Mga Paskil
Mga Puna

Narito ang ikalawang bahagi ng diskusyon sa pagitan ng Katoliko at Iglesia ni Cristo sa pamamagitan ng http://www.pinoyexchange.com

Muli,   hinihingi ko na po ang paumanhin ninyo sapagkat di ko po ito isasalin sa wikang Filipino ang kabuuan ng debate.


1st Affirmative Constructive (revised)

Terms of Reference

Apostasy, for this discussion, is the falling away from or abandoning of the true faith. In the Greek NT bible, Apostasia (Strong: 646, falling away, forsake, defection) was used twice. First in Acts 21:21 referring to the Jews forsaking Moses regarding circumcision and customs. Second in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 referring to the apostasy before the coming of Jesus Christ. For this debate, my proposition is based on the Apostasy (Greek: Apostasia) in the context of 2 Thess. 2:3. However, I will also use the definition as used in Acts 21:21 but in different context. Also as used in LXX and in other OT renditions, Apostasy means rebellion against God ( Joshua 22:22), disobedience against the commandment of God (Jer. 2:19), and following other gods (Judges 2:19). Also, the bible portrays apostasy as adultery (Ezekiel 16) and a prostitution (Isa. 1:21).

The “first century church”, without distinction whether it be called Church of God or Church of Christ or by any other biblical name, refers to the church founded by Christ in Matthew 16:18. The qualification “first century” refers to the organization or church that started in 1st century. Thus, my proposition doesn’t mean that the completion of apostasy happened in 1st century.

The qualification “completely” refers to apostasy of the organization and leadership of the church when it espoused false philosophies of men. It is not my intention to show that each and every member of the 1st century church apostatized. If the leader(s) of the church led the organization to apostasy then the members were led astray also. Some who stayed faithful were killed or died in natural death. For in any case, in normally accepted fate of every man (except our Lord Jesus Christ), they are dead already by this time. Also, the word “completely” doesn’t mean “totally” because the church was restored after a certain period of time. It means that there was a point or period in time when the church was completely apostatized. Let me quote the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), “Not everything in false religion is false…” In the same manner, “completely” doesn’t mean that all teachings of the true church were completely abandoned.

Wherefore, my thesis is clear: The first century church was completely apostatized.



Apostasy of the church doesn’t mean the Jesus Christ lied, nor the Holy Spirit is weak. When God established the nation of Israel as His own and made many promises to Israel that He will be with them, God did not lie when Israel apostatized. Where is Israel now? You can answer that for yourself.

Israel is a just a proof of the possibility of complete apostasy. But this debate is about the first century church.

The First Century Church and the hints of the coming apostasy

Let us flashback to the first century. Jesus Christ built a church (singular) as stated in Matthew 16:18. During the time of the Apostles, the church was once in the status that “remained true to the faith (Acts 14:22).” They were strengthened in faith and grew in number (Acts 16:5) as the “the Lord’s hand was with them (Acts 11:21).” Apostle Paul called them “pure virgin” (2 Cor. 11:2) but was “afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning,” [their] minds may somehow be led astray from [their] sincere and pure devotion to Christ. (v3). His fear was shown again when he went to Ephesus and left a message to “keep watch over the flock” (Acts 20:28) because “savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock (v29).” Not only Paul had this fear. Peter also warned “there will be false teachers among you (2 Pet. 2:1). Most of these warnings were given before the end of the first century. We can see that the church was already infested with “false teachings” and “false preachers” even before the last apostle died near the turn of the century. The direst warning came from Jesus Christ, the founder, who prophesied “you will ALL fall away…” (Mark 14:27), which marked the beginning of apostasy until its completion. I will reserve my exegesis of the verse.

From Pure Virgin to Prostitute

Paul said the church was a pure virgin (2 Cor. 11:2) and we know that apostasy is called adultery (Eze 16) and prostitution (Isa. 1:21). Thus, if the church was apostatized, it must have become a prostitute. In Revelation 17:3-5:

Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. The name written on her forehead was a mystery: BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES, AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

In the bible, the true church and apostate church were usually symbolized by a woman. In this case, it was of a prostitute woman called Babylon the great. This is the symbol of complete apostasy. But did it really happen? How did it happen? How the virgin became an adulterer and a prostitute?

Apostasy is real and it happened

Apostasy is real as it will happen before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 2:1, 3).

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

To any bible-believing Christians, it is not a question of whether apostasy is real or not, or will it happen or not. That’s beyond debate now. The question is when. My proposition said “was”, therefore I believe that it happened and I should prove it. It was a really slow process. This hypothesis is supported by facts.

