Marwil N. Llasos

THE IGNORANCE AND ARROGANCE OF ABBEY B. CANTURIAS REGARDING THE BLACK NAZARENE

2012-01-11T23:01:00.001-08:00

(Source: http://www.tempo.com.ph/2012/3m-devotees-join-black-nazarene-procession-despite-terror-warning/#.Tw1kEqVWpzk)

THE IGNORANCE AND ARROGANCE OF ABBEY B. CANTURIAS REGARDING THE BLACK NAZARENE

Viva Nuestro Jesus Padre Nazareno!!!

(Source: http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl111396.htm)

A former Catholic named ABBEY B. CANTURIAS, managing director of Campaigns and Image Group based in Cebu City, recently posted in his Facebook wall the following scathing indictment of the Filipino masses:

“The Black Nazarene represents God? Who says so? Not even a bishop or the pope will tell you that. But the Filipino masses, so accustomed with pagan practices, wanted a spectacle of a grand parade to honor the Lord they thought to dwell in a black, sculpted image of a bruised and wounded son of a carpenter which has ears that cannot hear, eyes that cannot see, and a form that is so helpless and powerless that it has to be wheeled around on a device that's meant for the injured and the dead. You think God is honored with such a degrading act? Haven't you realized that He is a spirit (John 4: 23-24), and that He is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth? That God dwells in a stone image? That's a lie. That God should be served with human hands? Another lie. How much longer must this pagan nation do comic things in its desire to worship the God they don't know who? Blame it on ignorance, spiritual blindness, and a religious hierarchy that must foster ignorance to keep its hold on people.”[1]

Aniceto "Abbey" B. Canturias insults the Filipino masses and calls the Philippines a "pagan nation"

(Source: https://www.facebook.com/abbey.canturias)

This profile was referred to me by a Facebook friend for comment. I believe that as a Christian Mr. Canturias wants to know the truth, I will make my comment public so that more people will know the truth that sets men free (cf. Jn. 8:32).

Mr. Canturias’ comments are in red while mine are in blue.

The Black Nazarene represents God? Who says so? Not even a bishop or the pope will tell you that.

Mr. Canturias is aware that not even a bishop or the Pope says that the Black Nazarene represents God. If that is the case, what is he then trying to refute? It is foolhardy on Mr. Canturias’ part to refute a non-issue. He is going after the wind which will get him nowhere. Given that it is not the Pope’s or any bishops teaching that the Black Nazarene represents God, all the subsequent comments of Mr. Canturias have been rendered irrelevant.

But the Filipino masses, so accustomed with pagan practices …

I love the Marxist touch here of Mr. Canturias. This eerily sounds like Marx’s “religion is the opium of the masses.” Notice the condescending, elitist attitude of Mr. Canturias to the “Filipino masses.” Notice, too, the sweeping generalization and indictment of the Filipino masses as being so accustomed with pagan practices. Where is Mr. Canturias’ proof for his judgment that the Filipinos are so accustomed with pagan practices? Thank you, Mr. Canturias for insulting the masses of our Filipino people.

… wanted a spectacle of a grand parade to honor the Lord …

How does Mr. Canturias know that the Filipino masses want a spectacle to honor the Lord? Did he do a headcount? Those who attend the Black Nazarene procession do not represent the entirety of the Filipino masses who Mr. Canturias label as “so accustomed to pagan practices.”

By the way, Mr. Canturias uses the word “parade.” I think that is deficiency in vocabulary. Well, the proper term is “procession.” If Mr. Canturias has the habit of reading his Bible, he would have known that religious processions are grand. Psalm 64:24-27 states –

“Your procession, God, has come into view,
the procession of my God and King into the sanctuary.
In front are the singers, after them the musicians;
with them are the young women playing the timbrels.
Praise God in the great congregation;
praise the LORD in the assembly of Israel.
There is the little tribe of Benjamin, leading them,
there the great throng of Judah’s princes,
and there the princes of Zebulun and of Naphtali” (NIV).

The Ark of the Covenant with the two images of cherubims in procession

I wonder if Mr. Canturias has ever read that passage. The religious procession depicted there is grand – with singers and musicians – attended by a great congregation and great throng. Perhaps Mr. Canturias should also consider God’s people in the Old Testament as “accustomed to paganism” for having that spectacular and grand parade to honor their Lord.

….the Lord they thought to dwell in a black, sculpted image of a bruised and wounded son of a carpenter which has ears that cannot hear, eyes that cannot see, and a form that is so helpless and powerless…

How does Mr. Canturias know that the Filipino masses think the Lord dwells in a black sculpted image? Does Mr. Canturias have the power to read the mind of each and every person who attends the Black Nazarene procession? Mr. Canturias is clearly playing God. For him to judge that the Filipino multitudes who flock to the Black Nazarene procession really think that Jesus Christ dwells in the image smacks of arrogance and delusion. He is in fact usurping the prerogative of God. It is God alone who is privy to our innermost thoughts. He alone can see what is in our mind and in our heart. Mr. Canturias simply does not have that power. Mr. Canturias, in his rash judgment on other people, has conveniently forgotten the Biblical teaching that that “man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:17).

The Ark of the Covenant carried on the shoulders

… it has to be wheeled around on a device that's meant for the injured and the dead.

This clearly betrays Mr. Canturias’ gross ignorance of the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say that carts are meant only for those who are injured or the dead, Mr. Canturias? Chapter and verse please? I am sure that he cannot give any, given his palpable illiteracy of Scripture.

Because Mr. Casturias seldom reads his Bible, he doesn’t know that carts (karo in Tagalog), far from merely being used for the injured and the dead, are used also for religious processions involving a sacred image. Will Mr. Canturias bother to read this passage:

“David again brought together all the able young men of Israel—thirty thousand. He and all his men went to Baalah in Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name,the name of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim on the ark. They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart with the ark of God on it,and Ahio was walking in front of it. David and all Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD, with castanets,harps, lyres, timbrels, sistrums and cymbals” (2 Sam. 6:1-5).

The Ark of the Covenant with the images of cherubims in the cart during procession

Perhaps, Mr. Canturias would better understand Tagalog:

“At pinisan uli ni David ang lahat na piling lalake sa Israel, na tatlong pung libo. At bumangon si David at yumaon na kasama ng buong bayan na nasa kaniya, mula sa Baale Juda, upang iahon mula roon ang kaban ng Dios, na tinatawag sa Pangalan, sa makatuwid baga'y sa pangalan ng Panginoon ng mga hukbo, na tumatahan sa gitna ng mga querubin. At kanilang inilagay ang kaban ng Dios sa isang bagong karo, at kanilang inilabas sa bahay ni Abinadab na nasa burol: at si Uzza at si Ahio, na mga anak ni Abinadab, ay siyang nagpatakbo ng bagong karo. At kanilang inilabas sa bahay ni Abinadab, na nasa burol, pati ng kaban ng Dios: at si Ahio ay nagpauna sa kaban. At si David at ang buong sangbahayan ni Israel ay nagsitugtog sa harap ng Panginoon ng sarisaring panugtog na kahoy na abeto, at ng mga alpa, at ng mga salterio, at ng mga pandereta, at ng mga kastaneta at ng mga simbalo” (2 Sam. 6:1-5).

The Ark of the Covenant encircling the walls of Jericho

If that is not enough, here is the Cebuano translation to help Mr. Canturias understand the passage even more:

“Ug si David nagtapok pag-usab sa tanang mga piniling tawo sa Israel, katloan ka libo. Ug si David mitindog, ug miuban sa tibook katawohan nga didto uban kaniya, sukad sa Baal sa Juda, aron sa pagdala gikan didto sa arca sa Dios, nga gitawag sa Ngalan, bisan sa ngalan ni Jehova sa mga panon nga naglingkod sa ibabaw sa mga querubin. Ug ilang gipahaluna ang arca sa Dios sa ibabaw sa bag-ong carromata, ug gidala kini gikan sa balay ni Abinadab nga didto sa bungtod; ug si Uzza ug si Ahio, ang mga anak nga lalake ni Abinadab, nagtulod sa bag-ong carromata. Ug gidala nila kini gikan sa balay ni Abinadab, nga didto sa bungtod, uban sa arca sa Dios: ug si Ahio miuna sa arca. Ug si David ug ang tibook balay sa Israel nanaghoni sa atubangan ni Jehova sa nagkalainlaing mga tulonggon nga binuhat sa kahoy nga haya, ug uban ang mga alpa, ug uban ang mga kinuldasan nga tulonggon, ug mga pandaretas ug uban ang mga castañetas ug mga piyangpiyang.”

When Mr. Canturias criticizes Catholics, it is his own Biblical illiteracy that is exposed. And by the way, God’s people had a spectacular grand parade in that passage. Go ahead, Mr. Canturias, accuse David and the people of God of being accustomed to pagan practices, too.

