Read the prophecy. Catholics say, it speaks about Christ. We believe it speaks about someone else: Eli Soriano. 

Jeremiah 30:18-24

[18]Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will bring again the captivity of Jacob’s tents, and have mercy on his dwellingplaces; and the city shall be builded upon her own heap, and the palace shall remain after the manner thereof.

  • Bringing back the captivity of Jacob’s tents and the city shall be builded upon her ruins is speaking about the return of the israelites to its land after more than thousand years of dispersion around the world. It happens when finally, israel was establish as a jewish homeland on may 1948 as Zionist Jews have been returning to it.
  • Amos 9:14-15
  • [14]And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
  • [15]And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.
  • Ezekiel 37:21-22
  • [21]And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:
  • [22]And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all:

    [19]And out of them shall proceed thanksgiving and the voice of them that make merry: and I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will also glorify them, and they shall not be small.

    • Out of these Zionist will proceed thanksgiving to god, meaning, they would be members of the church of god or MCGI. This is a reality as this is the time zionists are returning from the dispersion, as officially, israel was established as a jewish homeland on 1948 as implied in verse 18. So these events are happening present time onwards, the israelite christians giving thanksgiving to god through MCGI’s regular thanksgiving services.

    [20]Their children also shall be as aforetime, and their congregation shall be established before me, and I will punish all that oppress them.

    • Their children would be as aforetime, meaning, these Zionist MCGI would live like the old Israel, a life of righteousness and truth.
    • Zechariah 8:7-8
    • [7]Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country;
    • [8]And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Jerusalem: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God, in truth and in righteousness.

      [21]And their nobles shall be of themselves, and their governor shall proceed from the midst of them (Jacob’s tent); and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: for who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith the LORD.

      • The bible said:
      • OUT OF THEM (jacob’s tent or the house of Israel) SHALL PROCEED THANKSGIVING
      • who are they?
      • God said:
      • obviously, these are the Israelites from the diaspora or dispersion. It speaks of Israel returning to its land. It happened when Israel was established as a nation on may 1948. So out of these who return to Israel shall proceed thanksgiving as a member of the church. So these Israelites are Christians, and as Christians they are one body with the gentiles. So Israelites and gentiles are one body in the church.
      • Romans 11:16-19,23
      • [16]For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
      • [17]And if some of the branches (israelites) be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree (gentiles) wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
      • [18]Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
      • [19]Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
      • [23]And they (israelites) also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.

      • Galatian 3:28
      • [28]There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
      •  Out of these  union will come forth the governor. Meaning, out from the church itself will come forth the governor. Its what god said, that the governor shall proceed from the midst of the Israelites (jacob’s tent) logically, these are the ones who were in union with gentiles in the church, therefore it means, in the midst of the church comes forth the governor. There is no more Jew or gentiles in the church. No distinction. But both are inseparably, one. That’s why, coming from the midst of the Israelites is coming from the midst of the inseparable union of gentiles and Israelites–the church–bec gentiles and Israelites are one in the church, an inseparable union. Meaning, any association to this union is an association with the Israelites even from the apostles time as any gentile associated with it when he becomes governor has come from the midst of the Israelites as both gentile and Jew were a unified association thus Eli Soriano coming from the midst of the church that has that association logically confirmed the prophecy as coming from the midst of the Israelites (jacob’s tent) in the church by the fact that still, we fellowship with them even now.
      • 1 John 1:3-4
      • [3]That which we have seen and heard (2000 + years ago) declare we unto you (now, present time) that ye also may have fellowship with us (with the 1st century AD christians) and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
      • [4]And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
      • By this, we could say, Eli Soriano as coming from the church has come from the midst of the Israelites of early christianity as he likewise have fellowship as one body with them, or, is unified with them even now as the verse above implied.
      • Nevertheless, the governor is christ as they claimed:
      • And I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me: for who is this that engaged his heart to approach unto me? saith the LORD.
      • Is that Christ? Would Christ approach God when God is inside him and Christ inside God?
      • John 17:21
      • [21]That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 
      • Christ cannot approach God by heart as God is inside him. Can you by heart approach someone that is having the same innateness, righteousness and purpose as you’re one? It cannot be as you are one.
      • John 10:25-30
      • [25]Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me. 
      • [26]But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 
      • [27]My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 
      • [28]And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 
      • [29]My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. 
      • [30]I and my Father are one. 
      • As the verses say, God and Jesus are one in their works and the purpose of protecting/saving the sheep. Being one in purpose and work, would Christ approach God by heart, when the earlier verse I used say, God is inside Jesus and Jesus is inside God making them one, in aspect of works, purpose even righteousness and deity as God is inside him?!
      • It cannot possibly be.
      • To be drawn near to God is obviously spiritual. Therefore to be drawn near is bec you were once far in spiritual terms as it say:
      • and I will cause him to draw near, and he shall approach unto me:
      • Was there ever a time, that God was not inside Jesus or Jesus was spiritually far–a sinner–for Jesus by heart to approach God?
      • Nope as the scripture say: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and that he never sinned. Jesus was never far from God as God was inside him all the time.
      •  Therefore it doesn’t speak of Christ as the governor whose heart would approach God but obviously it speaks of someone else, instrumental of bringing the Israelites into the church for the phenomenal thanksgiving regularly done by MCGI. We believe, it is Eli Soriano, the prophesied governor of the church, that would emerge from the midst of the israelite-gentile union wherein he would lead us as the people of god.

