Is the fire of purgatory Jesus Christ himself?

sacredheartThe Catholic Church associates the image of fire with the final purification known as purgatory.

Why does it do this?

Is there a scriptural basis for this image?

Also, what kind of fire is this?

In past centuries, many theologians have speculated that it might be a form of material fire.

Although that has been a common opinion historically, there’s a difficult question that the idea raises: How could material fire affect the holy souls in purgatory? They don’t have their bodies, so how could material fire affect them? And why would it accomplish a spiritual effect on them?

More recently, some theologians have suggested that the fire is something else entirely.

In fact, they have suggested that the fire of purgatory is an intense, transforming encounter with Jesus Christ.

You might be surprised to find out just who has been proposing this idea.

Here’s a video in which we explore the idea . . .

 

 

YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE.

You can also listen to or download it as an MP3:

 

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, you should 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 said about the book of Revelation.

He had 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?

Did Pope Francis just tip his hand on Medjugorge? (10 things to know and share)

daily-homilyMany people are wondering what will happen at the end of the current investigation of Medjugorje.

As a result, they’re trying to figure out what attitude Pope Francis takes toward the reported apparitions.

On Thursday, Pope Francis made remarks which some people think tipped his hand and revealed his attitude.

Here are 10 things to know and share . . .

 

1) What is Medjugorje?

Medjugorje is a location in Herzegovina where, in 1981, a group of young people began reporting visions of the Virgin Mary.

Currently, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican is investigating the reported phenomena.

When their investigation is finished, they are expected to report its findings to the Pope, who will make the final determination of what, if anything, is to be done regarding the apparitions.

YOU CAN READ MORE ABOUT MEDJUGORJE HERE.

 

2) Where did Pope Francis make his remarks?

He made them in the “fervorino” (informal homily) at his daily Mass on Thursday, Nov. 14.

By the Pope’s own request, the full text of these fervorinos are not published, only summaries of them.

This means that we need to be somewhat cautious when interpreting them, because we do not have the full remarks.

YOU CAN READ THE VATICAN RADIO ACCOUNT OF THE FERVORINO HERE.

 

3) What did he say about Medjugorje in the fervorino?

If the fervorino is taken at face value, he didn’t say anything about Medjugorje.

It is not mentioned explicitly.

He did make remarks that have been interpreted as a reference to Medjugorje without naming it.

 

4) What did he say?

KEEP READING. 

 

Doctor Who Fans Must Watch This!

TARDISINSPACESteven Moffat has just released a prequel mini-episode to the 50th anniversary Doctor Who special that will be broadcast later this month.

It’s titled The Night of the Doctor.

WOW!

Mini-episodes like this are often interesting and/or amusing, but they are rarely must-see.

This one is different. For any long-term Doctor Who fan, this one is must see!

We already know, from things that have been revealed by the publicity, that the 50th anniversary special will deal with the Time War that took place between the original Doctor Who series and the new series that started in 2005.

There are many unanswered questions about the Time War and the Doctor’s role in it, such as which of his incarnations participated n it and how some of his regenerations happened.

I don’t want to spoil what happens in the mini-episode, but long-time fans of the series really should watch it. We get some questions answered. We even get to see one thing that I never thought’d we’d see.

(One note: If you have not seen the conclusion to season 7 and don’t want to be spoiled on the final reveal in The Name of the Doctor, wait to watch the mini-episode.)

Here we go . . .

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE.

NOTE FOR THOSE WHO WONDER WHAT THE FUSS IS ABOUT . . .

SPOILER SPACE.

After the original Doctor Who series ended, there was an attempt to get a new one started in the 1990s. They did a pilot movie, but it didn’t lead to a series.

That pilot movie was the first and only appearance on video of actor Paul McGann as the 8th incarnation of the Doctor.

We saw the 7th Doctor regenerate into McGann, but we never saw McGann’s regeneration or knew his role in the Time War.

This mini-episode has McGann as the 8th Doctor, meaning it is only the second time he has appeared on film as the Doctor. It also reveals that the 8th Doctor was active during part of the Time War but was not the incarnation who ended it.

We also get to see McGann’s regeneration into John Hurt–McGann’s regeneration being something many fans (including myself) never expected to see on film.

Awesome!

HERE’S AN INTERVIEW WITH MOFFAT ABOUT THE NIGHT OF THE DOCTOR.

