THE WAYS OF THE CATHOLIC DEFENDERS
IN DECEIVING PEOPLE:
PUBLIC BEWARE
I was browsing the internet when I open this site called ‘In Defense of the Church” by “Catholic Defender 2000.” My attention was caught by his article titled “How Felix Manalo Ordained Himself by Prophecy” posted last August 17, 2011. Here is the URL of this webpage I’m talking about for your confirmation.
http://catholicdefender2000.blogspot.com/2011/08/how-felix-manalo-ordained-himself-by.html#comment-form
At the end of the article, the author, he call himself “Catholic Defender 2000,” concludes that:
“No one is ordained from mere prophecy alone. Moses was sent directly by God from the burning bush (Ex 3:10). David was ordained king by Samuel pouring oil on his head (1 Sam 16:13). Jesus was also baptized by John (Mk 1:9; Lk 4:18). No one directly ordained Manalo–as INC claims. Is Manalo greater than Moses, David, and Jesus?”
From this conclusion, I posted a question on December 13, 2012. Thus, a series of “Tanungan” (“Question and Answer) commenced. This dialogue revealed to me the “ways of the Catholic Faith Defenders on how they deceived people to make them believed that the Iglesia ni Cristo is not the true Church, but their’s (the Roman Catholic Church).
“Avoiding the Issue” is one of the
Ways of Catholic Defenders
From his conclusion (I quoted above), I ask him a very simple question
I'm Gesmundo del Mundo (admin of prestinesearch.blogspot.com) and I just want to ask: Who ordained or annointed Samuel who annointed David? Who baptized John who baptized Jesus? Thanks, Good day po and God bless.
Take note that my question is based on his conclusion: “David was ordained king by Samuel pouring oil on his head (I Samuel 16:13). Jesus was baptized by John (Mk. 1:9; Lk. 4:18).” Now, instead of answering the question, he “avoided the issue” (“umiwas sa tanong”). This was the reply of “Catholic Defender 2000”:
Ranking Felix Manalo with great Biblical prophets and sages is a blasphemy to God who called these holy men to minister God's people. Felix Manalo didn't just fooled people but he failed to pass the litmus test of being a genuine "messenger".
May the Triune God bless you.
What? I am asking him if who annointed Samuel who annointed David, and who baptized John who baptized Jesus, and he answered me “Ranking Felix Manalo with great Biblical prophets and sages is a blasphemy to God…” Who says those things? It’s him not me, thus, following his argument, he is the one who blasphemed against God.
According to the principles of Argumentation, we call this fallacy made by Catholic Defender 2000, “arguing oneself.” Yes, it’s a fallacy (“isang kamalian”). It is you who said it, it is you who made those statement, thus, you are refuting yourself. This shows the lack of knowledge with the principles of argumentation in the part of the Catholic Defenders.
Avoiding the issue (“pag-iwas”) is a way to hide the truth and to hide their errors.
What is the truth that he is trying to hide? My question regarding “who annointed Samuel who annointed David, and who baptized John who baptized Jesus” puts the Catholic Defender in a difficult situation. He knows the truth that no one annointed Samuel and no one baptized John.
What is his error that he is trying to hide? If he admits that no one annointed or baptized John, that makes his statement “No one is ordained from mere prophecy alone” a big mistake. No one annointed, ordained and baptized John, but when asked “who he is” (referring to his authority to baptized and to preached) his answer was that he is the fulfillment of what Prophet Isaiah prophesied:
“Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, ‘I am not the Christ.’ They asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not.’ ‘Are you the Prophet?’ He answered, ‘No.’ Finally they said, ‘Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?’ John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.'" (John 1:19-23 NIV)
NOW YOU KNOW: When you ask a Catholic Defender a question and he “avoid the issue” through giving inappropriate or irreleavant reply (“sumagot ng paiwas”), he is trying to hide the truth and trying to hide his errors. What a dirty tactic.
