Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo (May 18, 2017): The Resurrection Was an Invention of the Gospel Writers || JOHN PESEBRE

(Credit)

Sa isang simpleng usapan sa campus a week before the Holy Week break, pinag uusapan ni Troy at ng kaibigan niya na skeptic ang resurrection ni Kristo. Objection ng kaibigan ni Troy, “What if the New Testament writers invented the story of the resurrection?”

Napaka common po na objection ito sa resurrection event ng ating Panginoon. Ito po ang ating tatalakayin ngayon: "The resurrection was an invention of the gospel writers."

Ang doubt na ito ay galing sa mga nagku-question ng historicity ng physical resurrection ng Panginoong Hesus. Gustong sabihin hindi sila naniniwala na nabuhay ulit si Kristo in physical form, meaning able to be verified by the five senses. Para sa mga atheist na tulad nila Richard Carrier, walang actual reference yung resurrection sa isang event.

Sabi ni Carrier, ang resurrection daw ay

• an article of faith, an affirmation that is supposed to follow nothing other than a personal revelation of Christ--not to be believed on hearsay, but experienced for oneself . . . I do not believe this is a reliable way to come to a true understanding of the world, as internal experience only tells us about ourselves and not the truth of the world outside of us . . . I don't see any reason to buy the resurrection story found in the Gospels.

Imbento lang siya. All in all may necessity siya na kailangan punuan, kaya sila gumawa ng kwento na nilagay nila sa literature form.

Ang problema na dala-dala neto sa mga Christians is that if this is true, mukhang iba ang understanding natin ng truth. Lumalabas na kasinungalingan siya pero pinaniniwalaan na lang natin na totoo kasi ay pakinabang sa atin o nakagisnan na lang natin. Kumbaga we believe the resurrection for our convenience at hindi siya commitment sa truth.

Hindi po inimbento ng mga Gospel writers ang resurrection.

Sa tingin ko hindi nauunawaan ng objector na marami na pong mga Christians bago po naisulat ang pinakaunang Gospel.  We’re talking a few thousands. Si Rodney Stark, isa sa mga nangungunang buhay na historians ngayon, nagbigay ng chart sa kanyang aklat Rise of Christianity that indicates na between AD50-100 rose from 1,450 to 7,530. In the next 50 years, it exploded to 40, 496 and continued a strong growth onwards. Sa madaling salita, bago pa man naisulat ang New Testament literature, mayroon nang maraming Christians. Pero pwede ring sabihin na, “Hindi pa sila naniniwala nun sa resurrection. Inimbento lang yun later na nung nagsimula silang sumulat.”

Tandaan natin na isa sa mga pinanghahawakang commitments ng mga first century believers ay within the lifetime of the apostles and eyewitnesses. Sa madaling salita yung sustansya ng commitment nila is nakita nila -- ang sustansya na yan ay ang nakita mismo nila si Kristo.

It was a criterion din especially ng mga apostles. Sab ni Apostol Juan --

• 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— 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— that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you (1 John 1:1-3)

Tinatataya pa ni Apostol Pablo ang kanyang pagka apostol sa truthfulness ng resurrection sa 1 Corinthians 15

• For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Bakit tinaya ni apostol Pablo ang kanyang pagka apostol dito? Kasi may mga matitinding opposers si Paul sa Corinthians. At kung magsasabi siya na nabuhay si Kristo at hindi naman, at kung mayroon pang mga witnesses doon at wala naman, at kung let us say mga witnesses nga sila pero wala naman silang nakitang resurrection, eh di lalong malilintikan si Pablo sa mga opposers niya.

Eyewitness accounts were crucial for the understanding of the resurrection both of the validity of the faith of the early church and the authority of the apostles.

Gusto ko ding banggitin ang affirmation ng Christianity concerning the resurrection na ang resurrection ay hindi produkto ng fictitious literature but a historical event. Bukod sa napaka explicit na teaching sa Gospel na ang Panginoon ay nagkatawang tao, sa kasulatan din ni Apostol Pablo makikita natin ang kanyang pagkaunawa ng kahalagahan nito, “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Cor 15:14).

Sinundan itong commitment na ito ng mga church fathers. Sabi ni Clement of Rome,

• Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead” (Letter to Corinthians). 

 Binanggit din ni Justin Martyr na

• And the Word, being His Son, came to us, having put on flesh, revealing both Himself and the Father, giving to us in Himself resurrection from the dead, and eternal life afterwards.” (“On the Resurrection”).  

It is interesting to note that all of the church father talked about the resurrection of Jesus.

If the argument the “New Testament writers invented the resurrection” is true, then God is just a social construct, at mukhang acceptable ito na hindi ethical issue. Yung mga apostol na nagtuturo ng pagmamahal sa katotohanan ay promotor pala ng kasinungalingan. So in this case, the wrong idea of God that this is trying to say is that there is no god at all. God is fictitious.

