Psalms 22, The correlation between King David and Jesus? Was the words spoken by David in his time of trouble similar to Jesus words on the cross "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?"

Is it a correlation between the Old Testament and the New Testament?

Being that King David and Jesus Christ came from the same "blood " line...Just an interesting thought.

It's a teachable moment: even on the cross, Jesus remains the teacher

But first, the parallels between Jesus and David.  There are many.  There is an entire school of study that investigates, through types and typology, how Jesus and David are deeply linked even though the local Jews, hoping for a Messiah like King David, got a different kind of Messiah (annointed one) in Jesus.  They were in a lot of ways "similar but different."

Both were shepherds (David a shepherd in the field; Jesus the Good
Shepherd).
Both were born in Bethlehem.

Jesus was telling his enemies that their "victory" wasn't going to last

A way to understand his terse allusion to Psalm 22, one of King David's Psalms, is that Jesus was telling all those who would listen, and understand, that he knew how this (his crucifixion) was going to turn out, and that result was going to be a victory for the Lord,  not the apparent defeat of a humiliating death on the cross.
This kind of "public showing up of one's opponents" was a core element of the Mediterranean cultural context that is described in the works of John J. Pilch (theologian).  (Titles include The Cultural World of Jesus; The Cultural World of the Apostles, Introducing the Cultural World of the New Testament, and more)

A Rabbi is a teacher, and teacher's teach

  Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the
  Jews. This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know
  that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs
  that you do unless God is with him.” Jesus answered him, “Truly,
  truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the
  kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he
  is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be
  born?” (John 3:1–4) {snip}  Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” (John 3:9–10)

To the last, and even to his last breath, Jesus was teaching all of those who had ears to hear.

  Mark’s (1:22): "He taught them with authority, not like the scribes."

Jesus is also referred to in a number of passages as "Master" which may also be construed to be equivalent to "Teacher" along the lines "Master" and "Apprentice" ...

  In the New Testament the term didàskalos is used 48 times in
  the Gospels, mostly applied to Jesus; and the verb didàskein, to
  teach, is 95 times...prevalently applied to Jesus. Hence Jesus is the
  "master" par excellence of the Christian community.

Many observers at the cross were observant Jews, to include some of the priestly classes.  They would all be familiar with Psalm 22.

Citing the opening line of a psalm can be used as a short hand to allude to the whole of the Psalm.  For example, if today you (assuming some familiarity with the 23rd Psalm) here someone open with "the Lord is my Shephard, I shall not want" it easily keys in your mind and understanding a to the whole of that Psalm.  Jesus is reminding the observers of the 22d psalm, which has a beginning and an end.
So how does Psalm 22 end?

Psalm 22, (25-32)

  For he has not spurned or disdained the misery of this poor wretch, Did not turn away* from me, but heard me when I cried out.
  I will offer praise in the great assembly; my vows I will fulfill before those who fear him.
  The poor* will eat their fill; those who seek the LORD will offer praise.
  "May your hearts enjoy life forever!”
  All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD; All the families of nations will bow low before him.
  For kingship belongs to the LORD, the ruler over the nations.
  *All who sleep in the earth will bow low before God;  All who have gone down into the dust will kneel in homage.
  And I will live for the LORD; my descendants will serve you.
  The generation to come will be told of the Lord, that they may proclaim to a people yet unborn the deliverance you have brought.

He, Jesus, knows that his Passion ends in victory.  By making reference to that Psalm, which is easily recognized by how it begins, Jesus tells all who have ears to hear, how this (what he's going through) ends.

Put into a modern context and into contextual phrasing, the message from Jesus up on the cross, in immense pain and suffering, is this: he is telling his tormenters and enemies "You may think you have me now, but I know where this is going - and you aren't winning."  As www.gffg.info pointed out ...

  "The Spirit of Christ, which was in the prophets, testifies in this
  psalm, clearly and fully, the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that
  should follow." -Matthew Henry


When and where did the Catholic tradition of first communion at 7 years old start? I found out a few weeks ago from a friend that she celebrated her first communion around her 7th birthday, which seemed like an oddly specific age. In addition, the way she talked about it, and the fact that she was raised Roman Catholic, seemed to suggest to me that this was a Catholic tradition. Thus, I have a few closely-related questions:

How widespread is this tradition?
Where, when, and why did this tradition start?
Why was the first communion celebrated at seven years old?

If this tradition is also found in other branches of Christianity, then mentioning that would be great.

Catholicism doesn't currently set a specific age at which First Communion is taken.  The New Advent article on Communion of Children says this (Emphasis mine):

  The existing legislation with regard to the Communion of children has
  been definitely settled by the Fourth Lateran Council, which was
  afterwards confirmed by the authority of the Council of Trent.
  According to its provisions children may not be admitted to the
  Blessed Eucharist until they have attained to years of discretion, but
  when this period is reached then they are bound to receive this
  sacrament. When may they be said to have attained the age of
  discretion? In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase
  means, not the attainment of a definite number of years, but rather
  the arrival at a certain stage in mental development, when children
  become able to discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize
  in some measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the
  Altar, to believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the
  sacramental veils. De Lugo (De Euch., disp. xiii, n. 36, Ben. XIV, De
  Syn., vii) says that if children are observed to assist at Mass with
  devotion and attention it is a sign that they are come to this
  discretion.

The source of this is a decree, issued in 1910, named Quam Singulari addressed baptism of children.  Included in the section of the linked article titled "Conditions for first confession and first communion"

Before we get into what the new Advent article states, it appears that some Priests mistakenly believe that the Quam Singulari Decree gives seven as an exact age.  Example here.

The age of discretion, which applies equally to both sacraments. This may be judged (1) by the first indication of the child using its reasoning powers; (2) by the child knowing what is right from wrong. No determined age is placed as a condition; the age of seven is mentioned because the majority of children arrive at the years of discretion, that is, begin to reason, about this period, some sooner, some later.
A knowledge such as a child just beginning to reason can have about one God, Who rewards the good and punishes the wicked, and about the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation. It is not necessary that the child should commit to memory accurate theological definitions, which may convey no idea to the little mind just beginning to unfold.
A child must be able to distinguish the Eucharistic from the common bread; that is, to know that what looks like bread is not bread, but contains the real, living Body and Blood of Christ.
Children should be taught to receive Holy Communion devoutly.
Children should be instructed on the necessity of being in the state of grace and of having a good intention, also of fasting from midnight before Communion.

The actual text of the Quam Singulari Decree can be found here.  The section in which seven year-olds are mentioned reads as follows (emphasis mine):

  The principal interpreters of the Lateran Council and contemporaries
  of that period had the same teaching concerning this Decree. The
  history of the Church reveals that a number of synods and episcopal
  decrees beginning with the twelfth century, shortly after the Lateran
  Council, admitted children of seven years of age to First Communion.
  There is moreover the word of St. Thomas Aquinas, who is an authority
  of the highest order, which reads: "When children begin to have some
  use of reason, so that they can conceive a devotion toward this
  Sacrament (the Eucharist), then this Sacrament can be given to them."6
  Ledesma thus explains these words: "I say, in accord with common
  opinion, that the Eucharist is to be given to all who have the use of
  reason, and just as soon as they attain the use of reason, even though
  at the time the child may have only a confused notion of what he is
  doing." Vasquez comments on the same words of St. Thomas as follows:
  "When a child has once arrived at the use of reason he is immediately
  bound by the divine law from which not even the Church can dispense
  him."

Using the above, we could say that the tradition started out in the twelfth century with some synods and decrees, which were later corrected by the Quam Singulari Decree.

That answers when it starts, but if seven is no longer a proscribed age, why is it so common now?

The closest answer I could find was this article from holyfirstcommunion.com .

  You may be wondering, "what is the proper First Communion age"?.
  Well, I hesitate to put an exact age here.  Requirements can literally
  vary from church to church.

  A general answer is that the children are usually age 7 or 8.  Some
  churches say at least second grade.  Some churches say after one year
  of formal religious education.  And I found one website that said they
  had no requirements as it is about God's grace and they were no longer
  going to base receiving First Communion on merit!  So,  when you are
  looking to find out the right First Communion age for your child,
  contact your specific church for their requirements.

Based on this, it appears that the age of seven is a common age, but not one that is dictated.

Admittedly, this next is at best, an educated guess, but it seems to me that, for the sake of convenience, a Church, or a diocese would settle on a simple, easy to remember common age that would serve as a "rule of thumb".  When a child reaches this age or school grade level, he or she is likely to have reached the age of accountability.  This would make it much simpler to organize classes in the Church to provide the necessary training, education, and preparation in a group/class setting.

Going beyond this, it is relatively clear, simply from some Google searches that seven is a very common age, even if it's not a dictated age, set in stone.  E-How.com has a gift guide specific to giving a seven year old boy a meaningful First communion gift,


When is Isaiah 11:8 supposed to be fulfilled? 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

When is this verse supposed to be fulfilled?

I would guess not today (or even tomorrow.)

Furthermore, if in heaven, we are to be like angels, to neither marry nor be given in marriage, where are the children to come from?

Like all prophecy, there will be dispute until it happens (and even then...).

