The Love of God

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

Unacceptable Biblical Study of Job Bautista - Part 2

Before organizing the INC Religion
Reinactment from the Movie
Felix Manalo

A cover from their Pasugo Magazines.

From the pictures. The above first picture was a reinactment on how Felix Manalo received an authority to perform clergy on his previous religions. The line of his authority basically was unknown, since no recorded statements as to who performs it at to what authority he have before it was passed to Felix Manalo. And after he was excommunicated for some reasons, the authority from other sect no longer valid (though it wasn't valid at all from the first place. This will be in a separate topic). And here in the second picture above was the performance of passing down the authority from person to person in INC religion after Felix Manalo Organized it. So the question remains a mystery. Who gave (Felix Manalo) the authority?

A sequence of Job Bautista's plea below. His reply seems so absurd and so much of bigotry. He tries to bend it with his knowledge and that Baptism could never be found somewhere in a region outside in the Holy Land where John the Baptist (not related to Job Bautista) performs the saving ordinance of Baptism. Texts in colored are my comments Let's dive in - 

Jerry Nuñez Bustillo
The attack is just the same. Addressed to me thinking someone will favor his appeal. Let's try that here.

This cult defender is asking about Baptism?
Calling a cult while you don't have any ground to stand on. Nice one Job Bautista.

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.

Basically, not a problem and it seems like he doesn't like the idea of performing the ordinance of Baptism. I don't know what is he up to while showing this information. But it's a good thing he opens it up to save me in my research. Okay, let's move forward.

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

Okay, so what's the big deal. Since it was all about Baptism, yes of course they need to be submerged into the water. The problem here maybe was who authorized them in performing Baptism, and this could be the best topic we will be discussing today with Job Bautista and his INC Doctrine. But yes no one baptized them save until it was performed by someone who receive that revelation. Good thing that you open that up. 

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 .

The name LDS is not a big deal since it is not the right name of the church. This guy still thinks that LDS was organized during the Book of Mormon Period and wanted to find an issue about it since his knowledge is limited only to name church issues or the right church name for salvation. He never thinks about the teachings, and proper authority, or even revelation of their so-called messenger as they claimed.

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 .

Seems nothing to be discussed, except for one thing. Baptism is for the remission of sin but yeah it's mostly identical, but not necessarily as if no need of repentance, but yes, God wants us to be clean before entering in His kingdom, and Christ taught us some guiding principles and ordinances about it. 

So, the baptism of moronic doctrine 559BC that is not related , because this was done in America.

So, places are also a big deal to his ideology. Of course, they're already in America what do you want them to do? Do you want them to travel back to the promised land just to be baptized by John the Baptist and back again to America to continue their regular life? So insane study Job Bautista. But let's just assume that it's not the proper Baptism. So, do you have the credibility to defend your Manalo who has the same authority to baptize in the Philippines? Tell me about it?

Job Bautista's Helarious 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 .

Possibly or possibly not. John already preach before Christ's ministry or before Christ was baptized and about the year, you just simply assumed it because it was all that was written in the four gospels available in our days. We never knew since John the Baptist has a life before the baptism of Christ and his father hid him in the wilderness, being a descendant of Levitical Priests, John the Baptist got that authority directly to his father, still, we don't know the exact detail of his life before it was written in the bible. There is also the possiblity that John receive a revelation from God through the Angel to start his Ministry and was given that same authority from heaven to baptize people. Just as Christ who faster 40 days and night and was visited by the Angel ministering him before he starts his Mission.

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)

The funny thing is, I never connect you with that and also it was Paul who gave that short example. I was only giving you a simple idea that this type of teaching did exist in their days, not just in the New Testament. The New Testament was written in greek which originate the word baptism. You're just making yourself a clown in a circus as always. We are simply talking about Baptism and yes it was revealed through an Angel during Nephi's days (go and check Part 1 about this). And the only problem was, you can't accept and admit that revelation does exist even in these latter days. You don't have Revelation and Manalo did not receive any revelation to perform baptism and build his church, which means you are already crushed in this doctrine alone. But don't worry, I don't mind it. 😁

Conclusion ; this cult defender is always relying his hearsay doctrines which contradicts the Bible if not they just copied from the Bible.