Ayon kay Apostol Pablo sa 1 Corinthians 15:3-8,

• For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,  and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Ang portion na ito ay tinaguriang earliest creed ng Christianity. Ito po ay buod ng pinaniniwalaan ng mga mananampalataya noon. It was around AD54 that Paul wrote this at kung creed nga ito, this have been circulating before that. Kinokorek ng verse na ito ang panukala ng doubt sa episode na ito by emphasizing na meron nang existing na commitment ang mga Christians sa resurrection even before the writings of Paul. It was the event that made the NT writings, not the other way around.

What does "Provenance" in 4H Apologetics, Question 2 Mean? || JOHN PESEBRE (Under Construction)

Ang Question 2 sa 4H Apologetics na nagtatanong, "Where did this doubt come from"? offers two areas -- one is history and one is hugot. Ang naka indicate na letters sa 4H worksheet ay dalawang letter P's. Ang mga P na ito ay nangangahulugang

1. Provenance
2. Problem

 Ang dalawang ito ang gagawin mo sa Question 2 ng Heal. 

Provenance

This one focuses on the history of the idea. Provenance means "the place of origin or earliest known history of something." 

Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo May 16, 2017 "Christianity does not need to be defended!" || John Pesebre

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

“Christianity does not need to be defended!” asserts one participant in Q&A portion of a seminar that Pastor Jules conducted where he made mention of extending “reproof” in 2 Timothy 3:16 to people who have objections for our faith. From time to time I come across well-meaning believers who say “Christianity does not need to be defended!” I do not doubt their sincerity on their commitment on the strong foundation of Christianity. I’m just a little concerned that this statement runs against very clear biblical instructions on apologetics. This is our topic for today.

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

Provenance. It was the great Baptist preacher to whom we get acquainted with the statement “let the lion out of the cage.” The main idea here is hindi na natin kailangang ipagtanggol ang lion dahil kailangan na lang siyang pakawalan. May mga tao tulad nung nagtanong kay Pastor Jules na ito ang kanilang argumento. It is anchored in the fact that the Bible is a very powerful document, given by God and will stand on its own without our assistance by defending it.

Problem. I understand yung problem na naki-create ng doubt na ito sa Christianity at apologetics. Kung totoo na hindi nga dapat idefend ang Christianity maaaring mangahulugan na passive ang mga Christians sa mga intelligent na conversation that asserts the trustworthiness either ng Diyos o ng mensahe ng Christianity.

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

It is not true that “Christianity does not need to be defended!”

Question 4: How is it wrong?

By way of affirming the Christian belief, we arere instructed by the Word of God to give a defense. Sabi sa 1 Peter 3:15 “[B]ut in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” Sabi nga ng isang article sa GotQuestions.org,

• The only way to do this effectively is to study the reasons why we believe what we believe. This will prepare us to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ,” as Paul said we should (2 Corinthians 10:5). Paul practiced what he preached; in fact, defending the faith was his regular activity (Philippians 1:7). He refers to apologetics as an aspect of his mission in the same passage (v.16). He also made apologetics a requirement for church leadership in Titus 1:9. Jude, an apostle of Jesus, wrote that "although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (v.3).

Saan daw ito nakuha ng mga apostol na idea ay walang iba kung hindi sa Panginoon mismo. Dagdag ng article,

• Jesus was His own apologetic, as He often stated that we should believe in Him because of the evidence He provided (John 2:23; 10:25; 10:38; 14:29). In fact, the whole Bible is full of divine miracles that confirm what God wants us to believe (Exodus 4:1-8; 1 Kings 18:36-39; Acts 2:22-43; Hebrews 2:3-4; 2 Corinthians 12:12). People rightly refuse to believe something without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, we should not be surprised when He expects us to live rationally. As Norman Geisler says, “This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of evidence, rather than to leap in the dark.”

By war of refutation lang sa Spurgeon reference, ang punto dun ni Spurgeon ay doon sa mga nagde defend na hindi naman nagpapaliwanag ng Gospel at exposition ng Scripture. Ika nga ni Spurgeon sa isa niyang sermon, “A great many learned men are defending the gospel; no doubt it is a very proper and right thing to do.” So para kay Spurgeon, “the best ‘apology’ for the gospel is to let the gospel out.”*

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

Kung ang mga mananampalataya ay hindi magiging concerned sa pagtutuwid sa maling pananaw lalabas niyan ay tila baga naniniwala tayo na ang Diyos ay walang pagpapahalaga sa kanyang katotohanang pinahayag.