Exuberance of emotion: King David dancing before the Ark of the Lord

You think God is honored with such a degrading act?

Degrading is a conclusion. What makes the procession degrading, Mr. Canturias? Procession per se is not degrading as we see in the verses above. I think Mr. Canturias must justify his asseveration.

As far as the Bible is concerned a religious procession to honor God by itself is not degrading, otherwise why would He allow it in the first place in 2 Samuel 6:1ff.? In the passage, the ark of God, which is called by the Name of the LORD Almighty, was placed in a new cart and carried in a cloud, celebratory, spectacular and grand procession.

Haven't you realized that He is a spirit (John 4: 23-24)

Of course we do.

… and that He is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth?

Again, yes of course.

Now it’s my time to ask Mr. Canturias. Where in Catholic doctrine does it say that a religious procession is a form of worship? Where in the Bible does it say that procession is a form of worship? I am sure Mr. Canturias can find nothing in Catholic doctrine or Sacred Scripture that teaches that a procession is a form of worship. As far as we are concerned, it is merely a form of devotion.

Does Mr. Canturias really think that a procession is worship? If he does, then let me ask him this: does he ever carry his God in procession? If he doesn’t, then Mr. Canturias is not worshipping God. That, a folk, is how flimsy Mr. Canturias’ argument is. It falls flat on his face.

Abbey B. Canturias likes Jesus Daily which has pictures of Christ like this one

(Source: http://www.facebook.com/JesusDaily)

That God dwells in a stone image? That's a lie.

The one lying here is Mr. Canturias in insinuating that Catholics believe that God dwells in a stone image (by the way, the Nazareno is wood, Mr. Canturias). I challenge Mr. Canturias to come out with an official doctrine of the Catholic Church that says that God dwells in a stone image. If Mr. Canturias can’t, that simply means that he is making a false accusation against us. Here in fact is painted in bold relief Mr. Canturias’ self-contradiction. Has he not earlier said that not even the Pope or a bishop says that the Black Nazarene represents God? If the Black Nazarene does not even represent God, how much more could God dwell therein? This is how shallow Mr. Canturias’ reasoning is.

That God should be served with human hands? Another lie.

Again, it is Mr. Canturias who is lying. Can’t we not serve God, the one true God, with our human hands? Of course we can! We must serve God with the entirety of our being – our hearts, our minds and with our bodies, our hands included. Has it not been commanded by God to “love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Dt. 6:5, NIV)? To love God is to serve Him – with all our strength. Which part of the body best symbolizes strength if not our hands? The apostle Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians 4:11: “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you.” If we work with our hands for God’s glory, is it not serving the Lord God with our hands? When we are “lifting holy hands” (1 Tim. 2:8, Ps. 134:2, NLT) in prayer to praise the Lord, are we also not serving Him with our hands? Mr. Canturias certainly errs because he does not know the Scriptures or the power of God (cf. Mk. 12:24).

Nazareno devotees lifting their hands

How much longer must this pagan nation …

This is sheer arrogance. I resent this slur against our country and people. The Philippines a pagan nation? Excuse me. No self-respecting Filipino must allow this insult from a modern day Makapili like Mr. Abbey Canturias. The warped thinking of Mr. Canturias puts the Filipino people with the same level as savages. How can a Filipino ever say such a thing against his own country and countrymen? Well, we still have collaborators in our midst. Makapili, anyone?

… do comic things …

Comic? I don’t find the Nazareno procession comic. If Mr. Canturias find it comic, that’s his perception. Imagine the warped sense of humor of Mr. Canturias. He laughs at the religious expression of other people. Does he also laugh when some people get hurt in a melee? Mr. Canturias can laugh all the way he wants.

Abby Canturias likes Jesus Daily with this picture of Christ

(Source: http://www.facebook.com/JesusDaily)

… in its desire to worship the God they don't know who?

The nerve! How is Mr. Canturias able to say that we don’t know God? How presumptuous is this fellow named Abby Canturias.

By the way, let me ask again: Is a procession a form of worship? Does the Catholic Church ever teaches that procession is worship? I challenge Mr. Canturias to come out with church doctrine that says it is. If he can’t then I’d say it is Mr. Canturias who is attacking something that he does not know. He is maligning something that he thinks to be our doctrine when it is not. Mr. Canturias speaks evil of something he does not know or understand. The words of the apostle Peter suit him:

“But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption” (2 Pet. 2:11).

Similarly, the apostle Jude has this to say to Mr. Canturias and people like him:

“But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves” (Jude 10).

Now that’s what I find comical. A man like Mr. Canturias who thinks that something is a Catholic doctrine but is not. Mr. Canturia is shadowboxing with a non-existent opponent. Isn’t that funny?

These are the ignorant, pagan and spiritually blinded Filipino masses according to the Pharisee Abbey Canturias

Blame it on ignorance …

Sure, go ahead. Blame it on ignorance. Isn’t that what you are good at, Mr. Canturias? In blame game? But look who’s ignorant here? Mr. Canturias, look at yourself closely – your ignorance of Sacred Scripture, basic common sense, love of country and good manners stare at you in the face.

Now that’s what I find comical. A man like Mr. Canturias who thinks that something is a Catholic doctrine but is not. Mr. Canturia is shadowboxing with a non-existent opponent. Isn’t that funny?

Blame it on … spiritual blindness …

Who is spiritually blind here but this Pharisee? Look at the monumental spiritual blindness of this holier-than-thou Mr. Canturias but whose grasp of Sacred Scripture is almost nil.

… a religious hierarchy that must foster ignorance to keep its hold on people.

Excuse me, are you referring to the Iglesia ni Cristo, the Ang Dating Daan or any of your sects?

The Catholic Church has fostered education in our country more than any of your never heard schools. The University of the Philippines excepted, the best schools in this country are Catholic schools. I doubt it very much if Mr. Canturias can pass the entrance examinations of Ateneo, La Salle and UST. Well, he can try and I wish him luck.

In conclusion, Mr. Abbey B. Canturias said that he lived for 38 years for that lie of carrying images. If carrying images in procession is a lie, then David and the people of God in 2 Samuel 6:1-5 were all liars. According to Mr. Canturias, there was nothing true and defensible there. That’s expected of him to say that given his gross ignorance of Sacred Scripture on religious processions and images. He said that he realized he never worshiped the true God with those sacrifices. It is his concept of worship that is dead wrong! Since when did the Catholic church ever teach that going to a religious procession is a sacrifice to worship God? I wonder if Mr. Canturias was really Catholic in the first place because how could he be so ignorant of Catholic teaching? Any Catholic of reasonable mind, even those in grade school, would know that our sacrifice is the Holy Eucharist – the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the self-same sacrifice of Christ Himself made present at the altar. That is the clean oblation prophesied by the prophet Malachi (1:11). Mr. Canturias self-righteously told his Facebook friend to read 1 Samuel 15:22-23 so that he may find freedom from ignorance and pull himself out of spiritual blindness. But what does 1 Samuel 15:22-23 state? Mr. Canturias should read it for himself: “And Samuel said, hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because though has rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.”

The Lord Jesus Christ gives the keys symbolizing the authority to bind and loose to St. Peter

Who is the one disobedient but Mr. Canturias himself? It is clear from God’s Word that the Lord Jesus established a Church with the authority to bind and loose (Mt. 16:18-10). Also according to the Word of God, that Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Mr. Canturias sets himself against that Church. Mr. Canturias’ rebellion against the Church is as the sin of witchcraft and his stubbornness against it is as iniquity and idolatry. By the clear verdict of Scripture, it is Mr. Canturias who is guilty of witchcraft, iniquity and idolatry. Mr. Canturias is correct on one point, that obedience to God’s word is what He wants from you and me. Yet, it is God’s Word that reveals that the Church has the authority from its founder Jesus Christ (Mt. 16:18-19, Mt. 17-18) which Mr. Abbey B. Canturias stubbornly resists. “But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector” (Mt. 16:17, NKJV).

For rebelling against the Lord's duly constituted authority, Mr. Abbey B. Canturias follows the example of Lucifer, the father and leader of rebels and protesters against God's authority

[1] https://www.facebook.com/abbey.canturias. Abbey B. Canturia’s Facebook account is public.

GERRY SOLIMAN AND ELIPHAZ

2011-02-03T23:03:00.001-08:00

SI GERRY SOLIMAN AT SI ELIPHAZ

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 n gating 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 handing 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 Iglesio 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 naming 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:

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 matuwid na aking binabanggit ay ang Eliphaz sa Job 5:1 na kumukutya kay Job na isang taong matuwid: “Tumawag ka ngayon; may sasagot ba sa iyo? At sa kanino sa mga banal babalik ka?” (Job 5:1).

