Catholic Faith Defender

JOHN. 8:32 “et cognoscetis veritatem et veritas liberabit vos”

Archive for the ‘Doctrinal Comparison’ Category

CFD (Ryan Mejillano) vs Kinawawang INC (Julius Cutin)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on November 17, 2012

CFD (Ryan Mejillano) vs Kinawawang INC (Julius Cutin)

Tingnan po naman ninyo ang isa nanamang kinawawang Ministro ng INC-Manalo laban sa ating kapatid na si Bro. Ryan Mejillano ng Catholic Faith Defenders.
This four-part video is the supposed discussion turned debate between CFD Bro. Ryan and Minister Julius Cutin of INC(Manalo), Locale of Mintal, District of Davao. It was initiated by the INC (of Manalo) to trap Bro. Ryan thinking that the latter was just a petty and mediocre Catholic Christian. This happened at the residence of an INC member who was very desiroua few months before to engage Bro. Ryan in a debate with another INC (of Manalo) Minister.

Please notice the difference between a Catholic Christian and Iglesia Ni Cristo (Ni Manalo). Notice how an INC Minister delivers his part, his speeches, how he evades from the main topic that was agreed, how he first use foul words from the start to the end of these four videos.

Enjoy and reflect.

Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis.

All Rights Reserves
Video Duplication is for back-up purposes only.
Video Courtesy:

http://www.youtube.com/user/najeca2

http://www.youtube.com/user/20asisjohncarlo

TAGALOG SUBTITLE

Posted in Apologetics-General, Apologetics-Visayan, Bible, Biblia (Visaya), CFD VS INC, Challenge, Debate, Debater of the Year, Doctrinal Comparison, Frequently Asked Questions, How to Help others become Catholic, Iglesia ni Cristo-Manalo, Larawan (Visaya), Marks of the True Church, Q & A, Rebulto, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Tunay na Iglesia, Usa ra ang Tinuod nga Iglesia, When Was The Catholic Church founded? | 1 Comment »

UPDATE ON CHURCH OF GOD INTERNATIONAL or ANG DATING DAAN SECT

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on November 27, 2009

UPDATE ON CHURCH OF GOD INTERNATIONAL or ANG DATING DAAN SECT

By: Fr. Abe Arganiosa CRS

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/11/update-on-church-of-god-international.html

Caesarea Philippi, the massive Rock formation before which the Lord Jesus promised St. Peter: “You are a rock and on this rock I will build my Church and the gate of hell shall not prevail against it.”

A neophyte Catholic Apologist named Beltran O.P. informed me the other day that Ang Dating Daan preacher Eli Soriano, who is now hiding somewhere for rape case of a male victim, lost his constant companion in debates and in public fora, Bro. Willy Santiago.
The viewers of ADD programs will easily remember Willy Santiago as the guy who has special talent in opening the Sacred Scriptures and read it for Soriano. It is noticeable that while Soriano was speaking and mentioning a Biblical passage, Bro. Willy was ahead of him in finding the chapter and the verse.
Now, Willy left Soriano due to, according to many in the web world, power struggle. Because as Soriano is getting older and is hampered by so many legal cases the one being groomed to be the successor in Soriano’s throne is his favorite newphew, Daniel Razon. This is allegedly unacceptable to many followers, especially to the trained ministers like Willy because Razon is pre-occupied with many businesses and doesn’t show extraordinary talents on Sacred Scriptures as well as public debates. He stresses that Razon never joined the public fora of ADD wherein Soriano or the ministers answer questions on the spot from the audience. And he never joined them in squaring it off with the pastors of opponent religions in public plazas. In short, Willy claims that Daniel Razon got no balls according to ADD criteria. That is a very drastic revelation… tantamout to pulling off the guy’s pants down. Manny Pacquio will not accept that because that is below the belt. Don’t you think so?
Anyway debating is very important for them. Because the sect prided itself on their claim that Soriano is undefeated in debates and that he can answer all questions. So, if ever the successor cannot perform the same then he will be an impotent duck undeserving of respect and loyalty of their seasoned debaters. So, Razon could be good for Peking Duck menu but they prefer one who debates. Imagine, Willy and the ministers are veteran in the battle of the streets and plazas, and suddenly nepotism is creeping in to take away the glory from them. Interesting indeed. He, he, he…
Now, to aggravate the situation few months ago Willy and his cohorts abandoned Soriano and are now appearing in another TV progam in IBC-13 to reveal, guess what, the erroneous doctrines and unchristian activities of Soriano. How kind of him to do that? But of course, Soriano is fuming mad and as a retaliation he issued a Fatwa… I mean Excommunication in a very Christian form worst than the Anathema Sit of the Council of Trent against the Protestants and heretics. Soriano preferred the Pauline language of: “Giving over to Satan”. It means that he was entrusting Willy and his rebel companions to the devil.
Surely, Willy answered. He satirically responded that Eli Soriano could do that because he is on pact with the devil, otherwise how can he be sure that the devil will accept his entrustment. Very reasonable, isn’t he? How can he turn over to Satan his beloved Willy and companions unless he has direct communication with the Angel of Darkness. Very revealing!
To complicate the matter Soriano made Jane Santiago, Willy’s own wife, to appear on national TV to denounce her husband, narrate her ordeal from the so-called battering hand of Willy and his plans to wrist control of ADD from Soriano. How touching! Family matters when mixed with religion and faith always make a melodramic touch on any story. This one is no exception, even with Eli Soriano as its script writer and director. I am almost tempted to believe that the preferred theme song for the program should be Barbara Streissand’s version of Send In The Clown with some touch of The Days We Were. Ha, ha, ha… Bro. Mars will love that.
Willy insists that his reasons to breakaway is purely doctrinal and not carnal in anyway. He listed a lot of doctrinal reasons but I will only point some of them:
1. Soriano’s command that the members kneel in worship ONLY facing the Sun, according to Willy is unbiblical. Really? Ha, ha, ha… Where did Soriano get that doctrine? Guess who?
2. Soriano’s claim that “MAY PUWIT ANG DIOS” [God has a Butt!]. O no, I already pointed out that there should be no below the belt. These two must be very malicious in their actions. Soriano speaks of Butt… very improper especially when applied to the Most High.
So, better for me to stop here. If you want to check their WORD WAR you can check the You Tubes. And if you want to read Willy’s Blog [at least supportive of him], please check this: http://exegesis.weebly.com/index.html

Posted in Apologetics-General, Doctrinal Comparison, Frequently Asked Questions, Old Path (Ang Dating Daan), THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER | Tagged: | 12 Comments »

Challenge to datikatolika (batak_n13@yahoo.com)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on November 18, 2009

Challenge to datikatolika (batak_n13@yahoo.com)

Ni Bro. G-one Paisones CFD / CFLAM

 

Narito ang mga komento sa atin ni datikatolika (ewan ko kung satanista na sya ngayon):

datikatolika
batak_n13@yahoo.com
112.201.24.15

Submitted on 2009/10/04 at 4:44pm

ayw ng DYOS ang dasal..
paulti ulit aayw naya yan.
panalangin po
sana maliwanag po
sa inyo
at akit ang sorry si
pope john paul II
nuon kay galileo
na siniwalat nya ang katotohan
isa sa mga di sumunod sa aral ng katoliko
mali…

G-one Reply:

Eh paano kung mababasa ko na si David ay nag dasal nang paulit-ulit (Balik2x sa Cebuanao) at kung maymababasa ako sa Biblia na paulit-ulit na pagdasal–aaminin mo bang kampon ka ni Satanas –ikaw datikatolika???

Ang ipinagbabawal na mga dasal na paulit-ulit ay yong dasal sa mga pareseo at mga hentil… (Mat. 6:1-10) at hindi po bawal ang dasal na paulit ulit dahil si David ay nag balik-balik o nag paulit-ulit sa kanyang pagdasal….

Posted in Challenge, Comments, Doctrinal Comparison, Holy Rosary | 3 Comments »

Ang Dating Daan: An Old Path Incarnate Again (Revised)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on June 16, 2009

Link: http://www.pugiofidei.com/ang.htm

I. Introduction
II. A Brief History of The Church of God International
III. The Bible Predicted Me, and God Himself Teaches Me
IV. Soriano and the Stinkblossom
V. A Semi-Arian Apollinarian
VI. Confusing the Covenants

I. Introduction

Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us (Ecclesiastes 1:10).

When a Filipino Catholic man first alerted me to the existence and activity of The Church of God International of Mr. Eliseo Soriano, which he publicizes through his popular television show Ang Dating Daan (“The Old Path” in Tagalog), my first instinct was that it was a bit absurd to refer to a religious group as the Old Path which has only been around for about 30 years. However, upon further study of its history and of the corpus of Mr. Soriano’s teachings, I have realized that this is not the case. Rather, it is more ironic than absurd, because it really is an old path, simply not in the sense that Mr. Soriano thinks it is. For it is the same path that we see incarnate in the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many other similar groups: a charismatic leader claims direct divine revelation, twists Scripture, preaches vigorously, and with the help of fortuitous social, economic, and psychological circumstances, manages to attract a sizable flock to follow him down to perdition. Fortunately, Soriano’s claims are so easily falsifiable, so manifestly absurd, his exegetical incompetence so blatantly obvious, his self-contradiction so evident, that any person of good will who studies his teachings will be able to see him for the false prophet that he is and fly back to the bosom of Holy Mother Church to be reintroduced to the divine life of grace in the soul. A bit of background first.

II. A Brief History of The Church of God International

He that gathereth not with me, scattereth (Matthew 12:30).

Schisms are the plague of all schismatics. Once a group of factious men splits off from the Mystical Body of Christ to follow winds of doctrine more to their liking, little remains to bind them to each other. Hence, whenever someone comes to an irreconcilable doctrinal disagreement with the leadership of the schismatic church, or simply wants power and authority that they have but are not willing to give him, the first schism is followed by further schisms, and factions proliferate. This is the principle which underlies the history of Ang Dating Daan.

The story starts with a man named Felix Manalo, who left the Catholic Church as a teenager. He dabbled briefly in a cult called Colorum which claimed direct communication with God, and then joined the Methodist Episcopal Church and became a minister. As his Catholic mother lay dying he “rejected the last sacrament for her.”1 He then spent a brief stint as a Presbyterian minister, then left them as well for the Christian Missionary Alliance, who impressed him because they baptized by immersion only. He then switched teams again after he lost a debate to a Seventh Day Adventist minister and decided that since he couldn’t beat them he would join them. He left them as well after deciding they were wrong about observing a Saturday Sabbath, and briefly flirted with atheism and agnosticism. Finally, according to the account which he convinced his credulous followers to believe, in November 1913 he spent three days and nights in total seclusion studying the Bible and came out convinced that he was God’s last messenger, the messenger from the Far East prophesied by Rev 7:2-3; Isaiah 43:5-6; 46:11; 41:9-11. In any case, in 1914 started a church for himself, which would later claim Protestants to be apostates, and itself to be the one true Church of Christ outside of which there is no salvation.2 But his own biographers give lie to these claims, relating that:

On December 25, 1918, ministers of the Christian Mission honored Felix Manalo as an outstanding evangelist. The certificate was signed by Ministers Leslie Wolfe and Higinio Mayor, attested by attorney V. Dimagiba. The affair, held at the Gloria Theater in Tondo, Manila was attended by Church members and several Protestant pastors… In August 1919 Manalo visited all local congregations before departing for the United States to advance his Bible studies. He advised the brethren to keep united and protect one another in his absence. One day in September that year he sailed for the U.S. and stayed at Berkeley, California, burying himself in Bible research and studies, and attending classes in a school of religion.3

So, either Felix Manalo was accepting awards and taking classes from men he regarded as apostates, or his claim to head the only true Church of Christ came later, and from 1914-1919 he believed himself to be the head of just another Protestant church.

While Manalo was away in America his church begat the grandfather of And Dating Daan, when two of his students whom he had passed over for ordination, Teofilo Ora and Januario Ponce, started their own church called the Iglesia Verdadero de Cristo (“The True Church of Christ” in Spanish) and drew away much of his fold with charges of immorality. True to the nature which this schismatic church inherited in its genesis, it soon begat the father of Ang Dating Daan with another schism. Nicolas Antiporda Perez founded the Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Suhay ng Katotohanan (“The Church of God in Christ Jesus, Pillar and Ground of the Truth” in Tagalog), and attracted a following. The day before Eliseo Soriano turned seventeen, his parents took him to hear one of his sermons; the topic was, not surprisingly, the true Church of God according to the Bible, and Soriano was convinced. Perez baptized him, and made him a minister, the only other minister in the whole church. Hence, Soriano expected that when Perez died he would accede to the leadership of the Iglesia ng Dios Kay Kristo Hesus.4 However, when Perez died, a woman name Levita Gugulan in fact came to power,5 and Soriano, true to form, left and started yet another splinter church. He claims that he was forced out by former colleagues who “driven by extreme greed for power embarked on dark schemes against him and launched an underground plot to malign and discredit” him.6

Soriano further claims that this occurred in fulfillment of Zechariah 13:8-9, a claim with about as much credibility as Manalo’s claim to be the angel ascending from the east of Revelations 7. Zechariah 13:7 is about the execution of Christ (cf. Matt 26:31) and the following two verses are about the persecution of the early Christian Church. For Soriano to apply it to his little group 2000 years later is wholly erroneous. Consider how mild the persecutions Soriano has endured really are compared to what the early Church went through. The early Christians were torn to pieces by lions while crowds of heathens laughed at them; Soriano got sued, and lost. They were crucified; Soriano got briefly kicked off television. They had the option of sacrificing to demons or losing their heads; Soriano’s character is sometimes verbally attacked by the ministers he so frequently attacks himself. Soriano in fact has not endured any more persecution than Mohammed endured, whose persecution consisted of verbal abuse, a boycott, family pressure, and juvenile pranks like people dumping trash on his porch. This, compared to what Christians have endured, is child’s play.

In any case, Bro. Eli, as he now likes to be called, registered his group as Iglesia ng Dios kay Kristo Hesus, Haligi at Saligan ng Katotohanan (“The Church of God in Christ Jesus, Pillar and Ground of the Truth”), a name almost identical to the name of Gugulan’s group, Soriano having only replaced one word for “ground” (suhay, brace) with another (saligan, basis). Not surprisingly, Gugulan sued him, and the Philippine Supreme Court ruled in her favor. Soriano then changed the name of his group to Iglesia Ni YHWH at ni YHWSA HMSYH, and, most recently, to Members Church of God International.7 This is ironic because in one of his sermons which is posted at the Ang Dating Daan website Soriano chastises the Jehovah’s Witnesses for having multiple names throughout their history, and he insists that the real name of the true church is The Church of God in Christ Jesus, and that if an organization does not bear this exact name it cannot be of God.8 I eagerly await Mr. Soriano’s admission that his church no longer meets his own criteria for being of God.

And somehow, in spite of his ignominious origins, legal troubles, and self contradiction, Soriano has managed to draw a rather large following to himself, including many former Catholics. He apparently has an extraordinary memory, and amazes his listeners with his ability to regurgitate Scripture passages off the top of his head. One of his shows, in fact, is called “Ask Soriano, and the Bible Will Answer.” However, he clearly does not understand much of what he has memorized, as will become evident throughout this essay. Soriano must be very charismatic as well, given the way his followers fawn over him.9 He also exploits the chaotic religious landscape of the Philippines with his constant harangues against false preachers, wolves in sheep clothing, who are only after money and don’t really care about their flocks. He is thus a magnet for all those who are disillusioned and disaffected with their current churches, and who are willing to listen to a man claiming that he really loves them, and that he’s “the only sensible and sincere evangelist”10 who cares for them and wants to lead them to salvation. Soriano also uses unethical debate tactics, such as heckling, setting up debates on his home turf where the audience can shout his opponents down, and recording his opponents’ words so he can replay them to the audience and pronounce allegations of contradiction.11 Finally, he is adept at character assassination, and smears all apostates from his group.12 He uses, in sum, the tactics characteristic of a cult.

III. The Bible Predicted Me, and God Himself Teaches Me

The Lord hath not sent thee, and thou hast made this people to trust in a lie (Jeremiah 28:15).

As noted above, Soriano claims to be the only sincere evangelist. Everyone else, besides his underlings, is a charlatan, according to him. Naturally, he also claims that he has been predicted by Scripture, specifically Ecclesiastes 9:15. He is, as he styles himself, the poor wise man who saved his city from destruction. Again, this is erroneous; it is simply another manifestation of Soriano’s utter incompetence to interpret Scripture, for in Ecclesiastes 9:15, Solomon is not predicting anything, but simply illustrating a principle (i.e., that wisdom is better than strength, even though it is accounted as less in the eyes of the world), by relating an event from the past. A poor and wise man saved his city from being destroyed by the army of a great King, but afterwards no one remembered his name. This may be a parable, or it may refer to a real event (Scripture records similar occurrences in Judg 9:52-55; 2 Sam 20:14-22). But in either case, it is narrated as an event which was completed in the past. Moreover, Soriano has yet to turn aside any armies or save any cities, and given the way he dresses, he clearly is not poor, and given the way he preaches, neither is he wise. Finally, the poor wise man’s name was forgotten in obscurity, but Soriano’s fame is only growing. Indeed, his great ambition is that “before I die… all people from the different parts of the world would be able to hear me as I preach the Gospel of Christ.”13 He should have realized, if he wanted to claim Ecclesiastes 9:15 for himself, that he would have to avoid professing ambitions to everlasting world renown. Clearly, if he were to preach his gospel to the entire world, his name would not be universally forgotten. In sum, no passage of Scripture refers directly to Mr. Soriano. He is simply one of the many false prophets contributing to the great apostasy predicted thereby.

Soriano’s arguments, while perhaps impressive on the surface, fall apart upon deeper analysis. But he impedes his followers from discovering this by forbiding them to interpret the Bible. Indeed, in an article aptly titled, “Should the Bible Be Interpreted” he declares “it is not correct for us to interpret the Bible! God did not give anybody the right to interpret the Bible! And nobody can claim, not even a person with a Bachelor’s degree, like Law for instance, that he can explain the Bible, even if he follow the principles of hermeneutics or the formal study of methods of interpretation… the only thing that we have to do is, read the Bible. Do not interpret it.” He then quotes Romans 16:25-26 and Colossians 1:24-26 and concludes “Now, can anybody claim that, God left a certain mystery unexplained for these pastors to clarify and interpret themselves? Doing this is a clear act of deception.”14 Next, he further pronounces that “The Bible should no longer be explained by man inasmuch as the Bible already explains itself.”15

On this point, Mr. Soriano is clearly inconsistent with his own rule. As the reader has probably already noted, and will continue to note throughout this essay, Soriano’s arguments generally rest on tenuous, dubious, and even outright erroneous and incompetent interpretations of Scripture. We will see again and again that Soriano breaks his own rule and interprets the Bible, and does a poor job of it at that.

And of course, the idea that the Bible is so clear that no one needs to interpret it is itself unbiblical. 2 Peter 3:16 says, “As also in all [Paul’s] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” The Bible contains many things that are “hard to be understood,” mysteries which need to be explained, a clear refutation of what Soriano states above. One would think, then, that Soriano would avoid this passage. However, he does not, for in a later article Soriano teaches that yes, the Bible does need to be interpreted after all. He quotes 2 Peter 3:16, then states:

We really should know how to use the bible. We should not perceive it as something so simple that anybody can readily interpret. In fact, it is the opposite! The Bible is not a plain as it may seem to be. The Holy Scriptures has the highest degree and the utmost quality of words and wisdom any book could offer that a man can read in his lifetime…. The Bible is unique and more special than any other book essential to our salvation. Hence, not anybody can just stand up and explain, elucidate, or even interpret the words of the Almighty Himself!16

He is here developing a self-contradiction which will be consummated in future articles. But I will make a brief digression first. Soriano illustrates his point with an example:

In Psalms 22:6, the one who is speaking is supposedly ‘…a worm, not man. Reproached of men, and despised of people.’

Continuing in verse 16 and 18, this so-called ‘worm’ said that: ‘…dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me… For they pierced my hands and my feet, they part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.’ These descriptions fit very well to our Lord Jesus Christ because Christ experienced all these at the time of His crucifixion and death. Therefore we can safely say that Jesus Christ, as He himself said, is ‘a worm, not man;’ but, in John 8:40, Jesus said to the Pharisees that He is ‘a man hath told you the truth’. Still, in 1 John 5:20, it says that, ‘Jesus Christ is the true God and eternal life.’ Here, we are faced with the dilemma of distinguishing the real nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. Is He a worm, a man, or a God? This is one of the greatest debates in the religious world; but how can we, in our humble being, be able to understand this seemingly complicated issue? Is it possible for us, human beings, to comprehend complexities such as these?17

Indeed, Mr. Soriano, that is why Jesus established a Church against which the gates of hell would not prevail (Matt 16:18), and promised to be with her “all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt 28:20), to send her the “Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever: The spirit of truth” (John 14:16-17) who, when He comes, “will teach you all truth” (John 16:13). That is why he told his apostles, “He that heareth you, heareth me” (Luke 10:16) and why the apostles appointed successors to perpetuate their ministry for future generations (cf. 1 Tim 5:19-22; 2 Tim 4:2-5; Tit 1:5; 2:1, 15). For although almost anyone could see that Psalm 22:6 is using a metaphor, not literally saying that Jesus is a worm, it did indeed take divine guidance to bring humanity to a proper understanding of the hypostatic union, the union of the divine and human natures in the single person of Jesus Christ. God guided the successors of the apostles, the bishops of the early Catholic Church, men like St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Athanasius of Alexandria, to explain to their flocks the mystery of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, true God, as the true man Jesus Christ, and this understanding, received from the apostles and transmitted and developed by the same bishops of the early Catholic Church, was finally codified at Catholic ecumenical Councils such as Nicaea and Chalcedon. Christendom has never been without authentic Christian teachers, the successors of the apostles.

But no, Soriano would have his followers believe that Christ abandoned his Church, and that for almost 2000 years there were no “sincere evangelists” who faithfully taught apostolic doctrine, or, rather, he would have them believe that these evangelists existed but there is simply no historical record of them because the mean old Catholic Church covered it up. How convenient. Incidentally, this is the same logic that Dan Brown uses in The Da Vinci Code to argue that Jesus was a mere man who taught peace and worshiped the sacred feminine. Once one decides to reject the entire historical record as a forgery written by power hungry men, one is free to project a narrative onto the past which is in reality one’s own personal creation. This is how Soriano convinces his followers to believe that his doctrines, so foreign to Christian history, actually represent authentic apostolic teaching.

Let’s return to the developing contradiction. Soriano concludes this article by relating the means of properly interpreting the Bible. First, one must have the Spirit of God, which requires one to fear the Lord and keep His commandments. He reconciles his statements thus far with his dictum that no man may interpret the Bible by insisting that the Bible interprets itself, and that if one has the Spirit of God and searches the Scriptures diligently, one will find the explanation of the passage one does not understand in some other passage somewhere else.

Incidentally, he further insists that one must not refer to any book besides the Bible itself in the endeavor of Biblical interpretation, and that anyone who does so is flirting with damnation (I suppose he would except his own sermons and his “book” (I put “book” in quotation marks because I printed it on 16 pages of 8-1/2 x 11 inch paper) Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ. Sure, it’s alright to refer to those writings in order to understand the Bible). This is absurd. Tremendous insights can be gained into biblical interpretation through historical, grammatical, and linguistic analysis, and this often requires reference to non-biblical literature. Try figuring out what archegos means, for instance, without referring to extra-biblical Greek writings (it is used only once in the entire New Testament: in Hebrews 12:2). Archeology and geography also throw light on much of what is obscure in Holy Scripture. Finally, the Church Fathers, who held on to the traditions which they received from the apostles (2 Thess 2:15), which included the proper understanding of many passages of Scripture, likewise provide for us a sure guide for understanding God’s Word.

