EMPIRICAL REASON WHY THERE WAS NO GLOBAL FLOOD

Here’s the account: The flood happened somewhere around the mountainous region of Ararat where the ark landed. It was at the top of one of its mountains, most probably Mt Judi, as recorded in the Qur’an.

Wikipedia says:

The Ararat region where the ark rested was obviously in Turkey. You can validate it further for more information about the ararat region. Being the place where the ark rested implies the flood was upon it and its surrounding regions. What makes it a proof against a global flood? It is bec of the fact that earth is an oblate spheroid.

Wikipedia says:

Another source says:

The highest points of the earth is on the equator as it is the bulging point. Turkey was not on the equator but farther away. The countries, as the highest region of the earth are those located at the equator, are these:

Turkey was not among the countries at the highest point of the earth but actually at a far distance on the sloping curvature below the equator.

Wikipedia’s illustration:

This is my proof that there was no global flood bec of the fact that earth was an oblate spheroid. From an empiric point of view, Turkey being below the equator suggests that the equator being the bulging region of the oblate spheroid has a leverage point that is higher than the highest peak of Turkey rationally being at a reasonable distance thereby an obstacle for the flood to overflow towards the other side of the equator. The bulges of the earth would prevent a lower water level from overflowing a mass having a higher point, that is at the equator therefore posing as an obstacle for a global flood.

Think of an inclined plane, or a slope. Water at the lower part of the incline plane cannot overflow over the higher point of the plane. Likewise with an oblate spheroid. Water level at the lower slope–Turkey–cannot overflow over the higher point–equator. The only way for a consistent 5km high flood to be over the earth is if the earth is perfectly circle.

Science attests to it through the centripetal force and centrifugal force. Centripetal force, the pull towards the center is constant on a circle. Centrifugal force as the upward force, as equal in magnitude with the centripetal force must also be constant on a circle. Thus the push and pull force applied on the water is constant on a circle thus consistent water level is only applicable to a circle! Not on an oblate ellipsoid.

Centrifugal and centripetal force, the push and pull force, applied on the earth is constant on a circle, thus water level is naturally curving to a circle. The earth being an oblate spheroid prevents global flood bec water level as high as a mountain would consistently be curving on a circle thus it cannot overflow over the bulge of the earth–the equator, being not a regular part of a circle.***under researched though**

Dictionary says, centripetal and centrifugal have same magnitude as reaction to each other. Rotation shapes the earth. Centripetal and centrifugal force curves the water level into a circle, hypothetically speaking.

From mere observation though, there is no mountain below the equator that is higher than the equator thereby refuting the concept of global flood, unless of course if you could show proof that dismisses my personal observation. Compare the pictures, the oblate spheroid shape in relation to the location of turkey in proportion to the bulging point–the equator. If water is curving on a circle, clearly, global flood was improbable.
The problem though is not whether the flood was scientifically supported or not, its a matter of looking at it, in miraculous terms. What if god intervened for mountains to be flooded yet contained locally?

Such miracle exemplified when he parted the red sea.

Bec if it was global, how could all specie of animals be contained in the ark? Besides, how could animals and creepers adapt to change of temperature through many days or months, toward a temperate region? By miracle, too?! Nope. Bec fact is, mankind was not globally distributed yet as an empiric reality, for a global destruction! No archaeological proof such as bones or boats during those times. Lastly, bec if it was global flood, how could the kangaroo returned to Australia after the ark rested on Ararat or the polar bears to the north pole?

Advertisements

INC VS MCGI: IS THERE ONLY ONE GOD?

Here are the verses used by Iglesia ni Cristo to prove the single god concept:

    John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. 

    Out of context. I’ll show later.

    1 Corinthians 8:6

    [6]But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

    Contextually, it means there is only one god from whom originated all things. It doesn’t mean there is one god in general terms. It means, Among the gods there is one among them that is the source of all things. Why did i say so? Bec Jesus is the true god also. Refer to the answer below.

    1 Timothy 2:5

    [5]For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

    It means, there is one god to whom Jesus mediates the people with. Meaning, among the many gods, there is one among them to whom jesus mediates the people with. Why is it that way? Bec Jesus is likewise god. Refer to my answer below.

    Deuteronomy 4:39

    [39]Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

    True. God Almighty is the god of heaven and earth but he is not the only one as Jesus is likewise God. Refer to my answer below. Thus when he said: there is none else, he meant it as this:

    that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else (for Israel)
    How come? Logically bec Jesus is likewise god.

    It follows likewise with the other verses as:

    Isaiah 45:21

    [21]Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me (for Israel) a just God and a Saviour; there is god e beside me (for Israel).

    Isaiah 44:8

    [8]Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me (for Israel)? yea, there is no God; I know not any (for Israel).

    Isaiah 46:9

    [9]Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me (for Israel).

    Why did i come to that logical approach? Bec God is the only God for Israel but Christians have Jesus as true God therefore in general terms, God almighty is not the only god of heaven and earth.

    Mosaic Israel have one God as it say,

    Hosea 13:4

    [4]Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.

    Israel having one god only and Jesus being a true god implies that when god said, i am god there is none else and none like me etc.. Contextually, he meant it as i am god there is none else and none like me for israel. It is the most logical approach. Why? Bec in general terms God is not the only true god. Christianity has Jesus as true God. Refer to my answer below.

    Lastly, Iglesia ni Cristo said, God has no equal as it say,

    Isaiah 46:5-6
    [5]To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?

    [6]They lavish gold out of the bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he maketh it a god: they fall down, yea, they worship.

    Logically, God has no equal in reference to idols people considered as gods but otherwise, he has an equal, Jesus being true god as it say,

    Philippians 2:5-6

    [5]Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

    [6]Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

    Now, as everything said and done, the only way to destroy INC’s out of context and cherry picked argument, is to prove that Jesus is true god, so as corroboratory evidence for the most logical approach i have used against the INC verses above that allegedly support the single god concept.

    Jesus admitted he is true god, as it say:

    1JOHN5:20 We know that the son is come…this is the true god and eternal life.

    1JOHN1:1-5 THAT ETERNAL LIFE WHICH IS WITH THE FATHER.

    JOHN 14:6 Jesus said unto him, I am the way the truth and the life (eternal)

    The eternal life is not the father but someone with him. Jesus is the eternal life. Being the eternal life therefore he is the true god as the true god is the eternal life.

    this is the true god and eternal life.
    Jesus is the life, in what way?

