Preface

This ebook contains answers to the criticisms of Eli Soriano

against the Catholic Church.
Through this ebook, you will learn to defend against issues hurled
by Eli Soriano against the Catholic Church.
Eli Soriano of Ang Dating Daan is very popular as one of the
staunch detractors of the Catholic Church.
Is it true that Soriano is sensible? Or, his followers may just be
dreaming. There is no doubt that Soriano is very proficient in
memorizing verses from the Bible. Is that enough so you can
claim that you are a wise preacher?
I hope Catholics deceived by Eli Soriano have their hearts and
minds opened so that they can return to the true Church
established by Christ.

Contents
It is not true that Jesus was born on December 25 since Bethlehem was filled with
snow.
Rosary: It Does Not Have To Be Very Long!
Repetitions are not allowed in Matthew 6:7
He often criticizes the response, "Tower of David , pray for us."
Peter or petros was never the foundation of the true church!
Calling the Priests "Father" is forbidden - Matthew 23:9
Eli Soriano Uses Proverbs 24:24 to Reason Out Every Time He Calls Someone
"GAGO"
It is hell being referred to in 1 Peter 3:19?
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI does not know how to speak in Latin
Eli Soriano cannot explain the meaning of the Hebrew Alphabet Shin to
someone who asked him
God does not know if you follow
Pope Francis Statement, JESUS IS A MAN
The Image of the Black Nazarene is contrary to 1 Corinthians11:14
Is the King James Version truthful in its original language?
Does Eli Soriano not look for letter-for-letter terms in the Bible?
"No Word(s) or Phrase(s) Found"
Is the Scientific Explanation of Eli Soriano 100 percent Accurate?
The Wrong Scientific Explanation of Eli Soriano
Eli Soriano Failed to Give an Acceptable Explanation when asked about God's
existence.
My Comment on Eli Sorianos Article about the Big Bang Theory and Creation:
What to Believe In

It is not true that Jesus was born on December

25 since Bethlehem was filled with snow
Eli Soriano says it is not true that Jesus was born on December 25 since Bethlehem
was filled with snow.
Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDiIPvLYf2Q
He used Luke 2:8 to support this argument since there were shepherds guarding their
sheep during that time and the sheep cannot be brought out because of the snow.

And in that region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over
their flock by night.(Luke 2:8)
According to Soriano, this cannot happen in December because of the snow.
Is the understanding of Eli Soriano correct?
It is wrong!
What will a resident of Bethlehem say?

Is it true that the shepherds do not bring out their sheep when the weather is cold?
It is wrong!

What a professor said is this Shepherds are out grazing their flocks in the Bethlehem
area in December according to him, I was out hiking one Jesusmas morning east of
Bethlehem and came across a shepherd with his flock. He told us that he had spent the
night out in the fields with his sheep.
Eli Soriano was being misinformed about the happenings there.

Those who claim that the weather is too cold for shepherds to be in the fields in
December are misinformed.
Eli Soriano must rectify this since he is just fooling his listeners about this.

Rosary: It Does Not Have To Be Very Long!

Watch the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsSTEoex9vs
He said, HINDI NAMAN KAILANGANG MAHABANG MAHABA EH!
What he said in the video is, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE VERY LONG .

When Soriano said that there is no need for long prayers, he is contradicting the things
that Christ made.
How does Christ pray?
"One day soon afterward Jesus went up on a mountain to pray, and he prayed
to God all night."(Luke 6:12)

This is what is written in Greek:

,
. (Luke 6:12, Greek New Testament)
What is written and based on the original Greek translation is
or dianuktereuo.
What is the meaning of this?

What did Soriano say?

IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE VERY LONG!

Repetitions are not allowed in Matthew 6:7

In this video, Eli Soriano said that repetitions are not allowed in Matthew 6:7.
Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2ikejIAIeA
This is written in the King James version which is highly recommended by Soriano.

"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that
they shall be heard for their much speaking."(Matthew 6:7, King James Bible)

What does the bible forbid in the original text?

Let us study the original text of the bible carefully regarding this matter.
This is what is written in Greek text.
" ,
. "(Matthew 6:7, Greek Bible)
Repetition is epanalipsi () in Greek.
Vain repetitions is matees epanalipsis ( ) in Greek .
We cannot read any () epanalipsi or matees epanalipsis (
) in Matthew 6:7.
Instead, what is written is batologesete ( )

It was mentioned or battologesete.

The meaning of the Greek word is stammer.
Stammer - speech impediment, speech defect

In other words, it is having defective speech.

This is what is written in Aramaic Peshitta.

In Matthew 6:7, we can read the Peshitta word mphaqqien or "mepakakin".

The meaning of the Peshitta word ( )is stammer or to babble nonsense.

The word "repeat" in peshitta is

To Repeat -tny,
Repeating tny
We cannot read any ( )tny or tny in Matthew 6:7.
Do all Catholics pray with defective speech?
Do all Catholics pray that way?
Many Catholics are conscious of praying the Rosary since they offer each mystery to
their personal requests. If this is done without conscious control, why are they
conscious in what they ask for?
See, Soriano has a wrong understanding of everything. He does not know what is
written in Greek and its meaning. It is enough that he can read in tagalog and he likes to
read letter after letter.
Second, it is written in Matthew 6:7 the Greek word or ethnikoi or gentiles and if
we study this in Ephesians 2:11, we will read the Greek word or gentiles and we
will see here the type of people that they are. It is said here or atheoi and the
meaning is...

without God, knowing and worshipping no God

denying the gods, esp. the recognised gods of the state
godless, ungodly
abandoned by the gods

http://www.lexiconcordance.com/greek/0112.html
Are Catholics like that?
Many Catholics believe in God. Then Soriano will just insist that Catholics are referred
to in Matthew 6:7.
He just uses verses because of the word-for-word "repetition" and he will use that
against the Holy Rosary.
.

The biggest lie of Soriano is when he said that he uses the Catholic Bible.
When did the King James Version become the bible of Catholics?
This is a means of deceiving people who are ignorant.

He often criticizes the response, "Tower of David

, pray for us."
This is in connection with the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
He often criticizes the response, "Tower of David , pray for us."
Eli Soriano said, does the tower have a mouth that can speak?
I saw that they were laughing during his program.

I think Eli Soriano thinks he knows everything perfectly. That is why the Bible says.
"Anyone who claims to know all the answers doesn't really know very much."(1
Corinthians 8:2)
In this situation, we can see that Soriano does not understand the Figure of Speech
since he interprets the Bible word-for-word. The Tower of David is symbolic of Mary.
If we will follow his logic and understanding, this is what the Bible states:
"Let the rivers clap their hands, Let the mountains sing together for joy."(Psalms 98:8)
Does this mean that the river has hands?

