Which Episcopal Conferences set alternatives for abstinence on Fridays? The canon law requires Catholics to hold every Friday (except certain solemnities) as a abstinence day (e.g. abstaining from meat), but also grants the episcopal conferences the possibility to require the abstinence from other foods or even to substitute other forms of penance. The applicable canons read as follows:

Can.  1250 The penitential days and times in the universal Church are every Friday of the whole year and the season of Lent.
Can.  1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

and

Can.  1253 The conference of bishops can determine more precisely the observance of fast and abstinence as well as substitute other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety, in whole or in part, for abstinence and fast.

I've heard that e.g. many US-Catholics do only refrain from eating meat on Fridays during Lent (presumably making use of such an episcopal decision). Since I grew up in Germany this seemed rather odd to me.
Question (bundled together but related):

Which (other) Episcopal Conferences institute such alternatives to
abstinence?
Is it rather common or seldom to limit abstinence to such few
occurrances?
What other forms of penance are substituted in these cases?

Note: It seems the terminology in this question got a bit mixed up (See AthanasiusOfAlex' comment). In English "fasting" is currently described as eating less than two meals a day (as on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday in the Latin church); "abstinence" simply means no meat.  This question is about the latter.

Which Episcopal Conferences set alternatives for abstinence on Fridays?

For starters the Episcopal Conferences of both Canada  and the United States  allow it.

For Canada:

  In Canada

  In accordance with the prescriptions of canon 1253, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops decrees that the days of fast and abstinence in Canada are:

  Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

  Fridays are days of abstinence, but Catholics can substitute special acts of charity or piety on this day"

For the United States:

  On the Fridays outside of Lent the U.S. and Canadian bishops conference, in accordance with Canon 1253, obtained the permission of the Holy See for Catholics in the US to substitute a penitential, or even a charitable, practice of their own choosing.  Since this was not stated as binding under pain of sin, not to do so on a single occasion would not in itself be sinful.  However, since penance is a divine command, the general refusal to do penance is certainly gravely sinful.  For most people the easiest way to consistently fulfil this command is the traditional one, to abstain from meat on all Fridays of the year which are not liturgical solemnities.  When solemnities, such as the Annunciation, Assumption, All Saints etc. fall on a Friday, we neither abstain or fast.

For France , the Eldest Daughter of the Church follow similar rules as Canada:

  Une semaine après la décision de l’épiscopat canadien de laisser la liberté à ses fidèles de pratiquer la pénitence de leur choix – abrogeant ainsi notamment les règlements sur l’abstinence du vendredi –, l’épiscopat français annonçait le 22 octobre 1966 une décision qui allait dans le même sens. À compter du 1er janvier 1967, les fidèles français seraient autorisés à consommer de la viande les vendredis, en dehors du temps de Carême.

French translation by myself:

  A week after the Canadian episcopate’s decision to let the faithful have the freedom to do the practice of penance to themselves - thus abrogating the the rule of abstinence for Fridays -, the French episcopate announced on October 22, 1966 the decision to go in the same sense. As of January 1, 1967 the French faithful will authorized to eat meat on Fridays outside of Lent.

Most National Episcopal Conferences have obtained permission now to follow this type of abstinence alternatives.

The bishops of Great Britain  and Wales  have recent altered the alternative as follows:

  England and Wales

  Abstinence every Friday of the year.

  The Bishops have decided to re-establish the practice that this [penance] should be fulfilled by abstaining from meat. Those who cannot or choose not to eat meat as part of their normal diet should abstain from some other food of which they regularly partake. This is to come into effect from Friday 16 September 2011[...]

  Many may wish to go beyond this simple act of common witness and mark each Friday with a time of prayer and further self-sacrifice. In all these ways we unite our sacrifices to the sacrifice of Christ, who gave up his very life for our salvation.

For Spain:

  Spain

  Abstinence of meat on Fridays of Lent. Other Fridays this may be substituted for certain works of penance.

  El Miércoles de Ceniza, comienzo de la Cuaresma, y el Viernes Santo, memoria de la Pasión y Muerte de nuestro Señor Jesucristo, son días de ayuno y abstinencia. Los otros viernes de Cuaresma son también días de abstinencia, que consiste en no tomar carne, según antigua práctica del pueblo cristiano. [...]
  En los restantes viernes del año, la abstinencia puede ser sustituida, según la libre voluntad de los fieles, por cualquiera de las siguientes prácticas recomendadas por la Iglesia: lectura de la Sagrada Escritura, limosna (en la cuantía que cada uno estime en conciencia), otras obras de caridad (visita de enfermos o atribulados), obras de piedad (participación en la santa misa, rezo del rosario, etc.) y mortificaciones corporales.


Do angels still visit us on earth I know that throughout the Bible Angels met with humans for very specific reasons. An obvious example can be found in Luke 1:26-38. Gabriel speaks to Mary and informs her she will give birth to a son who is to be named Jesus. Do Angels still visit us on earth and interact with humans today?

Hebrews 13:2 reminds us to show love and hospitality towards all, "for in doing so, some have entertained angels," unaware. When Samsons parents were told they were going to have a child, they too were unaware that they were in the presence of an angel, until after they sacrificed, the angel went away dramatically revealing what he was.

There is nothing to suggest that angels no longer visit Earth*, but nothing says that says we will recognize them as such when they do.

*ok, possibly one could say that because we have the Bible, God no longer requires messengers (and by definition an angelos' job is a messenger) but that would just be speculation.


In Catholic exorcisms why the Holy Angels (such as the possessed's guardian angel) are not actively participating as soldiers in battle? In a book about exorcism Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans the author writes in the introduction chapter "A Brief Handbook of Exorcism" (emphasis mine):

The exorcist is the centerpiece of every exorcism. On him depends everything. He has nothing personal to gain. But in each exorcism he risks literally everything that he values. Michael Strong’s was an extreme example of the fate awaiting the exorcist. But every exorcist must engage in a one-to-one confrontation, personal and bitter, with pure evil. Once engaged, the exorcism cannot be called off. There will and must always be a victor and a vanquished. And no matter what the outcome, the contact is in part fatal for the exorcist. He must consent to a dreadful and irreparable pillage of his deepest self. Something dies in him. Some part of his humanness will wither from such close contact with the opposite of all humanness—the essence of evil; and it is rarely if ever revitalized. No return will be made to him for his loss.

My question is why the Holy Angels (such as the possessed's guardian angel) are not actively participating as soldiers in battle to prevent the exorcist from bearing the full brunt of the demonic attack, especially since we are fighting angels turned demons?
In the 5 detailed cases, the Brief Handbook of Exorcism chapter, the Manual of Possession section, and the Roman Ritual of Exorcism appendix, good angels were not asked to come and help, but at most were asked only to pray, as in the Litany of Saints or in the Prayer to St. Michael.

In Catholic exorcisms, why are the Holy Angels (such as the possessed's guardian angel) are not enlisted to assist?
I do not know where you got that idea from, but I assure you the opposite is the truth.
First of all (Fr.) Malachi Martin has a very dubious past. He may have written the book entitled Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans. However he likes the sensational and was often at odds with the Church. Personally, I do not trust his fact findings and I am not about to dive into this can of beans here.
Does the following sound like a first class Churchman:

Disillusioned by Vatican II, he asked to be released from certain aspects of his Jesuit vows in 1964 and moved to New York City, where he later became an American citizen.
His 17 novels and non-fiction books were frequently critical of the Vatican hierarchy, whom he believed had failed to act on the Third Prophecy revealed by the Virgin Mary at Fátima. Among his most significant works were The Scribal Character of The Dead Sea Scrolls (1958) and Hostage To The Devil (1976) which dealt with Satanism, demonic possession, and exorcism. The Final Conclave (1978) was a warning against Soviet espionage in the Holy See via Soviet spies in the Vatican.
Martin claimed that Popes John XXIII and Paul VI were Freemasons during a certain period and that photographs and other detailed documents proving this were in the possession of the Vatican State Secretariat. He allegorically mentioned these supposed facts in his 1986 novel Vatican: A Novel, where he related the Masonic adherence of Popes Giovanni Angelica and Giovanni De Brescia. He claimed Archbishop Annibale Bugnini C.M. was a Freemason and that Agostino Casaroli, long-time Cardinal Secretary of State, was an atheist.
He spoke and wrote often about the Three Secrets of Fátima and was an ardent supporter of Fr. Nicholas Gruner: "Father Gruner is fulfilling a desperately needed function in the ongoing perception of Mary's role in the salvation of our imperiled world. Father Gruner is absolutely correct that the consecration of Russia as - Our Lady desired, has not been executed". - Malachi Martin (Wikipedia)

Personally I put no stock in Malachi Martin’s work. Many think he even had affairs with married women. He staunchly supported Fr. Nicholas Gruner who was suspended by his own bishop! Fr. Nicholas Nightingale Gruner personally appealed to Rome about the suspension of his priestly duties, but was unsuccessful.
Now let us take up the crux of your question. In Catholic exorcisms, why are Holy angels (such as the possessed's guardian angel) are not enlisted to assist?
Fr. Gabriele Amorth makes note in his books that the praying to the Holy Angels and Guardian Angels in particular for help during exorcisms is beneficial. Both Malachi Martin and Fr. Amorth recommend reciting the rosary during exorcisms.
Please remember that more often than not, official exorcisms take hours to get through. Priests, in these times often employ other prayers not mentioned in the Rituale Romanum.
The Litany of the Saints is prayed as part of the Ritus Exorcizandi Obsessos a Dæmonio. It is a very common practice to add Patron Saints or Saints of special devotion to a location or person at times of priestly ordination or solemn profession of a religious. There no reason prohibiting the inclusion of patron saints or the Guardian Angels to be included in the Litany of the Saints during an exorcism.
More to the point is that Pope Leo XIII’s prayer Exorcismus in Satanam et Angelos Apostaticos is in fact a Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel.

