Did God's curse on Cain extend to only Cain, Cain's descendants or to everyone? When God cursed Cain for killing Abel, did that curse extend to Cain's offspring, to Cain alone, or to everyone? God tells Cain:

  "And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” Genesis 4:11-12 ESV

Later in Genesis, when tracing the genealogy of Cain's younger brother Seth, this next verse seems to indicate that the ground was cursed for everyone, not just Cain or his direct descendants?

  "When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” Genesis 5:28-29

I think you're talking about two separate curses in your question.

The first curse, the curse on the ground, God inflicted on the entire earth because of Adam's sin:

  Genesis 3:17-19 And to Adam he said,“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Whereas before Adam and Eve were meant to be alive forever and till the beautiful garden, now they must work the ground with sweat and toil. This is the first curse and applies to the entire earth.

The second curse is the one meant for Cain when God says that the ground will never produce food (strength) for him

  Genesis 4:10-12 And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength. You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.”

It's important to note how God describes Cain's new forced way of life as one of a fugitive or wanderer, the Hebrew being nuwa and nuwd which both mean a kind of aimless wanderer. If the ground that he would toil would never bring forth food for him then he will be forced to wander endlessly for sustenance.

Regarding the reference to the cursed ground in Genesis 5:

  Genesis 5:28-29 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.”

It's natural to assume that Lamech is referring to first curse brought forth by Adam, not the curse that God had applied specifically to Cain.


How much money does the Christian Church save because of religious tax exemption in the United States? The only source I have been able to find is 85 billion dollars but that's all religions. How much does Christianity, specifically, save because of religious tax exemption?

Much, much less than that, if anything.

The $85billion figure has already been debunked in this question.

Religious institutions would not pay $85b even if they were taxed as profit-making businesses. $85B would be around 3/4 of the entire amount of money donated to all religious organizations in the US. No entity pays 75% of its income in taxes - nor would it exist if it was taxed at that rate.


Water Baptism - Is it still necessary? I have grappled with this for some  time.

As the forerunner of Christ, John the baptist was baptising people, preparing them for the coming of Christ. After Christ came, he was baptised and commanded his disciples to baptise converts in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

It is believed that baptism is a physical washing of our sins (that may be wrong) and Paul said it symbolizes our being dead and buried with him and also risen.

I have this belief that after Jesus died and shed his blood, his blood does the work of washing sins away, so baptism is no longer necessary.

I still believe in the "being dead and buried with him...."

I would say that baptism is still highly "necessary", since Jesus Himself, in his final directions to His disciples, told them to:

  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit

(emphasis added)

and the parallel:

  Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

If Jesus told His disciples, and by extension us, to "baptize", I think it's still "necessary".


What differentiates a priest, a clerk, a capellanus, a subdeacon and a rector? I have been looking at the list of rectors of Eversholt church, Bedfordshire, from the Bedfordshire Archives Service Catalogue. The various people listed there are each described as one of: (with dates through which this description appears)

  clerk (1290-1702)
  priest (1331-1493)
  subdeacon (1227-1293)
  rector (1374-1680)
  capellanus (1420?-1507)

and from 1680 onwards:

  B.A.
  M.A.
   B.D.
  A.M.

I'm guessing that BA, MA and BD are degree qualifications. AM is a latin version of MA. How do the other titles differ?

Some follow up questions are asked at How do I interpret this list of mediaeval rectors?

I'm no expert, but will attempt a partial answer - first, the educational qualifications refer to:-

BA - Bachelor of Arts

MA - Master of Arts (traditionally awarded automatically to Oxford graduates one year after graduating)

BD - Bachelor of Divinity

AM - I think another description on of MA.

A clerk would probably refer to a clerk in holy orders - there were many grades of holy orders, most men at Oxford or Cambridge would be in minor orders.

A priest is a generic term for a man (prior to modern times) who had been ordained priest by a Bishop. Only a priest could absolve sins, or consecrate the bread and wine at Mass.

A subdeacon was, I think the lowest form of holy orders, originally to assist the deacon and serve at Mass.

A rector is somewhat different. Parish priests were entitled to tithes - one tenth of the parish produce. These were divided into greater and lesser tithes - a rector received the greater tithes and was effectively the owner of the living. (A vicar was appointed by a rector and, I think, received only the lesser tithes or a stipend.)

A capellanus is a chaplain - either employed by a great family or paid to say Masses, for example, for the souls of the dead.

I think you really need to consult a good local history manual, medieval/early modern church law and practice were pretty complicated!

Edit The **rector* of a parish is, essentially, the owner - the one entitled to the great tithes and to appointing the priest. The rector may be the priest, but - pre-Reformation - could well be a monastery, university, prelate or other. Post-Reformation, rectors were often the largest landowner locally, or indeed some distant noble. S/he could obviously not act as priest, not being ordained, but were said to have the gift of the living - eg could appoint a vicar (priest)  as a form of patronage. In the Anglican Church, lay patrons still exist, and can offer a candidate for a parish, subject to the Bishop's approval.


Did any church fathers after Chrysostom believe that Mary committed sin? The belief that Mary never committed sin has been around a long time, much longer than the final formulation of the doctrine of her immaculate conception (which happened around the 13th century).  Augustine (d. 430), despite his doctrine of original sin, apparently carved out an exception for her, as summarized in the Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity's entry on Mary:

  Augustine, drawn into the problem of Mary’s holiness by Pelagius, affirms against the opinion of his adversary that Mary, propter honorem Domini, is the
  only woman without sin (De nat. et gratia 36,42).

On the other hand, Augustine's contemporary John Chrysostom (d. 407) apparently didn't go quite so far:

  Even John Chrysostom (d. 407), although attributing some imperfection to Mary, nonetheless holds her up as the example of the woman who overcomes human weaknesses (Co. Io. 20-21).

I'd like to know if any after Chrysostom believed that Mary committed sin.  I'd guess that the influence of Augustine would reduce the likelihood of finding this view in the West, but perhaps one or more fathers in the East continued to hold that she was less than morally perfect.

This question follows typical definitions of what a "church father" is, but to spell it out, they are "ancient and generally influential Christian theologians" (as Wikipedia says), not those closely associated with heretical movements (such as the Pelagian Julian of Eclanum), and not the anonymous authors of popular apocryphal stories.  And we'll say that the last of the church fathers is John of Damascus (d. 749).

Besides Chrysostom and Cyril, not taking into account those who lived earlier than them, we could point to:

1) Theodoret of Cyrus (393 – 458) defending the two natures of Christ, gives an example of on the one hand Mary giving birth to Jesus (thus proving his human nature) and on the other hand him rebuking her (thus showing his divinity as her Master):

  "If the Word became flesh, therefore, not by changing, but by taking
  flesh, and if both sets of predicates apply to the Word as incarnate
  God (for you just said this), the natures were not mingled together,
  but remained unmixed. If this is our understanding, we shall also see
  the harmony of the evangelists. For one proclaims the divinity of the
  one only-begotten one, that is, Christ the Lord, while the other
  proclaims the humanity. And Christ the Lord himself teaches us this
  way of understanding. For sometimes he calls himself Son of God, and
  at other times Son of Man. At one time he honors his mother as the one
  who bore him, while at another time, as master, he rebukes [her]
  (greek: και ποτέ μέν ώς γεγεννηκυΐαν την μητέρα τιμά, ποτέ δέ ώς
  Δεσπότης επιτιμά). On one occasion he approves those who call him son
  of David, while on another he teaches those who lack knowledge that he
  is not only David's son, but also David's Lord. He calls both Nazareth
  and Capernaum his homeland, but he also cries out, "Before Abraham
  was, I am."You will find divine Scripture filled with many examples
  like these. And they reveal, not one nature, but two." (Eranistes 2,
  Migne PG83: 144-145).

2) Presbyter Ammonius of Alexandria (VI c.) likewise pointed out that Mary acted in such a way, that she deserved to be rebuked by her Son:

  "He [Jesus] chides his mother for having importunely reminded God, who
  has no need to be reminded of anything. It is as if he had said, 'Do
  not regard me only as a man but also as God. Not yet has the time of
  my manifestation come. Not as yet is it known who I am." Greek: Τῇ δὲ μητρὶ ἐπιμέμφεται ὡς ἀκαίρως ὑπομνησάσῃ θεὸν ὑπομνήσεως
  μὴ δεόμενον, ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν μὴ νόμιζέ με μόνον ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, ἀλλὰ
  καὶ θεόν. οὔπω δὲ ἦλθεν ὁ καιρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς φανερώσεως, οὐδέπω ἐγνωρίσθη
  τίς εἰμι. (Expositio in Evangelium S. Joannis 57,
  Johannes-Kommentare aus der griechischen Kirche 211).