        [22]And ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

        [23]Behold, the whirlwind of the LORD goeth forth with fury, a continuing whirlwind: it shall fall with pain upon the head of the wicked.

        [24]The fierce anger of the LORD shall not return, until he have done it, and until he have performed the intents of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it.

        • Latter days implies the return of captivity of jacob’s tent which officially was realized on may 1948, the establishment of Jewish homeland, as indicated in verse 18. Its the time Israelites is being grafted in again in the way of righteousness–the church.
        • And they (israelites) also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
        • Lastly, why do we believe Eli Soriano is the governor in the prophecy? 
        • Bec by biblical context, he fits every angle of the prophesied leader of the true church, that would emerge from the east, that would bring these israelites to the church.
        • What have i done?
        • I have laid out the impossibility of christ as governor in the prophecy and the reality of the governor coming from the midst of the israelites as indeed coming from the israelite-gentile union, the church. 


        Catholics say, the rock foundation of the church is peter. The catholic source says:

        Matthew 16:18

        [18]And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros: a piece of rock)  and upon this rock (petra: mass of rock)  I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 

        My rebuttal: those were not foremost the words of Jesus perse but the father’s as it say:

        John 12:49-50

        [49]For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. 

        [50]And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. 

        Logically, the doctrinal words of Jesus–or the goodnews or the gospel– perse are not jesus personal words but the father’s as validated by how context affirmed of the specific words. Though Jesus claimed it as “my words”, it was not actually his personal words such as Paul claiming the gospel as “my gospel”. It is literally not paul’s personal gospel but the father’s so when Jesus said, upon this rock i will build my church, it was actually the father’s words as he intended to build the church. Jesus was only relaying the father’s words, as indeed god the father is the masterbuilder.

        Hebrews 3:4

        [4]For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.

        It was validated by the fact that Paul introduced Jesus as the only rock foundation as it say:

        1 Corinthians 3:11

        [11]For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

        Ephesians 2:19-22

        [19]Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

        [20]And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

        [21]In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

        [22]In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

        Jesus is the foundation of the church–the saints, apostles & prophets– and he is the rock.

        1 Corinthians 10:4

        [4]And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

        Being the rock, He is the foundation of the church likewise the foundation of the prophets. Who are the prophets? These are christian prophets as it say:

        1 Corinthians 12:28

        [28]And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

        1 Corinthians 14:1,3,5

        [1]Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.

        [3]But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

        [5]I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.

        Paul admonished all to prophesy, that is to be prophets and that is through the capacity to exhort and edify, in short, to teach. Therefore ordinary members who could teach/exhort are called prophets. These among the apostles and saints were founded upon the rock foundation, Jesus Christ as Eph 2:19-20 expressed.

        Clearly, by Eph 2:19-20, Jesus is the rock in Matt 16:18 as the rock foundation of the church.

        Furthermore, Matt 16:18 itself in greek clearly establishes this fact.

        Matthew 16:18

        [18]And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (petros: a piece of rock)  and upon this rock (petra: mass of rock)  I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 

        Petrus meaning Peter Rock is derivative of petros meaning a piece of rock or in essence, a small rock. Bec it is derivative it carries with it the inherent meaning of petros which is a small rock thus basically, Petrus as Peter Rock in essence is a small rock.

        Peter is petros, a piece of Rock. The rock foundation of the church is petra, a mass of rock. Its different. One is huge. The other smaller. Moreover, Peter is called cephas, the rock.

        John 1:42

        [42]And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas (kephas: the rock) which is by interpretation, A stone.

        Logically, Peter being Cephas or rock is in the sense of being a piece of rock as he is petros yet still, in the size of a rock, a smaller size. It was a rock as a piece extracted from petra, a mass of rock, therefore a smaller rock while the rock foundation of the church is petra, a mass of rock which is bigger than petros, a piece of rock, variably, different in terms of size therefore a two different form and variance making Peter an invalid foundation bec of the difference of proportional size. That as corroborated by EPH 2:19-20 saying, Jesus is the rock foundation of the church and not Peter.

