Why Moses did not reach the Promised Land

The Lord said to Moses, “Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink.” 

 

So Moses took the staff from the Lord’s presence, just as he commanded him. He and Aaron gathered the assembly together in front of the rock and Moses said to them, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring you water out of this rock?” Then Moses raised his arm and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out, and the community and their livestock drank. 

 

But the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them.”  Numbers 20:7-12

Many people are wondering why such a seemingly little act of anger and disobedience denied Moses from entering the Promised Land.  Moses was extremely annoyed by the never ending complaints of the Israelites.  When the Israelites, for the second time, demanded for water God told Moses to only speak to the rock and water will come out.  But due to Moses' anger, he struck the rock for a second time which prompted God to tell him that he can no longer enter the Promised Land.  Is that a fair judgment on the part of God? 

There are others who committed even worse sins than this.  One of which is King David who had one of his soldiers, Uriah, killed so that he could have Bathsheba (2nd Samuel 11-12), yet David remained king of Israel.  The apostle Peter denied Christ three times (Matthew 26:69-75)  but he was restored and one became the apostle to the Jews.  So why did not these men suffer like Moses? 

People have reasoned that Moses' show of anger and disobedience were not fit for a leader.  He set a bad example to the Israelites.  I believe that this reasoning is quite valid.  But there is a much deeper reason: it all has something to do with the rock.

The apostle Paul tells us:

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.  1st Corinthians 10:1-4
  
The rock was representing Christ.  The first time Moses struck the rock was on Exodus 17:1-7.  This was representing the beating, torture, and suffering of Christ for our sins.  As a result, the blood that was offered cleansed us from our sins and gave us a refreshing feeling of forgiveness; similar to the water which refreshed the thirsty Israelites.

However, the sacrifice of Christ is only done once and for all - never to be repeated:

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.  Hebrews 10:10, 12-14, 18

That is why the Apostle John tells us that if we as Christians sinned we must confess to Christ so that He may purify us (1st John 1:9).  This is equivalent to God's command for Moses to speak to the rock.

Moses, due to his anger struck the rock (who was representing Christ) for the second time which signifies blasphemy since Christ only has to suffer once.  That's the deeper reason why Moses never got to the Promised Land.  Such act would not have happened had Moses controlled his anger.

Since Moses sinned out of ignorance about the significance of the rock, God was still with Moses.

For our part, if we have sinned we only need to speak to Christ.  We must come with a repentant heart and confess to Him our wrongdoings.  We need not do any penance or other forms of atonement because Christ paid for it all.

John 19:27 - Basis of Mary as Mother of the Church?

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. (KJV)

This is one of the verses Roman Catholics use to prove Mary's motherhood over the church. They argue that John symbolizes all Christians and when Christ said to him "Behold thy mother!" it is a command that recognize Mary as their mother (thus, Mother of the Church). In a Catholic website:

First, in imitation of God, who in choosing her to be the mother of our Savior honored her more highly than we ever could. Such an honor is not to be taken lightly. Nor is the command of Jesus from the cross to His beloved disciple, “Behold, your mother.” From the cross, Jesus entrusts the care of His mother to His beloved disciple, who represents the Lord’s beloved Church. To honor Mary is to honor our mother which, of course, is to keep the fourth commandment, “Honor your father and your mother.”

The problem with this kind of interpretation is that it's biased to Catholic tradition more than the Bible. Roman Catholics have always believed that Mary is the mother of the church so their biases prevail.

How so? From the verse, we see an actual Mary and an actual John the disciple. When Roman Catholics interpret this verse to support Mary's motherhood over the church, it's ironic that Mary remains as the literal Mary while John now becomes a symbol (or type) of the church. For what basis should we make that kind of interpretation? Can we accommodate an interpretation which Mary is a symbol while John as his literal self? Can John and Mary symbolize something else? Then again, you can make all the symbolism you like but at the end of the day you will find it impossible to support your symbolism (unless you want to count personal bias as a valid basis).

Some will cross reference John 19:27 with Revelations 12:17. Roman Catholics interpret Mary as the woman in Revelations 12. The offspring in verse 17 of course refer to the believers of God. Since they interpret the woman in Revelations 12 as Mary, it follows that she is the mother of all believers (or the church). Again this interpretation is so baseless. No church father (whom Roman Catholics claim as their predecessors after the apostles) during the first 300 years of Christianity interpret the woman of Revelations 12 as Mary. In addtion, the birth pains in Revelations 12:2 jeopardizes the Immaculate Conception since it is a consequence of Eve's sin.

