The Roman Catholic Church is Not The True Church of God (via Eliseo Soriano)

Very Well said Bro. Eli!

The Roman Catholic Church is Not The True Church of God I am giving way to a response posted by a certain Kay for my article entitled "Are Other Christian Not True Churches?". I appreciate the responses to my comment and the spirit of Christian correction in which they are given. I understand your passion to defend the truth as you perceive it, as this similar passion is the same love I have for the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Though not all of the posts directed to me were polite and on-tangent, than … Read More

via Eliseo Soriano

The Virtue of Humility, a Superhero’s Quality

By Heaven’s Knight

Every man in this world possesses his own inborn ability or talent. Some are outstanding in academic aspects, and some in arts and literature. Others are gifted to have a beautiful voice, while others are in painting, or dancing, or acting. What more can we ask in this world which is abundant of persons showered by God of different talents and different skills!

But, no matter how talented a person is, no matter how well he mastered his craft, no matter how proficient he is in his ability, modesty and humility should not be forgotten. As God gave us different talents, he also disciplined us on how to handle these. St. Paul wrote Corinthian to learn to acknowledge the source of different unique characteristics.

(I Corinthians 4:7 NKJV)

For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

Most people are always more delighted to see a person greater than what was expected in him. That could be better than those who are boasting themselves but prove lesser than what was promised. Humility and meekness make the difference. Because of this kind of attribute, many heroes were generally accepted and admired by most people. Even fictional characters like Superman, though they possessed a supernatural strength, have a mild character like any ordinary people.

Superman, the Man of Steel, known to be meek in his Clark Kent mode.

Our Lord Jesus Christ gave example of this kind of trait. Despite of the fact that He is the Son of the Almighty God, He humbled Himself and mingled with servants.

(Philippians 2:5-8)

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

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

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

But if there is a hero in every story, a villain could be expected. Jesus Christ, as a hero of our faith, has an antagonist – satan. They have the opposite character where satan is so much ambitious to exalt himself to equal with God.

(Isaiah 14:12-14)

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

So That Everyone Should Know

In the following statements made by Abraham “Abe” Arganiosa, a Catholic priest, in his response against Members of the Church of God International’s (MCGI) belief, we have a very good example of an egotist.

Abe Arganiosa said,

HINDI  NAMAN EVIDENCIA ANG IYONG BINIBIGAY. THE RULE OF EVIDENCE IS THAT THE ONE ARGUING MUST PRESENT A RELIABLE DOCUMENT TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM.

In this statement, Abe is trying to pose as being knowledgeable in rules of evidence. It can also be seen through his other statements how well he boasts his intellect regarding this matter.

IF YOU ARE TALKING OF HISTORY. PRESENT BOOKS WRITTEN BY HISTORIANS. PRESENT SCHOLARLY DOCUMENTS FROM ENCYCLOPEDIAS NOT YOU TUBES AND ARTICLES WRITTEN BY UNKNOWN. HA, HA, HA…

I’M POSTING. BECAUSE IT DOCUMENTS FOR US HOW IGNORANT AND STUPID YOU ARE IN HISTORY JUST LIKE YOUR COMPANIONS WHO TRIED TO ARGUE WITH US ABOUT CONSTITUTION.

WE KNOW THE HISTORY OF OUR RELIGION. WE HAVE OUR OWN RELIABLE AND SCHOLARLY CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. IS THERE AN ADD ENCYCLOPEDIA? WALA, KASI WALA KAYONG KAKAYAHAN AT CREDIBILIDAD PARA GUMAWA NITO. (None, because you don’t have the capability and credibility to do these.)

If a professor of political law will have read Arganiosa’s remarks, he might raise his eyebrows. First, he stated that, “The rule of evidence is that the one arguing must present a reliable document to support his claim.” He then mentioned encyclopedias as examples of documents in conveying evidence.

Generally, books such as encyclopedias are taken by layman as documents but strictly speaking, they are not the same. According to Mr. Francis Africa, a Professor of Political Law and Mercantile Law, “Documents are manuscripts or pieces of printed matter regarded as conveying information or evidence. Examples are a deed of sale, a mortgage contract, a marriage certificate, a letter written by one person to another. It must be borne in mind that not everything reduce into writing is a document. Books, magazines, pamphlets, are to be regarded as personal testimonies of their authors.”1

1 Africa, The Art of Arg. and Deb., p.46

History books or encyclopedias, therefore, are not documents but testimonies of their authors. Arganiosa must know this for he  pass  himself off as knowledgeable in history and rule of evidence.

