Let us start with this one:


Revelation 20:7-9

[7]And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

[8]And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

[9]And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

The Gog and Magog incident as elaborated by Revelation 20:7-9:

  • After the thousand year imprisonment of Satan, He would be loosed wherein he would gather nations to battle jerusalem wherein during the one thousand period Christ rules in Israel with his saints as elaborated:

Revelation 20:5-6

[5]But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

[6]Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

  • Christ and his saints reigning in Israel implies there is complete peace in Israel during the millenial rule.
  • The battle of God happens shortly after this time wherein Satan deceives the whole world to battle Israel. The armaggedon war. Wherein before they attack Jerusalem, these armies of the world would congregate in the north part of Israel which is armaggedon. 

Revelation 16:13-16

[13]And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

[14]For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
[16]And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

  • The beloved city, Jerusalem is the camp of the saints during Christ rule. Meaning, by implication, it is here were christ is ruling.
  • Armies of the world would attack Jerusalem but divine intervention occurs through fire from heaven burning them alive.


Zechariah 14:2-3,12

[2]For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

[3]Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

[12]And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.

  • All nation would battle Jerusalem but it was God they would fight verifying the Revelation account above regarding the battle of the lord that would happen in israel.
  • God would smite these attackers with plague of fire as only fire would cause these:

“Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth”


Ezekiel 38:14-16,18,22

[14]Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog, Thus saith the Lord GOD; In that day when my people of Israel dwelleth safely, shalt thou not know it?

[15]And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army:

[16]And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.

[18]And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, that my fury shall come up in my face.

[22]And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.

  • Gog would come from the north parts with great army to attack Israel.
  • Israel dwells safely or in peace.
  • God burned these armies with fire from heaven


Comparatively speaking, these three accounts speaks of similar events:


So conclusively, these three accounts were speaking of the same thing, the Gog and magog incident or the armaggedon war. The problem we are to tackle now is who is Gog? What land is Magog?

Gog is a person obviously, as it say:

Ezekiel 38:2

[2]Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog, the NAW-SEE (RULER, CHIEF, KING ETC…) of Meshech and Tubal, and prophesy against him,

He is a single individual as apart from his armies as it say:

Ezekiel 39:11

[11]And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will give unto Gog a place there of graves in Israel, the valley of the passengers on the east of the sea: and it shall stop the noses of the passengers: and there shall they bury Gog and all his multitude: and they shall call it The valley of Hamongog.

Wikipedia says:

The form “Gog and Magog” may have emerged as shorthand for “Gog and/of the land of Magog”, based on their usage in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible.[5] An example of this combined form in Hebrew (Gog u-Magog) has been found, but its context is unclear, being preserved only in a fragment of the Dead Sea Scrolls.[b][6]

Being a person, he is the leader of all the nations that battles god and Israel during the armaggedon war as it say:
Ezekiel 38:14-16,18,22

[14]Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say unto Gog…

[15]And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee…

[16]And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days…

Who is the leader of these worldly armies during the Armaggedon war?

The beast. Therefore Gog is the beast.

Revelation 19:19

[19]And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

They first intended to attack Jerusalem but God through Jesus came down to fight as it say:

Zechariah 14:2-4

[2]For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

[3]Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

[4]And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

These happens at the coming of Jesus and his saints as it say:

Revelation 19:11,13

[11]And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

[13]And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

How is the beast the leader? Through miracles coming from Satan, the beast and his false prophet that convince these armies to affiliate to their leadership. This evil union (Satan, beast, false prophet) is the working force that leads the attackers. 
Revelation 16:13-14

[13]And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

[14]For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

How could possibly the beast convince and gather these armies? By deception and miracles. By doing that, obviously, he is the leader.

Revelation 13:11-14

[11]And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

[12]And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast (with 10horns) before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

[13]And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

[14]And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

Therefore, the beast with 10 horns is the leader, whereas the second beast with 2horns being his miracle worker is the false prophet as it say:

Revelation 19:20

[20]And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

But obviously, the beast is the leader being first in rank as it say:

Revelation 19:19

[19]And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 

Who is the beast?

The beast is the Roman empire, the fourth kingdom!

Daniel 7:23

[23]Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

 It is also the person that would lead the armies against israel as illustrated above. He is the eight king meaning he is the embodiment of the old roman empire as it say:

Revelation 17:10-11

[10]And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

[11]And the beast that was (the roman empire) and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

Therefore, the term beast speaks of the roman empire that was dead and to its spiritual counterpart–the eight king, logically, the one leading these armies. That beast, the roman empire and the eight king are basically one in biblical consideration as it say: 

And the beast that was (the roman empire) and is not, even he is the eighth
Being one, when the Great Babylon sat upon it, it implies an association with it. It also implies, if the beast is the roman empire, great Babylon sitting on it means, great babylon came from the Roman empire as it say:

Revelation 17:3,5

[3]So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.


We believe the great Babylon is the catholic church being upon seven Mountains, the mountains of Rome as it say:

Revelation 17:9

[9]And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

And being the only religion that came from the roman empire, it is the most probable candidate for being the great babylon. And as illustrated above, great babylon sits upon the beast with 10 horns, the roman empire which is likewise a person as it say: 

Revelation 13:1-2,11-12

[1]And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

[2]And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

[3]And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

[11]And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
[12]And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

They worship the beast with 10 horns that was wounded and have a seat of power, meaning, the beast with 10horns is a human person as the second beast that exercise all his power, is a man as it say:

Revelation 13:18

[18]Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Being able for a man to fully exercise the power of the beast it must be that the beast is a man also. The catholic church or great Babylon sits upon the beast with 10horns, meaning there is an association. The beast being a natural leader as the deceiver of people as i expounded above would make him the leader of that association that would be in the catholic church. The beast being leader of the catholic church would makes him the pope. 

The beast being Gog, the leader of the world armies against israel would makes Gog the pope. And naturally, where the catholic church as headquarter is where Gog has been from, that is Rome which logically, is Magog.

Revelation 17:9

[9]And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.