Peter or petros was never the foundation of the

true church!
This is a statement that came from Eli Soriano of Ang Dating Daan.

Did Eli Soriano understand it correctly?

No!
Let us educate him that he may be a better.
Here is the Latin text of Matthew 16:18.
"et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo
ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum
eam."(Matthew 16:18)
Note two observations of the Greek and Latin translations of Matthew 16:18. In Greek,
the name of Peter is Petros.
Rock means petra. In Latin, Peter is Petrus and rock means petra. Unlike English,
nouns in said languages have gender.
Masculine includes (-os or -us). Feminine (-or -am). The word for rock in both languages
is feminine. Peter (male) cannot have a feminine ending in his name. It is like calling
him "Rockette" instead of "Rocky." Henceforth, it is only in language that the gender is
different.
Peter comes from the Latin word PETRUS. PETRA is the Latin word for "stone". These
are two different words. However, the two are very similar.
Here is the Peshitta Aramaic text of Matthew 16:18.

This is the pronunciation and translation in English.

'aph 'ena' 'amar-na' lak da'(n)t-(h)uw ke'pha'
and I say - I to thee that-thou-art Kephas
we`'al hade' ke'pha' 'ebneyh le`i(d)tiy
and upon this rock I will build her namely my church
The word for Peter, ke'pha', is the same word for rock. If the words are compared, Peter
is the rock.
In said verse, the same word is used for his name " Kepha" and what our Lord said
he would build His Church upon " The Kepha" , The Rock, or The Stone which is
categorical is the same name he gave to Simon.
What our Lord said "I will build my Church upon this Kepha (Rock/Stone), referring back
to Kepha (The Rock/The Stone) cannot be misconstrued.
The meaning rests on the two words for "rock." If Matthew wrote that Christ used the
same word for the proper name of Peter and foundation on which Christ says he will
build the church, it means that the foundation of the church is Peter.
Our Lord Jesus Christ is mentioned several times in the New Testament as The Kepha.
The Rock, is perceived as Christ Himself. Christ called him "The Rock". Simon was
asked to feed or, pasture his sheep, as servant of all servants of Christ (John 21:15-17).
He is a servant and not the Lord of all others. He nourishes them spiritually. He leads by
example as Christ leads them.
In St. John 1:42, the Aramaic translation of Simon's new name, Kephas means "rock."
Let us say that Anti-Catholics are correct and Peter was only a "little stone" (petros). In
that case, the Aramaic word should have been "evna" and not "cephas."
"Cephas" (John 1:42 and Matthew 16:18) comes from the Aramaic word /kefa/
(Classic Galilean spelling is or in Syriac ) .

In the Sacred Scriptures, name changes take place if something very important
happens. Anyway, Christ would not have changed Simon's name to Petros. It is a name
that was never said before!
For the information of everyone , many persons interested in this issue presume that the
argument is arguable because the biblical manuscripts are not in Aramaic. It is not really
100% true. Some of ancient biblical manuscripts are in this dialect.
The standard Syriac edition of the bible is called Peshitta. The Old Testament version
was translated in the 2nd century. The New Testament was interpreted during the 4th
century.
It is is based on the demands of Greek noun intonation. It also explains the number of
references to Peter as Cephas in Pauls letters. The Greek transcription of the
Aramaic/Syriac word

is . The word Cephas is the Latin transcription of the
Greek word.
Here is the Greek text of Matthew 16:18.
,
, | .(Matthew 16:18, Greek New
Testament)

The gender is not related to its meaning. Greeks would not have thought about male or
female in using such words.
Petros is translated into Greek from the original Aramaic Kephas.
Jesus refers to Peter when he said "on this rock I found my church". There is no
argument here. Probably, Greek is used as adjective referring to Peter since Peter is
masculine.
Matthew 16:18 - You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.
He is called Petros because he is male and not female. His Aramaic name Kephas from
Petros is similar to the Greek "kephale" .

Jesus built his church and started with Peter. The foundation must be laid by someone.
It simply cannot build itself. In this case, Jesus put in place the cornerstone since He is
the founder of the Church. On the other hand, Peter is the keystone on which He
constructed the Catholic Church. It is not complicated. There is no contradiction at all
since these are the exact words of Jesus.

Think About This!

My name is Bernard which can also be translated as Bernardo. I am male so you will
not call me Bernarda since it is feminine. The author cannot use Petra incorrectly since
this can cause embarrassment to the person.
Yet, it is beside the point. The actual conversation is in Aramaic. Simon became kephas
in Aramaic. You can see this in the Gospel of John and Letters to Saint Paul.
The arguments of Anti-Catholics and Eli Soriano are unfounded since the conversation
was not in Greek. The real point of the conversation is the opposite. Jesus gave Simon
a new name which is Peter. This is like God giving important personalities in the Old
Testament new names after establishing a new covenant with them. This covenant
identifies Simon as the rock. Jesus gives him the keys which symbolize his authority so
Peter can act in his place. Anti-Catholics and Eli Soriano just do not believe in this as
they do not recognize or accept the Pope.

Calling the Priests "Father" is forbidden Matthew 23:9

Eli Soriano often quotes Matthew 23:9 to assail the Catholic Church for calling
priests father.

If we will study carefully the original language, this is what Jesus said in Aramaic text
Matthew 23:9 and we will see how this was translated in English.

/w-ab l teqrn ln b-ar ha (h)u gr abn d-amay/

So the ABIPE (Aramaic Bible in Plain English) is pretty faithful with that verse.
"And you should not call yourselves Father, in the earth, for one is your Father
who is in Heaven."(Matthew 23:9, Aramaic Bible in Plain English)
We will see that Father is Capital F which was used for the one God in Heaven. And,
we will not hear any Catholic who called any Catholic Priest God.

Did someone do this?

