SOLUTIONS FINDER THAT CANNOT FIND SOLUTIONS:
A Response to Gerry Soliman
Oops, Gerry Soliman did it again! With the habit that he is very much accustomed to, he pitted one Catholic apologist against another. This time he pits me against Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad on when the Canon of Scriptures was “finally” settled. While waiting for his “counterargument” that he said he’d work over the weekend and while he is enjoying the “funny stuffs” with regards to the Scriptures, let me just show how Gerry Soliman again falters in his “divide and rule” tactic. [http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/when-was-canon-of-scriptures-finally.html].
He quoted my obiter dictum in my article published in Mr. Isahel Don Alfonso’s blog http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com/:
In his obscene haste to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently forgot that the canon of Scripture, both the Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., under the authority of Pope Damasus I and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse.
He also quoted the response of Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad posted in http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/03/first-response-to-gerry-soliman-on.html:
Like I said, it was the Council of Trent that gave dogmatic force to the Catholic Canon of Scripture. As any informed Catholic knows, this is the equivalent of stating – as the good ol’ New Catholic Encyclopedia, which I devoured during my college days, does – that it was Trent that gave final form, or “definitively settled,” the Catholic Canon of Scripture. Prior to Trent, Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications. Therefore, the Canon technically remained open, but historically and in fact – and this should give Mr. Soliman pause -- between Carthage III and Trent, between which there is a distance of more than 1,100 years, there is no difference regarding the Canon.
And thereupon, Mr. Gerry Soliman danced in glee for what he termed as “an obvious contradiction.” He pointed out that I stated that the canon was "finally settled" in 382 AD but Mr. Soliman paraphrased Mr. Palad that the final form was made at Trent of the 16th century.
Here it must be pointed out that Mr. Soliman’s reading comprehension again failed him. I was saying that the canon was “finally settled” in 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome. Mr. Palad was saying that the Council of Trent gave the canon its final form or “definitively settled.” Again, where is the contradiction?
When I said “finally settled,” I meant that all the 27 books of the New Testament Canon were already in, as in it was a final list because no books have been added thereto or subtracted therefrom. And this list or canon, as I stated was subsequently “reaffirmed” on numerous occasions; hence, implying that it was not yet “definitive” or, as has dogmatic force for Catholics. But the list was already there as early as 382 A.D.! Mr. Palad said basically the same thing: “Prior to Trent , Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications.”
Mr. Soliman said that he did “think the phrase, the Canon technically remained open, from Mr. Palad is far different than the phrase, finally settled, from Atty. Llasos.” He went on to argue: “If it was technically remained open, then common sense will tell you that it is not finally settled.” Sorry, Mr. Soliman but your common sense failed you. My use of “finally settled” simply meant that the list of the 27 books of the New Testament were in by 382 A.D. in the Council of Rome. Finally settled because no other books would be added to it or deducted from it. The 27 NT books are the same books we have now.
Mr. Palad explained his statement that “the Canon technically remained open” in the sense that it had no “dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications.” I was aware that despite the final list (no more dagdag-bawas), questions continued to crop regarding the canon of Scripture until its definitive or authoritative settlement for Catholics once and for all in the Council of Trent. That is why I mentioned that the decision in the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. “was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. The second Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” This went on until Trent definitively, authoritatively, dogmatically and infallibly put an end to it.
.My article was concerned with the New Testament canon of which the Book of Revelation is a part. I made the point that it is absurd to demand for an official or infallible interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12 when the very canonicity of the Book of Revelation itself was being disputed at that time (at least during the first 300 years of Christianity, based on Gerry Soliman’s timeline).
After the New Testament canon (which included the Book of Revelation) was fixed, Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 began to emerge. That was precisely the same point of Dr. Tim Perry, author of Mary for Evangelicals: “It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 begins in the fifth century, after the New Testament canon is fixed. As part of the New Testament Canon, Revelation’s depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 113. Gerry Soliman admittedly has not read this book].
Saturday 22 January 2011
PAPAL BUSTER BUSTED!!! Anti-Catholics Caught Lying-By Bro. Marwil Llasos, OP
FRANKLIN LI, the author of now busted anti-Catholic blog Papalbusters is known for intellectual dishonesty and cold-blooded mendacity. He has no qualms in lying all day long to attack the Catholic Church, the Pope and their defenders (particularly me and Rev. Fr. Abraham Arganiosa). It is expected of Franklin Li because we know who his father is (Jn. 8:44, Rev. 12:10). Caught in the web of lies of his own making, Franklin Li has no way out of it.
In an article in his now defunct blog which a fellow Catholic Faith defender emailed me (I don’t monitor Franklin Li’s blog because it’s just a waste of time considering that his readership is almost nil), Franklin Li lied through his teeth when he averred that Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and I have contrasting views.
Of course, Franklin Li copied this lie from his master GERALD JOHN PARAY SOLIMAN (Gerry Soliman) who, as far as I know, cannot publicly defend his lies in a debate. I will be gratified if one day Mr. Soliman will email me and accept the debate challenge I gave to his other self Rodimus. Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman have the same style – pitting one Catholic apologist against another, you know the classic divide and conquer strategy. They have the same father and teacher, I suppose. And you know who – the father of lies and teacher of heresies. Sorry, but we won’t fall for the trap.
[Gerry Soliman’s article is here:
http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/11/woman-clothed-with-sun-of-revelations.html
while the now moribund blog of Franklin Li may be excavated here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3isHzhijRWIJ:papalbusters.blogspot.com/2010/11/can-abraham-arganiosa-and-atty-marwil-l.html+Fr.+Abe+arganiosa+AND+Atty.+marwil&cd=1&hl=tl&ct=clnk&gl=ph&client=firefox-a]
Let’s now scrutinize the lies of Franklin Li (a second-rate trying hard copy-cat of Gerry Soliman).
In the malicious article Can Abraham Arganiosa and Atty. Marwil L. Llasos Make Up Their Minds?, Franklin Li unabashedly foisted the falsehood on his readers (if there are any) that Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and I have “contrasting views” and “contradictory argument” on the Woman of Revelation 12.
The Devil is subtle and so are his minions, i.e., Franklin Li and his big-brother Gerry Soliman. So don’t be fooled by the cunning serpent and his brood.
Let’s check where the so-called contradiction lies. Here are Franklin Li’s words:
“Now this is something. We have Atty. Marwil L. Llasos saying, "To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.” On the other hand, Abraham Arganiosa says, "I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS."
The contradiction exists only in the sick and malevolent minds of Franklin Li and Mr. Soliman. These liars took my words out of context. Deceived and deceiving, the duo wants to deceive the readers into believing that Fr. Arganiosa and I are discussing the same topic. There is a big problem in the reading comprehension skills of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman. They are wont to distort, twist and quote out of context the words of Catholic apologists just so that they can attack us of contradiction.
Let’s expose the lying mentality of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman. By juxtaposing my words and Fr. Arganiosa, the lying tandem of Li and Soliman makes it appear that we are speaking about the same thing. We don’t. Don’t fall for the lie, folks.
The truth is Rev. Fr. Arganiosa and I and talking about different matters.
This was my comment: “To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.” What was I referring to? I was specifically referring to the “birth pangs” mentioned in Revelation 12:2. Mr. Soliman knows that because I was answering his question: “I would like to ask if this in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? As you know God punished Eve by increasing her birth pains.”
I am aghast by Mr. Gerry Soliman’s (and also Franklin Li’s) intellectual dishonesty. It’s hard to deal with these evangelical defenders because they take you out of context and misrepresent your position. I’d rather personally debate them in public to expose to the people their diabolical ploy.
To repeat, the portion of my statement that Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman quoted refers to the “birth pangs” mentioned in Revelation 12:2 and not the identity of the “woman” which I already answered earlier in the first part of my article and also in my previous post. [See: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2010/07/woman-in-revelation-12-part-i.html].
Since Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman yanked my statement out of context, let me quote in full the context in which my statement appeared so that the public will see how malicious and intellectually dishonest Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman are. The readers will note the context I was discussing:
“Now let’s turn to Mr. Soliman’s question. He said: “I would like to ask if this in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? As you know God punished Eve by increasing her birth pains.”
The real concern of Mr. Soliman, based on his question, is to debunk the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Of course, we know that in Genesis 3:16, God cursed the fallen Eve with the words: “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” So, Mr. Soliman’s point really is: if Mary is free from original sin, then she should be free from child-bearing pains; but, if the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, why did she cry out in pain as she was about to give birth? (Rev. 12:2).
