Reflection on today’s gospel Mat. 6:24-34 – “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.”

Written by: Bro. Jubernson I. Alabastro CFD Davao

This reading is an echo of the preceding passage on our Lord’s prayer: YOUR KINGDOM COME, YOUR WILL BE DONE. The relevance of this passage brilliantly shines with the rise of darkness and secularism in our age; where religion is irrelevant and reduced to a mere aesthetic display for cultural preservation and an emotional and social homage to an UNKNOWN GOD (Acts 17:23.) If we reflect on the Lord’s Prayer, it started with OUR FATHER, revealing to us the existence and character of our true God. He is not an abstraction, nor a psychological manifestation created by our own weak image and likeness; nor is He just a CREATOR, as the feminists and deists like to address Him, for He does not leave His children orphaned and bastards after making them (John 14:18.) He continues to feed us NOT BY BREAD ALONE, but by every word that comes forth from His mouth (Mat. 4:4.) It is for this reason that His KINGDOM COME that His will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. The King established His Kingdom on earth that His precepts will be implemented and followed. This KINGDOM by which we must seek in today’s Gospel is His Church and God’s righteousness is Her DOCTRINES, DOGMAS, and MORALS, all decrees of the King.

In today’s pluralistic, relativistic, information driven, and “anything goes” society, it is arrogant to profess that God established only one Church, as it is in claiming that there is only one true God. But this impression on arrogance is rooted in ignorance. In OUR FATHER, after GOD was introduced, RELIGION came next, that is, HIS KINGDOM COME. After which, DOCTRINE immediately and logically followed: YOUR WILL BE DONE.

DOCTRINES, DOGMAS, AND MORALS, the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD, these belong to the “THOU SHALL NOT SAY” commandments in modern(ist) theology. They are not so “fitting” in today’s age. They are not so “ECUMENICALLY CORRECT” as they offend others and cause divisions (exactly as what Christ’s said in Mat. 10:34.) These are medievalistic and antiquated collections which properly belong to antique stores or museums and sold to the stagnant Traditionalists! “

“You cannot teach TRINITY to a HUNGRY STOMACH,” says the Liberation Theologian. “Go ahead, TURN THE FOUNDATION STONES OF CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES (EPH. 2:20) INTO THE LIVING BREAD OF MARX (Luke 4:3!) My friend Ryan Mejillano brilliantly retorted this argument and said, “it is equally true that you cannot teach the gospel to a FULL STOMACH as relayed by our Lord in the story of the rich young man (Mat. 19:21-23.)” As I always say, using the poor as an excuse is such a poor excuse!

The Good News for this Sunday’s gospel goes against the so-called flows of the time: SEEK GOD’S RIGHTEOUSNESS FIRST AND ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED UNTO YOU. Christ encourages us to have faith and trust in Him and be faithful to His teachings. This element of faith is what modernists eliminated in Philosophy, Theology, ministry and in almost every aspect of the Church’s life. No wonder why this is the synthesis of all heresies! Modernists Philosophers dismissed the fact that there are knowledge which cannot be known thoroughly by reason alone; Liberation Theologians, on the other hand, forgot that every conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit (1Cor. 3:6,) the product of prayers and faith, and not by WORKS ALONE. Modernist exegetes and Dogmatic Theologians approach doctrines only in an anthropocentric or Human-centered level, disregarding the INCARNATED APPROACH to Divine Revelation which considers both the human, as well as the divine elements of the faith. The problem of these modernists approach to theology, the excessive reliance and emphasis on the social-political-economical-cultural, not to mention heretical methodology, is that “it does not invite God to His Own dinner table,” as Pope Benedict XVI insightfully noticed. As a result, theologians are becoming anybody (i.e. athletes, sociologists, psychologists, political analysts, politicians and negotiators,) but themselves. If only THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD is first properly taught, firmly established, and religiously practiced, THEN ALL THESE THINGS SHALL BE ADDED. These methodologies are secondary. Let us not give so much emphasis on the shells as forgetting the value of the pearls. It is not surprising then that Traditionalists are very rich, as they know the great value of these pearls. They sold everything they got to buy them (Mat. 13:45-46) from the antique store. In contrast, a modernist swine is contented with the shells because he does not know the value of the pearls and he tramples them underfoot (Mat. 7:6) or get rid of it.

I fear for some priests and theologians who have no firm background in apologetics, and worse, show disgust and contempt over it! How will they present God’s Word to the people? How will they preserve these treasures from thieves? The same goes with those in the same predicament and engaged in further heretical studies under the guise of answering the call for interreligious dialogue, how could they possibly detect and reject what is false if they turned off their apologetics sensors, or IF THEY HAVE NO APOLOGETICS SENSORS AT ALL??? If the Church is the Bride of Christ, isn’t that tantamount to flirting with a whore? With all those lovely chats with the whore, are you telling your bride that your purpose is to refute her seductive lips? With all those sweet, sparkled eyes testimonies you made about her, do you really want to convert her or make love with her? Wasn’t the gospel clear? YOU CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS… HOW ARE YOU GOING TO KNOW THE VALUE OF THE PEARLS WHEN YOU ARE NO LONGER ACQUIANTED WITH THEM?

