What was God's intention in sending Christ as a sacrifice?
Because God’s love is all-embracing, some speak of it as “unconditional,” and in their minds they may project that thought to mean that God’s blessings are “unconditional” and that salvation is “unconditional.” They are not. Some are wont to say, “The Savior loves me just as I am,” and that is certainly true. But He cannot take any of us into His kingdom just as we are, “for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence.” Our sins must first be resolved.
The Love of God By Elder D. Todd Christofferson Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
Before organizing the INC Religion Reenactment from the Movie Felix Manalo
A cover from their Pasugo Magazines.
From the pictures above, the first image depicts a reenactment of how Felix Manalo received the authority to perform clergy duties in his previous religions. The lineage of his authority is essentially unknown, as there are no recorded statements regarding who conferred it or what authority Felix Manalo initially had. After his excommunication for various reasons, any authority he may have received from other sects was considered invalid (it’s worth noting that this validity was questionable from the beginning—this will be addressed separately).
In the second picture, we see the process within the INC religion whereby authority is passed down from person to person, a practice established after Felix Manalo organized the church. Thus, the mystery remains: who granted Felix Manalo his original authority?
Below is a sequence of Job Bautista's plea. His reply appears to be quite biased and somewhat illogical. He attempts to support his argument with the notion that Baptism, a saving ordinance performed by John the Baptist (unrelated to Job Bautista), could never be found outside the Holy Land.
The texts in color are my comments. Let's dive in.
Jerry Nuñez Bustillo, This cult defender is asking about Baptism?
The criticisms remain unchanged, seemingly aimed at garnering support. Let's examine this more closely without resorting to name-calling or baseless accusations. Referring to someone or something as a cult without solid evidence is unproductive. It reminds me of Christ's teaching in Matthew 7:1-2: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
So, let's strive for understanding and respectful dialogue, rather than judgment.
About 559BC . this cult people is conducting baptism in the river of Mormon. Mosiah chapter 18 . according to the story of Alma that they went to river and both of them dive and submerged themselves with Helam.
This doesn't appear to be an issue, and it seems like he is uncomfortable with the idea of performing the ordinance of Baptism. I'm not entirely sure of his intention in sharing this information. However, it has been helpful in my research. As Proverbs 27:17 states, "Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend." It's encouraging to have this dialogue as we both can learn and grow from it.
Alright, let's move forward with our discussion.
No one baptized them but they’re themselves diving to the water in the river of Mormon somewhere in America . If you’d remembered that 589-600 BC they already migrated to America . According to Alma they baptized about 200 people in the river of Mormon. Mosiah 18:16
Alright, so what's the big deal? Since the discussion revolves around Baptism, it's clear that immersion in water is required. The key issue here might be about who has the authority to perform Baptisms. This could be an important topic for our discussion today with Job Bautista and his INC Doctrine.
Indeed, no one can receive Baptism unless performed by someone who has received the necessary revelation and authority. As John 3:5 says, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." It's good that you brought this up; it gives us much to discuss.
And Mosiah according to him those are baptized in that dat was added to the Church of God or Church of Christ. Mosiah 18:17 . If you could notice that the name of Lds cult is not mentioned . Take note that this happened to America in the river of Mormon .
While the name "LDS" might not seem like a significant matter, it's essential to note that it isn't the full and correct name of the Church, which is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (see Doctrine and Covenants 115:4). Some individuals still mistakenly believe that the Church was organized during the Book of Mormon period, and they focus on issues related to the Church's name, thinking it is crucial for salvation. However, it's important to consider not just the name but the teachings, proper authority, and revelations given to the Church, as emphasized in Ephesians 4:11-14, where the importance of apostles, prophets, and proper teaching is highlighted.
On the other hand, John the Baptist conducting baptism for the forgiveness of sins . Jesus also was baptized by John the Baptist in the river of Jordan . Mark 1:9 approximately about 33 AD .
While there might not seem much to discuss, one important aspect stands out: Baptism. Baptism is for the remission of sins (see Acts 2:38), and it signifies our commitment to follow Christ. Though it is often seen as identical across different denominations, it is essential to remember that repentance is a necessary part of this sacred ordinance (see 2 Nephi 31:11-12). God desires us to be clean before entering His kingdom, as stated in Doctrine and Covenants 20:37. Jesus Christ taught us guiding principles and ordinances to help us prepare for His presence (see John 3:5).
