Bible – Page 32 – Jimmy Akin

Why Is the New Testament Organized This Way?

Anyone starting to read the Bible for the first time quickly encounters a frustration: Why are these books, which have strange sounding names, organized this way?

It seems maddening. They aren’t organized in any familiar way. It’s not alphabetical. It’s not chronological. It’s not topical. It’s not by author. It’s not any familiar way of organizing books.

Actually, and even more maddeningly, the organization seems to change at different times between chronology, topic, and author, but it won’t stick to any one scheme. And then there are sequences that just seem mystifying.

But there is a hidden plan within the Bible’s Table of Contents. So let’s take a look at why they are organized the way they are.

Here we will look at how the New Testament books are organized.

The Biggest Division

The biggest organizational division in the New Testament is between those books that are of a historical nature–meaning, the have recording historical events as their primary purpose–and those books that don’t.

Into the first category are the Gospels and the book of Acts and into the second category go everything else.

The historical books are placed first in the New Testament because they describe the founding of the Christian faith. All of the other books, which are written in the form of letters, are placed afterward, so that if you are reading your way through the New Testament you will be able to better understand them after you’ve learned about the foundational events of the faith. Plunging into the letters (epistles) without a grounding in the gospel story would be regarded as a serious mistake.

The Historical Books

Among the historical books, the Gospels come first, because they deal with the beginning of the Christian story–the life of Jesus Christ, his ministry, and his death and resurrection.

The book of Acts comes later, because it deals with later historical events, focusing on what happened after the earthly ministry of Christ.

The Order of the Gospels

Within the Gospels, why are they placed in the order they are?

The basic reason is that this is the order that, for much of Church history, this is the order people thought they were written in. In his Harmony of the Gospels, St. Augustine explains:

Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four—it may be for the simple reason that there are four divisions of that world through the universal length of which they, by their number as by a kind of mystical sign, indicated the advancing extension of the Church of Christ—are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John Harmony of the Gospels I:2:3).

This opinion was not universal in the early Church. Indeed, Eusebius reports concerning Clement of Alexandria:

The Gospels containing the genealogies [i.e., Matthew and Luke], he says, were written first [Ecclesiastical History: 6:14:6].

Clement lived earlier than Augustine, and so his represents earlier testimony, but it was Augustine’s opinion that came to dominate.

Most modern scholars think that the order in which the Gospels were composed was actually different, but that discussion would take us too far afield.

For now suffice it to say that the reason the Gospels are organized the way that they are was because that was historically the dominant view of the order in which they were written.

The Epistles

All of the books after Acts are written in the form of letters, which means that they technically qualify as epistles. How are these organized?

For the most part, they are organized by author, like this:

The ones attributed to Paul
The one attributed to James
The ones attributed to Peter
The ones attributed to John
The one attributed to Jude
The book of Revelation

You’ll notice that Revelation is separated from the epistles attributed to John. You could explain this by the fact that Revelation deals (in part) with the end of the world, making it a fitting end piece for the Bible, but that’s not the whole story.

It would not explain why Jude comes directly before Revelation, separating it from the other epistles of John. Why not just put Jude before the epistles of John and letting them lead directly into Revelation?

The reason seems to have to do with the order in which the books became popularly received by churches in different areas. Revelation, like a few other books toward the end of the New Testament, was not immediately received as Scripture by everyone, everywhere. Some had doubts about it, and it took a while for the Holy Spirit to guide the Church as a whole into recognizing its inspiration.

Things that people were less sure of tended to get put toward the back of whatever collection they were being included in, with the more certain works first. That’s a phenomenon we’ll see again.

The Epistles of Paul

Why do St. Paul’s epistles come first, right after the book of Acts? It’s because he wrote more epistles than anyone else. The other writers penned fewer, and so theirs go later.

Okay, but why are Paul’s epistles arranged the way they are?

The basic division is between those he wrote to churches (Romans through 2 Thessalonians) and those he wrote to individuals (1 Timothy through Philemon), with the book of Hebrews added on at the end.

Why is Hebrews at the end? Because some disputed its scriptural status early on and, as we said before, things that people were less certain of tended to get put in the back of the collection.

Eventually the Church was convinced of the canonicity of Hebrews, and it was included among St. Paul’s writings because it has some similarities to his thought and because the dominant view came to be that he was the one who wrote it. (More recent scholars, including Pope Benedict, think it was written by someone else, but it is still sacred and canonical.)

