Catholic and other faith intermarriage Why isn't a Catholic supposed to marry outside of their faith, and what are the consequences if you do? Additionally, would there be some inside of Catholicism who don't think this is an issue?

I am looking for a quote maybe, or somewhere that says this in a catechism.

I would also appreciate evidence against this belief.

The key issues seem to be in the Code of Canon Law, Chapter VI, canon 1125, which says in part:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;
2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;
3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

A theme common to all these clauses is an attempt to maintain the Catholic partner and all future children as members of the Catholic faith, whether out of concern for their souls or concern for Church membership. To ensure that the Catholic faith is seen by both partners as paramount and that they regard their marriage as an exclusively Catholic sacrament, canon 1127, clause 3, says:

It is forbidden to have another religious celebration of the same marriage to give or renew matrimonial consent before or after the canonical celebration according to the norm of §1. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic who is assisting and a non-Catholic minister together, using their own rites, ask for the consent of the parties.

Until around the middle of the twentieth century, the Catholic Church tended to insist the non-Catholic partner convert to Catholicism and only permitted mixed marriages as a last resort, in cases where conversion was refused and the Catholic partner was at risk of marrying outside the Church. Which brings us to the second part of the question - the fact that Catholics were increasingly prepared to enter into mixed marriages, with or without Church approval, brought about a relaxation of this impediment. Now, there are many Catholics who don't think this is an issue and are willing to make the required undertakings merely as a formality, or to marry outside the Church. Marrying outside the Church might mean the Catholic is no longer able to receive communion, but worldwide statistics from 2004 show that in many nominally Catholic countries, a minority of the population even goes to mass every week.
Apart from dispensation to marry outside the faith, subject to the above requirements, it is not possible to provide evidence against this 'belief', because those requirements are not a belief but Church doctrine. Something that is Church doctrine is its own proof.


How do we reconcile the futility of Ecclesiastes with the reward of heaven? There's no question that Christianity believes in heaven.  We have a tag here heaven filled with questions about it.

Having said this, there are many places in the Old Testament that speak of the futility of life and show that death is merely nothingness (Sheol).

Here's on place in particular:

  Ecclesiastes 9:3-6 (NIV)Emphasis added
  3 This is the evil in everything that happens under the sun: The same destiny overtakes all. The hearts of people, moreover, are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterward they join the dead. 4 Anyone who is among the living has hope—even a live dog is better off than a dead lion!

  5 For the living know that they will die,  but the dead know nothing;
  they have no further reward,  and even their name is forgotten.
  6 Their love, their hate  and their jealousy have long since vanished;
  never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun.

Here's another verse that shows that there won't be a reward or punishment after death:

  Ecclesiastes 9:2 (NIV)
  All share a common destiny—the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not.

  As it is with the good,
    so with the sinful;
  as it is with those who take oaths,
    so with those who are afraid to take them.

With all this in mind, how do we reconcile the passages in the Old Testament with this understanding of heaven?

I'm seeking a Protestant viewpoint on this and am interested in any Protestant exegesis or doctrine or any historical facts regarding this issue.  Please support your answers.

We reconcile the two by keeping in mind that the "vanity" of Ecclesiastes is being told from the perspective of the world ("under the sun"), and not as a declaration of theological truth.  Ecclesiastes reaches its conclusion in the last two chapters, where we see that, in contrast to all the pursuits of the world which in the end don't amount to anything, lasting value can be found in righteous living, culminating in:

  Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

  13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

  14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

This ending makes it clear that the author does believe in the final judgment, which would be kind of pointless if death was the end of everything.


What is Beth Sarim building built for? Is  it a monument  of sort, build by the prophet of Jehovah's Witnesses in remembrance of all the Old Testament prophet? I also understand that there are altars in this building in honour of each of the Old Testament Prophets.  I am not sure how far this is true and would like to know from someone, the beliefs that make this building so special.

J. F. Rutherford taught:

  that the faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be
  back on earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of earth. http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/bethsarim.php

These faithful men of old (probably Abraham and other patriarchs/prophets) would need somewhere to live and Rutherford set aside the house known as Bath Sarim to be that place:

  if and when the princes do return and some of them occupy the
  property, such will be a confirmation of the faith and hope that
  induced the building of Beth-Sarim. http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com.au/2009/11/beth-sarim.html

I think Bath Sarim is Hebrew for "House of Princes".

