Part 9 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (ARGUMENTUM AD MARTYRIUM)

Now we're at the end of the season, we are now at Part 9 titled ARGUMENTUM AD MARTYRIUM this will be the Season Finale, LOL! And it's gonna be fun taking some of Ginoong Pantas Notes on this one. We'll just go ahead without further adieu. Color code text as usual. Let's dive in -

“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?”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Here we go again… you’re asking me how I know there were no sermons or records from 1833 mentioning Joseph Smith’s alleged prophecy? The answer is simple: because NONE EXIST. There is no contemporary documentation, no diary entry, no sermon manuscript, no witness account written at the time of the Leonid Meteor Shower. What we have are recollections written decades later, long after memory has been reshaped by belief and loyalty. Historians do not dismiss these accounts out of bias; they treat them with caution precisely because they are retrospective, not contemporary evidence.

And here we go with your Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Oh sure, do you want me to use the same statement on your believe. Then tell me, was there any First Hand account from Felix Manalo himself, or a diary entry or sermon entry or recording from his mouth about his 3 days fasting or study? Do you have any witnesses of this account? If so, then prove it. Retrospective right, Ginoong Pantas? Again, if you throw up a statement be sure you have to back it up. This might be a Tu Quoque and yet reasonable enough; while you brought it up and since you don't accept the account of the witnesses, then go ahead provide an evidence on your side of doctrine.

And as for your appeal to martyrdom, dying for a testimony does not automatically make that testimony historically reliable. People across religions and ideologies have died for convictions that later proved mistaken or unverifiable. The question is not whether someone believed strongly enough to suffer for it, but whether the claim itself can be substantiated by evidence. In this case, without contemporary proof, the narrative collapses into later storytelling, passionate, yes, but historically fragile.

And how do you know that they lie? That's the only question that you should/must have a ground, of course that same question would satisfy Felix Manalo's excuses. Okay, Then let's do that. If you can provide an honest evidence then the case is closed. Same thing goes with Felix Manalo's witness; you have none but of course I couldn't find evidence about it, so why would I question that right, Ginoong Pantas? Let's be clear here, Ginoong Pantas; just where did you get that idea of irrational questioning?

“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.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Come on, Jerry… that is precisely the point: NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS. There are no contemporary sermons, no diary entries, no documented witness accounts from that year that record him predicting the Leonid Meteor Shower beforehand. What surfaces instead are recollections written decades later, shaped by memory and loyalty, which historians rightly treat with caution. To dismiss the absence of records as “false” simply because there are no minutes of meeting is not scholarship, it is speculation. I hate to repeat this all over again, my friend.

And I have proven my point and you can't provide an evidence, so what gives, Ginoong Pantas? What's with the nonsense talk, Ginoong Pantas? You opened up a statement where you can't find an evidence that it is false. Nice strategy you got there. And just because there is no minutes of meetings you then Appeal to Ignorance on a Genetic Fallacy. Come on, Ginoong Pantas! Try to remember this Ginoong Pantas; "The Absence of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence."

And as for your attempt to deflect by questioning Brother Felix Manalo’s divine mission, that is a separate matter entirely. The INC’s doctrines are grounded in Scripture and in the fulfillment of prophecy, not in retrospective storytelling.

Yeah of course it's a separate matter where you can't clearly point the solution of the issue. Is it wrong, Ginoong Pantas? And let's use your ideology on that part, Can you prove the Retrospective Storytelling of Manalo's Preparation of ministry grounded with divine mission? Do you have evidence on that, or more accurately as always, you will appeal to a Biblical Eisegesis? You can't; 'cause you don't have evidence, right, Ginoong Pantas?

The issue here is not whether people believed strongly enough to write journals or even die for their convictions, but whether the claim itself can be substantiated by evidence. Without contemporary proof, your narrative remains fragile, passionate perhaps, but historically unverified.

Then, why are you asking it on the first place? Why would you think on finding a source such as personal journal (where actually they have), sermon, or whatever you came up in mind on such a borrow argument from old trash critics? And if you want evidence, it was already there. The only problem was, you won't accept it of course because Manalo wasn't involve, right, Ginoong Pantas? And How do you know it's unverified? Maybe because, there's no computer Technology at that time, am I right Ginoong Pantas? So it will be always be unverified, right Ginoong Pantas? Then can you verify your Doctrine of Manalo? Oh, wait! I get it, it's a different topic, right? LOL!

“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.”

