You sometimes hear about people being asked to delay receiving the sacraments because they are not performed at certain times of year–like Advent or Lent or Holy Week or Good Friday or other days.
There are a few restrictions on the times when sacraments can be celebrated, but not as many as people think.
Recently I was asked whether it’s possible for babies to be baptized during Advent, which is almost upon us.
Here’s the story . . .
Here’s a new episode of my podcast (Internet radio show) that you can listen to or download.
In it, I tackle four interesting issues . . .
St. Peter is certainly the most commonly mentioned of the original Twelve. He always stands at the head of the list whenever the names of the Twelve apostles are listed in the Bible. And he was clearly part of Jesus’ inner circle, even within the Twelve. He is, unquestionably, the most prominent of the Twelve.
But did Jesus give him a special role among the Twelve, a special position, or was he just more active than the others?
Jesus gives us an answer to this question, and in an unexpected place . . .
We’ve all heard that, in the book of Revelation, the number of the Beast is 666.
Whatever does this mean?
And if the Beast has a number, do others?
Does the name of Jesus have a number?
Does the name of God have a number? . . .
Some people hold the view that the writers of the four gospels felt free to basically make stuff up, to freely shape the narratives they were writing about Jesus’ life by either manufacturing stories about his deeds or making up teachings and putting them on his lips.
The idea is that they used the figure of Jesus as a vehicle for their own ideas, and they made up material to serve the perceived needs of their local Christian communities.
It’s easy to show that by the second century there were a lot of people identifying themselves as Christians who did exactly this. That’s why there were so many Gnostic gospels dating from the second to the fourth century.
But what about the first century, canonical gospels? . . .
Many people of conscience view Halloween with some suspicion, and the way it is often celebrated today, that’s understandable.
Some have chosen not to celebrate Halloween at all, and that’s a respectable choice.
Others have chosen to invert the popular celebration by dressing up–or having their children dress up–as entirely wholesome figures, like doctors, nurses, and firemen or even has historical figures, like saints.
But what about scary Halloween costumes? Are those okay? . . .
Just click the links at the bottom of this post to listen or download!
If you like the information I’ve presented here, I’d invite you to join my Secret Information Club.
If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
On December 21, 2012, something momentous is going to happen.
The Mayan calendar says so.
Everybody knows it.
They’ve been talking about it on the late-night airwaves and on the Internet and in books for years.
But what’s going to happen?
Good question. . . .
The answer seems to depend on whom you ask.
According to some “experts” on the “2012 Phenomenon,” it will be a really good thing, the dawning of a new age in human consciousness and the next step in human evolution. Some say the planet Earth will cross the plane of the galaxy or align with the galactic core and new energies will be unleashed, transforming human consciousness. Also, aliens may show up and invite us to join a galactic brotherhood.
According to other 2012 “experts,” what will happen will be a really bad thing, such as the planet Earth colliding with a black hole and bringing about the end of the world. Or maybe it will be a comet we collide with. Or an asteroid. Or the lost planet Nibiru. Or, even without a collision, Earth’s poles will shift. Or there will be a devastating war. Any way you go, things will be bad.
Other “experts” think that it may be a mixture of good and bad, or that it has the potential to be one or the two, depending on how we respond.
Still others aren’t predicting exactly what will happen, just that it will be big. Really big. They’re sure.
So what’s at the root of all these claims? Who were the Maya? What is their calendar? And what’s the truth about all this?
Let’s take a look . . . because the truth is out there.
The Maya were—and are—a group of people native to southern Mexico and in the nearby countries of Belize, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.
(Properly speaking, the word Mayan is an adjective. The noun form, both singular and plural, is Maya, which can also be used adjectivally. Due to frequent misuse, this distinction may not be represented in non-specialized dictionaries.)
Theirs was one of the major civilizations in the Americas prior to contact with Europeans. The heyday of the Maya was A.D. 250 to 900, after which they went into decline.
