Mama Eli ‘Charlatan’ Soriano was asking: ‘Where is the source of that foul odor here?’ Ha ha ha… Answer: ‘From DARWIN BAJO po Mama Eli’ Hahaha…
PART 1
REFUTING THE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS OF ANOTHER PUPPET OF MAMA ELI ‘CHARLATAN” SORIANO-By Aloysius Kayiwa
![SOBRANG BAHO NI MAMA ELI [The foul from Mama Eli is too powerful] HA HA HA...](http://www.splendorofthechurch.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ADD-Mabaho.jpg)
SOBRANG BAHO NI MAMA ELI [The foul from Mama Eli is too powerful] HA HA HA…
Readers, today’s discussion brings us to this response to another member of the so called Ang Dating Daan-a quasi religious cult. The person I am responding to is called Darwin Bajo, who commented on my rebuttal of his false Prophet-the imposter with no manners!
Darwin Bajo’s method of rebutting is through use of fallacies like Addition by subtraction (taking verses out of context and then adding his own thoughts), Sin of Omission (concealing evidence or omitting content) as well as throwing flag mark Scriptures- which he tortures through misapplication. Again, his method is that of slinging what he thought he could challenge and then neglected other sections. First he began by committing a Sin of Omission and suppression of content.
(“Aloysius Kayiwa: This is strongly misleading. After reading the following quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE EARLY CHRISTIANS TAUGHT THAT JESUS WAS EVERLASTING AND GOD. The word Trinity and its formulation was in development at least from the 1st century, not the 4th century under Constantine as Soriano wants to imply.”
DARWIN: If the early Christians taught that Jesus was everlasting and God as you say, then what will be the conflict if Bro. Eli says that Jesus is a spirit? God the Father is a spirit in being so as the Son. I think you are confused here.)
This is absurd. This quote encapsulates the misleading way the Ang Dating Daan members (including their leader) commonly include quotes. If you will look at the above, prior information was concealed. In short he omitted it in order to make an implication to naïve readers that I only wrote that way. The reader may get the impression that there is no prior or proceeding information from what I wrote. This is the highest form of dishonesty-a fallacy known as suppression of evidence which goes along with Sin of Omission. The full text is:
///In reality, Soriano does not know what he is arguing against. A “straw man” argument defines a person’s point of view inaccurately, and then attacks the misrepresentation. Soriano does this by defining Persons in the Trinity inaccurately and inadequately. When presenting the Trinity doctrine, he melds Scriptures, creating an inconsistent and confusing teaching that does not define any formal position. He seems to build on the Catholic doctrine which he first alludes to but again claims the Trinity is an invented doctrine. Soriano misconstrues development of the Trinity when giving the impression it was an invented doctrine.
This is strongly misleading. After reading the following quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, it is quite clear early Christians taught Jesus was everlasting and God. The word Trinity and its formulation was in development at least from the 1st century, not the 4th century under Constantine as Soriano wants to imply.
Quotes from the Ante Nicene Fathers
Mathetes – 130 AD: “the holy and incomprehensible Word the very Creator and Fashioner of all things. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Savior He sent Him the immortal One for them that are mortal” Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, ANTE Vol.1 pp.63,65
Polycarp of Smyrna, a student of the Apostle John – 150 AD: “Wherefore also I praise Thee [the ever-truthful God] for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen” – Epistle of the church at Smyrna Ch.14 ANTE Vol 1 p.92
Justin Martyr – 150 AD : “we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove. For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.” First Apology Ch. 13 ANTE Vol 1 p.309
“nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son, who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, “I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers,” this signified that they, even though dead, are let in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself.” – First Apology ch. 63 ANTE Vol 1 p.352
Tatian the Syrian – 170 AD: “We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man.” – Address to the Greeks, ch. 21 ANTE Vol 2 p.149
Melito of Sardis – 160 – 177 AD: “The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages.” Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13
Irenaeus, student of Polycarp – 180 AD:”For the one and the same Spirit of God, who proclaimed by the prophets what and of what sort the advent of the Lord should be, did by these elders give a just interpretation of what had been truly prophesied; and He did Himself, by the apostles, announce that the fullness of the times of the adoption had arrived, that the kingdom of heaven had drawn nigh, and that He was dwelling within those that believe on Him who was born Emmanuel of the Virgin.” Against Heresies ch.21 ANTE Vol.1 p.933
Clement of Alexandria – 190 AD: “I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father.” – Stromata, Book V ch. 14 ANTE Vol.2 p.970//// …………………………………………………………………………………………
If you will look at his quote above and compare with the whole text, you will observe that he clearly misrepresented my context through picking what he thought he would rebut and neglecting what he could not but in the process committed the Sin of Omission-which is so apparent among all Dating Daan members. Through the “Sin of Omission”, the truthful information was deliberately omitted with the intention to mislead. His intention to build on what I wrote ended backfiring on him. From the evidence provided, it is logical for one to individually research my article as it was written, rather than await biased information void of all the facts from the likes of Darwin Bajo.
