So Jacob arose, and set his sons and his wives on camels.—Genesis 31:17
Many biblical skeptics have claimed that camels in the Bible are anachronistic and portrayed in ways that are historically inaccurate. For example, a transcript of a National Public Radio show proclaims:
"Camels as a means of transportation abound in the Old Testament. When Abraham sends a servant to look for a bride for his son Isaac, that servant chooses Rebecca. And why? Because of her kindness in offering to water the camels. That’s just one of dozens of camel cameos in the Bible, mostly in the book of Genesis, but scholars have long suspected that those camel caravans are a literary anachronism."
Time Magazine joins in:
"The Bible says that Abraham, along with other patriarchs of Judaism and Christianity, used domesticated camels—as well as donkeys, sheep, oxen, and slaves—in his various travels and trade agreements. Or did he? . . . "
"The phantom camel is just one of many historically jumbled references in the Bible."
Can the integrity of the Bible survive this onslaught? The answer is a resounding “yes.”
Let’s look at how Christians and Jews have responded to these rather serious charges of inaccuracy. Dewayne Bryant surveys the record of use of camels in the ancient Near East:
"The camel was well known in Egypt from earliest times, as early as the Fourth Dynasty [c. 2613-2494 B.C.&91;. . . . Although the domestication of the camel may have come much later, it nevertheless preceded the age of the patriarchs. . . . A cylinder seal from Syria (c. 1800 B.C.) depicts two short figures riding a camel."
He outlines the mention of camels in the Bible:
"The Bible records the existence of domesticated camels in the patriarchal narratives, but their footprint is actually quite small. They are listed among the very last items in the total wealth of both Abraham (Gen. 12:16) and Jacob (30:43; 32:7,15). They are mentioned as being used for travel by the patriarchs (24:10-64; 31:17,34) and by the Midianites (37:25). The Egyptians used them for transport as well (Exod. 9:3). Despite their use for transportation, however, the donkey appears as the favored mode of transportation for the patriarchs. In the ancient Near East as a whole, the same might be said during the early second millennium B.C.—the camel was known and domesticated, but not widely used until later."
Archaeologist Joseph P. Free makes the crucial distinctions:
"Many who have rejected this reference to Abraham’s camels seem to have assumed something which the text does not state. It should be carefully noted that the biblical reference does not necessarily indicate that the camel was common in Egypt at the time, nor does it evidence that the Egyptians had made any great progress in the breeding and domestication of the camel. It merely says that Abraham had camels."
Kenneth Kitchen sums up the matter similarly:
“The camel was for long a marginal beast in most of the historic ancient Near East (including Egypt), but it was not wholly unknown or anachronistic before or during 2000-1100.”
Orthodox rabbi and Bible scholar Joshua Berman offers fascinating related insights:
"Camels in Genesis are right where they belong. It is true that camels were not domesticated in Israel until the time of Solomon. But read Genesis carefully and you see that all its camels come from outside of Israel, from Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, where there is ample evidence of domestication of the camel during the period of the patriarchs. . . ."
"But what about the camels that carried Joseph off to Egypt (Gen. 37:25)? Here, too, Scripture tells us that the camels arrived from outside of Canaan. And just as the spices they bore surely came from the east, so, too, we may surmise, did the camels. And while Jacob rode camels on his trek back from Mesopotamia (31:17; cf. 30:43), nowhere in Genesis does anyone ride a camel originating in Canaan. In the Joseph story, the brothers descend to Egypt exclusively on donkeys (42:26-27; 43:24; 44:3, 13); that’s what people rode in Canaan. And thus when Joseph sends them to fetch Jacob, he provides them with donkeys and she-asses (45:23); those were the animals they knew how to handle."
We hope you enjoyed this excerpt from The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science and History Back Up the Bible.
Get your copy, sit back, and prepare for an adventure!
Have you ever met someone who says something controversial and then acts as though he had said something mundane and wonders why everyone is getting so upset? If not, just follow the work of Fr. James Martin, and you’ll have many opportunities to become acquainted with this routine.
For example, on January 21, 2023, the Catholic League tweeted about transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg, widely recognized as married to another man named Chasten, saying, “It is true that Pete Buttigieg is legally married, but that is a legal fiction.” Fr. Martin tweeted in response: “Pete Buttigieg is married.”
