Part 5 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (CONFUSING JERRY’S OWN INTELLECT)




And for today's episode CONFUSING JERRY’S OWN INTELLECT and let's find out how his claim came to be. Let's check out Ginoong Pantas statement about my own intellect and let's challenge him to take actions on the intellect of the context that has been given that he misinterpreted. Text in blue for Ginoong Pantas, mine will be the regular text, some other will be in gray that he quoted from my previous commentary. Let's dive in -

“𝙊𝙠𝙖𝙮, 𝙨𝙤 𝙡𝙚𝙩’𝙨 𝙗𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚. 𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙖 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙇𝙚𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙙 𝙈𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙤𝙧 𝙎𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙖𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙁𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙭 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙤'𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙘𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙩? 𝙎𝙤, 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩? 𝙒𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝, 𝙂𝙞𝙣𝙤𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙋𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙨?”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Clearly, you either failed to grasp what you read or simply had no interest in discerning the essence of the INC’s stance. No wonder you ended up misrepresenting one of our doctrines. To put it plainly, the only point I disagreed with is YOUR CLAIM that the 1833 Leonid Meteor Storm is part of INC doctrine and serves as one of the supposed signs of Brother Felix Manalo’s leadership in the emergence of the true Church in the Philippines. I already made that clear, right?

If your talking about failure Ginoong Pantas, it is clear that you fail to understand my statement and misrepresent it just because I am against on your doctrine. You simple ridiculed yourself with your own ideology that doesn't even make sense. If you call me misrepresenting your doctrine, can you prove it here and just when did I quote your doctrine and misrepresent it, Ginoong Pantas? The issue is not about your claimed doctrine that again, I don't even care, the issue was all about that one even that has been fulfilled and you misunderstood my statement. Will it seems like it's the very essence of our teaching that you just quote and cherry-pick only the side that you think that is good for you. Funny right, Ginoong Pantas? The doctrine that I'm talking to was the Manalo's claim of the Fulfilled Prophecy, and it seems like you don't like it, right Ginoong Pantas? Will it seem that every time we talk about some of the known event that has been fulfilled, then we have to make sure that Manalo was involve, am I right, Ginoong Pantas? Was it the message that you want to prove here?

And yes, we CITE Revelation 6:12-13, but only to establish that the 1833 Leonid Meteor Shower was among the three (3) events recorded at the precise OPENING OF THE SIXTH SEAL in those verses. If you were truly open‑minded, you would have understood this without difficulty. But since your aim is not to examine the veracity of our doctrines but to disprove them, your only recourse is to portray the INC as contradictory or confusing. The problem is, anyone with genuine critical thinking skills will see through that and will not buy into your alibi. Tsk tsk tsk…

And here's the part where you misrepresent my statement into a contradictory to your teachings did I said anything like it Ginoong Pantas, or you just simply overreacting on the Post that I made? This is not actually a problem but it seem like you try to make a problem on it just because Mormonism was involve. Oh yeah sure, so every time we talk about religion, lets just stick to just INC was the only religion, nothing more nothing less, was it what you want Ginoong Pantas? And again, I am basing my Post on things that has been quoted widely in and out of your INC circle and I am not basing any doctrine of yours which I don't care, so why would I take a deep seek on just the side of your religion that doesn't make sense to me, Ginoong Pantas? Have you seen the problem here? It is not me or the post that I made, it's your interpretations and bigotry. And clearly you have a problem, not mine.

“𝘼𝙡𝙨𝙤, 𝙄 𝙣𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙣𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙨𝙤-𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝘽𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙁𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙭 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙤’𝙨 𝘿𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙈𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙖 𝙙𝙚𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡. 𝙎𝙤, 𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙞𝙩, 𝙖𝙢 𝙄 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩? 𝙄𝙛 𝙨𝙤, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙢𝙮 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙖𝙨 𝙄 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙄 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙪𝙥 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙨, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙩.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Oh, you never said that? Then take a look at the very first screenshot I attached in this post you can see it for yourself. I’m done being redundant when it is you who keeps contradicting your own statements. And wait… you still think your post is ACCURATE when you claimed that “it is one of the signs” connected to the emergence of the Church in the Philippines? That only reinforces my point. Now I understand the wisdom behind the Filipino saying: “𝘈𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘢 𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘢𝘩𝘶𝘩𝘶𝘭𝘪 𝘴𝘢 𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘪 𝘯𝘪𝘺𝘢𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘪𝘣𝘪𝘨” (a fish is usually caught by its own mouth).

Oh really, what about let's post the Tagalog Version so you can see the syntax of the sentences that I made and point me out where I said that It was indeed the signal of the beginning of your so-call Sugo of the Far East Philippines. Take me where did it says something about it Ginoong Pantas, so here's the Tagalog version -

@lahat Nakakatuwang Katotohanan na maaaring interesado kayo. Isa sa mga doktrina o turo ng INC na itinuro bilang isa sa mga katuparan ng Ka Felix Manalo ay ang mga palatandaan kung paano umusbong ang simbahan sa Pilipinas. (Period) Isa sa mga palatandaang iyon ay ang 1833 Meteor Shower, o kung tawagin nila, ang 1833 Leonid Meteor Storm, na tinutukoy ito sa Apocalipsis 6:12-13, kung hindi ako nagkakamali. Ngunit narito ang kawili-wiling bahagi. Hinulaan ni Joseph Smith ang eksaktong petsa kung kailan ito lilitaw. Wala pa akong ginagawang artikulo tungkol dito, at ginagawa ko pa rin ang aking blog, ngunit narito ang isa mula sa Joseph Smith Foundation tungkol sa artikulong iyon. Maaari ka ring maghanap sa isang independiyenteng site na may kaugnayan sa paksang ito at alamin kung paano ito nangyari. Salamat sa lahat, at magandang gabi.

So here it is Ginoong Pantas, and I won't be surprise if you still didn't catch it. See the Period Marking right after the BLACK text? Those were simply a separate structure and I put the red mark stating that you and the rest of the INC community believe or have this doctrine/teaching of this Felix Manalo's fulfilled Prophecy or whatever you call it which I don't think necessary to include all of it in the structure of my Post. And right after the Period I mark the Purple text as a separate sentence stating that one of those events (Not the Doctrine in General) which is also used by other religious organization that you're not aware of, was also found in LDS circle. Get it now Ginoong Pantas? Now tell me what kind of fish that you have caught, Ginoong Pantas? Pinalawak mo ba Pag-iisip mo, Ginoong Pantas?

It seems like the Google Translation is accurate.
I don't normally use translations
which is sometimes the word I use where awkward. LOL!

“𝙔𝙤𝙪'𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙛𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛, 𝙂𝙞𝙣𝙤𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙋𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙨. 𝙎𝙤, 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙢𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩, 𝙙𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙨, 𝙤𝙧, 𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙬𝙖𝙮𝙨, 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙮 𝙄 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩'𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙅𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙥𝙝 𝙎𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙮 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩?”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Again, I am not the one confused here YOU ARE. In fact, you ended up contradicting your own statements while straining to explain yourself just to save face. My answer remains unchanged: the Leonid Meteor Shower of November 13, 1833 was only one of the three events prophesied in Revelation 6:12-13. It was never taught as a sign of the Church’s emergence in the Philippines, as you implied in your FUN FACT post.

