On the Issue of Banning (Muslim) "Refugees" on Possibility of Bringing in "Terrorism Ideology"

WHO IS MS. BRIGITTE GABRIEL?

Brigitte Gabriel was born in the Marjeyoun District of Lebanon to a Maronite Christian couple, a first and only child after over twenty years of marriage. She recalls that during the Lebanese Civil War, Islamic militants launched an assault on a Lebanese military base near her family's house and destroyed her home. Gabriel, who was ten years old at the time, was injured by shrapnel in the attack. She says that she and her parents were forced to live underground in all that remained, an 8-by-10-foot (2.4 by 3.0 m) bomb shelter for seven years, with only a small kerosene heater, no sanitary systems, no electricity or running water, and little food. She says she had to crawl in a roadside ditch to a spring for water to evade Muslim snipers.

According to Gabriel, at one point in the spring of 1978, a bomb explosion caused her and her parents to become trapped in the shelter for two days. They were eventually rescued by three Christian militia fighters, one of whom befriended Gabriel but was later killed by a land mine.

Gabriel wrote that in 1978 a stranger warned her family of an impending attack by the Islamic militias on all Christians. She says that her life was saved when the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in Operation Litani. Later, when her mother was seriously injured and taken to an Israeli hospital, Gabriel was surprised by the humanity shown by the Israelis, in contrast to the constant propaganda against the Jews she saw as a child. She says of the experience:

I was amazed that the Israelis were providing medical treatment to Palestinian and Muslim gunmen...These Palestinians and Muslims were sworn, mortal enemies, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews. Yet, Israeli doctors and nurses worked feverishly to save their lives. Each patient was treated solely according to the nature of his or her injury. The doctor treated my mother before he treated an Israeli soldier lying next to her because her injury was more severe than his. The Israelis did not see religion, political affiliation, or nationality. They saw only people in need, and they helped.

REFUTING RAMIL PARBA ON JOHN 1:1 by Bro. Duane

By Bro. Duane

Let us analyze in detail. This will only show that his assessment is very inappropriate.

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: Kaya nang suriin ito ng mga nagsipagsuri ito ang sinasabi nila about the function of the term theos or God in the third clause of John 1:1, ito ang ating mababasa sa, The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance & Environment sa page 99:

"The closing words of v.1 should be translated, 'the Logos was divine.' Here the word theos has no article, thus giving it the significance of an adjective."

My Response: We saw Ramil Parba quote the book, “The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance & Environment” which is on page 99.

Is that really written on page 99 of said book?

This is page 99 of the book mentioned by Ramil Parba.

"about the purifiying is connected with baptism, and we do know exactly what form it would take. It is introduced only to to give the Baptist the opportunity of declaring again his subordination to Jesus. The disciples of John endeavour to rouse in their master jealousy of Jesus. Probably the dispute was as to whethere Jesus baptism or John's was the more effective. vv. 31-36 are a comment and reflection of the Evangelist. All the ideas are most with elsewhere, in the other parts of the Gospel. They are suggested by the Baptist's wods in Ἐν, 27-30. "(The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance & Environment”, page 99.)

It is clear that it is not written in page 99!

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: The term "GOD" or "Theos" in John 1:1 doesn't function as NOUN but it does function as Adjective. That is a predicative adjective and it is not a predicative nominative. the Word Was GOD. "The" is an Article. "WORD" is the subject of the clause "was" is a linking verb. "GOD" this is predicative adjective. So the "GOD" is predicative adjective because of the absence of the article."

Is it correct? No! It was very, very WRONG!

Let us answer what he said one-by-one.

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: The term "GOD" or "Theos" in John 1:1 doesn't function as NOUN but it does function as Adjective."

My Response: This is incorrect. Theos is a noun. While adjectives (like “good,” “bad,” etc) can function in a number of ways, nouns always function as nouns (substantives). Liddell and Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, present no evidence of the use of θεὸς as an adjective, as follows: ὁ θεὸς, “God, in a general sense, θεὸς δώσει “God will give,” and in a particular sense, θεὸς τις “a god.” The noun, θεὸς, thus does not require a definite article to function as a noun, as follows: πρὸς θεῶν “by the gods.”