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 naman 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).

TIM PERRY AND THE WORLD EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP VERSUS GERRY SOLIMAN

2011-02-03T09:20:00.000-08:00

TIM PERRY AND THE WORLD EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP

VERSUS GERRY SOLIMAN

This will be a brief refutation of the fourth item in Gerry Soliman’s Article “The Woman of Revelations 12- responding to Atty. Marwil N. Llasos” in http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html.

Lately, Atty. Llasos has been quoting the works of Tim Perry (Mary for Evangelicals)

Gerry Soliman is lying when he said that I have been “lately” quoting the “works” of Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Hey, that is just one work Gerry, not works). The truth of the matter is that it is not only “lately” that I have been quoting Dr. Tim Perry. I have been quoting him way, way before – since 2009. Gerry Soliman knows that because when he was still Rodimus, I had the occasion to cite Dr. Perry many times (http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2009/02/catholic-answers-versus-defensores.html).

to prove that there are Evangelicals who agrees with his view.

Gerry Soliman is correct in saying that Dr. Perry’s book proves that there are Evangelicals who share my view. This just proves that Mr. Soliman’s views are his alone and I am dealing with him on an individual level.

Since Mr. Soliman is driven by mad obsession to find “contradictions” among Catholics, I cite Dr. Perry to prove that Mr. Soliman is being contradicted by a fellow evangelical, especially one who is learned and whose credentials are light years away from Gerry Soliman’s.

More importantly, and Mr. Soliman cannot feign ignorance of this, I told his other self Rodimus as early as 2009 the reason why I purchased a copy of Dr. Perry’s work Mary for Evangelicals.

In 2009, when I had a dialogue with Rodimus on the issue of Mary’s perpetual virginity of Mary, I scouted around for scholarly Marian sources from evangelicals. Since Dr. Tim Perry’s book seemed to be the only one in the market, I ordered a copy of the book from Inter-Varsity Press through Totus Bookstore. I explained to Rodimus that “I got hold of Tim Perry’s Mary for Evangelicals because I wanted to know where an evangelical is coming from when it comes to the issue of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I don’t want to be accused of misrepresenting the evangelical position.” (see: http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2009/02/catholic-answers-versus-defensores.html).

I read the book with an open mind many times over to see where Catholics and evangelicals agree and disagree. I commented that “I like Prof. Tim Perry and his book a lot. Although I disagree with him on so many points, I respect his honesty and scholarship. Prof. Tim Perry’s credentials are by any standards superior to Rodimus” (ibid.).

Mary for Evangelicals is scholarly written, balanced and with copious sources and references. The book is endorsed by Protestant and evangelical authorities from various denominations. (On the other hand, Mr. Gerry Soliman has only two (2) followers in his blog).

Gerry Soliman is on record that he has not read the book of Dr. Tim Perry which just shows Mr. Soliman’s level of scholarship, or the lack of it.

Atty. Llasos states:

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.

Atty. Llasos might as well pit me against the Iglesia ni Cristo or some other cults who use the 66 book Bible. I could pit Atty. Llasos against Traditional Catholics but that wouldn't be honest.

Gerry Soliman is like an ostrich who buries his head in the sand. He sorely missed the point – or points.

Point No. 1. Gerry Soliman is quick to blunt the witness of Dr. Tim Perry just because he is “ecumenical.” This is the genetic error fallacy. “To trace an argument to its source and thereby assume that one has either proved or disproved a point is to commit the fallacy of the “genetic error” [William S. Sahakian and Mabel Lewis Sahakian, Realms of Philosophy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Shenkman Publishing Co., Inc., 1965) p. 31]. Soliman committed this fallacy when he traced an argument to its source of an “ecumenical” author.

Point No. 2. Gerry Soliman is guilty of hypocrisy and double standard. While is charging Catholic apologists for alleged contradiction, yet he has not looked within his own backyard. He can see the speck in the eyes of others but not the mote in his own eyes. This just proves his ineradicable anti-Catholic bias that has already clouded his judgment.

Point No. 3. We were dealing with an interpretation of Scripture – Revelations 12. When Catholics interpret the woman in Revelation 12 as Mary, Soliman is quick to condemn us that we are wrong in our interpretation. But when a fellow evangelical (and a scholar at that) sees a Marian referent in Revelations 12, Gerry Soliman would not bother to raise even a whimper of protest. Isn’t that double standard?

So, Mr. Soliman’s answer to my question is utterly irrelevant and totally beside the point. If Gerry Soliman would wish to lump himself with the Iglesia ni Cristo or some other cults, by all means.

Here, Atty. Llasos commits the fallacy of treating Dr. Perry as someone who represents all Evangelicals, worse an authority for all Evangelicals.

Mr. Gerry Soliman is misrepresenting me here. He is again caught lying. None in my articles have I ever stated that or even remotely suggest that. I won’t withdraw my previous charge of intellectual dishonesty against Mr. Soliman because he has not shown any rehabilitation whatsoever. He is guilty of deception when he claimed that I committed the “fallacy” of treating Dr. Perry as someone who represents all evangelicals or (worse) as an authority for all evangelicals. I never said those things.

Just a few paragraphs before, Gerry Soliman categorically admitted that my prove that “there are Evangelicals who agrees with his view.” Yet, just a few paragraphs below, Mr. Soliman accused me of the “fallacy” of treating Dr. Perry as someone who represents all Evangelicals and worse as an authority for all Evangelicals.

Mr. Gerry Soliman is a Certified Public Accountant yet there seems to have a problem in his quantitative analysis. “There are” does not translate to “all,” Mr. Soliman. Moreover, there is really something wrong with his reading comprehension. Since when has “there are” been translated to “all”? Perhaps only Mr. Soliman knows.

He also quotes the writings of the members of the World Evangelical Fellowship (WEF) and some other Evangelicals who are in opposition to what I believe.

Just like Gerry Soliman, the WEF is a staunch critic of the Marian beliefs of Roman Catholics. Just like Gerry Soliman, the WEF reads the same Bible but came out with a different interpretation. So, who are now contradicting who? Gerry Soliman is quick to point the furtive finger to us Catholics and accuse us of misinterpreting the woman of Revelation 12, yet he is mum on fellow Evangelicals who interpret the same passage as we Catholics do. Isn’t this double standard? The doctrinal hypocrisy of Mr. Soliman is all too apparent.

Unfortunately, I can't verify as of the moment the writings of such Evangelicals as I don't have copies of it.

Given Mr. Soliman’s level of scholarship, I wasn’t surprised by this answer. Here is an example of an evangelical apologist whose blog is “Solutions Finder Apologetics” and offers assistance to those having trouble answering those apologetic arguments yet whose bibliographical resources and references are almost nil.

It is possible that they were taken out of context, though I have yet to read their writings.

This is a veiled accusation that I took the statement of the WEF out of context. Being intellectually dishonest, Mr. Soliman accuses others of committing his own moral dysfunction.

I challenge Mr. Soliman to check the reference and if he could prove that I quoted the statement out of context, I would apologize. I am quick to apologize if I am wrong, accept full responsibility for the error and set it aright. I hope Gerry Soliman does so too. If he finds out for himself that the statement is not taken out of context, he must be the one to apologize.

“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)].

But one thing is for sure, they don't represent all Evangelicals.

No one does. Not even Gerry Soliman.

GERRY SOLIMAN MISSES THE POINT ON THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

2011-02-02T06:09:00.001-08:00

GERRY SOLIMAN MISSES THE POINT ON THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

This is the third part of my series of answers on Gerry Soliman’s “counterarguments” on the issue on the Woman Clothed with the Sun based on Mr. Soliman’s article “The Woman of Revelations 12 - responding to Atty. Marwil Llasos” in http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html. As I already mentioned in my previous posts, my response shall be

based on the division of topics he made in that article. In this reply, I will put Mr. Soliman’s words in red, mine are in black and portions from other sources are in blue.

Mr. Gerry Soliman’s original article “Mary as the Woman Clothed with the Sun of Revelations 12: Symbolical or Literal?” found in http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/11/woman-clothed-with-sun-of-revelations.html ended in the following conclusion:

“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.”

I already answered the part on the Church Fathers in my previous articles, latest may be found here: http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2011/02/gerry-soliman-falters-on-church-fathers.html. I will just limit my answer to the issue on the Canon of Scripture. As my readers may note, my article “GERRY SOLIMAN’S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY” countered Mr. Soliman’s argument –

“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].”

As usual, instead of meeting the issue head-on, Gerry Soliman once again used his much vaunted, now discredited, “divide-and-rule tactic” by pitting my statement against a fellow Catholic apologist and colleague in Defensores Fidei Foundation, Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad. Mr. Soliman’s article may be found here http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/when-was-canon-of-scriptures-finally.html. He quoted me-

“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.”