But Soriano would cut off his flock from these tools, and from education in the methods of biblical exegesis, and leave them adrift all by themselves to try to interpret these ancient texts, written in a language and culture far removed from their own, and expect them to just be able to read and understand. And naturally, they will fail. Without knowing the first thing about Greek and Hebrew exegesis, and being ignorant of the Church’s theology of things like salvation, the Trinity, and the hypostatic union, they will simply be unable to understand these deeply complex texts. Then, they will have to turn to Bro. Eli. This is where his self-contradiction reaches its consummation. The following is from an article entitled “Three Colors of Death Green & White & Red” in Soriano’s Old Path Magazine:

Firstly, parables, as parables, were not meant to be understood by most people… Secondly, Jesus used minute details which were intended to hide the truth of the text from the non-spiritual, but to reveal truth to God’s people… Thirdly, symbols (such as the woman, merchant man, wind, angel, dove, water, fire, and others) frequently appear in texts of the Bible.

All of these show the need for a teacher who has the Spirit of God so that one may understand the Word of God. Nothing less would be able to lead one to truth and guide one until the end.

And God is faithful that he would not leave his people alone without one. Fortunate, indeed, is one who has found that true preacher.

As attested to by many, God is really with Bro. Eli Soriano. He is remarkably an extraordinary individual – unschooled by the world’s standards but unbeatable in biblical matters. He can see what others do not and has the understanding of the Word of God not found in anyone even among sages. And for that, how blessed is the Philippines! …It is then no surprise that he claims he is being taught by God which explains his deep understanding of God’s Word and the revelations given to him… Anyone thirsting for the knowledge of God would make sure he is in the right path – the Old Path. And if you truly care for truth, you must make sure you are being led by someone with an understanding given by God, and teaching things of God – like a spring that never runs dry.18

There is more of the same in articles entitled “Super-Preacher in Our Times” and “Nobody Does It Better” in the same issue:

There is no secret in the Bro. Eli’s being unique, singular, and distinctive. The Bible gives its own explanation in John 3:34 as him being sent, therefore speaks the words of God, who gave him unlimited spirit – For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.19

The irony of it all is that God has equipped the faithful preacher with full knowledge of the Bible with unmeasured Spirit, then warned him what not to do that he may finish his work, and yet allowed him to be fair game to wicked people and their evil designs. But God is faithful, this mysterious set-up may be the strength of God’s design in preserving His nation through His Faithful preacher – one whom none can beat in unlocking the mysteries of the Bible

As Bro. Eli preaches, he makes distinctions between quantity of the word, its quality, its direction, time, construction of meaning, and extent of meaning. He goes as far as explaining the source and the intended receiver to place the message in proper context… Truly, none can compare with the understanding that Bro. Eli has that symbolisms in the Bible are effectively expounded to his congregation and to his hearers in bible expositions. While he has not formally studied so-called hermeneutics that are the fare of secular schools, his level of understanding shows an awesome depth that each topic – unheard of before from all corners of this world – is as valuable as his next topic would be. Indeed, Bro. Eli preaches faithfully. Foremost, he unlocks mysteries from the Word of God like nobody. The faithful one whom God has assigned would do his task God’s way – like Bro. Eli.20

Now Soriano’s true colors come out. Before, anyone who feared the Lord and patiently worked at it could interpret the Bible. Now, only he can. Before, “God did not give anybody the right to interpret the Bible!” Now, Soriano is divinely commissioned to interpret the Bible. Before, he asked “can anybody claim that, God left a certain mystery unexplained for these pastors to clarify and interpret themselves? Doing this is a clear act of deception.” Now, he is “unlocking the mysteries of the Bible” for his flock who eagerly lap up every word that falls from his lips. The contradiction could hardly be clearer. Now I am eagerly awaiting Mr. Soriano’s admission that, in addition to his group not being a true church, he has also perpetrated “a clear act of deception” on his poor unfortunate followers. For he has left them utterly dependent on him to learn anything at all about Sacred Scripture. Indeed, how dare they question he who is receiving direct revelation from God. How dare they think to read what competent Bible scholars and exegetes have to say about Sacred Scripture! Soriano is the only faithful preacher! All who oppose him are charlatans!

Do not listen to this man. He is incompetent to interpret the Bible, and he contradicts himself. This alone should be enough to disqualify him in the eyes of any Christian who would diligently “test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 John 4:1). But if that still is not enough, let us examine his repeated appeals to his allegedly exemplary character as proof of his divine commission. Let us even grant that what he says about his life is true. Even so, do not the Catholic saints far exceed him in holiness, sacrifice, labor, and love? Has he stared down a barbarian at the head of an army of the same, as St. Leo the Great did? Did he resist a threat to be boiled in oil when he was but nine years of age, as the Fatima children did? Has he reduced his sleep to three hours a night to attend to the spiritual needs of his children, as St. Pio did? Until he has, he cannot claim the holiness of his life as a reason why anyone should embrace his doctrine instead of the doctrine of the Catholic Church. In sum, to all followers of this old path, I want you to know that Soriano is not the only one who loves you. The Catholic Church loves you, and wants you back. Moreover, she will welcome you back with open arms.

IV. Soriano and the Stinkblossom

Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things? (John 3:10)

The more one reads of Soriano, the more his ignorance is manifest, and the more it grieves one to consider how very many people he has led astray. Take, for example, Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ. The entire “book” is based on one gargantuan blunder. In fact, if I were to write a book about every blunder in history that was larger than this blunder, it might still be a shorter book than Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ. He somehow completely misreads Hebrews 6:1-2, which states, in the KJV: “Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ [i.e. the first rudiments of Christian doctrine], let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” As the following quotes demonstrate, Soriano actually thinks St. Paul is telling his readers to forget about or ignore these fundamental doctrines:

But why did Paul admonished the first Christians that they (including Paul himself) must leave behind these fundamental doctrines of Christ? The fundamental is more on the material! Jesus wants us to attain, not only physical, but spiritual blessings. The fundamental purpose of laying on of hands is to heal the physical or material body of the subject person. But Christ, in his capacity, wants us to seek for the spiritual significance of His teachings because this is the way to learn more of Him…

Why then do we have to stop or leave this fundamental doctrine of Christ on the laying on of hands? A person with leprosy can be healed physically but his spirituality isn’t…21

But why did Paul said, in his dispensation, that Christians must leave the fundamental doctrine of the resurrection of the dead? …A saint who died in this dispensation, particularly in this time will not be delighted to be resurrected, to inhale again polluted air, to drink polluted water, and to eat chemical-laden foods and to be subjected to harsh brutality and gory death again… One thing is sure, the many glory-hungry and money-hungry preachers (it is against my conscience to call them preachers) of our times, who pretend to have power to resurrect the dead are all liars, which further belies their stand of being God-sent. It only displays their total ignorance of what Saint Paul have said almost two thousand years ago that perfection can be attained by leaving the fundamental doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.22

Soriano’s interpretation here misses the mark completely. All St. Paul is saying that once his audience has sufficiently mastered the basics of the Christian religion, it will be possible for his discourse to advance to more lofty themes. Analogously, a math teacher might tell his students that once they have mastered arithmetic they can move on to algebra. St. Paul is absolutely not telling his audience that they ought to forget or abandon the “fundamental doctrines of Christ.” These are the foundation of Christianity; they support the entire soaring edifice, and without them the religion has nothing on which to stand. The foundation can never be forgotten. St. Paul’s only point is that once it has been laid properly once, the Christian teacher can move on from teaching these subjects and start building upon them the superstructure of more advanced theology. To risk mixing metaphors, once the new Christian has been nursed to a certain degree of maturity on spiritual milk, the teacher can then begin to give him solid food (Heb 5:12-14). It would be silly to keep “laying the foundation” over and over again, by teaching nothing but the basics, and never graduating Christian students from ecclesiastical kindergarten, just like it would be silly to hold back school children in the same grade year after year. Once we learn how to read, write, and do basic math, we can move on to history, philosophy, engineering, etc. But that does not mean we can forget about reading, writing, and basic math, or the more advanced subjects will become impossible. So too, should a Christian forget about repentance, faith, baptism, the laying of hands, and the resurrection of the dead, he will turn his religion into nonsense.

There are many more errors in Soriano’s “book.” As a side note, for one who blasts the Catholic Church for using a little bit of Latin in her liturgy, he has no problem with using the Latin phrase prima facie himself in the very first paragraph. Don’t you see, Mr. Soriano, that learning the meaning of a few words of Latin, whether prima facie or dominus vobiscum is really not that hard?

In any case, following his opening harangue against false preachers, a feature almost ubiquitous in his works, Soriano quickly jumps into a fairly odd theological disputation: he constructs a dichotomy, as false as it is sharp, between the idea of Jesus as the personal Lord and Savior of the Christian, and His operation through the corporate body of the Church. But as one who is so famed for his ability to memorize the Bible, he should know that both concepts are present in Scripture. See for example the Magnificat, wherein Our Lady exclaims “My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior” (Luke 1:47; cf. John 20:28).

It seems Soriano is led to a false conclusion because he starts out from a faulty philosophical premise, namely that that which is “personal” cannot be shared. Indeed, he challenges that if Jesus were the personal savior of anyone, it would be unethical to let Him be someone else’s savior as well. He makes an analogy to a man sharing his wife, his “personal property” as Soriano describes her. This is clearly an instance of equivocation regarding the meaning of “personal,” as the word does not necessarily imply exclusivity or possession, but merely a relationship. Jesus has an intimate and direct relationship with each individual soul consecrated to His service, and jealousy need not ensue. That Soriano thinks jealousy would ensue from such a relationship merely demonstrates once again that he is incompetent to interpret Scripture. He has projected his own erroneous presuppositions onto the Word of God, and his exegesis has been clouded accordingly.

A little while later, Soriano makes yet another exegetical blunder when he states that the primary purpose of the laying of hands is “to heal the physical or material body of the subject person”23 (this is allegedly why we ought to “leave behind” this fundamental doctrine; Jesus wants us to forget about temporal things like bodily health and move on to the spiritual realm). One wonders if he is reading the same Bible as the rest of us. Scripture frequently records that the Apostles laid their hands on persons in perfect bodily health, in order to confer a spiritual gift. “The Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles’ hands” (Acts 8:17; cf. 19:6). St. Paul likewise urges St. Timothy to kindle afresh the charisma, the spiritual, supernatural gift which he received through the laying of hands (2 Timothy 1:6). That gift was his ordination to the episcopacy. The Apostles, through the laying of hands, also ordained St. Stephen and six other men to the diaconate (Acts 6:5-6). So, one sees that in Scripture the laying of hands is ordered primarily to supernatural and spiritual realities, not mere bodily health as Soriano says. And the Catholic Church is ever faithful to the Bible. In fact, the phrase “the laying of hands” is simply the biblical manner of denoting the Catholic sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Orders.

Moving on, it does not take Soriano long to make another obvious mistake: he uses Hebrews 11:13, 35-40 in attempts to prove that the saints resurrected in Matthew 27:50-53 are not currently in heaven. Hebrews 11 is about the era before the Cross, the era of the Old Covenant. Men like Abraham and Noah died in faith, but did not go immediately into heaven. As St. Paul says in Hebrews 11:40, they “received not the promise; God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us [the saints of the New Covenant].” However, that era is over, for on Holy Saturday, Christ descended to the abode of the righteous dead and “preached to those spirits that were in prison” (1 Pet 3:19). His mission was successful, and “ascending on high, he led captivity captive” (Eph 4:8). This means He brought the souls of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, et al to heaven with Him, where they now comprise the “cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1) who, as St. Paul informs us, watch over the lives of Christians. Should we die in a state of grace, we will follow them. There is no period of “soul sleep” as Soriano believes. We will not lie senseless in our graves until the general resurrection on the last day. Rather, “it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment” (Heb 9:27). We will be judged immediately and sent to either heaven, purgatory, or hell; on the last day this judgment will merely be publicly declared.

Next, leaving behind Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ, let us go on to Soriano’s sermons, not sparing them from critical scrutiny, but likewise demonstrating their bankruptcy and internal contradiction. Let’s start with his sermon on “the salvation which is being taught by the Bible”, in which he chastises his ecclesiastical great grandfather, the Iglesia ni Cristo of Mr. Felix Manalo, for teaching that outside of it there is no salvation.24 He is, of course, quite right in decrying this claim as false. However, excepting his provision for the salvation of those who never hear the Gospel, Soriano in effect makes the exact same claim, for while he does reject any form of extra ecclesiam meam nulla salus (outside my church there is no salvation) in theory, this is essentially what his doctrine amounts to in practice. Although he teaches that the true Christian church existed before him, that he joined it, and did not create it, and is emphatic that it is forbidden for preachers to create their own churches, on the other hand he teaches that the only means of joining the true church is to assent to the whole body of apostolic doctrine as recorded by the Bible.25 And who possesses the whole body of apostolic doctrine? Who is the only preacher who properly understands the Bible and teaches all its commandments without addition or deletion? Who is the only preacher who uses only the Bible to interpret the Bible, without referring to other books? Soriano, of course. He is, recall, the “only sensible and sincere evangelist,” and has been divinely commissioned to unlock the mysteries of the word of God. He “holds the key,” to use the headline of one of his magazines, to the meaning of Sacred Scripture, and thus he holds the key to eternal salvation. His literature reminds his followers:

Not all preachers can save, however. Only the faithful one used by the Lord as vessel can save – himself and those that hear him.26

I care for my fellow Filipinos. As former President Joseph Estrada once said, nobody will care for the Filipinos but the Filipinos themselves. Many foreigners have come to our country but they only deceived us. We can have no other ally except our fellow Filipino… a Filipino, who speaks clearly… a Filipino who knows every righteous thing that the Bible says. I am extending you whatever I can offer, my countrymen. That is what I am here for.27

Most of our preachers today are like the devil. Why? They speak slyly. Whenever they use the Bible, they employ deception.28

So, Soriano can on the one hand avoid making the preposterous and untenable claim that his 30 year old group is the one true Church of Jesus Christ outside of which there is no salvation, and on the other hand he can tell people that he is the only preacher who can lead them to salvation. How convenient.

Errors abound in this sermon. Soriano soon begins to inveigh against “vain repetition” and other alleged errors in Catholic prayer, and he makes basically the same wrongheaded comments as any fundamentalist Protestant would. More on this below. But in addition to the standard Protestant fare, he also says something so uniquely absurd and incompetent that I have to mention it here. He quotes a large section of the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, including the lines “Tower of David, pray for us. Tower of ivory, pray for us. House of gold, pray for us. Ark of the covenant, pray for us. Gate of Heaven, pray for us.” Then, he exclaims:

Even towers, which are without tongues, are petitioned to pray for them. Even the house of gold, even the tower of ivory, even the Ark of the Covenant, even the tower of David! Could they pray? Where did you get those ideas? Why are you also urging the gate of heaven to pray for you? Can they pray? They could perhaps produce a squeaking sound, but to pray to… that is impossible! The gate of heaven could not pray! That is not found in the Bible. Why are you calling on so many things to pray for you?29

Now, surely any competent person reading this litany would realize that Catholics are not literally asking towers, houses, gates, and arks to pray for them; these are simply titles of the Blessed Virgin Mary. How did Soriano miss this? Is it because of ignorance, dishonesty, or spiritual blindess that he cannot grasp the obvious meaning of these prayers? Should he not be able to infer, given that the previous 27 lines of the prayer invoked Mary under a different title, that this is the meaning of these lines as well? And could he not at least have asked a Catholic to explain this prayer to him before he started expatiating with such ridiculous pronouncements?

And it does not take Soriano long to ram his foot even deeper down his throat. He asks, incredulously, “If you were a woman, how would you feel about being addressed as ‘ginoo’ (mister)? Wasn’t she the wife of Joseph? Why don’t you call her ‘Ginang Maria’ instead?”30 Here, Soriano’s error stems from a lack of knowledge of the history of his own language. Filipino apologist Marwil Llasos explains:

During the 19th century, “ginoo” (gentleman) or “maginoo” (gentlemanly) was applied to both men and women. In fact, our national hero, Jose Rizal (a true-blooded Tagalog from Calamba, Laguna) wrote to the women of Malolos (Malolos, Bulacan, also a tagalog-speaking town. Until now, Bulacan is known for its high-sounding or classical Tagalog) addressing them “Mga Maginoong Babae ng Malolos” (“gentlemanly women of Mololos”). Soriano, in his ignorance, does not understand classical language.31

So, one begins to notice a pattern here. When Soriano is in ignorance, instead of having the humility to ask someone more knowledgable to enlighten him, he just assumes he is right and merrily blunders his way along. He quite confidently makes his bombastic pronouncements on all manner of subjects, and it never quite dawns on him what a fool he is making out of himself, that he does not know what he is talking about, that he is the proverbial Emperor who has no clothes. Pray God some day he will look at himself and realize he is naked. Lastly, though it has been corrected at some point, this sermon used to say that 6×6=39.32

Errors abound in others of his sermons and teachings as well. First, for one who habitually thrashes those who consult the dictionary when they have trouble understanding the Bible (recall he cuts off his followers from any means of understanding the Bible besides himself), he has no problem starting off his sermon on whether religion is necessary with, “if we are going to consult the dictionary for the meaning of the word ‘sect’, it means religious ‘faction.'”33

Second, he claims in his sermon on whether it is God’s will that we join a Church that, “Everything that the Apostles saw and heard had been written down.”34 This is just a blatant and explicit contradiction of Scripture. It is written, “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). Has Soriano not read this verse?

Third, in another sermon35 he quotes Proverbs 22:1, which says “A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches,” and makes yet another exegetical blunder. He actually thinks it is referring literally to a person’s appellation, e.g. John, Eliseo, Jude, Elizabeth. He doesn’t realize that “a good name” in this context is a metaphor for a good reputation. Perhaps he should have let the Bible interpret the Bible, and read Proverbs 10:7: “The memory of the righteous is blessed, but the name of the wicked will rot.” Clearly, the second clause of the sentence is the converse of the first; the righteous will be remembered fondly, but the wicked will be remembered in infamy. Their reputation will remain foul forever. See also Ecclesiastes 7:1; Sirach 41:12-13; Proverbs 18:10; 21:24. This is really quite simple! Literally every competent, published biblical commentator understands this passage. Jew and Christian, Catholic and Protestant, conservative and liberal: everyone sees what only Soriano is too blind to see.36 Incidentally, Soriano also manifests his inability to recognize a literary device when he quotes Matthew 6:9, “Hallowed be thy name” and concludes that we ought to worship the name of the Lord. “Hallowed be thy name” is simply a poetic way of saying “Hallowed are you.”

Fourth, while explaining where the water for Noah’s flood came from, Soriano makes a rather silly scientific blunder:

[O]xygen and hydrogen are abundant in our atmosphere. And if you combine two molecules of hydrogen with one molecule of oxygen, the result is water. Put some ice in a glass. After a while, there would be moisture outside the glass. That is because the molecules of hydrogen had combined with the molecule of oxygen.37

This is entirely wrong! The reason water condenses on the outside of a glass of ice water is not because new water molecules are being formed through the combination of atmospheric hydrogen and oxygen. The true explanation is as follows: the atmosphere contains a large amount of water in vapor form. If the air becomes saturated with more water vapor than it can hold, some of the water will precipitate out as moisture. Furthermore, hot air is capable of containing much more water vapor than cold air. If hot air containing a large amount of moisture is rapidly cooled, the air suddenly will no longer be able to hold that moisture, and the water vapor will condense. Thus, when a cold glass of ice water causes a drop in the temperature of the surrounding air, water precipitates out of that air, and condenses on the side of the glass. Soriano really should learn his elementary atmospheric science before he presumes to teach people about it.

Fifth, Soriano gets his history wrong:

Galileo was expelled by the Pope because of his adherence to the Copernican theory, which was in contradiction to what the Pope believed in. There were so many things that they disagreed on, and one of them was on the shape of the earth. The Pope believed that it was flat. Actually, that was a common belief that time. They thought that the earth was flat and if you reach the edge of the earth, you will fall. They also believed that, based on the horizon, wherever the earth ends, there also is where the sky ends. But Galileo believed otherwise. He believed that the earth is round. And because of upholding a belief that was contrary to the belief of the Pope, he was expelled from the Catholic Church. And eventually, it was proven that what Galileo believed in was true.38

There are three glaring errors here. First off, “the Pope” did not believe in a flat earth, and this belief was not common among scholars at any point in Christian history. This was a calumny against Christendom invented by 19th century rationalists like John W. Draper.39 All educated people at the time of Galileo recognized that the earth is a sphere. Second, Galileo’s trial before the Inquisition had nothing to do with the shape of the earth; it concerned his opinion that the sun is fixed and immobile at the center of the universe, and that the earth revolves around it. The proposition that the sun is immobile was condemned as heretical, and the proposition that the earth moves was condemned as at least erroneous in faith. Third, Galileo was never excommunicated. He was held vehemently suspect of heresy, and so forced to sign an oath of abjuration, consigned to house arrest, and made to recite the seven penitential psalms each week. But he was never expelled from the Catholic Church. Soriano cannot seem to get anything right.

Sixth and finally, Soraino misinterprets extrabiblical literature as well:

“A rose by any other name will still be sweet.” That is not true! If somebody gives you this quotation, that would mean that, that person is out of his mind. Why say that, a rose by any other name is sweet? In the Philippines, there is a flower called, katuray. By the mere sound of its name, we can already tell that this flower is not sweet, even if you call it “rose”. Using the name “rose” for a “katuray” will not make it any sweeter. Misnaming anything is not good.40

Soriano has completely missed Shakespeare’s point. The point of the phrase “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” is that a thing, objectively, is what it is. The name one applies to it does not change its intrinsic nature. A rose will still be a rose, and thus will still smell sweet, even if you call it a stinkblossom. Similarly, the Catholic Church will still be the Church founded by Christ, even if you call it awful names like the whore of Babylon, and the holy sacrifice of the Mass will still yield an aroma of spiritual fragrance which is pleasing and acceptable to the Lord even if you call it an abomination. Conversely, as Soriano points out, calling a katuray a rose will not make it sweeter. Calling a stinkblossom a rose will not make it less foul. Thus, no matter whether Soriano calls his church “the Church of the living God, Pillar and Foundation of the Truth,” “Members Church of God International,” or “Ang Dating Daan,” it will never be the pillar and foundation of the truth, it will never be the church of God, and it will never be the same “old path” referenced in Jeremiah 6:16. So, we certainly grant to Soriano, that misnaming things is not good, and that calling evil good and good evil will neither make evil good nor good evil. But that is exactly what Shakespeare is saying in the phrase Soriano rejects. Soriano thus uses an argument which proves that misnaming something does not change its nature, in order to refute a phrase which teaches that misnaming something does not change its nature.