According to Haley’s Bible Handbook pages 760 – 762, the church was in a very extreme persecution under several Roman Emperors from 2nd to 3rd century. Many Christians were killed. During this period, the church also underwent changes and doctrinal crises. The bible gave us some hints on how it could happen. It starts with breaking the command of God for the sake the tradition (Mat. 15:3). Tradition per se is not bad but if one breaks the command of God because of it, it is apostasy. Thus, they “…let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions (Mark 7:8). Examples of human traditions are “hollow and deceptive philosophies” of man and “elemental spiritual forces of this world” (Col. 2:8). In Acts 17:18, Paul encountered some “stoic philosophers” who existed almost at the same time as the first century church. Stoic philosophy was popularized by Philo. [Note: I am not quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia because I believe in all it says but we can separate some facts versus its own bias]. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia I quoted earlier, Philo influenced the writings of early Christians. This caused the apostasy of the church or Christianity as referred here; let me quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia again as it quoted the rationalists:

“the union of the Gospel with the Greek spirit (a) due to the conquests of Alexander and the consequent mingling of Jew and Gentile, (b) further strengthened about A.D. 130, when Greek converts brought into Christianity the philosophy in which they were educated, (c) again, about a century later, when Greek mysteries and Greek civilization in its widest range were admitted, and finally, (d) about the middle of the fourth century, when the Greek spirit finally prevailed and polytheism and mythology (i.e. the worship of the saints) were admitted”.

Further it says referring to the quotes “…we may admit many of the statements made without drawing from them the rationalistic inferences”.

By middle of fourth century, the church let go of the commands of God, held on to human traditions, followed deceptive philosophies and unionized with the “Greek spirit” that prevailed over the gospel. By the definition we stated earlier, this is complete apostasy. In my next stand, I will give examples of these “Greek Spirit” that prevailed over the gospel.


The first century church used to be pure in doctrines and spirit. It flourished and grew in number. However, the apostles warned of the upcoming apostasy. Even during their time, there were already preachers that incorporated Stoic and Greek philosophies into the doctrines. Thus, the doctrine itself became polluted. By the 4th Century, the ‘Greek Spirit” prevailed over the doctrines of the church and the leaders of the church adopted them.

This debate is not anymore a question whether Apostasy happened or not. The bible has mentioned so many instances about apostasy of different kinds and prophesied about it. History has attested that it happened already.

In my next stand, I will put more details and specifics.

Thanks for your understanding and patience.

Cross-Examination of Affirmative by Negative (Catholic)

You mentioned in your First Affirmative that the First Century Church that was founded and built by Jesus Christ apostatized completely though it does not necessarily mean that it happened in the First Century, right? My first question would be, when exactly did the same Church apostatized completely that paved the need for it to be restored in 1914 as what the INC claims? It would be arrogant to claim that restoration is necessary without properly identifying the complete falling away of the original.

You affirmed that the words “you will ALL fall away…” by Jesus Christ in Mark 14:27 was a prophecy about the complete apostasy that would happen on the Church, right? My second question would now be, when did this “all falling away” in Mark 14:27 happened? Did it happen pre-ascension or post-ascension?

You have also mentioned 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that says “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there came a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;”. My third question will be, was this verse referring to a complete apostasy of the Church or was it referring to just an apostasy? I am of the assumption that you know the difference between a complete apostasy and that of just an apostasy.

Also, you mentioned that by the middle of fourth century, the church let go of the commands of God, held on to human traditions, followed deceptive philosophies and unionized with the “Greek spirit” that prevailed over the gospel. My fourth question would be, based on the Catholic Encyclopedia, which is the source of the excerpt you quoted, did the Greek Spirit prevail over the Church?Also, since you are quoting directly from the source, please include in your answer the link showing your point.

And lastly, you mentioned quite an intriguing thing. You said that the word “completely” doesn’t mean “totally”, right? My fifth question would now be, are there any vocabulary sources out there that would agree with your aforementioned statement? 

The www.freedictionary.com puts totally as being into a complete degree or to the full or entire extent. www.learners-dictionary.computs totally as completely or entirely. British English based onhttp://dictionary.cambridge.org defines totally as completely.

I’ve searched the net high and low but I can’t find even a single vocabulary reference saying that “completely” doesn’t mean “totally”. I would be indebted to you if you can show me even one valid vocabulary reference.

God bless!

Affirmative Replies (Iglesia Ni Cristo)

Q1: My first question would be, when exactly did the same Church apostatized completely that paved the need for it to be restored in 1914 as what the INC claims?

Right, but if you are asking for the exact date of the completion of the Apostasy, the apostatized church will never claim to be the apostatized church and declare that on certain date, it officially apostatized from the true faith. It might also honestly not know that it apostatized already. However, circumstances surrounding the history of the church tell us that apostasy is completed in the middle of fourth century as already stated in my 1st affirmative. Again, it might still hold some true teaching as “Not everything in false church is false” but still, it is false. Whether it needs restoration or not is not a subject of our debate but it is a logical response if and only if apostasy was recognized as had happened.

In analogy, a person came back to his place and found out that his house is completely destroyed by fire. Whether the investigator can tell exactly tell or not at what time the fire completely destroyed the house, it can’t be denied by the evidences that the house is completely burnt. The person will not wait until the exact time is known before he re-build or buy another house.