As to Augustine, whom you mentioned, although he did not speak of her sinning anywhere, he definitely spoke of her being born under sin and her dying as a consequence of being of Adam:

  "And what could be more undefiled than that womb of the Virgin, whose
  flesh, even if it derived from the propagation of sin [here Edmund
  Hill comments: "The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary had
  not even begun to be formulated in Augustine's time" (On Genesis,
  Vol. I/13, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st
  Century, New City Press 2002, page 417)] still did not conceive from
  the propagation of sin? [...] Accordingly the body of Christ was
  indeed assumed from the flesh of a woman which had been conceived from
  that propagation of the flesh of sin; but because it was not itself
  conceived there in the same way as that flesh had been conceived, it
  was not in its turn the flesh of sin, but the likeness of the flesh of
  sin (Rom 8:3)." Latin: Et quid incoinquinatius illo utero Virginis,
  cuius caro etiamsi de peccati propagatione venit, non tamen de peccati
  propagatione concepit; [...] Proinde corpus Christi quamvis ex carne
  feminae assumptum est, quae de illa carnis peccati propagatione
  concepta fuerat, tamen quia non sic in ea conceptum est, quomodo
  fuerat illa concepta, nec ipsa erat caro peccati, sed similitudo
  carnis peccati. (Genesi Ad Litteram 10.18.32, Migne PL34: 421-422).

  "We do not hand Mary over to the devil because of the condition of her
  birth, but we do not do this precisely because that condition is
  removed by the grace of rebirth." Latin: Non trascribimus diabolo
  Mariam conditione nascendi; sed ideo, quia ipsa conditio solvitur
  gratia renascendi. (Contra Julianum opus imperfectum 4.1.22, Migne
  PL45: 1418).

  "Mary, descended from Adam, died because of sin. Adam died because of
  sin, and the Lord's flesh, derived from Mary, died to abolish sins."
  Latin: Maria ex Adam mortua propter peccatum, Adam mortuus propter
  peccatum, et caro Domini ex Maria mortua est propter delenda peccata.(Enarrationes in Psalmos 34 (2), 3, Migne PL36: 335).

Similarly, Fulgentius of Ruspe (about 467 – about 532), a faithful interpreter of Augustine also spoke of Mary's sinful flesh (which is compared with Jesus' likeness of sinful flesh):

  "This is the grace by which it came about that God (who came to take
  away sins because there is no sin in him) was conceived from sinful
  flesh and born as man in the likeness of sinful flesh. To be sure, the
  flesh of Mary had been conceived in iniquity in accordance with human
  practice, and so her flesh (that gave birth to the Son of God in the
  likeness of sinful flesh) was indeed sinful. [...] When it is said
  that truly the likeness of sinful flesh is in the Son of God, or
  rather that the Son of God is in the likeness of sinful flesh, one
  must believe that the Only-begotten God did not take the defilement of
  sin from the mortal flesh of the Virgin, but that he received the full
  reality of its nature so that the Source of truth might arise from the
  earth, the Source whom the blessed David announces in a prophetic
  word, saying: “Truth has sprung out of the earth.” Truly, therefore,
  Mary conceived God the Word, which she bore in sinful flesh, which God
  received."

  Latin: Haec est gratia qua faetum est ut Deus, qui venit peccata
  tollere, quia peccatum in eo non est, homo conciperetur atque
  nasceretm in similitudine carnis peccati, de earne peccati. Caro
  quippe Mariae, quae in iniquitatibus humana fuerat solemnitate
  concepta, caro fuit utique peccati, quae Filium Dei genuit in
  simìlitudinem carnis peccati. […] Similitudo vero carnis peccati cum
  in Dei Filio, vel potius Dei Filius in similitudine carnis peccati cum
  dicitur, credendum est Unigenitum Deum de Virginis carne mortali non
  traxisse peccati sordem, sed accepisse naturae integram veritatem, ut
  veritatis ortus de terra existeret, quem prophetali sermone beatus
  David insinuat dicens: Veritas de terra orta est. Were igitur Deum
  Verbum Maria concepit, quod in carne peccati peperit, quam Deus
  accepit. (Epistula 17.13, Migne PL65: 458).


What is the theology of the Semi-Arians? What I know from history books is that Semi-Arians held to the neutral theological position of homoiousians against both strict homoousians and anomoeans.

However, I found a very scant knowledge about their theology and these are what I want to know:

Do Semi-Arians teach that the Son is eternal or not?
Do Semi-Arians teach that the Son is a creature?
What do they believe about the Holy Spirit?

Fr. Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary gives this definition of Semi-Arianism:

The teaching of certain theologians who, after the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), sought a compromise between Arianism and the doctrine of Christ's consubstantiality with the Father. They were led by Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, and their sympathies were toward orthodoxy, although they substituted homoiousios (similar to) the Father. St. Athanasius treated them kindly and their influence was felt in the reaffirmation of the Nicene Creed at the ecumenical Council of Constantinople in the year 381.

From Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.'s, The Trinity & God the Creator, a commentary on St. Thomas Aquinas's articles on the Trinity in his Summa Theologica, the Treatise on the Trinity (qq. 27-43):

According to Arius, God the Father alone is eternal; the Father created the Son, not of His own substance but out of nothing, and then God made use of the Son as an instrument to create the universe and redeem men.
…
After Arianism was thus condemned by the Church as a heresy, the Arians tried to dissimulate their error and said that the Son was similar in nature to the Father, homoiousion or homoion, but they refused to say that He was consubstantial or homoousion. Such was the teaching of Basil of Ancyra and Auxentius of Milan, who are called Semi-Arians. Arianism lasted into the sixth century, when it completely disappeared.
…
Following the principles that misled Arius, Eunomius concluded that the Holy Ghost was not God but a creature made by the Son of God, inferior to Him and similar to the angels. At about the same time, the Macedonians like the Semi-Arians denied the divinity and consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost. Eunomius was refuted by St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil of Caesarea, and St. Ambrose. Macedonianism [and thus also Semi-Arianism] was condemned by [Pope] St. Damasus [I] in the fourth Council of Rome (380) and in the following year by the second ecumenical Council of Constantinople. The most important definition of the Council is: "If anyone shall say that the Holy Ghost is not truly and properly of the Father, like the Son, of the divine substance, and true God, let him be anathema." Thus in the fourth century, opposing these heresies, the Church explicitly taught a Trinity of distinct persons, upheld their divinity and consubstantiality, and so preserved the unity of essence together with the distinction of persons. In the earliest centuries, therefore, the Church explicitly condemned that Unitarianism which the liberal Protestants have recently revived.
…
In 325 the Council of Nicaea defended the true tradition against Arius, who taught that the Father alone was truly God, that the Word was the most excellent of creatures, created in time out of nothing, and that the Holy Ghost was also a creature, inferior to the Son. After long discussion it was defined that the Word was consubstantial with the Father, homousion: "We believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten Son of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, as the Greeks say, homousion, by whom all things were made. And in the Holy Ghost."
After this condemnation the heretics tried to cover up their error by teaching that the Son was not properly homousion or consubstantial with the Father, that is, of the same essence, but that He was similar in nature, or homoiousion. Such was the teaching of the Semi-Arians; the Acacians said the Son was homoion, that is, similar with regard to form and accidents. These teachings were refuted by St. Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, and by St. Athanasius.

So, to answer your questions:

Semi-Arians, like the Arians, do not believe in the co-equal dignity or co-eternal existence of the Father and Son (cf. beginning of 3rd ¶ of the "Doctrine" § of this).
Yes, since they teach He is not the same nature as God. (Since they professed to be monotheist, they only believed in the existence of one Godly nature. Thus, according to them, the Son can only be of a creaturely nature.)
They deny the Holy Ghost is divine.


Why does the Messiah have to be God? It seems to be incredibly important to numerous "brands" of Christianity that Jesus be God. So much so, that traditions that reject the deity of Christ are often dismissed as heretical by orthodox Christians.

Why is this so important? Why couldn't the Messiah just be a man?

The most common reason I here is that the sacrifice had to be perfect. The Messiah had to be God because only God is perfect.

And yet (some? all?) Catholics believe that Mary was also perfect. Why couldn't she be the sacrifice? If God could make a regular human being perfect without them  being God, isn't the Christ's deity superfluous?

Is there a deeper reason that Jesus had to be God that is compatible with the sinlessness of Mary?

EDIT: In an effort to clarify...

I'm just wondering why the Messiah had to be God. Some people say it's because he had to be perfect. But if the Catholics are right (if Mary was sinless) then God could have just created the savior sinless (without him being God.), so I'm wondering if there's a deeper reason that the Messiah had to be God

I think that there are two main reasons why the Messiah had to be God.

One, which you alluded to in your question, is that he had to be sinless in order to be the perfect sacrifice for sins.  I don't hold that Mary was sinless (Romans 3:10), and I believe that only God could have been sinless.  So in my opinion, that is a valid line of reasoning for the necessity of the Messiah to be God.

The second reason, is that the Messiah needed to be God for the same reason that he needed to be man.  Hebrews tells us why Jesus had to become man:

  Hebrews 2:17-18 (NIV)
  17  For this reason he had to be made like them,  fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful  and faithful high priest  in service to God,  and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.  18  Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

  Hebrews 4:14-15 (NIV)
  14  Therefore, since we have a great high priest  who has ascended into heaven,  Jesus the Son of God,  let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.  15  For we do not have a high priest  who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are  —yet he did not sin.

The Messiah needed to save mankind, and in order to do so, he needs to act as a high priest, an intermediary between God and man.  These verses show us that Jesus needed to become man in order to empathetically mediate for man.  I suggest that he also needed to be God, in order to mediate to God.  Jesus acts as a bridge between God and man, by having both natures.