However, millenialists would say that this will be fulfilled in the 1000 year reign of Christ. Sven's diagram shows when that could be.

Your second quote is based on Matthew 22:30 which is about marriage in heaven. Millenialists would say that Isaiah 11:8 refers to Earth.

Here is a commentary I found backing up this idea.


Did the importance of the resurrection increase as the New Testament was written? I've often heard that if you lay out the books of the New Testament by the chronological order of their composition, the story of Jesus' resurrection becomes more important in the later books. Some also say it becomes more supernatural.

Is there any truth to this? I do not know the order of the books by when they were written.

Allow me the liberty to rephrase your question:

Did the concept of Resurrection develop over time?

Yes.

The ancient Hebrews did not seem to have any conception of life after death.  In Job and the Psalms, we start seeing hints that Israelites envisioned some existence after death, but not as anything very exciting.  If you've read any Homer or the Gilgamesh epic, you'll remember that the dead go to a shadowy, dry place.  But it's important to understand that, unlike the Greek concept of Hades, Sheol wasn't a place where souls existed, but where whatever was left of the dead's body and spirit was housed.  It's not clear that the writers of the earlier books in the Old Testament envisioned anything more than a grave when they used the word.

By the Second Temple period, Jews began to develop more sophisticated cosmologies.  We start getting hints of bodily Resurrection:

  Daniel 12:2 (ESV)
  2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

But even then, it's not clear if the Biblical prophets (outside of Daniel) were envisioning people actually rising from the dead.  Ezekiel 37 (the dry bones passage), for instance, was probably a statement of hope for the restoration of the nation of Israel.

Jewish writings in the time between the Old and New Testaments show even more development of the idea of Resurrection, which always had strong nationalistic and (during times of occupation) revolutionary overtones.  But the idea was that at some point in the future, God would gather up all of His people and restore them to life all at once.  Nobody would have pictured one man rising from his grave as the (or even a) Resurrection.  Certainly the Messiah would not participate in the Resurrection, except to make way for it to happen, since he wouldn't die.

When we get to the time of Jesus, we suddenly see the Christian conception of Resurrection appear on the scene.  It draws strongly from the inter-testament ideas, but in a fairly radically altered format because the Messiah Himself dies, is buried, and resurrected.  Sometime later, the general Resurrection as envisioned by late, Second Temple Jews was predicted—along with the return of the Messiah to complete His work on earth.

How did the concept of Resurrection develop in the New Testament?

Surprisingly little.

Our earliest church documents are Paul's letters to various primitive churches.  While it does seem that Paul warms to the subject over the course of his ministry, he does not alter his theology.  In Galatians 2, Paul lets us know that his theology was shared with the leaders of the Jerusalem church (James the bother of Jesus, Peter, and John).  His dispute with them was not whether the Resurrection of Jesus occurred or what it meant, but whether or not it replaced the Mosaic Covenant.

In First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD), Paul gives us one of the earliest formulations of the Christian view of Resurrection:

  1 Corinthians 15:3-8 (ESV)
  3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Many scholars think this represents an even earlier tradition that might have been a creedal statement.  Paul goes on to affirm that there will be a general Resurrection in the future:

  1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (ESV)
  21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

This is also the text (remember it's one of the earliest, written 20 or so years from Jesus' crucifixion) that asserts the Resurrection to be critical to the Christian faith:

  1 Corinthians 15:17-19 (ESV)
  17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.

If anything, the Gospels, which were written later, downplay the Resurrection by giving us more details about Jesus' earthly ministry.  Mark even ends immediately after the women's discovery of the empty tomb and doesn't provide a post-Resurrection account.  (Whether this was by design or was a historical accident is not known.)

Reference: I draw most of my information from N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God, which stands alone as the best survey of the history of the idea of the Resurrection ever written.  If I don't stop now, I'm in danger of summarizing his entire book.


"God Bubble" - Who teaches/believes such a concept and what is the basic teaching behind the concept? It's not often I hear a new one, but today one of the people I know mostly on social media posted the following:

  A God bubble needs to comfort and heal [name deleted] while she battles
  the reoccurance of [disease/condition]. I ask that you
  please send up your prayers and lift her to the Lord to heal her as
  quickly as possible and to give her mama and loving caregivers
  strength to see her through this once again. Blessings of thanks to
  all of you

This person is known to be among the more Charismatic groups of Christians, and it would not surprise me to learn that the concept of a "God Bubble" is a term commonly used among Charismatic.  If so, I'm looking for examples of teachings on the subject, a general feel for how widespread the belief in a concept of a "God Bubble" is, and which groups teach such a concept.

*It's obvious the term refers to some sort of protection around an individual.  I'm not as much interested in what the term means, as I am in knowing who teaches this concept, and references to sermons or articles describing the concept and the Biblical basis behind it.

As a Pentecostal of long-standing, mixing with people from various Charismatic backgrounds over the last 25 years, my own experience is of never hearing or reading that phrase used in such a way prior to your citation. On checking a few search results, it looks like it might derived from something like this:

Bubble With Father God - Teresa Liebscher

  In the final chapter of the book of Job, God indicates that Job has spoken what is honest and correct about Him. What does a right and honest relationship with God look like? Teresa Liebscher answers that question, and gives you tools to maintain His presence around you like a bubble. It’s His very presence that has a profound effect on not only you but everyone around you!

I've heard a smattering of Bethel teaching over the last decade, but I don't recall ever hearing anything from Teresa Liebscher before; neither do I recall any of their other teachers using the phrase. However I have heard a couple of iterations of their teaching on the manifest presence of God, and although the term itself is novel, I think I can see where it's coming from.

In summary, I'd say the particular usage here is most likely the individual concerned's derived usage of teaching they've received about the manifest presence of God.


Is a Saint Joseph the patron of men named Osip? In the name day tradition children are named after a patron saint according to their birthdays. A boy born in Russia on or near the feast day of some Saint Joseph might thus be named Iosif.

Osip is a Russian derived form of Iosif. I can identify no Saint Osip. Does the name Osip suggest a patron Saint Joseph?

In Russian tradition a man is named after some concrete saint. His name day is then not the day when some saint named the same is celebrated, but only that one, after which he was named. So, if someone's saint is Joseph of Astrakhan', then the celebration of Joseph of Optina isn't his name day.

Otherwise, popular names like Dmitry or Andrew would be having name days for a whole year.


According to the Catholic Church, does any child have the "right" to be baptized? The Church, echoing the affirmation of the LORD himself, teaches that  Baptism is necessary for salvation.1

Furthermore, parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.2

And CCC 1261 ends by saying, 'All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.'

With the backdrop of all these Church teachings and practice, and noting point 52. of Synod 2014 of "Relatio post disceptationem"

  Without denying the moral problems associated with homosexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of
  sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons.
  Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to [...] children who
  live with same-sex couples and stresses that the needs and rights of
  the little ones must always be given priority.

does the Catholic Church teach that any child, or all children have the "right" to be baptized?

Does the Church teach that anyone has the "right" to be baptized?

If the answer is in the affirmative, who granted those rights?

Please note "Rights" are to be understood as the Church understand them.

1. cf. VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM | Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1257-1261.
2. cf. Code of Canon Law Cann. 867 and CCC 1250-1252.

Right (Definition noun 18. | Dictionary.com): a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: "You have a right to say what you please."

Please see also: According to Scripture, does anyone born in the world have the right to be baptized?

It is always helpful and useful to start with definitions

From the "PENNY CATECHISM" under Grace and Prayer

  139 What is Grace?
  Grace is a supernatural gift of God, freely bestowed upon us for our sanctification and salvation.

  140 How must we obtain God's grace?
  We must obtain God's grace chiefly by prayer and the holy Sacraments.

And From the "PENNY CATECHISM" under Baptism

  256 What is Baptism?
  Baptism is a Sacrament which cleanses us from original sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and members
  of the Church.

Answering

It readily follows since Baptism is a Sacrament, a means by which we obtain God's grace,  a supernatural gift1 of God, freely bestowed upon us for our sanctification and salvation, it is not a right but a gift freely given to be freely and worthily received.

1. cf. gift definition.


What is the meaning of 'the Sun and the Moon' in Joseph's dream? And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it to his brethren, and
  said, Behold, I have dreamed yet a dream: and, behold, the sun and the
  moon and eleven stars made obeisance to me. And he told it to his
  father, and to his brethren; and his father rebuked him, and said unto
  him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother
  and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the
  earth? - Genesis 37:9-10

If we continue to read the book we will see that Joseph's ten brothers bowed before him. Benjamin is a question mark for me, because the Bible doesn't say specifically whether Benjamin bowed or not. But we know that Joseph's father and mother didn't bow before Joseph, because later we read:

  And Joseph made ready his chariot, and went up to meet Israel his
  father, to Goshen; and he presented himself unto him, and fell on his
  neck, and wept on his neck a good while. - Genesis 46:29

So Joseph's father didn't bow before Joseph, and his mother - Rakhel - wasn't alive anymore. The question is, when is the dream fulfilled, and what are the sun and moon?

The Sun and the Moon do definitely represent his father and mother:

  Genesis 37:10 NKJV  So he told it to his father and his brothers; and his father rebuked him and said to him, "What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall your mother and I and your brothers indeed come to bow down to the earth before you?"