Muslims endorse the idea that Muhammad is the light of the gentiles as they say regarding Isaiah 42:

Isaiah 42 describes Muhammad

1- Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.g

Until “…delighted”

If we consider “mine elect” as a noun then Mine elect = God’s elect = Mustafa (in Arabic) the name of our Prophet Muhammad Mustafa (SAV). Otherwise it is true for all prophets of God.

  • My response:
  • Mine elect was biblically not intended as a name but even if its a name Mustafa in arabic, logically, it refers to the real light of the gentiles–Jesus Christ, the light of the world.John 9:5
  • [5]As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world. 
  • Jesus is the light of the world as long as he is in the world. Is he still in the world? Yes as he claimed:
  • Matthew 18:20
  • [20]For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. 

After “..delighted…”

All prophets after Jacob (pbuh) mentioned in the Bible came for Israelites not Gentiles. This includes Jesus (pbuh) (look Matthew 15:21-26, Matthew 10:5-6 and many more). And Jesus (pbuh) did not stay on earth long enough to do that. But Muhammad (pbuh) was a Gentile and he brought message and judgment to Gentiles first.

  • My response:
  • Jesus brought forth the law and judgment to the gentiles through the apostles first then logically through the preachers as his spokespersons as it say:
  • Matthew 10:40
  • [40]He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. 
  • 2 Corinthians 13:3
  • [3]Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.
  • The apostles/preachers were speaking in behalf of Christ to the gentiles thus its Christ bringing the message through spokespersons and that is for all nations as it say:
  • Matthew 28:19-20
  • [19]Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 
  • [20]Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

2- He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heart in the street.

Here the word “not cry” is used as “not complain about the duty that I gave him” because we see in verse 13 God says “… he shall cry”. There is a difference between these two using of the word cry. Now if we read your Bible Matthew 26:39-42, we can not say that Jesus (pbuh) never complained.

  • My response:
  • Jesus did not cry, which biblically is not to defend himself in the human court of the Roman government. He did not defend himself but kept silent like a dumb sheep to the slaughter. He was silent in terms of self-defense as it say:
  • Acts 8:32
  • [32]The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

But if you read the life of Muhammad (pbuh) , the history of Islam you cannot find even one complaining word of Muhammad (pbuh) about the mission (duty) that given by God Almighty.

3- A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

This is true almost all prophets.

  • My response:
  • It speaks about Jesus who endorses to not oppose evil as the contextual meaning “a bruised reed shall he not break”. Meaning, in terms of death penalty we must not oppose the evil act in such a way not to kill criminals but rather to imprison the bruised reed than kill them as it say:
  • Matthew 5:38-39
  • [38]Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth (death penalty)
  • [39]But I say unto you, That ye OPPOSE NOT EVIL: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 
  • Muhammad broke bruised reeds as he killed captives such as banu quraisha.

4– He shall not fall nor be discouraged, till he had set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

Until “earth:”

Jesus (pbuh) couldn’t finish his mission which had continued only for ~3 years. He fall and discouraged (you will find many places in NT about this) and he couldn’t set judgment in the earth, because his followers were a few and they had little faith (you will find many places in NT about this). And yet they “forsook him and fled” at the time that Roman soldiers came to arrest Jesus (pbuh). And Jesus (pbuh) himself says “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence ” John 18:36

  • My response:
  • Jesus was never discouraged in regards to setting up the judgments of the gospel through preaching so when in terms of preaching, he was never discouraged. Indeed Jesus completely established the judgments of the gospel that is heaven and hell and excommunication etc… through his spokespersons as i elaborated above. They have the complete judgments as they have the complete judiciary form of the gospel (the law) in their midst as it say: 
  • 2 Peter 1:3
  • [3]According as his divine power HATH GIVEN US ALL THINGS PERTAINING UNTO LIFE AND EUSEBEIA (PIETY/RELIGIOUS DEVOTION), through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
  • Though there is a time that he seemed discouraged but it was not in regards to setting up the judgments and the law so logically, the prophesy was about being not discouraged in setting up the law which necessarily was in terms of preaching–or evangelical ministry.
  • Never did the verse insinuate that setting up judgment is to establish a state ruled by his law. It could be by having a religious government–a church, his people bound by his law.

But Muhammad established a state and ruled with his law that given by God. Therefore he set judgment in the earth and he did not fall and he was not discouraged.

After “earth:”

Here God says “his law”, and in verse 9 says “former things come to pass”. This means that he (new prophet) will bring new law. But if we read the Bible again, we see that Jesus (pbuh) says Matthew 5:17 “Think not I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but fulfill”. And if we read further we understand that Jesus (pbuh) did not come with new law.

But Muhammad (pbuh) came with new law.

  • My response:
  • Christ brought a new law as the old law passed away as it say:
  •  Luke 16:16
  • The law and the prophets were until john since that time the kingdom of god is preached…
  • Christ brought a new covenant does necessitates a new law as the old law was dead–or until john only.
  • Hebrews 8:8-10,13
  • [8]For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
  • [9]Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
  • [10]For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
  • [13]In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
  • What jesus meant by: “Think not I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but fulfill” is to fulfill the law (not the old law bec it was dead Luke16:16) regarding it concerning himself only. Meaning he would fulfill the law that speaks about him only and not the whole law bec it was dead–or until john only as it say:
  • Luke 24:44
  • [44]And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, THAT ALL THINGS MUST BE FULFILLED which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms CONCERNING ME.
  • as you can see, clearly, the old law was dead and jesus introduced a new law–the gospel, and nothing of the muslim assertion is correct bec the law Jesus fulfilled was the law concerning himself and never concerning the old law as it was dead further as it say:
  • Romans 10:4
  • [4]For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
  • 1Tim 1:9
  • The law was not made for a righteous man…

    6- I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.
    Muhammad (pbuh) is a descendent of Abraham (pbuh) and came to Gentiles.
    7- To open blind eyes, to bring out prisoners from prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
    “To open blind eyes”. If we read verse 19 we will see more clearly that the word blind is used as idiom.
    Meaning, he will show people the things that they did not know and will show people how to comprehend God and His message.
    Prison is used as an idiom too. If a spirit doesn’t know God and doesn’t obey Him, then that spirit is in prison of Satan, and that person is prisoner of Satan. By accepting oneness of God and by obeying Him, the spirit of a person will be free and this makes that person free from prison of Satan. And in verse 8 God clearly states what He meant.
    8- I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
    (With explanation of verse 7) we understand that the person that God is talking about will come to a place that people worship idols as their gods. If we read verse 17, we may understand this better.
    From verses 7 and 8, we understand that God is not talking about Jesus (pbuh) but Muhammad (pbuh). Because Jesus (pbuh) came to Israelites and they were not worshipping idols. But Muhammad (pbuh) came during the Jahilliya (ignorance) period of Arabs and destroy the idols. If we read verse 17, it will be understood more clearly.