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-from-edward-partridge-between-14-and-19-november-1833/1?highlight=1833%20meteor

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: The real issue is whether Joseph Smith truly predicted the Leonid Meteor Shower of November 13, 1833 AT THAT TIME, with evidence from his own words or contemporary records. Unlike Joseph, son of Jacob, who foretold Egypt’s seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine and whose prophecy was preserved in Scripture, Smith’s alleged prediction lacks such immediate documentation. Even the journal you cited carries a stain of uncertainty: the date itself is illegible due to a tear, leaving scholars to guess whether it was written on the 14th, 17th, or 19th of November. The language of Partridge’s letter even suggests it was drafted after the event, not during it.

WOW! Just WOW! So, tell me, Ginoong Pantas; Who wrote the story of Joseph in Egypt and the rest of the 7 years of Plenty and Famine Story? Do you have the first hand account of the people who were there who witness the event, or the author itself who wrote it as if it was the first hand account? So, who authored the Book and just when did the story was written by the author? Do you know the Year Gap of the authors writing and the event, Ginoong Pantas? Now go ahead and make a comparison, then tell me the difference? You have time to research. I won't bother responding the commentary above, just provide me with the evidence you have now on your claim.

So how can this be relied upon as proof? Anyone can claim witnesses were present, but none of those supposed witnesses recorded the prophecy beforehand. Contrast this with groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who (despite their failed “end of the world” predictions) at least produced written records before the dates they proclaimed. Joseph Smith, by comparison, left NO contemporary evidence of his alleged prophecy. What remains are retrospective narratives, fragile and historically suspect.

Oh sure, let's assume it wasn't. So tell me the Example you got there; How can it be relied upon as proof? Yeah right, why would they didn't record the prophecy? Then try asking that same thing on your religion, you will get a funny response. Yea yea, sure you said it already, so I'll be waiting for you to respond on the questions I ask on your part of the story. So provide me at least 1 (one) witness that will prove Felix Manalo was called of God and that he has a first hand account of his testimony, and we're done. Go ahead, Ginoong Pantas.

𝘛𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘥…

Oh wait! Was there More of this Ginoong Pantas?

Coming up Next - Part 10 Screenshot Bonus only here at http://bit.ly/GPantas

Part 8 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (ON JOSEPH SMITH’S PREDICTION)

We are now on our Part 8 of this episode titled "ON JOSEPH SMITH’S PREDICTION" It's kinda interesting of the claim he got here while thinking this couldn't be applied in their ideology and even in Biblical sense. Let's find out why Ginoong Pantas use a Bad analogy of his excuses and lets challenge him to do the same thing on his religion. The color coding as is, so let's dive in -

“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.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Obviously, I only quoted a few sources to keep the article concise, except now that I’ve had to arrange everything more fully in response to your blog rebuttal. But did the facts change? Not at all. It remains true that 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.

Now you are telling us that the source you borrow were more factual because you dig it on the right one. That's good! Seem like you're simply saying that it's okay to quote outside of you Pasugo Official Doctrine or Site. And what did we got on you research Ginoong Pantas? Did you accurately got the more precise detail of your claim? Did you or did you just cherry-pick the good parts which you do most of the time. Tell me more about it Ginoong Pantas. Tell me about the Diary of Felix Manalo where he state clearly states that he was the sugo and that Isaiah ravenous bird was him? Of course you can't, because he never declared that right after but rather it was only develop by overtime. See the problem here Ginoong Pantas. You want Joseph Smith hand written account rather that the known people who witness the event, at yet you can't even provide a detail of your so-called sugo that he wrote an account of his calling. So you're saying here that every witness during that time even if they were antagonist were all liars, was it on your mind now Ginoong Pantas?

The account of Philo Dibbles who was not a member that time were even have witness name John Hancock. Why would Philo Dibbles lie while he is not a member that time and was witnessed by John Hancock? What kind of thinking would that be, Ginoong Pantas?

What exists instead are retrospective accounts, narratives written long after the event, the very kind of material historians approach with caution. In other words, the foundation of your claim rests not on contemporary evidence but on later storytelling, which is inherently suspect. More on that as we proceed.

And how do you know it was just a simple story telling? Can you also help us understand Felix Manalo's Story telling that he claimed to be the so-called SUGO even if there were no evidence of his claimed, Ginoong Pantas? You see, every time you use this kind of analogy, it applies even in your circle, and the sad part is, we have ample of evidence to prove while you have zero. See where you fail on that kind of mindset, Ginoong Pantas? You just want to address an issue where even problematic on your side. And by the way as I have given you example the last time, it could also be applied biblically.