But they never died out or lost their cultural identity, and today there are millions of people in Latin America who maintain connections with Maya culture, including—in some cases—speaking one of the Mayan languages.
The classical Maya civilization is of great interest to archaeologists. The remains of many Maya cities exist, and they tell us a lot about their inhabitants. They built palaces and pyramids and ball courts.
They also used a system of writing that has been largely deciphered. In this system, words and syllables are represented by glyphs that sometimes look like stylized versions of what they represent but can also look abstract, at least to the untrained eye.
The Maya also had a number system that included zero, a concept that didn’t become common in European mathematics for some centuries. Among the things they used their number system for was to keep track of time, which brings us to . . .
Despite its popularity, the term “Mayan calendar” is misleading. For a start, it would properly be referred to as the “Maya calendar” (Mayan is a word scholars use to refer to the languages of the Maya people). Further, the Maya actually used more than one calendar.
The particular calendar connected with the 2012 date is known as the Long Count Calendar. It was also used by people other than the Maya.
To get an idea of how it works, suppose that you ran across a date in our own Gregorian calendar written like this: 2012/12/25. You would recognize this as referring to Christmas Day 2012. The date is written as a series of numbers with the largest unit (the year) written first, then a smaller unit (the month), and finally the smallest unit (the day).
This is also the way the Long Count Calendar works. It expresses dates as a series of numbers with the biggest units first, ending with the smallest unit—the day. But the larger units in the Long Count Calendar are not the months and years that we are used to.
The Long Count Calendar does begin with a familiar unit—the day—which is referred to by the word k’in, which means “sun.” But for units larger than the day it uses unfamiliar units based on the numbers 18 and 20.
The next larger unit—the winal—is made up of 20 days, giving us a period of almost 3 of our weeks, or two-thirds of a month.
If you put 18 winal together, it makes up a unit called a tun, which is 360 days (18 x 20), or just shy of a year.
Moving to the next larger unit, 20 tun make up a k’atun, which is 7,200 days (20 x 360), so a k’atun is just under 20 years.
Finally, 20 k’atun make up a unit that, today, is commonly called a b’ak’tun. Each of these is 144,000 days (20 x 7,200), making them a bit less than 400 years long. (More precisely, 394 years, 95 days.)
You can think of the units on the Long Count Calendar as being 1 day, a period of a bit less than 1 month, a period of almost 1 year, a period of almost 20 years, and a period of almost 400 years.
Dates on the Long Count Calendar are expressed by a series of numbers using these units. For example, the Gregorian date March 13, 2012, would be represented on the Long Count Calendar by the date 12.19.19.3.17, or:
Every calendar needs a place to begin—a “start date.” In the case of the Gregorian calendar, that is January 1 of A.D. 1. We can use our calendar to express dates before this time, but this is the date our calendar uses to mark the starting point for the present era.
In the case of the Long Count Calendar, the date beginning the current era is 0.0.0.0.1, which corresponds to August 12, 3114 B.C. (plus or minus a day; scholarly opinions vary). Since that time nearly 13 b’ak’tun (cycles of 144,000 days) have passed—which brings us to what is happening this December.
December 20 of this year has the Long Count date 12.19.19.17.19. This is the last day of the 13th b’ak’tun of the current Long Count era. The next day, the numbers roll over.
In a way, it’s like our December 31, 1999, was. The next day the numbers rolled over for the beginning of the year 2000.
That’s essentially what’s happening with the Long Count Calendar. On our December 21, the next b’ak’tun will begin, expressed by the date of 13.0.0.0.0.
Often you will hear this new period described as the 13th b’ak’tun, because the number “13” is at the front of the date, but this isn’t technically accurate. Long Count dates with “13” in the b’ak’tun place are part of the 14th b’ak’tun, the same way Gregorian dates in the 1900s are part of the 20th century.
So that’s it. That’s what’s happening with the “Mayan Calendar” in December. It’s having its own equivalent of December 31, 1999, and a rollover to the next set of numbers.
