Monday, 10 November 2014

Does The “I Am” Statement Of Jesus In John 8:58 Prove That He Is God?




Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

“I AM WHO I AM” or “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE” (Exodus 3:14)

Defenders of Christ-is-God theology cite John 8:58 as one of their biblical bases in proving their belief that Jesus Christ is God. Although there is no explicit statement from Christ in this verse that He is God, His statement is being understood by those who believe in His alleged deity as an indication and affirmation of His divinity. Why did they come up with this line of reasoning – that Jesus is God – simply because Christ uttered, “I AM”?

Because God also made the same statement in Exodus 3:14:

And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

God declared “I AM” when He introduced Himself to Moses. Using the concept of parallelism, Trinitarians conclude that Jesus is God simply because Christ spoke the same terms uttered by God. This type of reasoning was utilized by Josh McDowell and Bart Larson, two defenders of the alleged divinity of Christ, in their book Jesus: A Biblical Defense Of His Deity, that Christ’s use of the term is a claim to deity:

“On several occasions Jesus used the term ego eimi of Himself as it can be used only of God. The clearest example is when the Jews said to Jesus, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, ‘I AM’ [Greek: εγω ειμι]. Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him (John 8:57-59). The Jews sought to kill Him for the presumption of that claim to deity” (p.22).

Josh McDowell and Bart Larson also proposed a concept that Jesus is the Almighty God. They claimed that:

“He took to himself the Old Testament names and titles for God and also allowed others to call Him by the same names and titles . . .  this Galilean teacher was claiming to be Almighty God” (ibid., p. 21).

Moreover, they maintained that,

“Jesus claimed for Himself the name of God which was most revered by the Jews, a name considered so sacred that the Jews would not even utter it: YHWH”  (ibid., p.22).

McDowell and Larson postulated a concept that Jesus is the Almighty God of the Old Testament. The same idea is shared by some Christian apologists who even went further in saying that Jesus was the Jehovah or the God who spoke to Moses in Exodus 3:14. Typical of these is Geisler’s reasoning in his book Christian Apologetics, wherein he alleges that:

“Perhaps the strongest and most direct claim of Jesus to be Jehovah occurs in John 8:58 where he said to the Jews, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am”. The Jews’ reaction left no doubt as to how they understood his claim. They knew he had claimed not only pre-existence before Abraham but also equality with God . . .  Jesus had clearly claimed to be the “I AM” of Exodus 3:14 that refers to Jehovah alone” (p. 331).

Is Jesus the God who said “I AM” in Exodus 3:14? The answer is NO! And when Jesus said “I AM” (Greek, εγω ειμι) in John 8:58, was He indicating His alleged divinity? Definitely not! What was He affirming in this verse? That He was before Abraham. How is He before Abraham when He was born later? It must be remembered that Abraham is His ancestor and therefore came into existence before He (Christ) was born. However, He is before Abraham because He was foreordained by God even before the foundation of the world (1 Pet 1:20). It is in this sense that He was before Abraham.

In the context of John 8 it should be noted that Jesus and the Jews were having an argument about Abraham and Jesus’ authority. There is nothing we can glean from the chapter that Jesus was claiming to be God. Rather, He told the Jews that He is “a man” telling them the truth which He heard from God (John 8:40). Jesus was not telling the Jews that His name is “I AM”. Likewise, He never told them, “I am God.” If Jesus were God, He would have plainly told them so. On the contrary, Jesus clarified to them that He came from and was sent by God (John 8:42).

It is true that Christ uttered the statement egō eimi, and God also spoke the equivalent of those words in Hebrew in Exodus 3:14. But does it prove that He is the same God who spoke in the Old Testament? No. Christ was not the only one who uttered these words. The truth is, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, there were others who used the same words. In fact, in Judges 13:11 of The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English by Sir Lancelot Brenton, it is stated:

“And Manoa arose and followed his wife, and came to the man, and said to him, Art thou the man that spoke to the woman? And the angel said, I am.”

The angel said to Manoa, “I am”. Now, would our Trinitarian friends accept that the angel is also the true God for the reason that he uttered the same statement? Aside from that angel, who else uttered the same terms? In John chapter 9 verse 9, the formerly blind man emphatically stated, egō eimi! Does that make him or qualify him also as the God of the Old Testament because he uttered what God declared in Exodus 3:14? Let our Trinitarian friends answer that question.

One could not notice immediately that Jesus and the formerly blind man had uttered the same statement egō eimi because most English translations rendered John 9:9 differently. Below are a few of the English translations of the Greek term egō eimi, spoken by the formerly blind man: 

·         “I am he” (King James Version)
·         “I am he” (New King James Version)
·         “I am the one” (New American Standard Bible)
·         “I am the man” (New International Version)
·         “I am the man” (New Revised Standard Version)
·         “I am the man” (Today’s English Version)
·         “I am the same one!” (New Living Translation)

The addition of the words “he” or “the man” in these translations somehow conceal the fact that Jesus and the formerly blind man spoke the same words in the Greek New Testament.

Is it true, as Geisler alleges, that Jesus is the Jehovah who spoke in Exodus 3:14? It must be noted that the term Jehovah is how others translate the Tetragrammaton – YHWH, one of God’s names in the Old Testament. If this allegation that Jesus were the same God who uttered the statement “I AM” in Exodus 3:14 were true, then our Trinitarian friends would have to accept that aside from having a Jesus who is Jehovah, there is another Jesus, the servant of Jehovah. Why? Going back to Exodus, chapter 3, Jehovah or YHWH, in English, Lord, introduced Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in verse 15. However, in the New Testament, the same God or Jehovah, was introduced by Peter as the One who glorified Jesus, His servant. This is his testimony as it is written in Acts 3:13:

“The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.”

