Monday Evening Bible Translation Debate

Happy Monday everyone! Hope you are starting out the New Year on a good note! One of my New Years resolutions is to post more on this blog. Up until this point, I have been posting mainly thought intensive (for me anyway) posts that eat up a lot of my time and resources. This year I intend to still do those type of posts from time to time but I also intend on pumping out some more day to day content that is less formal. This post is the first in that attempt. I hope you enjoy it.

Something I see come up quite often on Facebook, Twitter and internet forums I frequently haunt is,  “what are the best Bible Translations for a Catholic to use?” I got some free time this evening so I thought I would rank a few translations in a Good, Bad, and Ugly format. Everyone loves Clint Eastwood right?

The Good:

Douay Rheims Version – I could not decide between my two favorite Bible translations so I had to go with both for the Good. First up is the Douay Rheims Version. This translation is in the same vein of the world famous King James Version.  The DRV actually predates the KJV by a few years and probably helped influenced the KJV. Count me as a fan of the old English style bible translations and that is why I like this version so much. It is a translation of St. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Bible and held the distinction as the churches preferred English translation up until a certain other translation unseated it from that lofty distinction (see “The Bad”). I like the DRV mainly because of the use of the old English style. It is also a very literal translation which also lends to its drawbacks. Its just flat out hard to read at times. If you are casually reading the bible the DRV is probably not the best choice but if you are looking to study deep down into the meaning of the scriptures this should be your go-to Bible.

Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition – My other favorite translation is the RSV: Catholic Edition. This translation is a slightly more dynamic translation than the DRV and as a result, you end up with a more readable translation but it is also translated directly enough to be used for a good study bible as well. The RSV:CE is just a good all-around translation of the bible that has become a favorite among American Catholics. I wouldn’t be surprised if the United States Conference of Catholics Bishops decided at some point to make this the translation that is read during Mass in the United States in the future. It is a far superior English translation than the NAB, which leads us to the bad…

The Bad:

New American Bible – This one is going to surprise some people. I want to start out by saying I don’t hate the NAB. I just dislike it. It is an extremely readable version of the bible and as a result, is easily understood but that is as far as my praise is going to go for it.  It has some extremely clunky renderings in it, the footnotes and the prefaces for the books are absolutely atrocious. While reading the notes of the NAB you have to wonder if an Anti-Catholic person actually contributed them. I’ve actually read stories online where the NAB’s notes lead to people leaving the faith and I totally understand if that is what you were exposed to right out of the gate. It is just awful for a translation that is so widely endorsed by the USCCB and used at almost every parish in the United States.

The Ugly: 

Cotton Patch Bible – All bible translations have some good in them right? No, no they don’t. The Cotton Patch version of the bible (not sure if I can even call it that with a straight face) is absolutely the worst version of the bible on the market hands down. It’s not even close. If you have not heard of this version of the bible you need to google it right now and read it for a good laugh. Just pick any verse or book and start. It is all laughable and extremely sad at the same time. Jesus did not live in Atlanta! Here are the first few verses (I think, its hard to tell) of Matthew Chapter 16 just to let you know how bad this translation is.

1. Some Protestants and Catholics got together to test him, and they asked him to show them his spiritual credentials. He replied, “At dusk you say, ‘The sky is red; it’ll be fair,’ and at dawn you say, ‘The sky is red and darkening; it’ll rain today.’ You are able to read the clouds but not the signs of the times. A mean and faithless generation asks a sign from me, and the only sign it will get is that of Jonah.” So he turned his back on them and left.

Ugh… I think I just vomited a little reading that… It’s just awful…

Advertisements

Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity, and John 6

The Church has taught the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist since the beginning of the Christian movement. Catholics, as well as other Apostolic churches such as the Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, etc. believe that Christ is present body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharistic bread and wine. The Churches teaching on the Eucharist is considered one of the hardest doctrine for Non-Catholics and Catholics alike to accept. Followers of Christ, have not just recently had a hard time with this teaching.  In fact, it has been like that since the beginning. Even coming from the mouth of Jesus himself his very own disciples had a hard time understanding and believing this mystical doctrine. A large portion of whom even stopped following him after he proclaimed the mysteries of the Eucharist to them (John 6:66).