Rutherford's predictions of when they would return failed to come true, and the house has been sold (1948).

  The belief that the "princes" would be resurrected before Armageddon
  was abandoned in 1950 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Sarim

I couldn't find any references to alters being built, or even a complete list of who the princes would be.


What is the difference between God and the Spirit of God? There are passages that appear to establish an identity between God and his Spirit:

24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” [John 4:24, ESV]

17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. [2 Corinthians 3:17-18, ESV]

However, other passages appear to make a distinction between the two, as if God and his Spirit were different beings. The passage that is most clear in this regard, in my opinion, is 1 Corinthians 2:10-13:

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. [1 Corinthians 2:10-13, ESV]

So, on the one hand, God is Spirit, but on the other hand, God has a Spirit. Does this mean that God is Spirit and has a Spirit simultaneously? Is there any difference between God and his Spirit? How can we make sense of all this?

What is the difference between God and the Spirit of God?  What is the difference between Christ and the Spirit of Christ? What is the difference between the Father and the Son?
We could go on and on.  If we understood this perfectly, we would be God and that is untrue so we can never understand this question finally.
The church fathers simply asserted (in their desperation to say something) that all three are of the same substance but different in function.  I am unaware of any better (although hopelessly inadequate) statement.
The Bible is far more interested in explaining the Character of God as loving, kind, gracious but just (and our need to emulate that Character).  It makes almost no attempt to explain the substance and makeup of God but simply asserts God's existence: "In the beginning God ..." Gen 1:1.
The closest the Bible comes to explaining anything about God is "God is Spirit"; but in reality, that tells us very little.


Why should I choose one particular congregation or denomination? Assuming that one believes in an almighty Lord, why should one choose a particular Christian congregation or denomination?

For example, why should one choose to serve God by helping the poor through the Salvation Army instead of doing so through the Opus Dei, or through Baptists, or through the Catholics?

As long as one lives in a moral fashion, why would God care that our money, faith, efforts and time go through a particular human congregation or another?

It seems to me that there is no particular reason for preferring one denomination over another, and most of them are quite similar, so maybe it's also OK to choose any church to be saved.

To be more specific, I don't care why I should choose denomination or congregation A over B, but why I should choose one at all.

To be honest, you have a good point.

We're all here for the same reason, to glorify God and rejoice in his Son, our savior. For most intents and purposes, any denomination of Christianity will get you that much.

As far as being part of a body of Christians at all, I believe this to be essential. Time alone is also necessary, but good Christian fellowship can go a long way; there are those to help you in your walk with faith, those to keep you on your walk, those to share your experiences with, and those to encourage you. This site could even be called a good site for Christian fellowship. The body of Christ is ever growing, and can a finger or a toe be a part of the body if it doesn't want anything to do with the rest of the fingers or toes, or they eyes or the nose?

As far as picking a denomination, this often happens because of very small, specific beliefs. I (being a Lutheran) selected my denomination because of how closely they keep to the original translation of the Bible (every pastor must learn Greek and Hebrew, and they cite the original languages often) and because of their focus on Grace Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone. I needed to be constantly reminded of the fact that nothing I do can get me to heaven, and that God is the only one that has the ability to save me, and I need to take every chance I get to further my relationship with Him.


What is the earliest documented usage of the term "Sola Scriptura"? While the concept may have existed far prior, a recent discussion has left me wondering - What is the earliest documented usage of the term "Sola Scriptura" in Christian writings. I am not interested in articulation of the concept, but instead of the first documented usage of this specific and actual phrase in reference to the doctrine (not just coincidental usage) - so please be sure to include a quote in your answer.

In 1520 Luther wrote the following in his defense against the bull of Pope Leo X:

  Nolo omnium doctior iactari, sed solam scripturam regnare, nec eam meo spiritu aut ullorum hominum interpretari, sed per seipsam et suo spiritu intelligi volo. (WA 7:98.40–99.2)

Mark D. Thompson gives this translation:

  I do not want to throw out all those more learned [than I], but Scripture alone to reign, and not to interpret it by my own spirit or the spirit of any man, but I want to understand it by itself and its spirit.


We're only in heaven for a short time? Will we really go to heaven but it's only until the new Earth comes as described in Revelation (when we're to return to Earth)?

