Posts

Original Sin in Ancient Jewish Thought

 A common claim among Christians who deny Original Sin is that the doctrine in some way originated with St. Augustine. St. Augustine lived between 354 and 430 AD. There are, however, texts that predate St. Augustine that do refer to the doctrine of Original Sin. For example, you have in Sirach 25:24, the following verse, "From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die."  Sirach is considered canon by Catholics, but suppose for the sake of argument it is not. It would still be true that Jews at the time thought this, since Sirach was written around 180 BC. That's still 500 years before St. Augustine. What does this verse show? It shows that Eve's sin is the cause of our death. Does it mean just physical death? Looking at the context of this verse, which begins at 25:13, it is about the spiritual dangers of an evil woman. So it is more likely here that it speaks of spiritual death, if not physical as well. And to be caused by our original parents to b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Peter Rules the Sheep

 Todays gospel reading at Mass was John 21. The dialogue between Peter and Jesus is something to take note of in Papal discussions because of what Jesus tells Peter to do. The NIV, a common Protestant translation, and even many Catholic translations, lose some of nuance from the Greek which sheds light on Papal claims.  Looking specifically at v16, many translations translate the word "poimaino" as "tend" even though it literally says "shepherd". Blue letter Bible has this. And the same word is used in Matthew 2:6, in which the shepherd rules over the people of Israel. This is a strong claim, and not just one that means Peter is going to be a mere pastor. Peter is literally ruling. 
Post a Comment
Read more

Protestants United On Clear Essentials?

It is a common Catholic talking point that there seems to be no essential definition of Protestantism. It reduces to a kind of relativism, thus demonstrating the need for a magisterium. And the common reply is something like, "We are united in those doctrines necessary for salvation" or that "We are united on the obvious doctrines". Sometimes you hear "The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things."  It doesn't escape the issue being pressed. You ask different Protestants what's necessary for salvation and you'll get different answers. "Believe in Jesus." But which Jesus? The Jesus of Mormonism? I think not. "Sola Fide." Okay, does that include baptism being necessary for salvation? Protestants will disagree on that. Which is exactly the problem we're trying to highlight.  What of the "obvious" or "clear" issues like the Nicene Creed? Or the Trinity? Obviously you can...
Post a Comment
Read more

LXX Rendition of Matthew 16 Supports the Papacy

 An argument that I found convincing in accepting the Papacy is the connection between Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22. I wont rehash the argument here, but it was pointed out to me that the way the Septuagint, or the Greek version of the Old Testament, called the LXX, translates Is 22:22 is notably different from the Hebrew. There are times this happens, and the New Testament is aware of this and continues to cite the LXX anyway.  The NIV translates the Hebrew version of Is 22:22 as follows, "I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." Pretty straightforward. You can clearly hear the parallels Jesus is making in Matthew 16:19.  However, the LXX translates Is 22:22 as follows, "And I will give him the glory of David; and he shall rule, and there shall be none to speak against him."  Before we touch on the significance of the difference, lets explain what's going on. "The key t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Invalid Argument Against Mary's Sinlessness

 Here is a common argument I hear against Mary's sinlessness that is plainly invalid.  1) If Mary sinned, then she would die 2) Mary died 3) Therefore, Mary sinned The idea here is that mortality is a result of the fall. If Adam and Eve had never sinned, they would have remained immortal, in a sense. And since Mary died, she must have been subject to sin.  The obvious problem with this is that it is invalid. It follows the form of Affirming the Consequent .  1) If A, then B 2) B 3) Therefore, A Is obviously an invalid inference.  But supposing it was valid, each premise requires some justification anyway. Jesus didn't sin, yet He died. And how do we know Mary died? A point against this is that there is no strong devotion to the burial site or relics of Mary, but we do have them for the Apostles. Not definitive points perhaps, but the point remains, the argument is simply invalid. 
Post a Comment
Read more

An Argument Against Islam

 From the book "The Ambassador's Guide to Islam" by Alan Shlemon.  1. The Qur'an says the words of God cannot be changed or corrupted  2. The Qur'an says the Bible is the Word of God 3. Therefore, on the Qur'an's authority, the Bible could not have been changed or corrupted, as many Muslims claim  Three citations in support of 1 are given.  Surah 6:34, "Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah . Already hast thou received some account of those messengers." Surah 6:115, "The Word of your Lord has been perfected in truth and justice. None can change His Words . And He is the All-Hearing, All- Knowing." Surah 10:64, "For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicit...
Post a Comment
Read more

Trinity Analogy - Human Nature

 In a discussion between a Christian and Muslim, I heard the following analogy. To understand how God can be three persons and one nature, think of three humans. You have three persons, but all one nature, the human nature.  Preliminary comment. All analogies for understanding God will come short in some respect since God is totally unique. God can't be compared to anything, so no analogy is appropriate. That said, they are helpful. We just need to understand that they will have limits.  The limit here is that one could easily respond with: yes, there are three persons, and they all are of the same nature, human. But there are also three humans, which would mean you would have to say there are also three gods. That's an unacceptable consequence for a Trinitarian, and it's often what Muslims will say Christians are forced to believe.  I read the following explanation from J.P. Moreland some years ago, I forgot the title of the book, but a similar analogy, which I thin...
Post a Comment
Read more