38th CFD National Convention Part 2

Bro. G-one Paisones and Dr. Rey Entila

 

 

Atty Mike Abas of Dipolog City, Bro Wendell Talibong of Ozamiz city, me and Atty Marwil Llasos of Manila — with Marwil Nacor Llasos.

 

Bro Soc w bro G-one d administrator of CFD official website.

 

With our Cfd legend bro Socrates Fernandez and bro Jub

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38th CFD National Convention Part 1

 CFD National Board of Governors.
Atty. Marwil Nacor Llasos and Bro. G-one Paisones
Bro. Wendell Talibong; Fr. Abe Arganiosa and Atty. Marwil Nacor Llasos
Atty. Mike Abas and Bro Wendell
Bro. Wendell together with Bro Paul Alima ex-pastor of Jehovah’s Witness….

Welcome and Mabuhay to 38th Annual Convention of Catholic Faith Defenders National

10920958_908808025818389_9054070200423299552_n (1)

‘Idolatry’ myth busted in apologetics class

QUEZON City, Jan. 27, 2015—The Catholic Faith Defenders-Quezon City (CFD-QC) held its first apologetics training class at the Sta. Catalina Convent’s Mother Francisca Formation Hall, Siena College Quezon City, Sunday, Jan. 25, during which they learned the proper context of the Bbiblical prohibition on idolatry, and shared pointers on how to effectively debunk one of the most common Catholic myths of all time—the alleged “worship” of images—citing Scripture.

With at least 60—mostly college students and young professionals—trainees wearing “Pope Francis shirts” attending, CFD-QC Chairman Marwil N. Llasos exhausted the Bible, enumerating the many verses that not only support, but endorse the Catholic practice of the making, as well as the veneration (dulia) of images for religious purpose.

Catholic Faith Defenders-Quezon City (CFD-QC) hold its first training on Jan. 25, 2015 at the Sta. Catalina Convent’s Mother Francisca Formation Hall, Siena College Quezon City. (Photo: Raymond A. Sebastián)

A lawyer, Llasos warned against the danger of individual private interpretation, stressing how taking a book as ancient and as complicated as the Bible “too literally” and out of its context have led many to have biases against the Catholic Church.

In doing this, the chairman provided the correct historical and cultural background of verses “Bible-alone” anti-Catholics use to malign the Church Jesus founded.

An open forum followed the lecture, where questions related to the topic were raised and answered.

The first-ever CFD Quezon City Catholic apologetics training session was consecrated to Mary, Untier of Knots, the favorite Marian title of Pope Francis who visited the Philippines recently.

Llasos entrusted CFD Quezon City to the “maternal protection of her who unties the knots of evil, sin, malice and all kinds of persecution and difficulty.”

He said, “Before the mighty name of Mary, Untier of Knots, the forces of Satan tremble: ‘O loving Mother, before your mighty name the forces of Satan tremble. You are the lily of eternal valleys, the sure path. Fill us with your love, take us into your comforting and loving arms, let the light of your face shine upon us.”(Raymond A. Sebastián/CBCP News)

 

Retrieve form: http://www.cbcpnews.com/cbcpnews/?p=49996

PROMINENT CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS DISCUSS THE PAPACY

Retrieve from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zuzq7syRM0g&feature=youtu.be

Know the Truth host ATTY. MARWIL N. LLASOS, OP journalist BRO. JUN BALAGUERdiscuss the issues on the Papacy as part of program’s special episode on the Papal Visit 2015.

The host and guest shared their experience during the previous papal visits of Pope St. John Paul II. They also expressed their excitement over the forthcoming visit to the country of the reigning pontiff Pope Francis. They discussed the meaning and nature of the Pope’s “apostolic visit.”

Bro. Jun Balaguer and Atty. Marwil Llasos at the set of Know the Truth

Bro. Jun Balaguer and Atty. Marwil Llasos at the set of Know the Truth

Bro. Jun Balaguer stressed the truth that the Pope is the only religious leader appointed by God Himself. Both the guest and the host underscore the Pope’s power and influence as spiritual leader in the world today.

Bro. Jun Balaguer situated the institution of the Papacy in the history of salvation. He also discussed the Biblical basis for the Papacy, the Petrine ministry and succession as well as Papal supremacy. All the issues on the Papacy have been answered by Atty. Marwil Llasos and Bro. Jun Balaguer. The episode is a wonderful catechesis on the Papacy.

 

Bro. Jun Balaguer and Atty. Marwil Llasos discusses the Papacy

Bro. Jun Balaguer and Atty. Marwil Llasos discusses the Papacy

THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

THE REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

By: Bro. Marwil Llasos, O.P

 

Mary said “Yes” to Life: Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mother of Life, pray for the defeat of the RH Bill


The Reproductive Health Bill is Unconstitutional


            The Reproductive Health Bill (House Bill No. 4244) in its entirety is unconstitutional because its very premise is at war with the philosophy embodying the 1987 Constitution, dubbed as the Pro-Life Constitution.

