#12880 Why Didn’t Liber Pontificalis Make It Into Scripture? Proofs for God, Debate Tips - Jimmy Akin

0:00Buying or selling your home, real estate for life can connect you with a pro-life real estate agent. When real estate for life receives a referral fee, they donate 65% to Catholic answers. Learn more at realestateforlife.org Jimmy Akin, our guest, Catholic Ancels Live. I am Psy Kelly, your host. And I'm just looking at a full bank of phone lines already with questions from Jimmy. It's Ask Him Anything. Thanks for coming back for another hour, Jimmy. I'm not that you've ever let us down. Well, I try not to. I don't think you ever have. I don't think we've ever done hour one in Jimmy's like, I can't just can't do hour two. I need a break. But I am glad you're here. We talked a little about you mentioned the Jimmy Akin

1:04podcast because you were talking to somebody about it. People can get Jimmy Akin podcast wherever they get their podcast, right? And they can also get it at youtube.com slash Jimmy Akin. Jimmy Akin. Yeah, I wasn't sure. I want to make sure of that. And so that was certainly they probably won't find it at youtube.com slash Psy Kelly. No, that's what you were thinking. I don't think you'll find anything good there. No, that's somebody's probably going to be registered. But uh, so here's the deal though. Monday's Labor Day. So that's a holiday. Do you just you just don't even post one or do you post you're like, I don't care. I'm posting. I'm just going to still post a new episode. I don't care. I'm still posting a new one. What do you got? And if they don't watch it, Monday because they're out eating hot dogs or something, they can watch it Tuesday. Yeah, a lot of hot dog eating. Uh, we have several days. Fourth of July Labor Day hot dog days across America. So what do they get if they if they tune in while eating their hot dog? Okay, well, um, so first

2:09I'll mention what came out last Monday because that's already out and folks can watch it if they're interested. Um, a while a few weeks ago, I got a request from a viewer who said, could you do a, um, could you do a video about the sign of the cross? And I said, sure, I'd be happy to. So that's what came out this last Monday and wow, has it taken off? Um, it's, it's got currently more than 64,000 views in just the last few days, which is a lot for me. Um, so people have really responded to the sign of the cross episode. Wow. And I go through the, I go through the origin of the sign of the cross, what its biblical roots are, the different ways of making it because there are different ways of making it. I even have a clip from the mummy's curse where a Cajun makes it as an ostensible Cajun makes it in the most hilarious way possible. That is how

3:14nobody in the Catholic church has made the sign of the cross ever. And so it screams Hollywood actor and fake Cajun. Um, but it's a, it's a, it, there's also a surprise just for a second. There's a surprise appearance of Carlo Bersard in it. Um, so, uh, that I got his approval on first. Uh-huh. Since I'm talking about Cajuns, you know, um, but it's, uh, it's something people are really responding to. So that was this last Monday coming up on this coming Monday. It's the, um, actually, it's the hundredth episode of the Jimmy Akin podcast. And so to celebrate, you know, the podcast is supported by listeners. And so on Patreon. And so I, uh, collected up, uh, questions from the patrons of the show. And I spend almost two hours going through their, going through their questions. So it's a special hundredth anniversary celebratory episode. And

4:19we're doing something special by answering the questions, the people who support the show and make it possible. Um, are interested in finding out. So that's what's coming up this next Monday. All right. Check it out. Uh, as I said, wherever you get your podcasts or go to, uh, youtube.com slash Jimmy Akin and enjoy it. I got now I got to find out about the Carlo Brusar, uh, cameo. We've got a car, a doctor Carlo cameo, uh, coming up. So how about that teasing stuff that you need to then watch the episode to tell you all about how you get to 64,000. Uh, all right. Off back to the phones. We go, since it's asking anything, we just don't even know what we're going to get. Here's the excitement. What, what will Sue ask from Columbus, Ohio? Hi, Sue from Columbus, Ohio, home of Saint Gabriel radio. We're very glad you're here. Thank you. And thank you very much for the work that you do. Yeah, I just, I'm a convert, uh, because of your work, uh, predominantly. And, um, I just learned

5:24about the, I don't know how to say it, uh, liber or liber pontificalis, the book of pontiffs. And I, it blew my mind. I'm thinking, well, why was this not included in the scripture? That would have eliminated a whole lot of Protestant confusion right there. So was it a matter of timing when, when they were all coming together and the scriptures were canonized and all or what? Well, it's not just a matter of timing of when the scriptures came together. It's actually a matter of timing of when the scriptures were written. Um, and so the liber pontificalis or book of pontiffs is too late. That's the basic answer. The reason why is that God, um, has given his revelation to mankind all the way down through human history in different ways. But there are certain times when he has delivered his revelation to us in written form in a way that he divinely inspired,

