G.K. CHESTERTON ON TODAY'S END OF THE WORLD

by Jub Alabastro CFD Davao

Another prophecy becomes part of history. There are protestant religions who prophesied that today, May 23, 2011, is THE END OF THE WORLD. Similar attempts have been made in the past and also failed.

Here are some resources of failed END OF THE WORLD PROPHECIES in the past. Click on the names below:

The Rapture

History of the Jehovah's Witnesses

Seventh-Day Adventism

G.K Chesterton, the Apostle of Common Sense, brilliantly commented on these END TIMES PROPHECIES which are commonly taken from the BOOK OF APOCALYPSE OR REVELATION:

"And though St. John saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators."

The Apostle of Common Sense logically exposed that all these errors have one thing in COMMON: "They make NO SENSE!"

REFLECTION ON TODAY’S GOSPEL – John 10:1-10 THE R.H. BILL AND THE ANTICHRIST

by Jub Alabastro CFD Davao

 

Today’s gospel as well as the other readings talk about Christ the Shepherd and His flock the Church. 

The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice, as he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has driven out all his own, he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice. (John 10:3-4 NAB)

The true members of Christ’s fold truly listens to the Shepherd’s voice. In contrast, those who are not members of His fold do not listen and do not believe Him.

Joh 10:26-27 NAB But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep. (27) My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

St. Augustine reflecting in today’s reading said, 

Many go under the name of good men according to the standard of the world, and observe in some sort the commandments of the Law, who yet are not Christians. And these generally boast of themselves, as the Pharisees did; Are we blind also? But inasmuch as all that they do they do foolishly, without knowing to what end it tends, our Lord said of them, Verily, verily, I say to you, He that enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber (John 10:1)

Let the Pagans then, the Jews, the Heretics, say, "We lead a good life;" if they enter not by the door, what avails it? A good life only profits, as leading to life eternal. Indeed those cannot be said to lead a good life, who are either blindly ignorant of, or willfully despise, the end of good living. No one can hope for eternal life, who knows not Christ, who is the life, and by that door enters into the fold.”

COMMENT: Aren’t PRO R.H. bill experts offering us the same thing as the men mentioned by St. Augustine in this exhortation? Aren’t they telling us Filipinos that “hey, when this bill is approved, you will have a good life?” You’ll have good health. You’ll have financial prosperity and security. You’ll have independence from the bondage of Damasos! This is the health and wealth gospel we promise you! By then, you’ll be categorized as "SMART," you shall be as gods, knowing what is good and evil for yourself (Gen 3:5 DRB.)

And women? Oh forget the Maria Clara! (FUNNY SHE WASN’T MENTIONED DURING ALL THESE DAMASOS ESCAPADES.) Be liberated! As Satan told Eve that she wouldn’t be a woman unless she finally disobeys God, unless she follows her own will, and unless she EATS OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREE, so do these radical feministicides tell the Filipino women to do the same: disobey the Church, do your own thing, and EAT OF THE FRUIT THAT WILL MAKE YOU FRUITLESS! Of course, as Satan was also silent as to the deadly effects of the fruit, so do these feministicides to the adverse effects of artificial contraceptives. 

To paraphrase the question of St. Augustine, "does this good life, offered by the supporters of artificial contraceptives, lead us to eternal life?" How can it possibly do that when its supporters do not even LOOK, MUCH MORE, CARE FOR OUR SOULS??? They are so blinded like the Pharisees in the previous chapter of today’s reading (John 9:39-41) that they can’t even see their own blindness! Their blind faith passes through your soul! Now they want to lead us? For what purpose? So that the blind may lead the blind and fall into the pit (Luke 6:39)? If this good life will not lead us to eternal life, then it is useless. IT WILL JUST “CONTRACEPT” OUR NEXT LIFE IN HEAVEN.

HOW CAN WE THEN ENTER INTO ETERNAL LIFE? Let us allow the great saint to continue…

Whoso wishes to enter into the sheepfold, 

• let him enter by the door;


• let him preach Christ;


• let him seek Christ's glory, not his own. 

Christ is a lowly door, and he who enters by this door must be lowly, if he would enter with his head whole. He that does not humble, but exalt himself, who wishes to climb up over the wall, is exalted that he may fall. 

Such men generally try to persuade others that they may live well, and not be Christians. Thus they climb up by some other way, that they may rob and kill. They are thieves, because they call that their own, which is not; robbers, because that which they have stolen, they kill.

COMMENT: How many so-called catholics and some Saging & Juice theologians who vehemently disobeyed the Magisterium yet STILL proudly called themselves “CATHOLICS?” They make television appearances showing their pearly white teeth which are nothing but whitewashed tombs--beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men's bones and every kind of filth (Mat. 23:27.) They share their so-called "expertise" opening the floodgates of their mind and displaying their broadmindedness, the road to hell (Mat. 7:13)! They are telling Catholics, "hey, join us. Look we are catholics yet we are acting like Protestants. We imitate Luther's private judgment (under the guise of democracy.) Meaning? PICK AND CHOOSE. WE ARE OUR OWN POPE. As responsible and gender-sanitized "congressperson" or "congressperhaps" we are in fact exercising our duly protected constitutional right to AMEND the doctrines of Christ tailoring them to the itching ears of society (2Tim. 4:3-4.) We are the modern Pied Pipers. And what is good about it? You're paying us to kill you!" 

If we are truly Catholics, if we are truly members of Christ’s fold , shouldn’t we humbly listen and submit to the Shepherd’s voice? Shouldn’t we also listen and submit to the Bishops who were also appointed shepherds by the Chief Shepherd who is Jesus Christ?