This was not the only instance that this “Catholic Defeder 2000” avoided the issue. Because of his “inappropriate reply,” I told him:
Is that your way oF answering questionS - PAIWAS (avoiding the issue) through "swearing"? If that is your way, I'm sorry, I cannot go down your level. "CONTRA FAVTUM NON HABET ARGUMENTUM"!!! (Latin of “against fact you cannot argue”)
Kalemera mou adelfou (Greek of “Good Day my brother”)
P.S. Where in he Bible can you read "TRIUNE GOD"? YOUR SO UNBIBLICAL!!! LOL
Remember, after his irrelevant reply, he said “May the Triune God bless you.” This is the reason why I ask him “Where in the Bible can you read TRIUNE GOD”?” This question is relevant because he mentioned it.
Have you notice the “typo errors” and the used of other language? Believe it or not, its intentional. The objective is that to make him feel that he could make a “point” so he will post my reply. Does it work? He post my reply and he responded:
Where can we find in the Bible Felix, Erano, Eduardo and Angelo? Where in the Bible we can find BIBLE? Where is Diliman? Your (sic) so UNBIBLICAL)!
Hula-hula lang ang pagka-sugo ni Felix, naniwala naman kayo.
Take note: (1) he still did not answer my first question, “Who annointed Samuel who annointed David, and who baptized John who baptized Jesus”; (2) he avoided my second question through giving an impertinent and irrelevant question.
I am asking him if where in the Bible can you read “triune God”? Remember that he mentioned this in his reply, thus, it’s a pertinent question. However, he replied with an impertinent question, “Where can we find in the Bible Felix, Erano, Esuardo and Angelo?...”
Is the word “Trinity” and the names “Felix, Erano, Eduardo and Angelo” “analogous”? “Trinity” is the doctrine of the Catholic Church about God, while “Felix, Erano, Eduardo and Angelo” are names of persons.
Remember, “avoiding the issue” (“paiwas”) is a way to hide the truth and to hide their errors. This time, he avoided the issue through giving impertinent and irrelevant question, a coomon practice of Catholic Faith Defenders.
He did this, replying through giving an impertinent question, to hide the truth: that the words “Trinity” and “triune God” is no where in the Bible. Catholic authorities testify that these words are indeed unbiblical or unscriptural:
“It cannot therefore be seriously maintained that the mystery of the Divine Trinity was clearly revealed in the Old Testament.” (The Divine Trinity, A Dogmatic Treatise, by the Rt. Rev. Msgr.Joseph Pohle, Ph.D., D.D., p. 20.)“The word Trinity does not appear in the New testament and the meanings of the words persons and nature, in the precise senses and which these words are used to bear the meassage of God, had to be carefully refined to bear that message rightly. But what the New Testament teaches is in truth captured with care and reverence in the exact statements of the early councils of the Church.” (The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, by Ronald Lawler, Donald Wuerl and Thomas Comerford Lawler, p. 177.)
Thus, he avoided the issue because his error will be exposed and my comment that he is “so unbiblical” will be justifed.
NOW YOU KNOW: Replying through impertinent and irrelevant question/s is a way of the Catholic Defenders to avoid the issue to hide the truth and to avoid exposing their errors. What a dirty tactic indeed.
Misinforming
Aside from the reply he posted on 8:19 pm, he again posted a reply on 8:25 pm. Let us read his next reply:
"CONTRA FAVTUM NON HABET ARGUMENTUM" baka ang ibig mong sabihin ay "CONTRA FACTUM NON HABET ARGUMENTUM"
LATIN = IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Thanks for using it.
LATIN = IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Thanks for using it.
Heto ang contra-kontra sa INC ni Manalo
ANG SALU-SALUNGATANG PAGSIPOT SA MUNDO NG IGLESIA KATOLIKA NA NASUSULAT SA MAGASING PASUGO
1-PASUGO Pebrero 1959, p. 1: (sinulat ni Ben Santiago)
“Mahigit nang isang libo at limangdaang taon ang Iglesia Katolika sa mundo. Maglilimangdaang taon naman ang mga Protestante. Ang Iglesia ni Cristo ay mag-aapatnapu't limang taon lamang mula noong 1914." (Ika-limang siglo ng Iglesia Katolika)”
“Mahigit nang isang libo at limangdaang taon ang Iglesia Katolika sa mundo. Maglilimangdaang taon naman ang mga Protestante. Ang Iglesia ni Cristo ay mag-aapatnapu't limang taon lamang mula noong 1914." (Ika-limang siglo ng Iglesia Katolika)”
2-PASUGO Mayo 1952, p. 5: (sinulat ni Ben Santiago).