6:34meaning he was the primary author, even though he was using a human author as his agent in composing a work. And, uh, God chose to have some of those inspired works survive and become authoritative in the church. And they're what we refer to as public revelation because they're revelation that's binding on all of the church. They're publicly binding on everybody. Every Christian needs to acknowledge them as scripture. Um, but the age when God did that is now over. So it ended when the last apostle died. That's how it's commonly reckoned. And so anything that gets written after the end of the apostolic age is not going to be divinely inspired the way scripture is. And therefore it's not going to be scripture. Um, and so the liber pontificalis, what it is is a,

7:37it's a book of popes, um, you know, little, you know, biographies of them, things like that. But it didn't start getting written until after the close of the apostolic age. And so it was recognized when scripture, when the canon of scripture was being finalized, which was itself a process. It had been in process since the apostolic age, but where things really kind of crystallized was at the end of the fourth century. And then later a thousand years after that in the 15th century and the 16th century, that's when the canon list became infallible. But even by the fourth century, it was recognized if something dates from after the time of the apostles, it's not going to be scripture. It, it may be a good book. And, and it, it may even contain revelation. It would just be private revelation that's not binding on everybody instead of public revelation, which is binding on

8:39everybody. Um, but it's not public revelation and thus not scripture. So, um, so that's why the liber pontificalis is not part of scripture. It was written too late. Okay, Sue. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much. Well, well, Sue, yeah, no problem. Uh, we, Jimmy wrote a book called The Bible is a Catholic book that talks about the Bibles. Well, it talks a lot about different aspects of the Bible, but it has like how the Bible got to be the Bible. Uh, if you'd like a copy of it, or you, you have it already. I have. I probably, yeah, I probably should listen to it again, man. Huh? I've listened to it a couple times, but oh, no, no, I didn't mean it that way. I just meant I was going to give you a copy. Uh, but we'll give you a copy of another. Yeah, yeah. Maybe, maybe you don't have his latest book, the, the evidence for Christ. Or do you, or do you have the whole, uh, that one I don't have? All right, hang on. We're going to give you that one. Uh, we'll we'll take a very quick break or we'll be right back with more questions for Jimmy Aiken on

9:39Catholic Answers Live. Mrs. Show, make sure to catch up by downloading the podcast available online at Catholic.com. Underwriting for Catholic Answers Live is provided by Magnificat. Published monthly Magnificat features texts of daily mass, prayers, articles, meditations, art commentaries, and more. In step with the liturgical rhythm of the church on the web at Magnificat.com. Underwriting for Catholic Answers Live is provided by Real Estate for Life. Real Estate for Life connects home buyers and sellers to real estate agents while supporting pro-life organizations on the web at realestateforlife.org. Hi, this is Father Mike Schmitz. I invite you to listen to Bible in a year and Catechism in a year here on EWTN Radio. On Catechism in a year, you'll encounter God's plan of sheer goodness for us. Throughout the year, we read the Catechism of the Catholic Church with direct quotes plus time for explanations and reflections. I hope you can join us every day or as often as you can. Bible in a year and Catechism in a year with Father Mike Schmitz

10:43tonight at 10 PM Eastern 7 PM Pacific on EWTN Radio. Look back, Catholic Answers Live. Jim, it's St. Louis, Missouri. I'm going to get to you right away, Jim, because I just realized you've been waiting quite a while. I apologize for keeping you waiting so long, Jim. Go ahead with your question for Jimmy Aiken. Hey, yeah, no problem. It's a nice day. Listen to you guys with your wisdom and faith and everything. Oh, thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, I'm just curious when you guys were talking about King David. And I wonder why the Jewish flag and their symbol, the star of David, when their holy book is the Talmud, the Babylonian Talmud, which was when they were worshipping bail and sacrificing babies and

11:47stuff. And that was the star of ramacan. And I'm thinking it was deceit. And in their holy book, it says that their duty is to deceive all non-Jews. So I'm thinking like that's what it's from. And not really, I don't know what the reference is with the King David. Just wondering what you think. Okay, well, I'm happy to talk about where the star of David came from. But first, I need to, I need to correct a few ideas that it seems you've encountered. The first is the Jewish holy book is not the Babylonian Talmud. The Jewish holy book, at least their most holy book, is the Bible. Specifically, it's what in Jewish circles is referred to as the Tanakh. Tanakh stands for the Torah, which is the first five books of the Bible, the the Neviim, which is the prophets, and the Kethuvim, which is the writings. And this basically