    As the word of god or as the truth as it say,

    John 6:63

    [63]It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words (the truth) that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 

    John 11:25-26

    [25]Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life (eternal) he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 

    [26]And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 

    Bec Jesus is the life eternal therefore he is the true god spoken of in 1John5:20 therefore clarifying that the concept there is only one true god is in essence and context is wrong. It is misguided and out of context. When it say, in john17:3 God is the only true god, it did not specify a certain valid and conclusive notion. It did not specify if,

    • God is the only true god of the whole universe 
    • or if he is only the only true god existing in heaven as the other true god, jesus, was on earth?

    Did it say, in John17:3 that God is the only true god of the whole universe? It did not. Therefore, it could mean other else. Having jesus as true god as proven above, it could not be that god almighty is the only true god of the whole universe thus the most logical approach as the only logical option is that John17:3 speaks of God almighty as the only true god remaining in heaven as jesus, the other true god, was on earth. 

    By these, it could only be concluded as the most logical approach, to have the INC’s argument weak if we are to consider integral context.

    Now, for the challenge, I hope you could come up with a stronger argument than mine. If you do, I’ll convert to your religion!

    Thank You!

    DENNIS BUTIC (MCGI) DEFEATED BENFRANCIS RATZBERG (CATHOLIC) REGARDING GREAT BABYLON

    I’ll post the catholic rebuttal on my post. We have been discussing this in the group CATHOLIC TRUTH EXPLAINED WITH CHARITY wherein they kicked me out deliberately without any rational excuse. Actually, they ate dust, and were totally demolished yet now they’re trying some late damage control. They were just attempting to do it to actually deceive people. I’ll show you. I’ll answer in between topics.

    • My answer would be in this format.

    Here goes….

    DENIS BUTIC, THE SAVAGE WOLF OF SORIANO, FAILED ONCE AGAIN TO PROVE THAT VATICAN IS THE WHORE OF BABYLON By Benfrancis Ratzbert

    1 hour ago by splendor16180

  •  Comments0 Comments
  •  

      

    Vatican, the seat of Christianity in Rome… The Church of Rome is apostolic in origin and well praised by St. Paul.

     

    Benfrancis Ratzberg

    THE SAVAGE WOLF of ANG DATING DAAN (Job 22:15) ATTACKS AGAIN, BUT FAILS. HE THINKS THAT THE VATICAN, AND NOT JERUSALEM, WAS THE WHORE CALLED BABYLON.

    Reply to Dennis Butic 109

    DENNIS: //JERUSALEM IS NOT GREAT BABYLON//

    RATZBERG: WRONG!

    THE GREAT CITY, OR BABYLON, was the PLACE WHERE THE LORD WAS CRUCIFIED. (Rev. 11:8).

    Just believe what the BIBLE said, Dennis Butic.

    Since YOU DON’T BELIEVE the BIBLE, then YOU HAVE to PROVE that JESUS was CRUCIFIED in the VATICAN.

    Try it.

    _____________

    DENNIS COMMENTARY:

    • I said, Jerusalem cannot be great Babylon bec of this simple reason: GREAT BABYLON, THE LAND ITSELF, WONT EVER BE FOUND AFTER ITS DESTRUCTION. Jerusalem, allegedly great babylon, after 70AD, the alleged destruction of great Babylon, was still existing, therefore it is not the great Babylon of the bible meant to be permanently lost.
    • Revelation 18:10,16-19,21-23
    • [18]And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
    • [19]And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
    • [21]And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
    • [22]And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
    • [23]And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

    • As you can see, Great Babylon speaks of something that has craftsmen or merchandise and likewise millstones. It speaks of a literal land as emphasized it would be desolate, wherein there would never be craftsmen and any crafts or businesses in it. Therefore it speaks of a literal land and God said, it would be thrown down AND SHALL NEVER BE FOUND, meaning, after its destruction it would permanently be a lost, unfound land. It was not so with Jerusalem. By saying it would be desolate means, it is an existing matter that has no people in it. Jerusalem as speaking of the old Jerusalem’s religion-political aspect as Great Babylon was not so in matters of being something desolated bec if that is the case it should have been a reality that old jerusalem’s spiritual-political aspect is still an existing reality wherein while it exists it is desolate. As you will read further, their claim is that old jerusalem’s spiritual-political power as being great babylon would be gone, so how come is it desolate if its gone? An inexistent matter cannot be desolate bec none of it exists wherein it could be desolate. Something desolated is something that exists and has then no people in it. But they say old jerusalem’s piritual-political aspect is gone therefore it was not the great babylon referred to as desolate.

    Reply to Dennis Butic 110

    DENNIS: //The beast destroys the whore of babylon.

    REV 17:16 THE TEN HORNS WHICH THOU SAWEST UPON THE BEAST, THESE SHALL HATE THE WHORE AND SHALL MAKE HER DESOLATE AND NAKED AND SHALL EAT HER FLESH AND BURN HER WITH FIRE.

    Catholics say, it refers to Rome destroying jerusalem in 70 AD. Thus the destruction of jerusalem is the destruction of great babylon, the whore.//

    RATZBERG: CORRECT.

    BECAUSE the BIBLE POINTED to JERUSALEM as the GREAT CITY or BABYLON WHERE the LORD WAS CRUCIFIED. THAT’S VERY CLEAR.

    As I SAID, BELIEVE WHAT THE BIBLE SAID.

    ______________________

    DENNIS COMMENTARY:

    • Jerusalem is called the great city as it say: 
    • Revelation 11:8
    • [8]And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

    • Babylon is also the great city as it say:
    • Revelation 17:18
    • [18]And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

    • New jerusalem is likewise the great city as it say:
    • Revelation 21:10
    • [10]And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

    • DO YOU MEAN, ALL THESE GREAT CITY IS GREAT BABYLON INCLUDING NEW JERUSALEM, A HOLY SANCTUARY?
    • No! Right? Therefore it doesn’t follow that whenever the bible mention the term the great city it doesn’t mean it speaks of one specific city jerusalem. How come? Bec jerusalem as a land is still known and existing whereas great babylon would be permanently lost.
    • Besides the term the president is not a sole title privilege of one person but of many rulers so why would the term the great city speaks of one city only?
    • It doesn’t makes any sense. These are part of my arguments that these CFD’s in their group cannot fathom to destroy. 

    Reply to Dennis Butic 111

    DENNIS: //This did not happen to jerusalem:

    REV 18:3 FOR ALL NATIONS HAVE DRUNK OF THE WRATH OF HER FORNICATION There was never a time that all nations fornicate with jerusalem. Thus it cannot be the great babylon.//

    RATZBERG: WRONG.