    • My response:
    • Though nothing in particular in the verse say directly that the light of the gentiles would minister in times of idolatrous nations, it implies, he does. Jesus ministry on earth initially was during incarnation and afterwards through spokespersons. Through these integral process, his spokespersons speaking in behalf of him like Paul encountered idolatry thus being in behalf of Christ, the merit of Paul’s ministry is to Christ thus Christ preached through spokespersons. Nothing in the prophesy insinuate a direct participation of the prophet as qualification to be a light of the gentiles but biblically through spokespersons:
    • Matthew 10:40
    • [40]He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. 
    • 2 Corinthians 13:3
    • [3]Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me, which to you-ward is not weak, but is mighty in you.

    As we read in verse 4 and my explanation of it, the person, God is talking about, will come new law. And this person cannot be Jesus (pbuh) because of the reasons stated above. This person is nobody but prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
    10- Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles and inhabitants thereof.
    If you want to hear this new song please listen to someone reciting the Qur’an. The new song that God talking about is Noble Qur’an. If you hear how people recite the Noble Qur’an, you will understand what God is talking about.
    11- Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains.
    12- Let them give glory unto the Lord, and declare his praise in the islands.

    • My response:
    • Kedar would be Christianized as it say:
    • Matthew 24:14
    • [14]And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
    • Revelation 14:6
    • [6]And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
    • Kedar being accustomed to Islamic recitation of Quran as primarily, their song would soon embrace a new song, that is the christian gospel songs, during when it would be christianized.
    • Lastly, below is my explanation why the light of the gentiles is christ and not muhammad firstly bec that prophet would restore the sheep of Israel as it say:

    Isaiah 49:6,8

    [6]And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.

    [8]Thus saith the LORD, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages;

    Isaiah 49:9-10

    [9]That thou mayest say to the prisoners, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Shew yourselves. They shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all high places.

    [10]They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them.



    That servant of god is a light to the gentiles, a covenant for the people, to free prisoners out of prison and darkness, and most emphatically,



    Ezekiel 37:22-28

    [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:

    [23]Neither shall they defile themselves any more with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions: but I will save them out of all their dwellingplaces, wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them: so shall they be my people, and I will be their God.

    [24]And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

    [25]And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever.

    [26]Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.

    [27]My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    [28]And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore.



    The verse above say, after they become one nation, when they returned from exile. From then, they would be gods people forever more. Historically, they were one nation on 1947. Before that they were not, thus it is during our generation that possibly, restoration of Israel as gods people would happen! Not during Muhammad’s time. 

    Who would restore the preserved of israel, into righteousness?

    It could not be muhammad as jesus was the last prophet sent to israel thus rendering muhammad a false prophet to israel!

    Mark 12:1-9

    [1]And he began to speak unto them by parables. A certain man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about it, and digged a place for the winefat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. 

    [2]And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. 

    [3]And they caught him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. 

    [4]And again he sent unto them another servant; and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in the head, and sent him away shamefully handled. 

    [5]And again he sent another; and him they killed, and many others; beating some, and killing some. 

    [6]Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, HE SENT HIM ALSO LAST UNTO THEM, saying, They will reverence my son. 

    [7]But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. 

    [8]And they took him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. 

    [9]What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. 

    These sent servants killed and stoned were prophets thus the last sent was the last prophet. It was Jesus Christ, the last prophet of god!

    Matthew 23:37

    [37]O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 

    By this simple, correlation of context, we could deduce the reality that Islam is false religion as it was by a false prophet, bec jesus is the last prophet, matter of fact is, Islam would war against god.



    Zechariah 14:2-3

    [2]For I will gather all nations (islamic countries) against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

    [3]Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

    Revelation 16:14

    [14]For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

    As you can see, biblical pronouncement has logically make Islam anti-god, an enemy of god! And Muhammad a false prophet, thus it could not be the servant spoken of by isaiah!

    Fact is, evangelism of Christ through his spokespersons is for every nation as it say:

    Revelation 14:6

    [6]And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

    Daniel 7:13-14

    [13]I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

    [14]And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.


    According to a site here!

    In Matthew 2, it makes it clear that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod and was a young child when Herod died.

    After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child’s life are dead.”

    Herod died in 4 BC, so we know that Jesus must have been born in 4 BC or shortly beforehand.

    In Luke 2, it is made clear that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius

    In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register. … He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son.

    Quirinius became governor of Syria and performed his census in 6 AD. From this we know that Jesus must have been born in 6 AD.

    This is a nine year discrepancy between the time of Jesus’ birth as recorded by Matthew and the time of Jesus’ birth as recorded by Luke. How can these two accounts be reconciled?

    How did the site reconciled it?

    In this manner:

    “A correct interpretation of Luke 2:2 requires taking into account a key item of historical information of a most practical nature: any census of subjects (as opposed to citizens) of the Roman Empire was carried out for tax purposes, to determine the taxable base of each subject. In such a census, people to be registered were not expected to travel but to do exactly the opposite: stay in their homes and wait for the census officer, who was above all a tax assessor. Josephus, in his description of precisely the census ordered by Quirinius in 6 AD, explicitely states that the registered people had their possessions assessed (AJ 18.1 and 18.2). And it is evident that Joseph did not have properties in Bethlehem, otherwise he and Mary would not have had to seek shelter in a manger for Mary to give birth.