Now consider these scenarios: if Jesus were the God who spoke to Moses in the burning bush, then who would be His servant by the name of Jesus in Acts 3:13? Are we prepared to accept that there are two Jesuses, one who is the God of Abraham and one who is called the servant of the God of Abraham? Is there such a thing in the Bible as “Jesus who is the servant of Jesus”? There is none! The Jesus who is the servant of God is truly different from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus is not the Jehovah of the Old Testament as Geisler and his co-apologists avow.

Moreover, Apostle Paul teaches that Jesus is the seed of Abraham (Gal 3:16). How could Jesus be the seed of Abraham and at the same time His God (Matt 22:32)? Therefore, serious theological implications would result if we accept the Trinitarian’s view that Jesus was the YHWH or God who spoke to Abraham in Exodus 3:14.


The three-word name of God in Exodus 3:14: EHYEH-ASHER-EHYEH

Aside from the four-letter name of God, YHWH, technically called Tetragrammaton, which is commonly translated into English as “Yahweh” or “Lord” in some modern English versions and “Jehovah” in some older English versions of the Bible, the Hebrew Bible mentions of God’s various names such as “Elohim” (Gen 1:1), “El Elyon” (Gen 14:18), “El Shaddai” (Gen 17:1), and the three-word name of God “EHYEH-ASHER-EHYEH” in Exodus 3:14 is translated as “I AM WHO I AM” in most English versions of the Old Testament.

Although majority of the English versions of the Bible render the three-word name of God “EHYEH-ASHER-EHYEH” in Exodus 3:14 as “I AM WHO I AM, it must be noted also that this is how the translators perceived it as a translation of God’s name. However, is “I AM WHO I AM” the most precise English translation of the Hebrew name of God? Rabbi Joseph Telushkin answers:

“At one point, Moses says to God: “When I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you’, and they ask me, What is His name? what shall I say to them? God answers: ‘Ehyeh-asher-ehyeh’. Thus you shall say to the Israelites, Ehyeh sent me to you.” The three-word name God gives Himself is not easy to translate. The most precise rendering is ‘I shall be what I shall be’, although it sometimes is translated as ‘I am that I am’. The 1962 Jewish Publication Society translation of the Torah despaired of coming up with an accurate rendition, and just left the words in their Hebrew original” (Jewish Literacy, pp. 47-48).

To a Jewish scholar like Telushkin, the most precise rendering of ehyeh-asher-ehyeh is “I shall be what I shall be.” And he is not alone in this view. Wayne Grudem, a Protestant theologian, translated God’s name similar to Telushkin’s understanding. He reasons:

“God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM”. It is also possible to translate this statement “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE” (Systematic Theology, p. 161).

Furthermore, in the footnotes of several English translations of the Bible, we could find their difficulty in translating God’s name. Below are several examples: 

·         “Since it seems related to the word translated ‘I am’, it may mean ‘I am the one who is’ or ‘I will be what I will be’ or ‘I am the one who brings into being’ ” (CEV).
·         “Or I will be what I will be” (NIV).
·         “I am: or I will be what I will be” (New Revised English Bible).
·         “Or I am what I am or I will be what I will be” (NRSV).

One could notice that the translators had a difficult time getting a possible translation into English of God’s name in Exodus 3:14. Nobody for sure is certain as to how God’s three-word name should be translated into English.

In view of these things, there is no parallelism between John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. Although Jesus uttered the Greek terms egō eimi, there is no concrete proof that He is the same God who said this term in the Hebrew Bible. We can say that there is a deception involved on the part of some Christ-is-God apologists when they tried to equate Jesus’ words in John 8:58 with God’s statements in Exodus 3:14.

In the final analysis, there is no parallelism between God’s statement in Exodus 3:14 and Jesus’ statement in John 8:58. His utterance of the Greek term egō eimi is not a proof of His alleged divinity.

References:

Brenton, Lancelot Cd., The Septuagint With Apocrypha: Greek and English. Peabody, Maryland, USA: Hendrickson Publishers, n.d.

Geisler, Norman L., Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: Baker Book House, 1976.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England: Inter- Varsity Press; Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Joseph, Telushkin. Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to Know About the Jewish Religion, Its People, and Its History. New York, USA: Wiliam Morrow and Company, Inc., 1991.

McDowell, Josh and Bart Larson. Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Deity. San Bernardino, California, USA: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1983.

SOURCE: 
http://inc.kabayankokapatidko.org/does-the-i-am-statement-of-jesus-in-john-858-prove-that-he-is-god/


Tuesday, 22 October 2013

Utos Pa Ba Sa Mga Cristiano Ang Pangingilin Ng Sabbath?

      

    SA panahon natin ngayon, na kung tawagin ng Biblia ay MGA HULING ARAW o PANAHONG CRISTIANO, ay may mga tao na patuloy na naniniwala na ang PANGINGILIN ng SABBATH ay nananatiling isang KAUTUSAN na dapat ipatupad sa mga tao, partikular sa mga CRISTIANO, kaya naman may mga pangkatin ng Relihiyon, gaya ng SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST o kilala sa tawag na MGA SABADISTA na patuloy na naniniwala sa simulaing ito. Kaya’t atin pong bibigyan ng daan na mapag-aralan ang nasabing paksa para ating masagot ang tanong na: UTOS PA BA SA MGA CRISTIANO ANG PANGINGILIN NG SABBATH?

Kailan po ba nagsimulang ipagutos ang pangingilin ng Sabbath? At ano po ba ang tinatawag na Sabbath?

