Harmony is a key factor to biblical interpretation. We must put biblical passages in harmony as nothing contradictory must ensue from what is religiously truth. Aside from harmony, logic and context are an integral part of biblical interpretation. Therefore, for a reliable conclusion to be achievable these key factors must be present to solidify ones stand.

So for the question: how could jesus be the creator when god is the only creator?

Actually, when saying god is the only creator is a presupposition. Its presumptive. Here is their reference:

Isaiah 44:24
[24]Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Without context it would mean god is the only creator, but we know that such approach is stupid. The bible is made up of multiple verses so to single out one passage and make immediate conclusion is outward stupidity. We need to utilize logic and context and find a harmonious relationship between passages. But before that let us examine if the concept that only god is the creator is strong enough as proposition.

I have to ask: Is it in general terms that god is the only creator?


Does it imply a being only one in specific terms,

Such as an only creator as the source of all things

While jesus is creator by being an instrument?

As i said, we may have to apply context and logic as implied:

Ecclesiastes 7:27
[27]Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account:

Counting one by one is contextual. You consider all necessary verses one by one meaning it refers to context. To find out the account refers to conclusion by logical assessment. Therefore, we need logic and context. And for context, can we read that jesus is a creator?

Absolutely. Here is the texts:

Hebrews 1:8-10
[8]But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
[9]Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
[10]And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

How is jesus a creator? By being an instrument of god implied by the usage of the preposition through.

John 1:1-3
[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.
[3]All things were made through him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:15-16
[15]Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
[16]For through him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created through him, and for him:

Therefore, by employing context we could see how jesus was a creator by being an instrument of god in creating everything. Logic then should harmonize how these verses were in relation to one another.

And by asking: Is it in general terms that god is the only creator? It should open possibilities than how at face value it was projected. The lack of any confirmatory answer to the question, would negate the idea of an only creator in general aspect and seeing jesus as a creator arises other direction for interpretation.

So is god the only creator with regards to a general scope meaning, of all living being, is he the only creator?

This question was answered. Jesus too is a creator. Therefore, by applying logic we come to different hypothesis how god is the only creator when jesus too is a creator, and the logical approach provided one:

God is the only creator by being the source of all things while jesus is a creator by being an instrument of god.

That is the logical conclusion as harmony between these apparently contradictory passages. This logical approach was opened up bec of the lack of resolution to the question: Is god an only creator in general terms?

There was no mention of such general terms in the verse thus necessitates a logical approach.



Moral code. This one sets apart organizations from one another. Inherently, religious organizations have abiding moral codes. Atheism has it too, but what separates christianity from among organizations or beliefs systems to be distinctly, the only existing belief system that is divine in nature?

It could only be from its moral code that sets everything to a higher plane, to even considered as abiding highest moral code.

Adultery. Literally was by illicit love affairs but christianity sets it on a higher plane by advocating mental fantasies to be adultery.

Murder. Literally its a lawless killing. Christianity sets it on a higher plane by stating that hatred toward a brother is murder. It sets it on a higher plane.

But what i believed to be the highest moral code in terms of humanity is the evangelical prescription of christ to love enemies. This to me is the highest moral code achievable for any person. It sets christianity in a higher plane than Islam.

We are aware how Islam behaves with regards to enemies of war. Islam advocated the killing of enemies that oppressed them and displaced them out of their homes. And for those who breaks treaties. They kill them. They hunts them. They ambushed them. They go to war against them. They punished them with death penalty.

Christianity abolished the sense of vengeance, killing and hate. It sets it to a higher plane.

Matthew 5:44-48
[44]But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
[45]That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
[46]For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
[47]And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
[48]Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This for me is the highest moral code in terms of humanity. It abolish vengeance and hatred. It abolish any reason for war. Conclusively, it brings peace. But the core of the matter is, its a sign of perfection.

…Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect…

In what context, does we show love for enemies? It is by the very context of love.

1 Corinthians 13:4-8
[4]Charity (or love) suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
[5]Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
[6]Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
[7]Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
[8]Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

Love is patient and kind, doesnt envy, isnt proud, is not evil etc… It is summed up in one thing: your love for your ownself, right? How if you dont want harm for yourself, you dont want it for others as well. How if you dont want hunger, you dont want for others as well. Etc…

That is love in its very essence.

Romans 12:19-20
[19]Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
[20]Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

This is how you love your enemies. Love them by how you loved yourselves as a christian.