Act 20:28 DRB Take heed to yourselves and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Luk 10:16 NAB Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.

If one will not enter the door who is Christ (John 10:9,) then that will make one a robber or thief who comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy (John 10:10.) The thief is the Antichrist as St. John Chrysostom said; for the door protects the sheep, it shuts out the wolves, it bars the entrance to heretics. Destroying the door, not submitting to its Words, will therefore only exposed the sheep to danger. So, far from imprisoning people, far from violating woman's right, the Church serve as a haven for sheep against dangerous wolves. She is a womb, nurturing the sheep with the graces fed by her Husband, Jesus Christ (Eph. 5:25-27,) until the sheep is finally born into eternal life.

Counter Rebuttal to Mr. Soliman's Reply

By: Jub Alabastro CFD-Davao

This my reply to Gerry Soliman's article entitled: Responding to Jubernson Alabastro's Rebuttal on Eternal Security which can be read here:



http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/04/responding-to-jubernson-alabastros.html

Mr. Soliman's words are in red. My words are in black.

Concentrating just on the issues, it won't take a long article to respond to Mr. Alabastro's rebuttal.

In contrast, I want to exchange pleasantries with Mr. Soliman since we have not yet been formally introduced.

At the onset, I really find it intriguing that Mr. Soliman disregarded some first few easiest questions I asked, but answered the difficult objections I said. So I’ll ask again, “can you confirm the first few questions I asked in my previous article?” You can say NO, of course, if that is truly and honestly the case, then no problem with me.

I again extend my hand in introduction, “Hi Gerry, my name is Jub Alabastro. Is it true that you are RODIMUS OF THE BEREANS WHO CROSSED SWORDS WITH FR. ABE AND ATTY. MARWIL LLASOS? WILL YOU EXTEND YOUR HAND THIS TIME TO CONFIRM OR DENY THIS?”

Yup, that's the best he can do. First of all if Mr. Alabastro will use this against what I have presented, will he be willing to admit, as a believer the papacy, that Christ built his church upon Satan?

The outcome that Christ built His church upon Satan, and St. Peter was predestined to hell as a result of this labeling, are in fact the RIGHT CONCLUSIONS! Gee, why didn’t I think of that? Demonic and tragic, as these may seem, these are indeed the dumbest effects if, standing alone, Mr. Soliman’s “name labeling argument” will be taken as a premise and followed down to its conclusion. So those conclusions were the result of his faulty argument. Now, do I agree with this? Is this biblically correct? Definitely not! I never accepted his reasoning in the first place. To recall my previous article, I said “applying Mr. Soliman’s own logic to the other example I gave.” I merely presented the possible logical fruit of the limited premise he provided earlier. So despite being biblically and factually absurd, if the poison that Mr. Soliman earlier planted naturally produces evil fruits, so be it! Let him eat it! He planted it in the first place.

I suppose he should consider what Christ meant when He rebuked Peter. Peter was being a hindrance, an adversary. Yes, Peter was wrong here but does that affect his eternity? We'll deal with this in the succeeding paragraphs.

To answer your question Mr. Soliman, no he didn’t because St. Peter, despite his failures and sins, repented and went back following Christ. Judas despaired and killed himself.

Second, going back to John 6:70-71, I'm pretty sure that Christ said "one of you is a devil" and not "two of you are devils."

The Bible says about Judas, "The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born." Matthew 26:24. Nothing is said about the future of Peter.

So what if Christ didn’t say two of you is a devil in this verse? So what if He only said one of you is a devil in this verse?

• HOW THIS SUPPOSED “NAME CALLING” OF JUDAS WILL DECIDE HIS FATE, AND


• FOR WHAT PURPOSE, WHAT REASON DID CHRIST SAY WHAT HE SAID ABOUT JUDAS IN MAT. 26:24, WHAT CONTRIBUTION WILL THIS STATEMENT BRING TO JUDAS’ FATE,

THESE, MR. SOLIMAN DID NOT GIVE CLEAR ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS. In fact, I asked him questions related to this topic in his website, but as you can see, Mr. Soliman refused to answer them. He said to me that I’ll just have to follow TULIP. Well I am going to do better than that. Rather than giving my own opinion as to how TULIP applies to Judas, I will let MR. SOLIMAN DO THE EXPLAINING. And by his explanation, I hope to hear clear answers to the questions above.

Although, I have one thing in my mind right now, it starts with letter “P.” It’s PPPPPPPPPPPERHAPS.

It just makes me wonder why Mr. Alabastro failed to consider that death, which Paul mentioned, is a result of sin. And demons cause people to sin.

I never met so generous and helpful an apologist as Gerry Soliman! I could not thank him enough for his help in this rebuttal! This, despite of not thanking me for correcting his earlier erroneous scriptural citation of Romans 8:28-29 when the text he cited was Rom. 8:38-39.

It will be recalled that I argued that SIN was not mentioned in Romans 8:38-39, and therefore is NOT AMONG the things that cannot separate us from the love of God. Did Mr. Soliman deny my argument? Definitely, surprisingly, and hilariously, NOT! He even confirmed it!

WHAT CAUSES DEATH? SIN. So death is NOT sin, but the RESULT of sin. By this very logic, if I ask Mr. Soliman if he knows a carpenter, he will give me a chair instead. “Why a chair Gerry?” Gerry will respond, “because a chair is a PRODUCT of a carpenter!”

ACCORDING TO MR. SOLIMAN, WHAT CAUSE PEOPLE TO SIN? DEMONS. So Demons are not SIN, but CAUSE people to sin. By this very logic, if I ask Mr. Soliman, “I’ll have an apple pie for dessert.” He will give me apple seeds instead! “Why apple seeds Gerry?” “Gerry will brilliantly reply, because an apple pie came from apples, and apples came from these seeds! This is to show you that I am truly a Philosopher! I understand completely THE CAUSALITY OF THINGS.”