“Mula sa taong 527 hanggang 565 sa panahon ng Emperador Justinano naging ganap ang pagkatatag ng Iglesiang ito na sumipot sa Pulong ng Nicea." (Ika-anim na siglo)”
“Mula sa taong 527 hanggang 565 sa panahon ng Emperador Justinano naging ganap ang pagkatatag ng Iglesiang ito na sumipot sa Pulong ng Nicea." (Ika-anim na siglo)”
3-PASUGO Agosto 1962, p. 3: (sinulat ni Ben Santiago)
“Sino ang nagtayo ng Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana? Ang Konsilyo Batikano! Kailan? Noong 1870." (Ika-labingsiyam na siglo)
“Sino ang nagtayo ng Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana? Ang Konsilyo Batikano! Kailan? Noong 1870." (Ika-labingsiyam na siglo)
4-PASUGO Marso 1956, p. 25: (sinulat ni Teofilo Ramos)
“Ang Iglesia Katolika'y pinabrika lamang ng mga Obispo noong 1870 sa Batikano."
“Ang Iglesia Katolika'y pinabrika lamang ng mga Obispo noong 1870 sa Batikano."
5-PASUGO Pebrero 1952, p. 9: (sinulat ni Joaquin Balmores)
“Hindi mapapasinungalingan ninuman na talagang ang Iglesia Katolika ang lumitaw sa loob ng Emperyo Romano noong ika-apat na siglo."
“Hindi mapapasinungalingan ninuman na talagang ang Iglesia Katolika ang lumitaw sa loob ng Emperyo Romano noong ika-apat na siglo."
PANSININ: Ang mga ito ang Ministrong inaralan at inatasang magpahayag ng pagkatatag ng Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana:
Si Emiliano Magtuto--PASUGO Nob. 1956, p. 18: -- 44 B.C.
Si Benjamin Santiago -- PASUGO Peb. 1959, p. 1: -- 400 A.D.
Si Benjamin Santiago -- PASUGO Ago. 1962, p. 3: -- 1870 A.D.
Si Teofilo C. Ramos -- PASUGO Mar. 1956, p. 25: -- 1870 A.D.
Si Joaquin Balmores -- PASUGO Peb. 1952, p. 9: -- 400 A.D.
Si Benjamin Santiago -- PASUGO Peb. 1959, p. 1: -- 400 A.D.
Si Benjamin Santiago -- PASUGO Ago. 1962, p. 3: -- 1870 A.D.
Si Teofilo C. Ramos -- PASUGO Mar. 1956, p. 25: -- 1870 A.D.
Si Joaquin Balmores -- PASUGO Peb. 1952, p. 9: -- 400 A.D.
Instead of answering my questions, he continues to avoid the issue. However, his next reply is to misinform the people. He said, “the Iglesia nio Cristo gave contradictory statements written in the PASUGO about the emergence of the Catholic Church.
I just wonder, what is its relevance regarding who annointed Samuel who annointed David and who baptized John who baptized Jesus, and whether the term “triune God” is biblical or not?
The information given by “Catholic Defender 2000” to prove that the Iglesia ni Cristo has contradictory statement is indeed misinforming the public. I cannot fully tackle this here in this article, but I promise that there will be an article devoted for this. Let us just have an example to prove that he is indeed misinforming the people. In his reply on December 14, 2012, 8:24 pm, “Catholic Defender 2000” said (as translated in English):
“These are the ministers taught and tasked to write the establishment of the Roman Catholic Apoctolic Church:“Emiliano Magtuto--PASUGO Nov. 1956, p. 18: -- 44 B.C.
Benjamin Santiago -- PASUGO Feb. 1959, p. 1: -- 400 A.D.
Benjamin Santiago -- PASUGO Agu. 1962, p. 3: -- 1870 A.D.
Teofilo C. Ramos -- PASUGO Mar. 1956, p. 25: -- 1870 A.D.
Joaquin Balmores -- PASUGO Feb. 1952, p. 9: -- 400 A.D.”
However, nothing in PASUGO, November 1956, p. 18, that says that the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church was esblished in 44 BC (TAKE NOTE – 44 BC?).