    1. NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus’s money; but the Jews, although at the beginning they took the report of a taxation heinously, yet did they leave off any further opposition to it, by the persuasion of Joazar, who was the son of Beethus, and high priest; so they, being over-pesuaded by Joazar’s words, gave an account of their estates, without any dispute about it. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, (1) of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, (2) a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; […]

    2. WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus’s money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar’s victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest;


    Therefore, the historically informed translation of Luke 2:2: “hautē apographē prōtē egeneto hēgemoneuontos tēs Syrias Kyrēniou” is “this registration took place before Quirinius was governing Syria”. Note that rendering “prōtē” as “before” is consistent with the established translation of the end of Jn 1:15: “hoti prōtos mou ēn” = “because He was before me”.

    Thus, noting from Acts 5:37 that Luke was fully aware of the event of Quirinius’ census, its nature and its consequence, namely the uprising of Judas the Galilean, the reason of his mentioning the event in Luke 2:2 becomes crystal clear: state for the record that he was not talking about that census. I.e., Luke is saying: “Given that in a Roman census of imperial subjects people remain at their homes, I state for the record that the census that prompted Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem was before Quirinius ordered his infamous one.”

    What is remarkable with the argument is this: the mistranslation in Luke 2:2 that makes the first census to be during Quirinius as a governor when in fact, it should have been during a prior position from his governorship as it say:

    Therefore, the historically informed translation of Luke 2:2: “hautē apographē prōtē egeneto hēgemoneuontos tēs Syrias Kyrēniou” is “this registration took place before Quirinius was governing Syria”. Note that rendering “prōtē” as “before” is consistent with the established translation of the end of Jn 1:15: “hoti prōtos mou ēn” = “because He was before me”.

    Therefore, Quirinius was not yet governor during when the census was made so as rectified by a correct translation. The problem is, a historian has an objection.
    The site says:

    . We can read in the Chronology in Cheyne’s Encyclopedia pg 736, “any census in Judea before the well-known one in the year A.D. 7 is impossible”.

    This implies, that before 7AD there was no other census made which necessarily makes jesus birth to be during 7AD and not during Herod’s term possibly in 4BC which makes it inconsistent.
    On this point, i would inject an objection.
    There are errors in history such as the subsequent changes of a historical philippine event, wherein its date was retracted to a different date. Im speaking about the cry of balintawak. Obviously, historians err giving doubt to the historian who said, a census before 7AD is impossible. That couldnt be true. I believe rather the proposition that the right translation of Luke 2:2 would put the census to be before the governorship of Quirinius which is before 6AD and has jive as biblically sound to Herod’s term, that is possibly in 4BC. And that the historian’s claim that a census before 7AD is impossible, is actually, inaccurate and at most, fallible. That as muddled by the reality that historians err.

    Therefore, the historically informed translation of Luke 2:2: “hautē apographē prōtē egeneto hēgemoneuontos tēs Syrias Kyrēniou” is “this registration took place before Quirinius was governing Syria”. Note that rendering “prōtē” as “before” is consistent with the established translation of the end of Jn 1:15: “hoti prōtos mou ēn” = “because He was before me”.

    Therefore, nothing is clearly established that negates biblical harmony between Luke 2:2 and Matt 2 but instead, muddles any possibility of inconsistency.


    I don’t want to mislead you but to make matters clear, these three Jesus are not three different person but three in matters of reference that is

    • Jesus Christ in reference to the messiah’s body and spirit
    • Jesus Christ in reference to the messiah’s body apart from the spirit
    • Jesus Christ in reference to the messiah’s spirit apart from the body

    The usage of the word Jesus Christ is separately and distinctly used in these aforementioned instances but before that let me show you how it came to be so.

    Firstly, Jesus Christ has two component. The human and the God component. Before these component combined as one being, the god component was first called the word or the word of god.

    John 1:1-2

    [1]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    [2]The same was in the beginning with God.

    Revelation 19:13

    he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

    The word is the name of the particular being having the nature of God. That God is immutable or never changing in his being the word, thus he being god is an immutable condition. Meaning, his nature as God dont ever change as it say:

    Hebrews 13:7-8

    [7]Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God…

    [8]Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

    This reality speaks of a Jesus Christ that is the same yesterday, today and forever. Obviously, it is not referring to the human Jesus Christ as being human he changed, as he died whereas this specific Jesus christ has an unchanging condition as he is the same throughout all time–an immutable, never changing condition. It don’t speak of the human nature as it was changed–from mortal to immortal, as it say:

    Philippians 3:20-21

    [20]For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:

    [21]Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

    1 Corinthians 15:52-53

    [52]In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

    [53]For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

     It speaks of the God component of Jesus Christ, so we have here the first reference of the word Jesus Christ. It referred to the God component, the word of God, the son of God, the spirit that was initially have come from heaven as it say: 

    John 6:38

    [38]For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 

    This one from heaven was prepared a human body, as it say:

    Hebrews 10:5

    [5]Wherefore when he (god) cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body (human body) hast thou prepared me (god).

    As you can see, God did not transform as human being bec upon coming on earth, there was already a prepared body for him, thus he did not literally become human being. Logically, the human body became a human host for the word/god that came from heaven, an indwelling structure for god, it was his human component. That union of human component and god component was born as Jesus Christ as it say:

    Matthew 1:18

    [18]Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

    Now, we have the second case wherein reference of the name jesus Christ was referred to the union of body and spirit as a unified being. So when Jesus said:

    John 8:40

    [40]But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 

    He was actually referring to his human component. Saying he is man, indeed, he never said, he is a man only bec he too is god but saying that, he was in reality referring only to his human component, the body prepared for the god that came from heaven, as his human host. So when he said:

    John 6:38

    [38]For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. 

    He was referring to his god component, the Jesus Christ who is the same yesterday today and forever. So we have now two Jesus Christ, the one from heaven and the whole being that was the union of body and spirit/god. Coming from heaven necessitate the thought that it was not human as no human came from heaven but from the womb as it say, creation happens in the womb:

    Job 31:15

    [15]Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

    Therefore coming from heaven, illustrates the reality that the one from heaven is not human. It rationally, speaks of the god component of Jesus, the one who is the same yesterday, today and forever.

    So i have presented two Jesus Christ, not as two persons but two only in terms of reference.

    I would show another Jesus Christ. This time the human being.