Yes, we do sin but will it separate us from the love of God? Here is the preceding text:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. Romans 8:28-30

Therefore, God is in control of his elect. We may sin but God will make us realize our mistake and be restored to Him. Now that's what we call sovereign. The same applies to Peter, though he had sinned tremendously God disciplined and preserved him to the end. This text is different from Romans 8. In Romans 8, Paul was talking to the believers. We read earlier that it is God who preserve his elect. Isaiah was speaking about the state of those who rebel against God, which are of course unbelievers.

“WE?” What do you mean “WE?” Are you saying you are ALSO one of the elect by God and therefore predestined to heaven? With Peter, I may read that in the scripture, but with Gerry Soliman, I am soooo interested to know! What makes you think you belong to this category of the elect Gerry and therefore, according to your interpretation, you are absolutely assured of heaven? How did you know you are one of the fortunate?

God indeed fulfills His promises to His elect, but this is also with the elect freely not stopping God’s grace from flowing:

Rom 8:4 so that the righteous decree of the law might be fulfilled in us, WHO LIVE NOT ACCORDING TO THE FLESH BUT ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT.

Rom 8:5 For those who live according to the flesh are concerned with the things of the flesh, but those WHO LIVE ACCORDING TO THE SPIRIT with the things of the spirit.

SO HOW WILL THESE PROMISES GET FULFILLED IN THE ELECT? By God’s free will and also with the elect freely not stopping God’s grace from flowing to them. The implication of both, taken together, is that MAN IS NOT SEPARATED FROM GOD BECAUSE OF HIS SIN. To say then that Isaiah is different and does not apply to the text is a misreading of the context.

Peter was saved because of God’s providence and Peter’s voluntary response to this grace:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him IN ROBOT LIKE MANNER, “YOU ALREADY COERCED AND PROGRAMMED ME TO ANSWER THAT MASTER THEREFORE THE RESPOND IS - “POSITIVE.”

Oh I’m sorry, that’s not it. That’s from the CALVWHITURMAN REVISED MORE HERETICAL version. Anyway, here’s the real bible:

Joh 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these? He said to him, Yes, Lord, you know that I love you. He said to him, Feed my lambs.

Lastly, Mr. Alabastro misses the point on freewill:

It is often argued in Romans 8:28-29 that although nothing can really separate us from the love of God, man can choose by his freewill to be separated. That argument is refuted in Romans 9:16.

I completely understand your point. It was you who missed my answer.

Verse 16 was used as the basis for the Gentiles’ call. Why as a basis also for the Gentiles? Because both calls to the membership of the OLD AND NEW people of God were the result of GOD’S FREE CHOICE AND MERCY.

Now here’s the conclusion that Mr. Soliman made out of this text which I am strongly opposing. The following argument he made is very revealing of his fallacy. He said, “That argument is refuted in Romans 9:16.” The “THAT” Mr. Soliman was referring to was the clause “man can choose by his freewill to be separated.” So in effect he is saying that in Rom. 9:16, man can no longer choose by his freewill.

Just because God FREELY CHOOSES TO WHOM HE HAS MERCY, it does not follow that MAN loses his freewill as a RESULT. This is a non-sequitur Mr. Soliman! Rom. 9:16 does not say that man loses his freewill as a result of God’s free choice. That is Mr. Soliman’s own addition.

And how come it does not speak for eternity when it is written in the succeeding chapters:

As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies for your sake; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. Romans 11:28-29 –

When it is irrevocable by God it cannot be changed as God would secure the eternity of his elect.

Having seen the assumptions taken by Mr. Soliman, how does he propose God will secure the eternity of his elect?

Since God’s covenant is irrevocable, God will revoke the freewill of the elect in order that His covenant will remain irrevocable. This contention is rooted from Mr. Soliman’s earlier assumption of man losing his freewill to choose. AGAIN, this does not follow. AGAIN, the text he cited never says that MAN LOSES HIS FREEWILL as a result of the IRREVOCABLE COVENANT. AGAIN, this is his invention. That said, Mr. Soliman’s contention AGAIN failed.

WAITING FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION

Due to Mr. Soliman’s miscomprehension to my earlier questions, I am still awaiting his clarification.

Link: http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/04/responding-to-jubernson-alabastros.html#comment-form

Gerry Soliman said...

Greetings Mr. Alabastro,

I will answer your question with Scripture:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

Romans 9:16-21

May 2, 2011 6:11 PM

MY REPLY:

Rather than enlightening me, your answer further confuses me.

I did not ask other scriptural proofs that might support your belief in Judas. What I am asking you is to "SPELL OUT" THE DOCTRINAL TERM pertaining to THAT BELIEF ABOUT JUDAS.

What is it called in Calvinist theology? I'll use your example to make you understand:

Therefore, God is in control of his elect. We may sin but God will make us realize our mistake and be restored to Him. Now that's what we call SOVEREIGN.

Calvin, Luther, James White, clearly POINT OUT THE PROPER TERMINOLOGIES FOR THESE DOCTRINES. I asked the same of you as regards to my earlier questions.

Kindly answer my previous questions with a yes or no. I'm asking for your confirmation and clarification. I'm not yet even opposing you by these questions. Don't be too hot. Put your defenses later. I'm simply asking you to name names. IDENTIFY THE FORMAL THEOLOGICAL TERMS.

Thanks.