The bowing down does not refer to the physical act of bowing; what it refers to is his having a position superior to them.

Which actually happened and not only did he hold a superior position, but he became their provider and benefactor. And even though he had much power over their lives he still acquiesced to his father with his sons.

  Genesis 48:11through 14 NKJV  And Israel said to Joseph, "I had not thought to see your face; but in fact, God has also shown me your offspring!" 12  So Joseph brought them from beside his knees, and he bowed down with his face to the earth. 13  And Joseph took them both, Ephraim with his right hand toward Israel's left hand, and Manasseh with his left hand toward Israel's right hand, and brought them near him. 14  Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim's head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh's head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn.

and

  Genesis 48:17 through 19 NKJV  Now when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; so he took hold of his father's hand to remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head. 18  And Joseph said to his father, "Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head." 19  But his father refused and said, "I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.

Even though Joseph's dream was predictive of events to come, it in no way degraded the positions of Joseph's parents. It was not God's intent to change the family hierarchy, but to save the Hebrew Nation for his future purposes.

Hope this helps.


In the Bible, have "good men" often set their hand against each other? (King) David, Samson, and Gideon, among others, were all robust slayers of enemies of Israel, most of whom were "bad" men.

In at least one instance, David set his hand against a good man, Uriah, for the wrong reason (he coveted Uriah's wife Bathsheba).

Was this an exception? Did the biblical heroes often go against an "innocent" good man like Uriah? Or did they go against (formerly) good men turned "bad" (e.g. David or Samuel against King Saul)?

I think part of the answer here is to deal with your concept of "Good Men". According to the Bible, all men are sinful, and so all men deserve death. No one is Good by himself, except God.

  Luke 18:19 NIV
  "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

Part of the purpose of the Bible is to show that we all need help, that none of us is good enough to make it on our own, and it's only because of the blood of Jesus that any of us has hope. For this reason the Bible shows flaws even in its heroes.

If you're looking for heroes in the Bible, the only person you need is Jesus Christ. He is the only man in the Bible that we can say is Good.


Do Christian groups which think homosexuality is a sin think you can be a practicing homosexual and also a Christian? Many Christian groups condemn homosexuality as a sin, pointing to specific passages in the Bible and traditional Christian views on sexuality and marriage.

How do these groups handle the question of whether a person can be both a practicing homosexual and also a Christian?

Are there any additional steps required? Do these groups teach that it would be sinful to continue practicing after one became a Christian?

1. What you "are" is irrelevant

Let us first distinguish between being a member of a class - in this case homosexuals - and engaging in any sort of behavior.  For many people, being a member of the class "homosexual" means having feelings in one direction or another.  In no event would a "temptation" towards a certain behavior be taken as exclusion.

James makes it clear that temptation itself is not sin.

Galatians also makes it clear that being a member of any class is irrelevant:

  26 So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

At the risk of self promotion, look at this answer for more.

2. What you do is irrelevant

Even without broaching the question of whether or not homosexual activity is sin, this question still be categorically answered "Of Course you can!"

The primary message of the Gospel is grace.  Grace is God's unmerited favor - the free gift that he bestows in which he says "You are forgiven"

Remember that before God ALL MEN ARE SINNERS.  As Isaiah 64:2 says, eve "our righteousness is as filthy rags" in God's sight.  There is simply no person that God loves more than any other - he is "no respecter of persons"

Furthermore, as Ephesians 2:8-9 states,

  "For by grace you are saved through faith - it is NOT through any work of your own, lest any man should boast."
  Since there is nothing that you do to earn your salvation, your status is irrelevant.

3. Whether or not you continue in homosexuality is the only question

Once one is a Christian, one is expected to grow in Christ - to become more Christ-like. Here is where as you mature, you may want to put these things away.  But, understand, obedience comes out of love and desire to be more like Christ.

As Jesus says in John 14:12 "If you love me, keep my commandments."  It is explicitly not "Do what I say so that I will love you."

Under no circumstances should one believe they need to get clean before being washed by Jesus!

Finally, what you probably want to ask is "Is Homosexuality a Sin"
This question has been asked here and here.  Gene Robinson, the Episcopalian bishop of New Hampshire who left his wife for another man likes to argue Acts 10 - (Let no man declare unclean what God has declared clean) - that God is doing a new thing.  I personally don't think God's word has changed on that matter - but I bring it up to say that Christians debate the matter.

In any case, sin is irrelevant.  God's grace is what is important.

Of course you can be whatever you want and be a Christian.  The question is whether or not God will leave you that way.


In two online Catholic Bibles, what accounts for the difference in the numbering of the verses in Sirach Chapter 7? When I was preparing to answer a question on this site, I wanted to use The Penny Catechism's Q 332.

It referenced Ecclus 7:40, and I was unable to link this as is my custom to RSVCE as in this online edition, the book of Sirach Ch 7 went to only v. 36.

An internet search revealed Sirach 7:40.

What accounts for this difference in the numbering of the verses in in Sirach Chapter 7?

Both the editions of the online Bibles are Catholic and I am assuming that the explanation will come from Catholic sources, but I would think any Bible expert might have the explanation.

I answer as an amateur Bible reader with no formal training in Biblical studies.

One needs to distinguish between Catholic Bibles produced by Catholics, and Bibles labelled and sometimes even approved as Catholic Bibles that are in fact a rearrangement of a non-Catholic Bible in which the non-Catholic Apocrypha are inserted where the Catholic Bible expects corresponding Deuterocanonical texts.

The reference all-Catholic English-language Bible is the Douay-Rheims Bible (with Bishop Challoner's Revisions), since this was translated from the Latin Vulgate produced by St Jerome in the 4th Century, and predates the King James Bible. It is the English-language Catholic Bible equivalent in authority to the King James Bible for Anglicans. Ecclesiasticus (as the Book of Sirach is called in the Douay-Rheims Bible) Chapter 7 has 40 verses. By way of comparison, Ecclesiasticus Chapter 7 in the Apocrypha of the Authorised Version (Kind James Bible) has only 36 verses. A cursory comparison of the last few verses of these two Bibles shows that Verse 31 in the Authorized Version is considerably longer than the other verses in chapter 7 and approximately corresponds to Verses 31-35 of the Douay-Rheims Bible rolled into one. Verses 32-36 of the Authorised Version correspond to Verses 36-40 of the Douay-Rheims Bible. This suggests that the Received Text from which KJB translators translated is slightly different to the Greek and Hebrew texts from which St Jerome translated, either in content, and/or in verse numbering. I understand that the Received Text was a thorough review of the Greek source texts by Erasmus, and verse numbering was reviewed in the 16th Century by Robert Estienne. Therefore one would expect minor differences between the Douay-Rheims Bible and the King James Bible.

The RSV-CE Bible follows the KJV Bible. It was approved for Catholics because it includes most of the Catholic canonical books. However my understanding is that there are some deviations in the meaning between the RSV-CE and the Douay-Rheims Bible, e.g. in Isaiah 7-14 (young woman in the RSV versus virgin in the Douay-Rheims Bible) motivated by an interpretation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the 6th Century more in line with the Jewish Tanekh than the Old Testament in the 2nd C BC Greek language Septuagint, that would have been in general use at the time of Christ.


What is the meaning of "excellent things" in Proverbs 22:20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth...
  -- Proverbs 22:20 (KJV)

In the KJV of this verse, the Hebrew word 'Shalosh' is translated as "excellent things.' However, most other translations, as well as Strong's Concordance, defines that Hebrew word as "a threefold measure, a triple."

This seems to give the verse the meaning: "Have not I written to thee a threefold measure in counsels and knowledge.

So, what is this threefold measure, or triple?

After comparing this verse with the New International Version and the New Living Translation Bible, it seems that the meaning of the Hebrew word used is uncertain.  Both the NIV and the NLT translate that particular word as “thirty sayings.”  The NLT Study Bible notes acknowledge that some Bibles prefer to translate the word as “excellent sayings.” The notes then give this explanation as to why they say “thirty sayings”:

  “Early scribes noticed that the Hebrew word for thirty has been written in an unusual form (shlshwm) rather than the usual form (shlyshwm).  All the early translations of the Old Testament (e.g., Greek Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta) read it as thirty.”

From Proverbs 22:22 up to and including Proverbs 24:22 are those thirty wise sayings.  From Proverbs 24:23-34 there are more sayings of the wise.

It seems that this is a literary device employed within Proverbs where a number of wise sayings are recorded (10:1-31:31).


Why do Jehovah's Witnesses travel in pairs? Why do Jehovah's Witnesses travel in pairs instead of a group and go proselytizing door-to-door? What is the typical arrangement (friend and friend, sister and sister, brother and brother, husband and wife, etc.)? Are these people paid by the Watchtower to minister?

Mark 6:7 (NWT)
  Now he summoned the twelve, and he initiated sending them out two by two, and he began to give them authority over the unclean spirits.

  Luke 10:1 (NWT)
  After these things the Lord designated seventy others and sent them forth by twos in advance of him into every city and place to which he himself was going to come.

Jesus did this

so we would have someone to work with, and
for consideration for the householder, so a large group of people don't show up at their door among other reasons.


What is the meaning of the following Bible quote "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."