Revelation 21:1-2 NIV

  Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”[a] for the first heaven and
  the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I
  saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from
  God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

No, you've confused the issue because you aren't familiar with the vocabulary involved.

The "new heaven and new earth" referenced here IS the "heaven" of generic terminology. Pop-culture Christianity likes to think of this as some separate place where everybody is floating on clouds, but this imagery is not the picture painted by Scripture. The language of Scripture is much more tangible, but also more complicated and we don't fully understand yet how all the pieces actually fit together. There are several major views on that cover the mechanical details and timeline heaven, but none of them really matter for the point of your question.

What Revelation is describing here is "heaven". Even though it sometimes uses the terminology "earth", it is a "new earth" and should be understood in the context of a complete salvation of creation itself, whether a new space or a complete reforging of the existing creation.

The way this fits into different eschatologies and views of heaven differs a little, but it is generally accepted that the existing "heavens and earth" does not refer to some ethereal other place and this universe but rather is a single unit referring to our physical universe. This includes space (heavens) and the planet we live on. When referring to "a new heavens and a new earth" this is an all new creation of everything including some sort of physical place.


Who in the fourth century had milk instead of wine at communion? While reading up on intinction I found a reference to an early practice of using milk instead of wine at communion. This was condemned in a decree of 340AD by Pope Saint Julius I:

For we have heard that some, occupied by ambition, contrary to the divine commands and apostolic custom, offer milk instead of wine at the divine sacrifice.
Audivimus enim quosdam schismatica ambitione detentos, contra divinos ordines et apostolicas institutiones lac pro vino in divinis sacrificiis dedicare.

(Translation from the first linked document; the Latin original is Decreta decem juxta Gratianum et Ivonem, decree 7.)
Who were these people that used milk instead of wine? And what does ambition have to do with it?

In some early church liturgies, and continuing even up to the Middle Ages, there was a custom of offering milk and honey to a newly baptized person as part of their first Eucharist. This took place after the bread and before the wine.1 An example is the liturgy of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (c. 215), 21:27-30:

  Then the deacons shall immediately bring the oblation. The bishop shall bless the bread,
  which is the symbol of the Body of Christ; and the bowl of mixed wine, which is the
  symbol of the Blood which has been shed for all who believe in him; and the milk and
  honey mixed together, in fulfillment of the promise made to the fathers, in which he said,
  "a land flowing with milk and honey," which Christ indeed gave, his Flesh, through which
  those who believe are nourished like little children, by the sweetness of his Word,
  softening the bitter heart; and water also for an oblation, as a sign of the baptism, so
  that the inner person, which is psychic, may also receive the same as the body. The
  bishop shall give an explanation of all these things to those who are receiving.

Jerome's Dialogue against the Luciferians (c. 379) also talks about this baptismal custom, though he does not embed it within the Eucharist:

  For many other observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head three times in the laver, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy.

The symbolism of milk and honey, and its biblical resonance, is pretty clear. There is no reference here to having milk instead of wine, and it is meant to be only for the first communion. The existence of this tradition, though, does demonstrate a background where  milk was not completely alien to the liturgy.

Clement of Alexandria wrote a long discussion in his Paedogogus (c. 198) I.6, where he takes the view that milk can represent blood, and even the blood of Christ. Part of his reasoning is that in his view of human physiology, milk is basically blood that has been somehow sweetened and purified.2 He also appeals to 1 Corinthians 3:2, in which Paul likens his teaching to milk and meat. Clement continues:

  The blood of the Word has been also exhibited as milk. [...] Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord's blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine?  [...] The same blood and milk of the Lord is therefore the symbol of the Lord's passion and teaching.

He also talks about drinking a mixture of milk and wine (yuck!):

  Furthermore, milk is mixed with sweet wine; and the mixture is beneficial, as when suffering is mixed in the cup in order to immortality. For the milk is curdled by the wine, and separated, and whatever adulteration is in it is drained off. And in the same way, the spiritual communion of faith with suffering man, drawing off as serous matter the lusts of the flesh, commits man to eternity, along with those who are divine, immortalizing him.

It seems quite possible that some people, following this teaching of Clement, considered it acceptable to add a milk element to the Eucharist, mix wine and milk together, or to substitute milk for wine completely.

1 Eucharistic doctors: a theological history, Owen F. Cummings (Paulist Press, 2005), p34.
2 Honestly, that entire chapter is pretty startling in a lot of ways. Apparently semen is also blood, that's been whipped into a foam. Thankfully the digression ends there.