So, the baptism of moronic doctrine 559BC that is not related , because this was done in America.
The issue of proper authority in baptism seems to be a significant part of his beliefs. Of course, being in America, it would be impractical to expect them to travel back to the promised land just to be baptized by John the Baptist and then return to America to continue their lives. This seems like a misunderstanding, reminiscent of John 1:33, where John the Baptist himself testified of the one who would baptize with the Holy Ghost.
However, let's assume for a moment that the baptism in question wasn't performed correctly. Do you have the credibility to defend the authority of Manalo to baptize in the Philippines? As stated in Hebrews 5:4, "And no one takes this honor upon himself, but he receives it when called by God, just as Aaron was." Baptism requires proper authority given by God.
Job Bautista's Hilarious comments. The life of John the Baptist wasn't written in full detail in the Bible. Why would INC use it as an excuse?
Let's just leave it there for the main time and will discuss more part of your INC authority after this. Let's just move forward to complete his comments.
While John the Baptist conducting baptism in the river of Jordan . The date is about 33AD .
It might be true, or it might not be. John the Baptist preached before Christ's ministry and even before Christ was baptized (see Matthew 3:1-6). Regarding the timeline, we are limited to what is written in the four gospels available to us today. We don't have full details about John the Baptist’s life prior to the baptism of Christ. His father, a Levitical priest (see Luke 1:5-17), hid him in the wilderness, and being a descendant of Levitical priests, John the Baptist likely received his authority from his lineage. However, the exact details are not completely known.
There is also the possibility that John received revelation from God through an angel to commence his ministry and was given that authority from heaven to baptize people. Just as Christ fasted for 40 days and nights and was ministered to by angels before beginning His mission (see Matthew 4:1-11), John the Baptist may have similarly received heavenly guidance.
Matthew 4:11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
...
17 ¶ From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
So, we never knew before that or about John the Baptist mission, the only thing we knew was that God gave us a pattern on how he would call and prepare his servants to minister to his children. So, don't limit your mind by just sticking to a few texts in the Bible that didn't tell us the detail of their life. Don't assume as if it was.
This cult defender want to connect about the baptism of the people of Israel under the leadership of Moses which they receive baptism through the cloud and sea as symbolic only and no immersion in the water as what John the Baptist taught the baptism in the water and in Spirit. Mark 1:8,,also baptizing more people. John 4:1 . in which this story was copied by Joseph. Mosiah 18:16 about 200 people were baptized according to the book of fictions. ( BOM)
Interestingly, I never directly connected you with that idea; it was actually Paul who provided that example (see 1 Corinthians 10:1-2). I intended merely to show that teachings about baptism existed during those times, as well as in the New Testament. The New Testament, written in Greek, is indeed where the word "baptism" originates.
Concerning baptism, it was indeed revealed through an angel during Nephi's days (see 1 Nephi 11:27; 2 Nephi 31:5-6). Our discussion hinges on accepting the continuation of revelation, even in these latter days (see Amos 3:7).
The absence of revelation and divine authority poses a significant challenge. Without revelation, one cannot legitimately perform baptism or establish a church. I understand that this is a difficult point to accept, but remember that seeking and recognizing divine guidance is essential.
Conclusion ; this cult defender is always relying his hearsay doctrines which contradicts the Bible if not they just copied from the Bible.
Performing baptism aligns with Christ's teachings, as He Himself instituted this sacred ordinance (see Matthew 28:19). Our initial discussions demonstrated this principle clearly, though we may not see eye to eye on it.
The real issue here is not with the ordinance itself, but with the authority to perform it. According to scripture, proper authority is essential (see Hebrews 5:4), and any claim to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy must be held to the highest standards of divine authorization. Without this authority, as Christ established with His Apostles (see John 15:16), the saving ordinances cannot be carried out legitimately.
Let us continue to seek understanding and respect each other's perspectives even if we disagree.
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the authority to Baptized through John the Baptist.
Joseph Smith Baptising Oliver. (They take turn)
Joseph and Oliver with Peter, James and John of the twelve Apostles. The Authority to preach and organize the Church of Jesus Christ
Joseph Smith received the authority directly from John the Baptist of Priest or Levitical Descendants. The words of John was recorded in Doctrine and Covenants section 13 -
Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
In conclusion, it is essential to recognize that only those possessing the proper authority can perform saving ordinances. The scriptures emphasize the necessity of divine authority in these sacred acts. For instance, in Hebrews 5:4, we read, "And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." This underscores the principle that proper authority comes from God and is a critical component of legitimate ordinances in His church.