12:50corresponds to the books that you'd find in the Protestant Old Testament, or what Catholics would call the proto-canonical books of the Old Testament. So that's their holiest book. And in fact, even within that, it's the Torah, the first five books that are the most important. Now, after the destruction of the temple, at the towards the end of the first century, there was a big fear that they would lose all of the knowledge about like how to do things the way they had been done in temple times. Because now without the temple, no one was getting any practice. And so to prevent that knowledge from being lost in the second century, a Jewish scholar named Judah Hanasi, or Judah the Prince, wrote a work. It was a collection of different opinions of different Jewish scholars in his day in the second century about how things were done in temple times. And that became known

13:53as the Mishnah. And then, because there were questions about, well, he's just preserving people's opinions, they don't all agree with each other. There are different opinions on some things. And so people had questions about, well, what do we make of this? How do we reconcile it? Is there more background we could have on this? And then between, say, the fourth century and a little bit later, there were two collections of commentaries that were written on the Mishnah. One, collection of commentaries on the Mishnah was written in the Jerusalem area, and it's known as the Jerusalem Talmud. The other collection of commentaries was written by the Jewish community in and around Babylon in modern Iraq, and it's known as the Babylonian Talmud. But the people who authored the Babylonian Talmud were not sacrificing their children to Baal. That wouldn't have even been

14:59his name in ancient Babylon. The Babylonian equivalent of Baal was Marduk, and Jewish scholars did not worship Marduk or Baal. They worshipped Yahweh, and they considered Yahweh so holy, they wouldn't even say his name in this period. That's how holy they considered Yahweh. There had been some Jews in biblical times who worshipped Baal, and the Prophet denounced them. And there had been some Jews who worshipped this star, they called Reffan, or whatever, and they were denounced by the prophets. And the authors of the Babylonian Talmud totally agreed with the Prophet's denunciation of these people, because they consider the Kethuvim and the Neveim, the Prophet's writings, that condemn these practices, they consider them part of Scripture. So we don't want to think of

16:03the authors of the Babylonian Talmud as, you know, unrepentant pagan bad guys, because they weren't. In terms of where the star of David came from, that's an interesting question, because it was not the historical symbol of the Jewish people. In history, going all the way back to biblical times, the most common symbol that was used in connection with the Jewish people was the menorah. That's the kind of branched candlestick that gets used today at things like Hanukkah. Well, back in biblical times, they actually had a giant menorah in the temple itself. It's referred to in the first five books of the Bible in the Torah. And we know that it was shaped like a menorah because we have pictures of it, that not the photographic pictures, but illustrations of it. Like, for example,

17:07if you go to Rome and you look at the arch of Titus, which was a big arch that was built to commemorate Titus' conquest of Jerusalem in the 80s, 70s. It's got pictures on it. It's got carvings, barreliefs of like captives being led back to Rome from Judah. And they're carrying all these treasures. The Romans are carrying all these treasures that they brought back, including treasures they took out of the temple before it was burned. And one of the treasures they're carrying is a giant menorah. They got the giant menorah out of the Jewish temple and brought it back to Rome. And it was the menorah that was the historic symbol of the Jewish people, at least that was, if you saw a menorah, that would signal, okay, we're talking about Jews or depicting Jews or whatever here. So where did the star of David come from? Well, it's a lot more recent than people

18:07realize. It really developed in the Middle Ages, in the 1300s. There was at least this is when its first official use began. Now, the star of David is basically its two intersecting triangles. And that's a simple geometric shape. So people have been using that shape for all of human history. I mean, it's in prehistoric designs like you'd find on a cave or something. And it's been used in other cultures like India and Babylon and places like that. But it was not associated yet with the Jewish people. When it really began to be associated with the Jewish people, was in the 1300s. And at that period, there were some Jews in Prague, in what later became Czechoslovakia, that were allowed to choose a flag for themselves. And they decided to use the star of David on that flag. Now, there had probably been some Jews who'd used it earlier than that enough, you know,