Again, Ginoong Pantas. It is you who has a problem here, I am just giving you and the INC belief that you have now a favor that Felix Manalo has a ground of his so-call prophecy fulfilled, and yet you misinterpret it. And tell me which part is the contradiction of my statement? You cant even lead me where rather misrepresent my word to thing that you don't like. Again, it is you who have the problem here Ginoong Pantas, and clearly you confused yourself even in this response that you made. You even agree that this event is one of the three events on your teachings, and yet you dislike my post just because it was fulfilled by Joseph Smith. Either it was all about Jealousy or Anger Issue, Ginoong Pantas and now you brought it up to the Public. Go ahead and tell the public that you don't believe in that event as part of Manalo's fulfilled Prophecy if you think a bad idea to include it in your INC studies.

And regarding your claim that Joseph Smith allegedly predicted it, here we are again… my friend, there is NO known written record from 1833 itself. No diary entry from Joseph Smith predicting it beforehand. No documented sermon from that time mentioning such a prophecy. No contemporary witness account recorded at the moment it supposedly happened. What exists instead are retrospective narratives, accounts written long after the fact, precisely the kind of material historians treat with caution.
 
I have already made my statement about this and again you have no answers on my commentary about it. Why wont you include it here and answer my questions if you have credibility? Why would you just select only the good part that you like and mislead people to just go on in your ideology. Go ahead and answer the post that I made on this challenge that you opened up and get back here with your response. Here's the link - (https://bustillo-family.blogspot.com/2026/04/a-responding-ginoong-pantas-their-fun.html)

“𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙬𝙖𝙮, 𝙄 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩, 𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙗𝙚 𝙖𝙣 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙖𝙮𝙗𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙬𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚. 𝙄𝙩’𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙖 𝙗𝙞𝙜 𝙙𝙚𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙖 𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙙𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙢𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙝𝙚𝙡𝙥 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢 𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙙 𝙪𝙥 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙮. 𝙎𝙤 𝙄'𝙡𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙠 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙛 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: No, you clearly DO NOT get my point. The fact that your response is riddled with uncertainties already speaks volumes. Opinion is not the same as doctrine, and whether you consider that a big deal or not is irrelevant.

Oh so you do understand that Felix Manalo did quote it out of the mind and teachings of God, So why would you disagree, Ginoong Pantas? And even if this was not in your official Pasugo Website, does it mean Manalo's claim is unacceptable to you? How was that Ginoong Pantas?

Coming up Next - Part 6 ALLEGEDLY AGREEING ON HIS STATEMENT Only here at http://bit.ly/GPantas
No comments:

Doon sa blog para may kita - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata

Sure ka ba sa pinagsasabi mo Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? O basta basta ka na naman humuhugot ng walang kwentang hugot? Yung totoo, saan mo napulot ang kalukuhan mong pagiisip?




Gusto mo makita Audience ng blog ko Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Oh ito para may mahugot ka na katutuhanan sa sunod at para magkalaman utak mo -


Gaano daw karami Jose Rodelio Retome Rata? Sige nga kwento mo nga dito kung gaano ka rami.
No comments:

Part 4 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM)



And on our today's episode title (ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM) or more accurately Appeal to Authority. Now let's check out if I did make or attempt to Appeal to Authority according to his statement. Text in blue was his and mine with the plain text and some others that he quoted from my previous commentary will be in gray. So let's dive in -

“𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙬 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙅𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙥𝙝 𝙆𝙖𝙫𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙜𝙝'𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙨 𝙏𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙁𝙖𝙡𝙡 - 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙈𝙧. 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙤 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝟭𝟴𝟯𝟯 𝙈𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙤𝙧 𝙎𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙢. 𝙄 𝙙𝙤𝙣'𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙣𝙚𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙛𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙨 𝙢𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙖𝙣𝙩, 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙄 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙣 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚 "𝘼𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙪𝙡𝙤 𝙨𝙖 𝙄𝙠𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙮𝙖𝙠 𝙨𝙖 𝙄𝙜𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙖 𝙆𝙖𝙩𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙖 𝘼𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙖 𝙍𝙤𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙖" 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙗𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙡𝙮 𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙜𝙤 𝙞𝙛 𝙄'𝙢 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙣, 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙢𝙚 𝙞𝙛 𝙄'𝙢 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜. 𝘼𝙣𝙙, 𝙄 𝙜𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙖𝙘𝙠 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘾𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙘 𝙁𝙖𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙍𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝟲:𝟭𝟮-𝟭𝟯.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Oh, so now you resort to digging into Catholic sources that criticize the beliefs of the Iglesia Ni Cristo? And then what? try to make it appear that our position on this very topic is somehow in error? That reeks of argumentum ad verecundiam, my friend. And let me remind you, the book 𝘈𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘶𝘭𝘰 𝘴𝘢 𝘐𝘬𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘺𝘢𝘬 𝘴𝘢 𝘐𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘢 𝘒𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘢 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘢 𝘙𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢 was never written to attack the Catholic faith. In fact, Bro. Felix Manalo himself, the author of that book, made it clear when he said:

Seriously bro, I did attempt an Appeal to Authority? Tell me when you try to quote a line to someone and your not even thinking a relevant theme on the matter, then you call it an Appeal to Authority? Do you understand that Ginoong Pantas? Okay, so let's have it here. 

“𝗔𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗸𝗹𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗮 𝗶𝘁𝗼’𝘆 𝗦𝗨𝗟𝗢𝗡𝗚 𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗯𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘆 𝗹𝗶𝘄𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴 𝘀𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗴𝗮 𝗸𝗮𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗼𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗻𝗶 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗴𝗮 𝗔𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗹. 𝗔𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗸𝗹𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗮 𝗶𝘁𝗼’𝘆 𝗮𝗮𝗸𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗸𝗮𝘆𝗼 𝘀𝗮 𝗺𝗴𝗮 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗻𝗴 𝗕𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗻𝗮 𝗞𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝗮 𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗹𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗸𝗼𝗹 𝘀𝗮 𝗶𝗴𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘆𝗼 𝗻𝗶 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗴𝗮 𝗔𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗹. 𝗦𝗮 𝗮𝗸𝗹𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗮 𝗶𝘁𝗼’𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗴𝗮 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗮 𝗻𝗴 𝗸𝗮𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀𝗮𝘆𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝗮 𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗽𝗮𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗼𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝘀𝗮 𝗜𝗴𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗞𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗮 𝗔𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗮 𝗥𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮.” [Manalo, Felix Y. 𝘈𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘶𝘭𝘰 𝘴𝘢 𝘐𝘬𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘺𝘢𝘬 𝘴𝘢 𝘐𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘢 𝘒𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘢 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘢 𝘙𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘢; Quezon City, Philippines: Ang Pasugo © 1947, paunang salita (foreword) section]
In English:
“𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗹𝗲𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝗹𝘆 𝗦𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗽𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗹𝗲𝘀. 𝗜𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸, 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗵𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵.”