What is revelation?

prophet (1)“Revelation” is a mysterious-sounding word.

Sometimes it conjures visions in our minds of the end of the world. That happens when we think of the last book of the Bible—the Book of Revelation.

But even when the word isn’t being used that way, it suggests something powerful and mysterious.

This is a bit of a paradox, because of what the word “revelation” actually means.

Revelation is something that is revealed—something that is now known. If I reveal what I’m doing or thinking, that’s a revelation.

Since the term refers to what is known, it’s ironic that it would have such mysterious overtones.

 

Human vs. Divine Revelation

If we only used the word “revelation” to refer to ordinary, mundane, human revelations—the kind of things people reveal in their Facebook status—then it would never have acquired such mysterious overtones (indeed, it would sound trivial to us rather than momentous).

But we also use it for things that God reveals to us, and God is very mysterious indeed.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts [Isaiah 55:8-9].

It’s understandable that, by its association with the mystery of God, the word “revelation” itself would come to sound mysterious.

Despite the fact that we can never fully grasp God, never fully comprehend an infinite Being like him, we can understand something about how he reveals himself to man.

 

More Than Words Can Tell

In the past, some theologians have conceived of divine revelation as if it’s just a matter of words—as if everything that God has revealed to man could be stated as a proposition, like these:

KEEP READING.

My Ender’s Game Movie Review

enders-game-movie-ender-harrison-fordLong time blog readers know that I’m a fan of the Ender’s Game series of books by Orson Scott Card.

Well, many of them. Some of the later books following Ender become unbearably tedious, but the original is very good, and the books following Ender’s buddy Bean are good as well.

The two best books in the series are the original novel, Ender’s Game, and its parallel novel, Ender’s Shadow, which follows the events of the original novel from Bean’s perspective.

According to what Card said a few years ago, the movie was going to be a fusion of these two books, so I’ve been really looking forward it.

Now it’s out, and I’ve seen it.

I have a good bit to say about it, so I’m going to structure this review in a way that won’t bore people who are new to Ender’s Game and that won’t spoil people who don’t want to be spoiled on what happens.

Here goes . . .

 

If You Are New to Ender’s Game

Here’s the basic premise: It is set in the future, and mankind has been invaded by an insect-like alien race.

We beat them back, but only barely, and now we’re preparing for a rematch. If humanity has a hope of survival, we need to find a genius strategist on the order of Alexander the Great.

To find that genius, the world government is testing children to find those with military potential and train them.

They hope that they’ve found the child they are looking for in a young man named Andrew “Ender” Wiggin.

If that’s all you know about the movie, if you’ve never read the book, then I think you’ll find it an enjoyable science fiction outing.

It will be fun—assuming you like science fiction in the first place.

I don’t think, though, that you’ll rave about the movie the way long-time fans rave about the book.

As often happens, the movie isn’t as great as the book, but that’s normal.

 

If You Are a Long Time Fan

Many fans will enjoy watching it. I did. But I didn’t think it was anything special, for reasons I will explain.

Other fans will hate it, and that’s understandable. That’s the case with any adaptation.

No movie can capture every aspect of what a fan likes about the book, and depending on which elements you are most fond of, your experience of the movie will vary.

If you are a long time fan of the book, the movie is a mixed bag.

On the one hand, you get to see things you read about in the book visualized on screen.

That’s good. That is, after all, why a fan of the book would want to go see the movie in the first place.

Sure, things may not be exactly the way you imagined them, but if you’re going to obsess about that kind of thing, then you’d better stay home. (I’m thinking of you, Sheldon Cooper.)

In terms of how the film visualizes the book, it does a good job. I was happy with it.

On the other hand, I think that the movie doesn’t have the emotional “oomph” of the book.

Not even close.

It felt rushed, the danger wasn’t set up fully, and—most importantly—Ender himself doesn’t come across the way he does in the book.

To explain why, I’ll need to introduce some minor spoilers.

Proceed beyond this point only if you don’t mind that.

 

Minor Spoilers Ahoy!

At the end of the audiobook adaptations of the Ender’s Game books, Orson Scott Card has some afterwords in which he discusses the prospects for a movie, which was then years in the future.

Early on, he wrote some drafts of a screenplay for the movie himself, and he quickly identified a problem with them.

If his test reader knew the book, they thought the screenplay was fine, but if they hadn’t read the book, they didn’t find it emotionally satisfying.