Also, looking at the PASUGO, February 1959, p. 1, nothing there that says that the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church is esblished in 400 AD.
The worst part is what he said about PASUGO, March 1956, p. 25. He even mentioned it two times:
“4-PASUGO Marso 1956, p. 25: (sinulat ni Teofilo Ramos)
’Ang Iglesia Katolika'y pinabrika lamang ng mga Obispo noong 1870 sa Batikano’…“Teofilo C. Ramos -- PASUGO Mar. 1956, p. 25: -- 1870 A.D.
”Joaquin Balmores -- PASUGO Feb. 1952, p. 9: -- 400 A.D.”
This is the actual PASUGO, March 1956, p. 25:
NOW YOU KNOW: The Catholic Defenders are deliberately misinforming the public. Thus, examine first every information they publish if its accurate and correct. Don’t just believe and accept every thing they say or publish because they are deliberately misinforming the people.
Name-calling, “swearing” and
making Accusations
This was how I responded to the reply of “Catholic Defender 2000” he posted on December 14, 2012, 8:24 pm:
Where can you read Benedict XVI in the Bible? Jonh Paul I? John Paul II? Pedro Calunsod? Cardinal Sin? Cardinal Rosales? Cardinal Sanchez? Cardinal Santos? Catholic Faith Defender? Ryan Toro-Toro? Father Abe? Pious XIII? Paul VI? Leo X? Innocent III? Etc...LOL
NOW I'M REALLY CONVINCED, PAIWAS (AVOIDING THE ISSUE) IS THE WAY OF THE CATHOLIC DEFENDERS. That will be the title of my next article. LOL
Huwag kang mag-alala. Lahat ng sinasabi mo rito sasagutin ko. Kumpleto ako ng PASUGO. Nakita mo na kaya ng aktuwal ang mga binabanggit mo ritong mga PASUGO? Ako ipakikita ko sa mga tao para makita nila ang totoo. Hindi lang pala "avoiding the issue" ang paraan ng mga Catholic Defenders, kundi DECEPTION IS ALSO THE WAY OF THE CATHOLIC DEFENDERS. LOL
(Don’t worry. I will abwers all you mentioned here. I have complete set of PASUGO. Have you actually saw those PASUGO you quoted? I will show the people what is actually written there so that they could see the truth. The way of the Catholic Defenders is not only “avoiding the issue,” but also DECEPTION IS ALSO THE WAY OF THE CATHOLIC DEFENDERS.)
Efkaristoo!!! (Greek for “Thank You”)
I asked him if he actually saw the PASUGO that he mentioned or quoted in his reply. As expected, he did not answer it.
Because he asked me if where in the Bible I could read “Felix, Erano, Eduardo and Angelo,” so it is only relevant that I asked him also where in the Bible he could read Benedict XVI, John PaulI, etc. He did not also answer this question.
Instead of answering my questions, this was his reply:
Look Mr. INC ni Manalo member. It's YOU the Iglesia of Manalo who accuses the Catholic Church as "unbiblical" and yet you're turning the table on us?
So in the same way that you claim "biblical" in your teachings, where is Felix, Erano, Eduardo and Angelo in the Bible?
Nganga!
(1) Name-Calling:
In his reply, he called me, “Mr. INC ni Manalo” and he call the Church I belong to as “Iglesia ni Manalo”. Name-calling and tagging negative adjectives is a usual practice among Catholic Defenders.
(2) Swearing
The “swearing” we are discussing in this blog means:
“Intransitive verb use offensive word or words: to use blasphemous or obscene language, usually as an expression of strong feelings or with the intention of giving offense.” [Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]
Do Catholic Defenders “swear”?