Soliman also quoted the response of Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad posted in http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/03/first-response-to-gerry-soliman-on.html -

“Like I said, it was the Council of Trent that gave dogmatic force to the Catholic Canon of Scripture. As any informed Catholic knows, this is the equivalent of stating – as the good ol’ New Catholic Encyclopedia, which I devoured during my college days, does – that it was Trent that gave final form, or “definitively settled,” the Catholic Canon of Scripture. Prior to Trent, Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications. Therefore, the Canon technically remained open, but historically and in fact – and this should give Mr. Soliman pause -- between Carthage III and Trent, between which there is a distance of more than 1,100 years, there is no difference regarding the Canon.”

Because I used “finally settled” and Mr. Palad used “definitively settled,” Gerry Soliman’s “tunog” system made him conclude that Mr. Palad and I contradicted each other. I pointed out that there is something terribly wrong with Mr. Soliman’s reading comprehension. What happened to “context, context, and more context” that Mr. Soliman is big about? He just doesn’t walk the talk.

Since I was the one who wrote the article, I am in the best position to explain what I exactly meant. By “finally settled” I meant that all the 27 books of the New Testament Canon were already in by the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. because from that time, no books were added or subtracted from what we now know as the New Testament. As I clearly stated in my article, the list was still later on “reaffirmed” on several occasions, thereby indicating that it was not yet “definitively settled” with the force and effect of a dogma. That came later in the Council of Trent. As everyone knows, the list of the 27 New Testament Books was there as early as 382 A.D. and it remained unchanged from that time on to the Council of Trent.

Similarly, Mr. Carlos Antonio Pala explained that “[p]rior to Trent, Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications” and so up until Trent, “the Canon technically remained open.” True enough, Martin Luther presumed to tinker with the New Testament canon and wanted to excise from God’s inspired word such “disputed books” as the Epistle to the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Revelation of John (see: http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html). Worth quoting here is Luther’s infamous words calling the Epistle of James as “epistle of straw” and considered it to be “not of apostolic provenance” (http://www.lessonsonline.info/LutherandJames.htm). Yet, despite Luther’s vain attempt, the list 27 books remained the same as it was in 382 A.D. when we had that final list although disputes on some of these books continued to be raised up until its definitive settlement in the Council of Trent. Until Trent, the decision in the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. “was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. The second Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.”

Despite my explanation, Gerry Soliman maintained his accusation of contradiction. Well, that’s prejudice at its best. Prejudice squints when it looks, and lies when it talks – so it goes. Besides, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Maintaining his stand on this issue, Mr. Soliman referred his readers to the definition of terms from Merriam Webster:

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

The implication Gerry Soliman wanted to convey is that I don’t understand those terms. Excuse me? Is this the best argument that Evangelical apologetics has to offer? To hide behind mere semantics without taking into consideration the “context, context and more context” within which those terms are used. But just to indulge Mr. Soliman’s word game, please find here (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definitive) the meaning of the word “definitive” which I used. Among others, “definitive” means –

(1) serving to provide a final solution or to end a situation definitive victory>

(2) authoritative and apparently exhaustive definitive edition>

(3) serving to define or specify precisely <definitive laws> b : serving as a perfect example : quintessential definitive bourgeois>

(4) fully differentiated or developed definitive organ>

The meanings above support my expression “definitively settled” as when the Council of Trent provided a final solution or ended the situation of disputing or questioning when some of the books of the New Testament. Trent authoritatively and exhaustively passed upon the issue of the canon of scripture by giving its decision “dogmatic force” and by pronouncing “anathemas or excommunications” as what Mr. Palad had been saying all along. Finally, Trent defined and specified the canon of scripture authoritatively, once and for all, for the Catholic Church.

Gerry Soliman is correct in defining “final” as “not to be altered or undone” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/final). This poses no problem at all to my position. As one can note, the same books of the New Testament “finally settled” in the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. are the same books that we have now, despite the fact that some of the books were disputed by Reformers, hence the list has not been altered or undone.

Mr. Soliman gives the definition of “open” as “containing none of its endpoints.” Mr. Soliman is deceptive because he deliberately omitted this definition of “open”: “exposed or vulnerable to attack or question : subject <open to doubt>” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open). Despite the final list of the canon, it was nevertheless exposed or vulnerable to attack as we see in Erasmus’ and Martin Luther’s attack on some of the books as well as the doubts of some Christians on the apostolic provenance of those disputed books. You see, this definition fully supports my position. I wonder why Gerry Soliman did not state that.

The remaining two words also don’t pose any problem at all. “Remain - to continue unchanged” – Yes, because the New Testament canon remain or continue to be unchanged until now with precisely the same books as in 382 A.D. Does anyone dispute this? Mr. Soliman is clearly nursing a non-issue. “Settle - to establish or secure permanently” – Readers may check the wide range of meanings of “settle” here http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/settle. None of the definitions raise any threat to my position. The first definition of “settle” in the list is “to place so as to stay.” The 27 New Testament Books – from the Gospel of Matthew to the Book of Revelations – were placed precisely in the New Testament and so it stays today.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Better luck next time, Gerry.

Moving on …

According to Mr. Gerry Soliman, that due to the “lack of evidence” during the first 300 years of the Church, I made the amazing excuse that “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!” Thus said, Mr. Soliman argued, “Granting that there was no final canon before the 4th century, is Atty. Llasos telling here no one believes that the Book of Revelations were inspired?” This is a red-herring. I never said or ever claimed that no single individual at that time believed that the Book of Revelations was inspired. And Mr. Gerry Soliman is very much aware of that because he candidly admitted: “I'm sure he doesn't mean that.” If that is so, why raise the issue in the first place? Gerry Soliman doesn’t make any sense here!

He continued, “Whatever happened to the so-called infallible church?” Excuse me, what has infallibility of the Church got to do with this? The problem with Mr. Soliman is that he is throwing “infallibility” here and there without really understanding what we actually mean by it. To prove that Mr. Soliman is in the dark when it comes to the meaning of “infallibility,” here is his own question: “Is there no infallible bishop who is able to recognize the writings of the apostle John after 70AD?”

Mr. Gerry Soliman is barking at the wrong tree. He is shadow-boxing with an invisible opponent. As is his wont, Gerry Soliman is debunking something that we don’t teach. Where in Catholic teaching does it say that an individual bishop, save the Bishop of Rome, is infallible? We don’t teach that an individual bishop is infallible. So, Mr. Soliman’s question is senseless.

But, were there bishops who recognized the writings of the apostle John after 70 A.D.? If Gerry made his homework thoroughly, he would have not asked that. With a little research, he would have easily ascertained that there were bishops who recognized the writings of John, especially the Book of Revelation, after 70 A.D. They were Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (b. 296) and Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (b. 130). Aside from Bishops, there were others who recognized the Book of Revelation. They were Origen (b. 185) and, if Mr. Soliman checked his own evangelical apologetics sources, the following:

A. Justin Martyr (150 AD) refers and quotes Revelation 20:

"And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place." (Justin Martyr, Dialogue 81.4)

B. The Muratorian Canon (200 AD) includes Revelation.

C. Hippolytus (170-235) accepted Revelation as scripture.

(see: http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-disputed-books.htm).

Despite the ignorance shown by Mr. Soliman on the foregoing points, he nevertheless had the gall to jeer at me by asking –

Has it occur to Atty. Llasos that there is at least one writer during the 2nd and 3rd century, Hippolytus, who identified the woman as the church:

“Now, concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary, John also speaks thus: “And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun ...By the woman then clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist).

Unknown to Mr. Soliman, and unlike him, I did research on this and I realized that his research is woefully inadequate. In addition to Hippolytus (c. 170 – c. 236 AD) who identified the woman as the Church: (1) Methodius (d. 311 AD) and (2) Victorinus (d. 303 or 304 AD) [see: Robert A. Sungenis, The Apocalypse of St. John (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publication, 2007) p. 238-239].

I already answered the point of Mr. Soliman here http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2011/02/gerry-soliman-falters-on-church-fathers.html. I replead my arguments herein.

In the last argument of Mr. Soliman, his common sense reached rock bottom. He said –

So if the canon is being debated, why are there people like Hippolytus who gave an identification of the woman?

So what’s the point? Even if the canon was being debated, it certainly didn’t mean that no Christian, like Hyppolytus, Methodius and Victorinus would not recognize the Book of Revelation as among the inspired writings. By the very nature of a debate, there are at least two sides in a controversy. And Hyppolytus, Methodius and Victorinus just happened to be on the side of the inclusion of the Book of Revelations and made an identification of the woman as the Church. As I explained in my previous article on the Church Fathers, the identification of the woman with the Church by some Church Fathers did not altogether exclude other Church Fathers from seeing a Marian referent in that woman insofar as the Fathers saw Mary in the Church and in the Church Mary. The Catholic Church holds this ecclesiological and ecclesiotypical Mariology then as now.