In order to deal with Soriano’s wider argument here, viz., that the true Church of God has to have the proper, biblical name, and cannot bear an invented name such as “Catholic,” suffice it to note that the Bible freely applies at least 45 names to the Church: Temple of God (1 Cor 3:16); spiritual house (1 Pet 2:5); body of Christ (Eph 1:22); household of God (Eph 2:19); Israel of God (Gal 6:16); congregation of saints (Psalm 149:1); bride of Christ (Rev 21:2); etc. There is nothing to prevent the same Church from freely applying new names to herself, so long as these new names accurately describe her, now that the Bible is finished.41 And “Catholic” most certainly does accurately describe her. She is universal; she is the whole Church, and she counts among her members men from every race and nation under heaven, to which, God willing, might one particularly ornery Filipino soon be added.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will state it again: Soriano is incompetent. He ought to be embarrassed at the utterly foolish things that he has said. Moreover, his followers ought to realize that one who so frequently sticks his foot in his mouth might not be the most reliable guide to the finer points of Christian theology and biblical exegesis, and that it might not be the safest thing to place one’s eternal salvation in his hands. For if he can be so wrong about something so simple as recognizing a metaphor, he can be wrong about something difficult like the nature of God or of salvation as well. Indeed, one would expect his errors to be all the more grievous as the subject of his expositions grows more grave. This is, in fact, the case, as I will demonstrate below.

V. A Semi-Arian Apollinarian

He… was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God (John 5:18).

Soriano states the principle quite well when he says, “If a religious organization teaches wrong doctrines, that means that the Holy Spirit is not guiding it, and therefore, it is not of God.”42 Or again, “the Church, which is headed by Christ, does not teach any wrong doctrine. Instead, it teaches indestructible and undefiled doctrines.”43 These are the standards to which we will hold Mr. Soriano. If it can be proven that he teaches wrong doctrines, he must then admit that the Lord has not sent him (cf. Jer 28:15), that he is not of God. His teachings must be weighed in the scales, and if they are found wanting (cf. Dan 5:27), rejected. He must then repent and take his flock back to the bosom of Holy Mother Church. I am informed that one of his favorite tactics in debate is to ask his opponent if, supposing he can prove such and such a doctrine from the Bible, his opponent will admit he is wrong and convert then and there to his church. With this essay, I propose the selfsame bargain to him.

There is some difficulty in pinning down Soriano’s doctrine of God. He has not published a thorough exposition, so the reader must glean his doctrine from statements here and there, on his website and in his television programs. I’ve found, also, that whenever he speaks concerning the doctrine of God, he devotes most of his time to attacking “Oneness” evangelicals, who hold that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person, and the doctrine of the Iglesia ni Cristo (or Iglesia ni Manalo, as he likes to call it, and I concur), which holds that Jesus is mere man, not God. He spends relatively little time attacking the Trinity (he’ll maybe cite John 10:29; 14:28; 1 Cor 15:28, and then move on), and expounding his own peculiar doctrine.

As far as I have understood it, this doctrine is basically semi-Arian. Soriano clearly believes in some form of subordinationism, as he emphatically denies that the three persons of the Godhead are co-equal. Hence, for all his protestations that Jesus is “a true and Mighty God,”44 he cannot maintain the true divinity of Christ. God is absolutely perfect, a purely simple Spirit (John 4:24) of charity (1 John 4:8). If the Son and Holy Spirit do not share these perfections equally with the Father, they are not “God,” according to the Bible’s definition.

Soriano affirms that the Son was begotten, not created, so he avoids the error of the strict Arians and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which asserts that the Son is merely a creature. His doctrine is less false, if perhaps less logically consistent, than theirs. Soriano properly asserts, if I am not mistaken, that the Son and Holy Spirit receive their being from the Father from eternity, and were not created out of nothing at a particular point in time. The Father never existed without the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is correct, though unfortunately as noted above he concludes that because the Son and the Holy Spirit receive their being from the Father they must be less than Him. Soriano also tends toward the error of tritheism (that there are three gods), as he denies that the three persons of the Godhead are one in all their works in creation (in the language of theology, their operations ad extra). Indeed, he adduces as one of his arguments against the “Oneness” position that because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are described in Scripture as performing different roles, we may therefore conclude that they are three separate entities. More on this below. Soriano’s tritheistic leanings are expressed very clearly in the first article of his formulation of the basic doctrines of Ang Dating Daan:

We believe in the Almighty God, the Father, the Creator of the universe, in Christ Jesus, the Father’s begotten son, a true and Mighty God, the only savior of mankind and the only way to the Kingdom of God in heaven ( Acts 14:15; I Cor. 8:5-7; John 14:6; 14:1 ).45

Soriano also holds to a highly flawed Christology, which states that Christ did not truly become Incarnate, did not truly become a man, but only took on the appearance of being a man. He thus revives the ancient heresy of Apollinarianism. Next, his belief that the persons of the Godhead are not one in all their works leads him to a rather bizarre doctrine of salvation. And finally, as a result of his incompetence to interpret Scripture, demonstrated above, Soriano misunderstands the attributes of God, and denies such a fundamental doctrine as His omnipresence. Let us then test the spirits to see whether they are from God (1 John 4:1), and compare Soriano’s doctrine to the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, using, as he likes to say, the Bible as our basis.

Soriano objects that there is “no such word as Trinity in the Bible.” However, he will use the word Godhead, because he reads it in three places in his King James translation, which he is so heavily dependent upon. As an aside, if he took a more modern translation as his primary version, he might think it was unbiblical to talk about “the Godhead” as well, since neither the NIV nor the NASB ever use the word. In any case, Soriano understands the word Godhead in the same sense it is commonly used in theology, that is, to denote the union of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the three divine persons taken together. This is clear from his affirmations that there are three persons in the Godhead. Now, as noted above, Godhead is used three times in KJV. In Acts 17:29 it translates theion, the accusative of theios, meaning divine nature or divinity. The context says nothing about multiple persons or entities; in fact, St. Paul introduces “God that made the world and all things therein” in v. 24. From Soriano’s perspective, then, this sermon is about God the Father, and theion in v. 29 must refer to the Father’s nature as God. Next, in Romans 1:20 Godhead translates theiotes, or divine nature. Again, the context contains nothing about multiple persons; it is about the divine attributes knowable by reason alone. Finally, in Colossians 2:9 it translates theotetos, the genitive of theotes, the essence of divinity. Soriano, reading the translation “Godhead” from his KJV Bible, and interpreting Godhead the way it is commonly used in theology, takes this passage to mean that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all dwell in body of Jesus Christ. However, the meaning of the Greek is that the fullness of the essence of the divinity dwells in Christ, that is, that the Son is fully God, participates fully in the divine nature of the Father, and is therefore co-equal with Him. In this context, theotetos denotes the divine essence, not the persons of the Godhead. So, Soriano is once again hoisted by his own petard. If the word Trinity is never used in the Bible, neither is the word Godhead, at least in the sense Soriano takes it to mean.

But this is not a battle of semantics anyway. What matters is not whether we can find the word Trinity in the Bible, but whether the concept is there. And it is.

First, that the Father and Son are co-equal is taught in John 5:18, as St. Augustine proves:

“Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father;” not in any ordinary manner, but how? “Making Himself equal with God.” For we all say to God, “Our Father which art in heaven;” we read also that the Jews said, “Seeing Thou art our Father.” Therefore it was not for this they were angry, because He said that God was His Father, but because He said it in quite another way than men do. Behold, the Jews understand what the Arians do not understand. The Arians, in fact, say that the Son is not equal with the Father, and hence it is that the heresy was driven from the Church. Lo, the very blind, the very slayers of Christ, still understood the words of Christ. They did not understand Him to be Christ, nor did they understand Him to be the Son of God: but they did nevertheless understand that in these words such a Son of God was intimated to them as should be equal with God. Who He was they knew not; still they did acknowledge such a One to be declared, in that “He said God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.” Was He not therefore equal with God?46

Next, we saw above that the Trinity is taught in Colossians 2:9 as well. All the fullness (Gk. pan to pleroma) of the essence of divinity dwells in Christ. Since Soriano is a subordinationalist, he does not confess that all the fullness is in Christ; he can only confess that some of the nature of the Father’s divinity is in Christ, otherwise he would have to admit that the Son is equal to the Father.

Moving on, we see the same doctrine once again in Philippians 2:6, which the Douay-Rheims renders as “[Christ Jesus] being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” More modern translations render the last clause as “[Christ] did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped” (NAS), however, when we consider that “grasped” (Gk. harpagmon) carries the connotation of seizing that which is not rightfully one’s own, the meaning is essentially the same. Now, we have two possibilities for the correct interpretation of this verse: (1) Christ is naturally and properly equal to the Father, so He knew that He did not have to attain such a state by robbery, and was perfectly justified in teaching the Jews as much (cf. John 5:18), or (2) Christ is less than God, and he knew that He ought not to exalt Himself and seize for Himself a status of equality which was not properly His. The Catholic Church holds the former, whereas the Arians, and most likely Soriano following them, hold the latter. So, many of the arguments that the Holy Fathers adduced against the Arian position might be applied to Soriano as well.

In this vein, St. John Chrysostom observes that for an inferior God to attempt to seize the power of a superior God is absurd and intrinsically impossible: “Tell me now… if [Christ] were little, as they say, and far inferior to the Father in power, how could He possibly have seized to Himself equality with God? For an inferior nature could not seize for himself admission into that which is great; for example, a man could not seize on becoming equal to an angel in nature; a horse could not, though he wished it, seize on being equal to a man in nature.”47

Furthermore, according to the Arian interpretation of this verse, in which St. Paul praises Christ for not desiring to snatch for Himself the possessions of his Father, St. Paul is essentially praising Christ for abstaining from the behavior of Satan. Obviously, there is nothing especially praiseworthy about this! Indeed, it is the bare minimum demanded by justice. Additionally, in this case, St. Paul’s appeal to the example of Christ is inappropriate for the lesson he is attempting to teach the Philippian Christians about humility. In the Catholic interpretation, on the other hand, Christ’s example does illustrate extraordinary humility: He for whom it was not robbery to be equal to God (because He was equal to God by right) so abased Himself as to take on the form of a servant, a mortal man.

Finally, Revelations 1:8 likewise contradicts Soriano’s distinction between the Father, who alone is “almighty God” and the Son, who is allegedly just “a mighty God.” In this verse Jesus Christ tells St. John, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty” (cf. Rev 15:3). Kurios ho theos is how the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament which the Apostles used) translated YHWH Elohim, the Lord God, one of the divine titles of the one and only God in the Old Testament. Likewise, the title Almighty (Gk. pantokrator) is used in Scripture exclusively of the Most High (cf. 2 Cor 6:18; Rev 4:8; 11:17; 16:7, 14; 19:6, 15; 21:22). Jesus could not properly be called “the Lord God almighty” if He were subordinate to the Father, who alone is almighty. The Scripture only makes sense if Jesus is consubstantial with the Father, if they are two co-equal persons in one God, if everything the Father is, the Son is as well.

Testimonies to the true nature of the Holy Spirit, the third co-equal divine person of the Blessed Trinity, are less numerous and explicit. However, the doctrine is taught in Scripture nonetheless. Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott summarizes the biblical evidence:

The name “Holy Ghost” and the name “God” are used alternately. Acts 5, 3 et seq.: “Ananias, why has Satan tempted thy heart that thou shouldest lie to the Holy Ghost? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.” Cf. 1 Cor. 3, 16; 6, 19 et seq. In the Trinitarian Formula of Baptism, the Holy Ghost is made equal to the Father and the Son who are truly God. Again, divine attributes are ascribed to the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost possesses the fullness of knowledge: He teaches all truth, presages future things (John 16, 13), searches the innermost secrets of God (1 Cor. 2, 10) and has inspired the Prophets of the Old Covenant (2 Peter 1, 21; cf. Acts 1, 16).48

Next let us examine the verses which Soriano alleges against the equality of persons within the Trinity. The first is John 10:29, which reads “My Father, who has given [my sheep] to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.” According to Soriano, because the Father is greater than all, that means He must be greater than the Son and the Holy Spirit.

But to answer this interpretation one need only look at the immediate context. Jesus is here assuring the Jews that no wolf is able to snatch His sheep out of His hand, that is, no wicked person, man or demon, is able to take down to perdition one of God’s elect whom He has predestined for eternal glory. The reason the wicked are unable to do so is because Jesus’ Father is “greater than all,” that is, He is greater and more powerful than any creature who might try to steal His sheep. So, in context, Jesus is saying that His Father is greater than all creatures, not that He is greater than the other uncreated persons of the Trinity.

This is especially clear given that in this passage Jesus is simultaneously teaching that He is one God with the Father. He states in v. 28 “no one will snatch [my sheep] out of My hand,” then adds in v. 29 “no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand,” and concludes in v. 30 by saying “I and the Father are one.” As St. Cyril of Alexandria points out, “‘the hand,’ in the Divine Scripture, signifies ‘the power.'”49 So, Jesus may be paraphrased as saying, “no one will snatch my sheep out of my hand… No one is able to snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” Now, Soriano claims that when Jesus says “I and the Father are one,” he means only a union of affection or desire only, and he appeals to John 17:11, where the phrase is used in this sense. However, this meaning cannot be imposed in the context of John 10:30, for the phrase “I and the Father are one” derives its meaning from the immediately preceding verses wherein Christ spoke of His own power and the power of the Father interchangeably. The meaning is “I and the Father are one in power.” I will defer once more to the master of Greek exegesis, St. John Chrysostom:

Then that thou mayest not suppose that He indeed is weak, but that the sheep are in safety through the power of the Father, He addeth, “I and the Father are One.” As though He had said “I did not assert that on account of the Father no man plucketh them away, as though I were too weak to keep the sheep. For I and the Father are One.” Speaking here with reference to Power, for concerning this was all His discourse; and if the power be the same, it is clear that the Essence is also. And when the Jews used ten thousand means, plotting and casting men out of their synagogues, He telleth them that all their contrivances are useless and vain; “For the sheep are in My Father’s hand”; as the Prophet saith, “Upon My hand I have pictured thy walls.” (Isa. xlix. 16.) Then to show that the hand is One, He sometimes saith that it is His own, sometimes the Father’s. But when thou hearest the word “hand,” do not understand anything material, but the power, the authority. Again, if it was on this account that no one could pluck away the sheep, because the Father gave Him power, it would have been superfluous to say what follows, “I and the Father are One.” Since were He inferior to Him, this would have been a very daring saying, for it declares nothing else than an equality of power; of which the Jews were conscious, and took up stones to cast at Him. (Ver. 31.) Yet not even so did He remove this opinion and suspicion; though if their suspicion were erroneous, He ought to have set them right, and to have said, “Wherefore do ye these things? I spake not thus to testify that my power and the Father’s are equal”; but now He doth quite the contrary, and confirmeth their suspicion, and clencheth it, and that too when they were exasperated. For He maketh no excuse for what had been said, as though it had been said ill, but rebuketh them for not entertaining a right opinion concerning Him.50

This last observation must be the nail in the coffin for Soriano’s interpretation of this verse. To adapt the saying of St. Augustine, behold the Jews understand what Soriano does not. The Jews well understood what Jesus meant when He said, “I and the Father are one,” that is, He was making Himself equal to God (cf. John 5:18), so the picked up stones to execute Him for blasphemy. And Jesus made no effort to correct their opinion. He never said, “I and the Father are one by a union of affection only, in the same sense that my disciples are one with another.” No, He was saying exactly what the Jews thought that He was saying.

Soriano also attempts to use John 14:28 against the equality of persons in the Trinity, in which Jesus states “the Father is greater than I.” There are two possible interpretations of this text.

According to the common exposition, Christ here speaks of himself, as made man, which interpretation is drawn from the circumstances of the text, Christ being at that time, going to suffer, and die, and shortly after to rise again, and ascend into heaven, all which agree with him, as man, and according to his human nature… The enemies of the divinity of Christ here triumph, and think they have the confession of Christ himself, that he is less than the Father. But if they would distinguish the two natures of Christ, their arguments would all fall to the ground. Jesus Christ, as man, and a creature, is inferior to his Father, the Creator; but, as God, he is, in every respect, equal to him.51

The other solution is to posit that Jesus is here speaking in the category of authority. The Father is the higher authority, to which the Son submits, because the Father is the principle from whom the Son receives His being. However, the Father communicates His entire being to the Son, holding back none of the divine perfections, so the Father and Son are equal in essence and in goodness, regardless of this distinction.52 Incidentally, by these two arguments we have already sufficiently answered Soriano’s attempts to use 1 Cor 15:28 against the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity.

And having answered Soriano’s subordinationism, let us now answer his false Christology. Recall, he is an Apollinarian; he does not confess that Jesus Christ is truly a man, merely that he has taken on the appearance or form of a man. He uses Philippians 2:6-7 in support of this belief, which refers to Jesus, who was in the form of God, assuming the form of man. Of course, the major problem with this argument is that Soriano believes that Jesus really is a God, so to be consistent he would have to admit that if the phrase “the form of man” means Jesus is not truly a man, the phrase “the form of God” means he is not truly a God. St. John Chrysostom pointed out the inconsistency of Arians who did not apply this phrase equally in both instances:

Tell me now, what means, “He took the form of a servant”? It means, He became man. Wherefore “being in the form of God,” He was God. For one “form” and another “form” is named; if the one be true, the other is also. “The form of a servant” means, Man by nature, wherefore “the form of God” means, God by nature.53

Reverse the order of this argument, and it applies directly to Eliseo Soriano.

Moreover, St. Paul explicitly calls Jesus Christ a “man” in Rom 5:15; 1 Cor 15:21; 1 Tim 2:5. And the parallelism in the first two of those verses between Adam, the one man through whom death entered the world, and Jesus Christ, the one man through whom came life, would make little sense if Jesus were not truly, actually a man. Also, the whole point of St. Paul in calling attention to the fact that Jesus is a man in 1 Tim 2:5 is to explain why He can mediate between God and man: He is truly God and at the same time He is truly one of us. Moreover, the way we interpret “man” in this verse when it is used with respect to Christ (i.e., actually a man, or just in the appearance of man?) must be controlled by the immediately preceding usage, in which it refers to real, actual men. To switch our interpretation of “man” in the middle of this verse is to do violence to the text. Next, Hebrews 2:17-18 sounds a similar theme to 1 Tim 2:5: “Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest… For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.” If Christ only took on the appearance of manhood, He would not be like us in “all things”; He would only be like us in appearance. In order to be like us in “all things” He must be like us in nature. And finally, Matthew 9:8 refers to a group of “men”, and Jesus is one of them. If Jesus had only the appearance of manhood he would not be a true and proper man in the same sense as the rest of them.

The last false christological belief of Bro. Eli which I will tackle is the idea that Christ is not immutable. Soriano teaches that the Father could not have become incarnate since the Bible says He cannot ever change (Jas 1:17), whereas Jesus allegedly “changed” when He became a man. But “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb 13:8). The Son is immutable according to His divinity. He did not change in His absolutely simple, spritual essence when He joined Himself to a human nature.

And now, having sufficiently answered Soriano’s false Christology, let us answer his tritheistic beliefs. According to the orthodox faith, the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3), “The works of the Trinity are inseparable.”54 Whatever the Father does, so does the Son and the Holy Spirit, and vice versa. All three Persons participate equally in every divine act in the world. For the biblical evidence, again Ludwig Ott:

Christ testifies to the unity of His working with the Father, and bases it on the unity of Nature. John 5, 19: “What things soever (the Father) doth these the Son also doth in like manner.” John 14:10: “But the Father who abideth in Me, He doth the same works.” Holy Writ asserts the unity of the operations of the Divine Persons also by ascribing the same works, for example, the realisation of the Incarnation, the bestowal of the supernatural gifts of grace, the forgiveness of sins, to different persons. Cf. Luke 1, 35; Mt. 1, 20; Phil. 2, 7; Hebr. 10, 5 (Incarnation); 1 Cor. 12, 4 et seq. (gifts of grace); Mt. 9, 2; Luke 7, 48; 23, 34; John 20, 22 (forgiveness of sins).55

Even without the explicit biblical testimony of John 5:19; 14:10, Ott’s Catholic logic is conclusive. According to Luke 1:35; Matt 1:20, the Holy Spirit produced the Incarnation; according to Phil 2:7, the Son produced the Incarnation; according to Heb 10:5, the Father produced the Incarnation. Therefore all three Persons produced the Incarnation, as in all their other operations.

Soriano does not believe this, because he reads in certain places of Scripture that one person of the Blessed Trinity is described as doing something, and the other two Persons are not explicitly named. This is because he does not understand the principle of appropriation, that is, we commonly associate certain kinds of works, which are in actuality common to all three Persons, with one particular Person, because it expresses some truth about the inner life and divine relations of the Trinity. Thus, because the Father is the ultimate origin from which the other two Persons receive their being, we commonly attribute to Him the creation of the world. Thus, because the Holy Spirit is the love or sanctity of God, who proceeds from the Father and the Son as the terminus of their will to love one another, we commonly attribute to Him the outpouring of the grace, the mercy, and the love of our God.

Now we can easily see the fallacy of one of Soriano’s arguments against “Oneness” evangelicals. Although he is correct to denounce their doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, he is wrong when he claims we can prove they are distinct persons because they perform different works. If the Bible commonly attributes creation to the Father, it does not neglect to mention that the Son participated equally (cf. John 1:3; Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16-17). If the Son saves us, so also do the Father and the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor 1:21; 1 Tim 1:1; 2:3; 2 Tim 1:8-9; Tit 1:2-4; 2:10; 3:4-6; Jude 25). And if the Holy Spirit helps and comforts us, so also do the Son and the Father (cf. Psalm 71:21; 86:17; 119:76; Isa 12:1; 49:13; 57:18; Rom 8:34; 2 Cor 1:3-5; 7:6; 2 Thess 2:16-17; Heb 7:25). Inseparabilia sunt opera Trinitatis.

Soriano’s denial of the unity of the works of the Godhead leads him, as noted above, to a rather bizarre doctrine of salvation. He believes that in the time of the Old Testament, only God the Father was the savior. Jesus Christ His Son was only appointed savior when He was born and began to preach the gospel, and even then, he had only a limited jurisdiction of salvation, namely the Church. (Soriano appeals to such texts as Eph 5:3, which do say that Jesus is the savior of the Church.)

As implied above, Soriano denies that the Church is the only instrument of salvation. This is because he believes that it would logically follow that everyone who did not hear the gospel preaching of the Church would be damned, which is contrary to Romans 2:13-16. He appeals to all the peace loving Chinese people who never heard the name of Christ. Such people, according to Soriano, may still be saved under the Old Testament system, by God the Father and not by Jesus Christ. Supposedly, these two parallel paths of salvation will still be valid for the rest of history; God the Father is a savior from the beginning to the end of humanity, and Jesus Christ is the savior of the Church. To substantiate the Father’s alleged independent salvation plan, Soriano appeals to 1 Tim 4:10, in which St. Paul states “we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” He lays great stress on the word “all” to emphasize that the Father is the savior of those who never hear the gospel.

Now, the first step in refuting this doctrine we have already accomplished, when we noted that the Bible describes both God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son as saving Christians, the Church. “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope” (1 Tim 1:1; cf. vv. 2:3-5). God the Father is “our savior,” the savior of St. Paul, St. Timothy, and the rest of the Christian Church. “God… has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 1:8-9). Titus 1:3-4 mentions “God our Savior… and Christ Jesus our Savior” (cf. v. 2:10; Jude 1:25). Again, “But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Tit 3:4-6). This is very explicit. All three Persons of the Godhead save all who ever will be saved. Soriano might counter that he admits that the Father deserves overall credit since He is the one who sent Jesus Christ as savior, however, in the last verse we cited the Father was described as having a very direct, immediate, and active role in salvation; He saved us “by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly.” He did not simply let Jesus go off and do it Himself.