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: That is a predicative adjective and it is not a predicative nominative. the Word Was God.

My Response: This is a misunderstanding of what a “predicate adjective” is. A predicate adjective is an adjective acting substantially (like a noun) in the predicate position. This happens when nouns or adjectives are working with equative verbs (like “was” here).

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: Kaya nga naninindigan tayo at sinasang-ayunan yan ng ibang mga bible scholars, in fact even in the Greek Grammar talagang yung sabihin na logos dyan without the article sabi nila it functions as adjective at hindi po a noun or hindi po nominative in form.

Ramil Parba used the book of Professor Daniel B. Wallace, the Greek Grammar beyond the basics and quoted Page 269 which states.

“Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows:"What God was, the Word was (NEB), or "the Word was divine" (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, "divine" is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even meal. Thus "divine could be misleading in an English Translation. (Page 269, Greek Grammar beyond the basics, Daniel B. Wallace)”

My Response: What is the comment of a renowned New Testament scholar about this?

"I was shocked to learn that InC ministers had used my Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics in support of their heterodox beliefs."(Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics)

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ramil Parba (INC Minister) said: Pero maliwanag dito sa sinasabi nila na the word was divine, ang sabi nila e yun ang mas angkop na pagkakasalin tulad ng binanggit nya na salin ni James Moffatt.

"The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine."(John 1:1, James Moffatt Version)

My Response: What does the New Testament Scholar, Dr. Daniel Wallace said in his comment?

"Consequently, I have no problem translating it as ‘divine’ as long as we understand that only true deity is divine. "(Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, Author of Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics)

Now, here is my question: Is James Moffatt against Christ being God?

This is the information about James Moffatt.

James Moffatt was an orthodox Trinitarian who supported the Nicene Creed and Chalcedon Confession:

"The Word was God...And the Word became flesh,' simply means "The word was divine...And the Word became human.' The Nicene faith, in the Chalcedon definition, was intended to conserve both of these truths against theories that failed to present Jesus as truly God and truly man..." Moffatt, Jesus Christ the Same, (Abingdon-Cokesbury), 1945, p.61.

Moffatt apparently did believe that "divine" signified that Jesus was "one and the same God" with ho theos.

WACOM - 4TH WORLD APOSTOLIC CONGRESS ON MERCY

Please reglarly update yourselves by clicking the LIKE  or FOLLOW the 4th World Apostolic Congress on Mercy Facebook Page.

Jose Ventilacion: Iglesia Ni Cristo Apologist Expert on Textual Criticism?

WHO IS DR. EUGENE ULRICH?
By Bro. Duane

Dr. Eugene Ulrich teaches and writes in the areas of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Septuagint. A member of the translation teams for both the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible and the New American Bible: Revised Edition, he also co-authored The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible. He is one of the three General Editors of the Scrolls International Publication Project and Chief Editor of the Biblical Scrolls.

He was twice elected as President of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies and was invited as a Fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Recently, he was elected as President of the Catholic Biblical Association and as a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Here is my question to Iglesia ni Cristo:

Why is it that up to now, the iglesia ni Cristo of felix manalo does not have its own bible translated by an Iglesia ni Cristo minister specially Mr. Joe Ventilacion who claim to be someone who studied textual criticism?

A Challenge of Bro. Duane to INC's Top Defender Mr. Jose Ventilacion!

My Message for Joe Ventilacion (INC™) Regarding His Education At Harvard University

Source: The Splendor of the Church Blog

When Kuya Adviser posted his article on his FB page, Ventilacion posted comments on his FB page about me. He said I was challenging him and asking questions about textual criticism and that I have to study more about this topic.

He is simply boasting that he studied at Harvard University. He posted this on his FB Page conspicuously.

I am just wondering who among bible and textual scholars from Harvard University favor the interpretation made by Jose Ventilacion.

I asked Dr. Eugene Ulrich, a former professor at Harvard University who among his colleagues do not agree with King Cyrus referring to “Bird of Prey” in Isaiah 46:11. It is clear that Ventilacion does not concur with this and instead, he makes it appear that Felix Manalo is the one just like what his Church is doing.

