Recently I posted a fun fact of Joseph Smith's Supposed Revelation that has been fulfilled which was about the Meteor Storm that I made a claim that it was also included in INC's doctrine, which I honestly could tell that it isn’t even related to the emergence of their church in the Philippines. So, he made a statement thinking it is neither Factual nor neither Fun. So, let's talk about it and see what we can get -
THEIR ‘FUN FACT’ IS NEITHER FACTUAL NOR FUNA certain individual, Jerry Nuñez Bustillo, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly known as Mormonism), recently shared what he labeled as a “fun fact” in a Facebook group titled The Restored Truths of the 𝗚𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹 of 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔 Christ vs INC Gospel, a space where defenders of faiths such as the Iɢʟᴇsɪᴀ Nɪ Cʀɪsᴛᴏ and Mormonism engage in discussion.
The Restored Truths of the 𝗚𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗹 of 𝑱𝒆𝒔𝒖𝒔 Christ vs INC Gospel
Good to know you read and response this fun fact which I don’t even think it’s a big deal, but you fail to make a good response on my other post prior to this short OP. But let’s go ahead and tell me what was this all about -
In his post, he appears to suggest that the Leonid Meteor Storm of November 13, 1833 was one of the alleged fulfillments connected to the divine calling of Brother Felix Y. Manalo, and further implies that this is part of the Iglesia ni Cristo’s doctrine.
Let’s just say it was not part of the doctrine of the INC so the rest we are talking here were just unnecessary fuss. So why do INC quote it? And even if this was not about what it meant in your doctrine, does this meant that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled? Just to be fair, I haven’t made my post clear and precise in quoting the INC ideology or if this is not accurate, since I’m not quoting some known source such as their official website, then supposed it is just an INC opinion.
Frankly, THAT CLAIM IS INACCURATE. 👎 Before presenting such assertions (especially about another religion) it would have been prudent to verify them through official INC sources such as incmedia.org, iglesianicristo.net, pasugo.com.ph, etc. Doing so could have prevented a clear misrepresentation of what the Church actually taught.
Again, I’m not quoting any official site, so more accurately it was just quoted on your so-called defenders of faith maybe, or you may include yourself about it, but this doesn’t say anything that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled. So, the issue was not about who and how it was quoted, you just based yourself on certain ground that doesn’t even point out the real issue. Again, it’s true, I wasn't certain but let’s try to get some of the source about it. Let's check out some of the know sources that has been gathered to see if my claim it true and let’s get be real -
They do have an African Page Guide with this topic on Facebook and Just to be honest, this page is cool. I would like to have some guide like this one on Facebook. But I don’t know if you count it as official Page or maybe not. Anyways, to those who want to know about it and learn about the INC doctrine I preferred to have this one on your list, it will be good if you keep updating it and adding more doctrine. So, here’s the link below -https://www.facebook.com/groups/iglesianicristoevangelicalmissionafrica/learning_content/?filter=1601482870584257&post=476988594913771
This one below was from Joseph Kavanagh's article regarding The Stars That Fall - and Mr. Manalo where he points out the exact claim about the 1833 Meteor Storm. I don't actually need to focus much on this since it is not actually relevant, what I actually want to point out that this was taken from the "Ang sulo sa Ikatitiyak sa Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana" which could be the early edition of the Pasugo if I'm not mistaken, you can correct me if I'm wrong. And, I guess this was made to attack the Catholic Faith and here they include the said event relating to Revelation 6:12-13. My question to you Ginoong Pantas, is this still part of INC article or not? I understand that doctrines may vary over time, so tell me if you have any knowledge about it or maybe it was just a personal opinion of Brother Felix Manalo. And just to be clear, when I say opinion which I do prefer to use since everyone is liable to it, is not a direct doctrine. And of course if Brother Felix Manalo has his own opinion as a human, it is subject to case study, like everyone does, which is also subject to changes. So, I understand if you don't take it as a doctrine, Ginoong Pantas, I'm not a close minded person. I just want to build a common ground first before we take it deeper.