If believing that Jesus is God is that important, why doesn't Jesus say it more often? Why did many of his disciples not even know it?

Jesus asked "Who am I?" to a bunch of his disciples. Out of so many, only Peter got it close. That he is the Messiah, son of the living God.

Even that is still vague. Cyrus is also a messiah. Judaism tends to think that God considers humans his children. http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PW/k/187/Cyrus-Gods-Anointed.htm

I mean if believing that Jesus is God is that important, wouldn't Jesus like say that a million time? Wouldn't that be the first thing his disciples know?

Update: I need to add that I wrote a million time figuratively. I mean if it's that important, he would have stressed that more so that his disciples would at least got it right when he ask, "Who am I?". In fact, even after his death and resurrection, his disciples are still divided. We have gnostic, judaizer, arians, and trinitarian. Yea I know that "the rest" are heretic. I also know that most christians think that the trinitarian are the "true" follower of Jesus. But put your self in historian shoes here. Early jesus followers differ from jews only in whether they believe Jesus is a messiah or not.

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[c] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[d] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

He doesn't condemn those who think he's a prophet or Elia? He doesn't say, "Good job Peter. For the rest of you, you'd better answer that thing right because my dad would fry you in hell if you messed up." http://www.ancestralfindings.com/who/ . Even Peter doesn't say, "You're God, Homo Ousion, without the i". I mean if something is kind of important, shouldn't that be more explicit?

Actually he said it a lot. Enough to get himself killed for saying it. The Jews considered Jesus' statement that he was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" blasphemy, and Jesus' agreement with Peter's declaration is the reason they tried and executed him.

The disciples took a while to catch on, but not for lack of being told. Their dull, slow hearts took a lot of time to convince, and Jesus had a great deal to teach them before he stirred up the pot enough to end his ministry.

It is important to note, however, the disciples to a man eventually became so convinced their teacher Jesus was THE Christ that they devoted their lives to proclaiming that message. Most of them were also willing to die--and did--for the truth of it.

If anyone was in a position to know that Jesus was something less than what he claimed to be, his disciples would know, yet to a man (except for Judas) they went their separate ways proclaiming all over the world that Jesus was God and Lord.

Moreover, I suggest Jesus made his message so plain that after his resurrection the disciples were left with no doubts about who he was. Who dies for something they know is a lie?


Is the Testament of Solomon Biblical? Okay so I was looking around on google for some answers about where some of the demon names that are "Biblical" came from, and I came across the Testament of Solomon. It isn't in the Bible from what I can tell. (It may be, if so, can I have some references?). It is an account of how Solomon enslaved demons using Michael's ring and made them rebuild the temple. There's something about all of this that just feels off. Does anyone know if its considered true by the majority or if its just considered untrue?

In broad strokes, the term "Biblical" gets used in one of two senses:

Content included in or coming directly from the canon of the Bible.
Something that is in essential agreement with what the Bible teaches about a subject.

The so called Testament of Solomon is Biblical in neither of these senses. It is not included in anybody's canon (not the Jews, Catholics, Protestants, any of the Orthodox churches, or any of the more recent denominations). In other words no branch of Christianity considers the work authoritative. Additionally its content directly contradicts the Biblical narrative of the same events on many points.


Who is the John Owen that translated Calvin's Commentary on Romans? I'm reading John Calvin's commentary on Romans, in English, and it has this inscription on the title page: "Translated and Edited by the Rev. John Owen."

Oh, wow, I thought, That's interesting; John Owen translated this; but I was thinking of the the Owen who lived 1616 – 1683. As I began to read the "Translator's Preface," it was clear that I had the wrong Owen in mind; he referenced a commentary on Romans by Charles Hodge (1797-1878), and as it went along it became clear it wasn't a different Hodge.

However, I have not been able to find out who this later Owen was or learn anything about him. It's evident from the commentary that he was British and contemporaneous with Charles Hodge. Who was he? Was a Presbyterian or an Anglican minister? Did he translate other works of Calvin?

The John Owen who translated many of John Calvin's works was the Vicar of Thrussington, Leicestershire.

