That is a lot of sins

I have been reading this book called The Power of the Cross, and in it, the author gives some perspective about our sins.

He asks how much sin it would be if Jesus took on all of our sin from the past hour onto the cross with Him. That would, of course, be a bunch of sins.  (Hopefully not too many, though!)

What if he took on all of our sin for the past day?  That would be even more sin.

Now consider our sins for our entire lives.  And what about our town's sins?  Our major city's sins? Our state's sins?   Hard to imagine how many sins that is.

What if He took on our entire country's lifetime of sins onto that cross with Him?  That is certainly an immense burden.  Hard for us to even imagine.  

Now take every single person that is alive today ... and go back all the way to Adam.  Could Jesus possible carry all of those sins with Him to the cross?

It is unimaginable.  And yet He did.  For us.

Thank you, Jesus. 

Issues with the book Zealot - from just the excerpt!

Thanks to a popular YouTube video, many people have now unfortunately heard of the book Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.  

This is sad, as the author uses the book to present Jesus as just another revolutionary - a violent one at that.  Worse yet, he uses incorrect facts, questionable arguments, and cherry picks information to support his claims.

In fact, one just need read his excerpt to find numerous issues:

1. "The most widely accepted theory on the formation of the Gospels holds that Mark's [gospel] was written after 70AD."   Not true.  As many, if not more, scholars believe all the Gospels were written before that - if for no other reason than they would have recorded the destruction of the temple in 70AD to show Jesus's prophesy had come true.  In addition, we know that Acts ends around 60AD (and does not mention Paul's death in 65AD - something Luke surely would have done).  Most scholars believe that the Gospel of Luke preceded Acts, which means it would have been written before 65AD.
2. The author basically claims that because Jesus was crucified (a death reserved for the "crime of sedition") He must have been a zealot and revolutionary.  Also not true.  The Romans had no choice but to crucify Jesus because he did not deny being a King.  That had to be taken as a direct threat to the throne back then, no matter how seriously they believed Him (or the Jewish leaders claims).  It would not have taken angry mobs and a crazy man to lead to that.  In fact, one wonders if Jesus would have made it onto Pilate's list had the Jews not thrust Him there so forcefully.
3. In addition, he claims that because two other revolutionaries were crucified next to Jesus, Jesus must have been a violent Zealot.  Right.  I can hear them now ... "Wait, Titus, make sure we put all the violent ones next to each other.  We don't want to mix the violent and non-violent revolutionaries when we mindlessly crucify them." 
4. He claims that the Evangelists do not paint a historical picture of Jesus the man.  This is partially true, but does mean it should be disregarded.   The Evangelists did not write like historians do today.  That wasn't their goal.  Their goal was to write pieces of the overall story to further the teachings of Christ.  So saying they left out many details of the life of Jesus is true.  Tossing them all out because of such is tomfoolery.  
5. Gnostic gospels proved that "even those that walked with" Jesus had diverging opinions over who He was.  While true that there must have been varying levels of belief, the author leaves out the fact that many of the gnostic "authors" are believed to have used apostles names to lend weight to their own opinions.  Scholars have already poured through these to point out inconsistencies and untruths.  P.S. you cannot throw out the New Testament but then use the Gnostic Gospels in your argument! 
6. "The problem with pinning down the historical Jesus is that, outside of the New Testament, there is almost no trace of the man."   Isn't this the definition of cherry picking?  Let me get this straight ... aside from the most widespread accounts of Jesus's life, there is almost no record of Him.  Oh, and disregard the fact that He lived in a time and society that relied on the oral word over the written one.  Ok.  Gotcha.
7. The most ironic part of this excerpt, is that the author states that there are only two hard historical facts - that Jesus was a Jew who led a popular movement, and the Romans crucified him.  IF that were the case, and we agreed to throw out the New Testament because it didn't agree with the author's thinking, then why would this book Zealot be any different?  Why can the author take general information about the time Jesus lived in and come up with a more accurate biography?  Its preposterous!  It would be like someone two thousand years from now writing your biography based on what people in your country generally were like.  Oh, and throwing out your diary, your friend's Facebook posts, and that recommendation your boss gave you since they didn't fit the story.  