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

Ayon sa isang kilalang Bible expositor at theologian na si John Walvoord,

• “If God is infinite in His wisdom and is the Creator of all things, He is obviously greater than what He created. The question must be faced as to whether such a Creator would desire to communicate to His creatures. Those who believe in God as Creator generally believe that He created for the purpose of revealing Himself and to display His infinite perfections. This explains how God has revealed Himself in nature.†

Ayon sa 2 Timothy 1:13-14, “Hold to the standard of sound words that you heard from me and do so with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Protect that good thing entrusted to you, through the Holy Spirit who lives within us.” Ang Diyos na ating sinasamba at minamahal ay may kapahayagang panghawakan natin ang katotohanang ating natanggap galing sa salita ng Diyos.

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

As you read 2 Timothy 1:13-14, answer the following: 1) Ano daw ang panghahawakan ng mga believers? 2)Ano daw ang dapat gawin sa ipinagkatiwalang “standard of sound words”? 3) Sino at sa pamamagitan Nino ito ipinagkatiwala sa atin?

By way of meditation, reflect on this question: “Sa anong bagay hindi mo napapangalagaan ang pinagkatiwala sa’yo ng Panginoon na “standard of sound words”?

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

Marapat lamang na patuloy na yumaman sa pagtuklas sa katotohanan ng Salita ng Diyos. Gawin po nating daily habit ang pagbabasa at pagsusuri nito.

Endnotes

*  https://elliotritzema.com/2012/07/31/spurgeons-let-the-lion-out-of-the-cage-quote/
† https://bible.org/seriespage/1-spirit-work-revealing-truth

Calling, Identity and Self Understanding || John Pesebre

Tim Keller would regularly talk about relocating our identity. The book I'm reading now by Walter Marshall, _Gospel Mystery of Sanctfication_ puts a high premium on the "effectual means" or mga effectve na endowments ng Diyos for our own sanctification most especially that we "be well persuaded of our reconciliation with God, and of our future enjoyment of the everlasting heavenly happenings, and of sufficient strength both to will and perform all duties acceptably, until we come to the enjoyment of that happiness."

Naka connect din ang reflection ko na ito sa recent na readings ko kay Weber (_Spirit of Capitalism and the Protestant Work Ethic_) kung saan yung sociological analysis niya sa growth ng economy ng English empire was due to the spiritual identity that the Puritans have placed on the dignity of work rooted in their calling or vocation predestined by God. Para kay Weber, mere utilitarianism lang daw will never be able to sustain and account for this "spirit" to emerge out of a working class environment.

Yung work and progress daw naka ugat sa self-understanding ng mga tao kung ano sila at sino siila "sub specie aeternitatis" (under the perspectiive of eternity).

It is interesting to note that this was a counter-argument against the foundation of the economic theory of Marx na kailangan mo muna iset-up ang economic-material base ng isang society para ito mag progress and then saka ka gumawa ng religious super-structure. Kay Weber baliktad. Yung religion ang nagturo kung paano magkaroon ng stable na economic base dahil sa "spirit of capitalism" na resulta ng "Protestant work ethic."

To wrap it up, the saints of old (as is Keller) puts a high premium on our self-understanding as saved elect as the starting point of fruitful work. Para kay Marshall this type of thinking is ay bahagi ng "effectual means" na divine "endowment" sa atin. For Weber grappling with the causality ng sociological phenomenon ng capitalism, na trace niya itong self-understanding na ito as the "psychological stimulus to the development of their ethical attitude." He further explains, "The community of the elect with their God could only take place and be perceptible to them in that God worked (operatur) through them and that they were conscious of it. That is, their action originated from the faith caused by God’s grace, and this faith in turn justified itself by the quality of that action."

Kumbaga, they can know judge what is correct work and how to be motivated for that work based sa self-understanding na ito na sila ay "called" (German "beruf") by God and as such endowed by effectual means to His desired end.


#MorningPrinciples

CS Lewis said this about the value of praying,

"The moment you wake up each morning, all your wishes and hopes for the day rush at you like wild animals. And the first job each morning consists in shoving it all back; in listening to that other voice, taking that other point of view, letting that other, larger, stronger, quieter life come flowing in."

The philosopher Gilles Deleuze coined a phrase "societies of control" referring to the urban machinery that eats us up. We get cell phones and eventually we send our credit card numbers, put our pictures in it, talk/text to oir loved ones and clients etc. Later on we become so dependent on it that when it is taken away from us, our world suddenly feel empty.

While there are still many ways our modern society controls us, this control is not our creaturely design. The Bible calls these controllers as idols. The reason why we become anxious, or uneasy is our time is pretty much engaged in these idols that render us unsure about the most important thing in life -- our relationship with God. Our anxiety springs from the robbery that happened to us by these thief idols.

Paul has an exhortation to guard us on this problem and it is in Philippians 4:6-7

Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
Philippians 4:6‭-‬7

Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo: May 11, 2017 “People are not helped by Christians proving them wrong.” || John Pesebre

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

Sa isang Facebook post ng hashtag na #neighborology, nabasa ko ito -- “It does not help that the popular way people nowadays know of speaking the truth is by proving others wrong.” Magpo focus tayo dito sa idea that “People are not helped by Christians proving them wrong.”