How did this error in theology happen? It happened because the order which God intended for our salvation was not faithfully followed. We have to put things back to order if we ought to arrive at the promise land. The Lord’s prayer started with OUR FATHER, God therefore should be the center of everything we do instead of man. Second, in order not to be intoxicated by the various notions of God, one must drink from the pure spiritual milk so that through it we may grow into salvation (1Pet. 2:2.) The milk could only come from Our Mother Church, from her two paps of love of God and love of neighbor. We must therefore seek God’s RIGHTEOUSNESS in His KINGDOM, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. AMEN.

Katanungan Hinggil sa Assumption of Mary

The Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary

cyril said...

Fr. Abe,

naguguluhan po ako.

Kasi the Church claimed that Mary was indeed died. And she was buried in the Jerusalem but according to tradition, she was assumed after four days of her death. Pero sabi niyo po, hindi po siya namatay, in fact she was assumed alive.

May contradiction po ba sa sinabi niyo at sa official stand ng Church?

Kung namatay naman si Mary before she was assumed into heaven, eh di she was bound to death?

Pero pwede rin naman pong tama kayo diba, kasi hindi naman siya nanatiling namatay? Pareho po sa nangyari kay Hesus...

Pwede po ba itong ipaklaro sa akin?

Si Cyril po to, may ka debate kasi ako eh.. kelngan ko ng references...

February 10, 2011 11:10 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

HELLO BRO. CYRIL

[naguguluhan po ako.]

OK, LIWANAGIN NATIN.

[Kasi the Church claimed that Mary was indeed died. And she was buried in the Jerusalem but according to tradition, she was assumed after four days of her death.]

CYRIL, YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF CATHOLIC TRADITION CONCERNING THE ASSUMPTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY IS PARTIAL AND INCOMPLETE.

ACTUALLY, THERE ARE TWO ANCIENT TRADITION ON THE LAST DAYS OF MARY ON EARTH:

1. She died in Jerusalem with the Apostles present. They buried her but St. Thomas was absent because he was from the farthest place, India. When he arrived he cried and requested that the tomb of the Lady be opened. When they opened it the body is gone and they were told by the Angel that Jesus brought her to heaven body and soul.

2. THE DORMITION OF THE VIRGIN. This is the liturgical tradition of the Eastern Church. The Blessed Virgin didn't die; she just fell into sleep and her soul and body were taken by the Lord to heaven.

[Pero sabi niyo po, hindi po siya namatay, in fact she was assumed alive.]

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DIDN'T DECLARE A DOGMA THAT MARY DIED. WHEN POPE PIUS XII DEFINED THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY HE DIDN'T USE THE PHRASE: "Mary died". INSTEAD, HE REFERRED TO "AT THE END OF HER LIFE ON EARTH".

SO, THE SO-CALLED DEATH OF MARY IS NOT A DOGMA OF THE CHURCH.

[May contradiction po ba sa sinabi niyo at sa official stand ng Church?]

WALA. KASI WALANG OFFICIAL STAND ANG CHURCH NA NAMATAY SI MARY. THE DOGMA OF ASSUMPTION DOES NOT STATE THAT SHE DIED AND IN LITURGICAL TRADITION WE ONLY REFER TO IT AS 'DORMITION OF MARY'.

[Kung namatay naman si Mary before she was assumed into heaven, eh di she was bound to death?]

WALANG SINASABI ANG BIBLIA NA NAMATAY SIYA. ANG SABI ANG MOTHER OF THE KING OF KINGS AY NAKITANG BUHAY SA LANGIT, MAY CORONANG 12 STARS AT NADARAMITAN NG ARAW [REV. 12:1]

[Pero pwede rin naman pong tama kayo diba, kasi hindi naman siya nanatiling namatay? Pareho po sa nangyari kay Hesus...]

SI JESUS AY NAMATAY DAHIL GINUSTO NIYANG MAMATAY PARA SA ATING KALIGTASAN AT KATUBUSAN. PERO ANG PANGAKO NIYA DUON SA MGA SUMASAMPALATAYA SA KANYA E HINDI SILA MAMAMATAY [JOHN 11:25-26]. MARY IS THE FIRST AND TRUE BELIEVER OF JESUS. SHE IS PROTECTED BY GOD THE FATHER FROM SATAN [GEN. 3:15] KAYA IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SHE DIDN'T DIE.

[Pwede po ba itong ipaklaro sa akin?]