After receiving a torrent of criticism, Fr. Martin published an article where he clarified that all he meant was that “as much as anyone in this country whose marriage [is&91; registered in City Hall, he and his husband Chasten are legally married. But this is disingenuous because the tweet Fr. Martin originally responded to said Pete and Chasten were legally married. What the Catholic League meant is that the relationship between these men is a marriage in name only.
Just as totalitarian states can say their citizens have “freedom,” but it is fictional freedom that bears no resemblance to the real thing, the state can say two men, or three women, or a man and a robot (or who knows what else in the future) can be “married,” even though these relationships bear no resemblance to the real thing—to marriage.
Before I explain what else is wrong with this (and many other things Fr. Martin says), it will be helpful to have some backstory on his work involving those who identify as “LGBT.”
A Bridge Too Far
Prior to 2016, Fr. Martin was best known as a Catholic commenter who would appear on television shows like The Colbert Report. Although he emphasized things like social justice, Martin’s work focused on general spirituality and wasn’t very controversial. He began to openly court controversy after accepting the “Bridge Building Award” from New Ways Ministry in 2016.
New Ways Ministry openly dissents against the Church’s teachings on a variety of issues, including homosexuality. Sr. Jeannine Gramick and Fr. Robert Nugent founded the group in 1977. By 1999, the Congregation (now Dicastery) for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF, now DDF) noted how the pair “promote ambiguous positions on homosexuality and explicitly criticized documents of the Church’s Magisterium on this issue.” The CDF said Gramick’s and Nugent’s statements were “incompatible with the teaching of the Church” and permanently prohibited them from engaging in “any pastoral work involving homosexual persons,” insisting that they “are ineligible, for an undetermined period, for any office in their respective religious institutes.”
Ten years later, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Cardinal Francis George, issued a clarification of the status of New Ways Ministry:
No one should be misled by the claim that New Ways Ministry provides an authentic interpretation of Catholic teaching and an authentic Catholic pastoral practice. Their claim to be Catholic only confuses the faithful regarding the authentic teaching and ministry of the Church with respect to persons with a homosexual inclination. Accordingly, I wish to make it clear that, like other groups that claim to be Catholic but deny central aspects of Church teaching, New Ways Ministry has no approval or recognition from the Catholic Church and that they cannot speak on behalf of the Catholic faithful in the United States.
Just as it would be scandalous for me to accept an award related to apologetics from a group of schismatic Catholics who deny the pope’s authority, it was scandalous for Fr. Martin to receive an award from a group like New Ways Ministry.
Fr. Martin’s acceptance speech for the New Ways Ministry award was adapted into the 2017 book Building a Bridge, and he was also featured in a 2021 documentary by the same title. The documentary includes a scene where Fr. Martin tells attendees at Mass, “I used to say, the Church needs to be welcoming, and that’s not enough. That you all, LGBT, need to lead. You need to lead the Church.” In another revealing moment, Fr. Martin explains that he doesn’t attend LGBT pride parades because he could get photographed in front of a pro-same-sex “marriage” sign. When the interviewer asks him, “Why would that be such a bad thing?”, Fr. Martin replies, “Because I’m not supposed to support same-sex marriage.”
Not “I don’t support same-sex marriage” or “Because marriage can’t be same-sex.” Instead, his response is “I’m not supposed to support same-sex marriage,” which sounds more like an employee commiserating with a customer about his rigid managers than a spiritual father bearing others’ burdens in order to fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2). I imagine that if the management asked Fr. Martin if he’s okay with company policy, he would do his best to give an answer that at least won’t get him fired.
Indeed, that’s the feeling I get from a 2018 article Fr. Martin wrote in America magazine, where he explains what the Church teaches on homosexuality. In one passage, he writes, “All these considerations rule out same-sex marriage. Indeed, official church teaching rules out any sort of sexual activity outside the marriage of a man and a woman.”
Robert George is a Catholic philosopher who has done some of the best work defending the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality. He also calls Fr. Martin a friend despite their disagreements and says that by publishing this article, “Fr. Martin has left no room for detractors (or, for that matter, supporters) to suppose that he believes marriage can be between persons of the same sex or that homosexual conduct can be morally good.”