Jub Alabastro

Rebuttal to Gerry Soliman’s Eternal Security

By: Jub Alabastro CFD-Davao

Something in me tells me, or to use a rather more theological term relevant to the discussion at hand, predestines me today to type my name in google because somebody made a refutation to my article. Honest, this was how I really felt! True, enough, when I typed Jub Alabastro, Gerry Soliman was the first result! This may also have been predestined.

Before anything else, may I have this privilege of asking Mr. Soliman this personal question: ARE YOU REALLY RODIMUS OF THE BEREANS WHO CROSSED SWORDS WITH FR. ABE AND ATTY. MARWIL LLASOS? WILL YOU SIGN YOUR AUTOGRAPH TO CONFIRM THIS?

Let me move now to the serious issue. Mr. Soliman’s words are in Red, while my words are in black. I immediately read the answer of Mr. Soliman, and indeed I was quite surprised; not that his argument was substantive, but because, he was arguing for predestination! My later survey revealed the following:

For us Evangelical Calvinists, he dealt with the doctrine of Eternal Security:

Jeph said...

Wow, I never thought you're a Calvinist, too. I thought you're a Methodist (which group I presume to be basically Arminian in soteriological conviction).

April 24, 2011 10:23 PM

Gerry Soliman said...

I'm connected with a Baptist church since last year. But even I was with the Methodists I was already a Calvinist.

April 25, 2011 8:28 AM

Source: http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/04/refuting-jub-alabastro-on-eternal.html

It just make me wonder how could he miss these verses:

Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!” (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.) John 6:70-71

Christ didn't say "One of you is a former devil," or "One of you will be a devil," rather it's "One of you is a devil!" Could it be that Judas wasn't saved to begin with?

According to Mr. Soliman, why did Judas get damned? Why wasn’t he saved? Christ didn't say "One of you is a former devil," or "One of you will be a devil," rather it's "One of you is a devil!" Could it be that Judas wasn't saved to begin with?

If I remember correctly, I provided two examples. Besides Judas, I also mentioned Peter. Now, applying Mr. Soliman’s own logic to the other example I gave, when our Lord said to Peter, “Get Behind Me Satan! (Mat. 16:23,) will Mr. Soliman also say, “Christ didn't say "GET BEHIND ME YOU WHO IS A FORMER SATAN," or " GET BEHIND ME YOU WHO WILL BE A SATAN," rather it's "GET BEHIND ME SATAN!" Could it be that Peter wasn't also saved to begin with?

As to losing salvation:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 8:28-29

I believe there were errors both in the Scriptural citation and understanding of Mr.Soliman. Gerry cited Rom. 8:28-29 when what he probably meant was Rom. 8:38-39.

Rom 8:38-39 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor present things, nor future things, nor powers, (39) nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

As to his second error,

WHAT CANNOT SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD?

• neither death nor life,
• neither angels nor demons,
• neither the present nor the future,
• nor any powers,
• neither height nor depth,
• nor anything else in all creation,

The text does not include or even suggest “SIN” as among the things that cannot separate us from the love of God.

Isa 59:2 but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you so that he does not hear.

Now if Mr. Alabastro will say "freewill" or man's choosing to break away from the love of God will lose his salvation, he has to contend with this:

It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Romans 9:16

Simple. The passage does not speak of security for eternity, but rather the call of the OLD (Rom. 9:1-15) and NEW (Rom. 9:24-25) TESTAMENT people of God. In fact, Verse 32 later revealed the Jews’ fall from God’s call. The above passage you cited explains that the privilege of being called into God’s people originated from God’s own effort and initiative or mercy and therefore not of human origin, just as He is the source of Scripture (2Pet. 1:20.)

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS THROUGH HOLY WEEK REFLECTIONS

By: Jub Alabastro CFD-Davao

Listening to panel discussions for years now, I noticed the same question, peculiar to a particular religious sect or group, asked to Catholics over and over again. The answers of Catholics, however, no matter how correct and systematic, are often ignored over and over again. The following are examples of questions commonly asked by Protestants: for Born-again, Baptists, Pentecostals and Evangelicals the question is, “ARE YOU SAVED?;” for Followers of Yeshua Messiah (allegedly:) “WHAT IS THE TRUE NAME OF OUR SAVIOR? IS IT JESUS OR YESHUA?;” for Iglesia Ni Cristo of Felix Manalo: “WHAT IS THE TRUE CHURCH?;” and for Seventh Day Adventists and other Sabbath Keepers: “WHAT IS THE DAY OF REST?”

While reflecting on the gospels this Holy Week, it dawned on me that some of this week’s theme provided good answers for these objections. For our Pentecostal and Evangelical friends, the reading on Holy Thursday, the institution of the Holy Eucharist, may provide some light to your inquiry.

Mat 26:26-28 DRB And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body. (27) And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. (28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Though Christ died for all for the redemption of our sins (2Cor. 5:14-15) Christ does not force His grace, His salvation upon us. That is why verse 28 of the above passage says “for this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.” We must accept His grace by faith that it may be applied to us (Eph. 2:8,) and by the same grace cooperating with our will, work out our salvation (Phil. 2:12) to preserve or recover it when lost (1Cor.9:27.)

The stories of Judas’ and St. Peter’s betrayals are two examples that though one has faith in Christ, it is not a security for eternity. That grace can be lost by our betrayal and denial of Christ through sin. We can, however, choose to repent like St. Peter and recover the grace lost, or despair like Judas and remain in the state of sin and guilt for all eternity.

