Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (June 20, 2017): Christianity Oppresses Women || John Pesebre

Question 1: What is the brief statement of the doubt? 

I regularly visit yung isang global atheist group sa facebook to look for objections na pwedeng pag isipan. Isa sa mga nagka interes ako ay etong post nila na ito, “I can’t respect religion. I have too much respect for women.” We will tweak this conversation a bit to answer a similar objection na nasa context natin dito sa Pilipinas lalong lala na sa mga self-proclaimed Christians pa mismo at mga skeptics na “Christianity oppresses women.” Yan po ang objection nating sasagutin sa episode na ito.

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

Si Seth Andrews ay ang producer at host ng podcast na The Thinking Atheist. Isa sa mga sinabi niya nitong nakaraan ay ang sumusunod, “I continue to be amazed when I see Christian women defending the Bible that denigrates women.”  Wika naman ni Elizabeth Cady Stanton, “I have endeavored to dissipate these religious superstitions from the minds of women, and base their faith on science and reason, where I found for myself at last that peace and comfort I could never find in the Bible and the church.” A typical doubt arises in the minds of many believers that the Bible does not look at male and female as equals.

Si Elizabeth Cady Stanton na rin mismo nagsabi sa essay nya kung saan nakuha natin yung maanghang niyang salita sa taas na may magagandang pundasyon na makukuha sa Bible patungkol sa babae,

• He gave them dominion over everything. Here the equality of the sexes is recognized, and this idea is echoed back from the New Testament. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, bond nor free, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." We not only have this broad principle of equality enunciated, but we have some grand types of women presented for our admiration. Deborah for her courage and military prowess. Huldah for her learning, prophetic insight, and statesmanship, seated in the college in Jerusalem, where Josiah the king sends his cabinet ministers to consult her as to the policy of his government. Esther, who ruled as well as reigned with Ahasuerus the king.

 Moreover, the Bible daw refers to women as “helper” suggesting na meron silang inferior na status compared sa mga kalalakihan.
Nauunawaan ko kung bakit isang importanteng iissue o problema ito sa Christianty kasi nga if totoo na anti women ang Christianity at marami pa ring mga Christian na babae dito, magtataka ka talaga tulad ng sinabi ni Seth Andrews na dini-defend ng mga Christian women yung Bible na dini-denigrate ang mga babae.

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

Hindi po totoo na “Christianity oppresses women” if we will look deeply into what the Christian teaching is.

Question 4: How is it wrong?

Let us affirm po muna ang commitment ng Christianity sa mga kababaihan as explained sa scripture. Most of the Bible's teachings about women are based upon the foundation laid in Genesis . . . God's intentions for men and women are spelled out clearly. God created the woman as a "helper" for the man: “The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." However, being a "helper" does not imply that the woman was inferior or subservient to the man; the same Hebrew word, `ezer, translated as "helper," is used to describe God, Himself, in Psalms 33:20, 70:5, 115:9-11. In fact, God created both men and women in His own image and made them equal custodians of all His creation:

• So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (NRSV, Genesis 2:27-28) 

When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man." (NIV, Genesis 5:1-2)
Compared to other cultures of the time, Jewish women enjoyed great liberty and esteem, and many women distinguished themselves as prophetesses and leaders in Jewish society. Women such as Deborah, Esther, Hannah, Huldah, Jochebed, Miriam, Noadiah, Rachel, Rebekah, Rahab, Ruth and Sarah played important and decisive roles in Israel's history.

As evidence of the equality of men and women, the Ten Commandments require children to honor both their father and mother: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you. (NAS, Exodus 20:12)

Jesus' attitude toward women was radically different from what was customary at the time. Women normally stayed home and attended to domestic duties. But Jesus allowed women to travel with Him and His twelve disciples (Luke 8:1-3). "Proper" Jews did not speak to Samaritans, and certainly not to Samaritan women. But Jesus had a long conversation with a Samaritan woman at Jacob's well that led to her conversion (John 4:4-30, 39-42). Jewish women were generally not educated or allowed any active role in the affairs of religion. But Martha's sister, Mary, sat at Jesus' feet in the role of a disciple while Jesus taught her. Jesus suggested that Martha do the same (Luke 10:38-42).

Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, Salome, Joanna, Susanna and other women were prominent among Jesus' devoted followers. Some remained with Jesus to comfort Him at His crucifixion when all His apostles had fled in terror (Matthew 27:55-56, Mark 15:40-41). Mary Magdalene and other women were privileged to be the first to discover that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matthew 28:1-10, Mark 16:1-7; Luke 24:1-11).

It is frequently pointed out that Jesus appointed only men as His twelve apostles, and this is taken as a sign of women's secondary status. But Jesus sent His apostles out to spread the gospel to the world, seeking food and shelter where they could find it, facing great danger and ultimately martyrdom. That would not have been considered an appropriate role for a woman in Biblical times just as it would not be considered appropriate today. The early churches apparently followed Jesus' example. Women were treated as at least near-equals and allowed to hold positions of responsibility. Many women, including Jesus' mother, Mary, as well as Dorcas, Julia, Lydia, Persis, Priscilla, Phoebe, Tryphena and Tryphosa were important in the early Christian Church (Acts 1:12-14, 9:36, 16:14, 18:24-26, 21:7-9, Romans 16:1-16).

Itutuloy po natin ang discussion nito sa next episode most importantly yung refutation ng Question 4 and itutuloy natn sa Question 8.