  OWEN , JOHN ( 1788 - 1867 ), cleric and author ; son of Owen and Eleanor Owen , Cilirwysg , Llanfihangel Ystrad, Cards. The parents were Calvinistic Methodists but two of their sons took orders — John Owen and David Owen (for the latter see Yr Haul , 1842 , 195). John Owen was educated at Ystradmeurig under John Williams ( 1745/6 - 1818 ) (q.v.) . Ordained at S. Asaph ( deacon 1811 , and priest 1812 ), he was curate at Hirnant 1811-3 , S. Martin , Leicester , and Thrussington (Leics.) , becoming vicar of Thrussington in 1845 (and rural dean in 1853 ); he was buried at Thrussington on 31 July 1867 . He published memoirs of Daniel Rowland ( Llangeitho ) and Thomas Jones , Creaton ( 1752 - 1845 ) (q.v.) , and commentaries.

Source: http://yba.llgc.org.uk/en/s-OWEN-JOH-1788.html

See also:


What do day-age theorists do with "very good" in Genesis 1:31? I would like to know what day-age theorists do with what God says at the end of creation - that everything was "very good" (Genesis 1:31)?  That is to say, if you look at the fossil record, you see death, disease, cancer, killing, etc.  So how could God say at the end of creation that everything that He had made was very good?

The best way for me to answer this as a Day Age person is to quote from my main go to guy on the topic, Hugh Ross so I'm going to quote from one of his articles.

Was Evil Present in God's Very Good World

If you read the full article you will notice that Ross shows that the Bible uses the words Good and very good in both a moral sense, as well as in the sense of beauty and aesthetics.

  Interpreting tob in Genesis 1
  Tob carries both a moral and a physical appraisal in Genesis 1—the former based on supplementary information in Genesis 3, and the latter on the verb "saw." Hence the essential question is how to weigh these two components: is the meaning more moral than physical, or the reverse? Those who believe that the moral component dominates will typically suggest that God's creation contained not only no real evil, but also no apparent evil. Such interpreters usually picture the original creation as being like the popular concept of "Nirvana"—with no vertebrate animal death or harsh conditions whatsoever. There are, however, severe problems with this interpretation, detailed in our previous TNRTB, "What Does a 'Very Good' World Look Like?" (see here and here.)
  On the other hand, a strong argument can be made that the good God sees in Genesis 1 refers to the aesthetic and/or functional beauty of His creation. This is not to deny the moral aspect of the word tob in Genesis 1, but to emphasize the pleasing sight that God beheld in His work. There is harmony and structure in the creation narrative that points to the harmony and structure of the cosmos. Furthermore, His laws of nature are working together, and something that works harmoniously is beautiful to behold. Additionally, God may have seen Earth as tob because of its potential as humanity's habitat and the place where humans fellowship with the Creator.

  Our belief is that the language of Genesis 1 fits better with the aesthetic/functional interpretation. Although it is true that no real evil was present in the original creation, that is not the primary emphasis. Instead, the primary emphasis rests on the beauty of the created order. This is in harmony with the language and biblical theology (Psa. 104; Rev. 4:11). By contrast, there seems little justification for those who claim there is no apparent evil in the created order.
  If we combine the aesthetic and functional concepts of beauty with the moral, one can see why God sees His creation as very good.


How can I find this letter from Ambrose? In more than one work I encountered the following format:

(epist. 50[25],2f)

or

(epist. 49[59],3)

In referring to letters(?) written by Ambrosios of Milan, "epist." is explained as "Epistulae." which seems obvious.

But what does this indexing scheme refer to?

I would like to read the letter in the first example in either English, German or Latin.

After hours of additional search I found part of the answer in a footnote of Thomas O Loughlin's "Celtic Theology", p. 50. It seems to be the case that the number in square brackets usually refers to the ordering according to the "seventeenth-century Maurist edition". Other numbers mentioned are typified as pertaining to the "ET" or / and "FC series."


According to the Catholic Church, what is the best form of civil government? According to the Catholic Church, what is the best form of civil government?

I am looking for references to Church documents.

The Church does not support any particular form of civil government as being best.

The Church is impartial on this subject as long as the rights of the Church, the faithful and the natural law are preserved.