That explains Hebrews, but what about the epistles to the churches and those to individuals? Why are these two collections organized the way they are?

Believe it or not: Size.

It’s the length of the book that determines where it goes in the collection. The longest ones go first and the shortest last. There are other collections of ancient works organized like that, too. It was a somewhat common way of organizing things in antiquity.

Here are the books with the number of words they contain in the Greek New Testament:

Romans: 7,111
1 Corinthians: 6,829
2 Corinthians: 4,477
Galatians: 2,230
Ephesians: 2,422
Philippians: 1,629
Colossians: 1,582
1 Thessalonians: 1,481
2 Thessalonians: 823

There’s a bit of a hiccup in the pattern with Ephesians coming after Galatians, but size is still the overall criterion. The same applies to the epistles written to individuals:

1 Timothy: 1,591
2 Timothy: 1,238
Titus: 659
Philemon: 335

The Catholic Epistles

White_square_with_question_mark — Some Mystery Remains

The Catholic epistles make up the remainder of the New Testament (excepting Revelation, which we’ve already covered).

In different periods of Church history these were arranged several different ways, but the current order is largely dominated by length–just like St. Paul’s epistles–only with individual collections being kept together by author. Here’s the breakdown:

James: 1,742
1 Peter: 1,684
2 Peter: 1,099
1 John: 2,141
2 John: 245
3 John: 219
Jude: 461

The size pattern explains everything here except why 1 John comes after James and Peter instead of first. If the size rule explained everything then you would expect the author collections to be sequenced John (1-3) > James > Peter (1-2) > Jude, but that’s not what we find in a typical modern New Testament.

So . . . there is some mystery after all.

But there’s also more order than at first meets the eye.

Learning More

popebenedict — He has interesting things to say on the Book of Revelation

I’m currently writing a book–titled Secret History of the Bible–which will go into this kind of information and more, revealing fascinating facts that bear on how, when, and by whom the Bible was written.

That’s not out yet, though, so until then you might want to check out my Secret Information Club. In fact, if you join then the very first think you’ll get is an “interview” with Pope Benedict about the book of Revelation. (I composed questions and then took the answers from his writings.) It’s fascinating reading, so I hope you’ll check it out.

You should click here to learn more or sign up using this form:

When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

4horsemen — The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (Rev. 6)

Most scholars today think that the book of Revelation was written around the year A.D. 95, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian.

Historically, though, many thought it was written earlier than that, and there is a surprisingly strong case that the book was written in the late A.D. 60s or the early part of A.D. 70. Let’s take a quick look at the evidence . . .

“Five Are Fallen”

In Revelation 17, John sees a vision of the Whore of Babylon seated on the beast with seven heads, and he is told:

[9] This calls for a mind with wisdom: the seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman is seated;
[10] they are also seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come, and when he comes he must remain only a little while.

There’s pretty good evidence that the beast represents the Roman empire and that these seven kings represent the line of first century Roman emperors.

If you’d like more information on that subject, check out my videos, Who Is the Beast of Revelation and Who Is the Beast of Revelation (Part Two).

Assuming that identification is accurate, that gives us a pretty strong clue about when the book was written. If five of the kings (emperors) are fallen (dead) and one is (living/reigning) then that means Revelation was written during the reign of the sixth emperor. So which would that be?

Here are two possibilities . . .

The Reign of Nero?

If you start the count with Julius Caesar then the sixth emperor would be Nero:

Julius Caesar
Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero

Nero certainly fits well with the description of the beast that is given in the book (see the two videos), but there is a possible problem: Julius Caesar was not technically an emperor. He was a dictator (meaning: the Roman Senate voted him the title “dictator”–which was an actual political office back then, before the term came to mean “tyrant”), but he wasn’t voted the title “emperor.”

Still, it’s possible that this might not have made a lot of difference from the perspective of first century Jews and Christians.

Technically, the Roman emperors weren’t kings at all (the Romans were very proud of the fact that they had ended the line of Roman kings and set up a republic), but they functioned as kings, and everybody understood that.

This is why the crowd cried “We have no king but Caesar!” during the trial of Jesus.

So if the count starts with Julius then we have reason to think Revelation was written in the reign of Nero, which was between October 13, A.D. 54 and June 9, A.D. 68.

But there’s another possibility that may be even more likely . . .

The Reign of Galba?