    John 8:40

    [40]But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 

    Jesus other component aside from God is human. The biological descendant of abraham, david etc… through his maternal side as it say:

    Matthew 1:1

    [1]The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

    Being a biological descendant, this Jesus Christ is distinctly termed for the human component only as the god component is not human. The god component did not come from david or abraham therefore as logic dictates, the term jesus christ was referred to the human body only not inclusive of the god component bec it was not a descendant of david and abraham. 

    Lastly, I have shown you how the word or god came down to earth to a prepared human host for him to indwell to as a union. And that union has in itself therefore the traces of its two component, the god component and human component. Being that, the term jesus christ was ascribed to it separately in three instances that is as a whole being (body and spirit), as a body and as a spirit (who is god or the word of God). These are what i say are the 3 Jesus Christ yet neither did i insinuate a three person as separate individual.

    I prepared this blog to dispel the delusion that whenever Jesus Christ is used it referred only to a human being, not God. 



    Winnie Ibe said:

    My RESPONSE to Soriano against his lies and ignorance!


    Questions from a fellow catholic:

    1. Kung naniniwala kayo na Hindi tuluyan natalikod ang Iglesia pagkatapos namatay ang mga apostol, paano nagpatuloy and buhay ng mga cristiano hanggang sa panahon na ito?

    2. Darami ang kaanib sa Iglesia, kung Hindi Iglesia ang nu or continuation ng Iglesia, bakit ito ang pinakamarami sa GRUPO o sekta Cristiano at pinahintulutan ng Dios?

    3. Kung Hindi mga paring katoliko ang mga kahalili ng mga apostol, sino sino ang mga kahalili nila hanggang sa panahon ito? 
    4. Kung Hindi Iglesia Katolika Ang totoong Iglesia bakit siya po ang nag compile ng Bible?

    Sagot Ni Soriano (let’s paraphrase Soriano)

    Soriano said:

    “Hindi ang Iglesia Katolika ang nagcompile ng Bible. Katunayan ang Dead Sea scrolls

    “Dead Sea Scrolls was already compiled (200 year bago si Cristo).”


    The Dead Sea scrolls is NOT THE BIBLE, it’s NOT EVEN THE OLD TESTAMENT! However, in the Dead Sea scrolls contains most of the books of the OT scriptures including Tobit which Soriano rejects as inspired scripture. There are about hundred writings which are NOT in the Old Testament canon as we know today.

    • I’m answering in response to Winnie’s presentation. I hope he presented eli soriano correctly. But maybe not. So admittingly, I’m answering Winnie as he presented or perhaps misrepresented facts so its up to you to verify apparently facts.
    • Its true the catholic did not compile the bible. The apostles did. During Peter’s time, they compiled the bible as all things about religion is in their possession. The catholics merely validated this reality through the catholic fathers who apparently possessed these apostolic compilation which by the temporary guidance of the holy spirit has canonized the bible.
    • Here is proof of the apostolic compilation:
    • 2 Peter 1:3
    • [3]According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and EUSEBEIA (PIETY OR RELIGIOUS DEVOTION) , through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
    • The dead sea scroll has in it the compilation of almost all OT manuscripts thus in this aspect, no catholic compiled these OT dead sea scrolls. Therefore, with regards to dead sea scrolls bro eli is saying, the bible was partially compiled in the dead sea scrolls.
    • Actually, the OT was canonized as early as 100AD as it say:
    • Wikipedia:
    • According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

      The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.[126]

    Soriano said:

    ” the Dead Sea scrolls was 
    “Translated from Hebrew to Greek.”


    The Dead Sea scrolls are Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, not a “translation”.

    • Taking these at face value, bro eli seem to be saying, the dead sea scrolls in greek were a translation from hebrew. Consider though the inadequacy of Winnie’s info: The Dead Sea scrolls are Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts…
    • Wikipedia:
    • Most of the texts use Hebrew, with some written in Aramaic (in different regional dialects, including Nabataean), and a few in Greek.[7] Discoveries from the Judean desert add Latin (from Masada) and Arabic (from Khirbet al-Mird) texts.[8] Most of the texts are written on parchment, some on papyrus, and one on copper.[9]
    • Archeologists have long associated the scrolls with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, although some recent interpretations have challenged this connection and argue that priests in Jerusalem, or Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups wrote the scrolls.[10][11]
    • Owing to the poor condition of some of the scrolls, scholars have not identified all of their texts. The identified texts fall into three general groups:
    1. Some 40% are copies of texts from the Hebrew Scriptures.
    2. Approximately another 30% are texts from the Second Temple Period which ultimately were not canonized in the Hebrew Bible, like the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Tobit, the Wisdom of SirachPsalms 152–155, etc.
    3. The remainder (roughly 30%) are sectarian manuscripts of previously unknown documents that shed light on the rules and beliefs of a particular group (sect) or groups within greater Judaism, like the Community Rule, the War Scroll, the Pesher on Habakkuk, and The Rule of the Blessing.[12][need quotation to verify]

    Soriano said concerning the New Testament:

    “New Testament is composed of the four gospels, writings of Paul or Pauline epistles, at UNIVERSAL EPISTLES,and revelations.”


    Soriano is correct and it’s important to note that he mentioned “UNIVERSAL epistles” because that is ANOTHER TERM FOR “Catholic epistles”.

    • Yes. True if universal means catholic. But it doesn’t postulate any relation with the Roman Catholic church bec that church is a false church–a wolverine church as remarkable by their unapostolic teaching as crusade and Inquisition!

    Soriano said:

    The Jews rejected the New Testament writings, hence they did not compile it.


    So Soriano FAILED TO GIVE AN ANSWER, as if the Canon of the Bible just fell from the sky and no question ask! 
    Soriano has NO ANSWER, he went on to discuss about the Latin Vulgate.

    The Catholic Church defined for us WHICH Old and New Testament WRITINGS ARE TO BE used during Liturgy of the Mass. The same books were defined as parts of the canon of the Bible. This canon of Scriptures was first defined by the Catholic Church in synod of Rome in AD 382 which was led by Pope Damasus I. By that council they listed 27 books of the New Testament EXACTLY AS WE HAVE at present. Another council held at Hippo in the year AD 393 and in Carthage in AD 397 both affirming the same writings that was proclaimed as the canon or authoritative list of inspired writings as words of God.