Fr. Martin may not have left room for himself to dissent from Church teaching at this present moment, but he has left room for himself to at some point believe that same-sex “marriage” is possible or that homosexual conduct can be morally good.
We hope you enjoyed this brief excerpt from Trent Horn's Confusion in the Kingdom: How “Progressive” Catholicism Is Bringing Harm and Scandal to the Church, due out in Late April. Click Here and we'll notify you when it's available for purchase and provide you with a discount code to purchase your copy for a great price!
]]>Baptism is the sacrament in which believers are “reborn as sons of God” (CCC 1213) by “water and Spirit” (John 3:5). It incorporates us into the Mystical Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13) and makes us sharers in the mission of the Church (CCC 1213). “Just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water,” the Catechism adds, “so the water of baptism truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit” (694). This divine life in the Spirit, also known as sanctifying grace, is the reason why St. Peter can say in 2 Peter 1:4 that in Christ we become “partakers of the divine nature.”
“New birth in the Holy Spirit” (CCC 1262) is not the only effect of baptism. There is also purification from sins. In baptism, all our sins are forgiven, along with all temporal punishment due for sin. The purification that takes place in baptism is so complete that in those who have just received it, “nothing remains that would impede their entry into the kingdom of God; neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God” (1263).
These two principal effects of baptism—new birth in the Spirit and purification from sins—is brought about within the soul by the gift of sanctifying grace, also called “the grace of justification” (1266), that the Holy Spirit infuses in baptism (2024). Sanctifying grace is the healing gift of God’s life that makes us holy and pleasing to him. In the words of St. Paul, sanctifying grace makes us “a new creation” (2 Cor. 5:17).
Now, this doesn’t mean that baptism reverses the temporal consequences of original sin, such as suffering, illness, death, and the frailties inherent in life, along with the weakness of character and the inclination to sin (called concupiscence) to which all human beings on earth are prone. In God’s wisdom, we’re left to “wrestle with” these consequences knowing that “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules” (CCC 1264; cf. 2 Tim. 2:5).
There are other spiritual gifts that baptism brings about within the soul. One is called “the indelible spiritual mark” (CCC 1273). Also known as the baptismal seal, this mark configures the baptized to Christ as a member of his Mystical Body and constitutes the believer as belonging to Christ (1272). It is indelible in that no sin can ever remove it, even if sin does impede baptism from producing the fruits of salvation. This is why baptism cannot be repeated.
If we remain faithful to what this seal demands of us—being a faithful witness to Christ—then we will depart this life “marked with the sign of faith” and receive the inheritance of eternal life that is ours in virtue of this seal. As Paul writes, we are “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17). St. Irenaeus accordingly called baptism “the seal of eternal life.”
Baptism also gives the soul supernatural powers that enable it to live and act on a supernatural level. One set of powers is called the theological virtues: faith, hope, and love. Faith enables the Christian to believe in God and everything revealed by God (CCC 1814). Hope enables the believer to trust in God’s promises (1817). And love, or charity, enables the believer to love God above all things and our neighbor out of love for God (1822).
Another set is the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which enable the believer to “live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit” (1266). There are seven: wisdom, knowledge, understanding, counsel, fortitude, piety, and fear of the Lord (1831; cf. Isa. 11:2).
There are various names for baptism, each of which is rooted in some aspect of the sacrament. For example, it is called baptism after the ritual of immersing the person, or part of the person (e.g., top of the head), in water. The Greek word for “baptize,”baptize in, means to “plunge” or “immerse.” The immersion under water signifies “burial into Christ’s death, from which we rise up by resurrection with him” (CCC 1214; cf. Rom. 6:3-4).
The sacrament is also called the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit. It is so named because of the new birth of water and Spirit that the sacrament actually brings about, without which no one “can enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
Another name for the sacrament is enlightenment, for those who receive it “are enlightened in their understanding.” Having received in baptism the Word—Jesus Christ, “the true light that enlightens every man,” the person baptized becomes a “son of light”; indeed, he becomes “light” himself (CCC 1216).