Because Jesus is in nature God, we have a perfect high priest in the heavenly tabernacle.   This provides for us an anchor behind the veil (Hebrews 6:19), which is far superior to any merely human priest.  Hebrews 7 explicitly states the flaws in having human priests, and why a priest with the eternal nature of God is far superior:

  Hebrews 7:23-25 (NIV)
  23  Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; 24  but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood.  25  Therefore he is able to save  completely those who come to God  through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.

This is contrasting the disadvantages of human priests with the advantages of having God as our high priest.  The writer of Hebrews then goes on to list some characteristics of such a high priest that meets our needs:

  Hebrews 7:26 (NIV)
  26  Such a high priest  truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners,  exalted above the heavens.

In order to intercede for us to God, the writer of Hebrews tells us that this high priest needed to have many characteristics that we would only associate with God: holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

Even if we accepted the sinlessness of Mary, I don't think anyone would attribute to her these necessary characteristics of an effective heavenly high priest (except perhaps pure and blameless).


What exactly is the falsehood that St. Paul is referring to at Roman 3: 7? We see St. Paul, while discussing about the merits and demerits of believers getting circumcised, posing an open question at Romans 3:7 (NRSVCE):

But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

My question is: According to Catholic Church, what exactly is the falsehood that Paul is referring to at Roman 3:7?

The overarching context is the necessity of the Gospel for salvation.
In Romans 3:5-8,

But if our injustice commend the justice of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust, who executeth wrath?
(I speak according to man.) God forbid: otherwise how shall God judge this world?
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie, unto his glory, why am I also yet judged as a sinner?
And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just. ,

St. Paul refutes, with reductio ad absurdum arguments, a 6th objection that

If our unjustness (= sinfulness) serves to make God’s justness (= justice)
stand out the more clearly, why are we still threatened with his wrath, and urged to seek justification? Is God not unjust in punishing such sinfulness?

Verse 7

is taken by most commentators as a further objection, in which case it is but a weakened repetition of v 5.

—The Epistle to the Romans, commentary by A. Theissen, A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture PDF p. 2100
cf. also St. Thomas Aquinas's commentary on Romans 3:1-8


How does the feast of Corpus Christi fit into the church calendar? Looking at the calendar today, I noticed that it's Corpus Christi, which celebrates the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Maundy Thursday recalls the day the rite was first observed and seems the natural day for such a commemoration.  The Catholic Encyclopedia indicates the reason a separate feast was established:

  [Maundy Thursday], however, was in Holy Week, a season of sadness, during which the minds of the faithful are expected to be occupied with thoughts of the Lord's Passion. Moreover, so many other functions took place on this day that the principal event was almost lost sight of. This is mentioned as the chief reason for the introduction of the new feast, in the Bull "Transiturus."

As a movable feast, Corpus Christi has some connection to Easter in the church calendar.  But what is the connection?  It makes sense to celebrate on a Thursday, the traditional day of the week of the Last Supper.  But why celebrate the Thursday after Trinity?

When the feast was established in 1264, the feast of Pentecost had an octave1 and effectively lasted a week, up to Trinity Sunday. This meant that the first "unimpeded" Thursday following Maundy Thursday was the Thursday after Trinity — the season of Easter impeded2 all the Thursdays up to Pentecost, which had its own octave covering the Thursday after that.
The text of the Bull Transiturus which established the celebration is published in a Google Book, and it does set the day:

§2 Nos itaque ad corroborationem & exaltationem Catliolicæ fidei, digne, ac rationabiliter duximus statuendum ut de tanto Sacramento præter quotidianam memoriam, quam de ipso facit Ecclesia, solemnior & specialior annuatim memoria celebretur, certum ad hoc designantes, & describentes diem, videlicet feriam quintam proximam post Octavam Pentecostes, ut in ipsa quinta feria devotæ turbæ fidelium propter hoc ad Ecclesias affectuosæ concurrant & tam Clerici, quam Populi gaudentes, in cantica laudum surgant. ...

My Latin isn't really up to it, but I can see that he specifies "the fifth day next after the octave of Pentecost, that is the fifth day of the week" which is the Thursday after Trinity (Sunday is the first day of the week).

This is my attempt at a translation:

And so, we,  for the affirmation and exaltation of the Catholic faith, have properly and reasonably determined that besides the daily memorial of so great a sacrament, such as the Church does, a solemn and special memorial is to be celebrated annually, specifically designated for this, and describe the day, namely the Thursday next after the octave of Pentecost, that in this the fifth day of the week, for the sake of the happiness of the devout multitudes of the faithful, clergy with the rejoicing people come together in the churches and arise in a song of praise. ...

A better translation would be greatly appreciated. The last clause at least is a bit iffy.

1 Octave: A period of extending a feast-day over the following week, making eight days in total. See the Wikipedia article. Pentecost is slightly unusual as its Octave does not include the following Sunday. That Sunday is a feast of its own, Trinity Sunday.
2 Impede: A celebration of lower rank is impeded (or suppressed) by a celebration of higher rank. Although Corpus Christi was intended to be "solemn and special", nothing outranks the days of the season of Easter. The General Norms for the Liturgical Year and Calendar say "The fifty days from Easter Sunday to Pentecost are celebrated in joyful exultation as one feast day, or better as one 'great Sunday'", so it would be improper to introduce another element into that celebration. [The ranks of various feasts and seasons during the 13th century are now rather obscure, but Easter has always ranked above everything else.]


Who is "you" in Genesis 3:15 according to the Calvinist? I have a "connected" question before in here. And I think I made a mistake to ask a question like that directly.

So, I will start here first :

  Genesis 3:15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between
  your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you
  shall bruise his heel.

Who is "you" there ? Who did God talk to ? was God addressing reptile?

It was Satan

  ”I acknowledge, indeed, that from this place alone nothing more can be collected than that men were deceived by the serpent. But the testimonies of Scripture are sufficiently numerous, in which it is plainly asserted that the serpent was only the mouth of the devil; for not the serpent but the devil is   declared to be the father of lies,' the fabricator of imposture, and   the author of death. The question, however, is not yet solved, why   Moses has kept back the name of Satan. I willingly subscribe to the   opinion of those who maintain that the Holy Spirit then purposely used   obscure figures, because it was fitting that full and clear light   should be reserved for the kingdom of Christ. In the meantime, the   prophets prove that they were well acquainted with the meaning of Moses, when, in different places, they cast the blame of our ruin upon  the devil. (Calvin, John. The Complete Biblical Commentary Collection of John Calvin. Kindle location 2840)”.

This view is consistent among Calvinists.


a/pre/post Millennialism summarised with bible verses? Is there a definitive resource that outlines the views and the bible verses they use to support those views? Or are these views so hopelessly broad that its impossible to clearly define them?

There seems to be so many books and internet resources it would take a millennium to read them all. Some short but seemingly inconsistent with each other, some far to long to be useful, and some providing general summaries of the views, but not showing bible verses that lead/support the views of that camp. Is it not possible to get a clear simple answer?

There seems to be so many books and internet resources it would take a millennium to read them all. Some short but seemingly inconsistent with each other, some far to long to be useful, and some providing general summaries of the views, but not showing bible verses that lead/support the views of that camp. Is it not possible to get a clear simple answer?

You're right, there won't be any clear simple answer. To some extent there are verses which are claimed to only support one position, but mostly these positions uses the same verses as each other to support themselves, but they interpret them in different ways. This is because these eschatological positions are symptom issues: what you believe about other issues (namely your Biblical meta-narrative, i.e., your Biblical theology framework) largely determines your eschatology. (Baptism is another symptom issue, within Protestantism at least.) Whenever anyone attempts what you ask for without first dealing with the different meta-narratives the result is that the two sides just end up talking past each other.

The two major meta-narrative frameworks within Protestantism are Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. These represent two extremes of a continuum. Dispensationalism emphasises the discontinuities between the Old and New Testaments (and the different eras of history in general) and de-emphasises the continuities. Covenant Theology emphasises the continuities and de-emphasises the discontinuities. There are frameworks which fit in between these extremes, such as New Covenant Theology.

Covenant Theology says that there is one single Covenant of Grace, which encompasses all of the Biblical covenants, which means that there is really only one People of God. The promises that God made to the Israelites are the promises he makes to the Church because Israel is the Church. Dispensationalism however considers each 'dispensation' (system in which God interacted with humanity) to be independent. This means that Israel and the Church are distinct and their promises cannot be transferred.

So when Dispensationalists read about the temple in Revelation 11 they instinctively understand it to be talking about a physical temple located on this earth in the future. They believe that God has unfinished business with the Jews, that there are promises he gave to them which he still needs to fulfil. They need to be given the full extent of their land, the land which God told Abraham to stir up the dust as he walked over it (Genesis 13:17), and they need to be glorified as the world's top nation. When they read about the millennium in Revelation 20 they see this as the fulfilment of God's promises to send the Messianic Davidic king to rule the earth.