The Lord Jesus said this to warn the people not to consider any man God since there is
only one God. This is the God in Heaven.
The Lord Jesus often uses the Isaiah scroll every time he admonishes the Pharisees.
He uses the following (Matthew, 13:14, Matthew 15:7, Mark 7:6, Luke 4:17) when he
scolds the Pharisees.
This is one of the verses written in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

"You are he, O Lord, our FATHER, our Redeemer from long ago is
your NAME."(Isaiah 63:16, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible)
That is why Jesus taught the "Our Father" to his disciples.
"Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. 'Give us this day
our daily bread. 'And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our
debtors.And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Yours is
the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen."(Matthew 6:9-13)

Let us observe closely. Instead of using the word God when he taught the Prayer to
his disciples, he used the word Father since it refers to the only God in Heaven.
This is the Hebrew text in Isaiah 63:16
We can read the Hebrew word, o ab.
or Ab is often used to portray the unique relationship between God and Israel. As
father of his people
"I thought to myself, 'I would love to treat you as my own children!' I wanted
nothing more than to give you this beautiful land--the finest possession in the
world. I looked forward to your calling me 'Father,' and I wanted you never to
turn from me."(Jeremiah 3:19)
If we will study carefully, the Pharisees wanted to grab the Glory of God. Why?
Look the following carefully:
First, in Matthew 23:6, "and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in
the synagogues."
This is what the Book of the Prophet Isaiah said which Jesus often uses to admonish
the Pharisees.
"O Lord, our God, other lords besides you have ruled us, but it is
your NAME alone that we HONOR."(Isaiah 26:13)
What is one of the Names of God according to the Book of the Prophet Isaiah?
"you are he, O Lord, our FATHER, our Redeemer from long ago is
your NAME."(Isaiah 63:16, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible)
Second, in Matthew 23:7, "They love to receive respectful greetings as they walk in the
market places, and to be called 'Rabbi.'
The Rabbi is didaskalos in the Greek language and Rabbi in Hebrew which means
Teacher in English.

The Pharisees always wanted to be praised by the people.

"For they loved human praise more than the praise of God."(John 12:43)
All praises should be given to God and not them.
"For everything comes from him and exists by his power and is intended for his
glory. All glory to him forever! Amen." (Romans 11:36)
There is nobody else who can be greater than God as our Rabbi.
"Behold, God is exalted in his power; who is a TEACHER like HIM?"(Job 36:22)
Third, in Mark 7:7-8, they used their teachings just like the teachings of God so the
people will follow.
"These people, says God, honor me with their words,
but their heart is really far away from me.
It is no use for them to worship me,
because they teach human rules
as though they were my laws!"(Mark 7:7-8)
Every command that comes from God is his word and we know what his word is.
It is true that Pharisees try to make the will of God their own which goes against the will
of God.

Eli Soriano Uses Proverbs 24:24 to Reason Out

Every Time He Calls Someone "GAGO"
We often hear Eli Soriano using the Word "GAGO".
For him, it is not bad since this is allegedly a way of telling the truth.
He always uses Proverbs 24:24 to justify before his followers and listeners his frequent
use of profane words like Stupid (GAGO) and those who oppose him.
"He who says to the wicked, You are righteous; him shall the people, curse,
nations shall loathe him;"(Proverbs 24:24)

Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBy0PX5NLqE

Now, that the OT was translated from Hebrew and the Book of Proverbs belongs to the
Old Testament, what is written in Hebrew is or rsh. The foremost meaning of
this is CRIMINAL.

We all know the meaning of the word criminal. It is a person who has
committed a crime.
He has called many people "GAGO" including Catholics and he used Proverbs
24:24 to justify this.
What does criminal really mean so he can use Proverbs 24:24?
You will see that he just uses verses but he does not analyze the definitions
of Hebrew words.

It is hell being referred to in 1 Peter 3:19?

One brother asked him what is being referred to in 1 Peter 3:19, we will see that he
brought this to 2 Peter 2:4 to claim that it is hell being mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19.

Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDixSc40CTo

You will find out that he cannot explain 1 Peter 3:19 and instead pointed to the other
verse.

"in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,"(1 Peter 3:19)

According to him, the spirits mentioned in 1 Peter 3:19 are not people but angels...

It is written in 1 Peter 3:19 the Greek word, " ".

Let us look one of the meanings mentioned in Greek if these are angels and not
persons because of the reference to spirits.
We will see that one of the definitions is a spirit, i.e. (human) or in tagalog, espiritu ng
tao o nilalang. You can see that he was wrong in saying that these are merely angels.

Another thing is that you will see is how he fooled people asking about 1 Peter 3:19.
The verse referred to in 2 Peter 2:4 is one and the same.
What is said in 1 Peter 3:19 is or phulake.
What is in 2 Peter 2:4 or tartaro.
Let us see if these are the same. Let us see how Soriano misleads those who ask him
questions?

It is written in Greek, phulak and not Tartaro.

, (1 Peter 3:19, Greek New
Testament)
This is the comment in Douay-Rheims Bible:

[19] Spirits that were in prison: See here a proof of a third place, or middle state of souls: for
these spirits in prison, to whom Christ went to preach, after his death, were not in heaven; nor
yet in the hell of the damned: because heaven is no prison: and Christ did not go to preach to
the damned. [http://www.drbo.org/chapter/67003.htm]

What would be the purpose of such a visit, if they are already in hell?
There is no more hope for those who have gone to hell.
This cannot be in Heaven since there is no need to preach to the spirits in prison there
and there is no prison in Heaven.
The angels mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4 were imprisoned to wait for Judgment Day.
"For God did not spare even the angels who sinned. He threw them into hell, in
gloomy pits of darkness, where they are being held until the day of judgment."(2
Peter 2:4)

Who were the spirits in prison?

The imprisoned spirits are the spirits of people who disobeyed God...
"Because they formerly did not obey, when Gods patience waited in the days of
Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons,
were brought safely through water."(1 Peter 3:20)
In the Book of Psalms 68:18 this is what has been said:
You went to the highest place. You took prisoners captive. You received gifts
from people, even from rebellious people, so that the LORD God may live
there.(Psalms 68:16, GOD'S WORD Translation)
It was clearly said that when the Lord went up, He was with those who were imprisoned.
So, it is clear that what is being referred to in 1 Peter 3:19 that imprisoned spirits still
have hope of going to heaven as mentioned in 1 Peter 4:6. It was clarified in Psalms
68:16 that the prisoners were brought by the Lord.
Why was "spirit" used and not "soul"?
This was written in Peshitta Aramaic...

( I Peter 3:19)
It is written in Peshitta Aramaic or Lnaphshotho and Naphsho, the root word
means soul.
or "Lnaphshotho" means 'to the souls'.
Also, these words are often used which mean that these are the same but another thing
is being emphasized. The word Spirit comes from Hebrew which means breath and
wind, while the term used in Greek which came from the form of a living body.
The persons soul is spiritual, not like the material that is the soul of plants and humans
which are extinguished when the body dies. The spiritual soul of a human is left when
the body dies. And, this merges with the body during resurrection.
The soul without grace (God's life) is dead in the sense of having no spiritual life from
God to nourish it. St. Paul uses all three words - body, soul, and spirit (1 Thessalonians
5:23), perhaps to emphasize man as fallen and graced , the grace of the Holy Spirit
dwelling in our spiritual souls. But the soul is fully alive when in union with God's Spirit
dwelling within us.
The spirit was used in whom we believed as saints, the spirits of people who were made
completely.
"You have come to the spirits of the righteous ones in heaven who have now
been made perfect." (Hebrews 12:23)
Sometimes in Scripture spirit is simply used to signify the soul, like when Jesus
commended His soul (spirit) to His heavenly Father (Luke 23:46).
Spirit is often used to signify the being of the person in eternity.