If people don't repent then they are not ressurected in Heaven and so are not joyous- therefore the 'more than' would go without saying...however, I assume it does not mean this.

If it's talking about truly 'just' people with no sin (and its not being ironic) then, erm, they don't exist. Does it mean angels? Does it mean we are happier for having sinned but repented and, thereby, better off than Adam and Eve pre-sin?! Help!

When you interpret the Bible, you have to look at whole passages and not just individual verses out of context. The surrounding text will give you a reference for the meaning of a verse. In this case the verse is in the middle of a chapter where the entire focus is on the reactions of people to things that were lost and are now found - a lost sheep, a lost coin, and a lost son. This gives us a pretty clear indication that Jesus is driving home a point about how people react to things that were lost and area now found, and how this applies to Heaven. We should therefore look at this statement, and all the ones around it, to find out things about lostness and being found - not about the nature of sin and angels. It is a general principle with parables that you can come to wrong conclusions by pushing an analogy too far.

The universal interpretation of this entire passage is addressed to the Pharisees, who really did think that they could work their way to becoming acceptable to God. In their eyes the better you were, the more God approved and appreciated you, and the more joy there would be in heaven when you got there. In their eyes the rejoicing would be for those that most nearly reached God's standards. The stories told here by Jesus are meant to indicate entirely the opposite. To take the parables to mean something about the nature of perfection would be to go in the wrong direction.

See here, here, here.


What are some of the benefits of going to church? This question struck me last Sunday at church.  People usually talk about the abstract benefits of prayer and proving things etc, but I'm asking this question because over the many years I've been attending the same church I have realized a few things that aren't obvious if you aren't in the practise of going to church.

What are some of the things that you find are benefits from going to church regularly?

Benefits of going to church regularly:

During Holy Mass, receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord regularly, brings us into continuous reminder that God is with us and in us. If we believe that, then it has a huge affect on our behavior and mind set.
Being with a community of believers is extremely encouraging. When I see fellow believers humble themselves by kneeling or going to receive the Eucharist or giving each other the sign of peace, I feel immense joy and peace. And experiencing this on a regular basis must surely be good for your soul.
Hearing the Word of God on a regular basis helps us to obtain the mind of Christ and a healthy Christian worldview.
Regular attendance (especially when you don't feel like it) is like spiritual exercise, training to submit your will to Christ.
Consistent attendance makes you more comfortable with the local community of believers and makes it easier for you to fellowship with them.
It is a benefit to others because they might find joy in seeing you there.
The grace of God trains us to "live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives".
It brings peace and guidance.
Regular church, means regular worship, and regular communal prayer.

I think there is much more to say here. Can't wait to hear what others have to say.


If rules in the Bible can change, shouldn't Bibles be arranged chronologically so we know which one is right? If there is a contradiction in the bible, you should listen to the newest rule (where I'm coming from is here).  Wouldn't it make more sense for orthodox Christianity that the books of the bible be put in chronological order?  Would the order be as they were written or when the events take place?

The question:
Is there a version of the bible which is in chronological order - if so, which chronological order?

To answer the question directly, yes, there are Bibles arranged in "chronological order." This book for example, seeks to arrange every passage of the Bible chronologically.  That said, I'm not sure that's really the best approach.

Firstly, by cutting and pasting passages from multiple books by multiple authors, one destroys the uniqueness of each book.  Imagine, for example, if someone were to arrange Wagner's Ring Cycle, the movie 'Europa, Europa', the Diary of Anne Frank, and random information from 'The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich' "chronologically.  The mish-mash would do justice to none of it.

As it is, the Bible is arranged roughly right:

The "historical" books of Genesis through 2 Chronicles + Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther is basically in order, with the caveat that 1 & 2 Chronicles are basically repeats 1 & 2 Kings.
The "writings" aka "Wisdom literature" of Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Eccelesiates are not chronological at all, and thus ordering would not make sense.  Futhermore, the only "rules" in this category would be Proverbs - and even here, you'll find that wisdom != rules.  (Proverbs, for example, admits that bribes work!  It doesn't say that they are right, only that they are effective.
The "prophets" from Isaiah to Malachi are the most troublesome ordering, for the traditional ordering is not chronological, but rather based on length, importance, and keywords.  Still the "rules" again, really aren't the issue.  If you want a "rule" it is simply "Be just, not corrupt!"  Historically it would be more interesting, I'll admit, but not vital to the message.
The Gospels historically represent a shift from Jewish to Christian thought.  Jesus does alter the terms of the covenant to be sure, leading many (not me, but many) to say "NT supercedes OT."  That division is useful for those who see a dichotomy.
Acts is historical, and is placed correctly.
The Epistles of Paul, Peter, and the others are arranged by length, not order, but they all fall within a period of 40 years at most - nothing like the 4000 years of the OT.  As such, again, there is no particular "order" nor contradiction.
Finally, Revelation is apocalyptic, not "rule" based.

As such, I disagree that a reordering of books is necessary.

Finally, progressive revelation doesn't actually say that God "changes" so much as we more fully understand what God wants.  In the OT, the afterlife is  only a vague reference at best - but it is clear in the NT.  Is this a "contradiction"? Well, I suppose you could turn it into one.  Likewise, the issue of child sacrifice - from norm to being abhorrent - was that really God or Man?  Indeed, one could even make a case that the bible condones slavery, I don't believe it, but the case is made.  Still, Christians eventually realized it contradicted God's deeper law.  People change!  The "rules" sometimes even reflect that.  But that is not exactly what the progressiveness of revelation is really about. It's about us understanding God better - not Him giving better rules.


Fish on Good Friday? I'm just wanting to clarify the rule about eating fish on Good Friday: Is the intention to add fish to the diet or to remove all other meats from the diet?

is the intention to add fish to the diet or to remove all other meats
  from the diet?

The answer is "Neither". The intention is to remind you of your need for, and dependence on God.

Abstaining from meat is a specific example of the teaching on Abstinence.  The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the purpose of abstinence in general as follows:

  Inasmuch as abstinence signifies abstaining from food, the Bible
  narrative points to the first instance wherein such a course of
  conduct was imposed by law (Genesis 2:16-17). The obvious purpose of
  this mandate was to lead the moral head of the human race to recognize
  the necessary dependence of creature upon Creator. The hour which
  witnessed the transgression of this law marked an increase in the debt
  which the creature owed the Creator. Adam's disobedience rendered all
  men criminal, and liable to the necessity of appeasing God's justice.
  To meet this new exigency nature dictated the necessity of penance;
  positive legislation determined the ways and means whereby this
  natural obligation would best be concreted. The chief results of this
  determination are positive statutes concerning fasting and abstinence.
  Laws relating to fasting are principally intended to define what
  pertains to the quantity of food allowed on days of fasting, while
  those regulating abstinence, what refers to the quality of viands. In
  some instances both obligations coincide; thus, the Fridays of Lent
  are days of fasting and abstinence. In other instances the law of
  abstinence alone binds the faithful; thus ordinary Fridays are simply
  days of abstinence. The purpose of this article is to trace the
  history of ecclesiastical legislation regarding the law of abstinence,
  as well as to examine the motives which underlie this legislation.

Short version:  Abstinence is a form of penance, the purpose of which is to remind us of our dependence on our Creator, God.

If your focus is "why meat, specifically", that is answered, as @Andrewleach pointed out, at svidgen's answer this question:

Short version, meat was exceptional, and the idea was to abstain from something that we enjoy the most.

I'm not going to steal his quotes or answer, but if that's the angle your most concerned with, vote that answer up.


Keeping the Sabbath and Colossians 2:16 Colossians 2:16-17, 20-21 says,

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations—21 “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,”

The New King James Version. (1982). (Col 2:20–21). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
That entire portion of the end of Colossians 2 talks about the danger of legalism and seems to discourage keeping things such as the Sabbath (at least keeping them legalistically).  How do Seventh-Day Adventists and other denominations that keep the Sabbath interpret this passage?

"That entire portion of the end of Colossians 2 talks about the danger of legalism and seems to discourage keeping things such as the Sabbath"

Actually, it doesn't talk about that.  In fact it has quite the opposite meaning.

I once used Colossians as an example of exegesis:
 https://rbutterworth.nfshost.com/Management/examples/exegesis

If you aren't going to read that article itself, at least be aware of the importance of the context in which Paul was writing.

The Colossian Church was isolated from the rest of Christianity.  Most of the people there were Ascetics, who believed that the physical body represented evil while its immortal soul represented good.  That soul must be developed by physical suffering, and so, anyone that enjoys themselves, celebrates, eats good food, etc. is obviously an evil carnal person.

The Ascetics were criticising the Christian converts for their religious practices, and Paul was worried that some of them might feel ashamed of their Christianity and revert back to Greek paganism.  He warns them to "continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard".

Here's the section on 2:17:

  2:16-17 resumes the warning about being influenced by the opinions of
  others:

  Therefore let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and
  drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These
  are only a shadow [prophetic symbolism] of what is to come; but the
  substance [what casts the shadow, the eventual kingdom of God on
  earth] belongs to Christ.