The RH Bill proponents hail it as a solution to poverty in our country. They insist that the RH Bill will spare children, especially those who are unwanted, from a life of poverty. The RH Bill will save mothers from emotional trauma brought about by child bearing. These arguments are not new. They were already discussed and voted on the floor of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The result is the present Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:

“Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Constitutionalist Rev. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., in his annotation on the 1987 Philippine Constitution, expresses the sense of Article II, Section 12 that it “denies that the life of the unborn may be sacrificed merely to save the mother from emotional suffering or to spare the child from a life of poverty.”[1]The commonsensical and constitutional solution to the problem was stated by Fr. Bernas, thus: “The emotional trauma of a mother as well as the welfare of the child after birth can be attended through other means such as availing of the resources of welfare agencies.”[2]


Atty. Marwil N. Llasos reads “The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary” by constitutionalist and member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission Rev. Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.


What does Article II, Section 12 seek to achieve? Fr. Bernas answers that the provision was intended “primarily to prevent the state from adopting the doctrine in the United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade which liberalized abortion at the discretion of the mother any time during the first six months when it can be done without danger to the mother.”[3]


Clearly, the provision constitutionally outlaws abortion. There’s no chance that abortion can ever be legal in this country as long as the 1987 Philippine Constitution stands.

Abortifacients kill human life!

 

But what about the RH Bill? Does it promote or facilitate abortion? The answer is a categorical Yes. While the RH Bill purports to recognize abortion as illegal and punishable by law [Sec. 3 (9)], it however mandates “[a]ll accredited health facilities [to] provide a full range of modern family planning methods” [Sec. 7]. Thus, the RH Bill is inconsistent as best, duplicitous and hypocritical at worst.

Atty. Marwil N. Llasos defends life and the Constitution under the gaze of Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn and patroness of the Philippines

While the RH Bill recognizes abortion as illegal, it nevertheless allows the use of the “full range of modern family planning methods. The RH Bill does not specify or list what these methods are; hence, they could include the IUD (intra-uterine device), the morning-after pills,[4] and even manual vacuum aspirators[5] – all of which are known abortifacients!

Copper IUDs prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus.[6] Hormonal IUDs slow down the growth of the uterine lining thereby making it inhospitable for fertilized eggs.[7]

Prayer Power Rally Against the RH Bill on August 4, 2012 (1:00-7:00 P.M.)

Morning-after pills, otherwise known as Plan B pills, is described as “the backup plan for times when your birth control method has failed, has been forgotten, or you weren’t on any form of birth control, and you don’t want to get pregnant. Whether you’ve missed a few pills, the condom broke or slipped off, or you forgot to insert your diaphragm.”[8] The Plan B pill can be taken up to 72 hours after “unprotected sex.” But what happens within 72 hours? Is it possible that the sperm has already fertilized the egg? Yes. And what does Plan B do in that eventuality? “If the egg is already fertilized, it prevents the egg from attaching to the uterus” (implantation).[9]

Contraceptives promoted by the RH Bill

Manual vacuum aspirators cannot hide its pretense as a mere contraceptive. It is in fact an instrument of death – an earlyabortion machine.[10] Is this among the “full range of modern family planning methods” (Sec. 7) or the “full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies” (Sec. 4) sanctioned in the RH Bill? The Bill is deceptively and fearfully silent.

Plan B Pills prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus thus killing it

The above examples of contraceptives within the RH Bill package prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterus. Where does the Constitution come in in this regard? The 1987 Philippine Constitution categorically, unmistakably and unequivocably commands the State to protect the unborn “from conception.” Fr. Joaquin Bernas comments that “[t]he unborn’s entitlement to protection begins “from conception,” that is, from the moment of conception.”[11] What is the Constitutional intent? Fr. Bernas expresses it: “The intention is to protect life from its beginning, and the assumption is that human life begins at conception and that conception takes place at fertilization.”[12] It is crystal clear that the constitutional definition of conception is fertilization, not implantation. Human life begins at fertilization; thus the fertilized ovum has human life and the State has the constitutional obligation to protect that life.

Instruments of death: Ipas machine vacuum aspirator

Fr. Bernas concludes that Article II, Section 13 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution “reflects the view that, in dealing with the protection of life, it is necessary to take the safer approach.”[13]The RH Bill militates against this constitutional mandate.

On August 7, 2012, when the members of the House of Representatives make a crucial decision on the RH Bill, they must be reminded of their oath “to uphold and defend the Constitution.” To vote in favor of this unconstitutional bill is a betrayal of their sacred oath and of the trust of the sovereign Filipino people.

 
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is a legacy of EDSA and CORY. We will go back to EDSA to remind the President to honor that legacy. It is the legacy of his mother that we want to preserve.

AN APPEAL TO GERRY SOLIMAN

AN APPEAL TO GERRY SOLIMAN

by Atty. Marwil Llasos

Gerry Soliman of Solutions Finder Apologetics, also a moderator or the Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry, published an article in his blog pointing to a contradiction between Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and myself regarding the identity of the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary is literal or not.

Mr. Soliman capitalized on Fr. Abe’s statement that the woman in Revelation 12:1 is Mary literally and juxtaposed it to my statement that we don’t take Revelation 12:2 literally. He then concluded that there was a contradiction.

In an article, I pointed to Gerry Soliman that there was no contradiction at all because Fr. Arganiosa and I were discussing different issues. Fr. Arganiosa’s statement which Mr. Soliman cited addressed the question of who is the woman of Revelation 12 (verse 1, to be exact). My statement on the other hand is focused on the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12 verse 2. Everyone can read my articles below and check the links on Gerry Soliman’s blog.