Matthew 7:12
[12]Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

This is love. And this sums up every divine revelation. To love…

If you love enemies, every aspect of christian love must be given to enemies and by being that, it sets humanity to a higher plane.

Yet muslims tried to object by saying: can you love your daughter’s rapist and murderer?

Naturally, our human innateness could be a barrier as initially there would be anger but for a true believer, submission to god is paramount thus the necessity to oblige and that as inevitable, is a test of faith how indeed we love god. We love enemies bec we love god. But does that includes satan?

Nope. Exeption to the rule are entities who hates god.

2 Chronicles 19:2
[2]And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD.

Therefore, we dont love anyone who hates god but we dont hate them either.

On perspective, we see how love has been the more superior moral code than anything in this world.

1 Corinthians 13:1-3
[1]Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity (or love) I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
[2]And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity (or love), I am nothing.
[3]And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity (or love), it profiteth me nothing.

Therefore, loving enemies, in all aspect is the better principle than vengeance, hate, killing and war. It sets humanity to a higher plane. Likewise, christianity than islam.


Many manuscripts in archaeological find have emerged as our primary source of faith. And it was said by scholars that no two manuscripts are in essence the same. Meaning, in multiple manuscripts bearing the same verse, it would be fairly deduced that no two same verse are alike in content. This reflects the reality that discrepancies were part of the copying procedure and as with the transmission, only one verse from multiple manuscript for every verse was deemed correct. This is the case for John 1:18.

Reality was exposed how two passages were entailed in this verse as follows:

Monogenes theos


Monogenes huios

Or if translated in english are the only begotten god and the only begotten son respectively.

Which one of these could be correct is a matter of dissenting view among scholars. It was irresolute how to construe a verifiable choice with these. It cannot therefore be resolved which of these is correct by simply, basing on scholars’ view.

So, if it remains that way, should we say that regarding the true deity of christ it is irresolute?

So either of the two could be correct.

If it is monogenes theos then as it is not biblically contradictory to any passage provided it is subjected to objective assessment as we do, then it proclaims jesus as true god.

Monogenes theos or only begotten god referring to jesus confirms john 1:1 the word was god so being in absolute terms the same god (john 1:18 the only begotten god and john 1:1 the word was god) then jesus must be the true god for having preexisted with god in the beginning as it say in john 1:2:

…the same was in the beginning with god…

Therefore, irrectifiably true, then jesus cannot be merely human. He has a god component which basically is a true god. And for saying it is irrectifiably true, then that first must be proven. How?

We may have to utilize an aramaic peshitta bible through Lamsa version in Rom 9:5 saying:

…Christ…who is god over all…

This could be questioned in matters of objection but not on its merit as authentic scripture. How could it be an authentic scripture? For the mere fact that nothing disproves it and for being non-contradictory to any biblical passage. Therefore validating john 1:18’s monogenes theos, we have a guarantee how Jesus is truly god.

But then there are objections such as this:

This half verse has been the center of interminable controversy. The issue appears from a comparison of our two English texts. Is God over all, be blessed forever (or the one who is over all, God blessed forever) a phrase in apposition with “Christ” and belonging in the same sentence as the rest of vs.5 (so the KJV and the RSV mg.), or is this phrase grammatically separate, a doxology to God at the end of the recital of the privileges of Israel (so the RSV and most modern translators?) The question cannot be answered on the basis of Greek since it is a matter almost entirely punctuation and Greek MSS in the early period were not punctuated.” “…but the choice is probably to be made between the KJV and the RSV translations. The majority of modern commentators favor the latter because of the unlikehood of Paul’s having here referred to Christ as ‘God’. (The Interpreter’s bible, vol. 9 p.540)

The thing is, this is subjective view considering other views on the matter, therefore Lamsa’s Rom 9:5 cannot be disproven considering a better logical approach as i tried to debunk the notion of a single god.

Read here for that:

Please continue reading by opening the link above. Its a short blog as supplemental to disprove the objection that Rom 9:5 in Lamsa contradicted what Paul has written in other verses.

But for john 1:18 and rom 9:5 heralding christ as true god, we might as well take into consideration how these two verses are problematic for its being objected and without scholars’ agreement on its message–jesus’ true deity–but simply for being in harmony and non-contradictory to biblical context, we take these as authentic scriptures.

Thank you.