In a way, it’s natural to invest changes on the calendar with meaning. That’s the reason people in every culture, no matter what day they reckon as the beginning of the year, celebrate the new year with a party or a religious ceremony (or both).
When the arriving year is a special one—for example, the real or perceived beginning of a new decade, a new century, a new millennium, or a new b’ak’tun—the festivities are correspondingly greater.
Of course, the year 2000 wasn’t the actual beginning of the third millennium (that would be 2001), but as December 31, 1999, approached, it was perceived that way. Virtually no one in the Western world had experienced dates that didn’t start with a “19.” And there hadn’t been a year without a “1” on the front of it in 1,000 years. To suddenly start having years begin with a “2” was something to take note of.
The numbers we use in our calendars have a real, subjective, psychological impact, and because of that there can be a tendency to attribute too much significance to them.
A thousand years ago, many people got worked up about the arrival of A.D. 1000 and whether it would bring the end of the world. And they weren’t the only ones to get excited about a numerically significant date. People around the world have been worked up about dates of numerological significance throughout human history, regardless of the calendar in use.
It’s a known phenomenon.
At this point, it’s so well known that we really should know better. How many prophetic dates have come and gone in our own lifetimes? Google “end of the world failed predictions” and you will get extensive lists of both recent and historical examples.
So why should we think this calendar-based prediction will be any different?
One could argue that this time will be different because the Maya—or their calendar—is somehow special and that the changing of a b’ak’tun really does tie in to events that are significant for the whole world.
If so, the historical record should bear that out. The last time a b’ak’tun changed (12.0.0.0.0) was September 18, 1618, the one before that (11.0.0.0.0) was June 15, 1224, and the one before that (10.0.0.0.0) was March 13, 830.
Anything earth-shattering happen on any of those days?
They’re not exactly famous dates in history.
But maybe the changing of this b’ak’tun will be special. Maybe there’s something about the end of b’ak’tun 13 that’s different.
What might that be?
To our minds the date 13.0.0.0.0 might appear momentous because the number 13 is considered unlucky, but that’s a superstition in our culture, not the classical Maya culture.
For the classical Maya, a different reason might suggest itself: That was the duration of the last world. According to some Maya legends, the gods made three worlds before they made the one in which we live. The third world lasted for 13 b’ak’tun, and the new world was created on 13.0.0.0.0, or August 11, 3114 B.C., the day before 0.0.0.0.1.
You might reason: If the previous world lasted that long, maybe this one will, too, and so we should expect the end of the present fourth world and/or the beginning of the next and fifth world when 13.0.0.0.0 rolls around again.
You might reason that way. But you might not.
If you do, it’s mere speculation. In point of fact, we don’t have classical Mayan sources that treat the 2012 date in this way. They’re just not there.
The absence of classical Maya sources that attribute such significance to December 21, 2012, is the real giveaway. If you think about it, that’s the reason that the 2012 “experts” are so divided and uncertain about what’s supposed to happen.
If the Maya sources were clear, if they all said, “This is what will happen”—whether that be the end of the world, a global disaster, the transformation of mankind, contact with aliens, or anything else—then the plethora of claims about December 21 would never have arisen. The 2012 marketers would have a consistent message.
But they don’t. There is a prediction vacuum that advocates have filled by proposing numerous, contradictory scenarios.
That is itself a strong indicator of the unreliability of the claims.
Why should we believe any of the claims about 2012? They are so many and so contradictory, and they are not even based on actual claims by the ancient Maya.
Which leads to another question . . .
The Maya civilization was not technologically advanced. It was relatively sophisticated compared to many ancient cultures, but it wasn’t high-tech. How, then, would the Maya have been able to predict unusual occurrences hundreds of years in the future? How could they have known?
One proposal is that they were given knowledge of these events by someone who wastechnologically advanced. For example, aliens could have told them the date that they would return to Earth (that is, if the aliens were super-punctual and had their schedule planned to the day, hundreds of years in advance). But this does not fit the facts we have. Classical Maya sources do not describe aliens returning to Earth at 13.0.0.0.0.