Here is the email response of Dr. Eugene Ulrich:

By the way, Dr. Eugene Ulrich is one of my mentors in Biblical Languages.

Now, you studied at Harvard but you did not follow your professors and mentors in textual criticism who said explicitly that Cyrus is really being referred to as the Bird of Prey in Isaiah 46:11 and yet, it is Manalo whom you are pointing at.

It is clear you studied at Harvard University not to learn from the experts and it is not for you to boast about it. So, you do not follow what you learned.

You attended the SBL Annual Meeting and you were given the go-signal by your Executive Minister, Eduardo V. Manalo.

If it was Dr. James Richard Saley who delivered the lecture and you attended that, participated and listened; is it not a slap on your face as a result of what is written in your Pasugo Magazine?

I asked Dr. Eugene Ulrich if he knows Dr. James Richard Saley. Dr. Eugene Ulrich told me they are good friends and he presumes Dr. Saley is a Protestant.

Does Dr. James Richard Saley know that you taught your listeners that Felix Manalo is the Bird of Prey in Isaiah 46:11? Can you ask him if he agrees with your interpretation? 🙂

So, Joe Ventilacion listened to a Protestant whom you addressed as Devil. And, you studied at Harvard University wherein some professors are Protestants.

I give you 2 weeks to answer my post at splendor that INC members can read. I pray that you will be enlightened as well as them someday or they will soon realize your false teachings.

Answer the following because you studied textual criticism at Harvard University:

1. Who are the Bible Professors and Textual Scholars from Harvard University favor your interpretation that Felix Manalo is the Bird of Prey in Isaiah 46:11?
2. Who are the textual scholars from Harvard University who taught you that you translated Mizrach in Isaiah 43:5 of Aleppo Codex as “Far East”? Give me the names of at least 3 textual scholars.
3. Who are the textual scholars from Harvard University whom you can prove translated the Greek word (Logos) in John 1:1 to “idea” as you did?
4. Who are the textual scholars (at least three) from Harvard University who can give testimonies that your LAMSA Translation is Accurate?

I will wait for your reply, Joe Ventilacion.

And, if you are boasting that we need to square off in a debate, do not give me any conditions that I should pay for the venue rental since there are many public venues which are free.

Just tell me when and I will submit my proposal to the nearest INC Local.

Prove that the LAMSA is accurate using Greek text and testimonies of Aramaic scholars if you are really intelligent in textual criticism and that I still need to study.

Sincerely,

Bro. Duane

One Peter Five: The Modern Church: A Synthesis of Martin Luther and Henry VIII

King Henry VIII / Martin Luther

Source: One Peter 5

I want to say to you, about myself, that I am a child of this age, a child of unfaith and scepticism, and probably (indeed I know it) shall remain so to the end of my life.

– Fyodor Dostoyevsky

I find it on any showing quite ludicrous to suppose that, for nineteen of Christendom’s twenty centuries, Christians were credulous idiots ready to believe any tomfoolery the Bible fostered. . . For one thing, it would seem to me that our twentieth century, far from being notable for scientific scepticism, is one of the most credulous eras in all history. It is not that people believe in nothing – which would be bad enough – but that they believe in anything – which is really terrible.

– Malcolm Muggeridge

While Amoris Laetitia is turning hot the ecclesial cold war between novelty and tradition that erupted in the wake of Vatican II, there is still a tendency to be myopic about our times. Ross Douthat has pronounced that the battle over Amoris Laetitia has reached the level of “genuinely historic theological controversy (Jesuit-Jansenist level, at least, if not quite Arian-Athanasian).” We see the speck, but we do not see the beam. Worse than Jansenism, worse than Arian heresy, for the past 500 years, the Church has been torn apart – certainly by Modernism, that heresy of “synthesis,” but also by Modernism’s close cousin, modernity.