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

Napaka influential ng mga katagang “They’re people that Jesus wants us to love. They aren’t statistics, they aren’t numbers, they aren’t possible conversions” na galing sa isang kilalang writer sa US. Ang mga statements na ito ay nagse set ng morality sa engagement ng mga Christians sa tao. Nararapat na magpakita ng pagmamahal. Kapag hindi mo ginawa yon, hindi proper na Christian behavior yan. Dagdag pa ng manunulat,

• [A] Christian is somebody who understands [John 13:35 on loving one another], who understands that people with different perspectives and different religious beliefs and convictions, they're to be loved and respected, because they're made by God, and they're sacred and they're valuable and they matter. God loves the world, so Christian does too. (Rob Bell, NOOMA Bullhorn [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005], 14)

Marami pa sana akong mga references to strengthen ang pinanggagalingan ng idea na ito ng #neighborology subalit in the interest ng time idiscuss ko na lang muna ang concern talaga nito para sa mga Christians. Ang problema na nais nyang solusyunan ay yung nakasanayan na daw ng mga Kristiyano na makipagtalo at makipagbangayan tungkol sa kanilang theology. Hindi daw ito nararapat sa setting na ngayon. Hindi na daw ito nakakatulong. It makes Christianity a people with an agenda.

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

Hindi po totoo na “People are not helped by Christians proving them wrong.” Although maari nating sabihin na meron talagang mga Christians na very vitriolic sa kanilang pag disprove pero this statement na “People are not helped by Christians proving them wrong” is actually not very helpful.

Question 4: How is it wrong?

By way of affirming our Christian commitment o tinatawag nating positive apologetics o yung pag-a-affirm ng isang bagay in the presence of objections, bahagi ng napakayamang pahayag ng Salita ng Diyos ang mag-reproof. Tulad nga ng nabanggit ko nung last episode, kasama pa yan sa profitability na dala ng “God-breathed” na Scripture: “reproof” sa 2 Timothy 3:16. Moreover idagdag ko lang na sa 2 Corinthians 10:5, eto ang sinasabi -- “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to robey Christ.” Kung inyo ding susuriin ang mga Old Testament prophets, tila baga sila mismo nakikipag duel pa to prove others wrong like si Isaiah sa Mt. Carmel.

By way of refuting naman ang statement ng #neighborology na “It does not help that the popular way people nowadays…” na idea nauunawaan ko na baka ang iniisip nila ay appropriate yang refutation na yan noon sa Old and New Testament pero ngayon hindi na. However ako mismo is an example of the ministry of refutation. Yung Tita Annie ko na nag share sa akin ng Gospel engaged me on the falsehood of my set of beliefs back when I was not yet a believer. Baka nga kayo rin, yung inyong maling commitments were confronted by the truth of the Gospel kaya nagkaroon kayo ng pagkakataong mag evaluate. Isa sa mga naalala kong crucial na moment sa akin is back then I did not think God would forgive me for my sins and experience divine love. Then I heard this radio broadcast ni Harold Sala quoting 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.” The verse is very straightforward about what God wants to carry out -- “let us reason together.” God was trying to refute wrong notions. So paanong hindi na relevant ang pag refute ngayon?

Moreover, si Brian Chilton discusses the following --

• Many have come to faith through intellectual argumentation for the faith. Among such converts include: C. S. Lewis (famed English professor and writer), Josh McDowell (author of countless Christian books), Lee Strobel (former legal editor of theChicago Tribune, atheist turned Christian pastor and writer), Fazale Rana (Christian biologist), and J. Warner Wallace (former Los Angeles cold-case homicide detective turned Christian apologist). These individuals only scratch the surface of those who have come to Christ because of the evidence for Christianity.

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

It makes God unconcerned about upholding truth of who He is and His creation. Parang Diyos na disconnected sa reality ng universe that He created. Ito yung diyos na matapos gawin ang universe ay umalis na. Napaka impersonal. Or pwede naman yung makalumang paniniwala nating mga Pilipino na yung mga bundok sa probinsiya ay mga actual na diyos na natutulog. Or yung mythological god ulit ng mga Griyego na si “Hypnos” na tulug nang tulog.

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

Read 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.” Here is God approaching Isaiah and asking the future prophet to reason with Him. Here we see a God who is refutes Isaiah’s wrong understanding.

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

Study Isaiah 1:18 and list down the wrong ideas in Isaiah’s mind that God was trying to correct?

Meditate on the passage by asking yourself “What are some of things in my mind and heart that I think God is trying to correct now?”