Catholic Defender 2000:
“Other Judases were those who left the Church and preached HERESY such like FELIX MANALO who DENIED Jesus God coming in the flesh. Such are deceitful and anti-Christ says the Bible.” [[http://catholicdefender2000.blogspot.com/search/label/anti-Christ]]
Fr. Abe Argiosa, National Adviser, Catholic Faith Defender
”TANGA. PINAGBAWALAN NA NAMIN. ANG MGA ABORTIONISTA AY HINDI MGA CATOLICO DAHIL LAHAT NAG NAGPA ABORT, NAG-AABORT AT TUMULONG MAGPA-ABORT AY AUTOMATIKONG TIWALAG SA SANTA IGLESIA. KAYA HINDI SILA MGA CATOLICO. SILA AY TULAD NINYONG MGA TAKSIL SA PANANAMPALATAYA.“KAMI OFFICIALLY OPPOSED SA LAHAT NG URI NG ABORTION. ANG INYONG EXECUTIVE MINISTER AY PROMOTER NG MGA ABORTIFACIENTS PILLS NA PUMAPATAY SA MGA SANGGOL SA SINAPUPUNAN DAHIL SIA PA MISMO ANG TAGA PROMOTE NG CONTRACEPTIONS SA INYONG MGA MANALISTA.“…YUNG MGA KAMPON NI SATANAS GUSTONG PILITIN ANG MGA CATOLICO NA GUMAMIT NG PAMPALAGLAG KASI BAWAL SA AMIN KAYA STYLE NILA IPAGBENTA SA AMIN SA LABAS NG SIMBAHAN KUNG SAAN SILA PROTECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. SA INYO SA IGLESIA NI MANALO HINDI NA KAILANGAN PA NI SATANAS NA MAGBENTA NG PAMPALAGLAG KASI EXECUTIVE MINISTER MISMO NINYO ANG NAG-UUTOS NA GUMAMIT KAYO NG MGA PILLS NA ABORTIFACIENTS. KAYO AY MGA CONDOMISTA AT MGA SI-PILLISTA! HA HA HA..." [Fr. Abe, CRS August 14, 2012 1:03 PM, source: thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com]
(3) Who’s accussing who?
“Catholic Defender 2000” said that “It’s YOU the Iglesia of Manalo who accuses the Catholic Church as ‘unbiblical’ and yet you’re turning the table on us.”
It is not true that we are “accusing” them as “unbiblical.” I think “Catholic Defender 2000” forgot the meaning of the word. Accusing means “suggesting claim that somebody had done something wrong.” “Accusation” is a “claim,” not yet proven.
We do not accuse them of being “unbiblical” because it’s the truth and we have evidences about this. It’s the Catholic Authorities who admited that the word, the meaning and the doctrine of the “Trinity” is unscriptural or unbiblical.
Ponder the following:
- Is Purgatory written in the Bible?
- Rosary?
- Christmas?
- Easter?
- Amber Days?
- Ash Wednesday?
- Transubstantiation?
Also, ponder the following:
“Catholic Answer: The difference is that any sexual molestation is SIN while a priest is someone who should be imitating the holiness of Christ. Judas Iscariot who was one among the 'Chosen 12' had sinned. Similarly the Church has its own Judases but they were now being punished. Other Judases were those who left the Church and preached HERESY such like FELIX MANALO who DENIED Jesus God coming in the flesh. Such are deceitful and anti-Christ says the Bible.“Between those child molester priests and the RAPIST MANALO, the former were put to justice while the latter was never condemned rather he elevated himself MORE THAN JESUS the LORD.” [http://catholicdefender2000.blogspot.com/search/label/anti-Christ]
So, who's accusing who? Who's turning the table now? Actually, your words here are truly "LIBELOUS." Mmm...I wonder??? Knows a good lawyer anyone?
Inventing statements and putting
it in the others’ mouth
For me, this is one of the two “most dirtiest tactic” of these people. Remember his first reply (dated December 14, 2012, 9:24 am):
“Ranking Felix Manalo with great Biblical prophets and sages is a blasphemy to God who called these holy men to minister God's people. Felix Manalo didn't just fooled people but he failed to pass the litmus test of being a genuine ‘messenger’.”
It is he who said this, but he is putting these to our mouth. He is making his reader to believe this came from us. A very decietful person indeed. Last Saturday, December 15, 2012, at 6:41am, he posted an article titled “Felix Manalo or Felix Ysagun”as his response to my article titled “Felix Y. Manalo: Why He Changed His Name” that I posted last November 29, 2012.