Q2: when did this “all falling away” in Mark 14:27 happened? Did it happen pre-ascension or post-ascension?

Yes, the declaration of Jesus Christ that “…you will ALL fall away” was a prophecy about complete apostasy. It happened from pre-ascension through post-ascension. As stated in my 1st affirmative, apostasy was a slow process. It didn’t happen at just one point in time, but rather in a period of time where in another point in time is completed. If we look at the account according to Matthew 26:31, “This very night” Jesus said “…you will fall away”. That night was the beginning of the slow process and it continued even after ascension. Let us not forget the following words from Christ “I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.” He quoted these words from Zechariah 13:7, which says after “…and I will turn my hand against the little ones”. The “little ones” are the “disciples” (Matthew 10:42 NIV) and evidences can be shown even in the book of Acts that most disciples were killed after ascension.

Q3: was this verse referring to a complete apostasy of the Church or was it referring to just an apostasy? 

The verse 2 Thessalonians 2:3, along with the verses following it, refers to the apostasy of Church, not just an apostasy. Let’s quote verses 3-4:

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 

This man of lawlessness took his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. The “temple of God” is used as a symbol for the Church (1 Cor. 3, 1 Tim. 3:15, 2 Cor. 6:16) of which Christ is the foundation. In this prophecy, the man of lawlessness took seat in the Church to be her leader. Thus, this is not just an apostasy but actually an apostasy of the Church because her leader is an apostate, himself.

Q4: did the Greek Spirit prevail over the Church?



The article also mentions this: “Abandoning the Apostolic Age, Harnack, in his “History of Dogma”, ascribes the hellenization of Christianity to the apologists of the second century (1st German edit., p. 253). Also, in the beginning of the article, it defined that “Christianity of which we speak” is that realized in “Catholic Church alone”. Thus, when the article quoted Harnack and said “Hellenization of Christianity”; “Hellenization” meant Greek spirit while “Christianity” meant the Catholic Church. Of course, in its defense, the article said that the essential doctrines are contained already in the New Testament but giving due force of the traditions of corporate Christianity. That’s its own bias and that’s the debate itself. Let me take this opportunity to reason why I am taking the stand of Harnack et al.

In the book “The investigation of the Trinity of Plato and Philo Judaeus,” by Cersar Morgan, Cambridge University Press 1853, pp. 92 states that “many were converted to the Christian religion who had made progress in in Platonic or Eclectic Philosophies and retained many of their prejudices”. Here are some of the so-called Early Church Fathers:
1. Origen– an admirer of Philo’s system (ibid. pp XI)
2. Justyn Martyr – familiarly conversant with the principles of Plato and other Grecian philosophers before he embraced Christianity (ibid. pp 154)
3. Theophilus – in his second book Autolycus p. 94 followed partly with hints taken from Philo, partly his own, to make the whole apply to Christianity (ibid. pp 101).

One of the Hellenistic or Greek Spirit philosophes is the Trinity. Thus, “Most defenders and opposers of this doctrine in modern times agree in maintaining that the doctrine of the Trinity is delivered and inculcated in the writings of Plato” (ibid pp. 167). The doctrine of the Trinity is a proof that Greek Spirits won over the doctrine and history attest that it won over the church as well. Most churches today, including the Eastern and Roman Catholic Churches espouse this Platonic Trinity.

Q5: And lastly, you mentioned quite an intriguing thing. You said that the word “completely” doesn’t mean “totally”, right? My fifth question would now be, are there any vocabulary sources out there that would agree with your aforementioned statement?

According to “The grammar of English grammars: with an introduction, historical and critical” by Goold Brown, Samuel U. Berria, pp. 187:

“We often speak of “the same words” and of “different words” but wherein does the sameness or the difference of words consists? …The sameness of words, then, must consist in something which is to be recognized with great diversity. Yet every word is itself, and not another; and every word must necessarily have property peculiar to itself, by which it may easily be distinguished from every other. Were it not so, language would be unintelligible. But it is so; and therefore, to mistake one word for another, is universally thought to betray great ignorance or great negligence, though such mistakes are by no means of common occurrence. But the question about the identity of the words is not a very easy one, may appear from the fact, that the learned often disagree about it in practice.” 

The proposition I took somehow made those two words peculiar from each other. We chose to have a topic that is passive in structure rather than the direct and active “The first century church was completely apostatized”; thus modifying a verb. The presence of linking verb “was” made it more peculiar in both understanding. The presence of “was” made the word “apostatized” act like more of an adjective than a verb. For the verb “apostatize”, we should have used “had” to make it past perfect.

Both words are adverb of degree and one or another may be used as an adverb of intensity to modify an adjective. The adverb of degree can also be divided into four segments including intensity and completeness and when used to modify an adjective, the word “completely” may take also the meaning of “ practically, almost, nearly”. ( http://www.grammar-quizzes.com/adv_degree.html).
Let me quote the whole sentence: Also, the word “completely” doesn’t mean “totally” because the church was restored after a certain period of time. I guess we are not here to debate the difference between two words; thus, take the words “was completely apostatized” together, rather than separating them. If I insert those two words in the proposition to make it clearer: “The first century church was completely apostatized at the end of the period of a certain time but not totally in the whole dispensation of time”. This is also in conformance to the terms of reference I laid out in my 1st Affirmative Constructive.