The Eucharist being the most difficult doctrine to understand and accept leads at times to misunderstandings about what the Church has always taught on the subject. Most of our Protestant brothers and sisters get around this difficulty by suggesting that the Eucharist (or Communion as it is more commonly referred to in Protestant Churches) is merely a symbol of Christ’s body and blood and not ACTUALLY the body and blood of Christ as the Church proclaims. If this is what Jesus meant in his bread of life discourse (John Chapter 6) then why did so many of his disciples decide to no longer follow him? Why did they turn away suddenly despite all the miracles they had just witnessed? These unanswered questions suggest that there is more to the story than merely a symbolic representation. In this blog post, I intend to explore what the Church has always taught in light of the Bread of Life Discourse (John Chapter 6) and thus uncover Jesus true teaching on the Eucharist and what exactly he meant and why it was so hard for the followers of Christ to accept this doctrine from the very beginning all the way down to our present day. Enjoy!

Why Did The Disciples Find This Teaching So Hard to Accept?

To answers this question as simply as possible, how would you feel if someone told you, that you had to consume there flesh and blood to have everlasting life? One may even say it was the reasonable response for these followers of Christ to decide “OK this is where I am getting off this train”. These people had witnessed all sorts of miracles brought on by Christ, in fact, they JUST had witnessed Jesus feed 5,000 people with 2 fish and 5 loaves of bread. They literally watched him turn 2 fish and 5 loaves into enough food, to feed 5,000 people; one of the greatest miracles of the entire New Testament. With that being said, it would follow that if Jesus was speaking symbolically in the bread of life discourse that these disciples who had just witnessed such a great miracle would have easily accepted what Jesus was teaching them. The only logical conclusion for why the disciples suddenly broke off there relationship with Jesus is because they without a doubt thought he was speaking about literally consuming his body and blood; which understandably in most circumstances would be enough to turn the stomach of most any population. If they had any inkling that Jesus was speaking symbolically you have to think that they would have stuck around, if not just to see if it would eventually clarify his statement.

If Jesus was Speaking Symbolically, Why didn’t He clarify when everyone left?

To reiterate a point I made answering the last question,  Jesus disciples at this point probably would have accepted just about anything he told them and had up until then. It stands to reason that if they had misunderstood Jesus in such a big way Jesus would have called them back to clarify he was only speaking symbolically and his followers would have likely grown rather than shrunk by such a huge number. So why didn’t he? It was something that he commonly did during his teachings, to clarify a point that his followers did not fully grasp. The simple answer is because he meant what he said. He knew it would be hard to accept and was TRYING to drive home the point that they must literally consume his body and blood. We know this because John in his gospel starts out the bread of life discourse by using the Greek word “phago” which basically means “to eat” when describing that his followers must consume his body and blood. Once everyone starts to question what Jesus is teaching and start to ask “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” (John 6:52) Jesus turns things up a notch and John starts using the word “Trogo”, in reference to consuming Jesus flesh and blood, which means “to gnaw on” which is clearly a more graphic term as Tim Staples point’s out in his article on the same subject.  So instead of walking back what he has just taught and clarifying that he was only speaking symbolically Jesus doubles down on there disgust and takes it up to a higher notch to emphasize that he means literally what he has just said.

What Does the Church Fathers have to say about it?

The church fathers, are as far as I know unanimous on the literal translation of John 6 and the bread of life discourse but a couple of early church father’s come to mind as carrying particular weight on this particular subject. These men were St Ignatius of Antioch and St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the former of which was a disciple of St. John the Evanglist, who himself put pen to paper on the bread of life discourse and was a witness himself to the event and the latter was a disciple of St Polycarp, who was a disciple of Saint John. Surely these men would have had a powerful grasp on exactly what Saint John was trying to convey in his record of Jesus’ Bread of Life Discourse.

Saint Ignatius on the Eucharist:

“I have no delight in corruptible food, nor in the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.” (Letter to the Romans Chapter 7.)

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans Chapter 7)

Saint Irenaeus on the Eucharist:

But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed do not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. 1 Corinthians 10:16 For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins. Colossians 1:14 And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills Matthew 5:45). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

And just to drive home the belief here is a quote from a contemporary of these two men, which shows that not just disciples of St. John believed this but all Christians.

St. Justin Martyr on the Eucharist:

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do in remembrance of Me, Luke 22:19 this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

I could quote many countless Christians from the time of Christ all the way down to present day confessing there belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, but for the sake of this blog post I will leave it at just these three.

What is the argument in favor of a symbolic representation and how does it stack up?

The most common argument against a literal meaning to the Bread of Life discourse and thus in favor of a symbolic view of the Eucharist can be found in John 6:63. “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” Proponents of the of a symbolic Eucharist almost universally use this verse as the go to verse as “proof” of there position. They will say, Jesus here clarifies that the “flesh is of no avail” and the words he speaks are “spirit and life” meaning he was talking symbolically. The problem with this approach is the disciples that were following Christ still leave even after he makes this supposed clarification. There reaction is proof that they still considered what Jesus had said was literally true. That we must literally consume his flesh and drink his blood.