Secondly, Soriano’s doctrine does not conform to the statement in 1 Tim 4:10 that God the Father is “especially” the savior of believers. Recall, according to him, the Father is directly the savior of those who do not hear the gospel, and only indirectly the savior of those who do. Soriano’s emphasis is the opposite of St. Paul’s; to teach Soriano’s doctrine, St. Paul should have said that God is the savior of all men, especially those who do not believe (i.e., never hear the gospel, but live according to their conscience). In reality, the meaning of this text is that God bestows more abundant graces on those who are formally united to His Son in the Church, through a visible sacramental communion, though He may also, “by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace,”56 save those to whom no man ever preaches the gospel.

Finally, Soriano is wrong to assert that anyone at all may be saved without Christ. “Neither is there salvation in any other” (Acts 4:12). There are no two parallel paths of salvation. Those who are saved having never heard a man preach the gospel are saved the same way as those who have, namely through Christ and his Church, for “by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer.”57

Let us move on to Soriano’s errors concerning the attributes of God. As alluded to above, he does not believe that God is omnipresent. In his sermon on “the salvation that is being taught by the Bible” he adduces a few facile arguments in support of this claim. (1) Because we lift our eyes to heaven and pray “Our Father who art in heaven” he alleges that God is not everywhere, but in heaven only. (2) He quotes “Hail Mary, Full of grace, the Lord is with thee” and asks the following incredulous questions: “Where is God, this time? Which is true now? Is He everywhere? Is He in heaven? Or, is He in Mary? You are fooling yourselves!” (3) He attempts a reductio ad absurdum: “If you are claiming that God is everywhere, it follows that He is also in cabarets, night clubs, sauna baths, and gambling dens because your God is everywhere.” (4) He quotes Acts 17:24: “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands.”58

Before refuting him point by point I will note that Soriano is here contradicting the overwhelming testimony of Sacred Scripture to the omnipresence of God. God is simultaneously in heaven and on earth: “He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other” (Deut 4:39). The heavens cannot contain Him: “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built! (1 Kings 8:27) His presence extends from heaven to earth: “Thus says the LORD, ‘Heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool.” (Isa 66:1) God’s presence fills all space from the highest heaven to the depths of sheol (hell) and everything in between: “Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the Almighty? They are high as the heavens, what can you do? Deeper than Sheol, what can you know? Its measure is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea” (Job 11:7-9). Again: “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. If I take the wings of the dawn, if I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, even there Your hand will lead me, and Your right hand will lay hold of me” (Psalm 138:7-10). God fills the entirety of the heavens and the earth: “‘Can a man hide himself in hiding places so I do not see him?’ declares the LORD. ‘Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?’ declares the LORD” (Jer 23:24). He is omnipresent; we live and move in Him, and He sustains and holds all things in existence by a continual act: “For in Him we live and move and exist” (Acts 17:28). Again: “He [Christ] is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (Col 1:17; cf. Heb 1:3).

Next, in order to resolve the apparent contradiction between these verses and the passages which Soriano alleges against the omnipresence of God, it is necessary to provide some theological background. There are many senses in which God can be “present” in a place, and He may be present in one sense of the word but not present in another. Ott distinguishes as follows:

Since the time of Petrus Lombardus (Sent. I 37, 1) theologians more closely determine the omnipresence of God as a presence according to power (per potentiam–dynamic presence), according to knowledge (per praesentiam sive scientiam–ideal presence), and according to essence (per essentiam–essential or substantial presence). Through this essence He is present substantially in all things, including the created spiritual essences (angels, demons, human souls), as the immediate origin of their existence. Cf. S. th. I 8, 3. The substantial omnipresence of God is to be more closely defined as a repletive presence, that is, the whole Divine Essence fills the whole created space and every one of its parts…

In addition to this general, natural, presence of God, there is also a special supernatural presence or indwelling of God, by the supernatural efficacy of His grace, in the soul of the just man (John 14:23; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19), in the house of God (Ps 131:13 et seq.) and in Heaven (Mt 6:9).59

Now we are ready to counter Soriano’s contentious claims. (1) We direct our prayers heavenward because that is where the saints and angels see God as He is, face to face, where God is present according to His grace and love to the fullest extent. This does not mean that He is not also present elsewhere, as is clear from Soriano’s objection (2), wherein he quotes from a Catholic prayer which is lifted directly from the pages of Sacred Scripture: “Hail [Mary], full of grace, the Lord is with thee” (Luke 1:28). Obviously, if the Bible tells us that God is both in heaven and with Mary, both are true. God indwells the soul of Mary just as He dwells in heaven. (3) Of course, God does not spiritually indwell the souls of great sinners in places of sin. However, He is there in the three senses that He is everywhere, enumerated above, namely according to power, knowledge, and essence. Recall that God fills the earth (Jer 23:24), that is, there is no place on earth that He is not. The psalmist could not escape the presence of God by going down to sheol (Psalm 138:7-10); neither can we escape the presence of God by going to a brothel. Indeed, God might be operative by His grace in the souls of the patrons of places of sin, leading them to repentance and regeneration in Christ. Nowhere is beyond His reach.

(4) Finally, Soriano has wrenched Acts 17:24 from its context and construed it to mean something wholly foreign to the intent of St. Paul. St. Paul is dealing with pagans who believed, like Soriano, in finite gods who could be circumscribed in a certain place. They believed that their gods dwelt in the temples and idols that they carved for them, as though the gods needed these things (v. 25) for homes. St. Paul proclaims to them, on the contrary, that God cannot be thus confined, that he does not need anything from us, and that He is omnipresent, for “in Him we live and move and exist” (v. 28). That having been said, as noted above God may choose to spiritually indwell a temple in order to receive the prayer and worship of the faithful who pray and worship there. “For the LORD has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. ‘This is My resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it'” (Psalm 132:13-14; cf. Gen 28:22). God does not dwell in houses of pagan worship, but He does indeed dwell in legitimate houses of worship established according to His desires. These are Catholic Churches.

I am once again eagerly awaiting Mr. Soriano’s admission that he is not of God.

VI. Confusing the Covenants

He taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth (Hebrews 10:9).

In previous installments of this series, I have accused Soriano of being incompetent to properly interpret Sacred Scripture. I will now go further, and accuse him of being incompetent to even read it. In his sermon on “The Real Church of God,” he quotes Acts 15:16-17: “After this, I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down, and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.” He concludes: “Therefore, whenever the Bible uses ‘will build’, it suggests that something has fallen down.”60 Essentially, Soriano is saying that “build” in the Bible always means “rebuild,” restoring something that previously existed, but had been destroyed. He sets this in opposition to the word “establish” which he believes is the biblical way of saying that someone is building something new. He sets up this dichotomy in order to support his notion that the New Testament Church is merely the restored Israel, and not a new institution founded by Christ. But his argumentation here is erroneous on so many levels that one hardly knows were to begin.

First, Soriano ought to realize that just because he can find one instance where a word is used in a secondary sense, that does not mean he can interpret it in the secondary sense everywhere he finds it. “Build,” whether in English, Tagalog, Greek, or Hebrew, usually just means build, and if context determines that we must interpret it as “rebuild” in one instance or another, that one instance does not therefore become an overriding principle which determines our exegesis everywhere. Indeed, if we make it one we render a great many biblical passages unintelligible. Anyone with access to a program that searches the Bible for passages containing a given word (incidentally, Soriano’s website provides its patrons with one) can see this quite clearly: search for passages using the word build and you will find that it usually just means build. To cite just a few examples: Num 32:16; 1 Sam 2:35; 2 Sam 7:27; 1 Kngs 5:5.

But what is most astounding, Soriano seems to have missed the word “again” in his King James translation. “I will build again the ruins, etc.” It is amazing that one who claims to read the text of Scripture so closely and pay attention its minutest details could have overlooked something so conspicuous. Not only would Soriano’s argument prove nothing, if he could find an instance where “build” meant “rebuild” in the Bible, but this is not even such an instance! The Greek is anoikodomeo, the regular word for “rebuild,” the word for build being oikodomeo.

This, then, is the shaky ground, the shifting sands, upon which Soriano bases his entirely unique exegesis of Matthew 16:18. He uses a false example, to prove a non-existant principle, in order to overturn the plain meaning of the text that Jesus Christ established a Church upon the rock of St. Peter, and argue instead that He merely rebuilt Israel.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has the explicit teaching of the Bible to reinforce the plain meaning of Matthew 16:18. The reader has already seen Hebrews 10:9 quoted above: God did not “rebuild” the Old Covenant, but took it away in order to “establish” (there’s the word Soriano was looking for in Matt 16:18) the New. See also 2 Cor 3:6-14; Eph 2:15; Heb 7:18; 8:7, 13. Ephesians 2:15 calls the Church of Christ a “new man,” which Jesus made from both Jews and Gentiles after He had abolished the Old Testament Law. Jesus did indeed establish a Church on St. Peter; He both established and built (cf. Psalm 89:4) and Soriano is clearly opposed to the teaching of the Bible when he denies this.

Soriano adduces additional facile arguments in support of his contention that Jesus did not establish a Church. One of them is his misunderstanding about “name” being used as a metaphor for reputation, or person, which I have documented above. Another argument runs along the lines that we need to find the very first church in the Bible, because “Nothing could be better than the original.”61 Curiously, he attempts to justify his principle that the original is always the best by citing 1 Corinthians 15:45, which refers to Adam as the “first man” and Genesis 3:20 which calls Eve “the mother of all the living.” He then concludes, “If, in matters like this, there are ‘originals’, when it comes to the church, there is also an original, or the first church.”62 One wonders if Soriano maintains that the first Adam is better than the second Adam, Jesus Christ (cf. Rom 5:14-15). He must not, as he has proclaimed on his television network that he believes that Adam was damned.63 If, then, this is the case, his appeal to Adam and Eve proves only the inherently obvious proposition that there can be a first, or original, of something; it in no way follows from this that the original is best. His argument here is a blatantly fallacious leap of logic, which is actually hard to miss if one simply refuses to be enraptured with Soriano’s passionate style and fiery denunciation of false, heretical teachers.

Soriano continues to argue that Jesus did not establish a Church by attempting to identify “the church of the firstborn” mentioned in Hebrews 12:23 with Israel. Unfortunately for him, the context of this passage is a direct contrast between the Christian Church and the covenant God established with Israel. St. Paul sets up the contrast as follows: “For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. For they could not bear the command, ‘If even a beast touches the mountain, it will be stoned.’ And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, ‘I am full of fear and trembling'” (Heb 12:18-21). Clearly, St. Paul is emphasising the great fear involved in the establishment of the covenant of Moses at Mount Sinai. He then opposes to this fear the tremendous spiritual blessings which Chrisitans are priveleged to receive in Christ: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22-24). Thus, Christians have been recieved into the spiritual Mount Zion, and the heavenly Jerusalem (cf. Rev 3:12; 21:2), where we have fellowship with God Himself and all the hosts of heaven because of the redemption and mercy wrought for us by Jesus Christ. The great Catholic exegete Dr. Witham draws out the meaning of the text quite well:

But you are come to Mount Sion, where not a law of fear, like that of Moses, but a new law of love and mercy hath been given you, preached by our Saviour himself, and by his apostles, testified by the coming of the Holy Ghost, and by the effusion of God’s spirit upon the believers. Here you are called to the city of the living God, (to the Christian Church on earth) and even to the celestial Jerusalem, there to be for ever happy in the company of many millions of Angels; to the church of the first-born, who are written in heaven, (ver. 23.) to be happy with those who have been chosen by a special mercy of God, and blessed with an endless happiness; to be there in the presence of God, the judge of all men, with all the celestial spirits and souls of the just and perfect in the kingdom of God. Jesus Christ is the mediator of this new testament, the redeemer of mankind by his death on the cross, by the sprinkling and effusion of his blood, which speaketh better than that of Abel: the blood of Abel cried to heaven for vengeance, and the blood of Christ for mercy and pardon.64

Now, regarding the specific question of what St. Paul means by “the church of the firstborn” we have a few options. Clearly, it refers to some group of the inhabitants of heaven, with whom Christians have entered into fellowship in Christ. If we grant to Mr. Soriano that it refers to the Jews, then it refers to the saints of the old covenant, whom Christ took with Him to heaven when He Himself ascended (cf. Eph 4:8). But it does not follow therefore that Jesus Christ did not establish a Church, as He said He would do (Matt 16:18). Rather, the righteous Jews would have joined His Church when Jesus came to their resting place to preach to them (cf. 1 Pet 3:19). Or, “the church of the firstborn” may refer to the very first Christians who died in Christ, those who had already passed to their reward at the time St. Paul penned this epistle. Or, it may refer to the occupants of heaven who are most eminent in sanctity, such as the patriarchs and prophets. Or, it may refer to the holy angels. In any case, St. Paul’s intent has little to due with the superficial exegesis of Mr. Soriano, who thinks that because he can find a verse talking about the “church of the firstborn” and another verse that calls Israel “firstborn” and another verse that calls Israel “the church in the wilderness,” he has therefore proven that Jesus did not establish a Church, but that the New Testament Church is Israel.

Soriano also makes a non sequitur appeal to James 1:18. Of course, the Jews were the first hear the gospel and join the Christian Church, but it simply does not follow that Jesus did not establish a Church.

It seems the best that Soriano can do is to quote the prophetic imagery of Amos 9:11 about rebuilding the tabernacle of David, in attempts to establish that Jesus merely restored a fallen Israel. He contends that “the tabernacle of David” refers to the Jewish Church, which is one and the same with the Christian Church which we are allegedly supposed to join by imbibing the doctrines of Ang Dating Daan. However, it might just as easily apply to the Jewish people, a remnant of whom God spiritually restored by integrating them into the new covenant through Baptism in the Church of Christ. This is the Church which Christ established on the rock of St. Peter. It is the Catholic Church. If one wishes to be restored from the ruin of sin and built up into a new creation in Christ, he must forsake his errors and join.

Ben Douglass
February 28, Anno Domini MMVII

Endnotes

[1] Isabelo Crisostomo, “Felix Y. Manalo and the Iglesia ni Cristo,” Pasugo (Manila: May-June 1986)

[2] Catholic Answers, “Iglesia ni Cristo” http://www.catholic.com/library/Iglesia_Ni_Cristo.asp

[3] Crisostomo, op. cit.

[4] Ang Dating Daan, “Our Presiding Minister” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_ministers.htm

[5] The Bereans, “Ang Dating Daan” http://www.thebereans.net/prof-add.shtml

[6] Ang Dating Daan, “Church History” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_chistory.htm

[7] The Beareans, op. cit.

[8] Eliseo Soriano, “The Official Name of the Church in the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_religion_2_pf.htm

[9] See, for example, the articles “Super-Preacher in Our Times” and “Nobody Does It Better” in The Old Path Magazine, Vol. 1 No. 3 2005.

[10] Ang Dating Daan, “What is ‘Ang Dating Daan’?” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_faq.htm

[11] The Bereans, op. cit.

[12] “By this world’s standards, it is not surprising that those being expelled would group together where they are tolerated. As bonus for them, they get the chance to tell the world in their own terms that they are innocent, in effect making their excommunication appear an injustice. From their appearances alone on television one could tell, they have gone back to the ways of this world – cutting their hair, using make up, dressing immodestly, and from their mouths speak out lies about those they said they believed in before. Rather than engaging in self-introspection to see where they have gone wrong and in humility ask pardon from God, they have preferred to attend to what this world would think about them, never mind God. Now come the cosmetics to supposedly blot out or suffocate the reasons why they were expelled. In so doing, they resort to all sorts of shenanigans” (Ang Dating Daan, “Three Colors of Death Green & White & Red,” The Old Path Magazine Vol. 1 No. 3 2005).

[13] Eliseo Soriano, “A Preacher of God is Prohibited from Enriching Himself” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_apostle_1_pf.htm

[14] Eliseo Soriano, “Should the Bible Be Interpreted” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_2.htm

[15] Eliseo Soriano, “Understanding the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_3_pf.htm

[16] Eliseo Soriano, “The Rightful Way of Using a Formidable Bastion” The Old Path Magazine Vol. 1 No. 2, 2005 http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/pub_top_1c.htm

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ang Dating Daan, op. cit.

[19] Ang Dating Daan, “Super-Preacher in Our Times” The Old Path Magazine, Vol. 1 No. 3 2005, emphasis mine. http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/pub_top_2b.htm

[20] Ang Dating Daan, “Nobody Does It Better” The Old Path Magazine, Vol. 1 No. 3 2005, emphasis mine. http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/pub_top_2c.htm

[21] Elseo Soriano, Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ, Ch. 3. http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/about_leav_3_pf.htm

[22] Elseo Soriano, Leaving Behind the Fundamental Doctrines of Christ, Ch. 4. http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/about_leav_4_pf.htm

[23] Ibid. Ch. 3

[24] Eliseo Soriano, “The Salvation that is Being Taught by the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_expo_1_pf.htm

[25] Eliseo Soriano, “Is it God’s Will that We Join or Become a Member of the True Church of God in the Bible?” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_religion_1_pf.htm

[26] Ang Dating Daan, “Nobody Does It Better,” The Old Path Magazine Vol. 1 No. 3 2005. http://www.angdatingdaan.org/publications/pub_top_2c.htm

[27] Eliseo Soriano, “Faith must have a basis” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_expo_3_pf.htm

[28] Eliseo Soriano, “Understanding the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_bible_3_pf.htm

[29] Eliseo Soriano, “The Salvation that is Being Taught by the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_expo_1_pf.htm

[30] Ibid.

[31] Marwil Llasos, e-mail of April 26, 2006.

[32] The original, with the error, can be found on the web archive.

[33] Eliseo Soriano, “Is religion still needed? Who practices pure religion?” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_expo_4_pf.htm

[34] Eliseo Soriano, “Is it God’s Will that We Join or Become a Member of the True Church of God in the Bible?” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_religion_1_pf.htm

[35] Eliseo Soriano, “The Official Name of the Church in the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_religion_2_pf.htm

[36] E.g., “It was the hope of every Israelite that he would be remembered for the good which he had done and that his name, that is, his good reputation, would endure permanently” (R. N. Whybray, The Book of Proverbs (London: Cambridge University Press, 1972) p. 62). This is from his commentary on Proverbs 10:7, to which he refers the reader on p. 124 in his note to verse 22:1. Cf. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds., The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 1481; Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 15-31 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005) pp. 198-199; Michael A. Machado, The Book of Proverbs: The Wisdom of Words (New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2003) p. 134; Leo G. Perdue, Proverbs (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2000) p. 188; William McKane, Proverbs: A New Approach (Philedelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1975) pp. 422-423, 566; Richard J. Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999) pp. 194-195; Fr. George Haydock, The Douay-Rheims Old Testament (Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1992) p. 820.

[37] Eliseo Soriano, “This is about the time of Noah” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/ask/ask_broeli_2d.htm

[38] Eliseo Soriano, “Existence of God: Fulfillment of the Word of God” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/segments/seg_focus_2_pf.htm

[39] Cf. Jeffrey Burton Russell, Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 1997).

[40] Eliseo Soriano, “The Name of God” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/segments/seg_focus_1_pf.htm

[41] The first recorded instance of the term “Catholic Church” is in St. Ignatius of Antioch’s epistle to the Smyrnaeans, written ca. 110 A.D.

[42] Eliseo Soriano, “The Jesus and Christ of the Bible is not God, the Father” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_christ_1_pf.htm

[43] Eliseo Soriano, “Questions and Answers” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/ask/ask_broeli_2b.htm

[44] Ang Dating Daan, “Church General Declaration and Doctrines” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/about/about_doctrines.htm

[45] Ibid.

[46] St. Augustine, Tractate 17 on the Gospel of John, 16

[47] St. John Chrysostom, Homily 6 on Philippians

[48] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, Il: Tan Books, 1974) p. 58-59

[49] St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 7

[50] St. John Chrysostom, Homily 61 on the Gospel of John

[51] Fr. George Haydock, The Douay-Rheims New Testament (Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1991) pp. 1421-1422

[52] cf. Ibid.

[53] St. John Chrysostom, Homily 6 on Philippians

[54] “Inseparabilia sunt opera Trinitatis.” St. Augustine, Sermo 213, 6, 6 in Ott, op. cit., p. 72

[55] Ibid.

[56] Bl. Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7

[57] Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 103

[58] Eliseo Soriano, “The salvation that is being taught by the Bible” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_expo_1_pf.htm

[59] Ott, op. cit., p. 38

[60] Eliseo Soriano, “The Real Church of God” http://www.angdatingdaan.org/biblicaltopics/bib_religion_3_pf.htm

[61] Ibid.

[62] Ibid.

[63] He appeals to 1 Tim 2:14, and argues that Adam knew full well what he was doing when he ate the forbidden fruit, whereas Eve’s culpability was mitigated by her ignorance.

[64] In Fr. George Haydock, The Douay-Rheims New Testament (Monrovia, CA: Catholic Treasures, 1991) p. 1598

Posted in Apologetics-General, Doctrinal Comparison, Frequently Asked Questions | 4 Comments »

RODIMUS APOLOGIZED, I ACCEPTED IT AS A CHRISTIAN!

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 16, 2009

RODIMUS APOLOGIZED, I ACCEPTED IT AS A CHRISTIAN!

By: Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/rodimus-apologized-i-accept-as.html

In an unexpected gesture Bro. Rodimus apologized on the issue of John 4:5 and John 1:1. Once apology is given the love of Christ urges us to accept it. It is a command of charity then to return love for love and from then on walk in the light of Peace. Let us praise the Lord, not because Bro. Rodimus apologized, but because His truth is setting us free. Truly, His great love is without end.
Here is the apology of Bro. Rodimus and followed by my own posted in his blog comment section:
Friday, March 13, 2009

An apology to all

After much consideration on the facts, I hereby admit that I stand corrected on John 4:5 and John 1:1 as well. The posts have been deleted.
Furthermore, I apologize to Defensores Fidei Foundation especially to Atty. Marwil Llasos, Fr. Abe Arganiosa, and Mr. Cenon Bibe for the things I said about them. I was supposed to exchange information instead I ended up trash talking about yourselves. Please forgive my arrogance and sarcasm. So I therefore take back what I said.
I apologize to my colleagues for I went rogue and acted on my own. You don’t have to be held accountable for my actions.
I’m sorry, everyone.
1 comments:
Fr. Abe, CRS said…
DEAR BRO. RODIMUS,
GRACE AND PEACE!
ON MY PART, I ALSO APOLOGIZE FOR CAUSING SO MUCH HURT TO YOUR HEART AND MIND. EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT KNOW YOUR PERSONAL IDENTITY I’M SURE YOU HAVE BEEN WOUNDED BY MY VERY STRONG REMARKS.NOW, AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE LET US BE CHRISTIAN TO EACH OTHER. I HOPE YOU ARE ACCEPTING MY OFFER TO STOP THE MANNER OF TREATING EACH OTHER AND LET US BE WORTHY TO BE CALLED ‘CHILDREN OF GOD’.VERY EARLY THIS MORNING, ABOUT 12:10AM I RECEIVED A TEXT FROM MR. HENRY SY, THE PRESIDENT OF DEFENSORES FIDEI, AND HE ADMONISHED ME TO BE MORE CHARITABLE TO YOU. I PROMISED HIM THAT I WILL OBEY HIS DIRECTION SINCE I HAVE TO SHOW EXAMPLE OF OBEDIENCE TO OUR LEADERSHIP.BROTHER, THE CATHOLICS ARE ALSO BIBLE CHRISTIANS. AS YOU CAN SEE IN OUR EXCHANGES AND IN YOUR FORUM WE ARE USING THE SAME BIBLICAL TEXTS AND WE SIMPLY DIFFER IN INTERPRETING THEM. I HOPE YOU WILL CHANGE YOUR VIEW ON CATHOLICISM BEING UNBIBLICAL.MAY THE GOD OF PEACE REIGN IN OUR HEARTS.
N.B.: I capitalized my message for stressing my points and not for any emotional outburst. He,he,he…
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Rev. Fr. Abe P. Arganiosa, CRS

March 13, 2009 6:26 PM

Posted in Bereans, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, Frequently Asked Questions, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Virgin Mary | 4 Comments »

Apologetics for the Masses – Issue #112 (Sola Scriptura)

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 16, 2009

Content_pages_header

Topic: Apologetics for the Masses – Issue #112

General Comments

Hey folks,

I’ll be in Fayetteville, TN – St. Anthony’s parish – tomorrow morning to give a couple of talks. If you’re in the south central part of Tennessee or the North Central Alabama area, I’d love to have you come by. The talks start at 9:00 AM.

