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

Advertisements

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

The Ways Where the Wicked Abe Arganiosa Walks

By Michael Dela Cruz

Bretheren, I’ve read Abe’s blog and theology. It’s very Catholic. What do I mean? They don’t stand for every statement that they say but instead saying a different statement later on. Let’s look at what he said about what has been said by Eliphaz for example,

Abe says,


“BAGAMAT MAY MALI SI ELIPHAZ MERON DIN SIYANG SINABING TAMA NA HINDI KINONTRA NG DIOS, SA HALIP TINANGGAP NG ESPIRITU SANTO PARA SA IKABUBUTI NG LAHAT.”
Translation Even though Eliphaz has said wrong things, he also said some right things that God did not oppose, but instead, it was accepted by the Holy Spirit for the good of all.

By saying this, It’s clear that Abe believes Eliphaz because he concluded that it’s accepted by the Holy Spirit for the good of all. This is what he said. He also used the words of Eliphaz to prove a claim. Normally when a person uses a statement to prove a claim, it means that that person stands firm to that claim.

Now let’s notice what he said later on…

“HINDI KO PINANINIWALAAN ANG KANYANG MGA KASINUNGALINGAN. SUBALIT SINO BA ANG NAGBIGAY NG AUTHORITY PARA MAISULAT ANG JOB 22:5? HOLY SPIRIT”
TranslationI don’t believe in his(elipaz) lies. But who gave the authotity for it to be written in Job22:5? Holy Spirit.

Now Abe said that he doesn’t believe in the lies of Eliphaz. However, he believes that what Eliphaz said is authorized by the Holy Spirit to be written in Job 22:5, again, he said “I don’t believe in Eliphaz”s lies.”

So this comes down to him concluding that the lies of elipaz are authorized by the holy spirit that’s why he used them.  To further prove this, let’s look even further, he said…

” PInatotohanan iyan ni San Pedro:”
TranslationThis is testified to by Saint Peter.

(2 Peter 1:21) New International Version

“For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

If Caiaphas was able to speak something beneficial for everybody in John 18:13 it is also the same with Eliphaz.

Did you notice this brethren? Abe said that Caiaphas was able to speak something beneficial for everybody, so following his conclusion, what Caiaphas said was authorized by the Holy Spirit.

Do you see how blind this Abe is? Claiming that every statement that has been said even by evil ones as authorized by the Holy Spirit because it’s written in the Bible.

Who in his right state of mind will agree to this? And Abe has the gutts to disprove the faith of Christians in the Church of God presided by brother Eli and brother Daniel when Abe himself cannot rightfully process his own thoughts.

Oh well, just another unreasoning animal according to Jude 1:10. Let’s read it in the English Standard Version.

(Jud 1:10)


But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.
8 hours ago ·

A Supreme Court Decision Cannot Affect the Belief of Christians in Exercising God’s Law.

By Christiandefenders

In my previous article, we were able to learn that the Church of God is also known by other names according to the Holy Scriptures.  We also found out that registration of different names in the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is not an evidence that we are changing the name of our organization because an entity is not prohibited to register and use different names at the same time on different transactions on Philippine Laws. In this article, we will discuss the great difference between a Christian’s obedience to the law of God apart from the law of man.

Let us keep in mind that Christians were commanded by God to submit themselves to governing authorities.

(Romans 13:1-7) NIV

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

That is the reason why as a requirement of law, we ought to register our organization in the Securities and Exchange Commission. Registry is not our basis in establishing a church. It is an act of submission to authorities as commanded by God base on the Holy Scriptures. As subjects, we pay our taxes, we abide by the laws of the land and we don’t incite any rebellion as part of the Christian conduct.

Sad to say, the Catholic Church of today is in-submissive to the government. The name of their church is not even registered in SEC. When the Senate tries to impose a law fort taxing them, they strongly oppose it on their pulpits by bashing politician who are still in power.