  The original Greek did not use punctuation, but relied more on
  sentence structure. This structure is sometimes lost in translation
  into English (e.g. the original word order is no therefore man you
  let-judge in meat …, the single Greek word being translated into let
  and judge with other words intervening). Punctuation was supplied by
  the translators, who also supplied additional words to make the
  English read more smoothly or clearly. These added words are marked in
  italics in the King James version, which translation (with supplied
  words and punctuation omitted) perhaps provides an even better
  interpretation of this passage:

Therefore
    let
        no man
            judge you
                in meat
             or in drink
             or in respect
                        of an holyday
                     or of the new moon
                     or of the sabbath
                  which are a shadow
                      of things to come
        but the body of Christ

  A much more obvious meaning
  immediately becomes apparent: let no one but the body of Christ judge
  you (the body of Christ being the Church). We should not feel bad
  about being condemned by non-Christians for our Christian practices
  such as honouring the symbols of God's promises.

  The food and drink, festivals, new moons (monthly sabbaths), and
  (weekly) sabbaths refer to things that the Christian community is
  expected to practice, and not, as some suppose, to unclean foods and
  pagan festivals. The Ascetics were opposed to any form of physical
  pleasure (often including eating meat of any kind), and such holy
  feasts and celebrations (which, except possibly for the Day of
  Atonement, are a time of joy and pleasure to Christians) were a direct
  insult to their beliefs. But these sabbaths and holy festivals are
  symbols to Christians of God's plan for mankind, and must be
  commemorated despite the objections of non-Christians.

  In keeping God's sabbaths and festivals, a Christian will be subject
  to criticism from others, and in particular that criticism may often
  be of a very morally superior tone, possibly making the Christian feel
  that he himself might be the one in the wrong.


How do mainstream Christians handle the Epistle of St. Barnabas' prophecy that Jesus will return in the next 50 years? In the Epistle of Barnabas, it says

  Barnabas 15:3 Of the Sabbath He speaketh in the beginning of the
  creation; And God made the works of His hands in six days, and He
  ended on the seventh day, and rested on it, and He hallowed it.

  Barnabas 15:4 Give heed, children, what this meaneth; He ended in six
  days. He meaneth this, that in six thousand years the Lord shall bring
  all things to an end; for the day with Him signifyeth a thousand
  years; and this He himself beareth me witness, saying; Behold, the day
  of the Lord shall be as a thousand years. Therefore, children, in six
  days, that is in six thousand years, everything shall come to an end.

  Barnabas 15:5 And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when
  His Son shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and
  shall judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the
  stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.

And we know that the World (Human History) according to Bible is now almost 6000 years.
This means The Second Coming of Jesus will happen within 50 years from now.

According to  Saint Malachy Prophecy
 we can know that it has the same timeline.

How should we interpret these things?

The Epistle of Barnabas is not considered canon. Sticking purely to canon, the bible is very explicit that we do not know. The world could end tomorrow. Or this afternoon. Or 10,000 years from now:

Matt 25:13

  Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man comes.

Mark 13:32

  No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.

1 Thessalonians 5:2

  for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.


What is the significance of adding "fiery" to Ephesians 6:16? Ephesians 6:13–17 (NLT)

   13 Therefore, put on every piece of God’s armor so you will be able to resist the enemy in the time of evil. Then after the battle you will still be standing firm. 14 Stand your ground, putting on the belt of truth and the body armor of God’s righteousness. 15 For shoes, put on the peace that comes from the Good News so that you will be fully prepared. 16 In addition to all of these, hold up the shield of faith to stop the fiery arrows of the devil. 17 Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

[Emphasis mine.]

Is the fact that these arrows are on fire of any significance?

As I learned from my pastor a while ago, archers of the time would light their arrows on fire in an attempt to set wooden shields on fire and thus rob soldiers of any significant protection. In response to this, the Romans developed shields that had a gap in between the outer and inner plates. As such, flaming arrows would actually be extinguished by the lack of oxygen in between the wooden plates. Similarly, our faith should be like that; extinguishing the flaming arrows of the evil one and preventing continual damage.


Which eschatological belief does Catholicism profess? Deem heretical? There are a variety of eschatological beliefs in Christianity, such as Premillennialism, Amillennialism, etc. Which eschatological belief does Catholicism profess, if any, and which eschatological belief(s) does Catholicism deem heretical, if any?

See the Decree of the Holy Office, July 21, 1944, on Millenarianism (Chiliasm):

  2296 In recent times on several occasions this Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office has been asked what must be thought of the system of mitigated Millenarianism, which teaches, for example, that Christ the Lord before the final judgment, whether or not preceded by the resurrection of the many just, will come visibly to rule over this world. The answer is: The system of mitigated Millenarianism cannot be taught safely.


On ferias, feria 2, feria 3 I'm trying to get clarification on how this word is used.  'On ferias at Terce' - does that mean any day of the week Sun->Sat?  All days except Sunday?  All days except Saturday and Sunday?  All days except feast days?  Days outside of penitential seasons?
Is Feria 2 = Monday?  Feria 3 = Tuesday?
The usage may have changed, but I'm interested in how it was used in the Middle Ages.  Thank you.

On ferias, feria 2, feria 3?

First of all the word feria comes from the Latin meaning free day.

Historically the term by which the Church has used for the days of the week has undergone several changes in it’s usage. The nuances of the term  is not always completely clear either. Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on this subject:

  A day on which the people, especially the slaves, were not obliged to work, and on which there were no court sessions. In ancient Roman times the feriae publicae, legal holidays, were either stativae, recurring regularly (e.g. the Saturnalia), conceptivae, i.e. movable, or imperativae, i.e. appointed for special occasions. When Christianity spread, the feriae were ordered for religious rest, to celebrate the feasts instituted for worship by the Church. The faithful were obliged on those days to attend Mass in their parish church; such assemblies gradually led to mercantile enterprise, partly from necessity and partly for the sake of convenience. This custom in time introduced those market gatherings which the Germans call Messen, and the English call fairs. They were fixed on saints' days (e.g. St. Barr's fair, St. Germanus's fair, St. Wenn's fair, etc.)

  Today the term feria is used to denote the days of the week with the exception of Sunday and Saturday. Various reasons are given for this terminology. The Roman Breviary, in the sixth lesson for 31 Dec., says that Pope St. Silvester ordered the continuance of the already existing custom "that the clergy, daily abstaining from earthly cares, would be free to serve God alone". Others believe that the Church simply Christianized a Jewish practice. The Jews frequently counted the days from their Sabbath, and so we find in the Gospels such expressions as una Sabbati and prima Sabbati, the first from the Sabbath. The early Christians reckoned the days after Easter in this fashion, but, since all the days of Easter week were holy days, they called Easter Monday, not the first day after Easter, but the second feria or feast day; and since every Sunday is the dies Dominica, a lesser Easter day, the custom prevailed to call each Monday a feria secunda, and so on for the rest of the week.

  The ecclesiastical style of naming the week days was adopted by no nation except the Portuguese who alone use the terms Segunda Feria etc. The old use of the word feria, for feast day, is lost, except in the derivative feriatio, which is equivalent to our of obligation. Today those days are called ferial upon which no feast is celebrated. Feriae are either major or minor. The major, which must have at least a commemoration, even on the highest feasts, are the feriae of Advent and Lent, the Ember days, and the Monday of Rogation week; the others are called minor. Of the major feriae Ash Wednesday and the days of Holy Week are privileged so that their office must be taken, no matter what feast may occur.

Here follows an example of a medieval liturgical calendar, which may be helpful in understanding the above nuances.

  Perhaps the oldest ecclesiastical calendar, in the proper sense of the word, which still survives, is the one which was in the possession of the Englishman St. Willibrord, Apostle of the Frisians, who has left in it an autograph note of the date of his consecration as bishop (A.D. 695). The calendar was probably written in England between 702 and 706. As it has never been printed it may be interesting to give here the entries made in the original hand, omitting the interpolations made by others at a slightly later date. The manuscript which contains it is the well-known "Codex Epternacensis", now Latin manuscript 10837, in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.