LICKING OF ELI SORIANOS TAIL
(DARWIN: If the early Christians taught that Jesus was everlasting and God as you say, then what will be the conflict if Bro. Eli says that Jesus is a spirit? God the Father is a spirit in being so as the Son. I think you are confused here.)
First off, before I answer, what cannot be denied here is that Mr. Bajo [Foul Smell] has come to the realization that Early Christians believed in the Trinity as the evidence shows above from my full quote. So he should never believe the lies of Soriano that the Trinity is an invented doctrine. Unfortunately, the obvious is he is riding on that fact to reinforce the fact the Soriano is right when it should actually be a clear indication that Soriano lies when he claims that the Trinity doctrine is invented.
The conflict is there when Soriano says “Now, if the son is equal to the Father and the Father is a spirit, it follows that the Son must also be a spirit!” Bajo and Soriano then flag marks JOHN 4:24 as a supportive Scripture.
“God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
The analogy used by Soriano and his puppets is false. There is need to understand the context of this Scripture before concluding that God is a Spirit. It is a misapplied Scripture. It was not written to explain the nature of God although one may get aspects of the Nature of God. In that verse, Jesus shows that the material worship at the Temple in Jerusalem will be replaced by a more Spiritual interior worship, at the same time he aims a blow at those who hoped for a greater temporal Messianic age.
Jesus says “God is spirit (Greek – pneuma) and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” And in Hebrews 1:14 angels are referred to as “ministering spirits (Gr. –pneumata) sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation.” Does this mean that Angels are also equal to the Father and the Son since they are spirits as well? No. The key here is to examine the context and usage of a word in Scripture, rather than melding Scripture, in order to determine whether we are dealing with a person, a force, or perhaps just an arrow. All this was addressed in my article which readers should access individually. The problem for Soriano and his puppies is that they do not know who the Holy Spirit is. This is proved when they neglect the proceeding verses of John’s gospel.
Speaking of the importance of context, the truth is, the very verse of Scripture often used to “prove” the Holy Spirit to be an impersonal force actually demonstrates the Holy Spirit to be both personal and masculine when examined more fully in the proceeding chapter of John’s gospel. John 14:26 in its entirety actually says: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” There are three key points to be made here.
1. “The Counselor” is ho paracleto in Greek which is masculine, not neuter.
2. When the text says he will teach you all things the demonstrative pronoun (Gr. ekeinos) is used in the masculine singular. This is very significant because the inspired author could have used the neuter ekeino, but he did not. If the Holy Spirit were an impersonal force, the inspired author would not refer to “it” as a “he.”
3. Notice what the Holy Spirit does. Jesus says he will both teach and remind us “all that [he has] said to [us].” Action follows being. One cannot “teach” and “remind” if one does not have the intellectual powers unique to rational persons that enable one to do so! The Holy Spirit is here clearly revealed to be a person.
Indeed, the Holy Spirit is referred to in personal terms by our Lord throughout the New Testament. If we only consider John chapters 14, 15 and 16, the evidence is overwhelming. This is not to mention the abundance of examples we could cite throughout the Scriptures, both Old (in seed form) and New Testaments. Here are some more examples to add to John 14:26 already mentioned.
In John 14:16-17, Jesus says,
And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, who the world cannot receive, because it neither seeshim nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you (emphasis added).
In John 15:26, Jesus says,
But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning (emphasis added).
And in John 16:7-13, Jesus makes it very plain,
Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And whenhe comes, he will convince the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you (emphasis added).
The Holy Spirit is clearly personal. He “convinces of sin,” “teaches” the truth, “speaks,” “declares things that are to come,” etc. There is no doubt as to the person of the Holy Spirit in these texts. Using verses like John 4:24 to conclude that God the Father and the Son are spirit is shows poor scholarship and Biblical Ignorance. The whole text has to be read to get a better view.
This brings us to the next…..