Exodo 20:8-11  “ALALAHANIN MO ANG ARAW NG SABBATH UPANG IPANGILIN.  ANIM NA ARAW NA GAGAWA KA AT IYONG GAGAWIN ANG LAHAT NG IYONG GAWAIN. NGUNI'T ANG IKAPITONG ARAW AY SABBATH SA PANGINOON MONG DIOS: SA ARAW NA IYAN AY HUWAG KANG GAGAWA NG ANOMANG GAWA, ikaw, ni ang iyong anak na lalake ni babae, ni ang iyong aliping lalake ni babae, ni ang iyong baka, ni ang iyong tagaibang lupa na nasa loob ng iyong mga pintuang daan:  Sapagka't sa anim na araw ay ginawa ng Panginoon ang langit at lupa, ang dagat, at lahat ng nangaroon, at nagpahinga sa ikapitong araw; na ano pa't pinagpala ng Panginoon ang araw ng sabbath, at pinakabanal.”

Maliwanag na ipinaliwanag sa atin ng Diyos mismo na ang Sabbath ay ARAW NG PAMAMAHINGA at ito ay ipinagutos niya sa Panahon ni MOISES. Maliwanag na ito ay isinasagawa sa paraang ito:

“NGUNI'T ANG IKAPITONG ARAW AY SABBATH SA PANGINOON MONG DIOS: SA ARAW NA IYAN AY HUWAG KANG GAGAWA NG ANOMANG GAWA”

Kumbaga ito ang tinatawag na “REST DAY” o isang araw na pahinga mula sa ating isang Linggong paggawa o paghahanapbuhay, na noon ngang panahon ni Moises at ng Bayang Israel ay tinatawag na SABBATH sapagkat ginaganap ito sa tuwing ika-pitong araw ng isang linggo – araw ng SABADO.

Ano po ang dahilan at ang BAYANG ISRAEL ay inutusan ng Diyos na magsagawa ng SABBATH?

Deuteronomio 5:15  “At IYONG AALALAHANIN NA IKAW AY NAGING ALIPIN sa LUPAIN NG EGIPTO, at IKAW AY INILABAS NG PANGINOON MONG DIOS DOON sa pamamagitan ng isang makapangyarihang kamay at unat na bisig: KAYA'T INIUTOS SA IYO NG PANGINOON MONG DIOS, NA IPANGILIN MO ANG ARAW NG SABBATH.”

Maliwanag po ang dahilan kung bakit inutusan ang BAYANG ISRAEL na MANGILIN ng SABBATH sapagkat ang mga Lahing Israelita po ay Iniligtas ng Panginoon mula sa pagkaalipin sa Bansang Egipto. Ito po ang talagang dahilan kaya nagkaroon ng SABBATH, para gunitain ng mga JUDIO ang pagliligtas sa kanila ng Diyos noong panahon ni Moises.

Kaya dito pa lamang ay malinaw na nating nasasagot ang Tanong na: UTOS PA BA SA MGA CRISTIANO NA IPANGILIN NG SABBATH?

SAGOT: Hindi na po, kasi ang KAUTUSANG ito ay EKSKLUSIBO o natatangi lamang sa mga ISRAELITA na iniligtas ng Diyos sa pagkaalipin mula sa Egipto. Para po sa mga Israelita lamang ang batas na ito ng Panginoong Diyos.

Pero siyempre, hindi karaka-raka ay papayag ang mga kaibigan nating Sabadista diyan, at sasabihin nila na ang Pangingilin ng Sabbath ay bahagi ng SAMPUNG UTOS [Exodo 20:1-17] na dapat tuparin ng mga CRISTIANO.

At bukod diyan ay mayroon silang ginagamit na talata sa Biblia na sinabi ng Panginoong Jesus na ganito:

Mateo 5:17  “HUWAG NINYONG ISIPING AKO'Y NAPARITO UPANG SIRAIN ANG KAUTUSAN o ang mga propeta: AKO'Y NAPARITO HINDI UPANG SIRAIN, KUNDI UPANG GANAPIN.”

Maliwanag daw po na sinabi ng Panginoong Jesus na siya ay hindi naparito upang sirain ang kautusan kundi upang ganapin o tuparin, at dahil bahagi ng KAUTUSAN sa LUMANG TIPAN ang pangigilin ng Sabbath kaya daw po hindi mangyayari na hindi ito ipatupad ni Cristo sa mga Cristiano.

Kung uunawain natin ang nasabing pananalita ni Jesus na gaya ng kanilang pagkaunawa, lalabas kung gayon na lahat ng Utos na binabanggit sa Old Testament ay ipinatupad sa New Testament o sa panahong Cristiano. Eh totoo po ba iyon? Narito po ang ilan sa halimbawa ng mga Utos sa Old Testament na hindi na ipinatutupad sa mga Cristiano:

Mga Halimbawa ng Kautusan sa Lumang Tipan na hindi na ipinatupad sa mga Cristiano

1. Ang Pagbabawal ng Pagkain ng mga Hayop na walang biyak ang Paa at hindi ngumunguya mula sa sikmura (Gaya ng Kamelyo at Baboy, at iba pa) at ng mga lamang tubig na walang palikpik at walang kaliskis (Levitico 11:3-8, 10) ay maliwanag nang pinayagan na makain sa panahon ng Bagong Tipan (Mga Gawa 10:9-15).

2. Ang Pagtutuli sa mga lalake na ipinagutos din noon (Levitico 12:3) ay hindi na ipinatupad sa mga Cristiano ng mga Apostol (Mga Gawa 15:1-32).