    EZEKIEL 16:15-28 DESCRIBES JERUSALEM AS A PROSTITUTE WHO FORNICATED WITH THE EGYPTIANS, ASSYRIANS, BABYLONIANS, VISITORS, AND WITH JUST ANYBODY WHO PASSES BY HER.

    BASA:

    15 You learned that you were attractive enough to have any man you wanted, so you offered yourself to every passerby.[e] 16 You made shrines for yourself and decorated them with some of your clothes. That’s where you took your visitors to have sex with them. These things should never have happened![f]

    17 You made idols out of the gold and silver jewelry I gave you, then you sinned by worshiping those idols. 18 You dressed them in the clothes you got from me, and you offered them the olive oil and incense I gave you. 19 I supplied you with fine flour, olive oil, and honey, but you sacrificed it all as offerings to please those idols. I, the LORD God, watched this happen.

    20 But you did something even worse than that—you sacrificed your own children to those idols! 21 You slaughtered my children, so you could offer them as sacrifices. 22 You were so busy sinning and being a prostitute that you refused to think about the days when you were young and were rolling around naked in your own blood.

    23 Now I, the LORD God, say you are doomed! Not only did you do these evil things, 24 but you also built places on every street corner 25 where you disgraced yourself by having sex with anyone who walked by. And you did that more and more every day! 26 To make me angry, you even offered yourself to Egyptians, who were always ready to sleep with you.

    27 So I punished you by letting those greedy Philistine enemies take over some of your territory. But even they were offended by your disgusting behavior.

    28 You couldn’t get enough sex, so you chased after Assyrians and slept with them. You still weren’t satisfied, 29 so you went after Babylonians. But those merchants could not satisfy you either.

    ________________

    DENNIS COMMENTARY:

    • Nope. As you can see ALL NATIONS FORNICATES WITH GREAT BABYLON which never happened to Jerusalem. During Jerusalem 70AD there were natives already of ifugao making rice terraces yet nowhere in history did it recorded any Filipino that journeyed to Jerusalem before 70AD for fornication! It means ALL NATION fornicating with jerusalem never happened at all before 70AD nullifying the trying-hard to redeem face Benfranciz Ratzberg argument

    Reply to Dennis Butic 112

    DENNIS: //Catholics argue that “all nations” is a hyperbole.Wrong. God don’t use hyperbole.//

    RATZBERG: WRONG AGAIN.

    LET ME GIVE EXAMPLES of HYPERBOLES in the BIBLE.

    BASA:

    1.) Psalm 48:2: “Beautiful in its loftiness, the JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, like the heights of Zaphon is Mount Zion, the city of the Great King (Jerusalem).”

    2.) Mark 1:4-5: “4 John the baptizer appeared[a] in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And PEOPLE FROM THE WHOLE JUDEAN COUNTRYSIDE and ALL THE PEOPLE OF JERUSALEM were going out to him, and were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.”

    3.) John 3:26. “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified—behold, He is baptizing, and ALL ARE COMING TO HIM!”

    HYPERBOLE is NOT LYING. You just MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT IT IS.

    IT WAS YOU WHO LIED.

    _________________________

    DENNIS COMMENTARY:

    • Trying to save face, Ratzberg used out of context method as a way to masquerade defeat. As I said, they were not able to make a solid stand in their group wherein the paramount paragon of superior argument was lacking from them. 
    • As i said, god never used hyperbole bec its tantamount to lying. Lets consider the catholic alibi:
    • #1
    • Psalms 48:2
    • [2]Beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth (eretz–partitively a land), is mount Zion, on the sides of the north, the city of the great King.

    • There is no hyperbole. Whole earth speaks of the whole of the partitive land that is only a specific land, possibly Israel, and not the whole earth per se. Israel is a metonymy of its inhabitant. Therefore the joy of the whole earth (israel) speaks of the joy of the people!
    • #2
    • Mark 1:4-5
    • [4]John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.
    • [5]And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

    • KJV says, all the land of Judea. Its metonymy speaking of the people in the whole Judea, it doesn’t necessarily mean all people of Judea such as the metonymy, he drinks the whole cup. Its metonymy for its content which necessarily means, drinking the content of it, which may be full or partially full. Therefore all the land of Judea don’t necessarily speak of all people in Judea but partially of its population. 
    • #3
    • John 3:26
    • [26]And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

    • ALL MEN COME TO HIM is ambiguous. It could be explained in many ways at face value. ALL MEN OF THE WHOLE WORLD? OR ALL MEN OF JUDEA? OR ALL MEN THAT BELIEVES IN HIM?
    • Ambiguous right? Therefore you cannot conclude it as hyperbole. Actually by context, all men seeking baptism speaks of all that believes in him bec baptism is for believers as it say, 
    • Acts 8:36-37
    • And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
    • And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
    • Now Ratzberg, defeated many times in the catholic group, where is the hyperbole?

    Reply to Dennis Butic 113

    DENNIS: //This is how babylon is destroyed. REV 16:18-19 AND THERE WAS A GREAT EARTHQUAKE SUCH AS WAS NOT SINCE MEN WERE UPON THE EARTH…AND THE GREAT CITY WAS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS. That never happened to jerusalem in its destruction in 70AD.//

    RATZBERG: THAT NEVER HAPPENED to the VATICAN EITHER, LITERALLY SPEAKING.

    BUT WE KNOW that at the TIME of its DESTRUCTION, JERUSALEM WAS SHARPLY DIVIDED by the JEWISH, SAMARITAN, and the CHRISTIAN FACTIONS.

    In Galatians 4, St. PAUL referred to the JEWISH FACTION as the JERUSALEM under the OLD COVENANT and as the SON of the SLAVE WOMAN HAGAR, who, during Paul’s time, HAD PERSECUTED the CHRISTIANS.

    The CHRISTIANS were the CHILDREN of PROMISE, or the CHRISTIAN FACTION.

    AND THEN SCRIPTURE SAYS, “Get rid of the slave woman and her son.”

    AND THAT FITS PERFECTLY with WHAT HAPPENED to the TEMPLE of JERUSALEM. GOD GOT RID of IT.

    OKAY, YOUR TURN.

    SHOW US THAT VATICAN CITY was SHARPLY DIVIDED in WHATEVER WAY you can IMAGINE.

    And SHOW US HOW GOD GOT RID of IT.

    KAYA MO?