The entire priesthood, with their cardinals, bishops and priests are not paying taxes (like property tax) or get a Community Tax Certificate from the government. What they earn from their religious businesses where millions of their wealth can be found is free of tax. Part of the money is sent to Rome, for the needs of the Pope and its clergymen, and is also made as investment of the Financial Minister of the Vatican in order to make it prosperous. These religious people are the first one to break God’s law of submission to authorities.

http://www.philippinestoday.net/August2001/saakingpaningin801.htm

The Catholic Church’s blatant in-submission to authorities is an evidence that they don’t really uphold the Christian teachings.

However, base on the Holy Scriptures, if a Christian is confronted with a situation wherein obeying God’s law would require to break man’s law,  he should choose to obey God rather than man. For example, when the high priest forbade the apostles to preach the word of God openly, Peter sternly said that they would rather obey God than men.

(Acts 5:27-30)

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us. Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.

In many countries, there are laws of man that are in conflict with the laws of God. Say for example Italy where Rome and the Vatican is located. In Italy, same sex marriage, abortion, divorce, prostitution are all legal which are all completely against the laws of God. In Muslim countries, religious rites which is completely different from the rites of the state religion is completely prohibited. People who will be caught practicing such rites will be put in jail which entirely opposes the law of the Christian God.

Apparently, an article in Abe Arganiosa’s blog tackles a Supreme Court ruling that states that we can no longer use the name “Members of the Church of God the Pillar and Ground of Truth Philippines Inc.” and that we should change our name. I’m going to quote a paragraph from the Supreme Court decision below.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/dec2001/137592.htm

“We need not belabor the fourth issue raised by petitioner.  Certainly, ordering petitioner to change its corporate name is not a violation of its constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom.  In so doing, the SEC merely compelled petitioner to abide by one of the SEC guidelines in the approval of partnership and corporate names, namely its undertaking to manifest its willingness to change its corporate name in the event another person, firm, or entity has acquired a prior right to the use of the said firm name or one deceptively or confusingly similar to it.”

This is what the ignorant priest uses in order to make it appear that we did change our name. While it is true that we are known by several names, changing names as part of the Christian doctrine is never our teaching. The law of the land can compel us not to use the name “Members of the Church of God the Pillar and Ground of Truth Philippines Inc.” in our transactions or streamers but it cannot force us to refrain from teaching that such name refers to us. In addition, it cannot force us to change our teaching as to what name to use.  We can still say that the name which they require us to change still belongs to us as part of our teaching. No law of man can change that. However, as part of our submission to authorities, we can still use other names that we have successfully registered in SEC for our transactions.  As of today, we are known as the “Members of the Church of God International”.  We use that name in transacting with the government as well on our banners and our streamers but it doesn’t mean that other names which refers to us is not part of our teaching.

To summarize the points in this article, I’m going to leave simple answers to these questions.

Did we change the name of our organization because of Supreme Court Ruling? NO

Do we have different names registered in SEC that we can use for our convenience? YES

Stop Quoting from Wikipedia Abe Arganiosa! It Could Seriously Damage Your Grades!

by Christiandefenders

For some people who are not aware of the issues surrounding the use of the Wikipedia Website, quoting from it seems to be just fine. However, the public needs to be aware that Wikipedia is  actually the online encyclopedia wherein you could be an authority although you don’t even know what the hell you are talking about. It is actually a website in which pages can be edited by any visitor. The accuracy of Wikipedia has been in question for many years. In fact, the CEO of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales has been receiving many complaints from students who cited the articles posted on the Website. I’m going to quote some information about the unreliability of Wikipedia that I found on my research online.

A distinguished talk show host on comedy central by the name of Stephen Colbert  even made a satire regarding the issue surrounding Wikipedia.

Stephen quoted the word “Wiki lobbying” in which a company pays online writers to change the entries on the Wikipedia website in order to assimilate information in favor to them. An example given for Wiki lobbying was the news regarding Microsoft in which it paid a blogger to edit some entries.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16775981/

Microsoft offers cash for Wikipedia edit

By Brian Bergstein

“Microsoft Corp. landed in the Wikipedia doghouse Tuesday after it offered to pay a blogger to change technical articles on the community-produced Web encyclopedia site.

(MSNBC is a joint Microsoft – NBC Universal venture.)