The first person to be voted the title “emperor” was Augustus, and he could well be regarded as the starting point of the count by people all across the empire, including Jews and Christians. If so, then this is what we would get:

Augustus
Tiberius
Caligula
Claudius
Nero
Galba

I know. You may be saying, “Who?”

Galba isn’t a very famous emperor, and one reason is that he didn’t reign very long. In fact, he reigned only a few months, during a disastrous period known as “the Year of Four Emperors,” in which Rome was torn apart by a series of bloody civil wars in which one emperor toppled another in rapid succession.

But if that’s the case then, since Galba reigned such a short time, we’d actually be able to date the writing of Revelation very precisely.

It would have to be between June 8, A.D. 68 and January 15, A.D. 69. (Galba actually began reigning the day before Nero died, because Nero had been declared an enemy of the state by the Senate and went on the lam before being coerced into committing suicide.)

So it could be that Revelation was written during a very short span in late 68 or (very) early 69.

Is there other evidence that has a bearing on this?

“He must remain only a little while”

You’ll recall that the seventh king was said to remain (reign) only a little while. Does that fit the situation?

Yes. In fact, it fits both of the possibilities we’ve mentioned.

If Nero was reigning then Nero’s successor, Galba, certainly reigned a short time–just barely over 7 months.

If Galba was reigning then, since he was reigning in the Year of Four Emperors, his own successor–Otho–lasted only a short time as well, just 3 months (from January 15 to April 16, A.D. 69).

“Do not measure the court outside the temple”

Back in Revelation 11, John was told:

[1] Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told: “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there,
[2] but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months.

This passage speaks of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem as if it is still standing.

The text speaks of the gentiles (or nations, same word in Greek) trampling the holy city (Jerusalem) and invading the temple courtyard.

They also invaded and destroyed the temple itself, but the text speaks of this as not having happened yet, since John is told to measure the temple, its altar, and those worshipping there. So it was still functioning.

Since the temple was destroyed on August 5, A.D. 70, that also suggests that Revelation was written before this date.

Learning More

That’s not out just yet though, so until then you might want to check out my Secret Information Club. In fact, if you join then the very first think you’ll get is an “interview” with Pope Benedict about the book of Revelation. (I composed questions and then took the answers from his writings.) It’s fascinating reading, so I hope you’ll check it out.

You should click here to learn more or sign up using this form:

Do Women Need to Wear Head Coverings at Mass?

The question of whether women need to wear head coverings (mantillas, chapel veils, etc.) at Mass keeps coming up.

With the greater freedom to celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy, it poses the question anew, since prior to the current rite of Mass head coverings were required for women.

If a woman is going to an Extraordinary Form Mass, does she have an obligation to wear one, in keeping with the law at the time?

I’ve blogged about the subject before. More than once, in fact.

But the question keeps coming up, and with the new twist based on the broadened permission to celebrate the Extraordinary Form, it’s worth looking into again.

So what’s the answer?

Head Coverings at Mass in Canon Law

The requirement that women wear head coverings at Mass was part of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which provided:

Canon 1262

§2. Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bare-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord.

Notice that this didn’t establish a requirement for any particular form of head covering. It could be a mantilla, a veil, a hat, a scarf, etc.

But when the 1983 Code of Canon Law was released, it provided:

Canon 6

§1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:

1° the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917;

Laws which had been part of the 1917 Code, including canon 1262, thus lost their force and the legal requirement was officially ended. (The custom had already fallen into disuse in many places.)

Since it was the 1917 Code and not the Church’s liturgical documents that established the requirement, it would seem that when the 1917 Code lost its force, the obligation ceased for Latin Rite liturgies in general, regardless of whether they were celebrated according to the Ordinary or Extraordinary Form.

But wait . . . what about St. Paul’s mention of them in 1 Corinthians?

Head Coverings in the Bible

If St. Paul’s directive that women wear head coverings were binding today then it would apply to both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Forms (as well as non-Latin Rite liturgies).

However, in 1976 the Congregation for the Faith dealt with the issue and judged that St. Paul’s directive on this point is not binding. In its declaration on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood (Inter Insigniores), the CDF stated:

Another objection is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value.

So it would appear that neither canon law nor the Church’s liturgical books nor Scripture establish a requirement that women today must wear head coverings, at either Ordinary or the Extraordinary Form Masses.