My travel schedule, combined with some other things that are going on right now, has put me behind in getting these newsletters out the last couple of weeks. The next several weeks, though, should be a little less hectic and the newsletters should be pretty regular.

As always, I have very much appreciated the comments regarding the individual chapters of the book. The comments are being read and are being given due consideration, and a lot of your advice and suggestions will be reflected in the final version.

Again, though, you don’t need to comment about spaces between letters and strange characters appearing in the copy – those are server-to-server email translation problems that I can do nothing about. Neither the spaces, nor the extraneous characters are in the original.

Introduction

This newsletter contains the second half of chapter 3 – the scriptural perspective on Sola Scriptura. Actually, I might go ahead and make it a separate chapter – to keep each chapter relatively short.

As always, comments and suggestions, and editing of typos, misspelled words, grammatical errors, etc. is welcomed and appreciated.

By the way, as it will be stated in the introductory pages of the book, all scripture quotations, unless otherwise stated, come from the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition (RSV-CE) of the Bible.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

The Perspective Provided by Scripture

We have seen that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura fails the tests of logic and history, but what about the all–important test of Scripture? What does Scripture say about Sola Scriptura? Does the Bible teach that it is the sole infallible authority for deciding matters related to Christian teaching and practice? In other words, does the Bible teach that it is the sole rule of faith for the Christian?

Well, let’s look and see. First of all, it has to be admitted by all that there is no passage in the Bible which explicitly states that the Bible is the “sole authority” for Christians, or the “sole rule of faith” for Christians. But, are there passages that implicitly state this? Proponents of Sola Scriptura say that indeed there are such Scripture passages, and the first such passage they usually turn to is 2 Tim 3:16–17.

Tim 3:16–17 reads as follows: “All scrip ture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” First, as a Catholic, let me say that I agree 100% with this passage. “Amen,” I say! However, it nowhere says anything about the Bible being the sole rule of faith for the Christian.

There are two main things to note about this passage: 1) It says scripture is “profitable”, it does not say scripture is “all sufficient”; in other words, it does not say that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for Christians…the sole authority in matters of faith and morals for Christians; and, 2) Nowhere do we see the word “alone” in this passage, as in “scripture alone”.
What this passage is saying, and all this passage is saying, is that all of Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teachi ng and correction and so forth. As a Catholic, I agree…I agree with that 100%. With every passage of Scripture, I, as a Catholic, agree.
Scripture is indeed inspired and it is indeed profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. We need to read Scripture. We need to know it. We need to ponder it, soak in it, meditate on it, pray it, and be able to share it. But, this passage still doesn’t say Scripture is the sole rule of faith for Christians. People try to force this scripture verse to say something that it doesn’t actually say.
“But,” someone might say, “this verse says that the scriptures are given so that the man of God may be complete, or, as it says in the King James Version (KJV), that the man of God may be perfect.” And they argue that if the Scriptures make one perfect, then there is no need for anything else.
Ther e are, however, a couple of problems with that interpretation. First of all, it doesn’t say Scripture “alone” makes the man of God complete or perfect. For example, a soldier needs a rifle to be complete, to be made perfect for battle. But, is a rifle the only thing he needs to be complete? No. He needs his helmet, his boots, his fatigues, his backpack, his ammunition, and so on. In other words, he needs his rifle to be complete, to be perfect for battle, but not his rifle alone. Just so the man of God in relation to Scripture. He needs the Scriptures to be complete, to be made perfect, but it does not say Scripture alone.
The other problem with this interpretation is presented by Scripture itself. In James 1:3–4, it says this: ”…for you know that testing of your faith produces steadfastness [patience]. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.” James is telling us that steadfastness, or patience, makes the Christian, the man of God, “perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”
So, what are the implications here? Well, if we interpret this verse the same way Sola Scriptura adherents interpret 2 Tim 3:16–17, then we have a good case for arguing that patience “alone” is all that is needed for the man of God to be made perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. Apparently he doesn’t even need Scripture, as long as he has patience. The Bible says that with patience a Christian is “lacking in nothing.” Again, using the method of interpretation used by Sola Scriptura adherents in 2 Tim 3:16–17, we have a pretty good argument that patience alone is all the man of God needs to be complete, perfect, lacking in nothing. It’s not Sola Scriptura, it’s Sola Patientia – patience alone.
Another big problem with 2 T im 3:16–17, for those who try to use this passage as scriptural support for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, is found in the context of the passage itself. These verses apparently prove too much when interpreted as teaching Sola Scriptura. If you go back just one verse and read 2 Tim 3:15, you’ll see what I mean. In verse 15, Paul says to Timothy, “…and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” The sacred writings that Timothy has known from childhood?! Now, even though Timothy was a relatively young man, few, if any, of the books of the New Testament had been written when Timothy was a child. In other words, the “scripture” being referred to here is the Old Testament.
Paul is clearly talking about the Old Testament here. So, if one wants to interpret this passage as “proving” Sola Scriptura, t hen what they are actually “proving” is that it is the Old Testament scripture “alone” that is able to make the man of God perfect. Sola Old Testament Scriptura. Again, Paul is talking about the O.T. here, not the N.T.! So, it would seem to be saying more than any proponent of Sola Scriptura would want to admit to – instead of Sola Scriptura…instead of the Bible alone – it seems to be saying the Old Testament alone is necessary “that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”
Some have argued that even though when Paul wrote 2 Timothy he was indeed referring to the Old Testament, that his words came to include the New Testament scriptures as well, once the various New Testament books were written down. Well, I would agree with that. I agree that Paul’s words to Timothy are applicable to both Old and New Testament scriptures.
However, that does not solve the problem for those who try to find Sola Scriptura in these verses. Paul saying that all scripture is inspired of God and profitable for teaching and so forth is indeed true of all Scripture – Old and New Testament – even if Paul was referring specifically to the Old Testament scriptures at the time he wrote those words. However, if you interpret this verse as teaching Sola Scriptura, you still have an insurmountable problem. The problem is that a Sola Scriptura interpretation gives the verse one meaning when Paul wrote it, but a completely different and contradictory meaning now. It also makes the New Testament scriptures unnecessary for the early Christians.
According to a Sola Scriptura interpretation of these verses, Paul was telling Timothy that the Old Testament alone was the sole rule of faith – the sole authority in matters of faith and morals – for the Christian. That has to be the interpretation becaus e Paul is clearly referring to the Old Testament in these verses. But in our day, the Sola Scriptura Christian rejects the notion that the Old Testament alone is the sole rule of faith for the Christian. Which means, a Sola Scriptura interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16–17 necessitates a change in doctrine. What was supposedly true for Timothy and other early Christians – Sola Old Testament Scriptura – is no longer true for Christians of our age.
So, for a sola scriptura interpretation of these verses to be true, doctrine needs to have changed. Truth, in essence, needs to have changed. But, does truth change? Ever? Do you know of any other place where Scripture gives us a doctrinal teaching that was supposedly true for the early Christians, but is now false for Christians of our time?
Also, when Paul wrote to Timothy, around 65 A.D. or so, several books of the New Testament had indeed been written. But, these we re not books that Timothy would have known “since childhood.” So, again, Paul’s words to Timothy were not referring to these books of the New Testament that had already been written. But, if you interpret these words as teaching Sola Scriptura, then you in essence have Paul saying that, even though many books of the New Testament were in existence at the time of his letter to Timothy, they were basically unnecessary for the man of God to be made complete, to be equipped for all good works or, as verse 15 says, “to instruct you for salvation.”
In other words, to interpret these verses from 2 Timothy as teaching the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is to basically have Paul telling Timothy that the books of the New Testament, which were in existence at that time, were unnecessary for the man of God to be complete – unnecessary for the man of God to be equipped for every good work. Does that make any sense at all? All the Christian “man of God” of the time needed was the Old Testament?
For all of these reasons just mentioned, I think it is indeed a very reasonable position to reject the notion that 2 Tim 3:16–17 teaches the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.
“But,” someone might ask, “what about the Bereans?” Acts 17:11 says, “Now these Jews [the Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, for they received the Word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” The King James Version of the Bible says that they “searched” the Scriptures daily.
You know, I keep hearing about these Berean folks from Acts 17. And, every time I hear about them, someone is using them to “prove” Sola Scriptura, to prove that one should go by the Bible alone. They say that the example of the Bereans proves Sola Scriptur a, because the Bereans were searching Scripture to see if what Paul was saying was true. But, again, the problem is that nowhere does this verse say the Bereans went by the Bible alone. In fact, it is well known that Jews, whether in Berea or elsewhere, did not go by the Bible alone – they did not practice Sola Scriptura – they believed in authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. Which means Jesus, being a good Jew, didn’t believe in Sola Scriptura. And, as I’ve already mentioned, neither did the early Christians.
What was going on here with the Bereans in Acts 17 was this: Paul was preaching to them about Jesus being the Messiah. And Paul, in his preaching, would quote Scripture verses – from the Old Testament – that he would say pointed to Jesus. Paul would say something along the lines of, “It has been testified somewhere…” and the Bereans would then simply open up their Scripture s to verify what Paul was saying. They were not searching the Scriptures to settle doctrinal disputes, they were searching the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was actually in the Scriptures!
Plus, the fact that the Bereans: a) Didn’t already know the Scripture verses were there, and b) had to “search” the Scriptures to find the verses Paul was quoting, actually might indicate that they weren’t all that familiar with the Scriptures; which, if they were believers in Sola Scriptura, seems to be a pretty odd thing.
Plus, if this verse is a “proof” of Sola Scriptura then you again have the same problem that I mentioned earlier – the Bereans were Jews and the only scriptures they had were the Old Testament scriptures. So, if Acts 17:11 “proves” Sola Scriptura, then it would be proving Sola Old Testament Scriptura.
Furthermore, the fact tha t the Bereans obviously did not understand the true meaning of the Scriptures until Paul explained it to them, actually works against the Sola Scriptura position. One of the necessary corollaries to a belief in Sola Scriptura is the belief in individual private interpretation of Scripture. That each individual, guided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability to read the Bible for themselves – without answering to any outside authority – in order to come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation.
Yet, the example of the Bereans shows us that this obviously isn’t the case. The Bereans needed Paul to explain the Scriptures to them. The Bereans, left alone with the Scriptures, obviously had not come to a correct understanding of the truths necessary for salvation. They needed a guide, Paul, to correctly interpret Scripture for them. Which means the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, with its corollary of individual private interpretation of Scripture, obviously isn’t supported by this passage from Acts 17 about the Bereans.
Which means, when all is said and done, two of the predominant Scripture passages used by folks to “prove” Sola Scriptura, upon close and thoughtful examination, actually inflict serious, if not fatal, blows upon that doctrine. These passages clearly do not mean what the Sola Scriptura advocates try to make them mean. Furthermore, there are numerous passages that point to the fact that individual interpretation of Scripture…each person reading and interpreting the Bible on their own to determine for themselves what is and is not correct Christian doctrine and practice…is quite contrary to the Word of God.
The Bible states that fairly directly. If we look at 2 Ptr 1:20, we find the following: “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’ s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation. I don’t know if it can be said any more plainly or directly that the principal of private interpretation, one of the foundations the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is built upon, is contrary to the Bible.
Look at Acts chapter 8. Acts 8:27–31, “And he [Philip] rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah…So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And [the Ethiopian] said, ‘How can I, unless some one guides me?’”

< div>“How can I, unless some one guides me?” This was obviously an Ethiopian Jew. He was a very educated man, we know that from that fact that he was one of the Queen’s ministers, and not just any minister, but he was, in essence, the Secretary of the Treasury for the entire kingdom of Ethiopia. He was a man of worship, having come all the way from Ethiopia to worship in Jerusalem – no easy task in those days. Yet, what does the Bible say, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And the response, from this educated man who had come from so far away to worship in Jerusalem? “How can I unless someone guides me?”

And what did Philip say in response? Did he say, “Just pray to the Holy Spirit and He will guide you?” No! Philip got up in the chariot with this man and explained the meaning of Scripture to him. Philip was this man’s guide in reading, interpreting, and understanding Scriptur e.
Scripture is very clear, as we see in Peter’s letter, and the Book of Acts – both with the Ethiopian eunuch and the Bereans – and other places as well, that we must have a guide, an authority, other than the Bible, in order to properly understand the Bible. Having a guide to help us properly interpret Scripture is scriptural. Individual interpretation of Scripture, everybody reading the Bible on their own to decide what is and is not correct doctrine…what is and is not sound moral teaching…is not scriptural. In other words, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, is not scriptural.
And, please don’t take me to say that you cannot, as an individual reading Scripture, come to some knowledge of the truth. You can. As I said earlier, we must read the Bible, study the Bible, meditate on it, soak in it, pray it, live it, and breathe it. As St. Jerome once said, “Ignorance of Scripture is ign orance of Christ.” But, there are very many things in the Bible that are difficult to understand. The Bible itself tells us this. 2 Peter 3:16: “There are some things in them [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”
Scripture tells us that there are some things, in Scripture, that are difficult to understand, and that these things that are hard to understand are important to our salvation. They are not non–essential matters because, as it says, it is possible to twist these things to our own destruction.
What Peter was saying here in 2 Peter 3:16, is that there were a number of folks out there reading the Scriptures on their own, not paying attention to what Peter or Paul or the other Church leaders were telling them, and these people were misinterpreting things in Paul’s letters, and ot her parts of the Scriptures as well, in such a way that it was leading to their damnation. Peter was, in essence, issuing a warning to those who were relying on their own private fallible interpretations of Scripture. That should be a very scary and sobering passage for anyone who believes they can simply pick up the Bible and read it on their own to make a decision in any and all matters pertaining to the Christian faith.
There is another passage I want to mention on this particular topic of needing a guide to properly interpret Scripture. Listen to what St. John says in one of his letters, 1 John 4:6: “We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.” This is a verse that wreaks absolute havoc with the notion of Sola Scriptura.
If you asked someone who believes in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura this qu estion: “How do we know the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error?” What do you think they would say? Would they not say something along the lines of, “You get yourself a good Bible and by reading Scripture, and praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance, you can discern the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error.” The problem is, though, that is not a biblical answer.
The Bible says that we discern the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error by listening to someone…to “us”…to John and apparently to his fellow leaders in the Church. It further says that if you know God you will indeed listen to these Church leaders. And, if you are not of God, you won’t listen to them. Does that sound like the early Christians believed in Sola Scriptura?
Another passage which tells us the early Christians did not believe in Sola Scriptura is from Acts 15. At the Council of Jerusalem, whi ch is described in verses 6–29, what do we see? We see that a doctrinal dispute arose in the early Church over whether or not the Gentile converts should be circumcised. Well, what did they do? How did they decide the matter? Did they consult Scripture as they should do if they believed in Sola Scriptura? No. They called a council. The leaders of the Church, in a council, decided the first doctrinal dispute in the early Church. The teaching of Sola Scriptura obviously did not exist in the early Church because if it had, and they had indeed gone solely by Scripture to decide this dispute, what would have happened? Well, they would have seen in Genesis how God required circumcision and they would have come to a completely different conclusion than the one they came to.
We have seen, from Scripture, that the early Christians did not believe in Sola Scriptura. We have seen, from Scripture, that relying upon individual interpretation of Scripture to decide on all matters of the Christian faith, is not scriptural. We have seen, from Scripture, that there are some important things in Scripture that are difficult to understand and that can be twisted to one’s own destruction through private interpretation. We have seen, from Scripture, that having a guide to help us properly interpret Scripture is indeed scriptural. And, we have seen that the passages often relied upon to prove the case for Sola Scriptura, when read in context, actually make the case against Sola Scriptura.
Now, one more thing that I wish to discuss, which further damages the Sola Scriptura argument – the matter of tradition. As I stated earlier, the Jews believed in authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. For many non–Catholic Christians, though, the word “tradition” is almost like a curse word. They cringe when they hear that word because they have been mistakenly taught that Cathol ics believe in the “traditions of men.” And, as they rightly say, Jesus condemns the traditions of men in the Gospels.
Jesus does not, however, condemn all tradition. Nowhere does Scripture say such a thing. Jesus condemns the traditions of men, but not even all traditions of men. Specifically, Jesus condemns those traditions of men which negate the Word of God. Traditions, in and of themselves, are not bad things. It’s when they negate the Word of God that Jesus has a problem with them.
Again, tradition, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. If it were, then how could the Word of God tell us this: “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” That’s from 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter – w ritten tradition, also known as “Scripture.” Traditions which they are being told to “stand firm and hold to”. In other words, authoritative traditions.
What else does the Bible say about holding on to traditions? 2 Tim 2:2, “…and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” Did Paul say, “What you have read in my writing pass on to others so that they may read it, too?” No! Did he say, “What you have heard from me, entrust to faithful men who will write it down for everyone to read for themselves?” No! He said to entrust it to faithful men who will “teach” others. What we have here is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of authoritative oral tradition.
1 Cor 11:2, “I [Paul] commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the tradit ions even as I have delivered them to you.” The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Authoritative Scripture and authoritative tradition. Or, as we Catholics say, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Back to Thessalonians: 1 Thes 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.” So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture. In Acts 2:42 we read that the first Christians were “continuing steadfastly in the Apostles’ doctrine,” or the “Apostles’ teaching”.
That’s what Sacred Tradition is – the Apostles’ doctrine, or the Apostles’ teaching, as given to them by our Lord Jesus Christ. As we clearly just saw in several places in the New Testament, traditions that come from the Apostles – because the Apostles were taught by Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit – are not condemned in Scripture. These traditions, these teachings, are considered, as we saw in 1 Thes 2:13, not the word of men – not the traditions of men – but the Word of God.
One last word about tradition. Every church has one or more “traditions” that are not found in the Bible, whether they want to admit it or not. Which books should be in the Bible? Not in the Bible – Tradition. Sunday as the Sabbath. Not in the Bible – Tradition. Wednesday night church meeting. Not in the Bible – tradition. Altar calls. Not in the Bible – tradition. Sola Scriptura. Not in the Bible – tradition. And this last one is a tradition of men that is contrary to the Word of God.

< div>

To close, I believe I have made a very strong and rational argument – from logic, from history, and from Scripture – for why Catholics believe as we do in regards to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Nowhere in Scripture do we see Sola Scriptura used as an operational principle. Nowhere is anyone instructed to consult the Scriptures to solve a doctrinal dispute between Christians. The one place I’ve mentioned where it is said someone went to the Scriptures, the case of the Bereans, was a case of verification – they were simply verifying that the verses Paul quoted were indeed in the Scriptures – it was not a case of using the Scriptures, and individual interpretation of the Scriptures, in order to solve a doctrinal dispute.
Nowhere does the Bible say that, as individuals, reading the Bible on our own, the Holy Spirit will guide us to an infallible interpretation of any and every passage of Scripture. That verse simpl y does not exist. In fact, as I’ve shown, a number of verses do exist that directly contradict that belief.
Ultimately, under a Sola Scriptura system, any dispute between Christians – on matters of doctrine, on matters of morals, on matters of worship, on matters of anything Christian – comes down to this: My fallible, non–authoritative, non–binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of Scripture vs. your fallible, non–authoritative, non–binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of Scripture.
Actually, the problem is even worse than that, because under a Sola Scriptura system, as I mentioned earlier, we can’t even be sure of what the Scriptures are in the first place. So, it essentially comes down to my fallible, non–authoritative, non–binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of something that I th ink is Scripture, but cannot be infallibly sure about; vs. your fallible, non–authoritative, non–binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of something that you think Scripture is, but cannot be infallibly sure about.

Questions to Ask:

1) Did the leaders of the early Christian Church believe in Sola Scriptura? If, yes, then why did they call a Council (Acts 15) to decide a doctrinal dispute, why didn’t they just consult the Bible to settle the matter?

2) When Paul wrote 2 Tim 3:16–17, was the Old Testament alone sufficient for the man of God to be made complete, or perfect? Yes or no? If, yes, then of what need does the Christian have for the New Testament? If, no, then what books of the New Testament, in addition to the books of the Old Testament, did Timothy know since childhood? And, is it then only these books of the New Testament along with the Old Testament that the Christian of the time needed to be made complete, or perfect?

3) Where in Scripture does it say that each person should read Scripture for themselves, to determine by themselves – without reference to any outside authority – what is and is not correct Christian doctrine and practice?

4) At what point did authority for deciding doctrinal matters pass from the leaders of the early Church (as we see, for example, in Acts 15 and 1 John 4:6) to each individual reading the Bible on their own?

5) Is it scriptural to have an authoritative guide for the proper interpretation of Scripture (see Acts 8, for example)?

6) Did Paul commend the Corinthians and the Thessalonians for keeping the traditions he had passed on to them? Yes or no? If, yes, where does the Bible record that every one of these traditions was subsequently recorded in Scripture?

7) If all of the oral traditions Paul passed on to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, and which he comman ded Timothy to pass on, were not recorded in Scripture, then where is the Scripture verse that says those traditions should no longer be maintained?

Strategy: Asking questions – “How to be Offensive Without Being Offensive” strategy. Any time someone might dispute a Catholic interpretation of Scripture – “But That’s My Interpretation” strategy.

An example of using both of these at one time: If someone says that 2 Tim 3:16–17 isn’t referring to the Old Testament, you can first ask, “Then what are the scriptures Paul is referring to that Timothy has known ‘since childhood’?” Then, when they ignore your question, no matter how many times you ask it, or they provide some explanation that doesn’t really make any sense given the context of the passage, you can simply say, “Look, that’s my interpretation of this passage. Am I not allowed to interpret Scripture for myself? And, if I am allowed to interpret Scripture for myself, then how can you tell me I’m wrong? By what authority do you say that I’m wrong?”

In Conclusion

I hope all of you have a great week! Remember to pray for the economy to bounce back and to especially keep in prayer those who have been put out of work, and to pray for the conversion of our President.