“𝘿𝙞𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙍𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙙 𝙋. 𝙈𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙩𝙩'𝙨 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙤𝙧 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙥𝙮-𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙𝙨 𝙖𝙬𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚?”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: From the online source I presented? Of course I did! Why? Do you really expect me to copy and paste the entire article instead of citing only the most relevant portion that directly aligns with our discussion? That would be impractical, space-consuming and unnecessarily lengthy. The real issue here is not whether I read the whole piece (which I did), nor whether I pasted it in full. The real issue is why you failed to verify or validate the accuracy of the citation itself.

That simple question alone show how you misunderstood the statement of Ronald P. Millett and yet you quoted his words as if it was a hoax. What about let's put some of Ronal Millett's side of the story rather that cherry-pick the idea that mislead and misunderstood. So let's go ahead.

From https://www.grunge.com/1189849/the-1833-meteor-shower-led-many-to-both-scientific-and-religious-understanding/ the Ginoong Pantas Quoted. See my Previous Response at https://bustillo-family.blogspot.com/2026/04/a-responding-ginoong-pantas-their-fun.html

Now let's compare that to the source where Ronald P. Millett made his statement -

Source from https://latterdaysaintmag.com/1833-meteor-storm-a-precisely-synchronized-sign-and-wonder/

So, what this got in to you, Ginoong Pantas? This simply shows your cherry picking doesn't work, Ginoong Pantas and it seems like you love quoting on a source that will criticized the LDS by default. Now tell me, was it how you meant go to the right source of your website while you yourself will just find fault? Good to know, Ginoong Pantas. It's a perfect example that I should always use your official Website to go along with your doctrine, LOL!

That is where the discussion should have gone deeper (into the truth of the content) rather than nitpicking over whether I reproduced the article word for word. That’s simply not how meaningful discourse works, my friend.

Yeah sure, I can see that, so the discussion end with your words against yours. Thank you for showing it up. Now it's more meaningful discourse, Ginoong Pantas.

“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.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Fine, let’s concede that Philo Dibble was not yet a member of the LDS Church in 1833. But you know very well that he was the earliest source of the story about Joseph Smith’s alleged prediction of the Leonid Meteor Shower, only after he published his 𝘙𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘑𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘩 𝘚𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘩 in 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘶𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 XXVII No. 1 (1892), decades later, when he was already a committed member of the Latter‑day Saint movement.

So, your idea here was that he became a member just to lie, am I right Ginoong Pantas? And again, when everytime you made an attempt on this kind of bad ideology, it can be easily applies to your standard. The question here is do you have a credible source of any claim if it will be thrown back to you, Ginoong Pantas? You can easily make a statement and copy a direct know criticisms from a source that you don't even know is credible and yet it turns out it will cost too much damage on the side of your ideology and teaching. You don't have any proof so ano pinaglalaban mo dito, Ginoong Pantas?

The rest of your narratives are not historically grounded. They are nothing more than retrospective tales, written long after the event, and precisely the kind of material historians treat with skepticism. In short, what you present is not contemporary evidence but later embellishment, stories shaped decades after the fact, not proof from the time itself. It’s sad but it’s true.

So what do you want the witness to do, Ginoong Pantas? Ang gusto mong mang yari dapat sinulat na nila na nangyari kahit di pa mangyari, tama ba Ginoong Pantas? Of course, lahat naman ng event right after it was happen dun mo lang naman pa maisipang isulat. Nagiisip ka ba Ginoong Pantas? And again if you appeal to this Genetic Fallacy, it is a bad idea while historically they are already doing it even in your Manalo the Philippine Sugo. I don't think you can provide any reliable evidence kung pasukin natin usapin yan, while here we are talking about the real witness who knows and experience the exact event. Sino sa palagay mo nagasasabi ng totoo kung ikumpara natin yan sa witnesses nyo?

“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?”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: I already anticipated that question. This actually makes me wonder. You claim that Joseph Smith’s words were witnessed by many, yet the problem remains: there is no contemporary record from 1833 itself, no diary entry, no sermon, no written testimony at the time of the Leonid Meteor Shower. What we have instead (I’ll say this again) are retrospective accounts, written decades later, precisely the kind of material historians treat with caution. Philo Dibble’s recollection in 1892, long after he had become a committed Latter‑day Saint, is not the same as evidence from the moment itself.