To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. In his comment in my blog article, Mr. Soliman said, “I don't interpret it literally …” to which I replied that “there are points of agreement already between his position and ours.” [See: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5249487892866557785&postID=4175179942859431188]
I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we. From this point of agreement, I shall explain why, from the Catholic view, Revelation 12:2 does not affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
We Catholics do recognize the fact that, as stated in Revelation 12:2, there are indeed “labor pains.” But what are these labor pains? Author John McHugh who sees Mary not as the primary ‘woman’ of Revelation 12 but still sees her as the woman in a secondary manner, notes: “The woman, we read was ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here translated ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here translated ‘in anguish’ is never once used in the Septuagint, the New Testament, the apocrypha, the papyri or the Fathers to denote the pains of physical birth; and this is all the more remarkable when one remembers the scene of a painful birth is alluded to in these writings. The word can perhaps best be rendered as ‘going through torment or torture’, and it is therefore a very surprising verb to encounter when one recalls the radiant description of the woman in 12:1” [John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Doubleday & Company, Inc.: Garden City, NY, 1975) p.411].
Indeed, Revelation 12:2 does not show that the woman is experiencing physical labor pains, and if the author of the Apocalypse had wanted to say so, he would have certainly used such language. Instead, here it seems that the Seer of Patmos is speaking of a double birth. The pain the woman is suffering here is not indicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering at seeing her Son’s agonizing pain and suffering on Calvary.
Catholic Biblical exegete Fr. Stefano Manelli, explains –
“The pains of childbirth of the “woman” seem to constitute a particular problem, if they are referred to the virginal childbirth of Mary at Bethlehem. If instead, they are referred to the childbirth of Mary on Calvary, where she is constituted “truly the mother of the members of Christ”, as St. Augustine affirms (quoted by Lumen Gentium, no. 53), then we too can understand with other exegetes, among them D. Squillaci, that to our Lady “is to be ascribed a double childbirth: one natural and virginal, by which without pain or injury of any kind, she begot the Son of God the physical Christ: the other spiritual, by means of which on Calvary, uniting her sufferings to those of the Redeemer, she begot the Mystical Body of Christ.
According to R. Laurentin, the difficulty over the pains of childbirth on the part of the “woman” of Revelation can be eliminated by a comparison:
“In Apoc. 5:6 Christ appears in heaven in the form of an immolated lamb (cf. Jn 19:36). The sufferings of the woman who also appears in heaven in Apoc 12:2, stands in relation to the immolation of the celestial Lamb. Thus, in the 12th chapter of Apocalypse, the reference is not to the childbirth at Bethlehem, but to the words of Christ on the cross: “Son, behold your Mother” (Jn 19:26). It is a question of the spiritual motherhood of Mary and of the compassion with which the Mother of Jesus shares in the sufferings of the immolated Lamb. Jn 12:9 and Apoc 12 are therefore, in strict relation to one another. In each passage Mary’s motherhood in relation to the disciples entails a context of suffering (Jn. 19:25; Apoc 12:2)” [Stefano Manelli,FFI, All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed (New Bedford, Massachusetts: Academy of the Immaculate, 1995), pp. 356-357].
Expounding on this, a Catholic apologist explains –
“Thus, here John is speaking about a different type of suffering. Thus, for example, in Gal 4:19, Paul was in birth pains until Christ was formed within his readers. Also, Rom. 8:22 shows ‘All creation has been groaning in travail together until now.’ When speaking about Lot who was the only righteous one in Sodom and Gomorra, it says that ‘he was vexed by his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds). Thus, the suffering can be spiritual. So how does this relate to Mary? Mary gives birth to Christ, and his sufferings on Calvary. Well, there was a a prophecy given by Simeon, in Luke 2:34-35 that speaks to this very issue, as brought up in Rev. 12:2:
34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against 35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”
So Mary underwent the spiritual suffering at Calvary. Her soul was pierced when she saw her Son die on the cross. There is a richness in Luke 2:34-35, which shows how Mary suffered. But not only on the cross. John McHugh notes that the traditional classical interpretation in Catholic thought is that the sword signifies the suffering felt by Mary as she stood by the cross, watching the death-agony of her son. McHugh gives a lot of evidence to say that the suffering of Mary speaks to much more than that (pages 104-112 of his book), but also in Lk. 2:35:
The ‘classical interpretation’ of Lk 2:35a (that Mary was suffering watching the suffering of Christ on the cross) may therefore be restated with this perspective of Luke in mind. ‘Thou thyself, O Israel, shall feel a sword pass through they soul.’ Mary as an individual had rejoiced to be the mother of him who would fulfill the promises made to Abraham; as the Daughter of Zion, more aware than anyone else of the destiny of her child, she welcomed his coming for the joy it would bring to Israel and to the world (cf. once more the Magnificat). Yet in the course of Jesus‘ public life she had to watch the mounting opposition to her son, and knew that the leaders of Israel were thereby turning against their saviour. Her mental sufferings reached a climax on Calvary, but they had begun long before. And even at the foot of the cross, she suffered a double agony. She watched the physical torment and heard the mockery directed at Jesus, her son but in addition she had the far greater sorrow of knowing that the appointed leaders of God‘s chosen people had refused the message of salvation” [citing John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1975), p. 111]. (See: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/woman.html#[14]).
In conclusion, the online Catholic apologist states –
Thus, this directly speaks to the issue of Revelation 12. Now, we also saw in Revelation 12 that right after speaking about her suffering in v. 2, it speaks to the dragon chasing the woman and the child, seeking to devour them. Her child is caught up to the throne. Thus, it speaks to his both resurrection and ascension into heaven. This is done after the fact of her suffering. Thus, the suffering pointed to in Revelation 12:2 points exactly to the suffering that she entailed when seeing the rejection of her Son, that reached its fulfillment on the cross. In addition to this, we see her as the Spiritual mother of all of Christ’s children (Jn. 19:27, Rev. 12:17). Now, as Mary is still the only one who is Jesus’ mother, this shows a double birth, both a physical birth of Christ, and a spiritual birth, where she begets the children of Christ. That brings with it also a painful spiritual childbirth, as we have seen in other passages which show spiritual suffering (2 Pet. 2:8, Gal. 4:19, Rom. 8:22)” (ibid).”
See: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2010/08/woman-in-revelation-12-part-ii.html.
THERE YOU HAVE IT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. My statement, as you correctly observed, was concerned about the interpretation of the “birth pangs” in Revelation 12 and not the identity of the “woman.”
Now, let’s proceed to the statement of Fr. Abraham Arganiosa: "I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS."
The objective reader will immediately know and understand that Fr. Arganiosa is discussing the identity of the “woman.” He is not discussing there the interpretation of the “birth pangs.”
Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS is answering the question asked by a reader: “[I]f we will argue that Woman is sometimes Mary, because it has similarities with Mary….” And Fr. Arganiosa replied: “I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALLEGORICALLY IT REFERS ALSO TO ISRAEL WHICH IS THE 'DAUGHTER ZION' REFERRED TO BY GOD IN ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH.” The issue that Fr. Arganiosa responded to is the identity of the “woman.”
So here we have once again unmasked the lies of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman. They should by now be ashamed of what they are doing – if they have a modicum of self-respect and personal integrity. I doubt it if they would. They are so smug and won’t bother to apologize for spreading falsehood in the Internet. “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness” (Exo. 23:1, NIV).
Now let’s see. Did Fr. Arganiosa and I contradict each other in any way regarding this issue? The answer is an obvious NO. We are on all fours when it comes to interpreting Revelation 12, but as to the identity of the “woman” and the interpretation of “birth pangs.”
On the identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12: I did an exegetical work on this and listed the various interpretations of the “woman” in Revelation 12 as Mary, the Church, Israel and even Eve. Does Fr. Abraham Arganiosa oppose this interpretation? NO. This is what Fr. Arganiosa said: “Please don't confuse ISRAEL, CHURCH AND MARY the Woman Clothed with the Sun refers to them all and to each of them.” Moreover, in the portion quoted out of context by Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman, Fr. Araganiosa underscored the same point: “I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALLEGORICALLY IT REFERS ALSO TO ISRAEL WHICH IS THE 'DAUGHTER ZION' REFERRED TO BY GOD IN ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH.” Isn’t that clear enough? Only to the opaque minds of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman that it is unclear.