3.   Ang batas na NGIPIN sa NGIPIN at MATA sa MATA (Levitico 24:20) na ipinatupad din noon,  pero nilinaw ni Cristo na hindi na ganun ang batas ngayon (Mateo 5:38-39).



Ilan lamang po iyan sa mga halimbawa ng mga KAUTUSAN sa Lumang Tipan na napakaliawanag sa Biblia na hindi na ipinatutupad sa panahong Cristiano o sa panahon natin, na kahit ang mga kaibigan naming mga SABADISTA ay hindi tatanggi diyan.

Ano po ang ibig sabihin nito? Kung mayroon palang mga UTOS na nasira o hindi na ipinatupad sa panahong Cristiano, lumalabas kung ganon na may kontradiksiyon sa pahayag ni Cristo sa Mateo 5:17.

Kasi ang liwanag ng sinabi niya eh, balikan natin:

Mateo 5:17  “HUWAG NINYONG ISIPING AKO'Y NAPARITO UPANG SIRAIN ANG KAUTUSAN o ang mga propeta: AKO'Y NAPARITO HINDI UPANG SIRAIN, KUNDI UPANG GANAPIN.”

Napakaliwanag na sinabi ni Jesus na hindi niya sisirain ang KAUTUSAN, pero sa katotohanan at ating naipakita na may mga KAUTUSAN mula sa OLD TESTAMENT na hindi na ipinatutupad, kaya kung iisipin natin parang ang kalalabasan ay may SALUNGATAN.

May salungatan nga ba?  Wala po, dahil una wala naman pong sinabi si Jesus na “LAHAT NG KAUTUSAN” ang tinutukoy niya, ang sabi lang niya “KAUTUSAN” hindi “LAHAT NG KAUTUSAN”, kaya tanungin natin si Cristo mismo, alin bang KAUTUSAN ang sinasabi niya na hindi niya sisirain kundi kaniyang gaganapin?

Sasagutin tayo ng Panginoong Jesus mismo:

Lucas 24:44  “At sinabi niya sa kanila, Ito ang aking mga salitang sinabi ko sa inyo, nang ako'y sumasa inyo pa, na KINAKAILANGANG MATUPAD ANG LAHAT NG MGA BAGAY NA NANGASUSULAT TUNGKOL SA AKIN SA KAUTUSAN NI MOISES, AT SA MGA PROPETA, AT SA MGA AWIT.”

Napakaliwanag po ng pahayag ni Jesus kaya napakalinaw na walang kontradiksiyon, dahil ang tinutukoy niyang KAUTUSAN na dapat matupad ay ang MGA KAUTUSAN na:

“KINAKAILANGANG MATUPAD ANG LAHAT NG MGA BAGAY NA NANGASUSULAT TUNGKOL SA AKIN SA KAUTUSAN NI MOISES, AT SA MGA PROPETA, AT SA MGA AWIT.”

Iyong mga bagay lang na patungkol kay Jesus o tumutukoy kay Jesus, gaya ng mga PROPESIYA o HULA na tungkol kay JESUS na isinulat ni MOISES, mga PROPETA, at napasulat maging sa AKLAT ng MGA AWIT. Ang mga iyon ang kaniyang tinupad sa kaniyang pagparito.

Iyan lamang po ang ibig sabihin ng sinabi niya sa Mateo 5:17 na kaniyang tutuparin, ang mga KAUTUSAN na may KINALAMAN lamang sa kaniya o PATUNGKOL sa KANIYA. Iyong mga KAUTUSAN na hindi TUNGKOL sa kaniya ay ang mga KAUTUSAN na hindi na tutuparin, at iyon nga ay ang maraming bahagi sa KAUTUSAN ni MOISES na hindi na ipinatupad sa PANAHONG CRISTIANO.

Luke 16:16  "THE LAW OF MOSES AND THE WRITINGS OF THE PROPHETS WERE IN EFFECT UP TO THE TIME OF JOHN THE BAPTIST; since then the Good News about the Kingdom of God is being told, and everyone forces their way in. [Good News Bible]

Maliwanag po sa Biblia na ang KAUTUSAN ni MOISES ay umiral lamang sa PANAHON bago dumating si JUAN BAUTISTA, at ito po ang pagsisimula ng panahong Cristiano, kaya ang SABBATH, sapagkat bahagi ng KAUTUSAN NI MOISES ay hindi na ipinatupad sa mga CRISTIANO:

Colosas 2:26 “KAYA’T HUWAG NA KAYONG MAGPASAKOP PA SA ANUMANG ALITUNTUNIN tungkol sa pagkain o inumin, tungkol sa mga kapistahan, sa bagong buwan o sa ARAW NG PAMAMAHINGA (Sabbath)” [Magandang Balita Biblia]

Iyan po ang utos sa mga Cristiano, hindi na po tayo nasasakupan ng KAUTUSAN ni MOISES at kasama po riyan ang SABBATH na hindi na po natin dapat pang ipangilin.

Iyan po ang dahilan kaya wala po tayong mababasa sa Biblia na NANGINGILIN pa ng SABBATH ang mga UNANG CRISTIANO…dahil hindi na po ito isang BATAS o KAUTUSAN na ipinatutupad sa kanila. Kaya hindi rin po nangingilin ng Sabbath ang IGLESIA NI CRISTO.


Nawa po ay nakatulong sa mga nagsusuri.