But all of this sounds like nonsense to Covenant Theologians. Because they believe that Israel and the Church are the one thing, and because the NT pretty clearly indicates that the promise and inheritance of the Christian is life in the new heavens and new earth, they understand God's promises to Israel to be the same. God may have promised to give Abraham's descendants some land, and he did give them a partial blessing in the land of Canaan, but what he was really promising them was the new heavens and new earth. If that's what God always intended, then why would Jesus delay it so that he could rule on this broken planet for a measly 1000 years?

Now I haven't discussed post-millennialism at all, because to be honest I don't really understand it. There are very few post-mills around now, I really only know of one (Doug Wilson). But I'm sure that, as with the others, those who are post-mill would have a particular meta-narrative which leads them to interpret Revelation as they do.


What is the general interpretation of God creating the humans "in his image"? I'm not sure I understand what this means, neither in English nor my native language. "In his image", as I interpret it, means that God intends to create an entity identical in looks and powers to himself.

But that can't be it. Well, I have no idea in terms of the looks, but I certainly don't have God's powers. If so, I would, too, be able to create an identical copy of myself, and an entire world myself, and do all kinds of other supernatural things, which I sadly don't. So, what does the phrase mean? "In his image"?

I've heard this all my life but only recently started really wondering what these fundamental Bible words mean. I find the very beginning of the Bible to be by far the most interesting.

God has communicable attributes and incommunicable attributes. To be tautological, to be made in the image of God is to exhibit some or all of the communicable attributes of God.

An example of an incommunicable attribute is omniscience; people are finite and God is infinite, therefore we cannot possess all knowledge.

The list of communicable attributes is a matter of debate. It includes:

free will (with boundaries hotly debated)
the ability to love
a spiritual nature (soul)
intelligence (memory, language, logic, planning, etc)
creative ability (though not ex nihilo)
morality
authority (over lower creatures)
glory and honour

As one example, the Psalms support the idea that God has given man glory, honor and authority:

When I consider your heavens,
    the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
    which you have set in place,
4 what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
    human beings that you care for them?

5 You have made them a little lower than the angels
    and crowned them with glory and honor.
6 You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
    you put everything under their feet:
7 all flocks and herds,
    and the animals of the wild,
8 the birds in the sky,
    and the fish in the sea,
    all that swim the paths of the seas. (Psalm 8:3-8)


Can a baby be baptized in a Catholic Church if the mother does not have papers proving she was baptized? I tried to baptize my baby at a local Catholic Church in Toronto, but the priest told me I need to provide documents proving I was baptized.  I don't have such documents because I was baptized and confirmed in another country, and I don't even remember in which church.  Without the paperwork from my country of birth the priest refuses to baptize my son.  Is this really a requirement in the catholic church?  Or is it possible to find another priest who is more easy going?

In order for a child to be baptized, there must be "a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 868 section 1). That is, the priest must judge it reasonable to believe that you will raise your child Catholic. This is reasonable from the church's point of view since it baptizes infants so that, growing in grace in the Church, they will be saved.

Is it necessary for you, then, to prove that you are baptized? Canon law has no such requirement. In fact, it's perfectly possible for the child of a non-Catholic to be baptized. (The complete requirements for valid, licit baptism of an infant are listed in Canon 868 of the Code of Canon Law). What's important is for the priest to feel comfortable with the idea that you'll raise your child Catholic. This is usually not a problem, especially if you have been a member of your parish for some time.


How many Christians have actually read the whole Bible? I have many times heard the claim that only very few people who identify themselves as Christians have actually read all or most of the Bible.

Have there been any studies to approximate the percentage of Christians who have read the Bible? I have found several numbers, but none of them cite any reliable sources.
Are there any significant differences between denominations?

Catholics who attend daily Mass for 3 years will have read through the entire Bible, or at least enough to disqualify themselves for St. Jerome to count them among the ignorant of Christ.

  Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ

St. Jerome (famous bible translator)

I won't attempt to extrapolate numbers that don't exist, but you might as well assume the number is non-negligible, but probably no more than 3% in North (of Mexico) America and Europe.

Personally, I don't go to Mass every day any more because of work, commute and family, but I did read the whole Bible when I was a telerelay operator and had the time.


Were some parts of the law abolished or "not one jot will by any means pass from the law"? Were some parts of the law cancelled or the whole law in its completeness should continue untill the heaven and the earth disappear?

Some parts of the New Testament clearly state that some portions of the law have been abolished with the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ (see examples in the end of this question). How does it go along with the following words of the Savior:

  I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the
  smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means
  disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished (Matthew 5:18 AKJV)

Examples of some portions of the law that are pronounced as cancelled in the New Testament:

Circumcision:

  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor
  uncircumcision, but a new creature (Gal. 6:15 AKJV)

Sacrifices:

  7:11"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under
  it the people received the law,) what further need [was there then]
  that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and
  not be called after the order of Aaron?

  ...

  15[yet] there arises another
  Priest,

  16who is made not after the law of a carnal commandment, but
  after the power of an endless life

  ...

  18For there is verily a
  disannulling of the commandment going before for its weakness and
  unprofitableness.

  19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing
  in of a better hope [did]; by which we draw nigh unto God

  ...

  28For the
  law makes men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the
  oath, which was since the law, [makes] the Son, who is consecrated for
  ever

  ...

  8:6[He] has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also
  He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon
  better promises.

  7For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then
  should no place have been sought for the second.

  8For finding fault
  with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I
  will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house
  of Judah

  ...

  13In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first
  old. Now that which decays and waxes old [is] ready to vanish away

  ...

  10:1For the law having a shadow of good things to come, [and] not the very
  image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they
  offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

  2For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the
  worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

  3But
  in those [sacrifices there is] a remembrance again [made] of sins
  every year.

  4For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of
  goats should take away sins

  ...

  14by one offering He has perfected
  for ever them that are sanctified"  (Heb. 7:11, 15-16, 18-19, 28,
  8:6-8, 13, 10:1-4, 14 AKJV)

Many Christians agree that there are three distinct kinds of laws in the old testament, and that one of them is eternal.

The moral law that declares how man should live.
The civil law that was the legal structures for the ancient nation of Israel.
The ceremonial law that declared how ancient Israel was to worship.

The moral law is believed to be eternal.  While it's not perfectly clear what's in the moral law and what is in the other two categories the Ten Commandments as well as passages like Deuteronomy 6:5 are in the moral law.

Both the examples in your question would fall into the ceremonial law.  Many Christians believe that the ceremonial law was either abolished at the death of Christ or completely fulfilled at the death of Christ.  Obviously Christ was and is the eternal sacrifice.  The specific sacrifices of the Old Testament are no longer needed.  As for circumcision it too is fulfilled in a different way.

  Philippians 3:3 (ESV)

   3For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh—

As for the civil law which would include the punishments specified for crimes and the like, it obviously ended when ancient Israel as a nation-state ended.

That said, while some of the laws in the Old Testament don't hold direct sway over our lives any more, remember:

  2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)

   16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.


Where in the Catechism can one read about sins of omission? Where in the Catechism can one read about sins of omission?
I couldn't find this term in it when I searched for it.

The place to look is in the online index: within the list for O, look for omission.
The word is found in four paragraphs:

1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. the root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man." But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons.
It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator.
The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

The last, 2326, merely repeats the gist of 2284 in the chapter summary.
The subject might also occur in other places, but these specifically mention omission.


How do local flood proponents explain God's promises to never do it again? Some Christians believe that Noah's Flood was a local event, and that the author of the Flood narrative never intended it to be understood as global in scope.
My question is, how then would we explain the following promises from God immediately following the Flood?

The Lord smelled the soothing aroma; and the Lord said to Himself, “I will never again curse the ground on account of man, for the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth; and I will never again destroy every living thing, as I have done. --Genesis 8:21
I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” --Genesis 9:11
and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. --Genesis 9:15

I'm sure ancient readers were aware that local floods still happened after Noah's Flood, so what could God (and the author of Genesis) mean by this if it were just a local flood?

Local-flood proponents generally fall into one of two camps:

That the narrative is told from the point of view of the author, and from the author's point of view, the flood covered the entire (known) earth. (One example).

In this view, I believe the only logical explanation for your question would be that God's promise was taken to mean that this would not happen again.  Specifically, God promised not to destroy the entire known world by water again.

So your objection about the author knowing about local floods isn't really relevant, since the flood of Noah was a distinct event from his perspective.
The Bible's language is not unambiguous, and a strong textual case can be made for the possibility of a local flood. This article offers a good explanation of this view.

In this view, if "all the earth" doesn't mean all the physical planet, then when God says "all the earth" He also doesn't mean the entire physical planet, which would allow for local floods of a lesser degree (what degree, I'm sure is subject to debate).


How many prophecies in the Old Testament are about Jesus? From what I’ve ‘heard’ at times there are select prophecies in the Old Testament that are apparently a reference to Jesus.

Are there only a select few, if so which are they? Or are they a truly boundless list which does not bare mentioning.

Short Answer
It depends who you ask. Probably somewhere between 30 and 400. Either way, a very compelling, large number that has an insanely low probability and makes both the existence of God and the truth of Christianity quite probable.
References
Even if you don't want to read my discussion, I encourage you to explore the topic yourself with these resources.