SURE.

SANA AY NAKATULONG ANG PALIWANAG NA ITO.

ACTUALLY, ANG MGA BORN AGAIN AY MAY TURO NA HINDI SILA MAMAMATAY. IRA-RAPTURE DAW SILA. DARATING DAW SI JESUS AT IAAKYAT SILA SA LANGIT NG BUHAY. HE HE HE

NGAYON, SINO BA ANG MAS MAY KARAPATANG IAKYAT SA LANGIT NG BUHAY ANG MGA SINUNGALING NA PASTOR NA TULAD NI EDDIE VILLANUEVA AT NI GERRY SOLIMAN O ANG INA NI JESUS NA FULL OF GRACE?

February 14, 2011 7:56 AM

Mga Katanungan hingil sa Retraction ni Dr. Jose Rizal Part 2

The famous painting of Rizal in Intramuros showing him accompanied by the two Jesuit priests to Bagumbayan.

Anonymous said...

Bakit hindi pinayagang mailibing si Rizal sa sementeryo ng mga Katoliko? Si Rizal ay nilibing sa Paco Cemetery (noon) nang wala man lang pangalang nakalagay.

Doon din nilibing sina Padre Gomez, Burgos, at Zamora matapos igarote.

February 12, 2011 4:51 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[Bakit hindi pinayagang mailibing si Rizal sa sementeryo ng mga Katoliko? Si Rizal ay nilibing sa Paco Cemetery (noon) nang wala man lang pangalang nakalagay.]

ANG PACO CEMETERY AY CATHOLIC CEMETERY. AT NUONG PANAHONG IYON AY LUBHANG NAPAKAHIGPIT NG BATAS NG SANTA IGLESIA: "WALANG EREHE, ATEISTA PAGANO AT MASON NA PWEDENG ILIBING SA CATHOLIC CEMETERIES." KAYA IYON AY PATUNAY NA TALAGANG CATOLICO SI RIZAL.

WALANG PANGALANG INILAGAY KASI HINDI NILAGYAN NG MGA GUARDIA CIVIL. SUBALIT ITO AY NILAGYAN NG PANGALAN MATAPOS NA MAKITA NG KANYANG MGA KAMAG-ANAKAN.

[Doon din nilibing sina Padre Gomez, Burgos, at Zamora matapos igarote.]

SIEMPRE DAHIL ANG MGA BAYANING SINA GOMEZ, BURGOS AT ZAMORA AY MGA TAPAT NA CATOLICO, SILA AY NAMATAY NA MGA CATOLICO. ANG GOBIERNO ANG NAG GAROTE SA KANILA HINDI ANG CATHOLIC CHURCH.

February 12, 2011 10:10 PM

Anonymous said...

Bakit ipinapatay pa rin ninyo si Rizal kung talagang nag-retract sa mga sinabi niya laban sa mga prayle at aral ng Iglesia katolika? May patotoo ukol dito ang asawa mismo ni Rizal na si Josephine Bracken. Kung sasabihi ninyo na gobyerno ang pumatay sa kaniya. Sino ang nanuhol o mastermind para siya ay tuluyang ipapatay ni Polavieja? Hindi ba si arsobispo Nozaleda at mga kasamahang pare?

I post ninyo ito (may balita ako na nandaraya kayo sa tao dahil di ninyo raw ipinopost ang mga comment na naghahayag ng kamalian ninyo at nagiging kahiya-hiya kayo sa mga sagot nila) at suriin natin kung totoo ang sasabihin ninyo sa bayan.

February 13, 2011 11:44 AM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[Bakit ipinapatay pa rin ninyo si Rizal kung talagang nag-retract sa mga sinabi niya laban sa mga prayle at aral ng Iglesia katolika?]

HINDI NAMAN KAMI ANG PUMATAY AT NAGPAPATAY KUNDI ANG GOBIERNO AT ANG GUARDIA CIVIL. RIZAL WAS NOT TRIED AND SENTENCED TO DEATH BY THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRIBUNAL OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SPAIN. MAGKAIBA YON. KAHIT MGA CATOLICO ANG MARAMING PRESIDENTE NG PILIPINAS AT ANG MGA JUDGES, HINDI PWEDENG IBINTANG SA CATHOLIC CHURCH ANG MGA DECISIONS NILA. KAYA PALPAK ANG PAGBIBINTANG MO SA CATHOLIC CHURCH.

TALAGANG NAG-RETRACT SI RIZAL DAHIL SULAT KAMAY NIYA AT PIRMADO NIYA ANG DOCUMENTS OF RETRACTIONS. TAPOS NAGKUMPISAL SIYA, NAGSIMBA AT NAG-COMMUNION BAGO DALHIN SA BAGUMBAYAN. AT PINILI NYANG MGA KASAMA SA BAGUMBAYAN ANG DALAWANG PARING JESUITS NA BESTFRIENDS NIYA MULA PA NUONG NAG-AARAL SIYA SA ATENEO DE MANILA. HINDI PINILI NI RIZAL NA MAKASAMA SA HULING SANDALI ANG MGA MASON AT ATEISTA AT MGA PROTESTANTE.