In nómine Patris, et Fílii, et Spíritus Sancti. Amen
Ad S. Michaelem Archangelum Precatio
Princeps gloriosíssime cæléstis milítiæ, sancte Michaël Archángele, defénde nos in
prǽlio advérsus príncipes et potestátes, advérsus mundi rectóres tenebrárum harum, contra spirituália nequítiæ, in cæléstibus. Veni in auxílium hóminum; quos ad imáginem similitúdinis suæ fecit, et a tyránnide diáboli emit prétio magno. Te custódem et patrónem sancta venerátur Ecclésia; tibi trádidit Dóminus ánimas redemptórum in supérna felicitáte locándas. Deprecáre Deum pacis, ut cónterat sátanam sub pédibus nostris, ne ultra valeat cáptivos tenere hómines, et Ecclésiae nocére. Offer nostras preces in conspéctu Altíssimi, ut cito antícipent nos misericórdiæ Dómini, et apprehéndas dracónem, serpéntem antíquum, qui est diábolus et sátanas, et ligátum mittas in abýssum, ut non sedúcat ámplius gentes.
Exorcismus
In Nomine Jesu Christi Dei et Dómini nostri, intercédente immaculáta Vírgine Dei
Genetríce María, beáto Michaéle Archángelo, beátis Apóstolis Petro et Paulo et ómnibus Sanctis, et sacra ministérii auctoritáte confísi, ad infestatiónes diabólicæ fraudis repelléndas secúri aggrédimur.
Psalmus 67
EXSURGAT Deus, et dissipéntur inimíci ejus, et fúgiant qui odérunt eum, a fácie

The act of exorcism within ritual is only part of the equation and takes about 20 minutes to recite, but the act of exorcism itself goes on for much longer. There is lots of time for additional prayers for the exorcist to invoke the Guardian Angels of all involved. This is the practice of Fr. Gabriele Amorth himself!
More than not, many exorcisms are needed to liberate a soul from the Demon. All involved would most naturally pray to Our Lord, His Mother, their Guardian Angels and their patron saints for assistance. The exorcists that I know actually encourage this.
Only the exorcist is permitted to recite the ritual and interrogate the Demon(s) involved the exorcisms. The exorcist must instruct all involved in what to do and not to do. This would also encompass what additional prayers one could silently recite during an exorcism.


What is the modern LDS view towards multiple Heavenly Mothers/wives of members of the Godhead? The Wikipedia article on 'Heavenly Mother' notes that:

Brigham Young taught that God the Father was polygamous, although teachings on Heavenly Mothers were never as popular and disappeared from official rhetoric after the end of LDS polygamy in 1904 (although existing polygynous marriages lasted into the 1950s). Top leaders used the examples of the polygamy of God the Father in defense of the practice and this teaching was widely accepted by the late-1850s. Apostle Orson Pratt taught in an official church periodical that "We have now clearly shown that God the Father had a plurality of wives," and that after her death, Mary (the mother of Jesus) may have become another eternal polygamous wife of God. One scholar interpreted a 1976 LDS manual as alluding to this teaching. Author Carol Lynn Pearson stated that a seminary teacher from her youth fervently taught that there were multiple Heavenly Mothers.

My understanding is that the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints unambiguously bans plural marriage in this lifetime, but allows one person to be sealed to multiple people in the celestial realm (eg, a widower who remarries after his wife's death and has two wives in heaven).  Given this, what is the modern teaching of the Church with regards to the idea that members of the Godhead have multiple wives? More specifically, if this teaching has not been repudiated, are all the wives collectively 'Heavenly Mothers', or is one particular wife have a special position as the Heavenly Mother?
(I apologize for using the now disapproved abbreviation 'LDS' in the title—unfortunately, the full name of the Church wouldn't fit well into a short title)

There is very little in regards to the doctrine of Heavenly Mother and not much has changed in recent years. Most references to Heavenly Mother are singular (not plural), and there is no expounded doctrine within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in regards to Heavenly Mother.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. ... Prophets have taught that our heavenly parents work together for the salvation of the human family. ... As with many other truths of the gospel, our present knowledge about a Mother in Heaven is limited.1

 1 Mother in Heaven


What is the greatest sin? I understand that there is one sin that cannot be forgiven and that is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

But beyond this, what is the greatest sin that a person can commit? Either voluntarily or involuntarily?

I believe that we might be able to gain some insight into all other sin through the answer of this question.

The greatest commandment is given to us by Jesus.

  Matthew 22:36-40 NIV
  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and
  with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first
  and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your
  neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on
  these two commandments.”

I believe it'd follow that the greatest sin would be breaking this commandment.  So I would say acting in an unloving manner would be the greatest sin.  Being unloving towards God would be the greatest, followed by being unloving towards your neighbor.

Also, since the commandment is the action of loving, having a lack of love could also be considered a sin.

Putting sin in that light is convicting.


Is it known whether  Adam and Eve had the ability to experience physical pain before the fall? Did Adam and Eve have the ability to experience physical pain before the fall? It seems that there is no indication in Genesis of physical pain in the Garden of Eden.

Is this issue mentioned anywhere else in the Scriptures?
Do any Christian traditions use other known pieces to derive some belief about what pain must have been like before the fall? If so how to they arrive at these interpretations and what doctrine do they build on these understandings?

This is an interesting question.  The simple answer is that we are really told explicitly whether or not physical pain was possible.  We do know, however, that in the judgment of Eve, pain is mentioned:

  To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in
  childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.  Your desire
  shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”  Genesis 3:16 ESV

The phrase, "I will surely multiply your pain", could certainly indicate that physical pain was a possibility.

This brings up some theological questions though.  It seems that death only exists as a penalty for sin, and it would seem that pain is related to death.  Pain tells us that something is wrong physically (much like shame lets us know that something is wrong spiritually).  Yet, the body seems to have been created for immortal life, so pain that indicates the destruction of the body in some way does not seem to fit.

So, if pain originated at the fall, the wording in Genesis 3:16 could indicate that pain would also be a part of something that was intended to be good rather than just with all things that are to our own destruction.

Yet, again, we are not explicitly told the answer to this question, so it seems the best we can do is contemplate what we do know.


What is an overview of different denominations' beliefs about how Jesus Christ performed miracles? (By the Holy Spirit or by something else?) for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by the same Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. (1 Corinthians 12:8–11, NKJV)
But in fact, it is best for you that I go away, because if I don’t, the Advocate won’t come. If I do go away, then I will send him to you. (John 16:7, NLT)

My understanding is that miracles are performed in men by the work of the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit did not come to Earth until after Jesus left. Knowing this, what do different churches have to say on this issue? Did Jesus have the Holy Spirit anyway as a result of being fully God or did he do miracles by another means?  What is an overview of beliefs on this subject?

One theory that suggests the source of the miracles was from other the Holy Spirit is  Dr. Cleon Skousen's "Intelligence Theory"(summarized here, transcript here), which he explained in a talk to a group of LDS missionaries.

It's not official LDS doctrine, but it is based primarily on LDS scripture. The gist of it is this:

Before the creation, everything was organized into intelligences.
God is the greatest of these intelligences.
Upon creation, intelligences were assigned to the elements. Some intelligences just know how to rotate in circles around protons and neutrons, some intelligences were assigned to animals, or humans. Clearly based on their capacity and purpose.
God's power is his honor. These intelligences obey God because He is perfect in every sense. The elements change at His requests in order to pay Him this honor.

There are apparently some arguments (which I have not yet read), and my quick summary probably doesn't do the theory justice, but it is one (I'm sure of many) theories that may be able to answer your question.


Was charging interest on loans ever forbidden to laymen in the Eastern Orthodox Church? If so, when was this promulgated and when was it revoked? According to Wikipedia, the First Council of Nicaea (325AD) forbade clergy, but not laymen, from charging interest on loans.
Wikipedia also states that "later ecumenical councils applied this regulation to the laity", but the reference given shows this occurred only in Catholic councils after 1150AD.
The Catholics had a Lateran III council in 1179, where they totally excommunicated anyone who charged interest. To me, this implies that before 1179, there had been no ecumenical council, Catholic or Orthodox, that prohibited usury among laymen.
Assuming this Wikipedia article is comprehensive, it appears that no ecumenical council ever forbade the charging of interest among laymen. However the article appears to only give the Catholic side.