Another noticeable thing about Arganiosa, he presented his knowledge about rule of evidence but he seems to be violating the rule he, himself, has presented. Consider his statement.

ELI SORIANO IS TEACHING THAT THE ADD MEMBERS KNEEL BEFORE THE SUN.

He made an accusation that in any manner he hadn’t presented any reliable person, document, or any thing to support his assertion. In order to refute, he invented lies against Bro. Eli Soriano, the presiding minister of Members, Church of God International, then attacks the lies he invented. This is a very good example of a straw man argument, where “he sets a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.”

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

Some mistakes in argumentation could be pardonable if it was done out of honest misunderstanding. But, it is shocking to man’s conscience if mistakes are committed from a malicious intent to malign others, to distort the fact, or just to put others in ridicule. Someone who poses as a messenger of God but placing dignity as his jest could be prone in making prevarications. How much more if someone is doing it out of pure deviltry! Self-contradictions and inconsistencies are sure signs of having this kind of an unreliable arguer or speaker.

The Priest Refuting Himself

In his article entitled, “An ADD Inquires Catholic Practice of Kneeling Before Graven Images”, Abe Arganiosa clearly condemns the practice of praying towards the east. He even marked MCGI Members as doing satanic practice when kneeling towards this direction. He also called them stupid and ignorant. He said,

IN ALL ACCOUNT YOU ARE PAGANISTIC IN YOUR WORSHIP. KNEELING BEFORE THE EAST IS SATANIC PRACTICE FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU CLAIMED THAT IT IS IDOLATRY TO KNEEL BEFORE ANY CREATURES.

…Well, it seems that you are as stupid and as ignorant as she is. That is why she is poisoned by your reasonings. You have the same illogical ideas and distorted concept of truth.

But months later, he then contradicts what he stated – the very practice that he highly condemns is now the one he propagates.

First, The Ad Orientem is focused on Christ as the Light of our Life. Because for us Jesus is our God and He is our Light. When we pray to the East it symbolizes and manifests our essential doctrine of Jesus’ Divinity, that Christ as THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD.

The priest himself is also praying to the east. Whenever an argument has an inconsistency within itself, it is innately weak.

A Model of Humility

On the contrary, Bro. Eli Soriano, the one being attacked by Arganiosa, possesses a different characteristic. It can be manifested every time he was regarded or praised highly, he refused to accept such compliments. For example, he repudiates being called a Sir, from the Old English word sire which means Lord, and he prefers to be addressed simply as Brother Eli. More so, he also refuses being called as reverend, most holy father, your highness and the likes.  Bro. Eli Soriano never  graduated in high school but never in his life he poses himself nor boast like someone who has a very high profession. As what our Lord Jesus Christ taught, the same way Bro. Eli is practicing it.

http://esoriano.wordpress.com/2007/08/05/a-scientific-way-of-discovering-biblical-truth-part-2/

Bro. Eli Soriano

(James 4:10)

Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

It could be better if we inherit what our Lord Jesus Christ taught about humbleness for being boastful will not win the admiration of others more easily.

(Luke 14:11)

For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Continue reading

Survivor: Irish priest committed abuse, destroyed family

Orginally posted on http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/17/ireland.abuse.abroad/index.html

From Drew Griffin, CNN Special Investigations Unit

Brookfield, Connecticut (CNN) — Ireland, one of the world’s most Catholic countries, has been reeling from the revelation that Catholic leaders there covered up child abuse, including sexual abuse, by priests for decades.

But not all of the victims were Irish.

The Emerald Isle exported many priests over the years. And that’s how one of Ireland’s most prolific, known child abusers ended up in Rhode Island in the late 1960s.

Helen McGonigle was 6 when, she says, the Rev. Brendan Smyth fondled, raped and sodomized her.

She says she remembers him, dressed in white priest’s robes, at the back sliding glass door of her bedroom.

“All I wanted to do was to escape, to fly away. There were little cubbies in my room — a twin bed with a headboard that had little cubbies,” she remembers. “I just wanted to be tiny enough to hide in those little cubbies so he couldn’t see me.”