Pope Leo XIII teaches the following:

  Lastly, there remain those who, while they do not approve the separation of Church and State, think nevertheless that the Church ought to adapt herself to the times and conform to what is required by the modern system of government. Such an opinion is sound, if it is to be understood of some equitable adjustment consistent with truth and justice; in so far, namely, that the Church, in the hope of some great good, may show herself indulgent, and may conform to the times in so far as her sacred office permits. But it is not so in regard to practices and doctrines which a perversion of morals and a warped judgment have unlawfully introduced. Religion, truth, and justice must ever be maintained; and, as God has intrusted these great and sacred matters to her office as to dissemble in regard to what is false or unjust, or to connive at what is hurtful to religion.
  From what has been said it follows that it is quite unlawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, of speech, or writing, or of worship, as if these were so many rights given by nature to man. For, if nature had really granted them, it would be lawful to refuse obedience to God, and there would be no restraint on human liberty. It likewise follows that freedom in these things may be tolerated wherever there is just cause, but only with such moderation as will prevent its degenerating into license and excess. And, where such liberties are in use, men should employ them in doing good, and should estimate them as the Church does; for liberty is to be regarded as legitimate in so far only as it affords greater facility for doing good, but no farther.
  Whenever there exists, or there is reason to fear, an unjust oppression of the people on the one hand, or a deprivation of the liberty of the Church on the other, it is lawful to seek for such a change of government as will bring about due liberty of action. In such case, an excessive and vicious liberty is not sought, but only some relief, for the common welfare, in order that, while license for evil is allowed by the State, the power of doing good may not be hindered.
  Again, it is not of itself wrong to prefer a democratic form of government, if only the Catholic doctrine be maintained as to the origin and exercise of power. Of the various forms of government, the Church does not reject any that are fitted to procure the welfare of the subject; she wishes only - and this nature itself requires - that they should be constituted without involving wrong to any one, and especially without violating the rights of the Church.
  Unless it be otherwise determined, by reason of some exceptional condition of things, it is expedient to take part in the administration of public affairs. And the Church approves of every one devoting his services to the common good, and doing all that he can for the defense, preservation, and prosperity of his country. - Libertas

The same Sovereign Pontiff states:

  The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State. For, in things visible God has fashioned secondary causes, in which His divine action can in some wise be discerned, leading up to the end to which the course of the world is ever tending. In like manner, in civil society, God has always willed that there should be a ruling authority, and that they who are invested with it should reflect the divine power and providence in some measure over the human race.
  They, therefore, who rule should rule with evenhanded justice, not as masters, but rather as fathers, for the rule of God over man is most just, and is tempered always with a father's kindness. Government should, moreover, be administered for the well-being of the citizens, because they who govern others possess authority solely for the welfare of the State. Furthermore, the civil power must not be subservient to the advantage of any one individual or of some few persons, inasmuch as it was established for the common good of all. But, if those who are in authority rule unjustly, if they govern overbearingly or arrogantly, and if their measures prove hurtful to the people, they must remember that the Almighty will one day bring them to account, the more strictly in proportion to the sacredness of their office and preeminence of their dignity. "The mighty shall be mightily tormented."(2) Then, truly, will the majesty of the law meet with the dutiful and willing homage of the people, when they are convinced that their rulers hold authority from God, and feel that it is a matter of justice and duty to obey them, and to show them reverence and fealty, united to a love not unlike that which children show their parents. "Let every soul be subject to higher powers."(3) To despise legitimate authority, in whomsoever vested, is unlawful, as a rebellion against the divine will, and whoever resists that, rushes willfully to destruction. "He that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation."(4) To cast aside obedience, and by popular violence to incite to revolt, is therefore treason, not against man only, but against God. - Immortale Dei


What does it mean that the Virgin was assumed "in body" in Heaven? ... the Pope explained that the text from the Revelation, which speaks of a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon at her feet and a garland of twelve stars upon her head, refers both to the Virgin and to the Church. In part, "the woman of the Apocalypse is Mary ... the symbol of the luminous robe clearly expressed a condition referring to Mary in all her being: She is 'full of grace', filled with the love of God".
The moon beneath her feet symbolises death: "Mary is fully linked to the victory of Jesus Christ, her Son, over sin and death... just as death has no power over Christ resurrected, so by the grace and singular privilege of omnipotent God, Mary overcomes death. This is made manifest in the two great mysteries of her existence: at the beginning, the conception without original sin, the mystery we celebrate today; and at the end, her assumption in body and soul in Heaven".