Wednesday, 16 October 2013

Dagdag na Patotoo mula sa Biblia na ang IBONG MANDARAGIT ay Mangangaral ng mga Salita ng Diyos





Akin pong ginawan ng isang bukod na THREAD ang magandang sagot ni Brod. Christian kay THELORDISWITHYOU (Isang Catholic Faith Defender):


Tanong pa ulit ni THELORDISWITHYOU:

“Patunayan mo word for word mula sa Biblia na si FYM ay ang ibong mandaragit.

===============


Katulad ng salitang “PILIPINAS” na maling itanong kung mababasa sa Biblia, ay mali ring itanong kung mababasa sa BIBLIA ang PANGALAN ng “KA FELIX MANALO”.

Wala rin pong DOKTRINA sa INC na nagsasabi na ang PANGALAN ng KA FELIX ay MABABASA sa BIBLIA, hindi po namin paniniwala iyan.

Ang nasa BIBLIA ay “PROPESIYA” o “HULA” na tumutukoy sa kaniya na hindi kaugalian ng DIYOS na MAGBANGGIT ng PANGALAN…

Kapag ang ISUSUGO ng DIYOS ay ISANG MANGANGARAL, ang PROPESIYA ay HINDI NAGLALAMAN ng KANIYANG PANGALAN.

Gaya halimbawa sa THREAD sa ITAAS [Ang tinutukoy ay ang THREAD NA: Katibayang Hindi si Ciro ang Ibong Mandaragit sa Isaias 46:11], na mga PROPESIYA sa AKLAT NI ISAIAS na tumutukoy kay JUAN BAUTISTA, APOSTOL PABLO, at PANGINOONG JESUCRISTO na pawang mga WALANG PANGALAN…


At ang tanging NAGPATOTOO na ang HULA ay NATUPAD sa kanila ay sila rin MISMO, na KINATUPARAN ng HULA. Kaya nga kung si CIRO ay NAGPATOTOO na siya ang IBONG MANDARAGIT, napakalabo na meron sa panahon natin ngayon na makapagsasabi na siya man ay kinatuparan ng HULA.

Katulad ng mga HULA kay APOSTOL PABLO, PANGINOONG JESUS, at JUAN BAUTISTA, sila lamang ang nagpakilala na sa kanila natupad ang HULA, at walang UMANGKIN na iba.

Kay CIRO ang nagpapakilala na siya ang IBONG MANDARAGIT ay IBANG MGA TAO. At walang kinalaman ang sinasabi nilang kinatuparan ng HULA.

Maliwanag na ang HINUHULAAN sa ISAIAS 46:11 ay MANGANGARAL ng MGA SALITA ng DIYOS kaya hindi BINANGGIT ang PANGALAN ng HINUHULAAN:

Balikan natin ang TALATA:

Isaias 46:11  “Na tumatawag ng ibong mangdadagit mula sa silanganan, ng TAONG GUMAGAWA NG AKING PAYO MULA SA MALAYONG LUPAIN…”

Maliwanag ang banggit sa HULA:

“TAONG GUMAGAWA NG AKING PAYO MULA SA MALAYONG LUPAIN.”

Hindi literal na IBON kundi TAO na GUMAGAWA ng PAYO ng DIYOS.

Na ang PAYO ay:

Awit 107:11  “Sapagka't sila'y nanghimagsik laban sa MGA SALITA NG DIOS, at hinamak ang PAYO NG KATAASTAASAN:”

Kaya maliwanag na:

PAYO NG DIYOS = MGA SALITA NG DIYOS

Na ito rin ay KATUWIRAN ng DIYOS:

Awit 119:172  “Awitin ng aking dila ANG IYONG SALITA; sapagka't lahat ng mga utos mo ay KATUWIRAN.”

Kaya NAPAKALIWANAG na:

PAYO NG DIYOS = MGA SALITA NG DIYOS

KATUWIRAN = MGA SALITA NG DIYOS

Kaya:

PAYO NG DIYOS = KATUWIRAN

Daniel 4:27  “Kaya't, Oh hari, tanggapin mo ang AKING PAYO, at lansagin mo ng KATUWIRAN ang iyong mga kasalanan, at ng pagpapakita ng kaawaan sa dukha ang iyong katampalasanan; baka sakaling ikatibay ng iyong katiwasayan.”


Kaya nga maliwanag nating masasabi na:

“TAONG GUMAGAWA NG AKING PAYO”

Ay katumbas ng salitang:

“TAONG GUMAGAWA NG AKING KATUWIRAN”

Na sino ang NAKAKATULAD?

 1 Juan 3:7  “Mumunti kong mga anak, huwag kayong padaya kanino man: ANG GUMAGAWA NG KATUWIRAN AY MATUWID, GAYA NIYA NA MATUWID”:

Sabi ng BIBLIA:

“ANG GUMAGAWA NG KATUWIRAN AY MATUWID.”

Isang TAONG MATUWID ang GUMAGAWA ng KATUWIRAN, at sino ang NAKAKATULAD?

“GAYA NIYA NA MATUWID”

Nakakatulad Niya na MATUWID, sino ang tinutukoy ni Apostol Juan na MATUWID?

1 Juan 2:1  “Mumunti kong mga anak, ang mga bagay na ito ay isinusulat ko sa inyo upang kayo'y huwag mangagkasala. At kung ang sinoman ay magkasala, ay may Tagapamagitan tayo sa Ama, SI JESUCRISTO ANG MATUWID:”

Maliwanag kung gayon:

NA ANG IBONG MANDARAGIT NA TAONG GAGAWA NG PAYO O KATUWIRAN NG DIYOS AY ISANG “TAONG MATUWID” GAYA NI JESUCRISTO NA MATUWID.”