The newness that baptism brings for the believer makes it “the gateway to life in the Spirit” (CCC 1213). It gives the soul a newl ife. It gives the soul a new state—a sanctified state. It gives the soul new powers. It gives the soul a new identity as a child of God. No wonder the Church has identified baptism as “the basis of the whole Christian life.” The whole of our supernatural life as Christians, therefore, has its roots in the sacrament of baptism.
You can learn the answers to 599 more questions just like this when you purchase St. Peter's 20 Answers Sampler- The 30-volume set of the very best of our 20 Answers Series offers concise information on the most important topics facing the Catholic Church and the world.
Some are surprised that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily assumption was not defined until 1950, using little biblical support. The pope decreed that all Catholics must hold and believe as divinely revealed “that the immaculate Mother of God, the Ever-Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus44).
Yet this doctrine was no twentieth-century innovation, as Tim Perry explains:
When seeking to understand the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven with any degree of sympathy two factors need to be kept constantly in mind. The first is the doctrine’s ancient roots.
The ancient Church found that it fit Scripture and that it was consistent with other Christian beliefs. By the fourth century, Christians celebrated the feast of Mary’s dormition, especially in Jerusalem. The dormition refers to Mary “falling asleep” before being assumed (taken up bodily) into heaven to be with our Lord. Finding no evidence of Mary’s death, Epiphanius (d. 403) suggests that this Marian teaching was true, as “nothing is impossible for God.” Several Church Fathers preached about it, such as Germain (d. 733), Andrew of Crete (d. 740), and John Damascene (d. 749). Gregory (d. 594), bishop of Tours, recorded part of a Latin translation of a lost fifth-century Greek book describing Mary’s assumption. John of Thessalonica (d. 630) detailed the popular belief regarding Mary’s dormition and assumption. Although some details may have been embellished over time, his exposition shows that some truth likely lies behind this commonly held belief.
As a type for Mary, the Ark of the Covenant may also describe her assumption. Psalm 132 prophesies Christ’s ascension into heaven:“Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place[Christ’s ascension&91;thou and the ark of thy might[Mary&91;.”
Why would God want the Ark of the Covenant in his resting place with him, unless it prefigured something or someone extremely dear to him, such as his own mother? This seems to fit with our Lord’s promise:
Scripture prefigures this when David brings the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:15). David represents our Lord; the ark, Mary; Jerusalem, God’s heavenly city. David’s joy in bringing the Ark of the Covenant into the earthly Jerusalem prefigures Christ’s joy in bringing Mary’s body into the heavenly Jerusalem. We don’t want to receive Michal’s curse by failing to rejoice with Christ as he welcomes his blessed mother into the heavenly Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:16,23)!
Finally, Mary’s assumption is also prefigured when Jeremiah hides the ark in a cave on the mountain where Moses had been assumed into heaven. Scripture says this ark is never to be found (2 Macc. 2:1-8). Likewise, Mary’s body was hidden in a cave, never more to be found on earth because it was taken up. As John Damascene would say,“today the sacred and living ark of the living God, who conceived her Creator himself, takes up her abode in the temple of God, not made by hands.”
Revelation 12 also shows the Ark of the New Covenant (Rev. 11:19) in heaven as a woman, clothed with the sun’s glory, crowned with twelve stars, and with the moon under her feet (vv. 1-5). The woman—God’s New Covenant Ark, the mother of the Messiah—is alive, raptured into heaven.
We hope you enjoyed this excerpt from Fr. John Waiss's brand-new book Bible Mary: The Mother of Jesus in the Word of God
When my parents divorced, I had to choose between them—but it’s not what you think!
Please afford me the chance to explain before you jump to conclusions.
Many years ago, my father and mother were married and deeply loved each other. But over time, difficulties arose between them, which caused a slow deterioration in the health of their relationship and, eventually and regrettably, divorce. And worse, their separation had the unintended result of dividing my brother and me from each other, as each of us chose a different parent to live with.
My brother and I now have two different lives with very different backgrounds, each stemming from the parent each of us chose. You’ll probably agree that children shouldn’t have to make such decisions because of the failures of their parents.
Now, you may think I’m talking about my biological father, mother, and brother. And maybe I was . . . but I’m also referring to my spiritual father, the Catholic Church; my spiritual mother, the Eastern Orthodox churches; and my spiritual brother, my Orthodox lay brethren. As a Catholic who has been Eastern Orthodox, both of my spiritual parents are responsible for who I am today. As such, I deeply desire to see unity between my parents. I have even dedicated my life to it.