In this post he mentioned:
“It was wrong to say that the name Felix Ysagun was his "birth" name. It was actually his CATHOLIC NAME when he was baptized in the original Church of Christ. We must note that Felix Manalo, INC's founder was never baptized in his founded church thus making him equal to John the Baptist." - Ges Mundo (INC Minister)” [http://catholicdefender2000.blogspot.com/]
After he mentioned “We must take note that Felix Y. Manlo, INC’s dounder was never baptixed in his founded church thus making him equal to John the Baptist.” Then he inserted “Ges Mundo (INCMinister)”. In this way, he is making the reader to believe that this “statement” is from “Ges Mundo (INC Minister)”.
This is not my words. Please read my article about this (“Felix Y. Manalo: Why He Changed His Name”), so you could see how decietful this person is. Truly, these people are “misinforming” and making “lies” to deceive the public.
His following statement in the said post again shows how deceitful this person is:
“In this article, INC apologists again assume that Felix Manalo is ranked among great prophets and sages in the Bible whose names were changed after God commissioned them as messengers.”
Does my article titled “Felix Y. Manalo: Why He Changed His Name” says such thing? This is what my article said:
"Changing name is not against the Bible: Apostle Paul was first called "Saul"; Abraham was first called "Abram"; and Israel was first called "Jacob."
It is only Catholic Defender 20000 who said that Brother Felix Y. Manalo “is ranked among great prophets and sages in the Bible whose names were changed after God commissioned them as messengers.” This is his statement and he is putting it in my mouth. What a deceitful person. Is this the kind of person that you are going to believe? Is this the kind of person that will bring you to the truth?
However, aside from this, he again invented words that he continuously making his reader believe that it is I who made such things. This is what he said:
“Comparing Felix Manalo with Paul, Abraham, Jacob is very ambitious claim and it's deceiving. Felix Manalo personally changed his name while Paul, Abraham, Jacob it was GOD himself who changed it.”
Did my article compared brother Felix Manalo with Paul, Abaraham and Jacob? Did we made such ambitions claim? How deceitful this man can get!
Now, he said that “Felix Manalo personally changed his name while Paul, Abraham, Jacob it was GOD himself who changed it.” This man is indeed ignorant of the Bible. In Acts 13:9, this is what is written:
“Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said.” (Acts 13:9 NIV)
Mr. Catholic Defender 2000, the Bible did not say that “God Himself who changed his name into Paul.” The Bible said, “Saul, who was also called Paul.” The name “Paul” was his Roman name. Even other scholars attest to this:
“[Then Saul, (who is also called Paul)] This is the last time that this apostle is called "Saul." Henceforward, he is designated by the title by which he is usually known, as "Paul." When, or why, this change occurred in the name, has been a subject on which commentators are not agreed. From the fact that the change in the name is here first intimated, it would seem probable that it was first used in relation to him at this time. By whom the name was given him whether he assumed it himself, or whether it was first given him by Christians or by Romans-is not intimated…the conjectures on this subject, it is probable:“(1) That this name was first used here; for before this, even after his conversion, he is uniformly called Saul.“(2) That it was given by the Romans, as being a name with which they were more familiar, and one that was more consonant with their language and pronunciation. It was made by the change of a single letter; and probably because the name Paul was common among them, and pronounced, perhaps, with greater facility…” [Barnes' Notes, Electronic Database Copyright © 1997, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
NOW YOU KNOW: That Catholic Defenders employ the dirty tactic of inventing statements and claim that it came from us to make the people believe that we have erroneous teachings. If these people saying that we are teaching or saying such “thing,” you must first verify or confirm it, so that you may not be decieved.
Lies, Lies, Lies and more Lies
The other “most dirtiest tactic” of the Catholic Defenders is making lies. Because Catholic Defender asked me if where in the Bible could you read the word “Bible”, I responded:
Tinatanong mo kung mababasa ang salitang "Bible" sa Bible? The word "Biblia" is Greek and used 14 times in the Greek Bible. Mapapahiya ka sa hinahanap mong iyan!!! LOL You don't really know the Bible. So unbiblical indeed.
He knows I am telling the truth, so instead of admitting that he is wrong, he made lies. This is his reponse:
Don't educate me on the meaning of words because it's the CATHOLIC CHURCH which name the BIBLE from Greek. The same way as the word CATHOLIC is from Greek KATA HOLOS "First, I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all: because your faith is spoken of in the whole world (Kata Holos)(Romans 1:7-8)
Nganga!
