Estoppel on false doctrines

Sto. Nino Basilica, Cebu CityThe scenario is: "estoppel doctrine versus "false churches" doctrines". What is a doctrine of estoppel? And how will it helps prove the criminal liabilities of "false churches" in case of calamities? But before proceeding, let us first review the man's rules on evidence and how the "words" that are stated in "The Word", which others call as "The Holy Bible", are to be treated as evidence.

Taking for example the verses from 2 Kings, stating as follows:
23Everything else that Jehoram did is recorded in the History of the Kings of Judah. 24Jehoram died and was buried in the royal tombs in David's City, and his son Ahaziah succeeded him as king.(2 Kings 8:23-24, TEV).
Given the above set of of allegations, is it possible to establish the truth on the same despite the absence of physical evidence of the Kingdom of Judah or the history book being referred in the verses? How about the truth of burial of Jehoram in the royal tombs in David's City or the existence of the royal tombs in David's City? or the truth on succession of kingship from Jehoram to his Son Ahaziah or the presumptive paternity of King Jehoram over King Ahaziah?
 
Can they be established as "truth" in the Courts of law?
 
Yes, subject to some qualifications.

Under ordinary circumstances, above words and evidences would have been buried when King Jehoram was buried in the royal tombs in David's City and have never arisen from death to be the source of discussions in this site.

These words however became material as they are part of the evidences or whole story of Christianity used to colonize the Philippines, subjugating the country under Spanish regime through the Holy Cross of the Roman Catholic Alleged Church in 1521; that because the Holy Cross used the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and not their adversaries or any Roman deity, Filipinos submitted themselves to the Faith. Unknown to Filipinos however, they were "converted" as enemies of God, due to idolatry, which is stated in the "Word" itself that is being used by the Roman Catholic alleged church. Thus, the continuing calamities.


If the Roman Catholic alleged church or anybody preaches or acts as representative of God and his Son contrary to any factual or instructional allegation in the "Word", can you use it as evidence under the rules to establish the truth to make him liable and answerable under man's laws?.

Yes, through the Doctrine of Estoppel.

Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia,defines Estoppel as:
"a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative officers, or by his own deed, acts, or representations, either express or implied.

This term appears to come from the Old French estoupail (or variation), which meant "stopper plug", referring to placing a halt on the imbalance of the situation. The term is related to the verb "estop" which comes from the Old French term estopper, meaning "stop up, impede."
Relevant Questions

What if the one involved is atheist, communist, etc? It depends on their act because they can also preach and use the name of God, to their selfish advantage. How about Judaic? The legal defense is accepting or continue denying Christ at his own risk.

For detailed discussion, click to WORDatTheNet

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Filipinos can eradicate disasters

Who is the modern way to Zeus?

The "unholy' cross?

Pope and Obama

Steps on how to pray to the "cross"

What is the unholy trinity in Jesus Christ?

Circumstances and immorality verse

Christmas Deception

Pope Francis:No to "greed" idolatry?