While Wikipedia is known as the encyclopedia that anyone can tweak, founder Jimmy Wales and his cadre of volunteer editors, writers and moderators have blocked public-relations firms, campaign workers and anyone else perceived as having a conflict of interest from posting fluff or slanting entries. So paying for Wikipedia copy is considered a definite no-no.”

While a company can pay a writer to create an article that can make it appear more favorable to consumers, similarly its competitor can do the same, making it an online battle of manipulated information.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/wikitrust/

By Andrew Orlowski

“More than 60 million people visit the free, open-access encyclopedia each month, searching for knowledge on 12 million pages in 260 languages. But despite its popularity, Wikipedia has long suffered criticism from those who say it’s not reliable. Because anyone with an internet connection can contribute, the site is subject to vandalism, bias and misinformation. And edits are anonymous, so there’s no easy way to separate credible information from fake content created by vandals.”

A recent incident compelled the founder and CEO of Wikipedia to tell students to stop quoting from Wikipedia because it could seriously damage their grades.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/

Wikipedia founder Jimmy ‘Jimbo’ Wales has warned students not to refer to Wikipedia, reports the US education weekly The Chronicle.

Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has earned them fail grades.

“They say, ‘Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia'” and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t cite the encyclopedia,” the journal reports.

Now that I have laid the basis on why we say Wikipedia is an unreliable source, should a Catholic Priest like Abe Arganiosa still use it on his blog? As an educator, it is his responsibility to make sure that what he is stating on his blog is accurate in order to avoid misleading his audience. He should learn how to use reliable sources and get his facts straight. However, in reality he is fond of quoting Wikipedia for most of his articles.  (Shown below is an example)

Abe Arganiosa quotes from Wikipedia

If we are going to look at the article created on the Wikipedia Website about Bro. Eli Soriano, it is quite obvious that the article was done by a bias author who doesn’t care to be neutral on issues. It is mostly a narration of criminal cases and does not reflect what the preacher really is. This is the article which Abe Arganiosa uses in order to attack the person of Bro. Eli on issues. Abe Arganiosa is an educator who doesn’t know how to use a reliable source but instead gets his information from a source which was proven to be unreliable. Wikipedia is not an authority!

FUNNY EVIDENCE

In order to prove how unreliable Wikipedia is, I’ve edited some entries on the free access Encyclopedia. Here’s what you can see on Wikipedia.

According to Wikipedia, Trash-talk “has been popularized in the world of blogging to describe how a Catholic Priest, Abraham Arganiosa behaves when he writes his articles. The priest is known for hurling insulting words on the Internet in the World of Religious Apologetic.”

Trash talk as popularized by Abe Arganiosa

According to Wikipedia, the word killer “was also used by an online blog to describe a Catholic Priest’s Character, Abe Arganiosa.”

So if you don’t believe that Abe Arganiosa has popularized the used of trash talks, check out Wikipedia and you’ll see that I’m correct. If you don’t believe that Abe Arganiosa is a killer, check out Wikipedia again and it’s right there. Fortunately, editors can always correct what is written in an entry. So if you don’t like what is written on a Wikipedia article, go ahead and change it.

The Advantage of Being Biblical: (Part 1) Response against Immanuel Cruz’ Attacks

By Heaven’s Knight

Filipinos are known for their hospitality. Most of them, if you visit their home, have the unusual desire to please their guest. Though their food is inadequate for the rest of their family, guests are automatically invited for their meal. Most Filipinos also prepare the best room and bed for their visitors and they even provide clothes and other amenities for their guests. They are warm and generous in entertaining visitors. They love to have fun and most have sense of humor; they love to joke even surrounded by worst conditions. They want their visitors to feel comfortable with their family.

This good trait of Filipinos, sometimes, is used by opportunists as a gateway to instill their hidden motives. These deceivers want to gain for their self-interest out of others unawareness. They are like the werewolf of the known children’s story, Little Red Riding Hood, who wants to take advantage of the girl’s innocence. Though, funny to say, it’s just a fairy tale, werewolves in our time are reality. Especially in the religious world, it is very rampant. Jesus Christ, as early as 30 A.D., already warned us of these wolves disguise in white robes. (Matthew 7:15)

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Beware of false prophets! Jesus Christ said. Hospitality is good but being watchful and being aware is very important. Very important here must be taken to mean of high regard, for not paying attention to it will mean life and death. By life and death we mean not only the physical life and death here on earth, but that also involves eternal life and second death, Biblically speaking. So, we need to examine our faith, we need not to be like Little Red Riding Hood, we are not children anymore. Awareness could be one of the most effective weapons we need so not to be deceived by these wolves, by these false prophets.