Author:

Link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/

Posted in Bible, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, Sola Scriptura, Strategy (Apologetics), THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER | Leave a Comment »

EXCHANGES WITH ANOTHER ANONYMOUS EVANGELICAL

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 13, 2009

EXCHANGES WITH ANOTHER ANONYMOUS EVANGELICAL

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/02/exchanges-with-another-anonymous.html

A friend and fellow Catholic apologist from Catholic Faith Defenders – Cebu inquired about my opinion on ‘The Woman Clothed with the Sun’ of Revelation 12: 1. While we were exchanging ideas about it I remember the exchange I had with another Anonymous Evangelical rejecting that the Woman of Revelation 12 is Mary of Nazareth — the Mother of Jesus. I decided to take the exchange from the comment section and bring it up into the main post to have a life of its own. I also added from the original response since the original answers were done in haste to respond to immediate assaults on the Faith then. The original exchange can be found in the post entitled: THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY. The words of the Evangelical is in Red while mine is in Blue:

Anonymous said… Jer 7:17 See you not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.Jer 7:19 Do they provoke me to anger? says the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the shame of their own faces?Jer 7:20 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD; Behold, my anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched. August 24, 2008 11:42 AM
Anonymous said… And a great sign was seen in the heavens, a woman having been clothed with the sun, and the moon was underneath her feet; and on her head a crown of twelve stars;(Ref. Gen 37:9 And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.Note: . This sign is referring to Israel and is a reference to Josephs’ dream, but, accept for having eleven stars, this has twelve which would include Joseph.Rev12:5 And she bore a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron staff. And her child was caught away to God, and to His throne. (Ref. Rev. 2:27 Psalm 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Acts 1:9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.)
Note: This is the ascension of Christ. This scripture passage goes back with more details in v. 7-14 Rev12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place, it having been prepared from God, that there they might nourish her a thousand two hundred and sixty days.
Note: Rev. 12:5-10 is represented as the first seal, the white horse. This verse is telling of the Jesus’ victory on the cross. I am referring this to when the Messiah shall be cut off in the last week in Daniels seventy weeks as told in Dan. 9:25-27. Now, the thousand two hundred and sixty days in this verse is the first half of the seven years when God will finish His dealing with Israel and graft them back into the Olive Tree and Rapture the Israel of God to Himself as read in Rev. 7: then His wrath is poured out. I will Spell these verses out for better understanding to you, the reader. August 24, 2008 11:56 AM

Anonymous said… ” The queenship Of The Blessed Virgin Mary”Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. Mary had children after Jesus was born that means she did not remain a virgin. August 24, 2008 12:03 PM
Fr. Abe, CRS said… To post No. 1* The Queen of Heaven condemned in Jeremiah is not Mary of Nazareth but the pagan goddess ISHTAR or ASTARTE, a Near-Eastern goddess of Fertility. Just look at the photo inset above showing the Immoral Astarte. Definitely we do not honor that demon.
We, Catholics refer to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, as our Queen BECAUSE JESUS IS THE KING OF KINGS – the last in the Davidic Kingdom. In all Monarchy culture, the Mother of the King is always referred to as THE QUEEN-MOTHER. Mary is the Queen-Mother of the Kingdom of Jesus her Son.
Your argument will only be effective if you can prove that Jer 7:17 refers to Mary of Nazareth. Years before the coming of the prophet Jeremiah, the Psalmist already prophesied that the Messiah will have a Queen: “upon thy right hand the queen in gold of Ophir.” [Psalm 45:9]If you deny that the King being referred to in Psalm 45 is not the Messiah-King then you have to show who and you have to tell me who is the person referred to therein as queen. DENIAL OF THE QUEENSHIP OF MARY IS DENIAL OF CHRIST’S KINGSHIP; DECLARATION OF MARY’S QUEENSHIP IS A PROCLAMATION OF CHRIST’S KINGSHIP.

Fr. Abe, CRS said… To Post No. 2The Catholic Church teaches that Revelation 12:1 can be interpreted in 3 different manners and all of them correct:
1. It can be interpreted as Israel, like the one you described and explained.
2. It can be interpreted as the Church with the 12 stars symbolizing the 12 Apostles who were the foundation stones of the Church [Rev 22:14]. But, Israel and the Church can only be analogical interpretation of the text. The literal interpretation refers to
3. MARY! Because in Rev 12:5 it says that the Woman gave birth to Christ. Yes, the rod of iron refers to the Ascension of Jesus. However, that is not the point. The point is WHO IS THE WOMAN WHO LITERALLY AND PHYSICALLY GAVE BIRTH TO THE KING WHO WILL RULE THE WORLD WITH A ROD OF IRON? If you are saying that the rod of iron refers to Jesus’ Ascension then the Male-Child is JESUS. Then, the one who gave birth to Jesus is Mary. WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT ISRAEL OR THE CHURCH GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS? The 12 stars interpreted as the 12 Apostles is also appropriate for Mary because after the Ascension of Jesus, Mary – the Mother of Jesus – stayed with the Apostles: And when they were come in, they went into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes and Judas the brother of James. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brethren” [Acts 1:14].
Rev 12 also refers to the woman as someone who fled to the desert. WHEN DID ISRAEL MOVED TO FLEE TO THE DESERT? ISRAEL AS A COUNTRY WAS AND IS IMMOVABLE. But, Mary went to Egypt – a land famous for deserts because the – together with the child Jesus and Joseph in order to escape the persecution of the evil monarch, Herod [Matthew 2:14-15]. So, the prophecy applies only analogically or metaphorically to Israel but more literally to Mary. Just like the country of our birth; I call the Philippines ‘Inang Bayan‘ [Mother Land] but my real mother is not my country but the woman who gave me birth biologically. The wife of my father is my real mother. But, it is also correct to refer to my nation as my mother yet it is only appropriate as a figure of speech. Also, Jesus refers to Mary in the Gospel of John as WOMAN [John 2:4; 19:26]. Since Revelation is also attributed to John then it is clear that Mary is THE WOMAN CLOTHED WITH THE SUN. Let the readers decide who is interpreting the Bible correctly.

Fr. Abe, CRS said… To post no. 3 “Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. Mary had children after Jesus was born that means she did not remain a virgin.”
1. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JAMES, AND JOSES, AND JUDAS, AND SIMON ARE CHILDREN OF MARY? ANSWER: NONE! NADA! In Russian NYET NYET!
It is nowhere stated in the Bible that Mary became pregnant again and gave birth to other children again. In fact in Mark 6:3 the Evangelist wrote THE SON OF MARY when referring to Jesus — not SONS OF MARY. Jesus is the one and only Son of Mary.
2. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY GAVE BIRTH TO ANOTHER CHILDREN OTHER THAN JESUS? ANSWER: NONE! NADA! NYET NYET!
3. Isaiah 7:14 as fulfilled in Matthew 1:23 and Luke 1:27 refer to Mary as VIRGIN. QUESTION: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?ANSWER: NONE! NADA! NYET NYET!*
The New Testament is not written in Filipino or English but in Greek. The word used in Greek is ADELPHOI. The word adelphoi is the plural form of adelphos. It does not mean simply as biological siblings but it also refers to relatives and kins: For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my BRETHREN, my KINSMEN according to the FLESH” [Romans 9:3]* Also, the Bible for your information refers to another Mary as the MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSES and the mother of Zebedee’s children.” [Mt 27:56] This is also proven by St. Mark in Mark 15:40 and Mark 16:1. * In John 19:25 the Evangelist reported that on the foot of the Cross there was Mary the Mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas who was with Mary Magdalene. Then, the Mary mother of James and Joses cannot be Mary the Mother of Jesus but another woman, most probably a relative, who is also known as Mary the wife of Clopas.
Please answer my questions above. Much more, please identify yourself. Do not hide your identity. It doesn’t speak well of you. If you wish to exchange ideas with us, it is Ok but please be gentleman or be a lady. It is also very nice for me to know your religious affiliation.Thank you for visiting this blog.

Anonymous said… Hello,I am a filipino too and from your town also and I am a lady. I don’t have a religion but a relationship with Jesus. I praise God He saved me from the wrath of God.My God rules and not ruled by his mother, My God is the creator of all things. My God is the God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, He is the God of the living and not of the DEAD.and My God is no longer on the cross.Do not form the scripture to your own religion but let the scripture form you and your theologyThe bible is very clear and I believe I know the truth,Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. This is very clear the they are talking about JESUS and his mother was mary.WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?so you mean to say that joseph never slept with his wife?poor joseph.WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT ISRAEL GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS?Jesus is an Isrealite and Israel is reffered to a woman, and it’s been reffered in the old testament many timesWhy is it that your religion put Mary up in the pedestal and not Jesus the creator, Paul nor Peter did not even mentioned her on their epistles but only Jesus whom they lifted up and worship,I believed that your religion got it wrong about Peter as the first Pope, Peter was never a Roman but Paul was an Israelite but a Roman citizen. and Peter was married and the bible can prove it. Paul was never married, He has more qualifications than Peter. why wasn’t Paul the first pope. Do you have an assurance of going to heaven or of your salvation?I know that I cannot change what you believed but I know that God can change you. Do not believe a LIE. August 25, 2008 5:34 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said… I am glad to know that you are a lady and from the same town. If you want we can meet and chat personally about our faith. And, I am wondering why you are afraid to reveal your identity, your name. Hope you are not ashamed of yourself or your name or your God or your church. Mine is posted in this blog together with my genuine photo. The faith must not be hidden but must be proclaimed on the rooftop. How can you proclaim it on rooftop if you are hidden?
I find it contradictory that you profess in Jesus yet claiming that you don’t have religion. That is a common lie among Born Again people who used to roam around houses and preach in the buses. They claim not to have a religion but in reality they have. Please don’t be afraid of your religious affiliations. The statement usually propagated that “religion is not necessary” is an invention that is not supported by the Bible. Perhaps, you can quote a chapter and verse for that. I will stand corrected if you can find a Biblical support. Your claim that you don’t have a religion also shows that you are ‘lying’ because it is obvious that you are Born Again or an Evangelical or a Protestant. You are shameless in your lie just to deceive the Catholics and lure them into your fellowship.
It appears to me that you are not aware of genuine Catholic doctrines. Your knowledge is superficial and biased with anti-Catholic mentality.
1. I’m glad to know that you praise God and that He saves you. Well, if you are not aware of it we also praise God and He is also our Savior and He saves us too. If you are thinking that you are the only one praising God then you are deceiving yourself.
2. So, your God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Congratulations! But, our God is the same God. My God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Do you know my baptismal name. IT IS ABRAHAM! Our God is the God of the Patriarchs. That is why if you will visit the Holy Land, the oldest Christian Churches in Jerusalem, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Capernaum are owned by the Catholic Church not by Born Again or Protestants.
3. Your God is the God of the living not of the Dead. Well, who told you that our God is the God of the dead. We Catholics are worshipping the One Living God who is Eternal and Unbegotten. We are living worshippers of 1.3 billion faithful. We are more living than your faith affiliation multiplied a hundred times over.
4. Your God is no longer on the Cross. So, you mean to say our God is still on the Cross. Ha,ha,ha… You know the best group that proclaims the Resurrection of Jesus is the Catholic Church. We have Sunday worship weekly because we are proclaiming weekly and daily the Resurrection of Jesus. Besides, Pope Gregory was the one who established the Gregorian Calendar wherein annually the Solemnity of Easter is being celebrated for several weeks. I know that Protestants and Evangelicals are celebrating Christmas and Easter following the dates established by the Catholic Church. Your fellowhips were not yet invented and registered in the Security and Exchange Commissions yet we are already proclaiming the Risen Christ as our Lord and Savior. Don’t invent our doctrines, please.
We have a Cross, because the Bible teaches us that we should not be enemies of the Cross of Christ: “for many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping that they are THE ENEMIES OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST, whose end is destruction…” [Philippians 3:18-19 KJV]. WE CATHOLICS ARE NOT ENEMIES OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST. HOW ABOUT YOU? ARE YOU A FRIEND OR AN ENEMY OF THE CROSS OF CHRIST? Also, St. Paul encourages the believers to glory in the Cross of Christ: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in THE CROSS OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST…” [Galatians 6:12-16 KJV]. That’s the reason why we Catholics are fond of the Cross because it reminds us that the Risen Lord died on the Cross for our Salvation. Obviously you are not being faithful to the
5. “Do not form the scripture to your own religion but let the scripture form you and your theologyThe bible is very clear and I believe I know the truth,Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. This is very clear the they are talking about JESUS and his mother was mary.”I have already refuted that above. The word used in Greek does not refer exclusively to biological siblings. The word used by the Evangelists was ADELPHOS and ADELPHOI which are used in the Bible several times with different meanings:
[a] Romans 9:3 St. Paul used it for kinsmen.
[b] Genesis 13:8 Abraham called Lot ‘brother’ even if he is actually his nephew.
If you want to know the truth read the Sacred Scripture properly and not be biased by anti-Catholic mentality. It is obvious that your position is wrong because you are insisting that these brethren of the Lord are ‘biological brothers’. It is very clear in the text that there is no mentioned of these people being biological brothers of Jesus. In fact, the mother of James and Joses is another Mary. Mary of Nazareth is always being referred to as the Mother of Jesus while there is another Mary being called the mother of James and Joses [Matthew 27:56/ Mark 15:40/ Mark 16:1 KJV]. The fact that the Bible repeatedly mentions another Mary as the mother of James and Joses, it destroys your argument.
6. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?so you mean to say that joseph never slept with his wife? poor joseph.
You are basing your judgment on presumption. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JOSEPH HAD SEXUAL CONTACT WITH MARY? Don’t invent things, please. The relationship between Mary and Joseph is not ordinary but extraordianary. He married her primarily because he wanted to preserve her honor and to protect the Child. I understand that your faith is American invented. It came from a place whose culture and mentality is dominated by sex. But Joseph is not sex-crazed. He is a just man [Matthew 1:19 KJV]. Even Jesus and St. Paul didn’t marry. In Biblical theology, virginity is not evil but a heroic virtue.
7. “WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT ISRAEL GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS?Jesus is an Isrealite and Israel is reffered to a woman, and it’s been reffered in the old testament many times”
Is this your answer? Are you not ashamed of this answer to the question that I raised. WHERE CAN YOU FIND A PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE THAT THE WOMAN WHO GAVE BIRTH TO JESUS IS ISRAEL? The Bible is categorical that it was Mary who gave birth to Jesus, NOT ISRAEL [Luke 2:1-7].You are twisting the Word of God to avoid Mary yet that is already explicit, categorical and direct statement. Palpak ang Israel interpretation mo and yet you do not admit it. SINO BA ANG NAGLIHI AT NAGBUNTIS KAY JESUS? SINO? SINO? SINO? ANG ISRAEL BA O SI MARIA? Let our readers decide!
Also your insistence on Israel being referred to as a Woman smack of ignorance because MARY TOO IS REFERRED IN THE BIBLE AS A ‘WOMAN’ [Genesis 3:15/ John 2:4/ John 19:26]. That is why the Catholic Church is very intelligent in teaching that both Mary and Israel fits the verse but if you will pit Mary and Israel against each other then you have to show me that Israel gave birth to Jesus. Jesus is born in Israel but it was Mary who gave birth to Him. Read your Bible carefully please.
8. “Why is it that your religion put Mary up in the pedestal and not Jesus the creator, Paul nor Peter did not even mentioned her on their epistles but only Jesus whom they lifted up and worship,”ANOTHER DISTORTION. Read carefully the post once again. JESUS IS OUR KING, JESUS IS OUR MESSIAH, JESUS IS OUR GOD. Mary is being honored by Catholics because she is the woman chosen by God to be the Mother of the Messiah. She is the Mother of the Lord [Luke 1:43]. We simply honor Mary because God honors her in the Bible. Mary is honored in the Bible. THE BIBLE CALLS MARY THE HIGHLY FAVORED OF GOD [Luke 1:28]. She is blessed among women. It means she is more blessed than you, your mother, the wife of your pastor, the mother of your pastor, etc. Mary is highly favored of God. If she is ‘favored by God’ of course she is also ‘favored’ by Catholics. IN YOUR RELIGION YOU ARE CALLING PEOPLE ‘EVANGELISTS’. Evangelist Almeda, Evangelist Villanueva, etc. Why do you honor people who are not even mentioned in the Bible? Mary is much, much better than the people you are honoring. Mary is nothing in comparison to Jesus because Jesus is the King of Kings and the Lord of lords. That is our position. For you to say that we put Mary above Jesus is a distortion of our Catholic Faith. You are attacking a caricature that you yourself had invented. That’s not Catholic. The official doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church is published in the book THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Please read it and if you want to question any provision in it then I am here explain our side. Please present our real Catholic teachings not your own teaching about the Catholic Faith.
9. “I believed that your religion got it wrong about Peter as the first Pope, Peter was never a Roman but Paul was an Israelite but a Roman citizen.”Another mistake. WE ARE NOT TEACHING THAT PETER IS A ROMAN. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT? It is not Catholic teaching that Peter is a Roman. Being Pope doesn’t depend on Roman citizenship. Our present Pope is German while the previous one was Polish. We know that Peter is a Jew not a Roman because the House of Peter in Capernaum is now a Catholic shrine. Visit the Holy Land in the Internet to check. Peter is the first Pope because he is the leader of the Church. It is on him that the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven were entrusted [Matthew 16:18-19]. Instead of following your Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggart, Eddie Villanueva, Almeda, etc. We follow the leadership of Peter. Ours is more Biblical, isn’t it?
10. “and Peter was married and the bible can prove it.” Peter is married but our Lord and Savior is not Peter but Jesus. Jesus is never married. Peter is married but he left his wife for the sake of the Kingdom: Then Peter said, Lo, WE HAVE LEFT ALL and followed thee. And he [Jesus] said to them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left HOUSE, or parents, or brethren, or WIFE, or CHILDREN, FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD’S SAKE, WHO SHALL NOT RECEIVE MANIFOLD MORE IN THIS PRESENT TIME, AND IN THE WORLD TO COME LIFE EVERLASTING” [Luke 18:28-30 KJV]. St. Paul was never married. St. John was never married. How about Andrew, James, Jude, Bartholomew, etc.? WHERE IN THE BIBLE CAN YOU FIND THAT THEY ARE MARRIED? Chapters and verses, please!
That’s the problem with you Born Again people, you just read that Peter is married then you succumbed to lust. You have forgotten that the Messiah is a male virgin and that 99% of his Apostles are not married at all. The Catholic Church is more faithful to the Bible.
11. “Paul was never married, He has more qualifications than Peter. why wasn’t Paul the first pope.” Glad to learn that you are aware that Paul is unmarried.
God doesn’t judge according to human standard. Yes, Paul is more educated, more intelligent than Peter and the other apostles because he was a rabbi and a former student of the philosopher Gamaliel but Jesus didn’t entrust to him the Keys of the Kingdom. He was not the first among the Apostles. But, for us Catholics we both honor and love Sts. Peter and Paul equally. Being first Pope is a mere responsibility given by God but they are both great Apostles and faithful witness of the Gospel in heroic degree. That is why in Catholic Calendar they have the same feast day. The Catholic Church teaches us not to reject any of them because they both deserve our gratitude. We both built great monuments in honor of these two champions of our faith. These monuments are Basilicas built over their tombs in Rome.
12. Do you have an assurance of going to heaven or of your salvation? Once again don’t be presumptuous. Mary is more worthy of heaven than you. Yet, you are rejecting her.The doctrine of OSAS [Once Saved will Always be Saved] is not in the Bible. May be you can find it for me. Chapter and verse please?
Now, if you will ask me if I am saved, my answer is Yes I am! Because Jesus died for me on the Cross and He gave up his life for my salvation. His salvation is not only for you and your tiny fellowship but for all believers like us. JESUS IS OUR LORD AND SAVIOR TOO IF YOU DON’T KNOW.However, since I am still alive I have to exert effort to be faithful to Jesus in my daily life and activities. Because NOT EVERYONE WHO CALLS HIM LORD, LORD WILL ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN BUT ONLY THOSE WHO DO THE WILL OF THE FATHER IN HEAVEN [Matthew 7:21]. So, it is not enough to consider Jesus as your Lord and Savior you have to ‘do’ the will of your father in heaven. Hope you have read that passage. It’s Jesus who said it. Your Lord, and mine too.
13. “I know that I cannot change what you believed but I know that God can change you. Do not believe a LIE.”I do not believe a LIE and that is the reason why I am Catholic. I do not believe the lie that we Catholics are worshipping Mary because the Bible itself says that Mary will be called Blessed by all generations [Luke 1:48]. That prophecy is fulfilled not in your faith affiliations but in mine.
I do not believe your lie that you don’t have a religion because I am aware that you are saying that only to attract me to your self-invented religion.
I am firmly convinced that our faith is more Biblical than yours.

Anonymous said… the Queen of Heaven originated from pagan Babylonian goddess worship. We read in Jeremiah about the Babylonian Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17, 44:18, 44:19, 44:25). Jeremiah 7:18 plainly states that God hates idolatry and it provokes Him to anger. Why would God allow Mary to be called a queen of heaven if He was angry about it. Psa 45:9 Kings’ daughters were among your honorable women: at your right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophi Roman Catholics believe that Mary was born without sin and that she lived a sinless life. Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul does magnify the Lord, Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. Mary never claimed to be sinless- she saw herself as needing a SaviorRoman Catholics made Mary as a co-redemptrix, Jesus is the redeemer and there is nothing in the bible says Mary was the co-mediatorJoh 14:6 Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me. In 1923,Pope Ius XV’s(1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ and that with Him, she redeemed the human race.And Pope Pius XII officially designated mary the “Queen of the World.”Roman Catholicism has taken the mother of Jesus and reinvented her ans ascribed to her things she would never have wanted.She steemed her son, she loved God’s Word, she was a servant and the most wonderful woman who ever lived.But she would be appalled at what Roman Catholicism has done to her, She never spoke of purgatory,of indulgences, of her redeeming souls,of being a co-redemptrix or co-mediator.These are inventions and traditions of men; which her son warned us about in His Word.1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, this to be a testimony at the proper time.Calling the Pope as the Holy Father is an abomination to God,where in the bibles says that the pope is holy father”For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED.” CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882vICAR(LATIN) OF CHRIST- Anti(Greek)of Christanti- christ -a prepostion signifying against,opposite, contrary, IN PLACE OF Or A substitute”We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE).” POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302 2Th 2:3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.2Th 2:4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God August 28, 2008 11:29 AM