19:13for somebody to get the idea, hey, let's put this on our flag now that we can make a flag. But that's what they did. It wasn't colored the way, you know, white and blue, the way a modern star of David is. But that's where it began to become prominent. And even then, it was not a symbol of Jews everywhere. That didn't happen until the very end of the 19th century. At the end of the 19th century, the world Jewish Congress or world Zionist Congress that wanted to go back to Israel, they wanted a flag. And they came up with basically the modern flag of Israel. And then when Israel became a nation state in 1948, they adopted the flag of the Jewish National Congress. And so that was what really popularized those two events at the end of the 1900s. And then in the 20th century, when Israel became a nation, that's what really popularized the star of David as a symbol of Jews

20:18all over the world, not just like in Prague. All right, Jim. Can I? Yeah, can I add something about the flag? Please go ahead and add something I will. I may need to respond, but yeah, go ahead. Yeah, great. Okay. Well, the two things. One thing, the two blue stripes represent the borders that they recognize. And that's the Greater Israel project that really nobody knew about when we were going through all these wars. But, and that's what they complained about the Palestinians saying, like, the sea to the river. I forget what it is. But from the river to the sea, right. And, and, and, and, and then they had a flag in the old Russian old blast. And, and the flag they had, they had an area where it's like the Russian said here, you guys can have this area. It's yours. And it was called Russian old blast. And, and their flag was the exact

21:22replica of the gay flag of the, you know, so that's where that, you know, of the star of David. Wait, wait, wait, did you say of this? Did you say that the Russian old blast had a flag that, that was identical to the star of David? Or did you say the gay flag? The gay flag, yeah. Okay. Well, so rainbow flag. Right. Rainbow flag. And it's the replicate, you know, like, same thing. But anyway, what about, I mean, I, I find a lot of things that are, you know, about the Jewish religion and stuff that really make me believe in God because it lines up with what's going on. And, and, all right. That's, I believe. Okay. I want you to comment on that last comment. Well, good. I'm glad that I'm glad that you're growing closer to God through what you're studying. I would say you want to be careful in what you're studying. Because it's

22:26sounds to me, you know, I mentioned some things like about the Babylonian Talmud and such that, that, you know, it seemed like you'd run into some ideas that were mistaken. And, and, and you just mentioned some things that are kind of similar. So an oblast is a province in, in the Russian system. And so I don't know, I'm not familiar with Jewish people being granted permission to, to have a flag in a particular province in Russia that may well have happened. I'm just not familiar with it. If it did happen, well, it might be identical with a flag that's also used in the United States by the gay community. But they would have nothing to do with each other. Jewish individuals are, and certainly not historically orthodox. Jewish individuals are not supporters of the gay agenda. And so if they had a case of parallel evolution where they

23:31invented a similar looking flag, it would have nothing to do with the American usage. So it seems to me that you may have encountered some sources that while they're having a good effect in helping you believe in God and move closer to God, not all the data in them is, and not all the reasoning in them is good. So I would be, I would be careful. And say you want to be really careful, especially if you see something where someone's talking smack about the Jewish people, you want to be careful. Now that doesn't mean they're wrong. You know, Jewish people like any other people make mistakes, and they can be criticized. But they also are like any other people. They don't all agree on everything. There are some time significant disagreements in the Jewish community. So we don't want to talk about Jewish people like they're monolithic. Any more than we want to talk about Christians like they're monolithic and all have exactly the same ideas. They don't.

24:33And so we want to be more nuanced and recognize that well, some Jews might think something, but other Jews won't. And some Jews might make a mistake, but other Jews won't. And we also want to be careful about inferences we draw, because even if you have two identical flags, they mean different things to different people. And so you can't attribute, say, everything about the gay community to the Jewish community or vice versa. So there are parallel developments that look the same, but have no actual connection. So I would say keep studying, keep growing closer to God, but you want to be careful in the material you're encountering, and you want to look for good, reliable sources that are accurate in what they say about history, and that use good reasoning that don't just paint a portrait of the Jewish people as if they're all the same, or they're all bad guys or anything like that, because those aren't true.