Bonus material:  While I have not read the book (and won't, given the glaring errors), my research led me to other folks who pointed out even more inaccuracies and cherry picking.  For example, the author uses New Testament passages where they help him (Jesus was violent because he said "I have come not to bring peace but the sword") but not when they hurt his argument (eg, Jesus stopping Peter from using his sword in Gethsemane).  The author also claims Mark does not mention the Resurrection (I guess Mark 16:6 "He has risen" could be confusing) and that Luke does not refer to Paul as an Apostle (I can see how Acts 14:14 "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this ..." might be unclear).

It is sad that the author believes this method of research is accurate for defining who Jesus was.  It is even sadder that many will read this and rethink their faith.

Thus, I end this post with a prayer, and I ask you to join me.  I pray that the author will find the true Jesus, and that the readers of his book will use the errors and blatant twisting of information to become even more ardent supporters of Christ.

God Bless.

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

The Daily Examen

I've been reading The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything by one of my favorite authors, Fr. James Martin.

He spends part of the book explaining the Daily Examen - a technique developed by St. Ignatius Loyola to help us see God in our daily lives.

St. Ignatius required the Jesuits to pray the Examen twice a day, but as Fr. Martin notes, even praying it once at the end of the day can have a very powerful effect on your spiritual outlook and the way you approach life.

There are many variations of the Examen - I wanted to share one of them with you here.


Step 1:  Recognize you are in the presence of God.
How often we forget that we are always in the presence of God as we get caught up in the minutia and craziness of our day to day lives!


Step 2:  Review your day, moment by moment.
Our days go by in a flash as we run from one task to another.  The goal here is to take the time and review each day and reflect upon the events (and notice those things you hurried past, or completely missed).  This step will help you with #3 and #4.


Step 3:  Give thanks.
Thank the Lord for all the graces and good things you received throughout the day - large and small.  (The first time I did this I could not believe how many times I overlooked God's presence in my day, or how many little things I should have been thankful for but almost missed.)


Step 4:  Realize where you failed.
Where did you sin?  Where did you miss an opportunity to do God's work?  What drew you away from Him?


Step 5:  Ask for forgiveness and resolve.
Tell God you are sorry for those times you let Him down, and ask for His grace to do better tomorrow.


This can be done at whatever pace you feel comfortable (Fr. Martin says even 15 min of quiet time can be enough), but the key is to give it your full attention and to do it every day.


It is a beautiful, but powerful, way to grow closer to God.


God Bless you.

Life Went On

I remember Jim Bishop, in his book The Day Christ Died, wrote that as our Savior died for us on that cross, most people carried on with their everyday lives. 

It's an image that haunts me to this very day.

Ironically, though, I never applied the same thinking to the day He was born.  

Until I came across this 20ft x 10ft nativity scene at a church I visited last week... 

I don't know how well the whole scene will show up (it was pretty dark in the church), but that is the Holy Family in the center near the columns.  

What stopped me dead in my tracks though - and echoed images of Bishop's Good Friday - was the scene in the lower right...

That is a family eating pasta and enjoying themselves - a mere 50 steps from Jesus!

A realistic depiction of that day?  

I don't know.  

But it's probably safe to assume most people went on with their daily lives, oblivious to the Lord in their presence.

Kind of like 2011 ...


God Bless.

Is God Your Best Friend?

I had the pleasure of attending a talk by Fr. James Martin a while ago.   Fr. Martin is the author of My Life With the Saints among other books, and a very insightful, very funny speaker.   

One of the questions he asked us was whether we considered God to be our best friend.

The question caught many of us off guard.  I mean, God is .... God!  He's in charge.  He's the rule-maker.  He's the Guy we are trying not to upset.   And yes, He loves us and we love Him.  But many of us had never thought about "lowering" Him to the seemingly-too-human "friend" status.  

But for those that answered "Yes, He is my best friend", Fr. Martin posed the following questions:

1)  Do you listen as much as you talk?  How many best friends do you know of where one person talks and talks and never listens?

2)  Do you give as much as you ask?  How many best friends do you know of where one person is constantly asking for things?

3)  Do you laugh together?  Have you ever heard anyone say "Yes, Bob is my best friend ... but we've never laughed together the whole time I've known him"

I thought those were some very insightful points.  

And they left me wondering what was worse ...  that I hadn't  thought about God as my best friend ... or that I would be the worst best friend ever!

God Bless.

Unsung Hero

I just got done reading The Day Christ Died by Jim Bishop.

My goal was to have it done by Easter but, alas, I just couldn't read quick enough.