On the interpretation of “birth pangs” in Revelation 12: You can refer to my statement which I quoted extensively above. Pertinently, I quoted John Mc Hugh’s article stating in part, “The ‘classical interpretation’ of Lk 2:35a (that Mary was suffering watching the suffering of Christ on the cross) may therefore be restated with this perspective of Luke in mind. ‘Thou thyself, O Israel, shall feel a sword pass through they soul.’ Mary as an individual had rejoiced to be the mother of him who would fulfill the promises made to Abraham; as the Daughter of Zion, more aware than anyone else of the destiny of her child, she welcomed his coming for the joy it would bring to Israel and to the world.” This essentially the same stand of Fr. Arganiosa:
“THE PROBLEM WITH YOU IS THAT THE TERM WOMAN ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE IS NOT ONLY REFERRING TO A PERSON BUT ALSO TO ISRAEL AND TO THE CHURCH. THE PHRASE 'A WOMAN IN LABOR' IS ALSO USED FOR ISRAEL WHO IS REFERRED TO AS THE MOTHER ZION OR THE DAUGHTER ZION.
THE WORD WOMAN IS USED FOR MARY IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN WHEREIN JESUS CONTINUOUSLY CALLED HER 'WOMAN' BUT GOD ALSO LIKENED THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL TO THAT WOMAN” (and cited Isa. 26:17 and Jer. 4:31).
Now, it’s my turn to ask: Who is contradicting who? Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman reject any Marian interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12. But would all Evangelicals agree with them? Not on your life!
I already pointed out in my blog that there are Evangelicals who admit Marian interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12. Here is what I said:
“Are there Protestants, or even Evangelicals, who share a Marian interpretation (though not exclusively) of Revelation 12? Yes, definitely – these are those with much better scholarly credentials than Mr. Gerry Soliman. I already cited Prof. Tim Perry, a published Evangelical theologian and professor. Mr. Soliman can hardly hold a candle beside him.
Speaking of the woman of Revelation 12, Prof. Perry categorically affirms that “the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary” [Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 112]. Indeed, for Prof. Tim Perry, “There are grounds to read the heavenly woman as Mary, the maiden of Nazareth through whom God’s plan was realized not in heaven but in this world. But those grounds reside in Revelation only after it is placed in its context as Christian canon” [Ibid., p. 112].
Although anti-Catholic and professed opponents of the Catholic view on Mary, the World Evangelical Fellowship looked at the Biblical data and acknowledged that the woman of Revelation 12 is indeed Mary! It said: “In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1). Both depict the birth of Christ” [Paul G. Schrotenboer, Roman Catholicism: A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 92). Could the World Evangelical Fellowship be wrong and Mr. Soliman right? I’m certain that both the WEF and Mr. Soliman read the same Bible and interpret the same verses yet they arrived at diametrically opposed conclusions. They are all Evangelicals, by the way. But both of them can’t be right.”
Can Evangelicals ever make up their mind?
Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman should now hide in shame. Their credibility is by now below sea level. When they accuse us Catholics of contradicting each other, it just backfires of them. Just like the Jewish accusers of the Lord, they are the ones who are inconsistent and contradictory.
In an article in his now defunct blog which a fellow Catholic Faith defender emailed me (I don’t monitor Franklin Li’s blog because it’s just a waste of time considering that his readership is almost nil), Franklin Li lied through his teeth when he averred that Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and I have contrasting views.
Of course, Franklin Li copied this lie from his master GERALD JOHN PARAY SOLIMAN (Gerry Soliman) who, as far as I know, cannot publicly defend his lies in a debate. I will be gratified if one day Mr. Soliman will email me and accept the debate challenge I gave to his other self Rodimus. Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman have the same style – pitting one Catholic apologist against another, you know the classic divide and conquer strategy. They have the same father and teacher, I suppose. And you know who – the father of lies and teacher of heresies. Sorry, but we won’t fall for the trap.
[Gerry Soliman’s article is here:
http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/11/woman-clothed-with-sun-of-revelations.html
while the now moribund blog of Franklin Li may be excavated here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3isHzhijRWIJ:papalbusters.blogspot.com/2010/11/can-abraham-arganiosa-and-atty-marwil-l.html+Fr.+Abe+arganiosa+AND+Atty.+marwil&cd=1&hl=tl&ct=clnk&gl=ph&client=firefox-a]
Let’s now scrutinize the lies of Franklin Li (a second-rate trying hard copy-cat of Gerry Soliman).
In the malicious article Can Abraham Arganiosa and Atty. Marwil L. Llasos Make Up Their Minds?, Franklin Li unabashedly foisted the falsehood on his readers (if there are any) that Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and I have “contrasting views” and “contradictory argument” on the Woman of Revelation 12.
The Devil is subtle and so are his minions, i.e., Franklin Li and his big-brother Gerry Soliman. So don’t be fooled by the cunning serpent and his brood.
Let’s check where the so-called contradiction lies. Here are Franklin Li’s words:
“Now this is something. We have Atty. Marwil L. Llasos saying, "To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.” On the other hand, Abraham Arganiosa says, "I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS."
The contradiction exists only in the sick and malevolent minds of Franklin Li and Mr. Soliman. These liars took my words out of context. Deceived and deceiving, the duo wants to deceive the readers into believing that Fr. Arganiosa and I are discussing the same topic. There is a big problem in the reading comprehension skills of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman. They are wont to distort, twist and quote out of context the words of Catholic apologists just so that they can attack us of contradiction.
Let’s expose the lying mentality of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman. By juxtaposing my words and Fr. Arganiosa, the lying tandem of Li and Soliman makes it appear that we are speaking about the same thing. We don’t. Don’t fall for the lie, folks.
The truth is Rev. Fr. Arganiosa and I and talking about different matters.
This was my comment: “To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.” What was I referring to? I was specifically referring to the “birth pangs” mentioned in Revelation 12:2. Mr. Soliman knows that because I was answering his question: “I would like to ask if this in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? As you know God punished Eve by increasing her birth pains.”
I am aghast by Mr. Gerry Soliman’s (and also Franklin Li’s) intellectual dishonesty. It’s hard to deal with these evangelical defenders because they take you out of context and misrepresent your position. I’d rather personally debate them in public to expose to the people their diabolical ploy.
To repeat, the portion of my statement that Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman quoted refers to the “birth pangs” mentioned in Revelation 12:2 and not the identity of the “woman” which I already answered earlier in the first part of my article and also in my previous post. [See: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2010/07/woman-in-revelation-12-part-i.html].
Since Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman yanked my statement out of context, let me quote in full the context in which my statement appeared so that the public will see how malicious and intellectually dishonest Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman are. The readers will note the context I was discussing:
“Now let’s turn to Mr. Soliman’s question. He said: “I would like to ask if this in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? As you know God punished Eve by increasing her birth pains.”
The real concern of Mr. Soliman, based on his question, is to debunk the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Of course, we know that in Genesis 3:16, God cursed the fallen Eve with the words: “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” So, Mr. Soliman’s point really is: if Mary is free from original sin, then she should be free from child-bearing pains; but, if the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary, why did she cry out in pain as she was about to give birth? (Rev. 12:2).
To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. In his comment in my blog article, Mr. Soliman said, “I don't interpret it literally …” to which I replied that “there are points of agreement already between his position and ours.” [See: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5249487892866557785&postID=4175179942859431188]
I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we. From this point of agreement, I shall explain why, from the Catholic view, Revelation 12:2 does not affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
We Catholics do recognize the fact that, as stated in Revelation 12:2, there are indeed “labor pains.” But what are these labor pains? Author John McHugh who sees Mary not as the primary ‘woman’ of Revelation 12 but still sees her as the woman in a secondary manner, notes: “The woman, we read was ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here translated ‘in anguish for delivery’ (Revised Standard Version). The Greek verb here translated ‘in anguish’ is never once used in the Septuagint, the New Testament, the apocrypha, the papyri or the Fathers to denote the pains of physical birth; and this is all the more remarkable when one remembers the scene of a painful birth is alluded to in these writings. The word can perhaps best be rendered as ‘going through torment or torture’, and it is therefore a very surprising verb to encounter when one recalls the radiant description of the woman in 12:1” [John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Doubleday & Company, Inc.: Garden City, NY, 1975) p.411].
