1852 Das Buch Mormon text I found an audio version of Das Buch Mormon online here: http://batesbunch.com/dbm/. I was hoping to read along with it for German study, but I found that the currently published Das Buch Mormon (2003) doesn't match the recording.

There was a previous publication of Das Buch Mormon in 1852, and it believe that this may be the text used in the recording. However, I am unable to find the text for it online.

Where can I find the full text of the 1852 publication of Das Buch Mormon?

Part of the problem is the history of that particular book.  Published in 1852, when the Iron Curtain fell over East Germany all religious books published 1920 and later had to be destroyed.  Though it had to be smuggled into the country, the Soviet government generally allowed the 1852 edition to be kept and used.  This over-use of the edition made it a rare LDS book.  Available editions are now valued at $110,000.  Most of the existing editions today are held by libraries.

The University of Utah and Brigham Young University both have microfilm copies and may be able to produce a duplicate for you.  Stanford University Also appears to have this ability, but it's not 100% clear from the page I've listed.

There's undoubtadly a copy in Church Archives, but it's less likely they'll have the facilities to reproduce the book.


Why did Paul Thank God he didn't baptize some individuals? In his first letter to Corinth, Paul notes that he is thankful he did not have to baptize some individuals.

  14: I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius

  15: so no one can say that you were baptized in my name.

  16: (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.)

  17: For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
   - 1 Corinthians 1:14-17

Why is Paul glad of such a thing if in the book of Mark Jesus commands:

  'Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does
  not believe will be condemned.' - Mark 16:16

And Peter:

  Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - Acts 2:38

Does this mean:

Paul didn't want to be glorified (v.15)
Their faith was so strong that Paul did not need to baptize them? (i.e. is baptism considered a work in this context? ('lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.' or Ephesians 2:18))
They would get baptized later because of their strong faith & commitment to Christ
Something else? How should this verse be interpreted?

In-other words, Is Paul fulfilling his duty as a disciple?

The First Epistle to the Corinthians opens with an expanded address (1 Corinthians 1:1-7), identifying its writer as the apostle Paul who, with Sosthenes, was writing to the church community in Corinth. After a warm opening address, Paul urges the Corinthians to agree in what they say, and to be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. The reason for this is that Chloe's people had reported to Paul that were rivalries among them.  This rivalry seems to originate from divisions among the Corinthians as to whether their chief loyalties were to Paul, Apollos, Cephas or Christ. By this, the reason for the unusually expanded opening address becomes apparent, because in that address Paul is emphasising the primacy of Jesus.

Paul subtly nullifies these allegiances, first by saying he is thankful that he baptised none of the Corinthians except Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas, so that no one involved in these disputes can say they were baptised in Paul's name. Then, in 1 Corinthians 1:31, he concludes his demolition of any self-importance his rivals may feel, by citing an Old Testament saying, "Whoever boasts, should boast in the Lord."

Paul does not regret the baptism of the Corinthians. Instead, he recognises that the divisions and contentions of which he speaks in 1:10-11 originated because sectarian loyalties to individual apostles were taking precedence over faith in Jesus, and he does not want to be part of that. He also recognises, as we can see in 1:31, that these apostles were encouraging sectarian divisions among the Christians in Corinth.


Do the temples need cleaning? I find a lot of church practices wrong and I always feel I have joined the wrong family, and fear my salvation will be affected in the end.
Is it right for selling and buying to go on in or around the church premise during programs?
In Jesus' day he,

  "...found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and
  the changers of money sitting,... he drove them all out of the
  temple... And said unto them...Take these things hence; make not my
  Father’s house an house of merchandise." (John 2:14-16).

It is obvious that what is happening today is just in another form, modernised when journals, bibles, church newspapers etc are always being displayed.
We get guest speakers who set up their books, cds and tapes to be sold after their sermon. I dont want to talk much but please, someone tell me if we are safe.

This story is told in all four of the gospels:

  Matthew 21:12-13 (ESV)
  12  And Jesus entered the temple[a] and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of
  the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13 He said
  to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’
  but you make it a den of robbers.”

  Mark 11:15-17 (ESV)
  15  And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the
  temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in
  the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the
  seats of those who sold pigeons. 16 And he would not allow anyone to
  carry anything through the temple. 17 And he was teaching them and
  saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house
  of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of
  robbers.”

  Luke 19:45-46 (ESV)
  45  And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, 46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be
  a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.”

As you can see they all add the phrase "den of robbers", Jesus' focus was on the motives and heart of those doing the selling. In a place of prayer and worship they were taking advantage (and perhaps even worse) of worshipers. I don't know your pastors or the guest speakers you've had so it's impossible for me to tell you whether what they are doing is wrong or not, so I'd encourage you to talk with them (your pastors) about your concerns if you can.


According to Roman Catholicism, are humans the only beings that can be tempted? If Jesus got tempted for 40 days does it mean Satan can tempt God? Are humans the only ones that are tempted because of flesh or even in spirit there is still temptation, or are angels and saints also tempted? My understanding is that Satan and his associates were once good angels before going against God.

I'd like this answered according to Roman Catholic doctrine, please.

The saints are in heaven, and presumably immune from temptation. They "are in glory, contemplating 'in full light, God himself, triune and one, exactly as he is.'" (CCC954)
The angels "are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendour of their glory bears witness." (CCC 330)
Thus neither saints nor angels can be tempted. That does not mean that they do not have free will; merely that they are protected from temptation by their perfection in heaven.
Lucifer is the agent of temptation. "The Devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing" (Lateran Council, 1215; CCC391).

Scripture (2 Pet 2:4) speaks of the sin of these angels. This "fall" consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign.
(CCC392)

Temptation is the luring away from the will of God, and sin its rejection (that is, accepting the lure) by the exercise of free will contrary to his ordinances. Only creatures with free will can be tempted. The Catechism shies away from explicitly saying that animals do not have free will, although it certainly implies that (CCC1730–1738), and it is likely that animals cannot reject what is right; they simply do as they will, even though they might seem remorseful afterwards.
With regard to Satan tempting God in Christ, don't forget that Jesus was fully man (as well as fully God). As a man, he had free will. However, he doesn't reject God's will, because that would be to deny himself as God. Satan's attempt was entirely forlorn — doomed from the outset — but by being obedient to the divine will, Jesus offers us something to emulate.

Jesus is the new Adam who remained faithful just where the first Adam had given in to temptation. Jesus fulfils Israel's vocation perfectly: in contrast to those who had once provoked God during forty years in the desert, Christ reveals himself as God's Servant, totally obedient to the divine will. In this, Jesus is the devil's conqueror: he "binds the strong man" to take back his plunder. Jesus' victory over the tempter in the desert anticipates victory at the Passion, the supreme act of obedience of his filial love for the Father.
Jesus' temptation reveals the way in which the Son of God is Messiah, contrary to the way Satan proposes to him and the way men wish to attribute to him.
(CCC539–540)

So, yes: by a process of elimination, human beings are the only beings who can be tempted.


Is Holy Absolution necessary in the Lutheran Church? I know that Lutherans, as the Roman Catholics, practice private absolution. However is that how sins are forgiven in the Lutheran Church? Or is it just a reassurance, so to say, of the forgiveness of sins?

Absolution concept is found in the Roman Catholic Church, as well as the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Anglican churches, Lutheran churches and Methodist churches.

Lutherans practice "confession and absolution" in two forms:

The first form of confession and absolution is done at the Divine Service with the assembled congregation (similar to the Anglican tradition). Here, the entire congregation pauses for a moment of silent confession, recites the confiteor, and receives God's forgiveness through the pastor as he says the following (or similar): "Upon this your confession and in the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ, I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
The second form of confession and absolution is known as "Holy Absolution", which is done privately to the pastor (commonly only upon request). Here the person confessing (known as the "penitent") confesses his individual sins and makes an act of contrition as the pastor, acting in persona Christi, announces this following formula of absolution (or similar): "In the stead and by the command of my Lord Jesus Christ I forgive you all your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Holy Absolution is there for people who feel they need it.


What does Matthew 19:8 teach us about the law given by Moses? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. [Matthew 19:8 KJV]

I recently read this passage while studying ANE Code vs Biblical law.  In the past I've always focused on the topic of marriage, but it donned on me that Jesus' words may have significant insight into the integrity of the law that Moses gave, not to mention the binding nature of Moses' words if he was in fact operating under his delegated authority.

There's a few directions to take this conversation so I'll keep it focused on the law for now.  Was the command Moses gave a compromise?  Jesus said Moses allowed it, but it wasn't that way from the beginning.  That sounds like a compromise.

If this command is a compromise and this command is considered law within the covenant, does this mean parts of the law are made up of compromises that don't reflect God's heart?

This leads me back to my original question, what does Matthew 19:8 teach us about the laws given by Moses?

In order to better understand what Jesus means in Matthew 19:8, it is profitable to consider why the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus.  They asked him if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife “for any and every reason”.  This comment is made in the New International Version Study Bible regarding Matthew 19:3.  Matthew was writing to the Jews...

