Split (1)

train · 95.7k rows

source stringlengths 620 29.3k	target stringlengths 12 1.24k
In the Gospels, is there any recorded instance of the Pharisees quoting Scripture? In a discussion, a family member said that the Pharisees often quoted Scripture. Do we have any record of this in the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John)? I don't mean just referring to Biblical concepts or Jewish tradition; I'm looking specifically for direct quotes of the Old Testament. I can't think of any such case, but I also can't think of a good way to search for such a passage. <Q> Sometimes the Scriptures identify Pharisees specifically, but other times they merely reference chief priests, who may have been Pharisees. <S> There are a few passages of note: The Chief Priests and Scribes cite Micah 5:2 in reference to the birth of the Messiah Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. <S> 5 <S> They said to him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet: 6 ‘And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah,Are by no means least among the leaders of Judah;For out of you <S> shall come forth <S> a RulerWho will shepherd My people Israel.’” <S> Matthew <S> 2:4-6 NASB <S> The Scribes and Pharisees reference Moses' Teaching on Adultery <S> The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 <S> they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. <S> 5 <S> Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women ; what then do You say?” <S> John 8:3-5 NASB <A> Thanks to everyone for the comments and to @Narnian and @Flimzy for their answers. <S> @Narnian, I don't consider the Moses reference a quote, so I was left with the "hard way" suggested by @FMS, which was to individually check every instance of the word "Pharisee" (or "Pharisees") in the Bible. <S> This turned up 93 hits, which I investigated one at a time. <S> I viewed each hit verse in context, identified the full passage to which it belonged, and made a table of conversations, speakers, words spoken, and Scripture quoted. <S> The final result is here: http://www.the-vardemans.net/andrew/Pharisees.html <S> I didn't identify a single quote of OT Scripture by the Pharisees, while Jesus quoted the following OT Scriptures, some more than once, all in conversation with Pharisees: <S> Hosea 6:6 Exodus 20:12 Exodus 21:17 <S> Isaiah 29:13 <S> Genesis 1:27 <S> Genesis 2:24 <S> Deuteronomy 6:5 <S> Leviticus 19:18 <S> Psalm 110:1 <A> Paul was a Pharisee, and he quoted scripture extensively in his epistles, but that's not in the Gospels. <S> But it would be very surprising to think they didn't, as well as they knew the law, which was based on (but not exclusively) scripture.	I find no other examples of Pharisees directly quoting scripture recorded in the New Testament, based on my search at Bible Gateway .
Is there a commandment to love your parents? In Exodus 20:12 or Deuteronomy 5:16 (i.e. in the ten commandments), it states that you should honour your father and mother. I have often heard that we are commanded to love our parents: is this just folk-religion? Is there a Biblical commandment to love your parents? Is this just loving your parents as part of loving your neighbour (e.g. Mark 12:31)? Or is there a specific commandment? <Q> No, there is no specific commandment to, 'love,' your parents. <S> Neither the Hebrew, 'ahav,' or the Greek, 'agape,' which may fairly be described as, 'love,' are commanded with regard to parents. <S> We are however commanded to both, 'ahav,' and, 'agape,' almost everyone else, from The Lord to our enemies. <S> I guess it is assumed that we will love our parents regardless, and only have to be commanded to honour / fear / obey them. <S> Ahav: <S> http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H157&t=KJV <S> Agape: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G25&t=KJV <S> As to, 'honouring,' parents in the Ten Commandments, the root word is, 'kavod,' which implies weight, glory, or wealth. <S> Ex 20:12 Ex 21:15 Ex 21:17 Lev 19:3 Lev 20:9 Deu <S> 5:16 Deu 21:18-21 <S> Mat 19:17-19 Mar 7:9-13 <S> Eph 6:1-2 (incomplete list, various root words) <S> However, honouring parents is secondary to obeying the Lord. <S> Deu <S> 33:8-11 Mar 10:28-31 <S> Luk 12:51-53 (incomplete list) <A> What is "to love"? <S> "[To] love is to wish good to someone. <S> " <S> 1 <S> The LORD says, "He who has my commandments and keeps them, he <S> it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.” <S> 2 <S> And his Apostle to the Gentiles in his letter to the Romans writes 3 , <S> Love for One <S> Another 8 Owe <S> no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. <S> 9 <S> The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this sentence, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” <S> 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. <S> Therefore to have God's commandments and keep them is to love God. <S> And the proof that one loves their neighbor is in their keeping and not breaking the commandments that relate to neighbor. <S> The first listed is, <S> “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you." <S> 4 <S> The "good" of father and mother from their children, established by God himself, is "honor" due to them. <S> Therefore honoring father and mother is loving father and mother and loving God [or at least not offending further] in keeping this commandment. <S> 1. <S> cf. <S> Summa Theologica \| New Advent <S> > <S> First Part of the Second Part > Question 26 > Article 4. , Rom 15:1-3 <S> (RSVCE) and CCC 1766 <S> "To love is to will the good of another. <S> " All other affections have their source in this first movement of the human heart toward the good. <S> Only the good can be loved. <S> Passions "are evil if love is evil and good if it is good.". <S> Please read also the entire Article 5 CCC 1762-1775. <S> 2. <S> cf <S> John 14:21 (RSVCE) . <S> 3. <S> cf. <S> Rom 13:8-10 (RSVCE) . <S> 4. cf. <S> Exod (RSVCE) . <A> In this context, it seems clear that "honor your parents" includes "love". <S> But that does not imply, necessarily, feelings of affection. <S> Jesus sharp words to the Pharisees about this commandment is instructive (Matt 15:3-6), and it focus on the "wealth" meaning of the Hebrew word. <S> "But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,' they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it." <S> He is clearly talking about money or goods, not feelings of affection. <S> This meaning is also captured in the English word "honorarium", which is money paid to someone honorable (for their service). <S> Jesus as Rabbi is opposed to the Pharisee teaching and says clearly that honoring father and mother includes, at least, providing for their material needs. <S> Doing so is loving with actions (1 John 3:18). <S> We clearly have the responsibility to love "our neighbor" (presumably including parents), and further with relatives to provide for them (1 Tim 5:8). <A> Yes. <S> We are commanded to love even our enemies, and specifically to care for our parents. <S> This is a primary way in which we put our faith into practice, and people who neglect their parents cannot persist in the faith. <S> In 1 Timothy 5:3-8, Paul is instructing a young pastor in caring for elderly widows in the Church. <S> Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. <S> But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God . <S> The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. <S> But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. <S> Give the people these instructions, so that no one may be open to blame. <S> Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. <A> Well its in the ten commandments so no its not just folk-religion. <S> its also stated in Colossians 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things for this <S> is well pleasing unto the lord. <S> Matthew 15:4 <S> For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. <S> or Exodus 20:1-17 <S> “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.	We are commanded to obey our parents as people who deserve great respect, but not to love them in the emotional sense.
Does Roman Catholicism teach that man is body and soul (bipartite) or body, soul, and spirit (tripartite)? According to Rev. S. D. F. Salmond's English translation , John of Damascus wrote, (1) For since man’s nature is twofold, consisting of soul and body , He bestowed on us a twofold purification, of water and of the Spirit: the Spirit renewing that part in us which is after His image and likeness, and the water by the grace of the Spirit cleansing the body from sin and delivering it from corruption, the water indeed expressing the image of death, but the Spirit affording the earnest of life. Does Roman Catholicism teach that a human consists of body and soul, or body, soul, and spirit? References (1) Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith , Book IV, Chapter IX. <Q> Under II. "BODY AND SOUL BUT TRULY ONE" , from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 365 , the Church teaches that: 365 <S> i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures <S> united, but rather their union forms a single nature. <S> Therefore according to Catholic teaching, man's one nature is the union of spirit and matter, soul and body. <S> The section mentioned above continues <S> 367 <S> Sometimes the soul is distinguished from the spirit: <S> St. Paul for instance prays that God may sanctify his people "wholly", with "spirit and soul and body" kept sound and blameless at the Lord's coming. <S> 2 <S> The Church teaches that this distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. <S> 3 "Spirit" signifies that from creation man is ordered to a supernatural end and that his soul can gratuitously be raised beyond all it deserves to communion with God. <S> 4 <S> Therefore the Church teaches that while the soul is sometimes distinguished from the spirit, the distinction does not introduce a duality into the soul. <S> 1. <S> Cf. <S> Council of Vienne (1312): <S> DS 902. <S> 2. <S> 1 <S> Thess 5:23. <S> 3. <S> Cf. <S> Council of Constantinople IV (870): <S> DS 657. <S> 4. <S> Cf. <S> Vatican Council I, Dei Filius: DS 3005; GS 22 § 5; Humani Generis: DS 3891. <S> Further reading: <S> The section <S> The soul in Christian thought in the article Soul \| New advent . <S> Addendum <S> after reading @PeterTurner's answer . <S> In the New Testament the word spirit and, perhaps, even the expression spirit of God signify at times the soul or man himself, inasmuch as he is under the influence of God and aspires to things above; more frequently, especially in St. Paul, they signify God acting in man[.] <S> - Holy Ghost \| New Advent . <A> One addendum to the highly referenced answer from FMS <S> I'd like to make <S> is that at Mass in the several times in which we say "and with your spirit" we are talking about the spirit in which the priest was ordained. <S> Therefore sometimes when we talk about a person's spirit what we're really talking about is the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. <S> I think you might also refer to it as The Kingdom of God within you. <A> If the "or" in the question is exclusive, it is a loaded question, as spirit "spirit" ( spiritus ) and "soul" ( anima ) are really two aspects of a human soul, which is one and undivided: soul ( anima ): giving life to the body spirit ( spiritus ): <S> the intellectual aspect As St. Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica <S> I q. 97 a. 3 <S> c.: <S> …rational soul is both soul and spirit. <S> It is called a soul by reason of what it possesses in common with other souls—that is, as giving life to the body… <S> But the soul is called a spirit according to what properly belongs to itself, and not to other souls, as possessing an intellectual immaterial power. <S> Also, man is made in the image of God because of his intellectual soul. <S> St. Augustine says in Gen. ad lit. <S> vi, 12 (cf. <S> Summa Theologica <S> I q. 93 <S> a. 2 <S> sed contra ): <S> Man's excellence consists in the fact that God made him to His own image by giving him an intellectual soul, which raises him above the beasts of the field.	The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body: 1
Can Man see God? Genesis 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Ex. 33:11 And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle. Number 12:6-8 6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? What evidence is there within the Bible that a man can or cannot see God? And in what ways can seemingly contradictory verses be explained? Ex 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. <Q> "and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold" (Numbers 12:8). <S> This is the answer. <S> The Lord only showed a representation of Himself, at times in the figure of a man. <S> No one saw His spiritual essence. <S> As we see elsewhere in Scripture, frequently when men saw an angel, they fell as dead men; how much more would it be to see the essence of God? <S> Also, The Bible Knowledge Commentary tells us that "face to face" as used in Exodus 33:11 was a term of intimacy and is not to be taken literally. <A> Matthew 5:8 – "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." <S> Also, the apostles and others around him in his day saw Jesus, so yes, man can see God. <A> The following OT and NT [RSVCE] passages indicate that some men shall see God in the future. <S> Job 19:26 <S> [And] after my skin has been thus destroyed, then from my flesh <S> I shall see God [.] <S> Psalm 11:7 <S> For the Lord is righteous, he loves righteous deeds; the upright shall behold his face . <S> Psalm 42:2 <S> My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. <S> When shall I come and behold the face of God? <S> Matt 5:8 <S> “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. " <S> 1 Cor 13:12 <S> For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face . <S> Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. <S> 1 John 3:2 Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. <S> And in what ways can seemingly contradictory verses be explained? <S> One word: Jesus. <S> The revelation of our LORD Jesus Christ is what enables man to be able to do in the future what he was unable to do in the past as revealed in the OT. <S> The first letter of St. John reveals what the LORD has done for us, i.e., making us children of God and reveals the future beatitude resulting from this gift, which is seeing God as he really is. <A> God can appear to men in whatever form He wishes. <S> As for Ex 33:20, highlighted in the question, follows Moses request in v. 18, which reads: 18 <S> And he said, Let me, I pray thee, see thy glory . <S> (Darby Ex. 33.18) <S> So men cannot see God in his glory... unless the purposeful counsel of His will so determines (never put God inside a box), as it is also written: And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we have contemplated his glory , a glory as of an only-begotten with a father), full of grace and truth; The glory of God was seen in the incarnated God the Son (I also see that and stand in awe when I read the gospels). <S> Now the same John saw the glorified Christ in Rev.1 and fell almost dead. <S> Paul saw the risen Christ and was blinded. <S> But we Christians have a promise we'll see him in his glory, as he really is: 1Jo 3.1,2 . <S> 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: <S> therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. <S> 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. <S> (KJV 1Jo 3.1,2) <S> As Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (cannot see God in his glory), but resurrected man <S> can and will see God in his glory! <S> In sum: FLESH cannot see God in his glory (with the exception of the purpose of God in Christ Jesus). <S> RESURRECTED saved men can and will. <A> It is interesting in the reference in Exodus 33:20 "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." <S> So I think this could be a pre-incarnate form of Christ in Ex 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend." <S> That through Jesus Christ we have access to God and that they are One.	Another instance that comes to mind is when He appeared to Abraham as a man, after which Abraham was immediately prompted to fall down to his face, yet he didn't die (I think that's on Gen 18).
How do Jehovah's Witnesses interpret verses like Isaiah 9:6 which call the messiah 'God'? For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, THE MIGHTY GOD , The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. ( Isaiah 9:6 ) If indeed there is one God wouldn't this verse mean that the child, the Messiah, who we know as Jesus, is that God? <Q> Jesus can be referred to as “a god” even though he is not God Almighty for the following reasons: http://m.wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001729?q=ps+82%3A6&p=par#h=10 ... <S> The judges of Israel were called “gods”. <S> At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. <S> Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. <S> They were “gods” in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. <S> Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1...again because he was a spokesman for God. <S> JESUS identified his role and his relationship with his father at John 10:31-36. <S> The Jews wanted to stone him. <S> Jesus asked them why. <S> THEY charged he was claiming to be a god, or claiming to be god (depending on the translation you use). <S> Jesus replied by reminding them that they (the judges of Israel) were called “gods” in scripture (and then reminded them that scripture cannot be nullified). <S> (Jesus was quoting from Ps 82:1,6.) <S> So since THE JUDGES OF ISRAEL WERE CALLED GODS themselves, how could they stone him just for saying he was GOD'S SON? <S> At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God” (not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1). <S> " <S> Jesus, even though God's son could prophetically be called a Mighty God because he was: a) <S> Jehovah Gods spokesman (John 7:16,17) b) Appointed to become judge to all those who lived on earth. <S> (ACTS 10:42) <S> So, in summary, since Jehovah God referred to Moses and Israelite judges as "gods" in scripture, Jesus most certainly was a mighty god. <A> Jehovah's witnesses does not believe there are multiple gods. <S> They believe there are only one God. <S> Some verses, like the one we are discussing about may be confusing, indeed. <S> According to JW, Jesus is not THE God, but referred as a god. <S> This is because of his role in God's plan. <S> http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451#h=20:90-20:883 <S> For more explanations about Jesus' titles in Isaiah 9:6, here are some articles from their magazines/books : <S> http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2010733#h=4:40-6:301 <S> http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2007361#h=16:410-19:257 <S> http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200270023/155/4 <S> Also, on the 'FAQ' section of their official website, we can find answer to these associated questions : <S> Is God's Name Jesus ? <S> http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/is-gods-name-jesus/ <S> Is Jesus Almighty God ? <S> http://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/is-jesus-almighty/ <A> The first thing to understand is the JW believe there are multiple Gods. <S> This verse is actually used to separate Jesus Christ from Jehovah. <S> Isaiah 9:6 calls Jesus Mighty God. <S> Exodus 6:3 Declares Jehovah as God Almighty. <S> Each distinct and separate titles. <S> Exodus 6:3 <S> And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them. <S> Jesus Christ is "Mighty God" Jehovah is "God Almighty" <S> Almighty is clearly a higher title than simply Mighty, which could include anybody who is considered Mighty, and a God, as JW consider Jesus.	Jesus is A God, but not The God.
Is there such a thing as a Catholic commentary on the Bible? In the Protestant world there are endless commentaries on Biblical books, or series of commentaries that cover either the whole Bible or at least the New Testament. Does the same exist in the Catholic world? (Modern, I mean, not patristic commentaries.) If so, what would be considered basically the most authoritative commentary on the Bible to a Catholic? PS: I'm really asking about like a commentary set, not a Bible with footnotes or a "Study Bible." The reason being, study Bibles have a few comments on a few selected verses they want to highlight, but a commentary set really goes in depth with every verse. You can't skip inconvenient verses that way, and if you want to know, for instance, what the Catholic position is on a verse that might be inconvenient to Catholic orthodoxy, you're not likely to find an answer to that in a study Bible because it will just skip that verse. <Q> Here is an incomplete list of some Catholic commentaries: • St Thomas Aquinas, “Catena Aurea” (Golden Chain) (English translation by J H Newman), Baronius Press (online: Matthew , Mark , Luke , John ) <S> • <S> Father George Haydock , “ Haydock’s Commentary ”, 1859 <S> • <S> “Navarre Bible”, <S> under development in Spain • <S> Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, “Ignatius Catholic Study Bible” (Based on RSV-2nd CE) <S> • <S> Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy, <S> Ed. <S> ,“Jerome <S> Biblical Commentary”, 1968 <S> • <S> Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy, “Jerome Biblical Commentary”, <S> Ed. <S> , “The New Jerome Biblical Commentary”, 1990 <S> • <S> “The Catholic Bible Personal Study Edition (NAB)” published by the Oxford Press. <S> • <S> Dom Bernard Orchard, “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture”, 1953 <S> , Nelson Publishers • <S> “Christian Community Bible” <S> • <S> Fr. <S> Cornelius à Lapide, SJ's commentary on the Gospels <S> I understand that the Christian Community Bible originally produced in the Philippines is an amended English translation of the Biblia Latinoamericana. <S> A French translation was also produced (along with translations into several other languages) but it seems that this was subsequently banned in France because some complained that some comments were excessively anti-Semitic. <S> I haven't read the Christian Community Bible myself, but I understand that the commentary is also perceived as having a Liberation Theology ideological bias. <S> I would be most surprised if it is the official Catholic Bible commentary. <A> Perhaps this is what you have in mind: Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition . <S> About This Commentary (quoting directly from the website) <S> This Catholic Bible commentary, following the Douay-Rheims Bible text, was originally compiled by Catholic priest and biblical scholar Rev. <S> George Leo Haydock (1774-1849). <S> This transcription is based on Haydock's notes as they appear in the 1859 edition of Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary printed by Edward Dunigan and Brother, New York, New York. <S> A reprint of this Douay-Rheims Bible with Haydock's commentary is published by: Catholic Treasures 1823 Business Center <S> Dr. Duarte, CA 91010 (800) 257-4893 (626) <S> 359-4893 Fax: <S> (626) 359-6933 (www.catholictreasures.com) <S> See Transcriber's Notes for a description of the minor modifications that were made by the transcriber for this website to the content and presentation of the original Haydock Commentary. <S> The modern reader should be cautioned that this older commentary uses some archaic language and spellings and at times it seems to express some rather harsh opinions concerning Protestants and Jews. <S> Regarding the proper Catholic opinions with respect to Protestants and Jews, the reader is encouraged to look into more modern and authoritative treatments, <S> such as the documents of the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II's Catechism of the Catholic Church. <S> [...] <A> There is the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture which has volumes on the New Testament books. <S> This is the link: http://www.catholiccommentaryonsacredscripture.com/intro/ <S> I think this would be what the original poster was looking for. <S> I haven't read any of these yet. <S> I am looking for a Catholic Bible commentary series that compares to the Tyndale series I used when I was Protestant many years ago. <S> There are also a Collegeville series, originally in booklets but now in I think 2 volumes, one for Old Testament and one for New Testament. <S> An update of that series is the New Collegeville series. <S> I have the New Testament volume of that one. <A> <A> The Navarre Bible is a 10 volume work of the Old and New Testaments and is very detailed: https://scepterpublishers.org/collections/navarre-bibles <S> Then you have this 17 volume work, which only has a handful of volumes left: <S> http://www.catholiccommentaryonsacredscripture.com/volumes-authors/ <S> There are also thousands of books by Saints and Popes that expound on the Bible throughout the century. <S> Those two are recent and that's why I put them, but <S> there are many excellent commentaries on centuries past that deserve our attention. <S> They shouldn't be disregarded due to age, you have St Thomas Aquinas, Father Haydock, Cornelius A Lapide and dozens more. <A> I am a Spanish-Native speaker, and yes, it exists. <S> There's a version or translation of the bible named " Biblia Latinoamericana " and is widely used between Catholics (from Latin America), and it's official according to the Catholic Church. <S> It is commented, and normally it is a gift when a believer finishes the " First Communion " <S> (I just translated it litterally, in spanish it is called "Primera Comunión"). <S> Yes, it may be the most authoritative ( I guess in L. America), and there are no few differences between the translation itself and the commentaries comparing to a Commentary Protestant bible. <A> If you happen to know French, then you have the cahiers bibliques at : http://www.bible-service.net/extranet/current/pages/	The ultimate Catholic "study bible" (not just commentary) is the Original Douay-Rheims Bible .
What does it mean that "many parts which are plain have been taken away"? The question https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35704/to-what-point-in-time-can-the-bible-be-proven-accurate made me wonder: Is the common interpretation of 1 Nephi 13:26-28 that something was physically omitted from scripture? I am aware of the Joseph Smith Translation, but is the point to bring back physically removed parts? In at least one instance I know of, the "translation" is just a commentary, with no changed text, that makes it clear what is meant. This makes me wonder whether the goal was a corrected understanding, not so much a corrected text. An other interpretation I can come up with is that, without requiring much change to scripture, doctrines that are introduced (e.g. Trinity) became basis for further theology, scripture translation (translation is always also in part interpretation) and so on. That also "[take] away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious". So, is the official position as of now that there were things physically omitted from scripture, or that the cause is rather false doctrines themselves that became the spiritual basis for later generations? Or is there no "official" interpretation? <Q> +1 for the great question! <S> To begin as Members of the LDS Church "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." <S> ( Article of Faith 8 ) <S> Throughout my response I will be referencing Plain and Precious Truths <S> Restored , an article written in October of 2006. <S> There are multiple doctrines restored with The Book of Mormon. <S> Just to list a few: <S> Premortal Existence <S> Adam’s Fall and Human Suffering <S> Agency <S> The Atonement <S> First Principles and Ordinances Church Organization Importance of Personal Revelation <S> Satan’s Identity and Methods <S> One example of a Joseph Smith Translation is Matthew 18:11 <S> KJV: <S> For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. <S> JST of KJV: <S> For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost, and to call sinners to repentance; but these little ones have no need of repentance, and I will save them. <S> So <S> in answer to your question, yes. <S> -- I am out of time right now to go into more depth, but I would encourage you to read the article I referenced above. <A> The answer would be both. <S> There is much evidences within the bible itself that things have been omitted. <S> 1 <S> Chr 29:29 <S> Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, (KJV) Num. <S> 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon, (KJV) <S> Jos 10:13, 1 Kng 11:41, 2 Chr 9:29 12:15 20:34 33:19, 1 Cor 5:9, and Jude 1:14 also include missing books we don't have today. <S> Joseph Smith translation does not cover missing books though, but simply re translates many of the ones we have. <S> There are places though where there are full stories added in. <S> For instance the book of Genesis has several verses added in by Joseph Smith including 15 verses in Genesis 14. <S> The belief held by LDS members and the church is that things were changed, and taken away. <S> Within the LDS Bible Dictionary there is a whole segment on lost scriptures which can be found here <S> https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/lost-books <S> A little clarification on what Joseph Smith translation includes seems important. <S> it is many edits to verses, but are not included in the biblical text itself but in the form of footnotes, and in the Index in the back of the LDS printing of the KJV. <S> It is believed to be a translation in a similar way the Book of Mormon was translated. <S> It was done by the power of God. <A> Joseph Smith claimed "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly". <S> However, he used the term "translation" rather loosely to refer to the entire process of transmission from the divine source. <S> The idea that his translation of the Bible was done more with the intent to correct understanding than the text is reasonable and consistent with his other practices and expressed attitudes regarding the text of scripture. <S> The Book of Mormon passage (1 Ne 13:26-28) cited suggests that the corruption of Christian doctrine originated with censorship, and probably at a time even predating our oldest manuscripts. <S> Not only was there a possible loss of books, epistles, and other manuscripts in the Roman persecutions, but Christians themselves may have taken authentic writings to be heretical or otherwise offensive and destroyed or censored them. <S> Such a process would be mostly undetectable and the missing original doctrine unrecoverable by scholarly methods. <S> The Book of Mormon also claims that the Gentiles would "stumble" because of the loss of these teachings, or perhaps in other words, that they would misinterpret and misunderstand the part they did have. <S> The history of heresies and doctrinal controversies in Christianity suggests that this misunderstanding began at a very early age. <S> It certainly did not help matters when concepts and language which do not appear in the Bible were were imported from Greek philosophy and grafted into Christian theology, sometimes at variance with the plain and express meaning of the scriptures. <S> James E. Talmage, an early 20th century LDS scholar (also an apostle) in his work "The Great Apostasy" drew from standard sources on the early history of Christianity to document the various changes in Christian doctrine and practice, from an LDS point of view. <S> This is still the most standard work on the subject. <S> It is not quite authoritative but comes closer to it than anything else.	We believe there have been doctrines which have been physically removed from The Bible either by an honest mistake in translation, or a deliberate omission.
Meaning of the expression "I cling to cross of Christ" What is meaning of the expression « I cling to cross of Christ »? (1) In the context of this expression, what does the act of clinging mean? Was it an expression or something similar used by early Christians? Notes For example, a fragment of the hymn Rock of Ages says: Simply to Thy cross I cling; <Q> The type of clinging referred to is one in which the subject does not trust their footing to bear their own weight, but depends on the object to which they cleave to support it. <S> It is a metaphor for trusting in the atoning work of the cross for salvation and standing with God, and completing repudiating any sense of merit in one's own character or works. <S> It is an expression of sola fide which Protestants believe to be consistent with the views of early Christians in general and Pauline soteriology in particular. <S> Although this particular phrase was most likely popularized post-Reformation, there is a sense of it's meaning in St Thomas a' Kempis's De Imitatione Christi : <S> In cruce salus, in cruce vita. <S> tr: <S> In the cross is salvation, in the cross is life. <A> The general meaning of the expression is that one's faith is in the efficacy of Jesus' crucifixion for them, especially up and against the idea of meriting salvation. <S> The full line that it appears in Rock of Ages is: Nothing in my hands I bring, Simply to Thy cross <S> I cling. <S> The narrator is placing their faith in the graciousness of God for their salvation as found in the gift of Jesus crucified for their sins. <S> Likewise, the reference to "clinging" is recognizing that natural propensity to want to move on after the fact to attribute salvation to one's good works, or what one can "offer" God in return. <S> Clinging to the cross is an expression of being unwilling to move on past the crucifixion of Jesus for you. <A> Meaning of the expression “I cling to cross of Christ” <S> The hymn "The Old Rugged Cross" was written in 1913 (now in public domain). <S> The date of the writing is about the same time the tracts were being distributed regarding the "fundamentals" of Christianity. <S> The use of the word "cling" represents an attempt to remain faithful under difficult conditions. <S> At the time the rapid ascendancy of secular doctrines such as with Freud, Darwin, and Marx and the infiltration of theological practices such as higher criticism (standing on the shoulders of German rationalism) left many Christians feeling as if they were under assault. <S> On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,The emblem of suff’ring and shame;And <S> I love that old cross where the dearest and bestFor a world of lost sinners was slain. <S> Refrain: <S> So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross, <S> Till my trophies at last I lay down; I will cling to the old rugged cross, And exchange it some day for a crown. <S> Oh, that old rugged cross, so despised by the world,Has a wondrous attraction for me;For the dear Lamb of God left His glory aboveTo bear it to dark Calvary. <S> In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,A wondrous beauty I see,For ’twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,To pardon and sanctify me. <S> To the old rugged cross I will ever be true;Its shame and reproach gladly bear;Then <S> He’ll call me some day to my home far away,Where His glory forever I’ll share.	The declaration “I cling to cross of Christ” is a defensive statement reflecting an emotional sense of attack and an affirming pronouncement of position similar to Luther's "Here I stand".
In LDS canon, is the Final Judgement before or after the resurrection? I've always understood the Final Judgment to occur just before the resurrection because the judgement determines which glory you are resurrected to. The Gospel Principles lesson on the Final Judgement seems to imply that also. It makes sense because we are to be resurrected to a glory, but that glory is dependent on the outcome of our judgement. However I was reading in 2 Nephi 9 this morning where it says that the resurrection comes before judgment. 13 O how great the plan of our God! For on the other hand, the paradise of God must deliver up the spirits of the righteous, and the grave deliver up the body of the righteous; and the spirit and the body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible, and immortal.... 15 And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. There in verse 13 it says that the spirit and body are reunited (resurrection) and so we become immortal. Then in verse 15 it says that after we become immortal (resurrected) we will be judged. So which is it? Does the judgment occur before or after the resurrection? <Q> In Alma 40, it also states: 21 <S> But whether it be at his [Christ's] resurrection or after, I do not say; but <S> this much I say, that there is a space between death and the resurrection of the body, and a state of the soul in happiness or in misery until the time which is appointed of God that the dead shall come forth, and be reunited, both soul and body, and be brought to stand before God, and be judged according to their works. <S> Which means, the final judgement is after the resurrection. <S> But remember also that the resurrection of the unjust is later than the resurrection of the just: Doctrine and Covenants <S> 76:63-65 <S> (speaking of celestial glory) <S> 63 <S> These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people. <S> 64 <S> These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection. <S> 65 <S> These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just. <S> Doctrine and Covenants 76:85 <S> (speaking of telestial glory) <S> 85 <S> These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, <S> until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work. <S> That makes perfect sense given the divine mercy, since that way the individual gets as much time as possible to repent, up until the appointed time of the Final Judgement. <S> So, both things you said are true (judgement determines how and when we are resurrected, but resurrection happens before the judgement), but as an event, resurrection happens before the judgement. <S> Maybe the confusion clears if we settle with the following formulation: <S> Our actions (and motives etc. <S> and not forgetting this is only possible due to divine grace) determine when we are resurrected, how we are resurrected, and what the outcome of the judgement will be. <A> +1 for a very good and well thought out question. <S> We believe that when we die, our spirits are sent to a place call the "Spirit World. <S> " <S> Here there is a separation from those who have received the Gospel and those who haven't (Spirit Paradise / Spirit Prison) <S> ( Alma 40:12-14 , 1 Peter 4:6 , 1 Peter 3:18-20 ). <S> This is a judgement, but not the final one. <S> Those who are in Spirit Prison still have the opportunity to change and repent before the Final Judgement. <S> The Final Judgement is where we will stand before God to give an accounting of the way we lived our life and used our time. <S> We will be resurrected prior to the Final Judgement. <S> 2 Nephi 9 answers your question, and so have you. <S> Verse 12-13 speaks of the resurrection (becoming immortal) <S> Verse 15 speaks of the judgement (after becoming immortal) <S> So your question Does the judgment occur before or after the resurrection? <S> was answered within your question. <S> There in verse 13 <S> it says that the spirit and body are reunited (resurrection) <S> and so we become immortal. <S> Then in verse 15 it says that after we become immortal we will be judged. <S> I am not sure where the Gospel Principles Book implies the Final Judgement will happen before the resurrection. <S> I skimmed it today, and have studied it in the past, and if you look at additional scriptures at the bottom you will see this: Alma 11:41, 45; Mormon 7:6; <S> 9:13–14 (we are judged in a resurrected state) Just to reiterate <S> , the LDS Cannon teaches Resurrection is prior to the Final Judgement. <A> The answers given are correct. <S> I would just add one thought. <S> Given that resurrection can be defined as the "inseparable union of body and spirit" <S> (See Alma 11:45 & D&C 138:17), and that the resurrected body will accord with the respective degree of glory obeyed <S> (See D&C 88:28-32), it is clear that the resurrection itself is the judgement - the final judgement is a formal ceremony similar to a college graduation - the work and grade are actually known. <S> It is an important formality - but a formality nonetheless.	So, yes, we are judged after we have been resurrected, and how that judgement is going to turn out determines when it happens (along with the resurrection of that individual).
Are there any verses showing God being fooled or deceived? Are there any passages in the bible (old or new) that display god as getting tricked by somebody? For example in the Garden of Eden God didn't know (or seemed to not know) about the apple being eaten until he was told. Could they have lied? Are there any examples of something like this happening? <Q> In standard Christian theology, God is described as omniscient , or all-knowing (by major theologians such as St Aquinas). <S> This is incompatible with being deceived. <S> Accordingly we would not interpret any passage in the Bible as implying God was deceived, unless we wished to discard this core belief. <A> Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. <S> Galatians 6:7 <S> For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. <S> For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. <S> 1 Corinthians 3:19 <S> Shall not God search this out? <S> for he knoweth the secrets of the heart. <S> Psalms 44:21 <S> And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men <S> is abomination in the sight of God. <S> Luke 16:15 <S> The Bible is very clear that God can't be deceived . <S> It is impossible to deceive God. <A> I would second what Chris Sunami has said and would like to add up couple of scriptures <S> 1 Corinthians 1:25 King James Version ( <S> KJV)25 <S> Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. <S> 1 Corinthians 3:19 King James Version <S> (KJV)19 <S> For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. <S> For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. <S> However smart, brilliant, wise and crafty a man can be, he never stands equal to God Almighty.	God is cannot be deceived.
Why was the Angel Michael fighting the Devil for Moses' body? I get this from the book of Jude. I know the meaning of the chapter as a whole it's just that this verse stuck out. Does anyone have a clue on this event? Here is the verse for reference. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. [Jde 1:9 KJV] <Q> It appears that the author of Jude was quoting from an apocryphal Jewish scroll known as the Assumption of Moses . <S> Origen stated in De principiis , <S> III,2,1 : <S> "We have now to notice, agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how the opposing powers, or the devil himself, contends with the human race, inciting and instigating men to sin. <S> And in the first place, in the book of Genesis, the serpent is described as having seduced Eve; regarding whom, in the work entitled The Ascension of Moses ( a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his Epistle ), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says ..." <S> A fragment of the Assumption of Moses has been discovered, but it does not include the account of Michael and the devil disputing over the body of Moses, which means that we can not say how this account played out, or why the author of Jude chose to mention it, apart from its apparent support for Jude's theology. <A> My reading of the Navarre New Testament Compact Edition 's note to Jude 8-13 (RSVCE) is that the devil wanted to use Moses' body to incite the children of Israel to sin [idolatry]. <S> To Illustrate the sinfulness of these offences against the angels, the sacred writer uses a popular legend recorded in the apocryphal Assumption of Moses , according to which, when St. Michael was preparing to bury Moses' body, the devil tried to wrest it from him. <S> St. Michael prevented him from doing so, but he did the devil no hurt; he simply appealed to the judgment of God. <S> The writer provides three further biblical examples to show the evildoing of the false teachers - Cain (Gen 4:3), Balaam (Num 31:16; Rev 2:14; cf. 2 Pet 2:15), and Korah and his followers who rebelled against Moses (Num 16). <S> The false teachers are quite happy to attend Christian assembles, but they lead an immoral life and cause scandal. <S> This is confrimed by <S> St. Michael concealed the tomb of Moses; Satan, however, by disclosing it, tried to seduce the Jewish people to the sin of hero-worship. <S> St. Michael also guards the body of Eve, according to the "Revelation of Moses" ("Apocryphal Gospels", etc., ed. <S> A. Walker, Edinburgh, p. 647). <S> - Source : <S> St. Michael the Archangel \| New Advent . <A> In addition to Bye's good answer, I would like to add the following. <S> Uptill this point only one other person has ever ascended to heaven (from the written record) - that was Enoch. <S> The major difference between Enoch and Moses was that Moses was resurrected from death while Enoch was translated alive. <S> Paul says in Romans, Romans 5:14, 17 : <S> Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses , even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come... <S> For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more <S> they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ .) <S> Death reigned from Adam to Moses - <S> The power of death over the human race was hitherto unbroken. <S> Death seemed to rule with an Iron Scepter. <S> Satan who is the father of sin and thus the originator of death apparently had that unbroken power - <S> Once you die, no matter how true you were to God, you belong to Satan (as everyone who sins are children of satan). <S> But now - Wow, death's power was broken! <S> and a captive of Satan was being led away by Michael toward heaven. <S> If this would happen to everyone who would obey God.... <S> Satan could not permit it. <S> That's why he contends when Michael came to retrieve Moses. <A> Enoch had his body too: he was taken alive with his fleshly body. <S> The spirit of Jesus did not appear to the Apostles alone: Jesus had his body too.(Luke 24:37–43)	Michael fought over Moses' body because Moses needed his body still to appear to Jesus in the future, when he appeared on Mount Hermon (Matthew 17:1–4).
Which people in the Bible are antichrists? Mormons have the view that antichrist refers to anyone who lives to deny/replace Christ. Korihor, Sherem, and Nehor are examples from the Book of Mormon; are there specific people from the Bible? I got this question after reading this related question, where the idea that antichrist refers to "The Antichrist" (specifically one of the beasts in Revelation) is debated . Looks like the Bible (1st John 2:22) says antichrist just means someone who denies Christ. I like to be able to recognize antichist teachings, and I'm grateful the Book of Mormon points out prevalent ones in our day. I think the bible and book of mormon support each other, so again my question is specifically who has been an antichrist in the Bible? any specific examples? Specifically an answer from either Mormon doctrine or just what the Bible says. I'm thinking Cain, and his idea that he didn't have to be his brother's keeper. <Q> I think the only antichrist specifically identified from the bible is Lucifer , the great antichrist, as is mentioned in the link you've provided. <S> You're right about Cain though, it is mentioned in the scriptures (Pearl of Great Price) that he loved Satan more than God (see Moses 5:13,18 ). <S> This by definition makes him an antichrist. <S> The link <S> you provided lists all of the references in the standard works to all the other individuals who were specifically identified as antichrists. <S> I imagine there could be more that fit the definition, but to my knowledge no one has yet put the work into identifying them all. <S> Judas is often regarded as a son of perdition , so I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest he was also an antichrist. <A> The word antichrist is not, to my knowledge, explicitly attributed to specific persons. <S> But it is attributed to groups of people that taught false doctrines: <S> 1 John 2:18 <S> 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; <S> whereby we know that it is the last time. <S> 2 <S> John 1:7 7 <S> For many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. <S> This is a deceiver and an antichrist. <S> 1 <S> John 2:22 <S> 22 <S> Who is a liar <S> but he <S> that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? <S> He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. <S> 1 <S> John 4:3 <S> 3 <S> And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. <S> I am no expert on early christian heresies, but from the epistles alone, you find there were people professing christianity who: denied the resurrection (1 Corinthians) - especially the bodily resurrection denied him coming in the flesh (1 John) <S> - I think this means they believed he was just spirit, but again, I'm no expert, and these things are not always clearly stated in the epistles <S> taught that the law is the way to salvation, including circumcision and all kinds of other stuff. <S> You can see how these qualify as "antichrist". <S> Maybe someone more into this stuff can help out here. <A> In all the bible translations that I have checked, these are the only verses which use the word antichrist : <S> Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; <S> whereby we know that it is the last time. <S> ( 1 John 2:18 ) <S> Who is a liar <S> but he <S> that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? <S> He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. <S> ( 1 John 2:22 ) <S> And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. <S> ( 1 John 4:3 ) <S> For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. <S> This is a deceiver and an antichrist. <S> ( 2 John 7 ) <S> None of these scriptures identifies the antichrist or the antichrists to be any particular person. <S> The LDS Bible Dictionary makes some interesting statements though in the entry Antichrist : <S> A word used by John to describe one who would assume the guise of Christ but in reality would be opposed to Christ (1 Jn. 2:18–22; <S> 4:3–6; 2 Jn. <S> 1:7). <S> In a broader sense it is anyone or anything that counterfeits the true gospel or plan of salvation and that openly or secretly is set up in opposition to Christ. <S> The great antichrist is Lucifer, but he has many assistants both as spirit beings and as mortals. <S> See 2 Thes. <S> 2:1–12; Rev. 13:17; Jacob 7:1–23; <S> Alma 1:2–16; 30:6–60. <S> So in a broad sense, there are lots of antichrists. <S> There are some similarities between the antichrists in the Book of Mormon and Judas Iscariot, as well as Hananias and his wife Saphira who lie to the Holy Ghost and lose their lives (see Acts 5:1-10 ). <S> The similarity consists in the way they end up dying (for Judas' death see Acts 1:16-19 ).	I will speculate however that it could be debated that one other person who could be considered an antichrist is Judas Iscariot (see Luke 22:3 ).