The individual known as Job Baptista fails to substantiate his claims of authority, often selecting arguments that serve his purpose as an antagonist. Scriptural teachings remind us that truth cannot thrive amidst bigotry and prejudice. In 2 Timothy 2:24-25, we are counseled, "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth."
Bigotry and antagonism blind individuals to the truth. It is only by abandoning such prejudices that one can come to a full understanding of divine principles. Acts 10:34-35 teaches us that "God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." This passage invites us to approach the gospel with an open heart and mind, leaving behind any preconceived biases.
Ultimately, embracing humility and seeking genuine understanding allows one to perceive and accept divine truths. And I haven't found that personally the way you conversed with me.
Here let's dive into Job Baustista's unacceptable Text of the Bible. The INC like him would love to choose only the best part of the fruits. But yes, of course, let deal with it. Without further adieu let's jump in -
Jerry Nuñez Bustillo As addressed to me, 😄!
Aba ang bautismo sa ulap sa mga Isaraelita ay hindi iyan tumutukoy na Bautismo sa alagad ni Nephi . Okay, and what do you suggest? Baptism is baptism, no matter how you expound it, it's always that way. But let's consider your plea. What kind of baptism would be Job Bautista? If you think it's different then how does it go? And what does Paul simply mean?
Ano ba ang bautismo ng alagad ni Nephi sa pamamagitan daw sa pag lubog sa tubig ?. Baptism is a Greek word "Baptismos" or to deep. The People of Book of Mormon times were directed to perform it aside from the Law of Moses and the Sabbath. Nephi got his revelation directly from God as what he saw in the Vision regarding the future Christ. Maybe you're misinformed, and since you read the Book of Mormon just follow this verse for your reference (see 1 Nephi 11)
For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot.
2 And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou?
3 And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw.
4And the Spirit said unto me: Believest thou that thy father saw the tree of which he hath spoken?
5 And I said: Yea, thou knowest that I believe all the words of my father.
6 And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the earth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.
7 And behold this thing shall be given unto thee for a sign, that after thou hast beheld the tree which bore the fruit which thy father tasted, thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God.
8 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.
9 And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.
10 And he said unto me: What desirest thou?
11 And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof—for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.
12 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look! And I looked as if to look upon him, and I saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence.
13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?
22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.
23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.
24 And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.
25 And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.
26And the angel said unto me again: Look and behold the condescension of God!
27 And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; and I also beheld the prophet who should prepare the way before him. And the Lamb of God went forth and was baptized of him; and after he was baptized, I beheld the heavens open, and the Holy Ghost come down out of heaven and abide upon him in the form of a dove.
28 And I beheld that he went forth ministering unto the people, in power and great glory; and the multitudes were gathered together to hear him; and I beheld that they cast him out from among them.
Sa example mo sablay ka kaagad.
This is so laughable claim of uninspired INC ministers. You're simply saying that directly to Paul. Remember it's not me who gave that example it was paul who attempt to give you an idea of baptism in ancient times. A bigot like you of course won't accept that kind of idea from Paul, simply because Paul is uninspired to INC ideology.
Kailan ba nagkaroon ng bautismo sa pamamagitan sa pag lubog sa tubig ? Ito ay sa panahon na ni Juan Bautista at sa panahon ng Cristiano.
Yup, basically it was John the Baptist as the forerunner of this saving ordinance. And yes it was in the New Testament since he was born during those time. But does it certainly mean it wasn't revealed by prophets of Old? Isaiah saw Christ's days and even Abraham rejoice in Christ's days. Interestingly these people (INC) don't believe that way, since Jesus never existed before the prophets which means no such thing as Son of God until he was born. I don't know about that. Anyways, moving forward, let's try to see some examples (not mine 😁) to help us understand its origin.
Additional scripture here is a Mosaic Ritual found in Old Testament. Let's see if this is familiar -
3 Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering.
4 He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on.
5 And he shall take of the congregation of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.
...