McGonigle, now a 48-year-old lawyer in Connecticut, says Smyth abused her, her sister and even her mother over a period of two years.

She believes the abuse drove her mother mad and drove her sister to suicide.

“My mom’s breakdown was caused by this. There’s no question,” she said.

Her mother was found hysterical, half-naked, on her front lawn, screaming, “The pope owes me,” McGonigle remembered.

She was acting “like she was a rape trauma victim,” the lawyer said.

“I believe Smyth attacked her. I believe that’s what caused her breakdown,” she said.

“You have to understand my mom was also a devout Catholic. Her brother was a seminarian. So for the same person to be on the front lawn saying, ‘The pope owes me,’ she was really mad,” McGonigle said.

Brendan Smyth was ultimately convicted of dozens of counts of child abuse in the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland. He died in prison in 1997.

But his victims on two continents, like Helen McGonigle, are living reminders of the crimes of this pedophile priest at the center of a sex scandal in the Irish Catholic church.

By the time he reached Helen McGonigle and her family, this Irish priest had already abused dozens.

Records dating back to the 1950s show Smyth was moved from parish to parish: Ireland to Scotland to Wales to Northern Ireland to Rhode Island, back to Ireland, then to East Greenwich, Rhode Island, and Langdon, North Dakota — each time under a cloud of suspicion, or worse, after a family came forward to report the priest was an abuser.

Helen McGonigle says Smyth tended to abuse children in the same family.

“That seems to be a common pattern,” she said.

But McGonigle was never able to get her sister to tell her about abuse by Smyth.

“She couldn’t handle it. … I think she was asked by my mother not to say anything,” she said. “I mean, this is something that she probably swore to my mom that she would never bring up.”

Helen’s sister, Kathleen, took her own life in 2005.

McGonigle is now suing the Catholic Diocese of Providence, Rhode Island. The church is already paying for her therapy.

She says six others from her parish have come forward to say they, too, were abused by Smyth, including one of her childhood friends, a neighbor.

What she wants most of all from the church, she says, is an apology for destroying her family — and an acknowledgment that the church knowingly placed a pedophile into her parish. So far, she says, she has received neither.

The Diocese of Providence has refused to comment, citing two pending lawsuits involving abuse allegations against Smyth.

Smyth’s superior in Ireland admitted that the diocese where the priest was sent in the United States was not told of his history of abuse.

Smyth was finally arrested in 1994. He was sent to an Irish prison, where he died of a heart attack.

Germany’s Catholic sex abuse scandal reaches Pope Benedict

Originally posted on

http://open.salon.com/blog/lost_in_berlin/2010/03/15/germanys_catholic_sex_abuse_scandal_reaches_pope_benedict

A CATHOLIC MASS ISN’T normally a debating society, but sometimes enough is simply enough. At Sunday mass at the parish church in the Bavarian town of Bad Tölz, a pastor’s unspeakable past finally caught up with him. It was revealed last Friday that sixty-two year-old Pastor Peter H., who had been providing pastoral care at the church for the past two years, had been tried and convicted of sexual abuse in 1986. Not only had this conviction been kept secret, but the priest’s superior at one time – Joseph Ratzinger, the former Archbishop of Munich who is today better known as Pope Benedict XVI – had knowingly moved this known pedophile from parish to parish. He was finally sent to Bad Tölz in 2008 under the condition that he engage in no “children’s, youth, or altar boy work.” However, he did end up conducting two children’s services at the church and also took part in youth retreats.

As far as anyone knows, Peter H. did “nothing, absolutely nothing” wrong during his previous twenty-one year tenure in the town of Garching, nor is anything known about any inappropriate activities in Bad Tölz. Even so, Peter H.’s colleague, Pastor Rupert Frania, told the Süddeutsche Zeitung, “I would like to have known about this earlier.”

At yesterday’s mass, Pastor Frania substituted for Peter H. and began a homily regarding his friend’s case. But as soon as he cited the example of the Prodigal Son and the need for forgiveness, the congregation rebelled. A young couple that was scheduled to be married by the disgraced priest got restless. It appears that they had just learned about the priest’s past from the media. “I can’t listen to this anymore!” the man shouted. “You can’t keep changing the subject!” According to the Süddeutsche, some of the mass goers applauded, others told him to shut up. A debate ensued. For several minutes the congregation discussed the case, and continued after the mass was over. Peter H. has been suspended, effective immediately. His supervisor has submitted his resignation.