GERRY SOLIMAN FALTERS ON CHURCH FATHERS

2011-02-01T10:47:00.000-08:00

Oecumenius and

Quodvultdeus Versus Rodimus

(a.k.a. Gerry Soliman)

http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/

This is the second part of my rebuttal to Gerry Soliman on the issue on the Woman Clothed with the Sun.

In my previous article “SOLUTIONS TO SOLUTIONS FINDER APOLOGETICS OF GERRY SOLIMAN,” I promised that I would respond to the points raised by Mr. Gerald John P. Soliman (an evangelical apologist who used to be known by his pseudonym Rodimus) based on the division of topics he made in his article at http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/woman-of-revelations-12-responding-to.html.

Mr. Gerry Soliman’s second point dealt with early ecclesiastical writers Oecumenius and Quodvultdeus. In this rebuttal of Mr. Soliman’s points, I will put his words in red while mine are in black. Quoted portions from my previous articles as well are in blue. Citations from references are in brown.

To provide my dear readers, visitors and followers with a clear perspective of the discussion, I will start with Mr. Soliman’s comments in http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/11/woman-clothed-with-sun-of-revelations.html. Here is what Mr. Soliman said in his initial article:

I already responded to this point in http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2011/01/gerry-solimans-intellectual-dishonesty.html. I will restate here the arguments I made.

They didn't have any official and infallible interpretation of it during the first 300 years of Christianity.

I already pointed out that this statement from Mr. Soliman revealed his internal mental inconsistency simply because he consistently and vehemently maintained that the Roman Catholic Church did not exist for the first 300 years of Christianity. If that is so, why is he now he is asking for an official and infallible interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church which he claimed (of course falsely) did not exist for the first 300 years of the Christian era. 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]. In his exchanges with Mr. Isahel Don Alfonso of Catholic Faith Defenders of Davao, Mr. Soliman would also make a similar claim but once pressed to name the founder of the “Roman” Catholic Church in the 300’s, he would parry the challenge and resort to all sorts of subterfuge. (Mr. Alfonso’s blog is http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com).

Why is Mr. Soliman asking for an official and infallible interpretation of the “woman clothed with the sun” in Revelations 12? Only he can tell. Suffice it to state that there was no necessity to do so as no controversy over that interpretation cropped up at that time. Even now, the Catholic Church won’t bother to make a dogmatic statement on such interpretation just to indulge an evangelical blogger with only two (2) followers.

In fact, none of the church fathers during that time ever interpreted the woman as Mary.

Given Gerry Soliman’s adherence to “sola scriptura,” he suddenly became interested in the Fathers of the Church. Thus, I cited scholarly references on the patristic sources on Marian interpretation of the “woman clothed with the sun” in Revelation 12:4.

First, I cited Steve Puluka, a teacher on liturgy, church history and patristic in the on-line religious studies program at Manor College. Mr. Puluka belongs to the Byzantine Catholic Church (http://independent.academia.edu/spuluka). This is what Mr. Puluka stated in extenso:

“While the identification of Mary as the woman in Revelation 12 is well attested in the patristic tradition of the Church, there is no support for this identification in the earliest fathers. Those who dispute this identification with Mary, note that those closest in time to the composition of Revelation don't seem to see Mary in this passage.

The first extant citation is from the 4th century in Epiphanius. This passage merely mentions the association exists without really endorsing the view wholeheartedly himself. He qualifies the identification with [Mary] dare not affirm this with absolute certainty. But 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.

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.” (See: http://puluka.com/home/index.php?id=51#_ftn41) (emphasis added)

I also cited Bible scholar Hilda Graef who mentioned 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 added 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].

Gerry Soliman would not have any of these. He said:

“For someone who states "Father knows best" in some of his articles to note that Church Fathers believe the Marian doctrines and for someone who believes that, “a single quote from a Church Father is never sufficient or decisive in itself,” Atty. Llasos obviously had a hard time proving that the Woman of Revelations 12 as Mary is known to the early Church Fathers.”

Let’s chop this big claim to its proper size.

For someone who states "Father knows best" in some of his articles to note that Church Fathers believe the Marian doctrines and for someone who believes that, “a single quote from a Church Father is never sufficient or decisive in itsel…”

As a Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Internal Auditor, I would expect Mr. Soliman to be good in numbers. But his innumeracy shows. He just doesn’t know how to count correctly! If he has read my references carefully and counted the patristic quotes properly, he would have easily known that I was not dealing with “a single quote from a Church Father”!

Was it just a single quote I gave? My references mentioned three (3), namely (1) Epiphanius, (2) Oecumenius, and (3) Quodvultdeus. What happened to Mr. Soliman’s arithmetic? Single quote, Mr. Soliman?

The most that he can do is to quote Oecumenius and Quodvultdeus of the 5th to 6th century to prove that it is "well attested in the patristic tradition of the Church.”

The quotation "well attested in the patristic tradition of the Church” is not mine. Had Mr. Soliman bothered to check the references I cited, as any scholar should, he would have known that it is from Mr. Steve Puluka, the patristics teacher that I used as reference.

At any rate, what’s wrong with citing Oecumenius and Quodvultdeus from the fifth and sixth century? These centuries are part of the patristic era and the views of these Church Fathers are certainly included in the patristic patrimony of the Church.

Let’s introduce Mr. Gerry Soliman to these Church Fathers.

The Wikipedia mentions the following about Quodvultdeus:

Saint Quodvultdeus (died c. 450) was a fifth century church father and bishop of Carthage who was exiled to Naples. He was known to have been living in Carthage around 407 and became a deacon in 421 AD. He corresponded with Saint Augustine of Hippo, who served as Quodvultdeus' spiritual teacher. Augustine also dedicated some of his writings to Quodvultdeus.

Quodvultdeus was exiled when Carthage was captured by the Genseric, who followed Arianism. Tradition states that he, along with other Catholic churchmen (such as Gaudiosus of Naples) were loaded onto leaky ships. The ships landed at Naples around 439 AD and Quodvultus established himself in Italy.

His name means ‘What God wants.’

One of the mosaic burial portraits in the Galleria dei Vescovi in the Catacombs of San Gennaro depicts Quodvultus.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quodvultdeus).

In 430 AD, Quodvultdeus wrote: “None of you is ignorant of the fact that the dragon was the devil. The woman signified the Virgin Mary” [Quodvultdeus, De Symbolo 3, PL 40, 661 (430AD)].

On the other hand, Oecumenius was a sixth 6th century Greek Father and one of the earliest witnesses to the Marian interpretation of Revelation 12. In his Commentary on the Apocalypse, Oecumenius wrote:

“The incarnation of the Lord, by which the world was subjected and made his own, became the occasion for the raising [of the Antichrist] and the endeavors of Satan. For this is why the Antichrist will be raised up: so that he may again cause the world to revolt against Christ, and persuade it to turn around and desert to Satan. Since again the Lord's physical conception and birth marked the beginning of his incarnation, the vision has brought into some order and sequence the events which it is going to explain, by starting its explanation from the physical conception of Christ, and by depicting for us the Mother of God. For why does he say, And a portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet? He is speaking of the mother of our Savior, as I have said. Naturally the vision describes her as being in heaven and not on earth, as pure in soul and body, as equal to an angel, as a citizen of heaven, as one who came to effect the incarnation of God who dwells in heaven ("for," he says, "heaven is my throne" [Isa 66:1]), and as one who has nothing in common with the world and the evils in it, but wholly sublime, wholly worthy of heaven, even through she sprang from our mortal nature and being. For the Virgin is of the same substance as we are. The unholy doctrine of Eutyches, that the Virgin is of a miraculously different substance from us, together with his other docetic doctrines, must be banished from the divine courts.

What is the meaning of the saying that she is clothed with the sun, and has the moon under her feet? ...[I]n order to show in the vision that even when the Lord was conceived, he was the protector of his own mother and of all creation, the vision said that he clothed the woman. In the same way the divine angel said to the holy Virgin, "The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" (Luke 1:35). Overshadowing, protecting, and clothing all have the same meaning.