...who were aware of the dispute between the schools of Shammai and Hillel over the interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4.  Shammai held that “something indecent” meant “marital unfaithfulness” – the only allowable cause for divorce.  Hillel (c. 60 B.C. – A.D. 20) emphasised the preceding clause, “who becomes displeasing to him”.  He would allow a man to divorce his wife if she did anything he disliked – even if she burned his food while cooking it.  Jesus clearly took the side of Shammai (see verse 9), but only after first pointing back to God’s original ideal for marriage in Genesis 1:27; 2:24.

The Hebrew phrase used in Deuteronomy 24:1 was usually a reference to sexual indecency such as adultery (Leviticus 18:6-18) or indecent exposure (Deuteronomy 23:14).  When Jesus responded to the Pharisees he reminded them that it was never God’s intention for a man to divorce his wife.  The “beginning” in Matthew 19:8 refers to Adam and Eve who had been joined together in a lifelong union.

Though divorce was not part of God’s original plan for marriage, sinful humanity demanded it, and the Mosaic Law addressed occasions when it was permissible. Jesus and the New Testament teachings affirm the original intent of marriage as being a lifelong relationship between a man and woman while specifying limited occasions when divorce is acceptable. Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-24-divorce.html

Malachi 2:13-16 is also worth considering.  God hates divorce because marriage is not a contract.  Marriage is a covenant and divorce destroys the whole concept of this important covenant.  Here is a brief extract from an article on this point:

Marriage is a picture of the covenant God has with His people (Hebrews 9:15). A covenant is an unbreakable commitment, and God wants us to understand how serious it is. When we divorce someone with whom we made a covenant, it makes a mockery of the God-created concept of covenant relationship. The Church (those individuals who have received Jesus as Savior and Lord) is presented in Scripture as the “Bride of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:2; Revelation 19:7-9). We, as His people, are "married" to Him through a covenant that He established. A similar illustration is used in Isaiah 54:5 of God and Israel.
When God instituted marriage in the Garden of Eden, He created it as a picture of the greatest unity human beings can know (Genesis 2:24). He wanted us to understand the unity we can have with Him through redemption (1 Corinthians 6:17). When a husband or wife chooses to violate that covenant of marriage, it mars the picture of God’s covenant with us.
When Jesus was asked why the Law permitted divorce, He responded that God had only allowed it "because of the hardness of your hearts, but from the beginning it was not so" (Matthew 19:8). God never intended divorce to be a part of human experience, and it grieves Him when we harden our hearts and break a covenant that He created. Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/God-hates-divorce.html

Moses wasn’t making it up as he went along; rather God himself is the author of the Mosaic Law that was given to His people through Moses, his spokesman.  If Moses had exceeded the authority ascribed to him by God, then Jesus, God incarnate, would not have told the hypocritical Pharisees that although Moses “allowed” for divorce in the Law it was never part of God’s divine plan for men to divorce their wives.  That God permits divorce (on the basis of adultery) even though he hates divorce suggests that God Himself made allowances by making provision for divorce within the Law.
Jesus' words have significance, not regarding the integrity of the law that God gave to Moses, but to the manner in which men have hardened their hearts against God’s binding covenants, marriage being one of them.  Jesus reminds us that there are occasions when God permits His people to do things that grieve Him.  Also, Jesus’ words remind us that marriage is a serious, life-long covenant.


How do Catholics speak with their Guardian angels? According to Catholic teachings, how are Catholics to speak with their guardian angels?  With their voice?  In their minds?  Does the Church provide any guidance or description?

Interaction with a guardian angel will vary from person to person because it takes on the character of a spiritual encounter.  There is some guidance in the Catechism that may help answer your question.

TL:DR; The most likely way to speak with your guardian angel is through prayer.   With the mind? Yes.  With the voice?  Yes.  In other ways?  Yes.

I'll explain how I arrive at that conclusion.  (Prayer need not be formal.  It can be informal communication of a prayerful nature).

On the nature of Angels

In (CCC 329) St Augustine is called upon to provide insight:

  'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek
  the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of
  their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what
  they do, 'angel.'"

In the same article, the angels' role, to include some helpful guidance from Jesus:

  With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God.
  Because they "always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven"
  they are the "mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of
  his word". (Matthew 18:10; Psalm 103)

A few articles down, we find this heading ...

The angels in the Life of the Church

CCC 334-336 explains it with reasonable brevity.

  ... the whole life of the Church benefits from the mysterious and
  powerful help of angels.  In her liturgy, the Church joins with the
  angels to adore the thrice-holy God.  She invokes their assistance (in
  the Roman Canon's Supplices te rogamus . . .{"Almighty God, we pray
  that your angel..."}; in the funeral liturgy's In Paradisum deducant
  te angeli. . .{"May the angels lead you into Paradise. . ."}).
  Moreover, in the "Cherubic Hymn" of the Byzantine Liturgy, she
  celebrates the memory of certain angels more particularly (St.
  Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael, and the guardian angels).  From
  infancy to death human life is surrounded by their watchful care and
  intercession.1 "Beside each believer stands an angel as
  protector and shepherd leading him to life."2

How to communicate

Collectively, the church communicates with the angels through prayer.
Personally, any of the faithful can communicate to angels in prayer.  A classic example is this prayer to St Michael.

  St. Michael the Archangel,  defend us in battle.  Be our defense
  against the wickedness and snares of the Devil.  May God rebuke him,
  we humbly pray,   and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the
  power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who
  prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Through our actions.  The church believes that the guardian angel stands "beside each believer" -- the implication is that the angel is aware of what the believer they have the care of is doing.  Not too far of a reach, if you already accept as a matter of faith that there are angels, and that we each have a guardian angel.
Through personal prayer.  If the Church can collectively communicate with the angel through prayer, a single member of the faithful can do the same.  Since a guardian angel of the same nature as any other angel, prayer will work.
Through conversation.  Be it silent and mental, or verbal/spoken communication, a key to believing that we can communicate with our guardian angel is linked to their aforementioned capacity for intercession.  Prayers for intercession are very common forms of prayer.  Given that the angel is near by, simple prayer, or a simple request prayerful or otherwise, should be effective.

Isn't communication a two way street?

Yes.  How to listen, how to learn to listen, and how to pick up cues of response to prayer (be it angelic response or from higher authority) is one of the places where spiritual experience will vary.  You may hear your angel's voice.  I may only be provided signs and portents.  Another person may see something in particular.

Follow up on St Augustine: since the nature of the angel is of spirit, encounters with angels take on a spiritual character.  A common form of spiritual encounter is through prayer, although there are other forms.

What is prayer?  From CCC 2558:

  For me, prayer is a surge of the heart;
  it is a simple look turned toward heaven,
  it is a cry of recognition and of love,
  embracing both trial and joy.
  ~ St. Therese of Lisieux, Manuscrits autobiographiques

To sum up all of the above

The most likely way to communicate with one's guardian angel is through prayer.  It isn't the only way, but based on the church's teaching on guardian angels and angels in general, it seems to simplest way to do it.  To a certain extent it probably doesn't matter, since the guardian angel is aware of what we do and what we need.

If the desire to communicate arises  ...  communicate.

1 Matthew 18:10; ⇒ Luke 16:22; ⇒ Psalms 34:7; 1:10-13; ⇒ Job 33:23-24; ⇒ Zecharaiah 1:12
2 St. Basil, Eunomium III, I: PG 29, 656B.


Is there a German version of the Message Bible? Is there a German translation of the Message Bible?  I've read other German versions, but I can't find something as vivid and contemporary.

Not currently.

According to Worldcat.org (links to the original new Testament version, for expansion including Psalms and Proverbs see here, for complete Protestant canon Bible see here), the Message version has only been published in English.


What are the relationships between 'Bible', 'Hebrew Bible', 'Aramaic Bible', 'Tanakh' etc? What are the relationships between the terms 'Bible', 'Hebrew Bible', 'Aramaic Bible', 'Greek Bible', 'King's Bible', 'Torah', 'Tanakh', 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament'?

Wikipedia seem to have separate articles for each of them and the discussion is pretty convoluted.

Which of these are parts of other ones?

The term 'Bible' seems to mean different things to different people.

Is the Bible a Christian or Jewish scripture?

I would appreciate an overview of how these terms are related.

