Bible In One Year Day 312 (2 Maccabees 15, Wisdom 19, Proverbs 25: 21-23)

  You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Day 312:  The Conclusion of the Old Testament 

Death of Nicanor

Bible In One Year Day 311 (2 Maccabees 14, Wisdom 17-18, Proverbs 25: 18-20)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

***

Judas Maccabeus before the Army of Nicanor 

+++ 

A Daily Defense 

DAY 311 Scripture as Final Authority?

CHALLENGE: “We know that the Bible teaches we should do theology ‘ by Scripture alone’ (sola scriptura) because Jesus and the apostles quote Scripture as their final authority.”

DEFENSE: This claim is demonstrably false.

Although Jesus and the apostles quote from Scripture, all this shows is that they considered it an authority capable of settling questions it deals with, not that it was the only authority. Speaking of it as “their final authority” misleadingly assumes there was a single, final authority for them, but a person can have Scripture as an authority while also having other authorities.

Thus Catholics, Orthodox, and other Christians who do not accept sola scriptura also quote Scripture to settle issues. Just look at other entries in this book. Scripture is regularly cited to prove different points, yet the author clearly does not believe in sola scriptura. Therefore, the sola scriptura advocate will need to show more than that Jesus and the apostles quoted Scripture to settle issues. He will need to show they recognized no other authorities.

This is not possible. For a start, Jesus and the early Christians lived in an age when public revelation was still being given. Some of these revelations are recorded in Scripture (e.g., Matt. 1:20–21, 2:13; Luke 1:11–20, 28–37, 2:9–14; Acts 9:4–6, 10–17, 10:10–16; Rev. 1:10–11).

Regardless of whether a revelation was recorded in Scripture (and many were not until decades after they were given), its message was authoritative. This, of itself, reveals that the early Christians did not believe in sola scriptura.

The transmission of revealed material (whether it took the form of a vision or not) is Tradition, and the early Christians passed on Tradition in oral form long before it was written in Scripture (e.g., Matt. 10:7; Luke 10:1–16; Acts 2:14–40; 1 Cor. 11:1–2; 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6).

They also believed a divine teaching authority (Latin, magisterium) had been given to the Church, beginning with Jesus, who “taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matt. 8:29) and pronounced authoritatively on the correct interpretation of prior revelation (Matt. 5:21–48). Similarly, the leaders of the Church recognized that they were divinely guided in a way that allowed them to pronounce authoritatively on the questions of their day (Acts 15:1–29).

We thus see the early Church using Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist 

Bible In One Year Day 310 (2 Maccabees 13, Wisdom 15-16, Proverbs 25: 15-17)

  You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Antiochus and Stratonice, painting by Francesco Fontebasso,

Day 310: Rivals of the Heart 

+++

A Daily Defense 

DAY 310 Historical Sins

CHALLENGE: “Catholics have committed grave sins in history, including sins of avarice, intolerance, and persecution.”

DEFENSE: Yes, they have! Jesus did not come to make men sinless in this life but to make it possible for sinners to be saved.

Sin is an ongoing reality (James 3:2; 1 John 1:8) against which we must struggle (1 Cor. 10:13). Jesus taught us to pray, on a regular basis, “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12).

We must also recognize that sins are not only committed against God; they affect those on earth, and their forgiveness must also be sought.

People alive today did not commit the sins of the past and so are not responsible for them. Nevertheless, the past sins have continuing negative effects in the world, and we must do what we can to remedy them. This applies to all of us, and in the year 2000 John Paul II made a dramatic act of public apology for the sins committed by Catholics in the past, stating: “We cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth, and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken towards the followers of other religions.”

He went on to say: “Let us confess, even more, our responsibilities as Christians for the evils of today. We must ask ourselves what our responsibilities are regarding atheism, religious indifference, secularism, ethical relativism, the violations of the right to life, disregard for the poor in many countries. We humbly ask forgiveness for the part which each of us has had in these evils by our own actions, thus helping to disfigure the face of the Church” (Homily, March 12, 2000).