(citation forthcoming)

Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (June 15, 2017): Christians Should Not Engage in Arguments; Disciple Instead || John Pesebre

Tama nga ba na “Christians should not engage in debates or arguments; disciple instead.”

Question 1: What is the brief statement of the doubt?

Marami na rin akong nakausap na mga mananampalataya na tila baga napaka negative ng view pagdating sa mga arguments at simple exchange of opposing ideas. Siguro dahil na rin ito sa mga pagkakataon na tila baga nagkakaroon lang ng hindi magandang kaugnayan kinalaunan ang mga ganitong debates. Kaya naman pangaral ni Kapatid na Johnny, “Instead of engaging people on FB in a debate everyday, why don't you disciple people life on life?” While I understand ang pastoral concern ng statement na ito ni Johnny, I think it is better to discuss this topic dito sa episode na ito. Let me just tweak etong statement na nagre reflect hindi sa intention ni Johnny but on what I think is a prevailing sentiment ng maraming Christians pa mismo, “Christians should not engage in debates or arguments; disciple instead.”

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

Nauunawaan ko ang concern ng statement nating ngayong episode. Ang priority for discipleship nagkaroon ng major upheaval within the last 30 years dito sa Pilipinas na sinimulan nung Pentecostal revival dito nung 80s. Sila Paul Yonggi Cho ang mga major players niyan. Nagkaroon talaga siya ng priority even more sa recent times sa popularity ng int'l ministry ni Edmund Chan, pastor ng isang mega church sa Singapore called Covenant Evangelical Free Church. Ang kanilang aim is “To build an Intentional DiscipleMaking Church (IDMC) model so as to launch an IDMC movement to catalyse a multiplication of Intentional Disciplemaking Churches to fulfill the Great Commission Mandate.” At napaka successful ng ministry na ito na nakarating na rin sa Pilipinas. I’m one of the many people na nabe-bless sa ministry na ito.

When you have sonething like that happening may valuation sa ibang ministry lalo pa na ang discipleship seems like a truly organizing ministry ng kabuuan ng church life. Ang promise ngayon ay kung meron kang discipleship you can pretty much gain a rational and calculated advantage sa mga hindi gumagawa neto.

Gets ko din ang problemang gusto mong solusyunan dito: yung overly contentious na Christian conduct. Lalo na sa pinoy culture, ang maging argumentative ay hindi pogi points. So eventually nagkakaroon ng moral failure sa conduct at pagdi disregard (sin of ommission) ng mas mahalagang ministry ng discipleship.

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

However, I do not agree sa paghihiwalay na nagagawa ng “Christians should not engage in debates or arguments; disciple instead.”

Question 4: How is it wrong?

Before I refute directly yung nakikita kong mali sa proposal na ito, let me put forward muna kung ano yung affirmation ng Christian sa force ng doubt na yan. Tatlo siya: 1) gawain mismo ng Diyos na gumawa ng argument, 2) gawain ng apostles at early church at 3) utos sa atin to do so.

1) Ang Dios mismo sa Isaiah 1:18 nag aanyaya sa kanyang katipan na bansa na "Come let us reason together." Yung encounter Niya kay Job ganun ginawa niya. Yung ministry ng mga propeta is to present a case against the people of God na etong mga propeta ay mouthpiece ng Panginoon. Ang ating Panginoon mismo gumagamit ng mga signs and wonders to validate ang kanyang mission at ministry.

2) Ang mga apostol at early church ay engaged sa pagpe present ng argumento. Ganyan ginawa ni Pablo sa Acts. Si Apollos sa ch. 18 ganun din. Ang mga epistles ganyan din. In fact tukad ni Kristo, sila din ay may mga signs and wonders.

3) Inutusan din tayo to do so like yung sa 1 Peter 3:15 at Jude 3 among others.

By way of refutation naman, sa tingin ko masyadong mabigat yung argument mo jan to the point na pati yung statement mo nabibigatan kasi hindi lang nagsa start ka ng argument, ginagawa mo pa yan sa fb when you should be discipling instead of starting an argument.

Moreover, sa tingin ko yung mga generalizations na ganito ay nagku communicate ng disadvantage sa isang Christian duty which is argumentation or building a defense.

Although wala akong question sa motive niyo because you are a very admirably godly man, ang response ng society or community might be different from what you intended. Naglalagay kasi siya ng disdain kahit papano dun sa mga tao na yan ang tawag sa kanila ng Panginoon, yung makipag argue na bahagi ng kanilang ministry.
Pero again, I affirm naman with you na meron yata talagang mga kapatiran na nabulag na at ganyan na lang ginagawa palagi para maipakita na angat sila. May mga kilala akong ganyan and at some point may tendency ako na ganyan. Buti na lang may mga pumuna sa akin na may pastoral heart na tulad niyo.

Question 5: What wrong idea about God is this doubt trying to create?

Marami na ring beses nabanggit ko sa mga nakausap na yung implication nito sa idea ng mga tao tungkol sa Diyos. Kapag tayo ay parang walang pakialam sa pagtutuwid o pagpapaliwanag ng mga maling kwento o kaisipan ng mga tao tunkol sa ating pananampalataya it may communicate a god na hindi concerned sa testimony ng trustworthiness Niya. Minsan isusustaiin ng mga opposers yung argument na hindi maganda ang motive ng mga gumagawa ng pagtutuwid. Subalit hind naman porke nagtutuwid ka ay gagamitin mo ang kapamaraanan ng sanggano. Ika nga ni Pedro sa 1 Peter 3:15, “do it with gentleness and respect.” Yung Diyos na hindi trustworthy ay ang idol na naki create ng refusal natin to engage yung mga doubts and objections ng tao.