Of course, women are still absolutely free to do so, and doing so can be a beautiful expression of devotion.

Common Sense & the Extraordinary Form

Given the natural expectations of many people at Extraordinary Form Masses, one can see a certain appropriateness to wearing them in that context.

People there would commonly expect the use of head coverings–precisely because there was an obligation in 1962–and not using them could cause puzzlement or consternation.

Still, it would be nice to have some additional insight on Rome’s thinking into this question, which leads us to . . .

Cardinal Burke on Head Coverings & the Extraordinary Form

I was pleased recently when I discovered that Cardinal Burke had addressed this question in a private letter that is now available on the EWTN web site.

This letter does not represent an official ruling, but since Cardinal Burke is head of the Holy See’s highest court, the Apostolic Signatura, his opinion carries weight and certainly gives insight on the kind of thinking that Rome applies to these issues. So here is what he said on the subject:

The wearing of a chapel veil for women is not required when women assist at the Holy Mass according to the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. It is, however, the expectation that women who assist at the Mass according to the Extraordinary Form cover their heads, as was the practice at the time that the 1962 Missale Romanum was in force. It is not, however, a sin to participate in the Holy Mass according to the Extraordinary Form without a veil.

Cardinal Burke thus seems to envision a middle category of “expectation.” Not a legal requirement. And not something that must be fulfilled on pain of sin. But not a matter of complete indifference, either.

That corresponds to my sense as well. At the Ordinary Form there is neither a requirement nor an expectation that head coverings be used, though women are totally free to do so. And at the Extraordinary Form there is and expectation but not a requirement, certainly not one binding on pain of sin, that they be used.

What do you think?

Learning More

By the way, if you’re interested in liturgical matters like this, they are one of the topics I cover in my mailings to the Secret Information Club. If you’re interested, you should click here to learn more or sign up using this form:

Why Are There Unicorns in the Bible?

If you read some older English translations of the Bible, like the Catholic Douay-Rheims (pub. 1609) or the Protestant King James (pub. 1611) you come across some passages that seem a bit mysterious. For example in the Douay-Rheims, in Psalms 91:11 we read:

But my horn shall be exalted like that of the unicorn.

In the equivalent verse in the King James (Ps. 92:10) we read:

But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn.

In reading such passages, you might think, what on earth does that mean? In these cases, the horn is being used as a symbol of strength or vigor. The Psalmist is saying that thanks to God, I’m going to be given a lot of strength and vigor, so praise God.

Fine, but what’s this stuff about unicorns? I, mean does this mean unicorns are real?

In this video we go to the heart of the matter and reveals the startling truth about what the Bible might be referring to in these passages.

We also look at how the word “unicorn” got into these passages in the first place and what ancient but real creature the translators may have been referring to. (Unless you’ve heard this before, it can come as a real surprise.

Here’s the video!

If you’re reading this by email, click here to view the video.

By the way, if you haven’t joined the Secret Information Club, there’s lots of cool stuff waiting for you for FREE. You should click here to learn more or use this form to sign up:

If you have any difficulty, just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com.

I’ve also got a transcript of the unicorn episode that you can read:

And you can listen to or download the audio podcast version. (Just click the “Play” icon to listen.)

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

“To Be Absent from the Body Is to be Present with the Lord”?

There is a common argument used against the idea of purgatory in some circles which goes like this: “St. Paul says that ‘to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord’ (2 Cor. 5:8). It’s that simple: If you’re a Christian and you aren’t in your body then you are with Jesus in heaven. There is no room for purgatory in St. Paul’s view. Purgatory is just a Catholic fable–a ‘man made tradition.'”

Is this true?

It turns out that if you examine what St. Paul really said, the whole argument is based on a misquotation. St. Paul said nothing of the kind.

Furthermore, if you look elsewhere in St. Paul’s writings–to the very same church he was addressing in his “absent from the body” passage–you find strong evidence for purgatory.

Far from being a Catholic fable, purgatory is rooted in the thought of the Apostle Paul himself–as I show in the following video.

I’ve also been working on a special mailing for the Secret Information Club where I “interview” John Paul II on the subject of purgatory. In the interview, I pose questions, and the answers are taken from his writing. Current Secret Club members will get it automatically.

Purgatory is a controversial subject that Catholics are often attacked over, so if you’d like to receive the special interview with John Paul II on purgatory, just sign up for the Secret Information Club by Friday, June 29th, and you’ll have it in your inbox on Saturday morning.