Bible
The English word "bible" is a transliteration of the Greek word βίβλος (English transliteration: biblos). This Greek word is typically translated into English as "book" or "scroll" (cp. Matt. 1:1).
Papyrus used to be exported to the Aegean through the Phonecian city of Geval, which was known as Βύβλος (English transliteration: Byblos) by the Greeks.
The philosopher Theophrastus wrote concerning papyrus (πάπυρος) in his Περί Φυτών Ιστορίας ("On the History of Plants"), Book 4.8.3,

The papyrus itself is useful for many purposes; for they make boats from it, and from the rind (τῆς βίβλου) they weave sails, mats, a kind of rainment, coverlets, ropes, and many other things. Most familiar to foreigners are the papyrus-rolls (τὰ βιβλία) made of it; but above all the plant also is of very great use in the way of food. For all the natives chew the papyrus both raw, boiled, and roasted; they swallow the juice and spit out the quid. Such is the papyrus and its uses. It grows also in Syria about the lake in which grows also sweet-flag; and Antigonus made of it the cables for his ships.
αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ πάπυρος πρὸς πλεῖστα χρήσιμος. καὶ γὰρ πλοῖα ποιοῦσιν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐκ τῆς βίβλου ἱστία τε πλέκουσι καὶ ψιάθους καὶ ἐσθῆτά τινα καὶ στρωμνὰς καὶ σχοινία τε καὶ ἕτερα πλείω. καὶ ἐμφανέστατα δὴ τοῖς ἔξω τὰ βιβλία. μάλιστα δὲ καὶ πλείστη βοήθεια πρὸς τὴν τροφὴν ἀπ' αὐτοῦ γίνεται. μασῶνται γὰρ ἅπαντες οἱ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ τὸν πάπυρον καὶ ὠμὸν καὶ ἑφθὸν καὶ ὀπτόν. καὶ τὸν μὲν χυλὸν καταπίνουσι, τὸ δὲ μάσημα ἐκβάλλουσιν. ὁ μὲν οὖν πάπυρος τοιοῦτός τε καὶ ταύτας παρέχεται τὰς χρείας. γίνεται δὲ καὶ ἐν Συρίᾳ περὶ τὴν λίμνην ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ κάλαμος ὁ εὐώδης. ὅθεν καὶ Ἀντίγονος εἰς τὰς ναῦς ἐποιεῖτο τὰ σχοινία.

| English & Greek |
For more information, see:
Pliny, Historia Naturalis ("Natural History"), Book XIII, Ch. XXI-XXVI | English | Latin |
Hebrew Bible / Tanakh
The Hebrew scriptures maintained by the Jewish people are commonly referred to in Hebrew by the acronym תַּנַ"ךְ (English transliteration: Tanakh). This acronym stands for תּוֹרָה, נְבִיאִים, כְּתוּבִים (English transliteration: Torah, Nevi'im, Ktuvim), or in English, "Law, Prophets, Writings." Another Hebrew word used in reference to the Hebrew scriptures is מִקְרָא (English transliteration: mikra). The Tanakh consists of twenty-four books. It could be referred to as "the Hebrew Bible," but this phrase isn't commonly expressed in English by the Jewish people to refer to the Tanakh. Most Jews simply say mikra or Tanakh to refer to the collection of the twenty-four books of the Hebrew scriptures.

While the Christian Bible separates I and II Samuel into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (שְׁמוּאֵל; Shmu'el).

While the Christian Bible separates I and II Kings into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (מְלָכִים; Melakhim).

While the Christian Bible separates I and II Chronnicles into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים; Divrei ha-Yamim).

While the Christian Bible separates Ezra and Nehemiah into two books, the Jewish Bible consolidates them into one book (עֶזְרָא/ נְחֶמְיָה; Ezra/ Nechemyah).

In addition, the Christian Bible separates the twelve minor prophets into twelve individual books, but Jewish Bible consolidates the twelve minor prophets into one book.

Recommended websites:

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/

Torah
The Torah (תּוֹרָה) is simply the first five books of the Jewish Bible:

בְּרֵאשִׁית (English transliteration: Bereshit; lit. "In the beginning," "Genesis")
שְׁמוֹת (English transliteration: Shmot; lit. "Names of," "Exodus")
וַיִּקְרָא (English transliteration: Vayikra; lit. "And he called," "Leviticus")
בְּמִדְבַּר (English transliteration: Bemidbar; lit. "In the wilderness," "Numbers")
דְּבָרִים (English transliteration: Dvarim; lit. "Words," "Deuteronomy")

It is also known as חֻמָּשׁ (English transliteration: chumash), related to the word חָמֵשׁ (English transliteration: chamesh), meaning "five."
Aramaic Bible
This is commonly known as a תַּרְגּוּם (English transliteration: targum). There are actually multiple targums, or targumim. During a particular era of Jewish history, Aramaic was the predominate language of the Jewish people. Since their scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, yet the Jewish people were more literate in the Aramaic language, a few individuals took the initiative to produce Aramaic translations (and thus, interpretations) of the Hebrew scriptures in order to facilitate the understanding of the Hebrew scriptures. One such individual was Yonatan ben Uzzi'el (יוֹנָתָן בֶּן עוּזִּיאֵל), and another, Unkelos or "Onkelos" (אוּנְקְלוֹס), who was a convert to Judaism. There are a few other targumim beside these, including the Targum Neofiti. Onkelos supposedly made a targum of the Torah alone, while Yonatan ben Uzzi'el supposedly made a targum of the Nevi'im and Ktuvim. However, there's a bit of confusion on this matter.
Recommended websites:

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/i/t/u/u0.htm
English Translation of Targum of 1 Samuel
English Translation of Targum of Ruth
English Translation of Targum of Song of Songs
English Translation of Targum of Lamentations
English Translation of Targum of Isaiah

Greek Bible
The Greek Bible, or rather, the Greek Septuagint (also known as "LXX"), but in Greek, ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα, is the Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh produced by approximately 70-72 Jewish scholars in approximately 250 B.C. at the behest of King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt.
The account of this translation is testified by the Jewish historian Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, the Epistle of Aristeas, as well as the Babylonian Talmud.
For more information, see:

Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews," Book XII, Ch. II, §1-2  | English & Greek |
Philo, "On the Life of Moses," Book II, Ch. V-VII, §31-38 | English | Greek |
Babylonian Talmud, Seder Mo'ed, Tractate Megilla, Chapter 1, Folio 9a-9b | English | Hebrew |
Epistle of Aristeas, §35-50 | English | Greek |

It should be noted that the original Septuagint is no longer extant (just like the original manuscripts of the Bible are no longer extant). What exists today is essentially a compilation of all the Greek manuscripts of the Hebrew Tanakh that were produced during that era; this is what we call the "Septuagint." One individual responsible for this compilation was Origen who produced the Hexapla.
Recommded websites:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/sep/

Sir Lancelot Brenton produced an English translation of the Greek Septuagint in 1851, available here.

(ongoing edit in progress)


What is the purpose of offering a mass for someone? I recently made a donation to a Catholic organization and was told that, as a thank you, a mass would be offered for me. What does this mean? Does this mean that I have "sponsored" the mass in the same way that an organization might sponsor a television program? Is it a special kind of prayer for me? What is the purpose of offering a mass for someone?

What is the purpose of offering a mass for someone?

What is a Mass Intention?

  Mass Intention

  Definition

  The object for which a priest offers the Eucharistic Sacrifice. This intention is distinct from the priest's decision to offer Mass, which is necessary for valid celebration. It is also distinct from the effects of the Mass which benefit those who take part in the sacrifice and attend the Mass. These are called the special fruits of the Mass and extensively are without limit, as are also the effects on the entire Church, called the general fruits of the Mass.

  Mass intentions refer to the particular purpose for which a specific Mass is offered. This may be to honor God or thank him for blessings received. But technically a Mass intention means that the sacrifice is offered for some person(s) living or dead. Also called the application of a Mass, it pertains to the ministerial fruits of the Mass. These fruits are both extensively and intensively finite in virtue of the positive will of Christ. Other things being equal, the more often the sacrifice is offered the more benefit is conferred.

  The intention for which a priest offers a Mass is determined either by the common law of the Church, or by specific precept, or, most often, by the intention of the donor of a Mass stipend, or by the priest's own devotion. Since it is not absolutely certain that the ministerial fruits of the Mass are limited, a priest may conditionally (if the one giving the stipend suffers no loss thereby) offer the Mass for several intentions. It is assumed that the priest does not intend by these second or third intentions to fulfill an obligation of justice by these conditional applications. - Catholic Dictionary

At a concelebrated Mass each priest say Mass for a different intention.

  When a Mass is concelebrated, each priest offers the sacrifice of the Mass. This means that each priest is able to have his own intention. The fact that they are concelebrating i.e., offering their Masses at the same time and in the same location, does not alter the fact that each priest is celebrating Mass. - Canon Law Made Easy

In the end, the organization will have a Mass offered up for your intentions. My guess is that your name will be added to a list of benefactors of this charitable organization and that a special mass will be offered for all your intentions together, perhaps at a special altar or a particular time (Christmas).

This tradition is also seen in St. Augustine’s Confessions (c. 397), where St. Monica (his mother) asks St. Augustine: “One thing only I ask you, that you remember me at the altar of the Lord.”

  Pope Paul VI said, “The Mass is the most perfect form of prayer!” It has immense power and countless miracles and conversions have occurred throughout the centuries by offering Masses for a specific intention or person. Mass intentions are a great treasure of the Church and have a spiritual weight that is incalculable. - What are Mass intentions?


According to the Catholicism, is a conscious denial of the gospel of Christ a mortal sin? For example, say there is a 28 year old Muslim woman living in Afghanistan. Her whole life, her family, friends, and community have told her to "stay away from those pagan Christians because they believe in three gods". So when she meets Christians that try to explain the gospel to her, she conciously denies it.

One day, on her way to volunteer for an orphanage, a man viciously beats her to death.

Is this woman's concious denial of the gospel a mortal sin that causes God to subject her to having her flesh burned forever and ever in eternal hellfire?