My question: Did the Eastern Orthodox church as a whole (via an ecumenical council for example) or in part (via a local council for one synod, for example), ever condemn as a sin, which required repentance or even excommunication, the act of charging interest on loans among laymen?

I am glad that you mentioned the ecumenical council vs. local council question. I see that you've tagged it with usury, so I hope you will accept answers based on usury and not just interest in general.
Local Councils
There are a number of local, pre-schism councils that prohibit usury by laymen. Because they are pre-schism they can be understood to be "Eastern Orthodox," but none of the cities in question are particularly Eastern, and again they were local.
In the 4th century there was a Synod of Elvira which predates the Council of Nicaea (source 1 with original Latin, source 2).
One of the canons issued at that Synod says:

If any clergy are found engaged in usury, let them be censured and dismissed. If a layman is caught practicing usury, he may be pardoned if he promises to stop the practice. If he continues this evil practice, let him be expelled from the church.

There are quite a lot of things in the canons from Elvira that the Orthodox church does not follow, such as "pictures are not to be placed in churches" and clerical celibacy. When responding to the iconoclastic claim, one modern-day Orthodox writer has said:

This canon (among the rest at Elvira) were neither ecumenical in scope, nor eternal in application. Like many other encyclicals, epistles, and synods in the history of the Church, the scope was both locally and historically specific.

(For example, Christianity was not yet legal in the Roman empire, so you could see how that would change things.)
Other pre-schism local councils forbade this practice as well,  e.g.:

"The synod of Pavia in 850 excommunicates lay usurers and prescribes full restitution to their victims" (source, page 16 of the paper). The 850 Synod of Pavia is so obscure it doesn't even have its own Wiki article.
"The 12th canon of the First Council of Carthage (345) and the 36th canon of the Council of Aix (789) have declared it to be reprehensible even for laymen to make money by lending at interest." (source)
A few more sources here

Here is a page that lists Christian writings on usury throughout history. I know the site does not look pretty, but the pages it links to are generally sourced.
Saints
Church fathers also wrote against usury; Gregory of Nyssa did so perhaps most thoroughly. (See a homily on the subject.)
Pope St. Leo the Great (who, being 5th century, is also an Orthodox saint) also spoke against usury in his sermons (source), which I believe were given while he was Pope:

the money-lender's trade is always bad, for it is sin either to lessen or increase the sum, in that if he lose what he lent he is wretched, and if he takes more than he lent he is more wretched still

This isn't as authoritative as a council, but I'd certainly think he was speaking ex officio.


What was the explicit purpose of Jesus' question to James and John? At Matthew 20:20-23, we read about  the request of the mother of James and John thus:

  Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she asked a favor of him.   And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.”   But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.”   He said to them, “You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

Here,  Jesus is testing the commitment of the brothers to a life of suffering with and for Him . But, in spite of their having given a `Yes' answer, Jesus is non-committal about their place of choice in heaven . But then, what was His question to the brothers intended for?

Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?

What, if any, interpretations are offered by the Catholic Church on the explicit purpose of this question to James and John?

I think my question needs a bit of elaboration.  To me, the answer - whatever it be- given by the disciples to the  challenge posed by Jesus , would not have  in any manner, influenced His  final reply  (that it is for The Father to decide) .   So, what was the need for Jesus to pose the challenge ?   Was He just making use of the opportunity to orient them to the difficult life that lay ahead ?

The most common take on that passage (and the related ones in Mark 10 and Matthew 10) is the difficulty in being a disciple (or in the case of those two, the immense difficulty and challenge of being an apostle).

In the notes for the New American Bible hosted at the Vatican's web site, there is a cross reference to Matthew 10:38-40.

  38  and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not
  worthy of me.
  39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
  40 "Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.

The message or interpretation here isn't subtle, nor the purpose behind that cross reference.  To any disciple of Christ, be they the two He spoke to in that passage, or be it the verse speaking to someone receiving the Word through Scripture, the "cup he will be drinking" is an allusion to the cross, and he's indirectly asking them (or us) if they(we) can bear the cross and follow Him.

I've heard this from the pulpit/ambo during the homily, during bible classes, and on retreats from clergy.  The theme and linkage is consistent.  (I get the idea that this is a core linkage taught in Seminary).

The question interpreted for the laity in the present: can you really pick up that cross and follow in those footsteps?  (Message: it's very hard to do).


Does God know me personally? What is the biblical basis for concluding that God knows (in any sense) individual people personally (in any sense)?

God created you, so for sure he knows you! God is also watching each one of us and he loves ❤ us. And yes, there are quotations, to be sure!

Job 28:24

  For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.

1 John 3:19-20

  By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Hebrews 4:13

  And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Matthew 10:30

  But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.

There are many more, but these are what I could remember!


Did Waldensians believe in unconditional election? I have read about the history of the Waldensians. It appears they were largely honorable in their dealings; unfortunately it is hard to know exactly what they believed prior to their accepting Presbyterianism because their persecutors seem to have destroyed much of their culture.
Today I saw a sermon of Charles Spurgeon on election. In it he makes the claim that Waldensians taught that people were "chosen [for salvation] ... not for any attitude, faith, or holiness that He foresaw in them" which I understand to be equivalent to Calvinism's doctrine of unconditional election.
Here is the quote from the sermon:

I have copied from an old book one of the articles of their faith:
That God saves from corruption and damnation those whom He has chosen from the foundations of the world, not for any attitude, faith, or holiness that He foresaw in them, but of His mere mercy in Christ Jesus His Son, passing by all the rest, according to the blameless reason of His own free will and justice.

Can anyone confirm if Spurgeon's quote comes from a genuine Waldensian
document? Are there any clues at all that their belief in God's choice of the elect did not depend on the possibility or probability of faith that He foresaw in them?

Spurgeon's quote is legitimate, but it comes from a translation of the 1655 Confession of the Waldenses, chapter XI, as reproduced in Philip Schaff's Creeds of Christendom:

  XI. That God saves from this corruption and condemnation those whom he has chosen [from the foundation of the world, not for any foreseen disposition, faith, or holiness in them, but] of his mercy in Jesus Christ his Son; passing by all the rest, according to the irreprehensible reason of his freedom and justice.

This confession was probably written by Jean Leger in the midst of the Piedmont persecution.  It is partially an abridgment of the 1559 French Confession, and was brought to England by Samuel Morland.  Schaff's English text is based on 19th century translations by William Hazlitt and E. Henderson, but he notes a peculiarity related to the text in brackets above:

  The words in brackets are given by Hazlitt and Henderson (perhaps from Morland), but are not found in the French of Leger and Hahn.

So the part of the confession that most clearly indicates a doctrine of unconditional election is apparently not found in the original French version.  This is perhaps more surprising because the 1559 French Confession does include similar language:

  We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works [...]. For the ones are no better than the others, until God discerns them according to his immutable purpose which he has determined in Jesus Christ before the creation of the world.

There are earlier Waldensian Confessions floating around on the internet, such as from 1120 and 1544, but Schaff dismisses them as "partly of doubtful origin, and [having] merely historical interest."  In any case, they do not have the language in question either.

So it seems unlikely that we would be able to trace the doctrine of unconditional election back to the Waldensians who preceded the Reformation.  The task is especially difficult due to a lack of sources, as Gonzalo L. Pita summarizes:

  The documentary scarcity and unconnectedness from which we must
  draw the description of Waldensian beliefs is often aggravated by the fact
  that the questions, descriptions, and refutations that their opponents
  presented were frequently made within a set of theological postulates that
  were either taken for granted or just obliterated for the sake of conciseness. ("Waldensian and Catholic Theologies of History", 87)


What is Gideon's ephod, and why did he build it? In the story of Gideon (Judges 6-8), near the end it talks about Gideon building an ephod out of the gold earrings from the spoils of the battle against the Midianites. What is an ephod, and why did gideon build one. Is it significant?

in early books of the bible, the ephod was a special piece of clothing that was made for Aaron the High priest to wear when he served the Lord (Exodus 28:5)

  “They shall take the gold, blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and the fine linen, 6 and they shall make the ephod of gold, blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen, artistically worked. 7

When I started to research this question, I realised that everyone pretty much agrees the ephod in Judges was not a clothing, like I had always thought!

So I cant tell you exactly what it was physically, but I can answer the 2nd part of your question and explain some significance.

It says in Judges 8:24

  4 Then Gideon said to them, “I would like to make a request of you, that each of you would give me the earrings from his plunder.” For they had golden earrings, because they were Ishmaelites.

This is extremely familiar scene. Think back to exodus as Moses goes up the mountain to get the 10 commandments. The people think he has been gone to long, and they ask Aaron the priest to make them an idol!

Exodus 32

  Now when the people saw that Moses delayed coming down from the mountain, the people gathered together to Aaron, and said to him, “Come, make us gods that shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.”
  2 And Aaron said to them, “Break off the golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 3 So all the people broke off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he received the gold from their hand, and he fashioned it with an engraving tool, and made a molded calf.

So the significance of the ephod in Judges, is that once again, God's people do not trust in him or give him glory for the things he has done for them, but they go astray and break his commandments by making for themselves idols and worshipping them.