Usage of Hades in the New Testament If Hades is the name of a Greek god, why then did it find its way into the Greek translation into the New Testament? Wouldn't the NT writers refrain from associating their beliefs to Greek polytheism? Thanks. <Q> I suppose the authors of the Greek New Testament scriptures could have simply transliterated the Hebrew word שְׁאוֹל into Greek, perhaps as Σεολ. <S> But, even if they had done that, Greeks wouldn't have had the faintest idea what this so-called "Σεολ" was, unless they first spent countless hours studying its equivalent in Hebrew, i.e. שְׁאוֹל (remember, early cultures didn't have the luxuries that we do, including electricity and online lexicons; even the possession of scrolls was a luxury of the wealthy). <S> The Greeks already had a name for the underworld, which they called ᾅδης. <S> Recognizing this, the authors of the Septuagint were the first to translate the Hebrew word שְׁאוֹל into Greek by the word ᾅδης circa 250 B.C. <S> Since the authors of the New Testament were familiar with the Septuagint (often quoting from it or its Greek prototype), and the "seventy" (or seventy-two, depending on which tradition you accept) had incorporated ᾅδης into the LXX for their translation of שְׁאוֹל, the authors of the Greek New Testament probably decided it was easier to simply continue using ᾅδης rather than re-invent the wheel. <S> As for ᾅδης being the name of a Greek god, I'm sure the authors were aware of that, but I assume they still incorporated it because they believed the Greeks' notions of ᾅδης (as the underworld) <S> weren't irreconcilable with the Jews' notions of שְׁאוֹל. <S> That brings up another point: we could also ask why the authors chose the word οὐρανός, which we translate into English as "heaven," when it too was the name of a Greek god. <A> @H3br3wHamm3r81 -- I agree completely with you. <S> It is crucial that people be able to have some sort of clue what something means in order for them to be able to appreciate or "believe" it. <S> I would also like to add: To have just imported Jewish ideas and terminology without doing "cultural translation" would have been futile, especially when it was hoped that these Hebrew ideas could be introduced and explained to Goyiim/Gentiles who had no background in the Hebrew faith. <S> I had a professor in University who liked to point out that the Hebrew and Roman/Greek ways of looking at the world were pretty different in their most basic aspects. <S> Greek/Roman Worldview: <S> materialistic literalist simplistic/reductionistic pessimistic, seeing a world increasing in disorder <S> Hebrew/Jewish Worldview: very spiritual metaphor, similie, and analogy are important aiming towards a more mystical or connected experience optimistic and looking towards a messianic future <S> Given these differences, you just couldn't import words wholesale and expect anyone to get them. <S> You can import ideas and put them into a new context -- take them from what the polytheists know and place those within the context of Judaism and Christianity. <S> Simply using the word does not make it "pagan" or "non-Christian" if the meaning is amended to contain something more than or different from that intended by the pagan usage. <S> Resources: <S> A good summary of the difference between Jewish and Greek thought can be found here: http://philosophycourse.info/hebwislitsite/gk-hebwvs.html <A> According to Justin Martyr, the demons imitated the things written in the Bible and produced similar stories to deceive men. <S> And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, <S> they pretended that Perseus was spoken of. <S> And when they knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, "Strong as a giant to run his course," they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth. <S> And when, again, they learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Æsculapius. <S> (The First Apology 54) Many concepts in Greek Mythology is very similar to the Bible. <S> Probably because it was easier to use this existing name instead of giving it a new name that no one knows. <S> See how similar is the concept of Hades in Christianity and Greek Mythology. <S> Hades in Greek Mythology: <S> The Greek underworld , in mythology, was a place where souls went after death and was the Greek idea of afterlife. <S> At the moment of death the soul was separated from the corpse, taking on the shape of the former person, and was transported to the entrance of Hades. <S> Hades in the New Testament: <S> He foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. <S> (Acts 2:31, ESV) <S> And the sea gave up the dead who were in it <S> , Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. <S> (Revelation 20:13, ESV) <S> The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. <S> The rich man also died and was buried. <S> In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. <S> (Luke 16:22-23, NIV)	The New Testament writers were also using the same name used in the Greek Mythology for Hades . Since they also have similar meaning and concept behind them, it probably was a better option to use the same name .
What is the biblical argument against baptism by sprinkling/pouring? What is the biblical basis for the idea that it is wrong or incorrect to baptize by sprinkling or pouring the water? Growing up as a baptist I heard this all the time. Related, but opposite: What is the biblical basis for baptism by sprinkling? <Q> The argument from scripture centres firstly around the meaning of the original word which we translate as baptize in english: Strong's Concordance baptizó : to dip, sink Original Word: βαπτίζω <S> Part of Speech: <S> Verb Transliteration: <S> baptizó Phonetic Spelling: (bap-tid'-zo) <S> Short Definition: <S> I dip, submerge, baptize Definition: <S> lit: <S> I dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping; I baptize. <S> HELPS Word-studies <S> 907 baptízō – properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). <S> 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai <S> ("sprinkle"). <S> - Biblehub.com <S> (emphasis added) <S> It was the same word used to describe the dyeing process used at the time - cloth would be steeped (fully immersed) in dye. <S> Secondarily regarding what it signifies and what is therefore the most appropriate analogy: <S> 3 <S> Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? <S> 4 <S> We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. <S> - Romans 6:3-4 NIV (emphasis added) <S> Baptism signifies our being buried with Christ - we have died to sin and our old life - and are raised to life new life in Him. <S> Full immersion expresses this in a way that sprinkling does not. <S> Finally, there is no explicit biblical example of anyone being 'baptized' (using a wider - ie. <S> non-biblical - definition of the word) by sprinkling. <S> You have to make up your mind whether to read implicit permission for sprinkling by synthesizing other scriptural doctrines, or reject it as a tradition from men. <A> Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch: <S> And as they were going along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “See, here is water! <S> What prevents me from being baptized?” <S> And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water , Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. <S> And when they came up out of the water , the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. <S> (Acts 8:36-39, ESV) From the above passage, it suggests that Philip baptized the eunuch only when they came near a large quantity of water. <S> The eunuch, without a doubt was carrying some drinking water with him as he was traveling for a long distance. <S> If sprinkling was enough, Philip could have done it inside the chariot itself because sprinkling doesn't require much water. <S> But they performed baptism only when they came across a large body of water, which suggest that sprinkling was not what was in the mind of Philip. <S> Baptism of Jesus: <S> And when he came up out of the water , immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. <S> (Mark 1:10, ESV) <S> The text used in narrating the baptism of Jesus also strongly suggests that Jesus was immersed in the water. <A> While not strictly biblical , The Teaching of The Twelve Apostles - arguably the earliest Christian catechism ( 1 ) - has this to say. <S> And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. <S> But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. <S> But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. <S> But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; <S> but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. <S> ( Didache , Ch. 7) <S> From which one could infer that a river or lake ( living water ) that is cold is preferable, but it is not wrong or incorrect to do otherwise. <A> Let's look at the original question, "What is the biblical basis for the idea that it is wrong or incorrect to baptize by sprinkling or pouring the water?". <S> I claim there's nothing wrong about sprinkling. <S> However, as most everyone has pointed out, the Bible is full of references to submersion and no references to sprinkling. <S> So then I would ask the question, "Do you want to be baptized the way Jesus was or some way that man has invented?". <S> I think the bigger question is whether one can be baptized as a baby vice as a teen or adult. <S> Often sprinkling occurs as a baby. <S> Then you have to look at the purpose of baptism... <S> a public profession of your faith. <S> I'm not thinking the baby made any conscious public profession. <S> Many adults (such as I even though I was sprinkled as a baby) <S> then choose to be submersed because now it's my choice. <S> I was submersed in a river...and that's what Jesus did.	Apart from the root meaning of the word Baptizo as 'dip' or 'submerge', there are some instances in the Bible which suggest that the act was not performed by simply sprinkling.
How did Cain kill Abel? Genesis 4:8 Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.”* When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. * [4:8] Let us go out in the field: to avoid detection. The verse presumes a sizeable population which Genesis does not otherwise explain. My question is how did Cain kill Abel? I was wondering if there is a commonly accepted method of murder, or if a religion, such as Catholicism, has a tradition about how he was killed. I have read that he used a rock. I think the more believable guess is a spear. (Based off of the meaning of the name Cain.) <Q> In the canon of scripture the answer is not stated, but in the book of Jasher it is. <S> I suppose most would not consider it doctrine since it is not in the current Bible, but in the book of Jasher it states: <S> And Cain hastened and rose up, and took the iron part of his ploughing instrument, with which he suddenly smote his brother and he slew him, and Cain spilt the blood of his brother Abel upon the earth, and the blood of Abel streamed upon the earth before the flock. <S> (Jasher 1:25) <S> This is the only reference I have found that may actually mean something besides just guessing at it. <A> The weapon itself is never stated, though there are many potential options. <S> Often, I've heard it said that Cain used the jawbone of an ass, but this is likely a conflation of stories with Sampson. <S> While searching for the verses, I found an interesting possible answer , however it all comes down to a guessing game. <S> According to the linked guess, Cain killed Abel by disemboweling him with the same knife Abel used for sacrificing animals, which makes it possible for a copious amount of blood to cry out from the ground. <A>	Although an answer from the Book of Jasher has been given, Pseudo-Jonathan's targum (Aramaic paraphrase of the Tanakh with commentary) says Cain drove a stone into Abel's forehead, killing him.
Can a Catholic married to an Orthodox in an Orthodox church re-celebrate her wedding in a Catholic church? My Catholic daughter will marry an Orthodox boy in an Orthodox church in Macedonia. After this ceremony we will go to Slovakia to continue the celebration. Can we celebrate a Mass in a Catholic church (not a wedding) and repeat the promise to God to validate the wedding? <Q> From the section " Mixed Marriages " of the Code of Canon Law: <S> Can. <S> 1124 <S> Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church. <S> The Catholic Church considers any Eastern Orthodox "not in full communion with the Catholic Church;" they are schismatics. <S> Your daughter can get permission to marry a non-Catholic from her Catholic bishop. <S> Your daughter would have to <S> [Can. 1125 §1] …declare that…she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church. <S> And her fiancé [§2] …is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party [your daughter] is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he…is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party [your daughter]. <S> Both your daughter and her fiancé [§3] …are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude. <A> This is going to be tricky. <S> The Orthodox Church's rules on mixed marriages are similar to those of the Roman Church. <S> If a Catholic is marrying an Orthodox Christian in the Church she will be required to agree that the children will be raised Orthodox. <S> This is a major reason why religiously mixed marriages are discouraged, especially if/when both parties have strong beliefs. <S> major <A> If an Orthodox spouse were to agree to a marriage ceremony in a Roman Catholic church (either before or after an Orthodox wedding), the Orthodox spouse would place themselves outside the Communion of the Orthodox Church - i.e. they would (knowingly or unknowingly) excommunicate themselves. <S> If this was done knowingly, it would likely take a long time and sincere and active repentance for the Orthodox spouse to be received back into the Orthodox Church: they have effectively apostatized to Roman Catholicism. <A> I will say if you want to know more here it is from a catholic perspective: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/pastoral-orthodox-catholic-marriage.cfm <S> Now I will say that in the eastern rite (Byzantines such a Maronites, Catholics, ukrainian greek catholic greek catholic, Russian Catholics, Ruthuanian catholics, armenian catholics, Melkite Catholics, Syriac Catholics, etc.) <S> only a priest can marry a couple,Just like the orthodox. <S> Traditionally in the traditional latin mass only a priest perform the mass of the marriage ceremony to marry a couple (which is the mass I attend to).Not the deacon. <S> But this website clarifies for many the question it is directly from the bishops in the United States. <S> For more questions Pkease ask your Catholic or if you are Orthodox your Orthodox Priest for further clarification.	According to the Catholic Church, your daughter's marriage to a non-Catholic, without her bishop's permission, is invalid; so she would absolutely need to marry in the Catholic Church.
Why was Ham cursed for seeing his father naked? In Genesis 9:22-25, Ham's son Canaan was cursed because Ham saw his father (Noah) naked. I don't understand why. Is there something implied by the passage that is not stated? <Q> There are homosexual tones to this passage, especially in verse 24, suggesting that there was more involved than just seeing a man naked: 24 <S> And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him . <S> But the interesting thing is it is not Ham who is cursed, but one of his sons, Canaan: Genesis 9:25-27: <S> And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. <S> And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. <S> God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. <S> The fact that Ham was the father of Canaan is especially highlighted in verses 9:18,22, in the leadup to this episode, and before Canaan even enters the story in his own right. <S> When this story was being told, the Canaanites were the detested rivals of the Hebrew people, so the audience no doubt revelled in hearing of the putative forefather of the Canaanites being relegated to the status of slave. <S> The biblical sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan (Genesis 10:6), but only Canaan was to be cursed in this story of Noah. <S> If, along with geologists, historians and most critical scholars, we accept that there was no worldwide Flood, then the story of Ham is really a legend that arose for the enlightenment or entertainment of the Hebrews. <A> In the Old Testament, "uncovering the nakedness of your father" was a euphemism that was used for having relations with his wife. <S> Canaan was likely the result of that union , which explains why he was the target of the curse. <S> This explanation is not definitive, but it is the one that makes the most sense based on my study of the passage and the cultural underpinnings of the Old Testament. <A> I'm not a theologian, but I believe that Ham most likely made fun of Noah when he told his brothers about him being naked in the tent. <S> I have also heard that what it really means is that Ham did something inappropriate to Noah, but this is one of those translation issues where we don't have English words that directly correlate to the wording in the scripts. <S> Hope that helps. <A> In that day modesty was huge. <S> Looking at the Strong's meanings it appears that Noah's sons took a robe and walked backwards to drop it on Noah's nakedness without looking. <S> Ham stared at him which angered Noah. <S> The meaning of the curse on Canaan is much more vague. <S> It most likely a reference to Israel taking Canaanite land for themselves. <S> Cursing Ham's descendants would have been a prophetic pronouncement before Israel even had a country as in Leviticus 18:22.	The likely explanation for this passage, based on my own study and consulting numerous commentaries of Bible scholars, is that, while Noah was drunk and unaware of what was going on around him, Ham entered his father's tent and had relations with his mother.
Is the Roman Catholic church condemning Protestants? In the early church the apostles often use the term 'let them be anathema'. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, were to preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be anathema. Galatians 1:8 If any man does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. Our Lord has come. 1 Corinthians 16:22 It is also obvious that the Roman Catholic Church continued to use this expression in regards to believing in the Eucharist and issued similar statements as the apostles used. If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ,[42] but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema . Council of Trent - Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon I My question is: Who does the Catholic Church address here to be condemned for not believing in the real presence of Christ in Eucharist? Is it meant for Catholics who reject the idea of Christ present in the Holy Eucharist or is it meant for Protestants and other churches that don't believe it? If it's all the people, does it mean there is no salvation outside the Catholic church once they recognized their truth? <Q> The language of the Council of Trent you quoted is clear and answers your question: "If anyone denies…" etc. <S> Thus, that proposition clearly applies to anyone , Catholic or Protestant, Jew, pagan, etc. <S> One must profess the Catholic Faith to be a member of the Catholic Church. <S> " <S> Anathema sit " ("let him be anathema") <S> simply professes the heretic's non-membership in the Catholic Church. <A> To the best of my knowledge, this is still the teaching of the Catholic Church. <S> See, for example, No Salvation Outside the Church . <S> Let me add that, as a Baptist, I don't find anything particularly remarkable or offensive about this teaching. <S> Presumably every religion believes that its beliefs are true, or what would it mean to say that they believed them? <S> It logically follows that any contradictory beliefs must be false. <S> Catholics believe that you must participate in certain rituals, i.e. the Sacraments, to be saved. <S> Some of these rituals specifically require that they be administered by a priest. <S> Therefore, you cannot be saved without going through a Catholic church and a Catholic priest. <S> Protestants say that these rituals are not essential to salvation. <S> So a Protestant would say that, while he believes Catholics to be in error on many points, he nevertheless sees no inherent barrier to a Catholic being saved. <S> Catholics cannot say the reverse. <A> The Catholic Church certainly did historically condemn Protestants and all who questioned its teaching, but this is one area in which change has occurred. <S> The Second Vatican Council, which met in 1962, issued a Declaration on Religious Freedom , with the subtitle <S> “On the Right of the Person and of Communities to Social and Civil Freedom in Religious Matters.” <S> When debated, the Declaration met with considerable resistance from some Vatican officials and a number of bishops, but was passed by the Council in December 1965. <S> It stated, “the human person has a right to religious freedom.” <S> In defining this freedom, it asserted that all men are to be immune from coercion” by individuals, social groups, or “any human power,” so that “in matters religious no one is forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. <S> Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly , whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. <S> Since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has therefore taught what Catholics must believe for their salvation and what the Church wishes others to believe, but the Church does not, as a body, use condemnation or any other form of coercion against non-Catholics: <S> [I]n spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. <S> Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.	The Catholic Church has traditionally declared, "There is no salvation outside the Church", meaning, "outside the Catholic Church".
Who does Paul consider to be "Saints" in Romans 1:7? I am not a Roman Catholic. In my understanding of Roman Catholicism, the term "saints" is not applied to all believers. It's applied to a subset of believers who have performed some miracle or great act. When I look at Romans 1:7, I see: To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: From this, we can logically derive: "those people who are in Rome" AND "are loved by God" ==> can be called a saint I suspect the condition of "being in Rome" is not a hard requirement, i.e. it's there became it's the book of Romans and Paul is writing to people in Rome. Thus, I get the impression that in Paul's eyes, "all those who are loved by God should be called a saint." Thus, "all believers are to be called saints." Is this consistent with Paul's other teachings? <Q> Paul refers to “the saints” many times in his writings. <S> The clearest definition of a saint is found in his salutation at the beginning of 1 Corinthians: 1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 <S> Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: 3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:1–3) <S> According to Paul, a saint is someone who is “sanctified in Christ Jesus.” <S> This describes all who believe in Christ and are made holy by his grace. <S> Also included in the definition are “all that ... call upon the name of Jesus Christ” (who may or may not yet be fully converted). <S> In Romans <S> 8:27 <S> , it says that Christ “makes intercession for the saints.” <S> In the surrounding verses it explains that the saints have the Holy Spirit, love God, and are “called according to his purpose.” <S> As a side note, the word saint is also used in the Old Testament, though not as often. <S> For example, Psalm 50:5 defines saints as “those that have made a covenant with [the Lord] by sacrifice.” <S> In other words, the saints are any who can be identified as God’s people. <A> Saint is a technical term meaning to be set apart, whether in the greek hagios or the hebrew qadowsh. <S> In itself, it doesn't mean anything regarding love, godliness or righteousness, as objects can also be sanctified as stated in MAt. <S> 23:17 where Jesus said the temple sanctifies (greek = hagiazo) <S> the gold within. <S> All it means is set apart. <S> Regarding the Bible, it means set apart for God. <S> If you keep away from the ungodly lifestyle of this world system, and follow God's laws and precepts, then you're a saint. <A> The NT refutes the idea of a special class of saints. <S> A saint comes from the word hagios <S> which according to Strong's Definition ἅγιος hágios , hag'-ee-os; from ἅγος hágos (an awful thing) (compare G53 , G2282 ); sacred (physically, pure, morally blameless or religious,ceremonially, consecrated):—(most) holy (one, thing), saint. <S> This is a term applied to all that are saved by virtue of their position in Christ (1 Cor. 1:2; <S> Rom 6:3-4; 8:1; Eph. 1:3., etc.). <S> Yet, experientially, there's people that are more than others. <S> The more our experience conforms to our position in Christ, the more the person shows Christlike traces.	Positionally, all NT believer is considered a saint.
According to LDS teaching, why should we worship this God? This question discusses the LDS teaching that “As man now is, God once was; as God is now man may be.” ( The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1984], 1.) The teaching is partially motivated by the passage from John5:19, So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. Joseph Smith himself said: As the Father hath power in Himself, so hath the Son power in Himself, to lay down His life and take it again, so He has a body of His own. The Son doeth what He hath seen the Father do: then the Father hath some day laid down His life and taken it again -- History of the Church 5:426 I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning. -- History of the Church 6:373 From LDS.org : The Prophet Joseph Smith himself publicly taught the doctrine the following year, 1844, during a funeral sermon of Elder King Follett: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! … It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did.” As to this notion in the modern LDS church, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles Joseph Fielding Smith said in an address in 1971: “This is a doctrine which delighted President Snow, as it does all of us. Early in his ministry he received by direct, personal revelation the knowledge that (in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s language), ‘God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens,’ and that men ‘have got to learn how to be Gods … the same as all Gods have done before.’ So, in summary: God the Father was once a man who became exalted to Godhood, and created us in his own creation. The man who is exalted now will be God of his own creation, as God is God of this one. All Gods have endured this process. My question is: If God was once a man who had a God of his own, then from a Mormon perspective, why don't we worship the God of that previous Earth who created the man that is now our God, and who therefore is the God of our God, instead the God who created the Earth we inhabit? In other words, is the Creator of our Creator not also worthy of our worship? Edit re. close vote due to duplicate question : I'm not asking about monotheism or polytheism, or asking Mormons to reconcile the claim with monotheism. I'm simply asking why we are directed to worship this God in particular, and not the God who created the Earth from which he was exalted. These are clearly very different questions. <Q> Consider any reason a Christian would worship God: He created us. <S> He (through his Son) saved us. <S> He has commanded that we worship him and pray to him in the name of Jesus Christ. <S> We know and love him. <S> We fear the consequences of not reverencing him. <S> All apply, and specifically to God. <A> As is often helpful when addressing questions such as these, the definition of "worship" should be considered. <S> According to the NOAD, worship means: show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites treat (someone or something) with the reverence and adoration appropriate to a deity <S> Notice the words reverence and adoration, which have much to do with respect and love. <S> Now consider the prominent LDS doctrine that all people on earth are children of God . <S> Assuming there is a succession of Gods as implied by the quotes given in the question, God the Father has his own father, who is also a god, and who also has a father who is a god, and so on. <S> The Gospel Topic Essay titled "Becoming Like God" offers more insight in this matter. <S> Specifically, the following excerpt is relevant: <S> Does belief in exaltation make Latter-day Saints polytheists? <S> For some observers, the doctrine that humans should strive for godliness may evoke images of ancient pantheons with competing deities. <S> Such images are incompatible with Latter-day Saint doctrine. <S> Latter-day Saints believe that God’s children will always worship Him. <S> Our progression will never change His identity as our Father and our God. <S> Indeed, our exalted, eternal relationship with Him will be part of the “fulness of joy” He desires for us. <S> One way to understand this (my opinion) is as follows: generally, young children on earth respect and love their fathers (and mothers) more than their grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on. <S> They have a closer relationship with their fathers, spend more time together, and work through more problems together. <S> This is not to say their fathers are somehow better or worse than their grandfathers or great-grandfathers; rather, the fathers are closest to their children and most directly responsible for their care, upbringing, and protection, and are therefore given the most attention. <S> Similarly, all people on earth as children of God love and respect Him more than His father or others who came before Him because He is the most relevant to us. <S> He has the responsibility of raising His children on earth to one day return to His presence and live with Him forever. <S> He requires His children to respect and love Him as He is their Father—the God most closely related to them. <A> A few things I can think of: When you are a child, let's say 7, do you obey your parents, and the things they tell you to do, or the things your grandparents say. <S> We have been given no commands by our "grand-heavenly-father" to be worshiped, nor have we ever been instructed by our God or him to worship him, the only reason we know he must exist is because of light indirect mentioning in the scriptures <S> Dave DeLong shares the following here : "it's pretty simple. <S> While we believe that there are other gods out there, they are not our God. <S> I find that an analogy helps me think about this clearly: At work, I have one boss. <S> He is my boss and no one else is. <S> There are other bosses, but I do not report to them, they do not affect my quarterly reviews, and I don't really interact with them in any sort of manager-underling relationship. <S> The same goes for God."	Mormons worship God the Father, through the Son.
Where did Jesus stay during his 3.5 year ministry? The Bible says all people went to their home but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives and came back to the temple early in the morning. but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. ( John 8:1–2 , NIV) On another occasion Jesus said: Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." ( Matthew 8:20 , NASB) What was his dwelling like? Where did He stay during his ministry? <Q> It's pretty clear from reading the Gospels that Jesus did not have a 'fixed abode' during his ministry. <S> He moved around from place to place. <S> He certainly stayed on some occasions with supporters. <S> On other occasions it is probable he slept outside. <S> It seems his preference was to come to Jerusalem only during the day, and to stay at the Mount of Olives (a short walk outside Jerusalem) for the night. <S> The home of Mary, Martha and Lazarus was on the Mount of Olives, and he may have stayed there. <A> Jesus stayed on the mountain called Olivet during His ministry. <S> 37 <S> And in the daytime He was teaching in the temple, but at night He went out and stayed on the mountain called Olivet. <S> 38 <S> Then early in the morning all the people came to Him in the temple to hear Him. <S> ( Luke 21:37–38 , NKJV) <A> Jesus did not necessarily need to own a house to have a "fixed abode." <S> He could have stayed with Peter at his home in Capernaum during his stays. <S> Although we don't know the exact length of his stays, we know that he lived there (Matt 4:13) <S> , it was referred to as his own city (Matt 8:1) and Mark referred to Capernaum as His home (Mark 2:1).	There are a number of occasions where Jesus is recorded as staying at the Mount of Olives, notably during visits to Jerusalem.
Why is there a need for a perfect sacrifice? Why does Jesus have to be perfect? Theologically, why was it necessary that Jesus be perfect? Couldn’t there be another ordinary human who said “I will be the sacrifice and take on all the sins of the world past, present, and future and suffer and die as a substitutionary atonement for all of mankind”? Why did it have to be Jesus and why did it have to be a perfect Jesus? <Q> According to the levitical priesthood a sacrifice had to be without defect Lev 22:20 <S> Do not bring anything with a defect, because it will not be accepted on your behalf. <S> In this case any sacrifice offered to God has to be without defect. <S> We humans are born into sin and no one lives a life without sin. <S> Romans 3:23 tells us we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. <S> Sin is bad because it separates us from God. <S> Isaiah 59:2 <S> But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear. <S> So ideally God would not accept any sacrifice by any man since sin has already made them impure. <S> The one person who lived without sin was Jesus <S> so He was the only one capable of being offered as an acceptable sacrifice <A> I'd just add that anyone other than a perfect sacrifice (Jesus) would also be tainted with sin and would require a savior themselves. <S> How could any sinful person provide salvation for others when they themselves need saved from their own sinful condition? <A> Fallen human beings are all disqualified because we all inherit the sinful nature. <S> If Jesus had even one sin, He could never die for others' sins because He would have to die for His own. <S> Therefore Christ knew no sin (2 Cor. <S> 5:21 <S> ; Heb. <S> 4:15). <S> He was made only in the likeness of the flesh of sin (Rom. 8:3). <S> He was without spot or blemish (1 Pet. 1:19). <S> Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. <S> 5:21). <S> For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. <S> (Heb. <S> 4:15) <S> Yet if Jesus were only a sinless man, we would still have a great problem. <S> His death would be good for only one man; in fact, it would be good for only one sin. <S> God requires man to die because of sin—even one sin. <S> Suppose in your entire life you committed only one sin. <S> As a sinless man, Jesus could die as a substitute for that sin. <S> But if you were to sin again you would have to die for that second sin. <S> Well, you know that you have sinned more than once in your life! <S> How could one man, Jesus, die for all your sins and for all the sins of mankind? <S> And how could it work for us two thousand years after His death? <S> He was a genuine man, yet also the complete God. <S> Hebrews 9:14 says that the Lord offered Himself up through the eternal Spirit. <S> He has accomplished an eternal redemption for us (Heb. 9:12). <S> Now Jesus' blood is effective for all men of all times. <S> It can cleanse every sin of every man on the earth throughout time and space. <S> 12 nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. <S> 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? <A> The factor which makes a sacrifice acceptable to God has to do with obedience to the original command of God not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. <S> When Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, their souls were contaminated in two ways, which made them no longer acceptable to God. <S> They disobeyed God. <S> Matthew 10:28 KJV <S> And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. <S> Satan usurped The position of God as the main influence in their lives. <S> Genesis 3:1 through 5 <S> KJV <S> Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. <S> And he said unto the woman, Yea, <S> hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? <S> 2 <S> And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. <S> 4 <S> And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. <S> Eve believed Satan more than she regarded God's command not to eat. <S> When Adam ate he was not deceived but obeyed not only Satan but also Eve who: Genesis 3:6 KJV <S> And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. <S> Adam knew that he was disobeying God; but ate disregarding God. <S> Once their souls were contaminated their progeny (us) were no longer acceptable since impure cannot begat pure. <S> Hope this helps. <S> >	His being God added an eternal element to His redeeming blood.
How did Zipporah know that God was going to kill Moses? How did Zipporah come to know that God was going to kill Moses? Exodus 4:24–25 (NASB) Now it came about at the lodging place on the way that the LORD met him and sought to put him to death. 25 Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and threw it at Moses' feet, and she said, "You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me." <Q> Moses surely would have told Zipporah about God's command to circumcise. <S> While we have to speculate about the details, the Pulpit Commentary suggests a plausible sequence of events. <S> The suggestion is that it was the eighth day after the birth of their second son; that the first son had already been circumcised; and that Zipporah talked Moses into not circumcising the second. <S> The narrative of verses 24-26 is obscure from its brevity; but the most probable explanation of the circumstances is, that Zipporah had been delivered of her second son, Eliezer, some few days before she set out on the journey to Egypt. <S> Childbirth, it must be remembered, in the East does not incapacitate a person from exertion for more than a day or two. <S> On the journey, the eighth day from the birth of the child arrived, and his circumcision ought to have taken place; but Zipporah had a repugnance to the rite, and deferred it, Moses weakly consenting to the illegality. <S> The commentary goes on to suggest Moses may have become seriously ill, and recognized it was a judgment for his weakness. <S> He no doubt would have said something to Zipporah, who then might have needed to do the circumcision because of Moses' weakness, but complained about it. <S> According to the commentary, the complaint likely referred to both circumcisions. <S> The commentary acknowledges that the language suggests a miraculous appearance, but that it could refer to an illness as well. <A> Moses had 2 sons, he probably circumcised the first one and Zipporah didn't like it. <S> Therefore she refused to let Moses circumcised the second one. <S> And when God came upon them and confronted them about this issue. <S> She immediately knew what was it all about and what to do next. <S> [This is just assumption, Bible did not reveal these details] <A> We would have to assume that the Lord appeared to Moses in a visible and threatening way. <S> Though the text isn't explicit, this was apparently one of the many Theophanies in the life of Moses, and often with these experiences, those around are involved somehow, and to some degree or other. <S> When Yahweh chooses to appear in the physical realm--either personally or through the agency of angels--there will be no mistake as to His intentions. <S> Everyone who witnesses it will understand His purpose in doing so, I would expect.	It could be that Moses had already told her about the God of Israel and His command and consequences regarding circumcision.
Did the Saints commit mortal sin sometimes? Does the Catholic tradition record if some saints committed mortal sin from time to time during their holy life or after conversion? There are many saints who converted and lived their lives in the state of grace. I'd like to know if they still committed a mortal sin from time to time, went to confession, repented, and got back to their holy way of living? Saint biographies don't typically mention any kind of an incident that would show their failures, but rather describes how they were always faithful. <Q> It is difficult to know for certain, because most people do not make their mortal sins public. <S> However, it is likely that many of the saints did commit mortals sins even after their “conversion” to a holy way of life. <S> In causes for canonization, the Church does not look for perfect people (which—except Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary—do not exist) to hold up as models, just persons who have shown virtue to a heroic degree (and, evidently, who have persevered to the end in their holiness). <S> As the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it, By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace , the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors (no. 828, emphasis added). <S> The following document shows the steps in the process for canonizing a saint: https://www.ewtn.com/johnpaul2/cause/process.asp . <S> As can be seen, in the documentary phase, the Postulation (the commission established by the diocese promoting the cause) must gather testimony about the life and virtues of the Servant of God. <S> Also, the public and private writings must be collected and examined. <S> This documentary phase … concludes with the judgment of a diocesan tribunal, and the ultimate decision of the bishop, that the heroic virtues of the Servant of God have or have not been demonstrated (op. <S> cit.). <S> Hence, an occasional lapse—even a grave one—is not necessarily an obstacle to canonization, provided there is sincere repentance and a tendency to virtue and holiness of life. <A> However, with regard to grave or prominent sins, St. Hippolytus of Rome is a good example. <S> He was an early priest who began to preach against the contemporary Pope and church doctrine, and even allowed himself to be elected as a rival schismatic Pope. <S> However, he reconciled with the Pope while imprisoned with him, was reconciled to the Church, and died a martyr and is now recognized as a Canonized Saint. <S> Also, in many of the lives of the Saints, you will find a strong devotion to penance and Reconciliation as a redress for sin. <S> So we clearly know that they continued to sin, and often grew much more aware of their sinfulness. <A> From Sacred Scripture, part of the the depositum fidei , I can quickly find two examples: 1) Saint David the King , a man after God's heart , who after his anointing the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David , among his sins were his adultery with Bathshe′ba and arranging for the death of Uri′ah the Hittite, Bathshe′ba's husband, a faithful servant and soldier. <S> 2) <S> In John 13:9-11 , St. Peter is clean, but that very night he denies Jesus three times . <S> In our path to sanctity, even though we ought to abhor every sin even the venial ones, it is not that we must to fall <S> but that when we have the misfortune to fall, we get up again like Saint David the King did with the Psalm <S> Miserere and <S> St. Peter [who] wept bitterly and later told the LORD after His Resurrection <S> , “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” <S> for a righteous man falls seven times, and rises again; but the wicked are overthrown by calamity. <S> - Prov 24:16 . <S> Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of God, I come before you, unworthy as I am, to renew our total dedication to you. <S> Be now and for ever our Mother, our advocate and our protector; rule over us as our sovereign Lady, keep us from falling, <S> but if we do fall help us to rise again without delay. <S> Show yourself as Mother of God, <S> to whom all sinners have been entrusted: be our patroness and theirs with your loving Son. <S> - Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, THURSDAY Morning Prayer .	It is often not possible to know whether someone else commits a mortal sin as the degree to which they know it to be grave matter and the internal freedom and full turning of the will are often part of the internal forum.
In John 4:1-3, in whose name were Jesus' disciples' baptizing? In regards to John 4:1-3, were Jesus' disciples in this passage baptizing with John's baptism? If not, and they were baptizing in the name of Jesus, did the people who receive this baptism have to be re-baptized to receive the Holy Spirit (as did those who received John's baptism)? <Q> There's no indication of either. <S> It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. <S> He said to them, "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?" <S> And they said to him, "No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. <S> " And he said, "Into what then were you baptized?" <S> And they said, "Into John's baptism." <S> Paul said, "John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus. <S> " When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. <S> And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. <S> (Act 19:1-6) <S> In Acts 19:1-6, there's no indication anyone had to be baptized again, other than John's disciples who still didn't realize Jesus was the Messiah. <S> In John 4, Jesus' disciples were already following Jesus, instead of John. <A> The command to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was given only at the ascension of Jesus. <S> Before the ascension, there is no indication that there was a name used at all. <S> John just said,"Repent and be baptised for the time is at hand". <S> So John did not baptize using any name. <S> John's baptism is called "baptism of repentance" in Acts 19. <S> So until Jesus gave the express command during ascension, no name was used during baptism. <A> It was John's baptism because the second baptism (by fire or by the holy ghost) didn't come until Jesus was resurrected. <S> See John 7:39 <S> (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)	There's no indication Jesus' disciples were baptizing in any name other than Jesus'.
How do Southern Baptists who believe in the immortality of the soul explain what death means in scripture The Bible often speaks of death as "sleep" and Ecclesiastes 9:5 says dead aren't aware of anything. Yet many Christians claim reward or punishment begins immediately when one dies. If there is really no death, but just immediate transformation from physical to spiritual beings what is death? Why do these same Christians speak about the resurrection which means standing back up to life? I would like a Southern Baptist perspective. <Q> The Southern Baptist position is that we will be resurrected with physical bodies, as they state in The Baptist Faith and Message : <S> X. Last Things God, in His own time and in His own way, will bring the world to its appropriate end. <S> According to His promise, Jesus Christ will return personally and visibly in glory to the earth; the dead will be raised; and Christ will judge all men in righteousness. <S> The unrighteous will be consigned to Hell, the place of everlasting punishment. <S> The righteous in their resurrected and glorified bodies will receive their reward and will dwell forever in Heaven with the Lord. <S> I would not phrase the destination of our resurrection "Heaven", because it does suggest a mode of living far different from what we know now, but they do at least give Revelation 20-21 in the references supporting this position, which teaches the "new heaven and a new earth". <S> Perhaps the lack of clarity here represents a lack of consensus as to whether the new earth should be understood as a renewal, a transformation, a purging, a destruction and recreation, or somewhere else on that spectrum. <S> (To be fair, I doubt that there are many other denominations of comparable size that also wouldn't have a lot of disagreement over the origin of the new earth.) <S> But in any case, it is clear that, whatever a "glorified" body is, our destiny is not to change from a physical to a spiritual being, as the question suggests. <A> As in much of Protestantism, there is much protesting and not much consensus. <S> Because of their strong belief in congregational autonomy (mentioned in the SBC's positional statements while the resurrection is ignored), many Southern Baptists are left to decide for themselves what they think the resurrection will entail as it's not seen as critical a point as things like congregational autonomy, soul competency, and baptism by immersion. <S> The June 2014 issue of SBC Life affirms my evaluation: Amillennialists and premillennialists of every variety coexist in all realms of Baptist life, with proponents of each position affirming the inerrancy of Scripture and hardly anyone regarding differing positions on the millennium as an obstacle to cooperation in missions, theological education, evangelism, or cultural engagement. <S> In my experience in the Southern Baptist church, the prevailing opinion is that the death which (nearly) everyone experiences involves the transition from a sinful, earth-bound being to a sinless, 'spiritual' being in the presence of God. <S> As mentioned previously, there is no consensus opinion on the second coming (including the resurrection) because it isn't central to Baptistism. <S> Many Southern Baptists interpret St. John's Revelation to mean Christ will destroy all His creation in favor of sustaining them (Southern Baptists) as incorporeal beings. <S> This belief enjoyed enough popularity to cause NT Wright to write a book against it. <S> According to my Southern Baptist, undergraduate education, they also have an opinion of the second death. <S> It is not, they say, related to any manner of transition but rather a termination of all comfort and pleasantries as they are sustained by God to the ages while being tortured for rejecting Him . <S> They believe the damned are eternally consigned to rebellion against God with no hope of escaping His unimaginable torture. <S> Unfortunately, I believe any answer on this front is of limited use as I am certain there are Southern Baptists who disagree. <S> This is a reflection of my personal experience and opinion that Southern Baptists are less likely to be concerned with the resurrection than with doctrinal issues such as the perseverance of the Saints, Christian exclusivism, Biblical inerrancy, and predestination. <A> Well, my education is Free <S> Will Baptist rather than Southern Baptist, but I can give you a straight answer to your question that my Southern Baptist preacher brother in law would sign off on. <S> It is quite simple. <S> When you read, "the wages of sin is death", that death is not referring to your heart stopping, it is indicates eternal damnation and separation from God. <S> What we call death in today's terms is referred to as "sleep" in the scriptures.	If we die (our heart stops beating) and we have entrusted our heart to Christ, we will never experience the death referred to in the scriptures but only eternal life.