It’s also not plausible given the way the Mayan calendar works. Consider a parallel: Suppose we were in contact with aliens today and they told us that they would return to earth March 4, 3013. How would we record this fact? We would simply note the date on our existing calendar.
What we would not do is create a new calendar, backdated to a start date several thousand years ago and timed to have an impressive rollover number on March 4, 3013.
That’s just not how people use calendars. They set up their calendars to run from a given start date and then mark events of significance going forward. And that’s how the Long Count Calendar works: It starts with the creation of the present world (according to the ancient Mayan view) and goes forward from there.
So whether aliens might have told the Maya when they would return or whether they told them anything else (e.g., a comet will smash into you on this date), it goes against logic to believe the Maya would have jiggered with their calendar to produce an impressive rollover number on that date. It’s far more likely they would have done what we would do: Note the date on the calendar in use.
Christians look forward to the coming of Christ in glory at the end of time, but we should not expect it to happen on any particular day. In fact, we are warned not to try to calculate specific dates in God’s plan.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Since the Ascension Christ’s coming in glory has been imminent, even though ‘it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority’ (Acts 1:7; cf. Mk 13:32)” (CCC 673).
We don’t know when the end of the world will come, but we do know that we all will eventually meet our Maker. As a result, we should live with an attitude of hopeful expectation and remain close to God, in keeping with the biblical exhortations to remain “awake” (1 Thess. 5:6).
Now let me give you my own 2012 theory. Here’s what I think is going to happen as we approach the Mayan 13.0.0.0.0.
First, there will be more news stories about the approaching date. You’ll hear it talked about more on radio and television. Some people will be breathless with anticipation, others will be afraid, and many will roll their eyes and chuckle.
Then, as we get closer, you’ll start hearing some of the 2012 promoters starting to backpedal and hedge their bets, suggesting what might happen rather than declaring whatwill happen, saying that perhaps 2012 isn’t about a single day but a broader period of time, that maybe the changes will only start—and start small—on December 21. In general, there will be a trend among some promoters of lowering expectations and being more ambiguous.
Finally, when the day itself arrives, nothing big will happen. Oh, sure, there’s a fluke chance that something really noteworthy will take place, but the odds of anything world-transforming occurring on this day are the same as the odds of something world-transforming happening on any other day.
The next day, the 2012-ers will receive a significant amount of (mostly) gentle ribbing at the office and on television and radio.
A few days later we’ll have Christmas (remember, this is going to happen in the pre-Christmas rush), and the whole business will be quickly forgotten.
For the next 394 years.
December 12, 2012 is rapidly approaching, making this an excelling time to share this article with friends. You can use Facebook, Twitter, email, the other sharing tools at the bottom of the post.
This article originally appeared in Catholic Answers Magazine (the May-June 2012 issue, which you can order online here).
For more great articles, be sure to subscribe to Catholic Answers Magazine.
Also, if you like the information I’ve presented here, I’d invite you to join my Secret Information Club.
If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
A charge made by some atheists is that the Bible supports rape and that the God of the Bible is therefore a moral monster.
There are a number of passages they appeal to, attempting to document this claim, but do they really support the charge that is being made?
Let’s look at the matter . . .
(NOTE: This post is part of a series on the “dark passages” of the Bible. Click here to see all of the posts in the series.)
The claim that God has a favorable attitude toward rape is implausible on its face.
In all of the Bible passages that are cited to show this, the people involved are either married or unmarried. To rape a married woman would be forcible adultery, and to rape an unmarried woman would be forcible fornication.
As everyone knows, both adultery and fornication are strictly forbidden in the Bible. Doing either one forcibly would just make matters worse.
And, in fact, adultery carried the death penalty in the Old Testament:
Deuteronomy 22
[22] “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel.”
We’ll deal with the subject of the Old Testament’s harsh legal penalties–including the death penalty–in another post, but for now let’s look at a couple of the passages that are being cited as evidence that “God approves of rape” . . .