The newspaper recently discovered that in 1980 Bishop Ratzinger approved the transfer of the pedophile priest to Bavaria to work in a new parish. The man had gotten an eleven year-old boy drunk and forced him to fellate him. Once in Bavaria he was once more caught in the act and put on trial. Peter H. was sentenced to eighteen months in prison and fined €4,000. In 1982, Ratzinger moved to Rome to become head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and essentially washed his hands of the matter.

This revelation is only the latest in an avalanche of appalling – and frankly mind-boggling – news for the Catholic Church in Germany and the rest of Europe. Ever since reports emerged of systematic sexual abuse at Berlin’s elite Canisius-Kolleg high school last January, stories of rape and fellatio perpetrated by Catholic priests in church-run institutions throughout the country have been bombarding the newspapers on a daily basis. It seems as if anyone who had ever been sodomized by a priest in the past fifty years has suddenly found his voice, making the Holy Catholic Church in this country appear like little more than a stiff-lipped pedophile ring.

But as usual in these cases, the cover-up is even worse than the crime, and for the first time the Pope himself has been implicated. The Church is closing ranks. Today, Archbishop Rino Fisichellal, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, told the Corriere della Serra that “any attempt to draw the Pope and the entire Church into the abuse scandal is an act of violence and a sign of incivility. Benedict’s story, his life and his writings, speak for themselves.”

The pontiff is remaining silent on the charges against him, and this is probably a wise choice under the circumstances. There’s no knowing how much longer this crisis will last… and where it will stop. Just yesterday, new accusations were levelled at the management of the celebrated Regensburger Domspatzen boys’ choir, where it was reported that the endemic physical and sexual abuse the choirboys suffered there did not terminate in the 1960s, as previously believed, but continued at least until 1992. And who was the choir’s “extremely choleric and hot-tempered” director in those years? None other than Georg Ratzinger, the Pope’s elder brother.

Is Eliphaz a Reliable Authority of Christian Faith?

By Heaven’s Knight

I would like to know that basing from Job 42:7, can we really say with certainty that there is absolutely nothing right in what Eliphaz said in the entire book of Job?

Gerry Soliman

Hi Mr. Soliman!

I found out you are interested in studying some points in this matter, let me share you some important Biblical points of views to consider.

First, it was established that the credibility of Eliphaz is questionable because God’s wrath ignited against him together with his two friends. He didn’t speak right things about God.

Therefore, when we listen to Eliphaz, we must already put in our mind that he may mislead us in what he says – deliberately or not. He, for sure, was not sent by God to preach His word. God said, “My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends: for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right, as my servant Job hath.” (Job 42:7)

So, if we put our trust to Eliphaz, or if we will base our faith unto him, our life will be put on risk.

The proof, he accused the old path was walked by wicked men. (Job 22:15) It is already a direct contrary against God’s word to believe that the old path was trodden by wicked men. (Jeremiah 6:16).

How can we then rely on Eliphaz’ words? Our witness against Eliphaz and his words is God. Who will then back up Eliphaz to malign the old path?

But, granting Eliphaz also has said right things, does that follow that we can now then rely to his words? If we will then rely on Eliphaz words in spite that he was not authorized by God, then we will fall on this kind of faith. (Mark 7:7-8)

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Dear heavensknight,

Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it.

I have a different understanding of Job 42:7. I don’t think this verse covers everythng what Eliphaz said in the entire book of Job. You said:

[How can we then rely on Eliphaz’ words? Our witness against Eliphaz and his words is God.]

I find this comment of your quite disturbing. You see the apostle Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 3:19:

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”.

That last sentence was quoted from Eliphaz in Job 5:13:

He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away.

Paul relied on Eliphaz’s words. How do you explain that?

Thank you.

Good hour Mr. Soliman!

Thanks for your follow up question, I believe that you are also open minded when it comes to discussing certainty of a matter, just like most of my friends. We already anticipated the question for it was not the first time it was asked.