Performing baptism is not contradictory to Christ's Teaching. And it was even proven in our first discussions. You just simply can't accept it. The only contradiction here was your Messenger who claim to be the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy that has no rights and authority to perform the saving ordinances, And that is that.

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 Levitcal 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, the person that has a proper authority was the only person who can perform the saving ordinances. This Job Baptista has nothing to prove on his claim rather picking up something just good for him as an antagonists. A bigot would never learned the truth not until he leaves his bigotry.

Unacceptable Biblical Study of Job Bautista - Part 2

Before organizing the INC Religion
Reinactment from the Movie
Felix Manalo

A cover from their Pasugo Magazines.

From the pictures. The above first picture was a reinactment on how Felix Manalo received an authority to perform clergy on his previous religions. The line of his authority basically was unknown, since no recorded statements as to who performs it at to what authority he have before it was passed to Felix Manalo. And after he was excommunicated for some reasons, the authority from other sect no longer valid (though it wasn't valid at all from the first place. This will be in a separate topic). And here in the second picture above was the performance of passing down the authority from person to person in INC religion after Felix Manalo Organized it. So the question remains a mystery. Who gave (Felix Manalo) the authority?

A sequence of Job Bautista's plea below. His reply seems so absurd and so much of bigotry. He tries to bend it with his knowledge and that Baptism could never be found somewhere in a region outside in the Holy Land where John the Baptist (not related to Job Bautista) performs the saving ordinance of Baptism. Texts in colored are my comments Let's dive in - 

Jerry Nuñez Bustillo
The attack is just the same. Addressed to me thinking someone will favor his appeal. Let's try that here.

This cult defender is asking about Baptism?
Calling a cult while you don't have any ground to stand on. Nice one Job Bautista.

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.

Basically, not a problem and it seems like he doesn't like the idea of performing the ordinance of Baptism. I don't know what is he up to while showing this information. But it's a good thing he opens it up to save me in my research. Okay, let's move forward.

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

Okay, so what's the big deal. Since it was all about Baptism, yes of course they need to be submerged into the water. The problem here maybe was who authorized them in performing Baptism, and this could be the best topic we will be discussing today with Job Bautista and his INC Doctrine. But yes no one baptized them save until it was performed by someone who receive that revelation. Good thing that you open that up. 

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 .

The name LDS is not a big deal since it is not the right name of the church. This guy still thinks that LDS was organized during the Book of Mormon Period and wanted to find an issue about it since his knowledge is limited only to name church issues or the right church name for salvation. He never thinks about the teachings, and proper authority, or even revelation of their so-called messenger as they claimed.

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 .

Seems nothing to be discussed, except for one thing. Baptism is for the remission of sin but yeah it's mostly identical, but not necessarily as if no need of repentance, but yes, God wants us to be clean before entering in His kingdom, and Christ taught us some guiding principles and ordinances about it. 

So, the baptism of moronic doctrine 559BC that is not related , because this was done in America.

So, places are also a big deal to his ideology. Of course, they're already in America what do you want them to do? Do you want them to travel back to the promised land just to be baptized by John the Baptist and back again to America to continue their regular life? So insane study Job Bautista. But let's just assume that it's not the proper Baptism. So, do you have the credibility to defend your Manalo who has the same authority to baptize in the Philippines? Tell me about it?

Job Bautista's Helarious 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 .