Evolution has two categories i suppose: micro evolution and macro evolution. I dont need to elaborate on specifics. My belief in evolution is primarily on the basis of species-to-species evolution as exemplified on the study of the Darwin’s finches wherein one species of finches evolved into another species of finches. What i mean to say is, evolution is true on this parameter: bird evolves to bird, dogs evolve to dogs, fish evolves to fish etc… but neither beyond its kind. Monkeys evolve to monkeys but neither beyond its kind. Neither to dogs, fish or even to human bec these are not its kind.

My belief on evolution sparked about biblically but only within the aforementioned parameter.

Let us prove how biblically, evolution was supported.

God said, he created vegetation before sunlight was created.

Genesis 1:11-19
[11]And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
[12]And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
[13]And the evening and the morning were the third day.
[14]And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
[15]And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
[16]And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
[17]And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
[18]And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
[19]And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

If that is the case, how could vegetation thrived without sunlight? Logically, it will die. And indeed it was, for the reality of re-vegetation to be stated as it say:

Genesis 2:4-6
[4]These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
[5]And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
[6]But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

By saying:

…for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground…

It logically construe reality that there was no vegetation during these times but then there was rain:

…But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground…

Bec of the rain, vegetation fluorished.

…And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground…

Therefore, when vegetation died it regerminated after there was rain, and for rain to be possible, the presence of sunlight must first materialized. So when there was re-vegetation, it happened after sunlight was created.

So what have we? Vegetation died bec there was no sunlight then after the sun was created, and the first rain happened, regermination became possible. How could regermination be possible?

By the seeds of the dead vegetation, right? Vegetation died leaving its seeds on the ground and as it dried, they could still regerminate even after 100-200 years of being dry seeds. That could be the most logical conclusion, right?

So what have we? Regermination from dry seeds.

So that is how vegetation was in the earliest part of life, right? Of course according to the bible. So initially, all plants are seed bearing plants. So how come, today we have non-seed bearing plants?

Logically, it could point out to no other culprit than evolution. Plants evolved to plants.

The thing in question is, the evolution of man, how it could be true when biblically it tells us that man came from dust?

Is evolution in this matter a complete info to be regarded as conclusive?

How much percentage of reality was discovered regarding it?

We dont know. Therefore to say it is fact is neither supported at all by the limited scope we have regarding it. Fact is, we dont know if what was discovered is enough for conclusion. Could it be 75% or .0000075% in relation to absolute reality? By having no knowledge, we cannot be conclusive.

So is evolution true? Yes. It could be true for certain aspects. A species-to-species evolution within its kind could be true but beyond it, i dont believe it much so that the bible spoke with regards its opposite: man came from dust.


1400 years of Islamic caliphate produced horrendous result in terms of casualties from war, conquest and bloodshed. Muslims trying to defend this barbarity would present the concept that Muslims were in no way the aggressor but consistently as islamic principle only fight by one reason: self-defense.

But could this be a reality much so that much of history has been hidden for scrutiny?

Let us look on the casualties of 1400 years of islamic jihad how much it was estimated in millions.

“[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people.”

“The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10].”

“A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad.”

“Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the total jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.]”

Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]”

A rough estimate of 270 million people killed by islamic jihad over 1400 years span of time reflects muslim mentality how these number could have only been achievable through self-defense so as present day Muslims claim.
But was 1400 years of war and bloodshed a product of self-defense really?

Who knows, right?

But we can have a preview how islamic principle was during muhammad’s time to have a peek on how muslims do behave in terms of war and bloodshed. Was Muhammad indeed consistently killing people in the sake of self-defense?

How could that be reality when having prisoners of wars like Banu Quraisha he murdered 700 men and teens without the determination of guilt…

Read here for the elaboration:

Moreover, Muhammad’s massacre of 700 Banu Quraisha was by disobedience to Allah, and yet such disobedience, Allah regarded it as good conduct.

Read here for the elaboration:

Therefore, to have this as inherent attribute: to kill prisoners of wars without determination of guilt and to kill prisoners of war by disobeying Allah, reflects on the reality that killing innocent people is a islamic reality bec without determination of guilt you might be killing innocent civilians. This is not self-defense. This is an offensive maneuver so to say that 1400 years of bloodshed was through self-defense is quite doubtful. How could self-defense as mode of excuse be reliable when it is suspicious by how Muhammad behaved: killing prisoners of war without determination of guilt. In short, they were inclined to kill innocent prisoners of war. So how could self-defense in times of killings be believable?