The problem, he discovered, was that the book relied too heavily on Ender’s introspection. Card writes heavily introspective novels, but we can’t get inside Ender’s head in a movie the way we can in a book, and so the intense emotions Ender was feeling weren’t coming across through the screenplay.

The solution to this problem came, he said, when he was told he should fuse Ender’s Game with Ender’s Shadow, so we could feel Ender’s emotions through Bean.

Card said he realized this was exactly what was needed, and so he wrote a draft that way and it was vastly better. The Ender-Bean relationship became the crux of the movie and it turned into a sort of buddy picture, where Ender could be drawn out of himself and show his emotions to Bean.

Problem solved.

Unfortunately, Card explained, Hollywood would never trust a never-before-screenwriter like him with the screenplay, and so he expected that someone else would do the filmed version.

They did, and they should have used Card’s solution to the problem.

Unfortunately, they didn’t.

 

How Faithful to the Original Is Too Faithful to the Original?

I was amazed at how faithful the movie was to the original. I expected much bigger changes than they ended up doing.

Some changes were merely cosmetic. Major Anderson is now an African American woman? Big deal. Dink Meeker is no longer Dutch but, apparently also African American? So what.

Bean is on Ender’s launch shuttle? Fine.

Armies are now sixteen people instead of forty-one? That’s probably a good thing. Having eighty-two people in the Battle Room to follow would have been too confusing.

Ender is no longer the shortest, youngest kid (other than Bean) in Battle School? Bonzo Madrid is shorter than Ender? We’re starting to lose part of the dynamic of the book, but neither of these makes a crucial difference.

What I was amazed by, though, was the tiny things from the book that they preserved. The opening sequence of the movie plays out very much the same way that the opening of the book does.

It’s abbreviated, but we’ve got the monitor, the fight with Stilson, the scene at home with Valentine and Peter, Peter making Ender play buggers and astronauts with him, the parents’ reactions to Ender being taken away by Graff, etc.

Even lots of the dialogue is lifted from the book.

In my amazement at their including all this, I found myself thinking, “What are you going to cut? You can’t be this faithful to the book the whole way through. You don’t have enough time in a two-hour movie. If you keep all this stuff, something has to be cut.”

One of the things that went right out the window was any hope of doing an Ender’s Game/Ender’s Shadow fusion.

There simply was no time to do the kind of Ender/Bean relationship that Card envisioned, and—I hate to say it—Bean is barely in this movie!

That means we’re staring the problem that Card identified early on right in the face: The movie cannot capture the power of the book because Ender has no way of showing us his emotions without the relationship with Bean.

The emotional depth and texture of the book’s version of Ender is simply gone.

What’s worse, so is his brilliance.

 

Informed Attributes

Don’t get me wrong. The movie still hinges on Ender being the greatest commander since Alexander the Great, and we have characters in the movie telling us this.

They also tell us Ender is a freaky good strategist and leader. Han SoloCol. Graff tells us Ender is “perfect” over and over, but that’s the problem: We’re being told, not being shown.

This is a significant problem, which is sometimes called informed attributes.

Merely telling the viewer that someone is super-awesome is not enough. We have to be shown that they have this attribute, not merely informed of it, in order for it to feel emotionally real.

And that’s not what happens in this movie.

Ender is still playing vulnerable kid up until the point he becomes commander of Dragon Army. We don’t see almost any of his brilliance (though we do get a flash of it in the climactic Battle Room game).

We also only get a faint glimmer of the other students warming up to him—and then for very little reason. We are not shown how he builds their trust and earns their loyalty over time.

They make gestures at this, but they’ve spent so much time on other things that they basically rush through this part of the novel, and that’s bad, because it’s the necessary emotional set-up for the climax.

We have to believe that Ender is a genius, that he’s a born leader, and that he’s emotionally anguished for the ending to have the needed payoff.

And we don’t get that.

What I need to say next depends on major spoilers, so bail now if you don’t want to be majorly spoiled. You can come back and read it after you’ve seen the movie . . .

 

Major Spoilers Ahead!

One of the things that takes the punch out of the movie is the way it tones down certain events.

For example, there’s the bit in the book where Ender sends the desk message from “God.” There’s a version of that in the movie, but the messages that are sent are different, and Ender’s isn’t signed “God,” which deprives the officer present of the ability to do the clever smackdown that happens in the book.

The core idea of the scene is there, but it’s so toned down that it’s nearly pointless.