25:37Jim, thank you very much for the call. Jimmy Aiken, our guest, lots more. We're, lines remain full, because I told you people like it when we do, you can ask him anything. We got a whole bunch more questions for Jimmy Aiken coming up, so don't go anywhere. We will be back with those questions, and don't forget to check out Jimmy Aiken's besti-ri-s world and the Jimmy Aiken podcast. You can get them wherever you get your podcasts, or at youtube.com slash Jimmy Aiken. Right back with more questions on Catholic Dance Whose Live. Who was Jesus? It's the most important question in the world. Was he a great teacher, a religious myth, the Messiah, and the Lord? In evidence for Christ, aologist, Jimmy Aiken builds a powerful, step-by-step case from history, scripture, and reason, showing that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy and the risen Lord. Get your copy of Jimmy Aiken's evidence for Christ today at shop.cafic.com,

26:42or at a good Catholic bookstore near you. The world has a lot of questions about Catholicism. It's a big faith, and it deserves a big book of answers. Well, now it has two. Get the big book of Catholic answers, volume two, and have 300 clear, reliable, Catholic answers right at your fingertips. Whenever something comes up at work, with friends or around the dinner table. Order your copy of the big book of Catholic answers, volume two at shop.cafic.com, or ask for it at a good Catholic bookstore near you. Have you ever wondered about the mysterious, even obscure aspects of the Catholic faith? Dive into the Jimmy Aiken podcast where Jimmy brings together information from many fields, as he pushes the boundaries of apologetics. Tune in today to the Jimmy Aiken podcast, Mysteries of the Faith, a highly entertaining, informative, and at times humor a show that will help you grow in your faith. Visit JimmyAikenPodcast.com today to subscribe.

27:45Why do we baptize? Does it really do anything? In baptism now saves you. Dr. Carlo Bussard explains the unbreakable relationship between baptism and salvation, making sense of the church's teachings, in a way that is easy to understand and ready to share. St. Peter said, repent and be baptized every one of you. Discover what that means today. Order your copy of baptism now saves you at shop.cafic.com, or ask for it at a good Catholic bookstore near you. Spittin' in the Groovy Music for you here at Catholic Dance is live. Jimmy Aiken, our guest. One million. Do you say spittin' in the Groovy Music? No, I said spinning the Groovy Music. Did it really sound like I said spittin' in the music? What? Did it? Did it, maybe. Oh, Edgar says it did too. Nobody asked you, Edgar. I was talking to Jimmy. Nobody at one.

28:48We don't need you to get involved in this. Spinning, they used to spin records. That's not a standard. Like record flatters. Yeah. Exactly. What do we spin now? Electrons? What if we spin it? Not if it's a solid state drive. I guess not. All right, back to the phones, because so many people on. John's in Texas. John, thank you for waiting. Got a question for Jimmy. Hey, can you hear me all right? Very well, John. Yeah, welcome. All right, yeah, first time on here. I don't know if you guys get this topic a lot, but it's something I'm really curious about because I don't think you guys have to talk to him. What's the question? Yeah, so how does the Catholic Church interpret Matthew 1028? Because I'm personally an annihilationist. Uh-huh. Okay. Well, the Catholic Church does not have an official commentary on the Bible. So the Catholic Church does not have a position on the vast majority of

29:50biblical passages and how they're to be interpreted. What the Church does is it let's people, scholars interpret the Bible, however they feel the evidence best supports as long as they don't contradict the faith. And even that has to be understood with some nuance because not everything in the faith had been revealed at every point in history. You know, someone writing in the time of Moses wouldn't have known as much and as refined and understanding as people in later ages did. So so there is no Catholic interpretation of Matthew 1028. I can offer you my interpretation if you would like. Is that something you'd be interested in? I mean, yeah, I guess I'll just get a Catholic answer. Yeah, if you will, it'll be a Catholic. It'll be an answer from a Catholic anyway.

30:50So so first we better familiarize people with what this passage is because it won't be familiar to a lot of people just from the name of it. So in a standard English translation, Jesus is saying in this passage, do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell or in Gihanna is the word in in Greek there. Now since you mentioned annihilationism, which is the view that the lost are annihilated, they're reduced to nothing rather than spending, you know, eternity suffering in some way. I assume what you're focusing on is the statement that that here that God can destroy both body and soul in hell.

31:52Am I correct in that? Yeah, so that's a part that we focused on because yeah, because the way we use the term destroy in English, you could you could get annihilationism out of this. And so that would be one possible reading of this text. Now from a Catholic point of you, there are other and from a general Christian point of view, even though you could read various texts in one way or another, what we need to do is read the Bible in such a way that the parts fit together. We need to harmonize the our understanding of individual texts with things that are said elsewhere in the context of the Bible. And so there are passages elsewhere in the Bible that suggest the lost are not simply annihilated. And in the book of Revelation, for example, talks about how those who are lost will have the smoke of their torment go up forever and