Question 6: What is the Biblical teaching about God that recuperates this wrong idea about God?

“Blessed be the Lord, Because He has heard the voice of my supplication. The Lord is my strength and my shield; My heart trusts in Him, and I am helped; Therefore my heart exults, And with my song I shall thank Him” (Psalm 28:6-7) 

In this verse, we see that trusting God is an exemplary attitude of believers. Truth is an important part of trust. This is the reason why we are to defend the truth of God especially when it is challenged.

Question 7: What application can you draw from this correct teaching about God?

Study. Answer these questions after observing the verse: 1) What was God’s response on the “voice of my supplication”? 2) What does “supplication” mean? 3) Ano ang mga paghahalintulad sa Diyos na makikita sa verses? 4) Dahil dito ano ang naging reaction ng “heart” niya?

Meditate: Ano ang mga pagtutuwid na ginawa ng Panginoon sa’yo na gumamit siya ng mga tao para ito’y ipaunawa sa’yo? Ano ang natutunan mo?

Question 8: What action point can you resolve to do at this point?

Being part of a church fellowship is integral of Christian growth. Make friends. Be part of a cell group.

Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (June 13, 2017): Faith is the Opposite of Reason || John Pesebre

Question 1: What is the brief statement of the doubt?

Sa isang discussion ng kanyang propesor sa humanities back in the 90s, nagsimulang magduda si Phillip dahil sa sinabi ng kanyang propesor na ang “pananampalataya” daw ay salungat sa batas ng “reason.” Dito nagsimulang maglakwatsa si Philip sa atheism subalit buti na lang, later on he gave his life to Christ. Marami pong ganitong kaisipan na umiikot sa Pinoy. So ang brief statement ng doubt or objection na sasagutin natin sa apologetics episode na ito is, “Faith is the opposite of reason.”

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

Isa sa mga kilalang figures sa America na si Dan Barker na dating evangelical preacher pero naging atheist, tells the story of how he started taking the route of atheism,

• Faith and reason began a war within me. And it kept escalating. I would cry out to God for answers, and none would come. Like the battered wife who clings to hope, I kept trusting that God would someday come through. He never did. The only proposed answer was faith, and I gradually grew to dislike the smell of that word. I finally realized that faith is a cop-out, a defeat–an admission that the truths of religion are unknowable through evidence and reason. It is only undemonstrable assertions that require the suspension of reason, and weak ideas that require faith. I just lost faith in faith. Biblical contradictions became more and more discrepant, apologist arguments more and more absurd and, when I finally discarded faith, things became more and more clear. 

It is not very difficult to see sa mga universities na may ganitong idea ang mga college students. Hindi malayong isipin kasi nga the object of faith is a transcendent at infinite God. Sa universe nga sabi Billy Graham ay, “It staggers our mind,” eh ano pa kaya kung yung Creator pa nyang universe na yan. So hindi mahirap gawan ng pagpapasunud-sunod kung paano nagkaroon ng idea na ang hindi maabot ng reason, ilinalagay natin sa faith.

Nauunawaan ko rin na kung totoo nga na hindi mo gagamitin ang reason sa faith ay nag iintellectual suicide ka at ito ang malimit na dahilan kung bakit ang mga non-believers especially yung mga inquisitive ones would find it hard to even consider our faith.

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

Hindi po totoo na faith or belief is the opposite of reason.

Question 4: How is it wrong?

By way of affirming muna what we believe concerning this para naman wag lang mag appear na kumokontra tayo at wala tayong pundasyon, let me say that “faith and reason work together to help us know and love our Maker.” Sabi sa Isaiah 1:18, “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.” Sa Tagalog ay mangatuwiran daw. Ang Hebrew word for “mangatuwiran” is with a legal use actually kasi dito sa verse na ito it is used in a “covenant lawsuit” (TWOT Lexicon) na konteksto. Napakalinaw sa pag aaral sa occurences na ito sa Hebrew na ang salitang ito ay gamit sa mga kaso at pagdedesisyon ng mga matatanda at ng hukuman. Kumbaga may forensics siya na hinihingi. Ang forensics ay ang mga tests o technique na giangamit sa pag detect ng crime. Yan pong ganyang usapan malimit nating matatagpuan ang Hebrew word na ito for “mangatuwiran.”

Sa pagkaunawa natin na yan maiisip mo na kung hinihingi yang brain activity na yan ng Diyos, malamang alam niya na may design plan siya for the mind kasi nga Siya ang may gawa nito. Alam niya, at dapat din alam natin itong gamitin. Kaya naman nasa pundasyon ng affirmation na ito ang admonition ni Peter sa 1 Peter 3:15 na nararapat lamang na maging handa tayo sa “pagsagot sa bawa’t tao na humihingi sa [atin] ng katuwiran tungkol sa pag asang nasa inyo.”