  January

  1 Circumcision

  3 St. Genevieve of Paris

  6 Epiphany

  13 St. Hilary

  14 St. Felix of Nola

  17 St. Anthony, Hermit

  18 St. Peter's Chair at Rome and the Assumption of Holy Mary

  20 St. Sebastian

  21 St. Agnes (Virgin)
  24 St. Babilas, Bishop and Martyr
  25 Conversion of St. Paul at Damascus
  29 St. Valerius, Bishop, and St. Lucy (Virgin) at Treves

  February

  1 St. Denis, St. Polycarp and St. Brigid (Virgin)

  2 St. Symeon, Patriarch

  5 St. Agatha

  6 St. Amandus

  16 St. Juliana

  22 The Chair of Peter at Antioch

  March

  1 Donatus

  7 Perpetua and Felicitas

  12 St. Gregory at Rome

  17 St. Patrick, Bishop in Ireland

  20 St. Cuthbert, Bishop

  21 St. Benedict, Abbot

  25 The Lord was crucified and St. James the brother of Our Lord

  27 The Resurrection of Our Lord

  April

  4 St. Ambrose

  22 Philip, Apostle

  May

  1 St. Philip, Apostle

  5 The Ascension of the Lord

  7 The Invention of the Holy Cross

  11 Pancratius, Martyr

  14 Earliest date for Pentecost

  31 St. Maximinius at Treves

  June

  2 Erasmus, Martyr

  8 Barnabas, Apostle

  9 St. Columkill

  22 James the son of Alpheus

  24 Nativity of John the Baptist

  29 Sts. Peter and Paul at Rome

  July

  15 St. James of Nisibis

  26 St. James, Apostle, Brother of John

  26 St. Symeon, Monk in Syria

  29 St. Lupus

  August

  1 The Machabees, seven brothers with their mother

  5 St. Oswald, King

  6 St. Syxtus, Bishop

  10 St. Laurence, Deacon

  13 Hippolitus, Martyr

  16 (Sic) [erasure] St. Mary

  25 St. Bartholomew, Apostle

  28 Augustine and Faustinus, Bishops

  29 Martyrdom of St. John the Baptist

  31 St. Paulinus, Bishop at Trier

  September

  7 Sergius, Pope at Rome

  9 (Sic) Nativity of St. Mary at Jerusalem

  13 Cornelius and Cyprian

  15 St. Euphemia, Martyr

  19 Januarius. Martyr

  21 Matthew, Apostle

  22 Passion of St. Maurice

  24 Conception of St. John the Baptist

  27 Cosmas and Damian at Jerusalem

  29 St. Michael, Archangel

  October

  1 Remedius and Germanus

  4 Sts. Heuwald and Hewald, Martyrs

  14 Paulinus, Bishop in Canterbury

  18 Luke, Evangelist

  28 Simon and Jude, Apostles

  31 St. Quintinus, Martyr

  November

  10 St. Leo, Pope

  11 St. Martin, Bishop at Tours

  22 St. Cecilia

  23 Clement at Rome

  24 Crisogonus

  30 St. Andrew, Apostle

  December

  10 St. Eulalia and seventy-five others

  20 St. Ignatius, Bishop and Martyr

  21 St. Thomas, Apostle in India

  25 Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ

  26 St. Stephen, Martyr

  27 John, Apostle, and James, his brother

  28 The Innocents

  31 St. Silvester, Bishop

  This list very well illustrates the arbitrary choice of saints to be commemorated, which is observable in most early calendars. The mention of the Nativity of our Lady on 9 September instead of 8 September is interesting in view of the Eastern practice, attested by the Naples marble calendar, of celebrating the Conception of Our Lady on 9 December. - Christian Calendar


In the NPP, if Paul's "works of the law" are only circumcision and diet, how is Galatians 3:10 interpreted? One of the implications of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), as I understand it, is that Paul's teachings regarding the "works of the law" (in Galatians 2:16, for example) are meant to refer only to "boundary marker" laws, that is, laws like circumcision, diet, and calendar, as opposed to all of God's law.

This can have a significant impact on one's doctrine of justification, as it opens the door for other "works" (besides circumcision, etc.) to be part of the basis of one's salvation.

One challenge to this aspect of the NPP that I've seen is based on other references to the "works of the law" in Paul's writings, where he uses the same phrase but appears to be referring to the entire law.  For example, Romans 3:20:

  For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (ESV)

Here, critics of the NPP say, Paul is clearly referring to the entire law, not just "boundary marker" laws, since elsewhere he recognizes many other sins besides failure to circumcise.  But to me an even stronger passage appears to be Galatians 3:10:

  For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (ESV)

Here, quoting Leviticus 18:5, Paul's use of "all things written in the Book of the Law," as opposed to some, is seen as plain evidence that "works of the law" to him means more than just circumcision, etc.

Thus, the question:

How do proponents of the New Perspective on Paul respond to challenges to their view of Paul's "works of the law" that are based on Galatians 3:10 and similar passages?

It's interesting that this perspective is known as the the 'New Perspective on Paul', for the idea that works goes hand in hand with faith has been central to the Catholic and Orthodox Church which preceded the Reformed Church and its claim of sola fide. If you were to go to a Catholic or Orthodox Christian in the 12th century and claim that St. Paul thought that faith meant the eradication of good works in the process of salvation, you might have very well been burned at the stake for heresy.

As to Galations 3:10, it is important for us to not 'cherry-pick' verses (even John 3:16) out of their context in order to support a position. It should thus be noted that Paul's inclusion of the verse from Leviticus might be used in a way that is contrary to what the writers of Leviticus were referring to. It should also be noted that the term 'law' is itself requiring contextual analysis in order to derive its actual meaning as intended by Paul (it does not 'instinctively' mean anything). With that said, we should now look at the surrounding context of Galatians to consider what Paul even means when he refers to the 'curse of the law'.

Galations 3:15-18

  Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person's will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring: it does not say. 'And to offsprings', as of many; but it says, 'And to your offspring', that is, to one person, who is Christ. My point is this: the law, which came four hundred years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.

The surrounding context in reference to the 'curse of the law' is rather clearly in a 'covenant language'. Even following this passage Paul continues to write how baptism is in essence the 'new circumcision'. N.T Wright would say Paul's speaking about 'badges of covenant membership'. The universal essence of 'doing good' and its relation to salvation for humanity, in other words, is not necessarily being spoken about by Paul. Rather, when Paul speaks of the 'law' he is more precisely speaking about the way the Jewish customs relate to an understanding of God's covenant. 'Law' in other words is referring to the things of temporary power and purpose (such as circumcision, observance of certain days, etc). Paul himself later asserts this understanding of the 'law' as a temporary power in saying that it 'was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made'. Good deeds in no way are a 'temporary' matter, and for Paul to believe such would be to contradict clear statements by Jesus and other apostles all throughout the rest of the New Testament, who vouch for the understanding that 'wisdom is justified by her deeds' and that a 'tree is known by its fruit'. Stating that good deeds are temporary in a justifying nature would even diminish the very good deed Christ did on the cross.

It should also be said that NPP does not support the idea that good deeds alone can attain salvation. Good deeds are supplementary to faith. The one cannot exist without the other, for they justify each other. The language regarding each one thus does not exclude the language regarding the other, for the language of both is typically one in the same.

The NPP isn't really all that 'new'. It's been around in traditional Christian language since the beginning as an assumption that might very have been taken advantage of by its proponents. But the Reformed thought that has stressed sola fide has produced some good by forcing those who support the idea that good deeds must accompany faith to look back into the bible with a new set of eyes. What the bible says is still a resounding 'no' to sola fide.


How is doing 'what is right in the eyes of everyone' different from being 'politically correct'? Paul says in Romans that we should 'Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone'. (Romans 12:17. NIV). However, I would certainly not characterize Paul as being 'politically correct' by any stretch of the imagination.  It made me wonder they sound like the same thing, so how is doing 'what is right in the eyes of everyone' so different from being 'politically correct'?

I think this is a translation issue (so possibly better at BH SE).

Look at the Amplified Translation of Romans 12:17:

  Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is honest and proper and noble [aiming to be above reproach] in the sight of everyone.

See also, eg, KJV and New Living versions of this verse.

The NIV calls this section (v9-21), "Love in action" which I think summarises Paul's thoughts here well. Therefore this is about acting properly toward everyone - not taking on their morality but rather upholding God's standards before everyone.


writing and pronouncing Bible references How would you say this Bible reference:  Malachi 3:7b,8 & 10,11?
Also, is it written correctly?

I generally use “through” (spoken) or a hyphen (written) for any adjacent verses, and “and” (spoken) or a comma (written) to signify a jump in verses.

Malachi 3:7b-8, 10-11

Malachi three seven bee through eight and ten through eleven.

Or

Malachi chapter three verses seven bee through eight and ten through eleven.


How much time did Jesus spend in Gethsemane? In the four Gospels of the usual canon — Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, — only two of them mention any measure of time:

  Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping.  He asked Peter, “So, couldn't you (all) stay awake with Me one hour?  […]”
  ― Matt. 26-40, HCSB

  Then He came and found them sleeping.  “Simon, are you sleeping?” He asked Peter.  “Couldn't you stay awake one hour?  […]”
  ― Mark 14-37, HCSB

In the narratives of those two books, he goes away to pray twice more.  In the book of Luke, only the final wakening of the disciples is described, and in the book of John their stay in the garden is mentioned but very briefly.
Estimating from the time of year — near the vernal equinox and on the summer side of it, — it could've been anywhere from a modern hour to half the night.

Do we have some more precise records which would indicate a timeframe there?
E.g. when he was arrested, or perhaps some non-canonized documents describing when they would've gone to the Mount of Olives?

The narratives at Luke 22:47-62 describing the arrest of Jesus and the denial by Peter before the cock crowed, give ample evidence that Jesus prayed at Gethsemane till early hours of Friday, counting from 0000 hours as per modern time-keeping system. (NB: The Ifugao of the Philippines state that cocks crow four times during the night with the third cockcrow at around four o’clock in the morning. Courtesy: Scientific American Blog Network)

Luke 22:39 also states that Jesus had gone to Mount of Olives 'as was His custom' indicting that He used to pray for a long time.