Oh really? Which part, Ginoong Pantas? Just when did you address the issue that the theme of your problematic ideas of finding a good journal entry and problematic false witness of Biblical writings has been addressed by which one again? You? And it seems like you just stick your butt to just one chair that couldn't even sustain the weight of your problem? Take me back where you address it and let's try to analyze it again, maybe I was wrong? Or, more accurately, maybe you don't have the idea of my statement. Again, Ginoong Pantas, if you want to throw that on this commentary, just be sure you have credibility if I throw it back. So far you don't have a clue on this simple statement rather just going to and fro alibis of Genetic Fallacy.

And comparing this to the Gospels only undermines your point. Why so? Well, the authority of Scripture rests on divine inspiration and canonical recognition, not on retrospective anecdotes about meteor showers. To equate Dibble’s late recollection with the foundation of the New Testament is a false analogy. The issue here is not whether oral tradition exists, but whether your claim about Joseph Smith’s prediction has any historical grounding. Without contemporary proof, it collapses into later storytelling, and that is not doctrine, but SPECULATION.

And why not? You question the credibility of the witnesses, so why not question the same thing to the standard ideology that you have now? Can you provide an answer to my question, Ginoong Pantas? Yes, I do believe the scriptures is of God written by fallible men who receive guidance and inspiration, no question about it. But we are not talking about it, Ginoong Pantas. We are talking about How do you reconcile to that Genetic Fallacy that you presented which is about 25-30% written anonymously with a problematic eye witnesses, which is even found in the standard 4 Gospel. Then here you are questioning the Credibility of the eyewitness who were present during the event; just because it was written later? Oh come on! Try to ask that on your Felix Manalo if he has a written testimony of eyewitnesses of his Proclamation as the Sugo and God did talk to him. Can you provide me that thing, Ginoong Pantas? But yea, back to the Topic. I have already stablish my point that you arrogantly misinterpret my Presentation of the Fun Fact which is not even a mock on your religion.

Coming up Next: Part 9 ARGUMENTUM AD MARTYRIUM only here at http://bit.ly/GPantas

Google Verification Code to restore Email Password: How?

Google, tell me, how will it work?

Family Tree Frame - For FamilySearch and Personal Use

Design taken from FamilySearch for Picture Frames or Family Blog Design. You may download the Frame below. Limited Frame of 7 pictures. You may just add on your own if you need more frames.

1254x1254 in White Background

4950x4950 in Transparent Background

Part 7 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (IMMATURE AND INDECENT APPROACH?)

Alright we are now on our next episode of ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL and we are on the Part 7 titled "IMMATURE AND INDECENT APPROACH?" So without further adeu lets get to it so we could finish this episode as quick as we could since Ginoong Pantas has other objective in dealing with the Mormons. Let's dive in -

“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.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: You actually failed to validate your claim (and misrepresentation of our doctrine) from the very start, yet you boast about being skilled in engaging with “verified teaching”? That is nothing but internal hypocrisy. And another thing: why are you so afraid of me posting this publicly on my timeline? Explain to me how that is “immature” or “indecent.” Is that really how Facebook timelines were designed by Meta?

Why would I validate my claim on just your side of your story, Ginoong Pantas? And how was my claim contradict on your INC doctrine? Who do you think is hypocrite here, Ginoong Pantas? The one that is just neutral or your style of just having your own religious teachings to be acknowledge? Why would I care digging on your website and find a good solution just to fix the problem of Leonid Meteor Shower and Brother Felix Manalo? Why would I do that? You want an explanation of why I don't normally post on a public just to show off my very  own handiworks of a Professional Debater, or should I say the Magnum Opus of a Scripture Savvy Nerdo, was it that you're thinking, Ginoong Pantas? Why would I need to brag myself and level down my standards on such a stupid childish game of hate and bigotry? Tell me, why would I join you? What's your best outstanding professional approach to convince me to get in to your level?

NO. I chose to bring this matter to public attention on my timeline precisely for proper awareness and scrutiny, before your post in that group MISLEADS others through its blatant misrepresentation of our teachings. As simple as that!

I never mislead someone from your INC company of any of your teachings. I may post something that contradicts but it is not misleading rather a response to some of your arrogant cohorts. If you want it on the public, Go ahead, Do you think I do care? As long as you keep the entire conversation and the transparency to the public then go. Also always keep that in mind that I never posted something that mislead you and others on the group. Go ahead and take all my post in the group and have a case study, how, when and why I posted something on Facebook opposed on your INC view. Everything was there and lets deal with it.