        1 Corinthians 3:11

        [11]For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

        Ephesians 2:19-22

        [19]Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

        [20]And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

        [21]In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

        [22]In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.


        In the Aramaic Peshitta NT, it say something like this:


        RESPONSE: Keepa means rock. Therefore being applied on Petros and Petra suggests it as mere general term to mean rock, either petros, a small rock or petra, a boulder. Being a general term, it cannot distinguish therefore between Petros and Petra thus an invalid gauge for conclusion. Whereas the Greek emphasized petros as small rock while petra is a boulder thus nullifying Petros as the Petra–the foundation of the church bec of the apparent discrepancy.



        Yung nasa Hagai na sabi, inyo bang hayaang wasak ang templo ni Solomon habang nakatira kayo sa magarbong bahay, e tungkol sa templo sa Jerusalem na nasira ng una. Iyon ang utos itayo, hinde yung kapilya nyo.

        Bakit nyo idadagdag ang kapilya nyo e bawal ang dagdag bawas sa bible?


        Inaatake nyo si eli soriano na ika merong 40milyon peso na Brazil mansion habang locale sambahan namin e sabi nyo parang kulungan ng baboy kahit hinde nyo talaga alam ang price ng mansion kasi approximation lang ang nasa news report samantalang hinde kayo nagsasalamin, at tingnan yung impractical and unnecessary expensive and luxurious kapilya nyo habang poor members karamihan na nagaabuloy para dito? Naiisip nyo ba: luxurious kapilya from poor members?! Kinukuba nyo kasi inutusan nyong obligado silang magabuloy! Natural, me faith yan kaya kahit scavenger lang sa payatas e maglalaan ng abuloy kahit papiso piso. Kinukuba o hinde!? Hikahos sa buhay tapos obligahin mong magabuloy tapos mapupunta lang sa unnecessary luxury imbes na mapunta sa pagpapaangat from poverty.

        Ngayon, sinong sinisira nyo? Si soriano o kayo dahil itsurang hipokrito kayo?

        Ngayon biblically, pinapahintulutan ba ng dios ang luxurious de chandelier na kapilya at the expense of the poor?!

        1 Thessalonians 2:10

        [10]Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe:

        Proverbs 21:3

        [3]To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice

        Asan ang justice? Naghihirap sa buhay ngunit yung abuloy nila napunta sa walang kabuluhan o unnecessary luxury–expensive kapilya? Kung hinde sana luxurious, walang mataas na ceiling o tusok tusok o chandelier, basta kahit simple basta matibay, e me maiipong halaga. Biro mo, bilyones maiipon na magpapaangat sa buhay ng mahirap kaysa sasamba ka sa magara ngang kapilya pero hikahos ka pa rin sa buhay. Okay sana kung inutos ng dios magpatayo ng mamahaling kapilya kahit yung ibang members hinde matulungan umangat sa hirap o neglected? Pero hinde e. Walang utos na ganon. Bagkus, inobliga nyong magabuloy para sa unnecessary luxury? 
        So kinukuba o hinde!? 

        Ngayon, yun sanang maiipon nyong bilyones na kinuba nyo sa poor members para sa expensive kapilya, ikumpara nyo nga sa halaga ng Brazil mansion ni soriano? O di ba, mas malaki. Sa inyo ang bilyones na luxury habang di nyo mapatunayang luxury yung Brazil mansion considering surrounding circumstances, di ba, if we consider empirical reality?

        Di ba? Para nyong binato ng bulok na itlog mukha nyo? Kayo ang me luxurious kapilya at the expense of poor members tapos kami paratangan nyo ng luxury–the Brazil mansion–na unverified kung luxury nga!?


        Demolition propaganda against Eli Soriano, mcgi’s head minister, is prevalent online. One of such is the concept of luxury wherein they disclosed his mansion in Brazil while they say, we members, mostly, have houses of worship that languished in poor and unsophisticated low cost housing–denigrating it as mere pig pens. Here is a report:

        The dark Secrets of Vatican and Other Religions

        Eli Soriano’s mansion in Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil

        Apparently, Eliseo Soriano bought a mansion in Santa Catarina Island in Brazil. This is the house and the report from this website. It is in Portugese so go ahead and translate it on