Yeah I can see that, no need to bother on translating something which I could understand the text clearly. The question here was, do you understand my text clearly? You should stick to that first before educating to someone.

Now tell me does this truly sound like an ATTACK on the Catholic faith? My friend, you should have taken the time to read the introduction, preface, or foreword of the book before leaping to hasty conclusions. And yes, Joseph J. Kavanagh did write an article commenting on Bro. Manalo’s book, particularly on Rev. 6:12-13, which describes the prophesied events that unfolded when the sixth seal was opened (including the 1833 Leonid Meteor Shower, the very “falling of the stars” you contend).

Oh really, Why wont you quote the whole theme of the article and it's context rather than a part of the introduction? And seriously just to be fair and transparent; who were the target audience of the article of which I supposed it was Manalo himself who brought it to life? So here's the Full Introduction that you missed quoting -

Taken from -
ANG SULO
SA KATITIYAK SA
IGLESIA KATOLIKA APOSTOLIKA ROMANA
One of the Pages from ANG SULO



Some Parts of the books that has been publish publicly which it said something like Catholic Church is false and was not the church Christ built. Just to be fair, I don't think this was actually and issue since every religion has their own way of ideology thinking the others is false through teachings and authority. But this is not actually the point here, the main issue was that Ginoong Pantas claimed that I did Appeal to Authority which in fact it was on their own articles. Do you get the issue here Ginoong Pantas? Just when did I make an appeal to authority while I don't even bother quoting it and declaring it's truthfulness? Did I said about Joseph Kavanagh article was accurate or trusthworthy? Can you prove that on my text? The only thing is certain on my commentary, that even Joseph Kavanagh also quote Felix Manalo's very own handiwork and he mentioned the same event about the Leonid Meteor Storm that you avoid the issue, Ginoong Pantas. So what are you actually hiding here Ginoong Pantas? What's the deal with this Article about "ANG SULO". Is there something you want to talk about the context of this article, Ginoong Pantas? Let go ahead and explore it.

But let’s be clear: quoting Mr. Kavanagh here adds nothing of substance. His article merely questions Brother Felix Manalo’s application of an exact date (November 13, 1833) to the fulfillment of that prophecy. It does not, in any way, connect the event to the emergence of the true Church in the Philippines, an emergence that plainly took place with the opening of the seventh seal, marked by the prophesied occurrence that led to the First World War in 1914. To put it bluntly, you were barking up the wrong tree. This reference you relied on never supported your collapsing tower of misrepresentation regarding the INC’s doctrine.

And again, just as I said on the first place, I don't care about it that why I say I don't need to focused on it. The main point is not about Joseph Kavanagh's article; the point was all about Felix Manalo's words of the said Event was included and for sure you don't want to include it just because the Mormon's had proven something, am I right Ginoong Pantas?

Taken from the Iglesia Ni Cristo by Joseph Kavanagh
where he quoted the Article from "Ang SULO"



“𝙈𝙮 𝙦𝙪𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙂𝙞𝙣𝙤𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙋𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙨, 𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙣𝙤𝙩? 𝙄 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨 𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙫𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚, 𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙢𝙚 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙡𝙚𝙙𝙜𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙖𝙮𝙗𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙖 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝘽𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙁𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙭 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙤. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧, 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙄 𝙨𝙖𝙮 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙄 𝙙𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙩, 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙛 𝘽𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙁𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙭 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣, 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙨𝙩𝙪𝙙𝙮, 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙤 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙟𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙨. 𝙎𝙤, 𝙄 𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙤𝙣'𝙩 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚, 𝙂𝙞𝙣𝙤𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙋𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙨, 𝙄'𝙢 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖 𝙘𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙤𝙣. 𝙄 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙪𝙞𝙡𝙙 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙤𝙣 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙛𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙙𝙚𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙧.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Are you me whether Brother Felix Manalo’s book “Ang Sulo” is still part of the teachings of the Iglesia Ni Cristo? Well, that book is centered on correcting the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church and on Brother Felix Manalo’s biblical commentary regarding certain criticisms Catholicism has directed at the INC. Thus, it serves as a REFERENCE AID for us in discussions with Catholic defenders. But let me be clear: the totality of INC doctrine is not confined to Catholicism. It encompasses the vast world of theology and the teachings of the Bible that show the way to salvation.

So yes, Bro. FYM’s “Ang Sulo” is part of INC teaching, but only in the context of engaging with Catholicism.

Your missing the point again Mr. Ginoong Pantas. The question is too simple that even Elementary could answer it directly. I don't even bother on the catholic side of your story, the issue here was the quote Felix Manalo was quoting. Was it still part of your teachings? If so, then my commentary about it is true; if it's not, then tell me when did the INC took it out from the words of Felix Manalo from his Article called ANG SULO? Was it still there or you don't accept it anymore? See the Point Ginoong Pantas? You talk too much on diverting the issue to some irrelevant context, and yet the question is plain and simple.

And since you are a Mormon, Jerry, do not presume that you are also a recipient of the points addressed in that book. You are right that everyone has their own opinions, but Brother Felix Manalo was not sent by God to teach mere opinion. He did not base his teachings on personal views, but on the truths revealed in the Holy Scriptures. I appreciate that you recognize yourself as not close‑minded, but I hope you use that quality to avoid misrepresenting our doctrines.

Tell me straight Ginoong Pantas; What this has to do with what I believe now, Ginoong Pantas? What's the relevance of it to the topic? And if he (Felix Manalo) was not sent by God to teach a mere opinion. And again, how did I misrepresent your doctrine? Just when did my comment get into the line of your ideology? What about you translate my Post to Tagalog so you'll understand it more clearly, Ginoong Pantas? And it seems like you just love cherry-pick lines just as the same INC out there that I once encountered.

COMING UP NEXT - Part 5 CONFUSING JERRY’S OWN INTELLECT. Check out soon here at http://bit.ly/GPantas
No comments:

Part 3 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (OBVIOUS HASTY GENERALIZATION)



And here's the Part 3 of the Episode titled OBVIOUS HASTY GENERALIZATION. Let's check out what we could get on this misunderstood statement by Ginoong Pantas and let analyze how he poorly take statement out of context. Okay so same as the previous post, text in blue from Ginoong Pantas and Gray from his quotes on my previous content, and maybe some others for emphasis if available. Let's dive in -

“𝘼𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣, 𝙄’𝙢 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚, 𝙨𝙤 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙨𝙤-𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙙𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙢𝙖𝙮𝙗𝙚, 𝙤𝙧 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙢𝙖𝙮 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙨𝙖𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙. 𝙎𝙤, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙙, 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙗𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛 𝙤𝙣 𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚. 𝘼𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣, 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙚, 𝙄 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣'𝙩 𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙡𝙚𝙩’𝙨 𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Let me emphasize your sublime utterance: “it’s true, I wasn’t certain.” So how can your rebuttal carry any weight when there are obvious UNCERTAINTIES in your points, especially in trying to support your claim that the involvement of the 1833 Leonid Meteor Storm is supposedly an “INC doctrine” tied to the emergence of the Church in the Philippines? On that basis alone, your argument is already shaky. Furthermore, your hasty generalizations and anecdotal fallacies do not constitute valid points to justify your misrepresentation of the true teachings of the INC regarding the emergence of the true Church of Christ. Honestly, you had ample time to conduct proper research and confirm your claims before posting your so-called FUN FACT, yet only now are you scrambling to find sources to back up your distorted view of our doctrines and teachings.