By way of refutation naman, contrary sa maraming pinupuntahan pa minsan ng mga maraming mananampalataya na reason is against faith, ang Panginoon pa mismo ang nagsasabi na gamitin natin ang ating kaisipan sa relationship sa Kanya. “Love the Lord . . . with all your mind” kasama yung heart, soul and strength. Naalala ko minsan ang isang taong galit na galit sa Christians dahl kontra daw ang Christianity sa science at reason. Tinanon ko siya kung kilala niya sila Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Kepler, Boyle, Gascendi, Ohm, Paschal, atbp. Sabi niya mga first rate scientists. Sa ko mukhang aagree ka pala kay Neil DeGrasse Tyson na si Newton ay “unimpeachable genius.” Sabi niya, “Oo.” So I added a follow up response na “Alam mo ba sir na yang mga nabanggit kong scientists ay hindi atheists?” To my surprise hindi siya aware. Mukhang etong mga scientists na ito did not think faith is opposite reason. One can argue pa nga very strongly na it was their Christianity that motivated them to do science.

Question 5: What wrong idea about God is this doubt trying to create?

This objection communicates Christianity as anti-intellectual at may diyos tayo, kung meron man ayon sa kanila, ito ay ang isang diyos na galit sa paggamit ng reasoning. Most probably etong diyos-diyosan na ito ang kanilang nire reject.

Question 6: What is the Biblical teaching about God that recuperates this wrong idea about God?

Let’s read Isaiah 1:18 again, “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.”

In this verse you see here a corrective from the idol in Question 5. God here is described as desiring the engagement of reason.

Question 7: What application can you draw from this correct teaching about God?

Study. Who here is inviting to reason with him? What do you think is the argument the speaker is building at? How is he arguing this?

Meditate. What do you think is God’s reason for paying off your sins through Jesus Christ?

Question 8: What action point can you resolve to do at this point?

Constant encounter with the truth of God is a necessity for the Christian life. Our lives are frequently tempted to think wrong about a lot of things. One of the way we can do that is to have daily study of God’s word and engage in confession prayers concerning false things that made its way in our minds and lives.

Of Despotism and Card Carrying Members of Sino-Ang-Nagtakda Club || John Pesebre

Natutuwa naman ako na pati ang ating homeboy na si Pastor Tim nagbiibigay ng take to warn against #AfterModernity at #neighborology (at most recently mga Wonder Woman tropes) dito sa Pinas sa sinabi nyang eto sa isang article --

"More than that, a rejection of objective truth invites despotism simply because it collapses truth into whatever those in power allow to pass for truth in your bubble."

Eto yung malimit ko na ring sinasabi na bukambibig ng grupo ng mga Pinoy "evangelicals" na ito na mag challenge ng existing commitments ng mga conservative Christians. They would use their all-too common na "Sino ang nagktakda?" to challenge and disarm not only your commitments but the creeds, confessions and catechisms na linggwahe mo. They will challenge yung Trinity, yung original sin atbp COVERTLY kasi nga marami din silang nakukuha na suporta sa mga tipo ng evangelicals na object ng critique nila. Magsasalita yan sa mga seminars pero very covert sa mga mga commitments nila.

Sino daw ang nagtakda? As if truth can be ultimately adjudicated pag nasagot mo yan. Yet what we need to understand is that deep inside, yung pagiging anti-objective truth or anti-universal truth nila may malicious maneuver na either intentional sila or not that sharp enough to see because of the ideological muck in their brains, to take a position of power. Ang theory ng knowledge nyang mga yan is that, "You have that belief because some power in the history of Christianity made it the rule of the hegemony." Pumu-pukol yan ng Foucault.

Yan ang sinasabi nung matandang Keller. They will reject pero ang undercurrent nyan is nagtatayo sila ng despotism na sila yung despot. Magvi-virtue signal yan na may disdain sa power pero deep inside, that very power is what they are salivating at.

Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (June 8, 2017): Ang Diyos dapat may pinanggalingan din || John Pesebre

Question 1: What is the brief statement of the doubt?

Hindi ko na siguro mabilang ang mga written questions na aking natatanggap sa mga youth camps kung saan ako nag conduct ng apologetics. Ginu-grupo ko sila sa uri ng katanungan at malimit maari mo syang maigrupo sa 7 na categories. Pero isa sa pinakamarami ay ang katanungang “Saan nanggaling ang Diyos.” Ano ang brief statement of the doubt natin ngayon? I will try to put it this way: “Ang Diyos dapat may pinanggalingan din.”

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

Nauunawaan ko po na ang objection or doubt na ito ay humihingi ng paliwanag. Ang kalimitan na premise nito ay, kung lahat ng bagay ay may pinanggalingan, saan naman nanggaling ang Diyos. It is a question of cause. Parang what is that caused God to exist.
Ika nga ng isang tanyag na athest na pumanaw na a few years ago na si Christopher Hitchens, “the postulate of a designer or creator only raises the unanswerable question of who designed the designer or created the creator. Religion and theology… have consistently failed to overcome this objection.”* Ayun din kay Rebecca Goldstein, “Who caused God? [Theists offer] a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to God himself. Ilan lamang po yan sa mga kilalang mga personalities who pose this argument na tulad ng mga tanong ng Christian youth sa mga camps.

Naunawaan ko din ang problemang hatid ng objection na hindi kayang ipaliwanag ng believer ang pinanggalingan ng Diyos kasi para siyang yung sinasabi din ni Goldstein na nagbibigay tayo ng paliwanag sa pinanggalingan ng mga bagay bagay pero pag Diyos na bawal tanungin. So hindi sufficient na explanation yan sa mga nagsasaliksik. Kulang.