As to who is the woman in Revelations 12, the Apostle Paul can help us out:

These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them. And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law. But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother... So, dear brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman; we are children of the free woman. Galatians 4:24-26, 31 NLT

Throughout the entire Bible, especially in the New Testament, no one acknowledges Mary as the mother of the church. The obvious interpretation John 19:27 is that someone must take care of His mother because Jesus is about to die and will not remain in the world for long after his ressurection. Since His foster father, Joseph is presumed dead and his brothers do not believe in Him (John 7:5), Jesus entrusted Mary to someone He could count on who is John. It's that simple.

As a result of this act of entrusting Mary to John, this gave birth to a ministry as written in 1st Timothy 5 where widows are to be taken care of.

Manny Pacquiao's New Life

Pambansang Kamao, Manny "Pacman" Pacquiao

At first I didn't believe about the news that Manny Pacquiao received Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, though this was personally announced by the senior pastor of the local Baptist church where I am a member. However, the senior pastor encouraged us to pray that Pacquiao's conversion develops even further.

Then we read some very encouraging news such as these (excerpt):

What the Bible says, Pacquiao told Korina, is that man must first be born again in order to enter heaven.

That, needless to say, was what has obviously brought about a reborn Manny Pacquiao.

It’s no use if you are able to memorize the Bible but still sticks to your rotten ways.

It’s useless going to church every day if you don’t live in the ways of the Lord, Pacquiao said.

Out with ceremonial Christians who know the names of all the saints but have no honest idea how to help others.

Down with decorated Christians who only love and live for themselves.

And which lead to more amazing news:

MANILA, Philippines – World boxing champion Manny Pacquiao, who says the Bible has changed his life, is hanging his gloves this season of Lent to take on a new task: to preach the Word of God to priests.

Also:

Pacquiao, widely regarded as the world’s best pound-for-pound fighter, said that God appeared to him in a dream and asked him to retire soon.

“I will not stay long in boxing because He said: ‘You have done enough. You have made yourself famous but this is harmful,’” Pacquiao told dzMM radio in Monday’s interview that was also broadcast over the network’s Teleradyo show.

Pacquiao was known to be a Roman Catholic. Despite of his success as a boxer and devotion to the Catholic tradition, he was also known to have vices such as gambling. Now we thank God that he is a Bible believing Christian and we sincerely pray that his new life in Christ will be fruitful.

Refuting Atty. Marwil Llasos on Luke 11:27-28

Atty. Marwil Llasos once again tries to defend the Roman Catholic doctrine on Mary. In his article, he explains why Luke 11:27-28 does not shatter the Catholic devotion to Mary.

Anti-Catholics take “rather” to mean as a particle of contradiction. They say, “No, Mary is not blessed; rather blessed are they …” It is in that sense that the New American Standard Version renders Luke 11:27-28, thus:

“While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

Anti-Catholics are quick to point out that the "rather" in Luke 11:28 means "on the contrary." This, they say, is a clear proof that Jesus rebukes Marian devotion. With this verse, anti-Catholics are confident that they have shattered to pieces the Catholic case for Marian devotion. They interpret the passage to mean that those who hear the word of God and keep it are much more blessed than Mary (as if Mary herself did not hear the word of God and keep it).

Before we go on discussing his so-called rebuttal, let's give first some clarification on the Evangelical's use of the verse. It's true that we Evangelicals use it to debunk Roman Catholic devotion on Mary. However, the verse is not used to deny the blessedness of Mary. We believe that Mary is indeed blessed (Luke 1:48). Luke 11:27-28 is nevertheless used to impair any further exaltation of Mary. The controversial word in the verse is "rather" which has an opposing position and can mean "on the contrary". We can agree with Roman Catholics that Mary is blessed because she heard and observed God's word. But Christians can also be blessed as Mary if they do likewise.

The position of Atty. Llasos is stated as follows:

The passage, far from downplaying Marian devotion, in fact reinforces it. Jesus makes it clear that Mary is actually "doubly blessed" for being His Mother and for hearing the word of God and keeping it.