    ___________________

    DENNIS COMMENTARY:

    • No! Its not Vatican but Rome! It would happen in the future. Earthquake would destroy it into three parts. Read the time of its fulfillment 
    • Isaiah 13:1,9,13
    • [1]The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
    • [9]Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
    • [13]Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

    • As you can see, babylon would be desolate. It confirms the account of revelation wherein great babylon be desolate without any craftman or crafts or business and as it say, it happens during the time wherein heaven and earth would be shaken. If the whole earth be shaken, rationally, it would deface the landscape, so as supportive of the fact that great babylon would be divided into three parts and that afterwards it would permanently be lost as it say:
    • REPOST:
    • And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
    • [21]And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
    • [22]And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;

    • THAT NEVER HAPPENED TO JERUSALEM. JERUSALEM STILL EXISTS WHEREAS GREAT BABYLON AFTER ITS DESTRUCTION WOULD NEVER BE FOUND. AND THAT, NO CRAFTMAN OR CRAFTS OR BUSINESS OF ANY KIND WOULD BE IN IT. 
    • That reality, was my consistent argument when all the catholics in that group surrndered and afterwards kicked me out! 
    • Regarding the 3part division, catholic say, it is about Jewish, Samaritan, christian faction that would happen in it!
    • Wrong! There was also greek and latin faction. Nevertheless, you will realize afterwards that it speaks of physical landscape alteration as great babylon as i would prove dont concern anything about old jerusalem spiritual or political matters but as itself, a physical land.

    Reply to Dennis Butic 113

    DENNIS: //Lastly, jerusalem was not totally destroyed and still existing. Presently, it is still existing, whereas great babylon would never exist.//

    RATZBERG: WRONG AGAIN, AND AGAIN.

    JERUSALEM’S CENTER OF SPIRITUAL POWER, and in some sense, POLITICAL POWER, is the TEMPLE.

    THE TEMPLE is GONE, NEVER to be SEEN AGAIN.

    HENCE, the GREAT BABYLON is NO MORE.

    APOSTATE JERUSALEM FITS PERFECTLY as the EVIL GREAT CITY that is NO MORE.

    NOW, IT’S YOUR TURN to PROVE that the VATICAN CITY, which you ERRONEOUSLY LABELLED AS THE GREAT BABYLON, is NO MORE.

    KAYA MO?

    ______________

    DENNIS COMMENTARY:

    • I demolished that, remember. You’re just pretending to have fought and won when in fact, I demolished and fed you with dust trails. You were like a confused pigeon on the chessboard spinning around then poop and claiming to be a chess grandmaster !
    • Now, let us repeat the same scenario.
    • WHEN THE PROPHESY SAY, GREAT BABYLON WOULD BE EXTINCT, IT SPOKE ABOUT THE LITERAL LAND WHERE CRAFTS OR BUSINESSES ARE BEING DONE. IT WAS NOT INSIDE THE TEMPLE WHERE CRAFTSMEN DO MERCHENDISE. THERE WAS NO MILLSTONE INSIDE THE TEMPLE EITHER, THUS IT SPOKE OF THE LITERAL LAND THAT HAS CRAFTMEN AND MILLSTONES TO VANISH FROM RECOGNITION OR KNOWLEDGE BUT AS A PERMANENT EXTINCT CITY AS IT SAY,
    • And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
    • [21]And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.
    • [22]And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;
    • And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

    • Therefore, it was not speaking of the temple Benfranciz “di natuto pero nauto” Ratzberg. 
    • When will that happen?
    • When god shakes the heaven and the earth as it say:
    • Isaiah 13:1,9,13
    • ]The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
    • [9]Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
    • [13]Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

    • What is the result? What would happen to babylon?
    • Isaiah 34:4-5,8-10
    • 4]And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
    • 5]For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.
    • [8]For it is the day of the LORD’S vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.
    • [9]And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch.
    • [10]It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

    • As you can see, a land become desolate permanently as a wasteland wherein primarily it is of pitch and brimstone. It is as how great babylon as revealed by john to be destroyed and permanently be lost and never found as it say,
    • And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

    • Ratzberg, that is Rome not Vatican per se. Possible events in the future, possibly in the rapture, that radically deforms Rome and makes it a coastland which afterwards would be destroyed and divided in three parts as it would be transformed as a permanent lost city. Rome will be the seat of power of catholicism being great babylon sitting on 7hills. The hills of Rome!
    • That cannot be apostate jerusalem, its spiritual and political power and the temple bec great babylon when destroyed would never have craftsmen of any kind in it anymore, speaking likewise of secular and nonpolitical merchandise as to be permanently absent from it as it say,
    • [22]And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;

    • That never happened to Jerusalem as a permanent phenomena! You might say, the crafts that would permanently vanish from it were the crafts as being the merchandise of the apostate jerusalem. Apostate jerusalem being gone therefore it follows all that concerns its spiritual and political power including its merchandise would be gone! You might say that right? But then even candle lights would be permanently gone. Is there a distinct religion-political candlelight only associated with apostate jerusalem as the one referred to in the prophesy? Of course none! Thus it speaks about a particular city that would never have candlelight. It was not Jerusalem now as the consequence of its destruction!
    • Rev 18:23
    • And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

    • Moreover, great babylon would be desolate whereas old jerusalem’s spiritual-political aspect is not.
    • Revelation 18:10,16-19,21-23
    • [18]And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!
    • [19]And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.
    • REPOST:
    • By saying it would be desolate means, it is an existing matter that has no people in it. Jerusalem as speaking of the old Jerusalem’s religion-political aspect as Great Babylon was not so in matters of being something desolated bec if that is the case it should have been a reality that old jerusalem’s spiritual-political aspect is still an existing reality wherein while it exists it is desolate. As you will read further, their claim is that old jerusalem’s spiritual-political power as being great babylon would be gone, so how come is it desolate if its gone? An inexistent matter cannot be desolate bec none of it exists wherein it could be desolate. Something desolated is something that exists and has then no people in it. But they say old jerusalem’s piritual-political aspect is gone therefore it was not the great babylon referred to as desolate.
    • Ratzberg? How did you think your shallow reasoning undo your defeat and all your colleagues in the catholic group i was forced to be ejected when this is the same argument you and i have used?
    • Now, spinnin pigeon, perhaps by pooping on the chessboard you made yourself chess grandmaster but religion is not for pigeons!
    • RECAP:
    • ALL NATION WOULD FORNICATE WITH GREAT BABYLON!
    • GREAT BABYLON WOULD HAVE NO CANDLELIGHT OR CRAFTS OF ANY KIND IN IT PERMANENTLY THEREFORE ITS A LITERAL LAND.
    • IT WOULD BE DESOLATE.
    • IT WOULD BE PERMANENTLY LOST AND EXTINCT.