Idol worship is a very very prominent theme of the Old Testament. and it was a problem the Israelites continually faced.


According to Catholicism, what did St Paul mean by "a thorn in the flesh"? We see St Paul writing at 2 Corinthians 12:7 (RSVCE)

  And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.

What exactly was St. Paul referring to here ? Was he telling an idiom of his time in order to show that he was undergoing some painful medical condition ? Or, was he referring to the temptations of flesh? Are there any authentic interpretations from the side of Catholic Church on the saying of St Paul?

The Catholic Haydock Commentary on 2 Cor. 12:7 says:

  A sting of my flesh,[1] an angel, or a messenger of Satan, to buffet me. The Latin word [stimulus] signifies any thing that pricks or stings, the Greek word [σκόλοψ] a sharp stick or pale: he speaks by a metaphor, as also when he says to buffet me; that is, by causing great trouble or pain. Some understand by it a violent headache or pain, or distemper in the body. St. Augustine mentions this opinion, and does not reject it, in Psalm xcviii. tom. 4. p. 1069.; in Psalm cxxx. p. 1465. St. Jerome also speaks of it in chap. iv. ad Galatas, tom. 4. p. 274, Ed. Ben. But St. Chrysostom, by the sting, and the angel of Satan, understands that opposition which St. Paul met with from his enemies, and those of the gospel; as Satan signifies an adversary. Others understand troublesome temptations of the flesh, immodest thoughts, and representations, suggested by the devil, and permitted by Almighty God for his greater good.


Is modern Evangelical Protestant soteriology consistent with the early Christian idea of "theosis"? Early Christians used the term theosis, which puts forth a "exaltation", "divinization" deification concept which the Eastern orthodox church still holds today.

  [T]he Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God.

  For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God

  [H]is is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, “Men are gods, and gods are men.” For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God.
  — Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)

A lot of Christians see salvation as entrance into the kingdom in a general sense instead of as a process of becoming more and more god-like through eternity. My impression is that the church in the west doesn't even think in terms of the ideal theosis any more.

Is the doctrine of theosis actually contrary to Evangelical Protestants today? Is it actually a different soteriology or has the emphasis just shifted for other reasons

My short answer is yes, they are compatible but you're correct to observe a shift in emphasis.

The reason for the divergence in eastern and western thought is that in the Bible there are a variety of different analogies and explanations for the nature of salvation. The west at some point latched more onto the juridicial/courtroom analogies, while the east latched more onto what Adolf von Harnack described as "mystical" explanations. Donald Fairbairn, an evangelical and a professor of patristics, analyzes and (to a degree) critiques this narrative. Says Fairbairn:

  The rise of the penitential system and the notion of the Mass as a re-sacriﬁce of Christ at the beginning of the Middle Ages, the Anselmian revolution in atonement doctrine in the 11th century, and the crystallizing of the sacramental system in the 12th–13th centuries all served to solidify this juridical soteriology [in the west], in which salvation was seen as a state before God. Furthermore, it seems to me that the Reformers did little to reverse the juridical trajectory of the Western Church. Granted, the Reformers gave a radically different answer to the question of how one attains a right standing before God, but most of them did not fundamentally alter the general idea that salvation is primarily juridical in character.

Elsewhere in his article, he emphasizes that, for many of the fathers, the idea of theosis was not so much sharing God's qualities but rather sharing in the fellowship between the persons of the trinity. This idea, while not wrapped in the language of theosis, is huge in the recent evangelical book Delighting in the Trinity.

Athanasius is often regarded as giving the idea of theosis the best and clearest expression in the early church. Analyzing his writings on the topic, Philip Edgecombe Hughes defines Athanasius' concept of theosis as:

  the reintegration of the divine image of man’s creation through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit conforming the redeemed into the likeness of Christ, and also of the believer’s transition from mortality to immortality so that he is enabled to participate in the eternal bliss and glory of the kingdom of God. (P. E. Hughes, The True Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) pg 281. Quoted in Robert Rakestraw, Becoming Like God: An Evangelical Doctrine of Theosis)

So defined, the doctrine is compatible with various evangelical soteriological frameworks. Ultimately, the doctrine of theosis gets its support from the Bible. There are a number of passages speaking directly or indirectly of it, but 2 Peter 1:4 is the best place to start:

  And because of his glory and excellence, he has given us great and precious promises. These are the promises that enable you to share his divine nature and escape the world's corruption caused by human desires.

Throughout history, though the western emphasis has been on juridicial explanations for salvation, recent scholarship says deification language isn't entirely absent in the west historically:

  Many assume that the patristic notion of deification is absent from the mainstreams of post-patristic Western theology. Recent scholarship, however, identifies deification in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, early Anglicanism, early Methodism and Jonathan Edwards -- all fountainheads of Western theology. This article contends that deification is also present in Calvin's theology. It is not a prominent theme in its own right and some of the bolder patristic terminology is not employed. Nonetheless, the concept and imagery of deification regularly appear on stage while other doctrines are explicated. For Calvin, deification is the eschatological goal and blessing greater than which nothing can be imagined. (Carl Mosser, The Greatest Possible Blessing: Calvin and Deification, Abstract)

I write from a reformed perspective so Calvin is the most significant of the bunch for me. In reformed thought the terminology of union with Christ is often employed to express this idea. The seventeenth century work The Life of God in the Soul of Man is a classic on the topic.

Really, what "theosis" expresses is the idea of sanctification (becoming more holy and more like Christ) and glorification (being finally so like Christ as to radiate with glory) wrapped into one. The reformers emphasized the distinction between these things and justification in order to emphasize that our union with Christ, while synergistic, is not possible without God unilaterally (monergistically) declaring us righteous first. Orthodox and Catholic thought don't make this distinction. Therefore, in Protestant thought, salvation and justification are often equated and therefore spoken of juridicially, even while recognizing that the goal of our justification is to reflect God's glory more and more.

While the language, and even a lot of the underlying theology, may be different between east and west and between Protestants and non-Protestants, the idea of becoming like God in our salvation is not foreign to evangelicalism. John Piper, an evangelical pastor, briefly touches on this in his spoken biography of Athanasius (though it doesn't seem to be in the abridged transcript).

The goal of entering God's kingdom is to enter into fellowship with him.


According to Catholicism, when a person dies, is that person's spirit/soul limited as to where it can be present? According to Catholicism, when a person dies, is that person's spirit and/or soul limited as to where it can be present?

What St. Thomas Aquinas discusses in his question "Whether an angel is in a place?" (Summa Theologica I q. 52 a. 1) can also be applied to human souls, which are immaterial, like angels:

It is befitting an angel to be in a place; yet an angel and a body are said to be in a place in quite a different sense. A body is said to be in a place in such a way that it is applied to such place according to the contact of dimensive quantity; but there is no such quantity in the angels, for theirs is a virtual one. Consequently an angel is said to be in a corporeal place by application of the angelic power in any manner whatever to any place.
Accordingly there is no need for saying that an angel can be deemed commensurate with a place, or that he occupies a space in the continuous; for this is proper to a located body which is endowed with dimensive quantity. In similar fashion it is not necessary on this account for the angel to be contained by a place; because an incorporeal substance virtually contains the thing with which it comes into contact, and is not contained by it: for the soul is in the body as containing it, not as contained by it. In the same way an angel is said to be in a place which is corporeal, not as the thing contained, but as somehow containing it.


Why did God change Jacob's name to Israel? I am reading the book of Genesis, and I have noticed that God changes certain people's names, such as Abram to Abraham and Jacob to Israel. Why does he change their names? What does it symbolize?

  Now that Jacob had returned from Paddan-aram, God appeared to him again at Bethel. God blessed him, saying, "Your name is Jacob, but you will not be called Jacob any longer. From now on your name will be Israel." So God renamed him Israel. (Genesis 35:9-10, NLT )

Names were considered to be meaningful in some way.  For example, the younger of Isaac's twin sons with Rebekah was named Jacob ("supplanter") because when he was born he was holding on to Esau's heel, as if attempting to overtake him.  (Genesis 25: 24-26)

After Jacob's wrestle with the angel, when he demanded a blessing from the Lord, the angel pronounced a blessing upon him, and a new name to go with it: Isra-El, which can mean "He who prevails with God," or "May God prevail," depending on the context.

Likewise with Abram ("Exalted father"), when he was blessed by the Lord in Genesis 17, he was given the name Abraham ("Father of a multitude"), in keeping with the promise of the Lord:

  5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall
  be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

  6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of
  thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

So we see that these different names are given to people as a blessing from the Lord, to signify that something about them, their nature or their life, has changed in some way.


Looking for a verse like "if all the Jews repented at once the world would be saved" I grew up as a Christian and vaguely remember from those years a verse like "if all the Jews repented at once the world would be saved". It might have been "all the Christians" or another group; it might have been "they would see God" or another concept than the "world" being "saved". I'd love pointers to where this might have come from.

The Jerusalem Talmud, also called the Palestinian Talmud, not to be confused with the Babylonian Talmud, is a collection of rabbinic writings. It includes a statement  by the fourth century AD Rabbi Aha:

  If Israel repents for one day, forthwith the son of David [the Messiah] will come.