What is the biblical basis against the use or overuse of tobacco and other types of drugs? A common position among many Christians in America is that the use of tobacco, alcohol, and other types of drugs (marijuana, etc.) is immoral and sinful.  Paul seems to indicate that, in the context of food at least, nothing should be considered forbidden:

  Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart
  from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and
  teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose
  consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence
  from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those
  who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is
  good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with
  thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.  (1 Timothy 4:1–5, ESV)

What, then, is the Biblical basis for why the use of tobacco and other types of drugs are considered by many to be immoral or sinful?

First, beware of false premises.  Food provides sustenance to the body. It contains calories and vital nutrients.  Drugs do not, so it would be a mistake to equate them with food.  In fact, drugs tend to have the opposite effect from food: instead of nourishing the body, they harm it.

Second, simply because "everything created by God is good," that does not mean that every possible use of everything created by God is good.  Otherwise, there would be no such thing as sin at all.  Hemp contains very useful fibers that make it good for building ropes, for example, and tobacco has medicinal properties that make it quite good for treating bruises.  Neither of these require the plants to be taken internally.

Third, as I pointed out in another answer to a related question, a lot of modern drugs were not known in Biblical times, but abuse of the one they did know about, alcohol, is strongly condemned in the Bible. (Including by Paul, the same guy who wrote the 1 Timothy passage quoted in the question.)  So it stands to reason that the use of other drugs should likewise be considered sinful.


Which "Church of God" believes in "God the Mother"? I met a man in Philadelphia who was keen to tell me about his group, the "Church of God". They seem to have some unusual beliefs. From our brief conversation, these included:

In addition to God the Father, there is God the Mother. He identified her with the Bride and the heavenly Jerusalem from Revelation, and also cited Galatians 4:26. She apparently is responsible for birthing all life. It was not clear to me whether she was envisaged as a separate god, or as another aspect or person of a single God.
The church has been in apostasy for most of its existence, certainly since Constantine. This explicitly includes the Reformation, wherein various non-Biblical doctrines were invented. He mentioned Martin Luther specifically as being wrong.
The marks of this apostasy include:

Use of the cross symbol.
Keeping the Sabbath on the wrong day (should be Saturday).
Communion - which he regarded as a pagan-inspired ceremony, not a sacrament or even a memorial, saying that the Last Supper was a one-off event. "Do this in remembrance of me," in his view, was a command to continue celebrating Passover.
Not recognizing God the Mother.

The Bible should be interpreted literally, and studied at all times. He showed me his Bible, which had the name of his church printed in the front.
(Not sure if I understood this one properly.) The second coming of Jesus has already occurred, without most people noticing, but we are still waiting for his final appearance, per Revelation.

I thought he might be a Seventh-day Adventist, but points 5 and especially 1 don't seem to fit what I know about them. Of course, there are enormously many churches called "Church of God", but I'm curious about who these particular people are, where they come from denominationally, and what led them to have these (in my opinion, very peculiar) beliefs. If it helps, the man was Korean.

I hope that this question is not "too localized"; I certainly got the impression that there is a group involved, and not just this one man. Also, it seemed that the Mother thing was a central and important belief, as he kept coming back to it.

I think you're talking about the World Mission Society Church of God. Or Church of God for short. It was founded in Korea in 1985 by Ahn Sahng-Hong, and according to them has almost two million members.

After browsing their website for a short time it definitely falls in line with the following.

They do specifically cite Galatians 4:26 and 4:28 for this belief as well as others.
This one is a bit harder to find but this alludes heavily to it, if not out right says it.
These were a bit harder to find.

I could not find this
This is spelled out here
This is covered here
This is their page about Heavenly mother but it doesn't mention the apostasy.

Here it states "We should not understand this word just literally but put it into practice." but that is the closest I could find.
This one is pretty much everywhere. This page says

  "Just as salvation was withheld from those who were stuck on the name
  of Jehovah and failed to receive Jesus as their Savior in the age of
  the Son (Rom. 15:4), salvation will never be given to those who are
  stuck on the name of Jesus in this age."

and then goes on to say

  "Please believe in Christ Ahnsahnghong, our Savior in the age of the
  Holy Spirit, so that you may receive eternal life!"

Note Ahnsahnghong is the name of the founder of the church.

Your confusion on the first point makes sense because of the following found under the link in #1 above.

  The Bible clearly testifies that our heavenly Mother exists, and that
  only our heavenly Mother can give us eternal life.

and the below is after quoting Gen. 1:26-27

  The above verse states that God has two images—a male image and a
  female image.

The wikipedia page about them paraphrases much of this.


Why is the Gospel of John said to present Jesus distinctively as "the Son of God"? A common assertion is that the Gospel of John uniquely presents Jesus as "the Son of God", while Matthew presents Him as "the King of the Jews", Mark as the "Servant", and Luke as "the Son of Man".

What is peculiar in the Gospel of John that gives rise to this particular distinction?

This idea comes primarily from the presentation of Jesus throughout the Gospel, which is summarized nicely by the Biblical author himself:

  Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name. -John 20:30-31

For example, consider the closing statement in the first section (1:1-18):

  No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. -John 1:18

...or the climactic statement of John the Baptist at the end of the second section (1:19-34):

  I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.” -John 1:34

...or the climactic testimony of Nathanael at the end of the third section (1:35-51):

  Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.” -John 1:49

The trend continues throughout the Gospel.


Life of Pi and how to believe I for myself consider myself an agnostic. Because i simply dont know, but i dont reject. My girlfriend on the other hand is a firm believer and we both watched The life of Pi yesterday.

Maybe because my girlfriend would wish it for me, altough she does in no way pressure me, i really consider faith and would like to believe. BUT i dont want to lie to myself and want to really believe to believe like she does, unshakeable.
But because i grew up in a very non christian or religios house i struggle to "disregard" logic to believe. I simply would like the comfort of god, the thought of seeing all my loved ones in heaven after death etc. Having someone to thank for evrything good. But logic always denies this for me.

-

In the movie two storys are told. The story of the tiger, the fantastic beautiful story, and the grey realistic story with just people, and in the end he askes the other guy which he would prefer and like more. And says that it is like that with god.

But i feel and interpretations i read about the movie also say things like.

  The logical, gray and uncharming reality which is depicted as being bland and destroying every sense of magic in the world. And the godly, faithful and beatiful reality which is ultimately possibly self-deception

But does it have to be like that? Does one have to practice self-deception and discard all logic to believe. Or is there a side where the logical reality and the beatiful faith can coexist.

I really struggle here and cannot find a way out. And maybe I am way to indoctrinated with logic, and realism and science to simply JUST BELIEVE but i would like to try to give my life more meaning than to simply die and thats it.

So my question is:

Does someone who has believed in reason, logic and pure science his whole life need to discard this in order to believe or is there a way for both to coexist and give meaning to a (maybe way too) critical thinking mind.

Faith and reason do not contradict each other any more than science and the Bible do.
Science teaches us about physical realities and the Bible about spiritual truth.  Science can't prove or disprove the existence of a soul and the Revelation doesn't hinge on its literal interpretation.  But unlike these two domains, faith and reason actually help each other out, especially on ones quest toward their final end in Jesus.

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves
St. John Paul II - Fides et Ratio

In Life of Pi, the movie at least, leaves a viewer a little off in their conception of faith and reason because you might have to abandon reason to simultaneously be Hindu, Muslim and Catholic

But, while it features a positive treatment of Catholicism and a sympathetic priest, this visually artful psychological parable -- told in flashbacks by its now-adult protagonist (Irrfan Khan) -- upholds its main character's view that he can be, simultaneously, a Hindu, a Christian and a Muslim. Not for the impressionable or the poorly catechized.
USCCB Movie Reviews

So it's not the best introduction to the way Christianity is meant to be lived, for that one should get to know the saints. Like St. Joan of Arc, St. Maximillian Kolbe, St. Thomas More or St. Thérèse of Lisieux.

we are greatly helped not only by theological investigation but also by that great heritage which is the "lived theology" of the saints. The saints offer us precious insights which enable us to understand more easily the intuition of faith, thanks to the special enlightenment which some of them have received from the Holy Spirit, or even through their personal experience of those terrible states of trial which the mystical tradition describes as the "dark night".
St. John Paul II - Novo Millennio Ineunte

Specifically with the "that is what it is like with God," that is a terrible horrible deception.  Jesus Christ is the King of the Universe not its mascot.  There's a lot of well meaning Christians and non-Christians who take Life of Pi or The Shack as representative of Christianity, but they're just the works of individuals, not sanctioned by any Church.  The truths may resonate with the Faithful and the Catechized, but there are truths in Homer and Marx too*. It's not even necessary for Catholics to take to heart and believe all that the Saints have written.
But, back to faith and reason.  It is possible to prove the existence of God through reason.  I'm not sure if all Christianity believes this to be the case, but Catholics, like Pi, ought to.
St. Thomas Aquinas sought to do this 800 years ago with his 5 proofs.  But it's not the best way to come to know God. All Christians believe that the best way to come to know God is through meditating on the Life of Christ. Reading the Gospels and trying to do what Jesus says are the greatest commandments, Love God and Love your Neighbor.
*Simpson and Groucho at least


What is the Catholic teaching on oral sex and impotence? According to the Catholic Church, are a married couple permitted to engage in oral sex when sexual problems such as impotence make vaginal sex impossible?

Canon Law and the Catechism both have something to say on impotence.