33:00ever and they'll get no rest day or night, which makes it sound like they're still going to be around even though they're in the lake of fire, they're not just annihilated. So that has been the majority interpretation in Christian history that the lost are not annihilated. Of course, there are a lot of other questions we can ask about what kind of suffering is this and how intense is it and does it change over time? There are loads of questions we can ask. But the majority Christian position has been that that the lost are not annihilated. There has been some revisiting of this question recently in some circles. And so there are some interesting discussions going on now, but that's the historic position, majority position, and it's the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Based on the research that I've done, I haven't been able to establish that it's an infallible teaching, but it is the it is the official teaching. Now how then assuming that teaching is

34:07true, how might a person who's not an annihilationist understand Matthew 1028 and its statement that God can destroy both body and soul in hell? Well, Cikellet, let's talk about what a destroy means in English. You're a sports ball fan of some kind, aren't you? I am, yes, especially basketball sports ball. Okay, and you have a favorite basketball team? Of course, the Boston Celtic. Yes, I do. Okay, so if you, if let's say the Boston Celtics are playing a game against, you know, whoever their big enemy is, and they really win and they win decisively. Yes. Someone you might hear a Boston Celtics fan say, wow, the Celtics really destroyed their opponents. Yes, the Lakers. Yes, the Lakers. Okay. So that wouldn't mean that the Lakers had been physically annihilated,

35:08so they've ceased to exist. We wouldn't want that. We wouldn't. Okay, so they're okay physically. Yeah, so the term destroy in English, which is what we're talking about now, can mean something other than total annihilation. Now, let's take another example. Let's suppose that the Celtics play in an arena. I assume they have some kind of arena in Boston that's their home arena. A garden. Yes, a garden. They play a garden. Yes. In a garden. And let's suppose that one day, an asteroid comes hurtling out of space and smashes into the garden where the Celtics play. I think I have to go home. I don't think I can go on. I'm feeling very upset, right? Could you say, I'll understand if you're a little bit of a clam. Yes, but could you could you say that the asteroid destroyed their

36:09garden? Yes, you could. Yes, you could. Okay. And this would be in a way that still doesn't mean the matter that the garden was made out of had ceased to exist. I mean, there still be girders and metal and concrete. All that would still be there. It's just been ruined, right? Yes. Okay, so in English, sometimes the term destroy can mean ruin. Well, same things true in Greek. The the word in Greek that Paul uses or that I'm sorry that Jesus uses here is apple lumai and apple lumai can be translated destroyed, but it can also be translated damage or ruin. And so I would if I have other passages of scripture that tell me that the lost are not annihilated, then I would say, okay, well, then in this passage, what Jesus must be affirming is

37:16that they're going to suffer destruction, not in the sense of being annihilated, but in a different sense, like the the the lakers might get annihilated in in in sports ball or the Celtics arena is destroyed by an asteroid without being reduced to not to utter non existence. And so I would say that that in terms of how this verse should be interpreted, if if perpetual survival is true, I would say, well, this is just a different sense of destroy. It mean it would mean in this context, ruin that God will put take a person and ruin their circumstances, body and soul so that they suffer and they keep on suffering. So that's how I at least would interpret this passage

38:16based on the official, if not infallible, teaching of the church. John? Yeah, so there's definitely a lot there. There's some things I'd want to respond to. So you mentioned Greek of Matthew 1028. There is a place that it's actually used that I think is in Matthew 2.13 and that's where Herod is seeking to destroy or apolomai, apolicei, Jesus. Apolomai. Uh-huh. Yeah. So that's one pushback I would have personally. It's not used to refer to that. There's other places where it can be used to like lose something. I think the parable, the last Jokma or the last coin. It's also yeah. Okay. So let me just let me hang on hang on hang on, let me just interact with that and then I'll let you move on to your next point. So you mentioned that that Herod is at one point described as wanting to apolomai the child Jesus. Well, okay,

39:22first thing. Herod was not wanting to annihilate Jesus. He wasn't not in any literal sense of reduce him to nothingness so that Jesus ceases to exist. That would be beyond Herod's power. And in fact, that's the exact point Jesus is making here. Humans can only kill your body. And so Herod could only if he had gotten his way, he would have only killed Jesus's body. He wouldn't have annihilated him. He wouldn't have sent him to nothingness. So, um, so that's one point to make about the use of apolomai in the other context. The other point to make, which is the more fundamental is I'm not denying that apolomai can mean annihilate. I'd need to see evidence that that's what it means in a particular passage, but different passages are different. And you have to take each passage on its own and say, what can we reason about this passage given what the passage itself says