Next, I offer the Good Friday Reflection to address the concerns of the Followers of Yeshua Messiah (allegedly) and the Catholic Church’s avid fan, the Iglesia Ni Cristo of Felix Manalo. For the Followers of Yeshua Messiah (allegedly) they argue that we should not use the name Jesus, or Hesus, or any other name, but Yeshua alone because that is the original name of the Messiah in Hebrew. I answer that, the mention of a name is used in connection to a PERSON, and not just a name per se. In exegesis, this is known as synecdoche, that is, a particular part is used to refer to a whole. In Acts 4:12 for example, the use of the name is to mean that Salvation comes through the Person of our Lord. It is not the name in itself that saves, but rather the PERSON referred to by that name. So whether Yeshua, Iesous, or Jesus is used, it pertains to the same PERSON, the same reality, signified by the name. In fact we read in John’s gospel

Pilate also had an inscription written and put on the cross. It read, Jesus the Nazorean, the King of the Jews. Now many of the Jews read this inscription, because the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. (Joh 19:19-20 NAB-A)

The initial INRI on top of the cross in latin means Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum. The Greek equivalent of this text is Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων (Iesous ho Nazoraios ho Basileus ton Ioudaion), which translates to English as "Jesus the Nazarene (Galilean), King of the Jews (Judeans.)" As you can see Iesus or Iesous can be used to refer to the same PERSON, Jesus Christ. Does that mean that it was no longer Christ who was crucified just because His Hebrew name was not used? Does that mean that our salvation is void just because the label used while He was dying on the cross was not YESHUA? Definitely not! The message of His name, no matter in what language, remains the same and universal or Catholic: God is with us. God saves!

Let me tackle briefly the question of Iglesia ni Cristo of Felix Manalo. Since the true Church is the Bride of Christ (Eph. 5:25-27,) her origin and growth are symbolized by the blood and water which flowed from the open side of the crucified Jesus (John 19:34.) As Eve was formed from the sleeping Adam's side, so the Church was born from the pierced heart of Christ hanging dead on the cross. The Church is born primarily of Christ’s total self-giving for our salvation. Born out of salvation, she possesses the same grace from Christ capable of bringing others to salvation.

The Iglesia ni Cristo of Felix Manalo can’t be the true Church in the bible. Why? Because it originated not from the blood and water which flowed from Christ, but from the ink and paper of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Christ’s Church is a mystical body (Col. 1:18) formed by the power of God, while Iglesia ni Cristo of Felix Manalo is a juridical person conceived by the power of Ceasar, that is, by the Securities and Exchange Commission (See Iglesia Ni Cristo of Felix Manalo’s Articles of Incorporation.)

Let us now turn ourselves to the reflection for Holy Saturday. It is worth noting that the last Mosaic law observed by our Lord and the first one He fulfilled by His Resurrection is the Sabbath. As God rested on the Seventh day after creation, so His body rested on the sepulcher on the same day; while His soul preached to spirits in prison (1Pet. 3:19-20.)

The Seventh Day Adventists might thank me for giving them a good case for Sabbath rest. “See?,” they might say, “even Jesus observed the Sabbath! By choosing to rest on the tomb on Saturday, He is telling us that the day of rest should still be Saturday rather than Sunday!” Let me cut short their celebration by saying that they forgot that Jesus was made under law (Gal.4:4) and therefore observed Jewish observances including Sabbath. St. Paul’s letter to the Galatians gives further reason Jesus was born under the law: to ransom those under the law, so that we might receive adoption (Gal 4:5 NAB.) So Christ being born under the law, does not mean that He will leave behind those who were under it, but rather should "lead them out" of it. We should therefore no longer celebrate Sabbath according to the manner of the Old Testament Jews, but according to the will of the Lamb. As Christ freed the spirits in prison, having delivered men from the captivity of sin, and he bestowed upon them his gifts and graces. (Eph. 4:8,) so He freed us from the bonds of Mosaic Law.

Second, I want to direct my Adventist friends to their favorite passage in Hebrew chapter 4. This text, especially verses 4-5, is often used by Seventh Day Adventists and other Sabbath keepers in support of their doctrine. A closer examination however will prove the contrary.

To understand the passage, let us look at the preceding and succeeding verses of Heb. 4:4-5. In Heb. 4:3, Paul quoted David in the books Psalms: 95:11

Therefore I swore in my anger: They shall never enter my rest;

Heb 4:3 NAB For we who believed enter into (that) rest, just as he has said: As I swore in my wrath, 'They shall not enter into my rest,' and yet his works were accomplished at the foundation of the world.

Fr. Leo Haydock offers a brilliant commentary of this text:

Paul’s argument is this: David’s prophecy in Psalms was naturally referring to future event. He was not referring to that rest by which God did after creation (Gen. 2:2.) Nor could David speak of that other time of resting, which was promised and given to the Israelites, when, having conquered all their enemies, they were introduced by Josue [Joshua], into the promised land of Chanaan [Canaan]; for these two rests were passed long before his prophesy (it is futile then to predict what had already happened:) therefore

David must speak of some rest that was to come afterwards, when he said: To-day, if you shall hear his voice, harden not your hearts, &c. Therefore it must needs follow that some day of rest, some sabbatism, as he calls it, after his time, must remain for the people of God, that should not harden their hearts: and from hence he concludes that David had in view that ETERNAL REST OF HAPPINESS WHICH THE MESSIAS WAS TO OBTAIN FOR US, A REST WITHOUT END IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. ---

So the rest referred to in Hebrews chapter 4 is not the Seventh Day rest of the Old Testament, but the eternal rest in Heaven. But how did we arrive at the conclusion that the rest talked about by Saint Paul in this passage is indeed the eternal rest in heaven? Heb 4:11 sheds light to this: “Therefore, let us strive to enter into that rest, so that no one may fall after the same example of disobedience.” A similar thought is found in the gospel of St. Luke providing an eschatological meaning to this passage:

Luk 13:23-24 Someone asked him, Lord, will only a few people be saved? He answered them, (24) Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I tell you, will attempt to enter but will not be strong enough.