Let us be Biblical dear readers!

It was prophesied in the Bible that false prophets will gone out of this world. Even during the time of Apostle John, as early as before the dawn of the first century, they already sprouted like mushrooms. (1 John 4:1)

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

These false prophets will privily bring in destructible heresies, or false teachings. (2 Peter 2:1)

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Therefore, it is wise not to easily accept belief, or if we already have our belief, it is also wise to check if we have the fullness of truth in our faith. (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Abstain from all appearance of evil.

When it comes to faith, examining the fullness of its truth is inevitable. There could also be a basis or instrument to get the precision of the faith we believe. In carpentry, a skilled carpenter does not only rely on estimation but he uses tools such as metric ruler, level and others to get and to give the exact measurement needed for his work. An orchestra, to achieve the harmonious music they want to blend, uses piece to serve as its guide aside from its conductor. Without them, musicians could not be organized in performing their work. So, a right basis is very important in every aspect of our life — more so in religion.

If we want to ask something about law, we seek answers from book of law. Same as if we want to gain knowledge about medicines, we prefer reading book of medicines. And if we want to learn Christian faith and doctrines, it is better to read the Bible as a basis. According to Apostle St. Paul, all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16).

That is the reason why from the start of our discussion with other detractors, your servant  was already basing answers from scriptures. If we are to discover the certainty of the church where we belong, it is wise to consult Biblical passages; the true church was explained therein. If a faith is not Biblical, what does Apostle Paul said regarding this?

(1 Corinthians 4:6)

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

If we want to be consistent with apostles’ teachings, we must not therefore exceed from what was written. St. Paul wants us to have faith in what was written and those can be profitable also as a basis of faith. St. Paul also warned Christian that if ever they will encounter preachers that will bring them other doctrines, they must reject them. (Galatians 1:8, 6)

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

As early as St. Paul’s time, there are preachers who instill false doctrines not written in the Bible, doctrines different from what apostles taught. And that was when they are still alive, how much more in our time?

Beliefs not supported by scriptures, beliefs based on human philosophies, beliefs that were only man-made such as dogmas, tenets, tradition, etc. will turn worshiping to nothing. (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.

Therefore, it is wise to be Biblical to have a reliable Christian faith. If a faith is not Biblical, there could be a risk holding that faith for God’s word was written in the Bible.

The proposition and the counterproposition

It was almost two months since we invited Mr. Abe Arganiosa, a Catholic priest, to confront Bro. Eli Soriano. The priest chose to  spread rumors via internet against Bro. Eli Soriano. Bro. Eli, the presiding minister of Members, Church of God International (MCGI), is known as a debater who already faced different preachers, pastors and ministers.

Whenever someone is challenging Bro. Eli in a debate, he is willing to defend his faith, even if it seems no way to have a discussion. Distance, time and even threats are not hindrance to Bro. Eli in engaging debates;  he is using the advantage of available technologies.

Sadly, those weeks that had past was used by Mr. Abe Arganiosa in making excuses and trash talking just to evade from a formal confrontation. Though, he already promised to initiate a negotiation with Bro. Eli, that promise until now remains a promise.

Mr. Arganiosa said: WHO SAYS THAT I DON’T WANT TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE DEBATE. I WANT TO NEGOTIATE. BUT SORIANO AND I MUST BE THE ONE TO TALK IT OVER.