Before there can be healing and unity between Catholics and Orthodox, we must examine what led to the separation, much like a couple who wish to restore their relationship. After all, if the cause of a medical disease is not discerned, it is unlikely that the proper remedy will be provided. So, it is with the Catholic and Orthodox divide.
Examining this history will also help Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants to be more familiar with how we ended up in the state of separation we are in today. Familiarity with this will help them further determine that the schism was unjustified and should not be perpetuated by their actions.
Sadly, when surveying the relations between Catholic West and Orthodox East, we quickly observe a long and drawn-out history of friction and deterioration. In the same way a divorce can be the result of a long and subtle breakdown in communication and relations between a husband and wife, so too it is with the Catholic and Orthodox divide.
We start to see tremors of this division as early as the second century, where Pope St. Victor I (189-199) threatened to excommunicate the churches of Asia minor over a dispute about the proper date of Easter. Some claimed they had a tradition from the apostles that Easter should be on the fourteenth of the ancient Jewish month of Nisan, whereas others claimed that it should be on whatever Sunday fell after the fourteenth of Nisan. This was patched up after several figures, including St. Irenaeus, engaged in some skillful East-West diplomacy.
Sadly, there were many other divisions to come after this event.
These came to a head in the eleventh century.
It was in the eleventh century that many of the underlying tensions from previous centuries came to a swelling point. Constantinople dropped Rome from the diptychs (a list of those alive and dead whom the Church commemorates), which meant they no longer recognized the pope as being in communion.
Inquiries made into the matter showed that this was simply a reality, rooted in fact more than any canonical decision. When Pope Leo IX (1049-1054) sent Cardinal Humbert (1000-1061) to Constantinople in 1054 to resolve the dispute, tempers were lost, theological polemics were exchanged, and eventually the cardinal and patriarch excommunicated each other. This was not a moment where all of the Eastern churches severed ties with Rome, though it is often portrayed that way in popular circles, but it certainly impaired relations with the West.
There is too much history to dig into here. But you can get the whole story when you pick up a copy of Michael Lofton''s brand-new book Answering Orthodoxy
The most obvious references to the Virgin Mary are those that mention her explicitly.
These may be few, but they are the most important. Literal references take priority in any doctrinal discussion and are the basis for all other ways of reading Scripture.
The Protestant theologian Daniel Migliore reminds us to keep in mind:
The Gospel writers were not interested in supplying us with material for a biography of Mary any more than they were in giving us material to write a life of Jesus. Yet Mary stands before us in the Gospels as a woman of faith. The faith of Mary is portrayed—with economy, beauty, and stunning realism—in several clusters of Gospel stories.
Some Scripture passages reference Mary directly, mentioning her by name. Yet the whole Old Testament—God’s word—prophetically anticipates the Messiah’s coming and his incarnate Word. Due to Mary’s intimate relationship to the historical Christ, Old Testament prophecies foreshadowing Christ may also foreshadow her. And so, before exploring the literal references to the Virgin Mary, let us look at some of the Old Testament prophecies that foreshadow her.
Mark Roberts identifies three of these Marian prophecies:
Christians see Mary in three Old Testament passages. Two are obvious prophecies. The first is a little more obscure. After the man and woman sin in Genesis 3, God promised that the “seed” of the woman will “strike the head” of the serpent. If the seed is Christ, then the woman is, in a sense, Mary. Isaiah 7:14 refers to a virgin or young woman (same Hebrew word) who bears a child named Immanuel. Micah 5:2-5 refers to a woman who gives birth to a messianic ruler.
Genesis 3 relays God’s prophetic curse of the serpent who tempted Eve:“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”This foretells a special enmity or war between Mary’s seed (Jesus) and Satan. Using this passage, early Christians, such as Justin Martyr (d. 165), began calling Mary the New Eve:
[God&91;became Man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent, might be also the very course by which it would be put down. For Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent, and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tiding that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God.
In Isaiah 7:14, God gives King Ahaz and all of Judah a reassuring sign of his protection against the evil surrounding them:“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”The reassuring sign of God’s protection in our war against Satan is the young virgin who conceives Immanuel, God with us.