Far worse is what happens with the two fights Ender gets in—with Stilson and with Bonzo.

These are crucial points of character development, since they reveal just how committed to winning Ender is. In the book he kills both of these characters.

But at the same time, these scenes establish Ender’s vulnerability: Although he kills these characters, he doesn’t know that this is what he has done and could not bear it emotionally if he knew, consciously, that he had done so.

That’s the central character point of the book.

Ender unknowingly killing Stilson and Bonzo is what sets us up for the climax of the story, when Ender unknowingly kills all of the buggers.

But the edge is taken completely off of that in the movie, because neither Stilson nor Bonzo is established to be dead!

Indeed, we see an autodoc working on Bonzo—still alive—after the fight, and Ender later states he’s been spending time by Bonzo’s bed on earth, hoping he will wake up.

What???

I guess that they took the edge off these things because they thought it would be too dark if Ender actually killed other children, but this just sucks the drama—the fact that Ender is able to unknowingly kill people—right out of the situation.

They also take the edge off of other things, some much more minor. For example, the buggers are never referred to as buggers in the movie, just “formics.”

This is just misguided P.C.-ness. I’m sorry, but when insect-like aliens have killed millions of humans, it’s okay to call them “buggers.” In fact, that’s what we’d do.

 

Fan Confusion

The P.C.-ness of calling the buggers only “formics,” is only a tiny example of things in the movie that will confuse long time fans.

There are much bigger ones.

For example, there is significant ambiguity in the film about who the good guys are. At a certain point in the film, we start getting indications that the buggers aren’t hostile now.

We’ve actually got them “surrounded” in their home system, but Graff is determined to have Ender proceed to “train” to kill them all.

Ender doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with this, but the long time fan is going to be going, “Wait a minute! This is just making us look like the bad guys! None of this was in the book! Yes, we were invading their space, but we didn’t—already—have them ‘surrounded’.”

There are actually two moments in the movie where I was thoroughly confused: One was when Ender, instead of being taken to Command School on Eros, is taken to a planet near the buggers’ home world!

So much for faster-than-light-travel and communication not being possible!

At this point I thought they were going to completely re-write the final act of the movie, but they didn’t.

Now it’s just that Command School is on a planet near the buggers’ home, and the story proceeds more or less as you’d expect.

But for a long time fan, this is a deeply confusing moment, as the lightspeed barrier and the secret existence of the ansible were major factors in the books.

They were, in fact, the key things preventing Ender from realizing that he was really commanding a fleet.

In the movie, we’re thus put in a position in which FTL travel and communication are possible and we’re on a planet just outside the bugger solar system (only one), running “simulations” of an invasion of that system, with the expectation not that Ender might some day command a fleet but that he will start commanding an invasion fleet right after passing his “graduation test.”

Then there’s a moment in the final “simulation” where they fire Dr. Device and, for the sake of a cool special effect (apparently blowing up a bunch of rocks around the planet that aren’t in the book), it looks like they just destroyed the bugger home world.

At this point, I found myself saying, “What? That’s it? They end the battle before it’s even begun?”

But then it becomes clear that it was just a special effect and the planet is still there and needs to be destroyed.

 

The Wrong Notes

The film continues to hit the wrong emotional notes in this act.

Unlike the book, Ender does not go into the final battle at his wits’ end. He doesn’t give up at the unfairness of it all. He isn’t rescued from cluelessness at the last moment by Bean’s remark that the enemy’s gate is down.

He’s positive going into the fight, and at the end of the simulation, he and the other members of his jeesh are jubilant.

And suddenly the adults watching are somber. They aren’t weeping and praying with joy, as they are in the book. They just stand there, showing little emotion.

Then they show the children an ansible connection revealing the devastation of the bugger homeworld (which hasn’t actually blown up, just become uninhabitable).

Not. Exactly. The. Best. Way. To. Tell. Children. They. Are. Xenocides.

Only then does Col. Graff come up to Ender jubilantly telling him he’s a hero—after this weird silence of the adults.

And Ender immediately leaps to the fact that he’s going to go down in history as a xenocide.

We don’t get anything about joyful masses on earth realizing they are finally free of the bugger threat.

Instead, Ender has a fight with Graff, stalks off, and is then drugged and put to bed for no apparent reason.

 

The Postlude

The final part of the movie does result in Ender getting the hive queen’s egg, and it does so in a way that I thought was okay.