Can a Mormon reach salvation if they do not pay tithes? This is actually a question that stems from some information that I found when reading this article . The article claims that Mormon Mission Presidents receive each a lot of tax free benefits, and it says the following: Unlike other church members, this family can receive temple recommends without paying tithing on “income.” So I looked up what the "temple recommends" are and based on this article and this article , it seems that it is a paper slip that allows a person to enter the temple (both of these articles briefly mention tithing as one of the requirements receiving the "temple recommends"). Anyway I did also find this SE question which has some answers according to which the only consequences from non-tithing are the loss of temple access and participation in some "important saving ordinances". One of the articles referenced in an answer to that question is this First Presidency Message "Concerning Tithing" (By President Marion G. Romney, dated June 1980). This article says among other things: Tithing is not a free-will offering; it is a debt, payment of which brings great blessings...it is apparent that tithing is a debt which everyone owes to the Lord as rent for using the things that the Lord has made and given to him to use. The Lord, to whom one owes tithing, is in a position of a preferred creditor. If there is not enough to pay all creditors, he should be paid first. So this question is about these "important saving ordinances". Does all of this mean that a Mormon who does not pay tithes cannot visit the temple and consequently will not be able to reach salvation? Note: I am looking for an official opinion by the Mormon Church on this matter. If the official opinion is indeed that "Anyone can attain salvation. Anyone can be denied salvation. It's all up to Our Lord." then that is fine, although it begs the question why anyone would spend their time or money to support this or any other religious organization. <Q> First, the word salvation needs to be defined. <S> In the LDS church, salvation "means to be saved from physical and spiritual death." <S> (See Salvation and Exaltation by Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.) <S> In the LDS church, members strive for exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, which is the highest glory one can obtain in the next life, and is usually also considered part of "being saved" in LDS rhetoric. <S> (See: The Guide to the Scriptures: Salvation .) <S> In order to receive full celestial glory (or exaltation) after this life, you must receive the ordinances of the temple: <S> "The principal purpose of temples is to provide the ordinances necessary for our exaltation in the celestial kingdom." <S> (See True to the Faith: Temples .) <S> One of the questions in the interview to receive a temple recommend asks if you are a full tithe payer. <S> Therefore, to enter the temple, "The person must certify that he or she is . . <S> . <S> paying a full tithing." <S> (See: Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple ). <S> In the temple you make sacred covenants that require you to live worthily to enter the temple. <S> " <S> The ordinance consists of a series of instructions and includes covenants we make to live righteously and comply with the requirements of the gospel." <S> (See: True to the Faith: Temples .) <S> Therefore, one must keep the commandments, one of which is tithing, in order to be saved and exalted. <S> See Tithing . <S> (All links are to www.lds.org : <S> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) <A> Your question is a good one <S> but I don't think there's a clear black or white answer. <S> For instance, the doctrine in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints states that children who die before "the age of accountability" which is age eight are "automatically saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven" (Doctrine & Covenants 137)... <S> even if they didn't pay tithing. <S> ultimately, we'll be judged with love and fairness by our Savior. <A> The short answer (partly) is yes, they cannot visit the temple. <S> My husband and I lost our temple recommends for not paying tithing (for one year, we paid tithe for around 15 years at this time) and my 16 year old at the time was also questioned about his tithing. <S> Whether they would definitively say that you can or cannot receive salvation is another story since mormons believe that many will have other chances in life and after death to receive the gospel and ultimately fulfill all ordinances and promises to enter the Celestial Kingdom (top level of heaven). <S> However, if in this life a person has the access and has learned about the gospel, rejects it and doesn't fulfill temple ordinance, they theoretically will not make it to heaven. <S> (That would be me) After losing my temple recommend for failure to provide the church with funds <S> I was so hurt. <S> Something I have given a large portion of my life to and was raised in was taken away because we live paycheck to paycheck and didn't for one year pay tithing. <S> I wasn't excommunicated but not being able to participate in what was suppose to be the most important ordinances, was such a rejection. <S> After this, I allowed all the questions I had bubbling under the surface for 40 years of my life to come up. <S> I knew and still know that it was all wrong. <S> There were many more issues I found I didn't support, but because I wouldn't give money to a church that then found it necessary to build a luxury shopping center in SLC, I couldn't go to the temple? <S> That is insane.	In order to be saved, you have to have lived "a life of obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel and service to Christ."
Since YHWH and the Bible acknowledge other gods, does that mean that they literally exist? Exodus 20:3 (NIV) reads, "You shall have no other gods before Me." According to the Tanakh (Old Testament), YHWH / Yahweh / (God) is an individual divine being, and the only God. Some sections of the Scriptures seem to state that He is the universe’s only (truly existing) God; however, others portray him as a supreme god among other gods (that actually exist). Deuteronomy 4:35 , “YHWH is God; there is none else beside him .” Isaiah 44:6–8 , it says, “Thus says YHWH…: I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God … Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Thus, Yahweh is the only God that exists. But in Exodus 15:11 , after the Israelites escape slavery in Egypt, they sing, “Who is like you, O YHWH, among the gods [Elohim]?” Deuteronomy 6:14 : "Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you " In Deuteronomy 10:17 , it says, “For YHWH your God is the God of gods , and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and terrible, who does not regard people or take bribes.” In Psalm 95:3 , it says, “YHWH is a great God, and a great king above all gods .” And in Exodus 12:12 , it says, “On that night I will pass through the land of Egypt and smite every firstborn, both man and beast, and I will execute judgment against all the gods of Egypt. I am YHWH .” What are we to make of this, then? Are there lesser/other gods? Do the words used for god, perhaps, have other implied contextual meanings in some passages? <Q> I'm sure much could be written about the specific meaning of the Hebrew word for gods , but let me focus on one important interpreter's take: Paul the apostle. <S> In 1 Corinthians 8:4–6 , he quotes Isaiah and Deuteronomy to make his case that eating food sacrificed to idols is not inherently wrong: <S> Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” <S> 5 <S> For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us <S> there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. <S> [ESV] Isaiah 41:24 , the Lord speaks to the gods, saying: Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you. <S> [ESV] <S> And Deuteronomy 4:39 : the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. <S> [ESV] Paul interprets these passages to teach that these "so-called gods" have "no real existence." <S> But then, do they have an "unreal" existence, as a reading of verse 5 might suggest? <S> Idols do exist, he says, in the sinful hearts of men: <S> Put to death <S> therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. <S> [ Colossians 3:5 , ESV] <A> The Bible as a whole is clear that there is only one God (YHWH) who created all things, and the "other gods" He warns about are things or spirits that people treat as if it were a god. <S> There are certainly other spirits that communicate with people (which is why God said Not to seek them or listen to them nor let them speak) but only God (YHWH) is good (Jesus Christ said that). <S> According to His word, He will definitely punish "the powers in the heavens" for allowing and encouraging people to believe they are God. <S> ( Isaiah 24:21; Mark 1:25; Leviticus 20:6 ) <A> I have been reading the bible over again, from start to finish. <S> What I have concluded is that men make of themselves gods, images to worship. <S> Mankind is a seeing is believing sort of race and they created for themselves a god and new gods because they did not see Yahweh Deuteronomy 11:16-17, Deuteronomy 27:15 <S> deuteronomy28:14 Judges 2:11, Ruth 1:15, I Samuel7:3, the list goes on and on. <S> In doing this, they have given themselves up to the curses talked about by moses and they came to worship the creations rather than the creator. <S> So far, I am in I Chronicles 5, and even there it talks about how the tribe of Reuben was given up Into captivity for the worshiped gods and of images <S> I Chronicles 5:25. <S> This is no different than the Jewish star, the cross, the golden calf, or a picture of jesus or a virgin Mary. <S> These are all images made to be worshipped, rather than the true maker of the universe and all things in it, Yahweh.	The bible states in any translation that I have read this far, that Yahweh is the only power in the universe and that even when he made himself known to the holy men of old, they never saw his form or his face.
Is there any denomination that fully embraces Dispensational Premillennialism? I'm not a fan of dispensational premillennialism, but I don't know of any denominations that specifically hold to it. I'm just fairly curious. I've met individual people that believe it, but never an entire denomination that supports it. Do any such denominations exist? <Q> Dispensationalism tends to be most prevalent in baptist, charismatic, and non-denominational churches. <S> However, the largest baptist and charismatic denominations (like the Southern Baptist Convention and the Assemblies of God) do not take a firm stance on a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture. <S> Still, there are sizable denominations and associations of churches that specifically hold to this doctrine. <S> A full list is beyond the scope of this site, but one major charismatic denomination holding to this is the International Pentecostal Holiness Church (3.5 million members). <S> Its statement of faith reads: <S> The second coming of Christ will occur in two stages; the first for the purpose of catching away His saints who are prepared for the Rapture before the Great Tribulation period; and the second at the end of the Great Tribulation, when He shall come back with His saints to destroy the armies of the Antichrist, to judge the nations of the world, and to inaugurate the millennial reign. <S> ( source ) <S> Another group, perhaps not meeting your definition of "denomination," is Calvary Chapel , an association of churches with about 25 million members in total. <S> It, too, clearly describes dispensational eschatology in its statement of faith: <S> We believe in the Pre-Tribulation Rapture of the Church through which all believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and be taken out of the world prior to the Tribulation that will then come upon the earth. <S> ( source ) <S> So yes, not all denominations influenced by dispensationalism avoid clearly stating dispensational doctrine in their statements of faith: there are significant denominations and associations that specifically hold to the doctrine of a pre-tribulation, pre-millennial rapture. <A> In their statement of beliefs, under the heading "The End Of Time" and the sub-heading "The Rapture," the Pentecostal Assemblies Of Canada hold that: <S> The rapture, the blessed hope of the church, is the imminent coming of the Lord in the air to receive to Himself His own, both the living who shall be transformed, and the dead in Christ who shall be resurrected. <S> This event takes place before the wrath of God is poured out during the tribulation. <S> Clearly held above are the doctrines of Dispensational/Pre-Tribulational Premillennialism. <S> And in the U.S., the Assemblies Of God word it this way in their belief statement: <S> The 'imminent and blessed hope' of the Church is its rapture preceding the bodily return of Christ to earth. <S> The rapture of the Church will be followed by the visible return of Christ and his reign on earth for a thousand years. <S> The belief of imminency in this latter statement necessarily requires an espousal of Pre-Trib Premillennialism as well. <S> However, the fairly large Vineyard Fellowship network, both in the USA and in Canada, one of the more recent charismatic groups to appear, has left it vague in its beliefs statement as to which variety of premillennialism it holds to, if any at all, though it certainly expresses a premillennial view. <A> Although this is not a denomination proper, Bible churches also tend to stick to premillenial dispensationalism. <S> I am a member of one, and we hold to it, mostly. <S> However, I do not know what you mean by fully embracing it. <S> Dispensationalism has at least a couple of forms. <S> A more strict dispensational form has a corollary that says we are in a dispensation which is different than the one given to the apostles and very early church, so some of the gifts of the Spirit are no longer in play in our dispensation. <S> However, it seems that dispensationalism has shifted more and more to a recognition that there is nothing in the New Testament to indicate that those gifts are no longer applicable. <S> While I would consider myself a premillenial dispensationalist, I would say, with many others in the same camp, that all gifts of the Spirit are still possible, within the confines of how Scripture dictates their their purpose and manner of use.	In addition to most Baptist groups, many non-denominational associations of churches, and the church groups of the more recent charismatic movements since the early 1960s which hold the doctrine, the two largest and most prominent Pentecostal denominations in both Canada and the USA also hold to the doctrine.
Where is the verse about people sinning because they know God will forgive them? I've been trying to find a verse I read not too long ago for quite some time about sinning and knowing it's wrong, but sinning anyway because you know God will forgive you. I believe it also mentioned how people who do this are even lower than people who sin, then repent and attempt to stop doing it. I know that verse-identification has had a lot of discussion on the meta as to whether it should be allowed, and it seems most people would only allow it under very strict circumstances. That said, I do agree with this opinion, but I also believe that this question meets those circumstances, so I will take the risk. I have been trying to find this verse for quite some time, and I can't find it. I've searched Google, I've looked it up on quite a few websites, I've even asked other people if they had seen the verse. It's almost like it didn't exist, but I'm 100% certain that I saw it, but I can't find it. Point is, I've searched all over the place to no avail, and I feel that this is the last place I can possibly turn. If anyone has seen this verse I would very much appreciate it, but if you haven't seen this particular verse, I would rather you not answer with a verse that has a similar subject, but is different. Thanks. Update: I just asked a particular person who I hadn't asked before and they said they knew the verse I was talking about, but wasn't sure where it was. They hunted around for a while looking for it and found a few similar verses, but not the correct one. To make things easier, I will name a few verses it isn't, but it would be nigh impossible to track down every similar verse I've seen that isn't the one. I'll also include passages that have been put in answers that aren't it. Many of the verses I have seen that aren't it are as follows: Romans 6:15 Luke 13:3 1 John 5:18 Hebrews 10:26-31 2 Peter 2:20-21 There are other verses I have seen, but these verses were the closest ones I found. <Q> This is a major point of Romans 6 . <S> After arguing that the coming of the law increased the number of trespasses, and that subsequently "grace abounded all the more," Paul warns those who might twist his words: 6:1 <S> What shall we say then? <S> Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? <S> 2 <S> By no means! <S> How can we who died to sin still live in it? <S> 6:15 <S> What then? <S> Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? <S> By no means! <S> 16 <S> Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? <S> (ESV) <A> Jude 4 says: I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches saying that God's marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. <S> The condemnation of such people was recorded long ago, for they have denied our only Master and Lord Jesus Christ." <S> New Living Translation. <A> There are a few verses in Romans that might be what you're thinking of: Romans 3:8 ESV <S> And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. <S> Their condemnation is just. <S> Romans <S> 6:1 ESV <S> What shall we say then? <S> Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? <S> Romans 6:15 ESV <S> What then? <S> Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? <S> By no means! <S> Note : I could go in to what I believe these verses mean within their context <S> but that would be outside the scope of the question. <S> This question is for verse identification. <A> When I search Google for your exact wording "sinning and knowing it's wrong, but sinning anyway <S> because you know God will forgive you" the top result <S> identifies Hebrews 10:26-31: <S> For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. <S> Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. <S> How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? <S> For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” <S> And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” <S> It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. <S> (Hebrews 10:26-31, NIV) <A> When I search Google for "deliberately sinning, but God will forgive you" the third result suggests these verses: If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and are overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. <S> It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. <S> (2 Peter 2:20-21, NIV) <S> If in spite of these things you do not accept my correction but continue to be hostile toward me, I myself will be hostile toward you and will afflict you for your sins seven times over. <S> (Leviticus 26:23-24, NIV) <A> There is a verse in The Book of Mormon which closely matches your description. <S> Perhaps the person whose sermon you remember this from was referring to that scripture. <S> 2 Nephi 28:8 8 <S> And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. <S> The rest of the chapter does indicate that those who follow this path are in danger of hell, but doesn't specifically compare them to other sinners as better or worse. <S> And behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine <S> : let us eat and drink; for to morrow we shall die. <S> 14 <S> And it was revealed in mine ears by the Lord of hosts, <S> Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord God of hosts. <S> So this is similar in saying eat, drink, and be merry, but verse fourteen could be interpreted as suggesting that the sin is as bad, or worse, than those that perform death-bed repentance. <A> I believe the passage you are looking for is Matthew 18:21-22. <S> Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? <S> till seven times? <S> Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: <S> but, Until seventy times seven. <S> If this is the measure of Jesus' expectation of us, then it can only be the measure he, himself, applies.	That scripture references Isaiah 22:13-14 which also closely matches your description: Isaiah 22:13-14 13
How can one offer Christ's sacrifice to God? I'd like to know what is the Catholic theology behind offering Jesus's suffering to the Father. I'm trying to understand this prayer (from St. Bridget's 12-Year Prayer ) more deeply: Eternal Father, through Mary’s unblemished hands and the Divine Heart of Jesus, I offer to Thee the terrifying suffering of the Heart of Jesus on the Mount of Olives, and every drop of His Sweat of Blood, as atonement for my and all of humanity’s sins of the heart, as protection against such sins, and for the spreading of Divine and Brotherly Love. I don't fully understand how can one offer somebody's else suffering to gain grace for oneself. I have a theory but I'm not sure if it's correct. My theory or understanding is that none of us is capable of such a sacrifice which brings reconciliation with God. So offering it up to the Father it reminds him of this reconciliation. And here I think is the problem with my understanding. I don't think God the Father needs to be reminded of his suffering. That's why I'm asking what is the teaching... <Q> Part of the answer can be found in Colossians 1:24. <S> Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh <S> I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, <S> that is, the Church. <S> The question a Christian must answer is, "What is lacking in Christ's afflictions?" <S> I think most would agree that nothing at all is lacking, so what does Paul mean? <S> From a Catholic worldview, when we are baptized into Christ, we are part of the body of Christ. <S> Being part of that body is not simply metaphorical but actual and real. <S> Saint Bridget has made Christ's sacrifice her own by uniting herself to that sacrifice in her devotions and selfless life, forming herself ever more into the likeness of Christ. <S> God the Father is well aware of Christ's sufferings, as his mother is and as we should be. <S> We are called as Catholics to unite our sufferings to Christ's. <S> Bridget in her prayer is acknowledging Christ's sacrifice and joining herself to it, like Paul suffering for Christ's sake for the Gospel to our benefit. <S> In this prayer, she points out the blood that the Lord sweat from his skin in the garden. <S> By combining this prayer with the Hail Mary and Our Father, Bridget shows this prayer to be contemplative prayer, like the rosary. <S> In contemplative prayer, she prays not just by repeating the verses, but rather by putting herself in the garden in the anticipation and fear that the Lord experienced. <S> By imagining herself as Jesus and experiencing the fear and pain of what is coming, including the falling away by the few that should have been faithful, she joins in that suffering. <S> Contemplative prayer is a powerful way to unite to Christ and experience his suffering. <S> In your question you asked: <S> I don't fully understand how can one offer somebody's else suffering to gain grace for oneself. <S> Bridget is not offering just anybody's suffering up to the Lord, only the suffering of the one person whose suffering can and does merit grace. <A> One clue to the meaning comes from the introductory words to the prayer: <S> Through Mary’s unblemished hands and the Divine Heart of Jesus, I offer... <S> In other words, the pray-er is only able to offer what he offers through someone else's action or intercession. <S> In this case, the reason we are able to offer Jesus' sacrifice is because it was done on our behalf (and because we are united to it and to Christ). <S> One might say, "I have nothing from myself to offer, but Jesus gave me mercy through his sacrifice. <S> So I offer that to you now." <S> This seems all the more explicit in one of Bridget's other prayers (from your link): <S> Eternal Father, accept as worthy for the needs of Holy Church, and as atonement for the sins of all Mankind, the precious Blood and Water which poured forth from the Wound of the Divine Heart of Jesus. <S> As for "reminding" God of his suffering, I see a parallel in Exodus: <S> And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. <S> ( Exodus 2:24 RSVCE ) <S> Nevertheless he regarded their distress, when he heard their cry. <S> He remembered for their sake his covenant, and relented according to the abundance of his steadfast love. <S> ( Psalm 106:44-45 RSVCE ) God "remembered" the covenant. <S> Does this mean the omniscient God had he had forgotten? <S> Clearly not. <S> But when we pray for God to remember, it is to contextualize or emphasize the request. <A> I did a little research and I found some answers. <S> Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, <S> and he does so in what the Church specifically states is "an unbloody <S> manner"—one <S> that does not involve a new crucifixion. <S> "Do this in remembrance of me" can also be translated as "Offer this as my memorial sacrifice. <S> " <S> The Greek term for "remembrance" is anamnesis. <S> So I think here is the answer. <S> And every time we remember we open ourselves up to the Lord (the Father). <S> So it's this sacrifice which brings reconciliation with God the Father. <S> I guess every sin we commit require reconciliation and offerings to God. <S> And Christ's offerings(sacrifice) servers this purpose. <S> For this is that which was proclaimed by the Lord: ‘In every place and time let there be offered to me a clean sacrifice. <S> For I am a great king,’ says the Lord, ‘and my name is wonderful among the gentiles’ [cf. <S> Mal. 1:11]" (14:1–3). <S> More can be found here . <A> I know that this is an old thread <S> but I came across it and thought I would contribute. <S> This is how I think of it. <S> The history of sacrifice is that a true sacrifice involves offering up only something of immense value to yourself. <S> For example, in a time when life was hard and raising livestock required a lot of energy and resources, Abel offered his best animal, while it is implied that Cain's offering was not his best offering. <S> If you read the Gospel of Matthew, it is clear that the narrative is building up the idea in the reader's head that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. <S> As Catholic Christians, we are called to a life in which we sacrifice the best we have to offer, in order to inherit eternal life. <S> The best we have to offer collectively, as humans, is the life of Jesus, as the perfect human being, and he chose to be that sacrifice. <S> So he offers himself to the father, and we offer him to the father also. <S> The way that we offer him is through the Eucharist.	We offer his sacrifice at mass and in the prayers in remembrance of Him.
What caused the shift from "Faith Of Christ" to "Faith In Christ" in modern translations? The phrase "Faith in Christ" can also be translated "Faith of Christ" (or "Faithfulness of Christ" [NET]): In the older school of translations of the Bible into English (I'll call them the "King James school" of translations), almost every example of "pistis Christos" is rendered "the Faith of Christ" (the subjective genetive translation) In the vast majority of modern translations (I'll call them the "Modern school") the same phrase is rendered as "[your] Faith in Christ" . (the objective genetive translation) There are a few translations that waver between the two possibilities, depending on the exact verse involved, trying to bring the context to bear - the NET is an example of this. See the section below for more detail on the Greek formulations of "Faith in Christ", and the last section for some examples of the different translations. This question only addresses the 3rd type where "en" or "eis" in Greek is not present. The Question: Is there any way to understand why or how this general shift occurred from translating these Greek phrases from "the Faith of Christ" to "[your] Faith in Christ" for the majority of modern translations? Different Greek formulations for "Faith in/of Christ" in the New Testament In trying to understand the term "Faith" in the Bible, I have come across several different underlying Greek phrases: En Pistis Christos: Faith located inside of Christ, or with Christ as the source of the faith. i.e. you have the faith because you are joined with Christ or "in Christ". Eis Pistis Christos: Faith into or toward Christ, with the direction of the faith being the key, rather than Christ being the object of the faith. I still do not fully understand the meaning of this one. Pistis Christos: (by itself with no article): This can be translated either: "[your] Faith in Christ" , which means [you] trust in Christ or some aspect of his character (Christ or what he does is the object of the faith). This is technically called the objective genitive translation. "the Faith of Christ" [or sometimes, "the faithfulness of Christ"] , meaning the faith that Christ has in some other object (such as God the Father). This is technically called the subjective genitive translation. Sometimes there are other variations which I'm not enough of a Greek scholar to really speak to, but just about any time faith is not paired with Christ in relationship to faith, the passage is less clear as to the core meaning of faith in that instance, compared with passages that include Christ. This question is regarding the #3 type of faith only, and only those cases that also mention faith's relationship to Christ. In #3, the Greek allows both "Faith in Christ" and "Faith of Christ" as correct translations, and neither is preferred on it's own - only context can give us clues as to which the correct interpretation is. Usage examples: 1. Romans 3:22. The KJV indicates that righteousness is applied to us because of the faith that Jesus had (or really, carried out): 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested , being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe : for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned , and come short of the glory of God; (Romans 3:21-23, KJV) The NET sides with KJV in this case, making it explicit that it is the action of what Christ did by changing it from "faith of Christ" to "faithfulness of Christ" (his faithfulness in carrying out the Father's plan for his death and resurrection, etc.): 21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – 22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:21-23, NET) Both the NIV and NASB are examples of the modern school's translation making the application of righteousness into a dependency on the individual believer's faith or trust with Jesus as the object of that faith: 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:21-23, NIV) 21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:21-23, NASB) 2. Galatians 2:16 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ , even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ , and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no * flesh be justified. (Galatians 2:16, KJV) 16 yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ . And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ (Galatians 2:16, NET) 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus , even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no * flesh will be justified. (Galatians 2:16, NASB) So, again, what is the reason for this shift in most modern translations away from "Faith of Christ" in Romans 3:22, Gal 2:16 and similar verses? Is it due to textual criticism (correction from a comment: textual analysis)? Shifts in theology/doctrine? A better understanding of Koine Greek? Something else? Also Note: The NET has some pretty extensive footnotes on most of these cases that expound upon the various ancient textual variants and different possible interpretations with the reasoning why they went the way they did. <Q> Have a look at it through historical criticism . <S> One could do worse than pin it on Bultmann's Existentialist Alternative . <S> (More crudely, the "I'm spiritual, not religious," phenomenon.) <S> Asbury Bible Commentary <S> 1 <S> lays it out in The Problem of Faith and History <S> : Theological Alternatives Bultmann's main response to Barth was that if revelation isindependent of historical criticism, why claim that revelation has ahistorical point of reference at all! <S> 2 <S> And if the historical question is strictly an academicconsideration, why not reinterpret <S> the phrase “faith in Jesus Christ”in a symbolic way? <S> This is indeed what Bultmann did. <S> That's probably a way more simple answer that what the OP is looking for, but understanding Bultmann's views (and his subsequent influence on biblical studies) helps me understand this shift. <S> Another thing that helps me understand is the old adage: <S> "Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God, the church proclaimed faith in Jesus." <S> 1 <S> https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/asbury-bible-commentary/Problem-Faith-History <S> 2 Rudolf Bultmann, Essays: <S> Philosophical and Theological, trans. <S> James C. G. Grieg <S> (London: SCM, 1955), 261. <A> The King James editors were translating the Greek literally. <S> The Greek phrase in question in Romans 3:22 is: διὰ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ where the words "Jesus Christ" (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) are in the genitive, or "possessive" case. <S> This is a Greek idiom. <S> Whereas we use the preposition "in" to signify faith in something, Greek sometimes simply signifies that in which faith is placed through use of the genitive case. <S> The King James is not consistent in its use of "of" and "in" in expressions concerning "faith in", but the Greek consistently casts the object of faith in the genitive case. <S> Other examples: <S> Mark 11:22 (KJV 1900) <S> And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. <S> Καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγει αὐτοῖς, <S> Ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ [lit. <S> "faith of God"] Romans 3:3 (KJV 1900) <S> For what if some did not believe? <S> shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? <S> Τί γὰρ <S> εἰ ἠπίστησάν τινες; <S> Μὴ ἡ ἀπιστία αὐτῶν <S> τὴν <S> πίστιν τοῦ θεοῦ <S> [lit. <S> " <S> faith of the God"] καταργήσει; I think that it is also true that in the 17th century the word "of" in English had shades of meaning that are different from what it has now. <S> I don't have access to the complete Oxford English Dictionary, but <S> the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary <S> (6th ed.) does indicate that an archaic meaning of "of" was "in". <S> For this reason, I am speculating, the King James translators were perhaps not all that concerned about translating literally. <A> In modern English "faith of Christ" would mean that faith that Christ had, whereas "faith in Christ" expresses the need to put faith in Christ, i.e. to trust in Christ for salvation. <S> I have no doubt that the translators of the King James were trying to express the same meaning when using "faith of Christ" as modern translators with "faith in Christ". <S> English has changed and modern translations reflect that.	“Faith in Christ” is a symbolicexpression for experiencing a more authentic understanding of themeaning of existence! I think this is simply because English has changed.
What is the significance of position of fingers in Jesus' hand as shown in his images? In most of the visual images of Jesus – both in picture and sculpture forms – fingers of His right hand, raised in blessing, follow a particular arrangement. Is there any significance to that arrangement? Have different Churches including the Catholic Church given official recognition to its interpretation? <Q> From: What does this hand gesture mean in Icons? <S> (Wordpress.com) <S> The fingers spell out “IC XC”, a widely used four letter abbreviation of the Greek for Jesus (IHCOYC) Christ (XPICTOC). <S> It is by the name of Jesus that we are saved and receive blessings: “At the name of Jesus <S> every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;” (Phil 2:10). <S> I am not Orthodox but have learned a lot about that faith, the local priest here has said the same thing. <S> From the Orthodox Church of America site, "Placement of fingers in icons," I would assume an authoritative source. <S> You see this in a lot of Eastern Orthodox icons: <A> According to a former Vatican archivalist this answerer interviewed, you will predominantly see two different hand positions. <S> In Greek and Byzantine Christian art, as well as in most Eastern traditions, Christ is usually depicted with the ring finger or ring and little fingers on the thumb, and the index and middle fingers held up. <S> In Catholic art, Christ is usually depicted with an open hand or with the index or middle finger on the thumb, though Catholic depictions of Christ are often more narrative and less iconic than Eastern depictions, so the arrangement of his hands is often supportive of the narrative, at least more so than in Eastern icons. <S> The reason for the different position in the hands has to do with the manner in which each of these churches practices anointing with oil. <A> Both Western and Eastern traditions have used this particular finger arrangement for centuries, although in the West (Roman Catholics), this particular gesture have been put aside in the last few decades. <S> this placement of the fingers is not uniquely reserved for priests either. <S> Dom Prosper Gueranger, OSB (1805-1875) in his monumental work <S> The Liturgical Year (volume 15) explains the signification of this gesture on his entry for the Feast of St. Cecilia (November 22). <S> Abbot Gueranger explained that the body of this martyr was discovered in the Catacombs of St. Callistus in 1599 and that her right hand was found in this very position. <S> while her left hand had index finger pointing straight out. <S> The two fingers of the left hand signified the two natures in Christ (human and divine) and the other three fingers together signified the Holy Trinity. <S> As for the index finger of the left hand. <S> Dom Gueranger tells us that it signified the truth of one God. <S> "St. Cecilia," 1599 (Wikipedia) . <S> It seems that the open hand of Christ symbolizes peace and the five wounds of Christ. <S> Other icons have the finger placement in a slightly different position on Christ's right hand and have a somewhat different meaning. <S> Both Greek and Latin variations and their meaning can be found here: <S> What is the significance of Christ's hand gesture (thumb and two fingers up, two fingers down) in Christian art? . <S> The sign of the cross was made at liturgical functions over persons and things, sometimes with five fingers extended, to represent the Five Wounds of Christ, sometimes with three, in sign of the Persons of the Trinity, and sometimes with only one, symbolical of the unity of God. <S> For the blessing of the chalice and oblations <S> Leo IV prescribed that two fingers be extended and thumb placed beneath them. <S> This is the only true sign of the Trinitarian Cross. <S> The pope warmly recommended his clergy to make this sign with care, else their blessing would be fruitless. <S> The action was accompanied by the solemn formula, "In nomine Patris, etc." <S> Another use of the cross was in the solemn dedication of churches. <S> - Archæology of the Cross and Crucifix	In each tradition, the upheld fingers correspond to those which are anointed with oil upon ordination of the priest, which are then used by the priest to bless others with oil for anointing.
Is celebrating Christmas required of Catholics? I understand that Catholics are obligated to attend mass and take communion on Christmas — are they obligated to celebrate Christmas in the traditional tree-in-the-house, gift-giving sense? <Q> As a Catholic, you are required to celebrate the "holy-day" of Christmas, as you mentioned, by going to Mass, receiving the Eucharist, giving honor and glory to God and celebrating Jesus' birth. <S> However, you are not required to celebrate it in the "traditional tree in the house gift giving sense" . <S> These traditions, like many traditions on Christian holidays, represent something related to the holiday, but are not a necessity. <S> What really is important is giving honor and glory to God on that day. <S> To sum it up, it is not required to put up a tree, decorate or give gifts, you just need to make the holiday a holy-day. <S> If you can find other ways to celebrate that give glory to God, do them. <S> They are much more pleasing to Him than letting what has become mostly secular occupy your mind and heart. <S> P.S. <S> There's nothing wrong with the extras. <S> As long as Jesus is the center, they make nice additions! <S> Christ be with you! <A> Christmas is a Holy Day of Obligation . <S> As such, Catholics are expected to attend Mass on that day. <S> (The vigil mass on Christmas Eve counts). <S> but are they obligated to celebrate Christmas in the traditional tree-in-the-house, gift-giving sense? <S> Such celebration is optional, though most Catholics probably do that as it has become a common custom. <S> From the Code of Canon Law, 1247: 1247 <S> On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. <S> Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and affairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body. <S> In the US, the Holy Days of Obligation are laid out by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops . <S> (Per Code of Canon Law 1246) January 1, the solemnity of Mary, Mother of God Thursday of the Sixth Week of Easter, the solemnity of the Ascension August 15, the solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary November 1, the solemnity of All Saints December 8, the solemnity of the Immaculate Conception December 25, the solemnity of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ Note that these are a subset of the fuller list of days where people are expected to attend mass, above and beyond the weekly Sunday mass. <S> From the Catechism of the Catholic Church , in the section covering the Third Commandment ... 2177 The Sunday celebration of the Lord's Day and his Eucharist is at the heart of the Church's life. <S> "Sunday is the day on which the paschal mystery is celebrated in light of the apostolic tradition and is to be observed as the foremost holy day of obligation in the universal Church." <S> "Also to be observed are the day of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ , the Epiphany <S> the Ascension of Christ the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ <S> , he feast of Mary the Mother of God, her Immaculate Conception, her Assumption, the feast of Saint Joseph, the feast of the Apostles Saints Peter and Paul, and the feast of All Saints." <S> If you are not in the US, the Bishops in your country will spell these days out. <A> No, there is no obligation for Catholics to have a Christmas tree or to give gifts. <S> In fact, in many parts of the world, there is no gift-giving tradition for Christmas Day—for example, in many countries the exchange of gifts takes place on the Epiphany (January 6). <S> In any event, the Church obligates no one to a strictly cultural tradition. <S> Moreover, Christmas trees are generally only used in the Northern Hemisphere, where it is winter (in the Tropics and in the Southern Hemisphere, Christmas takes place during summer weather). <S> The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor”) requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord [such as Christmas], the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days ( Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], no. 2042 ; see also no. 2177 , as KorvinStarmast mentions). <S> There is no specific obligation to receive Communion, as no. 2042 makes clear later on: <S> The third precept (“You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season”) <S> guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy. <S> Previous Confession (if necessary) and receiving Communion are, of course, highly recommended on every Holy Day. <A> While participation in the Holy Mass on Christmas is mandatory, receiving of Holy Communion is not. <S> It is also not mandatory to have other celebrations. <S> In fact, many members choose not to celebrate Christmas within a year of death of a family member, or someone equally dear.	The only requirement for Catholics is to obey the precept of resting and attending Mass on Christmas, which is a holy day of obligation: No, they are not obligated.
Why did Jesus confront the official who had slapped Him in the presence of the High Priest? John 18:20-23 (NIV) reads: “I have spoken openly to the world,” Jesus replied. “I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.” When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded. “If I said something wrong,” Jesus replied, “testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?” One would be curious to know as to why Jesus confronted the official, who is not recorded to have regretted his deed. Is there any official interpretation of the said passage from the side of Catholic Church? <Q> The question asked by the official is rhetorical, because he wasn't really expecting Jesus to answer. <S> It was a statement: "That's no way to speak to the High Priest!". <S> You often hear parents ask questions like, "Is that any way to treat your sister?" or teachers, "Is that any way to behave?" <S> It is a technique used by those in authority to give the impression they're not giving orders or exercising dominion over those in their charge. <S> The question having been asked, however, invited a response from Jesus. <S> He took the opportunity to give his interrogators something to think about in regard to the legitimacy of their proceedings. <S> If the OP's intent was to challenge Jesus' behaviour as an example of not practicing what he preached, then I am prepared to expand this answer. <S> Conclusion <S> Jesus wasn't confronting the official, but simply took the opportunity provided by the official's question to move his interrogators to more carefully consider their actions. <S> You know, to give their consciences a chance to ask, "Does this man really deserve to be treated this way?" <S> There really is no avenue of escape from guilt for those who participated in Jesus' trial. <S> He gave them every opportunity to change their minds. <A> He is simply pointing out that the slap was unjust. <S> If he had answered untruthfully-that his teachings were secret and shared only with his disciples and he refused to tell them-then the slap would be justified. <S> But he answered truthfully-He routinely taught in public and they already knew exactly what his teachings are. <S> If there was going to be another discussion of his teachings then their only motivation was to try and trap him. <S> That had not gone well in the past and there wasn't anything to gain by showing them up yet again. <S> John 8:1-11 Matthew 22:23-46 <S> John 3:1-15 I expect there are quite a few others. <A> Jesus already knew what is going to happen - He will die for all our sins - and maybe wanted to show the pharisee that he was a liar and that he was judging him unfairly. <S> There where no reasons for any penalty. <S> Whatever Jesus would do or say He was going to die. <S> We don't know what happened to that official but hopefully he repented and found who really Jesus was.	Jesus confronted the official because he was and always will be testifying on the side of the truth.
Why do some Christians oppose Tarot cards? The title should explain it all. Many (perhaps most) Christians view Tarot cards as evil, or at least something to be avoided. Why? <Q> While the cards may not be themselves considered bad, or possessing them inherently sinful, it is likely to be thought of as an indication that you are involved with occult practices, or are laying yourself open to temptation in that regard. <S> Having a good reason for possessing Tarot cards, not involved with occult practices, is going to be looked on differently. <S> The Tarot deck is in fact just a standard card deck from the 15th century, and only came to be associated with occultism in the 18C. There are a number of historical games (some of which I play) that use the deck, and have no occult connections at all. <A> For the specific case of the Roman Catholic teaching, the principle objection to the Tarot (as a fortune telling means) is that it is either superstition or divination. <S> Both are prohibited / sinful as they contradict or interfere with following the First Commandment. <S> The current Catechism has a discourse on the First Commandment that includes commentary on those two practices . <S> Superstition <S> 2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of thepractices this feeling imposes. <S> It can even affect the worship weoffer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in someway magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. <S> Toattribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to theirmere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions thatthey demand, is to fall into superstition. <S> A few paragraphs later, divination is covered as well. <S> Divination and magic 2115 <S> God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. <S> Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneselfconfidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns thefuture, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. <S> Improvidence,however, can constitute a lack of responsibility. <S> 2116 <S> All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan ordemons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to"unveil" the future. <S> Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading,interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, andrecourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history,and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish toconciliate hidden powers. <S> They contradict the honor, respect, andloving fear that we owe to God alone. <S> A prohibition against divination magic can be found in the Old Testament. <S> Deuteronomy 18:10-12 <S> Let there not be found among you anyone who immolates his son or daughter in the fire, nor a fortune-teller, soothsayer, charmer, diviner, or caster of spells, nor one who consults ghosts and spirits or seeks oracles from the dead. <S> Anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD... <A> Many (perhaps most) <S> Christians view Tarot cards as evil, or at least something to be avoided. <S> Why? <S> The practice of divination is abhorrent to God. <S> Deuteronomy 18:10 <S> There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Engaging in occult practices brings one under greater demonic influence. <S> Isaiah 8:19 <S> And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: <S> should not a people seek unto their God? <S> for the living to the dead? <S> The discerning Christian desires to avoid Satanic traps. <S> 2 Corinthians 2:11 <S> Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices.	Tarot cards are widely used for fortune telling and other occult practices, which most Christians consider to be sinful.
Why doesn't the Pope try asserting doctrines ex cathedra to check if they're true? My understanding is that the Catholic Church teaches that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is infallible, because what he says in such instances is divinely protected from error. There are a lot of questions that the Church considers open, e.g. the question of whether infants who die without being baptized are saved. It seems like it would be a great idea for the Pope to attempt to assert ex cathedra that they are saved. Either the pronouncement would succeed, in which case we would know with certainty that it is true, or else something would prevent the pronouncement from going through, in which case we would have a hint that it is false. I assume that I am misunderstanding something about papal infallibility and there is a catch somewhere. What's the catch? Naturally, I'm interested in the teaching of the Catholic Church. Here are a couple of possible answers: Technically, the Pope could "exploit" infallibility in this way, but it would be immoral. If the Pope decided to try this sort of thing, he would be divinely prevented from making the ex cathedra pronouncement regardless of whether the doctrine in question was true or false, so we wouldn't actually learn anything from the exercise. In either case, I'm left wondering: What exactly differentiates "legitimate" ex cathedra pronouncements, like the pronouncement of the immaculate conception in Ineffabilis Deus, from the sort of "illegitimate" ex cathedra pronouncement that I suggested? <Q> Pope Pius XII—in his apostolic constitution that defines the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, Munificentissimus Deus <S> (1950)—describes the process in which he sought counsel from all the bishops of the world in the letter <S> Deiparæ Virginis Mariæ (1946), where he asked them ( §11 <S> ): <S> Do you, venerable brethren, in your outstanding wisdom and prudence, judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed and defined as a dogma of faith? <S> Do you, with your clergy and people, desire it? <S> The response was almost unanimous. <A> You massively misunderstand the process of promulgating doctrine. <S> It's not a magic process where God causes true statements to be generated out of thin air. <S> Doctrine is developed through prayer, research, consultation, discernment and much more, and involves the whole church, not just the Pope. <S> The belief is that God guides this process to ensure it is correct. <S> Shortcutting the means would be equivalent to cheating God. <A> Do not put the LORD your God to the test (Deuteronomy 6:16). <S> We know the Pope is infallible because God gave Peter specifically, and the Apostles generally, the Keys of the Kingdom. <S> What the Apostles can do collectively (like in an Ecumenical Council), Peter can do as an individual. <S> Same keys, but different ways to excerise them. <S> Furthermore, the Pope and the Bishops generally aren't creating new doctrine, but rather discovering or emphasizing or interpretating the Revelation the Christ already gave us. <S> Christi pax, Lucretius <A> "it would be a great idea for the Pope to attempt to assert ex cathedra that they are saved" Probably not. <S> God would probably have to kill or otherwise divinely stop the mouth (or pen in this case) of said pope before he did so, as stated by another person here, else the Church would have been overcome by Satan (the true faith is anathematized and lost and error taught in its place) in which impossibility the infallibility of the Church (in an extraordinatary sense with regard to the successor of St. Peter—due to the fact that he overrides the authority of all bishops and has the authority to bind all Catholics to a certain interpretation of the deposit of Faith whereas individual bishops do not—and in an ordinary overall sense with regard to the world's bishops) exists. <S> Papal infallibility precludes that such a 'trial dogma definition' could ever happen, ever. <S> It would breach the infallibility of the Pope (more a descriptive fact about the Church than a 'power'). <S> That is, your question is like 'what if water wasn't H2O' and is meaningless to ask (sorry, in the logical sense, not that it has no value in being asked). <S> Papal infallibility is a necessary consequence of 1) <S> the infallibility of the Church as a whole (that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it—which a new faith/false doctrine being taught would constitute) and 2) that the Pope has the authority to teach and bind all to his teaching, in a way other bishops cannot and therefore do not require, and are not protected by, this kind of infallibility. <S> They possess an infallibility which basically means no amount of bishops teaching heresy x will result in the same overcoming of the Church by Hell—a much more descriptive 'infallibility' than even the Pope. <S> It isn't some magic power.	Although a pope has the authority to define a dogma without asking for counsel regarding its "definability," it would be rash not to seek counsel.