You might be asking, “Well, what did Jesus mean in this verse?” Jesus in the preceding verse said, “Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?” Which, to the non-spiritual mind would also be an impossible thing for him to accomplish. Jesus, is making a point that the Holy Spirit has the power to return him to Heaven with God and the Holy Spirit also has the power to accomplish what he has just taught them. Nothing is impossible for God.

Does this mean that those who believe in the real presence are cannibals?

The Bible expressly forbids the consuming of blood and human flesh. That is why the followers of Jesus were so upset with what he had just told them. They knew that it was against God’s word to literally consume someone. So how do we square that position with the belief of the Real Presence and what Jesus has said in the bread of life discourse? When Jesus instituted the Eucharist later on in the Gospels he instituted it under the substance of Bread and Wine. So, while Christ’s body and blood are literally present in the Eucharist they are in the substance of Bread and Wine which are totally fine to consume under Jewish law. The mysteries of the Eucharist are hard for us to grasp how bread and wine become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ, but as I stated earlier nothing is impossible for God.

Conclusion

That about wraps up this post.  Hopefully, you learned something and enjoyed my diving into the Bread of Life discourse and the real presence doctrine. I could go into much greater detail on this subject, but for the purposes of a blog post I wanted to keep it as short as possible. Maybe, if enough interest is generated from this post I can make a part two from some of the questions or counter points I receive.  If you have any questions please feel free to leave a comment.

Did Jesus Really Exist?

Several years ago my (now) wife and I were having a discussion about religion with a friend of ours that I would describe as Agnostic at best. Knowing this persons background I expected to hear dismissing claims about Christianity, however, one claim this person made caught me especially off guard. My friend made the statement “There is more evidence that aliens exist than that Jesus ever really existed”. That’s a pretty strong claim don’t you think? I didn’t really know how to respond. Partly because I wasn’t prepared to give a good argument for the existence of Jesus but also because I was totally flabbergasted that someone could deny the existence of Jesus the man. Since that moment I regretted not blowing up such an outlandish claim. I knew that Jesus existed but I did not know how to defend it. So it is with this blog post that I intend to vindicate that situation a little bit and give a few good reasons that you can pass on to someone that makes this or another outlandish claim. First I want to outline some parameters for this post. It is not the intent of this post to prove that Jesus was the Son of God or that he rose from the dead, although my evidence touches on some of that. This post is to simply prove beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, that lived in the first century, and founded the Christian religion. Now with that being said let us jump into the evidence.

The New Testament Counts As Evidence

Some people are so quick to dismiss the Bible as a historical document because it is a religious document but that logic is just not sound. Just because something is a religious document does not make it a historically unreliable document (or set of documents in this case). In fact, it can be argued rather easily that the gospels are very reliable historical documents but that is another post for another time. If you are a follower of this blog you will know that I believe that at least 3 of the 4 gospels were written BEFORE 70 AD. If that is accurate then these accounts of Jesus life would have been written within 35 years of the events they describe. It would follow that in less than 35 years a large majority of the witnesses (or lack thereof if you are a skeptic) of Jesus life would still be alive. If Jesus had not existed then we could expect some kind of outcry after the release of these documents from contemporary sources calling out the Gospels for being false. One could reason that a resident of Jerusalem could easily come forward and say the stories of Jesus crucifixion are false however this does not happen. One could reasonably conclude that of all the people the Gospels say saw Jesus not a single person coming forward to say those claims are false is in itself proof that Jesus did exist.

Extra-Biblical Sources

The bible is not the only Christian sources we have detailing Jesus. The Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna are all first-century witnesses to Jesus that still exist to this day. The Didache could have been produced as early as AD 50 while Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp were all contemporaries of the Apostles and  original disciples. All three of these men could have easily verified if Jesus was a real man or not. Not only did they not come to this conclusion but they also all died for the faith. We can conclude that the evidence was so strong it made them all willing to die for what they believed.

You can read about these men and The Didache at New Advent.

Non-Christian Sources

Some people will not be convinced by Christian sources whether biblical or extra-biblical but do not despair. Below are 3 Non-Christian Sources for the existence of Jesus. Many more exist but I chose just these. A simple Google search will reveal more.

Josephus (AD 93)

[H]e convened a judicial session of the Sanhedrin and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ—James by name—and some others, whom he charged with breaking the law and handed them over to be stoned to death.