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

Notes on Foucault's Discourse on Knowledge || John Pesebre

ON OLD HISTORIOGRAPHY
For many years now historians have preferred to turn their attention to long periods, as if, beneath the shifts and changes of political events, they were trying to reveal the stable, almost indestructible system of checks and balances, the irreversible processes, the constant readjustments, the underlying tendencies that gather force, and are then suddenly reversed after centuries of continuity, the movements of accumulation and slow saturation, the great silent, motionless bases that traditional history has covered with a thick layer of events. The tools that enable historians to carry out this work of analysis are partly inherited and partly of their own making: models of economic growth, quantitative analysis of market movements, accounts of demographic expansion and contraction, the study of climate and its long-term changes, the fixing of sociological constants, the description of technological adjustments and of their spread and continuity. These tools have enabled workers in the historical field to distinguish various sedimentary strata; linear successions, which for so long had been the object of research, have given way to discoveries in depth. (p3)

ON INTERRUPTIONS IN OLD HISTORIOGRAPHY
At about the same time, in the disciplines that we call the history of ideas, the history of science, the history of philosophy, the history of thought, and the history of literature (we can ignore their specificity for the moment), in those disciplines which, despite their names, evade very largely the work and methods of the historian, attention has been turned, on the contrary, away from vast unities like ‘periods’ or ‘centuries’ to the phenomena of rupture, of discontinuity. Beneath the great continuities of thought, beneath the solid, homogeneous manifestations of a single mind or of a collective mentality, beneath the stubborn development of a science striving to exist and to reach completion at the very outset, beneath the persistence of a particular genre, form, discipline, or theoretical activity, one is now trying to detect the incidence of interruptions. Interruptions whose status and nature vary considerably. There are the epistemological acts and thresholds described by Bachelard: they suspend the continuous accumulation of knowledge, interrupt its slow development, and force it to enter a new time, cut it off from its empirical origin and its original motivations, cleanse it of its imaginary complicities; they direct historical analysis away from the search for silent beginnings, and the never-ending tracing-back to the original precursors, towards the search for a new type of rationality the archaeology 4 of knowledge and its various effects. There are the displacements and transformations of concepts: the analyses of G. Canguilhem may serve as models; they show that the history of a concept is not wholly and entirely that of its progressive refinement, its continuously increasing rationality, its abstraction gradient, but that of its various fields of constitution and validity, that of its successive rules of use, that of the many theoretical contexts in which it developed and matured. There is the distinction, which we also owe to Canguilhem, between the microscopic and macroscopic scales of the history of the sciences, in which events and their consequences are not arranged in the same way: thus a discovery, the development of a method, the achievements, and the failures, of a particular scientist, do not have the same incidence, and cannot be described in the same way at both levels; on each of the two levels, a different history is being written. Recurrent redistributions reveal several pasts, several forms of connexion, several hierarchies of importance, several networks of determination, several teleologies, for one and the same science, as its present undergoes change: thus historical descriptions are necessarily ordered by the present state of knowledge, they increase with every transformation and never cease, in turn, to break with themselves (in the field of mathematics, M. Serres has provided the theory of this phenomenon). There are the architectonic unities of systems of the kind analysed by M. Guéroult, which are concerned not with the description of cultural influences, traditions, and continuities, but with internal coherences, axioms, deductive connexions, compatibilities. Lastly, the most radical discontinuities are the breaks effected by a work of theoretical transformation ‘which establishes a science by detaching it from the ideology of its past and by revealing this past as ideological’.1 To this should be added, of course, literary analysis, which now takes as its unity, not the spirit or sensibility of a period, nor ‘groups’, ‘schools’, ‘generations’, or ‘movements’, nor even the personality of the author, in the interplay of his life and his ‘creation’, but the particular structure of a given oeuvre, book, or text. (pp4-5)

ON MAKING NEW FOUNDATIONS
And the great problem presented by such historical analyses is not how continuities are established, how a single pattern is formed and preserved, how for so many different, successive minds there is a single horizon, what mode of action and what substructure is implied by the interplay of transmissions, resumptions, disappearances, and repetitions, how the origin may extend its sway well beyond itself to that conclusion that is never given – the problem is no longer one of tradition, of tracing a line, but one of division, of limits; it is no longer one of lasting foundations, but one of transformations that serve as new foundations, the rebuilding of foundations. (p5)

Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo: May 9, 2017 - "Refutation is not a Christian practice” || John Pesebre

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

Naka-attend recently si Ludy, isang bank teller who became a Christian nung High School ng ilang apologetics seminar at nagkaroon ng pagkakataon na masagot ang mga persistent doubts niya sa kanyang pananampalataya since High School. Nang magsimula siyang mag-grow sa kanyang mga commitments, nagsimulang ma revive ang kanyang evangelistic ministry sa work by doing apologetics. When one of her co-employees who was also a Christian heard her strategy, sinabihan siya na, “Ludy, hindi maganda na parang gusto lang nating talunin ang mga kausap natin via arguments. Hindi biblical ang mag refute ng mga tao. Share them Christ.” Sa episode po na ito, we will limit our discussion sa idea “Refutation is not a Christian practice.”