Ibig sabihin may pagkakatulad din kay CRISTO ang IBONG MANDARAGIT…

Si CRISTO ay MANGANGARAL NG SALITA ng DIYOS at HINDI MANDIRIGMA

Kaya ang IBONG MANDARAGIT ay MANGANGARAL DIN NG SALITA NG DIYOS at HINDI MANDIRIGMA.

Si CRISTO ay MAY HULA SA ISAIAS na WALANG BINANGGIT na PANGALAN

Ang IBONG MANDARAGIT ay may HULA rin sa ISAIAS na WALANG BINANGGIT NA PANGALAN.

===============

Mula sa akin:

AT MALIWANAG DING MASASABI NA KUNG ANG DIYOS NG ISRAEL AY DIYOS NI CRISTO [JUAN 20:17] AY DIYOS DIN NG ISRAEL ANG DIYOS NG IBONG MANDARAGIT.

===============

Ano pa ang PRUWEBA na talagang MANGANGARAL o TAGAPAGTURO ng SALITA NG DIYOS ang HINUHULAAN?

Ano ba ang TUNGKULIN ng TAONG MATUWID ayon sa aklat din ni  Propeta ISAIAS?

Isaias 26:7  “ANG DAAN NG GANAP ay KATUWIRAN: IKAW NA MATUWID AY NAGTUTURO NG LANDAS NG GANAP.”

Maliwanag sa sinabi ng TALATA:

ANG DAAN NG GANAP = KATUWIRAN

ANG MATUWID = NAGTUTURO NG LANDAS (o DAAN) NG GANAP

Samakatuwid,

ANG MATUWID = NAGTUTURO NG KATUWIRAN (o MGA SALITA NG DIYOS)

Kaya maliwanag na ang IBONG MANDARAGIT na TAONG MATUWID ay KATULAD ni CRISTO na NAGTUTURO ng KATUWIRAN o MGA SALITA NG DIYOS – MANGANGARAL ng DIYOS at HINDI MANDIRIGMA gaya ni CIRO.

=================
Maliwanag na hindi si CIRO ang HINUHULAAN kundi isang MANGANGARAL na MAGMUMULA sa MALAYONG SILANGAN na GAGAWA ng PAYO o KATUWIRAN o MGA SALITA NG DIYOS.

MANGANGARAL o MAGTUTURO ng KATUWIRAN o MGA SALITA NG DIYOS.

Napakaliwanag ng KATUWIRAN na ito na mula sa Biblia, na nawa’y makatulong sa mga NAGSUSURI…


Sunday, 13 October 2013

Regarding Dr. Jose Rizal’s alleged Retraction




First let me show to you what is written on the said RETRACTION, so that my CATHOLIC VISITORS on this Blog, will not say that I have no guts to post this:


The So called Controversial Retraction of Dr. Jose Rizal

“Me declaro catolica y en esta Religion en que naci y me eduque quiero vivir y morir.


Me retracto de todo corazon de cuanto en mis palabras, escritos, inpresos y conducta ha habido contrario a mi cualidad de hijo de la Iglesia Catolica. Creo y profeso cuanto ella enseña y me somento a cuanto ella manda. Abomino de la Masonaria, como enigma que es de la Iglesia, y como Sociedad prohibida por la Iglesia. Puede el Prelado Diocesano, como Autoridad Superior Eclesiastica hacer publica esta manifastacion espontanea mia para reparar el escandalo que mis actos hayan podido causar y para que Dios y los hombers me perdonen.


Manila 29 de Deciembre de 1896


Jose Rizal



English Translation:


I declare myself a catholic and in this Religion in which I was born and educated I wish to live and die.


I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct has been contrary to my character as son of the Catholic Church. I believe and I confess whatever she teaches and I submit to whatever she demands. I abominate Masonry, as the enemy which is of the Church, and as a Society prohibited by the Church. The Diocesan Prelate may, as the Superior Ecclesiastical Authority, make public this spontaneous manifestation of mine in order to repair the scandal which my acts may have caused and so that God and people may pardon me.


Manila 29 of December of 1896


Jose Rizal



And now let us read a thorough analysis on this issue:

 (Editor: This is Part II of the lecture delivered at the CHICAGO’S NEWBERRY LIBRARY ON JUNE 18, 2011. THE AUTHOR IS A GREAT-GRAND NEPHEW OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL HERO whose 150th birthday was marked on June 19 of this year. Dr. Rizal was sentenced to die by musketry on Dec. 30, 1896 after a brief mock trial by a Spanish military court in Fort Santiago, Manila.)

By Ramon G. Lopez, M.D.

 “How could this be?” we ask.  It COULD BE, for the circumstances and people had connived.  It COULD BE, for there was no other recourse.  It COULD BE, for the moth had burned its wings!  Twenty-four years after the garroting of the Filipino clerics, Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, the pogrom and intimidation had to continue. It had to continue for the dying Empire and frailocracy had now sensed its own death. It had to continue, for it wanted to display its final domination of a reawakened people.  However, it would not be completely so!  THE MAN THEY HAD JUST MARTYRED WAS A MAN WHOSE POLITICS AND FAITH WERE UNSHAKEABLE AND TIMELESS.  AS WE KNOW, AND AS HISTORY RECOUNTS, IT ALSO PROJECTS.

To paraphrase the words of Dr. Rafael Palma the great Philippine scholar, patriot, and former President of the University of the Philippines regarding the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal, “the document obtained under moral duress and spiritual threats has very little value before the tribunal of history.”  Dr. Rafael Palma, a respected jurist of his time, was an author on the life of our hero and had studied the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal meticulously.  Of this he says in his book The Pride of the Malay Race about Dr. Jose Rizal, “His defense before the court martial is resplendent for its moderation and serenity in spite of the abusive and vexatious manner in which the fiscal had treated him.”  FOR IN MAN’S OWN TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL AND TRIAL THAT CONDEMNED DR. JOSE RIZAL TO DIE WAS A SHAM; HIS EXECUTION, A FOREGONE CONCLUSION.