You should sign up using this handy sign up form:

If you have any difficulty, just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com.

If you’re reading this by email, click here to view the video.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Why Are the Psalms Numbered Differently?

While the Bible is divided into chapter and verse today, these divisions developed over time and were not in the original manuscripts, with few exceptions.

One exception is the book of Psalms, which is divided into 150 different chapters, each of which is a different psalm. Those divisions are original, because this was the hymnbook for the Jewish Temple, and the different psalms were different hymns.

So it’s ironic that different editions of the book of Psalms today do not have the same chapter numbers.

You may have had the experience of seeing a reference to a quotation from one of the Psalms, going to your Bible to look it up, and finding that the quotation is not there!

What’s going on?

It may be that the quotation actually is there, but one psalm before or after the one you looked up.

For example, suppose you wanted to look up the famous line:

The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want.

This is famed as the first verse of Psalm 23. But if you look it up in certain Bibles–like the Douay-Rheims–you won’t find it there. Instead, it’s the first verse of Psalm 22.

The explanation is that there are different ways of numbering the Psalms, and different Bible (and other documents) follow different numbering system.

One numbering system is that used by the Hebrew Masoretic text. This is the version used by most modern Bible translations.

Another is that used by the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. This version was inherited by the Vulgate and thus by the Douay-Rheims.

Because both numbering systems are in circulation, Catholic sources often use both systems, which is why you’ll see references like “Ps 23[22]:1” (or “Ps 22[23]:1”, depending on which numbering system they’re treating as primary).

Okay, fine. There are different numbering systems for the Psalms. But what makes them different?

The answer is that the Hebrew numbering sometimes combines (splices, joins) a psalm that is reckoned as two psalms in the Greek numbering–and visa versa.

Let’s take a look at how that happens.

(Note: I’m not assuming anything about whether one version is joining two psalms that were originally separate or whether it is dividing a psalm that was originally one. Simply for the sake of clarity, I’ll describe what you’d see in the Hebrew version first and then what how things would appear if you looked for the equivalent passage in the Greek version.)

The first time the numbering varies is when the Hebrew psalms 9 and 10 are joined as the Greek psalm 9. That causes the Greek numbers to be one less than the Hebrew numbers for most of the book, which is why the Hebrew 23rd psalm gets reckoned as the Greek 22nd psalm.

The same thing happens when the Hebrew psalms 114 and 115 are joined as the Greek psalm 113.

“Oh, no!” you may be saying to yourself. “Now they’re going to be off by two numbers!”

Well, they would be, except the very next Hebrew psalm–116–is divided into two in the Greek numbering, resulting in Greek psalms 114 and 115. So now the Greek numbering is only one psalm behind the Hebrew numbering again.

Whew!

Since both the Hebrew and Greek editions of the book of Psalms both have 150 entries, though, how do they get joined back up again?

That happens when we hit Hebrew psalm 147, which also is divided into the Greek psalms numbered 146 and 147.

With that resolved, the two numbering systems can now march arm-in-arm through the final three psalms: 148, 149, and 150.

Here’s a handy chart to keep it straight:

What Does “Amen” Mean?

Many of us grew up saying prayers and, in imitation of the adults around us, we learned to end them by saying “amen.”

But this is a word most of us never used in any other context, and for many of us, we had no idea what it meant. It was just that think you say at the end of prayers.

I confess that when I was growing up, I thought it meant something like “over and out.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a brief explanation of the meaning of the word at the end of its section on the Lord’s Prayer, where it quotes Cyril of Jerusalem:

“Then, after the prayer is over you say ‘Amen,’ which means ‘So be it,’ thus ratifying with our ‘Amen’ what is contained in the prayer that God has taught us” [CCC 2856].

It also says:

By the final “Amen,” we express our “fiat” [Latin, “so be it” or “may it be”] concerning the seven petitions: “So be it” [CCC 2865].

The Catechism also has a longer discussion of the meaning of “Amen” at the end of its section on the Creed:

1062 In Hebrew, amen comes from the same root as the word “believe.” This root expresses solidity, trustworthiness, faithfulness. and so we can understand why “Amen” may express both God’s faithfulness towards us and our trust in him.