    • That never is a reality with  jerusalem now or even fitting to old Jerusalem’s political and spiritual aspect as represented by the temple as rationally, speaking of the temple as having no crafts in it anymore suggest the interior temple as a business ground in the past which is false nullifying any relevant connection of great babylon to the temple. The temple therefore has no connection to Great Babylon in that matter as Great Babylon is a business hub whereas the interior temple was never so. Great Babylon has millstones, the temple has none thetefore great babylon is the literal city. It is Rome in its future setting!

    • Lastly, he challenged me saying: NOW, IT’S YOUR TURN to PROVE that the VATICAN CITY, which you ERRONEOUSLY LABELLED AS THE GREAT BABYLON, is NO MORE. KAYA MO?
    • Its Rome not Vatican but it would happen in the future wherein heaven and earth be shaken as it say,
    • Isaiah 13:1,9,13
    • [1]The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
    • [9]Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
    • [13]Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

    • That speaks of great babylon and not the historic and permanently lost city old babylon bec none of that magnitude–heaven and earth quake– happened before thus logically, it speaks of future events which could only refer to great babylon–Rome–being the only babylon that has not yet become extinct.

    WE – MCGI – ARE TRUE GODS!

    Bro Eli soriano is a god. I am also a god. All true christians are gods.We, Mcgi, is a congregation of gods.

    Proof?

    GOD SAID, THAT HE IS THE GOD OF GODS. He cannot be god of false gods.

    DEUT 10:17 FOR THE LORD YOUR GOD IS THE GOD OF GODS..

    Who are these gods?

    Jesus referred to the jews who were to stone him, gods!

    JOHN10:34-35 JESUS answered them, is it not written in your law, I SAID, YE ARE GODS…IF HE CALLED THEM GODS TO WHOM THE WORD OF GOD CAME and the scriptures cannot be broken.

    If we observe, gods are those to whom the words of god came, logically, the righteous people. The law came to the jews thus they are gods. But is it only to them that received the words of god? WE RECEIVED TOO, ARE WE THEN GODS?

    Moreover, The term gods are referring to the judges who judge with god almighty in judgment day. 

    PSALM82:1,6 GOD STAND IN THE CONGREGATION OF THE MIGHTY. HE JUDGE AMONG THE GODS…I HAVE SAID, YE ARE GODS AND ALL OF YOU ARE CHILDREN OF THE MOST HIGH.

    As we can see, god judge among the gods, therefore, the gods are judges themselves together with god. These gods are children of god. These gods received the words of god such as the jews as expressed by jesus. Meaning, these gods are people.

    Who then are these gods, children of god, and recipient of the words of god, who judge together with god?

    THEY ARE THE SAINTS.

    PSALMS149:6-9 let the high praises of god be in their mouth and a two edge sword in their hand TO EXECUTE VENGEANCE UPON THE HEATHEN AND PUNISHMENTS UPON THE PEOPLE…TO EXECUTE UPON THEM THE JUDGMENT WRITTEN. THIS HONOR HAVE ALL HIS SAINTS…

    Clearly stated, ALL SAINTS, jews or christians, have the honor to be judges in judgment day, and as god said, he judge among the gods, implying the gods are  judges with god and bec all saints are judges, then logically they are the one referred to as gods, as there are no one that judge with god other than the saints. Though god almighty gave All the judgment right to jesus, and he as mere observer won’t participate, he was the supreme judge among them as it was from him that made the verdict for the people even before the creation of the world. 

    GOD ALMIGHTY IS THE ONLY SUPREME JUDGE-THE ONLY SOURCE OF VERDICT!

    One Judge 

    There is one lawgiver and judge (heis estin [ho] nomothetes kai krites) who is able to save or to destroy. Who then are you to judge your neighbor?” James 4:12
    “Nor does the Father judge anyone, but he has given all judgment to his Son… And he gave him power to exercise judgment, because he is the Son of Man.” John 5:22, 27

    He commissioned us to preach to the people and testify that he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead.” Acts 10:42 – cf. 17:30-31

    ONE JUDGE speaks of it in terms of being the sole verdict-maker, and not as designation in terms of secondary function–the relay of verdict–which Jesus was commissioned along the saints as their duty as judges.

    What does one judge means?

    It means, the source of verdict!

    1 Chronicles 29:14

    [14]But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort? for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee.

    All things come from god including verdict.

    How come?

    Bec only him knows the heart of men and nothing hid from him.

    1 Kings 8:39

    [39]Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place, and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men;)

    Jeremiah 23:24

    [24]Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

    God can see the future,as implied in many verses, including the heart, and no secret is hid from him thus logically, he is the only reliable source of judicial verdict in judgment day. Though jesus, can read the heart of all men, he cannot see the future as stated, “he do not know the hour of his return!”, thus he is not a credible judge in terms of giving verdict, as evidently, god as the only qualified verdict-giver, has written already beforehand significant records of deeds in the book of life, as he has foreseen the future before the creation of the world which jesus lacking the foresight cannot, as implied,

    Revelation 20:12

    [12]And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

    Revelation 17:8

    [8]whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, 

    Revelation 20:15

    [15]And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

    Therefore, even before man existed, the tallies of man’s deeds were already written for it to be known who would be saved or not.

    Therefore, the verdict was already made before mankind existed and it could only be by the one judge who could see the future. Jesus cannot see the future nor anyone could, thus they being commisioned judges, simply means, judges in terms of pronouncing god’s verdict and not the function as characteristic of the integral one judge, who is a judge by virtue of being the source of the verdict, thus saying, one judge, implies an exclusive title, for god only. God relinquish participation in judgment day, as implied is mere observer, as the commissioned judges do the actual serving of verdict he beforehand wrote in the book of life, as implied,

    Nor does the Father judge anyone, but he has given all judgment to his son

    It means, he won’t participate in the judgment process and activities during those times, but preferring to be the one supreme judge as characterized by being the verdict-maker!

    Thus, judge, per se in its inherent meaning, speaks of anyone in its category as judges but saying, one judge, cannot qualify anyone except god almighty bec he is the only verdict-maker!

    Therefore when it say, 

    HE JUDGE AMONG THE GODS (judges)

    TO JUDGE, THIS HONOR HAVE ALL THE SAINTS

    It simply means, God judges with saints by being the source of the verdict which these saints would be endorsed to execute. We, in Mcgi, are saints. Thus we are judges. Thus we are gods as implied by context. The question is, are we true gods?

    Yes! 

    BOTH JESUS AND GOD ALMIGHTY SHARES EQUAL NATURE as implied:

    PHIL 2:6 JESUS IS IN THE SHAPE/NATURE OF GOD..