(Aloysius Kayiwa: In his first line, Soriano says that; “Now, if the son is equal to the Father and the Father is a spirit, it follows that the Son must also be a spirit! “This is a bogus statement confusing the Nature of God and cancelling out Soriano. Notice how he confuses the Spirit to be the Father and the Son and not Himself. Soriano does not know what “equal” means and he confuses the nature of the one God and through misapplying and torturing Scriptures to support his erroneous views.
DARWIN: I think it’s you who has erroneous views. Nowhere in Bro. Eli’s statement does he say that the Spirit is also the Father and the Son as you are stupidly claiming! It was very clear in his statement that the Son is equal to the Father and if the Father is a spirit so is the Son also. That is true as what the apostle Paul taught in Phi. 2:6, Jesus Christ was in the FORM OF GOD. What is the form of God?
Nothing. Because God is a spirit.)
He quoted well here but again committed a fallacy known as Poisoning the Well and Ad Hominem when he claims; “Nowhere in Bro. Eli’s statement does he say that the Spirit is also the Father and the Son as you are stupidly claiming! “
In short he wants to infuse into the imaginations of reader’s suspicion and mistrust of everything I said when the fact is that he misrepresented me and added the word “ALSO”. Let us compare and see;
My Statement: “Notice how he confuses the Spirit to be the Father and the Son and not Himself.”
His statement: “Nowhere in Bro. Eli’s statement does he say that the Spirit is also the Father and the Son as you are stupidly claiming!”
Is it what I really implied in my statement? Notice he added “ALSO” which completely misrepresents my position. I wrote that Soriano confuses the Spirit to be the Father and the Son and NOT HIMSELF. What I was saying is that Soriano says claims the Father and the Son are Spirit and therefore the Spirit is not a person Himself. Is that hard to comprehend by a logical mind? A “straw man” argument defines a person’s point of view inaccurately, and then attacks the misrepresentation. Chap Darwin, next time first understand what a person wrote before you attack.
Once again the claim “Nothing. Because God is a spirit” is comical and misplaced. The Spirit of God is revealed to be not only a person, but divine—God himself. Verse 13 tells us that the Holy Spirit “will guide [us] into all truth.” We have a hint here of what we see even more plainly in texts like I Corinthians 2:11: the Scripture indicates the Holy Spirit is omniscient; a quality that God alone possesses or even has the capability to possess.
“For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
The reason “no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” is because it would require infinite power to be able to comprehend the thoughts of God which are infinite. Romans 11:33-34 tells us:
“O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?”
The fact that the Holy Spirit of God fully comprehends the thoughts of God proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he is, in fact, God.
AMBIGUOUS SCRIPTURES
(It was very clear in his statement that the Son is equal to the Father and if the Father is a spirit so is the Son also. That is true as what the apostle Paul taught in Phi. 2:6, Jesus Christ was in the FORM OF GOD. What is the form of God? Nothing. Because God is a spirit)
First off, Bajo here is riding on the false analogy of Soriano .It is false. Here Darwin committed a fallacy of begging the question; the conclusion is already assumed and not proven. It is a form of circular reasoning. Consider the following example: “I know that God exists because it says so in the Bible. Furthermore, I know that the Bible is trustworthy because it is inspired by God.” Here, the assumption that God exists is used to prove itself. But in committing this fallacy, one avoids the real discussion of whether; indeed God is a Spirit, while simply assuming that He is.
The question is: Is the form of God a Spirit? Let us look at the context of Philippians 2:6 before making hasty conclusions that it proves God as Spirit…
Philippians 2:6-11 in the New King James Version (NKJV)
“ who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Philippians 2:6-11 in the Good News Translation (GNT) “6 He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain[a] equal with God. 7 Instead of this, of his own free will he gave up all he had, and took the nature of a servant. He became like a human being and appeared in human likeness.8 He was humble and walked the path of obedience all the way to death— his death on the cross.9 For this reason God raised him to the highest place above and gave him the name that is greater than any other name.10 And so, in honor of the name of Jesus all beings in heaven, on earth, and in the world below will fall on their knees,11 and all will openly proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
So the NKJV SAYS “FORM OF GOD” while the GNT says “NATURE OF GOD”. The context of this passage is Christ’s Obedience and Service, an early Christian hymn quoted here by Paul. The short rhythmic lines fall into two parts, Phil 2:6–8 where the subject of every verb is Christ, and Phil 2:9–11 where the subject is God. The general pattern is thus of Christ’s humiliation and then exaltation. More precise analyses propose a division into six three-line stanzas (Phil 2:6; 7abc, 7d–8, 9, 10, 11) or into three stanzas (Phil 2:6–7ab, 7cd–8, 9–11). Phrases such as even death on a cross (Phil 2:8c) are considered by some to be additions (by Paul) to the hymn, as are Phil 2:10c, 11c.