Indeed, Revelation 12:2 does not show that the woman is experiencing physical labor pains, and if the author of the Apocalypse had wanted to say so, he would have certainly used such language. Instead, here it seems that the Seer of Patmos is speaking of a double birth. The pain the woman is suffering here is not indicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering at seeing her Son’s agonizing pain and suffering on Calvary.
Catholic Biblical exegete Fr. Stefano Manelli, explains –
“The pains of childbirth of the “woman” seem to constitute a particular problem, if they are referred to the virginal childbirth of Mary at Bethlehem. If instead, they are referred to the childbirth of Mary on Calvary, where she is constituted “truly the mother of the members of Christ”, as St. Augustine affirms (quoted by Lumen Gentium, no. 53), then we too can understand with other exegetes, among them D. Squillaci, that to our Lady “is to be ascribed a double childbirth: one natural and virginal, by which without pain or injury of any kind, she begot the Son of God the physical Christ: the other spiritual, by means of which on Calvary, uniting her sufferings to those of the Redeemer, she begot the Mystical Body of Christ.
According to R. Laurentin, the difficulty over the pains of childbirth on the part of the “woman” of Revelation can be eliminated by a comparison:
“In Apoc. 5:6 Christ appears in heaven in the form of an immolated lamb (cf. Jn 19:36). The sufferings of the woman who also appears in heaven in Apoc 12:2, stands in relation to the immolation of the celestial Lamb. Thus, in the 12th chapter of Apocalypse, the reference is not to the childbirth at Bethlehem, but to the words of Christ on the cross: “Son, behold your Mother” (Jn 19:26). It is a question of the spiritual motherhood of Mary and of the compassion with which the Mother of Jesus shares in the sufferings of the immolated Lamb. Jn 12:9 and Apoc 12 are therefore, in strict relation to one another. In each passage Mary’s motherhood in relation to the disciples entails a context of suffering (Jn. 19:25; Apoc 12:2)” [Stefano Manelli,FFI, All Generations Shall Call Me Blessed (New Bedford, Massachusetts: Academy of the Immaculate, 1995), pp. 356-357].
Expounding on this, a Catholic apologist explains –
“Thus, here John is speaking about a different type of suffering. Thus, for example, in Gal 4:19, Paul was in birth pains until Christ was formed within his readers. Also, Rom. 8:22 shows ‘All creation has been groaning in travail together until now.’ When speaking about Lot who was the only righteous one in Sodom and Gomorra, it says that ‘he was vexed by his righteous soul day after day with their lawless deeds). Thus, the suffering can be spiritual. So how does this relate to Mary? Mary gives birth to Christ, and his sufferings on Calvary. Well, there was a a prophecy given by Simeon, in Luke 2:34-35 that speaks to this very issue, as brought up in Rev. 12:2:
34 and Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother, "Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is spoken against 35 (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that thoughts out of many hearts may be revealed.”
So Mary underwent the spiritual suffering at Calvary. Her soul was pierced when she saw her Son die on the cross. There is a richness in Luke 2:34-35, which shows how Mary suffered. But not only on the cross. John McHugh notes that the traditional classical interpretation in Catholic thought is that the sword signifies the suffering felt by Mary as she stood by the cross, watching the death-agony of her son. McHugh gives a lot of evidence to say that the suffering of Mary speaks to much more than that (pages 104-112 of his book), but also in Lk. 2:35:
The ‘classical interpretation’ of Lk 2:35a (that Mary was suffering watching the suffering of Christ on the cross) may therefore be restated with this perspective of Luke in mind. ‘Thou thyself, O Israel, shall feel a sword pass through they soul.’ Mary as an individual had rejoiced to be the mother of him who would fulfill the promises made to Abraham; as the Daughter of Zion, more aware than anyone else of the destiny of her child, she welcomed his coming for the joy it would bring to Israel and to the world (cf. once more the Magnificat). Yet in the course of Jesus‘ public life she had to watch the mounting opposition to her son, and knew that the leaders of Israel were thereby turning against their saviour. Her mental sufferings reached a climax on Calvary, but they had begun long before. And even at the foot of the cross, she suffered a double agony. She watched the physical torment and heard the mockery directed at Jesus, her son but in addition she had the far greater sorrow of knowing that the appointed leaders of God‘s chosen people had refused the message of salvation” [citing John McHugh, The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1975), p. 111]. (See: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/woman.html#[14]).
In conclusion, the online Catholic apologist states –
Thus, this directly speaks to the issue of Revelation 12. Now, we also saw in Revelation 12 that right after speaking about her suffering in v. 2, it speaks to the dragon chasing the woman and the child, seeking to devour them. Her child is caught up to the throne. Thus, it speaks to his both resurrection and ascension into heaven. This is done after the fact of her suffering. Thus, the suffering pointed to in Revelation 12:2 points exactly to the suffering that she entailed when seeing the rejection of her Son, that reached its fulfillment on the cross. In addition to this, we see her as the Spiritual mother of all of Christ’s children (Jn. 19:27, Rev. 12:17). Now, as Mary is still the only one who is Jesus’ mother, this shows a double birth, both a physical birth of Christ, and a spiritual birth, where she begets the children of Christ. That brings with it also a painful spiritual childbirth, as we have seen in other passages which show spiritual suffering (2 Pet. 2:8, Gal. 4:19, Rom. 8:22)” (ibid).”
See: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2010/08/woman-in-revelation-12-part-ii.html.
THERE YOU HAVE IT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. My statement, as you correctly observed, was concerned about the interpretation of the “birth pangs” in Revelation 12 and not the identity of the “woman.”
Now, let’s proceed to the statement of Fr. Abraham Arganiosa: "I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS."
The objective reader will immediately know and understand that Fr. Arganiosa is discussing the identity of the “woman.” He is not discussing there the interpretation of the “birth pangs.”
Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS is answering the question asked by a reader: “[I]f we will argue that Woman is sometimes Mary, because it has similarities with Mary….” And Fr. Arganiosa replied: “I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALLEGORICALLY IT REFERS ALSO TO ISRAEL WHICH IS THE 'DAUGHTER ZION' REFERRED TO BY GOD IN ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH.” The issue that Fr. Arganiosa responded to is the identity of the “woman.”
So here we have once again unmasked the lies of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman. They should by now be ashamed of what they are doing – if they have a modicum of self-respect and personal integrity. I doubt it if they would. They are so smug and won’t bother to apologize for spreading falsehood in the Internet. “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness” (Exo. 23:1, NIV).
Now let’s see. Did Fr. Arganiosa and I contradict each other in any way regarding this issue? The answer is an obvious NO. We are on all fours when it comes to interpreting Revelation 12, but as to the identity of the “woman” and the interpretation of “birth pangs.”
On the identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12: I did an exegetical work on this and listed the various interpretations of the “woman” in Revelation 12 as Mary, the Church, Israel and even Eve. Does Fr. Abraham Arganiosa oppose this interpretation? NO. This is what Fr. Arganiosa said: “Please don't confuse ISRAEL, CHURCH AND MARY the Woman Clothed with the Sun refers to them all and to each of them.” Moreover, in the portion quoted out of context by Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman, Fr. Araganiosa underscored the same point: “I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALLEGORICALLY IT REFERS ALSO TO ISRAEL WHICH IS THE 'DAUGHTER ZION' REFERRED TO BY GOD IN ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH.” Isn’t that clear enough? Only to the opaque minds of Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman that it is unclear.
On the interpretation of “birth pangs” in Revelation 12: You can refer to my statement which I quoted extensively above. Pertinently, I quoted John Mc Hugh’s article stating in part, “The ‘classical interpretation’ of Lk 2:35a (that Mary was suffering watching the suffering of Christ on the cross) may therefore be restated with this perspective of Luke in mind. ‘Thou thyself, O Israel, shall feel a sword pass through they soul.’ Mary as an individual had rejoiced to be the mother of him who would fulfill the promises made to Abraham; as the Daughter of Zion, more aware than anyone else of the destiny of her child, she welcomed his coming for the joy it would bring to Israel and to the world.” This essentially the same stand of Fr. Arganiosa:
“THE PROBLEM WITH YOU IS THAT THE TERM WOMAN ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE IS NOT ONLY REFERRING TO A PERSON BUT ALSO TO ISRAEL AND TO THE CHURCH. THE PHRASE 'A WOMAN IN LABOR' IS ALSO USED FOR ISRAEL WHO IS REFERRED TO AS THE MOTHER ZION OR THE DAUGHTER ZION.