Granting that the text indeed talks about the eternal rest in heaven, why do you Catholics still make Sunday your day of rest? How is Sunday related to the eternal rest?

The answer is found in Rev. 14:13:

I heard a voice from heaven say, Write this: Blessed are the dead who die IN THE LORD from now on. Yes, said the Spirit, let them find rest from their labors, for their works accompany them.

Who will enter into that eternal rest? Those who die IN THE LORD, they will rest from their labors. This passage from Revelation illumines the meaning of the succeeding verse of Heb. 4 “And whoever enters into God's rest, RESTS FROM HIS OWN WORKS AS GOD DID FROM HIS. (v.10)” It reveals that those who enter God’s rest are those who are in the state of grace.

When will those who DIE IN THE LORD experience eternal rest? When they will resurrect and stand before the presence of God who will provide them all love and comfort (Rev. 7:14-17.) Through Christ, the firstborn from the dead (Col.1:18, Acts 26:23,) this resurrection, this eternal rest is made possible (John 11:25, Mat. 11:28.) If the resurrection is the rest without end, then Sunday, the Day our Lord rose from the dead (Mat 28:1,) symbolized that eternal rest. That is why Sunday is the fulfillment of keeping holy the Sabbath Day.

As we approach Easter, we Catholics reaffirm the truthfulness of our faith. The relevance of this feast to our faith is best emphasized by St. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, “if there is no resurrection of the dead, then neither has Christ been raised. (14) And if Christ has not been raised, then empty (too) is our preaching; empty, too, your faith. (1Cor. 15:13-14)

Christ restores all things to Himself (Eph. 1:10) As the creation happened on a Sunday, the first day of the week, so is the new creation brought about by the Resurrection of Christ. The first day of creation and the last day of rest are brought together as one in this unique day by the Alpha and the Omega (Rev. 1:8, 17.) Thus, we who are born again in baptism and hope to rise again on that day, rightly renew our baptismal vow and worship Him on this very day.

On this same day (Luke 24:13,) on the road to Emmaus our Lord appeared to the two disciples revealing the two main parts of the mass: The Liturgy of the Word and The Liturgy of the Body.

Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures (Luk 24:27 NAB.)

And it happened that, while he was with them at table, he took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. Then they said to each other, Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us? (Luk 24:30-32 NAB)

Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. (Luk 24:35 NAB)

The Word has been exposed that it might not remain a dead theoretical note, but a lively musical play. The Lamb has been sacrificed, that we may have music and melody.

As these two liturgical hands of the Divine Conductor move together,

an everlasting worship is sung thereafter.

Providing a heavenly rock-a-bye

for all those earthly cry.

Happy Easter to All! Pro Deo Et Ecclesia CFD Davao!

Reflection on Today’s Gospel Reading: Our Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:7-15.)

by: Bro. Jub Alabastro CFD-Davao

St. Alphonsus De Liguori said, “Our Lord exhorts us to call God FATHER that we may be like a child totally dependent to his parent;” for a child symbolizes humility, and by humility, God gives grace (James 4:6.)

Our prayers may not be immediately answered. Like the Israelites, we may have to pass through the desert of humility for a long time before we arrive at the promise land. We will encounter trials, but nevertheless, we should continue to trust in God. The error of Israelites in the desert was that they never looked up to HEAVEN and asked their FATHER for help, who, despite their rebellion, provided their DAILY BREAD (Deut. 8:3.)

God is telling us in today’s gospel, “I give you mouth not just to feed it with food, but to eat every WORD THAT COMES FORTH FROM MY MOUTH (Mat. 4:4,) so that you may not use it for complains, but TO PRAY TO ME." In a discussion with the Pharisees about food, Christ said to them, “there is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that COME OUT of a person are what defile him. (Mark 7:15.)” The Pharisees have been sipping the soup of pride from the bowl of their hearts (Mark 7:21-22.) It is therefore not surprising what came out from their mouth as to the effect.

The long desert pilgrimage should not surprise us. For from its long, hot and dusty environment, the FAT OF SINS will surely be burned, and from our hunger and thirst, we will all the more long for God, the LIVING BREAD (John 6:51) and the FOUNTAIN OF LIFE (Psalm 36:9, John 4:14.) AMEN.

My Debate With An Atheist or Agnostic by Bro. Jub Alabastro, CFD-Davao

God sending forth His Spirit to give life to Creation

AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN JUB ALABASTRO, CFD DAVAO AND JOUN DUKZ, AN ATHEIST OR AGNOSTIC.

This is a public thread in one of the forum. I deleted some posts of other persons to focus the debate between me and Joun Dukz. I also made some minor grammatical corrections on some of my sentences.

• Joun Dukz teewee i think people who believe in imaginary things,places,superpowers are the one whos weird

Yesterday at 11:50am · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz because atheism is not religion,it compose of free thinker people.a natural choice and self discovery.you always talk about killings,but what about your god in old testament?he is a genocidal maniac hu killed countless people from great flood to sodum and gomurah and all the killings in the bible,and if god is true then he should be executed for his crimes of humanity

• 
  

Joun Dukz ‎@armando:people hu believe in imaginary god,things,places and superpower are more idiot.

2 hours ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro ‎@Joun Doukz: It is rather those who imagine that imagination is not imagination are crazier! Who do not actually deny Heaven, but wish to relocate it here on earth; who do not actually deny the spirit, but wish to serve the flesh instead.

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro ‎@Joun Doukz: Kailan pa naging kasalanan ang pumatay ng sarili kong manok? Kailan pa naging pagnanakaw ang kunin ko ang sarili kong pitaka? Cge nga Joun Doukz, on what crime will you charge God? On what Penal Code will you base the violation?