23 And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:
24 And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people.
25 And the fat of the sin offering shall he burn upon the altar.
26 And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp.
27 And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.
28 And he that burneth them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp. - Leviticus 16
Somethings fishy Job Bautista. Was this ritual say something about baptism or maybe Just God commands it because those ancient people don't know how to take a bath and be clean? Or maybe water is expensive those days. 🤔! I don't know, what do you think Job Bautista? Here's another one below -
5 Or whosoever toucheth any creeping thing, whereby he may be made unclean, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness, whatsoever uncleanness he hath;
6 The soul which hath touched any such shall be unclean until even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he wash his flesh with water.
7 And when the sun is down, he shall be clean, and shall afterward eat of the holy things; because it is his food. - Leviticus 22
Now, what was that all about? God can do all things and if touches something unclean could God clean it as instant as it could? So what's with the ritual anyway?
Samantala ang Bautismo ng alagad ni Nephi ito ay sinagawa sa ilog diumano ng Mormon sa America na kung ating matatamdaan na 600BCay nasa America na sila at nagpapalaganap ng huwad na aral.
😳! 600BC is not too old to see Mosaic traditions. Also, how could the word "nagpapalaganap" would apply if they were the only people who live there (Ancient America) during those times? Do you know how the BC/AD works?
Anyway, the old testament had proven it's practice already that was taught by God during their time. Though John the Baptist introduce it in his days, the Old testament practices and rituals had leads us to it's origin. And so was the revelation received in the Book of Mormon people. The Baptism we're never practice while they were still at Jerusalem, but the revelation were followed after their arrival to the land promised by the Lord to them. And yet Job Bautista never understood that because of bigotry. Sorry to say that Job Bautista, you have so much to learn.
Samantala ang pagbabautismo sa mga Alagad ni Cristo ito ay nangyari sa Jordan at sa karatig bayan na taliwas naman ang kulto ay ito nagsasagawa din sa America?
Okay, so what's the issue again Job? Let us also consider some of the facts discovered by archaeologists that leads us to this Ordinance of Baptism.
On the other side of this topic. There is also a Physical Font used for a specific ritual found in Jewish tradition before Christ days and some other similar ritual were also perform. Take for Example the Mikvah or Mikveh (מִקְוֶה / מקווה). I would like you to read the information about this since I don't have much space Regarding this topic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh
Kay napakalayo sa katotohanan ang pinagmamalaki ng kulto ni Joseph na sila ang tunay na Cristiano , na kung saan 73 BC pa tinatawag silang Cristiano at ang Cristo hindi pa naipanganak kaya walang Cristiano pa noong 73BC.
This has been over and over. You never realized the timeline of the writer of the Book. Mormon was born after Christ ascension and it was even 300AD when he compile the writings. The usage of course are his words since he knows the teachings of their people. Too slow to analyze Job Bautista. Read my previous post about it https://truth-reflects.blogspot.com/2021/11/neil-andi-anderson-and-job-bautista_13.html?m=1
Neil Andi Anderson made a long post of his belief and try to deny Christ's Deity and nature. Let go and see his claim. Red Text is my comments. -
Why Christ is so much honored by his own sheep? Here's the reason,
“We believe in Jesus Christ and accept Him as the Son of God, Lord, Savior, and the Mediator between God and Man.
If that so, then you should Believe that God is the Saviour as stated in the scriptures that there is no saviour beside him (Isaiah 43:11, Isaiah 45:22, Hosea 13:4).
We accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God:
“And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, ‘Surely THIS MAN WAS THE SON OF GOD!’” (Mark 15:39, NIV, emphasis mine).
Yes, of course, and even the Father declared that he is the beloved Son (Matthew 17:5). The father even addressed him as God (Hebrew 1:8)
We accept Jesus Christ as our Lord:
“So, all the people of Israel should know this truly: GOD HAS MADE JESUS — THE MAN YOU NAILED TO THE CROSS — BOTH LORD AND CHRIST.” (Acts 2:36, New Century Version, emphasis mine)
“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had murdered by hanging Him on a tree. GOD EXALTED THIS MAN TO HIS RIGHT HAND AS RULER AND SAVIOR, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 5:30-31, Holman Christian Standard Bible, emphasis mine)
I said it already on the first attempt, and don't make it as an excuse using Word game that distracting Christ divine nature. He is not just an ordinary man, a different being, and not a human who has a mortal and imperfect body. He is different then and he has a glorified body Now.