Tacitus (AD 116)

“Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius.”

Pliny the Younger (AD 110)

They were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing together a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food.

10 of the 12 Apostles Died Horrible Deaths

This is one of my favorite arguments for the existence of Jesus. I like this argument because it is a little bit outside of the box of just citing sources. The argument goes like this. We have evidence that 10 of the 12 Apostles that Jesus chose died horrible deaths for the faith. The only two that were not martyrs was Judas, who killed himself after betraying Jesus and the Apostle John who died an old man around the year 100 AD. Now you may be asking why the vast majority of Apostles dying as martyrs is evidence for the existence of Jesus? Well, let us think about that for just a moment. If you believe that Jesus was not a real person that actually existed what you are saying is you believe that 10 men who self-reported as eyewitnesses of the man Jesus of which none were particularly noted men were persecuted and died horrible deaths by crucifixion, beheading, and fed to animals for a man that never existed! That’s what you are telling me? 10 men (and countless others for that matter) all died horrible deaths because they would not deny that Jesus was God. That’s a pretty good liar that can be tortured to the point of death and still maintain a fabricated story that if he were to just fess up and deny would likely spare him such a fate. It just doesn’t make sense. Not a single one of these guys tapped out and gave up and just admitted that they made the whole thing up. This is just out of the Apostles too. There were an untold amount of other eyewitnesses who suffered similar fates but NO evidence that any number of them submitted and admitted that Jesus was not real. The fates of the Apostles and the disciples just does not make any sense if he did not at the very least exist. I would go further and argue that anything short of watching a man rise from the grave would not be enough to make these men die for his cause in the manner that they all did.

The Balls In Their Court

I’ve outlined a few good reasons to believe that the man Jesus of Nazareth existed. I believe that any of these arguments can stand on there own and that any one of these arguments are reasonable enough to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus did in fact exist. It is also my belief that the combined weight of these arguments (as well as a litany of others good arguments) make it reasonable to believe that there is NO good reason to NOT believe in the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. So with that being said put the ball in the court of the person that is making this statement. Ask this person why they believe that? What evidence can they produce to arrive at such a conclusion? I would bet that most people will not have a very convincing argument or no argument at all to support there claim. It is very hard to find any serious scholar (Christian or not) that believes Jesus did not at least exist. So once again the ball is in their court. Let them show you what so many people before them have missed.

Infant Baptism

For the past few weeks, I have felt compelled to get back into the swing of blogging with a post detailing the reasons for infant baptism. Finally today I have gotten around to doing just that. I feel like this is an important topic for Catholics and Non-Catholics in Appalachia. Unlike most of the Christian world, where baptizing infants is the majority view, in my part of Appalachia, Christian faith’s that do not baptize infant’s actually carry the majority. This is due in large part to the high number of Pentecostal, Baptist, and Non-Denominational Christians that historically do not support infant baptism. In this part of the world, it is easy to envision a house such as my own that is divided with one spouse believing in infant baptism and the other finding the idea totally contradictory to there idea of baptism. So it is with this blog post that I intend to provide the Appalachian Catholic with some ammo to help your spouse/friend/general inquisitor understand the importance of infant baptism.

Why Baptize Babies?

To Catholic’s well educated in there faith this question can seem so obvious that when asked this question by a Baptist, Pentecostal or similar type of Protestant Christian it is easy for the Catholic to answer in an “are you serious?” way. This approach, as anyone that has ever used it can attest, is not the best way of discussing this issue (or rarely any issue for that matter). To best answer this question we must first understand where the person that is asking the question is coming from. Typically if a Christian is posing this question it is because they believe that baptism is a public symbol of a faith that has already been confessed. In other words baptizing is a symbol of the commitment already made to God by that person after they have come to an age where they can choose to accept God’s salvation for them. They believe that baptism does not convey any grace to the person being baptized but is strictly a public profession of the faith they have conveyed.  Thus rendering it both impossible and irrational to baptize an infant. Afterall an infant is incapable of making a confession of faith and choosing to display this decision with the outside world by being baptized. This position, as my Catholic readers will know, is fundamentally contradictory to the Catholic point of view. From the Catholic point of view, baptism is the beginning of one’s faith. That initial sanctification and grace that a person needs to begin their spiritual life. 1 Peter 3:21 states “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”. Here we clearly see the Catholic point of view spelled out by Saint Peter himself. It is through baptism that we are saved and it is through baptism that we are born again into a new person and our sins (original sin of Adam and Eve included) are wiped clean. Although it is true that an infant has not committed and cannot commit personal sin, it is the Catholic view that baptizing infants cleanses them of the stain of original sin, infuses them with the saving grace of God, and starts them on there salvific journey. Understanding these opposing viewpoints is very important for both sides when answering this question. Being conscious that your Protestant friend has a view that baptism is more a public profession of saving faith and not as Catholics believe an essential part of a Christians salvific journey can at least help start down a path of understanding and respect for one another as to why a person does or does not choose to baptize infants.