Finally, Micah 5:2-4 prophesies of the town of the Messiah’s birth and his mother’s “travail” as the Messiah brings back his people to God and feeds them.
But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days. Therefore he shall give them up until the time when she who is in travail has brought forth; then the rest of his brethren shall return to the people of Israel. And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the Lord . . . for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth.
Sarah Hinlicky Wilson notes many New Testament passages reflect customs, rituals, and laws laid out in the Old, reflecting Mary’s religious world:
At the time of Mary’s son’s presentation . . . Mary’s devotion is evident. . . . [She keeps&91; the law: “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest . . . a burnt offering and . . . a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood”(Lev. 12:6-7).The offering, “a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons,” betrays her poverty, for she cannot afford a year-old lamb.
Out of the nine times in the whole Gospel that Luke uses the expression “the law of the Lord” or the “Law of Moses,” five of them appear in this report of Jesus’ presentation and early childhood.
Descriptions of Old Testament customs, rituals, and faithful Jewish women were the context of Mary’s motherly relationship with Christ. Pope John Paul II concurs.
Although all Scripture finds fulfillment in God’s incarnate Word (Matt. 5:17), truths about Mary will be mirrored in truths about Christ, as the Second Vatican Council says:
For Mary, who since her entry into salvation history unites in herself and re-echoes the greatest teachings of the Faith as she is proclaimed and venerated, calls the faithful to her son and his sacrifice and to the love of the Father(Lumen Gentium 65).
John Paul II adds,
The council further says that “Mary figured profoundly in the history of salvation and in a certain way unites and mirrors within herself the central truths of the faith.” Among all believers she is like a “mirror” in which are reflected in the most profound and limpid way “the mighty works of God”(Acts 2:11) (Redemptoris Mater25).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says,“What the Catholic faith believes about Mary is based on what it believes about Christ, and what it teaches about Mary illumines in turn its faith in Christ”(487). Applying this to the Bible, we derive another key for identifying Marian Scripture passages:
Christ, our true model, fulfills all Scripture. We identify prophecies, laws, customs, and dogmas describing Mary based on prophecies, laws, customs, and dogmas describing Christ.
We hope you enjoyed this excerpt from Fr. John Waiss's brand-new book Bible Mary: The Mother of Jesus in the Word of God
So how do we know which books the early Christians used in the liturgy?
As Valeriy Alikin of St. Petersburg Christian University explains,“Christians began to read apostolic epistles in their gatherings at the latest from the middle of the first century onwards.” At the end of his first letter to the Thessalonians, Paul instructs,“I adjure you by the Lord that this letter be read to all the brethren”(5:27). And after the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the leaders of the Church send Paul and St. Barnabas to Antioch with a letter addressed to“the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia”(v. 23).
Alikin points out that this address signals that the letter was to be a “circular” (meaning that the church in Antioch would copy it and pass it along to the next local church), read liturgically in each of the local churches. We get a more explicit example of this in Colossians 4:16:“when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea.”
Do these books include the four Gospels?
According to St. Justin Martyr, they do.
Justin explains that“on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read.” As we’ve already seen,“memoirs of the apostles”is the name Justin gives for the Gospels. He doesn’t name them, but we can piece together which books he considered the“memoirs”(and thus, which Gospels were being used in his day) from some of his other references.
For instance, he writes that“when a star rose in heaven at the time of his birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of his apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognizing the sign by this, came and worshipped him.” That’s a clear reference to Matthew 2, the only book to record those details. We’ve also already seen an apparent reference to the Gospel of Mark (calling it the memoir of Peter), in which Justin mentions that Christ gave the nickname Boanerges to James and John (Mark 3:17).
Did you enjoy this excerpt fromThe Early Church Was the Catholic Church?
In the weeks leading up to my reception into the Catholic Church, I prepared to not only to be baptized, but also to be confirmed. The sacrament of baptism uses water to communicate grace that takes away sin, while the sacrament of confirmation uses hands that spread oil across the forehead. This oil seals the person with the gifts of the Holy Spirit to help him live out the Catholic faith. Hebrews 6:2 alludes to this sacrament when it says how, after baptism, we receive “the laying on of hands.”