    Thus naturally, both god and jesus having the same shape or nature of god, share equal bodily essence. That bodily essence is the true god, as all man sharing the same bodily components are true man, so likewise with god. Nevertheless, righteous men are also gods as illustrated above not in bodily essence but in state of being, that is as judge and children of god implied above. Being judges and children of god makes them gods. In that aspect, they are true gods. How come?

    DEUT say god is god of gods. PSALMS say to children of god-all saints who are judges with god- ye are gods…These are true gods in essence of how god call them gods, meaning, they are gods as they are children of god and judges with god.

    Meaning, there are two kinds of true god.

    First, god as a divine nature. Secondly, god as a state of being of righteous men. Nowhere can we read that these gods are false gods, or only gods  by name and not by essence. Thus logically, they are true gods.

    God as a divine nature is necessary of worship as it say,

    2 Thessalonians 2:4

    [4]Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

    Logically, true god speaks of two category, firstly, the worshipped(divine god) and secondly, the not worshipped (righteous men)

    CAN GOD BE GOD OF FALSE GODS?

    AMONG THESE GODS IS MOSES, as god said,

    SEE, I MADE THEE A GOD TO PHARAOH…

    Moses was made a god, thus he is not a false god or someone called god by name only but not in essence as he was “MADE” a god. God cannot make a god, by name only or a called-god only, as a house is not made a house by name only. Made means, his state of being is god, a true god in the essence of how god meant of god in reference to moses,

    Why?

    Bec god made him god. That god he made cannot be false.

    MADE A HOUSE?

    DOES IT MEAN THE HOUSE IS NOT TRUE HOUSE?

    Is affixing the term house to a stone makes it a house? It cannot be likewise affixing the term god to moses cannot make him a god, but as we can see, it was not merely affixing the term god to moses but in actuality, god made moses a god thus moses was not a called-god-only or a god by name only bec god made him god and bec he was made a god, then he is a real god bec it cannot be that god is making false gods bec god is against false oaths, as it say, 

    Zechariah 8:17

    [17]And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD.

    1 Kings 17:24

    [24]And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth.

    He cannot make false oath such as making moses a god which if not intended as a real god is therefore a false oath which god said is an abomination, therefore he could have only meant as a particular truthful oath to make moses a real god, bec god’s words is truth, thus moses as god, is a testimony of Truth, that moses is god–a real god as no context speaks of anything about god making false gods thus logically, as the only rational option,  moses was a real god. It follows that in like manner righteous men who god called as gods therefore are real gods.
    THERE ARE NO PROOF TO DISQUALIFY THEM AS TRUE GODS THEREFORE TRUE GOD LOGICALLY SPEAKS OF TWO KINDS,

    • GOD AS DIVINE NATURE
    • AND
    • GOD AS STATE OF BEING OF RIGHTEOUS MEN

    Why I come to this conclusion?

    Bec moses is a real god as well as god almighty bec he was made a real god thus logically, God, whenever referred to in the bible, speaks of two kinds of true god–the divine true god and the true gods referring to righteous men. The worshipped and the not worshipped. Both in each aspect and category, true gods.

    JESUS SAID, I SAID YE ARE GODS!

    CAINTA’s SEPOY ANCESTRY OR SORIANO’s SUN-DARKENED COMPLEXION?

    Bro Eli Soriano said, as far as I can remember, that evolutionary process as form of natural adaptation has diversified skin colors from a single Adamic complexion, to varieties of human complexion and one of such were through long-term sun exposure. 

    Song of Solomon 1:6

    [6]Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.

    Bro Eli gave an example, the people in Cainta, Rizal as a result of such process. Implying the natives and not the sepoy descendants!

    He said, many in Cainta were dark bec of sun exposure. He did not intend to mean the sepoy descendants.

    He said, Cainta has a larger population in terms of dark-skinned citizens than those that are not. He did not intend to mean all these dark-skinned were product of sun exposure. Logically, among these who are dark were the product of the evolutionary adaptation from long-term sun exposure. 

    Sepoy descendants: (Wikipedia)

    Bro Eli implied, there were dark-skinned people in Cainta that were a product of long-term exposure to the sun. It doesn’t imply that all dark-skinned people in Cainta are sepoy descendants bec of the reality that Filipinos has naturally dark-skinned natives such as aetas as an ethnic skin variety.  It could also be possible bec Philippines is rich in skin-color diversity that Cainta has it too dark-skinned natives (though not aetas) which are not necessarily Sepoy descendants. These are what Bro Eli said as products of long-term sun exposure–the dark people who are not sepoys!

    Wikipedia:

    The question is: is it proven that dark-skinned citizens of Cainta outside the sepoys are a product of sun-exposure?

    Who knows? But Bro Eli did not confirmed anything as factual. He could have emphasized the reality that dark-complexion are a probable result of the sun-exposure adaptation, and that he was not actually confirming a fact. 

    It could be. Who knows really what he intend to mean?

    He said: Mga taga-Cainta! Medyo nasusunog ng araw yon eh! Punta ka ng Cainta ano!? Di ba, talaga ho (its true or really)…!

    When Bro Eli said, “The sun blackened them, Go to Cainta and see, its true!” Did he mean, its true the sun blackened them  or its true there are dark people in Cainta?

    If he meant it as, its true the sun blackened them, then he was affirming a fact which fact is yet to be revealed, as he did not yet reveal. If he meant as, its true there are dark people in Cainta, he has not affirmed any factuality that Cainta dark people were through sun-exposure. He only confirmed that there are dark people in Cainta which some were possible product of sun-exposure.

    Its actually ambiguous. It could be understood in many ways. Who knows? Only Bro Eli could verify what he really meant. Taking it at face value, regardless of the ambiguity, it is assessible as a vague statement.  Nowhere did the statement clearly emphasized bro eli as saying, the dark people in Cainta as product of sun-exposure is a fact. He could mean it as a probability only. 

    Mga taga-Cainta! Medyo nasusunog ng araw yon eh! (As a fact or probability?) Punta ka ng Cainta ano!? Di ba, talaga ho (its true or really)…! (About sun darkening Cainta’s skin color or about the reality of dark people in Cainta?)

    If he meant it as fact if so, that it is unverified, then so what!? Maliit na bagay! But what if he could prove it? What if he could prove that sun-exposure caused Cainta’s dark skin–referring to dark people who are not sepoys–?
    Then, the reality goes for detractors…

    IGNORANCE OF FACT IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR BELIEVING FICTION

    The fact is, Bro Eli did not say that all dark people in Cainta including the Sepoys are the result of long-term sun exposure. He could have meant those dark people who are dark not by sepoy ancestry but natives who are dark through Cainta sun-exposure adaptation.