Having made this act of public apology, it remains to be seen whether others will take a similar attitude regarding their own sins and those of their forebears.

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist 

Bible In One Year Day 309 (2 Maccabees 12, Wisdom 13-14, Proverbs 25: 11-14)

  You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Day 309:  Praying for the Dead 

+++

A Daily Defense 

DAY 309 The Day of the Crucifixion

CHALLENGE : “Jesus couldn’t have been crucified on a Friday. He rose Sunday morning, and he said he would be in the tomb “three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40). There aren’t three days and nights between Friday and Sunday.”

DEFENSE: This fails to understand the modes of speech then used.

In the most literal sense, “three days and three nights” means seventy-two hours. The Gospels agree Jesus died in the afternoon and was buried in the evening, just before the beginning of the Sabbath at sunset (Matt. 27:57; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:42). If he remained buried for seventy-two hours, he also would have had to rise just before sunset.

This is not the picture indicated by the Gospels, which depict the empty tomb being discovered early in the morning on Sunday, the first day of the week (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1), which then became “the Lord’s day,” the Christian day of worship (Rev. 1:10; 1 Cor. 16:2), because that was when Jesus rose.

Therefore, “three days and three nights” should not be taken in a fully literal sense. So how should it be taken?

According to the modes of speech then used, parts were often reckoned for wholes, so “three days” could be one full day and parts of two others. This is the picture we get from the Gospels: Jesus died in the afternoon and was buried shortly before sunset on one day, he lay in the tomb on a second day (the Sabbath), and he rose early in the morning on the third day. This corresponds to the repeated biblical affirmation that Jesus was raised “on the third day” (Matt. 16:21, 17:23, 20:19; Luke 9:22, 18:33, 24:7, 46; Acts 10:40; 1 Cor. 15:4).

The “three days” are thus explained, leaving the “three nights.” Here is where another ancient mode of speech is relevant: Adding “three nights” to “three days” is a poetic flourish not meant to be taken literally. “Three days and three nights was a Jewish idiom appropriate to a period covering only two nights” (R.T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, 213).

Finally, the Gospels are explicit that Jesus was crucified on a Friday, which was referred to as the “day of preparation” when people got ready for the Sabbath (Matt. 27:62; Mark 15:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42).

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist 

Bible In One Year Day 308 (2 Maccabees 11, Wisdom 11-12, Proverbs 25: 8-10)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Judas Maccabeus 

Day 308: Little by Little 

Bible In One Year Day 307 (2 Maccabees 10, Wisdom 9-10, Proverbs 25: 4-7)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Day 307: Courage In Battle

+++ 

A Daily Defense 

DAY 307 Devotional Use of Images

CHALLENGE: “God may permit the use of religious images (see Day 179), but we should not kneel before or kiss them. The Bible says, ‘you shall not bow down to them’ (Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9), and it condemns those who have bent their knees to or kissed Ba’al (1 Kings 19:18).”

DEFENSE: These prohibitions apply to idols.

If there is an idol—a statue of a pagan god—then you absolutely should not kneel before or kiss it! However, not all kneeling and kissing falls under this ban. Scripture contains innocent examples of kneeling (Judg. 7:5–6), bowing (Gen. 23:7, 12), prostration (1 Sam. 25:24), and kissing (Gen. 27:6).

These are physical acts that take their meaning from context. They are outward expressions of an attitude of the heart, but they can convey different things. Kissing your father and kissing an idol of Ba’al are different. The outward act may be the same, but they convey different attitudes of heart—one indicating filial affection and the other divine worship.

Even using these acts in divine worship is not wrong. People devotionally knelt (1 Kings 8:54), bowed (2 Chron. 7:3), prostrated themselves in God’s presence (Deut. 9:18), and devotionally kissed Jesus (Luke 7:38).

What makes such acts wrong is using them to reverence a god that does not exist, like Ba’al, or using them to reverence something that is not a god, supposing that it is (e.g., worshipping one of the Roman emperors—like Caligula or Nero—as a god).