It is common historical knowledge that Ms. Josephine Bracken lived with Dr. Jose Rizal for three of the four years he was exiled in Dapitan.  He truly loved her.  THEY HAD DESIRED A CANONICAL MARRIAGE BUT WERE PRESENTED WITH A PRE-CONDITION RETRACTION OF RIZAL’S ANTI-ECCLESIASTICAL WRITINGS AND BELIEFS.  As we may know, he was never anti-God or anti-Church.  He was anti-cleric to those who abused their mission and hid behind their pretentious cloak of religiosity.  He knew there were those who practiced religion but did not worship God.  NEITHER THE RETRACTION NOR THE MARRIAGE OCCURRED.  He and Josephine were parents to a son, though he sadly passed.  We know that Dr. Jose Rizal had immortalized Josephine Bracken in his unsigned and untitled poem which we now refer to as his “Ultimo Adios”: “Adios, dulce extranjera mi amiga, mi alegria…”  As Ambeth R. Ocampo, Director of the Philippine Historical Institute quotes, “TO ACCEPT RIZAL AS HAVING MARRIED BRACKEN IS TO ACCEPT HIS ALLEGED RETRACTION OF RELIGIOUS ERROR.”  From Austin Coates, British author and historian:  “BEFORE GOD, HE (DR. RIZAL) HAD NOTHING TO RETRACT.”  And from Dr. Jose Rizal himself, I quote: “I GO WHERE THERE ARE NO SLAVES, NO HANGMEN, NO OPPRESSORS… WHERE FAITH DOES NOT SLAY… WHERE HE WHO REIGNS IS GOD.”


Fraudulent Premise


From 1892 to 1896, during his period of exile in Dapitan, the Catholic Church attempted to redirect his beliefs regarding religious faith, albeit unsuccessfully.  A succession of visits from Fathers Obach, Vilaclara, and Sanchez did not find his convictions wanting.  He had decided to remain ecclesiastically unwed, rather than recant his alleged “religious errors.”  Now, there seems to be a “disconnect”, or even a divide among historians as to whether Dr. Jose Rizal had abjured his apparent errant religious ways as claimed by the friars and the Jesuits.  Since a retraction of alleged “religious errors” would have begotten a marriage to Ms. Josephine Bracken, let us look for evidence that will prove this premise fraudulent.  Austin Coates’ book entitled Rizal – Philippine Nationalist and Martyr gives many compelling facts as borne out from his own personal investigation, and with numerous interviews of the Rizal family.  To wit:


1.      Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S. J., claimed that he performed the canonical marriage between 6:00 – 6:15 AM of December 30, 1896 in the presence of one of the Rizal sisters.  The Rizal family denied that any of the Rizal sisters were there that fateful morning.  Dr. Jose Rizal was martyred at 7:03 AM.

2.      Nobody had reported seeing Ms. Josephine Bracken in the vicinity of Fort Santiago in the morning of the execution.

3.      Considering the time it would take for the three priests (Fr. Jose Vilaclara, Fr. Estanislao March, and Fr. Vicente Balaguer) to negotiate the expanse of the walk to give spiritual care to the condemned Dr. Jose Rizal, why is it that only Fr. Balaguer could “describe” a wedding?  Furthermore, where were Fr. Vilaclara and Fr. March to corroborate the occurrence of a marriage ceremony?  Or was there really even one at all?

4.      In Josephine Bracken’s matrimony to Vicente Abad, the Church Register of Marriages kept at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Hong Kong made no reference that Josephine was a “Rizal” by marriage, or that she was the widow of Dr. Jose Rizal.

5.      In the legal register of Hong Kong, Josephine used the last name “Bracken” instead of “Rizal” to be married to Vicente Abad.

6.      In Josephine Bracken’s litigation versus Jose Maria Basa for the possession of Dr. Jose Rizal’s valuable library, a certification from the British Consulate from Manila stating that she was indeed Rizal’s widow would have bolstered her claim.  She did not pursue this.  Why not?

7.      In 1960, inquiry at the Cardinal-Bishopric of Manila for evidentiary proof of a Rizal-Bracken marriage was not fruitful, or possibly, the issue was simply ignored by the religious.  Likewise, we ask the question, “Why?”


“Unconfessed” Martyrdom”


From the dark days of exile in Dapitan, to the even darker days of imprisonment at Fort Santiago, the Catholic Church had demanded from Dr. Jose Rizal a retraction before a canonical marriage could be performed.  In this Inquisition-like setting of the Spanish regime, it was always proclaimed that “the Indio always retracted”, as he walked to his execution.  Austin Coates states in his book: “THE SPANIARDS PUBLISH THE SAME THING ABOUT EVERYONE WHO IS SHOTBesides, nobody has ever seen this written declaration in spite of the fact that a number of people would want to see it…. It is (always) in the hands of the Archbishop.”  I say that if there was no marriage, there could have not been a retraction, and Dr. Jose Rizal met his martyrdom “un-confessed”:


1.      Indeed, at the Paco Cemetery, the name of Dr. Jose Rizal was listed among those who died impenitent.  The entry made in the book of burials at the cemetery where Rizal was buried was not made on the page for those buried on December 30, 1896 (where there were as many as six entries), but on a special page, as ordered by the authoritiesThus, Dr. Jose Rizal was entered on a page between a man who burned to death, and another who died by suicide – persons considered “un-confessed” and without spiritual aid at the time of death.