Part 6 - ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL: Leonid Meteor subject - by Ginoong Pantas (ALLEGEDLY AGREEING ON HIS STATEMENT)

So here we are again in our next episode of the  ANSWERING JERRY BUSTILLO’S FLAWED REBUTTAL and we are on the Part 6  which is ALLEGEDLY AGREEING ON HIS STATEMENT. So let's talk about it Ginoong Pantas and will try to see which part of my Statement that you're talking about. Let check out if this falls into a category of your so-called misrepresentation of your doctrine. Just as usual text in Blue will be Ginoong Pantas and the normal text will be mine along with some quoted lines of my previous response will be Gray. Okay, let's go -

“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.”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: If you believe the INC’s doctrines do not concern you, then you should not have wasted time mentioning them in your so‑called FUN FACT post, especially when you neither understand them nor care about them in the first place. For the record, we do not deny that there are other religious institutions that share our interpretation of the prophecy in Revelation 6:12-13, but that is irrelevant here. What matters is not religious difference, but your misrepresentation of our doctrines. Your post was not ambiguous, and you cannot fault me for interpreting it exactly as you presented it in that Facebook group. You wanted it to be “interesting,” didn’t you? Well, where has that brought you now?

Why not Ginoong Pantas? I'm giving you a favor and you want me to keep it silence while every INC Apologist are using it? What's actually your point in calling me out on your misinterpretation? So, you don't deny that the same event were even used on some other religious organization as I have said the last time and also in the LDS circle, so what's your point? Yeah I get it, religious difference doesn't matter in this issue which I do agree, but telling me that I misrepresent your doctrine, JUST WHEN? The main issue here is that you misunderstood my statement and that you went on hysterical on such a matter that was taken out of context. Was it how you build relationship on others faith Ginoong Pantas? Do you INC people were trained that way? And so far most of the INC members as I could tell base on their individual comments and experiences are even war freak when some religious people tries to post online on their beliefs. And to tell you honestly Ginoong Pantas, those are the reasons why I got engage in an online discussions because of INC folks making fun of Catholicism and even on other religion. So was it how you people got that teachings from your leader that whenever someone posted something of their faith and if it seems opposed on your side then you have to take an unprofessional action just to satisfy your ego? Tell me more about it Ginoong Pantas? Back to the topic, and again, you haven't pointed out which part that I did was wrong, it was just your misinterpretations thinking I was mocking on your doctrine which I didn't even brought up.

“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?”

𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: There you go… you openly admitted that YOU DO NOT KNOW anything about Brother Felix Manalo’s divine mission as God’s Messenger. Then why did you dare to mention, or worse, make fun of the 1833 Leonid Meteor Shower as if it were one of the supposed signs of the Church’s emergence in the Philippines under his leadership, when you clearly have no understanding of his divine task? Correcting misrepresentation is never an overreaction, it is a necessary response. If you misunderstood my motive in addressing your distorted view of our doctrine, then I strongly suggest you first learn what the INC truly teaches before attempting to mock our teachings again.

You're right? The very reason why we got a group so we could engage in a healthy discussion, and look what we got here, Ginoong Pantas? So every time I engage with you it seem you're taking it as a mock on your side. Seriously, Ginoong Pantas? And how did I just make Fun of the 1833 Leonid Meteor Shower. Just because I use the word FUN so automatically you took it as a mock, making fun, or a Spoof on your religion? REALLY? The only thing that I know it was fun that coincidentally the same prophetic event that you and some other used which is the Leonid Meteor Storm was that it was fulfilled by Joseph Smith's word, and it turns out you never like it because the Mormons were involve on your so-called Felix Manalo's Preparation on Ministry, am I right, Ginoong Pantas? Again Ginoong Pantas, and I wish this is clear to you, the issue was not about the Felix Manalo's movement, it was all about on a certain event that has been used overtime; get in to it already, will you, Ginoong Pantas? And again, I have no problem on my post, it was your interpretation and misunderstanding. Stick on to that, Ginoong Pantas.

Coming up Next - Part 7 IMMATURE AND INDECENT APPROACH? only here at http://bit.ly/GPantas

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 let's be honest, 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

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.

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

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.

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.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/569179951974591/permalink/1306937314865514/?rdid=IuMyw2k2SekHzHOl

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