        Daily Catarinense – 26.08.07 – Has detached
        Vehicle: Daily Catarinense
        Date: 26.08.07
        Editoria: Prominence
        Phillipino chooses SC for world-wide headquarters of church
        Base is in the Island
        One of the religious leader greaters of the Phillipino chose in Florianópolis as housing and base of launching for the South America of the church that already it commands in five continents. It is from there, of the North of the Island of Santa Catarina, that the Phillipino Eliseo Soriano, 60 years, leads a net of more than 3 million followers spread for Asia, Europe, Oceania, Africa and North America.
        Brother Eli, as it is known, is installed next to centrinho to International Jurerê, the three blocks of the sea. Together with it, is about integrant others 20 of the Members Church of God International (Members of the Church of International God). The property of five suítes is evaluated in approximately R$ 2,5 million, value that would have been spent for the purchase of the property. The neighbors describe them as likeable, but reserved.
        Boarded for the news article of the Daily Catarinense, one of the occupants of the house, little more than 20 years, said, in English, who had come to Brazil the tourism and that he was with its uncle. Asked for Soriano, first it affirmed that it did not know it and not wise person who age. Later, when the team of the DC touched the bell of the house, the inhabitants they wanted to know the reason of the interest for Soriano, since it is not known in Brazil, and who had informed the periodical on the presence of them.
        Defendant in Porto Alegre for the Phillipino, Jamil Abdo, lawyer of Soriano, explained, for telephone, that the group, at the moment, does not intend to speak with the press because not yet it has real notion of market, language and customs of Brazil.
        Land in the North of the investigated Island to host temple
        Leader of one of the more popular protestant churches of its native country, Eliseo Soriano is in the city since December of the last year. Already he has company consisting in the country and plans if to establish in definitive in Florianópolis launching its church in Brazil and, from there, all the South America.
        – It is clearly that this demand investment in marketing. For the style of the Church of God, it goes also to deal with radio and TV – Abdo comments.
        Soriano currently looks an area between the Red River and English, in the region North of the Island, to possibly construct its first church. Also already it makes contacts with other countries of Latin America, mainly Uruguay, country where it would be currently, in its first trip to the Exterior since the arrival to Brazil.
        The lawyer counted despite he was for suggestion of it that Soriano chose Florianópolis to live when decided to change itself for Brazil, in reason of the natural beauties and the proximity with law office, that is in Porto Alegre. The objective of the change of country, according to Abdo, would be the disposal of the church to extend the performance area.
        – At least a time per day I indicate Florianópolis I eat place for investment to some foreigner. Much people of the Rio Grande Do Sul not if adapta the Florianópolis, but for who come of are of the country are perfect – the lawyer comments.
        The contact between the two occurred for the presence of the office of law in different countries, explained Abdo.
        – Our office has representation in the world all. All day appears people of the Suriname, Sri Lanka, Japan, China. We are very common to appear the most diverse things, in the most diverse areas. Marriage, pension, separation. She had never heard to speak of the church, but they had brought all the skillful documents and nothing that runs away from any standard.



        Pardon for the poor translation. Clearly, though the mansion was in florianopolis worth R$ 2,5 million whatever that means. Enemies of faith esp members of INC utilizes this fact for a ravenous assault by claiming Bro Eli has inappropriate luxurious type of living when in fact, our houses of worship are limited to mere low cost housing. But is it just the fact that a mansion give them hell of a problem and not considering the present circumstances that Eli Soriano faced during when he made the purchased, that must be the basis of any assessment? It is public record that Bro Eli exiled in Brazil, a higher cost of living than Philippines I assumed. Therefore houses there available for purchase with regards to hazard-free environment are at a higher cost.

        Here is how I debunked the black propaganda:

        Show us, before you malign us, that there were available lower cost housing than the mansion with regards to hazard-free environment at the time of the purchase, sufficient to house probably at least or a maximum of 20 people, that Eli should have made as the appropriate choice?

        If none, then shut up, bec you’re making conclusion for public disgust from baseless, incomplete and illogical assessment. 

        By the force of circumstances, that Brazil was the chosen sanctuary, necessity to have a low cost housing, as it was, fell on the mansion as a prudent choice and fair for the brethren and in accordance to biblical tenets. It was fair, in the sense that, it was apparently the lowest cost housing necessary for probably 20people and crews. It was a necessity and leaving without other choices than the mansion. It was fair and practical as it was the necessary choice– probably the lowest cost, and appropriate in all aspect, security, purpose, etc… Bro Eli was never a reckless evangelist. He abides by the highest moral code ever found, that as only be explorable in our sect: MCGI.

        Now for the propagandists, answer me:

        Show us, before you malign us, that there were available lower cost housing than the mansion with regards to hazard-free environment at the time of the purchase, sufficient to house probably at least or a maximum of 20 people that Eli should have made as the appropriate choice?