Let me clarify this first. You said that Paul relied on Eliphaz’ words when he quoted what he said. Honestly, it doesn’t follow that when you quote one’s word, you already relied on him. Jumping to that conclusion will fall someone to simple non sequitur. “This is a fallacy which arises when the arguer draws a conclusion from a premise without any attempt to show the connection between the cause and the effect.” (The Art of Argumentation and Debate by Africa, Fallacies, page 107).

Illustration: Paul quoted Eliphaz’ words; therefore, Paul relies on Eliphaz.

Hence, the fallacy.

Let me give you an example.

Paul, an apostle of God, uses the words of a Cretian prophet – a prophet not belonging to the Christian Church, a prophet not of their own, a prophet not of God – to borrow his remarks against the people of Crete. (Titus 1:12)

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

It doesn’t follow that because Paul quoted the Cretians prophet’s words, he already relied on him. There could be other reasons why Paul quoted the words of the prophet of Crete. The same as Eliphaz’ case.

It is true that Paul usually quotes from scriptures as reference to give way for what he is teaching like when he discussed the danger of doing idolatry (I Corinthians 10:11; 6). But, there are instances that Paul uses other’s belief to have a point of agreement.

For example, when Paul went to Athens, in order to convince Athenians, he borrows the word of their own poets to have a point of agreement. Let us read in (Acts 17:28)

For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

But, that doesn’t follow Paul relies to the poets of Athens. He just used their words to start a point of agreement. Just like the saying, “When you are in Rome, speak like Romans.” Paul did this because he wants to save all men by all means. (I Corinthians 9:20-21)

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

Why do we believe then that Paul doesn’t rely on men’s words every time he preaches the gospel? Let us read what Paul wrote. (Galatians 1:11-12)

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

According to St. Paul himself, the gospel he preached was not after man; he neither received it from man nor was it taught to him. He received the gospel by the revelation of Jesus Christ, not of Eliphaz.

Now it is clear that it doesn’t follow that Paul relied on Eliphaz when he quoted what he said, let us now go to the issue.

Granting that what Eliphaz said is true, he said it without bad intention, he said it with good faith, does it follow we must now rely on his words? Where should we base then our Christian faith? Let us read. (1 Thesalonians 2:13)

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

The words of God must be our basis in our Christian faith. St. Paul said that when we received the word of God, we received it not as the word of men. If there are words of men, no matter how they were said, even if those seem true, or even if they were said with good faith but contradict God’s word, we must not rely on those. Let us have an example from a servant himself, Job. (Job 2:10)

But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

Job asked, “Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?”

We agree for sure that Job is a just man. But there was a time that he spoke of something against the characteristic of God. Take note of this phrase, “…shall we not receive evil?” Job, out of his innocence, believes that we can receive evil from God. But let us compare what our Lord Jesus Christ taught. (Matthew 7:9-11)

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Let me emphasize this, Jesus said “how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”

Through this principle, we can conclude that God will not give evil things. He is the provider of all good things. Let us have a proof in James 1:17.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Every good gift and every perfect give came down from Father above. But, Job believes that we can receive evil from God. Who then shall we believe: Job, a just man, or Jesus Christ, an authority of Christian faith?

How much more we then rely on Eliphaz’ words who was scolded by God? Another thing, he is not an authority of Christian faith.

That is what I’m saying, the most reliable basis of Christian faith is God’s word. Here, we can have a clue whose preacher in our time s really sent by God to preach His words. A preacher sent by God speaks God’s word. It is the best quality of a messenger of God that we must find from preachers. (John 3:34)

For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

It is therefore important to observe the teachings of different pastors, ministers, evangelists, preachers in our time. The teaching is our basis then to discern if a preacher is of God or not. (John 7:17-18)

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

A preacher sent by God teaches doctrines coming from God, he doesn’t speak of himself. For this, we can guarantee that what we follow is the commandment of God, not of men.

Another thing to consider, even if Paul quoted Eliphaz’ words, that doesn’t follow that what Eliphaz alleged became true. It was already impugned through God’s word (Jeremiah 6:16 vs Job 22:15); we must search the old path, we must walk therein, in there, we can find rest of our souls.  (Jeremiah 6:16)

Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

I also encourage you to watch the LIVE webcast every Wednesday@ 5pm Eastern Standard time!

Log on to http://www.livestream.com/elisoriano and get a chance to ask Bro. Eli regarding the bible and your salvation!