The short answer is “not necessarily”.
“Conscious” denial of the Gospel is not the same thing as denial “with full knowledge.”
“Grave matter” vs. “mortal sin”
In Catholic moral theology, a distinction is made between the objective gravity of an action, and a person’s subjective culpability.
For example (to name an action that everyone agrees is gravely disordered), killing an innocent person is clearly gravely wrong. It is possible, however, that the perpetrator of the crime not responsible, or not fully responsible, for his actions (if, for example, his is not mentally competent).
When the action itself is gravely disordered (gravely immoral), in Catholic terminology, it is called grave matter for sin. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC] 1858.)
For such an action to be a mortal sin (that is, for the person to be fully responsible for that action), three conditions must be met:

The matter must be grave (i.e., the action committed must be, objectively speaking, gravely immoral).
The person must fully understand what he is doing.
The person must freely and deliberately perform the action.

(See CCC 1857, more fully explained  in nos. 1859-1861.)
Hence, someone who honestly and innocently does not know that a certain action is wrong, or acts, say, out of grave fear, then he is not fully responsible for that action (and might even be completely free from responsibility in certain circumstances).
That does not mean that the action itself is not evil; however, determining personal culpability is more complex than simply assessing the objective goodness or evil of an action.
Applied to denying the Gospel
In the scenario described by the O.P., although refusing to believe in the Gospel is certainly grave matter, the person in question is clearly misinformed about the Gospel.
Moreover, there are a number of other factors that probably diminish (and, in my opinion, eliminate) her responsibility:

Prejudices learned from youth against Christianity. (E.g., if you are taught all your life that Christians are “pagans,” you will have a harder time being convinced by them—and this is not your fault, obviously.)
Grave fear of the consequences of converting. Regrettably, in most Muslim societies, there is not much tolerance of those who become Christian (and in many cases, it leads to the convert’s exile or death).

In conclusion, then, it is extremely unlikely that her “conscious” denial of the Gospel would be held against her by God.
Not an impediment to salvation, but not a guarantee, either
Note that we are speaking about a person who is (1) gravely misinformed about the Faith, to the point of thinking that it is evil; and (2) in grave fear of converting. In a case like this, the objectively grave matter of refusing to believe cannot be imputed to the person (although it remains grave matter).
Hence, it is not an impediment to the person’s salvation. It is not, however a guarantee of salvation, and in fact, salvation is (at least objectively speaking) harder to obtain, since the person is deprived of all the helps that being a believer entails.
The Church teaches that God gives the opportunity of salvation to all men:

[W]e ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery (Gaudium et Spes 22).

This is not, of course, a guarantee of salvation, but requires the grace of God and at least the implicit acceptance of that grace on the person’s part, which would require that person, among other things, to behave in accord with his conscience.
For a fuller treatment of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation,* and how non-Catholics (and even con-Christians) can be saved, see a document called Dominus Iesus, issued in 2000 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, especially Chapter VI, which reads in part:

[I]t must be firmly believed that “the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door”[Lumen gentium, 14]. This doctrine must not be set against the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4); “it is necessary to keep these two truths together, namely, the real possibility of salvation in Christ for all mankind and the necessity of the Church for this salvation” [Redemptoris missio, 9] (No. 20).
[…]
With respect to the way in which the salvific grace of God—which is always given by means of Christ in the Spirit and has a mysterious relationship to the Church—comes to individual non-Christians, the Second Vatican Council limited itself to the statement that God bestows it “in ways known to himself” (No. 21; the quote is from the passage of Gaudium et Spes given above).

* Although it does not directly address the question as asked, it is useful background to address the issue of the contentious dogma Extra ecclesia nulla salus (“Outside the Church there is no salvation.”)
This dogma was first formulated by the Church Fathers of the third century. The Church at the time was conflicted by various heretical and schismatic groups, as well as the pastoral problem of the so-called lapsi (those who caved in to demands to renounce their faith or sacrifice to pagan gods by their persecutors). The first formulation of the dogma appears in the writings of Cyprian of Carthage (d. ca. 258). Hence, Cyprian should be understood to mean, “salvation is not to be found by (deliberately) adhering to heretical or schismatic sects,” but only in the Catholic Church.
This dogma was reaffirmed multiple times, most notably in the Council of Florence, in which the Eastern Orthodox were briefly reunited with the Catholic Church. In the profession of faith Cantate domino, the doctrine is stated as follows:

[The Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives.

There are a couple of points to keep in mind here:

The Council effected a reunion between groups that had previously considered each other schismatic and (to varying degrees) heretical. It would be absurd for each party to affirm that, prior to the reunion, all  members of the respective faithful in the opposing camp were destined to eternal condemnation, simply because the reunion had not yet been effected. Hence, there is an assumption in this passage that the refusal to be united to the Church is deliberate.

It leaves a way out for those who are acting out of invincible ignorance or grave fear: they must be jointed to the Church before the end of their lives. It does not specify the manner in which they are joined, which could be in a way that is extra-sacramental (as with the Catechumens).

(Note that the Church has a long history—dating back at least to Tertullian—of recognizing the so-called “baptism of desire”—the desire of catechumens for Baptism—and “baptism by blood”—that is, the martyrdom of the non-baptized. In other words, those who explicitly desire Baptism but are not able to receive it, and those who give their lives for the Faith, even before their Baptism, can still be saved. See CCC 1257-1261.)
The dogma was given further scrutiny after the discovery of the Americas. (Recall that the Council of Florence concluded in 1449; Columbus set sail in 1492.) Before that time, most Europeans assumed that the Gospel had essentially already been preached to the whole world. It soon became clear, however, that vast numbers of people had simply never been evangelized. Theologians of time (e.g., Francisco de Vitoria and the School of Salamanca) recognized that it was absurd to affirm that the native Americans were condemned simply because they had not been evangelized.
The Church has specifically condemned a “rigoristic” interpretation of this dogma (i.e., that formal membership in the Catholic Church is a strict and absolute requirement for salvation), most notably in a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith condemning the rigoristic interpretation of Jesuit Father Leonard Feeney.
Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes, mentioned above, goes so far as to teach that God offers the possibility (not the guarantee!) of salvation to all men without exception, as mentioned.
The most current authoritative interpretations of this dogma are found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church nos. 846-848 and the document Dominus Iesus mentioned above.
In summary, the Church teaches the following:

Objectively, all men are obliged to avail themselves of the means of salvation, which includes membership in the Catholic Church.
Those who are unable to be full members of the Church through no fault of their own (i.e., the usual mitigating circumstances: invincible ignorance, grave fear, etc.) are nevertheless offered the possibility of salvation in ways known to God alone.
That salvation is in any case mediated through the Catholic Church, even if the person is not initially aware of it. (For Christians, they participate in certain elements of the Catholic Church that are effective for salvation; in particular, they all take part in the one Baptism, and some groups, like the Orthodox, even enjoy all seven Sacraments.)

In this way, we can still affirm that outside the Church there is no salvation, without affirming that God condemns people for actions that are not their fault.


Was Satan created to accuse, or has he assumed that role in rebellion? What is an overview of Evangelical Protestant doctrines concerning Satan's intended job before he fell?

That is, is it his divinely ordained office to act as an accuser in the same manner that the destroyer carries out his office (cf Rev 9:11), or is Satan's action of accusing rebellion against God?

It is important to look at the context of Revelation 9:11. The Destroyer is released from the abyss by the star that fell from heaven.

  And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
  -- Revelation 9:1

Given this, there can be no doubt that Satan is the one responsible for the release of the inhabitants of the pit, and that the pit is part of the earthly realm.

We are also shown the purpose of the abyss:

  And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
  -- Revelation 20:1-3

The abyss is a place to which God confines those heavenly powers who are bent on destruction.

So, Revelation 9:11 depicts Satan being given the keys to set loose the powers of destruction from their place of confinement.

Now, harken back to the story of Job, where Satan responds to God's esteem for Job's diligent practice of his religion:

  Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
  -- Job 1:10

The only characters in the story of Job who are aware of this "hedge", are God and Satan. God knows about it because He put it there, and Satan knows about it because he has been confined to the region outside of its bounds (on all sides), which has hitherto kept Job beyond his reach.

Contrary to the understanding of some, Job, like all men, sinned. However, because his sin is not related to adherence to the Law, which we know was impeccable, it often goes unnoticed. Job's sin was related to the fact that he'd forgotten the "purpose" of his Law keeping, which is to advertise God's goodness and bring glory to Him.

Now, in order to give Job the opportunity to realise and repent of his sin, God needed to allow access through the hedge, to the powers of destruction. So, He gave the "keys" to the hedge to Satan.

  And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
  -- Job 1:12

The scenario depicted in Revelation 9 is the same scenario depicted here in Job, but on a global scale.

Was Satan created to accuse?

There is nothing in scripture to support the idea that God made automatons of any of His creatures. Rather, the clear vibe of scripture is that God gave all his created beings the same freedom to do as they please as He, Himself, possesses. This is strongly supported by the fact that both angels and man have the capacity for sin, i.e. to choose whether or not it pleases them to act in concord or discord with the commandments of God. Peter tells us that their sin was the reason the angels were cast from heaven (2 Peter 2:4).