And the basis for stating that is on the Greek word "menoun" which can be also translated or understood as "furthermore" instead of "on the contrary":

The Greek word used for “rather” in Luke 11:28 is “menoun”:

“autos de eipen menoun makarioi hoi akouontes ton logon tou theou kai phulassontes”

There are various translations of the word menoun. The King James Version translates it as "yea rather" while the Revised Standard Version renders it as "indeed." The Douay-Rheims Version renders it as "furthermore."

How then is “menoun” to be understood? Protestant Bible scholar Margaret E. Thrall studied Greek particles in the New Testament. This scholar cannot be accused of bias toward the Catholic position. Yet, in her study, she suggests the interpretation of “menoun” in Luke 11;27-28 as: “What you have said is true as far as it goes. But the blessedness of Mary does not consist simply in the fact of her relationship towards myself, but (menoun) in the fact that she shares in the blessedness of those who hear the word of God and keep it, and it is in this that true blessedness lies” [Margaret E. Thrall, Greek Particles in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962) p. 35].

As always, it is the strategy of Atty. Llasos to cite non-Catholic sources to be objective. The strategy isn't bad, but in my experience he also uses it as a tool to show Evangelical inconsistencies (since an Evangelical appears to side with him). In here, he cites Margaret Thrall's position that menoun is supportive than adverse. While we don't have evidence to accuse Ms. Thrall of bias, we also don't have enough assurance that Ms. Thrall is correct here. Just as Atty. Llasos can cite non-Catholic sources to prove that menoun is in a reinforced state, we can cite Roman Catholic sources to prove that it is in an adverse state. In a footnote of the New American Bible:

The beatitude in Luke 11:28 should not be interpreted as a rebuke of the mother of Jesus; see the note on Luke 8:21. Rather, it emphasizes (like Luke 2:35) that attentiveness to God's word is more important than biological relationship to Jesus.

We find a suggestion of an adverse use than a supportive one. Of course, Atty. Llasos does not prefer this but its from their backyard.

The Greek word menoun appears in three other instances in the New Testament (Romans 9:20, Romans 10:18, and Philippians 3:8). Among the three, it is only in Philippians 3:8 that menoun reinforces the thought of the verse (while others denotes an adverse):

What is more (menoun), I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, (NIV)

So what made menoun a reinforcement in Philippians 3:8? That's because it is joined by two conjunctions "alla" (but) and "kai" (and) which makes it possible to understand as "not only this but also" (which is favorable to Atty. Llasos). However, all other verses including Luke 11:28 is not structured similarly as Philippians 3:8 and so menoun is rendered as an opposing particle (e.g. rather, on the contrary, etc.).

Moreover (no pun intended), the woman in verse 27 concentrated only on Mary while Christ response in verse 28 pertains for the many. Had it been what Atty. Llasos wanted, Christ should have used a reference that is singular (like "she") rather than plural (they or those).

So how should we understand Luke 11:27-28? The woman was giving praise to Mary for being His mother. But Christ corrected that woman by saying blessedness does not come from a biological relationship with Him but through obedience of God's word. It's not just for Mary alone but for others as well.

Acts 15:7 to 12 - Peter's Primacy?

One of the texts used by Roman Catholics to prove that Peter was indeed the Pope, who has leadership over the universal church after Christ's ascension, is found in Acts 15:1 to 29 where a council was held to settle a doctrinal dispute. The dispute was if circumcision and observance of the laws of Moses were necessary for the Christians to be saved (15:1 and 5-6). In the midst of the dispute, Peter rose up and gave his speech (15:7-11). After Peter had spoken, the people in the council was said to be silent (15:12). Peter's speech was said to be the basis of James' judgment (15:13-19).

The so-called evidence of Peter's primacy in Acts 15 rest on his speech in verses 7 to 11 that silenced the council in verse 12, and that also caused James to make his judgment in verses 13.

Did the council acknowledge Peter's primacy because they became silent in respect to his speech? It doesn't follow. Peter indeed have said something convincing that caused the entire council to consider it in silence, but that doesn't mean he was supreme. During his life on earth Christ has silenced his critics and oppositions. Although His critics had nothing more to say, they still hated Him and did not acknowledge His supremacy.