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

Hindi madaling susugin as a system of thought ang objection na “Refuation is not a Christian practice.” However dito sa Pilipinas, may mga dominant voices na ito ang proposal. Sa isang Facebook post na na hashtag na #neighborology,  ito ang nakasulat: “It does not help that the popular way people nowadays know of speaking the truth is by proving others wrong. You cannot love your neighbor and look at him/her as an opponent to be defeated with arguments meant to be demolished.” Ang mga statements na ganito drive a wedge between belief and behavior; and upholds behavior as primary. Si Stephen Mattheson write in Sojourners online, ‘It’s easy to get caught up in theorizing about God, but within our everyday lives reality is what matters most to the people around us. Theorizing only becomes important once it becomes relevant and practical and applicable to our lives.”

Pero I understand the issue it is trying to address because it is quite obvious -- they don’t like people who, in the words of Mattheson, “love theology more than people.”

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

Hindi po totoo na ang “Refutation is not a Christian practice.”

Question 4: How is it wrong?

By way of refutation, yung statement na naman po ay falling by the weight of its own argument. Or in another figurative way of putting it: hinihila nya yung tabla na tinatapakan niya. Why do I say this? Kasi kung hindi dapat gawain ng isang Christian ang mag refute, yung katrabaho mismo Ludy ay na violate yun kasi nangre-refute siya na bawal mag refute ang Christian na tulad ng kaibigan na ito ni Ludy.

By way of affirming the Christian commitment, mapapansin natin na isa sa mga sinasabi ng 1 Timothy 3:16 na profitable ang Scripture ay “reproof.” Sabi, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” Mapapansin din natin ang idea ng “reproof” sa Titus 1:9 -- “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” At marahil pamilyar kayo sa Book of Job. Ang Panginoon doon ay may major reproof na ginawa kay Job.

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

Ang malaking concern ko dito is baka magmukang walang concern ang Panginoon na tayo ay i-korek. Parang lalabas niyan ibaba natin ang Diyos sa level na para siyang si Dionysius na god of wine na ang goal ay mag entertain lang ng tao, yung walang concern kung napapahamak na ang mga tao.

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

Read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” It is God’s will that we reflect His glory in the area of trut speaking. In this verse we see the God (who refuted Job) telling His dear children (most especially elders) to utilize Scripture for the purpose of reproof.

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

By way of study, What is the goal of profitability of Scripture? Verse 17.

Meditate on how God is preparing you to grow not only in belief but in behavior and service. Where is He taking you?

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

It is quite a joy to know that God has a will and we can know it.  Romans 12:1-3 gives us an idea how to know it. A regular practice of believers is to pray for forgiveness. Commit today to pray daily in your daily quiet time to pray for forgiveness and grace for repentance.

Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo: May 4, 2017 - "People Do Not Come to Faith By Arguments" || John Pesebre

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

Sa isang Facebook chat, nagulat si Orly nang sabihan siya ng isang ka-churchmate na “People do not come to faith by arguments.” Nagulat si Orly.

Ako naman hindi na ako nagulat kasi marami na rin sa aking nagsabi ng ganyan. Sa episode na ito, we will talk about that doubt: "People do not come to faith by arguments."

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

It is quite unfortunate na ang pag-ikot ng issue na ito ay nangyayari sa mga Christian circles. For example, Brian Chilton tells a very similar experience kay Orly,

• Some time ago, I was in a meeting with pastors and other church leaders from various backgrounds discussing a potential ministry opportunity. I noted the importance that apologetics plays in the realm of collegiate ministries, especially with the mainstream attacks on Christianity from ultra-liberal voices . . . To my surprise, one particular ministry leader said, “It’s my experience that people are not brought to faith by arguments.” The statement was shocking enough. However, I was even more bewildered by some who seemed to agree with him.(link)

Now tama naman si Pastor Chilton na hindi fair na idemonize ang mga Christians who say this kasi it is quite possible that they are really very kind and godly people, most especially has a high view of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

In my observations with proponents of  #neighborology, ang source kalimitan netong objection na ito ay sa displeasure nila sa over-dependence ng modernity sa reason. Ang apologetics daw think “arguments do not really bring people into faith. Faith is a matter of the heart, not of the mind.”

Madaling maintindihan naman ang na kung totoo ito, ang Christianity by using apologetics puts Reason about God.

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

While it is true that arguments alone do not bring a person to faith, but arguments are not inconsistent with the work of the Holy Spirit.

Question 4: How is it wrong?

Instead of solving problems, the statement "People do not come to faith by arguments" does nto solve a problem but actually is causing the same mistake that it is trying to correct and also is creating another problem. Para tuloy it is causing more problems than it solves

By way objection/refutation, the statement “People don’t come to faith by arguments” is self-refuting dahil kung sinusubukan ng statement na ito na ilayo tayo sa argumentation para mapalapit tayo sa Panginoon, gumagamit din siya ng arguments.