If you dont determine guilt, you could possibly kill innocent people and for Muhammad to have not determined guilt in the first place, then it construe how he was intent on killing the innocent prisoners.

If so, why not the innocent in general?

With this reality, it muddles on how truly the idea is, that muslims only fight for self-defense is true?


What is the NCAF Dangal ng Bayan awards?

Here is an info from their site:


The Grand Tribute to Filipino World-Class Products & Achievers
Founded in 1981

Founded in 1981 by the National Consumer Affairs Foundation (NCAF) and the Dangal ng Bayan Awards Committee headed by civic leader and consumer welfare advocate Jonathan “Jake” Navea, the DANGAL NG BAYAN AWARDS (DBA), is a prestigious national tribute conferred on “WORLD-CLASS FILIPINO PRODUCTS AND ACHIEVERS” with the premier vision of motivating Filipinos to achieve excellence thru public recognition eventually contributing to nation-building and Filipino “greatness” worldwide.

For details, visit: or


The NATIONAL CONSUMER AFFAIRS FOUNDATION (NCAF) jointly with the WHO’S WHO IN THE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION (WWPF) have been significantly recognizing the accomplishments of outstanding Filipino achievers in public service, sports, education, business and other major professional fields, who have contributed and enhanced their God-given talents and skills towards nation-building.

Thru public recognition, the project envisions to motivate the Filipinos to further excel in their chosen fields for the rest of the citizenry to emulate. Event proceeds will benefit the DAMAYAN Youth & Senior Citizens Welfare & Livelihood Program.”

It says:

is a prestigious national tribute conferred on “WORLD-CLASS FILIPINO PRODUCTS AND ACHIEVERS” with the premier vision of motivating Filipinos to achieve excellence thru public recognition eventually contributing to nation-building and Filipino “greatness” worldwide...

…to further excel in their chosen fields for the rest of the citizenry to emulate…

Does it imply that having such award makes you an exemplary figure for the Philippines? For saying these:

contributing to nation-building and Filipino “greatness” worldwide

Is it not considering Bro Eli as a great filipino and an example:

…for the rest of the citizenry to emulate…

And doesnt it imply that this award-giving body has investigated his personal life how he was profoundly criticized for his rape cases and libel cases especially from those the INC has muddled on his integrity yet despite it, reality surmounted on a higher scale how they perceived him as innocent thus awarded him with a prestigious honor?

Having these, we might as well ask the question:


Is it the INC, our rival church, who have been derogatory on bro eli’s reputation to have him accused as sodomite without any valid evidence or any confirmatory basis but simply banking on our heated rivalry?

Is it INC who muddled bro eli’s reputation through trumped-up libel cases?

Is it the judges who convicted him of at least two libel cases?


Is it the Dangal ng Bayan Award-giving body who despite his muddled integrity has yet considered him innocent by upholding him with honor as “a filipino great”?

Think about it, folks. We, on the other hand has thought on the guilty verdicts inflicted on Bro Eli as simply, judicial errors but who are you to say, how bro eli really is with regards to this conflicting reality: DANGAL NG BAYAN VS INC…???

Who has credibility?


Who among you believed that science is the standard of truth?

I have to ask that first as a premise to a logic i formulated. How could you prove science as the standard of truth?

Bec someone proclaimed it is which someone is self proclaimed as spokesperson?


Is it bec it is the belief of majority of the people?

Think. If it concerns absolute reality, how could a limited field be a standard?

Next question. Does science know absolute reality?

Let us consult it.

Science is ongoing. Science is continually refining and expanding our knowledge of the universe, and as it does, it leads to new questions for future investigation. Sciencewill never be “finished.” Science is a global human endeavor.

To say, science is expanding our knowledge, to say, there is future investigation conclusively attests the inadequacy of science to have known absolute reality.

So for that, how could it be the standard of truth when it makes itself fallible as by the aspect of inabsoluteness. Its not complete. Its not fully reliable as by the aspect of seeing the bigger picture.

Does science see the bigger picture?

It doesnt. So how could it be fully reliable. Meaning, todays fact could be tomorrows fiction. That is science. However you think an established fact is fully reliable, it is inevitable that you relinquish such idea when you have seen the bigger picture.