In some churches confirmation candidates choose a new name for the ceremony, which is usually the name of a saint who prays for that person. A lot of people pick a saint they can identify with, so, since I used to be someone who mocked the Christian faith but now enjoyed defending it, I chose St. Paul. He was, of course, a Jewish leader who used to kill Christians, but after an encounter with the risen Jesus, he became one of the Faith’s greatest defenders (Phil. 3:3-11).
At the end of our preparation class, one of the older volunteers said to me, “You chose Paul as your confirmation name? Those are pretty big shoes to fill.” I wanted to say “I’ve got big feet!” but instead I humbly admitted, “I know, that’s why I need his prayers.”
Many non-Catholics struggle with the concept of praying to saints because they think prayer and worship are the same thing. Since the Bible says we should only worship God, then shouldn’t we only pray to God? But the word “worship” refers to giving someone “worth-ship,” or the honor that person is due. We call judges “your honor,” for example, as a way of paying them respect, but we don’t treat them like gods.
“Prayer” comes from the Latin wordprecariusand refers to making a request for something. In Old English a person might have said to a friend, “I pray you will join us for dinner tomorrow night.” They aren’t worshipping their friend as a god, but simply making a request of them. Catholics do the same thing when they pray to saints; they don’t honor them as gods but ask them for their prayers.
Why should we ask saints in heaven to pray for us when we can just pray to God instead? After all, 1 Timothy 2:5, says, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus.” Catholics agree that it is great to pray to directly to God, but if this argument were taken to its logical conclusion, then it would forbid asking anyone on earth to pray for us.
After all, why ask a friend on earth to pray for you when you can go directly to God? Of course, St. Paul encouraged Christians to pray for everyone (1 Tim. 2:1-4), so 1 Timothy 2:5 must mean that Christ is our one mediator of redemption. Jesus Christ is the only person who unites man and God to one another and removes the barrier of sin between them. But Christ’s unique role as our redeemer does not prevent us from mediating or interceding for one another—either in this life or the next one.
All Christians are united to one another because we are all members of the one body of Christ. Romans 12:5 says, “We, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.” If the saints in heaven are Christians, then they must belong to the same body of Christ to which all other Christians belong. This means Christians in heaven are united in the bond of love with Christians on earth, and so there is nothing wrong with asking them to pray for us.
It doesn’t make sense to say Christians who are in heaven are some kind of “amputated” part of Christ’s body that cannot pray for any of the other parts. Jesus calls himself the vine and says we are the branches (John 15:5). If Jesus holds the “keys of Death” (Rev. 1:18), then how could death ever completely separate the branches from one another as long as they are all spiritually connected to the same vine?
Jesus himself said that God “is not the God of the dead, but of the living,” and reminded his Jewish audience that the Father said, “I am [not “I was”&91; the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Mark 12:26-27). In the time of Christ (as well as the time of Moses), the Father was still the God of Jewish heroes like Abraham, who had died centuries earlier. To write off saints like them as being “dead” ignores the fact that, by virtue of their heavenly union with Christ, they are more alive than they were on earth.
This excerpt is just a small part of the information you'll find in Why We're Catholic.
The Immaculate Conception.
For non-Catholics, this dogma of the Church may be one of the most misunderstood doctrines there is.
Here are some common questions Catholics get, and how to respond to them:
Question:Why does Mary have to be holy at the moment of her conception instead of being purified shortly before God chooses her to be his mother?
Response:God chooses and elects those who are to cooperate in his plan of redemption from before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4), anticipating his plan. The Old Testament constantly shows how God chose his prophets and leaders at birth or while in their mothers’ wombs. This applies to individual prophets, to the people of Jacob, and to the city of Jerusalem, all types of Mary. But God goes beyond just calling them; he consecrates and sanctifies them in the womb. The same is true with the New Testament Holy of Holies, the womb that would carry the Redeemer, Immanuel, God with us.
Question:If Mary was free from sin, did she have temptations or have to suffer?
Response:The devil tempted sinless Jesus (Matt. 4:1-11): “Because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted” (Heb. 2:18), and “we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (4:15). The same may apply to Mary since, as his mother, she was fully human in every respect.