Some years ago I went to a travelling exhibit of the Vatican art treasures.
One thing leapt out at me really clearly: In contrast to all the art treasures from previous centuries, the “art treasures” from the mid-2oth century onward were terrible.
Sometime I want to post a picture of the “Millennium vestments” they designed for John Paul II. They look like some kind of alien dignitary costume from Star Trek Voyager.
And bad Catholic art is by no means confined to the travelling art treasures exhibit.
The less said about the American “contribution” to the portraits of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Basilica of the Annunciation in Nazareth, the better (pictured).
And there’s that horrible, goofy statue in the foyer of the Vatican Museums of a man holding a cell phone fused with a smiling John Paul II. It looks like a transporter accident (see below).
And there’s that sculpture in Rome of John Paul II that looks like the pope’s head on top of a telephone box or bus shelter that’s about to gobble up whoever steps inside it (see below).
And then there’s that weird sculpture in the Paul VI hall that you see behind Pope Benedict when he’s giving his weekly audiences. It looks like some kind of alien shrubbery from a show with a low budget for sets (see below).
And then there’s . . . okay, enough!
I’m sure you’re as sick of all the lousy Catholic art as I am.
So why not do something about it?
“Like what?” you say.
Well, how about supporting Catholic art education so that we can get better Catholic artists?
I’m glad to introduce a chance to do just that at the Chesterton Academy, where my buddy Tim Jones teaches art.
On his blog, Tim writes:
Since September 4th of this year, I’ve had the privilege of being the art instructor for the stupendously amazing 9th-12th grade students of the Chesterton Academy, in Edina, Minnesota (the West Minneapolis area).
Artwork © 2011 by recent Chesterton Academy graduate Alea Florin.
This delightful private Catholic high school was started as a grass-roots movement of parents. The school opened its doors in the fall of 2008 with just ten students; the following year it had twenty. In its third year, it had forty-two students. This year, over eighty students are enrolled, and the school is drawing national and even international attention. Chesterton Academy was just named one of the Top 50 Catholic High Schools in the United States by the Cardinal Newman Society.
Chesterton Academy “strives to offer a classical curriculum, one that draws on the great Western traditions of faith and reason wielded in concert” as part of “a meaningful education in an authentically Catholic environment”. This includes a classical approach to art, where every student – in all four years – learns traditional methods of painting and drawing, art appreciation and art history from the cave art of Lascaux, to Egypt, Greece and Rome on up to the present day.
Basic geometric forms.
Our classical approach to studio art involves drawing and painting from real life, using a variety of objects and “casts” as visual references. As our program has grown, our need for casts and other art supplies has expanded as well.
A simple plaster sculpture cast.
One miraculous hallmark of the Chesterton Academy has been their continual ability to accomplish so much with so little. Their frugality is a virtue, because one fundamental goal of CA has been to make the classical education they offer as reasonably priced as possible, so as to keep it within reach of as many families as possible.
So there is a great opportunity, for those interested in encouraging young artists, to contribute in a substantial way that will be of immediate and direct help to these art students. Contributions of art supplies – like the plaster cast above, or drawing and painting materials – are tax deductible, and the Chesterton Academy (501c3) will provide a letter acknowledging your donation for that purpose.
But mostly, it’s a great chance to be a part of this joyful and growing revolution in education.
Thank you!! Please e-mail me at timjonesart@yahoo.com or post a comment and I will be in touch with more information. Meanwhile, here are some useful links for your perusal (but we will be very grateful for any kind of assistance you can offer!).
http://www.giustgallery.com/sculpture-reproductions/anatomical-sculpture/
or, you can very simply donate directly to the Chesterton Academy;
http://www.chestertonacademy.org/support/
(Jimmy again:) I hope you’ll support the cause of Catholic art education.
Remember! If you don’t then we may continue to be subject to art horrors like this:
And this:
And this:
Please be generous, won’t you?