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

Hindi po totoo na dapat ang Diyos ay may pinanggalingan din.

Question 4: How is it wrong?

I affirm ko muna po ang commitment ng Christianity dito para naman makita natin ang pinanghahawakang katotohan ng Christianity patungkol sa kalikasan ng Panginoon. There is an important detail to consider when asking the question, “Where did God come from?” or “Who created God?” Ang ina-affirm  ng mga believers ay ang Panginoon ay infinite at everlasting, so nangangahulugan na hindi Siya saklaw ng katanungang “Sino ang lumikha sa Kanya?” This question is appropriate only for created being. Some of the many verses that affirm the truth of an Eternal God include Deuteronomy 33:27 which says, “The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms.” And  Isaiah 40:28 “The everlasting God...will not grow tired or weary...he gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak.”
By way of refutation, it is best to evaluate the question and see its assumptions. The statement “Ang Diyos dapat may pinanggalingan din.” assumes that God has a beginning.

To say that God has a beginning is to say God isn’t God so the question or the statement is actually meaningless. Para mong sinabi na “Ang square dapat may tatlong corners.”

The question where does something come from is a question in the realm of created order, such as we’d ask “Where did this tree come from?” or “Where do granite rocks come from?” Sa history ng Judeo-Christian belief, hindi pa nagkaroon ng idea na ang Diyos ay may manlilikha. So kung ikaw ay tatanungin ng ganito it is better to ask the one asking the question if he understands the nature of God in Christianity.

Question 5: What wrong idea about God is this doubt trying to create?

As is typical nowadays, this doubt presents a created god which is no god at all. And as such kung wala namang diyos, we are no longer accountable sa diyos. Worse, we do not have the gift of salvation form the Eternal God who wll bless His people with Eternal Life.

Question 6: What is the Biblical teaching about God that recuperates this wrong idea about God?

Read Psalm 103:16-17

• As for man, his days are like grass; he flourishes like a flower of the field; for the wind passes over it, and it is gone, and its place knows it no more. But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children's children, to those who keep his covenant and remember to do his commandments.

In this verse we see not only attributes but the eternal quality of those attributes.

Question 7: What application can you draw from this correct teaching about God?

Study the verse: How is man described in terms of his longevity in this world? How is the steadfast love of God described?
Meditate: How is being eternal an important characteristic of God and His attributes for you?

Question 8: What action point can you resolve to do at this point?

As is common to believers, lagi tayong naeengganyo sa pandaraya ng mundo na nakakalimutan nating sariwain ang buhay na walang hanggan na biyaya ng Panginoon. Isa sa mga paraan para manariwa ito sa atin ay ang pag awit sa ating devotion ng mga papuri sa Kanya. Malimit ang ating daily devotion siguro ay walang awitan. Sariwain natin ang kaluwalhatian ng Panginoon sa pag-awit.


-------------
*God is not Great, 71.

Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo: Matthew 27:50-54 was not a historical event. || John Pesebre

May mga ilang Christians na nagsasabi na hindi daw historical event yung Matthew 27:50-54. Na pang tila baga cinematic effect lang 'yon.

Question 1: What is the brief statement of the doubt?

Minsan ang objection ay naglalaman ng maraming lamang salita, kaya nararapat lamang na i-analyze mo ito ng maayos at kung may ma identify kang maraming issue, okay lang na pumili ka ng isa o di kaya’y yung buod ng sinasabi sa pagkaunawa mo, and then ibalik mo sa kanya kung accurate ang pagkasabi mo. Ganito ang ginawa ko sa isa kong kausap na si Dominic. Eto ang una niyang sinabi,

• Wondering what happened to those dead jews who rose from their graves and walked towards jerusalem. ( Matt 27:50-54 ). Did they join their families and lived a few more years ? How could their families even recognize them ? Had their death certificates been invalidated because they were resurrected ? what happened to their rotting bodies ? and how could they even walk ?

 Ang statement ng doubt na binalik ko sa kanya na nag agree naman siya is ganito: “Ang concern mo ba Dominic is that this looks too mythical to be historical? Parang you were setting up a few criteria doon to validate or invalidate if it was indeed a historical event.” So for question 1 natin dito, eto ang statement ng doubt: “Matthew 27:50-54 was not a historical event.”

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

It is understandable that atheists would throw doubts on this event. The notion that Jesus’ resurrection did not happen has simply gone since the death of Christ. So this question does not have any features of novelty or uniqueness. Which then leads us to this portion in Matthew na tila baga pruweba ng kawei-weirdohan ng Christianity. Tama na banggitin nila na ang mga earliest surviving Greek manuscripts natin ng Gospel of Matthew really have this text and not one of the early church fathers disputed its authenticity.
It is important to note that well known conservative Christians scholars like Dr. Mike Licona suggests that this was just an apocalyptic device that is poetic rather than historical. Sabi niya, “It seems best to regard this difficult text in Matthew as a poetic device added to communicate that the Son of God had died and that impending judgment awaited Israel.”* Symbolical siya at hindi historical. So it is not only the atheists who wrestle with the weight of this issue.

Malaki ang problema din natin kaya malaking issue ito. One reason is that if this is a fabrication, and if it is obvious that it is a fabrication and yet Christians still believe it, then Christians have committed intellectual suicide rendering them as devoid of any intellectual integrity.