It’s not the same as in the book, but it’s similar, and I was able to accept it.

I was disappointed, though, that Val doesn’t end up going into space with Ender at the end.

He goes alone, promising to come back to her (apparently possible due to FTL space flight).

If there are future movies in this series, it is hard to see how they will resemble the later volumes Card wrote. They may take elements from them, but they could not be as faithful to them as this movie was to its original.

It’s also hard to see how they could make books like those of the Bean arc, since Bean has not been established as a significant character in this movie.

So it may be just a one-off, and not a brilliant one.

 

What Should Have Happened

If they were going to try to be as faithful as they were to the original book then they should have done to this what they did to Lord of the Rings.

The audiobook version of Ender’s Game is 12 hours long, and they should have made three multi-hour films out of this.

That would give them the space they need to flesh out Ender’s character and emotional situation, and show us his brilliance and leadership rather than just telling us he had them.

If they didn’t have funding for a multi-movie project then they should have lengthened this one to two and a half hours and been less faithful to the book, cutting out everything not necessary.

Val and Peter should have gone, for instance. When space is short, they aren’t necessary. They were not, for example, in the original Ender’s Game short story.

In either case, they should have used the solution of making the movie almost as much about Bean as about Ender.

The dynamic between the two would be the best way of pulling Ender out of himself and letting the audience experience the emotions of the two characters.

Unfortunately, they wasted these opportunities.

 

My Summing Up

I’m glad that I saw Ender’s Game—once. That may well be all I see it.

I enjoyed seeing a visualization of a favorite story of mine, one that I have read many times.

However, I felt it was a profoundly flawed adaptation, because it was faithful when it shouldn’t have been and also unfaithful when it shouldn’t have been.

In a way, I feel about this the way I feel about J. J. Abrams’ Star Trek movies: They have enjoyable aspects, but they aren’t really Star Trek. They’re action movies with Star Trek trappings.

This isn’t quite as remove from the original book as they are, but it’s similar.

The situations may be much more like what we have in the book, but the main character is not the same person—not by a long shot.

He’s a different character in Ender trappings.

 

Darn. Beaten to Another Great Idea.

bio-suitI keep having really cool ideas that someone else has had before.

When I was five, I was talking with a girl I knew whose father was an atheist, and I thought of the cosmological argument.

Unfortunately, Plato had thought of it first.

When I was in fifth grade, I realized that there was a relationship between the length of the sides and angels in a triangle, which is the key insight of trigonometry.

Unfortunately, Hipparchus thought of it first.

I also thought, before such things were made, of combining an ATM with a gas pump so that you could pay at the pump.

But I was a kid and had no way of acting on it, and someone else undoubtedly made a lot of money patenting that.

Well, it happened again this morning.

While getting ready to go to work, I was listening to an old science fiction novel on audiobook, and there was discussion in the book of a freefall gymnasium.

These are staples in certain kinds of science fiction, because if you are spending a great deal of time in zero or low gravity, your bones and muscles will atrophy, so you’d need to do freefall exercises to fight that.

And I thought: Wait a minute . . . couldn’t you at least blunt that muscle and bone deterioration by building a suit which resisted your movements so that you’d simulate the resistance that gravity provides?

The suit could be built with springs, rods, or fibers embedded in it to make it stiff at strategic points so that you’d exercise by resisting the suit instead of resisting gravity.

It might not completely eliminate the need for freefall exercises, but it would help.

Then I googled “free fall resistance suit” to see if anyone had already thought of this.

They had.

Oh, well.

Is Pope Francis about to eliminate celibacy? (9 things to know and share)

Do recent remarks by Pope Francis's new secretary of state mean that the Church is about to eliminate celibacy?
Do recent remarks by Pope Francis’s new secretary of state mean that the Church is about to eliminate celibacy?

The mainstream media is all atwitter made by Pope Francis’s incoming secretary of state about the possibility of eliminating clerical celibacy.

Is this a sign of things to come?

Is this yet another indication of Pope Francis “breaking with tradition”?

Is this an indication the mind of Pope Francis himself?

Is it a major new development?

Or is it just the press hyperventilating because they have no idea what they’re talking about?

Here are 9 things to know and share . . .

 

1) Who made the remarks?

That would be Archbishop Pietro Parolin, who is set to replace Cardinal Tarciscio Berone as the head of the Vatican’s Secretariat of State.