Now, Mr. Arganiosa’s minions are busy attacking MCGI’s doctrine but they have failed to establish their faith. One of this is Parabanog, he has tacitly proposed that the Catholic Church’s name is Biblical. We, then presented rebuttals against his proposition and tacitly made counterproposition — the name Church of God is the name taught by apostles,  not the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church (CARC).

https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2009/12/20/ekklesia-kata-holos-catholic-church-can-this-be-considered-as-the-rightful-translation-2/

Parabanog has failed to make a rebuttal against our counterproposition but other rebuked for his place – Beltran, another Arganiosa’s minion. Like Mr. Arganiosa, Beltran is fond of using trash talking and he has also failed to prove that the name CARC is Biblical.

https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/is-the-name-catholic-apostolic-roman-church-biblical-part-2-a-response-to-beltran%E2%80%99s-rebuttals/

Suddenly, someone seems wanting to grab the limelight from Arganiosa’s minion – Immanuel Cruz, a Catholic. He made the third rebuttal on the issue about church’s name. We asked Manny courtesy to his co-believer if he wants to answer questions directed to Beltran and answer it himself, instead. But he didn’t ask any permission either to Parabanog or Beltran. We don’t even have idea if Manny wants to replace Mr. Arganiosa in confronting Bro. Eli. But Manny may back up the priest if he wants to confront Bro. Eli.

The problem with Manny, it seems he hasn’t review first the flow of the discussions. He must review first our discussions against Parabanog and Beltran. He engaged in a dispute that doesn’t belong to him. That will remind us of this verse. (Proverbs 26:17)

He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

The proof of that let us read his careless remarks regarding my assertion.

Manny said: Indeed, we must not exceed what the apostles taught us! St. Paul used the phrase ‘church of God’ eleven times, as you claimed. Then you concluded that this is the “official name” of the Church of Jesus. Obviously you did not notice it, but your conclusion is not merited by the premise that you laid. In those verses, Paul did not say that “church of God” is an official name! (It’s not even capitalised! Didn’t you see it?)

Sadly, that isn’t how I laid my arguments but Manny had his own version of concluding it. I presented eleven verses containing the words “Church of God” or “church of God” to show that it is Biblical. To prove that, I even entitled my articles: “Is the Name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church Biblical?” I think he hadn’t notice it from the start. That is the problem of someone who doesn’t know how to ask courtesy for engaging in a fight not belonging to him.

Manny can again check how I presented it by reviewing my article so that he can be more careful.

https://christiandefenders.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/is-the-name-catholic-apostolic-roman-church-biblical-part-2-a-response-to-beltran%E2%80%99s-rebuttals/

Rebuttal against Rebuttal

We are talking about Biblical issues that require Biblical proofs. Is the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church Biblical or not? If not, why do Catholics use it as their official name? Where did they get their basis? What basis should we use to prove the truthfulness of the Catholic Church’s name? History? History of whom? If that could be the basis, history itself can also prove the edacity of the Catholic Church.

Link: The Roman Catholic Church Is Not The True Church Of God

Thus, the common denominator to be used in discussing Christian faith is the Bible. Proving a Christian faith outside the Bible is like a boxer fighting outside the ring. We are proud we have Manny Pacquiao who knows this rule in boxing, but it’s a shame we have Manny Cruz who doesn’t know the rule of spiritual warfare and courtesy.

But let’s go to his allegations. Manny believes that the official name of the church is not an issue to the apostles; he doesn’t believe that the term “Church of God” is an official name.

Manny said: Indeed, we must not exceed what the apostles taught us! St. Paul used the phrase ‘church of God’ eleven times, as you claimed. Then you concluded that this is the “official name” of the Church of Jesus. Obviously you did not notice it, but your conclusion is not merited by the premise that you laid. In those verses, Paul did not say that “church of God” is an official name! (It’s not even capitalised! Didn’t you see it?)

He said St. Paul didn’t mention that the name “church of God” is an official name in the verses I laid (he even asserted that it was not even capitalized). This argumentum ad ignorantium or argument to ignorance, where he assumes something is false simply because it hasn’t proven yet or, better say, he is not aware of my explanation, neither prove his stand nor refute mine.

He believes that the church during St. Paul’s time has no official name. We, then, asked proof of his accusation but he just went on an escape, not an answer.

Manny said: Your question is really asking this, “can you PROVE in the Bible that the Church has NO offical name?”