45 Major Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus
351 Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus Christ
All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible by Herbert Lockyer (Amazon)
The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook: All the Prophecies of Scripture Explained in One Volume by John Walvoord (Amazon)

The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook is nice because it includes an Appendix that has 1) the prophecy, 2) a star if it is a Messianic prophecy, 3) Scripture where predicted, 4) where it is fulfilled (in the specific Scripture or in a certain historical event). Walvoord in this book notes 100 Messianic prophecies (includes fulfilled and unfulfilled).
I also know there have been many probabilistic analyses on the prophecies of Jesus. If I or someone else can find some, it would be worth mentioning here. While assigning probabilities to the various prophecies can be difficult (read "arbitrary"), it still gives an appreciation for the divine orchestration at work.
I guess I also have to mention somewhere explicitly that prophecy is significant because it is telling the future far in advance; in this case, it is hundreds of years in advance, and 1,400 years in advance regarding Genesis 3:15. What prophecy isn't: changing the reliable dating of every book of the Bible ever to conform to a naturalistic presupposition that denies miracles or the supernatural. Thanks but no thanks liberal scholars (see vaticinium ex eventu for a brief [liberal] perspective on this topic).
Long Answer
I can give you some information and resources that address your question, but I don't think I can offer a definitive answer; I hope to improve the content of this answer with time. It is a good question without an agreed-upon answer, but that doesn't mean there is not a correct answer or a worthwhile answer that deserves investigation. This answer currently is more of a landscape view than diving into the details. I include references at the beginning and end for further study, and I hope to update this answer to make it better in the future. (Such as actually including specifics in each of the 4 categories).
There are few different categories of "prophecies about Jesus" depending on who came to that conclusion. I think this distinction is worthwhile, especially in the notable differences between groups 1 and 2.

Messianic prophecies accepted by Jews (followers of modern Judaism)
Messianic prophecies accepted by New Testament authors
Messianic prophecies accepted by Christians
Typologies

1. Messianic prophecies accepted by Jews
When rejecting Jesus as Messiah, Jews often cite currently unfulfilled Messianic prophecies as the reason. Christians, however, understand that these prophecies were not meant to be fulfilled during Jesus' first coming on Earth, but during His 2nd Coming and the Millennial Reign. Also, note that by modern Jews, I mean followers of modern Rabbinic Judaism.
Even the Jews do not agree on what constitutes a Messianic prophecy. See some of the Scriptural requirements of the Messiah and the mention of the disagreement among Jews.
2. Messianic prophecies accepted by New Testament authors
The New Testament authors understood Old Testament prophecies in ways that modern Jews do not, and modern Christians probably wouldn't have if the NT authors did not "begin the trend"/figure it out. They understood the "dual fulfillment" nature of some prophecies, such as the virgin birth, etc. These prophecies are more explicit and could be more readily counted. It may be also worth further distinguishing the prophecies that Jesus explicitly taught about himself.
Take the virgin birth prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, for example. This had a historical fulfillment in Isaiah 8-9, and yet was also cited as being fulfilled in Jesus in Matthew 1:22-23

Matthew 1:22-23 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: "Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means God with us).

A good and important question in understanding the discrepancies between how Jews and Christians understand Messianic prophecy would be, "Do Jews recognize the nature and validity of dual fulfillment prophecy?"...Welp, I don't know. A good question to ask (probably best for Judaism.SE). I would be curious if they recognize any prophecies as having a historical fulfillment and then another fulfillment later on, such as by the Messiah. The discussion in Evidence that Demands a Verdict suggests that they don't explicitly recognize this, but they do recognize multiple levels of meaning in the Tanakh (Old Testament). This understanding of multi-faceted meaning is exemplified in the Midrash commentary.
3. Messianic prophecies accepted by Christians
These come from the further examination of Scripture by later people, mostly Christians, from the church Fathers to today. The "addition" of other Messianic prophecies stems from the understanding that the NT authors were not exhaustive in the application of Old Testament prophecy to Jesus Christ as the fulfillment. For example, the NT authors never said, "Hey guys, Jesus didn't fulfill all the Messianic prophecies but he will fulfill all the not-yet-fulfilled ones in His Second Coming!" I am curious how many prophecies we understand as Messianic today that weren't explicitly mentioned in NT, or how our understanding morphed in the first few centuries of church fathers. Hopefully, I will find the answer and update it.
I'm not absolutely certain of any specific examples of prophecies accepted by Christians that aren't mentioned in the New Testament, though I imagine there are many. For example, my references above lists 351 prophecies fulfilled in Jesus, and I don't think all of these (or even the 45 listed) are all explicitly identified in the NT. I'd rather double check than state an incorrect one.
4. Typologies
Typology (see GotQuestions) is a symbol or foreshadowing of things to come, in this case of Jesus the Christ (Messiah). In The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook, "types" or "typologies" are counted as Messianic prophecies. I agree with this analysis, especially because when (all 3 of my examples) are explicitly applied to Jesus in the New Testament. They are a noteworthy, distinguishable subclass of Messianic prophecy.
Examples of typology

Jesus as the Passover Lamb

Jesus as the bronze serpent (Numbers 21:4-9, John 3:14-15)

In Numbers, God sent fiery snakes on the Israelites as a deadly punishment for their sin (speaking against God aka complaining). Then, they repented, and God directed Moses to put a bronze serpent on a pole, and everyone who is bitten who looks to the pole will live through the deadly snake bite. In comparison, all have earned a deadly punishment for their own sin, and all who look to Jesus will be saved from it. Jesus states in John,

John 3:14-15 "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”

There are a few less obvious allusions to the bronze serpent typology by Jesus discussed here. I just discovered this typology while listening to Evidence Demands a Verdict on the way to work today, and I have to say, that's so cool!

The Sign of Jonah

Additional References

Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Sean and Josh McDowell (used mostly for examples of typology)
Exploring Bible Prophecy from Genesis to Revelation: Clarifying the Meaning of Every Prophetic Passage by (editors) Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson (Amazon)


Why are relics that can perform miracles not idols? In reviewing the idol vs. icon issue, the top answer to What is the difference between icons and idols in churches that permit icons? defines an idol as "something worshipped as divine under the mistaken belief that it contains something divine or is itself God."

Catholicism has a long tradition involving relics, Eastern and Western rites. These relics are usually the remains or possessions of a great saint. Many of these relics are believed to give divine blessings of various types, including healing for the sick. This seems to fit the definition given of an idol. These relics are essentially items that house something divine, namely, divine power to heal.

I'm aware of some biblical arguments that these beliefs should be permitted, the most interesting of which is the man brought back to life simply by his body touching Elisha's bones, as detailed in 2 Kings 13. For purposes of this question, answers can assume the licit nature of relics. What I'm having trouble determining is exactly why healing relics don't count as idols.

Fr. Ronald Knox (a good guy to read if you're a fan of Chesterton) wrote:

  In a word, we are treating material objects and vocal formulas as the occasions upon which God himself will see fit to bestow a blessing upon us, in answer to the prayers offered when the object was hallowed, or the formula instituted. An exception must, of course, be made in favour of spots which are kept sacred by historical memories, or of relics which belonged to the saints; here our appeal for help is grounded, not upon the places themselves but upon the events which happened there, not upon the relics themselves but on the
  merits of the saints who have left them to us. And if, here and there, a taint of superstition (properly so called) infects the devotion of ill-instructed souls the Church will rather smile at their folly than hold up reproving hands; she knows how to deal with children.

  Fr. Ronald Knox - THE BELIEF OF CATHOLICS

So, in a sense a relic is like a materialized prayer.  They're pointers to spiritual realities.  I can't remember if you're a programmer by nature held over from Stackoverflow, but I think a programming analogy is useful.

If there's a generic thing called a prayer and it can manifest itself in many ways; through utterances (arbitrary or wrote), thoughts, good deeds, even instinctual actions (as a virtuous person might do who lays down their life for a friend).  Then there's no reason a prayer cannot manifest itself through scapulars, crucifixes, relics, etc...

The Encyclopedia of Catholic History says that the two councils which talked about relics were the Second Council of Nicea. Your question was met head on, but with little explanation except:

  How much more is it necessary that in the churches of Christ our God, the image of God our Saviour and of his spotless Mother and of all the holy and blessed fathers and ascetics should be painted? Even as also St. Basil says: "Writers and painters set forth the great deeds of war; the one by word, the other by their pencils; and each stirs many to courage." And again the same author "How much pains have you ever taken that you might find one of the Saints who was willing to be your importunate intercessor to the Lord?" And Chrysostom says, "The charity of the Saints is not diminished by their death, nor does it come to an end with their exit from life, but after their death they are still more powerful than when they were alive"

The second council is the mysterious council of Constantinople in 1084 that I can find nearly no information on.

It's a dogma that the blessing of God stays with things and places, so one ought to take it on faith.

  the Council of Trent (1563) defended invoking the prayers of the saints and venerating their relics and burial places.

    The sacred bodies of the holy martyrs and of the other saints living with Christ, which have been living members of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit and which are destined to be raised and glorified by Him unto life eternal, should also be venerated by the faithful. Through them, many benefits are granted to men by God.

  Fr. William Saunders - WHY DO WE VENERATE RELICS? - EWTN

Elijah and Elisha (according to the Golden book versions at least), told the people who were healed through their intercession (Naaman and "the prayed for boy") that it was God who worked the miracle.  A right understanding of relics would be that God is working the miracle.