    Yet nowhere did he certify a fact, bec he could have meant it as probability.

    Detractors, wise men don’t jump to conclusions!

    INSPIRATIONAL: REFLECTION OF A BROTHERLY LOVE–AN IGLESIA NI CRISTO STORY!

    FICTION: ANGEL CRIED “HELP ME KUYA EDUARDO” AS THE RISING TIDE ENGULFED HIM. HE WOKE UP. IT WAS A DREAM. HE REALIZED HE WAS IN THE CITY JAIL FOR ILLEGAL MULTIPLE GUN POSSESSION. HE LOOKED OUTSIDE. IT WAS A HORRIBLE AND ANGRY NIGHT. THEN AS HE SAT, HE REMEMBERED HIS FATHER, ERANO, HOW HE AND BRO EDUARDO HAS LOVED SO MUCH. THEN, HE CRIED, LONGING FOR HIS FATHER, AS THE NIGHT YET STOOD STILL. HE CHILDISHLY CRIED, HIS HEART BROKEN, AND LAMENTED, “PAPA, KUYA NEVER LOVED ME!”. THEN THE LIGHTNING FLASHES…!
    ANGEL WAS FRIGHTENED. HE WAS ALWAYS STRONG, YES! AS HE COULD REMEMBER AS FAR AND BEYOND IMPASSIONED DAYS, KUYA WAS ALWAYS HIS TRUSTWORTHY AID. BUT NOW, HE FELT WEAK, WOUNDED AND BETRAYED. KUYA DESPISED HIM TO THE POINT OF BEING ESTRANGED. KUYA WANTED HIM TO BE HOMELESS. YET HE LOVED HIM. HE LONGED FOR A BROTHERLY LOVE. HE DID NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT AS HIS THOUGHT WAS A JUMBLED PIECES OF MEMORIES HE TRIED TO MEND BY TEARS AS THE HARSH NIGHT MASKED THE UNABASHED AND UNHAMPERED LAMENT . AT THE BREAKING OF DAWN, THE ANGRY NIGHT RECEDED TO A SIGHT OF GLOOMY SERENITY, HE STOOD FROM THE BED AND APPROACHED TOWARDS THE GRILLED WINDOW, THE FLASHES OF EARLY SUNLIGHT BEAMED ON HIS SOMBER FACE AS HE RESPONDED WITH A TONE OF NOSTALGIA…AND LONGING…..AND WISHING FOR COMFORT, HE WHISPERED, “PAPA!”….💌
    SIREN FLASHING AND RESONANT, THE AMBULANCE SPED PAST THE CITY JAIL, AS THE BUOYANT TIDES OF THOUGHT HAS STILLED, AND ONLY THE RESONANCE OF PRISON LIFE BECOME APPARENT, ANGEL WAS ALREADY ON HIS BUNK RESTING THE MONOCHROME OF THE DAY. HE WAS NOT YET ADJUSTED WELL. PRISON IS NOT ARBITRARY FOR ANY FREEDOM HE USED TO HAVE, YET, HE HAS TO FACE REALITY. HE HAVE TO BE STRONG EVEN IF THE WHOLE WORLD WOULD DESERT HIM, HE KNEW OF ONE THAT WON’T. HIS LAST THOUGHTS THAT DAY WAS OF PEACE. REPRIEVE. LIBERTY. PARADISE. THEN THE CACOPHONY OF SIRENS DISRUPTED HIS PEACEFUL PREOCCUPATION. HE THOUGHT, ANOTHER UNFORTUNATE SOUL. THE AMBULANCE TRANSPORTED SHOOTING VICTIMS TO THE EMERGENCY HOSPITAL. CRITICAL SHOOTING VICTIMS WERE FETCHED FROM THE AIRPORT. A TERRORISM ATTACK. THE VICTIMS AMONG OTHERS WAS PROCLAIMED DEAD ON ARRIVAL. SUCCESSIVELY, THE CITY WAS ENGULFED WITH BLARING SIRENS AS THOUGH LAST NIGHT’S FRANTIC STORM WAS AN OMEN OF THIS DISASTER. NEWS REPORT LATER THAT EVENING, ACCOUNTED 15 DEAD, INCLUDING THE DISABLED GUNMAN. ANGEL WAS WATCHING THE NEWS THROUGH THE BARS, AS THE POLICE ON DUTY TURNED THE TV VOLUME LOUDER. ANGEL COULDN’T HELP BUT EMPATHIZED WHEN THE TV MONITOR FLASHED THE VICTIM’S ORPHANED CHILDREN. THE BEREAVED AND MOURNING AMBIENCE, THE REALITY OF HAVING TO BE ALONE, THE ENDLESS HARSH POSSIBILITIES, YET HE KNEW, HIS PITY MAY NOT BE RESOUNDING AS TO MAKE CHANGES, HE KNEW, AS HE WISHED FOR EVERY TORMENTED SOUL, A MORE MERCIFUL ONE WOULD, FOR THE ORPHANS, THE VICTIMS AND OPPRESSED….AND FOR HIMSELF, AND MOST ESPECIALLY, AS SLIVERS OF LIGHT SIMMERED THE SORROW, HE THOUGHT LIKEWISE FOR KUYA!
    MEANWHILE, AT THE ZOO, KUYA EDUARDO WAS ENJOYING A HAPPY TIME WITH HIS FAMILY. THEY WERE ALL JUBILANT. INTERACTION WITH THE ORANGUTANS WAS SUCH A MINDLESS REVELRY. THEY TRIED TO FEED THE MONKEYS, THEN CAUTIONED. A WARNING WAS OVERHEAD: DONT FEED THE MONKEYS. ONE OF HIS NIECE SADDENED, THOUGHTFUL OF SOMEONE, SHE UTTERED, I WISH UNCLE ANGEL IS HERE. THEN THE MONKEYS ERUPTED IN SHRIEKING DISARRAY.

    WHO IS THE REAL “BAYOT” AND COWARD: MANALO OR SORIANO?

    Bro Eli Soriano, presiding minister of MCGI, have published a debate challenge for the Iglesia NI Cristo leader Erano Manalo, through a news media, Manila Times, and it goes partially like this: (source: https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/153827742/The-Great-Debate-That-Never-Was )

    here goes…

    The debate challenge was intended to end and demolish INC’s oppression against Bro Eli Soriano and the church through the rational propitious instrumentality of a decent debate wherein propriety would expose INC’s repugnant nature, simply by being subverted and inferior in terms of true religion. Your expected loss would put you in a despicable limelight wherein truth prevails, and should your oppression pursue, would be a weaker force to reckon with, now that you’re stripped off credibility. 