No, Satan was not created to accuse. He was created with the freedom to choose his own path, which Jesus tells us (Matthew 25:41) will ultimately lead him and other like minded souls, to eternal separation from God, in Hell.


The Wretched Word "Miser" I have only a vague recollection of it, but I could swear that I was taught that the word "wretched" in the Bible, and "miser" in Latin, referred to poor people. I may have learned this in communicants class. If so, then that's 50 years ago.

Is there a Latin hymn with "miser" in it? Can anyone think of a context in which one might have been taught about the word "miser"?

Revelations 3:17
The word "miser" appears appears in the Latin text of Revelations 3:17:

quia dicis quod dives sum et locupletatus et nullius egeo et nescis quia tu es miser et miserabilis et pauper et caecus et nudus

Strictly the word means miserable, but here it is often also translated to mean wretched. This is distinct itself from poor, which is "pauper" in the above translation.
Psalms 37:7
It also appears in the Latin text of Psalms 37:7:

miser factus sum et curvatus sum usque ad finem tota die contristatus ingrediebar

Here it is often also translated to wicked in other biblical translations.
Isaiah 16:4
It also appears in the Latin text of Isaiah 16:4:

habitabunt apud te profugi mei Moab esto latibulum eorum a facie vastatoris finitus est enim pulvis consummatus est miser defecit qui conculcabat terram

Here it is often also translated to aggressor or oppressor, or the like in other biblical translations.


New Testament Poetry In the Old Testament, there are lengthy poetic passages or entire books of poetry (e.g. Song of Songs). What poetry, if any is there in the New Testament?

John 1:1-18 and Luke 1:46-55 seem like candidates to me.

1 Corinthians chapter 13 is called the Hymn of Love and is thought to be a pre-Pauline hymn that Paul was quoting. Perhaps the most beautiful English rendition of the poem or song is the the King James Bible, but unfortunately it translates ἀγάπην as 'charity', rather that 'love'. The Hymn of Love, from the KJV, amended to speak of 'love':

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

1 Peter 3:18-22, which Burton L. Mack, in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 91, calls a ‘Christ hymn’, and says is a genre that became popular among early Christians.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

A form of ancient poetry, quite different to modern ideas of poetry was the chiasm (from the Greek letter chi, χ), or chiastic structure. In these structures, an opening set of events is mirrored by a second set. They were used extensively in the Old Testament and, to a lesser extent, in the New Testament, but perhaps no more so than in Mark's Gospel. Here is an example paraphrased from Mark 3:20-4:1 (with three verses of prose interposed at 3:27-29):

a  The multitude is so thick that they could not so much as eat bread (3:20)
.b Jesus' friends say he is beside himself (3:21)
..c    Scribes say Jesus is possessed and by the devil casts out devils (3:22)
...d   How can Satan cast out Satan? (3:23)
....e  If a kingdom be divided the kingdom can not stand (3:24)
....e' If a house be divided the house can not stand (3:25)
...d'  If Satan is divided he can not win (3:26)
..c'   Because they said Jesus has an unclean spirit (3:30)
.b'    Jesus' family comes to him. Jesus says his followers are his family (3:31-35)
a' The multitude is so thick that Jesus enters a boat (4:1)

Luke's Magnificat is a poem modelled on Hannah's prayer from the Old Testament. It is
the first of four canticles in the opening of Luke’s Gospel and is a beautiful hymn spoken by Mary, at Luke 1:46-55:-

46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
50 And his mercy is on them that fear him for all generations.
51 He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
54 He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
55 As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.


Is repenting the same as it always has been or do we in the New Covenant repent in a new way? (Roman Catholic perspective) In Judaism you repent to get back to "normal" or back to God. Another reason is to stop the consequence of sin. So you have Thesuva (repenting) for a week before Yom kippur in order that God will bless you with a good year.

Since the roots of Christianity comes from the Jews. And that the RCC see tradition and the mystical as something important just as in judaism. In the Old Testament repenting has to deal not only with your heart and emotions but also your actions, you had to pay for your mistakes not just change your mind and look forward. If not there will be a negative consequence but if one do repent God will heal the land.

Almost every Church will teach that Jesus did take away the sins of the world, but He is also presented as the Lamb and did teach about repenting.

So Is repenting the same as it always has been, or do we In the New Covenant repent in another way after the Cross?

  Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near. (Mark 3:2)

According to the RCC.

Short Answer: in Roman Catholic belief the dual meaning of repentance is retained from its original sense in the Old Testament.

  In Biblical Hebrew, the idea of repentance is represented by two
  verbs: שוב shuv (to return) and נחם nacham (to feel sorrow).  In the
  New Testament, the word translated as 'repentance' is the Greek word
  μετάνοια (metanoia) ... a change of mind and change of conduct,
  "change of mind and heart", or, "change of consciousness".

From Hebrew Roots:

  In the Greek of the New Covenant, there are also two words used which
  parallel the Hebrew usage.
  1. METAMELOMAI - to have feeling or care, concern or regret which is akin to remorse.
  2. METANOEO - to have another mind, which describes that radical change whereby a sinner turns from the idols of sin and of self to
  God.

  Repentance then is the informing and changing of the MIND stirring and directing the EMOTIONS to urge the required change, and the action
  of the yielded WILL in turning away from sin and to God.

Strong's Concordance

  Original Word: μετανοέω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: metanoeó
  Phonetic Spelling: (met-an-o-eh'-o) Short Definition: I repent, change
  my mind Definition: I repent, change my mind, change the inner man
  (particularly with reference to acceptance of the will of God),
  repent.

Some Roman Catholic teaching on Repentance

  REPENTANCE: Voluntary sorrow because it offends God, for having done
  something wrong, together with the resolve to amend one's conduct by
  taking the necessary means to avoid the occasions of sin. To repent is
  to be sorry for sin with self-condemnation. (Etym. Latin repoenitere,
  to be very sorry, regret intensely.)

  CCC 1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole
  life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of
  sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions
  we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and
  resolution to change one's life, with hope in God's mercy and trust in
  the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a
  salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus
  (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).

  CCC 1490 The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance,
  entails sorrow for and abhorrence of sins committed, and the
  firm purpose of sinning no more in the future.  Conversion touches
  the past and the future and is nourished by hope in God's mercy.

The dual nature of the original term is retained.  It is also used in the meta sense that you mention in your question, with a subtle connotation of the hope that all will turn to God, or all will return to God.

  CCC 1037 God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning
  away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until
  the end.  In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her
  faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any
  to perish, but all to come to repentance" {a turning to God, a return to God}

The meta sense of repentance is also taught as being enabled by the Holy Spirit.

  CCC 1433 Since Easter, the Holy Spirit has proved "the world wrong
  about sin," i.e., proved that the world has not believed in Him whom
  the Father has sent. But this same Spirit who brings sin to light is
  also the Consoler who gives the human heart grace for repentance and
  conversion.

The RCC uses the parable of the prodigal son as an illustration of both sin, turning away from God the Father, and repentance, a return to God the Father.  The son's sincere sorrow is reflected in his blunt confession: I have sinned against you and against God.

  CCC 1439 The process of conversion and repentance was described by Jesus
  in the parable of the prodigal son, the center of which is the
  merciful father: the fascination of illusory freedom, the
  abandonment of the father's house; the extreme misery in which the son
  finds himself after squandering his fortune; his deep humiliation at
  finding himself obliged to feed swine, and still worse, at wanting to
  feed on the husks the pigs ate; his reflection on all he has lost; his
  repentance and decision to declare himself guilty before his father;
  the journey back; the father's generous welcome; the father's joy -
  all these are characteristic of the process of conversion. the
  beautiful robe, the ring, and the festive banquet are symbols of that
  new life - pure worthy, and joyful - of anyone who returns to God and
  to the bosom of his family, which is the Church.  Only the heart of
  Christ Who knows the depths of his Father's love could reveal to us
  the abyss of his mercy in so simple and beautiful a way.

Summary

In both the personal sense, and in the communal sense, repentance in Roman Catholic belief retains the meanings from the original Hebrew and Greek.  Its importance, as well as its link to salvation, is cited on over 30 articles in the Catechism.

Coda

As noted in some of the passages of the Catechism, Catholic teaching on contrition is strongly related to repentance.

Perfect and imperfect contrition (From the Catholic Encyclopedia)

  Catholic teaching distinguishes a twofold hatred of sin; one, perfect
  contrition, rises from the love of God Who has been grievously
  offended; the other, imperfect contrition, arises principally from
  some other motives, such as loss of heaven, fear of hell, the
  heinousness of sin, etc. (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, ch. iv de
  Contritione).

From your comment:

  This is why I have written that question and because in most modern
  evangelical churches the understanding of repenting is not very deep
  or interesting.

While no reformed theologian that I know of disagrees with how important repentance is, the Reformed positions (originally presented by Martin Luther) on contrition and forgiveness is one significant place where Catholics and Protestants disagree. (This is linked to confession, reconciliation, and gets toward "off topic" for this question, though it may be a fruitful area for another independent question.)