Phil 2:6 is either a reference to Christ’s pre-existence or those aspects of divinity that he was willing to give up in order to serve in human form, or to what the man Jesus refused to grasp at to attain divinity. There is an allusion to the Genesis story: unlike Adam, Jesus, though…in the form of God (Gn 1:26–27), did not reach out for equality with God, in contrast with the first Adam in Gn 3:5–6.
The Church Father Athanasius(250AD) gives us a clue;
“Any one, beginning with these passages and going through the whole of the Scripture upon the interpretation which they suggest, will perceive how in the beginning the Father said to Him, ‘Let there be light,’ and ‘Let there be a firmament,’ and ‘Let us make man ;’ but in fullness of the ages, He sent Him into the world, not that He might judge the world, but that the world by Him might be saved, and how it is written ‘Behold, the Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his Name Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with us Matthew 1:23.’”(Discourses against Arians #3)
John says that the Lord became man; for ‘the Word,’ he says, ‘became flesh, and dwelt among us John 1:14.’ And He became man, and did not come into man. For ‘the Word,’ as John says, ‘became flesh’, it was the custom of Scripture to call man by the name of ‘flesh,’ as it says by Joel the Prophet;
“I will pour out My Spirit upon all flesh;’(Joel 2:28) and as Daniel said to Astyages, ‘I do not worship idols made with hands, but the Living God, who has created the heaven and the earth, and has sovereignty over all flesh”
Acts 2:17(KJV) has this to say:
And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
Other versions have it like this:Acts 2:17(NIV);
“‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.”
If we will look at Joel and Acts verses above, both call mankind flesh. Clearly fresh means mankind. What Darwin fails to realize, with reference to Philippians 2:6-11, is that God the Father—not Christ the Son—is in view in that context. Paul was not discussing the nature of Christ. He was discussing Jesus’ Obedience and Service to the World. Thus, it is improper to generalize regarding the nature of the Lord from this reference.
Now we get the question; What is the form of God? What is the Nature of God?
The Greek word for “form” is morphe. This term denotes that which is “indicative of the interior nature” of a thing or as Kennedy observed, morphe “always signifies a form which truly and fully expresses the being which underlies it” (1956, 436). Trench commented that “none could be en morphe theou [in form of God] who was not God” (1890, 263). All of this simply means that if Jesus gave up the “form of God” when he became incarnate, then he ceased being God at that time.
In short, Jesus was God Himself and God has no form. But did Pope Francis deny this?
Pope Francis said Jesus is man just like John the Baptist said Jesus is man. But did Pope Francis deny Jesus is not divine? As Bro. Duane observes, The Pope however said, “Some ask, is Jesus is a spirit? Jesus is not a spirit?” This statement simply says that JESUS IS NOT A SPIRIT. It does not say that Jesus is not God like the ADD members conclude.
There is a difference between Jesus is not a spirit” and “Jesus is not divine.” And no one among the ADD should read further if they think these two statements are the same. As Duane explained, such a person does not have the mental capacity to understand the difference between simple logical concepts; hence any further reading will be fruitless. When Pope Francis was saying “Jesus is not a spirit”, he is actually being faithful to the teaching of the bible. If you believe that Jesus is a spirit, you are actually saying that Jesus does not have a flesh. BUT HE DOES. And if you go back and read what the Pope was saying in his homily, you will find out that he was actually talking about the essential value of the flesh of Jesus for our redemption. Jesus came in this world in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).In other words as man since fresh means Mankind.
Pope Francis spoke in the same way John the Baptist and the Samaritan woman spoke;
John 1:19-30 “The next day he (John) saw Jesus coming and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the World! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a MAN who ranks before me, for he was before me. I myself did not know him, but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.”
And the Samaritan woman also calls Jesus a man;
John 4:4-42 “Come; see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this the Christ?”
Did these people mean Jesus was mere man or they did they deny Jesus is not a Spirit or divine? No! The Pope understands that Christ came as man and lived among us as man but was God-the 2nd Person of the Trinity-God the Son…so that men may know the truth through the words that the Lord accomplishes with the actions of his Body and through Him they may know the Father. It is Soriano forcing his woeful Ignorance on the Pope. The God, who is invisible, has graciously chosen to manifest Himself to men in various forms throughout history. God disclosed Himself finally and fully in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:1-3; 2:1-4).