If one recognizes in one’s heart that the thing is not a god, these outward acts are not misdirected divine worship and don’t fall under condemnation. In the ancient world, these actions may have been so closely associated with idolatry that they were to be altogether avoided in the devotional use of images, but we don’t live in the ancient world.

Today, Catholics who use such devotional practices (which, it should be pointed out, are voluntary, not obligatory) are in no danger of thinking that a statue or icon is a deity. It’s universally recognized that statues and icons are mere symbols of Jesus and the saints, and kneeling before or kissing them is a symbolic way of expressing affection, like kissing the photograph of an absent loved one.

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist 

Bible In One Year Day 306 (2 Maccabees 9, Wisdom 7-8, Proverbs 25: 1-3)

  You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Wisdom of Solomon

A Daily Defense 

DAY 306 Evolution and Faith

CHALLENGE: “Faith and science are fundamentally opposed, as illustrated by Christians’ opposition to the theory of evolution.”

DEFENSE: The Catholic Church doesn’t have a problem with evolution.

Some Christians have read the early chapters of Genesis in a way that would preclude evolution, but the Church recognizes these chapters as using significant symbolism (see Days 90 and 290). 

The statement God created man from the dust of the ground is understood as an affirmation that “the human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that ‘then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being’ (Gen. 2:7)” (CCC 362).

Faith thus allows the view that the way God “formed man of the dust” was through a process of biological evolution, leading to the development of primates and eventually to man, whom God endowed with a soul. “If the origin of the human body comes through living matter which existed previously, the spiritual soul is created directly by God” (John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996).

Consequently, the Church is able to express appreciation for the “many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers” (CCC 283).

This doesn’t mean every version of the theory of evolution is compatible with the Faith. For example, one must recognize God as the Creator and Ruler of the universe, so the process of evolution would take place only as part of his providential plan.

On the other hand, the Church’s appreciation for scientific studies pointing to evolution doesn’t mean evolution is a doctrine of the Faith. Although the Church has concluded the biblical texts can be understood in a way compatible with evolution, beyond that the theory must stand or fall on its scientific merits, for it is a matter of science rather than faith.

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist 

Bible In One Year Day 305 (2 Maccabees 8, Wisdom 5-6, Proverbs 24: 30-34)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

 

Peter Paul Rubens, The Triumph of Judas Maccabeus

Day 305: The Defender

+++ 
A Daily Defense 

DAY 305 Referring to the Deuterocanonicals

CHALLENGE: “If Jesus and the New Testament authors thought the deuterocanonical books were part of the canon, why doesn’t the Bible refer to them?”

DEFENSE: They do refer to them. The New Testament contains multiple allusions to the deuterocanonicals.

It does not contain clear quotations from them—or from many protocanonical books of the Old Testament (see Day 288)—but it does contain clear allusions.

One of Jesus’ most famous teachings is that God’s willingness to forgive us is linked to our willingness to forgive others. This is expressed, for example, in the Lord’s Prayer: “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12).

And, too, in the verses that follow it: “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:14–15).

The Old Testament contains many passages discussing divine forgiveness, but only one where it is linked to our willingness to forgive others. That passage is in the deuterocanonical book of Sirach: “Forgive your neighbor the wrong he has done, and then your sins will be pardoned when you pray” (Sir. 28:2). Jesus thus picks up and develops this teaching from Sirach the same way he picks up and develops other themes from Old Testament scriptures.

Not only does the New Testament allude to teachings found in the deuterocanonicals, it also refers to the historical events they record. Thus the book of Hebrews contains an extensive list of Old Testament figures who pleased God by their faith. In the course of listing them, the inspired author writes: “Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life” (Heb. 11:35).

This combination of torture and refusal of release to obtain a better resurrection is found in only one place in the Old Testament. It is a reference to the seven brothers who were tortured and martyred by Antiochus Ephiphanes in 2 Maccabees 7. The author of Hebrews thus appears to recognize 2 Maccabees as one of the books of the Old Testament.