Anonymous said… QUESTION: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN?Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.Mat 1:25 But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JAMES, AND JOSES, AND JUDAS, AND SIMON ARE CHILDREN OF MARY? Matthew13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Mark6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.the very context of scripture reveals that this is talking about the blood family of Jesus! In other words, Jesus, Son of Mary, brother of James and Joses, and He also had sisters. It’s identifying a blood family, and it would be tortuous of scripture to deny this. If we’re going to say that word Brother doesn’t really mean His brethren, we have to also say that word Mother doesn’t really mean Mary was Jesus Mother. For it’s the same word that was used in Matthew 27:56 saying Mary was the Mother of James and Joses. And so it is utterly ludicrous to believe Mary was not the Mother of James and Joses.The conjoined mention of the mother of Jesus appears to imply that the children are of the same mother are meant.I understand that your faith is American invented. MY FAITH IS INVENTED WRIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH It came from a place whose culture and mentality is dominated by sex.I DON’T HAVE THIS MENTALITY, SEX IS GOOD, GOD CREATED SEX.IT IS ONLY GOOD INSIDE MARRIAGE OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IS A SIN.But Joseph is not sex-crazed. I DID NOT SAY THAT HE WAS A SEX-CRAZED. In Biblical theology, virginity is not evil but a heroic virtue. SEX IS NOT EVIL EITHER WHEN ITS DONE INSIDE MARRIAGE.CATHOLIC TRADITION – Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.CATHOLIC TRADITION – Forbidding the priesthood to marry. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – 1) It is devilish to forbid God’s people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving. 1 Timothy4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to. 1 Corinthians9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? CATHOLIC TRADITION – Mary is the mother of God. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Mary is the mother of the earthly Jesus, not God. Jesus pre- existed from everlasting as God (see John 1:1). When He came to redeem mankind, He laid aside His glory and was made like unto sinful man so that He could take our punishment (Hebrew 2:9). God has no mother. He has lived from everlasting which means He had no beginning. Isaiah43:10 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. [If Mary gave birth to God, she’d be God.] Psalm93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Philippians2:6 Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:CATHOLIC TRADITION – Pope called Holy Father. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – The term Holy Father is only found one time in the entire Bible. It was when Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane. He referred to God the Father as Holy Father. It is blasphemy to call a man by God’s name John17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Purgatory, nuns, popes. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – None of these is mentioned in the Bible. It is a sin to add to the Bible. Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous (see above). One does not need the pope to determine what God’s will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord. Popery has been treacherous, but worse, each pope has been the blind leading the blind. Jesus said that both will fall into the ditch. Catholics, come out of this system that cannot save and know Jesus for youself, intimate and up-close. NOTE: Purgatory is supposedly a place where a person is purified of sins–even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…. When a person dies their eternal home is sealed–heaven or hell–no in between. Hebrews 9:27 …it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.CATHOLIC TRADITION – Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them. Exodus20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God…CATHOLIC TRADITION – The mass. Through transubstantiation, the wafer/host and the wine supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus died once for sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh. Hebrews10:12 But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. John19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. 1 Corinthians11:24 And when he [Jesus] had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come (not for the forgiveness of sins or to receive Jesus).CATHOLIC TRADITION – Saved, in part, by good works. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved. An apple does not make its tree an apple tree, it was already an apple tree before any apples appeared. When you see the apples; however, you know what kind of tree it is. If a person is saved, he will shew forth good works because he has the spirit of Christ in him. The good works don’t make him saved only the blood of Jesus can do that. I John1:7b …the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Acts 16:31b…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Romans3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.What about James 2:20 “faith without works is dead”? The kind of faith that saves is a faith that shows forth the works of God. Even devils believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Many people believe in Jesus but they won’t follow Him. They have a faith, but not the kind that saves. If a person has true faith in Jesus, the Holy Ghost dwells in him and will cause good works will show forth in his life. The good works confirm the faith by which the person was saved. James 2:21-23 uses Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God so when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, out of his faith in God, offered up Isaac. CATHOLIC TRADITION – The church is founded on Peter. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter Satan in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship. 1 Corinthians3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Matthew21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?CATHOLIC TRADITION – Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone. I John1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Matthew6:9, 12 After this manner…pray ye: Our Father… forgive us…. 1 Timothy2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope]; I John 2:1, …And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. August 28, 2008 12:37 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said…

TO POST NO. 9
1. So after long days of silence you are back. And once again you are still hiding your identity and your religious affiliations. I guess you are ashamed of your own beliefs. You are attacking our faith while hiding your own so that you are free to criticise while protected from our own scrutiny of your faith. What a treacherous attitude. That is a pagan attitude. That was the same style of Lucifer, hiding in the form of Snake to lure our first parents.
2. “the Queen of Heaven originated from pagan Babylonian goddess worship.”The queen of heaven of the Babylonians originated from pagan Babylonian goddess worship. But, the Christian ‘Queen of Heaven’ belief originated from the Judaeo-Christian concept of the Kingship of the Messiah and the Queen-Mother of Biblical culture. You are confusing the two. You are fond of distortions, I see. Rev. 12:1 presents a Woman Crowned as Queen and she is in Heaven. She is not God but the mother of the Messiah. The Catholic Church, following the Bible, honors the Mother of the Messiah as Queen of Heaven.
3. “We read in Jeremiah about the Babylonian Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 7:18, 44:17, 44:18, 44:19, 44:25). Jeremiah 7:18 plainly states that God hates idolatry and it provokes Him to anger.” We hate Idolatry too that is why it is prohibited for us to worship Mary. Also, if you are not aware, the Church who destroyed the Temples of the Pagan goddesses such as Astarte, Diana, Artemis, Hera and others was the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was the one who defeated the Hellenistic and Roman Empire and submit them to Christian Faith.
Since you have started quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where can you find there the command or the teaching that we Catholics must or are worshipping Mary?
4. “Why would God allow Mary to be called a queen of heaven if He was angry about it. Psalm 45:9 Kings’ daughters were among your honorable women: at your right hand did stand the queen in gold of Ophir” Don’t be presumptous again. You are claiming to be a spokesperson of God yet you are distorting the Sacred Word of God. Rev. 12:1 shows that there is a Woman Crowned as Queen in Heaven. We are basing our belief on a Sign from Heaven and that is Divine Sign. For sure that Queen is not the pagan queen mentioned by the prophet Jeremiah. You are confusing the two.
How dare you claim that God is angry on calling Mary ‘Queen of Heaven’. Where can you find that in the Bible? On the contrary, Mary is the HIGHLY FAVORED OF GOD [Luke 1:28]. God will be happy to bestow honor to His favorite creature. The favorite of God is also the favorite of Catholics, yet she is hated by Born Again. How nice isn’t it? You have something in common with Satan.
Psalm 45:9 is a prophecy that during the kingship of the Messiah, the Queen shall stand on His right hand. Jesus’ Kingship was initiated during his Nativity and the woman on His side was Mary, then in the first miracle at Cana and the woman on His side was Mary, then on the Cross and the woman on His side was Mary. Mary is the Queen standing on the side of the Messiah-King.
5. “Roman Catholics believe that Mary was born without sin and that she lived a sinless life. Luke 1:46 And Mary said, My soul does magnify the Lord, Luk 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. Mary never claimed to be sinless- she saw herself as needing a Savior”
So, you are escalating the discussion ha. You are jumping from one topic to another. We consider Mary as sinless because of the following Biblical passages:
[a] Genesis 3:15 The ‘Woman’ whose Seed will crush the Ancient Serpent will be in perpetual enmity with Satan. Since Mary is the Mother of the Messiah who destroyed Satan, Mary the Mother of the Messiah is in perpetual enmity with Satan. Thus, Satan has never enslaved Mary because she is protected by the grace of the Messiah. Just like the Woman in Rev. 12 whom Satan did everything to destroy yet he repeatedly failed because she is protected by God. I am wondering why you are so against Mary, just like the Serpent-Dragon. Are you not ashamed of that. You are on the side of the Ancient Serpent in being anti-Mary. Your opposition against Mary is full of venom. You have become an agent of the Serpent.
[b] Luke 1:28 Mary is ‘highly favored‘. In original Greek it is ‘Kaire Kecharitomene‘. The root word is ‘Charis’ = Grace. Mary is a woman filled with God’s grace. Thus, the more proper translation is ‘Hail, Full of Grace!‘ If Mary is already full of Grace, then there is no room for sin in her.
[c] Luke 1:47 And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. This passage support our position not yours. Imagine, she was still alive and Jesus was not yet crucified yet it is already declared Biblically under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Mary already received Salvation from God. So, if there is one who is worthy of Salvation and of Sanctification it is Mary, not you or your cohorts. You are claiming Salvation for yourself yet it is not stated in the Bible. Mary’s salvation is announced in the Bible. But not yours!
6. “Roman Catholics made Mary as a co-redemptrix, Jesus is the redeemer and there is nothing in the bible says Mary was the co-mediator. Joh 14:6 Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.” Distortion again. The prefix “Co” there doesn’t mean Co-Equal but “Cooperator”. It means that she cooperated in God’s plan of Salvation.
Lk 1:26-27 before the Messiah was born to start God’s plan of Salvation, He sent the Angel Gabriel not to you or to your mother or to your pastor but to Mary.
Lk 1:38 Mary as a servant of God accepted the mission to be the Mother of the Messiah.
She didn’t refuse but ‘co’-operated with God’s plan.
Jn 2:1-11 Jesus declared that His time was not yet come but because of Mary’s request or prayer to Jesus, the Lord started the Plan of Salvation earlier. If Mary was not a Woman of Faith, salvation would have come later.
The teaching of human participation in Salvation is very Biblical but unfortunately you seem blind to it:
James 5:20 Whoever turns a sinner from error of his ways will SAVE him and cover a multitude of sins.
Jude 22-23 Be merciful to those who doubt… and SAVE THEM. [New International Version]
1 Corinthians 9:22 I have become all things to all men, that I MIGHT BY ALL MEANS SAVE SOME.
1 Tim 4:16 Take heed unto thyself and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this THOU SHALT BOTH SAVE THYSELF, AND THEM THAT HEAR THEE. [Mary did this Lk 1:38, 45].
The concept of human participation in Salvation doesn’t diminish the Saving Power of Christ instead makes it more glorious through human cooperation.
7. In 1923, Pope Ius XV’s(1914-1922) pronouncement that Mary suffered with Christ and that with Him, she redeemed the human race. And Pope Pius XII officially designated mary the “Queen of the World.” You are distorting the text of the Pope. This concept is based on Biblical teaching:
2 Tim 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain THE SALVATION THAT IS IN CHRIST JESUS, with eternal glory. [Mary as the Pope said endured a lot of suffering and pain for Jesus. That suffering just like that of St. Paul obtained Salvation for others but of course, JESUS IS THE ONLY ONE GIVING THAT SALVATION because He is the only Lord and Savior].
In 2 Tim 2:11-12 St. Paul further explained: “If we died with him, we will also live with him: if we endure, we will also reign with him.” [Mary was not afraid to die with Christ. The Apostles run away but not her. She was there at the foot of the Cross. She endured the pain of a Mother seeing her Son slowly dying through tortured wounds. Thus, she is reigning with Christ as shown in Rev 12:1]
Now, tell me if Mary is not worthy to reign with Christ.
In Ang Biblia 2 Tim 2:12 was translated ‘mangaghahari tayong kasama niya’. So, this is Biblical words using Kingdom terminologies. Your faith is lacking in Biblical Kingdom terminologies.
8. “Roman Catholicism has taken the mother of Jesus and reinvented her ans ascribed to her things she would never have wanted.She steemed her son, she loved God’s Word, she was a servant and the most wonderful woman who ever lived.But she would be appalled at what Roman Catholicism has done to her, She never spoke of purgatory,of indulgences, of her redeeming souls,of being a co-redemptrix or co-mediator.” Once again, you are becoming presumptous. Earlier you are presenting yourself as a spokesperson of God now you are presenting yourself as the spokesperson of Mary. Yes, Mary is a simple Woman yet that is exactly the reason why she was honored by God. The humble shall be exalted. God had exalted Mary and so does the Catholic Church. On the contrary, in a Luciferian move the Born Again wanted to ignore Mary.
9. These are inventions and traditions of men; which her son warned us about in His Word. TELL ME YOUR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS. TELL ME WHERE DO YOU GO FOR WORSHIP. TELL ME WHO YOUR PASTOR IS AND I WILL ENNUMERATE TO YOU YOUR INVENTIONS. You have the gall to accuse us of inventions because you are hiding your identity and your own church. Treacherous snake.
The Kingdom of the Messiah with its King and Queen-Mother is not the tradition of men but Biblical Tradition.
10. “1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 1Ti 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, this to be a testimony at the proper time.”IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE THAT VERSE WHY IS IT THAT YOU ARE PRAYING FOR ANOTHER PERSON. WHY DO YOU HAVE A PASTOR? So, you are committing the same mistake because you need another person for your faith.
You are deceiving our readers yet in doing so you have revealed what you are.
11. Calling the Pope as the Holy Father is an abomination to God,where in the bibles says that the pope is holy father WHERE CAN YOU FIND IN THE BIBLE THAT CALLING THE POPE AS HOLY FATHER IS AN ABOMINATION TO GOD? You are inventing. There are hundreds of passages in the Bible calling men ‘father’.”For the Roman pontiff (pope), by reason of his office as VICAR OF CHRIST, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal POWER over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise UNHINDERED.” CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, 1994, P. 254 #882
12. “vICAR(LATIN) OF CHRIST- Anti(Greek)of Christanti- christ -a prepostion signifying against,opposite, contrary, IN PLACE OF Or A substitute”
PLEASE DON’T SHOW YOUR IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY IN THE INTERNET WHERE THOUSANDS WILL READ HOW STUPID YOU ARE. VICAR IS ENGLISH. THE LATIN OF VICAR IS ‘VICARIUS’ WHICH MEANS REPRESENTATIVE OR A DEPUTY OR AN ADMINISTRATIVE IN CHARGE. IT IS BLATANT DECEPTION OF THE PUBLIC TO CLAIM THAT VICAR IS ‘ANTI’ IN GREEK. THE PREFIX ‘ANTI’ IS BOTH LATIN AND GREEK BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH VICAR.YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CLEAR BLUNDER SHOWING YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF BOTH LATIN AND GREEK. STUDY PLEASE! OR YOU ARE DECEIVING PEOPLE INTENTIONALLY.
DECEPTION IS AN ACT PROPER OF THE ANTI-CHRIST BECAUSE SATAN IS ‘THE DECEIVER’.
13. “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely NECESSARY FOR the SALVATION of every human creature to be SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (POPE).” POPE BONIFACE VIII, BULL UNUN SANCTUM, 1302 2Th 2:3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.2Th 2:4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God”
Once again a distorted quotation. Jesus apointed leaders in the Church and having Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons is necessary for Salvation. Just like there are successors to the Apostles, there is a successor to the head of the Apostles – Peter. That we call Pope. The Power of the Keys given in Mt 16-18-19 is not only limited to Peter but for all believers of all time. The Pope is not God but the leader of the Universal Church. He is a wordwide pastor. Jesus appointed men to be leaders of the Church and had chosen them personally. You yourself have pastors and leaders. If you reject the Pope why do you have his equivalents.
I WARN YOU TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF. BECAUSE YOU ARE ATTACKING OUR FAITH TRECHEROUSLY. IF YOU WILL CONTINUOUSLY REMAIN ANONYMOUS THEN I WILL ERASE YOUR FUTURE MESSAGES. I AM WILLING TO DEBATE BUT LET US LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELDS.

Fr. Abe, CRS said… TO POST NO. 10

1.”QUESTION: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS NO LONGER A VIRGIN? Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.Mat 1:25 But he had no union with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”
Nowhere in that passage does it says that Joseph had sexual union with Mary. The word UNTIL im Mt 1:25 is the Greek HEOS HOU. It simply signifies that prior to the Nativity of Jesus no sexual intercourse between Mary and Joseph had happened. Yet, it doesn’t assure that there is sexual intercouse that occured later. Here are some examples of Biblical use of UNTIL or HEOS HOU:
2 Samuel 6:2 “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.” [You mean to say she had a child after her death?]
1 Corinthians 15:25/Ps 110:1 “For he must reign UNTIL he put all enemies under his feet.” [Does it mean that he was no longer reigning when all enemies were put under his feet?]
Matthew 5:18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, UNTIL all be fulfilled.” [So, does it mean when all laws have been fulfilled one tittle of the law will pass away?]
You see, the word UNTIL is not a proof that something had happened afterward between Mary and Joseph.
2. “WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT JAMES, AND JOSES, AND JUDAS, AND SIMON ARE CHILDREN OF MARY? Matthew 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?13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.the very context of scripture reveals that this is talking about the blood family of Jesus! In other words, Jesus, Son of Mary, brother of James and Joses, and He also had sisters. It’s identifying a blood family, and it would be tortuous of scripture to deny this. If we’re going to say that word Brother doesn’t really mean His brethren, we have to also say that word Mother doesn’t really mean Mary was Jesus Mother. For it’s the same word that was used in Matthew 27:56 saying Mary was the Mother of James and Joses. And so it is utterly ludicrous to believe Mary was not the Mother of James and Joses.The conjoined mention of the mother of Jesus appears to imply that the children are of the same mother are meant.
I already explained that in Hebrew culture relatives and kinsmen are called brothers and sisters. It was shown that Mary the Mother of Jesus is not the same Mary the Mother of James and Joses. All the rest are mere presupposition. What you are quoting are not solid evidence that these people are truly biological siblings of the Lord.
First, it is nowhere stated in the texts that they are biological siblings of Jesus.
Second, only Jesus was referred as the Son of Mary. It is a stretch of imagination to claim that these James and Judas and Joses are biological family of Jesus because it was not stated as such.
Third, I do not trust those who speak because they are enemies and non-believers of Jesus. Your teaching concerning the Perpetual Virginity of Mary doesn’t come from Prophets and Apostles but from words quoted from the mouth of the ENEMIES OF JESUS. Your position is Satanic.
3. “I understand that your faith is American invented. MY FAITH IS INVENTED WRIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH It came from a place whose culture and mentality is dominated by sex.I DON’T HAVE THIS MENTALITY, SEX IS GOOD, GOD CREATED SEX.IT IS ONLY GOOD INSIDE MARRIAGE OUTSIDE MARRIAGE IS A SIN.But Joseph is not sex-crazed. I DID NOT SAY THAT HE WAS A SEX-CRAZED. In Biblical theology, virginity is not evil but a heroic virtue.SEX IS NOT EVIL EITHER WHEN ITS DONE INSIDE MARRIAGE.”
Yes, but it is nowhere stated in the Bible that Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary. The teaching that Mary had other children appeared only in the 4th century when Helvidius invented that doctrine based on wrong interpretation of the Scriptures.
Sex is good inside marriage that’s true but VIRGINITY TOO IS GOOD. So, why is this Born Again so against the chastity and virginity of Joseph and Mary. Imagine, she even exclaimed ‘poor Joseph’ to the idea that Joseph didn’t sleep with his wife. That is a Sex-Crazed mentality. If the Born Again and the Evangelicals cannot control their lust they should refrain from thinking that Mary and Joseph are like them in that weakness.
4. “CATHOLIC TRADITION – Call priests father, e.g., Father McKinley. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
SO WHAT DO YOU CALL THE HUSBAND OF YOUR MOTHER, THEN? A DOG? There are so many passages in the Bible calling men ‘father’:
Judges 17:9-10 Micah told a Levite: “Be to me a FATHER and a PRIEST.”
Genesis 17:5 Abraham was made the FATHER of many nations.
Exodus 20:12 Honour your FATHER and your mother. [Lk 18:20]
1 Samuel 23:11 David called King Saul ‘father’.
2 Kings 2:12 Elisha called Elijah ‘my father’ 2x
Acts 7 St. Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit yet he called people ‘fathers’ 18x.
Philippians 2:22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the FATHER, he [Timothy] hath served with me in the gospel.
1 Corinthians 4:14-16 …I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the Gospel. Therefore I urge you, be imitators of me. [New International Version]
1 Timothy 5:1 Rebuke not an elder [Presbyteros, priest], but entreat him as a FATHER.
4. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Forbidding the priesthood to marry. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – 1) It is devilish to forbid God’s people to marry when He has given marriage to be received with thanksgiving. 1 Timothy4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 3) Paul, a great apostle, remained single; however he made it very clear that he could marry if he wanted to. 1 Corinthians9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
DON’T DECEIVE PEOPLE. WE CATHOLICS ARE NOT PROHIBITING MARRIAGE. IN FACT, WE HAVE MORE MARRIAGES THAN YOUR FELLOWSHIPS. YOUR MARRIAGES ARE NOTHING IN COMPARISON TO THE NUMBER OF CATHOLIC MARRIAGES WE ARE DOING.
Who prohibits marriages? My parents are married and so are my uncles and aunts. Actually, our teaching is similar to that of Saint Paul. IF YOU WANT TO MARRY SO GET MARRIED. IF YOU DON’T WANT TO GET MARRIED AND BE PRIEST SO BE IT. Our doctrine is based on Biblical understanding that Jesus and the Kingdom of God must be priority over family:
Matthew 10:37 Jesus must be loved more than father, mother, son or daughter.
Matthew 19:12 Some renounced marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven [NIV]
Luke 18:28-30 Yes, I agree with you that Peter has a wife but he left ALL when he followed Jesus.
REVELATION 14:4 THESE ARE THEY WHICH ARE NOT DEFILED WITH WOMEN; FOR THEY ARE VIRGINS. THESE ARE THEY WHICH FOLLOW THE LAMB WHITHERSOEVER HE GOETH. THESE WERE REDEEMED FROM AMONG MEN, BEING THE FIRST FRUITS UNTO GOD AND TO THE LAMB. [Who are these virgin males who are in heaven? Are they Catholic priests or Protestant pastors?]
Clearly, male virginity is not being condemned in the Bible but being honored. Read your Bible carerfully. WE HAVE MORE MARRIAGES THAN YOU. I myself have license to marry and I am marrying Catholics, a lot of them.
5. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Mary is the mother of God. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Mary is the mother of the earthly Jesus, not God. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAYS THAT MARY IS THE MOTHER OF THE EARTHLY JESUS ONLY? Luke 1:43And whence is this come to me, that THE MOTHER OF MY LORD should come to me?
MARY IS THE MOTHER OF THE LORD! What is the Lord? Is He God or Man? or God-Man?
If the son is a King, the Mother is the Mother of the King.
If the son is a Messiah, the Mother is the Mother of the Messiah.
If the Son is God, the Mother is the Mother of God.
The mother of the president is the Mother of the President even if she is not a president. Simple Logic.
6. Jesus pre- existed from everlasting as God (see John 1:1). When He came to redeem mankind, He laid aside His glory and was made like unto sinful man so that He could take our punishment (Hebrew 2:9). God has no mother. He has lived from everlasting which means He had no beginning. Isaiah43:10 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. [If Mary gave birth to God, she’d be God.] Psalm93:2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Philippians2:6 Who [Jesus], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
WE DO NOT DENY THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF CHRIST. YOUR NEWLY INVENTED RELIGION WAS NOT YET ESTABLISHED WE WERE ALREADY DEFENDING THE DIVINITY OF JESUS AGAINST THE ARIANS IN THE 3RD-4TH CENTURY.
You yourself is calling Jesus as your Lord and God, yet you deny Mary as Mother of God. We are not claiming that God as God has a Mother but the Bible attests that when God became Man in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth He was born of Mary. Mary is the Mother of the Incarnate God — JESUS CHRIST!
7. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Pope called Holy Father. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – The term Holy Father is only found one time in the entire Bible. It was when Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane. He referred to God the Father as Holy Father. It is blasphemy to call a man by God’s name John17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Your knowledge of the Bible is very superficial. It is true that God is the Father of all but contrary to your claim God allowed us to call men Father. He Himself called people ‘father’ and He Himself shared His Holiness to people and things. So that calling people or things ‘Holy’ or “Father’ is not contrary to the Honor of God.
2 Kings 2:12 Elisha called Elijah ‘my father’ not only once but twice.
2 Kings 13:14 King Joash of Israel called the prophet Elisha ‘my father’ twice also.
Genesis 45:8 Joseph the Prime Minister of Egypt was made by God ‘father’
Isaiah 22:21 The Keeper of the Keys of the Kingdom is prophesied to become ‘a father to the inhabitants of Israel’.
* The word Pope is the English version of the word ‘Papa’ which means ‘Father’. He is called as such because the Office of Peter and his successor is the fulfillment of Isaiah 22:21.
WHY WAS IT CALLED ‘HOLY’? BECAUSE IT IS AN OFFICE ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF. [cf. MATTHEW 16:18-19]. Is it wrong to refer to people or things as ‘holy’. The Bible says NO! Look at these:
Leviticus 21:8 The priest who offered the Bread of God is ‘holy’ [The Pope is a Priest who offers the Bread of God]
Deuteronomy 26:19 You will be a ‘holy people’ [All members of the People of God are holy then]
Acts 3:21 “Holy prophets” [The Pope is a prophet for us just like the pastors and evanglists and ministers in the Protestants]
Luke 2:23 “Every male that openeth the womb shall be called HOLY TO THE LORD.”
Exodus 3:5 The place you are standing is a “holy ground”.
Exodus 30:25 “holy oil”
1 Chronicles 23:28 “All holy things”
1 Chronicles 23:32 “holy place”
Matthew 27:53 “holy city”
Leviticus 8:9 “holy crown’
Leviticus 16:4 “holy garments”
Leviticus 2:3, 10 “most holy of the offerings”
Number 5:17 “holy water”
1 Kings 6:16 “Most holy place”
Psalm 99:9 “worship at His holy hill”
8. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Purgatory, nuns, popes. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – None of these is mentioned in the Bible. It is a sin to add to the Bible. Proverbs30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. The pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to no human being. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous (see above). One does not need the pope to determine what God’s will is. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He (the Holy Ghost) guides and leads us into all truth. All a believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of the Lord. Popery has been treacherous, but worse, each pope has been the blind leading the blind. Jesus said that both will fall into the ditch. Catholics, come out of this system that cannot save and know Jesus for youself, intimate and up-close.
You are pretending to be faithful to the Bible but in fact you are teaching a lot of things contrary to it or not found in it:
1. Where can you find in the Bible your Dogma of SOLA SCRIPTURA or BIBLE ALONE AS THE AUTHORITY IN FAITH?
2. Where can you find in the Bible your Dogma of SOLA FIDE or FAITH ALONE for Justification and Salvation?
3. Where can you find in the Bible your OSAS ‘Once Saved will Always be Saved’?
4. Where can you find in the Bible your doctrine of Rapture?
5. Where can you find in the Bible that your dogma of TITHING must be obligatory for Christians?
6. Where can you find in the Bible that Women can be pastors?
7. Where in the Bible can you find that the Musical Band can be used in worship?
Your claim that the believers doesn’t need a Pope is a stupid statement. Because it is never stated in the Sacred Scriptures that matters of Faith and Morals are determined by mere reading of the Bible. In Acts 15 when St. Paul and St. Barnabas were being disobeyed by the Jewish-Christians they went to Jerusalem and St. Peter decided with finality the issue without reading any Biblical text. The authority in the Church is given to persons because the Book cannot interpret itself [cf. Matthew 16:18-19/ 18:18].
Concerning the nuns, it is very obvious that Jesus was taking of the 10 Virgins while St. Paul admonishes the female virgins [1 Corinthians 7:8]. Do you think that all women in the early Church are non-Virgins? Then you are deceived. These are the first nuns in the history of the Church. Just like during the time of St. Paul they are still wearing their veils until now as a sign of their consecration of virginity to Christ.
9. NOTE: Purgatory is supposedly a place where a person is purified of sins–even popes supposedly go there. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the one that purifies us of our sins. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…. When a person dies their eternal home is sealed–heaven or hell–no in between. Hebrews 9:27 …it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment.
You will go there. You will go to Purgatory if not directly to Hell. You will not be able to enter heaven straight because your FAITH ALONE, BIBLE ALONE AND ONCE SAVED WILL ALWAYS BE SAVED are not in the Bible and therefore you will be answerable to God for them, for deceiving other people and deceiving yourself. The Doctrine of Purgatory is actually proclaiming that Christ is the one purifying our sins. The word Purgatory alone proves that:
“Who being the brightness of his glory and the figure of his substance and upholding all things by the word of his power, making PURGATION OF SINS, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high” [Hebrew 1:3 Douay-Rheims]
Try to read it in Latin:
Heb 1:3 “qui cum sit splendor gloriae et figura substantiae eius portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae PURGATIONEM PECCATORUM faciens sedit ad dexteram Maiestatis in excelsi”
It is nowhere stated in the Bible that only Heaven and Hell exists:
Rev 5:3 “And no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it” [cf. Philippians 2:10]
Who are these souls who have the right to try opening the Scrool of Life? For sure the spirits of demons and the damned in Hell are not part of them. These are souls in Heaven, the souls of the human beings on earth and the souls in Purgatory. In fact Revelation 5:13 speaks of creatures under the earth who are singing the Honor of Christ. For sure these are not referring to minerals and worms under the soils.
Concerning Hebrew 9:27 we believe that that is why we believe that the souls in heaven are alive and saved like that of Peter and Paul, the other Apostles and the holy ones of God. However, you have forgotten that there is also judgment in the after life. The Lord Jesus speaks of forgiveness in the world to come [Matthew 12:32] and St. Peter supported it by declaring that the Gospel is preached to the dead for their judgment [1 Peter 4:6].
10. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Venerating/worshipping images. Pope bows to statues of Mary, people worship the eucharist and have statues/candles in their homes and churches. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – It is idolatry to venerate images. We are not even supposed to make them. Exodus20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God…
God is a jealous God but He is not stupid like you. He prohibited Idolatry and so the Catholic Church prohibits it as well. What you are not teaching is that God commanded Images to be made for His Glory in the Temple. There is no need for me to repeat it here. You can visit my presentation of Sacred Images in this Blog.
11. CATHOLIC TRADITION – The mass. Through transubstantiation, the wafer/host and the wine supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus died once for sins, never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God and does not reappear in the mass as a mass of blood and flesh. Hebrews10:12 But this man [Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;10:13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.10:15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;10:17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. John19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. 1 Corinthians11:24 And when he [Jesus] had given thanks, he brake it [bread], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.11:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come (not for the forgiveness of sins or to receive Jesus).
You are making me laugh. Imagine, you rightly stated that the bread is turning into the Body and Blood of Jesus according to our Catholic faith then in order to disprove it you quoted Hebrew stating that Jesus died only once. How can the ‘once and for all’ death of Jesus disprove the Transubstantation? When in fact, we Catholics are also teaching that Jesus died once and for all. From what devil did you get that Jesus is dying again according to Catholic theology?
Why do we have the Mass? Because Jesus commanded His apostles to DO THE LAST SUPPER AGAIN. Let us see the testimony of St. Paul:
1 Co 11:23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,