Thank you for your interesting questions.

to be continued……


Mga kapatid, sa aking muling pagbabalik sa mga pahina ng “weblog” na ito, hayaan ninyong ibahagi ko sa inyo ang isang makabuluhang diskusyon sa pagitan ng Katoliko at Iglesia ni Cristo.  Nais ko pong ipagpauna na ang diskusyong ito ay di opisyal na tinitindigan ng Iglesia Ni Cristo bilang isang institusyon kundi isang pakikipagdebate sa pagitan ng kanilang miyembro na bahagi rin ng “on-line forum” na pinoyexchange.com.


Paksa: The 1st Century Church was completely apostatized


Ang kabuuan ng diskusyon ay ginamitan ng wikang ingles kung kaya’t hinihingi ko na po ang paumanhin ninyo sapagkat di ko po ito isasalin sa wikang Filipino.


Introduction By The Affirmative (Iglesia Ni Cristo)

It was a frigid noon when I and my wife arrived in Charlotte, NC. It was the beginning of the new millennium and there we were in a place we hardly known. It was our first time to step foot on US soil. Armed with just an address, a print-out from Mapquest, and few hundred dollars, we rented a car right there in the airport. Avis offered us a GPS to use but I refused. I needed to save some money. We got all we need to get to the address given to us, so I thought. With me on the wheel and my wife the navigator, we cruise through the highway, following directions after directions as stated in the print-out. Two, three,…five hours past, and we still can’t find the place we’re going to. We needed to fill-up the gas and ask for directions. In short, we got lost. I should have taken that GPS.

In this debate, I will offer you a GPS. It’s free. It’s up to you to accept or refuse it.

I am (name withheld), an active member of the Church of Christ or Iglesia ni Cristo. Let it be known that this debate is NOT authorized by the Church of Christ Administration so please do not construe this as official debate. My postings in this debate should not be referenced as official teachings of the church. If anyone would like to arrange a formal debate, kindly go to the nearest Iglesia ni Cristo congregation or visit our official website: http://www.incmedia.org and look for the addresses provided there.

In this debate, I will affirm that the first century church was completely apostatized. The word “completely” is the key word here. My opponent might argue that it was apostatized but not completely, or he might argue that it wasn’t apostatized at all. With him insisting on the word, I presume he would argue on the first. I am ready either way. I commend him for being courageous to stand-up for his belief and thank him for accepting me as his challenger.
I also would like to thank (Judge 1) and (Judge 2) for accepting to moderate this debate. It’s my pleasure to be around great thinkers like them. Not to be forgotten are the people in the gallery. The seats are almost full and the excitement fills-up the air. I can guarantee you a gentlemanly and yet, uncompromising debate. Lastly, I would like to commend my brethren on their zeal to defend the Church of Christ and her teachings.

May the Spirit of God be with all of us!


Introduction by the Negative (Catholic)

During this time of the year, people, especially Filipinos around the world, are focused and keeping themselves busy in preparing and double-checking their recipes for a sumptuous Media Noche feast to welcome the coming year. Markets, both wet and dry, are bustling with varying meats, fruits, seafood and veggies with every seller hoping to make a killing at the cash register.

Somehow, somewhere, the busy lifestyle of the urban jungle made this celebration superficial and purely material. Your ordinary cosmopolitan family is more concerned about what foods should be served on the table rather than making sure that everyone in the family would make it to this annual feast. The traditional values seem to have been drowned by the fast-paced lifestyle that we all are enjoying. We tend to forget that this season is a time to celebrate filial love, family unity and togetherness amidst these trying and busy times.

But is it enough for us to say that all those traditional Filipino values have completely disappeared? Is it right for us to conclude that no one, not even those who doesn’t dwell on the busy lights of urban living, still exists to this very day that continues to celebrate, observe and share that very same family love and devotion?

Through this debate, I am hoping to show you that old values don’t die. And that those people who cling to these values do everything to pass it on to their offspring.

I am representing myself and my beliefs on this debate. I guess there’s no special need to expound on that. As what my respectable counterpart mentioned in his introduction, this discussion isn’t an official Catholic vs. INC debate but rather, a civilized discussion between two people who are sitting on different sides of the fence but are willing to talk through their differences with courtesy and respect.

Let me extend my gratitude to (name withheld), who had taken a courageous stand in accepting this friendly challenge. We all know that this is going to be a first in RoT and I’m hoping that this won’t be the last.

Special thanks to both (Judge 1) and (Judge 2) for accepting the difficult task of being the moderators/judges for this debate. I would assure you that it’s all worth it.

This debate has given me the enviable chance to prove that my beliefs as a Catholic are not founded on shallow and shaky grounds. And I was fortunate enough to have gotten this opportunity to do this as part of my preparations for the coming year.