40:22and the context, whether it's the immediate context in the document or the broader context of Scripture. And even if even if ruin is not the most common usage of apolomai, it is a usage. And the argument would be, well, since we've got to take each passage on its own. And here in Matthew 10, it could mean either annihilate or destroy or ruin. And we've got other passages that would say it doesn't mean annihilate. Well, then that would tell us, okay, here we need to take it in a different sense that doesn't mean annihilate. It means ruin in this passage regardless of what it means in other passages. So, that's my response to that point. What's your next? All right. So, you brought up revelations 14-11, I think. So, I do have a verse that I connect to and that would be in Isaiah or sorry, Isaiah, Isaiah, I should be saying Isaiah because most people say

41:26like that. Isaiah, either way I know what you mean. Yeah, it will not be crunched night or day, it's smoke will go up forever from generation to generation, it will be laid waste, none will pass through it forever and ever. So, I personally connect that to revelations 14-11 to say that. It is still talking about destruction because this is one place in the Old Testament where it's used to refer to that and that's going to be reused in a New Testament for symbolic book, you know. Okay, well, so there are a couple of points that I would make. The first one now, what was the exact verse in Isaiah, you cited again? I think 34-10. 34-10. So, let me take... If it's not 34-10, it might be 66-24, I'm not sure. Well, let's find out. So, in Isaiah 34-10, it says, night and day, it shall not be quenched, it's smoke shall go up forever,

42:28from generation to generation, it shall lie waste and none shall pass through it forever and ever. That sounds like what you're talking about and here the Lord is talking about Adam and so he's making a prophecy about Adam as a nation and okay, fine. The language in Revelation 14-10-11 may be modeled off Isaiah, but that doesn't... But two points. First one in Isaiah 34, it's not talking about annihilation, it's talking about ruination and because Isaiah is not profasing that Adam and all the Edomites are going to cease to exist. He's profasing the ruin of this place in these people. So, that's first point. Second point is there's a difference between talking about a nation and talking about a person and in Revelation 14, John is clearly

43:34talking about a person. He says this person, this is verse 10, shall drink the wine of God's wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. So, the focus here is torment that is going on, not annihilation and then in the next verse 14-11 it says the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day or night. These worshipers of the Beast and its image. So, if they don't... If the smoke goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day or night, that sounds like they are continuing to survive in spite of the ruination and the torment that they have brought upon themselves. So, merely the fact there's a parallel that talks

44:35about a nation and even then doesn't talk about the annihilation of the nation does not mean that we can reinterpret what Revelation 14 says about people and what will happen to the individual person because he's using the singular here. He will have this happen and he will have no rest day or night. Go ahead. There's two more things I want to respond to. I'm not sure how much more time I have. I'm sorry if I'm taking up too much time. Well, we are getting really close to what I got to take a break. Do you want to kind of make it completely? And you're also always what you're also welcome to call back on another day and we can go into your additional points. Of course, this has been a very nice conversation so far. I'm really thankful for it. But um... Oh, no problem. There's a passage from... It could be a couple of different places but Psalm 95,

45:3511 is what we're going to use. There's a couple I can use but I'll use this one. Okay. All right. Therefore, I swore on my anger that they shall never enter into my rest. So with Revelation 14, 11, I would actually interrupt a rest there to refer to God's rest, entering his rest or entering into eternal life and one more thing because you mentioned the feast to exist thing. What's really interesting is... I mean, hang on. Hang on. We're actually six minutes past where we would normally take a break and I want to be able to answer you thoroughly. So what I'd like to do is invite you to call back on on a Friday when I'm here and I'll be more than happy to go into these additional passages with you just to give you a thought to think about with the passage from the Psalms you just cited. Yeah, there are passages that say, so and so, shall not enter my rest but that doesn't mean

46:36that you can interpret the word rest anywhere it occurs in Scripture as a reference to the Lord's rest. Here in Revelation 14, the rest, the reference to rest is made in the context of torment. And what it says is they're going to be tormented and shall have no rest, meaning rest from the torment day or night. Not they shall have no Lord's rest. That's not what's happening in this passage. It's specifically the native interpretation, the natural interpretation. It's going to be they're not going to have rest from the torment they're undergoing. So that's what I'd have to say in brief terms about that, but I'm more than happy to talk about this with you again in the future. And I got to go to the break. We'll be right back with more questions for Jimmy Aiken on Catholic Answers Live. There's only one Catholic Answers Live. The Catechism defines evangelization as the