If the impotence developed prior to the marriage, the marriage is invalid (Canon 1084 §1).
If the impotence developed after the marriage was consummated, the marriage cannot be dissolved because of it (Canon 1061 §§1–2, Canon 1141).
The Catechism insists that marriage is open to fertility.

  By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."160

    Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning (he) made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.161

  The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.162 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.163
  Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.

All of this points to sex being used for the procreation of children. The Catechism is also a little more explicit on sex for its own sake. I'm not entirely sure that the concept of oral sex had reached the hallowed halls of the Vatican when Pope S John Paul II promulgated the Catechism in 1990, but since it's effectively a form of masturbation, particularly in the wide definition the Catechism uses, this appears to be the nearest text:

  By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 ... Here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138

  To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

Consequently the answer is No: they are not permitted to engage in oral sex. There may be circumstances where culpability might be lessened, but that does not mean the practice is allowed.

The Church recognises through the Catechism that childlessness is a great burden.

  Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. "What will you give me," asks Abraham of God, "for I continue childless?"163a and Rachel cries to her husband Jacob, "Give me children, or I shall die!"164
  Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed "at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God."165

The Catechism goes on to consider IVF, which has been the subject of other questions here. However, if impotence is merely a matter of erectile dysfunction (as this question implies) then medical interventions to counter that and allow normal sex are not forbidden.

137 Persona humana 9 (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith)
138 Persona humana 9 (CDF)
160 Gaudium et Spes 48 §1; 50
161 GS 50 §1; cf Gen 2:18, Mt 19:4, Gen 1:28
162 Cf Gravissimum educationis 3
163 Cf Familiaris consortio 28
163a Gen 15:2
164 Gen 30:1
165 Donum vitae intro 2 (CDF)


Do not allow a sorceress/witch to live? I saw a witch a while back being mistreated, which deeply troubled me. I am strong proponent for Luke 6:31.

I am familiar with Exodus 22:18 which usually translates to something like: Do not allow a sorceress/witch to live.

This brings to mind one main question:

Is there anything in the Bible suggesting a better way to interpret this? Are Christians expected to commit murder? I understand innumerable witches have been murdered over the millennia but this is just not acceptable to me. The society I live in deems this illegal as well.

Then I have two sub-questions:

Is there a biblical difference between witches and sorceresses? I know there are witches out there but I have not met a sorceress.
In the Bible is the word sorceress truly gender specific? e.g. male sorcerers are exempted from this?

I am trying to reconcile this with other portions of the Bible that denounce the mistreatment of others.

Answers that cite more clear and easily understandable Bible passages will get preferential treatment for approval. The sub-questions are optional but will count towards approval should all other elements of the answer be deemed equal.

The commands God gave to Ancient Israel are normally divided into three kinds: moral, civil and ceremonial. This question and this question have more information. This one, and any of the others invoking the death penalty, certainly fall into the 'civil' category. The state of Israel (loosely speaking) would have the authority to impose the death penalty for a variety of offences, as many states do now.

Christians are no longer expected to obey "the law", which includes this kind of law, though most would say that they are expected to follow the 'moral laws', of which this is not one. That's not to say that 'witchcraft' is now OK,and God approves of it, but the authority to punish with a specific penalty doesn't apply to Christians in these times.

Because 'the state' is given power to punish an offence that does not give a random mob of people the right to harass someone.


Where can I find sources showing ecclesiastical vestments of the 1200s? In 1215 at Runneymeade, barons and clerics gathered to get King John to set his seal to the Barons' Charter. According to Roger of Wendover, among them were the pope's representative, Master (bishop) Pandulph, 2 archbishops, 10 bishops and 20 abbots.

What colours would the different ranks of clerics mentioned have worn at this period?

If anyone could point me to a reliable source on historical vestment colours according to rank, rather than seasonal liturgical use, I'd be most grateful.

ADDITION

I'm grateful for the responses, and have meanwhile followed a hunch on sumptuary law. According to Wikipedia,

  The earliest sumptuary regulations in Christian Europe were church regulations of clergy, distinguishing what ranks could wear which items of vestments or (to a lesser extent) normal clothes on particular occasions; these were already very detailed by 1200, in early recensions of canon law. Next followed regulations, again flowing from the church (by far the largest bureaucracy in Medieval Europe), attempting to enforce the wearing of distinctive clothing or badges so that members of various groups could be readily identified, as branded criminals already could be.[citation needed]

This seems a possible source, but I don't read Latin fluently. I found it via this link.

If anyone can help further, I'd be grateful.

Potential sources for this information include both written and visual accounts of the clergy. For the latter, we can look to illustrations in manuscripts, bearing in mind that the technical constraints of these illustrations mean that drawings may well be simplified in terms of colours and patterns. Also, artists may draw clergy as they "ought to be" rather than as they really were - if you need to show that someone is a bishop, you draw them in stereotypical bishop clothes. It's also important to look for sources of the correct time and place, as lonesomeday observes in comments above.

Some examples of bishops from manuscripts in the British Library include:

Roger Nigel, bishop of London, consecrating Edmund of Abington as archbishop of Canterbury in 1234, from Royal MS  14 C VIII f.122r - Matthew Paris's history of England (1250-1259).
Papal consecration of two English bishops and one archbishop in 1245, ibid. f.138v.
Portrait of Robert Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln 1235-1253, from Harley 3860 f.48

Another interesting data point is a 13th century stained glass window in Canterbury Cathedral, showing Thomas Becket. Again, the colours will partly be due to the technical possibilities and artistic demands of stained glass, but they probably can't be completely wrong for the popular image of a bishop.

As far as written sources, there is a tension between the rules for what clergy should have been wearing, and what they actually wore in practice. There is a long history of canon law trying to enforce modest dress, which in itself suggests that these laws were frequently being stretched or ignored.

Canon 16 of the Fourth Lateran Council (1216) says that clerics "are not to use red or green garments or curiously sewed together gloves, or beak-shaped shoes or gilded bridles, saddles, pectoral ornaments (for horses), spurs, or anything else indicative of superfluity." We can certainly deduce that some clergy before this date were accustomed to wear such garments. And even afterwards, there are wonderful texts like the 1342 canons of John Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbury, saying:

  [The clergy] scorn the tonsure ... and distinguish themselves with hair hanging down to their shoulders in an effeminate manner: and apparel themselves like soldiers rather than clerks, with an upper jump remarkably short and wide, with long hanging sleeves not covering the elbows: their hairs curled and powdered, and caps with tippets of a wonderful length, with long beards, and rings on their fingers, girt with girdles exceeding large and costly, having purses hanging with knives like swords in open view; their shoes chequered with red and green, exceeding long and variously pinked; with croppers to their saddles, and baubles like horns hanging down on the necks [of their horses], and cloaks furred on the edges.1

England is unusual in that clerical dress was less regulated than in mainland Europe. The canon law commentary by William Lyndwood (1429) asserts that English clergy have no fixed rule of dress, but can wear anything they like "appropriate to their estate", so long as it is not explicitly prohibited.2 His argument is that this is the long-established custom in England, which therefore prevails over ordinary legislation. This is later than your date of 1215 but the customs he refers to are older. Lyndwood's commentary says that the restriction on red and green implicitly also forbids clergy from wearing striped or multicoloured clothing - though, again, some of them undoubtedly did, even if they were not meant to.

In English canon law, the constitutions of Walter Gray for the province of York (1250) and of John Peckham for Canterbury (c. 1280) do not establish any particular colours for liturgical vestments, or for non-liturgical clerical use; though they do have norms for which garments should be worn, and who is responsible for them. The only colour references I see in Johnson are the Lateran prohibition of red and green, and the rule in Walter's Canons of 1200,

  Let not black monks or canons or nuns use coloured copes, but black only; nor any facings but black or white, made of the skins of lambs, cats, or foxes.

Given the date, this cannot refer to the Dominicans (conventionally "black friars") but must be the Benedictines ("black monks"). For abbots, practice varied probably as much as it did for bishops, although the sources of law were different. In theory, they should have been wearing basically normal monastic clothing, appropriate to their order. However:

Many monks, contrary to law, wore other things anyway.
An abbot was very likely to also be a priest, and some of them were consecrated as bishops.
Many English abbots had the privilege of dressing as if they were bishops, even if they were not consecrated as such ("mitred abbots").

Therefore, your twenty abbots might have been difficult to distinguish from the bishops and archbishops. Also, as far as I know, there's no colour that distinguishes an archbishop from a bishop.

The papal legate, Pandulf, was not a cardinal, and in 1215 he was only a subdeacon. However, I think that since he was a high-ranking legate (legatus a latere) he would have worn the red hat. This was the standard mark of direct papal representatives, which was later extended to all members of the college of cardinals, and which lent its colour to their other clothing. So he could well have been dressed as a subdeacon but with the wide-brimmed red hat we now think of as a cardinal's hat; or he might have worn more elaborate clothing, given the stature of his diplomatic mission.

1. From John Johnson's Collection of the Laws and Canons of the Church of England, vol. 2, 1851.
2. Tamen non habent certum Habitum eis deputatum nec in colore nec in forma; & ideo
possunt qualicunque veste usi, eorum statui congruenti, dummodo eis non sit expresse prohibita. Source.