We accept Jesus Christ as the Mediator between man and the one true God:
“For there is one God and ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS” (I Timothy 2:5, NIV, emphasis mine)
Yes of course. Christ needs to be in a human form to complete the atonement and to end the Law. You should understand Galatians 3 to know how Christ ends it and the reason for his Sacrifice.
Because we believe that there is only one true God, the Father, thus, Jesus is not the true God, but the Son of the one true God. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself explicitly proclaimed that the Father alone is the true God and He is the Son of the one true God, whom the Father has sent:
“Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You...
“And this is eternal life, that they may know You the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” (John 17:1,3 NKJV)
I do believe that God the Father is the father of all our spirit and the only one we prayed for and Honor (Acts 17:28-29, Romans 8:14-21), and I do believe he made a plan for us to have a body and to be tested if we are worthy to come back to him someday (Matthew 5:48). The very reasons why there are Laws and Commandments that we should keep are because it is part of his plan and that perhaps we may know how important it is to become like him and follow Christ's example (1John 3:2). Christ never asks greater things to our Father since his will must be followed (Matthew 26:42). The Father is the God of us all that we worship and through his son, we could gain access to his grace. To sum up, you people just need to understand their difference. They are different beings who have one work and purpose as one God.
To attain eternal life is to believe that the Father is the only true God, and Jesus is the one sent by the one true God. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself attests that He is indeed a man in nature:
It is not a problem to those who view it biblically, but to those who view it as Unitarianism, the problem lies in their understanding. God, the father is always the one true God as the father of our spirits.
“As it is, you are determined to kill me, A MAN WHO HAS TOLD YOU THE TRUTH that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.” (John 8:40 NIV, emphasis mine).
You use this as a defense wall of your unitarian view. This has been used over and over and there you are wanted to disprove my understanding of biblical context. Will sure, let's arrange that and make it more profound -
The KJV uses the same idea on this verse -
But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
So what was this all about? I will cite some of the known commentaries on this line and see if this will help our Friend figure out what Christ's words meant. See below
(40) But now ye seek to kill me--i.e., As a matter of fact, in opposition to the conduct which would characterise the true children of Abraham, ye are seeking to kill Me. (Comp. Note on John 8:37.)
A man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard (better, which I heard) from God.--The term "a man," expresses His revelation, by means of human form, of the divine truth which He heard in the pre-human state (John 8:38). The crime of seeking to kill Him is aggravated by the fact that He was One who came to tell them truth, and that from God. They seek to destroy the human life which for the sake of humanity He has assumed. - Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
He aggravated the charge by describing himself as a man who hath declared to you the truth which I heard from God. This is the only place where the Lord speaks of himself as "a man" (cf. Acts 17:31; 1 Timothy 2:5). He here describes himself as One who is subject and liable to their murderous passion - a man, seeing that his eternal Personality has been presented to his antagonists in the form of man. His manhood was the link of relation between the God who sent him, taught him, surrounded and enveloped him, and the consciousness of his hearers. This is the highest representation of the very conception of a Divine commission and a Divine message. They were seeking to stamp out a Divine fire, to drown a heavenly voice, to refuse and trample upon a sacred Messenger. - Pulpit Commentary
I'm not with the commentary side since they have a different form of study. I would just like to have it as an additional insight to our Friend Neil Andi Anderson. Christ came in this world in a human form, with flesh and blood as one of the purposes of his mission to atone someday of the fall. Christ, however, did not claim his divinity while on the earth since he left everything to the Father and to suffer as a human does. (John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.) This guiding truth was never taught to our dearest INC friend, but perhaps someday they come to realize that. Christ came as a human and there's no reason for him to brag about his divinity while on earth. He needs to leave everything to accomplish the Atoning Sacrifice for mankind. This means he must be human as we are human. So as the Scripture goes "A MAN WHO HAS TOLD YOU THE TRUTH" is the right approach of Christ Calling.
A simply statement of Christ but they hardly never understand because Christ says, "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires....and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me (because you are a Mormon)(Jn.8:43)
First of all, in John 8:43 he is talking to the Jew, mostly to the Pharisees, not to Mormon. You misquote the scriptures on your cherry-picking idea. What this has to say to your claim as to don't add or diminish? And it seems like you violate your own words. 😁! Anyway, try to look at it as who can't bear the teachings of the savior. Succeeding verses specifically verse 58 tell us his existence before the Prophets and yet you like to throw a stone at him by his honest words that he exists with God before the foundation of this world. Why can't you accept that and understand his words? Let me quote it back "You are of your father the devil".