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist 

Bible In One Year Day 304 (2 Maccabees 7, Wisdom 3-4, Proverbs 24: 27-29)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Antonio Ciseri's Martyrdom of the Seven Maccabees

Day 304: Life Beyond Death 

Bible In One Year Day 303 (2 Maccabees 6, Wisdom 1-2, Proverbs 24: 21-26)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Day 303:  Eleazar's Martyrdom 

Martyrdom of Eleazar

+++
A Daily Defense 

DAY 303 The Church’s Infallibility

CHALLENGE: “Why should I think the Church can teach infallibly?”

DEFENSE: Reflection on Christ’s teaching reveals why.

Christ did not reserve teaching authority to himself but established a teaching authority (Latin, magisterium) in his Church (see Day 281). This authority was originally vested in Peter and the apostles, and when they passed from the scene it was inherited by their successors, the pope, and the bishops (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2, 2 Tim. 2:2; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:1; CCC 861–62).

Christ willed his Church to endure to the end of the world (Matt. 16:18), and teaching is one of its essential functions (Matt. 28:19; Acts 1:8). Since the pope and the bishops are the highest ranking teachers the apostles left in the Church, the ultimate exercise of the Church’s teaching authority fell to them.

Authority can be exercised in different degrees, placing different levels of obligation on those who are its subjects. This raised the question: What would happen if the Church’s Magisterium used its authority in the fullest manner, to oblige the faithful to believe a particular teaching in a definitive way? In that case, could the Church be wrong?

Theological reflection led to the conclusion this would be inconsistent with how Christ constituted “the church of the living God,” which is present in the world as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). He also promised to be with his Church until the end of time (Matt. 28:20); he promised the Holy Spirit would lead its leaders “into all the truth” (John 16:13); and he told his appointed ministers, “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16).

In view of the declarations of Christ and the mission he gave the Church in the world, it would be impossible for his Church’s Magisterium to bind the faithful in conscience to believe something false. Consequently, “in order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility” (CCC 889).

This infallibility can be exercised in different ways—by the pope or by the bishops (either scattered or gathered in an ecumenical council; CCC 891). But when the Magisterium teaches definitively, it is infallible.

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist 

Bible In One Year Day 302 (2 Maccabees 5, Sirach 50-51, Proverbs 24: 17-20)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Celestial Rider 

Day 302: The Pursuit of Wisdom 

+++ 
A Daily Defense 

DAY 302 Mortal Sin

CHALLENGE: “There is no such thing as mortal sin.”

DEFENSE: The concept of mortal sin is clearly taught in Scripture.

First, the language of the doctrine is drawn from Scripture itself: “If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal” (1 John 5:16–17).

The phrase here translated “mortal” (Greek, pros thanaton) literally means “unto death.” It can be understood to mean a sin that causes spiritual death, a sin so grave that it causes physical death, or grave sin continued to the point of death. In any case, the text envisions the possibility of a Christian (a “brother”) sinning this way.

A full exegesis of this passage is beyond what we can cover, but the New Testament indicates Christians can commit sins costing them salvation. Paul warns: “Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain” (1 Cor. 15:1–2). This indicates it is possible for Christians to believe the gospel in vain. Here Paul names one cause for this—failure to adhere to the gospel. 

Elsewhere he is more specific, saying: “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9–10). The fact that Paul felt the need to warn his Christian audience against deception on this indicates both that Christians can commit sins costing them salvation and that they could deceive themselves on this point.

Many similar New Testament passages could be cited, but we should note that the need to avoid mortal sin is stressed by our Lord: “If you would enter life, keep the commandments. . . . You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 19:17–19).

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist 

Bible In One Year Day 301 (2 Maccabees 4, Sirach 47-49, Proverbs 24: 13-16)

  You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

+++ 

A Daily Defense 

DAY 301 The Church: Visible or Invisible?