What it is written above is an official discourse, yet it is written that the Virgin was assumed 'in body', other than in soul, in Heaven.
Can anybody explain what 'in body' precisely mean there? Does it refer to material or human body? If so, from where does Catholic Church deduce that believing? What do other Christian denominations, especially Lutherans and Orthodoxes, say about that believing?
Thank you and peace be with you.

Yes, this refers to Mary's material, human body.  The Catholic Church teaches that Mary was assumed into heaven, body and soul.

For an explanation of the reasons behind this teaching, you would do well to read the decree "Munificentissimus Deus" of Pope Pius XII, in which he officially defined this dogma of the assumption.  The "punch line" is "by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."  This is from section 44 of the decree, so you can see that a lot of explanation preceded it.

The whole decree is available on the Vatican web site, at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html (in English).  I should probably mention explicitly that, although this decree dates from 1950, the Church celebrated the feast of the assumption for many centuries before that. As far as I know, the Eastern Orthodox churches agree with this teaching, but protestants do not.


What is the biblical basis for the JW belief that only 144,000 go to heaven? The JW book "What Does the Bible Really Teach" asserts that (the blood of the) "covenant, or contract, makes it possible for 144,000 faithful Christians to go
to heaven (p207). and "These 144,000 Christians, including Jesus’ faithful
apostles, are raised to life in heaven" (p74). This question seeks the Biblical basis for this (apparent) "144,000" limitation on how many Christians can go to heaven, particularly given Rev 7:9,

"After this (the sealing of the 144,000), I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from-out-of every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, having-been-previously-clothed in white robes, and palm branches in their hands. (Rev 9:7)

when the subsequent context suggests this event occurs in heaven:

...all the angels had-been-standing around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell before the throne upon the faces of them, and they worshiped the God. (Rev 7:11)
... these (the ones in white robes) are the [ones] coming from-out-of the great tribulation, and they have washed the robes of them and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Because-of this, they are before the throne of the God; and they serve Him day and night in the temple of Him... (Rev 7:14-15)

Apparently, an uncountable number are observed holding palm branches... in white, washed-in-the blood robes... from out of the great tribulation... standing before the throne of Jehovah (in heaven)... serving Him night and day in His temple.
This report seems to conflict with only 144,000 believers going to heaven.
In answering this question, please do not address why 144,000 is considered literal, or that "144,000" are sealed on their foreheads during the 6th seal (Rev 7:4), or a similar "144,000" are subsequently observed in heaven during the 7th seal (Rev 14:1).  These have been addressed elsewhere on this site. This question seeks the Biblical basis for the specific (~144,000) limitation, when Rev 5:7-15 suggests the number is uncountable. An acceptable answer needs to harmonize this (apparent) conflict, without introducing non-scriptural information, ignoring anything relevant or contradicting other scriptures.

Not wishing to re-invent the wheel, I will not repeat the biblical basis in user9485's answer regarding the Jehovah's Witness doctrine that only 144,000 people will ever get into heaven, that number being culled from the time of Christ up until the still future point at the great tribulation, when JWs say the 'heavenly calling' will end, all those remaining on earth with that 'calling' suddenly dying and being whisked up to join Jesus in heaven. However, allow me to put a spoke in - one that is missing from the JW Wheel of Theology so far presented.

Nowhere in the Bible does it ever say that "only 144,000 ever go to heaven", as in your question. When asking for "a biblical basis' for any doctrine, you will always get one from those who hold to that doctrine. Thus, the JWs have anticipated the problem you raise, namely, that Revelation describes two distinct groups of people in heaven, worshipping before the very throne of God in heaven: the great crowd that is innumerable, humanly speaking, taken from all nations and having come out of the great tribulation, then the 144,000 taken from 12 tribes of Israel and 'redeemed from the earth'.

This is the spoke in the wheel, for when a huge number of people are depicted as dwelling in heaven, of which a particular group of 144,000 forms but a part, then the only way any doctrine could be formed on the basis of other scriptures would be to so interpret those other scriptures as to dispense with the 'inconvenience' of Revelation chapters 7 and 14 saying there's a huge number of humans in heaven. That is why a critical step in persuading JWs to accept the 144,000 only doctrine is to explain away the great multitude as only being symbolically in heaven, worshipping, and not literally being in heaven. This means that the verses about the 144,000 worshipping in heaven require that number to remain literal but the humanly uncountable number to be symbolic.