He currently lives in Caracas, Venezuela, where he has been serving as papal nuncio (ambassador) to Venezuela.

More info on him here.

 

2) Where did he make his remarks?

He make his comments in an interview with the Venezuelan paper El Universal.

Apparently, it was an interview in anticipation of his leaving his role as the apostolic nuncio and going back to Rome to become Secretary of State.

Here’s a link to the full interview on video, in Spanish.

 

3) What did he actually say?

Apparently, in his discussion with the interviewer, the following exchange occurred:

Aren’t there two types of dogmas? Aren’t there unmovable dogmas that were instituted by Jesus and then there are those that came afterwards, during the course of the church’s history, created by men and therefore susceptible to change?

Certainly. There are dogmas that are defined and untouchable.

Celibacy is not —

It is not a church dogma and it can be discussed because it is a church tradition.

That’s what set the secular media off into paroxysms—the statement that the discipline “can be discussed.”

 

4) Did he say anything else on the question?

KEEP READING.

What should we make of Pope Francis bowing when greeting people?

popequeen_2657382bWord is racing around the Catholic blogosphere that Pope Francis recently bowed to Queen Rania of Jordan.

Is this yet another stunning break with tradition on the part of Pope Francis?

Has he overturned 2,000 years of tradition?

Is this one of the signs of the apocalypse?

Is it no big deal?

Let’s look at the question . . .

 

According to the Telegraph

At the root of the current gbuzz is a story published by the British newspaper/website The Tablet.

It has the provocative headline:

Pope breaks with protocol by bowing to Queen Rania of Jordan

And it immediately says:

The Pope has broken yet another point of Vatican protocol by bowing when he met Queen Rania of Jordan.

You can see how they’re fitting this into the pre-existing narrative of Francis-the-iconoclast (“broken yet another point”).

It goes on to say:

As head of state at the Vatican, not to mention the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion catholics, protocol requires visitors to bow to him when they meet him at the Holy See.

But Francis, who has made the forgetting of formalities a trademark of his papacy, bowed when he met a smiling Rania as she visited the Vatican with her husband King Abdullah II on Thursday.

Okay, wait.

The first paragraph tells us that other people are supposed to bow to him. It doesn’t say anything about whether popes ever bow back.

One might suppose that they wouldn’t, at least historically . . .

“Up until the 19th century visitors would kiss the pope’s shoes, and the tradition is still that all visitors, women included, bow to him, but Francis behaves as he did before he became pope and is not interested in protocol,” a senior Vatican official told The Daily Telegraph.

Great. Now we have an unnamed Vatican official involved. Off-the-cuff remarks from them are always helpful in sorting out a news story. (Sigh.)

The bit about kissing the pope’s shoes “up until the 19th century” is interesting, but where does it say that popes don’t ever bow to people these days?

KEEP READING. 

 

Who was John the Baptist? (11 things to know and share)

What do we know about the mysterious John the Baptist? Here are 11 things to and share . . .
What do we know about the mysterious John the Baptist? Here are 11 things to and share . . .

John the Baptist is a mysterious figure in the New Testament.

He was famous in his own day, even before he became the herald of Christ.

We even know about him from outside the New Testament.

His memorial is August 29th, so it’s an excellent time to catch up on him.

Here are 11 things to know and share . . .

 

1) How was John the Baptist related to Jesus?

John was related to Jesus through their mothers. In Luke 1:36, Elizabeth is described as Mary’s “kinswoman,” meaning that they were related in some way through marriage or blood.

Most likely, it was a blood relationship, but neither a particularly close or distant one.

Elizabeth, being elderly, may have been an aunt, great-aunt, or one of the many types of “cousin.” The precise relationship cannot be determined.

This means that Jesus and John were cousins in one or another senses of the term.

 

2) When did John the Baptist’s ministry begin?

Luke gives us an extraordinarily precise date for the beginning of John’s ministry. He writes:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar . . . the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness; and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins [Luke 3:1-3].

“The fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar” is most naturally understood as a reference to A.D. 29.

This is important also because Luke suggests that Jesus’ ministry began shortly after John’s did, which places the likely date of Jesus’ baptism in A.D. 29 or early A.D. 30.

 

3) Why did John come baptizing?

Scripture presents us with several reasons.

He served as the forerunner or herald of the Messiah and was to prepare for him by fulfilling an Elijah-like role by calling the nation to repentance.