Another reason would be, such intellectual suicide proves that Christians have blind faith and it offends modern rational man that such nonsense still permeates us today.

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

Actually there are strong arguments that Matthew 27:50-54 is a historical event.

Question 4: How is it wrong?

Let’s make a few affirmation. Ayon sa John 16:13 with Jesus speaking to the apostles, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.” From the perspective of the Gospel writers, they are writing a truthful account of events surrounding Jesus’ life on earth. They were writing as eyewitnesses or heavily dependent on eyewitness accounts. J. Warner Wallace writes,

• It’s interesting the strategy used by the apostles to share the truth of Christianity was consistent with their role as eyewitnesses. When the apostles chose to share what they believed with the unbelievers in their midst, they did so by proclaiming the truth of the resurrection and their own status as eyewitnesses. This is consistent throughout the Book of Acts. The apostles identified themselves as eyewitnesses, shared the truth as eyewitnesses, and eventually wrote the Gospels as eyewitnesses. 

Some of you might say that not all of the accounts in the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses such as Mark and Luke. But Wallace is saying that the “apostles” were eyewitnesses. That is the key feature of the writing. Moreover all these Gospels were written at the time when the apostles and eyewitnesses were still alive to verify. In 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul writes down a hymn he received from the apostles that included the resurrection of Christ. Napaka unlikely na Paul would write it down na may mga tao nga na tumutuligsa sa authenticity nya as apostle. Ang punto ko is, magbibigay pa ng kasinungalingan sii Paul -- eh di lalo na siyang napulaan kasi nga wala namang magku confirm na eyewitnesses sa claim nya na nag resurrect si Kristo. Subalit ano ginawa ni Pablo? Iniisa isa pa niya yung mga taong pwedeng kumpirmahan ng nakakabasa,

• and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.  Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (vv5-8) 

Sabi ni Kristo sa John 16:13 ay He will guide the apostles into all truth. And it suits well sa commitment ng mga apostles to include this story kasi it was the truth.

By way naman of refutation or negative apologetics, ang knowledge claim ng mga kritiko should be substantiated. What I have observed coming from both atheists at yung ibang mga Christians is that hindi porke walang record na nangyari ang isang event ay hindi na ito nangyari. Maraming nangyari sa buhay natin ang walang historical record pero they actually happened. Sa kaso na ito sa Matthew, we have a record from apostolic witness and others that became part of an oral tradition ng isang community na isa sa mga major features ng kanilang pananampalataya is trustworthiness because they are serving a trustworthy God. Moreover, napaka crucial netong kwento na ito para imbentuhin lang sa literary unit ng Gospels. Pinapakita dito ang kakayanan ng Panginoon na magpanumbalik ng pisikal na buhay, hindi lang ng spiritual. Kaya naman ang suspicion na hindi ito nangyari ay tila baga galing lang sa pagdududa at hindi sa kabuuang mensahe at pagtatala ng kasaysayan na nais ibahagi ng ebanghelyo.

Question 5: What wrong idea about God is this doubt trying to create?

Napakatagal na ng kasaysayan natin na makakita at makarinig ng mga tao na punung-puno ng panunugayaw o disdain sa ating Panginoon. Sa doubt natin ngayon ay punto is that God is untrustworthy or a trickster that produces writers who are also untrustworthy and tricksters. In the end sa totoo lang, sa tingin ko the main argument for them is that God does not exist.

Question 6: What is the Biblical teaching about God that recuperates this wrong idea about God?

God is a God of truth. In Psalm 95:4-5 this is what the Psalmist says, “Make me to know your ways, O Lord; teach me your paths. Lead me in your truth and teach me,for you are the God of my salvation; for you I wait all the day long.” Here you have an affirmation of the Psalmist’s understanding of what God can give him -- the truth.

Question 7: What application can you draw from this correct teaching about God?

Sa verse na ‘yan, ano ang mga hinihiling ng Psalmist bukod sa katotohanan? Sino ang Diyos sa Kanya? Ano ang gagawin niya para makamit ang kaniyang kahilingan?

You can meditate on this verse by answering the question: What petition can I humbly ask God to reveal to me about a struggle that I have right now? How important is that to you?

Question 8: What action point can you resolve to do at this point?

A common habit that believers should develop in terms of daily prayer is petitioning God to reveal something. Usually it is something that causes uneasiness and anxiety to us. As you pray daily, may you continue to ask God that you grow in understanding and wisdom with what is going on with your life.

(Photo Credit)

-------
*The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 553

Kaliwanagan kay Kristo: "Christians are obligated to do snake-handling" || John Pesebre

How about handling venomous snakes on Lord's Day?

Question 1: What is the brief statement of the doubt?

Yung atheist ko na kababayan at kaibigan na si Homar ay nagtanong sa kanyang Fb wall, “Bakit yung mga mainstream Christians hindi ginagawa yung nasa Mark 16:18?” The verse says, “[T]hey will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” Ang dahilan ni Homar ay dahil sa tila utos ito sa Bible na dapat sinusunod, bakit hindi ito ginagawa ngayon ng mga Christians? So ang doubt ay, “Christians are obligated to do snake-handling.”

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

Note ko lang po na ang questions 1 and 2 are in the main heading na hear kung saan sisikapin nating bigyan ng open mindedness and intellectual fairness ang kausap natin by understanding yung nature, source at problem ng objection na pini-present niya.