CHALLENGE: “Catholics are wrong to believe that Christ’s Church is a visible, hierarchical institution; it is the invisible union of all believers."

DEFENSE: This does not fit the scriptural data.

First, if Jesus wished to found an “invisible” Church, he wouldn’t have instituted baptism. As the Christian equivalent of circumcision (Col. 2:11–12), baptism is the Christian initiation ritual. It thus gives the Church an identifiable membership.

Second, if Jesus didn’t wish to found a hierarchical Church, he wouldn’t have established a hierarchy. Yet he did. He appointed leaders, beginning with the apostles, who then appointed other leaders, resulting in the ministry of bishops, priests (presbyters) and deacons.

What’s more, entrance into these offices was accomplished by ordination through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:6, 13:3; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6), so membership in the hierarchy was objectively verifiable.

Third, the nature of the Church as a “visible” entity is underscored by the duty of obedience that the members have toward their ordained leaders (1 Cor. 16:16; 1 Thess. 5:12; Heb. 13:7, 17).

Fourth, Jesus speaks of his Church—using that term—in only two passages in the Gospels: Matthew 16 and 18. In both, he indicates the visible nature of the institution.

Thus in Matthew 16:18–19, Jesus says he will build his Church on Peter, indicating that Peter is its leader (see Day 256). He also gives Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” and tells him, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” indicating Peter’s authority in the Church (see Days 30 and 349).

Similarly, in Matthew 18:15–18, Jesus shares the power of binding and loosing with the hierarchy more broadly, in the context of Church discipline. He states that if “your brother” (i .e., a fellow Christian) sins against you then the matter may need to be referred to the Church, “and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” This indicates the authority of the Church to discipline and exclude members who commit offenses.

Far from instituting an invisible Church that is merely the spiritual union of all believers, Jesus instituted a visible one with a definite membership and an authoritative hierarchy.

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist 

Bible In One Year Day 300 (2 Maccabees 3, Sirach 45-46, Proverbs 24: 8-9)

  You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

The Expulsion of Heliodorus from the Temple - Raphael

Day 300:  Conversion of Heart

+++
A Daily Defense 

DAY 300 The Dating of Mark

CHALLENGE: “Mark’s Gospel isn’t reliable. It was written long after the events, and by a non-eyewitness.”

DEFENSE: Mark was written within living memory of the events it records, and it’s based on eyewitness testimony.

We elsewhere deal with the fact that Mark wasn’t an eyewitness (see Day 44). Biographies are written all the time by people who aren’t eyewitnesses, and Mark was in an especially good position as a biographer because he based his Gospel on the testimony of an eyewitness: Peter.

Thus the first-century figure John the Presbyter stated: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely (Eusebius, Church History 3:39:15).

This is the earliest statement about the composition of Mark, dating from only a few decades after it was written.

It helps us pin down when Mark was written, because there is a literary relationship between Mark and Luke. Enough of Mark is found in Luke, often in the same words, that it is highly probable either Mark used Luke or Luke used Mark.

Since Mark is said to be based on his memories of Peter’s preaching (not on Luke) and since Luke acknowledges prior written sources (Luke 1:1), almost all scholars conclude that Luke used Mark.

Since we have good reason to think that Luke was written in A.D. 59 (see Day 217), Mark would have been written earlier than this.

Mark did not become one of Peter’s traveling companions until after he ceased being one of Paul’s. The latter event, recorded in Acts 15:36–39, took place in A.D. 49. Therefore, Mark was written some time in the A.D. 50s.

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist 

Bible In One Year Day 299 (2 Maccabees 2, Sirach 42-44, Proverbs 24: 8-9)

 You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

Jeremiah Hides the Ark

+++ 
A Daily Defense 

DAY 299 The Timing of Christmas

CHALLENGE “Christians are wrong to celebrate Christmas on December 25. Jesus could not have been born then—it would have been too cold for the shepherds to keep their flocks outdoors (Luke 2:8).”