47:38proclamation of Christ and his gospel by word and the testimony of life. But what does that look like in real life? It looks like St. Paul street evangelists out in the public square sharing the good news. We're a Catholic nonprofit that starts conversations by handing out free sacramentals. Then we employ our method of listen, befriend, proclaim and invite. Catholic Answers is supported in part by St. Paul street evangelization. Visit streetavangelization.com to learn more. Alexian Brothers is a proud sponsor of Catholic Answers Live. For 800 years, these Catholic brothers have offered a prophetic and daring response to the gospel. Serving Christ in the sick, the poor, and the dying is God calling you to be a courageous disciple. If you feel call to total self-giving as a religious brother in the mission of Jesus, call our vocations office at 847-264-8703. That's 847-264-8703. Alexian Brothers.org. This is Father Leo Paddlinghug and why do we need Catholic

48:40radio? Well, the answer is simple. The devil, who is very real, uses all forms of communication. And so if we are to understand our purpose in life, it's to make sure that we are not only proclaiming the good news, we're also listening to the good news. And how do you do that with Catholic radio? The world needs EWTN Catholic Radio. Now more than ever. Welcome back, Catholic Answers Live. Jimmy Aiken, our guest, you can ask him anything in Henry, in Kansas City, Missouri, is next Henry there with us? Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me good? We can hear you very well, Henry. So well, you sound young. Are you young, Henry? Yes, I'm 13 years old. Well, we're grateful for your call. Go ahead with your question for Mr. Aiken. So I believe my first question was, how can you debate somebody without putting

49:50them down, but also having them listen to your point? Okay, well, I would say those two things, they're like chocolate and peanut butter. They not only go together, they're better together. If you do, you know, for the reference. Look at him. He's not too old to eat chocolate with peanut, but we still have those. That's right. But the, so now that we've had our detour for this call, I'll get back to Henry's question. And, and they're, it's actually better if you don't put someone down, if you want them to listen to you with an open mind, because if you put people down, that will cause them to get defensive, and that will cause them to close their mind to you. So if you really want to make progress in the debate, if you really want them to,

50:51to listen to what you have to say and take it seriously, then not insulting the person and not putting them down is the exact thing you want to do. So, so I would say that one of the, that's, that's something you should definitely do. If your goal is to persuade the person, as opposed to make yourself feel good with how superior you are to the person. So that's the first thing I'd say. The question then becomes, how do you talk to the person in such a way that you make the points you want, and yet you don't put the other person down? Well, one approach to doing this is to be in neutral and factual in what you say. Don't make personal comments. Just have a, have a subroutine going constantly in your mind about what do I want to avoid saying here? I want to avoid saying

51:54anything that could make the other person feel bad. And I want, so I'll think about what point do I want to make? But how do I make this point in a way that doesn't put the person on the spot, that doesn't make him feel bad? One way, one technique for doing that is one that I pioneered for myself in grad school. I was teaching philosophy at a state university. So I had, I taught a philosophy of religion section, and I needed to find a way to discuss ideas with students without making the student feel like I'm a religious person who's pushing my views on it. And, but because it's a philosophy class, you need to have give and take. You need arguments for and against. So if a student of mine proposed an argument, what I would do is pretend there's a third person and say, well,

52:56that's a very interesting point you've made. How would you respond if someone else said this? And that way, I'm not saying you're wrong because this, I'm asking a question, how would you respond if someone, not me? I'm not saying this. How would you respond if someone said this? And that way, I'm not creating an intense confrontation between me and the person I'm talking to. I'm just asking a question. And looking for techniques like that one to just keep our personal identities out of it and just be calm and factual and neutral sounding as you still make the points you need to make is what I find to be the best way to discuss a subject, whether you call it a debate or not, to discuss a subject without making the person feel bad and thus having a better chance of

54:00having them take what you have to say seriously. Another technique that I think is very important is look for common ground for things you agree with that person on. Because the more you can agree about stuff, it shows the person that you're not automatically hostile. You're willing to think about his position sympathetically and he'll respect your position more if you show the willingness to agree with him when he's right about something. Henry, I'm sorry, we're out of time and you had more questions, but Jimmy's here virtually every Friday, almost every Friday. So keep calling, we'd love to get you out with Jimmy again, ask more questions. In the meantime, if you'd like a copy of Jimmy's book, a daily defense, 365 days plus one to becoming a better apologist, just hang on, Edgar will get an address and we'll send it off to you. Jimmy, that two hours went fast, thank you for making it so engaging. It did, thank you, my pleasure. And that'll do it for

55:02us. We'll see you next time. God willing right here. God the GANS is live.