By way of affirming our Christian commitments, let us look first at Titus 1:9 with Paul admonishing elders, “He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” Napaka explicit na “refute those who oppose it.” In doing this you have to employ argumentation.

Brian Chilton explains,

• the Bible presents several examples where people came to faith or were persuaded to faith by various argumentations. For instance, the miracles and teachings of Jesus provided a case for His claim to be Messiah. The miracles served as a sign. Why were such signs offered? Signs were provided to present an argument for the Messianic claims of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus argues that “the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me” (John 5:36). In addition, Jesus challenged His adversaries to “search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me” (John 5:39). Other examples could be offered such as Paul’s defense of the faith before various groups of people, including the Athenians. Consider Philip’s argumentation to the Ethiopian that Isaiah 53 referred to Jesus of Nazareth. All such arguments were used to bring people to faith. (ibid)

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

God uses truth to reveal to us His trustworthiness.  Mayroon sa Greek mythology na ang pangalan ay Apate who “was the personification of deceit. Her Roman equivalent was Fraus (i.e. "fraud"). She was a companion of the Pseudologoi (Lies). Her male counterpart was Dolos, daemon of trickery.” (wiki)

Doubters tend to think that the True and Living God is a deceiver. This means they have not yet studied carefully and systematically what the Bible teaches about the trustworthiness of God.

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

“Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, You would have known my Father also. From now on you know him and have seen him” (John 14:6–7). The Son of God testifies that He is the truth. He is also telling His audience a very important truth. RC Sproul writes, “Truth is not defined by our own subjective standards; it is determined by the Source of truth Himself.”

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

Study John 14:6-7 and answer the question: What very important truths can you see that Jesus is talking about?

Reflect on this question: Why are these truths important to your relationship with Christ?

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

Ang mga katotohanan ng Diyos ay masusumpungan natin sa patuloy na pag aaral ng Salita ng Diyos. Gawin natin ang habit na magkaroon ng pang-araw araw na pagbubukas at pagbabasa ng Bible.

Kaliwanagan Kay Kristo: May 2, 2017 - Christianity is Anti-Intellectual || John Pesebre

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

Isang umaga, habang nakasakay sa isang bus papunta sa work si Charis, she overheard a conversation ng dalawa nyang katabi. They sounded like very intelligent young professionals at ang sabi ng isa ay “Christianity is anti-intellectual.” Malimit ko na ring marinig ito at ilang beses na rin sinabi pa ito harap-harapan sa akin. Ito din po ang brief statement of the doubt natin sa episode na ito.

Question 2: Where did this doubt come from?

Dalawa po ang nakikita kong pinanggagalingan nito: una sa kultura natin at pangalawa sa kultura na rin ng mga born-again believers. Ang anti-intellectualism ay “hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed through the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science, as impractical and contemptible.”

Isa sa mga dahilan kaya may mga allegations na ganito is because may popular opinion sa Pilipinas na ang Filipino society ay anti-intellectual talaga. Sa isang article ng Rappler.com sa panulat ng Palanca-awardee na si Shakira Sison pinamagatang “What’s up with smart-shaming?” nabanggit niya na ang dominant Pinoy mass culture ay may pagka-asiwa sa mga intelehenteng dialogo. Ika niya,

• Why do we say, "Ang dami mong alam! (You're a know-it-all!)" when we hear someone share a deep thought or provocative question? Why not engage the person and learn? Why do we avoid discussions that require us to think, do our own research, or question beliefs we've long held? Why do we say, "Nosebleed!" when we hear someone speaking English?

Pangalawa, etong kultura na ito ay pumasok na rin sa evangelicalism.

Kung totoo ito, at kung totoo na habang umuusad ang mga modern societies at nagiging bahagi ng “conditions of belief” nila yung criterion ng intelligibility, nakikita nila na ang Christianity is not an intelligent option -- na kailangan nila dito i-suspend ang kanilang pag iisip o yung tinatawag na intellectual suicide

Question 3: What is wrong about this doubt?

Hindi po totoo na “Christianity is anti-intellectual.”

Question 4: How is it wrong?

Una sa lahat, to affirm lang ang ating pananampalataya, a couple of times in the book of Isaiah we read of God invoking reason (1:18) and argument (נִשָּׁפְטָ֖ה [niphal; “to plead:43:26). Sa Acts 18:4 we read that every Sabbath the Apostle Paul “ reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.” The word “reason” there is the word dielegeto na ang root word ay dialegomai at maririnig nyo na siguro kung saan galing yung word na dialogue. So Paul dialogued with people and persuaded them to believe what he was persuadingly proposing them to believe.