2.      Father Estanislao March, S.J., and Fr. Jose Vilaclara, S.J. (who had accompanied Dr. Jose Rizal to the execution site) could have ordered a Christian burial, but they did not.  They must have known that no retraction was made.  Dr. Jose Rizal was laid to earth bare, without a sack, without a coffin.  This was the onus of the “un-confessed.”

3.      One must also remember that Dr. Jose Rizal wrote a short and final note to his parents dated December 30, 1896 at 6:00 in the morning, with no mention of an occurred or intended retraction and/or marriage.  A message with that important information would have been of great consolation to Dona Teodora Alonso and to Don Francisco Mercado, whom he loved and respected dearly.

4.      Despite numerous immediate supplications from the Rizal family after the execution, no letter of retraction could be produced.

5.      The Rizal family was informed by the church that approximately nine to eleven days after the execution, a mass for the deceased would be said, after which the letter of retraction would be shown the family.  Though the family was in attendance, the mass was never celebrated and no letter of retraction was shown.  They were told that the letter had been sent to the Archbishop’s palace, and that the family would not be able to see it.

6.      The Jesuits themselves (who had a special liking for their former student) did not celebrate any mass for his soul, nor did they hold any funerary rites over his body.  I take this as a repudiation of the Jesuits against the friars, loudly hinting to the Filipino people that their esteemed pupil did not abjure!

7.      The apparent “discovery” of an obviously forged autobiography of Josephine Bracken claiming marriage to Dr. Jose Rizal, showed a  handwriting that bore no resemblance to Josephine’s and had glaring errors in syntax, which revealed that the perpetrating author’s primary language was Spanish (not Josephine’s original language), thus  proving that the document was  manufactured and disingenuous.

8.      Confession in August, 1901 of master forger Roman Roque that earlier in the year, he was employed by the friars to make several copies of a retraction letter.

9.      In 1962, authors Ildefonso T. Runes and Mamerto M. Buenafe in their book Forgery of the Rizal Retraction and Josephine’s Autobiography, made an exposé of six different articles and books that purportedly presented Dr. Jose Rizal’s “document of retraction” as copied from the so-called “original” testament of retraction.  INTRIGUINGLY ENOUGH, EVEN TO THIS DAY, THE CLAIMED “ORIGINAL” DOCUMENT FROM WHICH THE FACSIMILES HAVE ARISEN HAVE NOT BEEN SEEN BY ANYBODY.  BLATANT IN THESE SIX DIFFERENT PRESENTATIONS WERE DIFFERING DATES AND NOTES THAT HAD BEEN DOCTORED, TRACED-OVER, AND ALTERED, WHEN THESE FACSIMILES WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE COME FROM THE SAME “ORIGINAL” DOCUMENT!  This book of Runes and Buenafe was published by the Pro-Patria Publishers of Manila. The book is extant but unfortunately, out of print.

Though the issue of “Retraction” remains contentious for some people, it is my personal opinion that there is no controversy; that Dr. Jose Rizal did not make any recantation of his writings and beliefs.  THE ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY MADE BY HIS DETRACTORS ARE ALL SMOKE SCREEN AND “RETREADS” OF THE DUBIOUS ACCOUNTS OF THE SYCOPHANTIC FATHER BALAGUER AND HIS GULLIBLE MINIONS.  Let us not allow for the sands of time to cover the blunder of this ignoble and impious event.  Let not the conspiracy of silence keep us chained to this fraudulent claim.  As had been vigorously proposed then, and again now, let the document of retraction be examined by a panel of the world’s experts in hand-writing, and let a pronouncement be made.  Let this hidden document come to the eyes of the public, for they have the greatest of rights to see, and to judge, and to know what is truthful.

When this comes to pass… in this 21st century, in this age of an “evidence-based” society that demands transparency and full-disclosure, it can be stated that with the now enlightened and reformed Catholicism, and in the spirit of Vatican II, if Pope John Paul II can apologize to the Jewish people for the millennia of misdeeds by the Church, if Pope Benedict XVI can, in Australia at the 2008 World Youth Congress, apologize to the victims of pedophilia and other ecclesiastical sexual abuses, THEN IT SHOULD NOT BE BEYOND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO NOW ADMIT THE PIOUS FRAUD IT HAD COMMITTED IN SAYING THAT DR. JOSE RIZAL HAD ABJURED HIS WRITINGS AND BELIEFS, WHEN ALL EVIDENCES POINT TO THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT!”



It is up to you readers to Judge…

ATTENTION TO THOSE WHO LEAVE COMMENTS IN THIS BLOG:

I think it’s about time to avoid confusion to anyone, that I will no longer allow anybody commenting in this blog posting as ANONYMOUS, regardless of his Religion and Affiliations. Any comments under the name of ANONYMOUS will be DELETED.

Any comments attacking a PERSON [Ad Hominem], instead of defending his Faith with honor and respect will be DELETED. Never accuse a person or an organization that we have no proper proofs or evidences to support our accusations. Hearsays and fabricated stories with a motive of hurting and dishonoring somebody [either an individual or an organization] will no longer be allowed and be tolerated in this Blog.

If anyone feels that what I have imposed is not fair? There is nobody stopping you in making your own Blog and rules that you so desire. I have all the rights to impose any rules for the sake of orderliness of this Blog as it is written in the Scriptures: “Everything must be done in a proper and orderly way.” [1 Cor 14:40, GNB].

My BLOG, My RULES…

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

NET 25 - Iglesia Ni Cristo Network