According to some Jewish thought, in every generation there is someone ready to become messiah. if the circumstances of the time are right, God will appoint him, otherwise not. Another similar expression is that if Israel kept one or two Sabbaths properly, the Messiah would come.

The Christian Biblical version of this is in the second epistle of St. Peter.  Christians believe that the Messiah has already come, but will return. We read in  chapter 3. verse 9:

  The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This verse is in the context of the delay in the Second Coming (v 4), and explains the delay as due to patience, a desire to give more time for repentance. If God is procrastinating to give more time for repentance, what would happen if everybody did repent? There would then be no further need to delay the Second Coming. This verse, then, may suggest that if everyone repented the Second Coming would happen immediately.  However, some Christians  see this as merely a hypothetical inference since they believe that, in fact,it is predestined that not everybody will repent.

Reference - see When will the Mashiach come? or for more detail on Rabbi Aha's discourse see Messiah in Routledge's dictionary of Judaism


What is this icon that Putin touches/kisses at monument of St.Vladimir? The Russian Federation (along with some other Slavic nations), recently celebrated the 1,030th anniversary of the Christianization of the Rus', which included a liturgy at the monument to Vladimir the Great near the Kremlin.

In this video (time- 23:45), President Putin (followed by the Patriarch) is seen bending forward and touching/kissing some icon/relic encased in a gilded box.

What exactly is this gilded box (or the item contained within it)?

Granted, since this event is also a tribute to St.Vladimir, I guess this is some relic associated with him? (I'm not entirely sure though.)

According to the news, https://foma.ru/na-1030-letie-kreshheniya-rusi-v-kremle-vpervyie-sovershili-liturgiyu-pod-otkryityim-nebom.html a shrine with the part of relics of St. Vladimir from the Christ the Savior church in Moscow was brought in before the Liturgy in Kremlin so I guess then it was carried to the monument of St. Vladimir where Putin venerated it.


What qualifies the 3 entities of the Trinity as one? Follow up to this question: (If A = x and B = x and C = x then why isn't A = B = C? (Trinity)

What qualifies the 3 entities of the Trinity as one?

Now that the concept of the Trinity is more comprehensible to me - that the Trinity is not one entity with three different aspects, but rather three entities with different personalities with a shared essence and relationship with each other (perichoresis)

There's a very minor yet SIGNIFICANT semantic nuance. My friends and I are human (human as in adjective, denoting our attributes), but we are not ONE human (human as in noun, an entity that possesses the quality of being human). My friends and I share the attribute of being human, but we are not one human.

If I for instance take three laptops of the same model, I could say that they are the same laptop, in the sense that they are the same model - created by the same manufacturer, share the same components and OS. However, we are still talking about three laptops, not one.

As such, Christians call the Son, the Father, the Holy Ghost God (God as in adjective, denoting the attributes of divinity to each respectively), but the Son, the Father, and the Holy Ghost wouldn't be ONE God, would they?
(Of course I understand Christians cannot proclaim to believe in three Gods, but is this logically consistent?)

Another analogy: Say I abolished the power hierarchy between all the Greek deities and gave them the same essence, but kept their specified roles and relationship with each other. I claim that they are one, but for all practical purposes they really are not "one". That's how I understand the Trinity

Then by which standard do we classify them as one? What is it that makes them out to be one? in which sense are they one? Is it the close-knit relationship they exhibit with each other?

This link shared in the comments conveys my understanding of the Trinity pretty well

If I may interject my personal opinion, I believe Christians are trying too hard to market this as monotheism. This may not be tritheism per se, but this is not monotheism either, the Trinity deserves its own theological category.

EDIT: The attached question is not the same as mine. The attached question merely seeks an explanation of the general concept of the Trinity, while I request people to directly address the question as to why/how the triune personalities of the Trinity constitute one God.

What qualifies the 3 entities of the Trinity as one?

There are not three entities or beings—three Gods. There are, within, or intrinsic to, the one God (or rather the one God is definitionally in some respect three; namely, He is tri-personal) three 'somethings.' They happen to be revealed to be quite Personal.

Put simply, 'trinity' describes something of the intrinsic nature of God; 'one' describes the numeric total of essences that are called God and have the attributes of God: there being but one, (Deut 6:4) who is known variously by titles YHVH, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, etc.

So they are one because they are intrinsic to each other and co-definitional (like how, analogically, 'Father' is meaningless without 'Son')—each no less than the other being definitional to the one essence of God: God is eternally three in some sense, yet in that He is but one, only God, He is one and only.

The name or title 'God' can, then, understandably, and readily, be attributed to any of the Persons of the Holy Trinity because each is no less God than the other, since they are God for the same ultimate reason: their essence, nature, being is one and the same: the divine and eternal, ineffable Deity, the only true God.

Scripture happens to use a convention whereby the Father, since He is the ontological beginning of the Godhead (not the temporal—the Son and the Spirit are not created, especially since they are eternal, but rather 'Son' simply 'logically' or 'onotologically' follows 'Father' and so forth: the economy of the Godhead is such that the Son and the Spirit recieve being God from the Father, not that they are created) is used to simply refer to the one God. But since the Son and the Spirit are directly of the same substance of the Father, they are just as much God as He: there was no time when the Father was God without the Son and the Spirit being God.

There is 'one' God because 'one' describes not the number of Persons God has, naturally, but the number of Gods. There is but one God, who is, eternally, tri-personal. And ineffable, so that all excercises in forcing God to conform to the current human understanding of the world etc. is quite futile. In fact, we only know God by analogy alone.


Looking for the right Church I'm Tom and I am from India (South) and it's been 4 wonderful months here in the US. I came here to do my masters study in computer science. I've been struggling hard to find a right church here. I really miss going to Church. My denomination is from CSI(Church of South India). I'd really appreciate if anyone could suggest me the right denomination I can look onto, coz there are like a dozen denominations here in the US and I am confused. Thanks in advance !!

From the CSI website comes the following (from the drop-down menu "About Us"):

The Church of South India is the result of the union of churches of varying traditions Anglican, Methodist, Congregational, Presbyterian, and Reformed. It was inaugurated in September 1947, after protracted negotiation among the churches concerned. Organized into 24 dioceses, each under the spiritual supervision of a bishop, the church as a whole is governed by a synod, which elects a moderator (presiding bishop) every 2 years. Episcopacy is thus combined with Synodical government, and the church explicitly recognizes that Episcopal, Presbyterian, and congregational elements are all necessary for the church's life. The Scriptures are the ultimate standard of faith and practice. The historic creeds are accepted as interpreting the biblical faith, and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper are recognized as of binding obligation.

Based on this excerpt from CSI's website, I'd say you would be safe in visiting churches with the following words in their names:

Anglican

Methodist

Congregational

Presbyterian

Reformed

From the CSI's statement of faith, as quoted by gracelightcity:

“. . . the Scriptures are the ultimate standard of faith and practice. The historic creeds are accepted as interpreting the biblical faith, and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are recognized as of binding obligation.”

Given the Church of South India's emphasis on the Word of God being
the final word in both faith and practice, I'd stick with churches which have a similar commitment to the Bible.
That you are "struggling to find the right church" is a good sign. I recommend you pick out a church with one of the five key words in it (as listed above) and see if that church has a website to which you can go for further information. Does something you read about a given church resonate strongly within you? If so, visit that church. See if you feel comfortable there. Ask yourself if the church members there make you feel welcomed, accepted, and loved. If so, perhaps the Holy Spirit is indicating that that church is for you. If not, try another church.
In conclusion, the matter of choosing a church to be your home church is very important. Church "shopping" can sometimes be a daunting task, but the criteria for choosing should be pretty much the same for any Christian. More specifically, the church you choose to be your home church should be a place where you are fed spiritually, experience true fellowship in the Holy Spirit, and are "put to work" in a ministry in which your spiritual gift-mix can be used to edify that local assembly of believers and bring glory to God.
I wish you well in the process!


Is there extra-biblical evidence for the Exodus? I've heard from multiple sources that there isn't even the slightest of (extra-biblical) evidence of the Exodus story or even evidence for the presence of Israelites in Egypt.
If this is true, why is this and how do Christians get over this lack of evidence?
If this isn't necessarily true, what extra-biblical evidence is there of Israelites being enslaved, escaping, and wandering in the desert for 40 years?