        If none, then shut up, (esp INC) bec you’re making conclusion for public disgust from baseless, incomplete and illogical assessment. Bec if there were no lower costs houses than the mansion, should it not be appropriate if purchase fell on the Brazil mansion, if not, where would they have a headquarter for the ministry? And where should probably at least 20 people stay?
        Folks, reconnect with common sense. Do you destroy anyone by impulse and not by empirical sense, with regards to the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If so, then investigate deeper before you intend to destroy something–or the indestructible us. Gets?! Continue reading


        Eli Soriano was found guilty from a libel case charged on him by the Iglesia NI Cristo for accusing them as a killer church, terrorist, thief and deceiver/manloloko. The news report say:

        INC wins libel case vs ‘Dating Daan’ evangelist

        By Janvic Mateo, The Philippine Star

        Posted at Dec 18 2013 09:19 AM | Updated as of Dec 18 2013 05:22 PM

          MANILA – A Quezon City court has ordered evangelist Eliseo Soriano to pay religious group Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) a fine of P100,000 for the supposed malicious and libelous remarks that he uttered in his television show 10 years ago.

        In a 19-page decision, Regional Trial Court Branch 92 Judge Eleuterio Bathan said elements of libel were present in the April 23 and 27, 2003 broadcasts of Soriano’s “Ang Dating Daan,” in which he uttered statements against INC such as “Iglesiang pumapatay ng kapwa tao, manloloko, terrorist, magnanakaw, and mamamatay tao.”

        “There is no question that the broadcasts were made public and imputed to Iglesia Ni Cristo defects or circumstances tending to cause it dishonor, discredit and contempt,” read the decision promulgated on Monday.

        “Soriano’s remarks… are libelous per se, uncalled for and misleading information to the public. Taken as a whole, the broadcasts suggest Iglesia Ni Cristo is a killer, swindler, a spy, and a terrorist and a thief which is contrary to the doctrines and teachings of every religious sect,” added Bathan.

        Soriano failed to attend the promulgation of the decision. Bathan said this takes away his chance of appealing the decision.

        During his arraignment in 2005, the evangelist refused to enter a plea, prompting the court to enter a plea of “not guilty” for him.

        He also submitted a waiver of presence during the pre-trial conference, in which he admitted that “whenever his name is mentioned (during the trial), he is the same person alleged in the information.”

        Records show that Soriano’s lawyer presented witnesses stating that ministers of INC in its television show “Ang Tamang Daan” have repeatedly attacked Soriano and he was just retaliating against the allegations.

        But in his decision, Bathan said that the defense of self-defense is without merit as it “will not negate the presence of existence of malice.” He added that this kind of defense is only available in crimes against persons.

        The judge also noted that retaliation is different from self-defense.

        “He should have filed the necessary or corresponding criminal and/or civil case against (INC) in order to protect his (Soriano) interest. He did not, but instead, made retaliation against INC,” read his decision.

        “In doing so, the accused disregarded the true function of courts of justice and took the law into his hands,” he added.



        In my own opinion, it seem that the verdict was forced to subjective, bias and unfair level. The possibility of pay-out could be a reality or if not, influence or imprudence. Why? There were no libelous with something veracious or have the essence of truth in it. Let me show you.

        Eli Soriano accused INC of being:

        • A thief/magnanakaw

        Logically, he could have meant it in metaphor terms. They steal gullible souls to damnation. 

        • Deceiver/manloloko

        Indeed, as manifested several times such as by distorting video tapes to mangle his personality. That’s one. There are others such as portraying him as sodomizer through porn komiks without valid evidence, in short, it was not validated.

        • Spy/tiktik

        If this is a lie, should it suffice for the whole declaration to be at par with one seemingly lie? 

        “Soriano’s remarks… are libelous per se, uncalled for and misleading information to the public. Taken as a whole, the broadcasts suggest Iglesia Ni Cristo is a killer, swindler, a spy, and a terrorist and a thief which is contrary to the doctrines and teachings of every religious sect,” added Bathan.

        • Terrorist

        Indeed. Giving the infamous Amurao death threat and calling for terrorist Abu sayyaf to track Eli is terrorism, I guess. It is a psychological deterrent/terror.

        • Killer church

        I have some circumstantial evidences to apparently back it up. But on personal note, this is just my opinion, and not aiming to confirm anything. One, the Amurao death threat, calling for a funeral service to fetch Eli at the airport, with red carpet and candles and jovial rest in peace greeting.

        Meaningless bluff?

        If they are the true church, having been the ground and pillar of truth, they should have known that giving harmful remarks such as those are prohibited as it say:

        Philippians 2:15

        [15]That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

        The INC remark was psychologically harmful as it was a chilling and disturbing deterrent. Secondly, calling for Abu Sayyaf to track Eli down is likewise a psychological harm, for one to fear for his life. Influenced, the Abu Sayyaf, or its sympathizer might respond to the call. Thirdly, the amansec account, the hitman assigned to kill Eli Soriano failed, and testified. Fourthly, Minister Bularan, representative of the church uttered a cynical remark as I’ll paraphrase:

        If mataro (mcgi, ex-inc) sits close to a hothead INC, and the INC breaks his neck….truly, (the breaking of the neck) that is human nature!