What Biblical Evidence Is There For Infant Baptism?

Establishing understanding for why Catholic’s baptize infants is just the first step in the process. Even if the person questioning you about infant baptism is at least understanding of the fact that Catholic’s believe baptism washes away our sins, conveys the grace of sanctification, and buries us/raises us up with Christ, you will find that the nobility of our reason is not enough to sway someone’s opinion in most cases. Protestants by virtue of the Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) doctrine need to see compelling evidence within the scriptures itself and understandably so. So what evidence do we have for infant baptism in the bible? Of course, the number one objection is “Nowhere in the bible does it say to baptize an infant” and while this claim is true it is worth pointing out that also nowhere in the bible does it say specifically NOT to baptize infants. So where does that leave us if there is no direct evidence one way or the other? Well, it just means we have to dig a little deeper. The bible actually has quite a bit of evidence within its pages that baptism is meant for infants as well as adults. Look at Luke 18:16 for example, Jesus says “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.” While Jesus is not referring directly to baptism here we see a principle being set by Jesus. He is not excluding children from his promise, on the contrary, he is welcoming them and even warning others to not hinder the children coming to Christ. If we back up to verse 15 we see the context of which Jesus is speaking about, it says “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them”. Now it becomes even clearer that Jesus is referring to infants as well as older children. Next let us look at Acts 2:38-39 which says “And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”” here again, we see that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and confers God’s grace onto us but we also see that this “promise is to you and to your children”. Wait, what? You read that right. Baptism is for you and your CHILDREN. Now if we go on a few verses we find out that the crowd Peter was talking to that day was around 3,000 people. Granted he did not specifically refer to infants BUT the odds that of those 3,000 people he was not referring to a SINGLE infant in that crowd would be downright astronomical. On top of that if Saint Peter meant to exclude infants it would have been fairly reckless for him to have been talking to 3,000 people and not clarified that hey I was only referring to kids 9 years and older. Afterall it is very likely that a large portion of these people that heard this message had children of all sizes. 

I could go on and on with the litany of verses of baptizing of entire households and other proof texts for the baptism of infants but since I am trying to keep this blog post a readable length I will refer you to Catholic Answers for more biblical references.

What About the Connection To Circumcision?

Saint Paul makes a very clear parallel between baptism and circumcision in Colossians 2:10-12. It states

11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; 12 and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Here was see Paul refer to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”. Drawing a direct connection to circumcision. If Saint Paul intended that infants not be baptized then he certainly picked an extremely odd parallel to draw here. For those not familiar, circumcision was a Jewish practice that required baby boys born in the faith to be circumcised on the 8th day after there birth. Drawing a parallel with a custom that was performed on infants would not have been a good way of illustrating baptism to the people if Saint Paul had intended that infants be excluded. Its worth also noting that Saint Paul makes no attempt to correct the assumption that infants were to be baptized too. It would have been clear to the Colossians that he wanted to include infants in baptism.

What Did the Early Church Think?

The early church was unanimous in its teaching that infants should be baptized. In fact, the only controversy regarding infant baptism was not about if it was right to do but how quickly after birth should it be done! Some Christians drawing on Saint Pauls parallel argued that baptism should be withheld on until the 8th day just as circumcision was. The debate got so hot that a council was called in Carthage in the year 253 AD to settle the matter. The council subsequently ruled that Baptism should NOT be withheld until the 8th day and should be performed as quickly as possible. What’s more, after this decision by the council of Carthage there was no outrage from the Christian community that believed that infants should not be baptized at all. The reason being, no such group of Christians existed. In fact, at no point before the Protestant Reformation can you find any significant rebuking of the practice of infant baptisms. Below are a few quotes from Early Church Fathers on the subject.

Saint Cyprian of Carthage
But in respect of the case of the infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone born of man. (Letter 58:2 AD 253)

Saint Augustine of Hippo
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic” (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).

Once again I could cite a litany of early church sources that clearly spell out the church’s beliefs on Infant Baptism however that would be outside the scope of a simple blog post.