It's ironic that after Peter had spoken Paul, Barnabas, and James continued to speak. No one stopped the three by saying, "Hey our pope has spoken, please stop talking."

In Galatians 2:11, Paul opposed Peter because the latter had committed a mistake of separating himself from the Gentiles for fear of the circumcised Jews. Does Paul's convincing opposition to Peter imply his supremacy over Peter? It also doesn't follow. In both instances, Peter and Paul have good arguments but it doesn't follow that they are superior in position.

As for James making his judgment based on Peter's statement, it also doesn't follow that James acknowledged Peter's primacy. James indeed had good inputs from Peter, but do take notice that James said "it is my judgment," in verse 19 and his sentence was implemented all the way to verse 30. The judgment made by James should have been an indicator that he was leader of the church in Jerusalem.

Some Roman Catholics may argue that the word judgment in verse 19 can also mean opinion. While that can be true, it does not apply in verse 19. When they wrote their instruction to the church, they indicated that it seemed good to the Holy Spirit. Why would just an opinion be good to the Holy Spirit? Didn't James quote the authoritative Scripture? Therefore, James' sentence is a decision that must be carried out and not merely an opinion. Besides, if it were just an opinion of James, shouldn't this be regarded as private interpretation which Roman Catholics detest?

The funny thing about the belief Peter's primacy is when nice things are said about Peter, Roman Catholics regard this as basis for his supremacy. But when nice things are said about others they are just normal occurrences.

Does Joshua 7:6-7 justify the Use of Images in Worship?

Joshua, together with the elders of Israel, tore their garments and fell face down before the ark of the LORD until evening; and they threw dust on their heads. “Alas, Lord GOD,” Joshua prayed, “why did you ever allow this people to cross over the Jordan, delivering us into the power of the Amorites, that they might destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell on the other side of the Jordan. (New American Bible, NAB)

The Ark of the Covenant has two images of angels (Exodus 25:18-21). Modern Roman Catholic apologists argue that since Joshua bowed before the ark which has the said images of angels, their practice of using images to "venerate" God and the saints is justifiable. After all, it is claimed that Roman Catholics are not praying to the images but rather to the one being represented by the images. Surely, Joshua wasn't praying to the images of angels for he was praying to God. But since there appears to be a similarity between what Joshua did and the practice of Roman Catholics, it is further argued that Roman Catholics are doing God's will.

Does the act of Joshua of bowing before the image in the Ark of Covenant really similar to Roman Catholics bowing before their images of Christ, Mary, and the saints? Not in a million years. Only the careless and gullible would believe that.

Let's read the reason why God ordered the Israelites to make the ark:

They are to make a sanctuary for me, that I may dwell in their midst. Exodus 25:8 NAB

There I will meet you and there, from above the cover, between the two cherubim on the ark of the covenant, I will tell you all that I command you regarding the Israelites. Exodus 25:22 NAB

It is very clear that God's presence would be in the ark and it is the designated place that he will meet Moses. Why does the ark has images of angels? Could it be because the ark is some sort of a replica of God's throne in Heaven?

In the year King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne, with the train of his garment filling the temple. Seraphim were stationed above; each of them had six wings: with two they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they hovered. Isaiah 6:1-2 NAB

What else does the ark serve?

King David rose to his feet and said: “Hear me, my kinsmen and my people. It was my purpose to build a house of repose myself for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, the footstool for the feet of our God; and I was preparing to build it. 1st Chronicles 28:2 NAB

Unlike the ark, the images used in Roman Catholic "veneration" represent saints (so they say, but in reality it is idolatry). The distinction between the ark and the Roman Catholic images are miles apart.

In the book of John, chapter 4 Christ was talking to the woman at the well:

Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain; but you people say that the place to worship is in Jerusalem.” Jesus said to her, “Believe me, woman, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You people worship what you do not understand; we worship what we understand, because salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming, and is now here, when true worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and truth; and indeed the Father seeks such people to worship him. God is Spirit, and those who worship him must worship in Spirit and truth.” John 4:20-24 NAB

It is so clear that no images are necessary for the worship of God because God is omnipresent. People can worship him without the use of images, including those in the ark.

Acts 9:31 - Catholic Church?