I am hoping that everyone who would witness this intellectual exchange of ideas would also be blessed amidst the uncertainty that most of us face in our spiritual lives.

May God bless us all as we re-trace the roots of His Church from the 1st century to this very day.

Let us all witness how truthful Jesus is to His word. For His word is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.


 to be continued…..

Sa ikalawang bahagi ng ating pagtugon sa argumento ng ating ka-diskusyon, hayaan ninyo po akong ipaskil ang ikalawang argumentong kanyang inilatag.



Mukhang di naman nilayo ni Mr. Paine ang issue…hindi lang suguro naintindihan ni Mr. Perito.


Kung babasahin lang ito ng mabuti at uunawain ni Mr. Perito…well sabi ni Thomas Paine (1) na ang mag-akda ng Mga Awit 22:1 ay nag-sasalita tungkol sa kanyang sarili at hindi patungkol sa ibang tao. Sa madaling salita, hindi po ito isang hula patungkol kay Hesus kung hindi ay isang sentimiento ng manunulat. Ang salita ay nakasulat sa “present tense” hindi sa “future tense”. (2) Hindi po nangangahuluggang “damit” ang ibig sabihin ng salitang “vestures”. Pwede rin po itong kagamitan, mga lote o kaya naman mga property…mga bagay na wala si Hesus…so papaano naman daw magkakaroon si Hesus ng mga propiedad kung sinabi nya na, “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” (Luke 9:58)


Ito kasi ang problema, according to most Christians (like Mr. Perito), Matthew 27:35 was the fulfillment of the  prophecy written in  Psalms 22:1 (See also: John 19:23-24)



Himayin natin mga kapatid ang kanyang naging pagtugon.


Kung ating pakakalimiin ang nais na iparating ng aking kadiskusyon, lumalabas mga kapatid na ang sumulat ng Psalms o Awit sa lumang tipan ay ang siyang dumanas ng nasabing paghihirap.  Tama ba ito?  Ang sagot? HINDI.


Base sa pag-aaral ng mga scriptural scholars, lumalabas na ang mahigit sa kalahati ng nilalaman ng Mga Awit ay galling sa panulat mismo ni Haring David.  Bagamat hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay di pa rin matukoy kung si Haring David nga lang ba ang may-akda ng lahat ng iyon o kung may mga iba pang may-akda, ang mahalaga ay ang katotohanang halos 70% ng Mga Awit ay galling sa mismong panulat ng dakilang Hari ng Israel.


Ngayong naihatag na natin ang katotohanan sa kung sino ang sumulat ng nasabing aklat mula sa lumang tipan, tingnan naman natin kung makatwiran ba ang argumento ni Ginoong Paine na lubusang sinunuportahan ng ating kapalitan ng opinyon.



Ok…well let us read both verses:


Psalms 22:19 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Matthew 27:35 And when they had crucified Him, they divided up His garments among themselves by casting lots.


Hmmmmm…sa unang tingin eh mukhang tama nga si Mr. Perito. Ngunit looks can be decieving.  Psalms 22 depicts the plight of the Jew who, as an individual, prays for an end to Israel’s long exile from its land and from the Temple in Jerusalem. It is not a messianic prophecy. The previous verse, Psalms 22:17, is critical to a correct understanding of the true context of this verse.


I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.


Psalms 22:17 describes the person whose clothes are being divided as counting his bones while those who are taking his garments look on gloating. This starving man is so skinny that his bones are visible and can be counted. The “voice” here is still King David, as it is throughout the psalm, and he uses the act of taking and dividing his garments as a metaphorical reference to the desires of his enemies to take away his mantle of royalty and make it their own.



Kung ating paniniwalaan ang nagging argumento ni Ginoong Paine at ng aking kadiskusyon na ang nilalaman ng Mga Awit 22 ay patungkol sa nararanasang paghihirap ng may-akda, lubhang kataka-taka na nakapagsulat pa ang nasabing may-akda, di po ba?  Paano nating paniniwalaan na ang isang tula ng pagdarasal na kagaya ng Mga Awit 22 ay isang patungkol sa paghihirap ng may-akda at sa plano ng kanyang mga kalaban na lupigin siya?


Bakit kinakailangang ibahin ang pakahulugan nga mga talata gayung napakalinaw ng nais nitong ipahiwatig?  Pakatandaan natin mga kapatid na ang Mga Awit ay koleksyon ng mga awitin at tula na karamihan at nilikha mismo ni Haring David.


Ikalawang dahilang kung bakit mas dapat nating paniwalaan na ang nasabing sitas sa Mga Awit ay patungkol sa nangyari sa ating Panginoong Hesus ay ang nakamamanghang pagka-eksakto ng mga tala sa nasabing mga sitas kung ating ihahambing sa mga tala sa kaganapan sa Golgota.  Isang malaking kapalaluang sabihin na ito’y nagkataon lang sapagkat lubhang eksakto ang mga letra ng pagkakasulat sa nasabing aklat.