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI does not know how

to speak in Latin
Eli Soriano said Pope Emeritus XVI or Joseph Ratzinger does not know how to speak
Latin since he is German.
Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3x1XLM-qOI

Anyway, we can understand that Sorianoif their understanding is low since they do not
need Greek and Hebrew since they are Filipinos.

That is why they apply their logic to Joseph Ratzinger or Pope Emeritus XVI since he is
German.
Is the analysis of Eli Soriano correct?

This is a big mistake and deception for his listeners.

It is clearer than the radiance of the sun that Soriano says things that he does not
bother to understand.
Is Pope Emeritus VXI not knowledgeable of Latin?
Soriano's statement is incorrect.
Information will prove that Pope Emeritus XVI studied Latin.

Sources:
http://popebenedictxvi.blogspot.com/2008/08/joseph-cardinal-ratzinger-biography.html
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Biography.html
http://www.loc.gov/resource/lcwa00085743.gKPc4Gfx3I+kS0CQOHDrhQ/

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI fluently speaks Italian, French, English, Spanish and Latin.

It is clear that the information is true that Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI knows Latin and
Soriano is telling lies in front of many people.

Eli Soriano cannot explain the meaning of the

Hebrew Alphabet Shin to someone who asked
him
For those of ADD or Members of Church of GOD international, he is the wise man in
Ecclesiates 9:15.
"A poor, wise man knew how to save the town, and so it was rescued. But
afterward no one thought to thank him."(Ecclesiastes 9:15)

What is most surprising is that he said, whatever he knows is not known by the Pope of
the Catholic Church and he is the one alluded to in Ecclesiastes 9:15, Yet he Cannot
even Explain the Hebrew Alphabet Shin.

Somebody asked him what is the meaning of Shin and his answer in the video is, "these
are letters in Hebrew".
Click this video below and listen to his answer carefully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JW5e-GqxuI

The guy is asking what is the meaning of the Hebrew Alphabet " shin" but he didn't
answer it properly. Instead he just introduced it as Hebrew Alphabet.
It is very obvious that the guy knows that it is Hebrew Alphabet and does not need to
repeat, the guy is asking for the meaning of the Hebrew "shin" Alphabet.
One more thing, why did He allow Josel Mallari to read the Hebrew alphabet from the
left going to the right?

If Eli Soriano knew, He should have corrected this. However, it is obvious that he do not
know.
Is he the one who say that Catholics are stupid? And yet, he cannot even explain the
Hebrew alphabet?
If he cannot explain the Hebrew Alphabet, the more he cannot explain the Original Text
in the Old Testament. In the first place, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew.

God does not know if you follow

In this video, Eli Soriano uses Jeremiah 7:31 just to show that there are things that God
does not allegedly know.
Watch The Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFv8zZT3_CI
Soriano has a wrong understanding of the verse.
"And they have built the high place[a] of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son
of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I did not
command, nor did it come into my mind."(Jeremiah 7:31, RSV)
The context is child sacrifice at Topheth (in the Hinnom Valley), and in vs. 31 God says
"I didn't command it, nor did it come into my mind." The latter part of the sentence
means the command, to command such a thing, did not come into my mind."
A parallel might be one who is charged with a crime: "I don't like New York. I did not set
out to go there, nor did it even come into my mind (to go there)."
Is it true that God knows all things?
Yes, he knows if we will follow or not.
"whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows
everything."(1 John 3:20, RSV)
Let us not compare Gods thinking since we cannot reach His intelligence.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the
LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your
ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."(Isaiah 55:8-9, RSV)
Eli Soriano does not understand the context of Jeremiah 7:31.

Pope Francis Statement, JESUS IS A MAN

Did Pope Francis deny that Christ is God because of his statement that Jesus is a man?
Eli Soriano lambasted the statement of the Holy Pope since he did not understand its
meaning.
This particular part of my reply is not exclusive only to Eli Soriano but extends to those
who thought that the Pope is teaching that Jesus is just a man.

Source: http://www.elisoriano.com/blog/greatest-fallacy-roman-catholic-church-ever/
The evidence for such claim is a very short video taken from a report by what appears
to be by Romereports.com.
Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_hBEClsZq0
If the Pope is emphasizing that Jesus is a just a man and not God, then the Iglesia ni
Cristo should rejoice for finding in the new Pope an ally for their belief that Jesus is not
God.
Obviously however, they do not think that the Pope was actually saying what they
thought was saying. Here is something written about Pope Francis and his belief in the

Divinity of Christ. God has willed to share our human condition to the point of making
himself one of us in the Person of Jesus, who is true man and true God.
Source: http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-jesus-is-god-with-us
If the Pope actually said that Jesus is not God. There should have been a great uproar
within the Catholic Church.
A Pope teaching something against the major doctrine will cause such a big wave of
opposition among the Cardinals and the other leaders of the Church. But there was
none of that. Why? BECAUSE THE POPE WAS NOT TEACHING THAT JESUS IS
JUST A MAN.
Only the ignorant and those hasty in their conclusions will commit such error of
understanding the video.
Let us analyze the video properly and see if there claims about what the Pope said is
true.
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNlEsbkHn_Y
The reporter starts saying, During his daily morning mass, Pope Francis talks about the
humanity of Jesus. He encouraged people to see Jesus as a man who still prays for us.
The Pope explains that through His wounds, Jesus reminds the Father that he paid the
ultimate price to save humanity.
Here, the reporter gives us a brief summary of what the Popes topic was all about. She
says, its about the Humanity of Jesus. The emphasis of his homily is about Jesus
humanity; not His divinity. Because of that, it should be expected that the Pope will talk
about Jesus as a man. This should not be construed however that through this homily,
the Pope is saying that Jesus is not God. It is logical to conclude that if the topic is
about the divinity of Jesus, then the Pope will talk about Jesus as God. What was
further emphasized in the homily about the humanity of Jesus was that as a man, Jesus
prays for us and being a man, he had the wounds to remind the Father that He paid the
ultimate price to save humanity.
Did the reporter say that Pope Francis said that Jesus is not God? She did not.
So let us continue to examine the rest of the video and find out if the Pope said that