    That’s the apparent implication of Eli’s seemingly motive for his apparently desperate proposition. You have persecuted us to excruciating heights. The only one that has magnified assaults as diversionary from its microscopic doctrinal image as exposed by Bro Eli and that you do through puffed-up malicious and relentless “mouth-gagging” assaults, so as illustrated by the Manila Times challenge. You are the only one who did this to us. Your devotion is like real Philistines–and Manalo as a lame Goliath.

    Why did he insist on a leader-to-leader debate?

    Bec its only you who persecuted us to this insurmountable and monstrous height. And that, you must be stopped, so as bro eli implied:

    To settle our differences once and for all, and end the unchristian kind of spiritual warfare being introduced in your program 

    Its like killing Goliath to defeat the whole Philistine army. Defeating Joe Ventilacion or Michael Sandoval or any less efficient minister would be less impactful as they are merely a sidekick, not the identity bearer of the church.  Its the deliberate expose of Manalo as a truth-handicap, being the leader, that would gourge with a more deadly wound. There would be no alibi. Your church would be identified as a group with an ignorant leader, blind leading the blind whereas, Joe and his breed, are not the leader, supposedly if defeated, won’t be an assurance of a blind-led church. Would God put a leader as less efficient than his subordinate? Defeating other else than the teacher won’t be as terminal. There would be alibis such as, “you defeated the student, the teacher’s attack dog, now, you did not defeat god’s oracle–the highest ranked, the better intellectual, the truthcaster–!” 

    O!? Siya! Yung lamon ng lamon ang alam!?

    That is how it implies.

    Manalo’s non-responsiveness was a fallout with many other mudslinging and death threats afterwards and as claimed, forced Bro Eli to exile. 

    Despite the fact that Manalo showed traits of cowardice, it didn’t do much favorably to Bro Eli’s personal welfare afterwards, as consequential counter-attacks become strong, as claimed, yet as blessing in disguise, its aftermath did much to the development of the church in terms of quantitative progress as it went international, much so, the recognition of the greatness of god truthfully as prophesied has a wider coverage. INC’s attack dogs trying to dilute their humiliation as naturally for damage control tried to reverse the truth saying, Bro Eli is a bluffer and coward as they purportedly utilized false claims as apparently saying, he dodged away from debate with INC prior to his Manila Times challenge even afraid to debate their outclassed ministers as Joe ventilacion.

    Let’s see how they make weak alibis,

    The boastful site says more:

    Their damage control was mainly by two means:

    • Propagating the vilificatory image of Ang Dating Daan as a coward evading from an agreement for pre-debate conference prior to its Manila Times challenge.
    • Ministers like Joe ventilacion  were challenging Bro Eli for debate despite the proposition of bro eli for a “puno-sa-puno” debate, using it as platform to call bro eli a coward.

    The thing is, dodging away from an agreement for debate is not conclusive as cowardice. There are possible circumstantial hurdles that could prevent any positive interaction. Despite this reality, as consistently their nature, demean us through this triviality, inconclusive, yet as though a conclusive reality, they, as how they make conclusive portrayal of bro eli as sodomizer before even without conclusive evidence, has likewise make this as vantage point for malicious attacks. 

    Bro Eli’s rejection of Joe ventilacion’s debate challenge and wistful thinking, is not proof of cowardice either. How could it be when he already laid out his S.O.P (standard operating procedure) with regards to dealing with his oppressors, that is, “puno sa puno”. 

    Why?

    As our most lethal counter-offensive from your oppression, as implied!

    • Is he a coward?

    Nope! Attack dogs as your ministers? Do they have academic level and achievement in like manner with scientists? 

    Yet Bro Eli debated scientist Grady Mcmurthy, so how could he be afraid of INC ministers such as Joe, apparently a lower intellectual form, and academically subordinate, to reject any debate challenge or, even, as claimed, he previously dodged away from pre-debate conferences?

    Come again?

    He bravely fought an academic and IQ sovereign–a scientist, graduated as first rank–, but is a coward in regards to fighting an academic subordinate–the INC?

    Give me a break, will ya!? Haha!

    Here’s proof:

    Dr. Grady’s credentials: (source: http://www.creationworldview.org/aboutus.asp )

    Even Dr. Grady’s detractor recognized his superior IQ, as it say, 

    Soriano debated this man, of apparently higher mental quality than INC, or Joe and he is afraid of you?!

    Let’s read more damage control:

    0k. So they’re saying, an inherent church attribute is, the executive minister don’t debate. Lamon at nagpapabundat. But then, they betrayed the reality that Felix Manalo trained him as a better speaker and debater, bec why would he train him to debate if it would be for uselessness? It means Felix trained him to be a frontman debater, as it say,

    Trained as better debater purposed as a vistigial dummy!?

    What!? Illogical! It implies, an excuse to hide a church defect: the weakest link! Why not, Felix Manalo had debates why couldn’t you? 

    They admitted, INC’s executive minister is not appointed as debater. Is this an attribute of the true church? 

    No!

    Church leaders must debate as exemplified by Paul as a standard principle for leaders as it say,

    Philippians 1:17

    [17]But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

    Philippians 4:9

    [9]Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

    Church leaders, as standard principle must defend the gospel in all possible ways such as debate. This is as a faithful follower of Paul, and as implied, being a clean vessel is tasked for EVERY GOOD WORKS which obviously includes debate!

    2 Timothy 2:21

    [21]If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.

    Church leaders must debate. There is no exemption! 

    Let’s recap:

    • Felix Manalo did debates. Erano/Eduardo shied away from debates. A sign of cowardice.
    • Vessels of god, implying, church leaders, are appointed for every good works, that includes debate.
    • Erano/Eduardo Manalo avoids debate. An unchristian act.

    NOW, TELL US, WHO IS THE “BAYOT” AND COWARD? The one who battles a more academically superior than you or the closet queen, hiding in the closet–THE MANALOS?

    Let me repost:

    S.O.P for abusive INC: “puno sa puno”! 

    Why?

    Bec you oppressed us and we want to fight back where we know youll be demolished, such that, oppression would stop! or if not would be, least potent and least credible, at least, from social view and for weak brothers Bro Eli has always been protecting!

    Now, who do you call a coward? God’s messenger or the closet queen Manalos “bayot” and– more “bayot” to come!?