Fr. Abraham Arganiosa (Fr. Abe) of the Splendor of the Church blog argued that the words "Catholic Church" is found in the Bible:

ANG CATHOLIC CHURCH AY MAKIKITA HINDI SA TAGALOG BIBLE KUNDI SA GREEK BIBLE. BASAHIN MO ANG ACTS 9:31 IN GREEK DUON NAKASULAT ANG "EKKLESIA KATH'OLES".
[Translation: The Catholic Church can be found not in the Tagalog Bible but in the Greek Bible. Read Acts 9:31 in Greek, there you will find "Ekklesia Kath'oles]

We know that argument such as these are in the form of bragging rights of some religions asserting that the name of their church can be found in the Bible. You may have heard how the names "Iglesia ni Cristo", "Ang Dating Daan", and "Church of God", are quoted by their respective members to boast that they are the true church because their names are arguably biblical. For the above instance, the name Catholic Church is asserted to be found in the Greek rendition of Acts 9:31 in some sort of a derivation from "Ekklesia Kath'oles".

In fairness to Fr. Abe, the words Ekklesia Kath'oles do appear together in Acts 9:31:


However when one reads it, especially translating it to English, you will not be able to interpret it as Catholic Church. Let's see how does a Catholic version of the Bible renders it:

Now the church had peace throughout all Judea, and Galilee, and Samaria; and was edified, walking in the fear of the Lord, and was filled with the consolation of the Holy Ghost. (Douay Rheims)

What was throughout all (kath holEs) Judea, etc. is peace. This peace was being experienced by the church (ecclesia). It does not read as "the Catholic Church had peace throughout all Judea..." because there is only one kath holEs in the verse.

Fr. Abe is misleading his readers here due to what is seemingly convenient positioning of Greek words. Probably he has forgotten about analyzing the words within their context.

Yes, we also believe that the church can be called Catholic Church for it welcomes people from all nations, races, age, gender, and status; therefore, it is a universal church. The title is not its official name but it nevertheless describes the church. However, this is not to mean that the Catholic Church we are speaking of is the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today.

Postscript:

It came to my attention that there are versions of the Bible which translate Acts 9:31 as, "the church throughout (ecclessia katholes) all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace..." The thought of the context still remains even if it were to be translated this way: Throughout all Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, the church enjoyed peace...

Isahel Alfonso versus Marwil Llasos on the Immaculate Conception

Mr. Isahel Alfonso of Catholic Faith Defenders continues his attempt to refute the book written by Pastor Jun Ballesteros titled, Important Questions and Answers. This time his article tackles the response of Pastor Ballesteros concerning the alleged sinlessness of Mary, aka Immaculate Conception.

Now before we proceed to show how Isahel contradicted the position of Atty. Marwil Llasos (a defender of Marian doctrines), we must first respond to the former's so-called rebuttal on the writing of Pastor Ballesteros for the sake of those who want to learn how to deal with the opposing arguments.

I am not yet done in exposing Pastor Ballesteros' false accusations against the Catholic Church as written in his book Important Questions and Answers.

Really? Sigh. That means more work for me.

This time we'll tackle his opposition to the dogma of Immaculate Conception. Upon reading his book Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any explanation for his opposition to this God given truth. He chose to simply cite two biblical passages that he thinks contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception. What Pastor Ballesteros trying to do is to leave the interpretation of these passages to his readers. But that is a big NO NO in knowing the meaning or interpretation of a given passage, the scriptures condemns private interpretation.

Looking at the Tagalog version of the book, there is a very brief explanation for the two biblical passages cited. In fact the wordings of the cited verses were not written at all, just the explanations.

Know this well no prophecy of Scripture can be handed over to private interpretation, since no prophecy comes from human decision for it was men moved by the Holy Spirit who spoke. 2 Peter 1:20-21

Since the Sacred Scripture was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit therefore it must also be interpreted under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2nd Peter 1:20-21 simply means the Scriptures originated from God and not from men. There is no prohibition of using private interpretation in reading the Scripture. Your mind processes whatever information is given to you whether orally or in writing. This is private on every individual. What Isahel is using here is some faulty, non-sequitir logic.

And this is the task of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Church alone is the infallible interpreter of the Sacred Scripture (Mt.16:18-19, 1 Timothy 3:15). But Pastor Ballesteros violated this fundamental principle of Scriptural interpretation he wanted his readers to simply interpret on their own the passages he cited that appears to contradict the dogma of Immaculate Conception.

