So here we are one the part 2 of this episode titled "THE OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION". Oh, I didn't know this was contradiction to your so-called SUGO that takes only part of the biblical Prophecy and declares it as his fulfilment. Check out the text in blue as your commentary and some others that has been quoted will be change to gray. So let's go ahead and talk about it here -
“𝙍𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙄 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙖 𝙛𝙪𝙣 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙅𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙥𝙝 𝙎𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙝'𝙨 𝙎𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙍𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙈𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙤𝙧 𝙎𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙄 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙖 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙤 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙙𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙄𝙉𝘾'𝙨 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙄 𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙘𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙝 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙥𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙨.”
𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: It is true that the Iglesia Ni Cristo teaches that the 1833 Leonid Meteor Shower fulfilled the prophesied “falling of the stars” in Revelation 6:12-13. However, the INC has NEVER taught that this event was one of the SIGNS (as Jerry phrased it) of the Church’s emergence in the Philippines. In fact, it was Jerry himself who asserted in his post that the meteor shower was a sign of the Church’s rise, a claim never taught by the INC.
So you're telling me that it is true that this has been the fulfilled prophesy but you don't accept that you people use this as one of the signs of time according to your own ideology? Who's contradicting here Ginoong Pantas? What was actually your point? So it was NEVER taught that this is one of the SIGNS, they why do you people keep quoting it? And even if you disagree on my statement, does my claim "One of those signs" suggest that I disagree with your statement? Did you really think so, Ginoong Pantas?
You can revisit the link (below) to his Facebook post in the group to verify this for yourself.
I already verify this on the introduction and you already misunderstood the detail of my comment thinking that I was indeed doing it just to mock your doctrine down, and you're wrong. You simply love bigotry and just because I posted it, then it is contradictions or misconceptions. Obviously, you have no clue of my statement's context and took it as if it was against your doctrine. Seriously, Ginoong Pantas?
“𝙂𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙛𝙪𝙣 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙄 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙞𝙩’𝙨 𝙖 𝙗𝙞𝙜 𝙙𝙚𝙖𝙡, 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙡 𝙩𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙖 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙥𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙢𝙮 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙊𝙋.”
𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: Oh, really?So sharing a supposed FACT isn’t a big deal to you? Come on… not only did you present it as factual, you even went as far as to claim that it is “one of the doctrines or teachings of INC” supposedly connected to the fulfillment of Brother Felix Manalo’s and the Church’s emergence in the Philippines, when in reality, YOU’RE NOT EVEN CERTAIN how such a claim could be considered an official doctrine, or whether it has ever been taught that way at all.
Oh sorry, I'm not aware that you don't want other religion use the same event since it was for Brother Felix Manalo only prophecy. LOL! Thanks for letting me know. Now here we go to the contradiction part, tell me why do Brother Felix Manalo and some other who claimed that it was one of the known signs that had/already happened, and together with some other signs that you love quoting, leads to Brother Felix Manalo's call? Why do you people use the same strategy in using or including the event as if this leads to Felix Manalo's Call?
That, precisely, is why I chose to bring this to public attention on my timeline (for proper awareness and scrutiny) before your post ends up MISLEADING others in your group through a clear misrepresentation of our teachings.
Oh, "scrutiny" did you analyze my text properly, Ginoong Pantas? Did it clearly said anything that I am quoting it out of your doctrine? Or did I just only borrow the statements from your very own cohorts? Did I mislead people telling you or everyone that this is not true because it's not for Felix Manalo that he falsely use the event for INC's false teaching sake? Tell me more about it, Ginoong Pantas if you like. I would love to hear it from you.
“𝙇𝙚𝙩’𝙨 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙖𝙮 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙨𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙬𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙡𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙪𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙛𝙪𝙨𝙨. 𝙎𝙤 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙙𝙤 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙚 𝙞𝙩? 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙞𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙚, 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙨𝙣’𝙩 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙? 𝙅𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙞𝙧, 𝙄 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚𝙣’𝙩 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙮 𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙘𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮 𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙪𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚, 𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙄’𝙢 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙦𝙪𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙬𝙚𝙗𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙨𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙄𝙉𝘾 𝙤𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣.”
𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄: So why does INC cite Revelation 6:12-13? Well, it is to establish TWO POINTS. First, that the 1833 Leonid Meteor Shower is recognized as one of the three historical events associated with the “falling of the stars.” Second, that this “falling of the stars” occurs within the OPENING OF THE SIXTH SEAL, not within the period of the re-emergence of the true Church in the Philippines. That re-emergence, when Brother Felix Manalo began his mission as the Messenger of God, is understood to take place during the opening of the seventh seal, not the sixth.
So you simply recognized it as One of the Three Historical Event, while you disagree on my Post. This is simply an absurd illustration of your contradiction to the main issue. So again, who was contradicting on this point? Seriously, Ginoong Pantas, which part that I did contradict on your claimed ideology? It was simply you who contradicts your own statement. Which is which, you recognized the event as part of the prophecy or not? Just tell me straight, Ginoong Pantas. Also, I never said this was on the Opening or the period of the re-emergence, you simply misunderstood my statement. I simply said it was "one of those event" and when we say "those" simply means there were many others. Did you get the point, Ginoong Pantas?
I believe I already made this clear in the article I posted. Anyway… you yourself admitted that your post was NOT clearly presented. That being the case, how could you label it as a FUN FACT when the content itself lacks clarity?And then, when someone points this out and offers a correction, you react as though you are being antagonized!? Tsk tsk tsk… Hahahah.
That's was clearly confusing yourself. You can simply see that I was indeed pointing out that this event did happened and that is even in your INC circle was using it. So which part is contradicting here Ginoong Pantas? My statement or your misunderstanding? When I did claim that it was not clearly presented, doesn't make that the fulfilment never happen, I am only stating that you people are quoting it and I am not even aware that you don't like me quoting it or just some other religion use the same quote because it's for Felix Manalo. But at the end of it you simply confused yourself telling me or everyone on your OP that it is not part of the event and yet there are lots of INC folks out there use and quote the same thing. Well it seem to me that you just simply jealous of the part where I said that Joseph Smith made a prophecy when it will happen, while Felix Manalo did never have any fulfilled prophecy rather simply try to cut out some parts of the history that might lead to his mission where not even a heavenly call. Did you see what happen here Ginoong Pantas?
COMING UP NEXT - Part 3 OBVIOUS HASTY GENERALIZATION
No comments:
Post a Comment