[May patotoo ukol dito ang asawa mismo ni Rizal na si Josephine Bracken.]

NASAAN ANG PATUTUO NA IYON? DAHIL ANG RETRACTION NI RIZAL AY NASAKSIHAN NG MAHIGIT SAMPUNG TAO KABILANG NA ANG KANYANG MGA MEMBERS OF FAMILY. ANG PAMILYA RIZAL AY NANATILING CATOLICO.

[Kung sasabihi ninyo na gobyerno ang pumatay sa kaniya. Sino ang nanuhol o mastermind para siya ay tuluyang ipapatay ni Polavieja?]

HA HA HA... BAKIT KINAKAILANGAN NG CATHOLIC CHURCH NA SUHULAN ANG GOVERNMENT? E DI SINIRA MO NA ANG GUSTO MONG PALABASIN NA MALAKAS ANG CATHOLIC CHURCH AS PHILIPPINE GOVT. NUNG PANAHON NI RIZAL.

BAKIT NAMIN PAPATAYIN SI RIZAL AT KAILANGANG GUMASTOS E NAGBALIK-LOOB NA NGA SA SANTA IGLESIA CATOLICA SI RIZAL. HE HE HE... NAGSIMBA NA AT NAG-COMMUNION.

ISA PA, NUNG NAMATAY SI RIZAL ANG SPANISH GOVERNMENT ANG PINABAGSAK NG MGA PILIPINO HINDI ANG IGLESIA CATOLICA. NANATILING CATOLICO ANG GREAT MAJORITY NG MGA PILIPINO KAHIT NA NAKARARAMING MGA KAMAG-ANAKAN NI RIZAL.

[Hindi ba si arsobispo Nozaleda at mga kasamahang pare?]

HINDI. HINDING-HINDI.

DAHIL ANG ARZOBISPO AY NAGPALABAS NG UTOS NA MAGDASAL ANG LAHAT NG MGA CATOLICO SA BUONG MANILA PARA KAY RIZAL NUONG ARAW NG KANYANG KAMATAYAN. ANG MGA PARING JESUITA NA NOON AY NAKATIRA SA MALAPIT SA BAGUMBAYAN AY NASA BUBONG NG KANILANG KUMBENTO AT UMIIYAK HABANG SI RIZAL AY NAGLALAKAD PATUNGO SA BITAYAN. JESUITS ANG PINILI NIYANG KASAMA.

[I post ninyo ito (may balita ako na nandaraya kayo sa tao dahil di ninyo raw ipinopost ang mga comment na naghahayag ng kamalian ninyo at nagiging kahiya-hiya kayo sa mga sagot nila) at suriin natin kung totoo ang sasabihin ninyo sa bayan.]

AYAN, POSTED NA. KALA MO NAMAN E MAY SENSE ANG PINAGSASABI. HINDI ANG URI MO ANG KATATAKUTAN NAMIN.

February 13, 2011 2:49 PM

REPLY OF KAPATAS TO GERRY Rodimus SOLIMAN ON ELIPHAZ

The Suffering Job

Mr. Lugena gave a similar instance in the person of King David. To begin with, David found favor with God and made him king. But David committed adultery. David repented and he was forgiven. If Mr. Lugena related the person of David to the person of Eliphaz, it only means that for Mr. Lugena Eliphaz was a good man who committed sin.

Just for a brief background, in order to discredit the Ang Dating Daan cult of Mr. Eliseo Soriano (ADD, the old path) Mr. Lugena cites Job 22:15 where wicked men have walked the old path. Since the name of Mr. Soriano's cult is ADD or the old path, the argument concludes that the ADD cult is for wicked men. However, the ADD members reason out that in Job 42:7 Eliphaz was God's enemy and he was rebuked for not speaking the right things about God. So for Mr. Lugena to defend his stand on Job 22:15, he would at least contest that it wasn't about the old path that God was rebuking Eliphaz and Eliphaz was not really an evil man (which Mr. Lugena did). So if Mr. Lugena were to agree with the explanation of Atty. Llasos (that Eliphaz was previously unrighteous in Job 5:1) it would not help the case of Mr. Lugena since now it can be interpreted that Eliphaz was wrong in Job 22:15. Furthermore, Mr. Lugena already stated that Eliphaz was not really an evil person. In my opinion, the reason why Atty. Llasos spent a third of his article discrediting me is to lure away the readers on the other statements given by Mr. Lugena. After all, why would the subjective people analyze any further when someone already declared how terrible his opponent? Of course, Atty. Llasos will read this article and insist in his position. But here is a question that we could ask Mr. Lugena: Was Eliphaz really unrighteous when he was talking to Job? I hope Mr. Lugena, whom Atty. Llasos so proudly boasts to have beaten the Evangelical defenders at the Bereans forum, will have the guts to answer the question. However, the main point of my previous article is about Rome's hypocrisy on private interpretation. Here we have two apologists who criticize Evangelicals for private interpretation and yet they are free to make an interpretation even if their infallible magisterium has not released an official intepretation on all verses of the Bible - to the point of contradicting themselves.

