Marbaniang, Domenic

Did Jesus ever claim to be God? Did He ever use the words "I am God"? Though Jesus didn't use the exact words "I am God", that doesn't mean that He never said that He is God. One doesn't need to use the same framing of words to convey a message; the same message can be communicated in different compositions of sentences. For instance, note the following sentences which all convey the message, "I am employed." 1. I work for a Company. 2. My boss pays me well for my work. 3. I am very busy at office during the day. 4. The staff had a picnic last Saturday. 5. I would like to change my job. So, the right kind of question to ask with reference to the doctrine of Christ's divinity would not be "Did Jesus ever use the words "I am God"?" Instead, one should ask something like, "Did Jesus ever convey the message that He was divine?" To that question, the answer is a definite "Yes." In fact, the "Yes"

The term "Christmas" is a compound of two words "Christ" and "Mass" (the celebration of Eucharist by the Catholic Church). Etymologically, the term refers to the celebration of mass on the anniversary of Christ's birth. Protestants usually refrain from looking at the Eucharist as another sacrifice and at the Bread and Wine as literally turning into Christ's body and blood. Therefore, they never use the word "mass" to refer to the Lord's Supper in their services. However, when they use the term "Christmas", this etymological meaning is not considered (usually unknown). But, the etymological connection of the Eucharist (which literally means "Thanksgiving", from the act of Christ giving thanks for the Bread and Wine) with the Birth of Christ can have a deeper significance--that His birth cannot be seen apart from His death, that He was born the first time in order to die as our Sacrifice. In fact, He couldn't hav

“God is everywhere, God is in everything; therefore, everything is sacred, everything is God.” “Is God also in dung?” “No!” “Why?” “Because dung is unclean.” “But, then you said that God is in everything.” “But, how can God be in what is unclean?” “Why not?” “Because God is holy. Don’t we keep our holy places clean?” “Then, it means that there are certain things God is not present in.” “Yes.” “It means that God is not in everything, or everywhere.” “Yes.” “It also means that everything is not God.” “Yes.” “What about man? Can we say that the human spirit is God, especially when it is evident that there are also evil men as well as good men?” “In that sense, we cannot say that the human spirit that is prone to evil is divine. But, what if we say that the human spirit which is divine has fallen into disillusion and has missed to be what it was meant to be?” “But, is that possible with God?” “Why not?” “Because God is perfect, and if God were not perfect then He would not be God, but be s

Death is a formidable policeman, Whose grip no mortal can evade; Whose grip has ripped apart the strongest In the midst of their prideful parade. Men who had steel-like bodies Died earlier than their own comrades; Death cares not for young or old, On each, equally, its shadow pervades. When Death brings God's summons To take one to the Final Court; Then it leaves one no options But to submit and to report. Then Death snatches a man from himself And rushes him to God's Throne on high, Where Justice is fair and Equity is precise; Where the Justified live and the condemned die. © Domenic Marbaniang, Dec 16, 2014.

Systematic theologies usually begin either with Theology Proper (the Doctrine of God) or Bibliology (the Doctrine of Revelation). The Classical method (chiefly of the rationalists) was to begin with the doctrine of God, first by establishing the existence of God through some rational argumentation. On the other hand, the Fideist method held that theology didn’t need to begin with reason at all; theology began from the Bible, God’s self-revelation to humanity. So, they usually began with establishing first the doctrine of divine revelation, i.e. with Bibliology. But, the inescapable problem again emerges: to try to establish the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible based on its own self-testimony would mean engaging in the informal question-begging fallacy: “I believe that the Bible is true because it is God’s Word, and what it says about itself as being God’s Word is true.” A question-begging fallacy doesn’t establish anything; it is like a man who tries to get higher by climbin

The Problem of Evil is not a problem at all unless “Good” and “Evil” are properly defined and meaningfully understood; or else, the problem cannot be raised. Given that meaning is usage, let’s look at what we usually do not absolutely consider to be the meaning of Good. Good is not painlessness . For, in our daily usage, it is commonly accepted that Good usually involves pain (e.g. in exercise, study, work).  Good is not absence of grief or sorrow. For, if that was the case, the sense of a loss of Good would not exist; which would in turn imply that the sense of Good itself doesn’t exist. It is possible for Good to exist along with grief (for instance, when someone in a world X which is free of a particular Evil, say starvation, is sad about people in a world Y, where people are starving). In this sense, sympathy, grief, and compassion are virtues; i.e. they are good. So if Good is not the absence of pain or sorrow, then what is Good? Before we answer that question, let’s submit that