THE WORD WOMAN IS USED FOR MARY IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN WHEREIN JESUS CONTINUOUSLY CALLED HER 'WOMAN' BUT GOD ALSO LIKENED THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL TO THAT WOMAN” (and cited Isa. 26:17 and Jer. 4:31).
Now, it’s my turn to ask: Who is contradicting who? Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman reject any Marian interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12. But would all Evangelicals agree with them? Not on your life!
I already pointed out in my blog that there are Evangelicals who admit Marian interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12. Here is what I said:
“Are there Protestants, or even Evangelicals, who share a Marian interpretation (though not exclusively) of Revelation 12? Yes, definitely – these are those with much better scholarly credentials than Mr. Gerry Soliman. I already cited Prof. Tim Perry, a published Evangelical theologian and professor. Mr. Soliman can hardly hold a candle beside him.
Speaking of the woman of Revelation 12, Prof. Perry categorically affirms that “the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary” [Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 112]. Indeed, for Prof. Tim Perry, “There are grounds to read the heavenly woman as Mary, the maiden of Nazareth through whom God’s plan was realized not in heaven but in this world. But those grounds reside in Revelation only after it is placed in its context as Christian canon” [Ibid., p. 112].
Although anti-Catholic and professed opponents of the Catholic view on Mary, the World Evangelical Fellowship looked at the Biblical data and acknowledged that the woman of Revelation 12 is indeed Mary! It said: “In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1). Both depict the birth of Christ” [Paul G. Schrotenboer, Roman Catholicism: A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 92). Could the World Evangelical Fellowship be wrong and Mr. Soliman right? I’m certain that both the WEF and Mr. Soliman read the same Bible and interpret the same verses yet they arrived at diametrically opposed conclusions. They are all Evangelicals, by the way. But both of them can’t be right.”
Can Evangelicals ever make up their mind?
Franklin Li and Gerry Soliman should now hide in shame. Their credibility is by now below sea level. When they accuse us Catholics of contradicting each other, it just backfires of them. Just like the Jewish accusers of the Lord, they are the ones who are inconsistent and contradictory.
GERRY SOLIMAN’S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY by Bro. Marwil Llasos, OP
GERRY SOLIMAN’S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY
A fellow Catholic apologist emailed me a link from the defunct blog of FRANKLIN LI accusing me and Reverend Father Arganiosa, CRS of conflicting views. Franklin Li is not original in his attacks; he merely parroted his master GERRY SOLIMAN’s ideas hook, line and sinker. The real culprit is Gerry Soliman.
In an article Mary as the Woman Clothed with the Sun of Revelations 12: Symbolical (sic) or Literal? posted in his blog with only two (2) followers, Mr. Soliman pitted my statement against Fr. Arganiosa’s to create the impression that we don’t agree on the identity of Mary as the woman clothed with sun in Revelation 12, and whether that identity of Mary is literal or symbolic. Here is what he said in his blog (http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/11/woman-clothed-with-sun-of-revelations.html):
“Let the infallible Church of Rome tell you. According to Atty. Marwil Llasos, a Roman Catholic apologist specializing on Mariology:
*
To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally.
*
I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.
*
According to Fr. Abraham Arganiosa, another Roman Catholic apologist and comrade of Atty. Llasos:
*
I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS.”
The intellectual dishonesty of Gerry Soliman is all too apparent to be ignored. He concealed the fact that Fr. Arganiosa and I were discussing two (2) different issues. Yet, Gerry Soliman, taking each of us out of context, made it appear that we were discussing one.
My comment, which Gerry Soliman fully knew, was concerned about the interpretation of “birth pangs” [or “birth pains”] in Revelation 12:2. Gerry Soliman cannot feign ignorance of that fact because he was totally aware that I was responding to his question which he posted in my blogs comments section on November 4, 2009. This is what he asked: “Your article here identifies Mary as the woman in Revelations 12:1ff. I would like to ask if this in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? As you know God punished Eve by increasing her birth pains.” Again, on November 10, 2009, responding to Fr. Arganiosa’s comments, Mr. Soliman reiterated his question: “Right now, just like Sir Mars, I am still gathering some info. That's why asked him if the birth pains would affect the Immaculate Conception dogma.” [See: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2009/10/mary-mother-of-church_30.html].
In my response dated November 9, 2009 to Mr. Soliman’s query, I said in part: “This early, there are points of agreement already between his position and ours. However, there are also divergences. These will be expounded on the article I will post.”
Hence, from the very start, there is not the least iota of doubt that Mr. Soliman and I were discussing the “birth pains” mentioned in Revelation 12:2. My answer dealt with that issue, thus –
“To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.”
It is obvious from the context that I was explaining “birth pains” and not the identity of the apocalyptic “woman.” This is made clearer by the immediately preceding and succeeding paragraphs. Any one with at least an average reading comprehension skills would understand that. But not Gerry Soliman.
I invite the reader to validate for himself what I am saying by reading my article in toto at http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2010/08/woman-in-revelation-12-part-ii.html. This should unmask the mendacity and intellectual dishonesty of Mr. Soliman which has further eroded whatever is left of his credibility in the field of apologetics. I understand that Mr. Soliman is a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Internal Auditor, professions that demand the highest standards of accuracy and honesty. More than that, Mr. Soliman is a Christian and Scripture tells us that “a truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies” (Prov. 14:5).
Let’s now proceed to the statement of Fr. Abraham Arganiosa which allegedly conflicted with my statement. This is what Fr. Arganiosa said: “I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS.”[http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-woman-clothed-with-sun.html].
Any objective reader will note that Fr. Arganiosa’s concern in that statement is the identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12. He was not discussing the interpretation of “birth pains” as I did.
Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS was answering the question asked by a reader “if we will argue that Woman is sometimes Mary, because it has similarities with Mary...” to which Fr. Arganiosa replied, “I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALLEGORICALLY IT REFERS ALSO TO ISRAEL WHICH IS THE 'DAUGHTER ZION' REFERRED TO BY GOD IN ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH.” Clearly, the question that Fr. Arganiosa answered was the identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12.
Gerry Soliman is once again unmasked for his intellectual dishonesty. There seems to be no end for this discernible pattern in Mr. Soliman’s style of apologetics. Mr. Isahel Don Alfonso, RN of the Catholic Faith Defenders of Davao also disclosed this foul tactic of Mr. Gerry Soliman, CPA, CIA. [http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com/2011/01/solutions-finder-apologetics-finds-no.html].
No doubt, when Gerry Soliman disdainfully complained that his head was aching, well, it was to his own making. He was comparing apples with oranges. And here’s another reason for his head to ache.
Evangelicals are on a collision course regarding the Marian interpretation of Revelation 12. Mr. Soliman and his cohort Franklin Li absolutely denies any Marian reference to Revelation 12. Yet, fellow evangelicals with better academic credentials disagree.
Theology professor and published scholar Prof. Tim Perry admitted that “the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary” [Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 112]. According to this author of Mary for Evangelicals, “There are grounds to read the heavenly woman as Mary, the maiden of Nazareth through whom God’s plan was realized not in heaven but in this world. But those grounds reside in Revelation only after it is placed in its context as Christian canon” [Ibid., p. 112].
I could hear Gerry Soliman’s rebuttal: “But Tim Perry is ecumenical!” So what? He reads the same Bible as you do but how come he arrived at a different conclusion? That should give you more head ache.
If you don’t accept an “ecumenical” Evangelical author, then what about an anti-Catholic and avowed critic of Catholic Mariology? Here’s what World Evangelical Fellowship categorically said:
“In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1). Both depict the birth of Christ” [Paul G. Schrotenboer, Roman Catholicism: A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 92].
Who is telling the truth? The World Evangelical Fellowship debunked Mr. Gerry Soliman’s thesis. I already raised this issue before but Mr. Soliman has yet to prove that his and the WEF’s view are not at war with each other. They read and interpret the same Bible verses but the conclusions they arrived at are diametrically opposed. More aspirin for Gerry Soliman, please!
Gerry Soliman concluded that “Mary as woman clothed with the sun is not an apostolic teaching.” But what did the World Evangelical Fellowship say? ““In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1).” Whose words should I take? I’m having a head ache, too!