Jesus is not God. The following are the translated statements of the Pope in the 2.3
minute video I am analyzing. He is the intercessor, the One who prays and prays to
God with us and before us. Jesus has saved us, he gave us this great prayer, His
sacrifice, His life, to save us, to justify us: we are righteous through him. Now Hes
gone, but he still prays. Some ask, is Jesus is a spirit? Jesus is not a spirit? Jesus is a
person, a man, with flesh like ours but full of glory. Jesus has the wounds on his hands,
feet, sides, and when he prays to the Father He shows the price of justification, praying
for us, as if to say: But, father, let this not be lost!
Go over the statements again. Did the pope say that Jesus is not divine, not God? Only
a wild, distorted, malicious, untrained, or perhaps satanically deceived individual will say
that he did.
The Pope however said, Some ask, is Jesus is a spirit? Jesus is not a spirit? This
statement simply says that JESUS IS NOT A SPIRIT. It does not say that Jesus is not
God. I saw a shorter version of the video, titled SHOCKING: Pope Francis says Jesus
is not divine just a man, I wonder if the person who uploaded the video understands the
difference between Jesus is not a spirit and Jesus is not divine. If anyone thinks that
the two statements are the same. I do not think that such a person should read any
further. He just do not have the mental capacity to understand the difference between
simple logical concepts, hence any further reading will be fruitless.
Anyway, a humble prayer for wisdom or understanding may actually work. So I
recommend he does that before proceeding. The pope also did not say Jesus is JUST
a man. The inclusion of just demeans the humanity of Jesus. His humanity was
constantly highlighted in the bible. Jesus Christ came to earth in a real body. (2 John
1:7); If a prophet acknowledges that Jesus Christ became a human being, that person
has the Spirit of God. (1 John 4:2).
The bible talks about the Spirit of Jesus (Philippians 1:19; Acts 16:7). It also says The
Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17 except in the Douay-Rheims Version, where the is an
a). These verses when associated with Jesus speak not of an ordinary spirit but the
Spirit of God.
When Pope Francis was saying Jesus is not a spirit, he is actually being faithful to the
teaching of the bible. If you believe that Jesus is a spirit, you are actually saying that
Jesus does not have a flesh. BUT HE DOES. And if you go back and read what the

Pope was saying in his homily, you will find out that he was actually talking about the
essential value of the flesh of Jesus for our redemption. Jesus came in this world in the
flesh (1 Timothy 3:16).
Tell meis there is a verse in the bible that says Jesus resurrected body became
a spirit?
In your blog you stated, a heavenly body is different from an earthly body, and quoted, I
CORINTHIANS 15:40 (There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the
glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.) but that is not the
point, the verses you are using talks of a body not a spirit. The present state of Jesus is
not just spirit as we understand spirit as distinguished from flesh. You mentioned in your
blog, that after the resurrection, the body of flesh and bone is changed into a glorious
body.

See, you just dont know it, you exactly agree with the Pope your trying to accuse of
heresy. The Pope said, Jesus is a person, a man, with flesh (body) like ours but full of
glory. Isnt this what glorious body actually mean? You may not know it, youre a catholic
already and you completely agree with the Pope. Why couldnt you just mention
changed into a spirit. Because you have no clear basis for that.

You quoted also 1 Corinthians 15:52, the dead shall rise again incorruptible. And we
shall be changed and then you added, The same thing happened to Jesus Christ
when He ascended to heaven. Where did you base this conclusion? Think again. This
verse talks about resurrection, not ascension. Did the body of Jesus change when he
ascended to heaven?
Where is that written in the bible? And besides this verse talks about a change did it
say, change into a spirit? Go into the 54th verse and you will encounter a change into
a heavenly body but not a spirit. This body is definitely different from the earthly but
is clearly not a spirit. The Pope is right and you have just used the exact verses that
support his claim. Jesus is not a spirit. He is a person, with flesh or body. His is not like
our old bodies. His is glorious. His is heavenly. But His is not a spirit with a small letter
s.
Lastly you quoted II Cor. 5:16, Wherefore henceforth, we know no man according to the
flesh. And if we have known Christ according to the flesh: but now we know him so no
longer. Then you continued saying Why did Apostle Paul say, if we have known Christ
according to the flesh: but now we know him so no longer? The reason is, from His
being in the flesh Christ became again a spirit.

This interpretation is far from relevant in the topic if we use much clearer translations
from Biblegateway.com 16 So then, from this point on we wont recognize people by
human standards. Even though we used to know Christ by human standards, that isnt
how we know him now. (CEB) 16 So from now on, we do not look at anyone from a
worldly viewpoint. Even if we once regarded the Messiah from a worldly viewpoint, we
do so no longer.(CJB) 16 From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the
flesh.Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus
no longer. (ESV) Are you still shock? The Pope maybe just too deep for some nonCatholics, so that he is misunderstood. Or some non-Catholics are too shallow that they
cannot understand a basic Catholic homily. Just an afterthought, have you seen the
faces of those who were watching the video, none of them appeared to be shock at all.
It was basic catholic catechism. They understood exactly that there was nothing new in
what the Pope was saying.

The Image of the Black Nazarene is contrary to 1

Corinthians11:14
The Image of the Black Nazarene is contrary to 1 Corinthians11:14
Eli Soriano and members of Ang Dating Daan often use 1 Corinthians 11:14 each time
they want to refute the images of the Catholic Church and one of these is the Black
Nazarene because of its long hair.
According to them, Christ cannot have a long hair since this is not allowed in the Bible
and men should not have long hair.
Did Soriano understand this verse correctly?
This is wrong!

In 1 Corinthians 11:14, we can read the term, "nature".

"Does nature teach you that it is degrading for a man to wear long hair?"(1
Corinthians 11:14, Revised Standard Version)

We should find out how can nature teach us if the long hair of a man is lewd? What
does nature mean? It comes from the Greek word "phusis" or .
Phusis may mean "scientific nature," the "natural order of things," or just "convention."
Let us see some examples:

It is natural for women to give birth.

It is natural for men to wed women.
It is natural for men to love women.
If we study the Bible carefully, we will understand the deep reason of what is not natural.

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural
relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men

committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due
penalty for their error."(Romans 1:26-27, Revised Standard Version)

This is what nature means. It is not natural for men to have sex with men and women
with women.
That is why scholars say that this verse refers to homosexuality.
This is the screenshot of the biblical commentary.

According to history, there are long-haired male prostitutes in Corinth.

According to history, there is a goddess in Corinth called Aphrodite.

It was also mentioned that Aphrodite has a temple.

According to history, He also records that it had 'a thousand of temple-slaves,

prostitutes, when both men and woman had dedicated to the goddess'.