Immediately after my article was posted, Mr. Gerry Soliman took issue with the part on the canon of scripture and promised to prepare a “counter-argument” on my article over the weekend. I was of course looking forward to Gerry Soliman’s article.

I was sorely disappointed by Gerry Soliman’s answer. As a Christian, I expected him to own up to his mistake and apologize for something wrong. Instead, Mr. Soliman conveniently skirted the main issue and proceeded to delve on other points.

I understand a person’s need to save one’s face and dignity. But admitting that one committed a mistake and apologizing for it would not make anyone a lesser person. Christianity does not think that way.

Despite the animosity between us, I believe that Gerry Soliman is capable of recognizing his mistake and apologizing for it. Rodimus did that. And we were deeply humbled by that truly magnanimous gesture.

I will respond to the points raised by Mr. Gerry Soliman, but I wish to focus first on this issue to that we will not be sidetracked from the real score.

The issue is: Did Fr. Abraham Arganiosa and I contradict each other based on our statements that Mr. Soliman quoted in his blog?

That issue was squarely raised in my previous articles. Although this issue stared at Mr. Soliman in the face, he cavalierly ignored it. Indeed, Mr. Soliman skirted it and went at great lengths to evade it.

This may be unsolicited, but let’s help Gerry Soliman appreciate the issue. I hope he will be open-minded and Christian enough to see his mistake. And we are Christian enough to accept an apology.

Mr. Soliman quoted precisely these words from Fr. 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.(emphasis added)

And then he quoted me:

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.(emphasis added)

What was Mr. Soliman’s conclusion? A contradiction! What was his basis? Tunog system! Because Father Arganiosa’s statement said that the woman clothed with the sun refers to Mary literally and my statement mentioned that we don’t interpret it (Rev. 12:2) literally, there must be a contradiction, right? WRONG!

I already explained how Fr. Arganiosa and I were taken out of context. The specific statements Gerry Soliman quoted from us were discussing two (2) different issues. Fr. Abe’s statement was concerned about the identity of the woman in Revelation 12:1. My statement was concerned about the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12:2. I accused Mr. Soliman of “intellectual dishonesty” because he knew fully well that my statement was discussing “birth pains” because I was responding to the very question that he asked me.

More than that, I would like to believe that as a “Bible Christian,” Mr. Soliman knows his Bible very well.

He knows that the expression “woman clothed with the sun” (which Fr. Arganiosa was identifying in the statement quoted from him by Gerry Soliman) is found in verse 1 of chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation:

A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head” (Rev. 12:1, NIV).

On the other hand, the verse I was specifically commenting on is verse 2, chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation:

“She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth” (Rev. 12:2, NIV).

And what did I say regarding that? Mr. Soliman quoted it, 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.”

Notice my dear readers that in the quoted statement of Mr. Soliman, I categorically stated NOT JUST ONCE BUT TWICE that what I don’t take literally is verse 2 of Revelation chapter 12. And what was that about? The “birth pains” of the woman. I was not concerned in that statement, as Fr. Arganiosa was in his, about the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun.”

Gerry Soliman did not deny that I was responding to his query on the “birth pains” in Rev. 12:2. In fact, in his answer, he categorically admitted:

“I asked him if the birth pains in verse two would in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception since God punished Eve with increased birth pains due to sin. For those who don’t know the issue yet, Revelations 12 is quoted by Roman Catholic apologists to support, among others, the Marian doctrines of her Assumption and Coronation. The problem with the chapter is on verse two where the woman is found to be in labor pains while giving birth to a child.” (http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html)

Gerry, Gerry, you knew all along that I was referring to birth pains in Revelation 12:2. Yet, why did you say that I contradicted Fr. Arganiosa’s statement (the one that you quoted) which was responding to a different question on the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun”? (cf. Rev. 12:1). Despite that knowledge that I was referring to birth pains in Rev. 12:2, why did you, Gerry, made an article on how, as you yourself said I “contradicted with a fellow apologist, Fr. Abe Arganiosa whether the woman is literal or symbolical.” I would like to hear from you about this.

I appreciate Mr. Soliman’s other arguments and will gladly respond to them only after my good friend Gerry will face this issue squarely.

SI GERRY SOLIMAN AT SI ELIPHAZ

SI GERRY SOLIMAN AT SI ELIPHAZ

by: Atty. Marwll Llasos

Si “GINOONG KONTRADIKSIYON” a.k.a. GERALD JOHN P. SOLIMAN na may ari ng nilalangaw na blog na SOLUTIONS FINDER APOLOGETICS ay minsang nag-akusa sa akin at sa aking kapatid na tagapaghatanod ng Santa Iglesia na si G. FRANZ LUIGI LUGENA na kasamahan ni REBERENDO PADRE ABRAHAM P. ARGANIOSA, CRS sa palatuntunang pantelebisyon na “THE SPLENDOR OF THE CHURCH” ng AITV-5 sa dakilang lalawigan ng Sorsogon.