In his response, he pointed out that: (1) “it’s the CATHOLIC CHURCH which name the BIBLE from Greek”; and (2) “The same way way as the word CATHOLIC is from KATA HOLOS “First, I Give thanks to my Hod, through Jesus Christ, for you all: because your faith is spoken of in the whole world (Kata Holos) )Romans 1:7-8).”
THESE ARE LIES.
He said that “It’s the CATHOLIC CHURCH which name the BIBLE from the Greek.” He lied. I pointed out that:
(1) “The first time the word “ta biblia” was used to refer to the sacred books was in Daniel 9:2 of the Septuagint (the Greek Bible made in the third century BC, long before Ignatius invented the word Catholic in 110 AD).”(2) Apostle Paul (in his letter to Timothy) used the word “ta biblia” referring to the “Sacred Scriptures”.(3) “You said ‘Latin is the official lanuage of the Catholic Church, and the whole world knew that it is the Orthodox (Church) which Greek is their offical language. Now you are saying that ‘it’s the Catholic Church (which Latin is the official language) which name the Bible from Greek.’ Got you in your own words”
Catholic Defender 2000 also point out that the “whole world” mentioned in Romans 1:7-8 is “Kata Holos”. let us again see his own words:
‘…The same way as the word CATHOLIC is from Greek KATA HOLOS "First, I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all: because your faith is spoken of in the whole world (Kata Holos)(Romans 1:7-8)”
This is a BIG LIE. The “whole world” mentioned in Romans 1:7-8 is not “Kata Holos” in Greek. He even inserted it in the verse. However, see it for yourselves:
7 § pa=sin toi=$ ou@sin e)n (Rw/mh| a)gaphtoi=$ qeou=, klhtoi=$ a(gi/oi$, xa/ri$ u(mi=n kai\ ei)rh/nh a)po\ qeou= patro\$ h(mw=n kai\ kuri/ou )Ihsou= Xristou=.8 Prw=ton me\n eu)xaristw= tw=| qew=| mou dia\ )Ihsou= Xristou= peri\ pa/ntwn u(mw=n o%ti h( pi/sti$ u(mw=n katagge/lletai e)n o%lw| tw=| ko/smw|. 9
[Romans 1:7-8 from Nesrle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Revised Edition]
Transliteration:
7 pásin toís oúsin en Rhœ¡m¢ agap¢toís theoú, kl¢toís hagíois, cháris humín kaí eir¢¡n¢ apó theoú patrós h¢mœ¡n kaí kuríou I¢soú Christoú.8 Prœ¡ton mén eucharistœ¡ tœ¡ theœ¡ mou diá I¢soú Christoú perí pántœn humœ¡n hóti h¢ pístis humœ¡n katangélletai en hólœ tœ¡ kósmœ. Romans 1:7-8
It’s “HOLO TO KOSMO” and not “KATA HOLOS” which Catholic Defender 2000 claims. Perhaps, he thought that he can get away with it because we are too dumb to look at the Greek Text of the verse (Romans 1:7-8). A BIG LIAR INDEED.
This did not only shows that the Catholic defenders are making lies in order to decieve the public, but also, that they are ignorant of the teachings of the Bible.
NOW YOU KNOW: Don’t easily accepts everything they say. Take time to confirm and study it first. They are “Big Liars”.
Not Posting Your Answer
After I send to Catholic Defender 2000 my reply that I mentioned and discussed above, this is his response:
NOW YOU KNOW: If it seems that the Catholic Defenders have “scored” and it seems that we did not respond, it’s not because we cannot answer or refute them, but it’s because that the Catholic Defenders did not post our response. Another of their dirty tactics.
Conclusion
These people are employing every dirty tricks in the book in order to deceive the people, to make them believe that the Iglesia ni Cristo is not the true Church.
Here, we can see that these people are way below the level of the ministers of the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ) who are dignified gentlemen and men of great learnings. Kaya pala hindi nila pinapatulan ang mga taong ito. Hindi ibababa ng aming mga ministro ang kanilang sarili sa level ng mga taong ito.
Now You Know the Dirty Tactics and Tricks of the Catholic Faith Defenders, Let be Decieved No More.
Link: http://pristinesearch.blogspot.com/2012/12/answering-catholic-defenders-part-1.html