Necessity of contrition(Catholic Encyclopedia)

  Until the time of the Reformation no theologian ever thought of
  denying the necessity of contrition for the forgiveness of sin.  But
  with the coming of Luther and his doctrine of justification by faith
  alone the absolute necessity of contrition was excluded as by a
  natural consequence.  {Pope} Leo X in the famous Bull "Exsurge"
  [Denzinger, no. 751 (635)] condemned the following Lutheran position:

  "By no means believe that you are forgiven on account of your
  contrition, but because of Christ's words, 'Whatsoever thou shalt
  loose', etc. On this account I say, that if you receive the priest's
  absolution, believe firmly that you are absolved, and truly absolved
  you will be, let the contrition be as it may."
  Luther could not deny that in every true conversion there was grief of soul, but he asserted that this was the result of the grace of God poured into the soul at the time of justification...)

This coda was offered in case contrition and repentance are being used as synonyms in your discussion with your Evangelical associates: the Roman Catholic view won't be the same as the Evangelical view, thanks in part to the Protestant roots of many Evangelical denominations.


Is healing with honey mentioned in the Bible? From webmd

  Honey’s healing properties are mentioned in the Bible, Koran, and Torah.

Is is true that the Bible talks about healing with honey? What does the Bible say about honey's healing properties?

The Bible repeatedly refers to honey as a good thing – for example, the land promised to the Israelites is regularly referred to as "a land flowing with milk and honey" (e.g., Exodus 3:8).  But in such cases honey is more clearly a reference to wealth or sweetness, not necessarily physical healing.

The clearest connection between honey and physical healing is probably in Proverbs 16:24:

  Gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body. (ESV)

More frequently, honey is sustenance that physically benefits people.  For example, Jonathan's "eyes became bright" after eating honey in 1 Samuel 14:24–30.  Honey also sustains people in passages like Deuteronomy 32:13, 2 Samuel 17:29, Psalm 81:16, Ezekiel 16:13, and Matthew 3:4.

On the other hand, eating too much is warned against in Proverbs 25:16:

  If you have found honey, eat only enough for you, lest you have your fill of it and vomit it.

A complete list of references to honey in the Bible can be found by using a concordance, or an online tool like Bible Gateway.


Criteria for translation I know there are a TON of translations out there and that some people prefer things like King James Only. But I was wondering: What are some good criteria for choosing a translation and why?

I would propose the following criteria for selecting an English Bible translation:

faithfulness to the original languages
translation philosophy (thought-for-thought, word-for-word, or paraphrase)
usage of the best texts/manuscripts available
readability

These criteria are purely subjective, therefore some theological traditions will prefer various manuscripts or translation philosophies over others.

Faithfulness to the original languages

Is the translation based on the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts? Or is it based on an existing translation? Is the translation consistent? Does it take recent scholarly linguistic and philological data into account? Does it allow the New Testament to inform how the Old Testament is translated? Are masculine pronouns translated as gender-neutral where grammar allows? Is there a clear theological bias (translations produced by sectarian groups or individuals often have a determined bias).

Translation philosophy

A thought-for-thought translation is known as dynamic equivalent, while a word-for-word translation is called formal equivalent. A paraphrase involves restating the meaning of a given passage in other words. Essentially this is a metric of how literal a translation is (does it follow form or meaning?). Remember that both form and meaning can be important; this is a subjective decision (just like all of the other criteria).

Usage of the best texts/manuscripts available

Some theological traditions have defined manuscripts/texts that are to be considered authoritative. Others tend to trust certain "families" of manuscripts more than others (Byzantine/Majority vs. Alexandrian, etc.). Others would prefer critical texts produced with the best quality scholarship that take early translations and manuscript variants into account.

Readability

This criteria is often overlooked. There is some truth to the old saying that "the best Bible translation is the one you read." Who cares how well it meets the other criteria if you can't comprehend what you're reading? Some translations are harder to read than others.

The best translation is a purely subjective choice that factors in these criteria. Some may consider certain criteria to be more important than others, while others may wish to balance all of them equally.


Creation vs Evolution Are the belief in creation and the theory of evolution mutually exclusive? Does holding of one necessarily mean not holding the other? If not please share some examples.

Not necessarily. There are christians on all parts of the spectrum. I see them as 2 main camps.

#1 mutation/natural selection exists but only to a point

There are many christians that will accept parts of the constructs of evolution such as natural selection via environmental pressure and/or artificial selection but quote the scripture "God made the beasts of the earth after their kind" to illustrate that one species can never turn into another. They say a dog will always be a dog no matter how much you breed it to have long hair or a squashed nose. The don't believe that new information or bio-mechanical function can arise from random mutations like gene repetition/deletion, copy errors, etc. They point out that creatures like dogs that are bred down certain paths have always lost information not gained. Now this group of Christians can either believe in an ancient universe or a 6-10k year one but all will state that life is about 6-10k years old. They also like to point out that that there as been no documented examples yet of NEW function arising from selection pressure.

#2 Everything happened according to science but God started/nurtured it

This is a belief held by many modern Christians. It combines predestination in varying degrees as a lens to view reality. The most 'hands-off' interpretation says that God stacked the deck a certain way (the weightings of various physical laws, vacuum energy etc) before he exploded the gigantic soup of particles and started off the universe down the track of star and then planet formation and eventually life. The other end of the predestination spectrum is that you and I were conceived of before the Word spoke the universe into existence. Every facet of chemical reactions, evolution, mutation was planned so as to produce you and everyone else so as to participate in eternity with our Creator.


Is any of Jesus' carpentry still around? Is there any of Jesus' carpentry still around or artifacts that people believe can be attributed to Jesus' work as a carpenter? Obviously this can't be answered with scripture alone.

Since Google didn't help, the answer I'm looking for is one that shows there IS some artifact that a significant number of people believe Jesus made (along with some interesting details about it) or that there for sure isn't any such artifact. I'm not looking for a list...though if you find more than one that would be fine to add to your answer.

Jesus being a carpenter is subject to debate among historians and Christians alike. There is no actual Scriptural evidence that Jesus ever was a "carpenter", however based on the times He grew up in it is an easy inference. If He truly was a carpenter, then there may be artifacts created by him circulating somewhere. However, it's a good bet to say these artifacts have degraded over the years or "current" examples are probably counterfeit for the exact reason I stated above - we really don't know if he was an actual "carpenter" or not.

Let's look at Scripture really quick to talk about why this is:

The only references to Jesus ever being a carpenter is in Mark & Matthew.

Mark 6:3

  “Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon?”

Matthew 13:55

  “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother called Mary, and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?”

It's important to remember that these two accounts in the Gospel are of the same event. Seems pretty straightforward that he was a carpenter and/or the son of a carpenter. However, translation is where we have our difficulty.

The Koine Greek word τέκτων ("tekton") is the word translated as "carpenter" in these passages. This word has a wider semantic range. It can mean "carpenter", however it's terminology is much broader to include the following:

A new construction carpenter, like a framer
A general construction worker
A general craftsman
A cabinet maker
A Cooper (a person who makes barrels)
Or a Shipbuilder

If I were translating Mark 6:3 or Matthew 13:55 myself, I would use the term "craftsman".

There is a whole slew of other things that contributed to us just saying "Jesus was a carpenter", ranging from tradition - I cite Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 88:

  And when Jesus came to the Jordan, He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life)

So we know Jesus was at least a craftsman. So, how about his work?

Well, being that we've established that He certainly probably worked with wood, we just have to look at how wood degrades over time. This depends on many factors including the type of wood, where its stored, how it's taken care of, etc. Some woods, such as cedar or redwood, are naturally resistant to rot, and may last in the open for two or more years without any special treatment. Other types of wood, such as sycamore, decay within a year.

Many noteworthy trees found here appear to be oaks. Oak can last a very long time (there's a fallen oak in my mother's yard that's been there for 15 years and it's only now beginning to rot away), however there are parts of town here with oak posts that have been there for 100+ years with little sign of wear. We're talking about 2000 year old furniture, however. So taking all that in to account, chances are all examples of Jesus' woodwork are gone. Why? Because He was a simple Jew (to those who don't know who He is/was), and depending on who His work was sold to, it probably wasn't taken care of very well. Following His crucifixion, had word gotten around, those who though He was a blasphemer may have ruined the works or sold them for money.

In short, we just don't know. However, the chances are good that objects being claimed to have been made by Jesus are counterfeit.


Looking for a Copy (Preferably PDF) of ``On the Visible Monarchy'' by Rev. Nicholas Sanders, D.D I have been reading a book from the Library of St. Francis de Sales entitled ``The Catholic Controversy.''
https://archive.org/details/catholiccontrove00sain
In it, he makes mention of and references on several occasions a book written by the Rev. Nicholas Sanders, D.D. entitled ``On the Visible Monarchy.''
I have never been able to locate a copy of this book, though another work of his ``The Rise and Growth of the Anglican Schism'' is readily available online.
Would anyone know where I can obtain a copy (preferably PDF) of Sanders' ``Visible Monarchy'' book?
Thank you.