Well, from the scientific point of view, the question is grossly WRONG! It should never be asked in the first place…

It is not true that my question is grossly wrong. Why? I’m in a position to ask: where can you read that apostles said there is no official name for the church? That is because I already presented arguments, and even affirmative questions, to build my prima facie case.

Manny even accused me of violating some scientific principles.

Manny said: Well, from the scientific point of view, the question is grossly WRONG! It should never be asked in the first place. Because it VIOLATES a basic scientific principle: You do not prove that something does not exist. In other words, you cannot prove the negative. Proof is always aimed at the positive, the negative statement comes only at the end, as a result perhaps or a conclusion of the positive process of PROVING (the existence of something).

It seems that Manny forgot some rules in argumentation. Burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proponent can shift the burden of proof to the opponent by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden of proof generally rests with the proponent, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

We have built our prima facie case in our first and second topic, sadly, Manny didn’t get the point. Whenever he says there is no official name for the church, he is now making accusations. Burden of proof was now then shifted in his position. Hence, burden of rebuttal.

(Reference: The Art of Argumentation and Debate by Francisco M. Africa, The Burden of Proof and the Counterproposition, page 21)

Official name of the church from the highest authority

Catholic authorities believe that the name of their church didn’t come from Jesus. It can be read in their publication Ang Iglesia ni Kristo at Iba’t Ibang Sektang Protestante, written by F. Juan Trinidad, S. J., page 25.

Photobucket

(Translation: The name “Catholic Apostolic Roman Church” didn’t come from Jesus. But as the English saying goes: “A rose by any other name will be sweet still.”)

The basis of their belief regarding their church’s name is an English saying. It is very clear that it is neither Biblical nor it was taught by Christ. That could be true for the New Testament was already finished more than 1700 years, or Christ already ascended to heavens almost 1840 years before the name CARC was only made official and accepted. It was not God who made CARC  an official name but bishops of Vatican.

Catholic

Why then we believe that the name Church of God is the official name, not CARC? We believe that it is official on the basis that no teachings came from God that is unofficial. (Psalms 119:160)

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

We also believe the name “Church of God” is official; by “official” I mean of or relating to an office or a post of authority.  Regarding church’ name, “Church of God” is a name acknowledged and used by authorities such as St. Paul. In this case, unofficial is the antonym, and variously may mean informal, unrecognized, or unfamiliar to authorities, or unacknowledged. That rightly fits to CARC.

I certainly believe that God is the highest authority to follow. Primacy is owned by God, not of Rome. (1 Chronicles 29:11)

Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all.

Whatever God says, we respect it believing it carries authority. (Luke 1:37 ASV)

For no word from God shall be void of power.

For this reason, God’s words are official and authorized. No man can supersede it.

St. Paul wrote teachings under the commandment of the highest authority, not under any Pope in Rome. (1 Corinthians 14:37)

If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

It can be read in the scriptures, including St. Paul’s writings, the term Church of God. Apostles’ writings were written under the commandment of the highest authority; therefore, the term Church of God was written upon following the highest authority making it official.

In this way, it is safe to believe that the term Church of God is the official name of the church, not Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. We use the definite article “the” not to omit other names used by apostles; but to omit names not known to apostles like the one being proposed in 1870.

It is not our problem if Manny believes that apostles were not called officials or, we should say, persons of authority.

Manny said: Well, this adds to the many careless remarks from you. The apostles were never called “officials” or “authority of the Bible.”

He may not call them officials but indeed, they are persons of authority. Our Lord Jesus Christ told apostles that those who don’t listen to them will also mean not listening to the highest authority. (Luke 10:16)

He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

The fallacies of Manny Cruz

Manny may assert his argumentum ad ignorantium saying there is no official name because Paul didn’t say it. We must not then accept his refutations for he also didn’t say that it is his official answer. It is a waste of time arguing against someone who doesn’t have official belief. He has no official belief because he didn’t say it. That is if we will follow Manny’s argument.

St. Paul didn’t even say it is commanded not to use prohibited drugs. Does it follow, believing Manny’s argument, such drugs are allowed? He may not read it but with God’s help we can prove it Biblically that it is prohibited to use marijuana, shabu etc.