My buddy Jon Sorensen is out visiting this weekend, so he’s not around to stop me from posting the beginning of his awesome article on how Jesus is not a knockoff of the Egyptian god Horus. (Take that, Bill Maher!)
Here goes . . .
This article was published in the Nov-Dec 2012 issue of Catholic Answers Magazine.
Many atheists, neo-pagans, and other disbelievers of Christianity claim the story of Jesus Christ was borrowed from earlier mythologies. In recent years, a claim has been making the rounds that Jesus is based on the Egyptian god, Horus.
Who was Horus?
Horus is one of the oldest recorded deities in the ancient Egyptian religion. Often depicted as a falcon or a man with a falcon head, Horus was believed to be the god of the sun and of war. Initially he appeared as a local god, but over time the ancient Egyptians came to believe the reigning pharaoh was a manifestation of Horus (cf. Encyclopedia Britannica, “Horus”).
What about Jesus?
The skeptical claims being made about Jesus are not always the same. In some versions he was a persuasive teacher whose followers later attempted to deify him by adopting aspects of earlier god-figures, while in others he is merely an amalgamation of myths and never really existed at all. Both versions attempt to provide evidence that the Gospel accounts of the life of Christ are rip-offs.
In the 2008 documentary film Religulous (whose name is a combination of religion andridiculous), erstwhile comedian and political commentator Bill Maher confronts an unprepared Christian with this claim. Here is part of their interaction.
Bill Maher: But the Jesus story wasn’t original.
Christian man: How so?
Maher: Written in 1280 B.C., the Book of the Dead describes a God, Horus. Horus is the son of the god Osiris, born to a virgin mother. He was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer who was later beheaded. Like Jesus, Horus was tempted while alone in the desert, healed the sick, the blind, cast out demons, and walked on water. He raised Asar from the dead. “Asar” translates to “Lazarus.” Oh, yeah, he also had twelve disciples. Yes, Horus was crucified first, and after three days, two women announced Horus, the savior of humanity, had been resurrected.
Maher is only repeating things that are and believed by many people today. Similar claims are made in movies such as Zeitgeist and Religulous and in pseudo-academic books such as Christ in Egypt: The Jesus-Horus Connection and Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth.
Often Christians are not prepared for this type of encounter, and some are even swayed by this line of argumentation. Maher’s tirade provides a good summary of the claims, so let’s deconstruct it, one line at a time.
P.S. Don’t forget to subscribe to Jon’s awesome blog and to Catholic Answers’ awesome Magazine.
Recently a couple of pro-life political candidates have made dramatic, embarrassing statements about rape.
The first was Todd Akin of Missouri (no relation, as far as I know), who referred to the odds that a woman will have a baby if she has been subjected to “legitimate rape.”
GAH!
More recently, Richard Mourdock of Indiana seemed to suggest that sometimes “God intended” rape.
GAH!
It’s clear that some pro-life politicians need to learn better how to talk about this subject. So let’s take a look at it and see what lessons there are . . .
Reportedly, when asked if women who became pregnant as the result of a rape, Todd Akin replied:
Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.
Akin’s first problem–or at least the first huge problem–is that he used the phrase “legitimate rape.” This appeared to suggest that there is such a thing as legitimate rape, which is morally repugnant.
Of course, a moment’s reflection would lead one to realize what he actually meant. By “legitimate rape” he presumably meant actual rape–forcing sex on an unwilling participant.
A contrast to this, presumably, would be cases that are sometimes classified as “statutory rape,” in which the statutes of the local criminal code classify an act as rape because one of the parties is not old enough to legally consent to the act. In fact, both of the parties may be willing participants (or one may not be), but in any event one party is deemed unable to legally consent by reason of age.
Akin may also have had in mind situations in which a woman is ambiguous about consent or where she later decides to repudiate her involvement in the act.
All of this leads to Akin’s second huge problem: Political opponents and people coming from a pro-abortion perspective will not go through the mental exercise of trying to figure all this out. They will simply attack.
