUS was an ONLY SON. The verse did not make any reference to any other sons that Mary would be having.
So, the truth about the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY remains unshaken.
I hope that you would read your advice: STOP MAKING SPURIOUS THEORIES.
You cannot and will not be able to debunk the CATHOLIC CHURCH’S belief in the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY, not even if you resort to LIES, INVENTIONS and CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS. February 26, 2009 10:14 PM
Rodimus said… CB: And, “it would have been IMPRACTICAL and ILLOGICAL for him to state the names of all his supposed brothers and sisters.”I said, “It was more logical to name the RELATIVES of JESUS in order to place Him in the BIGGER COMMUNITY.”
Rodimus: I think with those statements you are showing your bigotry. Isn’t mentioning your brothers and sisters before your relatives already places you in a BIGGER community? And why it isn’t practical? If I tell about Kris Aquino, I’d mention Noynoy first before her cousins Mikee and Jackie. This is not only practical, it is also called COMMON SENSE.
CB: It referred to RELATIVES on Jesus in Mt13:55 because the CONTEXT points to that meaning. It referred to BLOOD SISTERS and BROTHER in the case of Mary, Martha and Lazarus because the CONTEXT point that out.
Rodimus: They used the same Greek words: Adelphos and Adelphi. The word hometown is mentioned in both scenarios. The only difference is the parents of Lazarus, Martha, and Magdalene aren’t mentioned. And you still think they are different? You’re not being honest here.
CB: The verse does not point to Jesus as “as son” AMONG MANY, but it is only stating a FACT that MARY will be bearing ONLY ONE SON–JESUS CHRIST.
Rodimus: Try a different lie, Mr. Bibe cause that’s not working. If angel Gabriel knew that Mary is perpetually a virgin he would have said “Your only child.” The mere fact he said “a son” it raises the probablity that he is one among many.
CB: You cannot and will not be able to debunk the CATHOLIC CHURCH’S belief in the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY, not even if you resort to LIES, INVENTIONS and CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.
Rodimus: You won’t be able to debunk the Bible, Mr. Bibe. So I suggest you follow God’s written word instead of your Magisterium. February 27, 2009 2:13 AM
Cenon Bibe Jr. said… Bigotry, Rodimus?
How does mentioning the cousins or relatives of a person being introduced constitute bigotry?
It is becoming more and more obvious why you Bereans keep on cowering away from a formal debate with Catholic Defenders. You know very well that your assertions are shallow.
Now, to your rebuttal. How does naming one’s brothers and sisters put one in the BIGGER COMMUNITY? How does that place someone OUTSIDE of his IMMEDIATE FAMILY?
Excuse me but I find your reasoning quite nonsensical and desperate.
If I say that Kris Aquino is the daughter of Cory and Benigno Aquino, does that not explicitly identify Kris as to her family?
After stating that Kris is the daughter of Cory and Ninoy, do I still need to name all of her brothers and sisters?
Again, that would be stating the obvious and stating the obvious does not make for common sense. By stating the obvious, you even insult the intelligence of your audience.
And mentioning all the members of Kris’s immediate family does not place her in the BIGGER COMMUNITY.
To put Kris in the BIGGER COMMUNITY, I could mention that she is the cousin of Mikee Cojuangco who is the husband of Dodot Jaworski.
THAT would put Kris in the BIGGER COMMUNITY.
So, I’m really sorry for finding your reasoning hilarious.
2. You again repeat your FALSE ASSERTION that just because the words “adelphoi” and “adelpai” were used to refer to Mary, Martha and Lazarus, that necessarily makes James, Joses, Simon and Judas as the BLOOD BROTHERS of Jesus.
So, I will have to remind you again that “adelphoi” and “adelphai” have a WIDE RANGE of MEANINGS that may include BLOOD BROTHERS, RELATIVES, and even TOWNMATES.
And as I have already shown, the MEANING of the words “adelphoi” and “adelphai” can be gleaned from the CONTEXT in which it is used.
I am sorry to say that you have been strenuously trying to avoid the context of Mt13:55 and John 11:1-2 just to insist on your FALSE ASSUMPTION, which you again repeated.
As I already said, REPEATING a LIE or a FALSE STATEMENT DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
Goebels, the Nazi propagandist, was one other person who insisted on repeating a FALSE STATEMENT in the hope that some half-awake reader would believe that it is true.
And what is this assertion of yours that “adelphoi” and “adelphai” are necessarily BLOOD BROTHERS just because their hometown is mentioned? Where did you get that?
Could you cite one authority in the Greek language that says that “The mention of the hometown means adelphoi and adelphai are BLOOD BROTHERS.”
You better re-read your advice about making making SPURIOUS THEORIES and FRAUDULENT CLAIMS, because you are right in the center of it.
3. You said, “The mere fact he said “a son” it raises the probablity that he is one among many.
What? And where did you get that one?
I’m sure there are hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of mothers who have been told the they would be “having A SON” but NEVER had ANY OTHER CHILDREN except for that one.Your INVENTIONS are really incredible, Rodimus.
Your have a very fertile imagination.
And yet you have the guts to say that I am lying?
I am only very happy that our discussion is documented. People are getting to know you–and the Bereans–better and better with every exchange.
4. Are you the Bible, Rodimus? Are your FALSE CLAIMS, FALSE ASSERTIONS, and FALSE ASSUMPTIONS even worth being mentioned together with scripture?
I’m sorry to say that your LIES, INVENTIONS and CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS are on opposite sides with the Bible.
If there is one who is NOT FOLLOWING and who is even contradicting the BIBLE, that is YOU, RODIMUS.
You and your Berean friends have no fear nor shame in TWISTING and DISTORTING the WORD OF GOD just to make it suit your preposterous and ridiculous objections to the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY.
No wonder you and your Berean hoard are so ashamed to put your names and faces on your claims.
I repeat, Rodimus. You and your Berean bunch cannot and will not be able to debunk the CATHOLIC CHURCH’S belief in the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY of MARY, not even if you resort to LIES, INVENTIONS and CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS.
Thank you. February 27, 2009 7:58 PM
After this response from Bro. Cenon true enough the Cowardly Rodimus was silent for more than a week and when he appeared he changed topic and no answer here at all. WELL DONE RODIMUS THE COWARD!