"I've heard from multiple sources that there isn't even the slightest of (extra-biblical) evidence of the Exodus story or even evidence for the presence of Israelites in Egypt.
If this is true...."
Well, it isn't actually true.
Evidence 1
Manetho was an ancient historian in Egypt and he says the Exodus happened.  Now he could have just been reading the Jewish Scriptures ie the Old Testament.... but he says something else which is significant and really strongly suggests he was using written records (which, I suppose, no longer exist)..  he wrote that the Exodus happened during the reign of Amenophis.  Amenophis is the Greek language version of the name Amenhotep.  There were four Pharaohs called Amenhotep. If we take the Bible verse 1 Kings 6:1 literally and use the High Chronology for the 18th dynasty rather than the Low Chronology then the Exodus clearly happened in 1446 bc in the reign of Amenhotep II (1452-1425) after the death of Thutmose III.
Evidence 2
An important evidence is linguistic: there are many foreign loanwords in the Hebrew of the Old Testament.  In the Pentateuch the most common loanwords are from Egyptian..  in fact the Pentateuch has far more Egyptian loanwords than the rest of the OT.  When recording the wanderings in the wilderness the loanwords are from Arabic.  When recording the events before the time in Egypt the loanwords are from Middle Eastern languages Sumerian and Accadian - eg Adam and Eve, the flood, the tower of Babel - all these do not have Egyptian loanwords, but rather Sumerian and Accadian.
This is circumstantial evidence, but evidence, nontheless.
Really, no one comes to faith in the Bible as the Word of the Living God by finding that one or two things in it can be verified by archaeological evidence... archaeological evidence is nice for believers, its interesting, and often fascinating, but its not essential to faith (John 20:29). Just because the evidence is not there does not mean it did not happen: arguments claiming proof on the basis of absence of evidence are logically invalid.  We come to faith in the Bible as God's Word by reading it and coming to see it is right about things such as sin, righteousness and judgement.  It is right about us, about the human race, about evil.  It is right in its standards of morality, etc.  Once we realise it is from God and could not have been produced by sinners then we can see that what it writes about the Exodus or anything else must be true, even if there is no external evidence.
For more interesting (circumstantial?) evidence see Who was Pharaoh when Moses lived in Egypt?
For more on the foreign loanwords of the Old Testament see Who documented biblical events before Moses?
For evidence of the falling of the walls of Jericho at the beginning of the conquest of the Promised Land in the spring of 1406 BC see:
How do Christians reconcile archeology with the Bible in the account of the Battle of Jericho?
For an account of evidence of Joseph in Egypt see:
Why we do we "know" that Joseph wasn't Hyksos?


What is the bottomless pit? In chapter 9 of the revelation we learn that:

  Revelation 9:1 and 2 NKJV  Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth. To him was given the key to the bottomless pit. 2  And he opened the bottomless pit, and smoke arose out of the pit like the smoke of a great furnace. So the sun and the air were darkened because of the smoke of the pit.

And in verse 11 we find:

  Revelation 9:11 NKJV  And they had as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, but in Greek he has the name Apollyon.

Smith’s Bible dictionary defines the two words as:

  Apollyon
  Apol'lyon. Apollyon or, as it is literally in the margin of the Authorized Version of Rev_9:11, "a destroyer", is the rendering of the Hebrew word, Abaddon, "the angel of the bottomless pit". From the occurrence of the word in Psa_88:11, the rabbins have made Abaddon, the nethermost of the two regions into which they divide the lower world; but that in Rev_9:11, Abaddon is the angel and not the abyss, is perfectly evident in the Greek.

  Psa 88:11  Shall Your lovingkindness be declared in the grave? Or Your faithfulness in the place of destruction?

Psalm 88:11 Westminster Leningrad Codex

הֲלַמֵּתִים תַּעֲשֶׂה־פֶּלֶא אִם־רְפָאִים יָקוּמוּ ׀ יֹודוּךָ סֶּֽלָה׃

According to my Linear translation:

11 [e]

bā•’ă•ḇad•dō•wn.

בָּאֲבַדּֽוֹן׃

in Abaddon

Noun

In Revelation chapter 12 it says:

  Revelation12:7 through 12 NKJV  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, 8  And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 10  And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, *Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. * 11  And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. 12  Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Is there any Doctrine in any denomination which addresses this, since the best I can derive from these passages is that the bottomless pit is a Spiritual prison, in which God has placed Satan and the rebellious Angels.

Chapter 12 of the Revelation has me the most confused, since the indication here; is when this happened, Salvation was set into motion.

In trying to understand these Scriptures I have concluded that the Revelation Chapter nine, Psalm 88:11 and Revelation 12:7 through 9 are pre Crucifixion while 10 through 12 are at the Crucifixion, especially since:

  Luke 23:44 and 45 NKJV  And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. 45  And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

Since following the war in Heaven Satan and his Angels were cast into the Earth can the bottomless pit be the Earth as described in Genesis?

  Genesis 1:1 and 2 NKJV  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

First, we need to know that Revelation is a prophesy about the future.

  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His
  servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and
  signified it by His angel to His servant John, (Revelation 1:1, NKJV)

  After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in
  heaven. And the first voice which I heard was like a trumpet speaking
  with me, saying, “Come up here, and I will show you things which must
  take place after this.” (Revelation 4:1, NKJV)

Once that framework is set, we can start thinking from that perspective. The visions saw by John were not related to the past or John's present time. So, the war in Heaven is about the future war between Satan and God and not related to the crucifixion of Christ, and so on.

The Abyss or Bottomless-Pit is mentioned three times in Revelation 9, 11 and 20. Here is a summary of it.

Locusts came out from it (Rev 9)
The Beast ascends out of it (Rev 11:7)
Satan was bound in it for 1000 years (Rev 20:3)

According to Rev 20 (NKJV), the Bottomless-Pit is a Prison.

  1 Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key to the
  bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. 2 He laid hold of the
  dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him
  for a thousand years; 3 and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and
  shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the
  nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these
  things he must be released for a little while.

  7 Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released
  from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations which are in
  the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together
  to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea.

The location of this Bottomless-Pit is unknown but it must be somewhere in this vast universe or perhaps out of it, in a spiritual world or whatever you call it. It possibly cannot be on Earth but I can't say it is not. One thing we know for sure is that the Bottomless-Pit is a prison and this is a place where many demons are afraid to go.

  The demons kept begging Jesus not to send them into the bottomless pit. (Luke 8:31,NLT)

Hope this helps.

References:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/abyss/
http://www.revelationcommentary.org/09_chapter.html
http://www.greatdreams.com/reptlan/abyss-and-beast.htm
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2003/20030424.htm


What is the prayer of faith as recorded in James 5:15? James 5:15 says that the prayer of faith will save the sick. Is there a specific prayer of faith?

The verse is not referring to any specific prayer, but rather to the prayer of faith (ευχη της πιστεως) as opposed to prayer that is undertaken without faith.  For this reason James emphasizes a verse later:

  The entreaty of a righteous man hath much strength

He further provides Elijah as an example (v.17-18):

  Elijah was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by
  the space of three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the
  heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit.


Which Ante-Nicene Church Fathers believed that Jesus is the "eternal Son" of the Father? Economic trinitarianism, in the pre-Nicene sense of the phrase, says that God is a monad who becomes tripartite for the purposes of creation and redemption. Forms of this view were held by Justin Martyr and Tertullian, but were rejected at Nicaea in favor of the orthodox teaching of an eternal Trinity, in which the Son is eternal (The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology, Page 97).

Who among the ante-Nicene church fathers opposed economic trinitarianism and believed that Jesus is the "eternal Son" of the Father?

The following Ante-Nicene church fathers believed in Jesus as the eternal Son:

2nd century

Irenaeus (AD. 120-200) said:

  "But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea,
  from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels,
  Powers, Virtues..." (Against Heresies, Book II, ch. 30, section 9)

Athenagoras ( A.D. 177) said:

  “We acknowledge one God, uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassable
  [i.e., not subject to suffering], incomprehensible, illimitable … by
  whom the universe has been created through his Logos … We acknowledge
  also a Son of God. Nor let anyone think it ridiculous that God should
  have a Son … the Son of God is the Logos of the Father. If … it occurs
  to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that
  he is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought
  into existence, for from the beginning God, who is the eternal mind,
  had theLogos in himself, being from eternity instinct with Logos.
  (Plea for the Christians ch. 10)

Clement of Alexnadria ( AD. 150-215) said:

  When [John] says, "from the beginning," the elder explained to this
  effect, that the beginning of generation is not separated from the
  beginning of the Creator. For when he says, "That which is from the
  beginning," he touches on the generation without beginning of the Son,
  who is co-existent with the Father. There was, then, a Word importing
  an unbeginning eternity, as also the Word itself, that is, the Son
  of God, who being by equality of substance one with the Father, is
  eternal and uncreated.(Fragments of Clement of Alexandria: Comments
  on the First Epistle of John from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. II)

3rd century

Gregory Thaumaturgus (A.D. 213-270) said:

  There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is His subsistent
  Wisdom and Power and Eternal Image:perfect Begetter of the perfect
  Begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, Only of
  the Only,God of God, Image and Likeness of Deity, Efficient Word,
  Wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and Power
  formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, Invisible of
  Invisible, and Incorruptible of Incorruptible,and Immortal of Immortal
  and Eternal of Eternal. And there is One Holy Spirit, having His
  subsistence from God, and being made manifest by the Son, to wit to
  men: Image of the Son, Perfect Image of the Perfect; Life, the Cause
  of the living; Holy Fount; Sanctity, the Supplier, or Leader, of
  Sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is above all
  and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. There is a perfect
  Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor
  estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude
  in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period
  it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And
  thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to
  the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity
  abides ever.