Look how they are in bragging for something that already happened and renounces it on two different stories.
Their latest post. As of this week.
(See the below)
to see how it was aired
in their Network
as part of their retention program.
Now as it was tagged in their News Headline "He was the Former Mormon Priest, but the News says a former Mormon Preacher". Never knew how he preaches with the Aaronic Priesthood Authority. Does it say how toxic this kind of information is? Too close but not close enough.
Job Bautista' post (April 20, 2021)
On the other hand, Neil Andi Anderson and Job Bautista already made a post about it on its first story, and funny how they claimed it as a member of one of the highest officers in the church. 😳 which Office? Neil Deleted his Post about it leaving no proof of each conversation he claimed as one of the highest authority. I never heard about him.
Here's one of the funniest Posts from our Friend Job Bautista who doesn't know where to start in his criticisms. He seems so worried about something that needs to be put in history that nothing was even preserved by natives after American Colonization. Let's Deal with it to help our Friend Job Bautista -
There are a couple of question not connected and it seems like he doesn't know what to do.
Let's try to analyze his questions and maybe we need to reconstruct them to help him out. Let's get it on and see if we can understand his questions -
See the text in red for my response and the text in blue for his questions and some modifications. I'll try to write it in English for General Audiences. So let's begin with his intro -
Jerry Nuñez Bustillo ( Lds cult church defender)Don't worry let's just keep it like that since you just can't help yourself to act maturely. Let's just have it there and let the other think how Christian you are by those words.
Question 1 Kung lahi ni Lehi ay nag migrate sa America 589 BC ? Okay, so what's the question was all about? I'm thinking this was all about the Year or maybe he wants to clarify if this is a realistic event. Okay, I don't know what's he up to but here I would like to refer him to some of the church videos to have a better presentation.
Question 2 Samakatuwid si Haring Mosia at naging hari ng America ?
And what is this all about? It's not related to the first question and it's even in a different timeline. Anyway, let's try to answer his question to help him out and understand how this Mosiah became King in his time.
I just don't understand your question. It seems like you are just confused about names and I think you misplace it using your ideology. Focus first and stop thinking about your INC teachings.
Just to help you out, here's one of the examples of the same name issue in the bible, there are various other names but I wouldn't include it here. Study it for yourself -
They're both the same name of a different timeline. Of course, it's different persons. So yeah, you should set aside your bigotry first before creating a question on your mind. That won't work.
Nasa history ba ng America na may hari na ang pangalan ay Mosia ? O ito ay isang kuwentong kutsero lang ?
And it seems like you're trying to get the detail if there's a name that existed in Book of Mormon times. Anyway, to answer that, I would suggest following what Moroni said to know of these things. Everyone has the right to say the bible isn't true, some historical timelines and geography seem to conflict in scientifically carbon dating, etc., everyone has that freedom to disagree or never believe even if the truth is placed in front of your nose.
About me, I couldn't believe it and act as agnostic or atheist anytime if I wanted to without faith on the things that I'd learned. The truth is always the truth the only difference is our acceptance of it. You can question it anytime if you want and try to look at the Bible also using the same question. Does it exist? Names do exist? Or God does exist?
It was almost a year already that Neil Andi Anderson posted a picture about a church building that was on fire and he made a claim that it was a temple and was burned down by angry members who were brainwashed by the church, so they took their revenge and burned the Temple. I don't know exactly where he gets that idea so I have to search for the same image to confirm it. Unfortunately, I never found one that says about it, rather I found the authentic article about the fire and the exact event.
During the incident
Here let's take a look at how this Neil Andi Anderson tries to deceive and lie for the sake of INC teachings or maybe to get fame. The image below is our new conversation on his arrogance and the News Links of the Swan Valley fire incident.
This one was addressed actually to a different person whom he tries to deceive on his so-called News.
The same image was used when we have had our conversation and I left him the right news of that tragedy. Normally, if you already know the right incident or some story in the authentic source. So, why would you still stick to that error or wrong information if it's not the right one?
If you're a normal person, then why would you do that? Why would you deliver some story that will just simply deceive someone away from the truth?
Do INC members were trained to be good citizens and be honest in everything? So, what happens Neil?
Here are his comments addressed to Abish So where in the world did you find that as your source?