My kids said the same thing when we were reading a few days ago about the Snake that God told Moses to raise up in the desert, but the explanation given (in the Catholic children's bible) is that's a type for Christ crucified.

Furthermore, relics are often kept in a place that requires a pilgrimage to go to.  Canon law stipulates that relics cannot be transferred permanently to a new home without consent of from Rome.

  Relics of great significance and other relics honored with great reverence by the people cannot be alienated validly in any manner or transferred permanently without the permission of the Apostolic See.

So either you need to make a pilgrimage to see them, or they do (as was the case recently when we viewed the relics of St. Maria Goretti that toured America last year)

The pilgrimage itself, acknowledged throughout the history of Christendom, is a powerful prayer.  It's like the 4 men who lowered their friend in through the roof to be healed by Jesus, it's a lot of work to get there.  But by their faith they're healed.

In summary, relics are sacramentals (tactile reminders of invisible realities) that are concrete prayers tied to times and events in history where God's grace was most evident.

TL;DR;

  Anathema to those who dare to say that the Catholic Church has at any time sanctioned idols.

  Second Council of Nicæa


Why does Paul emphasise that Jesus is the Son of David in 2 Timothy In 2 Timothy 2:8-9, Paul writes:

  8 Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering even to the point of being chained like a criminal (NIV, emphases mine)

From my reading of this, Paul's gospel is Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. I understand why Jesus rising from the dead would be part of the Gospel, but why include descendant of David? Wouldn't something like Son of God be more important to have in your gospel?

Because Jesus descended from the family line of David.
As Isaiah says,

  Isaiah 11 English Standard Version (ESV) The Righteous Reign of the
  Branch

  11 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
      and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.

The Branch is Jesus. Jesse is the father of David. In fact many prophecies from Old Testament said the one to redeem Israel is from house of David. Often the Bible would refer Jesus as David.

Also remember the blind man that was calling out to Jesus, he referred to Jesus as "son of David".

  Matthew 9:27 [ Jesus Heals Two Blind Men ] And as Jesus passed on from
  there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, “Have mercy on us,
  Son of David.”

  Psalm 132:11 The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will
  not turn back: “One of the sons of your body I will set on your
  throne.

  Matthew 1:1 [ The Genealogy of Jesus Christ ] The book of the
  genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.


How do liberal Protestants reconcile support for transgenderism with scripture? The Bible does not strike me as welcoming to transgenderism:

  The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God. -- Deuteronomy 22:5

And it is not hard to find knowledgeable Christian leaders (of various denominations) denouncing transgenderism via a web search.  Incompatibility between transgenderism and Christianity seems like the norm.  AthanasiusOfAlex, 2015, writes "transgenderism is deeply problematic" explaining that:

God created man and women (Genesis 1:27), and that
"[a person's] body is just as much a part of his being as his soul".

However, Wikipedia explains that (liberal) Protestantism accepts transgender people:

  Within mainline, or more specifically liberal, Protestantism, several denominations or regional bodies within denominations have grown increasingly accepting and supportive of transgender members and rights.

This leads me to my question:

Question: How does liberal Protestantism reconcile supporting transgenderism with what the Bible teaches?

I'm not well-informed about Christian denominations, so I don't know precisely which Protestant subset has a "transgenderism is okay" stance. I'm interested in how they come to the conclusion that "transgenderism is okay" while others do not.

Define "Support"...

Within the spectrum of "supporting" things there are those who believe the practice should be allowable, though it is not necessarily moral. For example, with the issue of homosexuality, there is some discussion about whether gay marriage should be legal or not independent of what the Bible says (or the moral judgement) about the issue.

The same is true of transgenderism. There are those who support the ability of people to undergo gender transition, but do not necessarily advocate this practice for Christians. The arguments for this are rather generic and beyond the scope of the discussion here, but generally boil down to whether we should pursue theocratic nations and whether we should be legislating morality.

Or in the words of Paul, this is the idea that

  Everything is permissible, but not everything is helpful. Everything is permissible, but not everything builds up. (1 Cor. 10:23, ISV)

While we are defining things...

While it is one thing to believe that transsexualism should be permissible, there are those Christians who take this to the next level of support. In order to understand why these Christians do not believe Deuteronomy 22:5 applies you first need to begin with a sound understanding of trans culture. Most notably that Deuteronomy 22:5 is not a prohibition of Transgenderism or Gender Dysphoria but instead of Transvestism, or cross-dressing. It may help to define these terms which will hopefully help to make the distinction clear:

  Transgender

  Transgender people are people who have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from their assigned sex.

  Transsexual

  Transsexual people experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with, or not culturally associated with, their assigned sex, and desire to permanently transition to the gender with which they identify, usually seeking medical assistance (including hormone replacement therapy and other sex reassignment therapies) to help them align their body with their identified sex or gender. Transsexual is generally considered a subset of transgender.

  Gender Dysphoria

  Gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder (GID) is the dysphoria (distress) a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. In these cases, the assigned sex and gender do not match the person's gender identity, and the person is transgender. There is evidence suggesting that twins who identify with a gender different from the one they were assigned at birth may do so not only due to psychological or behavioral causes, but also biological ones related to their genetics or exposure to hormones before birth.

  Transvestite

  Transvestism (also called transvestitism) is the practice of dressing and acting in a style or manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex.

  Cisgender

  Cisgender (often abbreviated to simply cis) is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth.

So, for a trans person, their brain and identity was created as a woman, but their body has male parts (for example.) While God intended this person to be a woman, something has gone awry with their body. In Duet 22:5 however, the abomination is dressing as the opposite of their gender. In fact, one could argue that by dressing according to their sex instead of their gender, the trans person is being "an abomination" for failing to be true to the person that God created them to be because they are denying their identity in Christ. Instead of dressing contrary to their gender, trans people are instead expressing their true god-given gender.

It is important to remember that trans people may frequently have good medical cause and need to undergo gender reassignment. For Cisgendered people life is very easy and they enjoy the privileged of never having to deal with the internal struggle of identity, never have to fear the call of nature and don't have to fear lynchings simply because of a birth defect. For trans people, this is not the case.

Gender is not straightforward, binary, or cut and dry

In fact, a large portion of trans people may be demonstrably and measurably intersexed.

  Intersexed

  Intersex people possess any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones, or genitals that, according to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Such variations may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.

While God may have created people as male or female according to Genesis 1:27, clearly for some people who are intersexed they have been created as male and female and do not fit neatly into either category.

For example, some people born with Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, born with male chromosomes are completely immune to the effects of the testosterone in their bodies and in utero and are born with the appearance of being female and may even live their entire lives as women without knowing they actually have male chromosomes and DNA. Other people however may find that they have a dysphoria and despite appearing as a women, feel that their true identity is as a man.

And there are dozens of similar disorders which lead to intersexual expression

There is some evidence to suggest that the causes of transsexuality are similar to the above conditions and that many, most, or all cases fall into this category.

Conclusion

While there is a temptation to think of transgender people as choosing to go against the way God created them, we have to remember that when sin entered the world, there are many people with birth defects who are not born the way that God created or intended mankind to be - missing hands, arms, legs, fingers or toes, having cleft palates, or missing genitalia or having a surplus of genitalia - and that those with Gender Dysphoria may simply be among these others.

For many years, there was a belief that those with infirmities faced these  handicaps due to sins they or their parents committed. One of the radical and transformative aspects of Jesus healing ministry was to manifest "forgivess" of "sins" through healing, but also to send a message that these handicaps and illnesses are not the fault of the victims of these handicaps and diseases.

Just as it would be wrong to call someone sinner because of the way they were born; black, without legs or similar, you need to consider that this is what you are doing to those with Gender Dysphoria.

In fact, it was Jesus himself who held up Eunuchs as people the divorced should emulate in Matthew 19:12 (NIV)

  For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others--and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Progressive Christians would appeal to the above facts in order to support the view that transsexualism should be supported within the church.

Notes:

Most of these thoughts come from a lecture given by postgraduate student presenting her Masters Thesis in Gender Studies at The Gathering in Salem, MA - a self-defined Emergent Church, a denomination many consider progressive/liberal
This posting is not intended to suggest that people who are trans are "defective" or that all intersexed people are types of trans people or should undergo gender reassignment to select one of two genders. Many would take umbrage at these suggestions. These communities are diverse and while some people would find these ideas comforting, others would take offense.

Helpful Resources:

transchristians.org


Why do Popes have seven candlesticks on the altar at Mass? Why is it that Popes have seven candlesticks on the altar when they pontificate a Solemn Mass? This is something that I have noticed at several Papal Masses. Sometimes the candlestick is set next to the altar, but not always. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have also followed this tradition.

As an example, one may see the seventh candle in this video of Pope Francis' Chrism Mass (2015). The seventh candle is clearly seen at 1:56:24 minutes in and is clearly on the altar, on the left side of Pope Francis.

Does the seventh candle have a traditional symbolism or meaning?

The seventh candle seems to be the jurisdiction candle.