Œuvres (vol. 1): Controverses, p. CXL, cites it as:

Sanders Nicolas, professeur de théologie à Louvain[professor of theology at Leuven] (1527-1583).     De visibili monarchi Ecclesiae libri octo[On the Visible Monarchy in Eight Books], Lovanii, 1571

There doesn't appear to be an English translation.


Is the register where the first marriage was registered still available? I read that the Church had little to do with marriage till the 13th century, when it took legal control of marriage. Then, Church registration followed.

My questions are:

Where was the first registration done (i.e., in what country) and what were the names of the persons involved?
Also, is the register where the first marriage was registered still available?

The source does not explicitly say the first record of the Christian marriage in Europe, but it does imply that the first Christian marriage occurred during the Middle Ages in France, which fits the asker's timeframe.

Source: McDougall, S. (2013). The Making of Marriage in Medieval France. Journal Of Family History, 38(2), 103-121.

  Twelfth-century Northern France offers important lessons for the
  history of marriage. It is a time and place that has been described as
  when and where modern (western) marriage was made.

  Christian, monogamous, indissoluble marriage as the unique source of
  legitimate offspring was a collaborative creation of the men and women
  at the top of the social hierarchy.

  Prohibitions were a tool to use against the weak, or to bring down the powerful.
  Acceptance of Christian marriage law promised salvation, promised sex without sin, and so much more.

Before that time period, the powerful European families allowed polygamous affairs and divorces. The change sparked the formation of the monogamous, indissoluble Christian marriage. The Christian marriage was well-received, because, as the author states, it served useful for their own interests.

The article lists a couple of early recorded Christian marriages, mostly from upper-class people.

Marie of Boulogne, Abbess of Romsey, married Matthew, younger son of Theoderic, Count of
Flanders.
Prince Henry of England married Princess Margaret of France.

On this website, it says:

  First, parish registers - the most familiar modern source for
  genealogists - should not be forgotten, as in principle they can
  extend as far back as 1538. In practice, few survive this early, and
  the information in early registers can be very brief - for example,
  baptism entries may not name the parents, and marriage entries have
  even been known to leave the wife anonymous.

As you can see, the first Christian marriage during the Middle Ages, your timeframe, may be lost forever. Also, few records survive as far back as 1538, a few centuries past your timeframe. Marriage entries have been known to leave the wife anonymous; compare this to the genealogies in the Bible, where many wives are left out.


Is the Book of Mormon considered to be another Gospel? (LDS perspective) Is the Book of Mormon considered to be another Gospel?
Paul tells us not to accept any other gospels apart from the one he has preached. Is the Book of Mormon considered to be another gospel? If so, why?

Inviting Mormon perspectives.

  6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you
  in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another;
  but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of
  Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
  gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
  9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any
  other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

  Galatians 1:6-9

No, according to the subtitle to The Book of Mormon, it is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ", not another gospel.

Quoting from the title page of The Book of Mormon (emphasis mine):

  Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations

From the Introduction:

  It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel.

It contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel, not a new gospel. Continued (emphasis mine):

  The record is now published in many languages as a new and additional witness that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that all who will come unto Him and obey the laws and ordinances of His gospel may be saved.

One of the commenters asked what "Testament" means. From this, we see it means a witness, like a testimony.

When the record describes Christ visiting the Americas, He teaches basically the same Sermon on the Mount that He taught by the Sea of Galilee. And Jesus speaks of the people back in Jerusalem and why He came here to teach them the same gospel in the Americas, too.

It very much is the same gospel. Missionaries of the LDS Church preach by the Bible and Book of Mormon because the Book of Mormon does not replace the Bible; rather, they testify of each other and of the same Lord Jesus Christ.


How are the Calvinist, Arminian and Lutheran conceptions of Total Depravity different? I'm quite sure I understand the concept of Total Depravity, but I'm not sure it's viewed exactly the same in different doctrinal frameworks that support it. I've spent a lot of time among Lutherans, and while I'm sure they support Total Depravity, they usually rather talk about Original Sin. Is this because Total Depravity as a term originates in Calvinism?

I came upon a table comparing the Lutheran, Calvinist and Arminian ideas of Total Depravity, but I don't quite understand it. Can you explain the main differences in the three views to me?

I can't speak much to the Lutheran or Calvinist view, but I can give my own perspective (Wesleyan Arminian):

In the Arminian understanding, human beings were created by God as part of God's good creation, but we were given free will which enabled us to turn away from God's will. In order to bring us back, God provided the means of grace that enables us to be saved. This grace is known as prevenient grace because God has given it to us before we were capable of making a decision.

Arminians believe in total depravity in the sense that our own sinful human nature does not allow us to respond to God's offer of salvation. However, the prevenient grace that God has given us does enable us to accept that offer. So although we do have free will and are capable of making choices, it is only God's grace that allows us to choose to follow him.


Can different levels of the Church hierarchy provide different types of blessings? According to this question, In Catholicism, what does it mean for a priest to bless an object or person?, there is a "special apostolic blessing" that the Pope can provide. Blessings can also be provided by the priest.

Is there a hierarchy of blessings?

What is the difference, if any, between the blessings?

The Pope can bless objects and people implicitly during his audiences - any prayer and speech of the Pope gives Apostolic or Papal blessing to those listening and seeing the pope and to their loved ones unable to participate but connected through prayer. Any "holy symbol" the blessed people have with intention to have it blessed is blessed too (I guess that this doesn't apply to the loved ones who are not present, but I'm not sure). This is sort of a special rule, mostly designed to save time during audiences, when everyone wants to have something blessed.

And now let's return tu the "hierarchy of blessings": something like this is coined in Canon Law, canon 1169:

  §1 Consecrations and dedications can be validly carried out by those
  who are invested with the episcopal character, and by priests who are
  permitted to do so by law or by legitimate grant.

  §2 Any priest can impart blessings, except for those reserved to the
  Roman Pontiff or to Bishops.

  §3 A deacon can impart only those blessings which are expressly
  permitted to him by law.

There are blessings (as sacramentals; anyone can pray for blessing, but it's not this kind of blessing - see an answer for a related question for differences between priestly and lay blessings) reserved to the Pope, to bishops, to priests and to deacons - their hierarchy roughly copies hierarchy of Holy Orders or priestly ordination. I don't know if they are meant to be "stronger" and "weaker" - I think it's more a matter of personal faith and "collectors' sport" and in fact all the blessing are of equivalent "strength", but I might be wrong in this assumption.


What is the origin of the story of the penitent thief as a young boy? During the Easter sermon our priest told a small story. It goes somewhat like this:

  'When Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus fled to Egypt, on the way there was a little boy who was given the task of searching (by Herod) the women for a small child(baby Jesus). And when he did see Him the boy smiled at Jesus and said "Remember me" and let them go. And years later when Christ was being crucified it was the same boy who was crucified on the right side of Christ. The little boy was the penitent thief who repented on the cross.'

Now after this I came home and did a lot of searching on the net but nowhere did I come across such a story. My question is simple: Did these events actually happen or was this meant only as an inspiration for the gathering?

The story is found in the Apocryphal Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour:

  (23) And turning away from this place, they came to a desert; and hearing that it was infested by robbers, Joseph and the Lady Mary resolved to cross this region by night. But as they go along, behold, they see two robbers lying in the way, and along with them a great number of robbers, who were their associates, sleeping. Now those two robbers, into whose hands they had fallen, were Titus and Dumachus. Titus therefore said to Dumachus: I beseech you to let these persons go freely, and so that our comrades may not see them. And as Dumachus refused, Titus said to him again: Take to yourself forty drachmas from me, and hold this as a pledge. At the same time he held out to him the belt which he had about his waist, to keep him from opening his mouth or speaking. And the Lady Mary, seeing that the robber had done them a kindness, said to him: The Lord God will sustain you by His right hand, and will grant you remission of your sins. And the Lord Jesus answered, and said to His mother: Thirty years hence, O my mother, the Jews will crucify me at Jerusalem, and these two robbers will be raised upon the cross along with me, Titus on my right hand and Dumachus on my left; and after that day Titus shall go before me into Paradise. And she said: God keep this from you, my son. And they went thence towards a city of idols, which, as they came near it, was changed into sand-hills.

There are also variations that make the Penitent Thief the young son of the leader of a band of thieves. Here is one other variation on the tale, which makes him a little spider. Here's a quote:

  So, the soldiers passed on and left the Holy Family in peace — all because a little spider had spun its web across the entrance to the cave.
  Barclay then writes: “And that, so they say, is why to this day we put tinsel on our Christmas trees, for the glittering tinsel streamers stand for the spider’s web, white with hoarfrost stretched across the entrance of the cave in which the Holy Family stopped and found shelter on the way to Egypt.
  “It is a lovely story, and this much, at least, is true: No gift that Jesus receives is ever forgotten.”

All of this is considered apocrypha, so we do not need to believe that it actually happened and some of these stories can have theological problems, so it's best to be cautious, but the core of the story was not made up by the priest, if that is what you are asking.