Mr. Gerry Soliman aka Rodimus of the thebereans.net, in his effort to extricate himself from the pit of shame as a result of his exchanges with Bro. Marwil Llasos, [wherein he was exposed deliberately misinterpreting the statements of Fr. Abe Arganiosa, CRS and Bro. Marwil to force the notion of the existence of contradiction between the two when in fact they are actually talking about different things] tried to shift the attention of his readers by jumping to another topic [he abandoned the issue regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary], this time on the question as to whether Eliphaz is unrighteous or not.

Rodimus is really desperate to get even, going as far as resorting to underhanded tricks to avenge his already damaged reputation incurred from previous skirmishes with catholic apologists. The guy used again his worn out “divide and conquer” tactics by pitting my statements on the subject against Bro. Mars’, willfully disregarding the contexts of our respective statements. Bro. Mars countered that there is no contradiction since he and I were talking about two different moments in Eliphaz’s life: He (Bro. Mars) on the unrighteous Eliphaz questioning the practice of calling on saints (Job 5:1), and I on the already forgiven Eliphaz courtesy of the prayer of Job, who is also a saint. (Job 42:8-10) In his latest blog entry, Mr. Soliman (Rodimus) countered that I “betrayed” Bro. Mars’ position:

From the above, Atty. Llasos asserts that he and Mr. Lugena were talking about two different chapters in the life of Eliphaz. Atty. Llasos was pertaining to the life of Eliphaz where he was still unrighteous while Mr. Lugena was pertaining to a forgiven Eliphaz. Unfortunately, Atty. Llasos is betrayed by this argument of Kapatas:

Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao. Si Haring David ay nagkasala ng pangangalunya pero hindi talaga sya masamang tao. Kaya wag husgahan ang tao sa isang nagawang kamalian. Para namang ang babanal nyo.

[Eliphaz was wrong, yes, but that doesn't mean that he is really an evil person. King David sinned by committing adultery but he is really not an evil person. So don't judge a person who made a mistake, as if you're holy.] Mr. Lugena gave a similar instance in the person of King David. To begin with, David found favor with God and made him king. But David committed adultery. David repented and he was forgiven. If Mr. Lugena related the person of David to the person of Eliphaz, it only means that for Mr. Lugena Eliphaz was a good man who committed sin.

http://www.solutions-finder.blogspot.com/

It seems like Rodimus is implying that for me, Eliphaz was still a good man even though he committed transgression against God. I think this is a case of a depraved imagination working overtime. Let me set things straight: My statement: “Nagkamali si Eliphaz yes, pero hindi ibig sabihin eh talagang masama syang tao,” refers to the reality that Eliphaz, though sinning against God was later forgiven. Taking this into account, you cannot say that Eliphaz is really an evil person. But this doesn’t mean that “Eliphaz remains righteous after sinning” either. The fact that he was forgiven by God shows that Eliphaz had sinned previously and therefore unrighteous. But he didn’t remain in that state because he was forgiven later as the scripture shows.

Rodimus also pointed out that ME, agreeing with Bro. Mars that Eliphaz is unrighteous in Job 5:1 will prove inconsistent with my position in Job 22:15, because it will only mean that Eliphaz’s statements in Job 22:15 is also wrong.

So if Mr. Lugena were to agree with the explanation of Atty. Llasos (that Eliphaz was previously unrighteous in Job 5:1) it would not help the case of Mr. Lugena since now it can be interpreted that Eliphaz was wrong in Job 22:15. Furthermore, Mr. Lugena already stated that Eliphaz was not really an evil person.

This is a proof that Mr. Soliman (Rodimus) didn’t read his bible well. Eliphaz is unrighteous precisely because Eliphaz had not said right things about God.

Job 42:7 After the LORD had spoken these words to Job, the LORD said to Eli'phaz the Te'manite: "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends; for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.

So those things that Eliphaz said about God that are wrong. With regards to other statements of Eliphaz including the “Ang Dating Daan na nilakaran ng mga masamang tao” in Job 22:15, the bible doesn’t make an affirmation that they are also wrong. To conclude as such is really unusual for a sola scriptura believer like Mr. Soliman (Rodimus). That is clearly “going beyond what was written.” So Mr. Soliman, in his effort to discredit the Catholic Church, is willing to abandon his sola scriptura credo. That is very revealing.