Lets do logic by comparative means. In high school english academics, we were taught to analyze an indian poem entitled, “the six blind men and an elephant“. This is relevant on this matter.

The six blind men were tasked to decipher what an elephant is and how it looks. The first blind man approached the elephant and with his hands touched the ear of the elephant and with great intellect have efforted on it studiously, to have said:

Yes. I know what an elephant is. Bearing the flappy resemblance to a fan i concluded, the elephant is a fan.

Folks, we as human beings is represented by that blind man how we make conclusion about many things we are unmindfully limited to have ever grasped. How could we be conclusive about something we cannot see it in its bigger picture.

Let us apply this indian wisdom for things like evolution.

Yes, science declares evolution as a theory which in scientific lingo is tantamount to fact. So evolution is a fact.

The thing is, we dont see yet the absolute reality in that regards. We cannot see the bigger picture. Is evolution complete by itself?

How can you tell not knowing absolute reality?

God said, he created man from dust. Could this be the reality that science as a blind man cannot see?

The blind man say, the elephant is a fan. Science says, evolution is a fact.

That as logical is relative in essence bec of the reason that we cannot see the bigger picture. Its as if science say with regards to evolution, the elephant is a fan. Evolution being partial reality which if seen through a wider scope could be a misconclusion.

Try on logic folks.

Science is saying: Evolution (elephant) is a fact (fan)…

God who sees absolute reality says: Man came from dust…

Science is just a piece of the bigger picture. How could it be the standard of truth? If youre thinking, you should not be fully conclusive with regards to science which in the first place is not immutable.

Finally, let me quote:


So my advice for you atheists is this: God is the higher plane than science and he is provable. If you cannot believe it, then at least, believe the logic otherwise you are a fool.

From a thinking christian…


Many pastors have unequivocally expressed the idea that after the fall of Adam, all people have sinned and for catholics, babies dont escape this universal plague–sin. How shall we view this in relation to how my faith in MCGI has taught me in manner how truly it must be viewed?

Let us see…

Romans 5:12
[12]Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

It say, by adam sin entered into the world and death, implying spiritual death has passed upon all men. Immediately, they conclude that mankind has been condemned but was it speaking conclusively that way if we are to compare it to context?

Romans 5:18
[18]Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Was it all men in general spoken of as spiritually dead or it only speaking specifically of all evil men not necessarily of mankind?

Let us consult context.

Romans 5:19
[19]For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Context is saying that when it speaks of all men it was not in general terms by invoking it as quantitively, many. Question, is many suggestive of the whole mankind?

It isnt quite rational though. So who are these all men that sinned if not speaking in general terms?

Romans 3:10-18,23
[10]As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
[11]There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
[12]They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
[13]Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
[14]Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
[15]Their feet are swift to shed blood:
[16]Destruction and misery are in their ways:
[17]And the way of peace have they not known:
[18]There is no fear of God before their eyes.
[23]For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

It say, all have sinned, noone is righteous, noone seek for god, etc… Is this the characteristic of mankind so for all men, in general to have sinned? Obviously not as there were people who were righteous like this:

Job 1:1
[1]There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

But they might postulate a counter measure by saying: show us someone outside religion who fear god, or righteous and doing good?

Logically, are there none? Let us see…

Romans 2:14-15
[14]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
[15]Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Clearly it say, there are gentiles who have not the law meaning they never encountered any written law of god. But by nature, they do these law, meaning, they dont do it from reading it bec they dont have the written law so they do it naturally:

…do by nature the things contained in the law…

Meaning, these law were naturally imprinted in their hearts:

…do by nature the things contained in the law…

…Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts…

So if they do these, then they are doing good as the law is good.

Romans 7:12
[12]Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

It defuncted the idea that all men have sinned, none righteous, none doing good, right? These people who have sinned are obviously all men who are not righteous.

What is their counter argument?

Ephesians 2:12
[12]That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

It say, gentiles were without christ and without hope. Therefore, they assume that outside christ during mosaic era:

…being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel…

Then gentiles are hopeless in terms of salvation. But we have to use logic and context here. Paul said, gentiles who have not the written law but acting in response to law natural in their hearts are doing good thus as per divine jurisprudence they are justified:

Romans 2:13
[13](For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Conclusively, there are gentiles outside religion that as specific on written law that do good and is justified. Therefore to say that all men in general sinned bec nobody is righteous, nobody is doing good, is wrong and out of context.