Ang Kapatid na Franz ay isang magiting na tagapagtanggol ng pananampalatayang Katoliko laban sa panduduwahagi ng ating mga kaibayo. Katunayan, marami nang pagkakataon na pinataob ni Kapatid na Franz ang kaniyang mga kadiskusyon sa Bereans Forum. Wala silang panama sa batang-bata ngunit magaling na tagapagtanggol na ito ng pananampalatayang Katoliko na mas kilala sa taguring KAPATAS at PARABANOG.

Si Franz Luigi Lugena at masasabi kong isa sa mga hinahangaan kong Catholic apologists sa ating bansa. Marami na kaming pagkakataon na nagkasama sa pakikipagdigma laban sa mga tampalasan, mga ereje, filibusteros, mga infieles at mga kaaway na nanduduwahagi sa karangalan ng Dios at ng Kaniyang nag-iisang Iglesia, ang Iglesia Katolika Apostolika Romana. Nagkakaparehas kami ng pananaw sapagkat kami ay parehas na tumatalima sa mga dalisay na aral ng Salita ng Dios na tanging sa loob lamang ng Santa Iglesia matatagpuan ng buong-buo at buong ningning. Samakatuwid baga’y, wala ni isa man sa aming pananaw panrelihiyon ni Kapatid na Franz ang nagkakasalungatan.

G. GERALD JOHN P. SOLIMAN a.k.a. GERRY SOLIMAN a.k.a. RODIMUS (hango sa kaniyang Facebook account)

Ngunit may mga taong katulad ni G. GERRY SOLIMAN na intrigero, chismoso at ubod na palabintangin. Ang taong ito ay parang isang ahas na bagamat nagkukubli sa pilapilan ay handang manuklaw kapag may pagkakataon. Nakasanayan na ni G. Soliman ang masamang gawaing ito. Isa sa kaniyang di kanais-nais na gawain ay ang maghanap ng inaakala niyang kontradiksiyon sa mga pananaw ng mga manananggol Katoliko. Sa maraming pagkakataon na nasaksihan ng balana, naipakita natin sa madla na ang mga paratang ni G. Soliman ay pawang hindi totoo. Saksi ang mga tagabasa ng blog na ito at ng iba pang mga blog sa tahasang pagsisinungaling ni G. Soliman sa di-mabilang na pagkakataon. Tila yata walang kadala-dala itong si G. Soliman sa kaniyang lihis na gawain. Lahat ng mga intriga at chismis na pinagkakakalat niya ay sumasambulat naman sa kaniyang sariling mukha. Nawalan na yata ng hiya itong si G. Soliman. Kung sabagay, manang-mana siya sa kaniyang Amang Diablo, na ayon sa binabanggit ng Biblia:

Kayo’y sa inyong amang diablo, at ang mga nais ng inyong ama ang ibig ninyong gawin. Siya’y isang mamamatay-tao buhat pa nang una, at hindi nananatili sa katotohanan, sapagka’t walang katotohanan sa kaniya. Pagka nagsasalita siya ng kasinungalingan, ay nagsasalita siya ng sa ganang kaniya: sapagka’t siya’y isang sinungaling, at ama nito” (Juan 8:44).

Kung ano ang puno, siya ang bunga. Ang Diablo ayon sa Banal na Kasulatan ay ang “tagapagsumbong sa ating mga kapatid” gaya ng binabanggit sa Apocalipsis 12:10 –

“At narinig ko ang isang malakas na tinig sa langit, na nagsasabi, Ngayo’y dumating ang kaligtasan, at ang kapangyarihan, at ang kaharian ng ating Dios, at ang kapamahalaan ng kaniyang Cristo: sapagka’t inihagis na ang tagapagsumbong sa ating mga kapatid na siyang sa kanila’y nagsusumbong sa harapan ng ating Dios araw at gabi.”

Halos walang pinagkaiba ang gawain ni G. Soliman sa kaniyang amang Diablo, ang maging tagapagsumbong ng mga bagay-bagay na pawang walang katotohanan. Alalaong baga’y ang pagbibintang para lamang makapanira ng kapuwa at makapandaya ng mga hirang ng Dios. Manang-mana talaga sa kaniyang amang sinungaling (cf. Juan 8:44).

Halina’t muli na naman nating tunghayan ang mga kasinungalingan ni G. Gerry Soliman. Sa kaniyang pagpapalusot sa kaniyang sagot sa aking mga argumento at todo-iwas sa mga puntos na aking ibinato, kagyat na inilihis ni G. Soliman ang usapan at ito ay ibinaling niya sa diumano’y hindi ko masagot na pagkakasalungatan namin ng kapuwa ko depensor Katoliko. Isa dito ay ang usapin kung si Eliphaz ay mabuti o masama. Malinaw na isinasabong niya kami ng Kapatid na Franz Luigi Lugena.

Para sa ikababatid ng lahat, wala akong hilig na tumingin sa blog ni G. Gerry Soliman at sa katulad niyang mga palamara sapagkat wala naman itong kakuwenta-kuwenta. Katunayan, madalas pa sa ulan kapag may El Niño ang bumibisita dito. Maliban diyan, dadalawa lamang ang kaniyang mga tagasunod. Anupa’t pag-aaksayahan ko ng panahon ang blog na binabangaw din naman?

May mga pagkakataon na ako’y sumasagot sa mga artikulo ni G. Soliman. Una, kung siya ay nagpapaskel ng komento sa aking blog at maayos ko namang sinasagot ang mga ito. Pangalawa, kapag tinatawagan ang aking pansin ang aking mga kapatid at kapanalig sa Iglesia na nagnanais na tumugon ako sa mga paksang sinulat ni G. Soliman.