There were other sources that quoted the same source adding it to one of the events that leads to Brother Felix Manalo's Calling. But I would not want to put all the sources here since it would take too much space just to prove the claim.
CLARIFICATION OF THE ISSUEIt is true that the Iglesia ni Cristo cites Revelation 6:12–13 in connection with historical events such as the 1833 Leonid meteor storm. However, let us be precise:𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗡𝗖 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘅 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗼’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻.
Okay, so let’s be straight here. You are telling me that you don’t agree on a simple post that said about the Leonid Meteor Storm as one of the known event of Felix Manalo's prophetic signs and claims, and this time you agree that you people cited it? So, what was this all about? Which is which, Ginoong Pantas? Also, I never said that this event signaled the beginning of your so-call Brother Felix Manalo’s Divine Mission where you can’t even provide a detail of his call. So, now you have changed your mind that this was part of it, am I right? If so, then my post is accurate as I have said that it is one of those signs which I don’t even bother looking up some of the other claims, which you disagrees on it. You're confusing yourself, Ginoong Pantas. So, tell me straight, do you consider it as signs of the times, or, as always, you just don’t like the way I posted it that's because Joseph Smith made a prophecy about it?
But anyway, I get your point, either this may be an opinion or maybe something we can look for in relation to your doctrine. It’s not actually a big deal since everyone or even religious leader can make a certain options and study that might help them build up their testimony. So I'll stick to that as if it is not part of your doctrine.
That interpretation simply does not exist in official INC doctrine. Rather, the 1833 meteor storm is understood as one of the events associated with the OPENING OF THE SIXTH SEAL, alongside other historically documented phenomena:
I. The Lisbon earthquake (1755)II. The darkening of the sun and moon (1780)III. The falling of the stars (1833)
As stated and carefully explained by the Iglesia ni Cristo’s General Evangelist, Brother Bienvenido C. Santiago:“𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗮 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗸𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 (𝙘𝙛. 𝗥𝗲𝘃. 𝟲:𝟭𝟮-𝟭𝟯). Those events occurred in the 18th and 19th centuries. The great earthquake occurred in Lisbon in 1755, the darkening of the sun and the moon in 1780 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝟴𝟯𝟯.” [𝘗𝘈𝘚𝘜𝘎𝘖: 𝘎𝘰𝘥’𝘴 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘦 — Iglesia Ni Cristo © November 1995, page 8]
Again, it is clear in your words “one of the events associated” which I don’t even care why you people made such claim. But here we are, you simply agrees on my statement. It is not just you INC people are using the same signs of the time and yet you exaggerate the simple post I made because of religious difference. The Seventh-day Adventist is even using the same event as part of the biblical prophecy and no question to that. The only thing what I see here was your interpretation of my presentation and I guess it is you who has the problem here.
Check out the Elder's Digest on this article from Seventh-day Adventist - https://www.eldersdigest.org/en/1999/1/meteor-showers-and-1833
This timeline alone already disproves Jerry’s claim. Why so? Because Bro. Felix Manalo was born in 1886, decades after these events. Clearly, they cannot mark the beginning of his mission.
Again, I’m not talking about the beginning of his mission, I don’t even know when and where he started his claim that he was the sugo of your church. You simply just overreacting on my Post that you don’t like. Why would you just accept the fact that you people know and use the same event? Telling me that those things were the beginning of his Missions or whatever you call and added it is irrelevant, I didn't even bother quote other things your church has ever claim?