The irony here is that Isahel quotes Scripture to prove his point. If one cannot exercise private interpretation of the Bible then how do you expect someone to browse over the Bible to confirm his biblical references?

Of course for Isahel, the infallible church is the Church of Rome. It makes me wonder how he managed to decide that Rome was the infallible church over the other churches without using private interpretation of the Bible. Maybe he just accepted what was fed to him without questioning.

The first Scriptural passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Like 1:46-48 which says;

And Mary said, "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit exults God my savior! Lk.1:46-47

Although Pastor Ballesteros did not provide any argument using the passage but basing on experience most Protestants would argue that since Mary admitted that she needs a savior therefore Mary is not Immaculate as what Catholics believed but she too is a sinner like us. With this kind of reasoning protestants are missing the point of this passage. Notice that Mary claimed Christ as her savior even before Christ died on the cross.

What? Mary claimed Christ as her savior in Luke 1:46-47? She was referring to God the Father, duh!

Mary was redeemed in a most perfect and special way she was preserved free from all stain of sin.

Which of course the text doesn't warrant no matter what direction you read it.

Another passage that Pastor Ballesteros cited is Rom.3:23

For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Rom.3:23

There are two interesting points that I can see in this passage. Consulting the Greek text the word that was used for "all" is "pantes" which describes a large number of people however it allows exemptions from "all" and that would be Jesus Christ and Mary. If St. Paul meant that each and every person without exemptions he could have use a more strict and restrictive Greek word which is "hapas". But that is not the case St. Paul is trying to say that sin is universal, but universality of sin does not mean everyone has sinned, we have Jesus and Mary who have not commit any sin. Just as we say that the Catholic Church is universal but not everyone is Catholic.

Sure there are exception to the rules. Yes, take advantage of that to justify that Mary is sinless. While you're at it, try to find out who else are sinless. Please, don't stop at Mary because it would be obvious that you're biased. And when you identify the other sinless humans, award the immaculate conception for them.

Now we turn our focus to the phrase fall short of the glory of God the Scriptures testified that there are only two people who falls not short of God's glory and that is Jesus and Mary. In John 1:14 it says The Word was made flesh he lived among us and we saw his glory, the glory that is his as the only Son of the Father full of grace and truth. Co-relatively Mary too was called full of grace, Luke 1:28 The angel came to her and said, Rejoice!, full of grace the Lord is with you". Very clearly the passages that Pastor Ballesteros used did not contradict the Marian dogma of Immaculate Conception rather it brings to light the biblical soundness of this dogma.

Isahel makes use the phrase "full of grace" to justify the immaculate conception of Mary. Unfortunately, the phrase "full of grace" in John 1:14 is pleres charis while Luke 1:28 is kecharitomene. While kecharitomene is in the perfect passive participle, it doesn't tell us when the object (Mary) possessed that attribute and how long the attribute will last. So granting that Mary is indeed full of grace, it is not necessarily permanent from her conception. Modern translations like the New American Bible translates kecharitomene as highly favored.

By the way, in Acts 6:8 of the Douay Rheims version, Stephen was full of grace. So was Stephen immaculately conceived?

THE MAIN EVENT

In the subject of the immaculate concpetion, Atty. Marwil Llasos made this response to the book titled The Truth Encounter by Dr. Anthony Pezzotta, who is a former Roman Catholic priest:

Dr. Anthony Pezzotta accuses the Catholic Church of trying “to prove that Mary was conceived without sin by saying that only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Once again, Pezzotta does not give evidence or proof for such claim. In vain will readers of Truth Encounter look for its author’s references and sources for the above statement. This blunder is typical of Dr. Pezzotta’s level of scholarship (if any).

I challenge Dr. Pezzotta, a scholar and expert on Catholicism, to point to official Catholic documents that say precisely that “Mary was conceived without sin because only someone who was sinless could have given birth to a sinless one.” Here we see that Pezzotta is passing off as an official argument of the Catholic Church something that is not. Such is the fallacy of assumption non probata (assuming without proving).

For Atty. Llasos, it is not a Roman Catholic teaching that Mary had to be sinless for Christ to be sinless. He challenged Dr. Pezzotta to show evidence of this allegation.