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz on what crime i will charge god?if god in old testament is true,he is a genocidal maniac..

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro ‎@Joun Doukz: That's your angry and personal opinion, not an objective crime. Tell me, on what grounds? How did God allegedly violate those grounds for Him to be found guilty of committing such crimes? So you want God to exist so that you can be angry at him and charged him? That's sounds like a pathetic atheist cry, not an argument AGAINST YOUR SO-CALLED IMAGINATION.

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz well in old testament,we all know god punish people and murder so many people like the great flood and many more.ryt?but anyway we all know that its only a myth and theres no evidence about it..superpowers are myth.you got that?r u matured man already jub?

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz its only your belief,imagination and opinion jub...i can live my life without thinking that theres an invisible man with superpowers that living in the sky

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro ‎@Joun Dukz: If those things are myth, why would you treat them so real and charged a "mythological" God with an "imaginary" crime which He did not commit, since first, there is NO "HE" WHO COMMITTED THE CRIME (ALLEGEDLY, HE DOES NOT EXIST) and second, there is no crime (ALLEGEDLY, THESE THINGS FLOOD, ETC. ARE MYTH?)

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz i didnt treat them so real,i just know the story because my former religion teach them to us.or maybe i treat dem so real but back wheni was a child.im a man now,and im old enough to believe this superpowers

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz i only said if incase the god in old testament is true,then he should be persecuted for his crime in humanity.but of course he is not true,so we canot charge him

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro ‎@Joun Dukz: Oh you just did..Read your posts above.

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz no i didnt,i use the word IF and Myth..

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro Ok, granting without conceding you treat the Old Testament God as myth, I will restate my question, on what basis, and ground will you charge an "IF" God with such crime?

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz multiple murder.genocide.slavery and many more.he use his superpowers to kill people.like the great flood,he did it with his superpowers.and the story of sudom and gomorah where the all the city is drown,and the plague and he even promoted slavery...but i say again,this are all myth.but just incase its true,then that is his crime

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro And so? If there were killings and floods and all that? How did God commit a crime? Why do you treat it as a crime? On what basis? What grounds?

57 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz cant you understand,he murder them.that is a crime.and on what ground?he murder them using his superpowers...this is just a mythical case

55 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro Sure..sure..But for the sake of argument, mythical case, even has mythical LAWS!!! There's a saying, NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA, SINE LEGE..THERE IS NO CRIME UNLESS THERE IS A LAW PUNISHING SUCH CRIME..That's why I keep on asking you, what is your basis? On what grounds? WHICH YOU DID NOT ANSWER

51 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro Are all killings, crime? Are all taking of the property, crime? What if I killed somebody in defense of myself, is that crime? What if I get my own wallet, will I be charged of theft? You are simply accusing JOUN DOUKZ, you have no basis.

49 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz in real world.it depend on laws and evidence.you know that

43 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro Hahaha...In that case, God could not be subject to such a trial.. Why? Because Human laws are promulgated for HUMANS, NOT GOD! Have you heard a SNAKE SENTENCED BY OUR SUPREME COURT FOR LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR KILLING A CHILD? Or a Cat sentenced for 6 years for stealing a fish in your plate?

38 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz yes,god is imaginary and he is not true.we cannot charge him.we cannot charge superman and other superheroes and villains because they are not true.they are myth.you get that jub?wake up,we are in real world..and in real world also,animals are exempted in our law because they canot reason out.and u know that.ryt?

34 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro hahaha...Granting that God is real, where does any law provide that such and such law are applicable to God?

16 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz if god is real,then we can make law for him if there is a physical and material evidence.but since ur god is imaginary,well you can charge him in your imagination also...

12 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro Ah so you're being biased if such is the case. You are changing the rules at the middle of the game just to convict God. You are tailoring a law to convict Him..It is like saying ah, since there is no law punishing a person getting his own wallet, I will craft such a law, JUST TO CONVICT HIM OF HIS PAST CRIMES BECAUSE I REALLY WANT TO CONVICT HIM! I AM SO ANGRY AT HIM! I DON'T WANT HIM TO EXIST! I WANT TO CONVICT HIM INSTEAD..EVEN IF THERE IS NO LAW PUNISHING HIS CRIME, I WILL MAKE ONE INSTEAD!

Joun Dukz its just your opinion.you can say whatever you want about your god because its only an imaginary things,u can defend your god in your imaginary world.you can also file a case to god in imaginary court.but in real world whoever do a crime must be punish according to the law

Jub Alabastro hahaha..That's why I said, granting that God is real, I am not saying you admit that He is, will he be guilty of the crimes you charged him? I asked you, does the "real world law" apply to God, since it applies exclusively to man. You said, "if god is real, then we can make law for him if there is a physical and material evidence." By saying this, you are admitting that SUCH A LAW IS NOT YET OF EXISTENCE. Therefore if there is a need to make SUCH LAW PUNISHING GOD, the present "real world law" is not APPLICABLE TO GOD, making your previous accusations that HE WILL BE GUILTY OF GENOCIDE, MURDER, ETC. as baseless!

• 
  

Joun Dukz Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.your god is not guilty because he did not exist and all he did is just a myth.ok?got that?

about an hour ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Jub Alabastro Your reply is veeerrryyyyy far away from my argument. My syllogism and reasoning are very clear. Let the readers decide. I rest my case..Thank you for this friendly exchange. =)

58 minutes ago · LikeUnlike

• 
  

Joun Dukz how many time i told you that you cannot charge anyone who did not exist.and yes there is no law to charge god,because he did not exist.how can you make a law to imaginary things?and again,he is not guilty because he did not exist

Reflection on today’s gospel Mat. 6:24-34 – “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.”