May God bless you!

How Can a Debate Materialize if The Coward Priest Doesn’t Want to Negotiate Properly?

By Christiandefenders

During our first encounter with Abe Arganiosa who is a Catholic Priest, we are so very eager to have him debate with us which is the reason why we have stated our challenge to him so many times in the past few months. However, he keeps on giving us improbable conditions for the debate not to materialize. His previous improbable conditions can be read on another article of this blog.

https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/c/

The funny thing about this coward priest is his ability to always come up with an excuse for the debate not to take place. Recently, one of our brothers informed Bro. Eli Soriano of the indolence of the priest on twitter.

Bro. Eli Soriano responded and instructed to challenge the priest on a debate.

For those people who have been reading the blog of the Catholic Priest, we are all aware that he insists to debate with Bro. Eli Soriano personally as part of his tactic of giving improbable conditions. Bro. Frank, informed Bro. Eli of those conditions which compel Bro. Eli Soriano to give this reply.

Just like what the Catholic Priest said, Bro. Eli was informed that Abe Arganiosa wants the debate to take place in a neutral ground like ABS-CBN and GMA. He responded that Abe Arganiosa can talk with GMA or ABS-CBN just as long as the payment is equally divided.

Because of these recent developments, I offered the Catholic Priest to formally negotiate by providing him the options which is most convenient to start with.

Apparently, Abe Arganiosa doesn’t want to speak directly to Bro. Eli Soriano on twitter nor go out from his blog and negotiate on a  LIVE Webcast. As a congenital liar, the Catholic Priest has a mastery on the craft of making alibis and improbable conditions.

Abe Arganiosa says,

It is very obvious that this priest will not really exert an effort to negotiate properly. He did not even provide any contact information like a cellphone or land line number for us to reach him. In addition, even if he is fully aware that Bro. Eli Soriano is very reachable and accessible online, he chooses to stay within the parameters of his blog and not go somewhere else on the worldwide web with the convenience of just staying in front of the PC.

One of our brothers also informed Abe Arganiosa that he can now speak with GMA or ABS-CBN as long as the share of payment is equally divided. However, this Catholic Priest is really a moron on his reply.

After refusing to negotiate properly by giving his contact information or by contacting us and choosing to stay on his blog, he still don’t want to extend an effort for one of his conditions to be fulfilled. What can we say about this?

According to a Journalist,

“That is what is called Paper Tiger. He is only good in challenging on paper.

His group expects him to do what he is doing now. As he does what he is doing, people can see him and how the catholic church has formed him.

He cannot see that the catholic church is being exposed by his examples – by his behavior.

Why does he fight Bro. Eli? Because he still wants to keep his idols of stone and wood and continue sinning but every Sunday, he would drink wine and eat wafer and think he will go to heaven by that.”

I can definitely agree with what the journalist said. Abe Arganiosa is only good on challenging on paper. His behavior clearly exposes what kind of religion the Catholic Church has.

“Have you read the story of Abe Arganiosa? He’s sort of living a hero image. As a child, he was already acting as true-blue catholic. He had gone too far.

Educated with the money of catholics, he had no time to pause for critical thinking. People like this are prisoners of those who feed them. Is it bad if he refused to follow later?

His role now is to play the defender….

I don’t think he never had the time to reflect if what his religion was doing is right or wrong. Somehow, there could be times – even flitting times – to see that those images were just stones and wood without a life.

But he prefers to accept those things as truth.

I do not think this fellow is worth spending precious time for. He is a fool.

He is just using Bro. Eli to get attention to himself.

What we can do is to respond if we can – but not to disrupt the activities of Bro. Eli. Those things can be taken care of.

You already know that Abe Arganiosa cannot debate. He does not have the skills.

Let us not rattle Bro. Eli unnecessarily if we can do things ourself.”

In my effort to seek a good reason why this Catholic Priest will really not negotiate for a debate, I’ve found an answer from a former Catechist teacher who was also considered to become a priest before he did a change of heart and converted to Christianity.

Bro. Jay Mark tells us the basic rules and roles of a Catholic Priest as well as his insights regarding the issue.