Jesus' power to forgive sins and to cure the sick If one is to answer this question which Jesus  posed to the scribes :  "..For which is easier, to say,  'Your sins are forgiven ', or to say 'Rise and walk' ?... "(Matt. 9:5)  one would opt in favor of the former for an answer. But, Jesus appears to have had the latter option in mind, as is forthcoming from the subsequent narrative. Is it true that the power to forgive sins was entrusted to a limited few, and those who exercised that power without authority were  treated to have committed blasphemy , thereby putting themselves at risk ?
Can someone enlighten me ?

It is not true that others were given the power to forgive sins on the Earth. Only Jesus had that authority. Forgiving sins is not a power it is an authority.

Matthew 21:23 and24 KJV  And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? 24  And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

Only God himself can forgive sins, but he gave Jesus the authority to pass that forgiveness to others while on Earth. Jesus explained this relationship in the following passage:

John 5:24 through 30 KJV Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. 25  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. 26  For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; 27  And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28  Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29  And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. 30  I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Before leaving Earth Jesus gave his disciples certain authority, but not the authority to forgive sins.

Luke 9:1 KJV  Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

Even Peter did not pretend to forgive sin, but professed that the authority to overcome infirmities was of Jesus.

Acts 3:6 KJV Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Acts 4:10 KJV Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Hope this helps.


What was Jesus referring to when He said "it is finished"? What is "it" in this case? At the end of Jesus' ministry, what did Jesus mean when He said "it is finished" (John 19:30)? Is this to be considered the end of Satan's Reign over humanity?

Yes, victory over Satan and over sin, for HE had accomplished what had been promised since the beginning with Adam and Eve: First Promise of the Savior?

Furthermore, note Jesus' prayer in John 17

  “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may
  glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He
  should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is
  eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus
  Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have
  finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had
  with You before the world was. (nkjv)

What is the work that God sent his Son our Savior to accomplish?

John 3:16-17 (nkjv)

  For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
  whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
  17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world,
  but that the world through Him might be saved.

The death and resurrection of Jesus was the fulfillment of many prophecies (ex psalm 22), fulfillment of the Law (Matt 5:17), victory over Satan and sin, what ultimately ushered in the New Covenant, that is saved by grace through faith (ephesians 2:8), and I'm sure the list goes on.. :)


What is the Biblical argument against Limited Atonement? The "L" in the TULIP acronym of Reformed Theology stands for Limited Atonement, which the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms defines as:

  Sometimes called 'particular redemption,' the view that Jesus' death
  secured salvation for only a limited number of persons (the elect),
  in contrast to the idea that the work of the cross is intended for all
  humankind (as in “unlimited atonement”). This view resulted from the
  post-Reformation development of the doctrine of election in Calvinist
  circles. Proponents claim that because not everyone is saved, God
  could not have intended that Christ die for everyone.

We already have a question asking for the Biblical basis for Limited Atonement, so my question is what is the Biblical argument against Limited Atonement?

Limited atonement brings with it the implication that not anyone can be saved by Christ - only those for whom he atoned.  The language used in the Bible to describe salvation is inclusive.  It is described as being presented to whosoever wills.  In 1 Timothy, Paul claims that God desires all people to be saved.

  1 Timothy 2:3-6 (ESV)
  3  This is good, and  it is pleasing in the sight of  God our Savior, 4  who desires  all people to be saved and  to come to  the knowledge of the truth. 5  For  there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6   who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is  the testimony given  at the proper time.

This would make little sense in light of limited atonement, and in fact, the presence of the phrase "ransom for all" seems to directly contradict it.  If God desires all people to be saved, then why would salvation not be even theoretically available to some?  If God desires all people to be saved, then wouldn't he offer it to the entire world?  John tells us that this is exactly what he did:

  John 3:16 (ESV)
  16  “For  God so loved  the world,  that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not  perish but have eternal life.


Identifying a Saint on a Greek icon? I got this icon from Greece, however I was not able to identify the Saint. Could anyone help?

The Greek lettering is (in modern script) Ό Άγιος Παΐσιος ὁ Ἁγιορείτης — Saint Paisios of Mount Athos.
Wikipedia has an article on him.

He was  born Arsenios Eznepidis (1924–1994), was a well-known Greek Eastern Orthodox ascetic from Mount Athos, who originated from Pharasa, Cappadocia. He was respected for his spiritual guidance and ascetic life and many people worldwide highly venerate Elder Paisios, especially in Greece and in Russia.
Venerable Elder Paisios was canonized on 13 January 2015 by the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the church commemorates his feast day on July 12.
The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church decided at its meeting of May 5, 2015 also to add the name of the Venerable Paisios of Mount Athos to the Menology of the Russian Orthodox Church, establishing his feast day on June 29/July 12, following the Menology of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople.


Can you refer to the Trinity as "Others" Is it theologically correct to refer to the Trinity as "Others" when speaking about them in a particular sentence.

ie

You cannnot change yourself without the help of the Others

I believe the only time when God is referred to with a plural noun or pronoun is in Genesis 1, when God Himself refers to Himself. The Bible always mentions the Father, Son and Holy Ghost separately when referring to the separate persons of God together. Otherwise, it is "He" and "Him." God is always a singular pronoun. There is no need to refer to the Trinity as your question suggests, for God is one.

However, there are no strict directives in the Bible about new terms used to describe the Trinity. But it's important that Christians do not stray too far from the language that has been given to us in the Scriptures to avoid confusion or perversion of the text. Every word of Scripture is God-breathed, so there is a good reason why there are not many words to describe the Trinity. YHWH, I AM THAT I AM, The Godhead, and The Fullness of the Glory of God, come to mind, but even these examples must be taken into the context of their Hebrew/Greek origin and their texts.

That said, even Biblical terms can be twisted to mean something completely different from their traditional, Biblical understanding. The Trinity, even, means something very different to different people. It would be foolhardy to bring in another word that is not clearly defined or established in Biblical text or received Christian tradition.

[important note]:Addressing or referring to the Godhead should always be done with reverence. This is a basic truth embedded in the 10 commandments.


Is life imprisonment in accord with Catholic social doctrine? I recall hearing an old religious sister talking on Relevant Radio a few years ago about her experience in Mexican prison ministry.  She said that life imprisonment is just as bad as the death penalty and that's why they don't have it in Mexico*.

Is there any Catholic Church document, application to the natural law or other teaching regarding a just length of sentencing?

*I have no knowledge of Mexican law, so I don't know if this is true or not today

The Church has always upheld the State's right to protect its citizens, so my take on it is yes, life sentences are in accord as long as that is truly what is required to protect the people. Each specific case has to be considered individually, of course.

[Edit]
I've done some research in an attempt to find sources. Here is an interesting one:
Catholic Social Teaching and Capital Punishment

True, this is Capital Punishment centric, but some of the themes expressed hold, I believe. For example, you'll find expression that the state has not only the right, but the duty to protect its citizens. It goes on to say:

  If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means. . .

Since a life sentence in prison is a "non-lethal" mean by which to protect the citizenry, then it follows it is not only acceptable, but preferable to Capital Punishment.

I doubt you'll find a document that says "Life sentences are OK" or "Life sentences are not OK". It's more an inductive approach to deciphering the social teachings, as many of the social teachings are.


According to Catholicism, why do we need a resurrection if we have an immortal soul? Here's this other question that asks the question "According to Roman Catholicism, how old will our resurrection bodies be?"

The answers to the question talk along the line of that a persons physical body is resurrected. One of the answers includes this segment from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

  The "resurrection of the flesh" (the literal formulation of the
  Apostles' Creed) means not only that the immortal soul will live on
  after death, but that even our "mortal body" will come to life
  again.

(emphasis added by me)

My understanding about Catholic beliefs, and about Christian beliefs in general, is that inside ourselves we have an immortal soul that continues living after the body is dead. Answers that talk about the Catholic view of this can be found for example here and here.

Question:

According to Catholicism, what do we need a resurrection for since we have an immortal soul that survives the death of the body?

Although I am not a Catholic, I feel confident that I can answer this, as the answer is shared by all Chalcedonian Christians.

This question really gets to the heart of what it means to be a human. And the best way to answer that is to look to the incarnation of Christ.

In the incarnation the eternal person of God the Son was united to a finite human nature. Chalcedonian Christians believe that the incarnation was not just God the Son talking on a human body, but a complete human nature: a human soul, a human mind, a human will, human emotions and desires. Just as a human body has many organs but none of those organs are enough to be called a human by themselves, so too a human person has physical and non-physical parts, which by themselves are not enough to be considered human by themselves. In the early church Apollinaris argued that Jesus had just his single divine mind and took on a human body. This was declared to be heretical by the First Council of Constantinople, as it meant that Jesus was not fully human.

Many Christians today fall into the same trap. I've heard Christians say that we are a soul who has a body. This is a departure from orthodox Christianity which says that the human nature is a complex union of body and soul (a complex union in the sense that it is one thing but yet has distinct parts or aspects.) Instead we should say that human beings are body-soul unions. While the human soul and body may be temporarily separated from each other, that is an unnatural state for a human to be in. Just as Jesus Christ forever remains incarnate in the flesh, so too will the souls of all humans be reunited to flesh in the resurrection.