He says, And on her head, a crown of twelve stars. For the Virgin is crowned with the twelve apostles who proclaim the Christ while she is proclaimed together with him. He says, She was with child, and she cried out in her birth-pangs, in anguish for delivery. Yet Isaiah says about her, "before the woman in labor gives birth, and before the toil of labor begins, she fled and brought forth a male child" (Isa 66:7). Gregory [of Nyssa], also, in the thirteenth chapter of his Interpretation of the Song of Songs talks of the Lord "whose conception is without intercourse, and whose birth is undefiled." So the birth was free from pain. Therefore, if, according to such a great prophet and the teacher of the church, the Virgin has escaped the pain of childbirth, how does she here cry out in her birth-pangs, in anguish for delivery? Does this not contradict what was said? Certainly not. For nothing could be contradictory in the mouth of the one and the same Spirit, who spoke through both. But in the present passage you should understand the crying out and being in anguish in this way: until the divine angel told Joseph about her, that the conception was from the Holy Spirit, the Virgin was naturally despondent, blushing before her betrothed, and thinking that he might somehow suspect that she was in labor from a furtive marriage. Her despondency and grief he called, according to the principles of metaphor, crying and anguish; and this is not surprising. For even when blessed Moses spiritually met God and was losing heart--for he saw Israel in the desert being encircled by the sea and by enemies--God said to him, "Why do you cry to me?" (Ex 14:15) So also now the vision calls the sorrowful disposition of the Virgin's mind and heart "crying out." But you, who took away the despondency of the undefiled handmaid and your human mother, my lady mistress, the holy Mother of God, by your ineffable birth, do away with my sins, too, for to you is due glory for ever. Amen.” (Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, trans. John H. Suggit [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2006] pp. 107-109.) (It may be found online in Fr. Abraham Arganiosa’s blog at http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2009/03/oecumenius-on-woman-clothed-with-sun.html]

Mr. Soliman asked incredulously:

“Do these two men represent the unanimous consent of the church fathers?”

Notice how Gerry Soliman conveniently downgraded Quodvultdeus and Oecumenius. These two men are no ordinary men. They are Church Fathers! Precisely the patristic sources that Gerry Soliman is now interested in and looking for! Do they represent the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers? Why not?

Let's not forget the principle that Atty. Llasos quoted from his comrade, Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad:

“Thus, the reason why the Fathers are always read not in isolation, but always in the context of the testimony of all the other Church Fathers. Where sufficient Church Fathers from the very first century of the Church down to the sunset of the Patristic age (c. 8th century) testify to the truthfulness of a certain teaching, then we may be certain that it is the authentic tradition handed down from the Apostles. To repeat: a single quote from a Church Father is never sufficient or decisive in itself, but an unbroken chain of testimonies from one Father to the next is not to be contradicted.”

We are not forgetting that principle and we are applying it.

So where are the unanimous quotations from the 1st to 4th (if you prefer up to 8th) century church fathers, Atty. Llasos?

The first to the eighth century of the Church is the patristic era or the Age of the Fathers of the Church. Is there a unanimous view as regards a Marian interpretation of the “woman clothed with the sun” of Revelations 12 during that period? As there is no dissenting view, my answer is most certainly yes.

I already cited Quodvultdeus and Oecumenius, Church Fathers from the fifth to the sixth century whose existence fell under the patristic era (first to eighth century). Since Quodvultdeus was a disciple of St. Augustine of Hippo (354 to 430 AD), it can be safely assumed that Quodvultdeus learned his teachings from his master in basically the same way as Mark learned from Peter and Luke and Timothy from Paul.

Early on, St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403) may be the first to give a Marian interpretation to the scriptural text of Revelation 12. He wrote:

“But elsewhere, in the Apocalypse of John, we read that the dragon hurled himself at the woman who had given birth to a male child; but the wings of an eagle were given to the woman, and she flew into the desert, where the dragon could not reach her” (Rev. 12:13-14). This could have happened in Mary’s case” [Haer., 78, 11, PG 42, 716 B-C; cited in Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991) p. 126].

We have proof that during the age of the Church Fathers (1^st to 8^th century) there is patristic support to a Marian interpretation of the woman in Revelation 12. It is unanimous as there is no Church Father that denies this. An unbroken chain from one father to the next is clearly established.

Has it occur to Atty. Llasos that there is at least one writer during the 2nd and 3rd century, Hippolytus, who identified the woman as the church:

Now, concerning the tribulation of the persecution which is to fall upon the Church from the adversary, John also speaks thus: “And I saw a great and wondrous sign in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun ...By the woman then clothed with the sun, he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned” (Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist).

Yes it occurred to me. And it likewise occurred to me that Mr. Soliman’s research is inadequate and incomplete. To help him, I will add two more fathers in addition to Hippolytus (c. 170 – c. 236 AD) who identified the woman as the Church: (1) Methodius (d. 311 AD) and (2) Victorinus (d. 303 or 304 AD) [see: Robert A. Sungenis, The Apocalypse of St. John (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publication, 2007) p. 238-239].

Would the fact that these Church Fathers identify the Church as the woman in Revelations 12 mean that they deny or oppose a Marian interpretation in the passage? No, as there is no indication in their writings that their identification of the Church as the woman is exclusive – to the exclusion of other interpretations. To argue otherwise is to commit the fallacy of false dichotomy which Gerry Soliman defines in his blog as “restricting the opponent to a few alternatives when there are more alternatives.” Hence, to identify the Church does not necessarily mean that it Mary is altogether excluded. The Fathers of the Church didn’t see it that way.

Patristics and Mariology scholar Luigi Gambero noted that “under the influence of Western theology, the Mary-Eve parallel took on considerable importance, which would influence future developments in Mariology and ecclesiology [Luigi Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1991) p. 19.] For instance, St. Ambrose of Milan (d. 397 AD) “is the first Christian author to call Mary the type and image of the Church (ibid, p. 198). His famous student, St. Augustine of Hippo (d. 430 AD) “states categorically that Mary’s place is within the Church, with which she is indissolubly linked” (ibid, p. 222). St. Augustine said, “Nevertheless it is true, the Church is the mother of Christ. Mary preceded the Church as its type” (ibid. p. 223, citing Sermo Denis 25, Miscellanea Agostiniana, 164).

To Clement of Alexandria (d. 215 AD), the “mystery of Virgin Mother reminds him of the mystery of the Church, which is also mother and virgin” (ibid., p. 71). Gambero commented that for Clement of Alexandria, “[T]he mystery of Mary, virgin and mother, quickly begins to become the archetypal model of the mystery of the Church. For the Church, too, by preaching the word, gives birth to her own children like a mother, while keeping intact the virginity of her faith in the Lord” (ibid).

St. Ephrem the Syrian (c. 306-373) perceived the analogy that exists between Mary and the Church. He declares explicitly that Mary is a figure of the Church:

“The Virgin Mary is a symbol of the Church, when she receives the first announcement of the gospel. And, it is in the name of the Church that Mary sees the risen Jesus. Blessed be God, who filled Mary and the Church with joy. We call the Church by the name of Mary, for she deserves a double name” (Sermo ad noct. Resurr., ed. Lamy, I:534, quoted in Gambero, ibid, p. 115.).

I can add more names and multiply examples (Epiphanius, Gregory the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Isidore, and Sedulius) but that would be superfluity already, a clear belaboring of obvious.

This patrimony of the Fathers of the Church is with the Catholic Church of today. Ours is the faith of our fathers. We still hold the same views as the Church Fathers in this regard:

“The Catholic Church recognizes in the 'woman' primarily the Church herself. However, given the similarities to Mary's life, The Church acknowledges what it considers an invitation in the holy verses for the reader to ponder the mysteries between the Mother of God and the Mother of the Church” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_of_the_Apocalypse).

In the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II sums up the faith of the Fathers of the Church with respect to the “woman clothed with the sun” – the same faith we hold today:

“The mutual relationship between the mystery of the Church and Mary appears clearly in the "great portent" described in the Book of Rev- elation: "A great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" (12:1). In this sign the Church recognizes an image of her own mystery: present in history, she knows that she transcends history, inasmuch as she constitutes on earth the "seed and beginning" of the Kingdom of God. The Church sees this mystery fulfilled in complete and exemplary fashion in Mary. She is the woman of glory in whom God's plan could be carried out with supreme perfection” (par. 103) (http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__P13.HTM)

POSTSCRIPT ON GERRY SOLIMAN’S POSTSCRIPT

2011-02-01T02:59:00.000-08:00

"Allow me to praise you, O Most Holy Virgin, grant us strength against your enemies!"

POSTSCRIPT ON GERRY SOLIMAN’S POSTCRIPT

It all started when a fellow Filipino Catholic apologist from the Catholic Faith Defenders of Davao City called my attention through email an article of evangelical apologist Gerald John P. Soliman regarding the alleged contradiction between me and Rev. Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS, M.A., M.Ed.

I denounced Mr. Soliman for what I believe as “intellectual dishonesty” considering that the exact quotations Mr. Soliman extracted from our respective blog articles were actually discussing two (2) different topics. I pointed out that Fr. Arganiosa’s quoted statement delved on the interpretation of the “woman” in Rev. 12:1 while the exact statement quoted from me was concerned with the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12:2.