Modernity is the admixture of two different heresies: Martin Luther’s attack on Catholic theology, which rent the individual Christian from the Church, and Henry VIII’s attack on the Church’s teaching concerning the jurisdictional boundaries between Church and State. Though contemporaries, Luther and Henry were enemies. Henry penned his famous attack on Luther in 1521, “In Defense of the Seven Sacraments (Assertio septem Sacramentorum adversus Martin Lutherum),” which won the English king the title “Defender of the Faith” (Fidei defensor) from Pope Leo X. Luther responded by showing his mettle: a world-class foul mouth and penchant for ad hominem attacks, responding to Henry’s reasoned arguments simply by calling him “a pig, dolt, and liar who deserved, among other things, to be covered in excrement.” Yet despite the personal dislike these two men had for each other, they unleashed the tandem of forces destined to destroy Christendom: Luther’s isolated individualism and Henry’s monolithic state were amalgamated into the twin pillars of modern secularism.

In the early 16th century, few could understand what was happening. Not surprisingly, one was St. Thomas More.

More additionally expressed concern to his son-in-law William Roper that because of complacent Catholic attitudes, the war against Luther would not be won: “I pray God … that some of us, as high as we seem to sit upon the mountains, treading heretics under our feet like ants, live not the day, that we gladly would wish to be at league and composition with them, to let them have their churches quietly to themselves; so that they would be content to let us have ours quietly to ourselves.”1

More was not a theologian, but a lawyer. For him, law was not an end in itself, but an indispensable aid in assisting individuals and societies to attain their proper temporal and spiritual ends. He believed – consistent with the Gelasian theory of the two swords – that the Church and the State had different roles and different jurisdictions. More understood that harmony between the two was essential and that if the balance were disturbed, man would suffer evils to body and soul.

While Thomas More is best known for his defense of the papacy, which led to his execution, More had an earlier disagreement with Henry VIII wherein he, ironically, claimed that Henry had given the papacy an unduly large role in temporal affairs. Though an enemy of Tudor totalitarianism, the great saint and scholar was no ultramontanist.

In recent years, we seemingly have seen the Roman pontiff ambiguously; indirectly; unofficially; and, by way of proxy, all but officially approve the attempted Kasperite transvaluation of adultery from mortal sin into a mulligan-worthy bad break. The mechanism of this “mercy” is a counterfeit version of “conscience,” warped to look more Lutheran than Catholic. The meme of Pope Francis as Luther is no joke; rather, it captures the hopes of some (the Kasperites) and the fears of others (serious Catholics) within the Church.

While Kasperism’s deformed theology has been well documented, what has received less attention is Cardinal Kasper’s completely misguided approach to Church-State relations. Formerly, the Church understood that the proper realm of the Church was the administration of the divine law, while the State administered the natural law. In other words, the Church preserved and promulgated the Good News for the salvation of souls; the State took care for the temporal common good of its citizenry (which oftentimes could contain non-Christians). While the framework of the Church’s thought was theological, the common good was rooted in natural law – rational precepts that Christians, Jews, and pagans were bound to acknowledge.

In a journal article from 1990, Cardinal Kasper praises the post-Vatican II practice of addressing the secular world in theological language rather than in terms of the Natural law:

[W]e Christians cannot counter the threat to humanity merely by an appeal to a minimal consensus founded in natural law. We must respond with all the concrete fullness and the concentrated strength of our Christian faith, and mobilize all its forces against the powers of injustice, violence, and death.2

In typical Kasperspeak, the cardinal criticized the “abstract foundation” of former practice in favor of “concrete realization.” The idea that it is more effective to address “the world” in theological language is idiotic, naïve, and disingenuous. Why? Because the “concrete realization” is that if I am an avowed Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu or agnostic or atheist, chances are, I don’t give a flying fig about what Jesus said or did, nor about the theological position His Church may take on issues. On the other hand, an appeal to natural reason demands respect from the rational non-Christian (and if your interlocutor isn’t reasonable, should you really be dialoguing in the first place?). What Kasper’s theory of Church-State dialogue does is sideline the Church as an intellectual and cultural force.

For the muddled modern mind, not knowing how to talk about a subject belies not knowing how to act, either. While Pope Francis’s actions (and inactions) have led to his earning crypto-Lutheran credentials in some quarters, his foray into launching an investigation into the internal affairs of the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta might earn him another meme as Pope Henry VIII, destroyer of the Gelasian two-swords theory.