Possibly or possibly not. John already preach before Christ's ministry or before Christ was baptized and about the year, you just simply assumed it because it was all that was written in the four gospels available in our days. We never knew since John the Baptist has a life before the baptism of Christ and his father hid him in the wilderness, being a descendant of Levitical Priests, John the Baptist got that authority directly to his father, still, we don't know the exact detail of his life before it was written in the bible. There is also the possiblity that John receive a revelation from God through the Angel to start his Ministry and was given that same authority from heaven to baptize people. Just as Christ who faster 40 days and night and was visited by the Angel ministering him before he starts his Mission.

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)

The funny thing is, I never connect you with that and also it was Paul who gave that short example. I was only giving you a simple idea that this type of teaching did exist in their days, not just in the New Testament. The New Testament was written in greek which originate the word baptism. You're just making yourself a clown in a circus as always. We are simply talking about Baptism and yes it was revealed through an Angel during Nephi's days (go and check Part 1 about this). And the only problem was, you can't accept and admit that revelation does exist even in these latter days. You don't have Revelation and Manalo did not receive any revelation to perform baptism and build his church, which means you are already crushed in this doctrine alone. But don't worry, I don't mind it. 😁

Conclusion ; this cult defender is always relying his hearsay doctrines which contradicts the Bible if not they just copied from the Bible.

Performing baptism is not contradictory to Christ's Teaching. And it was even proven in our first discussions. You just simply can't accept it. The only contradiction here was your Messenger who claim to be the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy that has no rights and authority to perform the saving ordinances, And that is that.

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 Levitcal 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, the person that has a proper authority was the only person who can perform the saving ordinances. This Job Baptista has nothing to prove on his claim rather picking up something just good for him as an antagonists. A bigot would never learned the truth not until he leaves his bigotry.

Unacceptable Biblical Study of Job Bautista - Part 1

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

Molten Sea

Picture is an artist rendition of The Molten Sea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_Sea

Unacceptable Biblical Study of Job Bautista - Part 1

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

Molten Sea

Picture is an artist rendition of The Molten Sea. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_Sea

Neil Andi Anderson: Why Christ is so much honored by his own sheep?

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)

God is the Lord of Lords, and so was Christ. Does it say something that we need to understand Christ's divinity? (Deuteronomy 10:17, 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14, Revelation 19:16)

We accept Jesus Christ as our Savior:

“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".

Neil Andi Anderson: Why Christ is so much honored by his own sheep?

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)

God is the Lord of Lords, and so was Christ. Does it say something that we need to understand Christ's divinity? (Deuteronomy 10:17, 1 Timothy 6:15, Revelation 17:14, Revelation 19:16)

We accept Jesus Christ as our Savior:

“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".

General Conference Talk

House of Sequential Order
By Elder Vaiangina Sikahema
Of the Seventy

INC still braggin in the same old News.

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.

Links on the video

• https://incmedia.org/former-mormon-officer-finds-true-faith/

A unique online encounter helps a former Mormon officer finally find spiritual peace

• https://incmedia.org/former-mormon-priest-is-baptized-in-texas/

A former Mormon preacher in Texas discovers the true faith through a unique online encounter and is baptized

So, how did he claim a preacher if he never been an elder? So much of INC brainwashing. Thank you for your time.

INC still braggin in the same old News.

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.

Links on the video

• https://incmedia.org/former-mormon-officer-finds-true-faith/

A unique online encounter helps a former Mormon officer finally find spiritual peace

• https://incmedia.org/former-mormon-priest-is-baptized-in-texas/

A former Mormon preacher in Texas discovers the true faith through a unique online encounter and is baptized

So, how did he claim a preacher if he never been an elder? So much of INC brainwashing. Thank you for your time.

Job Bautista and his Hilarious Post: An Epic History Digging

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 -

Joseph son of Jacob = Deuteronomy 27:12

Joseph the Husband of Mary = Matthew 1:16

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?

Job Bautista and his Hilarious Post: An Epic History Digging

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 -

Joseph son of Jacob = Deuteronomy 27:12

Joseph the Husband of Mary = Matthew 1:16

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?