Yaman din lamang na si G. Soliman na rin mismo ang umungkat ng usapin, pagdadamutan kong sagutin ang kaniyang mga pasaring at pagbubulaanan. Uunahin ko ang paksang pagkokontrahan diumano namin ng Kapatid na Franz.

(http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html).

Ang mga walang kapararaang birada ni G. Gerry Soliman ay matatagpuan sa (http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/is-eliphaz-good-or-bad.html).

ELIPHAZ THE TEMANITE

Tunghayan natin ang pagsasabong sa aming dalawa ni Kapatid na Franz Luigi Lugena ng intrigero, chismoso at “sabungerong” si Gerry Soliman:

According to Atty. Marwil Llasos:

Job’s unrighteous friend Eliphaz taunted him for calling on the saints, saying: “Call now, if there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the saints wilt thou turn?” (Job 5:1). Unlike his friend, Job was a righteous and honest man who shunned evil (Job 1:1) yet, he was humble enough to call on the saints (in some translations, “holy ones”). Who are these “holy ones” that Job called for help? Zechariah 14:5 of the Amplified Bible identifies the holy ones as the “saints and angels” of God; “And God shall come and all the holy ones [saints and angels] with Him” (Zech. 14:5, Amp.). True enough, “born again” Christians are like Eliphaz the Temanite who taunt Catholics, who like Job, call on the angels and saints.]

So for Atty. Llasos, Eliphaz is unrighteous. Eliphaz is not like his friend Job who is righteous and shuns evil. And Atty. Llasos even identifies Eliphaz with Born Again Christians.

However, for Mr. Franz Luigi Lugena (aka Kapatas and Parabanog), an apprentice of Fr. Abe Arganiosa:

Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao. Si Haring David ay nagkasala ng pangangalunya pero hindi talaga sya masamang tao. Kaya wag husgahan ang tao sa isang nagawang kamalian. Para namang ang babanal nyo.

Kung babasahin mo teksto, hindi nga pinarusahan ng Diyos si Eliphaz eh. Inutusan si Eliphaz na maghandog ng hain sa kanya nang hindi sya maparusahan. So nandun ang pagtatawad ng Diyos kay Eliphaz mula sa handog na inialay. Kung totoong masamang tao Eliphaz hindi sana sya oobligahin ng Diyos na maghandog ng alay na susunugin dahil karumaldumal sa Diyos ang hain ng masamang tao. Right then and there, pinatay sya ng Diyos. Kaso hindi eh.

Oooh, so Eliphaz is not an evil person according to Mr. Lugena. So, let’s leave the two of them to settle their differences.

Talaga nga po namang pinanawan na ng kahit na gahiblang katinuan itong si G. Gerry Soliman. Para lamang may maipukol sa mga tagapagtanggol Katoliko, aba eh pinapalabas niya na kami ay nagkakasalungatan sa aming mga payahag. Sa kaniyang pagsasabong, lumalabas naman ang kasalatan niya sa kaalaman sa Banal na Kasulatan. Kawasay walang muwang sa Salita ng Dios kung kaya’t ang lahat ng kaniyang paninira ay bumabalik din sa kaniya at sumasambulat sa kaniyang mukha. Aba’y pakapalan na lang ata mukha ang puwede niyang gawin.

Titindigan ko ang aking mga pahayag at ipapaliwanag ko sa mapurol na unawa ni G. Soliman kung bakit wala kaming pagkakasalungatan ng Kapatid na Franz. Nananawagan ako sa aking mga masugid na tagasubaybay at magiliw na mambabasa na tunghayan ninyo ang kabuuan ng sinasabi ni Kapatid na Franz dito sa:

(http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/02/catholic-apologist-parabanog-vs-add.html#comments)


At pakitunghayan din po sana ang aking mga sinabi sa

(http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-do-we-pray-to-angels-and-saints-by.html).

Una ipapapansin ko lamang po sa lahat na mambabasa na magkaibang paksa ang aming pinag-uusapan dine. Ang akin ay tungkol sa pagtawag sa mga banal ni Job (Job 5:1) at ang Kapatid na Franz naman ay tumutugon sa mga pagtutol ng mga kaanib ng Iglesia ng Dios Internasyonal, Inc. (“Ang Dating Daan”) ni G. Eliseo Soriano hinggil sa sinasabi ng Job 22:15: “Iyo bang pagpapatuluyan ANG DATING DAAN, na nilakaran ng mga NG MGA MASAMANG TAO?”

Ngayon po ay dumako na tayo sa lundoy ng usapin. Nagkatunggali ba kami ni Kapatid na Franz sa aming mga pahayag ng sinabi ko na si Eliphaz ay taong di-matuwid at sa kaniya naman ay si Eliphaz ay hindi masamang tao?

Sagot: Hindi po at wala po kaming mga pahayag na nagkokontrahan kung uunawain lamang ng tama an gaming mga pahayag. Sapagkat si G. Gerry Soliman ay wala sa hustong pang-unawa, siya ay nagkamali ng kaniyang pakiwari at kami ay pinaratangan ng pagkakasalungatan. Ganiyan nakapanliligaw ng kapuwa si G. Soliman.

