I would like to thank Mr. Isahel Alfonso for his blog which posts articles written by his allies. I have been linking his blog to my articles for quite some time now.
Atty. Marwil Llasos wrote an article which requests me to face the issue posed by him concerning the contradiction between him and his colleague, Fr. Abraham Arganiosa (see here). He challenged me to face the real issue of whether or not they contradicted because he asserted that I sidetracked away from the real issue in my last article. Here is the point of summary of his recent article:
Gerry, Gerry, you knew all along that I was referring to birth pains in Revelation 12:2. Yet, why did you say that I contradicted Fr. Arganiosa’s statement (the one that you quoted) which was responding to a different question on the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun”? (cf. Rev. 12:1). Despite that knowledge that I was referring to birth pains in Rev. 12:2, why did you, Gerry, made an article on how, as you yourself said I “contradicted with a fellow apologist, Fr. Abe Arganiosa whether the woman is literal or symbolical.” I would like to hear from you about this.
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.
Here is my response: You cannot disassociate the woman clothed with the sun in the identification of the birth pains.
Try doing it. Let's see if you can identify the woman using 12:1 alone. Let's also see if you can identify what is the birth pains using 12:2 alone. As far as I know, there is an important rule when it comes to understanding the Scriptures: context, context, and more context.
That being said, it's a lame excuse to say Atty. Llasos was just referring to birth pains. 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?
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 the woman clothed with the sun can't be avoided.
Atty. Llasos is hiding behind the reason that he is just interpreting the birth pains in 12:2. In his interpretation he identified birth pains as the suffering of the woman as she witness her Son nailed to the cross. Let me ask him in return, would you be able to make that interpretation without identifying the woman? I would really, really love to know that.
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.
Seeing the bigger picture, how you interpret birth pains affects the interpretation for the woman clothed with the sun. As I have said, you can't disassociate one from the other since they belong in the context.
Granting without conceding that he only focused in his discussion of birth pains, is he telling us that certain verses of the chapter should be interpreted literally while others figuratively? Should we interpret 12:2 as symbolical while 12:1 is literal? Is the woman literal while the birth pains are symbolical? Is that how it goes?
Atty. Llasos, you need to look at the bigger picture. That sums up what I have to say.
Before we end, I would like to respond to Atty. Llasos' comment on my assertion of contradition against Mr. Carlos Palad on the canon of Scripture. It's not going to be long. Please refer to the definition of terms below which were taken from Merriam Webster online:
Definite - free of all ambiguity, uncertainty, or obscurity
Final - not to be altered or undone
Open - containing none of its endpoints
Remain - to continue unchanged
Settle - to establish or secure permanently
I am expecting that he (and probably Fr. Abe) will write bad things about me personally (as they always do) and even ridicule what I have written here in his (or their) subsequent articles. Nevertheless, I take full responsibility of what I have written so far.
POST SCRIPT:
After posting this article, Atty. Llasos wrote a response in his blog. Although I appreciate the response, I resolve not to answer it anymore because we'll just keep on insisting on what we have asserted so far. I will leave it to the readers to decide.
Atty. Marwil Llasos wrote an article which requests me to face the issue posed by him concerning the contradiction between him and his colleague, Fr. Abraham Arganiosa (see here). He challenged me to face the real issue of whether or not they contradicted because he asserted that I sidetracked away from the real issue in my last article. Here is the point of summary of his recent article:
Gerry, Gerry, you knew all along that I was referring to birth pains in Revelation 12:2. Yet, why did you say that I contradicted Fr. Arganiosa’s statement (the one that you quoted) which was responding to a different question on the identity of the “woman clothed with the sun”? (cf. Rev. 12:1). Despite that knowledge that I was referring to birth pains in Rev. 12:2, why did you, Gerry, made an article on how, as you yourself said I “contradicted with a fellow apologist, Fr. Abe Arganiosa whether the woman is literal or symbolical.” I would like to hear from you about this.
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.
Here is my response: You cannot disassociate the woman clothed with the sun in the identification of the birth pains.
Try doing it. Let's see if you can identify the woman using 12:1 alone. Let's also see if you can identify what is the birth pains using 12:2 alone. As far as I know, there is an important rule when it comes to understanding the Scriptures: context, context, and more context.
That being said, it's a lame excuse to say Atty. Llasos was just referring to birth pains. 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?
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 the woman clothed with the sun can't be avoided.
Atty. Llasos is hiding behind the reason that he is just interpreting the birth pains in 12:2. In his interpretation he identified birth pains as the suffering of the woman as she witness her Son nailed to the cross. Let me ask him in return, would you be able to make that interpretation without identifying the woman? I would really, really love to know that.
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.
Seeing the bigger picture, how you interpret birth pains affects the interpretation for the woman clothed with the sun. As I have said, you can't disassociate one from the other since they belong in the context.
Granting without conceding that he only focused in his discussion of birth pains, is he telling us that certain verses of the chapter should be interpreted literally while others figuratively? Should we interpret 12:2 as symbolical while 12:1 is literal? Is the woman literal while the birth pains are symbolical? Is that how it goes?
Atty. Llasos, you need to look at the bigger picture. That sums up what I have to say.
Before we end, I would like to respond to Atty. Llasos' comment on my assertion of contradition against Mr. Carlos Palad on the canon of Scripture. It's not going to be long. Please refer to the definition of terms below which were taken from Merriam Webster online:
Definite - free of all ambiguity, uncertainty, or obscurity
Final - not to be altered or undone
Open - containing none of its endpoints
Remain - to continue unchanged
Settle - to establish or secure permanently
I am expecting that he (and probably Fr. Abe) will write bad things about me personally (as they always do) and even ridicule what I have written here in his (or their) subsequent articles. Nevertheless, I take full responsibility of what I have written so far.
POST SCRIPT:
After posting this article, Atty. Llasos wrote a response in his blog. Although I appreciate the response, I resolve not to answer it anymore because we'll just keep on insisting on what we have asserted so far. I will leave it to the readers to decide.
0 comments:
Post a Comment