Is there a name for the low wall that is often in front of a choir? There's typically a low wall, about hip-high, in front of the first row of the choir. Religious architecture typically has its own terminology, and Christian architecture in particular. So is there a special name for that wall? Or is it just "that wall that keeps the first row of ladies from being embarrassed?" Alternately, is there a name for the low wall that's sometimes in front of the first row of the congregation? <Q> The low wall that separates the first row of the choir from the chancel is called a " choir rail ." <S> The low wall that goes in front of the first pew is called a "pew screen," and also a "modesty screen" or "frontal," as seen in this church furniture page (scroll down for pictures of sample pew screens). <S> And to round things out: The low wall that separates the chancel from the rest of the church is called an " altar rail " or "communion rail." <A> The "low wall" in front of the first row of seats is a pew front. <S> One function it has, apart from appearance, is it often has the book rest (and sometimes kneeler) for the seats behind. <S> In some cases where there are no longer pews this may be retained or there might be a similar modern structure. <A> If I understand your question correctly, the ecclesiastical term you are looking for is a prayer-desk. <S> "The back of each preceding row serves the succeeding one as a prayer-desk ; the first row has a projection built in front of it for the same purpose." <S> The prayer-desk serves as prie-dieu , a bench for holding choir books and a desk for placing the book or books that are being used at a particular religious function. <S> This particular image , although for an individual can illustrate what I mean. <S> The choir stalls of Bristol Cathedral <S> has an excellent example of the prayer-desk.	In Catholic Churches the benches (wall) in front of the first pews are called a prie-dieu.
What is the significance of the donkey Jesus rode on Palm Sunday? I'm working on different symbols of Palm Sunday. Has anyone done work on the significance of the donkey Jesus rode on? <Q> Yair Zakovitch, as cited by Bruce Feiler in Abraham , page 89, has considered the significance of the donkey. <S> He explains: <S> Look, the Gospels are a very good piece of Jewish literature, and they understand that one cannot have a messianic leader who is not Davidic. <S> If you want to convince the Jews that Jesus is the one, he has to be linked with David. <S> He has to fulfill the prophecies. <S> A messiah king has to be born in Bethlehem, he has to come to Jerusalem. <S> Sure enough, when Jesus enters Jerusalem he enters on a donkey, because that's what we read in Zechariah 9 . <A> The primary passage that this incident corresponds to is Zechariah 9:9-10 <S> (ESV) 9 Rejoice <S> greatly, O daughter of Zion! <S> Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! <S> Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. <S> 10 <S> I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, <S> and he shall speak peace to the nations; his rule shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. <S> Jewish connotation <S> The Jews at the time of Christ recognized this as a messianic prophecy. <S> That the crowds reacted the way they did is further proof. <S> Matthew 21:9 9 <S> And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, “Hosanna to the Son of David! <S> Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! <S> Hosanna in the highest!” <S> The donkey already had connotations that Zechariah and his original hearers would have understood. <S> When David ordered his son Solomon to be anointed as his successor, he had specific orders. <S> 1 Kings 1:33, emphasis mine: <S> 33 <S> And the king said to them, “Take with you the servants of your lord and have Solomon my son ride on my own mule , and bring him down to Gihon. <S> So here we have a connection to Solomon and therefore David. <S> The rider of Zechariah 9 was connected with David, as the crowds knew. <S> Cultural connotation <S> Also, historically, though a king would ride a war horse in times of war, when he came in peace he would ride a donkey. <S> 1 <S> \| 2 <S> This further reinforces the sense of Zechariah 9:10 when says the rider will speak peace to the nations. <S> Conclusion <S> To the Jewish crowds and to us today the donkey symbolizes peace, and a man riding a donkey is a king bringing peace. <S> More donkey connotations: Bible History: Donkeys <A> Palm Sunday is rich in symbolism for those of us who are Catholic. <S> Here is what <S> Catholic Online has to say about Palm Sunday: "Palm branches are widely recognized symbol of peace and victory, hence their preferred use on Palm Sunday. <S> A week later, Christ would rise from the dead on the first Easter. <S> The colors of the Mass on Palm Sunday are red and white, symbolizing the redemption in blood that Christ paid for the world."	The use of a donkey instead of a horse is highly symbolic, it represents the humble arrival of someone in peace, as opposed to arriving on a steed in war.
According to the LDS Doctrine of Exaltation, where did the Father live as a man? According to the LDS Doctrine of Exaltation (the Father was once a man who was exalted by his Creator to Godhood as Christ is exalted by the Father), did the Father live on this Earth at a previous time, on another planet in this cosmos, or in a previous cosmos that we are unable to observe? <Q> It was by His power that the known cosmos were formed and organized. <S> He did not live as a man on Earth, or on any planet which exists within the known universe, because it was by his power that the known universe was created, the first creation being Kolob, the star nearest to the place where God the Father dwells: Kolob, signifying the first creation , nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. <S> First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. <S> The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. <S> One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh (see Facsimile 2) . <S> Facsimile 2: <S> Most of what we know about the greater universe comes from Chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham . <S> We have not received any other source of information which gives us any more clues as to the mysteries of our eternal celestial heritage (see The Book of Abraham: <S> A Most Remarkable Book ). <A> There is no official Church doctrine, nor dogma, identifying where or how our Heavenly Father lived during His mortal existence Of the mortal existence of the Almighty, we have as the one and only doctrine the fact that He had His own mortal existence. <S> That's it. <S> This was first taught publically by Joseph Smith in the King Follett sermon, but it became well-known by 5th president of the Church Lorenzo Snow's now famous couplet: <S> As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be. <S> Though neither the couplet nor its associated doctrine have ever been formally ratified by the Church, it has been preached by a number of prophets (including Joseph Fielding Smith declaring it a doctrine while serving as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1971). <S> A more detailed discussion about the history of this doctrine may be found on the LDS Church's website , in an article written by Gerald N. Lund and originally published in the Church's principal magazine, the Ensign, in 1982. <A> My 7th generation Mormon understanding: There was a previous earth similar to this one. <S> That earth is now is celestialized (as described in Revelation 21) and we do not know where it is, or where it was when it was like our earth. <S> That may yet be revealed. <S> The plan of salvation was the same on that earth as it is on this earth, and it also had a Savior and men like Abraham that became joint heirs. <S> Thus, the ONE Infinite GOD is a beginning-less family LINEAGE of Celestial beings like Jesus and Abraham in perfect unity as one. <S> Those that gain oneness with Jesus from this earth will continue the works of creation on future earths. <S> There is no beginning to this, and there will be no end.	God the Father, Elohim, dwelt as a man prior to the existence of the observable universe.
Is there more than one Joseph in the Bible? When reading my Bible, I've noticed Joesph's name listed in both the Old and New Testaments; is it the same person or is there more than one Joseph in the Bible? <Q> There are 3 distinct (fairly) well-known Josephs in the Bible, firstly in the Old Testament (mainly): <S> Joseph the son of Jacob/Israel (aka The Patriarch Joseph). <S> This Joseph is actually referred to in a few select places in the New Testament: John 4:5 ; <S> Acts 7:9-18 ; Hebrews 11:21-22 & Revelation 7:8 . <S> However, it's more likely that a Joseph in the New Testament would be one of: <S> Joseph husband of Mary and surrogate father of Jesus (aka St. Joseph ). <S> Joseph of Arimathea in whose tomb Jesus was laid to rest. <S> There's also another 9 or 10 more obscure Josephs referred to in the Bible, 4 more in the Old Testament <S> : <S> Father of Igal of the tribe of Issachar (cf. <S> Numbers 13:7 ). <S> One of the "sons of Asaph" (cf. <S> 1 Chronicles 25:2 & 9 ). <S> A descendant of Binnui, a contemporary of Ezra (cf. <S> Ezra 10:38-42 ). <S> Head of the priestly family of Shekaniah, a contemporary of Nehemiah (cf. <S> Nehemiah 12:14 ). <S> And 5 or 6 more in the New Testament: <S> One of the (half-)brothers of Jesus (often translated as "Joses" - cf. <S> Mark 6:3 ). <S> The son of "Mary" and brother of James (possibly/probably <S> The Mary, if so, identical to Joseph number 8. - cf. <S> Mark 15:40 & 47 ). <S> The son of Mattathais (and father of Jannai) appearing in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (in which Joseph number 2. <S> also appears - cf. <S> Luke 3:24-25 ). <S> The son of Jonam (and father of Judah) also appearing in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (cf. <S> Luke 3:30 ). <S> One of the nominees to replace Judas as an apostle, aka Barsabbas aka Justus (cf. <S> Acts 1:23 ). <S> A Levite from Cyprus aka Barnabas <S> who probably deserves to be listed amongst the "well-known" Josephs except that he is almost always referred to as Barnabas instead (cf. <S> Acts 4:36 ). <S> * <S> That is in the Protestant Canon, there are another 3 in the Deuterocanonical books : Son of Oziel (great-grandfather of Judith - cf. <S> Judith 8:1 ); Son of Zechariah (cf. <S> 1 <S> Maccabees 5 ); Brother of Judas Maccabeus (aka John - cf. <S> 2 Maccabees 8:22 ). <A> The first Joseph that figures prominently in the biblical narrative appears in Genesis. <S> Joseph is a son of Jacob, who is Israel. <S> God spoke to Joseph in a dream, which showed that his brothers would one day bow down to him. <S> Joseph is sold by his ten older brothers into slavery as a boy. <S> Joseph is taken to Egypt, and later becomes very powerful there. <S> His brothers were filled with jealousy because Jacob favored him and his younger brother Benjamin because Jacob loved their mother, who was not the same as the mothers of his brothers. <S> Joseph's dream comes true, and Joseph is able to redeem his brothers by saving them and their families from a great famine. <S> It was by Joseph's redemption that the Children of Jacob, who is Israel, came into Egypt before the Exodus that came to pass a few hundred years later. <S> The second Joseph that holds a major role in the biblical narrative is Joseph the husband of Mary the mother of Jesus. <S> He appears in the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which in parallel along with the book of John tell about the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. <S> Joseph was betrothed to Mary when she became pregnant by the power of God, and he was faithful and obedient to God when he was directed to keep her, though he had in mind to divorce her when he learned she was pregnant before he had consummated their marriage. <S> God spoke to Joseph in a dream. <S> Joseph is not mentioned after Jesus' childhood, and presumably was not present for the ministry of the adult Christ. <S> There is also a minor character called Joseph of Aremethia who, after Jesus' crucifixtion, cared for the body of Jesus and gave a family tomb for the burial of his corpse. <S> It turned out in Joseph's favor that Jesus only needed to "borrow" it for a few days. <A> Yes, there are more than one Joseph in Scripture. <S> There are at least three distinct men named Joseph in Scripture. <S> In Genesis is Joseph the Patriarch , who was sold into slavery by his brothers, and who eventually rose to a position of great power in Egypt. <S> In the new testament, we read of Joseph , who is Mary's husband <S> (Mary being the mother of Jesus) as well as Joseph of Arimathea .	There is more than one person named Joseph in the Bible.
Can the human spirit remember anything without a physical body? (LDS perspective) I work doing support work for adults with disabilities. I have a friend who recently graduated with a degree in psychology. One day we got talking about all the ways that brain damage (through accident, injury, age, disease, etc.) can affect a person. Both of us being Christian as well, the conversation eventually shifted into a more spiritual discussion about the consistent/unchanging nature of the spirit and the inconsistent nature of the body. We got stumped on a couple of question, but they can be summarized into this one: There is no question whether or not the human brain can store memories – but is the human spirit able to store memories (without a physical body)? My friend is Christian, I am LDS. Despite having access to the vast knowledge of both Christian viewpoints, we couldn't find any answer to the question with just the two of us looking. The Bible didn't seem to have any answers (it's a big book though with only two people looking) and the only things I could find in the Book of Mormon were references to a person remembering all their guilt or joy at judgement (i. e., after the resurrection). I'm no scholar in other canonized Christian literature or in the other LDS books, but nothing we found seemed to specifically reference a spirit remembering something without a physical brain. Is there anywhere in scripture or LDS doctrine reference to a spirit, outside of the presence of God (i. e., fallen man, those in spirit prison, or Satan and his followers), remembering something? Or a doctrine that clearly suggests spirits can remember things? <Q> Yes. <S> Gospel Fundamentals Chapter 35: <S> Life after Death <S> In the spirit world our spirits will have the same form as when we lived on the earth with bodies of flesh and bones. <S> We will look as we do here. <S> We will think the same way and believe the same things as we did here. <S> Those who are righteous in this life will still be righteous. <S> Those who were unrighteous will still be unrighteous. <S> We will have the same desires after we die as we had while on this earth. <S> Pay attention to " <S> We will think the same way and believe the same things as we did here. <S> " <S> What we think and believe stem from our experiences in mortality. <S> Those experiences are stored in our memories. <S> If we couldn't remember until after the resurrection, we wouldn't be the same person as a spirit. <S> We would be a void so to speak until we regained our memories. <S> Alma <S> 34:34 34 Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. <S> Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. <S> The same spirit we have now, will remain with us. <S> This includes our memories. <S> I hope this answers your question. <A> Yes it can, in fact every person on Earth had a perfect knowledge of the universe and of the plan of salvation prior to being born into it. <S> It was for this reason that the Earth was created, and the plan presented. <S> As pre-mortal beings we had progressed as much as possible, and required bodies in order to progress any further. <S> Upon entering this world, and receiving a physical body, a veil is placed over our minds, and the memories of our spirit are forgotten: Ecclesiatsies 1:11 <S> There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after. <S> The veil does not erase our memories however, it only conceals them, so that we may be tested, to see if we will obey the commandments of God without them. <S> When we are resurrected, the veil will be lifted, our memories will no longer be hidden from us, and we will become aware of how well we performed during the test of our mortal life: <S> Alma 11:42 <S> The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form; both limb and joint shall be restored to its proper frame, even as we now are at this time; and we shall be brought to stand before God, knowing even as we know now, and have a bright recollection of all our guilt. <S> There have been times where individuals have parted the veil, and accessed those memories of their spirits: <S> D&C 110:1 <S> The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened. <S> Our spirits are not immaterial, they are made of matter, but matter that is more refined and pure than the matter we perceive here on earth. <S> Our Spirits are just as capable if not more capable of retaining knowledge than our mortal bodies are. <A> We didn't have a mortal body before coming to earth, but our spirits have memories or "echos" of something or someone we recognize. <S> We can't remember now because we have the veil of forgetfulness over us while we are being tested, but after we have passed our tests and as we progress in life, I believe we can get glimpses of these memories back to our conscious minds, not just to our hearts. <S> Here are the LDS articles I'm getting that viewpoint from: <S> https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/02/what-we-know-about-premortal-life?lang=eng <S> http://www.ldsliving.com/9-Things-You-Have-Forgotten-About-Your-Premortal-Life/s/77778 <S> https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/02/to-the-point/why-cant-we-remember-our-premortal-life-as-spirits-and-when-will-those-memories-return?lang=eng <S> https://www.lds.org/new-era/2015/09/what-you-knew-in-premortal-life?lang=eng <S> The church also teaches that we, as humans, are "intelligences or spirits that "have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end <S> , they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or etermal" (Abraham 3:18). <S> " As you see, they refer to our spirits as intelligences, therefore, our spirits are intelligent and can store memories on a spiritual level even without a physical mind. <A> I found it! <S> I won't give the full quotations because the story is well known and it's a couple of longer passages. <S> In Genesis 3:1-6 and Moses 4:7-12 (two accounts of the same story), we have the story of Satan tempting Eve. <S> It appears, as Satan is talking to Eve, that he knows what the fruit will do to Adam and Eve. <S> He could only know that if he were to remember the council in Heaven where the plan was laid out. <S> Without a memory, he wouldn't have had any other way to know what the fruit would do.	Yes, our spirits can store and remember and recognize truths, lessons, and even people we knew in our prior existence before coming to earth.
Relationship between Mary/Elizabeth or Jesus/John? How were Mary and Elizabeth related, outside of the obvious of being of the children of Abraham. Mary was of the tribe of Judah, and Elizabeth would have been a Levite. How could Mary and Elizabeth be related that would make Jesus and John to be considered cousins? Luke 1:36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. <Q> Luke 1:36 describes Mary and Elizabeth as relatives (συγγενίς). <S> The King James Version describes them as cousins, but most other translations simply say they were relatives. <S> Given the ambiguity of the text, we can not say that Jesus and John were actually (second) cousins, but it appears from this that they were related and would have known each other. <S> In ancient Jewish society, priests had to be from the tribe of Levi,but any woman of the tribe of Judah could marry a priest . <S> This means that Elizabeth need not have been a Levite. <S> However, there is another explanation for the relationship that is only described in Luke's Gospel, which can be deduced from the views of some New Testament scholars. <S> Uta Ranke-Heinemann, in Putting Away Childish Things , finds much that is problematic about Luke's depiction of Elizabeth. <S> On page 46, she concludes that Elizabeth was not a historical person, saying this is proved by the historically more credible report in John that Jesus and John the Baptist did not know each other. <S> John Shelby Spong agrees with Ranke-Heinemann, saying in Why Christianity Must Change or Die: A Bishop Speaks to Believers In Exile , page 35, that what makes him suspicious is that Elizabeth in Hebrew would be Elisheba - a name that appears only once in the Old Testament <S> ( Exodus 6:23 ), where she is the wife of Aaron, the brother of Moses. <S> Luke 1:5 introduced Elizabeth as the daughter of Aaron, so had Aaron and Moses in mind when he wrote his gospel. <S> According to Jewish law, there was no inconsistency in Elizabeth being a relative of Mary, as described in Luke's Gospel. <S> In any case, some scholars and theologians such as Ranke-Heinemann and Spong, provide a clearer resolution based on Elizabeth's supposed legendary status. <A> The declaration in Luke 1:36 that Elizabeth is a relative of Mary comes from Gabriel. <S> From Gabriel's introduction of himself to Zacharias we know that he is God's messenger and stands in the presence of God . <S> Those who believe God's Word by faith will thus find a way to understand how Elizabeth is indeed an historical figure and is both a 'daughter of Aaron' as recorded by Luke, and a 'relative' of Mary, mother of Jesus, as declared by Garbriel. <S> A reasonable explanation is that Elizabeth and Mary were related through Elizabeth's mother and not through her father. <S> If Elizabeth's mother was of the Tribe of Judah <S> but her father was of the Tribe of Levi <S> she could be called a daughter of Aaron. <S> Mary's father was certainly of the Tribe of Judah, and so was her husband, Joseph. <S> Mary's mother could also have been of the Tribe of Judah. <S> This gives three possible ways in which Mary could be a relative of Elizabeth's, either by blood or by marriage. <A> Just a thought, Mary's mother also can be from the line of Levi. <S> Making her both from Kingly and Priestly line. <S> Well the Lord Jesus is both King and Priest <S> isn't it.	The term 'relative' is most likely referring to a blood relationship, so it is reasonable to believe that they were related through Elizabeth's blood relationship to either Mary's father or mother in the Tribe of Judah.
How can 1 Corithians 15:3 and Psalms 49:7 be reconciled? In Corinthians 15:3 it states that Jesus died for our sins. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, In Psalms 49:7 it states no man can die for the sins of another. No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them-- These two scriptures seem contradictory to me. How can these verses be reconciled? <Q> In context the scripture reads - Ps. <S> 49:6-9: “Those who are trusting in their means of maintenance, and who keep boasting about the abundance of their riches, not one of them can by any means redeem even a brother, nor give to God a ransom for him; (and the redemption price of their soul is so precious that it has ceased to time indefinite) that he should still live forever and not see the pit.” <S> Therefore, in context, no 'imperfect human' can provide the means to deliver someone else from sin and death. <S> His money cannot buy eternal life, and his soul laid down in death, being the wages that are to come to him anyway because of sin, has no value toward delivering anyone. <S> “In Adam all are dying,” said the apostle Paul. <S> (1 Corinthians 15:22) <S> The ransom thus had to involve the death of the exact equal of Adam—a perfect human. <S> (Romans 5:14) <S> No other kind of creature could balance the scales of justice. <S> Only a perfect human, someone not under the Adamic death sentence, could offer “a corresponding ransom”—one corresponding perfectly to Adam. <S> (1 Timothy 2:6) It would not be necessary for untold millions of individual humans to be sacrificed so as to correspond to each descendant of Adam. <S> The apostle Paul explained: “Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin.” <S> (Romans 5:12) <S> And “since death is through a man,” God provided for the redemption of mankind “through a man.” <S> (1 Corinthians 15:21) <S> God arranged to have a perfect man voluntarily sacrifice his life. <S> According to Romans 6:23, “the wages sin pays is death.” <S> In sacrificing his life, the ransomer would “taste death for every man.” <S> In other words, he would pay the wage for Adam’s sin. <S> (Hebrews 2:9; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:24) <S> This would have profound legal consequences. <S> By nullifying the death sentence upon Adam’s obedient offspring, the ransom would cut off the destructive power of sin right at its source.—Romans 5:16. <A> Easy: Jesus is both God and man! <S> God can die for us in our place, like 1 Cor. <S> 15:3 states. <S> 3 <S> For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, It would help if we read the Psalm in a little more context, rather than extracting a small snippet out of it. <S> We need the back-story to understand what the context is. <S> A little wider lens allows us to make sense of what God is teaching us in The Bible. <S> Psalm 49: 5-9 NKJV from BibleGateway 5 <S> Why should I fear in the days of evil, When the iniquity at my heels surrounds me? <S> 6 <S> Those who trust in their wealth And boast in the multitude of their riches, 7 <S> None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him— 8 <S> For the redemption of their souls is costly, And it shall cease forever— 9 <S> That he should continue to live eternally, And not see the Pit. <S> The question is in verse 5. <S> The answer to that question starts in verse 6, which is the key component here. <S> Verse 7 refers to verse 6, as the reason that the rich can't save their brothers. <S> It's not saying that "no man can die for the sins of another". <S> Jesus died for all of us on the cross & rose from the grave 3 days after that! <S> He had to become a man, so that He could be nailed to a cross. <S> It's kind of impossible to nail a spirit - for example, an angel which doesn't have a physical body - to a cross. <S> So God had to take on flesh to make that possible & to save us! <A> No one can give God a ransom for anyone as Psalm 47:7 says. <S> The key statement here is " No one can give God a ransom " and the key word is Give <S> Only God can provide a ransom for Himself, as is evident from the story of Abraham. <S> Gen 22:8 <S> And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. <S> Even clearer, <S> Job 33:23,24 <S> : If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness: Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom. <S> God found a ransom for Himself in Christ! <S> I have found a ransom .	Jesus died for our sins, because He is God & He has no sin.
Is there a complete list of Catholic Saints somewhere online? I'd like to find a list of Catholic Saints who names end in "bert". IF we have a boy, I'd like my next child to be named "...bert" Keith Turner after his uncle Keith and potential saint GKC and I'm looking for the most wondrous Northumbrian names to annoy my wife with daily until she finally gives in (or has the baby and names him John). If a complete list of Saint names, I could grep it for those ending in bert and get my desired list. <Q> The following website is the most complete source of Catholic saints I know to exist: Catholic Saints Info. <S> Not only is this site constantly being updated, but it also show the reader other sources of information, variations of saints' name, but it even shows particular (local) feasts of saints such as translations, if applicable. <S> Unfortunately it exists only in book form and only very few Catholic libraries or Religious Institutions possess a copy. <S> It gets updated every so often, but not yearly. <A> Looking myself for a complete list of Catholic Saints (including martyrs), I got access to a 1953's version of the Index Causarum Sanctorum ac Beatorum that Ken suggested, but I found that it is incomplete, as some saints are missing and the earlier saints are from the 16th century ( Ken says a more recent version contains saints from the 12th century onward). <S> However, I found some earlier texts which do contain saints since the first century. <S> These are actually rather "famous" books, as they are not only indexes but contain descriptions of the lives of saints too. <S> The first one and perhaps most complete is the Acta Santorum , a 68 volume compilation of saints! <S> This is available online as PDF, and also as searchable text . <S> The latter requires a subscription though (I got access through my university library, so confirm it works). <S> The second one is the The Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Principal Saints , by Alban Butler. <S> This is a 12 volume compilation that has been updated more recently. <S> It is also available online, both as PDF and searchable text , including a list of all saints covered . <S> For example, looking at the last one, you get: AdalbertAdelbertAglibertAlbertAnsbertAubertCuthbertEadbertEthelbertGilbertHubertHumbertJohn GualbertLambertNorbertRadbertPhilibertRembertRigobertRobertSigebertSwibert or SwidbertWigbert <A> Thanks @Nathaniel for the clue, I didn't think they had one page with all those Saints (it's not complete though). <S> List of Catholic saints (Wikipedia) <S> yields: AdalbertAlbertAngilbertFitzherbertGualbertHeribertImbertNorbertRadbertRobert <S> This will definitely help... <S> But there's an even better list of saints over at catholic.org <S> unfortunately I've got to screen scrap a bit more <S> so I wrote a script #! <S> /bin/bashfor letter in {A.. <S> Z}do for number in {1..5} <S> do curl -o <S> $letter-$number -s <S> http://www.catholic.org/saints/stindex.php?lst=$letter&page=$number <S> donedone and grepping all that output yields: AgilbertAibertAlbertAugebertDagobertEadbertEdbertEgbertEmebertEngelbertErembertEthelbertFloribertFontcubertFrodobertFulbertFymbertGamelbertGaulbertGilbertGodebertGondebertGosbertGumbertGundebertHerbertHeribertHildebertHubertHumbertImbertJambertJoubertLambertLibertMadalbertNorbertPhilibertRadbertRambertRembertRibertRigobertRitbertRobertSuitbertTilbertUbertWalbertWaldebertWigbert <S> But Cuthbert is still mysteriously missing. <S> Finally (hopefully, unless an online index is produced), Mr. Ken Graham has provided catholicsaints.info and screen-scraping that site with: #!/bin/bashfor letter in {a.. <S> z}do curl -o <S> "$letter-info" -s http://catholicsaints.info/saints-$letter/done and grepping it: cat <S> -info \| grep -o -e "[A-Za-z]bert" \| tr '[:upper:]' ' <S> [:lower:]' <S> \| sort <S> \| <S> uniq provides: adalbertagilbertaibertalbertangilbertansbertaribertaubertaugebertaustrebertautbertbertcuthbertdagobertdealberteadbertedbertedilbertegbertekbertemebertengelberterembertethelbertfitzherbertfridebertfrithbertfrodobertgamelbertgarembertgilbertgobertgodebertgosbertgualbertguibertgundebertherbertheriberthildeberthrodberthuberthugberthumbertimbertjambertjosbertlambertlandebertlibertmadalbertnorbertphilibertradbertragnobertrembertribertrigobertrimbertrobertsigebertsimbertsintbertsuidbertsuitbertswidbertswitbertswithberttrudbertubertvalbebertwalembertwigbert	The ultimate "List of Saints" from Rome can be found in this book which is published by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints: Index Causarum Sanctorum ac Beatorum .
How do those who support the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine harmonize the Protevangelium of James with the Gospel of Matthew? I have a question concerning those who support the perpetual virginity doctrine. The Protoevangelium of James is the earliest source used to demonstrate how Joseph had children from a previous marriage. How would one go about using this document when it contains conflicting information with the Gospel of Matthew? 1) Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (Chapter 9:12). 2) Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (Chapter 16:3). 3) Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (Chapters 12:11–14:31). 4) Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (Chapter 16:2). 5) Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (Chapter 21:1–2). <Q> In case of nonconformity between the two, Matthew takes precedence. <A> The Protoevangelium of James may crystalize and record early, and obviously accepted, beliefs about Mary. <S> But they are not 'where we get the doctrine from'. <S> They are not Scripture. <S> Similar to the book of Enoch, contaning the prophesy quoted in Jude ( Jude 14-15 ), while not being part of Scripture. <S> The fact that it was written that early, and is trying to be an authentic and believable document proves that only those facts about Mary already accepted and believed would be developed or explained. <S> I think this is the real strength of the document and its usefulness. <S> It proves that the readership already believed at least that she was x, and the document simply attempted to detail x. Not introduce anything necessarily contrary to the common belief. <S> However, Luke 1:34 is enough to prove Mary intended to remain a virgin, even when already married to Joseph. <A> Your question is: <S> How do those who support the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine harmonize the Protevangelium of James with the Gospel of Matthew? <S> It feels like there's an implicit assumption that those who support the Perpetual Virginity of Mary must follow the concept from the Protoevangelium of James that Joseph was an older widow with children from a previous marriage. <S> There's actually a different belief that many supporters of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary hold, which is that the "brothers" of Christ were cousins (rather than Joseph's children from a previous marriage). <S> This belief shows up in the Fragments of Papias section 10 ( <S> ~100 AD) , and is first clearly articulated as an argument in Jerome's The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary: Against Helvidius. <S> section 15 (383 AD). <S> In brief, the belief goes like this: John 19:25 tells us that Mary mother of Jesus had a sister named Mary of Clopas (who was Jesus' aunt) Mark 15:40 (and Matthew 27:55-56) tells us that Mary of Clopas was mother of James the less and Joseph. <S> Jude 1 speaks of "Jude, the brother of James". <S> This is likely the Jude who is son of Mary of Clopas, brother of James. <S> Matthew 13:55 identifies James and Joseph and Simon and Judas as 'adelphos' of Christ. <S> We see James and Joseph are his cousins through Mary of Clopas, so it follows that Simon and Judas are likely also children of Mary of Clopas. <S> This wiki lays out the full biblical case, supplementing it with historical records. <S> So to answer your question, many of those who support the perpetual virginity of Mary don't bother attempting to harmonize the Protoevangelium of James with the Gospel of Matthew. <S> We see the Protoevangelium simply as an uninspired, though respected, ancient church document that we don't need to harmonize with the inspired Gospel of Matthew.	The harmonization would be that the Gospel of Matthew is divinely inspired Sacred Scripture, while the Protoevangelium of James is merely pious tradition.
What is the difference between the KJV, AKJV, NKJV, etc? Hello I've been confused by the amount of KJV bibles there are. The AKJV means the authorised King James Bible but AKJV also stands for American King James Bible as well. From my understanding the Authorized KJV (1611) is the KJV but I've read that the 1611 version is not the KJV used today. Been told "Get a 1611 AKJV". So they are referencing a certain type of KJV. The website bible gateway has the AKJV and KJV as options as if they were different versions but I haven't noticed any differences in it yet. Except someone said the AKJV has British English? I looked at it on Wiki and the 1611 version has a section to itself and it doesn't seem this is the same KJV we use today? I'm confused how it is the same bible of 1611 we call the AKJV. https://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091024144529AA84Ts5 Then there comes the AKJV (American KJV), pure Cambridge, 1769, the NKJV (which I own) KJ21, MKJV, the MEV which seems to be a form of the KJV and others....seems like many versions exist. But is it just modernised text? What is the difference between all of these? What KJV should I get? How can I tell the difference between a "1611 and a standard KJV" if they are different which they seem to be? (I own a KJV already)On Amazon if you look up 1611 KJV you find only a few results and they especially have 1611 on the cover. Seems there is a conflict between the AKJV and the KJV being the same or not by searches I've done. Are they really the same or not?There also seems to be "counterfeits" used in stores (not illegal books just a fake KJV...not sure what they mean) http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html ??? <Q> Your questions are: What is the difference between the AKJV (American KJV), pure Cambridge, 1769, the NKJV (which I own) <S> KJ21, MKJV, the MEV King James Versions? <S> What KJV should I get? <S> How can I tell the difference between a "1611 and a standard KJV <S> " I think the major differences are in the degree to which spelling has been modernized. <S> The "original" 1611 KJV version can be found here and reads like this: <S> For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. <S> [To answer the third question, I would say that if the text looks like something from Beowulf , then you probably are reading from the original 1611 text.] <S> Reprints of the 1611 edition were not tightly controlled. <S> As a result, Cambridge University produced an updated "standard" text in 1760, while Oxford produced its own edition in 1769, which is the basis for most King James texts today. <S> It reads, for example, <S> For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. <S> Later editions marketed as the "King James Version" contain minor changes and corrections. <S> The "Pure Cambridge Edition", published around 1900, for example, featured 6 changes from the 1769 Oxford version, with 30 reversals of the Oxford translations to the 1760 Cambridge translation. <S> The AKJV, NKJV, KJ21 and MKJV are all versions which purport to follow the original KJV translations, but substitute modern vocabulary and grammar. <S> One thing that all King James Versions have in common is that they are based on a particular set of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that were consulted in the 17th century. <S> The Hebrew text was not the "original" Hebrew, but rather a Masorah compiled by an Italian Jew, Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adonijah, written in medieval Hebrew (which used an invented alphabet). <S> The Greek manuscripts were from a limited 16th century Dutch collection compiled by Erasmus of Rotterdam. <A> I have a Bible since 1959 that is the authorized King James Version <S> I believe it is the 1611. <S> I can tell you from much study in New King James, King James Version, NIV, Standard Revised that in this Authorized King James version the difference is huge. <S> In the 1611 it feels more truthful Bolder words were used they were set to type and translated milder (I suppose not to offend). <S> Just for one example the story in Samuel about the hemorrhoids and the golden mice has in the 1700s been changed to boils and rats. <S> It's difficult to think of our Lord with a sense of humor <S> but it is distinctly shown in the 1611. <S> Another thing is they break all the Jewish names and towns and all and any difficult word to enunciate down in such a way that you could say any of those words without being a scholar. <A> KJV tends to refer to either the 1769 Blayney edition or (more frequently) the 1873 Scrivener edition (also called the Cambridge Paragraph Bible). <S> The differences between all these versions are exceedingly small. <S> The vast majority of differences are capitalization and punctuation differences. <S> Scrivener tends to capitalize the first word in a verse if the previous verse ends in a colon or semicolon. <S> Cambridge only capitalizes the first word if there is something like a period or question mark ending the previous verse. <S> Occasionally, the differences amount to a word level change in the text. <S> According to my database, the first word change between the AKJV and KJV appears to be in Gen 5:3. <S> AKJV reads “...in his own likeness, after his image...”. <S> KJV reads “...in his own likeness, and after his image...”. <S> In total, the KJV has 789734 words. <S> The AKJV has 789808 (74 more) words. <S> As you can see from above, the number of word differences is more than 74 as sometimes the KJV adds words the AKJV omits. <S> As to which most closely represents the 1611... you’ve got to remember that the various 1611 printings varied more widely in spellings, capitalizations, and substituted words than do modern KJV editions today. <S> All are attempts to faithfully reproduce the same translation. <S> In short, go with an AKJV or pure Cambridge (same thing). <S> If you want to read a King James and the minor details really matter to you, the AKJV is the most recent (1901) and probably best it’s going to get.	AKJV usually stands for the Authorized King James Version, which is usually used in reference to the pure Cambridge edition (1901). There's a distinct difference, but unless you are in sincere study to know God you probably would not notice the differences.
Are there any Protestant denominations or churches that reject penal substitution? I come from a background in Protestant/Evangelical churches. The trademark salvation message in those churches is that Christ bore the wrath of God for your sins to satisfy his justice that we have offended by our sin; it's basically a teaching of the penal substitution theory woven into a call to repentance. John Piper also seems to declare the theory as gospel in his books. Since becoming a catechumen in the Eastern Orthodox church I have rejected this theory as an acceptable way to explain salvation. It is my opinion of most Protestant/Evangelical churches that they teach the theory as fact (perhaps less so in for high church Protestants). Are there any Protestant denominations (or individual churches) that explicitly reject the penal substitution theory, and more generally the idea that Christ's death was needed to "pay" or satisfy God the Father? For reference, the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox church sometimes uses the ransom theory of atonement to explain Christ's death being a ransom paid to death. However, that is just one teaching that can help a Christian who is meditating on the meaning of His death. <Q> Not all Anglicans have held to Penal Substitution Theory. <S> For example, the nineteenth to early 20th century Anglican bishop Charles Ellicott did not. <S> See his commentary on Galatians 3, for example. <S> The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion does not express Penal Substitutionary Atonement. <S> Some of those continuing denominations are "Anglo-Catholic", so I'm not sure they are actually Protestant. <S> I am in a denomination called the Federation of Reformed Churches. <S> I do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory. <S> I've expressed this in a paper sent to my fellow Presbyters. <S> None of them attempted to bring any charge against me. <S> So, there are Reformed Presbyters who can tell the difference between theory and scriptural data and have some appreciation of the history of the doctrine of Christ as our propitiatory sacrifice. <S> It is interesting to note that Calvin did not write his view on penal substitution theory into either the Geneva Confession of 1536 or the later French Confession. <S> (There is some question as to whether Calvin wrote those documents or just influenced them.) <S> Calvin seems to have been more careful of such things than the Lutherans and many of the other Reformed, such as Ursinus. <S> There have been Reformed believers and are at least some now who do not hold to Penal Substitution Theory. <S> Furthermore, it is not hard to find Arminian teachers who do hold to it. <S> So I do not think that holding to or not holding to the theory has any direct relationship to one's doctrine of free will. <A> You will find rejection of the Penal Substitution Atonement theory among the Progressive churches and theologians. <S> They reject the theory because it makes God out to be no different than the pagan gods. <S> JKlemm responding to this question says "If a denomination/church/believer believes in the supremacy of Scripture, it's nearly impossible to reject Christ's penal substitution. <S> " <S> This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. <S> It has nothing to do with the authority of scripture and everything to do with how one interprets those scriptures, specifically how one views the sacrifice of Christ and the atonement. <S> Progressive churches have gained much insight into pre-Augustine thinking with the help of your Eastern Orthodox churches that escaped the influence that Augustine had on the Western Roman Empire. <A> I do not believe there are any (in my experience or knowledge, anyway) <S> Protestant churches that reject penal substitution. <S> Protestant churches, for the most part with the exception of the newer liberal denominations, adhere to the traditional Reformation fundamentals of Sola Scriptura, Sola Christus, etc. <S> If a denomination/church/believer believes in the supremacy of Scripture, it's nearly impossible to reject Christ's penal substitution. <S> Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're asking about, and I know you're looking for a factual answer rather than a discussion, but I think the Scriptures are rather clear on this topic, though I'd like to see where you substantiate you beliefs. <S> I could come up with more examples, but I don't think I need to after reading Romans 5, which states pretty clearly that we are reconciled "through the death of his Son." <S> Romans 5 6 <S> You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. <S> 7 <S> Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. <S> 8 <S> But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. <S> 9 <S> Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! <S> 10 <S> For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! <S> 11 <S> Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. <S> So to answer your question, I don't think you'll find any traditional Protestant churches that reject penal substitution, since most traditional churches believe in the supremacy/infallibility of Scripture. <S> I think it's hard to conclude anything other than Christ's penal substitution unless you reject the idea that Scripture is inerrant.	So, if you look at some of the continuing Anglican denominations you may find a church that is Protestant but does not hold to Penal Substitution Theory.