Seriously? Do you intend to understand my post as if I was quoting your doctrine, Ginoong Pantas? Do you read it that way, Ginoong Pantas? I don't even bother thinking on quoting any of your Pasugo Documents since it was all about bragging and attack of Catholicism, then here you are thinking I was doing that post as if it was attacking your ideology which I don't even care? Come on, Ginoong Pantas. You're no longer a child. The only doctrine that I'm pointing out is simply the claim of Felix Manalo of Biblical Prophecy that was fulfilled which again, I don't even care. So how do you think that my claim is shaky when it was not all about a direct INC claim rather a general event or historicity? So far, I haven't even caught on Hasty Generalization, it is simply that your are overreacting on my statement and that is the case here. You should define it first before addressing to someone who doesn't even have an issue.

“𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙖𝙣 𝘼𝙛𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙂𝙪𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙩𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙘 𝙤𝙣 𝙁𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙗𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙩, 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙤𝙡. 𝙄 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙁𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙗𝙤𝙤𝙠. 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙄 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙨 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙋𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙖𝙮𝙗𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙩. 𝘼𝙣𝙮𝙬𝙖𝙮𝙨, 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙄 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩, 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙗𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙠𝙚𝙚𝙥 𝙪𝙥𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Oh, come on… it is nothing new to me that Facebook groups or pages exist which feature certain teachings professed by the INC. Many of these are drawn from official INC sources such as the Pasugo magazine, while others are modified articles from original authors to avoid copyright issues.

Yeah, right it's nothing new to everyone, then why don't you just go ahead and defend that this groups that they were wrong. Can you? Or what about lets just go to your official INC Website take actions on this one. Again, even if this has been modified by your cohorts or taken from somewhere else, this doesn't prove the fact of my point and you simply missed that part. Tell me Ginoong Pantas, was it because you don't like the way I posted it since it was all about Felix Manalo and his so-called prophecy? Again, my point is simple and if you deny it as if you exclude that on the list of Manalo Prophecy, who cares and that's not my point. I have given you my stand on this one already, you can go ahead and check out the Part 1 where I made my stand (Click here).

Well, I will admit that some of the articles of faith found on these unofficial INC sites (like the ones you have shown) can still be instructive. However, it is far better NOT to misinterpret or misrepresent the doctrines of the INC that you encounter on these pages, especially when there is NO indication that they are drawn from our official teachings on a given topic.

And here we are again. Now you do agree that this has been used over time, and you do now agree that even in your INC circles take this interpretations on different level. So, what's you point of bubbling on this senseless post you got here while you do agree that it is part of those prophesy, and when I say prophesy it's an specific event. And regarding misrepresentations and misinterpretations, its your problem. I did not interpret your ideology, I simply made a simple post that an event occurs, then here you are acting like a child cries on someone steals his lollypop. LOL! Seriously bro, why are you doing this? Just curious.

You see, even if you were to message those pages one by one, you would receive the same answer: THEY ARE NOT official sources of INC doctrine. Instead, they would refer you to incmedia.org, pasugo.com.ph, or iglesianicristo.net. Unless, of course, the page is run by a rebellious former member, in which case the INC‑oriented content might easily mislead you into believing things that are not truly taught by the Iglesia ni Cristo.

Again, I am not referring to any official doctrine of your INC, I simply says that this prophecy was fulfil and that your Manalo Dude has a lot of collected prophecy and one of those was this event, period. Would that make sense now, or you just can't comprehend a simple statement? So why would I use your doctrine on your official site where I don't even care those doctrine of your MANALO's Collection of Prophecy that doesn't even make sense?

Therefore, it is no longer our fault if you fail to exercise caution in choosing your sources when the subject at hand is the official doctrines or teachings of the INC.

Why would I feel sorry about it Ginoong Pantas? Why would I care choosing to go directly to the sources of your religion where it doesn't even relevant on my OP? This subject is actually simple and you are just trying so hard to defend your position were there's nothing even to discuss? Again, your misinterpretation on my statement says it all and that's your problem, not mine.

“𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝘽𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙁𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙭 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙤'𝙨 𝘾𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜. 𝘽𝙪𝙩 𝙄 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙪𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙤 𝙢𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: In fact, there were plenty of such articles. But take note: NONE OF THEM ever suggest that the “falling of the stars” prophesied in Revelation 6:12-13 (fulfilled in the 1833 Leonid Meteor Shower) is connected to the supposed signs of the Church’s emergence in the Philippines. Keep that firmly in mind, my friend, because I will not repeat it again.

Oh, come one, here we go again! So you disagree now and then agrees later on? I do keep it firmly in mind that you're simply a bigot. See where it lead you? NOWHERE! You just kept on jumping left and right and yet at later end you want to prove that this was not included in your PASUGO issues. Felix is even quoting it remember? And for sure we will get to that on the next episode. But here's the thing, you're missing the whole point of my statement, and you just hate it just because I posted it. Come on, go ahead and tell everyone about it Ginoong Pantas.
No comments:

Part 2 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (THE OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION)



So here we are one the part 2 of this episode titled "THE OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION". Oh, I didn't know this was contradiction to your so-called SUGO that takes only part of the biblical Prophecy and declares it as his fulfilment. Check out the text in blue as your commentary and some others that has been quoted will be change to gray. So let's go ahead and talk about it here -

“𝙍𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙄 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙖 𝙛𝙪𝙣 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙅𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙥𝙝 𝙎𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙝'𝙨 𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙍𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙤𝙧 𝙎𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙄 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙖 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙤 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙄𝙉𝘾'𝙨 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙄 𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙘𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙝 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙥𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: It is true that the Iglesia Ni Cristo teaches that the 1833 Leonid Meteor Shower fulfilled the prophesied “falling of the stars” in Revelation 6:12-13. However, the INC has NEVER taught that this event was one of the SIGNS (as Jerry phrased it) of the Church’s emergence in the Philippines. In fact, it was Jerry himself who asserted in his post that the meteor shower was a sign of the Church’s rise, a claim never taught by the INC.

So you're telling me that it is true that this has been the fulfilled prophesy but you don't accept that you people use this as one of the signs of time according to your own ideology? Who's contradicting here Ginoong Pantas? What was actually your point? So it was NEVER taught that this is one of the SIGNS, they why do you people keep quoting it? And even if you disagree on my statement, does my claim "One of those signs" suggest that I disagree with your statement? Did you really think so, Ginoong Pantas? 

You can revisit the link (below) to his Facebook post in the group to verify this for yourself.

I already verify this on the introduction and you already misunderstood the detail of my comment thinking that I was indeed doing it just to mock your doctrine down, and you're wrong. You simply love bigotry and just because I posted it, then it is contradictions or misconceptions. Obviously, you have no clue of my statement's context and took it as if it was against your doctrine. Seriously, Ginoong Pantas?