Novatian (A.D. 200- 258) said:

  To the Son alone they are known, who has known the secrets of the
  Father. He then, since He was begotten of the Father, is always in
  the Father. And I thus say always, that I may show Him not to be
  unborn, but born. But He who is before all time must be said to have
  been always in the Father; for no time can be assigned to Him who is
  before all time (On the Trinity, 31.3).

Dionysius of Rome (A.D. ? - 268) said:

  "A blasphemy then is it, not ordinary, but even the highest, to say that the Lord is in any sort a handiwork. For if He came to be Son,
  once He was not; but He was always, if (that is) He be in the Father,
  as He says Himself, and if the Christ be Word and Wisdom and Power
  (which, as ye know, divine Scripture says), and these attributes be
  powers of God. If then the Son came into being, once these attributes
  were not; consequently there was a time, when God was without them;
  which is most absurd. And why say more on these points to you, men
  full of the Spirit and well aware of the absurdities which come to
  view from saying that the Son is a work? Not attending, as I consider,
  to this circumstance, the authors of this opinion have entirely missed
  the truth, in explaining, contrary to the sense of divine and
  prophetic Scripture in the passage, the words, ‘The Lord created me a
  beginning of His ways unto His works.’ For the sense of ‘He created,’
  as ye know, is not one, for we must understand ‘He created’ in this
  place, as ‘He set over the works made by Him,’ that is, ‘made by the
  Son Himself.’ And ‘He created’ here must not be taken for ‘made,’ for
  creating differs from making. ‘Is not He thy Father that hath bought
  thee? hath He not made thee and created thee?’ says Moses in his great
  song in Deuteronomy. And one may say to them, O reckless men, is He a
  work, who is ‘the First-born of every creature, who is born from the
  womb before the morning star,’ who said, as Wisdom, ‘Before all the
  hills He begets me?’ And in many passages of the divine oracles is the
  Son said to have been generated, but nowhere to have come into being;
  which manifestly convicts those of misconception about the Lord’s
  generation, who presume to call His divine and ineffable generation a
  making.Neither then may we divide into three Godheads the wonderful
  and divine Monad; nor disparage with the name of ‘work’ the dignity
  and exceeding majesty of the Lord; but we must believe in God the
  Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Ghost,
  and hold that to the God of the universe the Word is united. For ‘I,’
  says He, ‘and the Father are one;’ and, ‘I in the Father and the
  Father in Me.’ For thus both the Divine Triad, and the holy preaching
  of the Monarchy, will be preserved.” (Against Sabellians).


1 John 5:16 "you don't need to pray for that"? 1 John 5:16

  If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he
  shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do
  not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say
  that one should pray for that.

What I mean is like this :

One day, Mr.X say that "my brother committed sin that leads to death".
Then the following condition is interested me, which is : "then we don't have to pray for that"

This question raised because (to me) it seems human won't ever be able to decide that someone committed sin that leads to death ---> the result then there never and have ever occurred when someone tell someone not to pray for any kind of sin.

In fact,
A. I think a faithful and loving person - will never give up to pray for someone (let alone this someone is his brother) no matter how "crazy sick" sin this someone committed.

But reading the verse above,
B. it seems the verse do teach to just give up to pray about it when he/she sees that his/her brother/sister committed sin that leads to death.

My point A contradict point B.

Based on point-B, I need to correct my point A. Which becomes :
C. Although someone is a faithful and loving person, there is a limit where this someone doesn't need to pray if he sees his/her brother/sister committed sin that leads to death.

But still, it seems point-C is useless. Because (I think) it seems impossible that human (let alone the faithful and the loving person) dare enough to decide "oww... he/she committed a mortal sin !".

The question is :
Am I correct to think that the verse encourage "yes... you can decide if it's a mortal sin or not".

If I'm wrong, how is the Christian interpretation of this verse regarding my description above ?

Thank you.

PS : I don't put my question to a specific denomination yet. If it can not be answered then I will edit it.

Based from Sola Gratia answer, I have a new verse :

Matthew 18:15

  If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just
  between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

Me : in this stage, it's not useless to pray for him

Matthew 18:16

  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that
  'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three
  witnesses

Me : in this stage, it's still useful to pray for him.

Matthew 18:16

  If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they
  refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan
  or a tax collector

Me : in this stage, this brother committed mortal sin. It's useless to pray for him. In other words, there's no need to hope that God will forgive him - no need to hope him to repent.

So... based on Sola Gratia's answer, does 1 John 5:16 means something like the above situation when a faithful and loving person needs to give up praying for someone ?

Please CMIIW.

I think that if one attempts to interpret this passage in the context of a taxonomy of sin, wherein some sins are "sins unto death" (e.g. "mortal" sins) and others are not (e.g. "venial" sins), then one will not arrive at a completely sensible meaning.

Another interpretation is that sin is "unto death" occurs when one has neither the slightest bit of compunction nor desire to repent.  Under this interpretation, what John is saying is that there is essentially no point to pray for such a person, since they themselves do not wish to avail themselves of the benefit of anyone's prayer.

The 20th century Orthodox theologian Justin Popovic, explains this passage:

  He committed a sin and died [spiritually] for it, dealing death to himself, killing himself; but if he supplicates God for his sin, he will be given repentance and through repentance, resurrection from the dead - life ... He shall not pray for a sin unto death.  But why?  Because man with his entire being, soul, and consciousness has voluntarily entered sin and remains there consciously and voluntarily, and does not want to renounce it and hate it.  This is already the "second death" from which one cannot resurrect.  On such a man, God neither desires nor wants to forcefully impose repentance.  He neither desires not wants to because God is love, is abundant in love, and lives and exists in it.  God crated man through love with God-like freedom.  If He were to forcefully impose His will, His Gospel, His salvation, His kingdom, and Himself, He would destroy mans free will.  Then man would cease to be a man and would become an automaton, a machine, and a robot.

Although certain western Church Fathers (e.g. Jerome, Augustine) seem to have understood a "sin unto death" as a particularly grave type of sinful act (e.g. Jerome, Treatise Against Jovianus II.III.20; Bede, Homilies on the Gospels II.5), their views do not represent the consensus of the first millennium Church.  Canon V of the 7th Ecumenical Council, for example, states "It is a sin unto death when men incorrigibly continue in their sin."

  The Lord God is not found among such, unless, perchance, having been humbled by their own fall, they return to a sober mind.  It behoves them the rather to turn to God with a contrite heart and to pray for forgiveness and pardon of so grave a sin, and no longer to boast in an unholy gift.  For the Lord is nigh unto them that are of a contrite heart [Psalm 33:18 LXX].

The subject of unforgivable sins arises elsewhere in Scripture.  The Gospels mention blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:10).  In the Epistle to the Hebrews (6:4-6) we read:

  It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

The eastern Christian understanding of these verses is summarized by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazanski:

  In all these cases, the reason why the forgiveness of sins is not possible is to be found in the sinners themselves, and not in the will of God; more precisely, it lies in the lack of repentance of the sinners. How can a sin be forgiven by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, when blasphemy is spewed forth against this very Grace? But one must believe that, even in these sins, the sinners, if they offer sincere repentance and weep over their sins, will be forgiven. “For,” says St. John Chrysostom about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, “even this guilt will be remitted to those who repent. Many of those who have spewed forth blasphemies against the Spirit have subsequently come to believe, and everything was remitted to them” (Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew).1

1.  Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3rd ed.), p.294.


What is latae sententiae? I heard that some things (like getting an abortion or attacking the pope) have the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication. What is that?

It generally means 'automatic excommunication'. Most people conceive of excommunication as something that happens to people, rather than something they do to themselves. That form of excommunication indeed happens (it recently happened when the Pope excommunicated an Australian priest), but is relatively rare. You cannot expect the Pope or the church to look at all our lives and make sure nobody does something naughty. Thus, latae sententiae came to be, which means excommunication that does not need an 'act' excommunicating them. Literally, the term means 'done excommunication' or 'excommunication as it is', as opposed to excommunication that has to be pronounced. A significant difference is that excommunication latae sententiae happens from the moment of the act onwards (meaning that for instance certain ecclesiastical acts become invalid but sometimes licit) while excommunication ferende sententiae takes effect upon pronouncement, regardless of when the offence has been committed.

For reference, Canon 1314 describes the difference between the effect of latae sententiae and ferende sententiae. Also, to clarify, it is procuring an abortion (i.e. it includes the person carrying it out and many more) and any use of force against the Pontiff. Also note that latae sententiae is not so much a form of excommunication but rather a general criminal doctrine of Canon law, meaning it applies to other forms of punishment, for instance some acts attract a latae sententiae interdict (Canon 1370§). Other things that incur latae sententiae excommunication include: heresy/schism, as well as the offence generally known as 'profanation of the Host' (throwing away a consecrated Host or retaining it for a sacrilegious purpose), which is regarded as an offence against God directly.


Why does transubstantiation refer only to communion? Why does the doctrine of transubstantiation consider Jesus’ words regarding the bread and wine of communion to be literal while considering these other similes used by Jesus to be metaphorical?
Alleged Literal

Matthew 26:26-27 ESV  Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Alleged Metaphorical

John 15:5 ESV I am the vine; you are the branches.
John 1:29 ESV The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
John 6:35 ESV Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.
John 8:12 ESV Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
John 10:7 ESV So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
Matthew 12:50 ESV For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.
Acts 4:11 ESV This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone.