Kapag sinabi nating proposing or “proposition” ang gusto ko pong sabihin diyan ay isang claim sa reality na maaaring i-reject o i-accept ng nakikinig. Sa incident na ito sa Corinth, the Jews rejected him. Pero previous to this in Athens there were peole who accepted Paul’s proposition by the power of the Holy Spirit: “Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.”

So pwede mong gamitin ang reason mo to disprove or approve yung sinasabi. Ganyan ang ginagawa ni Paul diyan at ganyan din ang konteksto kapag nagpe present tayo ng case for Christianity -- they could either reject it or accept it. We always find Christ explaining, giving a sermon, giving parables, etc.

By way of refuting the reasoning naman ng nag aallege na “anti-intellectual” daw ang Christianity, marahil ang kailangan niya lang gawin ay tumingin sa history ng science, mathematics, philosophy, humanitarian efforts, education, etc at nang makita niya napaka unstable na sabihin na anti-intellectual ang Christianity.

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

Isa sa malimit gawin ni Satan is to distract our  minds to the things of God so that lalong ma alienate ang ating isipan at buhay sa paglapit sa kanya. May isang mythological na god ang mga Greeks na ang pangalan ay si Hypnos who "is said to be a calm and gentle god, as he helps humans in need and, due to their sleep, owns half of their lives."

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

Mark 12:29-31 says,

• The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.  Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

The verse indicates that the intellectual faculty ng tao ay kasama sa pagpapahayag ng pagmamahal sa Panginoon.

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

What is interesting about this verse is that the Old Testament passage from where it is taken reads, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.  Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). Why do you think Jesus added the phrase, “with all your mind”?

How do you see this truth as an important part of your walk and relationship with God?

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

A good part ng ating pag-aalaga ng ating kaisipan ay ang pang-araw araw na pag aaral ng salita ng Diyos. Ang tawag dito ay daily devotion. Malaki din ang maitutulong ng pakikibahagi sa mga group Bible study at taimtim na pakikinig ng sermon.

All the Negative Things and Redemption || John Pesebre

Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord restores his people, let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad! (Psalm 14:7 NIV)

Modern culture has waged a war on the negative. We are told not to entertain negative thoughts because it smuggles a lot of bad things in our lives. Too much brain neurons wasted for a useless endeavor, we hear. New Age guru Shirley Maclain cashes in on this in one of her books, "“Dwelling on the negative simply contributes to its power."

However different people have presented different responses to negativity. One of those responses would be found here and it talks about engaging the negative with the excellencies of God through prayer and other actions of faith.

In arguably the most beloved section of the Bible, the Psalms, contain beautiful verses that uplift the spirit of man. Yet you may be surprised that a good part of how the books Psalms started would dwell in the negative situation of the Psalmist.

Psalm 3 to Psalm 14 is actually a literary unit that dwells on the topic of utmost concern to the Psalmist as the threat of evil men continually hounded him and his kingdom. He talks about this anxiety in vivid details, numerous times. He talks to God about them, asks God to look into them and even demands from God to destroy them. Too negative of an environment for modern man. Too stressful, we'd say. The Psalmist was threatened and he likes to talk about it. Too negative not to put him in silent mode. The focus on the enemy or evil men against the covenant people of God has been the target of this unit. This consumed him. Bothered him. Put him on his knees.

Why?

They wanted him dead. His kingdom destroyed. His properties plundered. His family mocked. His God scorned.

A good number of us these days don't have the exact type of threat and harassment that the Psalmist experienced BUT we have our share (read: a huge portion) of threats and harassments that have similar effect with that of the Psalmist. It could be from relationship, finances, lust, wrong decisions etc. They put us on survival mode and worse, state of paralysis.

The Psalmist fights this off by a faith perspective as exemplified by how this unit closes:

Oh, that salvation for Israel would come out of Zion! When the Lord restores his people, let Jacob rejoice and Israel be glad! (Psalm 14:7 NIV)

This verse and numerous reminders within the unit gives us the vivid hope in times of these bone-crushing negative events. No longer must we pretend that these negatives can affect us but that, yes, they do but they can be overcome. We are to face them BUT face them with the Face of God. Your God is the Redeemer God, not an apathetic idiot. Some say that Redemption is the theme of all themes in Scipture. The "Grand Narrative" if you may. In this Psalms unit, it just may look like it exemplified.

Recall the constant "contrasts" in Psalms 3-14. The Redeemer God contrasts with the oppression of this world. That's practically how we begin to see this unit teach us how to respond to all these negativity: in prayer, contrasting them against your God. This is to be the active affair of the worshiper. The battle begins there. From there you can make actions of faith removing its sin influences in your life like anger, resentment, revenge, etc.

As a prayer example applying the point of this article, here: "Lord, these struggles are STRONG but this suffering does not end in futility but for the greater purpose of glorifying You as my Redeemer, because You are STRONGER. Heap upon my heart the excellencies of Your Being so that my mind will dwell on You and not the assault of these negative things."