Well, let's take a look how Mr. Isahel Alfonso, a worthy ally and comrade of Atty. Llasos, has to say about it:

Granting that Mary is with sin how can Christ offer an unblemished sacrifice of flesh and blood on the cross if the very flesh and very blood of Christ came from a defiled person? Thus God must have preserved Mary from all stain of original sin for her to give Christ a pure and unblemished flesh and blood to be sacrificed on the cross and redeem mankind.

Isahel's argument is similar to the one being asserted by Dr. Pezzotta. Now, will Isahel take Atty. Llasos' challenge to show official documents using this reasoning? Gentlemen, let's get it on!

By the way, Isahel is not the only one who contradicted Atty. Llasos. Click here to find out another comrade of Atty. Llasos who gave a similar argument.

The problem with defending an unbiblical doctrine is that you can't have a consistent method applied due to personal biases.

John 20:28 - OMG!

and Thomas answered and said unto him, “My Lord and my God!”- John 20:28

Greek transliteration:

kai apekrithe ho thomas kai eipen auto ho kurios ho kai ho theos mou
and answered the Thomas and said to-Him the Lord of me and the God of me

One of the most irrefutable evidences in proving Jesus Christ is God in found in John 20:28 where Thomas acknowledged Jesus as his Lord and God. In the context of John 20:24-29, Thomas refused to believe the testimony of the other apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead; Thomas demanded proof. Jesus then appeared and asked Thomas to see His hands and touch His sides. Thomas finally believed and he recognized the very Jesus who is his Lord and God.

Of course those who deny the deity of Christ have a way of going around this verse. Here are the frequently used objections and our rebuttal:

1. Thomas was just surprised to see Christ alive. His statement was like saying, "Oh my God!"

This is the most common objection. There is no Jewish expression of astonishment in that time similar to "Oh my God" as uttered by English-speaking nations. In fact, the objection has no merit since the original Greek is structured as, the Lord of me and the God of me.

Second, Jesus would have rebuked Thomas right there and then if it were not true that He is God. He would also rebuke him for using the name of God in vain.

Lastly, detractors of Christ's deity capitalize on certain Bible version that renders, "Thomas exclaimed". However, such versions are mistranslated as the verbs used there are apekrithe (answered) and eipen (said) which are hardly an expression of astonishment.

2. Thomas was addressing Christ on the "Lord" part while the Father is for the "God" part.

This is wishful thinking. The verse says "unto Him" and not "unto them". The context is clear that Thomas was doubting the resurrection of Christ. Thomas and the other apostles were obviously not talking to the Father at that time. There's no way for them to see the Father. So there is really no merit for the above objection.

3. John stated in 20:31 that his book was written so that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God. There is no mention that we would believe Jesus is God, so John 20:28 cannot support Christ's deity.

This objection is also problematic to the detractors of Christ's deity as John 20:31 also does not mention that we may believe Jesus is Lord. John 20:31 is only presenting two titles of Jesus that we must believe without necessarily denying both His deity and lordship.

4. It has to be an expression of astonishment because Thomas is in error here. Jesus already said that the Father is the only true God (John 17:3) and He even called the Father as His God (John 20:17).

For this objection to be valid, the interpretation of John 17:3 and John 20:17, which allegedly imply Jesus is not God, should be correct beyond doubt. Obviously, the objection is dependent on the correctness of the said interpretations and therefore begging the question.

In John 17:3, Jesus was indeed declaring that the Father is the only true God. But this verse is not saying Jesus is not God. In Mark 10:18, Jesus declared that God alone is good but it doesn't necessarily follow that Jesus is not good. Likewise for John 17:3.

John 20:17 isn't a problem for the proponents of Christ's deity because a difference in position does not mean inferiority in nature. It is true that Jesus was subjected to the Father thereby requiring Jesus to acknowledge the Father as His God. It's ironic that the voluntary submission of Christ to the Father would be used against His deity. Jesus could have rebuked, "No Thomas, I am not God." But He never did.

Conclusion

Those who attempt to go around John 20:28 to deny Jesus is God are just acting on their own biases. They do not allow the verse to speak for itself. As we have said before, if Thomas was really mistaken then there should have been a rebuke.