How can Saint Thomas Christians who are Catholic have confidence that St. Thomas sailed to Muziris? This question is addressed to Saint Thomas Christians that are Catholic. Since the Catholic church rejects the authenticity of both the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas , how can anyone in the Catholic segment of that faith say with confidence that Thomas sailed from the Red Sea to the port city of Muziris in 52 AD? <Q> Both the Gospel of Thomas and the Acts of Thomas are considered apocrypha by the Catholic Church and as such are not deemed to be part of the deposit of faith. <S> No one can say with absolute confidence that St Thomas sailed to Muziris, India in 52 AD. <S> Nevertheless both tradition and legend in this domain are believed by many of St Thomas Christians. <S> Their belief in this matter should be considered more of a popular belief than a absolute truth. <S> What we do know is "that about the year A.D. 46 a king was reigning over that part of Asia south of Himalayas now represented by Afghanistan, Baluchistan, the Punjab, and Sind, who bore the name Gondophernes or Guduphara. <S> This <S> we know both from the discovery of coins, some of the Parthian type with Greek legends, others of the Indian types with the legends in an Indian dialect in Kharoshthi characters. <S> Despite sundry minor variations the identity of the name with the Gundafor of the "Acta Thomae" is unmistakable and is hardly disputed. <S> " - Catholic Encyclopedia <S> "Though the tradition that St. Thomas preached in "India" was widely spread in both East and West and is to be found in such writers as Ephraem Syrus, Ambrose, Paulinus, Jerome, and, later Gregory of Tours and others, still it is difficult to discover any adequate support for the long-accepted belief that St. Thomas pushed his missionary journeys as far south as Mylapore, not far from Madras, and there suffered martyrdom. <S> In that region is still to be found a granite bas-relief cross with a Pahlavi (ancient Persian) inscription dating from the seventh century, and <S> the tradition that it was here that St. Thomas laid down his life is locally very strong. <S> Certain <S> it is also that on the Malabar or west coast of southern India a body of Christians still exists using a form of Syriac for its liturgical language. <S> Whether this Church dates from the time of St. Thomas the Apostle (there was a Syro-Chaldean bishop John "from India and Persia" who assisted at the Council of Nicea in 325) or whether the Gospel was first preached there in 345 owing to the Persian persecution under Shapur (or Sapor), or whether the Syrian missionaries who accompanied a certain Thomas Cana penetrated to the Malabar coast about the year 745 seems difficult to determine." <S> - Catholic Encyclopedia <A> Acts of Thomas is the earliest extant reference to Thomas’ journey to India and conversions of Indians. <S> Keith Hopkins says in <S> A World Full of Gods , page 154, the Acts of Thomas was written in Syriac, probably at the beginning of the third century in Edessa, Syria. <S> R. E. Frykenberg says in 'India', published in A World History of Christianity , page 152, it is clear that Christian and Jewish communities were already settled along the shores of the subcontinent from the second century onwards. <S> Chronologically, this makes it possible for the author of Acts of Thomas to have been aware of a Christian community in India and to have elaborated on, or even invented, any tradition that the community was founded by Thomas. <S> On page 150, Frykenberg calls the Acts of Thomas a romantic tale of questionable historicity. <S> Frykenberg says (page 148) that local traditions have indicated that the Apostle Thomas came by sea from Arabia and landed on the Malabar coast. <S> Alternatively, they have shown that he came overland, down from the north. <S> Details of arrival and subsequent events have been celebrated in song and verse for generations untold. <S> The existence of two slightly different traditions about the arrival of Saint Thomas give cause for concern about the historicity of both, as does the fact that the traditions only existed in song and verse for so many centuries. <S> India's biggest archaeological dig is being undertaken at Pattanam, thought to be the ancient port city of Muziris, where the main tradition says that Thomas landed in India. <S> No evidence of Thomas has yet been found, but the faithful remain confident that success will come in time. <A> Interestingly, a large number of people who accept the belief that St. Thomas preached in Kerala, India are non-Christians while the skeptics, sadly, are mostly Christians of various denominations and rites. <S> For instance, the Travancore State Manual (Published in 1940) at Vol I Chapter-X Religion-Christianity (page 713) discusses the issue at length and reaches at the conclusion that St. Thomas did preach in Kerala and built up a community of Christians there. <S> Whether he had reached Kerala via sea or land route, should of little significance given that he preached the Gospel. <S> For more information and details, see the resources at the Kerala State Central Library .	At this stage, the story of St. Thomas sailing to Muziris is best regarded as a legend.
Why do Catholic laity cross themselves three times before the Gospel is read? Why does the laity (and sometimes the priest) cross themselves 3 time before the Gospel is read? Like holding hands during the Lord's Prayer, and unlike bowing at the mention of the Incarnation during the Creed, it's not something that is called out in any of the missals or Mass cards I've ever seen in the pews, but it seems to be a pretty common practice; at least in my diocese. <Q> proclaim it, and "take it to heart," i.e., put it into practice, with charity. <S> Dom Prosper Guéranger's Explanation of the Prayers and Ceremonies of the Holy Mass ( hardcover ed. <S> p. 32-33) says: <S> [While the priest] makes the sign of the Cross upon the Book, and at the place where begins the text of the Gospel…[, the priest and the faithful] at the same time, signs himself on the forehead, the lips, and the breast, asking, in virtue of the Cross, which is the source of all grace, that he may always have the Gospel in his heart, and on his lips, and that he may never be ashamed of it. <S> (I've edited what Dom Guéranger said to apply also to the faithful, not just the deacon. <S> Dom Guéranger is describing a Solemn High Mass , where a priest, deacon who sings the Gospel, and sub-deacon, along with altar servers, assist. <S> The deacon in such Masses does the three signs of the cross to himself just as the faithful do to themselves in all types of Masses, High or Low, before the Gospel. <S> The reason for the three signs of the cross is the same.) <A> Why do Catholics sign themselves three (3) times just before the Gospel is read? <S> To understand the significance of this tradition, let us take a look into its origins. <S> Concerning the making the sign of the cross at the proclamation of the Holy Gospel, after the deacon or priest says, “A reading from the Holy Gospel according to ….,” he and the faithful make the sign of the cross with the thumb on the forehead, lips, and breast over the heart. <S> (The deacon or priest also makes the sign of the cross on the Lectionary or Book of the Gospels.) <S> The first recorded instance of making the sign of the cross at the proclamation of the gospel is found in the ninth century: <S> Regimius of Auxerre (d. c. 908) in his Expositio recorded how the people in the congregation would sign their foreheads, and the deacon would sign his forehead and breast. <S> By the eleventh century, as attested to by Pope Innocent III, the deacon would make the sign of the cross on the Lectionary or Book of Gospels, and then both he and the congregation would sign the forehead, lips, and breast. <S> The significance of the threefold signing is that we want to hear the Holy Gospel with an open mind, proclaim it with our lips, and cherish and safeguard it in our hearts. <S> We are imploring the Lord for the grace to receive, acknowledge, and then profess the faith that has been received in the Holy Gospel through our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God incarnate. <S> - Catholic Straight Answers. <S> Not everyone of the Roman Rite follows this tradition. <S> Carmelites do not make the three-fold sign of the cross on their forehead, mouth, and breast when saying the words "Gloria tibi, Domine" before the proclamation of the Gospel during <S> Mass. The reasoning is that their rule predates the introduction of the gesture into the liturgy. <S> - EWTN <S> There are Religious Orders that make a rather large sign of the cross, in lieu of three small ones just before the proclamation of the Gospel. <A> Contrary to what you say about missals, the rubrics in my missal (The CTS New Daily Missal) say that before the reading of the gospel, "He [the deacon/priest] makes the Sign of the Cross on the book and, together with the people , on his forehead, lips, and breast." <S> (emphasis added) <A> Having been a lifelong Catholic, I have only picked this up through seeing other people do it. <S> That being said, I have always seen it as being symbolic of keeping the Gospel in my mind, on my lips, and in my heart. <S> You can find some other perspectives on it here and here . <A> It is in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal Number 134: <S> At the ambo, the Priest opens the book and, with hands joined, says, The Lord be with you, to which the people reply, And with your spirit. <S> Then he says, A reading from the holy Gospel, making the Sign of the Cross with his thumb on the book and on his forehead, mouth, and breast, which everyone else does as well. <S> The people acclaim, Glory to you, O Lord. <S> The Priest incenses the book, if incense is being used (cf. <S> nos. <S> 276-277). <S> Then he proclaims the Gospel and at the end pronounces the acclamation The Gospel of the Lord, to which all reply, Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ. <S> The Priest kisses the book, saying quietly the formula Per evangelica dicta <S> (Through the words of the Gospel).	Before the Gospel is read, a Catholic makes signs of the cross, with the thumb, on his or her forehead, mouth, and heart, which represents that the Catholic must understand the Gospel,
Are there gender requirements for Sponsors for a Catholic baptism? In the Catholic Church, do sponsors for baptism need to be male and female, or are you able to have two females or two males as sponsors? <Q> The Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite Catholic Church states that there may be one or two sponsors for the sacrament of baptism. <S> However, if there are two sponsors, one must be male and the other must be female. <S> Thus two sponsors of the same sex is not permitted according to the laws of the Church. <S> Can. <S> 873 <S> There is to be only one male sponsor or one female sponsor or one of each. <S> Here is a more readable way of reading the same thing from the GUIDELINES FOR SPONSORS FOR BAPTISM & CONFIRMATION of the Diocese of Rockford: <S> A person who is to be baptized or confirmed is to have a sponsor. <S> While it has become a tradition to have two sponsors at Baptism, having only one sponsor is acceptable. <S> I am unaware of any possibility of someone obtaining a dispensation of the norm for allowing two sponsors of the same sex. <S> One would have to contact the local ordinary (bishop) at the Chancery Office of your particular bishop and ask this question to those in authority for an answer. <A> One sponsor/godparent is required. <S> The other may be an "honorary" godparent of either gender. <S> The parents do not need to tell the honorary godparent that they are honorary and not the recorded sponsor. <S> A non-catholic christian can only be recorded as a christian witness. <S> That is why one godparent must be a practicing catholic. <S> (Canon 872-874, CCC 1255) <A> The Catechism at least intimates that you only need to pick one person to be a Godparent. <S> Baptism is the sacrament of faith. <S> But faith needs the community of believers. <S> It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. <S> The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. <S> The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" <S> The response is: "Faith!" <S> CCC 1253 <S> But it also talks of a necessary time for a godmother and a godfather <S> For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents' help is important. <S> So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life. <S> Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium). <S> The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism. <S> CCC 1254 <S> The Church has always held that there is complementary between the sexes, both on physical and spiritual matters. <S> God is Our Father, the Church is our Mother, etc... <S> It's not an arbitrary. <S> However, I've seen one instance of same-gender Godparents. <S> If they had to ask for an exception, I don't know what it was. <S> There's also a pretty good western called "The Three Godfathers", although, I don't know of <S> that's theologically sound. <S> One would hope that the reason for choosing same-gender godparents would not be scandalous. <S> Lastly, Church forms will want to see the name and religion of your godparents to make sure <S> at least one is a Baptized Catholic - so there may be bureaucratic hurdles and canned certificates that will look strange.	No more than two sponsors are permitted, however, and the two sponsors may not be of the same sex.
In LDS belief, why are eternal families so important? I know that the family is central to God's plan, and that families give you more joy in life than anything else ever could. But I've often wondered why it is necessary for everyone to be sealed together? I know the classroom answers. We teach in the LDS church that families can be together forever, sealed together by the power of the priesthood under the blessings of the temple, but why is that necessary? Why do we need to be sealed to our children and to our parents when in the beginning we were already part of an eternal family; sons and daughters of God. What is the significance to coming to earth, raising one of our spirit brethren in mortality as our own physical offspring, then sealing them to us as such for time and all eternity? When we die, we're going to remember the pre-existence, and the relationships we had for an eternity as spirit siblings. Am I going to view my daughter as the spirit sister I knew her has? Or am I forever going to regard her as my very own offspring? After exaltation we teach that we begin families of our own, and produce spirit offspring just like our father in heaven, at which point our mortal children will be our spirit siblings, our children from our brief time in mortality, the spirit aunts and uncles to our new spirit children, as well as their brothers and sisters somehow? What is it about taking our pre-existing family of children of God, and organizing them into lineages for time and all eternity that is so significant? <Q> Eternal families are based in a life in that same organization after the Resurrection and Judgement (cf. <S> Doc & Cov 130:2 ). <S> Regarding the resurrection, As part of His eternal plan, God has provided a resurrection for everyone. <S> Everyone who has lived will be resurrected (see 1 Corinthians 15:21–22; Alma 11:41; D&C 29:26; 2 Nephi 9:22). <S> Resurrection is the reuniting of the physical body and the spirit after death (see D&C 88:14–17; <S> Alma 11:43; 40:23; 2 Nephi 9:12). <S> We cannot receive a fulness of joy when the spirit and the body are separated (see D&C 93:33–34; 45:17; 138:50). <S> Resurrection is brought about by the power of God (see John 5:21; <S> Acts 26:8; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 2 Nephi 9:12). <S> Resurrection restores every limb and joint to its proper and perfect frame (see Alma 11:43–44; 40:23; 41:2). <S> Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual; Chapter 32: <S> The Resurrection and the Judgment While the eternal intelligences inhabit the spirits created by our Eternal Parents (cf. <S> Doc & Cov 93:29 and Abraham 3:21-22 ), our spirits will, in turn, inhabit the physical bodies which were created for us in this life by our earthly parents (cf. <S> Doc & Cov 88:15 ). <S> Our sons and daughters will be organized in a grand family with Adam and Eve at the head of those from this earth. <S> This grand family is all organized within the Eternal family that includes all of the spirit children of our heavenly parents—including those from the innumerable worlds which God has created. <S> Both lineages are important as they signify the various stages of our eternal progression and through the estates which we have kept (cf. <S> Abraham 3:26 ). <S> This lineage is not a "ranking" system of "best to worst," rather it is a system of organization based upon the basic family unit. <S> Only those in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom will be a part of this grand family and are those who are "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ"( Romans 8:17 ). <A> I don't know if we'll ever truly understand the importance of eternal families until we get into the afterlife, but I think I can provide at least one possible explanation. <S> One of our basic beliefs is that we are all (literally) children of God. <S> We were placed here on this earth to learn and grow to become exalted, which is to be like our Father in Heaven, in the same sense a child becomes like his or her parents. <S> One of the other things we know is that Heavenly Father is married, and that with Her, they created all of us (Their children). <S> If our ultimate purpose of this life is to learn what is necessary to become like our Heavenly Father, then having an eternal family like Him would be within reason. <S> I know it's not a great answer, but it's a start. <A> The significance of eternal families is not to organize new lineages, it is to seal the lineage of God together eternally. <S> In the end there will be two ultimate outcomes to your life on Earth: either you will return to live with our Heavenly Father, or you will not. <S> Those who do not return to the Father will receive varying degrees of glory in the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms, or they will be cast out into outer darkness. <S> Those who do return to the Father will receive celestial glory, exaltation, and eternal life. <S> In order to receive celestial glory, you must be sealed in the temple. <S> This sealing is more profound that simply being sealed to you parents, your wife and children, because each of your family members is in turn sealed to their spouses and children, and your spouses are sealed to their parents. <S> Ultimately, we will ALL be sealed together, and everyone will be sealed to Christ. <S> In the Celestial Kingdom we will all be sealed together as one eternal family. <S> It's all part of the plan of happiness, which was presented in the premortal realm. <S> IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. <S> Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally. <S> ( The Family: A Proclomation to the World ) <S> The proclomation specifies families, but ultimately we are all one family. <S> This is why Temple work is so important <S> , everyone must be accounted for, everyone must be given the opportunity to be sealed to Christ. <S> This is also why the Millennium when Christ returns is going to last 1,000 years, so that temple work can be completed for every spirit child who came to earth to receive a body, and so that they can be given an opportunity to choose to accept those blessings.	This is the significance of eternal families: so that we can all be sealed to Christ and our Father in Heaven. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave.
Do Mormons celebrate Christmas on/or around the 25th of December? Being a denomination which prides itself of the restored beliefs of the original church before false doctrine infiltrated the truth, do Mormons celebrate Christmas on/or around the 25th of December? If so on what scriptural basis do they have for that date? <Q> They never said there was scriptural basis for this date; the specific day of the year is not important to them. <A> As an addition to Matt's correct answer, to see how LDS Church leaders talk about Christmas one can visit "Christmas" under the Gospel Topics on www.lds.org . <S> The current Church President, Thomas S. Monson, is quoted on the website: <S> When we keep the spirit of Christmas, we keep the Spirit of Christ, for the Christmas spirit is the Christ Spirit. <S> It will block out all the distractions around us which can diminish Christmas and swallow up its true meaning. <S> This quote is taken from the 2011 First Presidency Christmas Devotional. <S> The First Presidency Christmas Devotional takes place every year (usually on the first Sunday of December). <S> The website I linked above also has links to several other Christmas-themed talks from LDS Church leaders. <A> To add some additional context, Christmas was created after quite a few of the other Saints had their Feast Days cannonized by some of the early churches. <S> Some time between the 2nd and 3rd century AD, it was determined that a feast day should be set apart for the Christ—literally " Christ's Mass ." <S> There is a lot of debate about the specifics for the date chosen, but it is generally accepted that the celebration of light coming back to the world during the Winter Solstice seemed a fitting time to celebrate Jesus as the "Light of the World." <S> Just as Antiochus IV Epiphanes choose this time of year to sacrifice to his gods, the Maccabees chose the solstice to rededicate the temple to God. <S> Within my own family, I enjoy celebrating many of the traditions that help my children focus on Jesus the Christ. <S> We focus on St. Nicholas on his day (Dec. 6th), we talk about Hanukkah and the importance of the temple (though we do not celebrate the holiday per se ), we try to focus on Jesus during his days (Dec. 24–25), we talk about the importance of boxing day/St Stephen's day (Dec. 26) and sing of Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia , we also talk of the Wise Men on their day (Jan. 6th). <S> I have never gotten into the habit of celebrating the Sundays of Advent (or the Holy Weeks leading up to Easter for that matter), but I believe they are worthwhile observances insofar as they point people to Christ. <S> The scriptural basis for me is in Philippians 1:18 and 2 Nephi 25:26 . <S> The specific day or days to rejoice in Christ should be less important than making sure that we do rejoice in He who is Mighty to Save. <S> That being said, many members also celebrate Jesus' birth on April 6th due to the wording in Doctrine and Covenants 20:1 . <S> In this same vein, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also celebrate Easter for the same reasons.	Yes, Mormons generally celebrate the birth of Christ on the traditional day of Christmas, December 25.
Tithing and excommunication question (LDS) Member of LDS Church asking: Will the LDS hierarchy excommunicate me if I do not pay them the required 10% of the difference between my home purchase price and my home sale price? Anyone know about that? It is a bit more than just a tithing question because I had to pay $44.000 of home value in a divorce settlement, and I don't know if the LDS Church will take that into consideration. <Q> "Those who pay tithing do not do so under the duress of legal compulsion. <S> No one is disfellowshipped or excommunicated because he fails to pay." —Gorden B. Hinkley, " My Testimony ", General Conference, October 1993. <S> Declaring yourself a full tithe payer is one of the qualifications for holding a recommend to enter the temple. <S> Tithing is defined by the following: <S> In 1838 the Lord reiterated this commandment through the Prophet Joseph Smith: <S> “My people … shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever” <S> ( Doctrine and Covenants 119:3–4 ). <S> Interest is understood to mean income. <S> — Tithing and Fast Offerings <A> Whatever the member honestly considers to be 10% of their increase or income is according to their conscience. <S> At the end of every year, members are asked to declare their tithing payments to their bishop (and settle any discrepancies in the books, if present). <S> One declares himself/herself being either a full tithe payer, partial tithe payer, or not a tithe payer. <S> Being a full tithe payer is one of the qualifications for holding a recommend to enter the temple. <A> Nobody will be excommunicated for not paying tithing. <S> And nobody will dictate to you exactly what constitutes your 10%. <S> If you don't feel like you can honestly answer that you are a full tithe payer, you will not be able to get a Temple recommend, but will otherwise be like any other member. <S> No one but the Bishop will even know.	I'm not gonna answer your question as-is because it's personal, but in general: Tithing is between the individual and the Lord.
According to the doctrine of Trinity, was Jesus always co-equal to the Father? So I'm trying to understand the Trinity. I always thought of it like this: Jesus was 100% divine when he was with the Father. In other words, he was fully co-equal to the Father. Then, when he became a human being (on earth), he wasn't 100% divine, so he was not co-equal to the Father. In other words, he was part divine, part human (inferior to the father). And when he rose into the heavens (after the crucifixion and resurrection and everything), he became fully 100% divine again. So basically he's co-equal to the Father once again. But that's how I always understood it. Does the Trinity support this view? According to the doctrine of Trinity, was Jesus always co-equal to the Father? Even during his lifetime on earth? <Q> The Chalcedonian Definition (AD 451) was a key christological statement of the early church, and is respected throughout trinitarianism. <S> The first portion of the part relevant to this question emphasizes that Jesus is "truly God and truly man": <S> Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man. <S> But perhaps his divinity was reduced? <S> The creed continues: <S> [Jesus is] acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ. <S> So no, your understanding is decidedly not trinitarian <A> Yes, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, Jesus was always 100% God - including his time here on earth. <S> In fact, the idea that he was not completely, 100% God was what led to the Arian controversy which precipitated the official forumlation Doctrine of the Trinity in the first place. <S> In fact, the original creed (before it was revised at the Council of Constantinople) included the line <S> But those who say: ... 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church. <S> One of the options explored at the council of Nicea <S> was that perhaps Jesus was ὁμοιούσιος ("Of a similar substance") as God (eg, 50% god), and this was explicitly rejected by the council. <S> The final line of the creed makes it clear that this had been true for all points in time. <S> So the doctrine does not support the idea that Jesus was at some point in tome 50% (or some other fraction) God. <A> The closest belief in antiquity to what you are suggesting is, I believe, Nestorianism, which taught more or less what you pose: that Christ was less than 100% God when He was Incarnate, but was otherwise divine. <S> Arianism - the denial that Christ had any divine nature whatsoever - is a related belief, but <S> not quite the same as what you are asking about. <S> The root of the Nestorian controversy seems to have been not begun directly with a deliberation of the Godhead, but rather over what the appropriate description for the Virgin Mary should be. <S> Nestorians and proto-Nestorians following Theodore of Mopsuestia (5th century) objected to referring to Mary (in Greek) as Theotokos - "God-bearer". <S> They insisted that she should be called instead Christotokos - "Christ-bearer". <S> Nestorianism, as another answer has alluded, was condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council in 431. <S> A chief defender against Nestorius was the bishop Cyril of Alexandria, who wrote a 5-volume book against the Nestorian doctrine . <S> These volumes contain extensive exegeses of relevant Scriptures, refuting Nestorius' own interpretation of various "proof texts".	– Jesus was simultaneously 100% God and 100% man while on earth; his divinity was not compromised.
What writing materials did the writers of the Gospels use? I am wondering what kind of writing materials the writers of the Gospels used to make the original scrolls. I know that papyrus and parchment were used widely at the time. <Q> Echoing @djclayworth: We do not have any of the original manuscripts of the scriptures, nor any other evidence of what kind of materials were used. <S> Presumably it would be the usual materials. <S> 2 John 1:12-3 or 3 John 1: 13 mentions that paper and ink were used during the time period by at least one of the apostles. <S> Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: <S> but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full. <A> Jeremiah 22:14 states <S> Who says, "I will build myself a roomy house with spacious upper rooms, and cut out it's windows, paneling it with cedar and painting it bright red [vermillion]. <S> " <S> In terms of the ink, clearly certain dyes were available by the first century. <S> In theory, the Hebrew Torah is produced the same way today as it was 3000 years ago. <S> The type of ink would have been well known and common. <S> The ink is a charcoal, water, and gum conglomeration ; although they were not adverse to using animal blood. <S> Charcoal inks were cheap, easy to obtain, and came out looking like black printer ink. <S> As for the paper, papyrus was common in Greece, but these were Jews from the Promised Land. <S> They presumably waited long enough to be fluent in Greek before writing the Gospels, so they might have taken Greek customs as well. <S> However, Jews were partial to animal skin parchment scrolls for long documents or codex--a parchment, papyrus hybrid--for shorter ones. <S> Rice paper, "paper," from the Far East did not make it to the West until the third century AD or so. <A> We do not have any of the original manuscripts of the scriptures, nor any other evidence of what kind of materials were used. <S> Presumably it would be the usual materials. <S> The materials used have no theological significance.	Looking at other documents from around the same time period we can assume papyri and/or parchment ( Dead Sea Scrolls ).
Why do images of saints often depict them with unusual hand gestures? Many saints are often depicted holding a book or some other object. However, I have noticed that there are quite a few that have unusual hand gestures. Why is this? Augustine of Hippo Index finger, middle finger, and ring finger together, other fingers spread out Ignatius of Antioch Ring finger and pinky against thumb Justin Martyr Index finger against thumb, middle finger extended I'm going to assume that the modern vulgar meaning for this gesture was not intended. Cyril of Jerusalem Index and middle fingers crossed, ring finger against thumb John Chrysostom Ring finger against thumb, back perspective <Q> Wordpress :Ancient Greek and Roman orators used an established series of hand gestures when speaking. <S> Since some of the oldest Orthodox statuary originated in Rome, it is likely their hand gestures were adapted from those of the Greek and Roman works when depicting religious figures to emphasize the message the painter or sculptor wished to convey. <S> Since orators of the time often raised their hand when speaking to assert authority, paintings and statues of Jesus and the saints might have adapted this to convey authority and a blessing. <S> We see this today when the Pope blesses a crowd of the faithful. <S> Gesture of the Orator : <S> Illustrations of various hand gestures from antiquity with explanation of their meaning. <S> Roman & Greek sculptures : <S> Photos showing hand gestures. <A> The answer is partially in your question. <S> The life of a Christian is very unusual, at least it is supposed to be. <S> Our lives have to be oriented toward the ultimate truth who is God. <S> So, for a Saint, who embodies in some very particular way that life, it is a normal to representing them in postures that are also pointing towards that reality. <S> Generally they are portrayed pointing up, looking up, eyes up, in discomfort here below but with sight above and with peace on their face or eyes. <S> Three fingers pointing to the Trinity, two fingers touching meaning unity, etc. <A> Of the images depicted, three (Justin Martyr, Cyril, and John Chrysostom) are icons (or possibly frescoes) and the other two are free-form art works. <S> I can't speak to the art works, but in the icons the saints are spelling out the abbreviated name of Christ, in the form of either the first and last letters of "Jesus" <S> ( IHCOYC in archaic Greek capitals) or of "Christos" ( XPICTOC ). <S> Ignatius appears to be spelling out "IC", while Cyril appears to be spelling out "XC". <S> It's not clear which of the two John Chrysostom is spelling. <S> This feature can be found in many Byzantine-style icons of Christ, teachers, hierarchs and angels. <A> The saints don't have specific blessings gestures, nor are saints always depicted with gestures. <S> Rather, three of your five images show interpretations of the famous " IC XC " gesture of Christ Pantocrator . <S> The Justin Martyr and Augustine of Hippo images either do not represent blessings at all, or are unusual blessings whose meaning I could not find.	It is a way an artist can depict the story of that saint and how his/her life pointed and was oriented towards God.
Is the Book of Mormon considered to be another Gospel? (LDS perspective) Is the Book of Mormon considered to be another Gospel? Paul tells us not to accept any other gospels apart from the one he has preached. Is the Book of Mormon considered to be another gospel? If so, why? Inviting Mormon perspectives. 6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:6-9 <Q> No, according to the subtitle to The Book of Mormon, it is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", not another gospel. <S> Quoting from the title page of The Book of Mormon (emphasis mine): <S> Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord , that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations From the Introduction : <S> It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel. <S> Continued (emphasis mine): <S> The record is now published in many languages as a new and additional witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that all who will come unto Him and obey the laws and ordinances of His gospel may be saved. <S> One of the commenters asked what "Testament" means. <S> From this, we see it means a witness, like a testimony. <S> When the record describes Christ visiting the Americas, He teaches basically the same Sermon on the Mount that He taught by the Sea of Galilee . <S> And Jesus speaks of the people back in Jerusalem and why He came here to teach them the same gospel in the Americas, too. <S> It very much is the same gospel. <S> Missionaries of the LDS Church preach by the Bible and Book of Mormon because the Book of Mormon does not replace the Bible; rather, they testify of each other and of the same Lord Jesus Christ. <A> Your interpretation of Paul's warning is anachronistic. <S> At Paul's time there was no Bible, he wasn't referring to the four gospels according to Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. <S> He was referring to the "good news" that the saviour had come, and that through him we could be redeemed from sin. <S> The Book of Mormon is not a different gospel. <S> It is the same gospel (the same good news) that Paul and all the other apostles taught–that Christ is our Saviour, and <S> by following him we can receive salvation from our sins. <A> No. <S> Not how most would define it. <S> The Mormon church publicly states the book is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." Or sometimes referred to as another witness of Jesus Christ. <S> It is written by men of God, prophets, just like the Bible. <S> The Bible says "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" 2 Corinthians 13:1. <S> It is so strange to think that God speaks to many people. <S> Many prophets. <S> And those prophets may record the words of the Lord as well.	It contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel, not a new gospel.
Where can I find a complete set of Ante-Nicene Writings? I am a self-learner and am really interested in the writings of the Christian fathers during the Ante-Nicene period. I found an great e-book for a few dollars titled "The Complete Ante-Nicene Church Fathers Collection [9 volumes]", and I also found a set of books called "The Early Church Fathers, 38 Volumes." I'm just not sure whether either of these contains all of the writings found during that period or just a selection of them. What I'd really like to have is a list of all of the writings discovered during this period, but I can't seem to find it. Are any of you aware of such a list? I hope this isn't too loaded a question. <Q> Most people use ccel.org to read the Ante-Nicene Fathers edited by James Donaldson and Alexander Roberts which, unless I am mistaken, is the most comprehensive English translation set of the ante-Nicene writings. <S> If you want to compile a list of all the ante-Nicene writings, you would probably need to resort to reviewing Jacques Paul Migne’s Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: <S> Series Græca <S> (161 vol.) <S> and Series Latina <S> (220 vol.), but of course, you need to know Greek and Latin. <A> It's not free, and it's not complete, but The Fathers of the Church: <S> A New Translation is the closest thing to a complete set of the writings of the church fathers that I've seen in English. <S> It includes over 120 volumes of writings, though many of these relate to the post-Nicene period. <S> It's frequently cited by other works, like the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture . <S> I've often turned to it when the out-of-copyright Ante-Nicene Fathers simply doesn't provide the material I'm looking for, like Origen's Commentary on Romans . <S> And I find that the translation is usually better, both in accuracy and readability. <S> As mentioned, the volumes aren't free online, but thankfully many pages are accessible through Google Books – Origen's commentary linked above can be previewed on Google Books, at least in the USA. <A> They are available for free with the free download of e-sword: http://www.e-sword.net/ <S> This is an excellent tool with many free resources included.	Unless I am mistaken, there has never been an English translation set that encompasses absolutely all the ante-Nicene writings.
Is the English translation of "Book of Mormon" ever revised or updated, and if so, on what basis given that the golden plates have disappeared? The English used in the initial translation of the book of Mormon is KJV-esque English. I'm wondering if there have ever been new English translations as time goes by, and as the English language has developed? If so, what are these translations based off, considering we no longer have access to the golden plates? Would it just paraphrase the original translation, but in modern English? <Q> No, the Book of Mormon has never been revised into a more modern English dialect. <S> The first edition was set and printed in haste, from a manuscript handwritten by Oliver Cowdery under Joseph Smith's dictation. <S> Cowdery didn't have the clearest of handwriting, leading to the first edition containing thousands of typos, some of them truly bizarre such as rendering "robber" as "nobler", others more understandable, <S> like changing "formation" to "foundation". <S> Also, the original printing came in 1829, before English spelling had become standardized. <S> (Noah Webster published his first American English dictionary in 1828, and at the time it was only one of many available, each using wildly varying spellings for many common words.) <S> Because of these various factors, there have been several times in which new printings of the Book of Mormon have been updated for correctness. <S> However, the basic narrative, the doctrines taught therein, and the Biblical feel of the language used, have always remained consistent with the original English translation. <S> Source: Understanding Textual Changes in the Book of Mormon <A> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the most prominent group of people associated with the name 'Mormon', have only issued new editions when previous editions were found to not agree with the original manuscripts (as detailed in MasonWheeler's answer). <S> However, the Community of Christ (previously called the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) <S> published an edition in 1966 called the Revised Authorized Version of the Book of Mormon, which did indeed attempt to modernize the language, without being (as far as I can tell) a new "translation". <A> There have been over 3,900 changes to the original text of the Book of Mormon. <S> 1 <S> Many of the changes are over spelling and grammar, but some of the changes have been significant: 1 <S> Nephi 11:21 <S> Original:"Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the eternal Father" <S> [First Book of Nephi p 25] <S> Current: " <S> Behold the Lamb of God, yea even the son of the eternal Father." <S> 2 <S> Nephi 30:6 <S> Original: <S> “…their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.” <S> [Second Book of Nephi p 117] <S> Current: "“…their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.” <S> 2 Nephi 30:6 was changed in 1981, apparently in response to criticism the Mormon Church received from the civil rights movement of the 1960's. <S> 2 <S> As the Joseph Smith papers show, the original text was white, not pure. <S> 1. <S> 3,913 as of the 1981 printing (Ron Rhodes, The 10 Most Important Things You Can Say to a Mormon. <S> Harvest House Publishers. <S> 2001 <S> p. 22). <S> In addition to changes to headings and introductions the 2013 printing had 38 minor text changes. <S> 2. <S> For background see [Black People and Mormonism]	There have been various updates to the printing of the Book of Mormon over time to correct errors in the typesetting of earlier editions.
What was the amount of bread and wine used when Jesus did communion? I could imagine that times then were hard and food somewhat scarce. A whole loaf of bread divided equally would be a small meal and a bottle of wine could serve well to wash down the bread. I could not imagine that Jesus would only give a tiny peace of cracker and a thimble of grape juice. Are there any historical writings that mention the actual quantity of these that Jesus had portioned? How much did Jesus have himself? <Q> It would have actually been a pretty lavish meal. <S> It was Pesach. <S> That means it was the "seder" for Passover, the communal dinner to celebrate that Feast day. <S> It is the only feast day that is celebrated, to this day, at home. <S> That is, in someone's home or homelike setting. <S> A Passover Seder is one of the primary Feasts (MoAdim) Moshe (Moses) laid out in the Torah, that is the first 5 books of what is now called the Old Testament scriptures (of the Jews, Messianics and Christians). <S> Jews (remember, Jesus was a Jew and was then still in complete obedience to the Mosaic law) saved up all year, and many still do, for that feast meal. <S> Family came from all around, even other lands, and it was one of 3 "pilgrim" feast days in that the adult males had to go to Jerusalem to observe, if they could. <S> That's why Jesus had someone go and find the man who had "prepared" for them "the meal. <S> " Passover is always done with matzah and wine. <S> Matzah is just the hebrew word for unleavened bread. <S> Y'shua (Jesus) served that day and the next as "'the Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world,'" just as John the Baptizer said of him, and also as the First Fruits (of the New Covenant). <S> See Hebrews 13:11-16: <S> The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. <S> 12 <S> And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. <S> 13 <S> Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. <S> 14 <S> For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. <S> 15 <S> Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. <S> 16 <S> And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. <A> The amount of bread and wine that Jesus used at the Last Supper communion would not have been a great quantity. <S> 22 <S> And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body. <S> 23 <S> And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. <S> 24 <S> And he said unto them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. <S> - Mark 14:22-24 <S> Some translations say a loaf [of bread]. <S> Seeing that Jesus did this during the course of the Passover Feast, the need for a large quantity of bread or wine would not have been necessary. <S> It could also be noted that Jesus took the cup (singular) and not cups of wine demonstrating that the quantities of both would not have been great. <S> It was probably one [loaf of] bread and one cup of wine. <S> The symbolism of this gesture is quite profound. <S> The actual Passover Feast or Pasch that was also celebrated that day would have been a different story altogether. <A> Quite a lot <S> They're having a meal together. <S> So all must have eaten till they are full of bread and drink. <S> What do we expect? <S> That they have "communion" and after that all of them go their separate way for extra meals at local KFC equivalent? <S> In fact, communion in the beginning must be quite a lot too. <S> http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-21.htm Paul complain that some are full and drunk. <S> The rest don't get any. <S> So yea the wine <S> must be alcoholic too. <S> Currently christians use grape juice and a tiny winiy bread. <S> So much for "real" experience of communion.	The size of [the loaf of] bread used by Jesus in the post Pasch communion of the gospels is not known to us.
What steps has the Catholic Church taken as a whole to address a shortage of priests? It seems like the first instinct of the news media when it comes to the Church's response to a shortage of priests is to end the rule enforcing celibacy. But that is not what the Church has been doing. So, what has she done (as a whole) to address the fact that an aging population of priests is not being replaced at the rate that the Church is growing? <Q> The comments by Pope Francis about allowing older married men to be ordained and serve in isolated areas is interesting, although I don't think this will happen any time soon, and certainly not in the numbers needed if 25 per cent of churches do not have a resident priest. <S> What I have observed being reported is that dioceses around the world are addressing the shortage of priests as best they can, by merging parishes. <S> This seems to have been made possible because fewer Catholics are attending mass at the same time as there are fewer priests 1 . <S> Another thing I have noticed in a limited way is the employment of lay ministers to assist the priests. <S> 1 <S> The RCC is growing in sub-Saharan Africa. <S> Gross numbers are steady in US, balancing leavers with Latin immigrants, but with falling attendances at mass, which is what we are talking about. <S> Numbers are falling in Europe because of a move away from religion, and also in South America, where significant numbers are converting to evangelical denominations. <A> In my diocese, the archbishop has increased the number of permanent deacons in the archdiocese. <S> Many of these permanent deacons will be working in federal institutions of correction (prisons) and thus easing the burden of the workload for priests to work more exclusively in parishes. <S> Nevertheless, priests will visit prisons, but will do it less frequently. <S> Some of the other permanent deacons will be assigned to hospitals or other facilities to ease the workload of priests. <S> Some diocese are also permitting the Sunday obligation of attending Mass to be transferred to another day of the week in more isolated areas in order to make it possible to have a priest travel to them and say Mass for parishes in more isolated locations. <S> Eucharistic Ministers have their particular area of aiding the parish priest, such as taking communion to the sick in hospital or at home and informing the pastor if a particular soul desires to go to confession, so that the parish priest may fulfill his parishioner's desire. <S> It can arise that the number of priests is so few that a diocesan bishop may even have recourse to Rome to have some Pastoral Administrators established in order to fulfill the Sunday obligations for the faithful. <S> This naturally involves reading the gospel during a communion service by lay ministers (outside of Mass). <S> The Diocese of Whitehorse, Yukon has between 4-8 priests at any one time and has several Pastoral Administrators working in the diocese. <S> Many dioceses have opted to institute what is now termed as lay ministers at various levels of “lay ministry”. <S> More information may be gleaned in the following post: <S> How does one become a “lay-ministers” in the Catholic Church? <A> In my diocese, the bishop has done several things: he merged some (smaller) parishes, he assigned some others to monks from religious orders (which are not part of diocesean clergy, but are priests too) and he made a deal with some other diocese in Africa or India. <S> Those dioceses send some young priests here to serve in our dioceps for some years, and our diocese allow them to study Italian and theology in or schools. <S> After some years (usually, when they completed their studies) those priests can return to their homelands (where they will be very educated for their country standard, and maybe receive some important role) or choose to stay in here in Italy	One of the things some bishops are doing is increasing the number of permanent deacons in their dioceses.