Now does it mean that Eliphaz’s statements in Job 5:1 is not wrong as well? [since said verse is not about God but rather about the practice of calling on saints] Of course it is wrong. The scripture demonstrated that it is not wrong to call on saints and ask for their prayers because their prayers do help other people spiritually speaking.

Job 1:5 After each feast, Job would send for his children and perform a ceremony, as a way of asking God to forgive them of any wrongs they may have done. He would get up early the next morning and offer a sacrifice for each of them, just in case they had sinned or silently cursed God.

Job 42:8-10 So I want you to go over to Job and offer seven bulls and seven goats on an altar as a sacrifice to please me. After this, Job will pray, and I will agree not to punish you for your foolishness.

Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar obeyed the LORD, and he answered Job's prayer.

After Job had prayed for his three friends, the LORD made Job twice as rich as he had been before.

Clearly, Eliphaz statements in Job 5:1 is wrong. He himself was forgiven precisely because of the prayers of Job, who is himself a saint. The question as to the correctness of Eliphaz’s statements in Job 22:15 is another matter. Job 22:15 is not about God but rather about “ang dating daan” and therefore not included in the wrong things that Eliphaz had said in his conversation with Job. For it to be wrong, Rodimus must first show us verses stating as such. For Rodimus to conclude that Job 22:15 is wrong without biblical verses will be suicide on his part, him being a sola scriptura believer.

As regards to Mr. Soliman’s question: Was Eliphaz really unrighteous when he was talking to Job? My answer is this: Eliphaz was unrighteous when he failed to say right things about God in his conversation with Job. This is verified by God himself in Job 42:7. But Eliphaz didn’t remain in unrighteous state for he was forgiven later. Taking this into account, Eliphaz is not really an evil man.

Now, I want to return the favor and ask Mr. Soliman the following questions:

1. After failing to say right things about God, was Eliphaz righteous or not?

2. Is the statement of Eliphaz in Job 22:15, right or wrong?

I expect Mr. Soliman to answer these questions. Let’s see his stand on the issue.

Mga Katanungan hingil sa Retraction ni Dr. Jose Rizal Part 1

Anonymous said...

Hindi ba ang simbahan ang nagsulat ng retraksyon ni Rizal?

At ung unag version ay hindi nagustuhan ni Rizal?

Hindi ba ginawa niya yun para mapakasalan si Josephine?

Hindi ba tumakas si Rizal, ngunit nahuli sa barko, at kaya siya pinatapon sa Dapitan?

February 12, 2011 12:03 PM

Fr. Abe, CRS said...

[Hindi ba ang simbahan ang nagsulat ng retraksyon ni Rizal?]

MGA KAIBIGANG PARI NI RIZAL ANG NAGSULAT NG RETRAKSIYON NIYA. AT ITO AY ISINAGAWA NG MAY PERMISO NI RIZAL DAHIL PERSONAL SIYANG NAGBALIK LOOB SA SANTA IGLESIA.

ANG FINAL DRAFT NG RETRACTION AY SULAT KAMAY MISMO NI GAT JOSE RIZAL.

[At ung unag version ay hindi nagustuhan ni Rizal?]

SUBALIT ANG IKALAWANG VERSION AY NAGUSTUHAN NI RIZAL. ANG MAHALAGA AY NAGUSTUHAN NYA ANG FINAL VERSION. HALOS LAHAT NG DOCUMENTS AY KAILANGAN NG EDITING OR REVISION. WALANG MASAMA DUON.

[Hindi ba ginawa niya yun para mapakasalan si Josephine?]

HINDI. KASI KUNG KASAL LANG ANG GUSTO NI RIZAL E PWEDE NAMAN SIYANG MAGPAKASAL SA HUWES O SA PASTOR NG PROTESTANTE. GINAWA NI RIZAL ANG RETRACTION DAHIL NAGBABALIK-LOOB SIYA SA SANTA IGLESIA CATOLICA.

[Hindi ba tumakas si Rizal, ngunit nahuli sa barko, at kaya siya pinatapon sa Dapitan?]

KUSANG LOOB NA NAGBALIK SA PILIPINAS SI RIZAL.

February 12, 2011 1:48 PM

GERRY SOLIMAN JUST DOESN’T GET IT CORRECTLY!!! by Atty. Marwil Llasos

The Woman Clothed with the Sun, depicted in stained glass

MR. GERRY SOLIMAN of Solutions Finder Apologetics responded to my appeal. As I expected, he would not face the issue head on. Here is how he defended himself. (http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2011/01/response-to-appeal-of-atty-llasos.html).