Another point that Mr. Soliman raised the issue that the Roman Catholic Church “didn’t have any official and infallible interpretation of it during the first 300 years of Christianity.” This is another manifestation of Mr. Gerry Soliman’s internal mental inconsistency, if not intellectual dishonesty. Mr. Soliman has vehemently maintained that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist for the first 300 years of Christianity; yet, now he is asking for an official and infallible interpretation of that Church which he said did not exist for the first 300 years! As Rodimus, Gerry Soliman claimed that the “the Church of Rome was founded only after 300 A.D.” [http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2009/03/bereans-are-neither-here-nor-there.html].
Assuming arguendo that the Catholic Church did not have an official and infallible interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, so what? There was no need to officially and infallibly define it because there was no necessity for an interpretation as there was no controversy over that. And more importantly, there was no Christian canon of Scripture yet at that time! It is crazy for Gerry Soliman to demand for an official or infallible interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12 when the very canonicity of the Book of Revelation itself was being disputed!
In A Handbook of Christian Faith, John Schwarz stated that “[t]he final recognition and acceptance of the books of the New Testament cannot be dated precisely, as with the Old Testament, but it appears that as early as the middle of the second century there was already general agreement on twenty of the twenty-seven books – all except Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation” [John Schwarz, A Handbook of Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bethany House Publishers), 2004]. (emphasis added)
In his obscene haste to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently forgot that the canon of Scripture, both the Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., under the authority of Pope Damasus I and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. The second Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church” [see: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm].
Given the foregoing historical background, Evangelical professor and author Dr. Tim Perry concluded: “It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 begins in the fifth century, after the New Testament canon is fixed. As part of the New Testament Canon, Revelation’s depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 113. Gerry Soliman admittedly has not read this book].
One final point. Mr. Gerry Soliman posited that “none of the church fathers during that time ever interpreted the woman as Mary. Some of the church fathers referred the woman as Israel, the people of God but never on Mary.” Mr. Soliman has suddenly become interested in the Church Fathers!
This point of Mr. Soliman is a non-issue. As already stated, the Book of Revelation has not yet been accepted into the canon in the early centuries of the Church. How could there possibly be an interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary when the very inclusion of the Book of Revelation into the canon was itself being debated! Even if there is no mention of Mary as the woman in Revelation 12 in the earliest of the fathers who were closest in time to the composition of Revelation, yet the identification of Mary as the woman in Revelation 12 is “well attested in the patristic tradition of the Church.” The first extant citation is from the fourth century in Epiphanius. Steve Puluka explained that “this silence of the early evidence is as much a reflection of the dearth of material interpreting Revelation at all from the time period. The references to any aspect of the book are few and far between in the extant literature. But the tepid mention by Epiphanius demonstrates that the existence of a Marian identification of the woman in the same time period was widespread enough that he could not pass the text without comment on it.” [http://puluka.com/home/index.php?id=51#_ftn41].
Steve Puluka further notes: “Typical of later interpretation of the fathers is Oecumenius; indeed he is likely the source for many later fathers. Oecumenius clearly takes the woman as Mary. She is robed in the Sun of Justice, the moon at her feet is Moses and the Law which becomes the lesser light on the coming of Christ” (ibid., citing Oecumenius, 141-42).
Bible scholar Hilda Graef supports this. She records that Quodvultdeus, a disciple of Augustine, writing in the mid- to late- fifth century, made the first overtly Marian identification of the woman of Revelation 12. Graef likewise adds that it is not until the first half of the sixth century that Oecumenius, in his commentary on Revelation (the earliest extant commentary on the whole book), read the woman exclusively as Mary [Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation (London: Sheed and Ward, 1963) pp. 131-132; see also: footnote 61, Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 113].
Mr. Gerry Soliman’s conclusion that “Mary as woman clothed with the sun is not an apostolic teaching” has no leg to stand on. Even the World Evangelical Fellowship says exactly the opposite of the unfounded claim of Mr. Soliman: “In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1)” [Paul G. Schrotenboer, Roman Catholicism: A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 92)].
That’s it, folks. Gerry Soliman is intellectually dishonest as he is unscholarly. Scholarship and intellectual honesty go hand in hand; and so is the opposite. And we see that opposite precisely in Mr. Gerald John P. Soliman, CPA, CIA.
A fellow Catholic apologist emailed me a link from the defunct blog of FRANKLIN LI accusing me and Reverend Father Arganiosa, CRS of conflicting views. Franklin Li is not original in his attacks; he merely parroted his master GERRY SOLIMAN’s ideas hook, line and sinker. The real culprit is Gerry Soliman.
In an article Mary as the Woman Clothed with the Sun of Revelations 12: Symbolical (sic) or Literal? posted in his blog with only two (2) followers, Mr. Soliman pitted my statement against Fr. Arganiosa’s to create the impression that we don’t agree on the identity of Mary as the woman clothed with sun in Revelation 12, and whether that identity of Mary is literal or symbolic. Here is what he said in his blog (http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/11/woman-clothed-with-sun-of-revelations.html):
“Let the infallible Church of Rome tell you. According to Atty. Marwil Llasos, a Roman Catholic apologist specializing on Mariology:
*
To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally.
*
I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.
*
According to Fr. Abraham Arganiosa, another Roman Catholic apologist and comrade of Atty. Llasos:
*
I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS.”
The intellectual dishonesty of Gerry Soliman is all too apparent to be ignored. He concealed the fact that Fr. Arganiosa and I were discussing two (2) different issues. Yet, Gerry Soliman, taking each of us out of context, made it appear that we were discussing one.
My comment, which Gerry Soliman fully knew, was concerned about the interpretation of “birth pangs” [or “birth pains”] in Revelation 12:2. Gerry Soliman cannot feign ignorance of that fact because he was totally aware that I was responding to his question which he posted in my blogs comments section on November 4, 2009. This is what he asked: “Your article here identifies Mary as the woman in Revelations 12:1ff. I would like to ask if this in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? As you know God punished Eve by increasing her birth pains.” Again, on November 10, 2009, responding to Fr. Arganiosa’s comments, Mr. Soliman reiterated his question: “Right now, just like Sir Mars, I am still gathering some info. That's why asked him if the birth pains would affect the Immaculate Conception dogma.” [See: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2009/10/mary-mother-of-church_30.html].
In my response dated November 9, 2009 to Mr. Soliman’s query, I said in part: “This early, there are points of agreement already between his position and ours. However, there are also divergences. These will be expounded on the article I will post.”
Hence, from the very start, there is not the least iota of doubt that Mr. Soliman and I were discussing the “birth pains” mentioned in Revelation 12:2. My answer dealt with that issue, thus –
“To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.”
It is obvious from the context that I was explaining “birth pains” and not the identity of the apocalyptic “woman.” This is made clearer by the immediately preceding and succeeding paragraphs. Any one with at least an average reading comprehension skills would understand that. But not Gerry Soliman.
I invite the reader to validate for himself what I am saying by reading my article in toto at http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2010/08/woman-in-revelation-12-part-ii.html. This should unmask the mendacity and intellectual dishonesty of Mr. Soliman which has further eroded whatever is left of his credibility in the field of apologetics. I understand that Mr. Soliman is a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Internal Auditor, professions that demand the highest standards of accuracy and honesty. More than that, Mr. Soliman is a Christian and Scripture tells us that “a truthful witness does not deceive, but a false witness pours out lies” (Prov. 14:5).
Let’s now proceed to the statement of Fr. Abraham Arganiosa which allegedly conflicted with my statement. This is what Fr. Arganiosa said: “I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS.”[http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-woman-clothed-with-sun.html].
Any objective reader will note that Fr. Arganiosa’s concern in that statement is the identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12. He was not discussing the interpretation of “birth pains” as I did.
Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS was answering the question asked by a reader “if we will argue that Woman is sometimes Mary, because it has similarities with Mary...” to which Fr. Arganiosa replied, “I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME ALLEGORICALLY IT REFERS ALSO TO ISRAEL WHICH IS THE 'DAUGHTER ZION' REFERRED TO BY GOD IN ISAIAH AND JEREMIAH.” Clearly, the question that Fr. Arganiosa answered was the identity of the “woman” in Revelation 12.