That is why Apostle Paul gave a warning - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. God does not want
males having intercourse with fellow males. For those who worship God, it is clear that
long-haired male prostitutes worship Aphrodite.
Another great information!

Encyclopedia of Goddesses and Heroines in page 226.

I also communicated with Robert Garland, one of the professors of the Classics at
Colgate University and this is what he answered.
Aphrodite had long hair, all Greek women had long hair. Shaven or cropped hair
was an indication of slavery.
Professor Robert Garland
Ancient Greek Religion

1 Corinthians 11:14 refer to long-haired male prostitutes during the ancient times in
Corinth who commit immorality and recognize Aphrodite as their goddess.

According to a Jewish New Testament professor and scholar.

So, it is clear that Eli Soriano cannot understand the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:14.
Eli Soriano should not say that he is looking for the word Aphrodite in the
Bible. If he does this, I will ask him to look for Tacitus that he uses in
defending history against atheists.

Is the King James Version truthful in its original

language?
Eli Soriano, said that the King James Version is truthful to the original language.
Watch the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zudPvoUjNRA

Does the King James Version adhere to the Dead Sea Scrolls?
See and study carefully the comparison.

1.) Genesis 4:8 of the King James Version Vs. Genesis 4:8 of the Dead Sea Scrolls
This is what is written in the King James Version.
And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in
the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.(Genesis 4:8,
King James Version)
This is what is written in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And Cain told abel his brother. And when they were in the field , Cain rose up
against abel his brother, and killed him.(Genesis 4:8, Dead Sea Scrolls)

2.) Deuteronomy 32:8 of the King James Version VS. Deuteronomy 32:8 from the
Dead Sea Scrolls

See the difference. The Children of God which was written in one of the oldest
manuscripts was replaced with Children of Israel. Is this not a deception?
The difference is very clear.
3.) Psalms 145:13 of the King James Version VS. Psalms 145:13 from the Dead
Sea Scrolls
One of the verses in the King James Version with a problem is the Psalms 145:13. This
is what is written in the King James Version.

"Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout

all generations."(Psalms 145:13, King James Version)
This is what is written in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout
all generations. Blessed be the Lord and blessed be his name forever and ever.
God is faithful in his words, and gracious in all his deeds. Blessed be the Lord
and blessed be his name forever and ever.(Psalms 145:13, Dead Sea Scrolls)
We can see what has been removed?
Blessed be the Lord and blessed be his name forever and ever. God is faithful in
his words, and gracious in all his deeds. Blessed be the Lord and blessed be his
name forever and ever.

Does the King James Version adhere to the Masoretic Text?

1.) Mistranslation in Genesis 25:27

The Hebrew word or tam means perfect is what we will read in the Hebrew
Bible (Genesis 25:27) but when we read the King James Version, the Hebrew term
tam was changed to plain.

"And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and
Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents."(Genesis 25:27, King James Version )

This is what is written in the Hebrew Bible.

2. The Error in KJV in Genesis 3:24

Let us see the difference of the King James Version and English Bible translated from
Hebrew. This is what is written in the King James Version
So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of
Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way
of the tree of life.(Genesis 3:24)
English Bible translated from Hebrew Vay-ga-resh et-ha-adam va-yash-ken mi-ke-dem
le-Gan-Eden et-haK'roo-vim ve-et la-hat ha-che-rev ha-mit-ha-pe-chet lish-mor et-derech etz ha-cha-yim
"So he drove out the main; and he placed Cherubim at the east of the garden of
Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way of the tree
of life."(Genesis 3:24, Hebrew-English Bible)
The cherubim is a plural word and cherub is the singular form of the word. The suffix at
the end IM makes this word cherub plural. Cherubims cannot be the plural form of

Cherubim just like what is written in Genesis 3:24. That is why the KJV translation is
wrong.

Some verses of the King James Version that do not agree with the original text
are the following:

1. The Vain Repetitions in Matthew 6:7 which are not in the original text.
What does the bible forbid in the original text?
Let us study the original text of the bible carefully regarding this matter.
This is what is written in Greek text.
" ,
. "(Matthew 6:7, Greek Bible)
Vain repetitions is matees epanalipsis ( ) in Greek .
We cannot read any () epanalipsi or matees epanalipsis (
) in Matthew 6:7.
Instead, what is written is batologesete ( )
It was mentioned or battologesete.
The meaning of the Greek word is stammer.
Stammer - speech impediment, speech defect

2. The Meats in 1 Timothy 4:3 which are not in the original text.
This is what is written in 1 Timothy 4:3 of the King James Version.

The question is, it is "meats" that is really written?

What is written is "bromaton" which comes from the word "broma" and the meaning
is Food of Any Kind.

That is not "meats".

Meat is "kreas" and we can read that this was mentioned in Romans 14:21.

Why was meats used in Chapter 1 Timothy 4:3 of KJV instead of food of any
kind?
When I was studying Biblical Hebrew, I was able to communicate with Professor
Thompson. He was one of my advisors in Hebrew and Greek.
He studied all aspects of Hebrew Bible scholarship for twenty-three years at Harvard
University.
This is the answer of Professor Thompson:

I also communicated with Professor Dan Wallace, one of the scholars and author of
Greek grammar beyond the basics and this is what he answered.

Even scholars confirm that meats is not written in original Greek (1 Timothy 4:3).
3. The phrase in 1 John 5:7-8 there are three bearing witness in heaven which
are not in the original text.
Some top New Testament scholars also do not agree that the King James is the best
translation.
Source: https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translationavailable-today

Does Eli Soriano not look for letter-for-letter

terms in the Bible?
In this video, we can see that the individual asking the question is asking for a letter-forletter proof so Soriano said it should not be letter-for-letter terms. You are mistaken if
this is your way of understanding.
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONls6RlWj-s
In this video, we can see that Soriano is looking for letter-for-letter terms in the
computer like the mass, purgatory and Christmas.
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ8aeK60pNA
I hope that this can call the attention of Eli Sorianos followers and that they should not
remain blind anymore.

"No Word(s) or Phrase(s) Found"

In this video we can see how Eli Soriano fools those who ask him questions.
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ8aeK60pNA
He searches for every word in the computer. If it cannot be seen here, then this is
already wrong.
I am surprised that there are many people who want to be fooled when in fact they know
that many truths exist but cannot be read in the bible word-for-word.
Can you read "Eli Soriano" in the Bible?

Can you read "coordinating center" in the Bible?

Can you read "MCGI" in the Bible?

How is it when you cannot read word-for-word in the Bible?

Eli Sorianos members say that this is an impertinent question.
What does your reader want to say?

The problem is you insist to be right when you look for something which is word-forword. When Catholics do this, they seem to be wrong.