DEFENSE There are several problems with this challenge.

First, the Catholic Church celebrates Jesus’ birth on December 25, but this is a matter of custom rather than doctrine. It is not Church teaching that this is when Jesus was born (note that the matter isn’t even mentioned in the Catechism).

Second, although most Christians today celebrate Christ’s birth on December 25, this was not the only date proposed. Around A.D. 194, Clement of Alexandria stated Christ was born November 18. Other early proposals included January 10, April 19 or 20, and May 20 (Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 2nd ed., §488, §553). By far the most common proposals, however, were January 6 (ibid., §§554–61) and December 25 (ibid., §§562–68).

While the last was eventually adopted by the Catholic Church for use in its liturgy, the fact that the Church did not declare alternate proposals heretical shows the matter was not considered essential to the Faith.

Third, the proposals that put Jesus’ birth in the colder part of the year (November 18, December 25, January 6, and January 10) are not ruled out by the fact that there were shepherds keeping watch over their flocks at night.

Ancient Jews did not have large indoor spaces for housing sheep. Flocks were kept outdoors during winter in Judaea, as they are elsewhere in the world today, including in places where snow is common (search for “winter sheep care” on the Internet). Sheep are adapted to life outdoors. That’s why they have wool, which keeps body heat in and moisture out.

Sheep are kept outdoors in winter in Israel today: “William Hendricksen quotes a letter date d Jan. 16, 1967, received from the New Testament scholar Harry Mulder, then teaching in Beirut, in which the latter tells of being in Shepherd Field at Bethlehem on the just-passed Christmas Eve, and says: ‘Right near us a few flocks of sheep were nestled. Even the lambs were not lacking. . . . It is therefore definitely not impossible that the Lord Jesus was born in December’ ”(ibid., §569).

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist 

Bible In One Year Day 298 (2 Maccabees 1, Sirach 40-41, Proverbs 24: 1-7)

     You may subscribe yourself at the Ascension site here and receive notifications in your email, or just follow along on my blog.  Bible in One Year Readings Index 

James Tissot - Heaven Consumes the Sacrifice 

Day 298: The Gift of Life 

+++ 
A Daily Defense 

DAY 298 Many Religion 

CHALLENGE: “When you look at all the different religions in world history, the odds of yours being the right one are low. We should conclude that religious truth, even if it exists, is unknowable.”

DEFENSE: This overlooks both the way religious views are structured and the role that evidence plays. Consider a parallel: Throughout history there have been many scientific theories about the way the world works, but they contradict one another and can’t all be true. The odds of a single theory being correct are thus low and we should conclude that, if scientific truth exists, it is  unknowable. There are two major problems with this argument.

First, it ignores how scientific views are structured. Every field has certain basic questions on which there are a limited number of answers. There may be diversity in the details, but the basic options are limited.

In physics, a basic question is whether matter is made of tiny, discrete particles (the atomic theory) or whether it is an infinitely divisible continuum. Similarly, in religion a basic question is whether there is a single Creator God or not. Adherents of the view that matter is made of particles may differ on the details of how particles work, but they are united on the fundamental nature of matter. Similarly, religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam may differ on how they understand the Creator, but they are agreed on the fundamental question of monotheism.

Whether selecting among scientific or religious views, one is not faced with infinite diversity. Both fields are structured around certain basic questions that, once settled, lead to more specific questions involving detail.

Second, the parallel argument given above ignores the role of evidence. The odds of selecting the correct scientific or religious views would be low if one had no evidence as to which are true, but the fact is that we do have evidence. In science, experiments provide that evidence, and in religion, apologetics does. 

Thus the multiplicity of views on science and religion should not lead to despair about finding the truth. What one needs to do is identify the basic questions a field involves, to look at the evidence concerning those questions, and when they are settled to move on to more detailed questions.

The principles are the same, whether one is investigating scientific or religious truth.

Jimmy Akin, A Daily Defense: 365 Days (Plus One) to Becoming a Better Apologist