1063 In the book of the prophet Isaiah, we find the expression “God of truth” (literally “God of the Amen”), that is, the God who is faithful to his promises: “He who blesses himself in the land shall bless himself by the God of truth [amen].” Our Lord often used the word “Amen,” sometimes repeated, to emphasize the trustworthiness of his teaching, his authority founded on God’s truth.

1064 Thus the Creed’s final “Amen” repeats and confirms its first words: “I believe.” To believe is to say “Amen” to God’s words, promises and commandments; to entrust oneself completely to him who is the “Amen” of infinite love and perfect faithfulness. the Christian’s everyday life will then be the “Amen” to the “I believe” of our baptismal profession of faith:

May your Creed be for you as a mirror. Look at yourself in it, to see if you believe everything you say you believe. and rejoice in your faith each day.

1065 Jesus Christ himself is the “Amen.” He is the definitive “Amen” of the Father’s love for us. He takes up and completes our “Amen” to the Father: “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why we utter the Amen through him, to the glory of God”:

Through him, with him, in him,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all glory and honor is yours,
almighty Father,
God, for ever and ever.
AMEN.

One of the things the Catechism mentions is that Our Lord sometimes repeated the word “Amen.” In some versions of the Bible this is translated “Verily, verily” or “Truly, truly,” but what he actually said was “Amen, amen.”

This was something characteristic of Jesus’ own personal manner of speech.

In any event, the word means more than just “over and out.”

God’s Infinite Mercy

At some point in their lives, virtually everyone has wondered whether they can be forgiven for what they’ve done. The good news is, they can!

But sometimes the doubts linger, particularly for people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and particularly in connection with certain passages in the Bible, such as some in the book of Hebrews that deal with the subject of apostasy–the complete rejection of the Christian faith.

Passages like these:

Hebrews 6:4-6

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Hebrews 10:26

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left.

Can an apostate be forgiven? If you’ve knowingly and deliberately rejected Christ, will he take you back? And what is the real meaning of those passages in Hebrews?

In this episode I respond to a gentleman who is struggling with these very issues.

I demonstrate that the Hebrews passages do not mean what the gentleman fears and reveal, instead, the infinite mercy of God.

The good news is: No matter what you’ve done, if you are willing to come back to God, God is eager to take you back. He loves you, and your sins are not greater than his love.

I’m also preparing a special mailing for the Secret Information Club where I “interview” Blessed John Paul II on heaven.

If you’d like to read what John Paul II says about heaven and how we can get there by God’s mercy, you should sign up for the Secret Information Club by Friday, June 8th, and you’ll have it in your email inbox Saturday morning.

You should sign up here (and if you have any trouble, just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com):

Now here’s the show! Just click “Play” to listen!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Who Is the Holy Spirit? (Video)

This Sunday is Pentecost, and to celebrate, I have made a special video in which I demonstrate a simple way that you can show that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person.

The divinity of the Holy Spirit was infallibly defined at the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, but not everyone accepts the fact that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person–one of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the Holy Spirit is merely God’s “energy” or “active force.”

In this video, I show a simple and surprising way that you can use the Bible to show both that the Holy Spirit is a Person and that he is a divine Person, alongside the Father and the Son.

It starts with a basic argument from the Great Commission, in which Jesus tells the disciples to baptize the nations “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”–and it reveals the unstated implications of this passage.

Then it looks at various passages from the New Testament that reveal the fact that the Holy Spirit has the attributes of a person–not those of merely a force or energy–such as the ability to make choices and to intercede for us.

It then turns to passages which reveal the Holy Spirit actually speaking and using personal pronouns like “I” and “me.”

Finally, it concludes with a passage that reveals what what one does to the Holy Spirit, one does to God, indicating that the Holy Spirit is God himself.

Here is the video, and have a great Pentecost Sunday!

Who Is the Beast of Revelation? (Part 2)

There is more evidence regarding who the Beast of Revelation is than I could fit in the first video I did on the subject, so in this video I pick up where I left off and reveal new and surprising facts–things most people have never heard of–that point to who the Beast is.

Here is a link to Part 1 in case you haven’t seen it.

And now, here is Part 2!

I’m preparing a Secret Information Club communique in which I “interview” Pope Benedict about the Book of Revelation.

If you’d like to know what Pope Benedict says about Revelation, you should sign up by Friday, May 25, and you’ll get the special interview on Saturday morning.

You should sign up using this form right here:

Or you can use the one in the top right hand margin or by going to www.SecretInfoClub.com (if you have trouble, email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com.