“𝙂𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙛𝙪𝙣 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙄 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙗𝙞𝙜 𝙙𝙚𝙖𝙡, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙡 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙖 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙢𝙮 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙊𝙋.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Oh, really?  So sharing a supposed FACT isn’t a big deal to you? Come on… not only did you present it as factual, you even went as far as to claim that it is “one of the doctrines or teachings of INC” supposedly connected to the fulfillment of Brother Felix Manalo’s and the Church’s emergence in the Philippines, when in reality, YOU’RE NOT EVEN CERTAIN how such a claim could be considered an official doctrine, or whether it has ever been taught that way at all.

Oh sorry, I'm not aware that you don't want other religion use the same event since it was for Brother Felix Manalo only prophecy. LOL! Thanks for letting me know. Now here we go to the contradiction part, tell me why do Brother Felix Manalo and some other who claimed that it was one of the known signs that had/already happened, and together with some other signs that you love quoting, leads to Brother Felix Manalo's call? Why do you people use the same strategy in using or including the event as if this leads to Felix Manalo's Call?

That, precisely, is why I chose to bring this to public attention on my timeline (for proper awareness and scrutiny) before your post ends up MISLEADING others in your group through a clear misrepresentation of our teachings.

Oh, "scrutiny" did you analyze my text properly, Ginoong Pantas? Did it clearly said anything that I am quoting it out of your doctrine? Or did I just only borrow the statements from your very own cohorts? Did I mislead people telling you or everyone that this is not true because it's not for Felix Manalo that he falsely use the event for INC's false teaching sake? Tell me more about it, Ginoong Pantas if you like. I would love to hear it from you.

“𝙇𝙚𝙩’𝙨 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙖𝙮 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙬𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙪𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙛𝙪𝙨𝙨. 𝙎𝙤 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙙𝙤 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙚 𝙞𝙩? 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚, 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙? 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧, 𝙄 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚𝙣’𝙩 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙮 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮 𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚, 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙄’𝙢 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙬𝙚𝙗𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: So why does INC cite Revelation 6:12-13? Well, it is to establish TWO POINTS. First, that the 1833 Leonid Meteor Shower is recognized as one of the three historical events associated with the “falling of the stars.” Second, that this “falling of the stars” occurs within the OPENING OF THE SIXTH SEAL, not within the period of the re-emergence of the true Church in the Philippines. That re-emergence, when Brother Felix Manalo began his mission as the Messenger of God, is understood to take place during the opening of the seventh seal, not the sixth.

So you simply recognized it as One of the Three Historical Event, while you disagree on my Post. This is simply an absurd illustration of your contradiction to the main issue. So again, who was contradicting on this point? Seriously, Ginoong Pantas, which part that I did contradict on your claimed ideology? It was simply you who contradicts your own statement. Which is which, you recognized the event as part of the prophecy or not? Just tell me straight, Ginoong Pantas. Also, I never said this was on the Opening or the period of the re-emergence, you simply misunderstood my statement. I simply said it was "one of those event" and when we say "those" simply means there were many others. Did you get the point, Ginoong Pantas?

I believe I already made this clear in the article I posted. Anyway… you yourself admitted that your post was NOT clearly presented. That being the case, how could you label it as a FUN FACT when the content itself lacks clarity? And then, when someone points this out and offers a correction, you react as though you are being antagonized!? Tsk tsk tsk… Hahahah.

That's was clearly confusing yourself. You can simply see that I was indeed pointing out that this event did happened and that is even in your INC circle was using it. So which part is contradicting here Ginoong Pantas? My statement or your misunderstanding? When I did claim that it was not clearly presented, doesn't make that the fulfilment never happen, I am only stating that you people are quoting it and I am not even aware that you don't like me quoting it or just some other religion use the same quote because it's for Felix Manalo. But at the end of it you simply confused yourself telling me or everyone on your OP that it is not part of the event and yet there are lots of INC folks out there use and quote the same thing. Well it seem to me that you just simply jealous of the part where I said that Joseph Smith made a prophecy when it will happen, while Felix Manalo did never have any fulfilled prophecy rather simply try to cut out some parts of the history that might lead to his mission where not even a heavenly call. Did you see what happen here Ginoong Pantas?

COMING UP NEXT - Part 3 OBVIOUS HASTY GENERALIZATION
No comments:

Part 1 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (Introduction)



So here we are again on the issue where Ginoong Pantas can't hardly accept that he misunderstood the statement and clearly his understanding did exceed it's limit because of bigotry. But we will get to it as long as he keeps it then lets just stay to just a simple subject that he foolishly won't accept. Also I made your text blue so you can easily see that part of your commentary, the rest will be my own and some others such as links and emphasis.

ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL
It’s been over a week now since I last logged into Facebook, and I sincerely apologize to anyone (especially, Jerry) who may have been waiting for my response. My schedule has been quite demanding lately, making it difficult for me to stay active on social media. Thank you for your understanding.

In his attempt, he tries to take it in a humble level thinking this might be a good start in conversing on the topic. I understand that we have priorities and I do have even right at this moment were I made this commentary. But you should also understand that there are people out there also thinks that the matter has been waiting on your side if this need to be address. A simple response will do stating you're busy that expecting it as a junk. And again, you did not response this on my OP rather posting it on different thread Publicly, telling everyone how arrogant you are in undisciplined and indecent. Do you call it professional that way? But let's get to it sooner after we get to that part. So here we go -

Anyway, for a quick recap, it all began when Jerry Nuñez Bustillo, a self-styled Mormon apologist, posted what he called a “FUN FACT” in a Facebook group named The Restored Truths. In his post, he tagged nearly every member of the group and claimed that one of the doctrines of the INC allegedly teaches that the 1833 Leonid Meteor Shower was a divine sign heralding the emergence of the Church in the Philippines under Bro. FYM’s leadership.

And look what we got here, you still focused on the part where my statement is clear that it was indeed your doctrine as if the event as plain as it is. So let's repost that "Fun Fact" that you misunderstood badly. Look closely how you badly misinterpret my statement. This simply shows that your understanding either biblical or outside scriptural text might be full of misinterpretations and cherry picking ideology. 

@everyone Fun Fact that might interest you. One of the doctrines or teachings of INC that has been taught as one of the fulfillments of Bro Felix Manalo was the signs of how the church in the Philippines emerges. One of those signs is the 1833 Meteor Shower, or as they call it, the 1833 Leonid Meteor Storm, referencing it in Revelation 6:12-13, if I'm not mistaken. But here's the interesting part. Joseph Smith predicted the exact date when it would appear. I haven't made an article on this one yet, and I'm still working on my blog, but here's one from the Joseph Smith Foundation on that article. You can also search an independent site relating to this topic and find out how it happened. Thanks everyone, and Good night.


Did you catch it? Or you're still buffering? See where you missed the part. I did not say that it was indeed the only doctrine, which I was talking about general doctrine or should we say fulfilment, and here you are bubbling with your own ideology that has been simply misunderstood. Do you INC people really look at the text that way?