I'd been through YouTube and some other social media to find what he's talking about. And I found nothing on his claim. So, fake untrue and full of lies. This kind of attitude should face a moral discipline or some disciplinary council in their Church. But no, he used a fake account to avoid it, and the worse part is, it just adds a darker side to INC Church and its members.
Some Facebook Post on the actual image and video of Neil Andi Anderson's claim.
To Neil Andi Anderson, was it the teachings of Christ or just the Teaching of your church?
Neil won't reply this article as always. But the point here is - How long you people deceive good people lead them to hell? If the INC church is the chosen People of God, why would they use forces of lie and deception?
I caught a female X.Gedion (Xylotrupes philippinensis) a type of rhinoceros beetle. It is actually common beetle here in Philippines. It was released in the wild after handling it.
Let try to deal with this one and it looks like it has been a topic every time in the Group. It seems this has been over and over. Okay, so let's deal with it.
The quotes were in Jacob 2:23-24 and on the other side it was in Doctrine and Covenants 132:1, 39
Okay, so what was it all about?
When you get across to a group that was so critical in LDS doctrine, this issue is the favorite subject of all time and if some LDS realized this, they will get some complexity in their understanding about the Church in General and Polygamy.
So, the Question. The Book of Mormon had forbidden it, especially in Jacob 2. So, why did Joseph still follow the teachings of Polygamy?
Was Joseph Smith Inspired to lead the Church with this kind of doctrine?
You see, it is not just a question in our days. Even in Joseph Smith's times, this was also an issue that in fact members also question the same thing as today's world.
Anyway, I will not make a further explanation about this, I will just include this in some topic some other times and I got a busy day to do. let's just try to answer both the given scriptures in the image.
Jacob 2:23-24 as what it had already said and I'll quote it -
[ 23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. ]
If you get to understand it as plain as it is. David and Solomon did some abominable things not pleasing in the sight of God. But if you are reading it in the old testament, David and Solomon were blessed with wives and concubines that were gaven by God. What seems to be the problem here?
King David Playing the Harp (1622) by Gerard van Honthorst
Yes, David was blessed with wives and concubines and it wasn't the reason why the Lord God was displeased about him. But what he did was abominable before God. See this chapter from [2 Samuel 12] (you can read the rest of the verse)
And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.
2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:
3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.
4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man’s lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.
5 And David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die:
6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.
7 ¶ And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.
9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.
10 Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.
11 Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.
12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.
13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.
14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.
15 ¶ And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.
16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
17 And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them.
18 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?
19 But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead.
20 Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat.
21 Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread.
22 And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?
23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
24 ¶ And David comforted Bath-sheba his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her: and she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon: and the LORD loved him.
25 And he sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah, because of the LORD.
And seem like Jacob 2 got a good point about this if you carefully read it through on the following verse -
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. 31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. 32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts. 33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
David fails the Lord because of his feelings and lust toward Bath-sheba and it is not just a simple mistake, rather a gross sin in the sight of God. And the Lord God doesn't want that to happen in the Land He consecrates for his people.
While on the other hand. Solomon also got a serious error that displeased the Lord for his wives and concubines. Let's read the story -
But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love. 3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart. 4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. 5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 And Solomon did evil in the sight of the LORD, and went not fully after the LORD, as did David his father. 7Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. 9¶ And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice, 10And had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods: but he kept not that which the LORD commanded. 11Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. 12Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father’s sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. 13Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen.
And to clarify the statement as it said in Doctrine and Covenants 132:38-39 it is best to see the whole picture if you read the full statement or section. I added verse 37 to help us understand the former practice of plural marriage and was it abominable in the sight of God. (see highlighted font)
37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods.
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.
39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.
Some things were written that need careful study or understanding. The very reason why the Leaders encourage the members to read, ponder and pray for the truth. If you found too many complexities, you just simply need guidance to know the truth of things that was written if it is necessary for salvation.
This is actually a late upload. The last time that I posted about my Tarantula. I felt like everything's a waste. The effort, time and moments that was spent together. After all that has been done, I'm so devastated for his lost. You'll be missed.