SO, WHEN DOES THE MISSION BEGIN?According to the same official source, the transition occurs at the END OF THE SIXTH SEAL, which also marks the BEGINNING OF THE SEVENTH SEAL. Brother Santiago continues:
“𝗔𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀 (𝙘𝙛. 𝗥𝗲𝘃. 𝟲:𝟭𝟰-𝟭𝟳). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝟵𝟭𝟰. This war is also symbolized in the prophecy as the winds that were later seen being held by the four angels (𝘤𝘧. Rev. 7:1; Jer. 4:11-12, 19). 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘅𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻 𝗕𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 ‘𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗵.’” [𝘐𝘣𝘪𝘥., page 8]
Thus, the First World War (1914), AND NOT the 1833 meteor storm, is recognized as the prophetic marker tied to the time when Brother Felix Manalo’s mission begins, within INC’s teaching.
The so-called “fun fact” is neither accurate nor representative of Iglesia ni Cristo doctrine. Misrepresenting another group’s beliefs (whether intentional or not) only leads to confusion and unnecessary division. If we are genuinely interested in truth, then careful verification should always come first before publication.
 |
| Just because I use the word Fun, then this made this statement a parody, or maybe malicious or perhaps exaggerated. But it seems like he's missing the point that my intension was all about the revelations that has been fulfilled. |
Okay so again, This has nothing to do with the statement that I had made, and you simply like to broaden it thinking that I may have been wrong on my claim. And again, this is not about the beginning of Brother Felix Manalo’s claim that he fulfilled such revelation and starts the mark of his mission which again, I don’t even care. I just clearly said, it is one of those signs.
Let us aim for discussions grounded not in assumptions, but in verified teachings. 😉
If you like to aim for a good discussion with verified teaching, I’m good with it. You can go ahead on the group where were made a discussion. I don’t normally do the way you posted publicly, which I thinks was so immature and indecent.
NOW, CONCERNING JOSEPH SMITH’S “PREDICTION”Jerry, in what he called the “interesting part,” added that their prophet, Joseph Smith, allegedly predicted the exact date of the meteor storm. He even encouraged readers to look it up from independent sources. 😅 So, as someone who actually checks claims, I did exactly that.
Yes, there is such a story. But once you examine it closely, it turns out to be historically weak, debated even among Latter-day Saint scholars, and generally not accepted by non-LDS historians.
And look what we got here? But it’s a fair claim in taking up notes on one of just the many source open online. There were already antagonist about the claim and it is already give everywhere even in your INC circle, so you should stop thinking on just quoting one source against the other. We do have our own biases, but to think you have to just stick on just one side simply makes you irrational. But anyway, thank you for taking time in making a claim that it is weak so I can clearly see how you people easily caught up to some of the unreliable source that has no ground on their own. We’ll get to it here -
One commonly cited account comes from later retellings. According to a narrative attributed to Ronald P. Millett, Joseph Smith supposedly said:
“According to a narrative provided by Ronald P. Millett via Latter Day Saints Magazine, at some point before November 1833, when the Leonid meteor storm took place, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁'𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗝𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗵 𝗦𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗵 (𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘃𝗲) 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗵𝗲𝗰𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁. “𝗙𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗻,” 𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗼𝗻.”
SOURCE:
The story continues that on the 39th night, while staying at someone’s house, the meteor storm occurred, astonishing those present. This account is tied to early LDS figures like Philo Dibble, who described the reaction of a supposed skeptic witnessing the event. Now, at first glance, that sounds impressive.
Did you read the full article of Ronald P. Millett's statement, or just simple copy-paste some part to make it sounds awesome? Here's the full article and link of that statement - https://latterdaysaintmag.com/1833-meteor-storm-a-precisely-synchronized-sign-and-wonder/
Okay so, what are you trying to point out here that Philo Dibble is one of the members during this event. This is not actually from his own words rather an experience from a members who happens to have encountered him. Philo Dibble wasn't a member during that time and he even skeptical to the church, he wrote when and how the event will occur according to what he heard during Joseph Smith's sermon and he made it known to Joseph Hancock who happens to be there that time on the last minute telling him that it will not fulfilled as he keep tracking on the exact event.