Ulitin ko lang po, ang snake handling ay isang religious ritual kung saan bahagi ng worship activity ang pagpapatuka sa ahas bilang tugon sa Mark 16:18. Wala po akong alam na gumagawa neto sa Pilipinas kaya marahi magtanong po kayo kung bakit ito ang tinatalakay natin.

Sa pagkaunawa ko ng tanong it is not really on the moral issue ng snake handling kasi pareho ako at ang atheist na kaibigan ko nagsasabi na hindi proper na gawain ito ng tao kung di ka naman professional. So ang nature ng tanong is not really about snake-handling, but something else. Ang sinasabi po ng nagtanong is that kung totoo na ang mga Christians ay obedient, bakit hindi nila sinasama ang pagsunod na ito.

Ang mga allegations na ganito ay kilala na history ng Christianity kung saan kukuha ang isang tao ng isang utos sa Bibliya at ipapakita sa Christian na hindi niya sinusunod. When I say moral argument, I mean “an argument with a conclusion that expresses a moral claim.” Ang moral claim ay isang requirement na dapat sundin ng mga tao dahil sa hindi pagsunod neto ay nangangahulugang mali. So sa kaso netong “snake-handling” si Homar ay nagsasabi na it is right for me as a Christian to obey what the Bible says, but I am not pursuing to obey snake-handling.

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

Hindi po totoo na obligado ang Christian to do snake handling based on this verse.

Question 4: How is it wrong?

Remind ko lang po na sa Question 4 may 2-point outline po kayo na dapat susugin. Una yung tinatawag nating positive apologetics where you affirm your belief in the presence of objection.
Pangalawa naman ay yung negative apologetics kung saan nire-refute nyo naman head on yung content nung objection. Sa positive apologetics po ganito po muna ang gagawin natin sa objection na ito ng snake handling, we will affirm what we believe concerning this issues raised in this objection. Una, we do not put God to the test (Matthew 4:7; cf. Deuteronomy 6:16). Sabi ng isang apologetics site,

•  Trying to force God’s hand by requiring that He perform an obvious miracle is more than foolish; it is sinful. To test God’s presence and power by purposely placing oneself in an unsafe situation is expressly forbidden in Scripture. Daniel did not seek out the lions, but when he found himself surrounded by them, through no fault of his own, he found God was there. Likewise, we trust God in dangerous situations, but we never purposely seek out danger.

Pangalawa, isa sa mga paraan ng lang interpreters para ma downplay ang authoritative credibility ng text na ito is to go sa integrity ng original manuscript. They will argue na ang oldest natin na complete manuscript ng book of Mark ends sa Verse 8. Yung pinakamatanda nating complete copy ng New Testament at Gospel of Mark do not include anything after verse 8. In fact meron tayong copy hanggang 12th century na wala na after verse 8. So base sa interpretation na ito, hindi obligado ang mga believers sundin ang utos ng verse na ito kasi it is based on a questionable na bahagi ng Scripture.

Pangatlo, pero granting na bahagi nga siya ng inspired text, wala ka namang makikitang utos sa verse but merely a description.

Pangapat, and granting ulit na bahagi siya ng inspired text, ang mga verses na ito ay na fulfill sa Acts 28:3-5.

Personally, I would preach on this verse on the conditions nung 3rd at 4th na reasons. Ang sign provides warrant o patunay sa early ministry ng mga apostles. Kumbaga, just as Jesus would show signs of His authority by signs and wonders, the apostles’ authority also was also authenticated by signs and wonders.

By way of refutation sa nature ng question, I would say that the questions comes from a lack of understanding ng conversation that I just presented. Ang tanong ay nag aakala na ang verse is a direct command.

Question 5: What wrong idea about God is this doubt trying to create?

Ang susunod na questions 5 and 6 at nasa Heal na heading and they focus on taking the conversation on the nature ng idolatry na tinatarget ng objection at yung pagkokorek ng Word of God sa idea na yan.

Sa Question 5 na ito, medyo malinaw sa akin na ang idea ng Diyos na binubuo ng katanungan ay isang Diyos na taskmaster lang. Ang taskmaster ay yung tao na nakabantay palagi para masiguro na ang mga nagtatrabaho ay nakakaranas ng paghihirap. Sa kasong ito, tayo ang naghihirap at ang diyos ay ang taskmaster na ang concern ay sa trabaho natin at hindi sa atin.

Question 6: What is the Biblical teaching about God that recuperates this wrong idea about God?

Sa Matthew 11:28 kasi we read, “"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.” Mapapansin natin dito na hindi single-minded focused ang Panginoon sa pag accomplish ng mga tasks like we are some capitalist tools of production.

Question 7: What application can you draw from this correct teaching about God?

Study Matthew 11:28 by answering these questions: 1) Who is speaking in the verse? 2) Ano ang hinihingi ng speaker sa verse?” 3) Ano ang kundisyon ng kanyang tinatawag? 4) Ano ang ibibigay ng speaker sa mga lumalapit sa kanya?
Meditate: Instead of testing God like nung gustong iparating ng objection, ano ang dapat ba na ginagawa mo tungkol sa relasyon sa Panginoon?

Question 8: What action point can you resolve to do at this point?