Uriratin natin ang usapin para sa kabatiran ng lahat at upang wala nang mailigaw pa si G. Soliman at ang kaniyang Ama sa 8:44 ng Juan.

Sisipiin ko muli ang aking mga tinuran:

Job’s unrighteous friend Eliphaz taunted him for calling on the saints, saying: “Call now, if there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the saints wilt thou turn?” (Job 5:1). Unlike his friend, Job was a righteous and honest man who shunned evil (Job 1:1) yet, he was humble enough to call on the saints (in some translations, “holy ones”). Who are these “holy ones” that Job called for help? Zechariah 14:5 of the Amplified Bible identifies the holy ones as the “saints and angels” of God; “And God shall come and all the holy ones [saints and angels] with Him” (Zech. 14:5, Amp.). True enough, “born again” Christians are like Eliphaz the Temanite who taunt Catholics, who like Job, call on the angels and saints.]

Tanong, ang talatang sinipi ko, ang Job 5:1, kalian ba iyon iyon naganap? Aba’y nung siya ay di pa matuwid at sakdal sapagkat hindi pa pinapatawad ng Dios ng kaniyang mga kasalanan. Kaya, sa aking pagkakagamit ng talata, iyon ay nagpapakita ng kalagayan ni Eliphaz noong hindi pa siya mabuti. Ako ba ang may sabi niyan? Aba’y hindi! Dios mismo ang may sabi niyan. Mismong ang Panginoong Dios ang nagpapatotoo na hindi nagsalita ng matuwid tungkol sa Kaniya sina Eliphaz at kaniyang mga katropa. Ano ang wika ng Dios? Basa!

“At nangyari, na pagkatapos na masalita ng Panginoon ang mga salitang ito kay Job, sinabi ng Panginoon kay Eliphaz na Temanita, Ang aking poot ay nagaalab laban sa iyo, at laban sa iyong dalawang kaibigan: sapagka’t hindi kayo nangagsalita tungkol sa akin ng bagay na matuwid, na gaya ng ginawa ng aking lingkod na si Job” (Job 42:7).

Aber, kung hindi matuwid si Eliphaz ng mga panahong iyon bakit siya sukat na kagagalitan ng Dios? Iyon ang ipinupunto ko. Doon sa tagpong kinukutya ni Eliphaz si Job sa 5:1, malinaw na hindi siya matuwid. Ngunit ang tao ay maaring magbago eh. At naganap din iyon kay Eliphaz. Sa kalaunan nga siya ay nagbago at napatawad na ng Dios kung kaya’t siya ay naging mabuti at sakdal. Tumalima sila sa ipinag-utos ng Dios para sa ikapagpapatawad ng kanilang mga kasalanan:

“Kaya’t magsikuha kayo sa inyo ngayon ng pitong guyang baka, at pitong lalaking tupa, at magsiparoon kayo sa aking lingkod na kay Job, at ihandog ninyo sa ganang inyo na pinakahandog na susunugin: at idadalangin kayo ng aking lingkod na si Job: sapagka’t siya’y aking tatanggapin, baka kayo’y aking gawan ng ayon sa inyong kamangmangan; sapagka’t hindi kayo nangagsasalita tungkol sa akin ng bagay na matuwid, na gaya ng aking lingkod na si Job. Sa gayo’y nagsiyaon si Eliphaz na Temanita, at si Bildad na Suhita, at si Sophar na Naamatita, at ginawa ang ayon sa iniutos sa kanila ng Panginoon: at nilingap ng Panginoon si Job” (Job 42:8-9).

Katunayan, kinasangkapan pa nga ng Dios ang isang taong banal para sa ikapagpapataw nina Eliphaz at ng kaniyang mga katsukaran eh. Kaya din nga naging mabuti si Eliphaz dahil sa ipinamanhik siya ng matuwid na si Job. Tigib sa awa ang Panginoon: maaari siyang magpatawad ng kasalanan at maaring baguhin ng Kaniyang biyaya ang isang tao gaano pa man siya kasama. Sa tuwi-tuwina, lagi nating aalalahanin:

“Kung ipinahahayag natin ang ating mga kasalanan, ay tapat at banal siya na tayo’y patatawarin sa ating mga kasalanan, at tayo’y lilinisin sa lahat ng kalikuan” (1 Juan 1:9).

Samakatuwid, magkaibang yugto ng buhay ni Eliphaz ang pinapatungkulan namin ni Kapatid na Franz. Ang Eliphaz na di matuwidTumawag ka ngayon; may sasagot ba sa iyo? At sa kanino sa mga banal babalik ka?” (Job 5:1). na aking binabanggit ay ang Eliphaz sa Job 5:1 na kumukutya kay Job na isang taong matuwid:

Sa kabilang dako, ayun naman kay Kapatid na Franz, ang Eliphaz na pinatutungkulan niya ay ang Eliphaz na napatawad na sa kanyang mga kasalanan sa bisa at tulong din naman ng panalangin ni Job (Job. 42:10). DALAWANG MAGKAIBANG YUGTO sa buhay ni Eliphaz ang pinatutungkulan namin ni Kapatid na Franz kung kaya’t paano kami magkakasalungatan? Si Eliphaz ay isang tao na sa una’y masama ngunit pinatawad ang mga kasalanan ng mahabagin at makapangyarihang Dios.