        You can view it here

        These are seemingly evidences to prove INC is a killer church. Killer in the sense that it has the tendency to harm esp to kill, as the Bularan remark emphasized, and was never corrected, meaning, it is an acceptable and integral church custom. So when they broadcasted the Amurao death threat and Abu Sayyaf reinforcement call to hunt Soriano, they were not bluffing as corroborated by the Bularan remark of “Bali leeg”. Indeed by such remarks as a whole supporting the concept of malice, they somehow admitted of their capacity to kill. The fact that they never relegated a public apology is proof of its nature–an integral church norms so was it merely a bluff? Will the court see threats as mere bluffing having the reality of INC’s hateful ploy of destroying Soriano on air, as witnessed in other forms besides the malicious threats such as distorting facts, inventing facts, for defamation?!

        Taking all these to account:

        • The Amurao death threat as a psychological deterrent.
        • The Abu Sayyaf reinforcement call to hunt soriano.
        • The Bularan cynical “bali leeg” remark.
        • The Amansec killing Soriano attempt as assignment from INC.


        • Ex-INC Lydia Manuyag’s testimony of having INC hitman friends.
        • A head deacon planning to kill.

        These are circumstantial evidences when taken as a whole corroborates an inherent nature–malice or the will to harm, an inherent trait of a killer church.

        And you’re saying, you have no capacity to kill? Or are you saying you’re merely malicious words with no action intended? But Bularan or Abu Sayyaf might have killed soriano?!

        Now as for the judge who presided over this arraignment, was his judgment prudent, to make all Eli Soriano’s accusation as libelously at par with each other–as gravely, libel? Nevertheless, this is not the final judicial front line. Having the reality of a higher judge, the supreme court or God, this verdict is not yet a confirmation of a criminal act as the possibility of a dissenting view from the higher court implied it as mere judicial opinion not necessarily confirmatory–or decisive! 

        Note: you can validate. I’m providing facts. 



        Matthew 6:7

        [7]But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. 

        The verse is an imposition against repetitive prayer done in one occassion–or one prayer session. God never imposed anything as repetitive prayer meant in that aspect. JESUS repeated prayers after an interval of perhaps one hour. Therefore repeating prayers after some rest period is permissible. Other than that, it’s unchristian. The four beast in heaven repeats praises bec it’s their nature and God permitted it whereas you cannot read GOD permitting continual repetitive prayers for one session as right conduct for man. In fact, he prohibits vain repetition. Vain repetition in the sense of making long prayers by continuous repetition as God in his majesty sanctioned TO PRAY WITH FEW WORDS.

        Ecclesiastes 5:2

        [2]Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter any thing before God: for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.

        Repeating prayers to make it lengthy is logically vain repetition.


        BEC GOD wants FEW WORDS in prayer. 

        David prayed lengthy prayers such as in psalms44 & 45. MOSES prayed lengthy prayer in psalms 90-91so when God said, MAKE YOUR WORDS FEW, it doesn’t mean FEW in word quantity as David & moses prayed lengthy prayers such as the one below:

        • Psalms 90:1-17
        • [1](A Prayer of Moses the man of God.) Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations.
        • [2]Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.
        • [3]Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men.
        • [4]For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
        • [5]Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up.
        • [6]In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth.
        • [7]For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.
        • [8]Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.
        • [9]For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend our years as a tale that is told.
        • [10]The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.
        • [11]Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath.
        • [12]So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.
        • [13]Return, O LORD, how long? and let it repent thee concerning thy servants.
        • [14]O satisfy us early with thy mercy; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.
        • [15]Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, and the years wherein we have seen evil.
        • [16]Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy glory unto their children.
        • [17]And let the beauty of the LORD our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it.
        • Psalms 91:1-16
        • [1]He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
        • [2]I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.
        • [3]Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.
        • [4]He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
        • [5]Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;
        • [6]Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.
        • [7]A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.
        • [8]Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.
        • [9]Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;
        • [10]There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.
        • [11]For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
        • [12]They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.
        • [13]Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
        • [14]Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.
        • [15]He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.
        • [16]With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.

        (Note: Psalm 90-91 is one prayer)

        LOGICALLY, what he meant by FEW WORDS is to have prayers necessarily few logically, in the sense of having few repetition if not none at all. It speaks about not repeating and repeating prayers in one prayer session as it makes prayers VAIN.



        The most logical conclusion we could establish from these context therefore is to PRAY with few words in terms of repetition. When God said, let your words be few he meant it as let your words be few in terms of repetition, meaning, there must not be many repetition in one occassion as it would make prayers vain. That is for me, the best logical conclusion we could arrive at provided it would be fairly assessed.


        There are repetition in psalms such as:

        Psalms 136:1-7

        [1]O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.

        [2]O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.

        [3]O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy endureth for ever.