Gerry Soliman is once again unmasked for his intellectual dishonesty. There seems to be no end for this discernible pattern in Mr. Soliman’s style of apologetics. Mr. Isahel Don Alfonso, RN of the Catholic Faith Defenders of Davao also disclosed this foul tactic of Mr. Gerry Soliman, CPA, CIA. [http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com/2011/01/solutions-finder-apologetics-finds-no.html].
No doubt, when Gerry Soliman disdainfully complained that his head was aching, well, it was to his own making. He was comparing apples with oranges. And here’s another reason for his head to ache.
Evangelicals are on a collision course regarding the Marian interpretation of Revelation 12. Mr. Soliman and his cohort Franklin Li absolutely denies any Marian reference to Revelation 12. Yet, fellow evangelicals with better academic credentials disagree.
Theology professor and published scholar Prof. Tim Perry admitted that “the case can be made for a fourth secondary referent: Mary” [Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 112]. According to this author of Mary for Evangelicals, “There are grounds to read the heavenly woman as Mary, the maiden of Nazareth through whom God’s plan was realized not in heaven but in this world. But those grounds reside in Revelation only after it is placed in its context as Christian canon” [Ibid., p. 112].
I could hear Gerry Soliman’s rebuttal: “But Tim Perry is ecumenical!” So what? He reads the same Bible as you do but how come he arrived at a different conclusion? That should give you more head ache.
If you don’t accept an “ecumenical” Evangelical author, then what about an anti-Catholic and avowed critic of Catholic Mariology? Here’s what World Evangelical Fellowship categorically said:
“In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1). Both depict the birth of Christ” [Paul G. Schrotenboer, Roman Catholicism: A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 92].
Who is telling the truth? The World Evangelical Fellowship debunked Mr. Gerry Soliman’s thesis. I already raised this issue before but Mr. Soliman has yet to prove that his and the WEF’s view are not at war with each other. They read and interpret the same Bible verses but the conclusions they arrived at are diametrically opposed. More aspirin for Gerry Soliman, please!
Gerry Soliman concluded that “Mary as woman clothed with the sun is not an apostolic teaching.” But what did the World Evangelical Fellowship say? ““In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1).” Whose words should I take? I’m having a head ache, too!
Another point that Mr. Soliman raised the issue that the Roman Catholic Church “didn’t have any official and infallible interpretation of it during the first 300 years of Christianity.” This is another manifestation of Mr. Gerry Soliman’s internal mental inconsistency, if not intellectual dishonesty. Mr. Soliman has vehemently maintained that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist for the first 300 years of Christianity; yet, now he is asking for an official and infallible interpretation of that Church which he said did not exist for the first 300 years! As Rodimus, Gerry Soliman claimed that the “the Church of Rome was founded only after 300 A.D.” [http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2009/03/bereans-are-neither-here-nor-there.html].
Assuming arguendo that the Catholic Church did not have an official and infallible interpretation during the first 300 years of Christianity that the “woman” of Revelation 12 is Mary, so what? There was no need to officially and infallibly define it because there was no necessity for an interpretation as there was no controversy over that. And more importantly, there was no Christian canon of Scripture yet at that time! It is crazy for Gerry Soliman to demand for an official or infallible interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12 when the very canonicity of the Book of Revelation itself was being disputed!
In A Handbook of Christian Faith, John Schwarz stated that “[t]he final recognition and acceptance of the books of the New Testament cannot be dated precisely, as with the Old Testament, but it appears that as early as the middle of the second century there was already general agreement on twenty of the twenty-seven books – all except Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation” [John Schwarz, A Handbook of Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Bethany House Publishers), 2004]. (emphasis added)
In his obscene haste to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently forgot that the canon of Scripture, both the Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., under the authority of Pope Damasus I and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. The second Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church” [see: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/DEUTEROS.htm].
Given the foregoing historical background, Evangelical professor and author Dr. Tim Perry concluded: “It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 begins in the fifth century, after the New Testament canon is fixed. As part of the New Testament Canon, Revelation’s depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 113. Gerry Soliman admittedly has not read this book].
One final point. Mr. Gerry Soliman posited that “none of the church fathers during that time ever interpreted the woman as Mary. Some of the church fathers referred the woman as Israel, the people of God but never on Mary.” Mr. Soliman has suddenly become interested in the Church Fathers!
This point of Mr. Soliman is a non-issue. As already stated, the Book of Revelation has not yet been accepted into the canon in the early centuries of the Church. How could there possibly be an interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary when the very inclusion of the Book of Revelation into the canon was itself being debated! Even if there is no mention of Mary as the woman in Revelation 12 in the earliest of the fathers who were closest in time to the composition of Revelation, yet the identification of Mary as the woman in Revelation 12 is “well attested in the patristic tradition of the Church.” The first extant citation is from the fourth century in Epiphanius. Steve Puluka explained that “this silence of the early evidence is as much a reflection of the dearth of material interpreting Revelation at all from the time period. The references to any aspect of the book are few and far between in the extant literature. But the tepid mention by Epiphanius demonstrates that the existence of a Marian identification of the woman in the same time period was widespread enough that he could not pass the text without comment on it.” [http://puluka.com/home/index.php?id=51#_ftn41].
Steve Puluka further notes: “Typical of later interpretation of the fathers is Oecumenius; indeed he is likely the source for many later fathers. Oecumenius clearly takes the woman as Mary. She is robed in the Sun of Justice, the moon at her feet is Moses and the Law which becomes the lesser light on the coming of Christ” (ibid., citing Oecumenius, 141-42).
Bible scholar Hilda Graef supports this. She records that Quodvultdeus, a disciple of Augustine, writing in the mid- to late- fifth century, made the first overtly Marian identification of the woman of Revelation 12. Graef likewise adds that it is not until the first half of the sixth century that Oecumenius, in his commentary on Revelation (the earliest extant commentary on the whole book), read the woman exclusively as Mary [Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, Vol. 1: From the Beginnings to the Eve of the Reformation (London: Sheed and Ward, 1963) pp. 131-132; see also: footnote 61, Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 113].
Mr. Gerry Soliman’s conclusion that “Mary as woman clothed with the sun is not an apostolic teaching” has no leg to stand on. Even the World Evangelical Fellowship says exactly the opposite of the unfounded claim of Mr. Soliman: “In the apostolic witness, there are only two references to her [Mary]. Paul spoke of the seed born of a woman (Gal. 4:4), and John told of the woman clothed with the sun who brought forth the manchild (Rev 12:1)” [Paul G. Schrotenboer, Roman Catholicism: A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988), p. 92)].
That’s it, folks. Gerry Soliman is intellectually dishonest as he is unscholarly. Scholarship and intellectual honesty go hand in hand; and so is the opposite. And we see that opposite precisely in Mr. Gerald John P. Soliman, CPA, CIA.
Thursday 21 October 2010
---English (American)
To my family, relatives, friends, colleagues, and churchmen, Thank you so much for all your greetings. May the Lord bless and keep you always.
---Latin (Vatican)
Ut meus prosapia , parentes , amicitia colleagues , quod templum , Gratias ago vos adeo pro totus vestri greetings. May Senior beatus quod servo vos usquequaque.
---Espaniol (Madrid)
A mi familia, parientes, amigos, colegas y eclesiásticos, que gracias por todos tus saludos. Que el Señor bendiga y te guarde siempre.
---Italian (Rome)
Alla mia famiglia, parenti, amici, colleghi e churchmen, grazie così tanto per tutti i vostri saluti. Maggio il signore lo benedice sempre e mantiene.
---French (Paris)
Pour ma famille, parents, amis, collègues, et les ecclésiastiques, Merci beaucoup pour tous vos voeux. Que le Seigneur bénisse et vous garde toujours.
---German
Zu meiner Familie, Verwandten, Freunden, Kollegen und Kirchenmänner, Vielen Dank für Ihre Grüße. Der Herr segne und behüte dich immer.
---Dutch (Amsterdam)
Aan mijn familie verwanten, vrienden, collega's en geestelijken, dank u zo veel voor alle uw groet. Mag de Heer zegent en houdt u altijd bij.
---Danish
Til min familie, pårørende venner, kolleger og gejstlige, Tak så meget for alle dine hilsner. Må Herren velsigne og bevare dig altid.
---Portuguese
Para minha família, parentes, amigos, colegas, e clérigos, obrigado tanto por todas suas saudações. O Deus possa abençoar e sempre possa o senhor manter.