BRO. FRANZ LUIGI LUGENA and ATTY. MARWIL N. LLASOS, OP

Gaya ng kaniyang nakagawian, hinablot ni G. Gerry Soliman sa konteksto at tahasan niyang minali ang pinag-uusapan namin ni Kapatid na Franz. Subalit, hindi pa huli ang lahat kay G. Gerry Soliman. Gaya ni Eliphaz, puwede pa siyang humingi ng tawad at magbago. Katulad ni Job, ipinapanalangin namin ni Kapatid na Franz ang Kapatid na Gerry Soliman para sa lubos na ikapagpapatawad ng kaniyang mga kasalanan.

Ang hain ng masama ay kasuklamsuklam sa Panginoon: nguni’t ang dalangin ng matuwid ay kaniyang kaluguran” (Kawikaan 15:18).

GERRY SOLIMAN JUST DOESN’T GET IT CORRECTLY!!!

GERRY SOLIMAN JUST DOESN’T GET IT CORRECTLY!!!

By Atty. Marwill Llasos


MR. GERRY SOLIMAN of Solutions Finder Apologetics responded to my appeal. As I expected, he would not face the issue head on. Here is how he defended himself. (http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/response-to-appeal-of-atty-llasos.html).

Gerry Soliman


This is how Mr. Soliman wiggles away from the issue:

“He insists that they didn’t contradict because Fr. Abe was referring to the woman in Revelations 12:1 while Atty. Llasos was referring to birth pains in Revelations 12:2, but my article which I pointed out their contradiction was about the literal or symbolical identification of the woman clothed with the sun.”

I am astonished that Mr. Soliman does not exactly understand the issue I raised. Let us dissect Mr. Soliman’s understanding of the issue, or the lack of it.

Mr. Soliman states the issue that Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and I did not contradict each other because Fr. Abe was referring to the woman in Revelations 12 while I was referring to birth pains in Revelations 12:2. This is inaccurate.

I wonder if Mr. Soliman has read and understood what I had written in my article. I request my readers to read it again so as not to be deceived by the Mr. Soliman’s way of inaccurately putting the issue. Here’s my article: (http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_24.html).

Let me state it the issue again: The issue is: Did Fr. Abraham Arganiosa and I contradict each other based on our statements that Mr. Soliman quoted in his blog?

My challenge was specific and categorical. I was referring to the exact statements that Gerry Soliman quoted from Fr. Abe and I which he said contradicted each other. The specific statements Gerry Soliman quoted from us were discussing two (2) different issues. Fr. Abe’s statement was concerned about the identity of the woman in Revelation 12:1. My statement was concerned about the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12:2.”

Here is the exact statement of Fr. Abe:


“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.” (emphasis added)

And here is mine:

“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.” (emphasis added)

Friends, lest it be forgotten, it was Gerry Soliman who quoted those statements from us. And my specific challenge is for him to point out that those statements he exactly quoted from us contradict each other. The problem with Mr. Soliman is that he is so reckless with his quotations in his pathetic effort to pounce upon us “contradiction.” Gerry, you brought this upon yourself. Better be careful next time.

Next, Mr. Soliman pointed out that our contradiction was about the literal or symbolical identification of the woman clothed with the sun. Yes, that may have been your point, but look at the statements that you quoted from us! I already explained that those statements that you said contradicted each other were discussing two different things. Father Abe’s quoted statement was about the identity of the woman while mine was about the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelations 12:2.

As Mr. Soliman said, his point is that Fr. Abe’s and my contradiction was about the literal or symbolical identification of the woman clothed with the sun. But please check the exact quotes he said contradicted each other. Mr. Soliman’s article is rather brief, and I reproduce it below so that the reader can see it for themselves:

“Mary as the Woman Clothed with the Sun of Revelations 12: Symbolical or Literal?

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.

*

Well if your head is aching already, so is mine. Here is the real score on the Roman Catholic Church on the woman of Revelations 12: They didn’t have any official and infallible interpretation of it during the first 300 years of Christianity. In fact, 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. Mary as woman clothed with the sun is not an apostolic teaching.” [http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/11/woman-clothed-with-sun-of-revelations.html].

Mr. Soliman’s concern in that article is the literal or symbolic interpretation of the woman. But look at the quotations you chose! They aren’t discussing the same issue. And Gerry Soliman knows that as in fact he now admits he does.

But he continues to skirt the issue and would like to leave it just like that. Pushed against the wall, he now offers this afterthought:

“Here is my response: You cannot disassociate the woman clothed with the sun in the identification of the birth pains.”

Gerry Soliman is now jumping now to another issue. Convenient escape, is it not?

He says that we can’t identify the woman using 12:1 alone or 12:2 alone. Did I ever say that? He is refuting a point that was never raised. And he proffered the important rule when it comes to understanding Scripture: “context, context, and more context.” Again, who opposes it?

In all things, context is very important. That’s why Gerry Soliman must have taken the context where Fr. Abe’s quoted statement was taken out. He was responding the query on the identity of the woman of Revelation 12. Likewise, if Gerry Soliman was ever concerned with context, he should have treated the statement he quoted from me based on the exact context on which appeared. And here we have Mr. Soliman pontificating on “context, context, and more context.”