Is it appropriate (as a Catholic) to make the sign of the cross when passing an Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East church? It is an old tradition in Catholicism to make the sign of the cross when passing a Catholic church, as a sign of respect to the Eucharist contained in the tabernacle, located within the Church. I am wondering: Do Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East also have tabernacles in their churches? If they do, is it appropriate for a Catholic to make the sign of the cross when passing these churches? <Q> Is it appropriate for a Catholic to make the sign of the cross when passing an Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East church? <S> Of course it is! <S> It is also a tradition for some Catholics to make the sign of the cross when passing in front of cemeteries, whether a Catholic one or otherwise. <S> Of course there would be some of the faithful departed in many of these cemeteries I imagine. <S> Seeing that the Orthodox Church does have valid sacraments which includes the Eucharist, it would be appropriate for a Catholic to make the sign of the cross when passing in front of a Orthodox church in order to show an external sign of respect of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the consecrated host. <S> (No. <S> 8) as this image from Wikipedia shows: <A> Of course Eastern Orthodox church, like Russian, or Greek, have the tabernacles of Eucharist gifts in their churches. <S> Orthodox christians called it as kibot (ru: Кивот , gr: κῑβωτός ). <S> It is always resided at the altar. <S> Frequently, in modern time it has a form of mini church. <S> Usually tabernacles is being covered with a glass hood, and the only bishops, priests, and deacons can touch the tabernacles. <S> The origin the of tabernacles is very ancient. <S> In 4-th century many church writes note about a pidgins , which the Eucharist gist is kept in. <S> Since the oriental churches, and churches of East, dissociated much later (in 5-6 cen.) <S> it is allowed to think that they are also kept the ancient tradition to use the tabernacles. <A> Although the Orthodox are, in the traditional Catholic view, schismatic, they do have valid priestly orders, which means they are able to validly consecrate the Eucharist, so I don't see what would be wrong with making the sign of the cross out of respect for the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist in these churches.	Yes, the Orthodox Churches do have tabernacles in their churches
Are there explicit statements in the New Testament about the purpose of life? Is the purpose of life directly and explicitly addressed in the New Testament? Most of the citations I found are implicit at best. <Q> Here are just a handful of New Testament verses relating to life purpose (based on Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life ): <S> Revelation 4:11 (NLT): <S> “You are worthy, O Lord our God, to receive glory and honor and power. <S> For you created all things, and they exist because you created what you pleased. ” <S> Hebrews 2:10A <S> (NCV): <S> God is the One who made all things, and all things are for his glory . <S> He wanted to have many children share his glory Colossians 1:15 (MSG): <S> We look at this Son and see God’s original purpose in everything created. <S> John 17:4 (MSG): <S> I glorified you on earth by completing down to the last detail what you assigned me to do. <S> Acts 20:24 (NCV): <S> The most important thing is that I complete my mission, the work that the Lord Jesus gave me — to tell people the Good News about God’s grace. <S> These respectfully correspond to the 5 purposes that we've been given (based on the book mentioned above): <S> You were planned for God's pleasure <S> You were formed for God's family <S> You were created to become like Christ <S> You were shaped for serving God <S> You were made for a mission <S> The verses above are, of course, a very incomplete list. <S> There are apparently 350 references to the Bible in The Purpose Driven Life which point to many more verses. <S> It's well worth the read for any that are interested in a more complete answer to the question of purpose from a Christian worldview, and it includes a great number of verses to support it. <A> God's purposes are eternal, therefore I believe the following is most relevant: <S> Now this is eternal life: <S> that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. <S> - John 17:3 NIV This by no means excludes the other answers but is complementary to them, <S> however seeking and repenting are very much time-bound activities, their fulfillment (true purpose) is in finding and abiding in Him. <A> In Acts 17:26-28, Paul is in Athens preaching the gospel. <S> This appears to be one of the closest examples of the meaning of life from the New Testament. <S> I can't say this is explicit, but it gets pretty close. <A> When a scribe asked Jesus what was the greatest commandment in the law, Jesus' answer quoted a law that expressed our whole purpose in life: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. <S> This is the first and great commandment. <S> And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' <S> On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." <S> (Matthew 22:34-40.) <S> Unfortunately, people believe the laws in the Bible are to make a person righteous. <S> Not so; rather, they are expressions of love to God and man; they tell us the many ways we can express love. <S> This is our purpose: to love God and others. <S> "Let us hear the conclusion of of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this <S> is the whole duty of man. <S> For God will bring every work into judgment, including every secret things, whether it is good or whether it is evil." <S> So, because we will be judged in the end, our purpose is to live in such a way as to pass such judgment. <S> As noted here, that involves keeping God's laws, all of which are summed up in the Matthew passage quoted above. <A> Paul states the purpose of (man's) life succinctly in his first epistle to Timothy (2:4): <S> it is to be saved, and to come unto knowledge of the truth . <S> This verse actually refers to God's desire for man, so one has to accept that God's purpose for our life is, in fact, its true purpose. <S> This is a simple verse, but Christian believers have widely differing views - some even based on the same Scriptures - as to what salvation entails and how exactly one comes unto knowledge of the truth. <S> But I think the verse in 1 Timothy is probably the most straightforward New Testament Scripture that addresses the purpose of life.	The Apostle says that God created humans from one blood and they are placed around the world so that they may seek the Lord and come to repentance. A more explicit declaration of life purpose (using the phrase "whole duty of man") can be found in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14:
Who was Cain afraid of? After Cain kills Abel and God gives him protection, who is he being protected from? Genesis 4:14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me. <Q> If we consider Genesis 5, we'll see the omission of Cain and Abel. <S> It's at 130 years that Adam has a son named Seth. <S> (v. 3) <S> Either information about other offspring has been omitted, or prior to the birth of Seth, there were only Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel. <S> Omission of other offspring is possible as this does occur in the Bible. <S> If this is the case, then there were probably other offspring from Adam and Eve, whom Cain would have feared for his life. <S> In Genesis 4:16, it says Cain settled in the land of Nod. <S> This is wordplay, since "Nod" means "wandering" (נוֹד), which Cain was punished to be a wanderer (נוּד). <S> Whether or not the land of Nod was already a settlement, I don't know. <S> Yet, in v. 17, Cain sleeps with an unnamed woman. <S> The pseudepigrapha, the Book of Jubilees (or Lesser Genesis, an ironic name), Adam and Eve also have a daughter named 'Âwân (אָוֶן; "iniquity"), who ends up being Cain's wife. <S> And Cain took 'Âwân his sister to be his wife <S> and she bare him <S> Enoch at the close of the fourth jubilee. <S> (Jubilees 4:10) <A> The KJV reads: <S> I shall be a vagabond in the earth; <S> and it shall come to pass <S> , that every one that findeth me shall slay me (Gen 4:14) <S> Cain appears to be concerned about the future. <A> Your answer apparently lies in Genesis 6:1-2 <S> (RSVCE)which says : " <S> When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose." <S> The Footnote attached to the verses state: <S> sons of God could mean simply “divine beings,” as elsewhere in the Old Testament. <S> The writer, however, may be using an old story or myth to point out the progressive degradation of mankind before the Flood and to warn against the evil effects of intermarriage either of the descendants of Seth with the Kenites or, more probably, of the Israelites with the native populations of Canaan.	As an outcast, he was afraid that future generations will come for him and slay him.
Catholic baptized in another church A catholic wanted to have her baptism blessed under full water method. The Church is not familiar with this , so she had a evangelical church do it. So, her local Catholic priest forbid her from receiving communion. She was not aware of the consequences of minor excommunication. Now, what can she do to go to Communion again? <Q> We don't have all the information to be sure what is going on, but here are some likely scenarios. <S> The Catholic Church has no objection to baptism by immersion. <S> It's a completely valid means of baptism, and Catholics do understand it. <S> However pouring and sprinkling are considered equally valid. <S> Moreover most Catholic churches are not equipped for immersion baptism. <S> If your friend specifically requested baptism by immersion then the priest may have declined out of practicality. <S> Additionally the Catholic church considers baptism a one time thing. <S> If your friend was previously validly baptized then the priest will have declined to baptize again. <S> Doing so would be a sign that the first baptism was invalid, which would go against fundamental beliefs. <S> The issue therefore was likely not being baptized by immersion, but deciding to get a major events in their Christian Life done in a church other than the Catholic one. <S> This is not really consistent with a full commitment to the Catholic church, or a belief that it is the best church. <S> Getting baptized in another church will have been taken as a decision to join that church , and by implication leave the Catholic church. <S> The other church will have taken it that way. <S> Joining another church makes you ineligible to take communion in the Catholic church. <S> If this immersion baptism happened a long time ago and your friend now wants to join the Catholic church, that should not be a problem. <S> If your friend truly did not understand the implications of what they were doing then they should talk to their priest to sort it out. <S> However that is very unlikely. <S> The other church will likely have insisted on some instruction before baptism, and that will have included implications for membership. <S> They will also have assured themselves that your friend follows Evangelical beliefs, which would be different from Catholic beliefs. <S> The Catholic priest would certainly have explained the implications if the question had come up. <A> "Full water method" sounds like a full immersion, but is there something else perhaps that the Catholic Church would not recognize in this baptismal type? <S> Otherwise, she (Catholic Church) says this about baptism. <S> It is: " <S> The sacramental bond of the unity of Christians 1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians , including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: " <S> For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. <S> Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church. <S> "81 <S> "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn. <S> "82 <S> So, unless there's some other problem, like LDS baptism, (different Christ), then not sure why the priest wouldn't recognize the baptismal community of all Christians. <A> If the baptism followed the liturgy and simple requirements found in the Didache, which is recognized by the Catholic Church as the oldest known example for those in the faith to follow, then the priest cannot object to it. <S> The Didache outlines a baptism in cold, free-flowing water with a full immersion to one that consists of the sprinkling of any water available.	She will have to go through formal acceptance into the Catholic church, but that will likely not involve another baptism.
Is there a term for children whose parents' marriage ends with nullity? In its discussion of marriage, the Catechism of the Catholic Church ( CCC ) states, "The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element"( CCC 1626 ) that seals the covenant of matrimony. "If this freedom is lacking, the marriage is invalid." ( CCC 1628 ) The CCC goes on to say, "For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void), the Church ... can declare a nullity of marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed." ( CCC 1629 ) In consideration of this, it lends to question what the nature of the sexual relations were if the marriage never existed. However, that's an aside; it's the children of such a union I'm asking about. Presumptively, these are children baptized in the Church with godparents. Is there a term for children born from what was thought to be a valid Catholic marriage whose parents then go through legal divorce and the Church delclares the marriage null ? Please no derogatory answers, but if there's something "you've heard somewhere," feel free to add as a comment with some context. <Q> Yes, there is a term: legitimate children Canon 1137 of The Code of Canon Law: <S> “The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.” <S> Canon 1061 of the Code of Canon Law “An invalid marriage is called putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one of the parties, until both parties become certain of its nullity”. <S> There is no stain, and no fault, laid upon any child under canon law due to a decree of nullity. <S> Beyond that simple term, based on your presumption <S> Presumptively, these are children baptized in the Church with godparents. <S> there is another term for those children: Baptized Catholics. <A> The answer to this question depends upon whether the marriage is invalid or valid. <S> If the marriage is valid (either certainly valid or putatively valid), then the children are legitimate, even if the marriage is subsequently annuled: Canon 1137 <S> The children conceived or born of a valid or putative[ly valid] marriage are legitimate. <S> Expressed negatively: If "children [are not] conceived or born of a valid or putative[ly valid] marriage," then they are illegitimate. <S> The canonist Charles Augustine, O.S.B., D.D.—commentating on 1917 Code canon 1174 , which corresponds to the 1983 Code canon 1137 —writes in his A Commentary on the New Code of Canon <S> Law book 3, vol. <S> 5, p. 332 <S> : <S> But legitimacy always requires a marriage , whether certainly or putatively valid. <S> A putatively valid marriage is one contracted with due observance of the prescribed form, but with an invalidating impediment, the existence of which is unknown to one of the parties. <S> The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law p. 1259 , published in 2000, also describes how "putative marriage" in Canon 1137 specifically means a "putatively valid marriage": <S> For a marriage to be considered putative, it must have been celebrated according to the required form and, therefore, have the appearance of a marriage. <S> Thus, when a Catholic enters marriage without observing the canonical form and without being dispensed from its observance, the attempted marriage is not considered putative but simply invalid. <S> If, however, the canonical form was observed but was substantially defective (e.g., the official minister was not properly delegated), the marriage would be considered putative. <S> The most significant effect of a putative marriage is that any children born of it are considered legitimate, even if it is subsequently declared invalid (c. 1137). <S> A putative marriage also enjoys the favor of the law. <S> It remains putative until both spouses become certain of its nullity. <S> Thus, the spouses' doubts, even grave doubts, about the validity of their marriage are not sufficient to deprive it of its status as putative. <S> the spouses on their own may become certain of the invalidity of their marriage because of an impediment. <S> However, most couples become certain that their marriage was invalid because of a defect of consent only through the decision of a church tribunal. <A> This is what I heard on Relevant Radio a few years back. <S> I believe it was Fr. <S> Rocky who said something to this effect: There is no special status for the children as the Church presumes that the man and woman who entered into a marriage that was later found to be null. <S> I found the reasoning to be pretty confusing. <S> But I believe it had something to do with the marriage appearing to be valid and giving the parents the benefit of the doubt, that the fact they parents thought they were married it makes it so thier children are not illegitimate.	A marriage is certainly valid if contracted without an invalidating impediment and according to the form prescribed by the Church.
What is the difference between an apostle and a disciple? Some people use "apostles" and "disciples" interchangeably when talking about the 12 that originally followed Jesus. Yet, I don't commonly hear the opposite, people using those two words interchangeably when talking about those that follow Jesus after his resurrection and ascension. When I do hear them interchanged, it doesn't sound correct. What is the difference between an apostle and disciple? And does it change from denomination to denomination? <Q> The Oxford Dictionary gives a generic meaning of disciple as: <S> A follower or pupil of a teacher, leader, or philosopher. <S> The specific meaning is given as A personal follower of Christ during his life, especially one of the twelve Apostles. <S> Apostle is from the same Greek word as post and conveys the sense of a messenger of Christ. <S> Prior to the Ascension Peter etc. <S> were essentially following Jesus and learning from Him. <S> They were disciples. <S> After Whitsun they were teaching about Him. <S> They were His apostles. <S> So the fundamental difference is between learning and teaching. <S> They also conducted a preaching tour during Jesus' earthly ministry. <S> So at that point they were both. <S> In practice, though, people often use the terms interchangeably. <A> From the word root, "apostle" means "one who is sent" (similar to the English word "post"). <S> Jesus sent his 12 disciples/apostles out in Matthew 10:5, Luke 9:2, and Mark 6:7. <S> He also sent out 72 disciples/apostles in Luke 10:1. <S> In addition, we have the Apostle Paul who was also sent (after Jesus' resurrection and ascension) by Jesus to the Gentiles (Eph 3:9). <S> In contrast, "disciple" is a student (one who disciplines themselves to learn). <S> Both words could apply to any Christians, since Christians today are taught to obey everything Christ taught the original disciples (Matt 28:20), including being a student and being sent. <S> However, "apostles" usually (i.e., in most denominations) is used in reference to those who were directly sent by Christ. <A> The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent, defines the terms as follows: <S> Disciple : <S> Besides the signification of "Apostle" and that of "believer" there is finally a third one, found in St. Luke, and perhaps also in the other Evangelists. <S> St. Luke narrates (6:13) that Jesus "called unto him his disciples, and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles) <S> " This is just an excerpt. <S> The article discusses the definition of the term in length and goes over each of these three-ish usages. <S> Apostle : <S> The term Apostle also has three-ish usages, but two chief usages. <S> One is as a Greek translation of the Aramaic title Jesus gave the twelve: seliah . <S> This word means: "those who were despatched from the mother city by the rulers of the race on any foreign mission, especially such as were charged with collecting the tribute paid to the temple service" <S> (Lightfoot, "Galatians", London, 1896, p. 93, via New Advent) <S> The other meaning is specifically one of those called by Jesus for the special purpose of the Apostolate.	A definition of apostle is An important early Christian teacher or pioneering missionary.
Is God the Son's divine nature human? According to the hypostatic union, God the Son assumed a human nature, so that he is both fully divine and fully human. The two natures, although distinct, are not separated. Does this mean god the son's divine nature is fully human ? If not, what does "without division, without separation" mean? <Q> Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably , indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved , and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us. <S> Chalcedonian Definition <S> Absolutely not. <S> The divine nature remains forever divine and not human, for that would be a change to the nature and a confusion of the natures. <A> No, according to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, the divine nature did not become fully human, or even partially human. <S> From the Formula of Chalcedon: <S> one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change , without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence <S> Much of the confusion around the HU is placing the two natures in the same category with the person. <S> The person is fully human and fully divine, but the two natures are unchanged. <S> You ask <S> What does "without division, without separation" mean? <S> It means that the two natures can not be separated from each other when discussing the person Jesus. <S> We can not divide the properties of Jesus between the two natures. <S> We all agree that the person Jesus was born of Mary. <S> Under the HU, we can not separate the two natures and say that the man (only) Jesus was born of Mary. <S> We must always say as well that God was born of Mary. <S> The two natures are united in the person of Jesus but are not changed by the union. <S> The union is so ' stong' that we can not find any separation or division in Jesus. <A> No, only the Divine Nature (God) is divine. <S> The human nature (body, soul) of Jesus is not God, Jesus, the Person (the Son, intrinsic to the Divine Nature), to Whom that human nature belongs, is God. <S> Not His human nature: else He would not be human; human natures are not divine. <S> Jesus Christ is truly a "man" ( 1 Tim 2:5 ) as well as He is God.	The divine nature is united with the human nature in person of Jesus Christ, but it is unchanged by this union.
is Adam no longer the son of God? Luke 3:38 (KJV) states (emphasis added): which was the son of Enos, which was the son of seth, whcih was the son of Adam, which was the son of God" . The verse uses the past tense. Does that indicate that Adam is no longer a son of God? When Jesus was speaking to the Sadducees in Mark 12:26 (KJV), emphasis added, He said: God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham.... Which is present tense and shows Abraham is still alive. Since the bible is using Adam " was " the son of God, does this mean Adam is no longer a son of God? <Q> This is an artifact of the translation you are using. <S> There is no verb in the Greek text of the verse. <S> Consider this version: the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. <S> [Luke 3:37-38 NKJV] Notice that the NKJV (like many other translations) <S> places the son in italics. <S> This indicates that the words were added to make to text read more like English. <S> Some other translations go further and add something like 'who was'. <S> The Greek version is more terse, reading something like "... <S> Enosh of Seth of Adam of God" <S> The passage in no way suggests that Adam is no longer of God. <A> The answer onto your question is exactly in your question. <S> Following your logic, we should ask also: does it mean, that Enos is not son of Seth, and Seth is not son of Adam anymore, because the past tense "was" is used in the text? <S> Of course no. <S> That only means that born event and their relations were in past, as all this people died. <S> That does not mean that spiritual relations, or historical relations were broken. <A> mean those sons are no longer sons of the fathers mentioned. <S> For example, in verse 23 we read: ... <S> Joseph, which was the son of Heli... <S> The use of the past tense means the speaker is referring to people who have died. <S> Joseph remains the son of Heli just as Adam remains the son of God. <S> Likewise, if we take a larger look at Mark 12:26, we find: ... <S> how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham... <S> Mark is discussing a past event. <S> It is common when speaking of past events to express them in present tense. <S> Think of it this way, <S> back then God said, "I am the God of Abraham." <S> Please note that the verse does not mean (as you suggest in your question) that Abraham is still alive. <S> That may be true in a spiritual sense, but Abraham was long dead by Mark's time and could not enjoy the resurrection until after Jesus was resurrected, which had not happened by the time discussed in Mark 12:26. <A> There is no indication of past present or future time in the original Greek. <S> I found the text in Greek and English at this biblehub page. <S> As you can see, it simply shows there is a relationship, not the exact nature of it. <S> The first Greek text is from the SBLGNT version, which closely matches the Greek text used by the NIV translators, also found on bibehub. <S> (Luke 3:38 [SBLGNT])τοῦ Ἐνὼς τοῦ <S> Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ θεοῦ. <S> GRK: ... <S> Σήθ τοῦ Ἀδάμ τοῦ θεοῦ NAS: ... the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. <S> KJV: ... which was [the son] of Seth, which was [the son] of Adam, which was [the son] of God. <S> INT: ... of Seth of Adam of God <S> The INT (interlinear) line is the key to what is in the Greek text. <S> The word "τοῦ", transliterated to "ton", is a form of the Greek for "the" and here is understood to mean "of". <S> Both the KJV and NAS add the words "the son" to clarify the relationship for the English reader. <S> Only the KJV chose to add "which was", which suggests, but does not require, that the relationship no longer exists. <S> Another way to put it could be, " ... <S> Enos came from Seth came from Adam came from God". <S> And then I wonder if I should add some "who"s <S> in there.	The use of the past tense in Luke 3:38 does not mean Adam is no longer the son of God anymore than the past tense in any of the verses of Luke 3:23-38
Where in the Biblical narrative does God first reveal himself as the only living and true god? It seems upon course consideration that God has always taught that he is the only actual God. But upon closer inspection, it appears that God reveals himself to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as "El Shaddai" which is "God Almighty" or "The Almighty God", El being the general word for "a god" in the Canaanite language. He is also referred to as "El Elyon" which is "Most High God" or "Uppermost God." He says to Moses in Exodus 6:3, "I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, YHWH, I did not make Myself known to them." These names from Genesis, as well as much of the dialogue in the narrative that forms a context for them, seem to me to suggest that the patriarchs revered YHWH as the greatest of the gods or the god of gods, but not necessarily the only real God. Later, the Spirit of Prophecy reveals through Isaiah that YHWH is the only true God. Isaiah 43:9-13 (NASB) 9 All the nations have gathered together So that the peoples may be assembled. Who among them can declare this And proclaim to us the former things? Let them present their witnesses that they may be justified, Or let them hear and say, “It is true.” 10 “You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And My servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. 11 “I, even I, am the Lord, And there is no savior besides Me. 12 “It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “And I am God. 13 “Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?” Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. I can't find any references before Isaiah that clearly state that there are no other gods, without qualifiers like "before me" or "like me". Where in the biblical narrative is it first made clear that YHWH is not only the most powerful and greatest God, but he is the One True God, and that all other beings or objects that might be called "gods" are false? <Q> I think you are missing something by eliminating verses that contain the qualifiers along the lines of "there are no gods like me. <S> " I think these are very strong statements for God being the only living god. <S> What you seem to be saying is that a statement like this is comparative in nature <S> , i.e. "No god is like me in what I am able to do" or <S> "No god is as great as I am. <S> " I would posit that God is actually talking about his nature in statements like these. <S> So what God is saying is more along the lines of "No god is of the same nature as I am. <S> " In other words, no other gods exist. <S> That being said, to specifically answer your question, I would say Deuteronomy 6:4 is a strong statement for God being the one true god: <S> Hear, O Israel: <S> The Lord our God, the Lord is one. <S> (NIV) <S> The footnotes in multiple translations note that this could also be translated as The Lord is our God, the Lord alone <A> Deuteronomy provides much of the early "one true only God" motif. <S> Here are some references. <S> Deut. <S> 32:39 <S> See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, <S> and I heal: <S> neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. <S> Deut. <S> 4:35 <S> Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. <S> Deut. <S> 6:4 <S> Hear, O Israel: <S> The LORD our God is one LORD: <A> The first documented revelation of God in scripture is in the book of Job which preceded the Pentateuch. <S> In the first chapter is the account of the sons of God, Satan among them, presenting themselves before God. <S> It is clear from the account that the beings called 'sons of God' are subservient, in that they are sons. <S> And it is clear from the narrative that Satan only has power within the limitations that God sets upon him. <S> God who is revealed in the book of Job is he who, later, reveals himself to Abraham and to Moses as Jehovah, (Genesis 15:2, 15:8), (Deuteronomy 3:24, 9:26). <S> [Edit Note: <S> Job refers to God as Adonai in 12:9; as El in 16:11; as Elohim in 2:10 and as Eloah in 6:9.] <S> [Reference : Young's Analytical Concordance.] <A> Genesis 1:1 <S> - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. <S> - NIV <S> This sets the context of the narrative. <S> False gods are introduced incidentally much much later in the narrative (after the confusion of Babel). <S> The fact that there is absolutely no mention of the presence or creation of other gods at the beginning is significant - it stands in contrast to all the polytheistic creation myths.	I would say therefore, in answer to the question, that it is first made clear in Job chapter one that God is above all other who might be called 'god'.
What to do with a Nun’s silver wedding band? I found the silver wedding band that belonged to a deceased nun . I do not know the family, but her name is engraved inside and dated 2-12-46. What does the Church teach about the sacramental status of these objects and how can I avoid blasphemy while possessing them? <Q> Womanhood is fulfilled quite as perfectly in a life of virginal chastity as in human marriage. <S> And that is why the Church's ancient and elaborate ceremonial for the consecration of virgins has for its climax the placing of a wedding ring on the finger of the newly professed nun. " <S> Receive this ring that marks you as a bride of God. <S> " <S> She is wedded to Christ. <S> And the union is fecund with souls. <S> The Cloistered Life of a Poor Clare <S> And, if so, I think it would have the same sacramental status as a wedding band. <S> Catholic radio host and author Lisa Duffy, writing for the The Catholic Match Institute, says: <S> Therefore, the Church does not mandate that wedding rings must be kept or cannot be sold. <S> What happens to a wedding ring is a very personal decision and is left up to the spouse who remains in possession of it and with regards to selling it, she quotes the Catechism's part on the sin of simony saying that you can't sell it as a magic totem or that it's better because it was a nun's ring <S> (historical reasons may increase the value, but not spiritual reasons). <S> My first instinct reading your question was that it should be melted down and disposed of on holy ground like you would with the ashes from old palms or busted blessed scapulars. <S> But maybe that isn't the case for wedding rings. <S> The Church provides us with sacramentals (primarily articles that have been blessed, such as rosaries, crucifixes, holy cards, etc. <S> but can also be prayers), for the purposes of instilling piety in the one who possesses them. <S> So the blessing is on the person who holds the ring and the ring, it's not on the ring itself. <A> The answer to this question has to do with the two types of blessings <S> and it seems that wedding rings fall under invocative blessings because they are not being blessed to be set aside for liturgical use. <S> So you can sell or give away a wedding ring because it is an outward sign of the marriage bond and is no longer serving that function. <S> Also if she was a nun I would be curious if it was a wedding ring. <S> Was she a widow? <A> I am going to give an answer, contrary to what I would normally do. <S> That is to say without sources because this will be too long for a comment, yet based on personal experience in handling many different types of sacramentals. <S> Many priests <S> I know wear the rings of their father when they die, while others have the ring(s) of either of their parents placed into the foot of the chalice they are to receive for ordination (if either one dies prior to his ordination). <S> As you can see, rings can be easily fixed to the narrowest part of a chalice. <S> Some chalices are able to be taken apart simply by turning the cup and foot in opposite directions. <S> Others are made in one piece. <S> Not knowing the history of the ring in question, one would have to treat it with respect for what it stands for. <S> Here are a few suggestions I would like to put forth as in reverently disposing rings or any other blessed sacramentals of the Church. <S> They can be given (not sold) to someone to be placed on a chalice or melted down to be added to the metal used in a new chalice. <S> I know of some religious who place such objects in the foundations of new churches. <S> If the sacramental (blessing) value has not been comprised, then this is a reverent way of disposing of a nun's wedding bands. <S> Thus it has been returned to the Church. <S> As long as you treat the nun's wedding ring with respect, there is no sin or blasphemy in possessing the ring , but I would highly recommend that it finds its way "home" in one form or another.	From what I've read, I think that the wedding band given to a consecrated religious sister is given to her for the same reason it is given to a married laywoman.
Does faith cometh by hearing only as alluded to in Romans 10:17? (KJV) Romans 10:17 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. It seems Paul alludes to faith cometh by hearing the word of God,but in several instances in bible(Hebrews 4:1)(Isaiah 53:1) they heard the word of God but did not believe. So can we conclude that faith comes by hearing alone? <Q> There are two primary groups. <S> One hears the gospel, builds faith on it and understand. <S> He is like the good soil. <S> Matthew 13:23 <S> he that received seed into the good ground <S> is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. <S> Another group hears the gospel, but do not build faith on it and do not understand. <S> He is like the hard ground of the way side. <S> Matthew 13:19 <S> When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. <S> This is he which received seed by the way side. <S> But imagine if there were no seed at all, no gospel, no word of God? <S> Therefore, faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of God. <S> Now faith is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8), grace and the Holy Spirit <S> are also the gifts of God. <S> But the gospel, which is the word, which is really Jesus Himself, is the seed and root of all. <A> Can we take four words out of the middle of a verse and conclude that it means faith only comes by hearing and no other way? <S> No. <S> This verse has to be taken in context. <S> Here are some of the preceding verses from the KJV : 13 <S> For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. <S> 14 <S> How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? <S> andhow shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? <S> and howshall they hear without a preacher? <S> 15 <S> And how shall they preach, except they be sent? <S> as it is written,How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace,and bring glad tidings of good things! <S> 16 <S> But they have not all obeyed the gospel. <S> For Esaias saith, Lord,who hath believed our report? <S> 17 <S> So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. <S> Pay attention to verse 14 especially. <S> Paul is saying that you cannot expect people to believe in god if you have not heard of Him, so it is up to us to become preachers or evangelists to preach the word of God so that others might hear it and believe. <S> But what about reading the word of God? <S> Experiencing a miracle? <S> Experiencing God in prayer or sacrifice? <S> Paul is not discounting any of these ways of 'obtaining' faith. <S> To your other point, yes there are examples of people hearing the word of God and not believing. <S> That does not discount that some believe through hearing - the two are not mutually exclusive. <A> Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). <S> But there are some who hear and understand not (Isa. 6:10, Eze. <S> 12:2, Mat. 13:14). <S> Indeed, some cannot understand (John 12:39). <S> God must open one's heart to believe what one hears (Luke 24:45, 2 Cor. 4:6). <S> Here are a couple of historic writers who understood how it works. <S> He speaks moreover concerning our ears, how He hath circumcised both them and our heart. <S> The Lord saith in the prophet, “In the hearing of the ear they obeyed me. <S> ”1548 <S> And again He saith, “By hearing, those shall hear who are afar off; they shall know what I have done. <S> ”1549 <S> And, “Be ye circumcised in your hearts, saith the Lord. <S> ”1550 <S> And again He says, “Hear, O Israel, for these things saith the Lord thy God. <S> ”1551 <S> And once more the Spirit of the Lord proclaims, “Who is he that wishes to live for ever? <S> By hearing let him hear the voice of my servant. <S> ”1552 <S> And again He saith, “Hear, O heaven, and give ear, O earth, for God1553 hath spoken. <S> ”1554 <S> These are in proof. <S> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.vi.ii.ix.html <S> Moreover, faith is twofold. <S> For faith cometh by hearing.23402340 <S> Rom. <S> x. 17. <S> For by hearing the divine Scriptures we believe in the teaching of the Holy Spirit. <S> http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iv.x.html <S> The conception, indeed, was through the sense of hearing, but the birth through the usual path by which children come, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf209.iii.iv.iv.xiv.html?highlight=hear,mary#highlight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Barnabas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus	Nothing in the passage talks about exclusivity of how faith comes, but it clearly states that one way is through hearing the word of God.
Can Papal Supremacy be relinquished? Is there anything in the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy that would prohibit the Pope from relinquishing his authority as head of the Church, and instead be "First among Equals?" One of the fundamental differences separating the Roman Catholic Church from our fellow Christians in the Orthodox Church is the issue of papal supremacy. Rome believes that the Pope is the leader of the entire church, while the Orthodox believe that the Bishop of Rome is first among equals. Given the pressure of secularism (both from outside and inside the Church), I believe that it is high time for us Christians who believe in the ancient faith to be united. My questions is this: Given the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy, would it be possible, for the sake of Christian unity, for the Pope to relinquish that supremacy and become first among equals? Could he decide that it would be better for the universal church if he acted as "Prime Minister" of the faith, instead of "King of the faith?" <Q> Papal primacy belongs to the very nature of the Church. <S> No one can change how Christ Himself constituted His Church. <S> The First Vatican Council defined ( Pastor Æternus ch. 2 ) <S> the dogma that there will be a perpetual line of successors of St. Peter, the first pope, with "Primacy over the universal Church": <S> If, then, any should deny…that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over the universal Church…: let him be anathema. <S> Si quis ergo dixerit, non esse … <S> ut beatus Petrus in primatu super universam Ecclesiam habeat perpetuos successores…: anathema sit. <S> (taken from my answer here ) <S> Thus primacy is also perpetual. <A> No, he cannot, or at least, he can't without saying that the past two-hundred years of Catholic theology is wrong. <S> Either the Pope has the power of infallibility or he does not. <S> If he does, then he cannot renounce it because he has it by the nature of his position (it is part of his office as established by Christ). <S> If he does not, then both Vatican councils are wrong (as they explicitly proclaim that he does), and it is likely that 14 of the Catholic Ecumenical Councils will need to be revised or rejected (as they were done without the inclusion of the Eastern Patriarchs). <S> It is not, however, impossible for the Pope to "retire" and leave the seat vacant. <S> So long as the See of Peter is vacant, there is no one to take up claim to Papal Infallibility. <S> All of that said, there are more issues involved in the schism than just the infallibility of the Pope. <S> On Jurisdiction <S> So, based on the comments below, I've been asked to expand this answer to relate to jurisdictional questions. <S> My understanding is that this situation already exists . <S> Namely, that the Pope does have a certain level of jurisdictional control over the Eastern Catholic churches, and Pope John Paul II did create a loose framework called Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches , but that they have the right to create their own set of canons amending these canons and are specifically encouraged to do so. <S> Could a future Pope assert some sort of dominance over the Eastern Churches? <S> Yes. <S> Is that likely? <S> No. <S> The Orthodox, as a whole, are still uninterested in full communion. <A> The reason is because of its asserting same over near 2,000 years. <S> Here is its Catechism formulation. <S> 552 <S> Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the <S> Twelve;283 Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him . <S> Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. <S> " Our Lord then declared to him: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. <S> "284 <S> Christ, the "living Stone",285 <S> thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. <S> Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. <S> His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.286 <S> 553 <S> Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter : "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. <S> "287 <S> The "power of the keys" designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church . <S> Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: "Feed my sheep. <S> "288 <S> The power to "bind and loose" connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. <S> Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom.	The quick answer is no; the Roman Catholic Church will never relinquish papal supremacy.
How can I defend my position of being against homosexuality in front of unbelievers? I am a high school student who stands fervently against homosexuality. I have remained quiet about my belief so far, but now it has been coming up in class as a topic that should be supported, and those against homosexuality have been discussed as bigoted and wrongly biased. I want to stand up for my position, and I'm completely willing to risk my reputation in the process, but I just don't know what to say if I'm asked why I stand against homosexuality. The only reason I have at the moment is that the Bible is against homosexuality. That is sufficient for me, but obviously non-Christians, who don't believe in the validity of the Bible, want more reasons or at least more definite reasons. What should I say if a non-Christian asks me why I'm against homosexuality? <Q> None of us is without sin totally. <S> With the transgender nonsense, we can refer to Genesis 1:27. <S> So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. <S> Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their wickedness in Genesis 18-19. <S> We can argue that the Greek and Roman Empires fell because of their wickedness. <S> Sadly, we're seeing the same behavior rampant today. <S> As Christians, we need to show mercy, but not to condone what God clearly states as harmful behavior. <S> We shouldn't "candy coat" bad behavior. <S> But we need to show tact when pointing out flaws. <S> We need to examine ourselves for hypocrisy and pray for our own repentance before approaching the others. <S> Luke 15:7 states:7. <S> I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. <S> 1 Peter 4:7-9 reinforces this:7. <S> The end of all things is near. <S> Therefore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray.8. <S> Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.9. <S> Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. <S> Contrast <S> the fruit of the Spirit with worldly behavior. <S> Colossians 3 & Galatians 5 are good chapters for this. <S> There are other references, too. <S> I applaud your stance. <S> Keep doing what is simply right in the eyes of God & pressing closer to God and He will reward you. <S> Stay in the Word by reading your Bible often. <S> When you aren't sure about a decision you should take, consult the Bible. <S> There are online studies you can read as long as it is a godly source. <A> I prefer, myself, to state matters in a fundamental way, rather than make personal remarks. <S> For example, I prefer to state that God made male and female, and God did so with a purpose. <S> It was God who created humanity <S> and it was God who made the way that humanity is propagated. <S> And he made it all for a purpose. <S> The ultimate purpose of God becomes clear in Christ and in the Church, the Body and Bride of Christ. <S> I find it best to speak of these matters in this way. <A> There are several books that can help. <S> I haven't read any of 'em <S> but I see them advertised a lot on the National Catholic Register, Gilbert! <S> Magazine and various flyers <S> I get from publishers of finer Catholic media. <S> Making Gay <S> Okay: <S> How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything by Robert R. Reilly <S> Well-written, timely and insightful work that casts light on the homosexual agenda <S> https://www.catholiccompany.com/making-gay-okay-rationalizing-homosexual-behavior-changing-everything-i113020/?sli=1007029 <S> Why I Don't Call Myself Gay: <S> How I Reclaimed My Sexual Reality and Found Peace by Daniel Mattson <S> Part memoir, part philosophy about reality, and part a practical guide for living chastely <S> , Mattson draws lessons from his own fight for chastity, sharing wisdom from his own failures and successes Beyond that it's good to ponder what Pope Francis meant when he said "who am I to Judge" in reference to a hypothetical gay man trying to live a good life. <S> If you need practice, get some reputation on this site by answering some questions and argue with other Christians in the Chatroom of this website, there's plenty of us who could go either way when it comes to homosexuality. <S> The "how" part of "how can I defend my position" is simple, just state your feelings. <S> Remember, ( <S> and this is what I learned from Christian Marriage Encounter) <S> feelings are never wrong. <S> Obviously they're not always right either, but if you're in an emotionally charged debate and you say <S> I feel that homosexuality harms a person's soul. <S> What is the argument against that? <S> And that's what the problem is - the reason for disliking homosexuality is what it does to the person caught up in the lifestyle (and their families). <S> I feel it's natural to be angry with it, the same as it's natural to be angry with anything that helps ones vices destroy their chances of happiness (alcohol, kleptomania, too much money). <S> Don't give up, but don't give in to the temptation to get over emotional when arguing against homosexuality. <S> Don't let someone telling you <S> it's a hate crime stop you. <S> If it's a hate crime to state your feelings then you have the obligation to fight on both fronts, but your compassion should be with the homosexuals, not the bureaucrats.	It is against the law, here in the UK, to make remarks that would be considered 'homophobic' in a public place and, in certain circumstances, in private.
What is the Biblical basis that God "cannot" act against his nature? I understand the traditional theology of omnipotence to be that God can do anything He wills, and that his omnipotence is thereby limited to His nature. In other words, saying that God can do anything does not imply that He can lie or sin. For example: God is all-powerful and able to do whatever he wills. Since his will is limited by his nature, God can do everything that is in harmony with his perfections. – Thiessen The best proof texts for this seem to be Hebrews 6:18 and 2 Timothy 2:13. However, based on a debate with a friend, I asked this question on Biblical Hermeneutics SE, and got an answer that surprised me: According to the answer, Hebrews 6:18 does not necessarily mean that God cannot lie - only that He won't. So this leads me to a question: What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine that God's omnipotence means that he cannot act against his nature? Would it perhaps be more correct to say that he will not act against his nature? <Q> The Concise Oxford English Dictionary <S> (11th ed.) <S> defines "nature" as "the basic or inherent features, qualities, or character of a person or thing. <S> " <S> In essence, He would change. <S> Scripture teaches that God does not change. <S> According to James, there is no variableness nor shadow of turning in God (James 1:17). <S> The Lord said to Malachi (3:6), For I am the Lord, I change not. <A> I believe that your question, although well intentioned, is irrelevant and unanswerable. <S> II Peter 3:8 eludes to the truth of the matter: <S> But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. <S> God is outside of time. <S> From our perspective he was, is, and will be, all at the same time, just as Boethius speculated. <S> So the question "Does God's omnipotence give him the power to do something sinful or against his nature? <S> " is irrelevant because it presupposes choice. <S> Choice presupposes being in time. <S> God has done, is doing, and will do, according to his nature which is completely good. <A> God can do whatever he wills or wants to do . <S> Anything and everything one could think of ! <S> However, because everything possible is not included in his nature ( God telling a lie, to not be all loving , or limit himself to what he can see or do ...etc) , which means he would change in nature and subsequently we would change as well. <S> Everything on earth and the universe comes from the nature of God. <S> And the nature of God is eternal, he can go against his nature if he wanted to, but we trust and come to believe that he won’t. <S> If God changed his nature , in the blink of an eye, we would cease to exist. <S> ( or at the very least be changed forever ) <A> Omnipotence is often loosely defined as, "having the ability to do anything. <S> " <S> As some would argue God could not create a square circle, or simultaneously exist and not exist, He must not be--by definition--omnipotent. <S> This conclusion rests on the assumption that omnipotence stands or falls on the limits of someone's imagination; however, the ability to answer an assemblage of contradictory ideas does not determine whether God is all-powerful. <S> The true determination for omnipotence is, can God do whatever He intends to do, whenever and in whatever way He intends to do it? <S> The Bible declares He can. <S> Psalm 115:3 <S> [MEV]: <S> "But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases." <S> Daniel 4:35 <S> [MEV]: "... <S> He does according to His will in the army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. <S> And no one can stay His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?' <S> " <S> Isaiah 43:13 [MEV]: <S> "Indeed, from eternity I am He; there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; I act, and who can reverse it?" <S> Luke 1:37 <S> [MEV]: <S> "For with God nothing will be impossible.” <S> Luke 18:27 <S> [MEV]: <S> "He said, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” <S> With regard to your question: Hebrews 6:18 [MEV]: <S> "So that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us." <S> "Impossible," as used here, has two possible meanings; either God lacks the power to lie; or God is unable to lie [Strong's G102]. <S> As can be seen above, God can do whatever He chooses to do; whenever and however He chooses to do it. <S> Therefore, the meaning of "impossible" in Hebrews 6:18 is that God cannot lie. <S> This interpretation is confirmed in Titus 1:2 [MEV]: "in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before the world began" God cannot lie because it is not in His nature. <S> As He is the God of truth [Psalm 31:5], it is impossible for Him to lie. <S> It is therefore true that He will not act against His nature; it is also true that He cannot act His nature.	For God to act against His nature would mean, employing the COED definition of "nature", that He would be exhibiting features, quality, or character that were not basic or inherent to Him.