    Know that there were about 250+ writings that named after the apostles and biblical figures, and also writings which were held by some Christians as inspired word of God but did not make it into the canon.

    • As I presented earlier, the apostles compiled the whole bible which compilation happened to have been possessed apparently by the catholic fathers which by the temporary guidance of the holy ghost has sorted out among others the apostolic compilation. So who indeed compiled it? The apostles. Who validated it? The catholics. So what right do they have to claim it possessively if the compiled bible was not meant for them but for us?
    • The Jews who rejected NT writings were those who rejects it. These were not Christians whereas the apostles compiled it.

    Sabi Ni Soriano:

    “Yong isinalin ni Jerome, Hindi katoliko ang nag compile nun”. Nagsalin lang si Jerome” from Hebrew and Greek to Latin.”


    St. Jerome indeed ONLY TRANSLATED the Bible from Hebrew and Greek to Latin. It’s important to note that this translation was made by the authority of Pope Damasus in AD 382 after the council of Rome already listed which are in the canon of the Bible. The translation was made after the church gave authoritative list. My CHALLENGE TO ELISEO SORIANO is, if he could GIVE US a document/s giving a LIST OF WHAT WE ACCEPT now (27 books which is from Matthew to Revelations) from NON CATHOLIC sources PRIOR to AD 382.

    • In response to the challenge, I’ll show you apostolic compilation:
    • 2 Peter 1:3
    • [3]According as his divine power hath given unto us ALL THINGS (WRITTEN/ORAL) that pertain unto life and EUSEBEIA (PIETY OR RELIGIOUS DEVOTION) , through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
    • That complete biblical compilation by the apostles would be gathered as one writing, that in history, speaks of the manuscriptal gathering that as a fact is historical whereas the manuscripts gathered was made as one collective writing through canonization of 66 books as it say:
    • Isaiah 34:16
    • [16]Seek ye out of the SEPHER (WRITING) of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want an additional one, for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered THEM (THE MANUSCRIPTS).
    • Therefore, the canon of the scriptures now (including NT 27 writings) as gathered as one collective writing was the ones the apostles compiled (the complete religious truth; if one is missed out then bible is an incomplete book of truth) which the catholics only validated through canonization by the temporary guidance of the holy spirit as it say: hath given unto us ALL THINGS (WRITTEN/ORAL) that pertain unto life and EUSEBEIA (PIETY OR RELIGIOUS DEVOTION)
    •  Therefore what the apostles compiled included the 27NT writings as these complete religious writings were the component of the historically gathered manuscripts and canonized as one writing of the lord as specified in Isaiah 34:16.

    Sabi Ni Soriano:

    “WALANG PAKIALAM ANG KATOLIKO sa ibang manuscrito. Ang pinakikialaman ay Yong Latin.”

    “Katunayan ay “wala sa katoliko ang codex Sinaictacus. Ito ay NASA British Library.”


    Ang Codex Sinaictacus ay natagpuan sa Egypt sa St. Catherine’s Monastery (Orthodox).It is said to be written in which was probably written in AD 330-360. This means that the canon of Scripture was not made. Kaya naman ang mga writings tulad ng Letter of Barnabas at Shepherd of Hermas.

    The seven Deuterocanonical writings are included in the Codex. Note that Soriano do NOT ACCEPT them as inspired word of God. Hindi pa ipinanganak si Soriano at si Nicolas Perez ay kasama na ANG mga ito. In fact, ay Hindi pa ipinanganak ang mga apostles o ang Panginoon Jesus sa Bethlehem ay kasama na ANG mga ito sa Bible Known as the Septuagint Greek Bible.

    Moreover, noon panahon na isinulat Ang Codex Sinaictacus AD 330-360 ay BUO pa ang Iglesia Katolika at hindi pa humiwalay ang mga Orthodox, ang schism ay nangyari Lang noon AD 1054. Ibig sabihin na itong Codex Sinaictacus ay isang CATHOLIC DOCUMENT.

    Note that there is ANOTHER CODEX which is on par with Sinaictacus and that is the Codex Vaticanus. This is ALSO WRITTEN in Greek. Furthermore, these two codices ARE NOT EXACTLY ALIKE IN WHAT WRITINGS they contain although they contain both most of the books of the Bible. Why? Because the CANON of the Bible was NOT YET ESTABLISHED!

    • Sinaiticus is like the dead sea scrolls. Partially, both contain biblical canon. These were the ones needed to be sorted out to see which of these comply to the apostolic compiled bible which were later are gathered as one collective writing. 
    • Jerome translation was 382AD. Canon of scriptures was 382 AD. Codex Sinaiticus was 330-360 AD. Question: Which greek/hebrew bible was a labor of love of catholics?
    • Were you not preoccupied with Latin bible as your official bible other than anything else?
    • Here’s proof:
    • Wikipedia:
    • The Vulgate (/ˈvʌlɡt, –ɡɪt/) is a late 4th-century Latin translation of the Biblethat became, during the 16th century, the Catholic Church‘s officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible.

      The translation was largely the work of St Jerome, who, in 382, had been commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina (“Old Latin”) Gospels then in use by the Roman Church. Jerome, on his own initiative, extended this work of revision and translation to include most of the Books of the Bible; and once published, the new version was widely adopted, and eventually eclipsed the Vetus Latina; so that by the 13th century, it took over from the former version the appellation of “versio vulgata“ [1] (the “version commonly used”) or, more simply, in Latin as vulgata or in Greek as βουλγάτα (“Voulgata”).

      The Catholic Church affirmed the Vulgate as its official Latin Bible at the Council of Trent (1545–63), though there was no authoritative edition at that time.[2] Then the Clementine edition of the Vulgate of 1592 became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church; and remained so until 1979 when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated.