“Abe, known as Abraham Arganiosa, CRS. will not face Bro. Eli on a debate is because in reality, he is afraid to defend his belief and accusation against us, especially with Bro. Eli because he knows who Bro Eli is. And he has no witness to stand his ground in case that will bring out in the Supreme Court against his accusation false attack on Bro. Eli personality. As what I see on him, he has simple reasons why he keeps on saying evil things against us on his blog and not to face on a debate:

First, he only wants to get our attention so that his blog will be famous for many visitors.

Second, he has no permission from his supervisor, the Arch bishop or Cardinal to face Bro. Eli on a debate so he might be scolded. Being, a priest whatever decision he makes like debating or defending the catholic faith from other churches must be permitted by higher authorities, the CBCP Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.

Third, this priest is only an Educator, a defender of the catholic faith for his little congregation but not the entire catholic congregation like in Rome. He only teaches student on how to defend their faith against other churches – in short he only wants the student to become strong in their faith.

Lastly, comparing the entire catholic authority in Rome, he is one of those priests who has the lowest rank on the line of priesthood. So we have nothing to expect much from that priest. If he is really a man of his faith believing that they are correct and is concern for the souls of his members then he will face Bro. Eli on Live Web, not hiding at the back of his blog or pen writing.

For my part, I call Abe as the “Priest of Delusion”, one of the false followers of the false prophet in Rome. Thanks to God that our leader Bro. Eli Soriano that was sent by God has a two double edge sword, ready to defend our faith anytime against the evil infiltrator like Abraham Arganiosa.”

Since Catholic Priests really have a stand not to debate with anyone regarding their doctrines nor attack other churches with their teaching, debating with Bro. Eli is a clear violation to that stand. Bro. Jay Mark who came from the inner circle of Catholics was able to give us enough reasons to believe that Abe Arganiosa will really not engage on a debate.

However, some of his deluded followers still believes in the delusion that this priest will really defend their faith on a debate and is willing to negotiate with some of the conditions they provide.

Noel requests us to open our masks and show our identity. However, our identity as former Catholics is clearly exposed. Opening our mask is already on Abe Arganiosa’s reach if he really show an effort to negotiate. We are waiting to see a sincere willingness from him. He can show us his permit from his bishop or at least provide us with a genuine contact information so we can start negotiating properly. We have also provided him the options to directly speak with Bro. Eli Soriano regarding the matter. However,  all the things that he expressed on his blog, are indications to our belief that he cannot really face Bro. Eli Soriano on a debate.

Believing that Abe Arganiosa will really face Bro. Eli Soriano is clearly a Delusion.

According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Delusional,

“A delusion is false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.”

We are not surprised to have met people like these because these kinds of people are clearly stated in the bible.

(2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Abe Arganiosa will never face Bro. Eli Soriano on a debate!

Christians Inform Brother Eli Soriano About the Boastful Abe Arganiosa

By Christiandefenders

It seems that more and more brethren from MCGI are becoming aware of what is going on with the exchanges that we have with the Catholic Priest, Abe Arganiosa within the past few months that one of them informs Bro. Eli Soriano on Twitter. Bro. Frank told Bro. Eli that there is a boastful priest who said that evil people walks in the old path.

Bro. Frank informs Bro. Eli of Abe Arganiosa

In Bro. Eli’s reply to Bro. Frank, he told him to challenge the priest into a debate.

Bro. Frank later on explained some of the details of the ongoing Internet discussion.

On another tweet, Bro. Billy inquired to Bro. Eli it is possible to file charges of libel against the Catholic Priest.

Bro. Billy says,

Brother Eli Soriano gave an affirmative answer and asks who’s going to witness.

Bro. Eli says,

Bro. Frank informs Bro. Eli that the Catholic Priest wants a debate face to face.

Bro. Eli inquires, where does the Catholic Priest wants to debate face to face.

Bro. Eli Inquires the place of debate

Now that Bro. Eli Soriano knows that there is an Abraham Arganiosa that hurls insults at him on the Internet, let’s wait what’s gong to happen next. I’ve already left a comment on Abe Arganiosa’s blog informing him of the replies of Bro. Eli Soriano. He has an option to communicate with Bro. Eli Soriano directly through Bro. Eli’s LIVE Webcast and through Twitter and an option to have the debate arrange with us. He is already informed of the possible ways to reach us.

We are waiting for his response.

SCREENSHOTS COURTESY OF BRO.FRANK AND BRO.BILLY