Ang paghingi ng kapatawaran sa mga kasalanan ay isang act of humility. Ang pagte test sa Panginoon, unless sinabi niya, ay isang kasalanan. Kapag tayo ay may pag aagam agam sa kapangyarihan ng Panginoon, o sa Kanyang presensya, we always take the posture of humility kasi Siya ang ating manlilikha. Sa iyong pang-araw araw na prayer, gawin mong habit ang lumapit sa kanya ng may pagpapakumbaba.

(Photo Credit)

Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo: Christian faith is blind faith || John Pesebre

(Credit)

Question 1: What is the brief statement of the doubt?

Ayon sa kaibigan at kaklase ni Bella sa university na ang pananampalataya daw ni Bella sa Diyos ay “blind faith.” Ang “blind faith,” according sa Dictionary.com means “belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination.” Kumbaga, ang pananampalataya Kristiyano daw ay bulag na pagsunod sa mga utos at tayong mga mananampalataya ay tumatalima na walang pagkaunawa sa ating sinusunod. Christian faith is blind faith -- yan po ang maikling statement na atin pong tatalakayin ngayon.

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

Naglipana ang mga ideas na ganito sa internet.  Tulad na lang netong isang comment na ito sa Facebook na tinalakay ni author Tom Gilson. Ang comment ay ganito, “The core problem is that religion teaches that holding absolute beliefs without evidence (aka faith) is a virtue.”

Ayon sa kilalang atheist at biologist na is Richard Dawkins, "Faith is belief witout and against evidence and reason; coincidentally that's also the definition of delusion.”

Kung totoo ang mga sinasabing ito, at marami talaga yan, ang ating pananampalataya ay hindi reasonable. Hindi mo kailangan ang isipan mo. Intellectual suicide ang mangyayari sa’yo kapag naging Christian ka.

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

Hindi po totoo na ang pananampalatayang Kristiyano ay “blind faith.”

Question 4: How is it wrong?

Unang una po, ang Christian faith ay nagpapaptotoo sa isang objective source and foundation para sa knowledge, reason and rationality. Kumbaga may pinag uusapan tayo objectively is falsifiable. Hindi po falsified kundi falsifiable. Ang falsifiable po means may “inherent possibility that it can be proven false.” So one can argue that God doesn’t exist, or one can argue that God does exist. Ngayon how you craft your argument justifies your claim. Ang Diyos natin ay lumikha ng universe para mag reflect ng coherent na order, and he made man in his image na may rational capacity to discover yang intelligible na organization na yan. Kaya naman ang logic at rationality ay key feature ng Christianity all though the centuries.

Pangalawa, ang mga kini-claim na katotohanan ng mga Kristiyano do not violate the basic laws of reason. Ang pananampalatayang Kristiyano at mga paniniwala (tulad ng Trinity at Incarnation), though medyo mahirap siyang unawain hindi nangangahulugan na wala silang rational na paliwanag. Makailang siglo na ring pinag usapan at dinipensahan ang mga beliefs na yan sa Church.

Pangatlo, ang Salita ng Diyos mismo ang humihimok sa atin patungo sa katalinuhan at pagkaunawa, tulad ng sinasabi sa Job 28:28 at sa Prov. 1:7 na nagsasabi, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” Ang Bible din ang nagpo-promote ng mga intellectual virtues such as discernment, testing at reflection, tulad ng sinasabi sa Acts 17:11, 1 Thess. 5:21 at Colossians 2: 8 na nagsasabi, “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits[a] of the world, and not according to Christ.”
Pang-apat, ang mga katotohanan ng Christian faith ay nagku correspond at supported by evidence, facts and reasons. Ang Greek word for faith ay maaring idefine as

• a confident trust in a reliable, reasonable, and viable source (God or Christ). Faith (or belief) is a necessary component of knowledge and reason since a person must believe something in order to know it. Yet reason can be properly used to evaluate, confirm, and buttress faith. Faith and reason therefore function in a complementary fashion. While reason in and of itself, apart from God's special grace, cannot cause faith, the use of reason is normally a part of a person's coming to faith, and serves to support faith in innumerable ways. In summary, faith is foundational to reason and reason can serve to evaluate or confirm faith. 

Question 5: What wrong idea about God is this doubt trying to create?

Ultimately po, ang attack na ito sa Christianity wants to paint a god that doesn’t exist o kung mayroon mang diyos, isang diyos-diyosan na tila baga walang kaalama alam kung bakit niya ginawa ang isipan ng tao. O kaya hindi niya inaasahan na tatalino ang tao at yayabong ang kanyang katalinuhan. Ito’y isang diyos-diyosan na galit din sa ating paggamit ng ating kaisipan kasi ang importante ay mabuhay na hindi ginagamit ito.

Question 6: What is the Biblical teaching about God that recuperates this wrong idea about God?

Read 1 John 1:1-3 and translate it in your own words.

• That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ.

In this verse, naglalahad si Apostol Juan na ang kanyang tinuturo at sasampalatayanan ng mga Christians ay hindi blind faith.

Question 7: What application can you draw from this correct teaching about God?

Answer the following: Ano ang criteria ng verification ang inisa-isa ni Juan patungkol sa encounter niya kay Jesus? Ano si Kristo sa mga verses na ito?

Meditate on this: Why is it important to you that your faith is not blind faith, but reasonable faith?

Question 8: What action point can you resolve to do at this point?

Ang ating pananampalataya ay faith na nakatuntong sa realidad ng buhay. We are to live in this reality of God in our lives. One of the ways we can do this is constant practice in the presence of God by constant prayer.