Although his post hardly merits serious attention (despite his claim that it “might interest” readers) I still found it troubling. The way he framed it suggests a blatant misrepresentation of what the Iglesia Ni Cristo actually teaches. That was enough reason for me to respond publicly with a post on my own timeline.

Oh yeah sure "THE SERIOUS ATTENTION" stuff that I don't even bother thinking that it was a serious matter of misunderstanding the context. So, how did I misrepresent the Iglesia Ni Cristo where I only doing you a favor? My post clearly suggest that your so-call SUGO in the Philippines has a ground of his very own prophecy and that I even made it simple and state that it did happen. So you want attention? Go ahead and include this part where you misinterpret the context of my statement.


Well, I suggest visiting his post and mine for a fair evaluation before going all through the content of this post.

Sure, I am making this on a different part so I can clearly address your misinterpretations of my text that you don't even bother looking on the bright side. Let's get to it shall we?

Now, after realizing that I had called him out and corrected his misunderstanding of one of the alleged doctrines of the Iglesia Ni Cristo, Jerry went on to write a rebuttal on his blog, which, from the looks of it, might even be owned by his family. Here is the entirety of his attempt to refute my critique.

Yeah sure "Corrected my Misunderstanding" which plainly says you misunderstood my statement. And thank you for taking the link of my blog on such a matter where you think the family owned blog says it all. Just to shorten the blog if you think it's too long you can go ahead using this link instead.


Moving on. As we engage in the more part of your blog. Take note that I already made up my stand that you misinterpret and misunderstood my statement, this alone proves everything. But yeah sure will get to every detail of your post.

Some portions of his rebuttal on that blog are already addressed in the screenshots provided below. However, the rest (particularly the more attention-grabbing and pressing points) will be dealt with here. I will tackle them one by one.

And the Screenshot, don't worry I will add it soon after we get those part. So far as the introduction goes, I just leave it as it is.

COMING UP - Part 2 THE OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION
No comments:

Marriage of Grandparents at Palompon Leyte: June 18, 1961

Got the marriage record of my Grandparent from my Mother side at Palompon Leyte. And this ones epic. They were about 19 and 17 years that time.

Rufino Nuñez and Emelia Garing record of their Marriage.


Date was June 18, 1961 with the witnesses on Father and Mother side
No comments:

Kinderhook plates bought to Joseph Smith appear to be a 19th-century hoax. - by John Wigglesworth


This has been debunked over and over and yet here it was still quoted by critics without understanding the actual scene. Joseph Smith did Translate some according to the knowledge available in his time, but it was not translated throught any medium, tools or revelation like the Book of Mormon does. Which basically mean the critics were just fooled by their own bait. Nice try!

TRANSLATIONS BY JOSEPH SMITH, JR.
“ I insert facsimiles of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook... I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the ruler of heaven and earth.” – Joseph Smith, Jr.
The plates turned out to be a hoax. Metallurgical tests revealed the plates to be of late 19th century construction. In addition, the script was created using a 19th- century chemical etch process. In August, 1981 LDS Ensign Magazine conceded: “Kinderhook plates bought to Joseph Smith appear to be a 19th-century hoax."


Some of the links that I posted will below explains how was it debunked. Check out below -

No comments:

Adam is a Fallen Angel - by Jose Rodelio Retome Rata


A fallacy based on assumption or false cause which is  Post hoc ergo Propter hoc. And just because Adam fell based on biblical perspective, then Michael is a Fallen Angel. Seriously Jose, That's how you claimed to be your doctrine? So, your simply saying Christ is a Fallen Divine Being or a MERE human as your teaching goes because he descended lower than an Angel or became human (flesh).

To me, I don't think God will just only choose who would he choose and angel or who he choose to experience death resurrection and who will experience damnation. God is a just God and every creature that include Angels and Humans were his Children. If God created us destined to something he thinks threated unfair or unjustly why would you call him a loving God?

So Jose Rodelio Retome Rata, what you are saying here is, God is a god of Parody. Why cant he make all his children like angels and other spirit get there life experience as a human who experience emotions, Feelings, growth and many others the will benefit there souls at the last days and be judge according to fair judgements?

And just to be clear, the LDS teachings about the fall of Adam is different than any trinitarian or unitarian views. Adam fell because it is necesarry and he was given the agency to choose what he would choose either to have those spirit Children experience Humanity.

2 Nephi 2:25"Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy"

And this experience is not a curse from God, but rather part of the Plan of Salvation, and I guess you have no clue about it, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata.

According to the teaching of LDS church Adam is Michael the Archangel.
Doctrine and Covenants 27:11
11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;
This is an absurd teaching of LDS church.
This is another proof that their prophet was indeed a false prophet.
1 John 4:1
King James Version
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.




And by the way, you claim Felix was also the Angel of the Far East; was he a Fallen Angel too, Jose Rodelio Retome Rata?
No comments:

Alma 42:15


Alma 42:15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste

Explore more of this at

Message2Ponder

and add your favorite for free.

Click Here


No comments:

2 Nephi 4:28


2 Nephi 4:28 Awake, my soul! No longer droop in sin. Rejoice, O my heart, and give place no more for the enemy of my soul.
Click on the Box and Paste to share -
✔ Text copied, ready to paste

Explore more of this at

Message2Ponder

and add your favorite for free.

Click Here


No comments:

Responding Ginoong Pantas "THEIR ‘FUN FACT’ IS NEITHER FACTUAL NOR FUN"





Recently I posted a fun fact of Joseph Smith's Supposed Revelation that has been fulfilled which was about the Meteor Storm that I made a claim that it was also included in INC's doctrine, which I honestly could tell that it isn’t even related to the emergence of their church in the Philippines. So, he made a statement thinking it is neither Factual nor neither Fun. So, let's talk about it and see what we can get -
   

THEIR ‘FUN FACT’ IS NEITHER FACTUAL NOR FUN
A certain individual, Jerry Nuñez Bustillo, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly known as Mormonism), recently shared what he labeled as a “fun fact” in a Facebook group titled The Restored Truths of the 𝗚𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹 of 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔 Christ vs INC Gospel, a space where defenders of faiths such as the Iɢʟᴇsɪᴀ Nɪ Cʀɪsᴛᴏ and Mormonism engage in discussion.
The Restored Truths of the 𝗚𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹 of 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔 Christ vs INC Gospel

Good to know you read and response this fun fact which I don’t even think it’s a big deal, but you fail to make a good response on my other post prior to this short OP. But let’s go ahead and tell me what was this all about -

In his post, he appears to suggest that the Leonid Meteor Storm of November 13, 1833 was one of the alleged fulfillments connected to the divine calling of Brother Felix Y. Manalo, and further implies that this is part of the Iglesia ni Cristo’s doctrine.

Let’s just say it was not part of the doctrine of the INC so the rest we are talking here were just unnecessary fuss. So why do INC quote it? And even if this was not about what it meant in your doctrine, does this meant that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled? Just to be fair, I haven’t made my post clear and precise in quoting the INC ideology or if this is not accurate, since I’m not quoting some known source such as their official website, then supposed it is just an INC opinion.