Rather than lament what seems to be a clash between the Knights of Malta and the Vatican, we should view current developments as a blessing. The theological errors of Luther have become inextricably intertwined with the jurisdictional errors of Henry, and both need to be addressed before salvation history can move on. When the new Christian springtime does come, it will be rooted in the soil of the perennial teachings of the Church, both theological and social.

1 Roper’s Life of More

2 “The Theological Foundations Of Human Rights,” The Jurist 50 (1990), 148-166

Christian Post: Scores of Muslims Turning to Christ in Middle East; Churches Expecting 'Millions' of Converts

BY STOYAN ZAIMOV , CHRISTIAN POST REPORTER
Jan 9, 2017 | 8:36 AM

Thousands of Muslims are turning to Jesus Christ and what they view as the "religion of freedom" amid ongoing bloodshed in the Middle East, reports indicate. Some churches hope that millions of people will accept Christ amid a "spiritual hunger" that is forming in the wake of persecution.

(REUTERS/Thaier Al-Sudani)Iraqi Christians attend a mass on Christmas at St. Joseph Chaldean church in Baghdad, Iraq December 25, 2016.

Voice Of the Martyrs Canada, which supports Christian radio broadcasts in the region, told BosNewsLife that despite the mass exodus of Christians from Iraq and Syria due to terrorism, persecution, and war, scores of Muslims are making the decision to embrace Christianity.

"There are thousands upon thousands coming to Christ," VOMC revealed. "We are in regular contact with our FM stations in Iraq and have talked with many people who have family in the Middle East."

"Some of our Middle Eastern broadcasters have shared testimonies [about many turning to Christ] with us, which they hear directly from listeners when visiting there ..."

In Iran, Christian house churches are regularly targeted and shut down by the nation's Islamic government. Despite this persecution, mission group Elam Ministries revealed that Christians have been growing in terms of numbers, and today estimates suggest there are 360,000 believers in Iran – up from only 500 in 1979.

"Church leaders believe that millions can be added to the church in the next few years -- such is the spiritual hunger that exists and the disillusionment with the Islamic regime," Elam Ministries stated.

"If we remain faithful to our calling, our conviction is that it is possible to see the nation transformed within our lifetime. Because Iran is a strategic gateway nation, the growing church in Iran will impact Muslim nations across the Islamic world."

Muslim refugees in Europe have also reportedly been undergoing mass conversions of faith. A June 2016 article from The Guardian noted anecdotal data of rising Christian church attendance in Europe by Muslims.

Trinity church in the Berlin suburb of Steglitz, for instance, saw its congregation rise from 150 to 700 due to new Muslim converts, while the Austrian Catholic Church saw its applications for adult baptism swell by nearly 70 percent in the first three months of 2016.

"I found that the history of Islam was completely different from what we were taught at school. Maybe, I thought, it was a religion that began with violence," an Iranian convert, 32-year-old Johannes, said.

"A religion that began with violence cannot lead people to freedom and love. Jesus Christ said 'those who use the sword will die by the sword.' This really changed my mind," he added.

More churches in Germany reported this growing phenomena in December 2016, with The Independent noting that Muslims, especially Iranians, are seeing Christianity as a new chance at freedom.

"A lot of them come to Germany and think, here I can choose my religion and I want to choose a religion of freedom," said Matthias Linke, a priest from the Evangelical-Freikirchlichen Gemeinde in Berlin.

"For many Iranians that I've baptized, Christianity is the religion of freedom."

Bp. Robert Barron: "Friends, last night a young man who was raised atheist left this comment ... Praise God for his conversion, and please pray for him!"

This is the real meaning of WITNESSING TO CHRIST! There is REAL CONVERSION!

Bishop Robert Barron shares his wonderful story.

Friends, last night a young man who was raised atheist left this comment on one of my YouTube videos. Praise God for his conversion, and please pray for him!

Also, pay attention to his final line, which offers an important insight. Our structures and institutions are wonderful, but to reach people like this young man who would otherwise never darken the doors of a church, we need to become missionary disciples, actively heralding the Gospel to the culture instead of waiting for people to approach us.