Written by: Bro. Jubernson I. Alabastro
CFD Davao

This reading is an echo of the preceding passage on our Lord’s prayer: YOUR KINGDOM COME, YOUR WILL BE DONE. The relevance of this passage brilliantly shines with the rise of darkness and secularism in our age; where religion is irrelevant and reduced to a mere aesthetic display for cultural preservation and an emotional and social homage to an UNKNOWN GOD (Acts 17:23.) If we reflect on the Lord’s Prayer, it started with OUR FATHER, revealing to us the existence and character of our true God. He is not an abstraction, nor a psychological manifestation created by our own weak image and likeness; nor is He just a CREATOR, as the feminists and deists like to address Him, for He does not leave His children orphaned and bastards after making them (John 14:18.) He continues to feed us NOT BY BREAD ALONE, but by every word that comes forth from His mouth (Mat. 4:4.) It is for this reason that His KINGDOM COME that His will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. The King established His Kingdom on earth that His precepts will be implemented and followed. This KINGDOM by which we must seek in today’s Gospel is His Church and God’s righteousness is Her DOCTRINES, DOGMAS, and MORALS, all decrees of the King.

In today’s pluralistic, relativistic, information driven, and “anything goes” society, it is arrogant to profess that God established only one Church, as it is in claiming that there is only one true God. But this impression on arrogance is rooted in ignorance. In OUR FATHER, after GOD was introduced, RELIGION came next, that is, HIS KINGDOM COME. After which, DOCTRINE immediately and logically followed: YOUR WILL BE DONE.

DOCTRINES, DOGMAS, AND MORALS, the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD, these belong to the “THOU SHALL NOT SAY” commandments in modern(ist) theology. They are not so “fitting” in today’s age. They are not so “ECUMENICALLY CORRECT” as they offend others and cause divisions (exactly as what Christ’s said in Mat. 10:34.) These are medievalistic and antiquated collections which properly belong to antique stores or museums and sold to the stagnant Traditionalists! “

“You cannot teach TRINITY to a HUNGRY STOMACH,” says the Liberation Theologian. “Go ahead, TURN THE FOUNDATION STONES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES (EPH. 2:20) INTO THE LIVING BREAD OF MARX (Luke 4:3!) My friend Ryan Mejillano brilliantly retorted this argument and said, “it is equally true that you cannot teach the gospel to a FULL STOMACH as relayed by our Lord in the story of the rich young man (Mat. 19:21-23.)” As I always say, using the poor as an excuse is such a poor excuse!

The Good News for this Sunday’s gospel goes against the so-called flows of the time: SEEK GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS FIRST AND ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED UNTO YOU. Christ encourages us to have faith and trust in Him and be faithful to His teachings. This element of faith is what modernists eliminated in Philosophy, Theology, ministry and in almost every aspect of the Church’s life. No wonder why this is the synthesis of all heresies! Modernists Philosophers dismissed the fact that there are knowledge which cannot be known thoroughly by reason alone; Liberation Theologians, on the other hand, forgot that every conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit (1Cor. 3:6,) the product of prayers and faith, and not by WORKS ALONE. Modernist exegetes and Dogmatic Theologians approach doctrines only in an anthropocentric or Human-centered level, disregarding the INCARNATED APPROACH to Divine Revelation which considers both the human, as well as the divine elements of the faith. The problem of these modernists approach to theology, the excessive reliance and emphasis on the social-political-economical-cultural, not to mention heretical methodology, is that “it does not invite God to His Own dinner table,” as Pope Benedict XVI insightfully noticed. As a result, theologians are becoming anybody (i.e. athletes, sociologists, psychologists, political analysts, politicians and negotiators,) but themselves. If only THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD is first properly taught, firmly established, and religiously practiced, THEN ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED. These methodologies are secondary. Let us not give so much emphasis on the shells as forgetting the value of the pearls. It is not surprising then that Traditionalists are very rich, as they know the great value of these pearls. They sold everything they got to buy them (Mat. 13:45-46) from the antique store. In contrast, a modernist swine is contented with the shells because he does not know the value of the pearls and he tramples them underfoot (Mat. 7:6) or get rid of it.

I fear for some priests and theologians who have no firm background in apologetics, and worse, show disgust and contempt over it! How will they present God’s Word to the people? How will they preserve these treasures from thieves? The same goes with those in the same predicament and engaged in further heretical studies under the guise of answering the call for interreligious dialogue, how could they possibly detect and reject what is false if they turned off their apologetics sensors, or IF THEY HAVE NO APOLOGETICS SENSORS AT ALL??? If the Church is the Bride of Christ, isn’t that tantamount to flirting with a whore? With all those lovely chats with the whore, are you telling your bride that your purpose is to refute her seductive lips? With all those sweet, sparkled eyes testimonies you made about her, do you really want to convert her or make love with her? Wasn’t the gospel clear? YOU CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS… HOW ARE YOU GOING TO KNOW THE VALUE OF THE PEARLS WHEN YOU ARE NO LONGER ACQUIANTED WITH THEM?

How did this error in theology happen? It happened because the order which God intended for our salvation was not faithfully followed. We have to put things back to order if we ought to arrive at the promise land. The Lord’s prayer started with OUR FATHER, God therefore should be the center of everything we do instead of man. Second, in order not to be intoxicated by the various notions of God, one must drink from the pure spiritual milk so that through it we may grow into salvation (1Pet. 2:2.) The milk could only come from Our Mother Church, from her two paps of love of God and love of neighbor. We must therefore seek God’s RIGHTEOUSNESS in His KINGDOM, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. AMEN.