Frankly, THAT CLAIM IS INACCURATE. 👎 Before presenting such assertions (especially about another religion) it would have been prudent to verify them through official INC sources such as incmedia.org, iglesianicristo.net, pasugo.com.ph, etc. Doing so could have prevented a clear misrepresentation of what the Church actually taught.

Again, I’m not quoting any official site, so more accurately it was just quoted on your so-called defenders of faith maybe, or you may include yourself about it, but this doesn’t say anything that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled. So, the issue was not about who and how it was quoted, you just based yourself on certain ground that doesn’t even point out the real issue. Again, it’s true, I wasn't certain but let’s try to get some of the source about it. Let's check out some of the know sources that has been gathered to see if my claim it true and let’s get be real -



They do have an African Page Guide with this topic on Facebook and Just to be honest, this page is cool. I would like to have some guide like this one on Facebook. But I don’t know if you count it as official Page or maybe not. Anyways, to those who want to know about it and learn about the INC doctrine I preferred to have this one on your list, it will be good if you keep updating it and adding more doctrine. So, here’s the link below -https://www.facebook.com/groups/iglesianicristoevangelicalmissionafrica/learning_content/?filter=1601482870584257&post=476988594913771



There were other sources that quoted the same source adding it to one of the events that leads to Brother Felix Manalo's Calling. But I would not want to put all the sources here since it would take too much space just to prove the claim.

This one below was from Joseph Kavanagh's article regarding The Stars That Fall - and Mr. Manalo where he points out the exact claim about the 1833 Meteor Storm. I don't actually need to focus much on this since it is not actually relevant, what I actually want to point out that this was taken from the "Ang sulo sa Ikatitiyak sa Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana" which could be the early edition of the Pasugo if I'm not mistaken, you can correct me if I'm wrong. And, I guess this was made to attack the Catholic Faith and here they include the said event relating to Revelation 6:12-13. My question to you Ginoong Pantas, is this still part of INC article or not? I understand that doctrines may vary over time, so tell me if you have any knowledge about it or maybe it was just a personal opinion of Brother Felix Manalo. And just to be clear, when I say opinion which I do prefer to use since everyone is liable to it, is not a direct doctrine. And of course if Brother Felix Manalo has his own opinion as a human, it is subject to case study, like everyone does, which is also subject to changes. So, I understand if you don't take it as a doctrine, Ginoong Pantas, I'm not a close minded person. I just want to build a common ground first before we take it deeper.
CLARIFICATION OF THE ISSUE
It is true that the Iglesia ni Cristo cites Revelation 6:12–13 in connection with historical events such as the 1833 Leonid meteor storm. However, let us be precise:
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗡𝗖 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘅 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗼’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Okay, so let’s be straight here. You are telling me that you don’t agree on a simple post that said about the Leonid Meteor Storm as one of the known event of Felix Manalo's prophetic signs and claims,  and this time you agree that you people cited it? So, what was this all about? Which is which, Ginoong Pantas? Also, I never said that this event signaled the beginning of your so-call Brother Felix Manalo’s Divine Mission where you can’t even provide a detail of his call. So, now you have changed your mind that this was part of it, am I right? If so, then my post is accurate as I have said that it is one of those signs which I don’t even bother looking up some of the other claims, which you disagrees on it. You're confusing yourself, Ginoong Pantas. So, tell me straight, do you consider it as signs of the times, or, as always, you just don’t like the way I posted it that's because Joseph Smith made a prophecy about it?

But anyway, I get your point, either this may be an opinion or maybe something we can look for in relation to your doctrine. It’s not actually a big deal since everyone or even religious leader can make a certain options and study that might help them build up their testimony. So I'll stick to that as if it is not part of your doctrine.

That interpretation simply does not exist in official INC doctrine. Rather, the 1833 meteor storm is understood as one of the events associated with the OPENING OF THE SIXTH SEAL, alongside other historically documented phenomena:
I. The Lisbon earthquake (1755)
II. The darkening of the sun and moon (1780)
III. The falling of the stars (1833)
As stated and carefully explained by the Iglesia ni Cristo’s General Evangelist, Brother Bienvenido C. Santiago:
“𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗸𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 (𝙘𝙛. 𝗥𝗲𝘃. 𝟲:𝟭𝟮-𝟭𝟯). Those events occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries. The great earthquake occurred in Lisbon in 1755, the darkening of the sun and the moon in 1780 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝟴𝟯𝟯.” [𝘗𝘈𝘚𝘜𝘎𝘖: 𝘎𝘰𝘥’𝘴 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘦 — Iglesia Ni Cristo © November 1995, page 8]

Again, it is clear in your words “one of the events associated” which I don’t even care why you people made such claim. But here we are, you simply agrees on my statement. It is not just you INC people are using the same signs of the time and yet you exaggerate the simple post I made because of religious difference. The Seventh-day Adventist is even using the same event as part of the biblical prophecy and no question to that. The only thing what I see here was your interpretation of my presentation and I guess it is you who has the problem here.

Check out the Elder's Digest on this article from Seventh-day Adventist - https://www.eldersdigest.org/en/1999/1/meteor-showers-and-1833

This timeline alone already disproves Jerry’s claim. Why so? Because Bro. Felix Manalo was born in 1886, decades after these events. Clearly, they cannot mark the beginning of his mission.

Again, I’m not talking about the beginning of his mission, I don’t even know when and where he started his claim that he was the sugo of your church. You simply just overreacting on my Post that you don’t like. Why would you just accept the fact that you people know and use the same event? Telling me that those things were the beginning of his Missions or whatever you call and added it is irrelevant, I didn't even bother quote other things your church has ever claim?

SO, WHEN DOES THE MISSION BEGIN?
According to the same official source, the transition occurs at the END OF THE SIXTH SEAL, which also marks the BEGINNING OF THE SEVENTH SEAL. Brother Santiago continues:

“𝗔𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 (𝙘𝙛. 𝗥𝗲𝘃. 𝟲:𝟭𝟰-𝟭𝟳). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝟵𝟭𝟰. This war is also symbolized in the prophecy as the winds that were later seen being held by the four angels (𝘤𝘧. Rev. 7:1; Jer. 4:11-12, 19). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻 𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 ‘𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵.’” [𝘐𝘣𝘪𝘥., page 8]

Thus, the First World War (1914), AND NOT the 1833 meteor storm, is recognized as the prophetic marker tied to the time when Brother Felix Manalo’s mission begins, within INC’s teaching.

The so-called “fun fact” is neither accurate nor representative of Iglesia ni Cristo doctrine. Misrepresenting another group’s beliefs (whether intentional or not) only leads to confusion and unnecessary division. If we are genuinely interested in truth, then careful verification should always come first before publication.

It was just a specific quote that most of the religion is quoting, so what's the relevance of that so called claim that you got there on the subject that I opened up? Did I ever said other specific revelation that Brother Felix Manalo claimed that he has it, but he never fulfilled?