There had been exchanges between Mr. Gerry Soliman and me. My articles may be found in this blog and the articles of Mr. Soliman are cited and the links are provided therein.

After I made my “Appeal to Gerry Soliman,” Mr. Soliman posted his “Response to the Appeal of Atty. Llasos” explaining his side. Immediately thereafter, I made a rejoinder in the article “Gerry Soliman Just Doesn’t Get it Correctly.”

PHOTO OF MR. GERALD JOHN P. SOLIMAN FROM HIS FACEBOOK ACCOUNT

My friends in the Catholic apologetics circle informed me that Mr. Soliman amended his article by putting a postscript:

“POST SCRIPT:

After posting this article, Atty. Llasos wrote a response in his blog. Although I appreciate the response, I resolve not to answer it anymore because we'll just keep on insisting on what we have asserted so far. I will leave it to the readers to decide.”

In our series of exchanges with Mr. Gerry Soliman since he was still using his pseudonym RODIMUS, I have grown to somehow admire and like him over the years. We may have been vehemently in disagreement over various theological and doctrinal topics, and we may not have liked each other’s style in defending each other’s faith and beliefs, I must say that Gerry Soliman does his best with whatever knowledge he has. He has deep love for the Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel but I believe that he is just in the wrong theological tract, given his somewhat blind adherence to a theological system – Reformed Theology. I remember that in one of the comments section of his blog he was asked about what church he belonged and Mr. Soliman’s answer was “REFORMED THEOLOGY.” It is just like asking me a question about what is my Church and my reply is “THOMISM.” It’s just simply not responsive, is it?

I wish to go back to Mr. Soliman’s postscript. He said that he has resolved not to answer me anymore because he thought that we would just insist on our respective assertions. This is of course an easy escape out of the controversy – but I sincerely believe that the best way is to say sorry if we commit a mistake. Since I already said I would no longer gild the lily, I give this to Mr. Soliman. I respect his resolution not to anymore me.

I know of people who, when pushed against the wall, tend to fight back. There are others who just quit. Truly, different strokes for different folks.

Now, Mr. Soliman said that he would leave it to the readers to decide. I can’t agree more. Thus, may I make the following summation of my points:

(1) The exact quotations of Fr. Abraham Arganiosa and mine that Mr. Gerry Soliman claimed contradicted each other were discussing two different topics;

(2) Mr. Soliman knew all along that those exact quotations were discussing different topics;

(3) Despite that knowledge, Mr. Soliman made it appear that those exact quotations contradicted each other;

(4) Mr. Soliman evaded the issue that I squarely raised and offered this response: “You cannot disassociate the woman clothed with the sun in the identification of the birth pains.”

(5) Despite the fact that Mr. Soliman did not face the issue I squarely raised, he moved on to another “contradiction” of Fr. Abe and myself; and

(6) Mr. Soliman resolved not to answer me anymore but would rather let the readers judge.

I respectfully rest my case. The time for me to write is finished. The time for you to judge begins.

Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for thou alone hast destroyed all heresies in the whole world! Our Lady of Victories, pray for us!

CHOOSING LIFE, REJECTING THE RH BILL

2011-01-31T08:15:00.000-08:00

CHOOSING LIFE, REJECTING THE RH BILL
(A Pastoral Letter of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines)

Our Filipino Brothers and Sisters:

The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights (Art. II, Section 11). 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 (Art. II, Section 12).

Background

We begin by citing the Philippine Constitution. We do so because we intend to write you on the basis of the fundamental ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people and not on the basis of specifically Catholic religious teachings.

We are at a crossroads as a nation. Before us are several versions of a proposed bill, the Reproductive Health bill or sanitized as a Responsible Parenthood bill. This proposed bill in all its versions calls us to make a moral choice: to choose life or to choose death.

At the outset we thank the government for affording us an opportunity to express our views in friendly dialogue. Sadly our dialogue has simply revealed how far apart our respective positions are. Therefore, instead of building false hopes, we wish at the present time to draw up clearly what we object to and what we stand for.

Moral Choices at the Crossroads -- at EDSA I and Now

Twenty five years ago in 1986 we Catholic Bishops made a prophetic moral judgment on political leadership. With this prophetic declaration we believe that we somehow significantly helped open the door for EDSA I and a window of political integrity.

Today we come to a new national crossroads and we now have to make a similar moral choice. Our President rallied the country with the election cry, “Kung walang corrupt walang mahirap.” As religious leaders we believe that there is a greater form of corruption, namely, moral corruption which s really the root of all corruption. On the present issue, it would be morally corrupt to disregard the moral implications of the RH bill.

This is our unanimous collective moral judgment: We strongly reject the RH bill.

Commonly Shared Human and Cultural Values – Two Fundamental Principles

Far from being simply a Catholic issue, the RH bill is a major attack on authentic human values and on Filipino cultural values regarding human life that all of us have cherished since time immemorial.

Simply stated the RH Bill does not respect moral sense that is central to Filipino cultures. It is the product of the spirit of this world, a secularist, materialistic spirit that considers morality as a set of teachings from which one can choose, according to the spirit of the age. Some it accepts, others it does not accept. Unfortunately, we see the subtle spread of this post-modern spirit in our own Filipino society.

Our position stands firmly on two of the core principles commonly shared by all who believe in God:

(1) Human life is the most sacred physical gift with which God, the author of life, endows a human being. Placing artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being formed and being born most certainly contradicts this fundamental truth of human life. In the light of the widespread influence of the post-modern spirit in our world, we consider this position as nothing less than prophetic. As religious leaders we must proclaim this truth fearlessly in season and out of season.

(2) It is parents, cooperating with God, who bring children into the world. It is also they who have the primary inalienable right and responsibility to nurture them, care for them, and educate them that they might grow as mature persons according to the will of the Creator.

What We Specifically Object to in the RH Bill

Advocates contend that the RH bill promotes reproductive health. The RH Bill certainly does not. It does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is being formed or born. The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes. These artificial means are fatal to human life, either preventing it from fruition or actually destroying it. Moreover, scientists have known for a long time that contraceptives may cause cancer. Contraceptives are hazardous to a woman’s health.

Advocates also say that the RH bill will reduce abortion rates. But many scientific analysts themselves wonder why prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the abortion rate. In truth, contraceptives provide a false sense of security that takes away the inhibition to sexual activity. Scientists have noted numerous cases of contraceptive failure. Abortion is resorted to, an act that all religious traditions would judge as sinful. “Safe sex” to diminish abortion rate is false propaganda.

Advocates moreover say that the RH bill will prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. This goes against the grain of many available scientific data. In some countries where condom use is prevalent, HIV/ AIDS continues to spread. Condoms provide a false security that strongly entices individuals towards increased sexual activity, increasing likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS. “Safe sex” to prevent HIV /AIDS is false propaganda.

Advocates also assert that the RH Bill empowers women with ownership of their own bodies. This is in line with the post-modern spirit declaring that women have power over their own bodies without the dictation of any religion. How misguided this so-called “new truth” is! For, indeed, as created by God our bodies are given to us to keep and nourish. We are stewards of our own bodies and we must follow God’s will on this matter according to an informed and right conscience. Such a conscience must certainly be enlightened and guided by religious and moral teachings provided by various religious and cultural traditions regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of human life.

Advocates also say that the RH bill is necessary to stop overpopulation and to escape from poverty. Our own government statistical office has concluded that there is no overpopulation in the Philippines but only the over-concentration of population in a number of urban centers. Despite other findings to the contrary, we must also consider the findings of a significant group of renowned economic scholars, including economic Nobel laureates, who have found no direct correlation between population and poverty. In fact, many Filipino scholars have concluded that population is not the cause of our poverty. The causes of our poverty are: flawed philosophies of development, misguided economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor economic and social services, poor infrastructures, etc. World organizations estimate that in our country more than P400 billion pesos are lost yearly to corruption. The conclusion is unavoidable: for our country to escape from poverty, we have to address the real causes of poverty and not population.

In the light of the above, we express our clear objections:

1. We object to the non-consideration of moral principles, the bedrock of law, in legislative discussions of bills that are intended for the good of individuals and for the common good.

2. We are against the anti-life, anti-natal and contraceptive mentality that is reflected in media and in some proposed legislative bills.

3. We object strongly to efforts at railroading the passage of the RH bill.

4. We denounce the over-all trajectory of the RH bill towards population control.

5. We denounce the use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization.

6. We condemn compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children, especially in an area of life – sexuality – which is a sacred gift of God.

What We Stand For

On this matter of proposed RH bills, these are our firm convictions:

1. We are deeply concerned about the plight of the many poor, especially of suffering women, who are struggling for a better life and who must seek it outside of our country, or have recourse to a livelihood less than decent.