Tandaan natin mga kapatid na ang mga nasulat ukol sa paghihirap at pasyon ng Panginoong Hesus ay naisulat hindi lamang sa isa o dalawang ebanghelyo kundi sa apat na magkakaibang aklat na isinulat ng apat na magkakaibang tao.  Kung ito ay nagkataon lamang, paanong nangyaring apat na magkakaibang manunulat ang nagsalarawan ng iisang pangyayari?



Kumusta mga Kapatid? Maayos ba ang panibagong araw na kaloob sa atin ng Maykapal? Alam ko, matagal na akong walang update sa weblog na ito.  Medyo marami lang akong pinagkakaabalahan pero pangako, pipilitin kong sumulat sa weblog na ito isang beses kada buwan.

Nais ko ring gamitin ang pagkakataong ito upang sagutin ang isang artikulo sa Facebook noong ikatlo ng Agosto, 2010 na direkta pong pinangalanan at ginamit ang nilalaman ng serye ng mga artikulong pinamagatang “ATHEISTA KA BA?” na una kong isinulat noong ika-8 ng Abril, 2008.

Maaaring nagtatanong kayo kung bakit inabot ng mahigit walong buwan bago ako sumagot sa argumentong inilahad sa naturang pahina.  Ang sagot ko po ay simple lamang.  Hindi po kasi tayo direktang pinasabihan o direktang inanyayahan para sagutin ang kanilang mga punto. Wala po akong maisip na dahilan para ipagwalang bahala tayo ng may-akda ng naturang pahina pero wala naman po tayong masamang tinapay.  Bagkus, nais ko pong ipaabot ang aking pasasalamat sa may-ari ng Facebook profile na “Sacrilege!!! Some notes on biblical errors and inconsistency” sapagkat pinatunayan lamang ng kanyang ginawa na marami ang nagkakainteres sa pinagpapaguran po natin sa weblog na ito.

Eto na po ang aking kasagutan.

Sinasabi po sa argumento sa nasabing pahina na hindi ko raw po tinalakay kung itinakda ba ng Diyos ang takdang araw para sa Sabbath o hindi.  Eto po ang nilalaman ng kanyang komentaryo.

“The problem…which Mr. Perito didn’t specify is this: Did God specified what day must be regarded as the Sabbath or not?”

Kung babalikan po natin ang aking artikulo, malinaw po ang naging pagtalakay ko sa nasabing argumento at ito po ay ang mga sumusunod:

Unang tanong ko sa naturang komentaryo, bakit tila hindi ipinaliwanag ng may-ari ng website kung paano naging magkakontra ang naturang mga sitas o talata.  Wala ni isa mang paliwanag mula sa naturang komentaryo kung bakit nila nasabing magkakontra ang dalawang talata na sa aking palagay ay isang malinaw na repleksyon ng kakulangan ng sapat na basehan para sa kanyang argumento.


Ikalawang tanong, ano ba ang pakahulugan ng nasabing komentarista sa nais iparating ng talata sa Taga Roma 14:5?  Ito ba ay totoong patungkol sa araw ng pamamahinga o Sabbath?


At ang huling katanungan sa pag-aanalisa natin ay kung bakit hindi isinama ng komentarista ang Roma 14:6.

Lumalabas po sa naging pagsagot ng aking katunggali sa kabilang panig na ang tunay palang layon ng artikulong tinutukoy ko sa website na atheists.org ay kung ano nga ba ang eksaktong araw na itinakda para sa Sabbath.  Ayun naman pala eh.  Sana’y di na nila pinaliguy-ligoy pa ang artikulo di po ba?

Eto po ang naging komentaryo ng ating kapalitan ng opinyon.


Let see: Genesis 20:8 is clear,  “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy”, yet in Roman 14:5 Paul says that some observe one day and others another day. He says that’s OK with him. Hmmmm…wala bang problem ito? Let us read the following verses if that’s ok with God?  (Ex.20:8, 31:13-17, 35:2-3; Dt.4:12-14, Is.56:2)


So to squeeze out of the problem Mr. Perito says that the Old Testament is different from the New Testament? Nice move…or is it?


First, the Sabbath is specified to be the 7th day. (Exodus 16:29 The LORD hath given you the sabbath. … abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. ) So hindi pwede yang maging the 2nd, the 4th or the 5th day. It is also say that Exodus 31:13-15 Six days my work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.


Clear ha?


Now…sa Old Testament nga lang ba yan utos na yan? According to some Christians, “with Jesus’ atonement, and justification by faith (Rom. 5:1), we no longer are required to keep the Law and hence the Sabbath which was only a shadow of things to come (Col. 2:16-17). We are not under obligation to keep the Law and this goes for the Sabbath as well.


Mukhang di sila nag-kakaunawaan tungkol dito?


Some Christians kasi still obey the Sabbath Law while others think that the New Testament did away the Sabbath Law.