    Apostasy question:

    Sabi ni Soriano:

    May tumalikod at yon ang mga naging lider ng IGLESIA Katolika. (Proof 1Tim 4:1-4)”

    “Paimbabaw ANG Hindi pagaasawa ng mga pari, nang re-rape pa sila”
    Noon Panahon ng mga apostol ang mga Tao ay mahilig sa pagaasawa”, paimbabaw daw ang mga”


    Ang Hindi pagaasawa ng mga pari ay Hindi paimbabaw, Ito ay aral na ibinuhay ng ating Panginoon Jesus at mga apostol.

    Matthew 19:10-11 NRSV
    [10] His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is BETTER NOT TO MARRY.” [11] But he said to them, “NOT EVERYONE CAN ACCEPT this teaching, but ONLY those to whom it is given.”

    Matthew 19:12

    11 “Not everyone can accept this saying,”he replied, “except those to whom celibacy has been granted, 12because some men are celibate from birth,j while some are celibate because they have been made that way by others. Still others are celibate because they have made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom fromk heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

    Totoong may mga nagkakasala na mga pari, pero HINDI Dahil sa HINDI NILA PAGAASAWA ang kasalanan o Ito ay paimbabaw. In fact they committed a sin against celibacy or to their vow.

    • True. Celibacy is a religious fact as Paul said, be as single as I am but on a personal note not as a compulsory imposition as he likewise said, to marry. 
    • 1 Corinthians 7:8-9
    • [8]I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
    • [9]But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
    • The problem with catholics is, they made celibacy compulsory which compulsory procedure is absent from any christian doctrine.

    Sabi Ni Soriano:

    “Yong mga Hindi tumalikod ay pinatay , ang babae na representation ng Iglesia Katolika ay lasing sa dugo ng mga banal o mga Martyr Ni Jesus.”


    Kailan naman may napatay na members ng MCGI na ang kagagawan ay ANG Iglesia Katolika?

    Soriano attack the crusade ng Catholic Church at ang inquisition. Ito daw ay patungkol sa Revelation 17:6

    “Revelation 17:6 NRSV
    [6] And I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the witnesses to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly amazed.”

    Kailan naman MGA MARTYRS NG PANGINOON Jesus ang mga MUSLIMS? Kailan ba naging totoong cristiano ang mga Albigenses? Kaparehas ba ang aral ng mga UNANG cristiano o ng MCGI ang mga ito?

    Moreover, the Crusade and inquisition were hundreds and and thousand years after the death of the apostles. Who were those aggressors in the time of 1st crusades? Its the Muslims! The Catholics only defended themselves from Islam invasions. For three hundreds plus years Catholic nations were attacked by Islam invaders, of course we have the right to defend ourselves and our faith.

    Soriano said that during the inquisition the Catholic Church killed those who did not agree with the Catholic faith. Yong mga totoong cristiano ay pinagpapapatay.

    Soriano however failed to mention WHO WERE THESE PEOPLE, what true faith they held which is or are the reasons they were killed for. In short, Soriano tried to weave a story based on his misconception and NOT ON FACTS.

    • Possible saints were killed during the crusade. These are saints in the sense that they were sheep outside the church:
    • John 10:16
    • [16]And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 
    • How were Muslims sheep? They were spiritually blind thus they were Muslims, being that they were sinless as it say:
    • John 9:41
    • [41]Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. 
    • They were the possible predestined to be children of God thus even before creation god already called them sons (saints)!
    • Ephesians 1:4-5
    • [4]According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
    • [5]Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
    • Thus before they even become actively children of God, he called them saints as all participants of judgment day as judges. 
    • Psalms 149:6-9
    • [6]Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand;
    • [7]To execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people;
    • [8]To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
    • [9]To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.
    • Thus while they are Muslims or catholic heretics god already considered them sheep/saints/sons of god. These are the ones you catholics killed in the crusade and inquisition–the martyred sheep.
    • John 10:16
    • [16]And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. 

    Let’s asked Soriano:

    Tanong, itong mga namatay noong crusade at inquisition ay mga TUNAY na cristiano na dala ang dalisay na aral?

    • No. They were called beforehand as saints. Why? They were blind thus they were sinless, though in the wrong faith, they were martyrs of christ as they were his sheep outside the fold/church. 
    • Revelation 17:6
    • [6]And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

    Soriano continued to attack the Catholic Church on the use of images, relics and among others yet are are strawman arguments.

    Sabi Ni Soriano ay ang BAYAN na magbubunga ay lilitaw sa huling araw at ito ang kanilang samahan. Ginamit niya ang 
    Matthew 21:43 at Acts 1:6-7 as proofs.
    Tinanggal daw ang kaharian sa Israel at ito ay muling lilitaw sa huling panahon ay Ito ANG kanilang GRUPO. Totoo kaya ito?

    Mali po! Ang sinabi ng Panginoon Jesus sa Mateo 21:43 ay totoo pero hindi tungkol sa Iglesia Ni Soriano, Ito ay tungkol sa ITINAYO NG PANGINOON Jesus na KANYANG Iglesia.


    Matthew 16:17-19 NRSV
    [17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. [18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. [19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

    Ano naman ang Acts 1:6-7?

    Let us read:

    Acts 1:6-8 NRSV
    [6] So when they had come together, they asked him, “Lord, is this the time when you will restore the kingdom to Israel?” [7] He replied, “It is not for you to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. [8] But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

    Ang Panginoon ay sinabihan ang mga apostol na “IT IS NOT FOR YOU TO KNOW”. Christ or the Messiah is the person that the Israelites were waiting for to reestablish the political kingdom of Israel. Pero ang IBINIGAY sa Iglesia sa pamamagitan ng mga apostol ay HINDI LANG ISRAEL KUNDI ANG BUONG MUNDO, “be my witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria AND TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH.”

    Kaya claro na ITO AY NAGBUNGA NG MARAMI at ito ang Iglesia Katolika! Walang sinabi sa Bible na ANG kaharian ay lilitaw sa mga huling araw. Lalabas na ang itinayo ng Panginoon Jesus na Iglesia ay Hindi kaharian ng Dios at kay Soriano Ang totoong kaharian ng Dios. Paano yan Yong inaniban nila ay Hindi kaharian ng Dios pero silang umanib ay kaharian ng Dios?