        [4]To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy endureth for ever.

        [5]To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy endureth for ever.

        [6]To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy endureth for ever.

        [7]To him that made great lights: for his mercy endureth for ever:



        Conclusion: Praying the rosary is unchristian as it employs vain repetition.

        To REFUTE me, you have to give a better logical conclusion basing on these context below better than what I have presented above and favorable to your catholic faith:




        MCGI believes that holy kiss can be sent through letters as exemplified in ROM 16:16 the churches of christ salute you. As you can see we can salute with a holy kiss, that is, a greetings of peace/charity wherein we could salute through letters as exemplified by the churches widespread in the world has greeted roman christians in Rome through Paul’s letter to the romans as it say: the churches of Christ salute you. This greeting was by letter. Therefore it is not a physical affection greeting such as INC’s beso beso or handshake bec it could be sent through letters.

        Biblically, holy kiss is a kiss of charity, as mentioned in 1PETER5:14 and it is likewise a greeting of peace when used as a greeting as the verses above implied. So greeting with holy kiss is a greeting of peace.

        1 Corinthians 16:19-21

        [19]The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.

        [20]All the brethren greet you. Greet ye one another with an holy kiss.
        [21]The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand.

        As we can see, the churches of Asia sent greetings of holy kiss through Paul’s letter. Likewise, the early christians greet through Paul by saying, all the brethren greet you (with a holy kiss). That is a salutation or greeting as Paul said, and again, it was through a letter, or it could be by saying, peace be unto you as Jesus used, as it say:

        That is a conduct as example that we must necessarily follow as it say:

        These are the only christian greetings supplied in the bible. The only greeting of peace so as suggested, so should we exceed it to add beso beso or handshake? Or nose to nose, if preferred? Etc…?

        Therefore greeting with holy kiss is either a verbal or written greeting ascribed to a christian where the only supplied way is to say:

        “I greet you with a holy kiss” or “the brethren greets you” or “the churches of christ greets you” or it could be jesus way: “peace be unto you”

        Holy kiss as apparent symbol of peace/charity.

        There is only one way of greeting required by god and that is through holy kiss. Peter specified it for the whole church.

        1 Peter 5:14
        [14]Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity. Peace be with you all that are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

        Therefore, the only way to do it is through the aforementioned concept. Lastly, my answers are my own concept and not necessarily representing MCGI.


        The cross, the tool for the capital punishment, is vital in the internal communion of Christian saints. It is essentially a part of the redemption system that must be believed or glory for.

        Ga 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

        It is also a medium where the Old ordinances where nailed into.

        Col 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

        The cross is a symbol of redemption that against such redemption we are considered enemies of the cross.

        Phl 3:18 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, [that they are] the enemies of the cross of Christ:

        Through the cross Israel and Gentiles become one body in the church.

        Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

        The cross is an effective medium of salvation.

        1C 1:17 . For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

        The relevance of the cross is significantly inseparable from the Christian faith but do you know that biblically, I mean in the field of Greek terminology, it is not resolved in what material form was the cross believed to be shaped with. I heard Bro Eli Soriano preached that it is a post/stake but with due respect to his intelligent theology, I cannot suffice in his exegesis. Why? My main reason is simply dependent on the Greek terminology which proves my observation as rather strong–initially, as I believed.

        My observation: it is not resolved in the bible whether the crucifixion item is either a cross or a stake/post.
        Here’s my reasons.

        There are 28 verses in the interlinear bible which mention the term cross and all of it was translated from the Greek term “STAUROS” which mean a stake/post or a cross.

        stauros stow-ros’

        from the base of G2476;

        a stake or post (as set upright), i.e. (specially), a pole or cross (as an instrument of capital punishment); figuratively, exposure to death, i.e. self-denial; by implication, the atonement of Christ.

        The supplied Greek definition was not definite of a single credible meaning for “stauros”. It is thus not certain of a cross. I heard Bro Eli said that in those ancient times even a post meant for capital punishment is called a cross, but we cannot deny that a cross with horizontal beam is a more popular connotation.

        Our first evidence, showed the unstable condition of the term “stauros”. We prove that using “stauros” didn’t resolve the issue as it did not certify a definite definition. We have no capacity to grasp if it’s either a stake or cross.

        Our last evidence is this, the use of “tree” to refer to the crucifixion object. Likewise it didn’t resolve the issue.

        Ac 10:39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

        Biblically, the crucifixion object was mentioned in two terminologies: cross and tree. The use of tree is likewise unstable.

        tree in Greek:

        xulon xoo’-lon

        from another form of the base of G3582;

        timber (as fuel or material); by implication, a stick, club or tree or other wooden article or substance.