Remember what Jesus said, Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matt.5:7) and at Matthew 5:19 “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven”

Kung atin pong pakahihimayin ang naging komentaryo ng aking kapalitan ng opinyon, makikita po natin ang isang malaking kamalian sa kanyang pagaanalisa sa mga sitas o talata.  Unang una na ay ang patuloy niyang pagtukoy sa Exodo 16:29.  Dapat po nating isipin na ang araw na binabanggit sa Exodo 16:29 ay ang araw ng pamamahinga para sa mga Hudyo na hanggang sa kasalukuyan ay patuloy na di kinikilala si HesuKristo at ang mga aral ng ating Panginoon.

Para ipawalang saysay ang argumento ng ating katunggali, nais ko pong ipakita kung bakit bilang mga Kristiyano ay di na natin inoobserba ang araw ng Sabbath na naaayon sa Exodo.  Eto po ang sinasabi sa Marcos 2:27-28

“At sinabi niya sa kanila, Ginawa ang sabbath ng dahil sa tao, at di ang tao ng dahil sa sabbath:  Kaya’t ang Anak ng tao ay panginoon din naman ng sabbath.”

Gamit ang talata sa itaas, malinaw mga kapatid na si Kristo bilang Panginoon ng Sabbath ay may karapatang baguhin ang Sabbath ayon sa kung ano ang makakabuti para sa tao.  Ito ba ay mauituturing na isang kontradiksyon ayon sa Exodo 16:29? Hindi po mga kapatid sapagkat bilang Panginoon at Diyos ng Sabbath, may karapatan at kakayahan ang Panginoong HesuKristo na baguhin ito ayon sa kung ano ang makabubuti para sa tao na siyang dahilan sa pagkakatatag nito.

Ang patuloy na paggamit sa mga talata ng Exodo ay malinaw na isang malaking pagkakamali sapagkat hindi na po ito ang ninanais ng ating Panginoong HesuKristo.

“Na pinawi ang usapang nasusulat sa mga palatuntunan laban sa atin, na hindi naayon sa atin: at ito’y kaniyang inalis, na ipinako sa krus; Pagkasamsam sa mga pamunuan at sa mga kapangyarihan sila’y mga inilagay niya sa hayag na kahihiyan, na nagtatagumpay siya sa kanila sa bagay na ito.  Sinoman nga ay huwag humatol sa inyo tungkol sa pagkain, o sa paginom, o tungkol sa kapistahan, o bagong buwan o araw ng sabbath: “ Mga Taga-Colosas 2 14-16

Parang pinagtiyap ng tadhana na ang muling pag-usad ng blogsite na ito ay sa mangyari sa isang Lunes Santo rin na siya ring eksaktong araw, isang taon na ang nakakaraan, ng huli akong nagpaskil ng isang artikulo.

Sa araw na ito na ikalawang-araw sa isang linggong paggunita sa paghihirap at pagkakapako ng Panginoong Hesus upang tubusin ang sangkatauhan sa kamatayang dulot ng pagkakasala, marapat lamang na muli nating alalahanin ang mga bagay na ating ginawa nitong nakalipas na isang taon.  Mga bagay na nakaapekto sa buhay ng iba.  Mga salitang namutawi sa ating mga labi na maaaring nakasakit ng damdamin ng ating kapwa.  At higit sa lahat, balikan natin ang mga pagkakataong nanatili tayo sa isang tabi bagamat may kakayahan tayong tumulong at gumawa ng mabuti para sa ating kapwa.

Hindi ko sinasabi na hindi ako nagkakamali.  Tulad ninyo, ordinaryong tao lamang ako na madalas na nadudulas sa mga bagay na ikinatitisod sa mundo.  Ngunit sa kabila ng mga pagkakatisod na ito, nariyan ang Diyos na naghihintay sa muli nating pagbangon.  Nariyan ang Mahal na Birheng Maria na nakahandang dumamay sa ating pagbangon tulad ng kanyang pakikiisa sa mga naging paghihirap ng kanyang Anak sa daan patungong Golgotta.  Ang kailangan lamang ay ang matutunan nating magpakumbaba at matutunan nating tumawag sa kanila upang humingi ng tulong at pagdamay.  Hindi madamot ang Diyos para sa mga taong buong puso at pagpapakumbabang humihiling ng Kanyang grasya.

Kaya’t sa linggong ito, inaanyayahan ko kayong magbalik tanaw kapiling ng ating mga mahal sa buhay.  At nawa, lahat tayo ay sabay-sabay na muling bumangon sa ating mga naging pagkakadapa sa darating na Pasko ng Pagkabuhay.

Pagpalain nawa tayong lahat ng Poong Maykapal.

Una sa lahat mga kapatid, nais kong humingi  ng paumanhin sa matagal na pagkakaantala ng mga posts ko dito sa weblog natin.  Medyo nawala ang pokus ko sa weblog at naging busy sa iba’t ibang bagay tulad ng diskusyon sa mga miyembro ng iba’t ibang sekta.  Pero pramis mga kapatid, magiging aktibo na ulit itong weblog natin.