Manny also believes that it is not an official name for it was not capitalized.

Manny said: Paul did not say that “church of God” is an official name! (It’s not even capitalised! Didn’t you see it?) No, Paul never said it.

Sorry to say, this assertion could not be convincing. For one thing, the word God has a capital letter, it is a proper name. How about the name Church of God in the Bible? Is it true that it is not a proper, official or technical name for it was not been capitalized as it was written in the Bible? This is in the presumption that the term Church of God is an official name if it is capitalized.

Let us then follow Manny’s assertion. Let us read versions of Bible that most Catholics use – the Bibliyang Katoliko. (II Corinthians 1:1)

Si Pablo na apostol ni Cristo Jesus sa kalooban ng Diyos, at ang kapatid na si Timoteo, Sa Iglesia ng Dios na nasa Corinto at sa lahat ng banal na nasa buong Acaya.

Let us also read in the Spanish Bible, a version of a Bible that most Catholics use.

Spanish Bible (Las Sagradas Escrituras Version)

The Acts 20:28

Por tanto mirad por vosotros y por todo el rebaño en que el Espíritu Santo os ha puesto por obispos, para apacentar la Iglesia de Dios, la cual ganó por su sangre.

(I Corinthians 1:2)

a la Iglesia de Dios que está en Corinto, santificados en Cristo Jesús, llamados a ser santos, y a todos los que invocan el Nombre del Señor nuestro, Jesús, el Cristo, en cualquier lugar, Señor de ellos y nuestro;

(I Corinthians 10:32)

Sed sin ofensa ni a judíos, ni a gentiles, ni a la Iglesia de Dios;

(I Corinthians 11:22)

A la verdad, ¿no tenéis casas en que comáis y bebáis? ¿O menospreciáis la Iglesia de Dios, y avergonzáis a los que no tienen? ¿Qué os diré? ¿Os alabaré? En esto no os alabo.

(I Corinthians 15:9)

Porque yo soy el más pequeño de los apóstoles, que no soy digno de ser llamado apóstol, porque perseguí la Iglesia de Dios.

(II Corinthians 1:1)

Pablo, apóstol de Jesús, el Cristo, por la voluntad de Dios, y el hermano Timoteo, a la Iglesia de Dios que está en Corinto, juntamente con todos los santos que están por toda la Acaya:

(Galatians 1:13)

Porque ya habéis oído acerca de mi conducta en otro tiempo en el judaísmo, que perseguía sobremanera la Iglesia de Dios, y la destruía;

(I Thessalonians 2:14)

Porque vosotros, hermanos, habéis sido imitadores en Cristo Jesús de las Iglesias de Dios que están en Judea; que habéis padecido también vosotros las mismas cosas de los de vuestra propia nación, como también ellos de los judíos;

(I Timothy 3:5)

( porque el que no sabe gobernar su casa, ¿cómo cuidará de la Iglesia de Dios?);

We can notice from these verses of a Bible commonly used by most Catholics, the term Iglesia de Dios (Church of God) was capitalized. But Manny, a Catholic, says it was not even capitalized. Of course, we don’t need to mention him that he should wear a pair of reading glasses and read Catholic Bibles.

More so, we hadn’t included yet versions of Bible such as Magandang Balita Biblia, Tagalog, German, Dutch, French, Indonesian etc. for it will only become lengthy.

Anyway, we don’t blame him for he really cannot prove that apostles believe the church has no official name. That belief doesn’t exist in the Bible. It is just our opponent’s belief, not of apostles. He believes of something that doesn’t exist. Thus, like his saying “You do not prove that something does not exist.”

We can also say “You cannot prove Biblically a belief that is not written in the Bible.”

We have to this point been discussed the advantage of being Biblical and having Biblical awareness for there are false prophets gone out of this world. We also emphasized that the name Catholic Apostolic Roman Church is not Biblical. It did not come from God, it is a man-made belief. Rather, what was familiar to apostles is the term Church of God. But next we need to consider the question, why do we use the term Members, Church of God International? Is it Biblical? Is it foreign to apostles like the term CARC?

(To be continued…)