Those who have no hope are the evil ones:

…There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God…
there is none that doeth good, no, not one…

Fact is, the blind has no sin.

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.

Therefore, to say that mankind sinned after the fall of adam to have included babies is false.

Romans 5:18
[18]Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Bec if all men in general was condemned, or sinned, does it mean all men in general is justified?

…even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life…


In a debate, my muslim opponent bragged of the islamic reality that Allah has spoken in first person. He said that in first person he admitted three things, that he is Allah, he is the only God and that he sent the scriptures to the prophets.

He then challenged me: where can we read that the biblical god said, i am god im giving you, o moses, the torah?

Its as if, declarations made in first person validates Allah to be true god, but is it? Though we cannot read any direct testimony in that manner as far as im concerned but biblically, we can prove the biblical god as the one who gave the bible.

David testified:

1 Kings 2:1-3
[1]Now the days of David drew nigh that he should die; and he charged Solomon his son, saying,
[2]I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man;
[3]And keep the charge of YHWH thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:

David have emphasized on two things that god’s words were in the law of moses and his name as YHWH. For saying god’s words such as statutes and judgments etc… were in the law or torah then it implies that it was god who gave it for it to be written in the torah. So we have here an instance that indirectly affirms god giving the torah.

Was David lying?

1 Kings 3:14-15

[14]And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days.
[15]And Solomon awoke; and, behold, it was a dream.

According to God, david was telling the truth as he is a faithful and loyal man validating biblical reality that god gave the torah of moses and that the name of god is YHWH.

Are there other revelation in this regards?

Yes. God said:

Malachi 4:4
[4]Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.

This prove that god sent the torah. How about the whole bible?

Isaiah 34:16
[16]Seek ye out of the writing of YHWH and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want additional one: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Writing of YHWH. It could only speaks about biblical writing as confirmatory by saying writing of YHWH, gathered and none shall want additional one. There was never a scripture gathered and likewise regarded as writing of god that never supplemented with additional religious writing other than biblical writing. So it speaks about the bible. This as attested significantly, that biblical writing are by god:

…Writing of YHWH…

And for it to be by god then it means, he sent it. How could we validate this isaiah verse?

Jesus himself used Isaiah as reference therefore validating the reliability of the book.

Matthew 15:7
[7]Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

So YHWH sent the bible. How shall we prove the reliability of the term YHWH?

This name was God’s eternal name.

Psalms 41:13
[13]Blessed be YHWH God of Israel from everlasting, and to everlasting. Amen, and Amen.

This was his name unknown to the patriarchs.

Exodus 6:3
[3]And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name YHWH was I not known to them.

When did he introduce himself by that name?

It was during Israel’s bondage in israel as he wanted to be known by the hebrews.

Exodus 6:3,6
[6]Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am YHWH, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:

He was the god of the fathers like abraham, isaac and jacob.

Exodus 4:5
[5]That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee.

Being the god of the fathers then he too is the god of christians as it say:

Hebrews 1:1-2
[1]God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
[2]Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

For saying:

…Hath in these last days spoken unto us…

It implies he is the god of christians bec god speaks to us, christians. Logically, that would be how it is meaning, the god of the fathers and the prophets is likewise the god of christians.

His personal and proper name is YHWH.

Exodus 6:3
[3]And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name YHWH was I not known to them.

I have shown you how the god of the fathers and the prophets is likewise the christian god and his name is YHWH.

Is it bec Quran has been specific to have said:

…I am allah and i dont recognize other gods beside me…

Then it follows that Allah is the personal name of God? Why then did god said his only personal name is YHWH?


Psalms 83:18
[18]That men may know that thou, whose name alone is YHWH art the most high over all the earth.

This was validated by Isaiah to have confirmed the bible as writing of YHWH.

Likewise, jesus validated the authenticity of psalms as authentic scripture.

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.

So on this note, how could ALLAH be god seeing he has only a single personal name: YHWH?


Here is an interview done with Apollo Quiboloy:

Most Christians believe that they are the sons and daughters of God but you say you are the Son, you are the appointed Second Coming of Jesus, that’s what you believe?

PASTOR: In the denominational interpretation, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is a literal second coming of the Jewish body of Jesus Christ. Well, it did not happen even when these so called prophets in the Christian era were prophesying about that because they have the wrong interpretation of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. If ever Jesus Christ would come back in His Jewish body, as they believe He will, what is He going to come back for, if man is not restored back to Him, because God’s residence is man, when man is still full of the serpent seed although he says he is a Christian?