When would a Mormon choose to go to the temple instead of the church? The accepted answer to this other question mentions that Mormons have two types of meeting locations: temples and churches. According to the answer, the churches have a 3-hour meeting every Sunday. In what kind of cases or times would a Mormon then visit a temple for a meeting? <Q> It's not a choice between the two as the question seems to be asking. <S> The temple is not actually a meetinghouse where ordinary worship services are held. <S> (In fact, temples are closed on Sundays.) <S> Latter-Day Saints regard the temple as the House of the Lord, a highly sacred place where, like the temple in the Old Testament, very special, sacred ordinances are performed. <S> The majority of the work that takes place in temples has to do with the LDS doctrine of salvation for the dead. <S> Mormons believe that those who died without the Gospel can accept it in the hereafter, as has been discussed elsewhere on this site, but also that certain saving ordinances, such as baptism and confirmation, are necessary for salvation. <S> This apparent dilemma is resolved by proxy work: in the temple, people can do this work on behalf of those who have passed on, consistent with Paul's mention in 1 Corinthians of baptism for the dead. <S> As far as I'm aware, ordinances on behalf of the dead cannot be performed anywhere but inside a temple. <A> One does not replace the other: a faithful member of the Church will attend regular, weekly Sunday meetings and attend the temple when possible. <S> Temples are usually open during the week and Saturday, as opposed to Sundays. <S> The ordinances of the temple do not replace the ordinance of the Sacrament administered in Sunday meetings, and both temple and Sacrament ordinances are necessary for salvation and exaltation. <S> But it is encouraged by Church leaders to attend the temple often and always hold a current temple recommend (certifying one's worthiness) to be able to enter it. <S> More information about temples, including their schedules, can be found here: http://temples.lds.org/ <A> The reasons a Mormon goes to a temple instead of a church can be found in Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple manual: <S> In the Church we build buildings of many kinds. <S> In them we worship, we teach, we find recreation, we organize. <S> We can organize stakes and wards and missions and quorums and Relief Societies in these buildings or even in rented halls. <S> But, when we organize families according to the order that the Lord has revealed, we organize them in the temples. <S> Temple marriage, that sealing ordinance, is a crowning blessing that you may claim in the holy temple . <S> In the temples members of the Church who make themselves eligible can participate in the most exalted of the redeeming ordinances that have been revealed to mankind. <S> There, in a sacred ceremony, an individual may be washed and anointed and instructed and endowed and sealed. <S> And when we have received these blessings for ourselves, we may officiate for those who have died without having had the same opportunity. <S> In the temples the sacred ordinances are performed for the living and for the dead alike. <A> An analogy would be asking "When would a Jew in the first century go to the Temple in Jerusalem instead of the local synagogue? <S> " They would go to the local synagogue on the Sabbath to meet with their congregation and less frequently to the Temple (typically for festivals like Passover) to participate in rituals. <S> Latter-day Saints go to their local chapel on the Sabbath to meet with their congregation. <S> They go to the Temple less frequently to participate in rituals. <S> How often is up to individual members. <S> Some go 1+ times a week, 1+ times a month, 1+ times a year, maybe only for things like weddings, maybe not at all. <S> There isn't really any overlap between the types of meetings that are held at chapels and the types of rituals participated in at the Temple. <S> Basically, this is similar to the difference between what was done in a synagogue versus in the Temple in 1st century Judea. <S> For example, animals were only sacrificed at the Temple in Jerusalem while in the synagogue they were primarily doing things like hearing and discussing the scriptures.	Some members attend the temple regularly; others go when they can, or when they need to.
Does the Catholic Church have a list of Good Books? The Church maintained an index of banned books for a long time, until it got to be a "must read for Satanists" list. Has the Church (or affiliated bodies) ever maintained a list of good books. Here's what I know so far: I know of the Catholic Library Association's book award (but that's just one Children's book per year) there's the imprimatur and nihil obstat , but I don't think they keep a categorized list and I don't think it generally includes fiction. The USCCB does movie ratings, but not book reviews as far as I know. Focus on the Family does book reviews, but it's not Catholic. <Q> Yes. <S> They're called the Biblical Canon. <S> The books of the Holy Bible were originally a number of separate documents that the Church leadership officially agreed to be the authoritative collection of documents on their faith. <A> There is no official recommended great Catholic books list from the Vatican. <S> But that said, several Catholic websites give the faithful a great list of Catholic books recommended for reading. <S> The following is a small sampling only: 50 Books <S> Every Catholic Should Read Best Catholic Books of All-Time Intellectual Catholic Book List Catholic Classics Reading List Loyola University (Chicago) <S> Catholic, Summer Book List <S> The Top 40: A Traditional Catholic Reading List <S> Top 100 Catholic Theology Books : <S> A Book List by Taylor Marshall for the New Saint Thomas Institute 5 Spiritual Books <S> Every Man Should Read True Devotion to Mary by St. Louis de Montfort <S> had more influence on Pope John Paul II than most of us will ever know! <A> All the best works written by the Doctors of the Church are certainly recommended, as one must teach in some fashion for the Church to declare a saint a doctor. <S> Popes have praised books in magisterial documents, too, for example: <S> St. Thomas Aquinas's works, esp. <S> his Summa Theologica <S> Pope Leo XIII summarizes several popes' testimonies regarding St. Thomas Aquinas's writings in his encyclical Æterni Patris , and he writes: the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the Summa [Theologica] of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration. <S> See also this collection of testimonies . <S> Dante's works in Pope Benedict XV's encyclical on Dante Cdl. <S> Silvio <S> Antonio's On the Christian Education of Children (written at the behest of St. Charles Borromeo) in Pope Pius XI's encyclical on Christian education <A> The following text often accompanies an imprimatur: <S> The nihil obstat and imprimatur are declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. <S> No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the nihil obstat or imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed. <S> (Exact text from Wikipedia, compare with the front of any major Catholic apologetics book) <S> Thus, an imprimatur can be seen as a sort of <S> "this is a good book" approval system, or, considering the disclaimer, sort of a "this isn't a bad book" approval system.	The Catholic Church has a concept of an imprimatur ("let it be printed") , an approval granted to a book by a bishop.
Why are there so many priests in the LDS Church? I don't have any hard number, but in most other churches, usually there are only a few priests per church (if they have priests). In the LDS Church on the other hand, usually almost half of the congregation is priests. So, why does the the LDS Church have so many more priests than other Churches per congregation? <Q> A priest in the LDS Church is a priesthood office to which young men are ordained at the age of 16, or adults who are still progressing to higher priesthood offices. <S> Most men in the church will be ordained priests after ecclesiastical interviews with their leaders and through demonstrating faithful living. <S> From D&C 20: <S> 60 <S> Every elder, priest, teacher, or deacon is to be ordained according to the gifts and callings of God unto him; and he is to be ordained by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is in the one who ordains him. <S> A priest has responsibilities in the church to administer the sacrament, see that meetings are held regularly and in accordance with the Spirit, and to help take care of physical needs of the congregation: 46 <S> The priest’s duty is to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, and administer the sacrament, 47 <S> And visit the house of each member, and exhort them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties. <S> 48 <S> And he may also ordain other priests, teachers, and deacons. <S> 49 <S> And he is to take the lead of meetings when there is no elder present; <S> 50 <S> But when there is an elder present, he is only to preach, teach, expound, exhort, and baptize, 51 <S> And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties. <S> 52 <S> In all these duties the priest is to assist the elder if occasion requires. <S> Oh, and priests are also typically educated in seminary, in areas where it is available. <S> In most parts of the world, members who are high school age go to seminary class before or during school. <S> Its a four year program of scripture and doctrine study. <S> These classes are also for the young women. <S> Unlike other Christian denominations, a priest does not necessarily give a sermon on Sundays. <S> Speakers are chosen by the local priesthood leaders and can be nearly anyone in the ward (local congregation). <S> I'm mobile now <S> but if required I can cite some scriptures. <A> An extra answer to Matt's answer to provide extra details. <S> Priest is a priesthood office to which typically faithful young men are ordained when they turn 16 and male adult new converts are ordained shortly after their baptism and confirmation. <S> Ordination to the next highest priesthood office, elder, typically occurs as or shortly after faithful young men enter adulthood or, for faithful male adult converts, a year or so after their baptism and confirmation. <S> All LDS congregations I have been a member of or have heard of have more elders than priests, usually far more. <S> This is because the number of active priests in a congregation is usually limited to those young men who are 16 or 17 years old and adult male members who have been members for less than a year, while the number of elders is usually most of the adult men. <S> (As an FYI there is another, higher priesthood office for adult men, "high priest", but there are usually more elders than high priests in a congregation.) <S> Thus, I am curious where you got your statement that "usually almost half of the congregation is priests. <S> " <S> The seminary Matt references in his answer is not a prerequisite to become a priest (or any other priesthood office), and in fact since the seminary course typically runs from ages 14-18 <S> it is most common for young men to be ordained priests when they turn 16 and have not yet completed the full seminary course. <S> For more details on what the duty is for priests in the LDS church, please reference Doctrine & Covenants 20:46-60 , noting that the duties of the teachers and deacons are included in the duties of priests. <S> Since the scripture passage is fairly long and is only ancillary to the OP's question, I do not quote it here. <A> In short, it's related to the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a lay ministry . <S> With only very few exceptions, all leaders and teachers in the LDS Church serve in a part-time capacity. <S> Most members have an official role or "calling," but regardless of their specific current calling, eligible members are ordained to various offices in the priesthood. <S> For example, there is usually only one Elders Quorum President at a time in a ward (congregation), but almost all 18+ men will receive the Priesthood and be ordained an Elder.	Priests are able to baptize but not confirm, can ordain deacons, teachers (priesthood offices lower than priest), and priests, can bless the sacrament in addition to passing the sacrament (which deacons and teachers can also do) and preparing the sacrament (which teachers can also do).
Why was the Holy Family instructed to flee to Egypt? At Matthew 2:13-14 (NRSVCE)we read about the flight of the Holy Family to Egypt: " Now after they had left, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt" My question is: what were the advantages that Egypt offered as a shelter for the Jewish family in the post-exodus scenario in which the then generation of Egyptians would have only hatred for the Israelites in their genes ? What are the views of the Catholic Church on the divine selection of Egypt as the shelter for the Holy Family ? <Q> We can only speculate to the reasons, but here is a fun one. <S> Jesus was the Fulfillment of Old Testament Promises and the Archetype of Jesus that Moses represents. <S> Here are a few of those Typological simularities. <S> Both were hunted by a King/Pharaoh Both <S> were hidden from that King/Pharoah <S> Both went to Egypt to save their lives. <S> Both saved and helped by a woman. <S> It's quite a long list here is a good link that shows them all: Typology of Moses and Jesus . <S> There are about 20 examples of how Jesus is the New Moses listed on this site. <S> Typology is rampant in Scripture, it reveals the Old Testament fulfilled in the New Testament, typology of Mary, the Eucharist, Sacraments, Tribes and Apostles, the information is almost boundless. <S> Like in his Church, God has a reason for everything he does. <A> Egypt has a long history with the people of God. <S> There was famine in Judea, Abram went to Egypt, but was called out. <S> Gen. 13:1 <S> And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the south. <S> Next comes Israel where again there was famine and the sons go to Egypt, which leads to the enslavement. <S> But, they were called out. <S> Ex. <S> 3:12 <S> And he [God] said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token unto thee, that I have sent thee: <S> When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain. <S> In turn, this was the prophecy to which Matthew referred. <S> Hos. <S> 11:1 <S> When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt. <S> Mat. <S> 2:5 <S> And [Joseph, Mary, Jesus] was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. <S> That was the prophecy. <S> On a practical level, Egypt, though a part of the Roman Empire, like Judea was, was under a different command. <S> Judea was run by Herod the Great, while Egypt was run by Gaius Turranias. <S> Both were appointed by Caesar as prefects . <S> Herod the Great was appointed as "king of the Jews". <S> He was fearful of any new king, but a king in a different area where he had no jurisdiction was hardly worth pursuing. <S> There were many Jews in Egypt during and before Christ's time. <S> Alexandria was where the Septuagint was translated. <S> There was also the only other Temple, besides the Second Temple in Jerusalem, that had valid sacrifices by Kohen. <S> So, as a community open to a Jewish population, it made sense on a practical level that there is where Joseph, Mary, and Jesus would travel. <S> The fact that the Jews were once slaves and had been set free had no bearing on events 2,000 years later. <S> From a practical point, there was a lively community of Israelites in Egypt already. <S> From a prophetic point, the family had to go to Egypt in order for the Son to be called out of Egypt. <A> The Exodus happened around 2,000 years before this. <S> Plus, "Egypt" corresponds to a large area, where there certainly were villages and places where Jews could still leave a "normal" (for those times) lives. <A> Scripture is revealed in type and foreshadow. <S> Jesus called out of Egypt, I called my son out of Egypt, is a picture of the resurrected Christ and his body called out of spiritual Egypt. <S> Rev.11:8 and their dead bodies lie in the street of that great city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt where our Lord was crucified	There are many Reasons I suppose that the Holy Family went to Egypt, The main being the simple fact that they knew who Jesus was and that an Angel of God directed them to do so.
Are there any denominations that do not require pastors to be college educated? I am curious if there are any denominations that do not believe in college education for church leaders such as pastors, missionaries, etc. There are many churches that do. I am asking because I do not agree with college education. I strongly believe in God-given talents and that the Holy Ghost teaches. I know I am called, but I do not like college education. It's too arm-chair education. I prefer action. In another words, hands-on. That way I can apply to be the pastor of a church. Educating yourself to be wise is foolish, as said in the scripture (Romans 1:22-23), but lately, many denominations require college education. <Q> Amish and some Mennonites practice this. <S> I met a Beachy Amish pastor several years ago who was selected by "lot" without needing to go to college. <S> This practice, I believe, is based on Acts 1:26 where Matthias was selected as an Apostle by lot. <S> This guy was not dumb or stupid by any means - he knew his Bible well, but perhaps not as much Shakespeare. <S> Jehovah's Witnesses ordain non-college graduates as Elders. <S> See this answer to this question: How trained are the elders in the Jehovah's Witness denomination? <A> Great Commission Churches (GCC) <S> While I'd say* that most pastors for GC churches have some sort of degree, it is not at all a requirement. <S> A relative of mine is a pastor for one of their churches and he was a house painter before. <S> Another pastor <S> I know <S> very well was a former mechanic. <S> GC also puts out an Elder Qualification test that anyone can take. <S> It's a good test! <S> It does not mention a college degree as a qualification for being an elder. <S> * Source : I've been deeply involved with Great Commission Churches for 12 years. <A> The reasoning is that there is a biblical basis for insisting that ministers be qualified, subject to examination, and educated, but there are special circumstances where a person might not be eligible for a college-level degree and in which case Ministry experience or some type of equivalent could overrule an academic requirement. <S> It is likely that this is envisioning some special cases like ministers who might have been ordained before entering the PCA or the mission field. <S> I don't know the number of times this provision has been exercised if ever <S> but I think it is very small <S> and it would be inconceivable that it would happen in ordinary circumstances. <A> Although in practice deacons and preists undergo years of hard study and training before ordination in the Catholic Church. <S> It is a strict requirement in the sense that it will/may prevent the ordination but not a strict requirement in the sense that the lack of education would nullify the ordination. <S> Eg. <S> If it is found that the priest cheated on all his exams in seminary he would still be a priest. <S> Catholic pastor requirements are strict in practice but relaxed in theory.	Technically, many Evangelical Presbyterian bodies like the PCA allow for it in special circumstances.
Why do some Christians believe a very young Earth? AFAIK, some Young Earth Creationists (YEC) believe that Earth was created less than 10000 years ago ; that is a relatively small interval before the creation of human beings. However, I also perceive that most creationists do not have a problem with a "huge" (i.e. light-years) Universe since this is in sync with God's attribute of infinity. I am wondering how can YEC's deal with a very "big" God and space, but restrict the time dimension so much. Intuitively, an infinite God is somehow in contradiction with such small time spans (thousands of years). Question: Why do some Christians believe in a very young Earth? <Q> Prior to the birth of Christ, most Jewish scholars assumed the genealogies in the Bible were accurate and complete and the account of creation was literal history, hence attributed an age to the earth in the thousands of years. <S> Jesus, speaking with the authority of God, endorsed the accuracy and divine authority of the Bible. <S> Mark 10:6 says: “But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female.” <S> The early church adopted such views, with a few dissenters. <S> Many Reformation leaders taught that the earth's age could be inferred from Scripture and also taught that its age was in the thousands of years. <S> The advent of modern science challenged the religious beliefs of millions. <S> Some accepted theories born of this science and rejected the idea of a young earth. <S> Other people place a higher credence in the words of scripture and reject attempts to import ideas not apparent in the original text based solely on human scientific theories. <S> As this deepening fissure widened both outside and inside the church, four tendencies arose: a) <S> Change Biblical hermeneutics to permit an older age for the earth and make the creation story allegorical. <S> b) Seek scientific evidence that contradicts the Big Bang, evolution, radioactive dating, and related ideas and techniques, as well as explore phenomena indicative of a younger age for the earth. <S> c) Accept the Bible on faith because of the powerful evidence of its divine nature demonstrated to them by the indwelling Holy Spirit and the miraculous events that He produces in their lives, without making a significant attempt to investigate the scientific ideas and how they are seemingly in conflict with the Biblical account. <S> d) Reject the Bible and Christianity altogether. <S> The people who have taken path 7b (the subject of your question) are in the minority. <S> They have credible answers to many of the objections of the scientific community, but the problem posed by our ability to see distant starlight has proven to be the most difficult to answer. <S> Russell Humprehys has a white-hole cosmology, while another has offered the effects of adopting an Anisotropic Synchrony Convention when interpreting General Relativity as a possible answer. <A> Besides what the Bible says, there is also more scientific evidence to support a young Earth than most people would think. <S> Some examples of this are the Sun getting hotter and the oceans getting saltier respectively over time. <S> If this were to continue across billions of years, life on Earth would be drastically different if not completely gone today. <A> You know those collages of pictures where each picture is a theme, maybe families, maybe in black and white; but as you stand back you see the BIG picture created by all of them? <S> Well this is why a young earth is what the bible teaches. <S> God starts off the book with 7 days of creation, but this is the zoomed in view. <S> There are 7,000 years of time given in the bible, and in 2nd Peter 3:8, Peter wrote: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." <S> So each 1000 years is one day with the 1000 year Sabbath at the end. <S> The 7 days of creation mirror the 7,000 years of the Bible. <S> On the first 2 days God divided light and darkness. <S> But isn't this what happened at the flood? <S> After 2,000 years The flood happened, and the 3rd day/millennium started, and dry land formed. <S> The SUN is created on the 4th day, and in the 4th millennium Jesus is born. <S> The 5th and 6th days are all animals with souls "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" Lev 17:11. <S> At the end of the 6th day man is created, which mirrors the promise of redeemed bodies before the Day of the Lord. <S> And finally on the 7th day God rested, and in the millennium, we rest. <S> To believe that the bible is the word of God, is to believe the whole picture, and young earth is what it shows. <S> And by that standard we should hold what the world tells us up to that light. <S> In other words, I believe God first. <S> ...the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world. <S> Rev 12:9	You find more Christians who believe in a young Earth because they tend to be more well versed in these sciences since they align with what they are taught nonscientificly.
What is the meaning of the phrase "Entertaining Angels"? For inexplicable reasons I've been listening to a lot of Newsboys lately and also recently finished reading Dorothy Day's Auto-Biography. What do these things have in common? Well there's an intensely catchy Newsboys song called "Entertaining Angels" and the biopic of the life of Dorothy Day is also called the same thing. Since I'd never heard the phrase before I figured I'd ask about it here so I could impress my wife later on. Is it an old-fashioned sort of saying or a Biblical allusion (Gen 18) or something else? Does it mean Angels are laughing at us foolish mortals or we should treat everyone we meet as if they're angels in disguise? <Q> It's a phrase from Hebrews 13:2: <S> Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares. <S> (ESV) <S> Most commentators do think that it refers to the Abraham story, as well as Lot, Gideon, and Samson's parents. <S> See this BH question for more . <A> This sort of entertainment is not like a vaudeville act on a stage or a stand up comedian. <S> It's rather more like entertain as you would a dinner guest. <S> Welcome them into your home and make them feel comfortable being there. <S> Hospitality describes it well. <S> Entertaining angels comes from the Greek ξενίσαντες ἀγγέλους (xenisantes angelous) which literally means to receive angels as guests. <S> Abraham knew he was speaking to angels and that one of the angels was YHWH Himself in angelic form. <S> See Genesis 18:27, 31-32. <S> But others in the Bible spoke to angels and did not know it until after the encounter, to which the verse in the book of Hebrews refers. <A> Just to comment on the Newsboys song portion of your question. <S> When they play this song in concert, written and sung by Phil Joel, they refer Luke 15:10 that says "Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repents. <S> " This song is about someone who has just accepted Christ as their Savior. <S> The angels are waiting 24/7 for the sinner to repent and come back into a loving relationship. <S> It's also about talking to God and seeking Him. <S> I can't speak for Dorothy Day - but sounds like that may more refer to the Hebrews scriptures since she was known for reaching out into the community.	The phrase entertain strangers comes from the Greek word φιλοξενίας (philoxenias) which literally means to love or befriend strangers.
Can Catholics serve as godparents at an Anglican infant's baptism? My wife and I (both Catholic) have been asked to serve as godparents at our niece's baptism. The child's parents are fully aware of our strong commitment to the Catholic faith. I've received conflicting advice, and I wonder if anyone here can point to clear teaching on whether or not it is licit for us to serve as godparents at a baptism in an Anglican church. <Q> It would seem so: Pontificium Consilium ad Christianorum Unitatem <S> Fovendam See ¶98 & 98a. <S> They do not merely undertake a responsibility for the Christian education of the person being baptized (or confirmed) as a relation or friend; they are also there as representatives of a community of faith, standing as guarantees of the candidate's faith and desire for ecclesial communion. <S> (a). <S> However, based on the common baptism and because of ties of blood or friendship, a baptized person who belongs to another ecclesial Community may be admitted as a witness to the baptism, but only together with a Catholic godparent. <S> 107 <S> A Catholic may do the same for a person being baptized in another ecclesial Community. <A> While elemtilas' answer indicates that Catholics might not be barred from being godparents in other ecclesial communities, as far as the Church of England is concerned there may be difficulties and the CofE parish priest must be consulted. <S> Even then, it's not really clear whether the Catholic Church makes a distinction between witnesses to the baptism and godparents: if there is a distinction, then what follows here about Anglican rules is moot. <S> Canon B23 : Of godparents and sponsors ... <S> 4. <S> No person shall be admitted to be a sponsor or godparent who has not been baptized and confirmed. <S> Nevertheless the minister shall have power to dispense with the requirement of confirmation in any case in which in his judgement need so requires. <S> (My emphasis) Confirmation here is confirmation according to the rites of the Church of England. <S> That would cause problems for Catholics. <S> The requirement for Anglican confirmation can be relaxed if the minister (that is, the parish priest of the Anglican parish in which the baptism is celebrated) agrees. <S> The Church of England accepts Roman Catholic baptism, so if the requirement for confirmation is relaxed then Anglican canon law would allow Catholics to be godparents. <A> No. <S> It'd be communicatio in sacris , which is a sin. <S> §1. <S> It is unlawful for the faithful to assist in any active manner, or to take part in the sacred services of non-Catholics. <S> §2. <S> At funerals of non-Catholics, at their marriages, and similar solemnities, provided there is no danger of perversion or scandal, passive or merely material presence on account of a civil office or for the purpose of showing respect to a person may be tolerated for a grave reason. <S> (Canon 1258, CIC 1917)	It is the Catholic understanding that godparents, in a liturgical and canonical sense, should themselves be members of the Church or ecclesial Community in which the baptism is being celebrated.
What is the fewest number of cardinal electors are needed to validly elect a pope? What is the fewest number of cardinal electors are needed to validly elect a pope? Pope St. John Paul II, in his Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis on the vacancy of the Apostolic See and the election of the Roman Pontiff has this to say on the electors of a papal election, but does not provide us with the minimum number of cardinal electors needed to validly choose a pope: The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church , with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff's death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant. The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty. The right of active election by any other ecclesiastical dignitary or the intervention of any lay power of whatsoever grade or order is absolutely excluded. What happens if the conclave is to be held during a time of war or some other event and the possible number of cardinal elector at Rome dwindles to 1, 2, 3 or 4. Is there a minimum number of cardinals needed to produce a sovereign pontiff? We know that conclave of 1277 had the fewest number of cardinals in a papal election: The papal election of 1277 (May 30 – November 25), convened in Viterbo after the death of Pope John XXI, was the smallest papal election since the expansion of suffrage to cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons, with only seven cardinal electors (following the deaths of three popes who had not created cardinals). 3 Because John XXI had revoked Ubi periculum, the papal bull of Pope Gregory X establishing the papal conclave, with his own bull Licet felicis recordationis, the cardinal electors were able to take their time. After six months of deliberation, the cardinals eventually elected their most senior member Giovanni Gaetano Orsini as Pope Nicholas III. From the end of the election until Nicholas III's first consistory on March 12, 1278, the number of living cardinals—seven—was the lowest in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. - Papal election, 1277 I have heard about the possibility that 4 cardinal electors would be allowed, but I can not find any documents to support such a number. <Q> This document is the current norm for papal elections. <S> It prescribes such things as the length of the dead pope's funeral, the procedure for managing Vatican City and the Diocese of Rome while the See is vacant, and the procedure and timetable for setting up the conclave to elect the next pope. <S> There are groups, or at least one rotating group, of cardinals, called the "Particular Congregations", which oversee day-to-day operations of the Vatican: <S> The Particular Congregation is made up of the Cardinal Camerlengo of [the] Holy Roman Church and three Cardinals, one from each order [that is, a Cardinal Deacon, Cardinal Priest, and Cardinal Bishop]. ... <S> The office of these Cardinals, called Assistance, ceases at the conclusion of the third full day, and their place is taken by others. <S> The Particular Congregations are to deal only with questions of lesser importance which arise on a daily basis or from time to time. <S> ( Universi Dominici Gregis , sections 7–8) <S> Perhaps this is where your "four cardinals" idea comes from. <S> The apostolic constitution specifies that all the cardinals who are not "legitimately impeded" (section 7) <S> must come to the conclave as soon as they are informed of the pontiff's death. <S> No further mention is made specifically of any number required in order to cast a valid vote for the pope. <S> Presumably this is to allow an election regardless of how many cardinals are able to make it to Rome. <A> It seems true that there are no explicit restrictions on the minimum number of cardinals with voting rights that can participate in the Conclave (notice other cardinals also participate but do not vote). <S> Yet, logically, because of the voting rules, there is a minimum. <S> For a start, there is a rule, first brought forward by Pope Gregory XV ( Aeterni Patris , 1621 and Decet Romanum Pontificem , 1622), that voting cardinals cannot vote for themselves . <S> Furthermore, there is the rule that the potential winner should not be counted among those who elected him. <S> Thus, logically, N=1 is ruled out. <S> What about N=2? <S> Well, by definition, each of the has to vote for the other or null. <S> But given that another very important rule regarding the design of the voting system is that of anonymity (i.e. who votes for whom cannot be known), even if one of them votes null (the only way the deadlock could be broken), anonymity will not hold. <S> N=3 is safe however, because there is more than one way in which a winner can arise. <S> First, there is the "consensus", whereby one candidate receives two votes and another one (that of the winner, provided he respected the no self-nomination rule). <S> Second, when two of them vote null and the other votes for one of those who voted null. <S> It is impossible to tell which occurred, beyond that at least one of the non-winners voted for the winner. <S> In conclusion, based on the voting system rules and principles, 3 is the minimum of cardinals with voting rights that can participate in a papal conclave. <S> PS: some background notes and analysis of the voting rules can be seen in this document . <A> There is nothing in Canon Law about a number. <S> It does provide general guidelines: <S> Canon 176 <S> Unless it is otherwise provided in the law or the statutes, the person who has received the requisite number of votes in accordance with Canon 119, n. 1, is deemed elected and is to be proclaimed by the person who presides over the college or group. <S> And 119: <S> Canon 119 <S> In regard to collegial acts, unless the law or the statutes provide otherwise: 1° in regard to elections, provided a majority of those who must be summoned <S> are present <S> , what is decided by an absolute majority of those present has the force of law. <S> If there have been two inconclusive scrutinizes, a vote is to be taken between the two candidates with the greatest number of votes or, if there are more than two, between the two senior by age. <S> After a third inconclusive scrutiny, that person is deemed elected who is senior by age; 2° in regard to other matters, provided a majority of those who must be summoned are present, what is decided by an absolute majority of those present has the force of law. <S> If the votes are equal after two scrutinizes, the person presiding can break the tie with a casting vote; 3° that which affects all as individuals must be approved by all.	There is no minimum number of cardinals set in the apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis , written in 1996 by Pope St. John Paul II.
Do any Christian denominations forbid pronouncing the Tetragrammaton? In Judaism it has been a taboo to pronounce the four letter name of God. It was never explicitly said when reading the Jewish scriptures. Do any forms of Christianity have a similar approach? <Q> The Tetragrammaton ('Hashem', The Name) was written many times in the Hebrew Scriptures without vowels, therefore YHWH could not be pronounced by anyone without knowledge of the vowel points. <S> Nor was it encouraged, out of concern not to break the second of the Ten Commandments. <S> When it came to the Christian Scriptures, they were originally written in koine Greek, and the equivalent of the Tetragrammaton never even occurred once. <S> However, there are no superstitious views about any need to refrain from translating the Tetragrammaton into other languages, for Christians to read or to pronounce. <S> Of course, it remains true that no Christian would wish to take The Name of God in vain, but it is not the pronunciation that is the problem here. <S> We all know that it is pronounced in different ways in different languages. <S> A Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, was commissioned by the Pope to translate the Latin Vulgate Bible into German. <S> That’s when ‘Jehova’ first appeared. <S> In German, the 'J' is pronounced ‘Yah’. ' <S> Jehova' is first recorded in 1270 in Martini's book "Pugeo Fideli". <S> It was William Tyndale who first used Jehovah in English, as a new word, once the letter 'J' had been introduced into the English alphabet in the early 1500s. <S> Tyndale produced his translation of the Pentateuch in 1530. <S> There are many old hymns (particularly in the Protestant tradition) where the name of God, Jehovah, is sung - usually with reference to Hebrew (Old Testament) events. <S> YHWH is often viewed as God's OT (or, covenant) name. <S> There is no taboo in Christianity against pronouncing God's Name. <A> Avoiding pronouncing the tetragrammaton of the name of God on the part of the Church has therefore its own grounds. <S> Apart from a motive of a purely philological order, there is also that of remaining faithful to the Church's tradition, from the beginning, that the sacred tetragrammaton was never pronounced in the Christian context nor translated into any of the languages into which the Bible was translated. <S> http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/frequently-asked-questions/upload/name-of-god.pdf <S> Basically, this means we can't sing "Yahweh, <S> I know you are near" any more, because the His name was never in the liturgy to begin with. <S> God and Jesus is referred to as Lord or Father (I can never remember who which person we're talking about, but I'm not sure it matters) <A> No, it is fairly commonly said in Christianity. <S> Some pronounce it as "Jehovah", but that is now recognised by most to be an inaccurate pronunciation, and most think the likely pronunciation is "Yahweh". <A> No. <S> And from my studious of history <S> even Judaism didn't fully adopt that taboo until the time of the writing of the Talmud. <S> Prior to that, in NT times they were wary of the way you used God's name because it was one of the commandments that could get you stoned on the spot, but there wasn't a full taboo or ban of using the name of the Divinity.	Although specifically not forbidden from saying it, Catholics are not supposed to use the the name of God in their Liturgy: Of the more than 5,000 available copies of ancient Greek Christian Scripture manuscripts (MSS), some from as early as 200 C.E., there are no MSS that show any evidence of the Tetragrammaton.
In the New Testament who was the first person to recognize Jesus as the Messiah? Other than the Apostles, who was the first person in The New Testament to recognize Jesus as the Messiah? <Q> Mary was informed by Gabriel that her Son would be Son of God, and be given the throne of David; while Joseph was made aware that He would save His people <S> The angel passed a remark to the effect that for them, in the City of David, was born a Saviour which is Christ (Messiah) the Lord. <S> They went to see Him. <S> Then there were Simeon and Anna in the Temple. <S> This can be read in Matthew 1 and Luke 1 and 2. <A> The key to answering this question is the reciprocal relationship between Savior and believers: <S> Savior: <S> I AM HE <S> John 4:15:26 15 <S> The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water. <S> ”16 <S> He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back. <S> ”17 <S> “I have no husband,” she replied. <S> Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. <S> 18 <S> The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. <S> What you have just said is quite true. <S> ”19 <S> “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. <S> 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem. <S> ”21 <S> “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. <S> 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. <S> 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. <S> 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth. <S> ”25 <S> The woman said, “I know that Messiah (called Christ) is coming. <S> When he comes, he will explain everything to us. <S> ”26 <S> Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.” <S> Believers: <S> "We know that this man really is the Savior of the world." <S> John 4:39-42 39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” <S> 40 <S> So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. <S> 41 <S> And because of his words many more became believers.42 They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” <S> Why the Samaritans? <A> Assuming that all Christ's followers "fell away" prior to the resurrection, such that the resurrection was the defining moment of the truth of Christ, I'd suggest that the order of appearance that led to belief in Jesus as Messiah is some of the guards, Mary Magdalene, the women, and the two on the way to Emmaus. <S> Remember that the women were going to anoint the body for burial, even though Joseph of Arimethea and Nicodemus had done so. <S> The apostles were in their homes. <S> Christ said this. <S> Mt. 26:31 [prior to arrest] Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. <S> Zec. <S> 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. <S> John 20:9 <S> For as yet they [Peter and John] knew not the scripture, that he [Christ] must rise again from the dead. <S> Until after the resurrection, they didn't believe that Jesus was Messiah. <S> They did believe Mary Magdalene that the tomb was empty, but they didn't know why. <S> So, after the sheep are scattered, here is the first reaction to the risen Lord. <S> Mt. 28:4, 11 <S> And for fear of him [risen Lord Jesus] <S> the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. <S> ... <S> Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. <S> Some of the guards went to the chief priests. <S> What of the rest of them? <S> Presumably they had become believers, refusing to notify the authorities for fear of their own safety. <S> After the guards, the next group would be the women and specifically Mary Magdalene first. <S> John 20:18 Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her. <S> So, the first known person to recognize Jesus as the risen Lord was Mary Magdalene .	The first to be made cognisant of the fact that Jesus was specifically Messiah, or Christ, were certain shepherds abiding in the fields outside Bethlehem, keeping watch over their flocks by night.
Does the Seal of Confession include saying whether or not a person confessed to them? The Seal of Confession is the duty of Catholic priests to not disclose anything they hear from someone who comes to them for confession. Does this include disclosing whether or not someone has seen them for confession? For instance, could they say: Yes, I have seen Joe Schmoe in confession yesterday afternoon, but I cannot reveal anything that was discussed. Or would that be something that they wouldn't be allowed to say? Another way of putting this is: at what point does the Seal of Confession start? When they walk in the door or when they say something? <Q> Can. <S> 983 <S> §1. <S> The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner [e.g., by signs] and for any reason. <S> Can. <S> 984 <S> §1. <S> A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded. <S> §2. <S> A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time. <S> Technically, a priest can reveal good things about a penitent he has heard in confession. <S> This is what St. Catherine of Siena's confessor Bl. <S> Raymond of Capua was able to do in his biography of St. Catherine ; ibid . <S> pt. <S> 1, ch. 2 fn 1: <S> “The virtues and graces of the penitent are not matters for the seal [of Confession], provided they are not manifested in order more clearly to declare the sins themselves, e.g., the gravity of ingratitude towards God.” <S> (Emphasis in original). <S> (Jone, Moral Theology , no. 618, Imprimatur 1961; TAN reprint 1993). <S> — Publisher , 2003. <S> ∵ the more graces one has, the greater his ingratitude could be <A> It depends on the situation. <S> example 1 <S> Mr and Mrs Smith notice their Son has an increased interest in faith, they may be happy and ask Fr Mike... <S> We're very happy <S> Tom is going to Mass and getting involved in his parish, we hope he's also going to confession aswell, is he? <S> There would be nothing wrong with Fr Mike revealing that Tom has been attending the weekly confession services. <S> He would not be betraying Tom, just like Geremia's example of St Catherine of Siena <S> it only adds to the positive image of the person. <S> example 2 <S> One day Fr Mike heard Tom's confession and the worst thing revealed was that he failed to wash the dishes at home. <S> A few weeks later Fr Tom gets an informal knock on the door from the police, they're asking if Tom revealed a violent murder. <S> So Fr Mike tells them... <S> I can't reveal what Tom said, but he definitely was with me at that time in a confession service. <S> Therefore freeing Tom from the suspicion of the police. <S> In both of these examples, Fr Mike has not betrayed the penitent in any way, either contributed to their positive image or saved them from unfair punishment. <S> Not in any way in detriment to Tom. <A> Geremia has a good answer on the Church's teaching. <S> So why might it be that revealing whether someone went to confession or not would be a bad thing? <S> Imagine if you will... <S> Mr and Mrs Smith have been having difficulties in their marriage, and (being pretty devout Catholics) have spoken to their pastor about them. <S> He's given them counseling in the matter. <S> Mrs Smith has for a while suspected that her husband is having an affair. <S> He was "working late at the office" last night, and went out for half an hour early this morning. <S> Mrs Smith knows that the parish church holds confessions after the morning Mass, and finds a "How To Make A Good Confession" pamphlet in her husband's jacket. <S> She goes immediately to the pastor. <S> She explains that she suspects that her husband committed adultery last night, and out of guilt went to confess this morning. <S> She can't think of anything else he'd be confessing. <S> In her mind, knowing that he went to confession is tantamount to knowing that he's having an affair. <S> The pastor knows that the wife's suspicions are true - he heard Mr Smith confess that very thing face to face. <S> But he can't reveal that he heard the confession without potentially harming Mr Smith: <S> A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent (Canon 984) <S> The fact that Mr Smith went to Confession is surely "knowledge acquired from confession", and would be used to his detriment. <S> Thus the priest may not reveal this information, and must say simply, "I'm sorry, I can't discuss confessions" or something similar.	No, a priest cannot even reveal that because it would betray the penitent. So yes, a preist can reveal that someone has attended a confession service.
What was Jesus referring to when He said "it is finished"? What is "it" in this case? At the end of Jesus' ministry, what did Jesus mean when He said "it is finished" (John 19:30)? Is this to be considered the end of Satan's Reign over humanity? <Q> Yes, victory over Satan and over sin, for HE had accomplished what had been promised since the beginning with Adam and Eve: <S> First Promise of the Savior? <S> Furthermore, note Jesus' prayer in John 17 <S> “Father, the hour has come. <S> Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. <S> And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. <S> I have glorified You on the earth. <S> I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. <S> And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. <S> (nkjv) <S> What is the work that God sent his Son our Savior to accomplish? <S> John 3:16-17 (nkjv) <S> For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. <S> 17 <S> For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. <S> The death and resurrection of Jesus was the fulfillment of many prophecies (ex psalm 22 ), fulfillment of the Law ( Matt 5:17 ), victory over Satan and sin, what ultimately ushered in the New Covenant, that is saved by grace through faith ( ephesians 2:8 ), and I'm sure the list goes on.. :) <A> While agreeing heartily with Nick Rolando's answer, I believe there's at least one further, additional meaning: <S> He also meant simply that His immediate work, i.e. the suffering on the cross, was finished. <S> A couple years ago for a Good Friday service, I and six other members of my congregation were asked to give brief messages on "the seven last words" of Jesus while on the cross. <S> "It is finished" was the statement I was assigned. <S> While praying about what to say & teach, I felt led to emphasize that Jesus was fully in control of the whole situation -- an important point to remember, and easily forgotten just because of the fact that was nailed to a cross! <S> So I likened the whole scene to a courtroom, with Jesus as the Sovereign Judge. <S> It didn't matter that He had been stripped bare, it didn't matter that He was on the cross <S> , it didn't matter that every person there saw only a condemned victim. <S> He was still in charge, just as surely as if He were a judge in robes sitting at the bench. <S> And so when He cried out "It is finished," He was bringing down the gavel and declaring the ransom paid and the court adjourned. <S> Neither Pilate nor anyone else held that authority; it was Jesus' alone. <A> The gospels of Matthew, Mark and John all agree on one point; after Jesus had drank the vinegar, He cried out one last time, and then He died. <S> John 19:30 gives us what He said: “It is finished.” <S> The Greek corresponding to this is τετελεσται, tetelestai , <S> the literal translation of which is “it has been accomplished.” <S> Jesus, in His life and death, had fulfilled biblical prophesies of the suffering Messiah of Isaiah 53. <S> In Him, the messianic prophesies had been confirmed, supported or upheld. <S> According to Strong’s Concordance, the Hebrew verb אָמַן, aman , means to confirm or to support. <S> It is the root word for “Amen.” <A> You can read that in Hebrews 10:7. <S> All the things and prophecies about Christ, that he was able to finish, even his crucifixion mentioned by the prophets, were completed and done. <S> One example, was this prophecy about him, the Worm Jacob. <S> Psalms 22:6. <A> It is finished. <S> If you go to the original language. <S> You will find that it also mirrors the business /accounting term "paid in full". <S> Jesus had announced that He had come to "Fullfill the law ". <S> Yes He could live the perfect life. <S> But the part of the law no one could fullfill was the justice debt of death. <S> Only blood covered the sin debt. <S> And animal blood (life taken) was just a temporary symbol, as was most of what was in the OT. <S> Of the realizations of the New Testament. <S> And only the laying down of a perfectly lived life would suffice. <S> Until that point there could be no possibility of a relationship with God. <S> All of which is severely condensed and would take a while to dive into. <S> But feel free to counter question. <S> For teaching and learning are not opposites.	What Jesus meant by 'it is finished' are the things that were written for him to do.