If they do acknowledge that he wasn’t actually asserting that some forms of rape are morally legitimate then they will paint him as dismissing what happens to women in other situations (i.e., that statutory rape, ambiguous consent, or repudiated consent “don’t matter”)–or even just accusing rape victims of lying.
Then there is the matter that Akin was trying to assert, which is that a woman’s body has certain in-built defenses such that, if she is forcibly compelled to have sex, make it unlikely she will have a baby.
Although some pro-life leaders have asserted that this is true, others have challenged the claim.
This leads to Akin’s third huge problem: By citing a medically disputed claim he gets the issue off the need to protect children conceived of rape and onto the merits of the claim, with other pro-lifers taking a contrary position.
This allows the enemies of life to dismiss pro-lifers (including Akin) as scientific illiterates who are so driven by ideology that they make preposterous claims repudiated by others of their own camp.
This is a post linking to pieces that are part of an ongoing series I’m working on about the “dark passages” of Scripture–passages that tend to take modern readers aback (for example, because of the violence contained in them).
I’m also including passages that some find difficult even if they aren’t “dark.”
Here I’ll link to the individual posts in the series at their current locations. That will make it easier for me to link each one of those posts individually back to this one to provide a continually-updated post to help people find what they’re looking for.
Here are what I’ve written so far:
Matthew 2:23 says that Jesus was raised in Nazareth “that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.'”
But this statement does not appear in anywhere in the Old Testament.
Does this mean that Matthew just invented the prophecy?
Recently a Muslim author responded to me by claiming just this.
Let’s look into the matter . . .
Recently I made a video posing the question “Did the New Testament Authors Feel Free to Make Stuff Up?” (click here to watch it).
I looked at several lines of evidence showing that they did not feel free to simply invent material about Jesus, unlike the authors of the Gnostic gospels that were written in the second and third centuries.
The British blogger and convert to Islam Paul Williams posted a response on his blog, Exploring Life, the Universe, and Everything (he’s also apparently a Douglas Adams fan, which I can appreciate), where he wrote:
Yes Jimmy, there is evidence they did [make stuff up] from time to time. Consider Matthew 2 for example:
“There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’”
There is no such prophecy anywhere in the Bible [emphasis in original].
I became aware of Matthew 2:23 when I read through the New Testament at age 20. The Bible I was reading had footnotes revealing where various quotations from the Old Testament could be found, and I was surprised to see that there was no Old Testament reference for the prophecy given here.
What did this mean?
What was Matthew quoting?
Was it a source that had been lost?
We know that there were many prophets in ancient Israel who genuinely spoke for God, even though their prophecies are not recorded in the Old Testament. 1 Kings even indicates that there were as many as a hundred prophets at once!
And Ahab called Obadi’ah, who was over the household. (Now Obadi’ah revered the LORD greatly; and when Jez’ebel cut off the prophets of the LORD, Obadi’ah took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave, and fed them with bread and water) [1 Kings 18:3-4].
Could it be that some of this material was passed down in the form of oral tradition, and this is what Matthew was referring to?
Possibly, but there is another option . . .
Many people of conscience view Halloween with some suspicion, and the way it is often celebrated today, that’s understandable.
Some have chosen not to celebrate Halloween at all, and that’s a respectable choice.
Others have chosen to invert the popular celebration by dressing up–or having their children dress up–as entirely wholesome figures, like doctors, nurses, and firemen or even as historical figures, like saints.
But what about scary Halloween costumes? Are those okay?
Drama is a human universal. It’s something that people in all cultures appreciate, and it’s something that we participate in from our earliest days.
As soon as children are able to play, they start playing pretend, and their games involve drama.
My own earliest memory–or my earliest clear one–is of such a game.
I was four or five years old, and I put on a clown mask and jumped out to scare my parents.
Playing along, my mom clutched my dad and said, “Oh, no! It’s a clown!”
Watch the video for more!
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE.
If you like the information I’ve presented here, I’d invite you to join my Secret Information Club.
If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict says about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?