Isahel Alfonso slips on the word Vessel

It's been a while since we wrote a comment on the articles written in the blog Catholic Eternal Truth by Mr. Isahel Alfonso. Mr. Alfonso has recently wrote three installments on an attempt to refute the book titled, Important Questions and Answers which is written by an Evangelical Pastor named, Jun A. Ballesteros. I have the said book but it is the Tagalog version.

For each of the three articles Mr. Alfonso has written so far, he places the title "Evangelical Pastor’s Lies and Deceptions". It's a very catchy title. However, enough is enough. In his third installment, Mr. Alfonso has written something quite awful (or funny depending on how you go about it) that we just simply can't say no to write a rebuttal.

The issue which Mr. Alfonso wages war against the book of Pastor Ballesteros is about calling Mary a vessel. Mr. Alfonso cited the Merriam-Webster dictionary on the definition of the word vessel (a container for holding something) where he reinforced his complaint:

Therefore for Pastor Ballesteros Mary is just a container for holding Jesus Christ for 9 months and worst of all he made it appear that as if God is the one who made Mary a mere vessel for Christ but in fact it was him who made Mary a mere vessel. Nowhere in Scripture ever stated implicitly nor explicitly that Mary is a vessel for Christ.

Mr. Alfonso cited Hebrews 2:14 to prove that Mary is not a vessel for Christ:

Basing on the facts of this passage Mary is not a vessel because Mary is the one who gave Christ is very own flesh and blood! A vessel does not share its nature with the thing that it holds, like a jar it does not share its nature with the water that it holds. But Mary gave Christ his flesh and blood, the very flesh and blood that he sacrificed on the cross to save us. Not just an ordinary sacrifice but a perfect and unblemished sacrifice (Heb.9:14). Another anti-Mary bushing of Pastor Ballesteros is by reducing Mary as a mere decoration in the history of Christianity.

Some of you may already have concluded that Mr. Alfonso here commits the fallacy of equivocation, not to mention adding malice to how Pastor Ballesteros used the word vessel in his book. The section of the said book, Pastor Ballesteros no where intended for degrade Mary the mother of Jesus Christ. Mr. Alfonso simply is overreacting here.

While there is nothing wrong with referring to the dictionary, we wish that Mr. Alfonso had considered that the same Merriam Webster which he quoted from also gave this definition:

1b: a person into whom some quality (as grace) is infused vessel of the Lord — H. J. Laski

Mr. Alfsonso did not use that definition. Why did Mr. Alfonso just concentrated on the definition 1a? Simple, his goal is obviously not just to refute the book but to detract Pastor Ballesteros himself. In addition, the Tagalog version of Important Questions and Answers, Pastor Ballesteros used the word "kasangkapan" (page 24). This already blows in the face of Mr. Alfonso because he maliciously presented that Pastor Ballesteros intended a meaning of "container" (or lalagyanan in Tagalog) for the word vessel. But in reality, after reading the Tagalog version of the book, Pastor Ballesteros intended the meaning "instrument" which is synonymous to the word "vessel".

Furthermore, it has also become obvious that Mr. Alfonso does not read his Bible well. The Bible is has made use of the word vessel to pertain to people. Here is a good sample:

If anyone cleanses himself of these things, he will be a vessel for lofty use, dedicated, beneficial to the master of the house, ready for every good work. 2nd Timothy 2:21 New American Bible Revised Edition (a Roman Catholic version)

2nd Timothy 2:21 made use of the word vessel or skeuos in Greek. It can also be translated as instrument. Ironically, Mr. Alfonso's comment on the use of the word vessel should be an insult to his beliefs about Mary's immaculate conception. In the immaculate conception, Mary is absolutely "cleansed". Since the above verse tells that in order for a person to be vessel of God a person should be cleansed. Now Mr. Alfonso is telling us that Mary is not a vessel, is he implying that Mary is not cleansed?

Finally, how does Mr. Alfonso react to a fellow Roman Catholic apologist, Atty. Marwil LLasos, using the word vessel:

Since Mary would be the Mother of God, she must herself be holy and spotlessly pure. Since Jesus, as God, can make His own Mother, He made her all-holy to be a fitting vessel for Him.

Mr. Alfonso should accuse Atty. Llasos, an experienced Mariologist, of insulting Mary for calling her a vessel!

We all want to serve God by being a worthy vessel. If Mr. Alfonso does not want to be a vessel of God, well that's his problem.