The number of candles "at a pontifical high Mass, celebrated by the ordinary, seven candles are lighted. The seventh candle should be somewhat higher than the others, and should be placed at the middle of the altar in line with the other six. For this reason the altar crucifix is moved forward a little. In Requiem Masses, and at other liturgical services. e.g. Vespers, the seventh candle is not used. If the bishop celebrate outside his diocese. or if he be the administrator, auxiliary, or coadjutor, the seventh candle is not lighted."

This candle seems to be now moved as "an astute Pray Tell reader writes in with an interesting detail on the altar candles:

I just managed to catch the end of the Pope’s Sunday Mass. Someone has moved the central candlestick (the one that says “I have jurisdiction here”) to the side, leaving what appears to be a much smaller-than-before crucifix alone in the middle, with three candles grouped in one corner, and four in the other . . ."

Abbots do not enjoy this privilege.

"The seven apocalyptic lamps (Revelation 1:12) might be in some way related to the menorah, but this would not have influenced their introduction into the liturgy.

The practice described in the seventh-century evidence was later discontinued in Rome although maintained in some monasteries. Sometime around the first half of the 11th century candles appear upon the altar itself. However, neither this practice nor the number of candles was universal.

It was not until the late 13th century that the custom of seven candles upon the altar for the bishop’s Mass was restored to the Roman liturgy. It was firmly established in a book of ceremonies written by Cardinal Giacomo Stefaneschi (1270-1343) who observed, “When the Pope celebrates solemnly, seven candles must be placed upon the altar.”

This practice continues today. For the extraordinary form the indications of the Ceremonial of Bishops for a bishop’s Pontifical Mass are to place seven candelabras upon the altar. The cross is placed in front of the middle high candle at the center.

The practice for the ordinary form is less precise. This is because it is permitted to have candles near the altar and not just upon it. Nos. 125 and 128 of the Ceremonial of Bishops foresee the possibility of having from two to seven acolytes with lighted candles form part of the entrance procession. These candles may then be located upon or near the altar.

Although it is not specifically stated in the liturgical book, and in accordance with the practice of papal celebrations, it is possible to have seven candles upon or near the altar before Mass begins. For the entrance procession two candle bearers accompany the processional cross and they may be followed by six torch bearers. In this case the candles used in the entrance procession are discreetly placed to one side once the procession is over. The two candles are used during the proclamation of the Gospel and at the end of Mass. The six torches accompany the thurible in front of the altar during the Eucharistic Prayer."

The Lamb's Supper

Revelation 1:20 also how seven candlesticks displayed at Mass could be seen as to demonstate the use of the pope's seventh candle (the jurisdiction candle):

  The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches. - Revelation 1:20


What does "the saints are not keepers of the law, but legislators" mean? In a recent encyclical marking the 1700th anniversary of the Edict of Milan,  the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, wrote:

  The Wisdom of God, the Lady Theotokos our Pammakaristos and Conciliation, St. Demetrios Kanavis, St. George the Trophy-bearer of the Phanar, and all the saints of our Church are not keepers of the law but legislators according to St. Symeon the New Theologian. The institution of the Church is charismatic, and the charismata of the saints function as institutional signposts for the faithful of the Church.

The Greek text seems to be basically word-for-word the same, except that "charismatic" is emphasised:

  Ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ Σοφία, ἡ Κυρία Θεοτόκος ἡ Παμμακάριστος καί ἡ Παραμυθία, ὁ Ἅγιος Δημήτριος ὁ Κανάβης, ὁ Ἅγιος Γεώργιος ὁ Τροπαιοφόρος τοῦ Διπλοφαναρίου, οἱ Ἅγιοι συνολικῶς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἡμῶν δέν εἶναι φύλακες τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλά νομοθέται, κατά τό Ἅγιον Συμεών τόν Νέον Θεολόγον. Ὁ Θεσμός τῆς Ἐκκλησίας εἶναι  χ α ρ ι σ μ α τ ι κ ό ς καί τά χαρίσματα τῶν Ἁγίων λειτουργοῦν ὡς θεσμοί καθοδηγητικοί διά τό ἐκκλησιαστικόν πλήρωμα.

What does he mean by the statement that the saints are "not keepers of the law, but legislators", with reference to the Orthodox perspective on the nature of the Church? What significance is there to the particular saints (plus Wisdom) listed? What teaching of St Symeon is being referenced?

"The Wisdom of God, the Lady Theotokos our Pammakaristos and Conciliation, St. Demetrios Kanavis, St. George the Trophy-bearer of the Phanar, and all the saints of our Church are not keepers of the law but legislators according to St. Symeon the New Theologian."

This answer will be in keeping with Symeon’s perspective!  Symeon identifies himself with the saints contrasting himself (a legislator of the law) with his chief adversary, Archbishop Stephen who was a (keeper of the law).  Symeon’s views were born from an actual encounter with the Holy Spirit (charismatic) as opposed to Stephen’s views which were theoretical yet not personal.

Consider the Gospel of Luke 7:35 “wisdom is justified of all her children”.

“All the saints” are “children of wisdom”, “wisdom” is the Holy Spirit, which legislates the will of God the Father through the hearts of the saints.

When Gabriel prophesies to Zacharias about his son John the Baptist: Luke 1:16,7 And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

The "keepers of the law" are watchdogs of the law they are like those that sat in the marketplace claiming John the Baptist had a demon and Jesus was a drunkard:

Luke 7:31-35 And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children.

The children of wisdom are the legislators of the law!


Sources for Luther and Calvin quotes supporting geocentrism In response to Copernicus' heliocentric model of the solar system, Martin Luther and John Calvin are reported to have responded showing their support for geocentrism.

I have found the following quotes in several places on the internet, however, I have not been able to find the original source for either quote.

Luther:

  The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.

Calvin:

  [They] pervert the course of nature [by saying] the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns.

The closest thing I can find to the primary source are statements to the effect that Calvin's quote comes from a sermon, and Luther's from something called "Table Talk". I found an online document titled The Table Talk of Martin Luther which includes a section labeled On Astronomy and Astrology but I was unable to locate this quote within it.

Are these genuine quotes? Can someone help me find their respective sources?

Although this quotation is not included in the online document titled The Table Talk of Martin Luther, it would seem to be genuine.  First of all, evidence of Luther's beliefs can be found in paragraph DCCXCVII of that document:

  Astronomy is the most ancient of all sciences, and has been the introducer of vast knowledge; it was familiarly known to the Hebrews, for they diligently noted the course of the heavens, as God said to Abraham: "Behold the heavens; canst thou number the stars?" etc. Haven's motions are threefold; the first is, that the whole firmament moves swiftly around, every moment thousands of leagues, which, doubtless, is done by some angel. 'Tis wonderful so great a vault should go about in so short a time. If the sun and stars were composed of iron, steel, silver, or gold, they must needs suddenly melt in so swift a course, for one star is greater than the whole earth, and yet they are innumerable. The second motion is, of the planets, which have their particular and proper motions. The third is, a quaking or a trembling motion, lately discovered, but uncertain. I like astronomy and mathematics, which rely upon demonstrations and sure proofs. As to astrology, `tis nothing. [My emphasis]

Christopher B. Kaiser (Creational Theology and the History of Physical Science), page 185, tells us  Luther's comments were based on dinner table conversations. He says Anthony Lauterbach, who dined with Luther, recorded the following comments from Luther:

  So it goes now.  Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something on his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Josh. 10:12]

Kaiser says

  Clearly the issue for Luther was not a technical question of the merits of the heliocentric theory, but the seeming ambition ofthe astronomer and the possible disruptive effect his teachings might have on a Christian society.

Calvin's comments are attrbuted to his 'Sermon on 1 Corinthians 10:19-24'.


What were people called who believed in the "Christ" before Jesus was born? About 2000 years ago Jesus Christ died on a cross. A person who is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings is called Christian. My question is what were people called who followed the Messiah before Jesus Christ?

The Messiah is a well-known type within Judaism.  Prior to the incarnation of Jesus Christ (when Jesus, who was God, became man), there was no Christianity.

The word "Messiah" in Greek is "Christos" from which we get the term "Christianity."

The word "Messiah" simply means "appointed," and within Jewish thought, the Messiah was appointed by God to make radical changes. For more on this, see the question: What is God's good news before Jesus's death and resurrection?

Theologically, Christians claim to be the heirs of the promise given to the Jews, through Abraham. The distinction between modern Judaism and Christianity is whether or not we believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, aka, "the Christ." That we are have the same understanding of what is good and bad morals is the link.

What separates us is whether or not Jesus was God. If Jesus is God, then he can save us. If Jesus is not God, we can only be saved by being part of the covenant given through Abraham.

Indeed, even for the first Century, the only distinction between "Jews" and "Christians," was that Christians were this sect of Judaism that believed Jesus was the Messiah predicted in the Jewish Scriptures. Unlike what mainstream Judaism would have taught, however, this Messiah was not a Jewish-only savior.

As this group of Jews grew, (they were known as "The Way" at that time), non-Jews (Gentiles) were seen to be part of the group as well.  Initially, the question was how Jews should accommodate these Gentiles (see Acts 15), but by the end of the first Century, the situation was reversed.