Conclusion

I hope that you find this post informative and helpful. If you have any questions please feel free to drop me a line or if you would like me to go more in depth let me know.

Hurricanes, Eclipses, End of the World and Luke 21:25-26

So I’ve been seeing a post ALL OVER social media the last couple of days in reference to the Eclipse (August 21st), Hurricane Harvey (August 25 & 26), and a connection to Luke 21:25-26. The post seems to have gone viral and people are connecting these signs and the words of Luke 21:25-26 to the end of the world. So I decided to make a little lunch time post to discuss this viral phenomenon.

What does the post say exactly?

A few variations are floating around but basically the eclipse occurred on August 21st, Hurricane Harvey hit on the 25th, and the resulting flooding started on the 26th. If you put all that together and google “21 25 26” you get a result of Luke 21:25-26.

What Does Luke 21:25-26 Say?

Luke 21:25-26 says

25 “And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth distress of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 men fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world; for the powers of the heavens will be shaken.

So basically this is a verse in reference to the coming of the Son of Man (Jesus) and the end of times. This post seems to attempt to tie the eclipse and Hurricane Harvey to this verse.

Is this a sign from God?

Eh, color me skeptical on this one. First, Bible chapter and verse numbers were not added until the 16th century, about 1500 years AFTER Lukes Gospel was written and secondly, they are fairly loosely used. Depending on the translation you are using you may actually end up having different chapter and verse numbers for a given selection from the Bible. On top of that over the entire existence of the Bible, there have been multiple methods of dividing chapter and verse used. So while Luke was certainly inspired in his writing he was not thinking that in the future his writing would be divided in some certain specific way and I am not convinced by any stretch the author of this chapter and verse system was under some kind of inspired influence when it was created. So while it certainly is POSSIBLE God could use these days as a correlation to a passage of the Bible to get a message across I’m taking it with a grain of salt that this is some kind of indication that the end of the world is imminent. In the grand scheme of things, the Hurricane and the eclipse affected a small portion of the world’s population. It seems to me if God was trying to deliver a message he would deliver it to the world and not a select few that they should get there act together before the end everyone else will just have to figure it out on their own.

So that’s my thoughts on the “21 25 26” phenomenon. Let me know what you think? Seems like everytime something big happens people find away to tie it to the end of the world. The Bible clearly states no man knows the time and we should be prepared regardless of when Jesus decides to return whether its close or far off in the future. So that’s what I am going with it.

 

Purgatory Explained

What is Purgatory exactly?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says this about Purgatory:

“All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.”

Purgatory is the process of the final purification that the soul must undergo before entering Heaven. It is where we go to be cleansed of any stain of sin that remains on our soul at the time of our death. Purgatory is not a place that one can earn their salvation after death but is reserved for those that still need some final purification that has already been judged for eternal salvation.

Why Do We need Purgatory?

Revelation 21:27 states:

But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Here we see the primary need for Purgatory. As I stated earlier Purgatory is the state of final purification before one can enter Heaven. We know from the verse quoted above that nothing unclean can enter into Heaven. When we die we may still be guilty of some venial sin or have the stain of sin still on our soul. If we die in a state of grace and friendship with God and are granted Heaven but still have the stain of sin on our soul then it follows that we must be purified before we enter Heaven. Afterall we must pay the price of our sin to the last penny. (Luke 12:59) .

Where Is Purgatory In Scripture?

One of the primary arguments you will hear from opponents of Purgatory is that nowhere in the Bible is the word “Purgatory” mentioned. While this is true it is not a sound reasoning for not believing in the existence of Purgatory.  The word “Trinity” for example is not found in the bible but yet a very vast majority of professing Christians still believe in this doctrine. Also, the word “Bible” is not found in the Bible. It does not then follow that since “Bible” is not found in the pages of the Bible itself that we should not believe in a Bible. What we do find is verses in the Bible which speak to the concept of Purgatory.  Here are a few of my favorites.

1 Corinthians 3:14-15:

14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

These verses from 1 Corinthians are my favorite “pro purgatory” verses. Essentially what Saint Paul is saying here is after death we are tested. If our foundation is in Christ we will receive our reward but if some of our foundation is somewhat shaky and not in Christ then we must suffer to burn off the excess. We will still be saved but it will be like escaping through fire! Or by the skin of our teeth, you might say. This is a very good breakdown of Purgatory by Saint Paul and fairly direct. When we die our soul is judged. If we are grounded in Christ and die in his friendship we are saved but we may still have some stains of our sin on our soul. We must be cleansed of these sins once and for all and suffer for those sins (remember Luke 12:59) but in the end, we are still saved and join up with Christ in Heaven. It is also worthy to note that this verse cannot be talking about strictly Heaven because we know we will not “suffer” in Heaven but it cannot be Hell because we know once someone is damned to Hell they cannot be saved.