Another of Jesus’ temptations is his agony in the garden, which likely has a parallel in Mary’s heart as the cross draws near (Luke 2:35). In addition, when Mary and Joseph lose track of Jesus in Jerusalem (Luke 2:41-52), she suffers dearly: “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” Mary doesn’t understand Jesus and perhaps is tempted to lose faith, but she ponders his words and remains faithful.
Question:There’s kind of a domino effect here: if Jesus needed an immaculate mother, then Mary too would need an immaculate mother, who also needed an immaculate mother, and so on. How do we avoid someone, such as Adam and Eve, not tainting Mary’s line?
Response:Jesus could have become man without being born at all, but raised directly from the earth: “God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” (Matt. 3:9). But the most appropriate way for God to show himself to be fully man without tainting his divinity with sin is by being born of a sinless virgin.
Mary didn’t need a sinless mother, because she was not God; she did not possess the divinity that would necessitate a sinless mother. It is Jesus Christ, the Word incarnate, whose divinity requires sinlessness. It is God who sanctifies Mary, not the other way around: “For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred . . . the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?” (Matt. 23:17,19). It is not Mary herself, nor her parents, grandparents, etc., who make her sinless, but God.
We hope you enjoyed this question-and-answer excerpt from Fr. John Waiss's brand-new book Bible Mary: The Mother of Jesus in the Word of God
Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven . . . and lo, the smoke of the land went up like the smoke of a furnace. —Genesis 19:24,28
Prior to the last fifteen years or so, the leading archaeological theory, for those who believe that Sodom and Gomorrah existed, placed the location of these cities on the south end of the Dead Sea, on the eastern shore—although there were several prominent advocates among archaeologists as far back as the nineteenth century for a northeastern shore location, and this was, in fact, the consensus location from the fourth century until the early 1900s.
The buzz and fun discussion currently taking place is largely the result of the Tall el-Hammam excavations in Jordan, led (beginning in 2006) by archaeologist Steven Collins, dean and professor at Trinity Southwest University. He has written voluminously and passionately about his positions.
Brian Nixon, of Assist News Service, quotes Collins, summarizing some of the findings of the dig in the year 2010:
"To start with, the Tall el-Hammam site has twenty-five geographical indicators that align with the description in Genesis. Compare this with something well known—like Jerusalem—that has only sixteen. Other sites have only five or six. So this site has a greater number of indicators than any other Old Testament site. That is truly amazing."
"Second, our findings—pottery, architecture, and destruction layers—fit the timeframe profile. Meaning we should expect to find items like what we are finding from the Middle Bronze Age. This is exactly what we are uncovering."
"Though . . . much research still needs to be conducted, I feel that the evidence for this being the ancient city of Sodom is increasing by the day."
Collins has provided extensive argumentation for a chronology of the Tall el-Hammam/Sodom archaeological site. His analysis nicely lines up with our proposed dates of Abraham, and he estimated that Sodom was destroyed “between 1750 and 1650” B.C.
Interestingly, if Tall el-Hammam is Sodom as I think the geographical and archaeological evidence categorically confirms, then it constitutes a most remarkable confirmation of the historical veracity of the patriarchal narratives.
Amanda Borschel-Dan, in a Times of Israel article on this topic, sums up the evidence for some sort of massive explosion in Sodom and its surrounding area:
As reported in Science News, at the recently concluded Denver-based ASOR Annual Meeting, director of scientific analysis at Jordan’s Tall el-Hammam Excavation Project Phillip J. Silvia presented a paper, “The 3.7kaBP Middle Ghor Event: Catastrophic Termination of a Bronze Age Civilization.” . . .
According to the paper’s abstract, the scientists discovered evidence of a “high-heat” explosive event north of the Dead Sea that instantaneously “devastated approximately 500 square kilometers.” . . . Silvia told Science News that the blast would have instantly killed the estimated 40,000 to 65,000 people who inhabited Middle Ghor, a 25-kilometer-wide circular plain in Jordan.
Radiocarbon dating of the site yielded a date of about 1700 B.C. The article continues:
Contemporary potsherds’ glazes apparently experienced temperatures high enough to transform them to glass, “perhaps as hot as the surface of the sun,” Silvia told the news source. . . .
We hope you enjoyed this excerpt from The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science and History Back Up the Bible.
Get your copy, sit back, and prepare for an adventure!