This question is directed towards those that accept the alleged literals/metaphoricals listed above. That would be Catholics, some Lutherans, etc.

The beginnings of a response would consider the difference between a simile/parable ("The kingdom of heaven is like..."), a metaphor ("I am the vine"), and a prescription or statement of fact ("Blessed are the pure of heart"). Everyone would agree that Jesus employs a wealth of literary and rhetorical devices to communicate his beautiful message, and any attempt to argue otherwise would be hard-pressed to explain what the "Hand of God" could refer to in the Psalms. Origen has excellent things to say about the different levels of meaning of Scripture.
As for this particular instance: I will respond despite the fact that it is obviously posed as a "loaded" question.
Jesus uses "ego eimi" (I am) many times throughout the New Testament, either alone to refer to His divinity ("Before Abraham was, I am"), or to indicate his present ("Do not fear, it is I"), or to predicate something of himself. In the Gospel of John, especially, he does this numerous times: "I am the vine," "I am the bread of life," "I am the good shepherd," "I am the gate," etc.
I think it is very difficult to understand the four extant accounts of the Last Supper "Consecration" (as Catholics would refer to it) in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul without hearkening back to a chapter that you mention in passing in your list of "Alleged Metaphors," and that chapter is John 6. It merits a long, slow read and reveals several characteristics which should make us pause before receiving it as merely metaphorical. Why?

Christ's insistence. He states "I am the bread of life" numerous times in several different ways in a way that makes the "Good Shepherd" discourse look like a short excursus.
His concreteness. Though "bread of life" easily argues a merely metaphorical reading, it is difficult to understand why Jesus not only repeats but also intensifies this statement to something that two millenia of Christian culture has not been able to make tame: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood..." And then again, the same repetitive insistence.
The scandal. Perhaps most significant of all, the above reading of the statement as scandalously literal is all the more convincing given the reaction of the Jews themselves: they are scandalized and they scatter. Did they misunderstand Jesus? If so, could not Jesus have added a brief little note at the end, "You're not taking this the right way"? When he addresses the apostles, he does not say, "You understand what I mean, right?"; no, he says, "Will you leave me too?" Something big is at stake.

And then, the Last Supper. "This is my body; this is my blood." If this were an isolated image, again it would make more sense to read it metaphorically. Combined with the words of His ministry, though, it seems logical to ask: Is this the same body and blood that we are to eat and drink?
Perhaps we could get this far and still find it appealing to refer to the bread and wine as mere symbols, not substantially changed into the body and blood of Christ, as Catholic Transubstantiation says. Why so literal? The answer here hearkens back to a continual point of tension between the Catholic Church and certain other denominations over the proper place of Sacred Tradition. What did the early Christians do? What was their understanding of what they were doing? One first clue might be the continual suspicion under which the early Christians fell in the first few centuries of their existence under the Roman empire. They were continually accused of...anthropophagy: "eating human flesh." A curious accusation against a group of people who symbolically broke bread together.
The testimony of the Fathers is not unequivocally unanimous, but it is strongly in favor of the real presence. Some citations from the first and second centuries:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. (Source: Justin Martyr First Apology, 66)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons. (Source: Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1)
[Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies." (Source: St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 180 A.D)

My favorite testimony of the Fathers comes from St. John Chrysostom, who uses a graphic image to describe how literally he understands the Transubstantiation:

When the word says, ‘This is my Body,’ be convinced of it and believe it, and look at it with the eyes of the mind. For Christ did not give us something tangible, but even in His tangible things all is intellectual.... Since the soul is intertwined with the body, He hands over to you in tangible things, that which is perceived intellectually. How many now say, ‘I wish I could see His shape [Gr. ton tupon], His appearance, His garments, His scandals.’ Only look! You see Him! You touch Him. You eat Him. He had given to those who desire Him, not only to see Him and fix their teeth in His flesh, and to embrace Him and satisfy all their love. (Source: St. John Chrysostom Homily on Matthew 82.4)


According to the Catholic Tradition, Are People in Heaven Waiting for Other People to Die? According to the Catholic Tradition, are people in Heaven waiting for other people to die?
Or are they very busy chatting with God, the angels, and other people who have already died and gone to Heaven?

Since Scripture is part of Sacred Tradition, yes, people who have gone to heaven are waiting for the rest of the body of Christ to be filled up:

Revelation 6:9-10 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?  11 And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up.


What is a free online New Testament commentary you recommend for diving into the historical/cultural context and the Greek/manuscripts? Although I grew up with a Bible and went to a "church," I was raised in a pseudo-Christian group but I converted to orthodox Christianity. So I am planning on reading the entire New Testament on my own. Anyways, I prefer a commentary written by a scholar, especially one who specializes in historical context and Koine Greek. Thanks!

Rather than a commentary you might find an Introduction to the New Testament helpful such as this one which does go into the socio-historical context. More detailed commentaries are usually on a book-by-book basis.
You can get commentaries on every book of the Bible, such as the New Bible Commentary, although this will won't go into so much detail (some books are covered better than others).
You might also find a study Bible helpful such as the ESV Study Bible which has lots of helpful articles as well as notes on the actual text.


Could more miraculous works bring more persons to faith? There are those who say that if they saw the miracles that happens in the time of Moses, or the disciples they would surely have faith.

What are the Biblical reasons for miracle? Is it to create faith?

Preface: this is a generalization.  Atheists, like Christians, can't simply be lumped into a group where all of them think, act, react, and believe the same way.

I don't believe so.  In the words of Jesus Himself,in Matthew 16:1-4 (KJV)

  1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired
  him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.  2 He answered and
  said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather:
  for the sky is red.  3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to
  day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern
  the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?  4
  A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there
  shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And
  he left them, and departed.

In this case, Jesus was specifically dealing with the hypocritical "spiritual leaders' of the day, but I believe that the lesson can just as easily be applied to those who don't believe at all.  The problem with the Pharisees and the Sauducees was that they didn't believe and that they didn't want to believe because believing that Jesus was the messiah, the son of the living God, would have upset their world-view.  They were comfortable in their beliefs.

With most atheists that I've rubbed shoulders with (or even myself when I was one) the problem is only partly that we have no proof of God's existence.  The other half of the problem is that we would reject the proof if we saw it.

As reference for this last  statement, go back and search this site for questions on miracles - why are there no miracles seen today, and other similar questions, and read the comments.  If you do, you'll see that the atheists asking here pretty much reject any miracle as coincidence, or something explainable via non-miraculous means.

Additionally, non-atheists from other religions wouldn't necessarily be convinced by miracles.  The Old Testament is filled with stories of other nations seeing the miracles of God, but still worshiping their own idols and gods.


What is the Bible and Christian view on Astrology? Being on this site has given me an opportunity to reflect and investigate more my beliefs and gain a greater understanding of the beliefs of other Christians. I was raised being taught that astrology was a pagan practice that went against Christian beliefs. Is that a view that is widely held by other Christians?

I've heard counter views that astrology is another way in which God speaks to man, while others say there is no validity to it at all, and it is just a harmless form of amusement.

Is there a Biblical point of view on astrology?

Yes, the Bible speaks strongly against the pagan practice of Astrology, which was recognized as divination and associated with magic and sorcery.  Divination is defined as "the practice of attempting to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge by occult or supernatural means", which would certainly include Astrology.

A number of scriptures associate astrology with pagan magic arts:

Isaiah 47:13: Let your astrologers come forward, those stargazers who make predictions month by month
Daniel 2:2: So the king summoned the magicians, enchanters, sorcerers and astrologers to tell him what he had dreamed.
Daniel 2:10: The astrologers answered the king, “There is no one on earth who can do what the king asks! No king, however great and mighty, has ever asked such a thing of any magician or enchanter or astrologer.

Leviticus 19:26 forbids divination:

  Do not practice divination or seek omens.

as does and Deuteronomy 18:14

  The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so

and numerous other scriptures:

Genesis 44:5: Isn’t this the cup my master drinks from and also uses for divination? This is a wicked thing you have done.
Deuteronomy 18:10: Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
Joshua 13:22: In addition to those slain in battle, the Israelites had put to the sword Balaam son of Beor, who practiced divination.
1 Samuel 15:23: For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”
2 Kings 17:17: They sacrificed their sons and daughters in the fire. They practiced divination and sought omens and sold themselves to do evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.
2 Kings 21:6: He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.
2 Chronicles 33:6: He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.
Isaiah 2:6: They are full of superstitions from the East; they practice divination like the Philistines and embrace pagan customs.
Jeremiah 14:14: Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions, divinations, idolatries and the delusions of their own minds.
Ezekiel 12:24: For there will be no more false visions or flattering divinations among the people of Israel.
Ezekiel 13:6: Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. Even though the LORD has not sent them, they say, “The LORD declares,” and expect him to fulfill their words.

So if you accept that Astrology is a subset of divination, it seems clearly abhorrent to God.  Given the ensnaring nature of the occult, I would be engaging the "flee from all appearance" tactic with Astrology.