I have posted before about how I sometimes wish Gospel writers were historians so we had more detail about the life of Jesus. Well, in this book, Bishop combines a ton of historical research and Church teaching to paint every detail of Jesus' last day on Earth. It is very well written - so much so that there were times I had to remind myself that I wasn't reading a live account of what happened!

Needless to say, I highly recommend it.

But there was one paragraph at the end of the book that really moved me. Bishop tells the familiar story of how Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate and asked if he could take Jesus' body to a tomb.

To me, that has always been a sidebar in the Passion. I never really took the time to reflect on what a brave thing Joseph really did. Bishop explains that while Joseph was an important member of the Sanhedrin, he was a secret follower of Jesus. By asking Pilate for Jesus' body, he "outed himself" and put himself in great danger.

That brave act becomes even more meaningful when you realize that it was Joseph - and not one of the 11 Apostles - that took the lead to care for our Savior's body. What love! What faith! What a great example for all of us.

God Bless.

Hail Holy Queen

I just finished reading Hail Holy Queen by Scott Hahn. Since most of the books I read are about Jesus and his Apostles, or the Biblical Evangelists, I wanted to make sure I gave the Virgin Mary her due.

I certainly don't want to ruin the book in case you want to read it, but I do want to highlight two learnings.

Hahn spends part of the book defending Mary's place in our Faith to naysayers.

The first question he answers is one of the most popular - "how can we prove the Assumption, especially since it wasn't made popular until centuries after Mary's death"?

Hahn gives a few answers, but the one that stood out to me was that there are no relics of her bones. Given her status as Christ's mother, her bones would have certainly been kept and her burial place marked and frequented. Back in those days, and the ones to follow, Crusaders would have gone after those bones as a "trophy" to bring back to their lands. And yet, there is no record of that anywhere.

The second question he answers is "how do we know Mary was sinless"?

His answer is so obvious that I'm upset I did not come up with it myself. Hahn asks - if you were God, and you had to create your own mother, would you make her (a) full of sin, or (b) sinless? I thought that was just brilliant. Instead of looking for written evidence, his response is simple and irrefutable.

Hail Holy Queen isn't the easiest book to read, but I enjoyed spending the time with it and reflecting on our Blessed Mother.

God Bless.

Faith and more Faith

As you know from my last post, I love movies or books that try and bring biblical events to life.

I just finished reading a short book by Jim Bishop called The Day Christ was Born. In it, Bishop gives a biblically true recap of the events leading up to, and the people associated with, the birth of Christ. However, he adds a lot of detail and depth to the book that make you feel like you are reading an eyewitness account of that day. It's a quick read and really helped me focus on the true meaning of this Season.

It also helped me reflect on how both Mary and Joseph trusted in God from the very beginning. Did you ever stop and think about how much faith they had? I know I take it for granted.

They believed in the Immaculate Conception. (Could you imagine if your spouse went away for months and came back pregnant?)

They believed that their Son was to be the Messiah. (Remember, at the time everyone probably expected the Messiah to be born into royalty and power.)

They trusted God when he told then to go to Egypt - a foreign land to them - until Herod was dead. (Imagine traveling ... check that ... walking through a desert ... to a country where you do not know anyone, don't speak the language, and don't have a job lined up.)

These are certainly not small leaps of faith! And they serve as model examples for how we should lead our lives. Always trusting in our Father.

God Bless.

Peter, Paul, and Mary

No, I’m not talking about that music group (for those of you that even remember them). I’m talking about Bart Ehrman’s book Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene.

I came across this book in the library (yes people still go there) after deciding I wanted to learn more about the most important figures in Christianity. Peter and Paul were at the top of my list, so this book caught my eye.

I was pleasantly surprised at Ehrman’s style. Its smooth, fluid, and kept me intrigued throughout. It wasn't the dry religious speak I was expecting.

And I though the content was excellent. He devotes about 6 chapters to each subject, taking us through their lives with and after Jesus. (Or in Paul’s case, before and after Jesus appeared to him) Throughout his book, he tries to dispel common thoughts and give solid evidence to support others. One of the more famous stories he shuns is that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute and married to Jesus. (There is no historical evidence of either. Gregory the Great actually started this myth in a sermon 5 centuries after her death!)

In any case, if you are interested in learning more about three important figures in Christianity I highly recommend this book.

God Bless.