    Sana ay maliwanagan ang mga NASA dilim at idilat ang mga mata na nakapikit!

    • That kingdom taken from Israel given to a nation giving fruit in my opinion is the church set up by Christ, as during this time, Judaism was abrogated by the church but not in the sense of Winnie’s explanation as he said:
    • Pero ang IBINIGAY sa Iglesia sa pamamagitan ng mga apostol ay HINDI LANG ISRAEL KUNDI ANG BUONG MUNDO, “be my witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria AND TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH.”

  • Kaya claro na ITO AY NAGBUNGA NG MARAMI at ito ang Iglesia Katolika!
  • Winnie’s assumption is biblically unsupported whereas another possibility is, the giving of much fruit is in terms of good works/righteousness.
  • Colossians 1:10
  • [10]That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;
  • MCGI, being the resurgence of the true church has the right to claim, that fruitful and blessed nation, presently are us.
  • Lastly, 
  • How could a nation bring fruit as you said are converts. Can a nation’s fruit be itself? Can a nation bring fruit and that is itself? Nope. Fruits are the product of the nation. The nation cannot be the product of itself as the tree is not the fruit of the tree.
  • Matthew 21:43
  • 43]Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 

  • 1 Peter 2:9
  • [9]But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
  • There!
  • Now you see why Winnie is mere ambition sans the capacity who is fond on challenging Bro Eli yet shamefully, he cannot pass over me?
  • For the love of God!
  • Sincerely,
  • An inactive member since 2001.


    Some say though, Muhammad has revelations outside Quran, thus there were actions he did outside Quranic ruling.

    A commentary by someone:

    . “If we interpret 53:1-5 as “whatever prophet says is revelation (outside Qur’an)” then what about the following verses:

    May Allah pardon you, ; why did you give them permission ? Until it was evident to you who were truthful and you knew  the liars. [Qur’an 09:43]

    So, here we see Allah pointing out that Muhammad gave a wrong command.

    O Prophet, why do you prohibit what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [Qur’an 66:01]

    Here we observe that prophet made the mistake of forbidding something which Allah did not forbid.

    My question is, if 53:1-5 means that whatever prophet ordered or did out of free-will is revelation from Allah, how can prophet make mistakes as shown in the above ayats?”


    Logically, what it means by “whatever prophet say is revelation” concerns everything he says regarding Quran and not his personal words, bec his personal words are sometimes wrong therefore his personal words were not allahs revelation thus when he said, 

    “On this Prophet (S.A.W.) said that he have judgment according to the divine command.”

    Referring to Torahs “kill all male captives” as his basis for killing jew captives, it could either be his personal words, which in essence could be wrong as he was wrong before or it could be a revelation. If a revelation, it must be in the quran.


    By the star when it descends, your companion [Muhammad] has not strayed, nor has he erred, Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination. It is not but a revelation revealed, taught to him by one intense .

    it is the speech of a noble Messenger. It is not the speech of a poet (little do you believe) nor the speech of a soothsayer (little do you remember). A sending down from the Lord of all Being. Had he invented against Us any sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would surely have cut his life-vein. S. 69:40-46 Arberry

    And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, those who look not to encounter Us say, ‘Bring a Koran other than this, or alter it.’ Say: ‘It is not for me to alter it of my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.’ S. 10:15 Arberry

    As suggested by these, whatever Muhammad therefore do, in regards to the muslims as a collective acts or as universal law must have necessary ruling from the Quran, logically speaking, as actions otherwise than Quran, sometimes he erred as presented above thus when Allah said, whatever Muhammad say or do is his revelation, and that regarding it, he never erred, it is therefore emphatically referring, to muhammad’s words or actions sanctioned by Quranic ruling, as otherwise Muhammad erred which is inconsistent with what Allah said that muhammad don’t err, meaning, he don’t err regarding Quranic revelation, whereas, his personal inkling sometimes were wrong.

    It is corroborated by the claim that Quran is “complete” revelation! Or fully detailed, Meaning, all laws are in Quran, which by the hadiths are clarified, therrefore muhammads deeds in the hadiths such as killing captives must have quranic basis.

    Quran 6:114] Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? Those who received the scripture recognize that it has been revealed from your Lord, truthfully. You shall not harbor any doubt. 

    [Quran 6:115] The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice.

    When Quran is fully detailed, complete in truth, and it did not say, Muhammad can teach things which are not in it, rationally, every teaching muhammad teach that is not in Qur’an therefore  is false.


    Bec Qur’an is full or complete, and without specification of extra-quranic teachings suggests that every teaching must have Qur’anic basis.


    O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth.

    And bec you must not exceed the limits that Quran is the sole basis of truth and hadith’s are mere clarificatory to it, the question therefore is, where in quran did allah permits killing captives or did quran permitted Muhammad to use torah or any mans verdict such as saad as basis to kill captives as i cannot see anything?

    If none, conclusively, Muhammad exceeds and transgressed the limits thus, a murderer.

    These are the bounds, the limits set by Allah. Do not then transgress them for who transgress them are evil doers. [Surah Al-Baqarah (2): Ayah 229],

    and in Surah Al-Talq, Ayah 1, Allah says:

    And those are the set limits of Allah and whosoever transgresses the set limits of Allah then he indeed has wronged himself.


    And Allah?

    And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error. [Quran 33:36]


    So where in the Quran any ruling of killing captives by virtue of the Torah or by virtue of a non-muslim’s verdict (saad)?


    If none, it is confirmatory of Muhammad as murderer and Allah, a liar!

    Indeed, there is none in Quran that sanctioned Muhammad to kill by virtue of a non Jew’s verdict, yet saying Muhammad don’t err and his words were by revelation clearly manifests Muhammad as disobeying allah which say, Muhammad must act only by revelation which he did not thus disobeying allah and by saying that Muhammad is a model of conduct for Muslims then Allah allowed rulers of Islam to disobey Allah in their discretion and still its moral conduct, Muhammad being the model.

    Therefore, rulers of Islam can disobey Allah if they decide to and impose a ruling even if its against Quran and yet its moral conduct. Therefore, disobeying Allah is recommended by Allah as moral conduct.
    That for sure is demonic.