This section deals in honoring and sustaining the Law and Government. You may find it interesting since most of question in regards to the LDS standing on Government and Religion. Even myself, I never encourage everyone or anyone to be in a side where he knows only half of the story. The Articles of Faith 1:12 had said -
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
I believe God organize some children to take lead in each generation. Some intelligence that could serve the people in the right way or perhaps an example for goodness and an experience of failures. God gave us understanding that can help us understand the way of perfection. Sustaining and supporting our leaders are the best example of our spiritual maturity. Either in times of success or failures. I believe that the leaders has the capacity or ability to serve the people despite of personal matters and interested. It's not about it, it's all about our contribution for them to pursue their Leadership.
Doctrine and Covenants Section 134
A declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835. Many Saints gathered together to consider the proposed contents of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. At that time, this declaration was given the following preamble: “That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present, at the close of this volume, our opinion concerning the same.”
1–4, Governments should preserve freedom of conscience and worship; 5–8, All men should uphold their governments and owe respect and deference to the law; 9–10, Religious societies should not exercise civil powers; 11–12, Men are justified in defending themselves and their property.
1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.
2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.
3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.
5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.
6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.
7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.
8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.
9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.
11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.
12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.
Last Night (November 17, 2021) after I got home, I saw my Fireleg Tarantula molting and it's in upsidedown position. I got so exited on his molting and plan to video record it. But then I got tired and just left it not knowing what happen during his molting stage.
And this morning I woke up exited and what I witness is just so horrific. He got a bad molt. His legs got stuck and some got twisted. I tried to help him out and sadly he lost one part of his hind while I gently removing some exoskeleton. I just don't know what to do, I search on the enternet and it seems no information or helpful ideas that could give me a good tips or advice. Most of the experience ended up death of tarantula. I feel so discouraged and no chance of surviving my Fireleg that was with me for 3 years. It was his final form, he got his tibial hooks and emboli for mating and yet it end up bad molting.
His position where I left him after I remove some stocked exoskeleton.
I hope he survive or maybe for some other time I can still give him the best care that I could. I love this tarantula as part of me as a family.
Can someone believe a preacher who doesn't know what he's saying? I mean, why would we believe in you Job Bautista? You don't even know the Scriptures?
Job Bautista, posted something he never think existed in the Bible.
The concern is very simple. He tries to look at something in the Book of Mormon that made him think false.
There it goes as he found it as one of his best stones for Criticism -
3 Nephi 11:19 And Nephi arose and went forth, and bowed himself before the Lord and did kiss his feet.
So, Job Bautista Thinks that Nephi's act of respect was the same act like Judas did to the Saviour who kissed his cheeks and betrayed the Saviour.
Luke 22:47 ¶ And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
Do you think that is Job Bautista? Did you read the Scriptures? Or just simply pick up the best part for your doctrine of INCult?
So, I responded to him with the Scripture that will help him ponder about the Scripture, but yeah, I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about it. Anyway, here's the text -
Luke 7:36 ¶ And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to meat.
37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
The story goes on with the parable Jesus Christ told to help them understand that he can forgive sins. But I couldn't keep that here since it was not about it.
So, my question to Job Bautista is - Was the woman also betrayed Christ because she kissed his feet? Or was her sins forgiven?
I just couldn't help to think on this subject about Job Bautista's understanding of Scriptural text. Did you read the Scriptures and understand them?
Can someone believe a preacher who doesn't know what he's saying? I mean, why would we believe in you Job Bautista? You don't even know the Scriptures?
Job Bautista, posted something he never think existed in the Bible.
The concern is very simple. He tries to look at something in the Book of Mormon that made him think false.
There it goes as he found it as one of his best stones for Criticism -
3 Nephi 11:19 And Nephi arose and went forth, and bowed himself before the Lord and did kiss his feet.
So, Job Bautista Thinks that Nephi's act of respect was the same act like Judas did to the Saviour who kissed his cheeks and betrayed the Saviour.
Luke 22:47 ¶ And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
Do you think that is Job Bautista? Did you read the Scriptures? Or just simply pick up the best part for your doctrine of INCult?
So, I responded to him with the Scripture that will help him ponder about the Scripture, but yeah, I'm pretty sure he doesn't care about it. Anyway, here's the text -
Luke 7:36 ¶ And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to meat.
37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.
The story goes on with the parable Jesus Christ told to help them understand that he can forgive sins. But I couldn't keep that here since it was not about it.
So, my question to Job Bautista is - Was the woman also betrayed Christ because she kissed his feet? Or was her sins forgiven?
I just couldn't help to think on this subject about Job Bautista's understanding of Scriptural text. Did you read the Scriptures and understand them?