Sakto ang pagiging aktibo ko ulit mga kapatid.  Umpisa na ng Semana Santa o Holy Week.  Kaya’t maaari ko kayong kuwentuhan sa kung ano ba ang kahulugan ng Semana Santa para sa akin.


Maraming mga batikos na naririnig mula sa ibang mga sekta sa labas ng Iglesia Katoliko ukol sa ating pamamanata sa Mga Araw ng Kuwaresma.   Nariyan ang pagpuna ukol sa pag-iwas sa pagkain ng karne sa araw ng Biyernes Santo.  Ang mga batikos ukol sa pagtitika at pananahimik ng mga katoliko mula Huwebes Santo hanggang Sabado De Gloria.  Malimit din nating maririnig ang walang sawang pagbatikos sa mga pabasa ng Pasyon, sa senakulo, sa mga seremonya sa loob ng simbahan sa mga araw na ito, atbp.  Ang tanong na lagi kong nasa isip ay ito.  Naiintindihan nga kaya ng mga kritikong ito ang mga seremonyas na ginagawa nating mga katoliko tuwing semana santa?  Kasi sa aking pakiwari, mukhang hindi eh.


Ang pinakamadalas na batikusin ay ang pag-iwas natin sa pagkain ng karne tuwing Biyernes Santo.  Karamihan ay nagsasabi na ito raw ay doktrina ng demonyo.  Sinasabi raw kasi sa biblia na ang pagbabawal sa pagkain ng kahit na anong uri ng pagkain ay aral ng diyablo.   Ang tanong, naintindihan ba nila ang sinasabi nilang aral ng diyablo ayon sa biblia? 


Ang ipinagbabawal sa biblia ay ang pagtatalaga ng mga dokrtina ng pananampalataya na nagsasabing bawal kainin ang isang uri ng pagkain.  Ito ay sa kadahilanang sinabi ni Apostol Pablo Ito ay sapagkat ang lahat na nilikha ng Diyos ay mabuti, na dapat tanggaping may pasasalamat at hindi ito dapat itakwil.   Ito ay sapagkat pinaging-banal ang mga ito sa pamamagitan ng salita ng Diyos at panalangin( I Timoteo 4:4-5).    Ang doktrina ng pag-iwas sa pagkain ng karne sa araw ng Biyernes ay hindi doktrina ng pananampalataya.  Ito ay doktrina ng disiplina o isang tradisyon ng debosyon upang makiisa sa naging paghihirap ng Panginoon HesusKristo noong unang Biyernes Santo.  Parang ganito iyan kapatid, sa isang pamilya, sinabi ng ama ng tahanan na hindi pwedeng kumain ng hapunan kapag wala pa ang lahat ng miyembro ng pamilya.  Hindi siya isang utos dahil sa ito ang pinaniniwalaan ng lahat bagkus, ito ay isang utos ng ama bilang tagubilin para sa pananatili ng kaisahan ng buong pamilya.  Samakatuwid kapatid, malinaw para sa akin na ang sinasabi ng mga bumabatikos sa debosyon ng di pagkain ng karne tuwing Biyernes ay bunga ng kanilang kawalang alam sa tunay na pinagmulan ng nasabing debosyong katoliko.


Bukas ko na itutuloy ang diskusyon natin sa Semana Santa, Kapatid.  Hanggang sa muli.


God bless!

Medyo matagal din akong hindi nakapagsulat dito sa weblog natin.  Pasensya na po kasi medyo marami lang inaayos at medyo naging busy sa trabaho.  Pero ngayon, medyo maluwag na ulit ang aking oras para pagtuunan ng pansin ang ating munting pitak.


Sa tagal ng aking pagiging abala sa kung anu-ano, may ideyang sumulpot sa aking isipan.  Sino sa inyo ang mahilig bumisita sa mga on-line forums, taas ang kamay.  Hmm.  Medyo marami-rami.  Alam kong medyo marami rami sa inyo ang regular na bisita sa mga on-line forums tulad ng PinoyExchange.com.  Marami kasi akong kaibigan na laging andun.  Kaya naisip ko, bakit di natin lagyan ng sariling forum board itong ating pitak. 


Kasalukuyan akong gumagawa ng isang bagong forum board na para sa weblog natin.  Sa pamamagitan ng forum board natin, magkakaroon tayo ng pagkakataong mas makapag-interact sa isa’t isa.  Magiging mas mabilis at mas maayos ang palitan ng mga kuru-kuro, suhestyon at mga kaalaman ukol sa aral ng ating pananampalataya.  Ang forum board natin ay akin ring bubuksan para sa mga tinatawag na intellectual discussions.  Debate sa madaling salita.  Pero maglalagay tayo ng mga alituntunin upang di maging magulo ang mga diskusyon.


Inuumpisahan ko na.  Pag naayos ko na, ikaw ang unang makakaalam.  Sana ikaw rin ang unang mag-post ha?  Hihintayin kita.


God bless!