Is the Scientific Explanation of Eli Soriano 100

percent Accurate?
In this video, you will see how Eli Soriano answered the atheist who asked him.
Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rur9wYBjNUA
The question is if the scientific answer of Soriano is 100 percent accurate?
This is what Soriano said in the video: "You cannot breathe without the iron in the red
blood corpuscles. It is iron in the red blood corpuscles that attracts oxygen. That is why
oxidation can take place in the whole body. Even the dead have red blood corpuscles.
The breathing being referred to is from the nostrils to the lungs. It is the air sack in the
lungs. Actually, it is the breathing being mentioned. It is not the breathing but the
distribution of oxygen for oxidation that will take place inside the body. The building
block of life is the atom. The building block of the whole universe is the atom. What is
the DNA without the Atom?"
Let us comment about the statement of Eli Soriano.
All the sentences under the red text are the statements of Soriano while our comments
are in blue text.
Without the iron in red blood corpuscle you cant breath.

Thats true!

It is the iron in the red blood corpuscle that attracts oxygen, so that the process of
oxidation can take place in whole body.

It is true except that I will not say oxidation but respiration.

Oxidation refers to the donation of electrons during a chemical reaction.

Oxygen is frequently involved in oxidative reactions. However, oxidation in wrong
places in your body can be very harmful. Thus, it should be respiration and not
oxidation.

All dead people have red blood corpuscles.

I suppose it is true but over time the body of a dead person can break down and
eventually there will be no red blood cells left.
About red blood corpuscle that's not breathing that is the distribution of oxygen for the
process of oxidation to take place inside the body.

Yes, red blood cells distribute oxygen to help respiration and not oxidation. No one will
say that red blood cells are enough for breathing. Breathing requires use of the lungs
and substructures such as the alveoli, muscles, heart, cells and cellular machinery.

The building blocks of life is the atom, actually the building block of the whole
universe is the atom. Where is the DNA without the Atom?
Atoms are the necessary building blocks of life. However, it is more accurate to say that
atoms are the building blocks of molecules. Molecules like amino acids, proteins,
nucleotides, RNA, and, DNA are the building blocks of life. It is true that there is no
DNA without atoms.
It is quite strange to say that it is the building block of the whole universe. The
universe can still exist even if it were devoid of matter and contained no atoms. It will
be a pretty boring place. Yet, I do not think that atoms are necessary for the universe
to exist.

The Wrong Scientific Explanation of Eli Soriano

We can watch and listen to Soriano in the Youtube video who tries to explain using the
bible and his knowledge of science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6K_FBkKeck
Soriano said, It will allow billion of years to formed the earth by the chemical
process of nature, rocks are formed billions of years, millions and billions,
diamonds are formed billions of years in the bottom of the earth.
This is what I can say

Diamonds can be on the order of billions of years old (or also very young). We can
determine the age through isotopic dating of sulfide inclusions. They are formed more
than 150 km deep in the mantle. This is where the bonding of carbon in diamond is
forced compared to shallow depths where carbon can only form graphite. Diamonds are
brought to the surface by explosive volcanic pipes that obtain mantle material.

Everything you need to know about diamonds is here: http://www.gia.edu/gemsgemology/WN13-advances-diamond-geology-shirey

He also said in the video: "If we are going to just look at the creation, the manner they
were created, the harmony in creation, from the greatest of the galaxies to the smallest

that was created by God, the atom and the parts of the atom in itself because the atom
by itself is a universe".
Is this true?
Thats not true.
Inside the atom is empty space, not a universe.
The space inside the atom is empty space like vacuum. Air molecules consist of atoms
with a central core of nucleons and electrons spinning around them. There is space
between nucleons and electrons.
It is like the solar system with the sun at the center and the planets revolving around it.
There is a vacuum between the sun and the planets.
In the end, Eli Soriano insinuates that the Big Bang is against God creating everything.
The Big Bang is correct. It is GOOD EVIDENCE that God created the universe!
The big bang refers to evidence that the universe is expanding. It suggests that there
is something very powerful outside the universe. It is outside of space and time.
A HUGE amount of energy is needed to make our universe exist.
The Big Bang explains how God actually did it.
Without God, the Big Bang is a metaphysical problem. With God, it is a confirmation of
what Christians have held all along. Matter, energy, space, and time came about due to
God's powerful word.

Eli Soriano Failed to Give an Acceptable

Explanation when asked about God's existence
Was Eli Soriano able to answer the question of one atheist correctly?
We will not side with the atheist if only to convey to his followers that Soriano did not
answer that query well.

The question of the atheist for Eli Soriano is: Does GOD have a nature? If there is,
WHO CREATED THAT NATURE? If GOD created time and space, how can he exist
without time and space? Where did GOD come from or who is the creator of GOD?

What can I say about Eli Sorianos reply?

Eli Soriano did not answer the question clearly. He simply talked about Carbon dating
and manuscript evidence from the Gospel of John.
Eli Soriano is very confused because carbon dating does not prove or disprove the
Bible. It reveals nothing about the authenticity of the Bible.
Carbon 14 dating is relatively accurate. Yet, it has nothing to do with the Bibles
accuracy. The Bible is ideal for the young and old. The correctness of carbon dating
has no relevance to the truthfulness of the Bible.
With regards to the manuscript of the Gospel of John, Soriano mentioned some good
points. We have good evidence from New Testament manuscripts revealing that the
Bible is reliable. It has not changed over the ages. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do
with answers to the questions.

Lets now answer the questions one at a time:

Does GOD have nature? WHO CREATED THAT NATURE?

This is not a scientific question. This cannot be answered by science. This is a

theological question and can only be answered by theology. Not all questions are
scientific. Not all knowledge is scientific. It is all right to talk about non-scientific
questions that are theological in nature. This question has a perfectly reasonable
theological answer.
According to the Bible, God is eternal and was not created.
For the Judeo-Christian theist, there is no explanation about the origin of God. By
definition, God is a Being that exists outside of space and time. God is eternal in the
past, present, and future. It is God from whom all things which were created have come.
God has no origin: Psalm 93:2: "Your throne was established long ago; you are from all
eternity." Proverbs 8:23: "I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the
world began."
To ask who created God is a fallacy because God is by definition uncreated. It is like
saying a married bachelor. It simply makes no sense.

If GOD created time and space, how can he exist without time and space?
Again, this is not a scientific question. This cannot be answered by science. This is a
theological question and can only be answered by theology. Not all questions are
scientific. Not all knowledge is scientific. It is all right to talk about non-scientific
questions that are theological in nature. This question has a perfectly reasonable
theological answer.
This has a very easy answer: More exists than just time and space. God exists outside
of time and space. Many physicists recognize the possibility of higher dimensions. If
God exists in higher dimensions than we do, He can create our dimensions from those
higher dimensions.
God is not a physically spatial or earthly being. His existence does not need physical
space and time. In modern language, it is a physical space-time and God either exists
timelessly or has always existed.

