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

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

“𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙙𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙋𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙙? 𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙮 𝙨𝙖𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙛𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖𝙨 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡 𝙙𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙈𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙈𝙚𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜. 𝙎𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙡𝙮? 𝘿𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨? 𝘼𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩? 𝙔𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙖 𝙝𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠𝙜𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙁𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙭 𝙈𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙤 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙛𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙝𝙞𝙢, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙚𝙩 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙩𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙪𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙖 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙪𝙥 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨. 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙤𝙣! 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙞𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙛𝙖𝙡𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙨𝙖𝙠𝙚?”

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

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

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

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

“𝘼𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙗𝙧𝙤? 𝘿𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙖𝙛𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣? 𝘾𝙖𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙡𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙢𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙮 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢? 𝙄𝙩 𝙨𝙚𝙚𝙢𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙚𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙢𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙤 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙝𝙮𝙥𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙩.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

“𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙞𝙙 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙝 𝙝𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙬𝙚𝙗𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙚, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙨𝙚𝙚𝙢 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙘𝙠-𝙖𝙣𝙙-𝙗𝙪𝙡𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚. 𝙎𝙤, 𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚’𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙘𝙠 𝙞𝙩 𝙤𝙪𝙩 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚 𝙢𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙬𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙚 𝙖 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙖𝙢𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙞𝙢𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙖𝙮 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙞𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙠 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙩𝙤 𝙮𝙤𝙪. 𝙎𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙣 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙩𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙨. 𝙄’𝙙 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙬𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙟𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩’𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙨𝙚, 𝙢𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙖𝙣 𝙣𝙜𝙖 𝙡𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙥𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙖 𝙣𝙜 𝟯 𝙤𝙧 𝟱 𝙖𝙧𝙖𝙬 𝙗𝙖𝙜𝙤 𝙢𝙤 𝙥𝙖 𝙢𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝘼𝙜𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙮𝙤𝙪’𝙧𝙚 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙛 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣 𝙙𝙤.”

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

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

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

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

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

𝘛𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘥…

Oh wait! Was there More of this, Ginoong Pantas?

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