Sir, He says in Matthew 25, “When the Son of Man comes in all His glory and His angels with Him, He’ll sit on a throne of glory, separate the goats from the sheep in the fi nal judgment… two billion Christians believe that.

PASTOR: In the Church Age, even in the Jewish Age, they have a wrong interpretation of the Second Coming.So they’re all wrong?

PASTOR: Well, if you look at it spiritually and if you listen to me and compare it, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ can be interpreted as literal or physical and it can also be interpreted as spiritual. For us in the Kingdom Age, fi rst of all, it is spiritual. How can He work in us when we are still not delivered from the serpent seed, from our own will and when we have not yet surrendered to His Will fully. That’s why He has to choose each one of us in the Church Age. But there are so many factions in the Church Age: there’s the Catholic body, there is the Protestant body, there’s the Pentecostal body, the Charismatic body. They have all the different interpretation of these revelations coming unto them. But there’s only one spiritual work that the Father wanted to do in the spirit of man because He said, “God is a Spirit, those that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.” (John 4:24) These are the worshippers that the Father is seeking after. We are always looking for heaven that’s why we are always waiting for the Second Coming. We say, “Heaven is being prepared for us.” We’re happy to go there. We are happy, but is God happy? He cannot dwell in heaven made of gold. He wanted to dwell in us. How can He dwell in us when we’ve been high jacked by Satan Lucifer the devil from the Garden? So the restoration should happen fi rst. If there is anyone of us that can become a son right now like the first created son, Adam, then the Father’s Kingdom of Heaven is already here on earth.

And… you are that man?

PASTOR: I am so glad that I am that man He has chosen, but I am not saying I am the only one. I am just the model. That’s why I’m spreading the Gospel of the Kingdom all over the world. Anyone who accepts this message and becomes sons and daughters will also be freed of the serpent seed of doing their own will, subjugating their will to the Will of the Father. They’ll become sons and daughters like me. That is the interpretation of being sons and daughters.

Moreover, he said these:

Quiboloy: “But as I said, I would not be distracted. What I am revealing to you, as it was revealed to me, was not revealed to others; that’s why nobody knows about it. And nobody can preach about it like I do.”
Quiboloy: “I am the way the truth the life no man cometh unto the Father except by ME [Quiboloy].”

From his website:

“This is very important, because once this has been declared the Lord will have a residence here. Whoever He chooses to dwell in, automatically, that is the Son. That is the body. The Deliverer has come! The Father has come! He has come because He found Himself a body. He has come in a manner that they did not expect.
The Deliverer has come, will you accept Him? The Bible says, “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is anti-christ, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.” (I John 2:22-23)
The Son is the body that the Father resides in. And the Father is going to deliver His people through the Son. The Father is going to rule as the King through the Son. This was the proclamation we had in the year 2000, This is the “Reign of the Father through the Son.”
“The Father is now testifying to you, through the Son. This is the testimony that God has given us eternal life. This life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life. He who does not have the Son of God does not have life.”

How shall we view this in terms of biblical reality?

Christ coming is remarkable, it will be known in that very moment worldwide that he came already.

Mt 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Before Christ comes a heaven quake as the last sign would occur.
Mt 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mt 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Before christ comes, heaven will be shaken. This is the final sign before he appears.

Hb 12:26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet ONCE MORE I shake not the earth only, but also heaven.
Hb 12:27 And this [word], Yet ONCE MORE signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.

…signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made…

As in greek

hos hoce
probably adverb of comparative from G3739;
which how, i.e. in that manner (very variously used, as follows).


…and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken…

That impending quake is a physical heaven quake as implied:

…the removing of those things that are shaken IN THAT MANNER of things that are made (or created)

If the removal of things shaken is in that manner of things created, then it is in terms of physical removal as those things removed are the created things therefore for those things shaken to be physically removed then it implies that these things shaken are physical as well bec these are the created things. Therefore those things shaken are the created things.

…IN THAT MANNER of things that are made…

So the question we would ask is: How could created things be shaken if not by physical means?

This proves that that last sign before jesus appearance–a heaven quake–is physical in nature. So we might as well ask, when did such happen prior to Quiboloy’s advent?