Where did GOD came from or who is the creator of GOD?

Again, this is not a scientific question. This cannot be answered by science. This is a
theological question and can only be answered by theology. Not all questions are
scientific. Not all knowledge is scientific. It is all right to talk about non-scientific

questions that are theological in nature. This question has a perfectly logical theological
answer.
With regards to the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, it does not address the origin
or identity of the designer. One can detect design without knowing who the designer
was or how the designer came to be. The objection is not scientific but a philosophical
or metaphysical objection to certain types of design.
Thus, lets say for the sake of argument that one is operating under a theistic
perspective which holds that the designer is God.
If thats the case, does this question philosophically preclude belief in God? No.
In fact, the answer to this question is another question: Where did the universe come
from? Atheists or materialists have not come up with any answers to this. Theists
believe that God is eternal and has no origin. I am a Christian, and theist. Therefore, I
will admit that I cannot say where God came from. These are the reasons: Nobody
knows. Or, asking this question is tantamount to creating a fallacy just like asking why
there cannot be married bachelors. This does not trouble me at all.
Do not throw us theists in the patch of God's origin: Atheists and materialists cannot say
where anything came from. All world views have in their base an uncaused cause.
Henceforth, the question should not be "is it philosophically acceptable to believe in
God, who has no origin? "Instead, it should be "Whose uncaused cause is most
reasonable?"
The issue boils down to ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION. We may start with this
question:
Is it true that it is not acceptable to believe in God philosophically unless we can
account for Gods origin?
There is no explanation for Gods origin according to the Christian theist.
In fact, the definition of God exists outside of space and time eternally in the past,
present, and future from whom all things which were created have come, who has no
origin: Psalm 93:2: "Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity."
Proverbs 8:23: "I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world
began."
We can perceive God as an "uncaused cause." Does this cause a problem?
We could be asking the wrong question. This is the basis: EVERY WORLDVIEW has
an uncaused cause at the beginning. This is the question to worry about "Is it a
problem that God has no origin?" EVERY WORLDVIEW, including ATHEISM, has an

uncaused cause in the beginning. Thus, the CORRECT QUESTION is "whose

uncaused cause is most reasonable?" Atheists maintain that the universe is primarily
an uncaused cause. Is it more unreasonable that everything came from nothing? Or,
did everything come from a mind which never "existed in the first place? One example is
that the mind always has existed.
Accordingly, theists can answer the question regarding what was at the bottom of
everything.
The root uncaused cause is God has no origin. However, atheists have no clue as to
the uncaused cause. It is at the bottom of their chain. Atheists will never have a clue as
to how the chain started. This is why the acclaimed Oxford atheist, scientist, and
science writer Peter Atkins wrote, "In the beginning there was nothing. Absolute void,
not merely empty space. There was no space and there was no time, for this was
before time. The universe was without form and void. By chance there was a
fluctuation..." (Peter Atkins, Creation Revisited, page 149)
Why was there a variation in the empty space? "By chance" is not an explanation since
there is no reason for the fluctuation in the void. At the end of the day, materialists will
come back to a void. This is something that happens for no reason at all.
This is the underside of atheism. It is an event in a void that happens without any
reason. Atheists cannot avoid this since it will be a lifelong quest. It is a rabbit that no
atheist will ever catch. Theism is superior because theists have a decisive God who
acted for a reason. It is an uncaused cause that is entirely consistent with our focused
and meaningful universe.
Incidentally, I think it is more philosophically satisfactory that accounting for order in the
universe is by assuming a rational, powerful and intelligent being.
By chance, there was a fluctuation in the void which is basically what atheists and
materialists say. Please remember that this minor deviation does not have anything to
do with the scientific theory of Intelligent Design. The objection was philosophical and
not scientific.

My Comment on Eli Sorianos Article about the

Big Bang Theory and Creation: What to Believe
In

Source: http://www.elisoriano.com/blog/big-bang-theory-creation-believe/
Is this convincing?
No, the article is weak because:
(1) Confuses the big bang with evolution. The evolution of life and the big bang are
completely different things. The big bang is supported by the evidence whereas the
evolution of life is not.
(2) It tries to claim that there is some biblical reason for believing that the size of the
cosmos must be fixed. The verses it cites do not speak to this. And Gods ability to
measure the cosmos doesnt mean that its size cant be changing in size or expanding.
You can measure the size of something thats changing in size or expanding. I could
easily cite the Bible to show that the universe is expandingfor example: The LORD
wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent.
(Psalm 104:2)
(3) Finally, the article seems confused. Sometimes it seems to argue for the big bang
and sometimes it argues against it. Its very confused. The bottom line is this: The

scientific evidence for the big bang is very strong. But the Big Bang model shows that
the universe had a beginning, which presents tremendous problems for the philosophy
of materialism, and supports intelligent design! The big bang shows the universe had a
beginning, which means it had a beginner! Let me elaborate:
Consider the kalam cosmological argument. This argument for a first cause has three
parts:
Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
Because of the strong evidence for the big bang, it is now widely accepted that the
universe had a beginning. According to the kalam argument, this implies that it has a
cause. What does this mean for the philosophy of materialism?
The cosmological evidence suggests that a first cause, outside the universe, caused
the beginning of the universe. As philosopher and former materialist Antony Flew
observed, the universe is something that begs an explanation, and therefore If the
universe had a beginning, it became entirely sensible, almost inevitable, to ask what
produced this beginning. That of course implies there is some First Cause outside of
the universe, outside of space and time, who created the universe. It sounds a lot like
God!
The Big Bang forces materialists to confront and explain the evidence for cosmic finetuning. With an infinitely old cosmos, it seemed logical to many that, sooner or later, the
ideal conditions for life would arise by chance.
A beginning to the universe, and the related implication of a first cause, points towards
cosmic design, and directly challenges atheism.
Now one reason people often reject the big bang is because they see it as an
explosion and explosions dont create the kind of order and complexity we see in the
universe. Thats true. Explosions are chaotic and dont create the order we see.
But the big bang was nothing like the kind of random, chaotic explosion we are used to
seeing. Rather, the big bang was more like a finely-tuned expansion event. The laws of
the universe are carefully orchestrated to guide the development of the universe to
allow things like all types of matter (elements), galaxies, stars, and planets to form. This
fine-tuning presents a powerful argument for the existence of God!