Just because I use the word Fun,
then this made this statement a parody,
or maybe malicious or perhaps exaggerated.
But it seems like he's missing the point that my intension
was all about the revelations that has been fulfilled.

Okay so again, This has nothing to do with the statement that I had made, and you simply like to broaden it thinking that I may have been wrong on my claim. And again, this is not about the beginning of Brother Felix Manalo’s claim that he fulfilled such revelation and starts the mark of his mission which again, I don’t even care. I just clearly said, it is one of those signs.

Let us aim for discussions grounded not in assumptions, but in verified teachings. 😉

If you like to aim for a good discussion with verified teaching, I’m good with it. You can go ahead on the group where were made a discussion. I don’t normally do the way you posted publicly, which I thinks was so immature and indecent.

NOW, CONCERNING JOSEPH SMITH’S “PREDICTION”
Jerry, in what he called the “interesting part,” added that their prophet, Joseph Smith, allegedly predicted the exact date of the meteor storm. He even encouraged readers to look it up from independent sources. 😅 So, as someone who actually checks claims, I did exactly that.

Yes, there is such a story. But once you examine it closely, it turns out to be historically weak, debated even among Latter-day Saint scholars, and generally not accepted by non-LDS historians.

And look what we got here? But it’s a fair claim in taking up notes on one of just the many source open online. There were already antagonist about the claim and it is already give everywhere even in your INC circle, so you should stop thinking on just quoting one source against the other. We do have our own biases, but to think you have to just stick on just one side simply makes you irrational. But anyway, thank you for taking time in making a claim that it is weak so I can clearly see how you people easily caught up to some of the unreliable source that has no ground on their own. We’ll get to it here -

One commonly cited account comes from later retellings. According to a narrative attributed to Ronald P. Millett, Joseph Smith supposedly said:

“According to a narrative provided by Ronald P. Millett via Latter Day Saints Magazine, at some point before November 1833, when the Leonid meteor storm took place, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁'𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗝𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗵 𝗦𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗵 (𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘃𝗲) 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁. “𝗙𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻,” 𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻.”

SOURCE:

The story continues that on the 39th night, while staying at someone’s house, the meteor storm occurred, astonishing those present. This account is tied to early LDS figures like Philo Dibble, who described the reaction of a supposed skeptic witnessing the event. Now, at first glance, that sounds impressive.

Did you read the full article of Ronald P. Millett's statement, or just simple copy-paste some part to make it sounds awesome? Here's the full article and link of that statement - https://latterdaysaintmag.com/1833-meteor-storm-a-precisely-synchronized-sign-and-wonder/

Okay so, what are you trying to point out here that Philo Dibble is one of the members during this event. This is not actually from his own words rather an experience from a members who happens to have encountered him. Philo Dibble wasn't a member during that time and he even skeptical to the church, he wrote when and how the event will occur according to what he heard during Joseph Smith's sermon and he made it known to Joseph Hancock who happens to be there that time on the last minute telling him that it will not fulfilled as he keep tracking on  the exact event.

But here’s the problem.
The so-called “prediction” is not a contemporary record. 👎 The main source for this claim (Philo Dibble) only wrote it down in 1892, which is decades after both the 1833 event and Joseph Smith’s lifetime. That alone should already raise serious caution.
(Check Philo Dibble’s “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘶𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 XXVII No. 1 © 1 January 1892, page 23)

And that’s obviously not a problem. Thinking that this has been written right after the event or decade and so on, does this mean the source is unreliable? Really? The time that it was taught by Joseph, it is not just one or two people present during his proclamation and Philo Nible is not even a member that time, and here you are questioning his words where the witnesses is even present during that time. What about you tell me how do people in these days still believe that the four Gospel written in the New Testament authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were even written soon after the original witnesses who were long gone in which some claimed witnesses is even questionable by scholars. It was passed down through Oral Tradition, which I think you or maybe some still believe it was the original, but even the true author of this 4 known Gospels is Anonymous and yet everyone, like you and me, still believe on it without knowing that it was only passed down by means of oral tradition. You need to be honest on this; Did you even think about that Ginoong Pantas? And here you are questioning with the original witnesses present at that time. Why was that Ginoong Pantas? You are just appealing to Genetic Fallacy which make it a bad choice in dealing this argument.

REALTALK ❗ There is no known written record from 1833 itself. NO diary entry from Joseph Smith predicting it beforehand. NO documented sermon from that time mentioning such a prophecy. NO contemporary witness account recorded at the time it supposedly happened. 👎 What we have instead is retrospective storytelling, accounts written long after the fact, which historians naturally treat with caution.

Is this the REALTALK that you’re talking about or you try to get the side of the critics? Seriously, which part is Real Talk? How do you know that it has no sermons from that time the Prophecy was mentioned? You simply say the journal entry were false just because there is no such thing as full documented Minutes of Meeting. Seriously? Do you do that in your congregations? Are you sure about that? You can’t even provide a historical background and witnesses of your claim Felix Manalo and how he made such claim fulfilled through him, and yet here you are thinking this people who wrote their journal and even publicly declares it happened were just simply false witnesses or a made up stories. Come on! And do you think they die for their false testimonies sake?
But, yeah… to make matters clearer: Joseph Smith DID write about the meteor shower, BUT only after it occurred, describing it as a sign. That is very different from predicting it in advance.
And that distinction matters a lot in serious historical analysis.

Are you sure about your claim bro? Do you have any evidence that this has been declared right after it happen? Can you lead me some sources where we can verify your claim? It seems like you want to just educate me to go right directly to the right source and here you are acting hypocrite about it.

SO WHAT IS THE FAIR CONCLUSION?
There IS a story claiming that Joseph Smith predicted the meteor shower. BUT (this is the real interesting part)… it comes from late sources. It relies on secondhand or recollected testimony. And, it lacks solid contemporary evidence.

The journal and date of the said claim were there in church history website, and it seem like you just doing a cock-and-bull story that you can’t even provide a reliable source. So, here’s the link of the source on their journal and check it out if you have time. And believe me you can not write a journal on the same amount of time and day specially if you think the matters is not relevant or special to you. So the date either when they record it is not an issue. The main issue there was the witnesses and the settings. I’d been writing journals and that’s not even the case, minsan nga lumapas na ng 3 or 5 araw bago mo pa masulat. And Again you’re just overreacting of your claim that you don’t even do.
Because of that, most historians (whether LDS or not) consider the claim historically uncertain at best. So, presenting it as a clear, established fulfilled prophecy is, at very least, an overstatement.

Uncertain at best. So, where’s your source? You haven’t provided a source on you claim and yet the link you provide were just a random mixed up music and entertainment stuff? LOL! So you're certain on it?

At the end of the day, if we’re going to talk about FACTS, then they should actually be grounded in reliable historical evidence, not just stories repeated long after the event.

So how do you define your sources? Seriously that's how you call it reliable? Here’s the site that you’d quoted and seriously how did you understand it?


No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)