In keeping with that, he baptized people as a sign of their repentance.

He also came to identify and announce the Messiah. According to John the Baptist: “I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel” (John 1:31).

This identification was made when he baptized Jesus: “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God” (1:32-34).

 

4) How did John’s arrest affect Jesus?

KEEP READING.

Did Jesus Exist? An Alternate Approach

jesus_calls_610x300Did Jesus exist?

Discussions of this subject often begin by looking at references to Jesus in early Christian sources.

Either that or they look for references to Jesus in early non-Christian sources.

But there’s another way of looking at the question that is often ignored . . .

 

The Standard Approach

Jesus is obviously mentioned in early Christian sources, such as the gospels, the other writings of the New Testament, and the works of the early Church fathers.

Because these are Christian sources, though, their evidence is sometimes discounted, and so an appeal is made to references in early non-Christian sources that mention Jesus.

He is mentioned, for example, in the writings of a number of Roman writers who lived in the early 100s. He’s also mentioned, somewhat more controversially, in the writings of the first century Jewish historian, Josephus.

But an objection is sometimes made to these sources as well: It is suggested that they don’t represent independent evidence for the existence of Jesus, because the authors in question only know about Jesus from what they have learned from Christians.

In some cases, this may be true. In other cases, it may not be true. Some of these authors may have had access to records that conveyed information about Jesus independent of the Christian movement.

But suppose that they didn’t. Suppose that all of the information presented in these sources is ultimately derived from Christian sources.

This does not leave us at an impasse, because there is another approach to the question that we can take.

 

References to Christianity

Instead of looking, in the first instance, for references to Jesus, we can look at references to the Christian movement itself and see what we can learn about it.

Of course, the same sources that refer to Jesus tend to refer to the Christian movement. That means that we can quickly establish a number of quite early references to Christianity.

It is mentioned by:

  • Suetonius, writing around A.D. 121
  • Tacitus, writing around A.D. 116
  • Pliny the Younger, writing in A.D. 110 or 111
  • The Emperor Trajan, writing back to Pliny in A.D. 110 or 111
  • And Josephus, writing around A.D. 93

The inclusion of Josephus in this list is not dependent on the famous Testimonium Flavianum found in his Antiquities 18:3:3.

Even setting aside that reference, which is partially corrupted, Josephus elsewhere refers to Jesus having followers (noting that he “was called Christ”) in a passage for which we have no evidence of manuscript corruption (Antiquities 20:9:1).

We thus have multiple references for the existence of a Christian movement that date to the end of the first century and the beginning of the second.

 

Geographical Spread

These same references indicate a considerable geographical spread for the movement.

Josephus is writing about events in Judaea, which other sources also indicate was the origin point of the movement.

But Suetonius and Tacitus write about the movement existing at Rome as well.

And Pliny the Younger indicates that it was widespread in Bithynia (in modern northern Turkey).

 

A Recent Movement

Another notable fact about the Christian movement is that it was of recent origin.

This is something also indicated by the same sources, who place its origin in the first century.

Josephus links Jesus to his “brother” James, who died in A.D. 62 (Antiquities 20:9:1).

Pliny is at a loss for how to deal with this religious movement, which is so new that the way to deal with its members is still in the process of being established (Letters 96).

Suetonius specifically says that Christians were a new movement (The Twelve Caesars: Nero 16).

And Tacitus says that Jesus was “executed during the rule of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate” (Annals 15:44).

All of this points to a first century date for the origin of the movement.

 

The Christians Agree

The earliest Christian sources agree with all this. They acknowledge that Christianity began in the first century.

This is significant, because it would not be in the early Christians’ interests to claim this.

Newness is not, on balance, a desirable trait in promoting a religion.

It is much easier to promote a religion if you can claim antiquity for it.

That’s why even religions of indisputably recent origin—including Scientology, Mormonism, and the New Age movement—invariably link themselves to some form of supposed ancient wisdom.

And the early Christians did this, pointing the origins of their movement in Judaism.

They pointed to this as a way of offsetting the fact that their movement had its particular origin just a few years earlier.

We can thus take their testimony of a recent origin as credible, for if the Christian movement had been older, they would have claimed that it was older.

 

Narrowing the Range

We can narrow the range of Christian origins further, though.

Pliny indicates that some of the people he interviewed had been Christians as many as twenty years previously. Working backward from when he was writing, that would suggest Christians in Bithynia by A.D. 90.