All of this is to say, people who followed the Messiah prior to Jesus' would have simply been called "Jews"

(Side note, Hebrew is an ethnic identity, Judaism is a religion that originated amongst the Hebrews)


The statements of the early Church Fathers regarding the doctrine of the Trinity (pre-Nicea) In an article answering Georg Kaplan's 1 denials of the Trinitarian doctrine, Ken Temple states :

Even if the early Church had never applied the title θεός to Jesus, his deity would still be apparent in his being the object of human and angelic worship and of saving faith; the exerciser of exclusively divine functions such as creatorial agency, the forgiveness of sins, and the final judgment; the addressee in petitionary prayer; the possessor of all divine attributes; the bearer of numerous titles used of Yahweh in the OT; and the co-author of divine blessing.
Faith in the deity of Christ does not rest on the evidence or validity of a series of ‘proof-texts’ in which Jesus may receive the title θεός but on the general testimony of the NT corroborated at the bar of personal experience.147
Apologetics and Agape - Wordpress - March 19, 2018

Nevertheless he publishes a list of texts as an example.
However what attracted my attention and what prompts my question is his answer to the objection that the doctrine of the Trinity was formed in later centuries than the early church and the objector claims that the early church knew nothing of it until Nicea.
So Ken Temple further states :

... Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius and Hillary and others had expressions of the Trinity in centuries (and at the same time – Athanasius and Hillary) before Gregory of Nyssa. Ignatius is clear on the Deity of Christ in early second century (around 107-110 AD) and has a simple expression of the Trinity.

So, Ken Temple then quotes from Ignatius (writing in 107-110 AD), which I shall not copy, it is in the linked document.
But all he says of Tertullian is :

Also, Tertullian, around 190-220 AD, used the basic words, “Trinitas Unitas” (three in one) and “persona” (the Latin equivalent of hypostatis) over 1 century before the Cappadocian Fathers, as did Origen around 250 AD.

My question is - Are there more susbstantial references available on this subject from Tertullian and Origen and Irenaeus ?

1 Georg Kaplan, a professed Unitarian, seems to be linked to the pseudonyms 'Gregory Blunt' and 'Thomas Pearne'. (Although, elsewhere it is spelt 'Kaplin').
Edit : Comment suggests that this is a third layer of pseudonym.

I found the following quotes on the doctrine of the Trinity:
IRENAEUS –

“He is Himself in His own right God and Lord and Eternal King and Only
begotten and Incarnate Word, proclaimed as such by all the prophets
and by the Apostles and by the Spirit Himself… The Scriptures would
not have borne witness to these things concerning Him, if, like
everyone else, He were mere man.” (Against Heresies by Iranaeus, 3.10
pp1-2, Jurgens, Vol. 1)
“[The Gnostics] transfer the generation of the uttered word of men to
the eternal Word of God, attributing to Him a beginning of utterance
and a coming into being in a manner like to that of their own word. In
what manner, then, would the Word of God – indeed, the great God
Himself, since He is the Word – differ from the word of man, were He
to have the same order and process of generation?” (Ibid. 2:13.8)

ORIGEN –

“Although He was God, He took flesh; and having been made man, He
remained what He was, God… For we do not hold… that some part of the
substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was
procreated by the Father from nonexistent substances, that is, from a
substance outside Himself, so that there was a time when He did not
exist.” (Fundamental Doctrines by Origen, Ibid., p1, pref.3-4)

TERTULLIAN –

“God alone is without sin. The only man without sin is Christ; for
Christ is also God.” (The Soul by Tertullian, 41.3, Jurgens, Vol. 1)
“But Christ,” they [the Gnostics] say, “also bore the nature of an
angel.” For what reason? And why did He take human nature? … Christ
bore human nature in order to be man’s salvation… There was no such
reason why Christ would take upon Himself angelic nature.” (Ibid.
14.1)

Now let me quote from another book which deals with Tertullian and his theology – The Story of Christian Theology by Roger E. Olson, Apollos, 1999.

“Tertullian’s massive critique Against Praxeas was written after
Tertullian had defected to Montanism, but its influence throughout the
Western Christian churches was ‘immediate and permanent.’ Praxeas was
perhaps the first Christian theologian to attempt to explain the
doctrine of the Trinity in systematic detail. In the process, however,
he apparently explained away the real ontological threeness of the
persons of God. That is, Praxeas denied that Christians believed in
three distinct identities or even relations within the one divine
being… Praxeas’s view later came to be known as modalism and was
revived by another later teacher of Christians in Rome named
Sabellius… Tertullian perceived this modalistic explanation of the
triunity of God as a dangerous heresy and declared in typical fashion,
“Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away
prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete and
crucified the Father”. (Tertullian, quoted in Justo Gonzalez, A
History of Christian Thought, vol. 1, From the Beginnings to the
Council of Chalcedon, rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1992) p.178.)
[Page 92 of Olson’s book.]
“Tertullian strove to explain why Christians worship Jesus Christ
rather than Caesar or any other so-called god and yet at the same time
insist that God is one and heavenly. In order to explain this, he
turned to the often-used concept of the Logos of God and appropriated
an analogy that would become a favorite one for Christian thinkers
wrestling with this issue. The Logos, Tertullian carefully explained,
is both God and God’s offshoot through which he relates to creation.
This Logos is, of course, Christ, the Son of the Father. Tertullian
used the sun analogy to explain their relationship:  ‘This ray of God,
then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a
certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in his birth God and
man united’. (Tertullian Apology 21 ANF 3) [Page 93 of Olson’s book.]
“In Against Praxeas Tertullian provided a fairly clear statement of
this organic monotheism: ‘All [three – Father, Son and Holy Ghost] are
of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the
dispensation is still to be guarded, which distributes the Unity into
a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons – the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in
degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect;
yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power.”
(Tertullian Against Praxeas 2.) [Page 96 of Olson’s book, which also
has more on Irenaeus and Origen – I do recommend this book.]


Could Jesus have extraterrestrial brothers or sisters? According to Sacre Scriptures, Gospel, Catechesis, Catechism and so on, could Jesus have had, or could have, one or more brothers or sisters?

I'm not referring to terrestrial brothers or sisters who lived during the time Jesus has lived on the earth, which, however, would be in disagreement with the dogma of the Virgin Mary(1),  but to brothers or sisters  that lived on other planets where other kinds of extraterrestrial beings live or lived.

Or, in case, did God send always Jesus, the same son who went on the earth, on these planets?

I'm not looking for an opinion based answer, but for an answer that describes the position of diffrent christian churchs on this matter(2).

(1) However, there would be the problem to exclude the circumstance that Joseph, the 'father' of Jesus, did not have other son/s with other women.

(2) If it is unclear, the matter is what the position of christian churches is about extraterrestrial civilizations and their need to be saved.

Firstly, anything and everything regarding "other planets" is speculation. The Bible is entirely silent on the matter. That includes the question of whether or not there is intelligent life on other planets. Scientists disagree on that question, as do theologians; most theologians, I gather, would say that there probably is not. But let's assume for the sake of your question that there is.

We can say unequivocally based on Scripture that the answer is no. Jesus is "God's only begotten son," as he proclaims in the ever-famous John 3:16. The Nicene Creed summarizes Scripture's teaching this way:

  I believe in ...
  one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
  Begotten of his Father before all worlds,
  God of God, Light of Light,
  Very God of very God,
  Begotten, not made,
  Being of one substance with the Father,
  By whom all things were made;

This is very important. Colossians 1:15-20 is a good passage about Christ as the agent of creation. That's a unique role, which he shares with no one. He was not created, nor was he begotten in a moment in time. The trinitarian relationship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit has existed "before all worlds," and is unchangeable.

This being so, you may ask, how would redemption be accomplished for other intelligent life that has gone astray?

That's a question none but God knows the answer to. Nor does any church I'm aware of have an "official stance" on the matter. But some answers will be consistent (as far as they can go) with official teachings, and others won't. A good piece of speculation can be found in C. S. Lewis' Religion and Rocketry:

  Perhaps of all races we only fell. Perhaps Man is the only lost sheep; the one, therefore, whom the Shepherd came to seek.

Lewis raises this as a possibility, but affirms that it is not the only one:

  [But] if we knew that Redemption by an Incarnation and Passion had been denied to creatures in need of it is it certain that this is the only mode of Redemption that is possible? ... [W]e don't know. At any rate, I don't know. Spiritual as well as physical conditions might differ widely in different worlds. There might be different sorts and different degrees of fallenness. We must surely believe that the divine charity is as fertile in resource as it is measureless in condescension. To different diseases, or even to different patients sick with the same disease, the great Physician may have applied different remedies.

In the essay itself, he doesn't go very much further with regard to what these "different diseases" and "different treatments" may be. But an imaginative rendering of his speculation is found in his brilliant Space Trilogy, which I highly recommend. The only concrete piece of further speculation he offers in the essay is that perhaps other species' redemption would come about via Christ's sacrifice on earth. But this, again, is mere speculation.

So that answers (as well as I can) about redemption. What about other species not in need of redemption? Surely they would still need to at least know God. So, would Jesus necessarily visit other planets in order to reveal God to them? Perhaps. Again, speculation. But what we do know is that if these were species that God desired to love as his children, he would not leave them without the Holy Spirit, who Jesus tells us is our comforter and who indwells us for our holiness and renewal.