2 Maccabees 12:40-45

40 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jam′nia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.[a]

Here we see in scripture an example of an offering being made for the sin of soldiers who have already passed away. One could reason that there is no point in trying to atone for the sin committed if the person is already in Hell but here we see that these people died in friendship with God but still had a stain of sin on their soul. A lot of non-Catholics will scoff at these verses since a very vast majority of Protestants will not accept 2 Maccabees as God inspired scripture but they may be used to help with the idea of Purgatory anyway. Some opponents of Purgatory will contend that Purgatory is a made up Catholic doctrine that came along some time after Christ and his Apostles (more on that later) however, even if you do not accept 2 Maccabees as God inspired scripture, you must recognize that this is an ancient Jewish document that predates Christ and the Apostles and clearly outlines some of the basic truths of Purgatory. It is clear that at the very least the basis for Purgatory can be found BEFORE Christ.

Matthew 12:32

32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

“either in this age or in the age to come” would indicate that sins “in the age to come” could possibly be forgiven but not all sins have that trait. We know that there is no sin in Heaven and thus no need for sin to be forgiven there and we know that sin cannot be forgiven once a person is in Hell. So what does it mean? There must be a 3rd state in which sins can be forgiven. That state is Purgatory.

1 Peter 3:19-20

19 in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.

Here we see a concept of Christ preaching to the spirits in “prison”. Again we know that Heaven could not be described as a prison and there is no reason for Christ to have preached to spirits in Hell. So where is this prison? It must be a state between Heaven and Hell. While not direct proof for Purgatory it is yet another weight on the side of evidence for an existing third state other than Heaven and Hell.

What Do the Church Fathers Have to Say?

While the doctrine of Purgatory was not specifically defined until the Council of Florence in the 1400’s we have a wealth of information from the early Church that points to a definite belief in the concept of Purgatory. Here are a few examples.

“And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’” (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).

“A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice” (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).

You can read more references at this link on the Catholic Answers website.

If the Church has always believed in Purgatory, why did it take 1400 years to define it?

This is a common argument for a lot of Catholic teachings that have been defined over the years. What needs to be realized by the person making the argument is that Catholic councils do not invent doctrine, on the contrary, they define doctrine that is already believed when a question arises about said doctrine. It is a testament to the rock solid foundation Purgatory has had in the Church that it was not defined until the 1400’s. That means that Christianity went 1400 years without raising a significant question about the teaching of Purgatory that needed to be cleared up.

Want to learn more?

If you want to dig deeper into the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory I suggest visiting Catholic Answers. Just go to their website and in the search bar type in Purgatory. They have a wealth of information on the subject.

Dating the Gospel of John

I’ve been putting off this post on dating the Gospel of John for a while now but I feel like its time for me to try and tackle this subject. The man reason I have been putting it off is the sheer difficulty I have had in formulating my own opinion on exactly when the Gospel of John was written. On the dating of John’s Gospel, I have had two lines of thought that have been in a fairly even wrestling match in my mind for some time. The first is that John’s Gospel was written BEFORE AD 70 probably in the late AD 60’s around the time of Peters crucifixion and the second is John wrote his Gospel between AD 90 and AD 100 toward the end of his life. The second option is more widely accepted than the first and arguments can be made for both points. I have encountered arguments for an even LATER dating of John’s Gospel but I feel like those arguments are more motivated by sowing discourse within the Christian religion than actual good reasoning. With that being said I would like to present a few good reasons to believe John wrote his Gospel before AD 70.

Jerusalem, The Temple, and Peters Death

In Jimmy Akins book “A Daily Defense” he makes two observations that point to John being composed before AD 70. The first has to do with John 5:2 which states:

“Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Beth-za′tha, which has five porticoes.”

Akin correctly points out that Jerusalem was destroyed in the summer of AD 70 but here John clearly makes a reference toward architecture in Jerusalem as if it were still standing at the time of his writing.

The second observation that Akin makes is in John 21:19 which states:

(This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

Akin points here to the underlying Greek that suggests a future tense of how Peter would die. This would seem to point to a dating of prior to AD 67 since we know that Peter was crucified upside down during the reign of Nero in AD 67. The argument here is that if John had written after Peter’s death he would have indicated that it was indeed how Peter died and not how he was going to die.