        Timber may imply a stake but it was not the only definition. Wooden article may imply either a stake or a cross thus it is too not reliable. Thus it is not resolved in Greek terminologies if the tree where Christ was hanged is either a post or cross. Optionally, there is no definite choice for “tree”. The need for clarity in this instance is unsupported as no other Greek word used in the bible was stable enough to confirm if it is either a cross or a stake/post.

        It is therefore imperative to accept that the preaching of the cross is lacking sensible stability in terms of definite truth.
        Conclusion: the issue regarding the crucifixion cross is clearly unresolved.



        Jn 20:25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

        It is not credible as TWO nails could be used on Jesus TWO hands on a post.


        Ezk 9:4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark (TAV OR T) upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

        Job also has a tav in JOB 31:35 in Hebrew. Does it mean he has a cross, or it simply means he has a mark?
        if a mark, how do you know that tav in EZEKIEL 9:4 speaks of a T and not the word “mark”?

        tav if defined means mark.

        H8420 tav tawv

        from H8427;

        a mark; by implication, a signature.

        There seem to be no clear and certain indication for cross (with horizontal beam) or post in the bible as definite truth whereas god guaranteed a sure word of prophecy (teaching). Doesn’t it seem like an inconsistency? Nope. There is sure word of prophecy regarding the crucifixion material. It was surely a cross. It was certain on that aspect, though it was not resolved what kind of cross was it? Was it merely a post or a post with horizontal beam, bec both are crosses? But on being a cross. It was certainly a cross.

        It was unresolved. Was it a post with horizontal beam or merely a post without any horizontal beam?

        Conclusion: the crucifixion material was unresolved in terms of its definite nature.


        Paraphrasing in English, the article above says: Rosita Trillanes, an expelled Iglesia NI Cristo member is accused of vindictive measures against Felix Manalo through a documentary testimony of being Manalo’s rape victim. The court convicted Rosita of libel after Felix retaliated with a court case. Rosita appealed and was acquitted. After 10 years, Rosita retracted from his accusation of rape and asked for forgiveness from Felix. She became a diakonesa after another 10 years and died as an INC member.

        Now, let us look at the Tenny-Angel Manalo excommunication case. Why were they expelled from the church?

        The news report say, Angel and Tenny were interfering in the church administration affairs through the you tube agenda of uploading anti-INC allegation of abduction and security threat to gain sympathy which logically, would jeopardize the church harmony or unity, thus the necessary remedy of expulsion. Thus they were expelled.

        Looking at both cases: The Rosita Trillanes case vis-à-vis Angel-Tenny case, similarly both were either slanderer or blasphemers against the church administration. One by an allegedly false accusation of rape implicating the leader which naturally was a divisive force within the church. The latter in like manner–divisive liars. In essence, both have identical aspect of slander. Yet Rosita Trillaness was reinstated as a member after penance. The question is, would it be the same case for Angel and Tenny and all other expelled members having the same magnitude of offense? Would expelled members be reinstated provided they resort to sincere penance?

        Logically, they would be so to be fair, in like manner, how a grave offense of a rape accusation by Rosita Trillanes was forgiven and the accuser Rosita Trillanes reinstated in the church.

        Wikipedia says:

        Biblically, is it allowed for a validly convicted and expelled offender to be reinstated to the church?

        Nope. There is no law allowing the reinstatement of validly expelled members. They would be placed under god’s judgment as it say:

        1 Corinthians 5:12-13

        [12]For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

        [13]But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

        But is it not church obligation to snatch those destined to hell?

        Jude 1:23

        [23]And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

        Yes. But obviously this is for those who were never Christians and never repented. Once you’re a christian, there is no more second repentance for mortal sins as it say:

        2 Corinthians 7:10

        [10]For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of…

        Hebrews 10:26-27

        [26]For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

        [27]But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

        Therefore, snatching from the fire is applicable only to those that never had christian baptism, or in short, was never christian bec a true enlightened christian once he backslide with mortal sins can never be redeemed anymore and as the verse above implied, has no more acceptable second repentance. Therefore, snatching from the fire is inapplicable for expelled backsliders, bec there is no acceptable second repentance from mortal sins for backsliding Christians. You cannot snatch backsliders from the fire anymore as they cannot be redeemed anymore. Therefore snatching from the fire is applicable for non-baptized, and never-been-christian entities, logically speaking. Implying, Rosita Trillanes reinstatement to the church is an evangelical blunder. Why?
        Bec there is no christian law allowing the reinstatement of a validly expelled members. And it is gross misconduct, to go beyond where the bible is silent. We do not do things beyond the limits of biblical sanctions. Where the bible is silent, there must not be any attempts of doctrinal addition as it say:

        Ecclesiastes 3:14

        [14]I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

        But why does INC persisted on this doctrinal blunder–the reinstatement of validly expelled offenders–unmentioned in the bible?