This is how Mr. Soliman wiggles away from the issue:

“He insists that they didn't contradict because Fr. Abe was referring to the woman in Revelations 12:1 while Atty. Llasos was referring to birth pains in Revelations 12:2, but my article which I pointed out their contradiction was about the literal or symbolical identification of the woman clothed with the sun.”

I am astonished that Mr. Soliman does not exactly understand the issue I raised. Let us dissect Mr. Soliman’s understanding of the issue, or the lack of it.

Mr. Soliman states the issue that Fr. Abraham P. Arganiosa, CRS and I did not contradict each other because Fr. Abe was referring to the woman in Revelations 12 while I was referring to birth pains in Revelations 12:2. This is inaccurate.

I wonder if Mr. Soliman has read and understood what I had written in my article. I request my readers to read it again so as not to be deceived by the Mr. Soliman’s way of inaccurately putting the issue. Here’s my article: (http://bromarwilnllasos.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_24.html).

Let me state it the issue again: The issue is: Did Fr. Abraham Arganiosa and I contradict each other based on our statements that Mr. Soliman quoted in his blog?

My challenge was specific and categorical. I was referring to the exact statements that Gerry Soliman quoted from Fr. Abe and I which he said contradicted each other. “The specific statements Gerry Soliman quoted from us were discussing two (2) different issues. Fr. Abe’s statement was concerned about the identity of the woman in Revelation 12:1. My statement was concerned about the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelation 12:2.”

Here is the exact statement of Fr. Abe:

“I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS.” (emphasis added)

And here is mine:

“To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.” (emphasis added)

Friends, lest it be forgotten, it was Gerry Soliman who quoted those statements from us. And my specific challenge is for him to point out that those statements he exactly quoted from us contradict each other. The problem with Mr. Soliman is that he is so reckless with his quotations in his pathetic effort to pounce upon us “contradiction.” Gerry, you brought this upon yourself. Better be careful next time.

Next, Mr. Soliman pointed out that our contradiction was about the literal or symbolical identification of the woman clothed with the sun. Yes, that may have been your point, but look at the statements that you quoted from us! I already explained that those statements that you said contradicted each other were discussing two different things. Father Abe’s quoted statement was about the identity of the woman while mine was about the interpretation of “birth pains” in Revelations 12:2.

As Mr. Soliman said, his point is that Fr. Abe’s and my contradiction was about the literal or symbolical identification of the woman clothed with the sun. But please check the exact quotes he said contradicted each other. Mr. Soliman’s article is rather brief, and I reproduce it below so that the reader can see it for themselves:

“Mary as the Woman Clothed with the Sun of Revelations 12: Symbolical or Literal?

Let the infallible Church of Rome tell you. According to Atty. Marwil Llasos, a Roman Catholic apologist specializing on Mariology:

To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally.

*

I hold Mr. Soliman’s word that he does not interpret Revelation 12:2 literally. And so do we.

*

According to Fr. Abraham Arganiosa, another Roman Catholic apologist and comrade of Atty. Llasos:

*

I DIDN'T SAY THAT 'THE WOMAN CLOTHE WITH THE SUN' SOMETIMES REFERS TO MARY. IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES BECAUSE SHE IS THE MOTHER OF THE KING OF ALL NATIONS.

*

Well if your head is aching already, so is mine. Here is the real score on the Roman Catholic Church on the woman of Revelations 12: They didn't have any official and infallible interpretation of it during the first 300 years of Christianity. In fact, none of the church fathers during that time ever interpreted the woman as Mary. Some of the church fathers referred the woman as Israel, the people of God but never on Mary. Mary as woman clothed with the sun is not an apostolic teaching.” [http://solutions-finder.blogspot.com/2010/11/woman-clothed-with-sun-of-revelations.html].

Mr. Soliman’s concern in that article is the literal or symbolic interpretation of the woman. But look at the quotations you chose! They aren’t discussing the same issue. And Gerry Soliman knows that as in fact he now admits he does.

But he continues to skirt the issue and would like to leave it just like that. Pushed against the wall, he now offers this afterthought:

“Here is my response: You cannot disassociate the woman clothed with the sun in the identification of the birth pains.”

Gerry Soliman is now jumping now to another issue. Convenient escape, is it not?

He says that we can’t identify the woman using 12:1 alone or 12:2 alone. Did I ever say that? He is refuting a point that was never raised. And he proffered the important rule when it comes to understanding Scripture: “context, context, and more context.” Again, who opposes it?

In all things, context is very important. That’s why Gerry Soliman must have taken the context where Fr. Abe’s quoted statement was taken out. He was responding the query on the identity of the woman of Revelation 12. Likewise, if Gerry Soliman was ever concerned with context, he should have treated the statement he quoted from me based on the exact context on which appeared. And here we have Mr. Soliman pontificating on “context, context, and more context.”