Marriage invalid. Would a church annulment require a state annulment or state divorce? This question may be wrong. I think the right question is in the following link: How do Filipino Catholics get a church annulment when their state marriage is valid, considering the Philippines doesn't have divorce? Example: Let's say there's this Catholic couple married in the Catholic church and married in some state. Then one member of the two members of the couple discovers something that, for the sake of argument, would definitely render the marriage invalid: Suppose this hypothetical something would be definitely be accepted as grounds for annulment in both church annulment and state annulment. Suppose further that the member can definitely prove that hypothetical something beyond reasonable doubt in, again, both church and said state. Can said member get a church annulment regardless of state annulment or divorce existence, proceedings or results? Please cite sources. I don't see why the church would care if I'm state married, state annulled or state divorced if I could prove invalidity of my church marriage. Related questions: Why is it not that a state divorce is actually an argument AGAINST a church annulment petition rather than a necessary condition for such petition? Why is it harder for Filipino Catholics to get a church annulment? Context: Metropolitan Tribunal of Omaha says 'A copy of the divorce decree', but the article seems to be directed to Catholics who are civilly divorced and not civilly annulled and still church married. Metropolitan Tribunal of Omaha also says in Myths and Truths that Myth: 'A person’s divorce does not have to be final in order to apply for a declaration of nullity.' Truth: 'To petition for a declaration of nullity you need to be civilly divorced. The Church presumes that all marriages are valid until proven otherwise and hopes that a couple in a troubled marriage will work at reconciliation.' Elaboration: To clarify: I get that state annulment (all the more for state divorce) is not a sufficient condition. My question is whether or not a state annulment (or divorce) is a necessary condition. One thing that comes to mind is ecclesiastical judicial economy . Without a state annulment, perhaps the church can simply claim being too busy to even entertain your claim. I completely understand if the queues are long, but I mean, as long as the queues as exist. Anyway, if such is the case, please cite a source. Consider people who get married only in church but not in state, say, Antarctica or Mars. If the church in fact REQUIRES a state to marry people, please cite source. Then again, it could be that I don't have a state annulment, not because my state marriage is valid, but because state divorce is cheaper. Consider that I can't afford either a state annulment or state divorce. Consider variations in state annulment laws. Then it would be possible that, say, for a Japanese Catholic and a Swedish Catholic with identical cases that the Japanese Catholic wouldn't be entertained because Japan doesn't recognise a certain thing as grounds for annulment while both Sweden and the Catholic church do, I think. Oh wait, the Japanese Catholic could always get a state divorce. Consider places where there are no such possibilities of divorce such as the Philippines where annulments cost around USD$2,853. So, German Catholics in identical situations as Filipino Catholics would get entertained by the church because Germany has divorce, it seems. Also, the Philippines is a third world country. Good luck obtaining that can kind of money for the sake of a religious procedure. I didn't realise the church was charging that kind of money for its sacraments (I guess annulment is part of the sacrament of marriage). <Q> No, church annulment does not require state annulment or state divorce. <S> This misunderstanding could be caused by chruch tribunals that require a copy of divorce decree (as stated in the question). <S> The tribunal does so because the couple is obligated to give a document about its civil status by Art. <S> 116 § 2 Dignitatis Conubii (DC) and most often this is a divorce decree. <S> Art. <S> 116 § 2 There should be attached to the libellus [application] an authentic copy of the marriage certificate and, if need be, a document of the civil status of the parties. <S> The legislator does not assume a civil clarification of the couple's status, as can be seen by the phrase " if need be" and by the phrase " even civil [obligations]" in Art. <S> 252 DC . <S> Art. <S> 252 <S> In the sentence the parties are to be warned about the moral obligations or even civil ones by which they may be bound in regard to the other party or offspring concerning support and education to be provided (can. 1689). <S> So we see, your marriage can be nullified even if you are married in civil law. <S> Though if the intent of nullification is to marry again, it would not make any sense to stay married in civil law. <S> Additionally the church has an interest, that all canonical valid marriages are recogniced by state, because full sense of marriage includes responsibilities in civil law. <S> (This argument of course only applies if it is possible to dissolve the marriage in civil law.) <A> In order to request an annulment in the Catholic Church, one must be divorced 1 from one's spouse. <S> Note that a divorce is a civil procedure <S> ; there is no entry for the term divorce in the Code of Canon Law in English: <S> Can. <S> 1085 §1. <S> A person bound by the bond of a prior marriage, even if it was not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage. <S> §2. <S> Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for any reason, <S> it is not on that account permitted to contract another before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established legitimately and certainly. <S> A state annulment has nothing to do with a Catholic annulment. <S> The heart is from the USCCB. <S> You can see from Church thinking that a sacramental union was not present in a marriage (what everyone calls 'declared null'). <S> "Annulment" is an unfortunate word that is sometimes used to refer to a Catholic "declaration of nullity." <S> Actually, nothing is made null through the process. <S> Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law <S> actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union. <S> 1 <S> 1 <S> Under the USCCB guidance "dissolved" is synonymous with divorce; in other jurisdictions, a divorce may not be the only method of dissolution. <S> Check with the council of bishops there for details. <S> One can read more about it at this link: Annulment . <A> The Church doesn't need to put blinkers on until the state has spoken, as if it was subservient to the state or hasn't access to the couple or its own records. <S> What is written in the books about your marriage is only relevant insofar as it portrays the truth , not otherwise (morally speaking). <S> What the state says about your married state is either lies or it is true. <S> If there is a course of action you can take to make the state acknowledge you are not in fact married at this point in time (more specifically, you never were in the first place), then take it, but it's not necessary in order or the Church to say 'I didn't marry you <S> /you did not marry yourselves.' <S> That's an observation more than it is an action of any sort: and you are morally bound to conform to the truth of whether you were married according to the Church, than you are to any civil authority, all of which are below the Church.	No, the Church doesn't need the law to recognize that you were not married by it, it simply has to look into the circumstances before the marriage.
Which are the sins that will not be forgiven in the age to come? At Matthew 12:32 we hear some tough talk from Jesus: Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. I wish to know whether there are other sins which fall in the category of those which will not be forgiven in the age to come , say, desecration of the Holy Euchariat , or say, murder of an ordained priest . What do the Catholic Church teach about the sins which may not be forgiven in the age to come. <Q> Actually our sermon was on just that topic. <S> Father said the unforgiveable sin is the one that denies Jesus for in denying Jesus you deny the Father. <S> Thus you believe that God is not loving nor generous and can do all things. <S> No there is no other sin greater than that <S> .. all sins can be forgiven but once you denied God there is really is nothing left for you. <S> People that deny God also deny there is any hope, it all leads to despair which is where Satan wants you to be <S> so he take your soul as his own. <A> If souls go hell, there has to be a reason for it! <S> In Christian hamartiology , eternal sins, unforgivable sins, or unpardonable sins are sins which will not be forgiven by God. <S> One eternal or unforgivable sin (blasphemy against the Holy Spirit) is specified in several passages of the Synoptic Gospels, including Mark 3:28-29, Matthew 12:31-32, and Luke 12:10. <S> In Roman Catholic teaching there are six sins that blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. <S> They are: 1. <S> Despair (believing that one's evil is beyond God's forgiveness); 2. <S> Presumption (glory without merit, that is, hope of salvation without keeping the Commandments, or expectation of pardon for sin without repentance); 3. <S> Envying the goodness of another (sadness or repining at another's growth in virtue and perfection); 4. <S> Obstinacy in sin (willful persisting in wickedness, and running on from sin to sin, after sufficient instructions and admonition); 5. <S> Final impenitence (to die without either confession or contrition for our sins), and 6. <S> Impugning the known truth (to argue against known points of faith, and this includes misrepresenting parts or all of the Christian faith to make it seem undesirable). <S> (1) , (2) , (3) - Eternal sin <A> St. Augustine understood this passage in terms of purgatory. <S> That is, while some sins will be forgiven in purgatory, the sin Jesus talks about here cannot be. <S> For some of the dead, indeed, the prayer of the Church or of pious individuals is heard; but it is for those who, having been regenerated in Christ, did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of such compassion, nor so well that they can be considered to have no need of it. <S> As also, after the resurrection, there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from the punishment of the eternal fire. <S> For were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said, “They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come.” <S> (City of God, Book 21, chapter 24). <A> All other sins may be forgiven. <S> 1864 <S> "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. <S> "136 <S> There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 <S> Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss. <S> Final impenitence is eternal damnation. <S> But it requires the following. <S> 1874 <S> To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. <S> This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. <S> Unrepented, it brings eternal death. <S> What is grave or mortal sin? <S> 1857 <S> For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. <S> "131 <S> 1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments... <S> So, with full knowledge and deliberate consent, if one breaks any of the Ten Commandments, and does not repent, and dies in that state, those mortal sins are unforgiven.	For the Catholic Church, the sins that are not forgiven are mortal sins unrepented.
Why is God considered by many to be a male? I am not a Christian, but I believe in many of the biblical stories and the message that they provide for the world to be a better place. I think the Bible could be more accepted and it’s strong ethical messages become regarded and understood better, if people discussing the Bible would use more inclusive language. I just wanted to see you alls thoughts. <Q> Because Christians believe God inspired the scriptures, and in the scriptures he predominantly uses masculine pronouns and masculine imagery to talk about himself. <S> There are different views of inspiration, but in all the major branches of Christianity I think it would be accurate to say that most Christians believe that God has so worked inspiration that while the human authors did express their individual voices, what they wrote is exactly what God wanted to be written. <S> While there are many cultural accommodations in scripture, the masculinity of God is not one, for it would have been very difficult easy to write about God as female or as both or as neither, as the pagan gods around them were of all genders. <S> I think there's a little bit of irony in this age of accepting and using people's preferred pronouns that some people don't want to use God's preferred pronouns <S> ;). <S> I think that ultimately comes from people not accepting that the scriptures are inspired by God. <A> In many languages (including Hebrew) most nouns have a strong gender component—but the gender assignment is grammatical and does not necessarily indicate the physical gender of the object. <S> In Spanish, a guitar (la guitarra) is feminine, and a car (el coche) is masculine. <S> This has nothing to do with literal gender. <S> For example, the Spanish word masculinidad, which means “masculinity,” is a feminine noun! <S> Therefore, when translating from Hebrew into English, we must distinguish grammatical gender from our notions of sexual gender. <S> Another example is the English wisdom is grammatically neuter, but not so in Hebrew. <S> The Hebrew word is chokmoth, and it is grammatically feminine. <S> In Hebrew, it would have been natural to speak of wisdom as a “she.” <S> That is why the book of Proverbs personifies wisdom as a woman. <S> “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” <S> (John 4:24). <S> Since God is a spiritual being, He does not possess physical human characteristics. <S> However, sometimes figurative language used in Scripture assigns human characteristics to God in order to make it possible for man to understand God. <S> This assignment of human characteristics to describe God is called “anthropomorphism.” <S> “Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. <S> It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology.” <S> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism <S> Since humanity is physical, we are limited in our understanding of those things beyond the physical realm; therefore, anthropomorphism in Scripture helps us to understand who God is. <A> To be as brief as a breeze, The Bible speaks of God being a HE/HIM and is spoken of as a person, despite him being unseen and a Spirit, lastly, he is known as the incorruptible Father and when he speaks of something <S> and or himself, it should be very clear.	Anthropomorphism is simply a means for God (a spiritual being) to communicate truth about His nature to humanity, physical beings. With regards to God, the Bible informs us that God is neither male nor female:
Why was the Sea of Galilee called so? We see the mention of a freshwater lake of 167 km square in Israel called as the Sea of Galilee or the Sea of Tiberias at Mtt 4:18, Mtt 15:29, Mk 1:16, Mk 7:31 and Jn 16:1. I wish to know the logic behind calling a lake a sea. <Q> This is not an unusual usage, nor one that needs a specifically religious explanation. " <S> The Sea of Galilee" is the standard English translation of the original Greek θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας ("thalassan tes Galilaias"); that is, "the θάλασσα of Galilee"). <S> One sees this usage, for example, in Matthew 4:18 . <S> Liddell and Short, a commonly used Greek-English lexicon, defines θάλασσα as "the sea", using primarily references to the Mediterranean. <S> Merriam-Webster gives a usage of "sea" to mean a great body of salt water that covers much of the earth <S> that is, a synonym of "ocean". <S> However, it also describes "sea" as used to mean an inland body of water—used especially for names of such bodies <S> It is in this sense that the body of water you mention is called "the Sea of Galilee". <A> θαλλω, thallo , Strong 330 is the Greek word used in relation to plants, that they 'flourish', as described in Thayer's Lexicon. <S> It may well be that the word was used, not of individual plants, but of fields of growing crops. <S> A field of flourishing corn or wheat, stretching out before the eyes, moving and rippling in the wind, appears like a body of water. <S> Thus the word θαλλασσα, thallassa , may not refer to the size of the body of water, it may just refer to the characteristics of a large body of water in the way it appears and in the way it moves. <S> The θαλλασσα (the 'sea') of Galilee at 33 miles (see Wikipedia ) is large enough to have an horizon. <S> Which only requires a distance of about three miles, when viewed at ground level (see Wikipedia ). <S> One cannot see the farther shore. <S> Thus 'sea' seems, to me, a perfectly correct translation. <S> It is a body of water, moving in the wind, rippling like a field of standing corn, and stretches as far as the eye can see. <S> If this derivation and interpretation is correct, then it would have implications in those instances where it is mentioned in scripture - the underlying meaning of flourishing crops and plentiful supply of food. <A> It's fairly simple. <S> The Sea of Galilee is the second lowest body of water under sea level. <S> The lowest is the Dead Sea. <S> The reason they are called "seas" is because of their salinity content. <S> In the Sea of Galilee's case, the weight of the fresh water suppresses the salty springs under her. <S> [because of the drought and lower lake levels] <S> In February 2018, The city of Tiberias requested a desalination plant to treat the water coming from the Sea of Galilee ... <S> -ibid- <S> The Sea of Galilee is at risk of becoming irreversibly salinized by the salt water springs under the lake, which are held in check by the weight of the freshwater on top of them. <S> -idid- <S> At the same time, the brass laver in Solomon's temple is also called the sea. <S> And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the LORD, and the bases, and the brasen sea that was in the house of the LORD, did the Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon. <S> 2 Kings 25:13 <S> So, it's not like the wording of sea is a definitional or geographic error of distinction.	And there may well be a spiritual allusion in the fact (as reported by Wikipedia ) that the sea of Galilee is freshwater, so crops could flourish right up to (and, possibly, into) its very waters.
Why did Jesus call Abel a prophet? In Luke 11:50-51, the Lord Jesus Christ calls Abel a prophet: "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all." Luke 11:50-51 NIV I have in mind the concept of prophet as one who acted as God's mouthpiece, relaying the words of God to men in accordance with God's instructions.However, I coun't find no record of any prophetic utterance from Abel. What then made him a prophet? <Q> The broadest sense of an OT prophet was the Spirit of God coming up or moving a person to reveal something about God. <S> The narrow sense is a prophet speaking "thus sayeth the LORD". <S> It is in the former sense that Christ calls Abel a prophet. <S> And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. <S> And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. <S> And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: ... <S> If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? <S> and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. <S> And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. <S> Gen 4:3-4,7 Prophet: "one who speaks forth or openly" (see PROPHECY, A), "a proclaimer of a divine message," Vines <S> So, how was Abel a prophet? <S> What was the divine message from God as regards the offerings of Cain and Abel? <S> Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. <S> Gen 3:21 <S> Obviously from the very first example of God slaying the animal to cover the sin of Adam and Eve, the prophetic voice of Abel is one of blood sacrifice that culminates in Christ Jesus. <A> Why did Jesus call Abel a prophet? <S> Jesus did so because Abel was a prophet. <S> Not all prophets have a recorded prophecy to pass on to future generations. <S> Abel performed a prophetic act by bringing a lamb to offer to God centuries before God gave the Law that required it. <S> Abel knew the promise to his parents, of a Savior coming, would require that His sinless God would have to come as a Lamb, long before the prophets who prophesied it more clearly with words and metaphors. <S> Abel was a forerunner as were all the saints before the Law was given, who understood sacrifice before it was ever law. <S> Abel was the first recorded to offer a lamb, and by it he prophesied the coming mission of Jesus Messiah. <S> Many future prophets would perform prophetic acts in keeping with the plans of God, such as one described in Ezekiel 4 by that prophet, foretelling both soon and far-future events and missions in God's strategies for Israel and mankind. <S> Or Isaiah 20:3 when God refers to his walking naked and barefoot three years for a sign and a wonder. <S> It is a sign and a wonder to me that Abel knew so clearly, that the prophesy of a Lamb, a firstling of the flock, was the perfect and only suitable offering. <S> That it was the perfect living metaphor that would be used for all the thousands of years thereafter as the picture of Jesus. <S> As a prophet, he understood what the future held <S> and he was looking forward to the Promise. <S> And His blood still cries out the injustice of his premature death by the murder of a brother jealous over the favor upon Abel for his insight, that could only have come from an intimacy with God that exceeded Cains. <S> And that pattern continues in the Church and religion today: the jealous and the presumptuous persecuting those who are evidencing the favor of God in countless and glorious ways. <S> - <S> Why is Abel called a “Prophet”? <S> In Hebrew, Christian, and Arabic traditions and legends <S> it is said that God showed his acceptance of Abel's sacrifice by sending fire to consume it, as in 1 Kings 18:38 . <A> It's not necessarily the case that the Evangelist intended to depict Jesus as implying that both Abel and Zechariah were prophets. <S> Jesus has been talking about the killing of "prophets and apostles" (verse 49). <S> He may simply be using the deaths of Abel and Zechariah as "brackets". <S> The New American Bible, Revised Edition, offers a note to the Gospel passage: From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah: <S> the murder of Abel is the first murder recounted in the Old Testament (Gn 4:8). <S> The Zechariah mentioned here may be the Zechariah whose murder is recounted in 2 Chr 24:20–22, the last murder presented in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. <S> In other words, this translation suggests, by "the blood of all the prophets shed... from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah <S> " Jesus may have meant something like "the blood of all the prophets murdered in the history of murder." <S> This is certainly not the only possible answer, but it is the only answer I've seen that doesn't require an investigation or interpretation of the words and acts of Abel.	Our Lord is simply identifying Abel as the first martyr and prophet in the Old Testament and Zechariah as the last Old Testament martyr and prophet.
What is the Bible's oldest Messianic prophecy? Some Messianic prophecies occur near the beginning of the Bible, such as Deuteronomy 18:15 (or even Genesis 3:15). What I want to understand is which Messianic prophecy do scholars believe was actually recorded first? Does, for example, the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah 8:23-9:1 predate Deuteronomy 18? If that question is too difficult, due to questions of authorship and redaction, can we ask What is the earliest date for which historians are confident Messianic prophecy existed in Israel? <Q> We can't readily distinguish the chronology between the 5 books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), but they were among the first books of the OT to be written. <S> Job is actually normally considered the earliest written book of the Bible, with an unknown date but with a proposed Messianic prophecy in Job 19:25 <S> "I know that my Redeemer lives", described in this article . <S> Besides Job, Genesis is seemingly the first to be penned. <S> Genesis 3:15 " <S> And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head , and you will strike his heel .” <S> " <S> The significance of the verse (explained by Blue Letter Bible and Ligonier Ministries ) is that the He is referring to Jesus <S> and we know this because "he" is singular in Hebrew, even though the previous statement refers to the plural "offspring. <S> " A "surprisingly" similar verse in the New Testament is Romans 16:20 "And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly." <S> It is likely that the "striking his heel" refers to Jesus' crucifixion, and the final crushing will occur at His Second Coming when He, holding the keys of death and Hades, will lock up and deal with Satan completely. <S> The onset of the Kingdom of God also relates to Jesus "binding the strong man" (Mark 3:27). <S> So the prophecy is that a single, particular offspring (Jesus) will crush Satan, and Satan will strike his heel, corresponding to Jesus' crucifixion and 2nd Coming. <S> This prophecy was likely recorded in written form (though passed down for generations accurately through oral transmission in an oral culture) around 1445-1405 BC . <S> (The link is not an academic source; I have just seen that date range for the Pentateuch from multiple sources repeatedly). <S> Again, Job is proposed to be written earlier (unknown date) with a prophecy in Job 19:25 <S> "I know my Redeemer lives. <S> " See this article. <A> In Genesis 15:12, God promises Abraham an exile and a redemption, though God does not specify any particular human figure effecting the redemption. <S> A Messianic prophecy, without a Messiah. <S> 12 <S> As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. <S> 13 <S> Then the Lord said to him, “ Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. <S> 14 <S> But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions . <S> 15 <S> You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. <S> 16 <S> In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.” <A> I would agree that Genesis 3:15 is the first Messianic prophesy. <S> I have a different idea about what crushing the head of the serpent refers to. <S> If you characterize the Satan as a serpent, knowing that the serpent's poison is in his head. <S> Sin being the poison, when Jesus conquered sin you could conclude that the serpent's head has been crushed. <S> There is a more direct reference to a head being crushed, however. <S> Revelation 17:9 <S> Here is the mind which has wisdom. <S> The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, 10 and they are seven kings: <S> five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while, 11 <S> And the beast which was and is not, is himself also an eighth, and is of the seven, and he goes to destruction. <S> The beast is the eighth head. <S> He is of the seven. <S> I take that to mean that he is a descendant of the other seven. <S> Here we have all seven kings embodied in one person, the beast. <S> By destroying the one, he destroys them all. <S> This is the head that will be crushed by the seed, Jesus, whose heal was bruised on the cross.	The first Messianic prophecy occurs in the first book of the Bible, Genesis 3:15., probably written in the 15th century BC.
Foot Washing - Required for salvation? Jesus said to Peter that his feet must be washed to "have part with Jesus" (John 13:9). Jesus also commanded all disciples to wash each other's feet (John 13:14). Our church practices foot washing as a sacrament (must do to be saved). I know that we are probably the only church that treats foot washing this seriously. How do other churches approach the subject of foot washing and is it taken as seriously as our church? <Q> Our church practices foot washing as a sacrament (must do to be saved). <S> This sounds like a point to be cautious about. <S> I know of no place in the scriptures where it says you must wash feet to be saved. <S> I presume your church practices foot washing because of Jesus' words in John 13:14-15 <S> Specifically Jesus says in verse 14, "you should wash one another's feet". <S> The key word here is "should" rather than "must". <S> "Should" was translated from the Greek the word ὀφείλω , which could mean "morally obligated"; however, this falls short of a requirement for salvation. <S> I know that we are probably the only church that treats foot washing this seriously. <S> How do other churches approach the subject of foot washing and is it taken as seriously as our church? <S> One may be surprised that foot washing is practiced by several Christian denominations ; however, it is rather unorthodox for a church to insist that you must wash feet to be saved. <S> I believe that there is a bigger principle at work in John 13:14-15 ; Jesus teaches us to be humble and serve one another. <S> Washing guests' feet was considered household servant's work in Jesus' day; yet this (servant's work) is what we're called to as Christians ( Matt 20:24-26 ). <S> Jesus modeled this servant's attitude with his life - Quoting from Philippians 2:6-7 (italics mine): " <S> Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant , being made in human likeness." <A> A large number of denominations do practice foot washing on a regular or occasional basis, including (to my certain knowledge) Catholic, Anglican and Mennonite, and I have heard of others. <S> All of them have something in common. <S> In each case foot washing is treated as a symbol of how people should treat each other, not as a thing that has merit of itself. <S> This is because virtually all denominations (and virtually all Bible students) consider that Jesus is here treating foot washing symbolically. <S> He is not laying down a pattern of literal action, but performing a lowly task - in which the other person is treated as higher status than yourself - to indicate that the disciples must be prepared to undertake lowly tasks and to treat others as higher status than yourself. <S> In this view, actual washing of feet has merit only in that it reminds the people involved of how they should be treating others. <S> Anyone who physically washes another Christian's feet, but then goes on to treat them disrespectfully or as having lesser worth, has gained nothing from the exercise and is not fulfilling Jesus' intentions. <S> For those who hold this view (which is the vast majority of Christians) this approach is not treating Jesus' commands less seriously, but in fact treating them more seriously, as it gets to the heart of what Jesus requires from us. <A> They would not interpret John 13 as having anything to do with Salvation. <S> 10 <S> Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” <S> 11 <S> For <S> He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.” <S> 12 <S> So when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done to you? <S> 13 <S> You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for <S> so I am. <S> 14 <S> If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. <S> 15 <S> For I gave you an example that you also should do as I did to you. <S> 16 <S> Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. <S> 17 <S> If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. <S> JN 13:10-15 <S> These churches would observe the following: <S> Jesus says that they are already clean before washing their feet, except for the "one" Jesus most likely washed Judas feet however this did not save Him. <S> Jesus was using this as an example on how they should treat others. <S> They would be blessed if they followed these examples, not saved. <S> Jesus is the one having the conversation directly the disciples, and not claiming that if you wash the feet of others they will be saved. <S> These churches would also recognize foot washing is left out of every conversation about salvation from sins in the scriptures. <S> The scriptures do not say, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him AND has their feet washed" will have eternal life.	Bible Churches, Methodist, and Baptist doctrines do not consider foot washing a sacrament (what one must do to be saved).
Catholicism: How to treat beggars? My country is full of beggars asking for money, sometimes it's kinda family controlled business, the parents ask their children to beg for money and then steal the money from them, some beggars are really poor, others are just scammers. But you don't have anyway of telling, the vast majority of people either yell at them or ignore them or tell them to go away or act as if they never saw them. I don't imagine that one could pay each and every beggar he sees on a daily basis, and the people in my country aren't rich and there are too many beggars out there. From a roman catholic point of view, how should common people treat beggars? Is ignoring them a sin? What does the church and saints have to say about that? <Q> Here's an example from St. Robert Bellarmine's life (ch. 30 of 35 Doctors of the Church ): <S> Not only did he give freely to those who asked, but he remembered those who were too embarrassed to ask, too reserved to beg. <S> He sent out men to find such cases and helped them. <S> He was often “taken in” by beggars who were not deserving. <S> Some came back in disguise to receive a second alms. <S> He knew this, but his principle was that it is better to be deceived a hundred times than miss one genuinely in need. <S> No wonder the people of Rome called him “the new Poverello,” referring of course to St. Francis of Assisi, his patron. <A> You give what you have: money prayer a hat or mittens on a cold day a cup of tea a coupon or chitty for a meal at a local fast food place <S> a coat <S> look him in the eyes and smile <S> greet him <S> warmly apologise for not having any money basic human contact <A> Catholicism: How to treat beggars? <S> Modern society is so much different than centuries gone by. <S> We do not want to enable them in their addictions if they have some: drugs, alcohol or to a lesser degree smoking. <S> We should always pray for the poor and the hungry <S> and it is for this very intention that we should remember them when we say grace at meal time. <S> If we are aware of a place where they can get a meal, we could direct them where to go. <S> I know people that carry business cards, in order to indicate possible places where they can find some work, at least temporarily. <S> These individuals will actually take a genuine interest in beggars. <S> The chancery of our local archbishop hands out meal tickets or coupons for a free meal at neighboring fast food outlets like McDonalds. <S> No one is turned away empty handed. <S> I know of several priests that will make sandwiches for beggars who knock at their rectory doors. <S> Society is truly so different than days gone by <S> so let us clearly pray for the less fortune every day and at least recite an Our Father for their intentions as well as invoking their patron saints for them daily. <S> "Pray then like this: 'Our Father in heaven, <S> hallowed be your name. <S> Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. <S> Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. <S> And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.'" - Matthew 6:9-13	Giving money to the less fortunate of society is fine, but one must be cautious about doing so.
Better safe than sorry? Should you confess if you're not sure if you've committed a sin? I’m guessing if you aren’t sure if you have committed a sin it is better to confess anyways than to be stuck in hell forever? Is there anything wrong with wrongly confessing or is it OK? <Q> If you aren’t sure if you have committed a sin it is better to confess anyway? <S> If the action or deed may be a possible venial sin <S> then one may go to Confession. <S> It will not do any harm and one may even get some spiritual insight into leading a holy life. <S> Mortal sin for a Catholic must be confessed to a priest within the Sacrament of Reconciliation. <S> Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him. <S> Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it. <S> - Catechism of the Catholic Church . <S> If in doubt, it would be best to go to confession. <S> If one did commit a mortal sin, one would be restored to the state of grace and the sacramental life within the Church. <S> If one did not do a mortal sin, then one has gained insight into leading a holier life and obtained confidence in going to a priest in the Sacrament of Confession as means to keep oneself holy. <A> Should you confess if you're not sure if you've committed a sin? <S> Your question can be understood in two different ways: 1) <S> You did something you definitely see as sin <S> but you don't remember that When I was young I was told that after the confession sins are also forgiven if you don't remember them and therefore did not confess them. <S> 2) <S> You remember well what you did <S> but you don't know if it's a sin <S> You are only forgiven sins after a confession if you are sorry about what you did. <S> So if you are not sorry about having done something, it makes no sense to confess that. <S> ... <S> it is better to confess anyways than to be stuck in hell forever? <S> Not " the " catholic perspective, but something I have read in a text written by a Roman Catholic bishop from the Southern American continent <S> ; the bishop wrote something like this (I don't remember the exact words): <S> Often I had to do with people who wanted to confess before they die. <S> Of course they wanted to confess because they wanted to protect themselves from God . <S> I think that it is a sin to think that it is necessary to protect yourself from God. <S> (My personal opinion when I was reading this was: "... and to think that it is possible at all to protect yourself from God.") <A> Concealing sins—especially mortal sin, of which you seem to be speaking, because dying in the state of mortal sin means you'd go to hell—is itself a serious sin: Catechism of the Council of Trent , chapter on penance : CONFESSION SHOULD BE ENTIRE […] <S> All mortal sins must be revealed to the priest. <S> Venial sins, which do not separate us from the grace of God, and into which we frequently fall, although they may be usefully confessed, as the experience of the pious proves, may be omitted without sin, and expiated by a variety of other means. <S> […] <S> SINS CONCEALED <S> So important is it that Confession be entire that if the penitent confesses only some of his sins and willfully neglects to accuse himself of others which should be confessed, he not only does not profit by his Confession, but involves himself in new guilt. <S> Such an enumeration of sins cannot be called sacramental Confession; on the contrary, the penitent must repeat his Confession, not omitting to accuse himself of having, under the semblance of Confession, profaned the sanctity of the Sacrament. <A> I will try to draw a simple line under all this - to put it simple - even if you're unsure whether or not you committed a sin, you should confess it <S> and I see at least 2 reasons for that - 1) <S> You are having doubts about your actions, therefore for you as a believer natural action <S> is to see priest - he will determine whether you committed a sin or not, also as a believer you have to clear yourself of any doubts regarding your Heavenly Father - <S> that is of course only, if you truly believe. <S> 2) <S> Hiding actions that could've been sin, you immediately commit another sin by not confessing them and again - you come face to face with question - do you truly believe? <S> - if answer is yes, then there shouldn't be any doubts, fear or even thoughts to hide something. <S> I apologize if my wording appears a bit "sharp-spiked" to somebody.	If however one is not sure if one has committed a mortal sin, one should go confession.
Do Latter Day Saints / Mormons consider themselves to be henotheists? Up until now, I saw Christianity as a whole to be monotheistic (there is only one god that created the world, is all-powerful and intervenes in the world). Whilst looking at monotheism and henotheism (belief in a single god while not denying the existence or possible existence of other deities and any other deities are viewed to be of a unitary, equivalent divine essence), Wikipedia's article on henotheism states that Some scholars have written that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) can be characterized as henotheistic, but others have rejected this stance. Eugene England, a professor at Brigham Young University, asserted that LDS Presidents Brigham Young and Joseph Fielding Smith along with LDS scholar B. H. Roberts used the LDS interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8:5–6 as "a brief explanation of how it is possible to be both a Christian polytheist (technically a henotheist) and a monotheist". 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 reads ( NIV ) 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. What does the LDS church say about it? Are Latter Day Saints monotheistic or henotheistic? <Q> An article provided by FairMormon (a Latter-day Saint volunteer apologetics group not connected with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) provides what I think is a good answer. <S> The full article, which addresses a broader array of questions than just the one here posed, can be found at this link . <S> The substance of the answer provided by FairMormon is: <S> There really is not a single word that adequately captures LDS thought on the nature of God. ... <S> Instead of using a single-word label, one must actually articulate the belief (using fully-developed sentences or paragraphs). <S> The single-word label that will adequately describe the full breadth of LDS thought on the nature of God has yet to be coined. <S> As a life-long Latter-day Saint, I concur with the quoted statement. <S> No single-word "-ism" has a definition that quite matches my church's teachings, and <S> the differences between the definitions and the teachings are sufficiently important to merit not using any of those words as a full description of our beliefs. <S> The article, however, is not an official statement from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or its leaders, which is what you are asking for. <S> So far I haven't been able to find any official statement, and it seems likely there is none. <S> A search at ChurchofJesusChrist.org (which is replacing lds.org) for "henotheist" returns no results, and a search for "henotheism" returns one result to an Old Testament lesson manual, though I cannot find where in the manual the word appears. <S> If someone can find an official statement, please share. <A> Normally, you would expect that polytheism or henotheism implies not only the existence of other Gods, but that these Gods also influence things on earth, or can be prayed to. <S> Something like that. <S> Seen in this light, I'd argue LDS theology is not poly- or henotheistic. <S> LDS theology sees God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost as three distinct beings. <S> Does this mean polytheism? <S> I'd argue no, because being one in their goals etc. <S> means that, for example, praying to the Son you will not get any different outcome than praying to the Father. <S> Functionally, this is the same as having a trinity, just without the mystical union stuff. <S> Having patron saints for different stuff like catholics do is much more polytheistic in my eyes, even if they are not called "Gods". <S> LDS theology says we can become like God, and in extension it is believed (though I am not sure how much this counts as doctrine) that God was once like us. <S> This creates an infinite chain of Gods both in the past and into the future, and we are somewhere in the middle. <S> Is this poly- or henotheistic? <S> I'd argue no, because even if there exist other Gods, none of them have any bearing on our life on Earth. <S> This is more akin to saying that there is stuff outside of our observable universe. <S> Most likely true, but none of that stuff will or can influence us. <S> Trying to pray to whatever other God there might be would be the same as praying to an Idol. <S> You could say that in some sense out theology follows the principle of mediocrity , in that unless revealed otherwise, we have to assume that what we go through here on earth is normal, happens everywhere, has happened forever somewhere, and will happen forever somewhere. <A> It states, " <S> For some observers, the doctrine that humans should strive for godliness may evoke images of ancient pantheons with competing deities. <S> Such images are incompatible with Latter-day Saint doctrine... <S> They believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost, though distinct beings, are unified in purpose and doctrine." <S> The entire article is a few pages long and may be accessed here: https://www.lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng <A> No, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not Henotheistic. <S> This will be clear by comparing what members believe with what Henotheism means (see below). <S> We don't choose a god to worship. <S> We worship God. <S> We clarify who we mean by saying "the Eternal Father" or "Heavenly Father". <S> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints - <S> Godhead <S> We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. <S> - Articles of Faith 1:1 <S> This topic goes into more depth about what we believe about the nature of God: <S> They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. <S> But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being. <S> - Topics: <S> Godhead Henotheism <S> A henotheist may worship a single god from a pantheon of deities at a given time, depending on his or her choice, while accepting other deities and concepts of god. <S> - Wikipedia: Henotheism	The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' official website explains how their Church may have both monotheistic and henotheistic aspects. Latter-day Saints also believe strongly in the fundamental unity of the divine.
Has a slave served as a priest? In a recent sermon on Ephesians 6.5-9, the possibility was raised of a slave being a priest/pastor/bishop with authority over his earthly master. I couldn't think of an example from Church history. What examples are there in Church History (ancient or modern) of a priest or equivalent who was a slave at the time of their serving? Also, are there relevant canons (Roman or Orthodox) about this situation? <Q> Has a slave served as a priest? <S> Geremia does a great job in demonstrating that a being a slave is a serious impediment to being ordained. <S> The following are a few examples: <S> St. Patrick Servant of God, <S> Fr. <S> Augustus Tolton <S> There is saint who vowed to become a slave of slaves : <S> St. Peter Claver , Apostle of Slaves <S> There are Religious Orders for the redemption and freedom of slaves: Order of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mercy <S> Order of the Most Holy Trinity for the Redemption of Captives <S> However according to the Orthodox, St. Paulinus volunteered to become a slave by taking the place of another: <S> When the Vandal barbarians invaded Italy and carried off many people to Africa in captivity, Saint Paulinus used church funds to ransom the captives. <S> However, he did not have enough money to ransom the son of a certain poor widow from slavery in the household of the Prince of the Vandals. <S> So, he volunteered to take his place. <S> Dressed as a slave, Saint Paulinus began to serve the Vandal prince as a gardener. <S> - <S> St. Paulinus the Merciful the Bishop of Nola <S> St. Paulinus of Nola is also a saint in the Catholic Church. <S> However Wikipedia makes this story a legend: <S> Gregory the Great recounts a popular story that alleges that when the Vandals raided Campania, a poor widow came to Paulinus for help when her only son had been carried off by the son-in-law of the Vandal king. <S> Having exhausted his resources in ransoming other captives, Paulinus said, "Such as I have I give thee", and went to Africa to exchange places with the widow's son. <S> There Paulinus was accepted in place of the widow's son, and employed as gardener. <S> After a time the king found out that his son-in-law's slave was the great Bishop of Nola. <S> He at once set him free, granting him also the freedom of all the captive townsmen of Nola. <S> According to Pope Benedict XVI, "...the historical truth of this episode is disputed, but the figure of a Bishop with a great heart who knew how to make himself close to his people in the sorrowful trials of the barbarian invasions lives on." <A> Slavery is an impediment to receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders. <S> 1917 Code <S> * canon 987 <S> §4 (cf. <S> 1983 Code canon 1042 ): <S> The [following] are simply impeded [from receiving Holy Orders]: <S> […] 4. <S> ° Those who are strictly speaking slaves before receiving liberty; [ Latin original : " Servi servitute proprie dicta ante acceptam libertatem "] <S> Canonist Dom Charles Augustine commentates on this canon ( A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law <S> bk. <S> 2, vol. <S> 4, p. 499 <S> ): <S> 4. <S> ° <S> Slaves, properly so-called, before they are given their liberty. <S> This belongs to the same defectus libertatis ["lack of freedom"]. <S> Regarding slaves in the proper sense, i.e. , men who belong bodily to a master, the Church ordained that they should not enter the clerical state, partly because their admission would lower its dignity, and partly because they were not their own masters. <S> This defectus libertatis is also the reason why a married man cannot become a priest without the consent of his wife. <S> Cf. <S> Dom Augustine's commentary p. 498 on 1917 Code canon 987 §2 ("Men having wives [are impeded from receiving Holy Orders];"). <S> Cf. <S> also <S> 2 Tim. 2:4 : <S> No man, being a soldier to God, entangleth himself with secular businesses; that he may please him to whom he hath engaged himself. <S> St. Thomas Aquinas addressed the question of " Whether the state of slavery is an impediment to receiving Orders? " <S> (c. 1256 A.D.) in his Summa Theologica suppl. <S> q. 39 a. 3 <S> (= <S> Super Sent. <S> lib. <S> 4 d. 25 q. 2 a. 2 ), a commentary on Lombard's Sentences . <S> St. Thomas answers: <S> By receiving Orders a man pledges himself to the Divine offices. <S> And since no man can give what is not his, a slave who has not the disposal of himself, cannot be raised to Orders. <S> If, however, he be raised, he receives the Order, because freedom is not required for the validity of the sacrament, although it is requisite for its lawfulness, since it hinders not the power, but the act only. <S> The same reason applies to all who are under an obligation to others, such as those who are in debt and like persons. <S> * <S> The 1917 Code was a codification/organization of laws most of which existed before, either as unwritten law ( ius ) or written law ( lex ) such as from Gratian's Decretals . <A> St. Paulinus the Merciful, Bishop of Nola has sold himself to slavery in exchange of another person and was working as a gardener. <S> I doubt that he completely gave up serving Liturgy and took the gifts with him though it is possible. <S> link to life of St. Paulinus	Nevertheless the Church does have examples of ex-slaves being ordained priests and even consecrated bishops and eventually canonized a saint.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.