An apology to all

After much consideration on the facts, I hereby admit that I stand corrected on John 4:5 and John 1:1 as well. The posts have been deleted.

Furthermore, I apologize to Defensores Fidei Foundation especially to Atty. Marwil Llasos, Fr. Abe Arganiosa, and Mr. Cenon Bibe for the things I said about them. I was supposed to exchange information instead I ended up trash talking about yourselves. Please forgive my arrogance and sarcasm. So I therefore take back what I said.

I apologize to my colleagues for I went rogue and acted on my own. You don't have to be held accountable for my actions.

I'm sorry, everyone.

The Church Father Hopping of a Lawyer-Apologist

Have you ever encountered an apologetic scenario wherein the ministers of the Iglesia ni Cristo (1914) use a Bible version to prove any of their doctrines and abandon the same Bible version if it contradicts their other doctrines? This tactic is called "Bible Version Hopping".

For instance, the INC uses Lamsa's version of Acts 20:28 to prove that the name of the church is "Church of Christ". They will even prove to you that the Lamsa version, which was translated from Aramaic, is reliable. However, Lamsa translates Hebrews 1:8 as "Thy throne, O God". When I pointed this out to INC members in the internet forum while debating the deity of Christ, they quickly dismiss this verse as mistranslated (just to defend that Christ is only a man). The INC relies on Bible versions that translates Hebrews 1:8 as "God is your throne", such as the Moffat version. Funny isn't it? It shows how a religion can be biased just to uphold their doctrines.

Can this also happen when Roman Catholic quotes the church fathers? Is there such thing as "Church Father Hopping"? Well, I won't keep you in suspense. My latest opponent in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Atty. Marwil Llasos of Defensores Fidei Foundation, stumbles upon a church father named, Tertullian (around 160-220 AD).

In his article at his blog, Immaculate Conception (May 31, 2006), Atty. Llasos quotes Tertullian as a support:

The early Church Fathers clearly saw Mary as the New Eve:

Tertullian

"And again, lest I depart from my argumentation on the name of Adam: Why is Christ called Adam by the apostle, if as man he was not of that earthly origin? But even reason defends this conclusion, that God recovered his image and likeness by a procedure similar to that in which he had been robbed of it by the devil. It was while Eve was still a virgin that the word of the devil crept in to erect an edifice of death. Likewise through a Virgin the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex was by the same sex reestablished in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight" (The Flesh of Christ 17:4 [A.D. 210].

http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

Tertullian is also quoted by Atty. Llasos in his article "Types of Mary in the Old Testament" (March 2006):

Tertullian (+220), another Church Father, used the Eve-Mary parallel as a secondary argument in favor of the virginal conception of Jesus Christ and emphasizes the act of faith involved. Building on the insights of Justin, Ireneus and Tertullian, the theme of the Eve-Mary parallel was expanded upon after the Council of Nicaea in the year 325.

http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2006_03_01_archive.html

HOWEVER, when it comes to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Atty. Llasos quotes the church father, Jerome who... well... oh just read it for yourself:

Likewise, a heretic by the name of Helvidius raised an objection against Mary’s perpetual virginity. St. Jerome (347-420 AD) rebuked Helvidius in a treatise on Mary’s perpetual virginity:“I was requested by certain of the brethren not long ago to reply to a pamphlet written by one Helvidius. I have deferred doing so, not because it is a difficult matter to maintain the truth and refute an ignorant boor who has scarce known the first glimmer of learning, but because I was afraid my reply might make him appear worth defending....! must call upon the Holy Spirit to express His meaning by my mouth and defend the virginity of the Blessed Mary. I must call upon the Lord Jesus to guard the sacred lodging of the womb in which He abode for ten months from all suspicion of sexual intercourse. And I must also entreat God the Father to show that the mother of His Son, who was mother before she was a bride, continued a Virgin after her Son was born.”

Who can dispute with St. Jerome, the greatest Scripture scholar of all time?

Jerome:

“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church.

-Mary Ever Virgin (2006) http://marwil-n-llasos.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

I wonder if Atty. Llasos is even aware of the church fathers he is quoting. Admittedly, he is good when it comes to quoting historical records. Unfortunately, being biased and selective is another thing. We see Atty. Llasos quotes Tertullian to support some Marian doctrines, but he then quotes Jerome who apparently rejects Tertullian. Will he support Jerome on that specially when Atty. Llasos said: Who can dispute with St. Jerome, the greatest Scripture scholar of all time?

So what's Atty. Llasos have to say to this? "The church fathers are not infallible!" Good, so as the rest of the human beings in the world. "I only quote the good writings of Tertullian!" While you're at it please quote from the good writings of Muslim apologists.

Then again, we would have to see.

POST SCRIPT:

Supporters of Atty. Llasos are already accusing me of abandoning the topic since I posted this article. I am not done with him yet.

His colleague Carlos Palad responded wtih a lapse of about one year on the email exchanges about Sola Scriptura, yet I did not celebrate of this delay. After I posted my response to his belated response, he emailed me of an article about Protestants in Spain, but I never accused him of changing the topic. He still has to respond to my article but I don't mind what he does in between so long as it is non-offensive to both of us.

Please be fair.