2. We are pro-life. We must defend human life from the moment of conception or fertilization up to its natural end.

3. We believe in the responsible and natural regulation of births through Natural Family Planning for which character building is necessary which involves sacrifice, discipline and respect for the dignity of the spouse.

4. We believe that we are only stewards of our own bodies. Responsibility over our own bodies must follow the will of God who speaks to us through conscience.

5. We hold that on the choices related to the RH bill, conscience must not only be informed but most of all rightly guided through the teachings of one’s faith.

6. We believe in the freedom of religion and the right of conscientious objection in matters that are contrary to one’s faith. The sanctions and penalties embodied in the proposed RH bill are one more reason for us to denounce it.

Our Calls

As religious leaders we have deeply and prayerfully reflected on this burning issue. We have unanimously made the moral judgment – to reject the RH agenda and to choose life.

1. We call for a fundamental transformation of our attitudes and behavior towards all human life especially the most defenseless, namely, human life being formed or being conceived. The cheapness with which many seem to consider human life is a great bane to our religious-oriented nation.

2. We call upon our legislators to consider the RH bill in the light of the God-given dignity and worth of human life and, therefore, to shelve it completely as contrary to our ideals and aspirations as a people. We thank our legislators who have filed bills to defend human life from the moment of conception and call upon all other legislators to join their ranks.

3. We thank the great multitude of lay people all over the country, and particularly the dedicated groups who made their presence felt in the halls of Congress, to defend and promote our position. We call upon other lay people and adherents of other religions to join the advocacy to defend and promote our commonly shared ideals and aspirations.

4. We call on our government to address effectively the real causes of poverty such as corruption, lack of social and economic services, lack of access to education and the benefits of development, social inequities.

5. We call for the establishment of more hospitals and clinics in the rural areas, the deployment of more health personnel to provide more access to health services, the building of more schools, the provision of more aid to the poor for education, and the building of more and better infrastructures necessary for development.

6. We echo the challenge we prophetically uttered 25 years ago at EDSA I and call upon all people of good will who share our conviction: “…let us pray together, reason together, decide together, act together, always to the end that the truth prevail” over the many threats to human life and to our shared human and cultural values.

We commend our efforts against the RH bill (or the Responsible Parenthood bill – its new name) to the blessing of our almighty and loving God, from whom all life comes and for whom it is destined.

For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines.

+NEREO P. ODCHIMAR, D.D.
Bishop of Tandag
President, CBCP
January 30, 2011

CHOOSING LIFE, REJECTING THE RH BILL

2011-01-31T08:13:00.000-08:00

GERRY SOLIMAN JUST DOESN'T GET IT CORRECTLY

2011-01-31T03:30:00.000-08:00

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).

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.]

ABRAHAM V. LLERA CHALLENGES GERALD JOHN P. SOLIMAN TO A WRITTEN DEBATE

2011-01-29T07:15:00.000-08:00

On January 29, 2011, Abraham V. Llera, a Catholic Faith Defender from Cagayan de Oro City challenged Gerry Soliman of the Bereans Apologetics Research Ministry and owner of the blog Solutions Finder Apologetics to a written debate. Posted in the Catholic Eternal Truth blog of Isahel Alfonso is the following challenge:

Hi, Gerry. I see you accept debate invitations. May I invite you to one please?

Topic: Is the ministerial priesthood Biblical?

Affirmative side: Gerry Soliman-Evangelical Christian

Negative side: Abraham V. Llera-Catholic

Opening statement: 2,000 words each side
First rebuttal: 2,000 words each side
Second rebuttal: 2,000 words each side
Cross examination 1,000 words each side of 5 questions
Closing statement 2,000 words each side

I am posting this invitation here per request of Mr. Llera. I hope Mr. Soliman favorably responds to this invitation.

AN APPEAL TO GERRY SOLIMAN OF SOLUTIONS FINDER APOLOGETICS

2011-01-25T23:11:00.000-08:00

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.

SOLUTIONS FINDER FINDS NO SOLUTION

2011-01-24T07:34:00.000-08:00

A Response to Gerry Soliman

Oops, Gerry Soliman did it again! With the habit that he is very much accustomed to, he pitted one Catholic apologist against another. This time he pits me against Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad on when the Canon of Scriptures was “finally” settled. While waiting for his “counterargument” that he said he’d work over the weekend and while he is enjoying the “funny stuffs” with regards to the Scriptures, let me just show how Gerry Soliman again falters in his “divide and rule” tactic. [http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/when-was-canon-of-scriptures-finally.html.

He quoted my obiter dictum in my article published in Mr. Isahel Don Alfonso’s blog http://catholiceternaltruth.blogspot.com/:

In his obscene haste to discredit the Roman Catholic Church, Mr. Gerry Soliman conveniently forgot that the canon of Scripture, both the Old and New Testament, was finally settled at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., under the authority of Pope Damasus I and was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse.

He also quoted the response of Mr. Carlos Antonio Palad posted in http://thesplendorofthechurch.blogspot.com/2010/03/first-response-to-gerry-soliman-on.html:

Like I said, it was the Council of Trent that gave dogmatic force to the Catholic Canon of Scripture. As any informed Catholic knows, this is the equivalent of stating – as the good ol’ New Catholic Encyclopedia, which I devoured during my college days, does – that it was Trent that gave final form, or “definitively settled,” the Catholic Canon of Scripture. Prior to Trent , Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications. Therefore, the Canon technically remained open, but historically and in fact – and this should give Mr. Soliman pause -- between Carthage III and Trent, between which there is a distance of more than 1,100 years, there is no difference regarding the Canon.

And thereupon, Mr. Gerry Soliman danced in glee for what he termed as “is an obvious contradiction.” He pointed out that I stated that the canon was "finally settled" in 382 AD but Mr. Soliman paraphrased Mr. Palad that the final form was made at Trent of the 16th century.

Here it must be pointed out that Mr. Soliman’s reading comprehension again failed him. I was saying that the canon was “finally settled” in 382 A.D. at the Council of Rome. Mr. Palad was saying that the Council of Trent gave the canon its final form or “definitively settled.” Again, where is the contradiction?

When I said “finally settled,” I meant that all the 27 books of the New Testament Canon were already in, as in it was a final list because no books have been added thereto or subtracted therefrom. And this list or canon, as I stated was subsequently “reaffirmed” on numerous occasions; hence, implying that it was not yet “definitive” or, as has dogmatic force for Catholics. But the list was already there as early as 382 A.D.! Mr. Palad said basically the same thing: “Prior to Trent , Local Councils and Popes had identified and taught the Canon of Scripture, but not with dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications.”

Mr. Soliman said that he did “think the phrase, the Canon technically remained open, from Mr. Palad is far different than the phrase, finally settled, from Atty. Llasos.” He went on to argue: “If it was technically remained open, then common sense will tell you that it is not finally settled.” Sorry, Mr. Soliman but your common sense failed you. My use of “finally settled” simply meant that the list of the 27 books of the New Testament were in at by 382 A.D. in the Council of Rome. Finally settled because no other books would be added to it or deducted from it. The 27 NT books are the same books we have now.

Mr. Palad explained his statement that “the Canon technically remained open” in the sense that it had not “dogmatic force, and not with anathemas or excommunications.” I was aware that despite the final list (no more dagdag-bawas), questions continued to crop regarding the canon of Scripture until its definitive or authoritative settlement for Catholics once and for all in the Council of Trent. That is why I mentioned that the decision in the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. “was reaffirmed on numerous occasions such as the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. and at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. Pope Innocent I reaffirmed the canon in 405 A.D. in a letter to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse. The second Council of Carthage in 419 A.D. reaffirmed the canon of its predecessors and asked Pope Boniface to “confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.” This went on until Trent definitively, authoritatively, dogmatically and infallibly put an end to it.

.My article was concerned with the New Testament canon of which the Book of Revelation is a part. I made the point that it is absurd to demand for an official or infallible interpretation of the “woman” in Revelation 12 when the very canonicity of the Book of Revelation itself was being disputed at that time (at least during the first 300 years of Christianity, based on Gerry Soliman’s timeline).

After the New Testament canon (which included the Book of Revelation) was fixed, Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 began to emerge. That was precisely the same point of Dr. Tim Perry, author of Mary for Evangelicals: “It is not surprising, therefore, to find that Marian interpretation of Revelation 12 begins in the fifth century, after the New Testament canon is fixed. As part of the New Testament Canon, Revelation’s depiction of the heavenly woman completes the biblical Marian material” [Tim Perry, Mary for Evangelicals (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006) p. 113. Gerry Soliman admittedly has not read this book].

GERRY SOLIMAN'S INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

2011-01-24T07:32:00.000-08:00

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 –

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].

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!

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.