But here’s the problem.The so-called “prediction” is not a contemporary record. 👎 The main source for this claim (Philo Dibble) only wrote it down in 1892, which is decades after both the 1833 event and Joseph Smith’s lifetime. That alone should already raise serious caution.(Check Philo Dibble’s “Recollections of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘑𝘶𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 XXVII No. 1 © 1 January 1892, page 23)
And that’s obviously not a problem. Thinking that this has been written right after the event or decade and so on, does this mean the source is unreliable? Really? The time that it was taught by Joseph, it is not just one or two people present during his proclamation and Philo Nible is not even a member that time, and here you are questioning his words where the witnesses is even present during that time. What about you tell me how do people in these days still believe that the four Gospel written in the New Testament authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were even written soon after the original witnesses who were long gone in which some claimed witnesses is even questionable by scholars. It was passed down through Oral Tradition, which I think you or maybe some still believe it was the original, but even the true author of this 4 known Gospels is Anonymous and yet everyone, like you and me, still believe on it without knowing that it was only passed down by means of oral tradition. You need to be honest on this; Did you even think about that Ginoong Pantas? And here you are questioning with the original witnesses present at that time. Why was that Ginoong Pantas? You are just appealing to Genetic Fallacy which make it a bad choice in dealing this argument.
REALTALK ❗ There is no known written record from 1833 itself. NO diary entry from Joseph Smith predicting it beforehand. NO documented sermon from that time mentioning such a prophecy. NO contemporary witness account recorded at the time it supposedly happened. 👎 What we have instead is retrospective storytelling, accounts written long after the fact, which historians naturally treat with caution.
Is this the REALTALK that you’re talking about or you try to get the side of the critics? Seriously, which part is Real Talk? How do you know that it has no sermons from that time the Prophecy was mentioned? You simply say the journal entry were false just because there is no such thing as full documented Minutes of Meeting. Seriously? Do you do that in your congregations? Are you sure about that? You can’t even provide a historical background and witnesses of your claim Felix Manalo and how he made such claim fulfilled through him, and yet here you are thinking this people who wrote their journal and even publicly declares it happened were just simply false witnesses or a made up stories. Come on! And do you think they die for their false testimonies sake?
But, yeah… to make matters clearer: Joseph Smith DID write about the meteor shower, BUT only after it occurred, describing it as a sign. That is very different from predicting it in advance.And that distinction matters a lot in serious historical analysis.
Are you sure about your claim bro? Do you have any evidence that this has been declared right after it happen? Can you lead me some sources where we can verify your claim? It seems like you want to just educate me to go right directly to the right source and here you are acting hypocrite about it.
SO WHAT IS THE FAIR CONCLUSION?There IS a story claiming that Joseph Smith predicted the meteor shower. BUT (this is the real interesting part)… it comes from late sources. It relies on secondhand or recollected testimony. And, it lacks solid contemporary evidence.
The journal and date of the said claim were there in church history website, and it seem like you just doing a cock-and-bull story that you can’t even provide a reliable source. So, here’s the link of the source on their journal and check it out if you have time. And believe me you can not write a journal on the same amount of time and day specially if you think the matters is not relevant or special to you. So the date either when they record it is not an issue. The main issue there was the witnesses and the settings. I’d been writing journals and that’s not even the case, minsan nga lumapas na ng 3 or 5 araw bago mo pa masulat. And Again you’re just overreacting of your claim that you don’t even do.
Because of that, most historians (whether LDS or not) consider the claim historically uncertain at best. So, presenting it as a clear, established fulfilled prophecy is, at very least, an overstatement.
Uncertain at best. So, where’s your source? You haven’t provided a source on you claim and yet the link you provide were just a random mixed up music and entertainment stuff? LOL! So you're certain on it?
At the end of the day, if we’re going to talk about FACTS, then they should actually be grounded in reliable historical evidence, not just stories repeated long after the event.
So how do you define your sources? Seriously that's how you call it reliable? Here’s the site that you’d quoted and seriously how did you understand it?
No comments:
Post a Comment