A third point I would like to introduce that falls in line with Jimmy’s observations is that at no point in John’s Gospel does he make reference to Jerusalems destruction and the destruction of the temple in the summer of AD 70. In fact, as we can see from Jimmy’s first observation John actually goes the other direction and indicates that the destruction of Jerusalem has not yet taken place. John A.T. Robinson points to another piece of evidence toward this argument in his book “Redating the New Testament”. Robinson quotes John 11:48-52 which states:

48 If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Ca′iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; 50 you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.” 51 He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, 52 and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.

There are two key points to be made in these verses. First, we see that they are clearly worried about the Roman’s destroying Jerusalem if Jesus is allowed to continue and build support which is what eventually happened despite Jesus being crucified. Second, Caiaphas prophecy about Jesus is very significant and Robinson puts it best:

“It is not that the temple and nation would be swept away but that Jesus should die for the people rather than the whole nation be destroyed”.

The key to Robinson’s point is “rather than”. If John wrote after the destruction of the temple in AD 70 it would have changed the entire complexion of this passage. Instead of one man dying rather than the destruction of the whole nation it would have been he died and it was still destroyed.

One final point I want to make toward the destruction of Jerusalem being absent from John’s gospel. We have a strong tradition from the early church fathers that John wrote his gospel last of the four gospels. It is hard to make a convincing case that John wrote before Matthew, Mark, or Luke. With that being said it is a common theory that John wrote his gospel with the knowledge of what had already been recorded in the previous three gospels. The theory goes that since books (or scrolls in this case) were fairly limited to how much material could be put in them, John saw fit to tell aspects and stories of Jesus life that the other’s did not record for whatever reason. John even makes reference that he could not fit all of what Jesus did into his gospel. Thus we see such a divergence from the other gospels in the sense of what stories John chose to include in his gospel about Jesus. The significance of this theory is that John chose NOT to include several accounts of Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple. The destruction of the temple and the Jewish revolt would have been the biggest news in that period of the Jewish world and across the Roman empire. John being an eyewitness to Jesus prediction and its eventual completion would have made a HUGE oversight not to include such a prophecy that came true about a catastrophic event in a document that’s purpose was to convince an audience that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God. Let me use an example of modern day to illustrate my point better. If in 1990 I had claimed to be a prophet and predicted the tragic events of 9/11 and you were telling someone today that I was a true prophet wouldn’t you include the story of how I predicted probably the biggest event in our lifetime? Of course! Because it would be pretty hard evidence that I was indeed a true prophet! John knew this as well as anyone and even goes out of his way in his gospel to establish the fact that Jesus is God (John Chapter 1). It would then follow that the only reason John would leave out such concrete evidence is that the prophecy had NOT come true yet and thus could not be pointed to as evidence to the outside observer.

The absence of any indication of the destruction of the temple being a past event is a HUGE hole in the argument for a post AD 70 composition of John’s Gospel (that goes for the other gospels as well) and it demands explanation before we can move on to any argument for a post AD 70 composition.

Ok, So Why Is This Important?

It’s important to establish when John wrote his Gospel because skeptics point to how much time passed between Jesus life and the writing down of the gospels as a way of saying the Gospels are not a reliable source. Some skeptics will argue that John’s Gospel was written as late as the second century and make the claim that such a late writing could not have been written by an eyewitness or anyone that could substantiate the story would be alive at the time of the writing since so much time had passed.

So When Did John Write his Gospel?

If I was held down and forced to guess the exact year or give a range of when I thought John composed his Gospel I would say the latter half of AD 60’s. Just to cover all my bases I would put the range between AD 65 and AD 70. That range would put John’s Gospel only 32 years after the death of Jesus, well within the lifetime of John the Apostle and well within the lifetime of many of the witnesses of Jesus. Making John’s testament a very reliable source since many of the witnesses John mentions in his gospel would likely still be alive to collaborate his story.

Timeline of the Gospels

Here is my best guess for the timeline of all 4 gospels. This is subject to change as mentioned in my previous blog post about the syntopic gospels. The Mark vs Matthew debate could potentially throw a cog in my view.

Mark (AD 50 to AD 55)
Matthew (AD 56 to AD 59)
Luke (AD 59 to AD 62)
John (AD 65 to AD 70)

Want to Learn More?

Here are a few of the sources I have used in my research of this topic:

A Daily Defense by Jimmy Akin

The Case For Jesus: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Christ by Brant Pitre

Redating the New Testament by John AT Robinson (Free Link)

And a short post I wrote about dating the Synoptic Gospels

Dating The Synoptic Gospels