---Greek (Byzantium)
Για την οικογένειά μου, τους συγγενείς, τους φίλους, τους συναδέλφους, καθώς και κληρικοί, Σας ευχαριστώ πολύ για όλες τις ευχές σας. Είθε ο Κύριος να ευλογεί και να σας κρατήσει πάντα.
---Hebrew
למשפחה שלי, קרובי משפחה, חברים, עמיתים, וכן כנסייה, תודה רבה לך על כל הברכות שלך. במאי יהוה יברך וישמור עליך תמיד.
---Russian (Moscow)
На моей семьи, среди близких, знакомый, товарищи, и churchmen, Спасибо сокр. ты столь всем его жителям ваши пожелания. мая дяденька благословлять нечем сокр. ты всегда.
---Arabic
ن بلدي الأسرة، والأقارب، والأصدقاء والزملاء، وأكاديميون، شكرا جزيلا لجميع تحيات الخاص بك. وقد يبارك الرب وتبقى لكم دائماً.
---Pilipino (Manila)
Sa aking pamilya, kamag-anak, kaibigan, mga kasamahan, at churchmen, Salamat sa inyo ng marami para sa lahat ang inyong pagbati. Nawa ang Panginoon ay pagpalain at ingatan kayo lagi.
---Japanese (Tokyo)
私の家族に、親戚、友人、同僚、および国教は、すべての挨拶のためにありがとうございます。主が祝福し、いつもあなたを保持します。
---Chinese
我的家人，亲戚，朋友，同事和牧师，谢谢你这么多的一切你的问候。愿上帝保佑你一直保持。
---Malay
Untuk keluarga saya, saudara, teman, rakan sekerja, dan gereja, Terima kasih banyak untuk semua salam anda. Semoga Tuhan memberkati dan membuat anda selalu.
---Korean
가족, 친척, 친구, 동료, 그리고 churchmen는 모든 인사 주셔서 너무 감사합니다. 주님이 축복 하시고 항상 보관합니다.
---Thai
ไปให้ครอบครัว, ญาติ, เพื่อน, เพื่อนร่วมงานและ churchmen ขอขอบคุณมากสำหรับทุกคำอวยพรของคุณ ขอพระเจ้าทรงให้ศีลให้พรและให้คุณเสมอ
To my family, relatives, friends, colleagues, and churchmen, Thank you so much for all your greetings. May the Lord bless and keep you always.
---Latin (Vatican)
Ut meus prosapia , parentes , amicitia colleagues , quod templum , Gratias ago vos adeo pro totus vestri greetings. May Senior beatus quod servo vos usquequaque.
---Espaniol (Madrid)
A mi familia, parientes, amigos, colegas y eclesiásticos, que gracias por todos tus saludos. Que el Señor bendiga y te guarde siempre.
---Italian (Rome)
Alla mia famiglia, parenti, amici, colleghi e churchmen, grazie così tanto per tutti i vostri saluti. Maggio il signore lo benedice sempre e mantiene.
---French (Paris)
Pour ma famille, parents, amis, collègues, et les ecclésiastiques, Merci beaucoup pour tous vos voeux. Que le Seigneur bénisse et vous garde toujours.
---German
Zu meiner Familie, Verwandten, Freunden, Kollegen und Kirchenmänner, Vielen Dank für Ihre Grüße. Der Herr segne und behüte dich immer.
---Dutch (Amsterdam)
Aan mijn familie verwanten, vrienden, collega's en geestelijken, dank u zo veel voor alle uw groet. Mag de Heer zegent en houdt u altijd bij.
---Danish
Til min familie, pårørende venner, kolleger og gejstlige, Tak så meget for alle dine hilsner. Må Herren velsigne og bevare dig altid.
---Portuguese
Para minha família, parentes, amigos, colegas, e clérigos, obrigado tanto por todas suas saudações. O Deus possa abençoar e sempre possa o senhor manter.
---Greek (Byzantium)
Για την οικογένειά μου, τους συγγενείς, τους φίλους, τους συναδέλφους, καθώς και κληρικοί, Σας ευχαριστώ πολύ για όλες τις ευχές σας. Είθε ο Κύριος να ευλογεί και να σας κρατήσει πάντα.
---Hebrew
למשפחה שלי, קרובי משפחה, חברים, עמיתים, וכן כנסייה, תודה רבה לך על כל הברכות שלך. במאי יהוה יברך וישמור עליך תמיד.
---Russian (Moscow)
На моей семьи, среди близких, знакомый, товарищи, и churchmen, Спасибо сокр. ты столь всем его жителям ваши пожелания. мая дяденька благословлять нечем сокр. ты всегда.
---Arabic
ن بلدي الأسرة، والأقارب، والأصدقاء والزملاء، وأكاديميون، شكرا جزيلا لجميع تحيات الخاص بك. وقد يبارك الرب وتبقى لكم دائماً.
---Pilipino (Manila)
Sa aking pamilya, kamag-anak, kaibigan, mga kasamahan, at churchmen, Salamat sa inyo ng marami para sa lahat ang inyong pagbati. Nawa ang Panginoon ay pagpalain at ingatan kayo lagi.
---Japanese (Tokyo)
私の家族に、親戚、友人、同僚、および国教は、すべての挨拶のためにありがとうございます。主が祝福し、いつもあなたを保持します。
---Chinese
我的家人，亲戚，朋友，同事和牧师，谢谢你这么多的一切你的问候。愿上帝保佑你一直保持。
---Malay
Untuk keluarga saya, saudara, teman, rakan sekerja, dan gereja, Terima kasih banyak untuk semua salam anda. Semoga Tuhan memberkati dan membuat anda selalu.
---Korean
가족, 친척, 친구, 동료, 그리고 churchmen는 모든 인사 주셔서 너무 감사합니다. 주님이 축복 하시고 항상 보관합니다.
---Thai
ไปให้ครอบครัว, ญาติ, เพื่อน, เพื่อนร่วมงานและ churchmen ขอขอบคุณมากสำหรับทุกคำอวยพรของคุณ ขอพระเจ้าทรงให้ศีลให้พรและให้คุณเสมอ
Friday 23 July 2010
DON'T JUST LOOK AT IT, DO SOMETHING!!!
Got this pic somewhere in facebook.
Abortion is killing innocent babies, though still a fetus it has its own characteristics that distinguishes it from a blood clot, critics say that it is just blood clot, Hell No!!! This is not what I call Blood clot.
Abortion is killing innocent babies, though still a fetus it has its own characteristics that distinguishes it from a blood clot, critics say that it is just blood clot, Hell No!!! This is not what I call Blood clot.
My Conversion Story:
I have to admit, the Roman Catholic Church has many saints (particularly those canonized). As i was thought, saints are pious man and women of God and they are examples of virtues and faith. I've always wondered, before, when I was still a protestant, why Catholics, such as my Grand Mother Maria often venerate them and ask for their intercession. I had an opportunity, once, to ask my grandmother about this, she told me "When you grow up, you'll know why I do these things". Well, at that moment made me wish I was old enough to know. I was confused because my father is a Methodist and we attend Born again services. It is not unusual for church members there to talk about some of the things they thought are unbiblical and eventually someone will tell his/her story of conversion. I was very eager to know everything, because i cannot accept that my Grand mother, a devout Catholic until the end of her life, is an idol worshiper.
Because my family, to be specific, my Father's side are all Methodists (Protestants), and my mother's side are all Aglipayan's (Iglesia Filipina Independiente), only m grand mother remained a Catholic, and she remained Catholic till the very end, though her remains are resting at the IFI (Aglipayan) Cemetery because she wants to be buried where her husband, my Grandfather’s remains are lying.
Then many years passed, in search of truth, I Read articles from both Catholics and anti-Catholics alike, I watched TV programs, Listened to the radio. I’ve heard a lot of testimonies of conversion from one sect to another. Then i retired, I was practically dismayed, I said, all religions, sects and denominations claim they are the true church, claim that they teach what the Lord our God, taught, Some even deny the existence of the trinity, some even deny that Jesus Christ is Truly God and Man, Some even Deny the Holy spirit, some preach that you will be saved in any religion. But which one is true? So I prayed, Sincerely to God “Lord, you are my God, I could never deny you are existing, because you are very Gracious to me, because I’m always alone but I never felt alone, I’m always defeated but I never felt defeated, and you never cease to exist. Lord, with sincerity, I want to know the truth. Show me oh Lord the path that leads to you.
-----End of Part 1 ( To be continued)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)