SAGOT SA MAPANLINLANG NA COMMENTO NG IGLESIA NI MANALO By Prof. Ramon Gitamondoc

Nagtanong si Ka Ramil:
“Saan sa Biblia mababasa na si pedro ay ginawang visible head ng Iglesia?”

>>Walang nabasa si Ramon Gitamondoc sa Biblia.
(BUTATA!)

*2nd round*
Nagtanong si Ka joe kay gitamondoc:
“May doktrina ba kayo sa katoliko na pagbabawal ng pagkain ng laman kati o karne???”

Sagot ni gitamondoc:
“May doctrina ang INC na pagbabawal na pagkain ng dugo.”

>>Wrong # ang sagot!
>>Laman kati ba ang dugo???
>>Laman kati ang tinatanong hindi tungkol sa dugo!
(BUTATA!)

_At meron naman talagang mababasa sa Biblia na ipinagbabawal ng Dios ang pagkain ng Dugo.

Congratz INC!

Ramon Gitamondoc 

INC member //Saksi ang mga tao sa kahihiyang inabot at pagka-butata ni CFD gitamondoc sa debate laban sa INC.//

My reply: You are entitled to your own opinion and in this country one is free to dream and hallucinate as one pleases.

INC member //*1st round* Sabi ni ramon gitamondoc na si Cristo ay invisible head ng Iglesia at si pedro ay visible head ng iglesia. Nagtanong si Ka Ramil: “Saan sa Biblia mababasa na si pedro ay ginawang visible head ng Iglesia?” >>Walang nabasa si Ramon Gitamondoc sa Biblia. (BUTATA!)//

My reply: This question is actually a desperate attempt on the part of Mr Parba to come up with a question. There is also no passage in Scriptures which literally says that Jesus is the invisible head. Now will this INC deny that Jesus is the invisible head of the Church? No one doubts that Peter during the apostolic time was visible. We don’t need a bible verse to prove this and only fools will deny this. Was Peter the leader and chief among the apostles? Yes he is if you carefully read Matthew 10:2, Mark 9:35 and Luke 22:46. 

INC member //*2nd round* Nagtanong si Ka joe kay gitamondoc: “May doktrina ba kayo sa katoliko na pagbabawal ng pagkain ng laman kati o karne???”

Sagot ni gitamondoc: “May doctrina ang INC na pagbabawal na pagkain ng dugo.” >>Wrong # ang sagot!// My reply: It is the INC who is calling upon the wrong number here. In the Catholic church celibacy and abstinence are not doctrines BUT matters of discipline. Had it been a doctrine then there would have no exceptions to this law but the fact is that there are and these are not for all. If the INC does not know the distinction between doctrine and discipline that is their problem not ours.

INC Member //>>Laman kati ba ang dugo??? >>Laman kati ang tinatanong hindi tungkol sa dugo! (BUTATA!)//

My reply: This question has been answered by Bro Jerrick Alenton in this group and I don’t have to repeat the explanation here.

INC Member //_At meron naman talagang mababasa sa Biblia na ipinagbabawal ng Dios ang pagkain ng Dugo.//

My reply: What Ventilacion quoted was from the Old Testament in which the dietary laws has already been abrogated by Jesus in the New Testament (Mark 7:21-23). Acts 15:28 is not a permanent command but a transitory provision which was abandoned in later times (1 Corinthians 8:8, Romans 14:4,7,17).

INC Member //Congratz INC!//

My reply: If the INC really believe they won the debate then why don’t they post the debate coverage in full? We just did.

Christopher Caspe Cabañas

July 15 at 11:44pm · Cebu City, Philippines

hanggang ngayon,Hindi pa rin ako maka get over sa kakatawa noong nkaraang debate

Sir Ramon: Sa mat 16:18,hindi ba totoo noong sabihin ni Kristo na upon THIS rock sa ibabaw nitong bato makikita natin na ginamit nya 
ang salitang “THIS”?

Ramil Parba: “THIS” tama, yan ay sa rule ng aramaic yan ay demonstrative adjective na iyan pag titingnan mo that is FEMININE in form.

Tumalsik ang laway ko sa kakatawa, ngayon palang ako nakarinig na ang THIS ay feminine hehehehe ibang klase tlaga ang INM.. narinig nyo ba to brod Teewee Diego? HAHAHA

Ramon Gitamondoc

During our debate, Parba tried to evade the clear and straight forward meaning of Matthew 16:18 by stressing that Petros = Peter is masculine and Petra = rock is feminine so it cannot apply to Peter. During my cross-examination I used this line of reasoning of Parba and ask him if Petra is feminine (and by his reasoning cannot apply to Peter) but at the same time he applies Petra to Christ whether Christ has turned into a woman? I am sure that Parba was not aware that he got trapped by his own false reasoning. Thank you bro Christopher for being there.