Oh, and Gerry Soliman charged that I made a “lame excuse” that I was “just” referring to birth pains. Boy, here we go again! When will Gerry ever learn? Repeat: I was pointing out to the “exact quotation” that Mr. Soliman yanked from my article. And that quoted statement was precisely talking to nothing but birth pain! Lame excuse?

And here comes Gerry Soliman’s turn to turn the tables.

“Any objective reader would have to consider the context of the issue. When Fr. Abe and I briefly had a discussion about birth pains in Atty. Llasos' blog, the identity of the woman was obviously discussed as well. As a matter of fact, the article written by Atty. Llasos in his response to me discussed first who is the woman before discussing birth pains. So if he is just discussing birth pains, I wonder if he avoided discussing who or what had these birth pains?”

Oh yes, you had that discussion about the birth pains and as you said the identity of the woman was also discussed. Where in my articles did I deny that? Again, raising an issue out of a non-issue. My article, which was prompted by your article, pointed to a specific issue. If you still don’t get it, I will re-state it for the nth time. I was concerned with the “exact quotations” that you cited in your article of November 2, 2010 which I reproduced above.

Gerry doesn’t want to face the music. Here is his lame excuse:

“Let's recall what I said which Atty. Llasos based his statement "we don't interpret it literally":

Your question is not just a matter of who or what is the woman in Revelations 12, but also whether this could be understood literally or not. I think you favor more the literal understanding which points you to the blessed Mary (correct me if I am wrong). On the otherhand, I don't interpret it literally thus, I can't give you a name.

Since I believe this chapter is symbolical, I identify the woman as the people of God.

I was talking there about the woman and stating that the chapter is symbolical. It is understood that we considered the surrounding verses of the birth pains in Revelations 12. Fr. Abe also made an identification of who is woman before proceeding to birth pains. So when Atty. Llasos quoted from me, I don't interpret it literally, he connected it to discussing birth pains:

To answer Mr. Soliman, verse 2 of Revelation 12 does not in any way affect the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Because, just like Mr. Soliman, we don’t interpret it literally. In his comment in my blog article, Mr. Soliman said, “I don't interpret it literally …” to which I replied that “there are points of agreement already between his position and ours.”

Thus, the association of the woman clothed with the sun can't be avoided.”

Gerry Soliman can say a lot of things. He can connect the “woman” to “birth pains” all he wants. He can’t rant about the unavoidable association of the woman with the birth pains all he wants. But, so what? It was not the point of my article. Everything here that Mr. Soliman says to divert the issue is inconsequential. The point that I have been making all along is that the exact statement that he quoted from me and Fr. Abe were discussing two different issues. As Mr. Soliman himself concedes, Fr. Abe also made an identification of who is woman before proceeding to birth pains. So when Atty. Llasos quoted from me, I don't interpret it literally, he connected it to discussing birth pains.” Precisely, Mr. Soliman. Now your getting there.

“Fr. Abe also made an identification of who is woman before proceeding to birth pains.” Yes, he was making an identification of the woman before he proceeded to birth pains. And where did Mr. Soliman get the statement of Fr. Abe that you quoted? From his identification of the woman.

“So when Atty. Llasos quoted from me, I don't interpret it literally, he connected it to discussing birth pains.” And where did he get the statement he quoted from me? From my discussion of birth pains.

Let’s not gild the lily anymore. The point has been sufficiently belabored already. And Mr. Soliman has all but conceded the point when he gave me this unsolicited advice: “Atty. Llasos, you need to look at the bigger picture. That sums up what I have to say.”

Gerry, I appreciate your advice. Don’t worry much about me. I can assure you that I do look at the bigger picture. But I look at the details, too. While looking at the vast expanse of the firmament, we should not lose sight of the nitty-gritty details.

It is regrettable indeed that Mr. Soliman would not face the issue I squarely raised. As an escape, he pointed to another contradiction of me and Fr. Abe:

“Therefore, both of Atty. Llasos and Fr. Abe contradicted each other. To repeat:

Fr. Abe: IT REFERS TO MARY LITERALLY ALWAYS AND AT ALL TIMES

Yes, there is the word birth pain or birth pang in both texts but the pain of the Woman Clothed with the Sun is due to the Birth of the Messiah

Atty. Llasos: we don’t interpret it literally

The pain the woman is suffering here is not indicating she was suffering pain in birth, but the suffering at seeing her Son’s agonizing pain and suffering on Calvary.”

By now, we know Gerry Soliman very, very well. And if he has not yet learned his lesson, we will teach him another one. In the subsequent articles, both Fr. Abe and I would (again) expose Mr. Soliman’s faulty reading comprehension and intellectual dishonesty.

"If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won't be honest with greater responsibilities” (Lk. 16:10, NLT).

[Note: Gerry Soliman raised other points. I reserve my right to respond to them in future articles so as not to convolute the present one. I humbly beg the indulgence of my readers. Thank you.]