Oh, and Gerry Soliman charged that I made a “lame excuse” that I was “just” referring to birth pains. Boy, here we go again! When will Gerry ever learn? Repeat: I was pointing out to the “exact quotation” that Mr. Soliman yanked from my article. And that quoted statement was precisely talking to nothing but birth pain! Lame excuse?

And here comes Gerry Soliman’s turn to turn the tables.

“Any objective reader would have to consider the context of the issue. When Fr. Abe and I briefly had a discussion about birth pains in Atty. Llasos’ blog, the identity of the woman was obviously discussed as well. As a matter of fact, the article written by Atty. Llasos in his response to me discussed first who is the woman before discussing birth pains. So if he is just discussing birth pains, I wonder if he avoided discussing who or what had these birth pains?”

Oh yes, you had that discussion about the birth pains and as you said the identity of the woman was also discussed. Where in my articles did I deny that? Again, raising an issue out of a non-issue. My article, which was prompted by your article, pointed to a specific issue. If you still don’t get it, I will re-state it for the nth time. I was concerned with the “exact quotations” that you cited in your article of November 2, 2010 which I reproduced above.

Gerry doesn’t want to face the music. Here is his lame excuse:

“Let’s recall what I said which Atty. Llasos based his statement “we don’t interpret it literally“:

Your question is not just a matter of who or what is the woman in Revelations 12, but also whether this could be understood literally or not. I think you favor more the literal understanding which points you to the blessed Mary (correct me if I am wrong). On the otherhand, I don’t interpret it literally thus, I can’t give you a name.

Since I believe this chapter is symbolical, I identify the woman as the people of God.

I was talking there about the woman and stating that the chapter is symbolical. It is understood that we considered the surrounding verses of the birth pains in Revelations 12. Fr. Abe also made an identification of who is woman before proceeding to birth pains. So when Atty. Llasos quoted from me, I don’t interpret it literally, he connected it to discussing birth pains:

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.”

Thus, the association of the woman clothed with the sun can’t be avoided.”

Gerry Soliman can say a lot of things. He can connect the “woman” to “birth pains” all he wants. He can’t rant about the unavoidable association of the woman with the birth pains all he wants. But, so what? It was not the point of my article. Everything here that Mr. Soliman says to divert the issue is inconsequential. The point that I have been making all along is that the exact statement that he quoted from me and Fr. Abe were discussing two different issues. As Mr. Soliman himself concedes, Fr. Abe also made an identification of who is woman before proceeding to birth pains. So when Atty. Llasos quoted from me, I don’t interpret it literally, he connected it to discussing birth pains.” Precisely, Mr. Soliman. Now your getting there.

“Fr. Abe also made an identification of who is woman before proceeding to birth pains.” Yes, he was making an identification of the woman before he proceeded to birth pains. And where did Mr. Soliman get the statement of Fr. Abe that you quoted? From his identification of the woman.

“So when Atty. Llasos quoted from me, I don’t interpret it literally, he connected it to discussing birth pains.” And where did he get the statement he quoted from me? From my discussion of birth pains.

Let’s not gild the lily anymore. The point has been sufficiently belabored already. And Mr. Soliman has all but conceded the point when he gave me this unsolicited advice: “Atty. Llasos, you need to look at the bigger picture. That sums up what I have to say.”

Gerry, I appreciate your advice. Don’t worry much about me. I can assure you that I do look at the bigger picture. But I look at the details, too. While looking at the vast expanse of the firmament, we should not lose sight of the nitty-gritty details.

It is regrettable indeed that Mr. Soliman would not face the issue I squarely raised. As an escape, he pointed to another contradiction of me and Fr. Abe:

“Therefore, both of Atty. Llasos and Fr. Abe contradicted each other. To repeat:

Fr. Abe: IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES

Yes, there is the word birth pain or birth pang in both texts but the pain of the Woman Clothed with the Sun is due to the Birth of the Messiah

Atty. Llasos: we don’t interpret it literally

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.”

By now, we know Gerry Soliman very, very well. And if he has not yet learned his lesson, we will teach him another one. In the subsequent articles, both Fr. Abe and I would (again) expose Mr. Soliman’s faulty reading comprehension and intellectual dishonesty.

“If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities” (Lk. 16:10, NLT).

[Note: Gerry Soliman raised other points. I reserve my right to respond to them in future articles so as not to convolute the present one. I humbly beg the indulgence of my readers. Thank you.]

Atty. Llasos, you need to look at the bigger picture. That sums up what I have to say.

Before we end, I would like to respond to Atty. Llasos’ comment on my assertion of contradition against Mr. Carlos Palad on the canon of Scripture. It’s not going to be long. Please refer to the definition of terms below which were taken from Merriam Webster online:

Definite – free of all ambiguity, uncertainty, or obscurity

Final – not to be altered or undone

Open – containing none of its endpoints

Remain – to continue unchanged

Settle – to establish or secure permanently

I am expecting that he (and probably Fr. Abe) will write bad things about me personally (as they always do) and even ridicule what I have written here in his (or their) subsequent articles. Nevertheless, I take full responsibility of what I have written so far.

GERRY SOLIMAN’S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

GERRY SOLIMAN’S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

By Atty. Marwil Llasos, O.P.

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).

Protestant 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.