Tacitus and Suetonius both speak of Christians being in Rome during the reign of Nero (A.D. 54-68), and Suetonius possibly alludes to them being there during the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54; see The Twelve Caesars: Claudius 25).

When we turn to Christian sources, we find Luke indicating that John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1), which is most naturally taken as a reference to A.D. 28.

This is significant because all four of the gospels indicate that the Christian movement began after the ministry of John the Baptist had begun.

 

A Rapidly Spreading Movement

These sources thus allow us to discern a portrait of a rapidly spreading movement.

It apparently began in the Roman province of Judaea some time in or after A.D. 28.

It spread as far as Rome no later than A.D. 54-68 (and quite possibly earlier).

And it had spread to Bithynia no later than A.D. 90.

This portrait is derived from just a few sources. If we were to allow other first and second century sources to speak, it would be easy to show that the movement was in other places as well, including Syrian Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi, and many other locations.

What we see is thus a movement that went from not existing to being dramatically spread around the Roman world in just a few decades.

This tells us something important about the early Christian movement . . .

 

It Was Organized

Movements do not spread that way unless they are organized.

This was particularly the case in the ancient world, where travel was slow, difficult, dangerous, and often expensive.

The spread of Christianity was not an accident. It was the result of a deliberate strategy of evangelization that required significant organization.

This tells us something else . . .

 

It Had Leaders

Organization requires leaders. There have to be people organizing the movement and arranging for its message to spread.

The book of Romans expresses this need from a Christian viewpoint as follows:

Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed?

And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard?

And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him?

And how are they to proclaim him unless they are sent? [Rom. 10:13-15].

 

Developing Organization

Early Christian writings reveal quite a bit about how the Christian movement was organized and how its organization developed during the first century of its existence.

We see it quickly being organized into local groups known as churches.

These had local officers including bishops, priests, and deacons.

The churches themselves, though, tended to be planted, especially in the early days, by individuals known as apostles and evangelists.

The sources we have—including the documents of the New Testament, the writings of the early Church Fathers, and even spurious writings like the Gnostic gospels—indicate that the earliest work was done by those officials who were called “apostles.”

The Greek term for apostle—apostolos—conveys the idea of someone who has been sent, which raises a question . . .

 

Who Did the Sending?

Movements tend to have founders—especially highly organized movements.

Any time you have a sizeable, well-organized movement, there is often a single figure at its inception who played a key role in setting it up, developing its vision, and putting in place the leaders who carried it forward.

Even in movements that form when a number of similarly-minded movements come together and merge, there is usually a single figure who takes the prime leadership role.

So when we see Christianity as a geographically diverse organization that spread remarkably quickly and had leaders known as apostles (“sent ones”) founding local congregations, it’s only natural to look at the movement and ask whether it, too, had such a founding leader.

According to the early Christians, it did, and it is here that we encounter the figure of Jesus.

 

Jesus of Nazareth

The earliest accounts we have agree that Jesus of Nazareth founded the Christian movement, recruited and trained its earliest leaders, and then sent them out as his apostles.

This is simply what you would expect of an organization that displayed the sudden appearance and growth of the Christian movement, and there is no good reason to reject the movement’s own account of its origins on this point.

The sudden appearance and rapid growth of Christianity points to a level of organization and motivation that is most naturally explained by the movement having a single, recent, and charismatic founder.

 

Not Unique to Christianity

This reasoning does not apply just to Christianity. It also applies to other movements that suddenly appear and grow quickly.

For example, it applies to Islam.

Islam did not exist prior to the early A.D. 600s, and within the first 150 years of its existence it spread dramatically, ranging all the way through North Africa, to the Middle East, to India (with a European foothold in Portugal and Spain).

That kind of expansion required organization.

In Islam’s case, the organization was political and military, but it still pointed to the existence of a single, recent, charismatic founder—Muhammad—who established the movement, provided its vision, and gave it its early organization and motivation.

 

The Reality of Jesus

You would expect a movement that began and then spread far and wide in only a few decades to have a founder, and—absent very strong evidence to the contrary—it does not make sense to reject the movement’s claim about who its founder was.

From non-Christian sources alone, we could have predicted that Christianity likely had a founder who lived some time in the first half of the first century.

When we find Christian sources agreeing with this and identifying that founder as Jesus of Nazareth, we have reason to credit this claim and to conclude: Jesus of Nazareth existed.