St. Paul says that he received it and now he is passing it to his followers. Well, exactly as the generations of Catholic do. The Born Again do not have it or they are simply making a caricature of it by using Grape Juice and Biscuits. Nakakahiya kayo di ba?

1Co 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
JESUS SAID ‘THIS IS MY BODY’… It’s not ‘This is the symbol of my body’ but THIS IS MY BODY. That’s categorical and declarative. You are denying the very words of Jesus and testified by St. Paul. This is Catholic Theology word for word in the Bible.
1Co 11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
This is the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy of Psalm 116:12-13 “What shall I render the Lord for all His goodness to me? I will take THE CUP OF SALVATION, and call upon the name of the Lord.The Lord has given us a new covenant in His Blood, right in that very Cup. That is a Sacred Cup because it contains the Blood of the Divine Master.
1 Co 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
You cut it here to make it appear that your theology is supported eh. But the next passage destroys your position.
1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
Those who will take the Eucharist unworthily are sinning against the Body and Blood of the Lord. Why? Because those are no longer ordinary bread and wine they transformed into the Body and Blood of the Lord substantially.
1 Co 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 1 Co 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Co 11:30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Exactly as the Catholics do. We examine our conscience and ask for forgiveness of our sins before the Eucharistic Meal in order not to commit sin against the Body and Blood of the Lord.

12. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Saved, in part, by good works. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Good works are the fruits that grow out of being saved. They do not make you saved. An apple does not make its tree an apple tree, it was already an apple tree before any apples appeared. When you see the apples; however, you know what kind of tree it is. If a person is saved, he will shew forth good works because he has the spirit of Christ in him. The good works don’t make him saved only the blood of Jesus can do that. I John1:7b …the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. Acts 16:31b…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Romans3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.What about James 2:20 “faith without works is dead”? The kind of faith that saves is a faith that shows forth the works of God. Even devils believe in Jesus and tremble (James 2:19). Many people believe in Jesus but they won’t follow Him. They have a faith, but not the kind that saves. If a person has true faith in Jesus, the Holy Ghost dwells in him and will cause good works will show forth in his life. The good works confirm the faith by which the person was saved. James 2:21-23 uses Abraham as an example. Abraham believed God so when God asked him to sacrifice his son Isaac, Abraham, out of his faith in God, offered up Isaac.
With all the passages that you have cited not one is saying that Salvation or Justification is by Faith Alone. None. Your doctrine, your dogma of Sola Fide is unbiblical and therefore by your standard, SATANIC. MAN-MADE. BY YOUR OWN STANDARD WILL BE ENOUGH TO BRING YOU TO HELL because you are following a mere doctrine of man.
What is the teaching of Jesus concerning Salvation?
Matthew 7:21-27 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
Romans 2:5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
James 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
James 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Man is justified NOT BY FAITH ALONE but also by Good Works. So, it must be Faith & Good Works. Faith alone is dead so that is the reason why the advocates of this erroneous dogma are deceiving themselves.
13. CATHOLIC TRADITION – The church is founded on Peter. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church. Peter was a man like you and me. Jesus called Peter Satan in Matthew 16:23 when Peter rebuked Jesus dying. When Cornelius tried to worship Peter, Peter responded, “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:26). The pope needs to remember Acts 10:26 when he has men bowing to him and kissing his hand like he is worthy of worship. 1 Corinthians3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Matthew21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected [Jesus], the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Definitely, you are not equal with Peter. In humanity, yes but not in sanctify of life that he lived after he became totally converted to Jesus. To claim that Peter is just like you is too abominable to accept. We do not even know who you are. For what we know you can be a demon in disguise.
Peter was chosen by Jesus and it was to him that Jesus entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven. He was weak during the earthly life of Jesus but after then he became a courageous leader of the Church.
Jesus callled Peter Satan but Jesus also promised him that he will be protected from Satan twice [Matthew 16:19 and Luke 22:31-32]. Jesus entrusted to him the authority of a lead Shepherd to represent Him the Chief Shepherd [John 21:15-17].
After Jesus’ Ascension Peter’s leadership was unequalled by any apostles. He faced the Sanhedrin as the leader of all believers. He decided by his lonesome self the successor to Judas and decided to baptized the Gentiles. He became so powerful spiritually that he can witheld the Holy Spirit from the evil ones and his mere shadow can cure people. Of course those miracles were done by the Lord Jesus.
Downgrading the Blessed Peter the Apostle will speak ill of you because you are honoring your weak, sinful and self-proclaimed pastors while rejecting the one chosen by the Lord Jesus Himself.
14. CATHOLIC TRADITION – Confessing sins to a priest. Petitioning saints and Mary. WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS – We are to confess our sins and needs to God alone. * WHERE IS THAT IN THE BIBLE? THAT WE HAVE TO CONFESS OUR SINS TO GOD ALONE? YOU ARE INVENTING! John 20:22-23 And when he said this, he breathed on them and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost WHOSE SOEVER SINS YE REMIT THEY ARE REMITTED UNTO THEM, AND WHOSE SOEVER SINS YE RETAIN, THEY ARE RETAINED. [So, the power to forgive sins was given to the leaders of the Church, to human persons.] HOW COME YOUR PASTORS DON’T HAVE THIS POWER? BECAUSE THEY ARE FAKES!
I John1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Matthew6:9, 12 After this manner…pray ye: Our Father… forgive us….
1 Timothy2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope];
I John 2:1, …And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
We also confess our sins to God but Jesus Himself has taught us to go to the Church authority on matters of sins. In Matthew 18:15-18 Jesus taught us to settle our disputes and sins personally if possible, if we cannot solve it then we ask help from others and if it is still persistent we have to bring it to the Church. So, the highest authority on earth on matters of sins and reconciliation is the Church Authority. This is the will of God.
SOME OF THE ISSUES YOU HAVE RAISED HAVE BEEN ANSWERED HERE AND IN THE PREVIOUS POST.YOU ARE NOT ATTACKING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. YOU ARE ATTACKING A CARICATURE OF YOUR OWN INVENTION. ONCE AGAIN, I REPEAT. YOU ARE AFRAID TO REVEAL YOUR IDENTITY AND YOUR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATIONS BECAUSE YOU ARE AFRAID THAT YOUR TEACHINGS CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE BIBLE. I ALREADY GAVE YOU THE CHANCE TO PRESENT YOURSELF AND I ALLOWED YOUR POSTS WITHOUT CUT WHATSOEVER. NOW, IF YOU WILL CONTINUE BEING ANONYMOUS YOUR PRECEEDING POSTS WILL BE DELETED BECAUSE YOU ARE ONLY ATTACKING WITHOUT SHOWING YOURSELF. AS YOU WANT TO QUESTION MY FAITH, I ALSO WANT TO QUESTION YOURS. I WANT TO SEE IF IT IS BIBLICAL.

Posted in Apologetics-General, Apologetics-Pope, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, Frequently Asked Questions, Holy Matrimony, Q & A, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Virgin Mary | 8 Comments »

RIDICULOUS ANSWERS OF THE BEREANS APOLOGETICS

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 12, 2009

RIDICULOUS ANSWERS OF THE BEREANS APOLOGETICS By Atty. Marwil Llasos

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/ridiculous-answers-of-bereans.html

Madonna and Child by Michelangelo

Little learning is a dangerous thing. This adage is once again proven true by the way the Bereans Apologetics and Research Ministry (Bereans) answers questions. They showed their limited capacity for higher level thinking and demonstrated beyond any iota of doubt their Biblical illiteracy. Eliseo Soriano and his co-horts will surely have a run for their money!

In the Berean’s rebuttal to my article on perpetual virginity, its moderator, official spokesperson and representative named GERALD a.k.a. RODIMUS magnificently displayed the Bereans’ sloppy research and shallow reasoning.

Below is our exchange. Rodimus’ words are in red while mine are in black. Blue stands for the words I used in my past article. I ask the reader to judge who presents more substantial arguments and who displays little learning.

Atty. Llasos further attempted to refute my consideration of Matthew 13:55 as comprehensive by saying:

In fact, a parallel verse in Mark 6:3 refers to Jesus as “THE son of Mary.” The article “the” is significant in Greek because it signifies “the one and only.” Jesus, being the Son of Mary, means that He is Mary’s only Son in the same manner that Jesus, being the Son of God, means that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.

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?

In my refutation of Rodimus’ supposition that Matthew 13:55 as “comprehensive” in proving that Mary had other children, I did raise the issue of the use of the definite article “the” as an added proof that “Jesus, being the Son of Mary, means that He is Mary’s only Son in the same manner that Jesus, being the Son of God, means that he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.”

I mentioned the use of “the” in Mark 6:3 merely as one of the cumulative evidence for the Catholic position that Jesus is Mary’s only Child. I don’t rest my case on that argument alone; I pointed out its significance. As Rodimus himself admitted, “the article ‘the’ can signify the one and only, it doesn’t always mean that way in other sentences.” Yes, but its significance cannot be discounted.

I believe that “Jesus’ unique Sonship from Mary reflects His unique Sonship in eternity. Christ is the only-begotten Son of the Father, who begets Him eternally without the help of a mother. He is also the only Son of Mary, who conceives Him in time without the help of a man.”

My view that the perpetual virginity of Mary points to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ finds support from formidable authors of impeccable credentials. Rodimus cannot hold a candle beside these scholars because his credentials, if any, are light years away from those of evangelical Prof. Tim Perry and (formerly) Protestant Jaroslav Pelikan.

Prof Tim Perry is on record as saying that “Like her virginity ante partum and in partu, Mary’s post partum virginity’s most powerful support derives from the uniqueness of Jesus” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Inter Varsity Press, 2006) p. 282]. He concluded that “[i]n the divine economy, the corollary of the ontological description ‘only begotten God’ is ‘ever-virgin’ (aeiparthenos; semper virgo)” [ibid, p. 283].

For Jaroslav Pelikan, “the eternal begetting of the second person of the holy Trinity should be mirrored in his incarnate life: “He [is] the single and only begotten Son of God [and] also the single and only begotten Son of Mary” [Jaroslav Pelikan, “Most Generations Shall Call Me Blessed,” in Mary: Mother of God, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004) p. 8].

That Jesus is the only Child of the Blessed Virgin Mary is underscored by the fact that He is always referred to as “THE” Son of Mary. The article “the” [“ho” – the Greek letter o’ (o with the iota subscript)] is significant in Greek because it signifies “the one and only.” For instance, ho theos refers to the oneness or unicity of God: there is only one God. Thus, ho huios means that Jesus is the only Son of Mary just as He is the only Son of God.

Let us now consider the Bible verses we cited. I used Mark 6:3 while Rodimus used John 4:5.

Mark 6:3 is rendered in Greek (Romanized, for easy reading) “ouch houtos estin ho tektOn ho huios tEs marias kai erchetai oun eis polin tEs samareias legomenEn suchar plEsion tou chOriou ho edOken iakOb [tO] iOsEph tO huiO autou.”

In John 4:5 where Joseph is mentioned to be “the Son” of Jacob is rendered differently: “adelphos iakObou kai iOsEtos kai iouda kai simOnos kai ouk eisin hai adelphai autou hOde pros hEmas kai eskandalizonto en auto.”

I don’t think I clearly saw “ho huious” in John 4:5 in reference to Joseph “the son” of Jacob which Rodimus used to counter my use of Mark 6:3 (which clearly mentions “ho huios”). In the New International Version, evangelicals’ favorite translation, John 4:5 is rendered: “So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph.” I also didn’t see the expression Joseph “the son” of Jacob. So also in the Revised Standard Version, the expression “the son” of Jacob is conspicuously absent: “So he came to a city in Samaria, called Sychar, near the field that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.”

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?

Here’s where the Bereans’ little learning is most dangerous!

Let’s read Luke 1:31: “You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.”

Note that in the verse above, the expression “Jesus, the son of Mary” is not used. The obvious sense that Luke 1:31 conveys is that the angel is announcing to Mary that she is giving birth to a SON, not a DAUGHTER! [Cf. Rev. 12:5 – She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.”] So, Mary is going to give birth to a son, meaning a male child – and not a daughter or a female child!

Also, since Mary is giving birth to a son, it means that she’s not giving birth to a twin, a triplet or a quadruplet but just a son!

Notice how ridiculous the Bereans argue! I really couldn’t help myself but to laugh out loud with the Bereans’ pathetic argumentation. They are so desperate that they don’t realize that they are making a fool out of themselves! They have made themselves into a laughingstock!

When will you ever learn? When will you ever learn?

Posted in Bereans, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, Frequently Asked Questions, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Virgin Mary | Leave a Comment »

THE LATEST NEWS ON RODIMUS THE COWARD

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 12, 2009

THE LATEST NEWS ON RODIMUS THE COWARD

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/latest-news-on-rodimus-coward.html

St. Paul courageously preached the Faith without having any mask on his face and identity… right Rodimus?

Atty. Marwil Llasos intensified his bombardment of RODIMUS THE COWARD, one of the moderators of the Berean Forum. It is very interesting to note that after severe beating from Bro. Cenon Bibe right in his own Blog and the siege of Bro. Mars this Rodimus, the cowardly heretic, hid himself for a week.
The reason is, first, to avoid the shame handed on his ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE due to his obsessive use of ROBOTIC, i.e., ARTIFICIAL, a.k.a., FAKE IDENTITY which serves as his MASK and DEFENSE MECHANISM. Second, to avoid another shame for his failure to prove that the meaning of ADELPHOI is limited to ‘Uterine Brothers’. Third, DUE TO EXCESSIVE FEAR CAUSED BY THE CHALLENGE ISSUED BY ATTY. MARS FOR ONE ON ONE, FACE TO FACE, PUBLIC DEBATE. It is interesting that when Bro. Jub Alabastro of Catholic Faith Defenders – Davao questioned Rodimus the Coward if he will accept debate challenge, the cowardly heretic responded cunningly like a serpent. He said that he is willing to face anyone at the right time and right circumstances. Of course, it means that he doesn’t want to face anybody because HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN DETERMINE THE RIGHT TIME AND THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES that he himself will set. He,he,he… To prove my point when Bro. Jub tried to clarify the matter true enough to his COWARDLY NATURE the Fake Robot was silent for more than a week. Ha,ha,ha…
Yesterday, he re-appeared… at last… after deafening silence and non-existence. Instead of answering the issue at bar RODIMUS THE COWARD RETREATED FROM THE TOPIC OF PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY. Instead, he entered into the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION issue with a very clumsy reasoning on Tertulian. OBVIOUSLY, THE REPUTATION OF THIS RODIMUS THE COWARD AND HIS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ARE CRUMBLING LIKE CRACKERS THAT THEY ARE USING DURING THEIR BREAKING OF THE BREAD FELLOWSHIP TOGETHER WITH GRAPE JUICE WHICH IS A FAKE REPLACEMENT FOR THE GRAPE WINE USED BY THE LORD IN LAST SUPPER.
Another very intersting fact is that this cowardly heretic claims to be an Accountant… with his reasoning it’s doubtful. And, he claims that he started getting involved in Apologetics since high school by answering his English teacher who is a devout Roman Catholic: “I have been involved in apologetics since high school. It all started when I reasoned with a teacher in English who is a very devout Roman Catholic. I had limited resources at that time. But as the years went by, God used men with wisdom to train me to defend the faith. Here I am now in the spiritual battleground defending Biblical Christianity and refuting false religions. ” For sure the Catholic teacher must be very happy now because the student who used to reason with him or her with courage in front of the class is now a CERTIFIED AND AUDITED COWARD!!! How about those ‘men with wisdom’ who trained him to defend he faith? Are they happy now that their protege is so cowardly? Or may be they are the one who taught him to attack the faith of others while hiding his identity. Most probably he got this treachery, this cunning-serpentine technique from his mentors. Very probable! Isn’t it?
Another development is that FELLOW BEREANS ARE DUMPING THIS RODIMUS THE COWARD like a rotten potato… I mean ‘Bagoong‘… ‘Bagoong Isda‘. It is clearly manifested by the fact that none of his so-called cohorts are nowhere in sight to argue with him and cross swords with Catholic Apologists side by side with their cowardly colleague. I was informed by very reliable sources that his fellow Berean moderator named Justyn [whom I was told is a very charitable man… Praise the Lord… if it is true] stated that: “He doesn’t belong to the same Church with Rodimus!” It means that the Faith and Church affiliations of the Bereans are different. They are divided by Faith and are lacking Ecclesial Unity. Anyway this is not big news just by analyzing their reasoning in various posts of their forum it is discernible that they belong to different and competing branches of Protestantism.
Rodimus the Coward should have imitated the attitude of Justyn who is not attacking the Catholic Faith bigotedly. Much more he has the courage to face our leaders in a man-like manner. He appeared in person and dialogue in person. In return we accord him with respect proper for a person and a brother in Christ. But if one will use a MASK and intensely attack our faith in an ungetlemanly manner… ho, ho, ho… he’d better use the face and the identity of his pet dog.

Posted in Bereans, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Virgin Mary | Leave a Comment »

BRO. CENON BIBE MAKING A MINCE MEAT OUT OF RODIMUS THE COWARD

Posted by catholicfaithdefender on March 10, 2009

BRO. CENON BIBE MAKING A MINCE MEAT OUT OF RODIMUS THE COWARD

Link: http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/bro-cenon-bibe-making-mince-meat-out-of.html

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.

The truth hurts, Mr. Bibe. But it can set you free. February 15, 2009 11:50 PM

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.

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
c. apostles
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.
Why?
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.

Rodimus said… Good afternoon Mr. Bibe,
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?

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.

Rodimus said… CB: What is the CONTEXT of the mentioning of “James, Joses, Simon and Judas?

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

Cenon Bibe Jr. said… You’re rebuttal is full of contradictions and inconsistencies.

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.
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.

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!

Posted in Bereans, Debate, Doctrinal Comparison, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Virgin Mary | Leave a Comment »