Anyone taking a bit of a verse as literal, but the rest as symbolic, does not have a biblical basis for any resulting doctrine. This is the spoke in the Revelation wheel with regard to how many humans are in heaven. To go on at great length about Jesus' parables, claiming many of them support this doctrine, is back to front, because the number 144,000 occurs only twice in the entire Bible, both times in the book of Revelation. That is where biblical truth about them must start, and any other biblical points claimed in support must always agree with what has been said about this specific group in Revelation. If so, then there truly is a biblical basis to be claimed, but if not, then interpretation about the 144,000 has failed to be consistent with what the Bible actually states about them.

I have the JW book "What Does the Bible Really Teach" and agree with the question as to what their doctrine states - but their book evades the problem in Revelation that you flag up (as an example). The answer given by user9485 first presents the JW formula for interpretation, then claims that because there are distinctions between the 144,000 and the great crowd, this must mean that they are in different locations. The first point is back-to-front (as Revelation must be examined and believed first), and the second point is illogical. The following points about parables are beside the point, given the errors of the first two points, and the last point alludes to a teaching about "a future covenant" for those 144,000 in heaven. Is that a JW one, or that of another group which has similar beliefs, though with variations? That may be beside the point. Sticking to the remit of your question, I would say that user9485's answer deals with main parts of it, but the missing spoke is trying to make lots of other Bible verses appear to fit with a doctrine that does not actually have Revelation chapters 7 and 14 as its foundation. This makes for a rather bumpy biblically-interpreted 'ride'.


Why do some people get healed, and others don't? Most of the Christian friends I have had (and family) have all believed in healing. Especially my grandmother, before she passed away.  Why is it that (if it does work that way) God sometimes heals certain people, but not others.  I have talked to certain pastors that believe in it thoroughly. They say that they have had MANY situations where they have seen healing, or prayed for healing and have had it happen in front of them. Some of them I know personally, and the last thing I would consider them are liars. One of them told me his Daughter had a skin condition, and God healed it right in front of him.  So I am wondering how all of this works.

There are many recorded instances in the Bible of healing, from Old Testament stories of Naaman having to dip seven times into the muddy Jordan river, to the New Testament story of the woman with an issue of blood who was healed only by reaching out her hand to touch Jesus's garment. In the book of Acts, the people are healed as they merely lay in the shadow of Peter (Acts 5:15), or touched a garment of clothing taken from Paul's body (Acts 19:12). So healing is pervasive to both the Old and New Testament, and testimonies continue well into the ministries of such venerated saints as Columba, Patrick, Irenaeus, Martin of Tours, Martin Luther, John Wesley, and on to recent men of faith like Billy Sunday, Jack Coe and Oral Roberts.

So how does healing work, and how can we ratify not being healed in the face of such scriptures as:

Mark 9:23
Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

James 5:15-16
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

John 5 records the story of Jesus healing a man at the pool of Bethesda, which is remarkable story of healing and mercy, but also raises some interesting questions, namely: why did Jesus not heal any the others who were waiting to step into the water as soon as it was stirred? Why was no one else healed?

To find an answer we turn to other places in scripture where healing could not occur. The first is in Matthew 17 as the disciples question why they could not cast out an evil spirit.

Matthew 17:19-20
Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Again in Matthew 13 we find that in Jesus' home country, surrounded by those who had grown up with him and supposedly knew him the best, he found himself hindered by their unbelief.

Matthew 13:58
And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

In F F Bosworth's book Christ the Healer, he notes that one of many obstacles that we must overcome to claim our healing is 'does Christ want me to be healed?'. Many times that is the greatest obstacle to our faith, and we can begin to believe that God somehow wants us to endure sickness to give him glory. What I find interesting is that not once in scripture do we have evidence of Christ ever turning someone away who came to him for healing. It was only in the face of unbelief that he could not work.

To receive healing:

In the same way that I must believe salvation is for me, I must also believe that healing is for me, and that it was part of the atonement (Isaiah 53:5).  In Numbers 21, those that did not look upon the brass serpent could not receive their healing.
I must believe God wants to heal us.
I must believe healing is part of my purchased possession.

This is an extremely broad topic, perhaps even too broad to discuss in less than several chapters of text, but hopefully this will be found helpful. There are many other points to consider in claiming healing, for example how confessing your faults to one another as James instructs plays a role.

I believe our unbelief is the chiefest obstacle to receiving healing, however I do not mean to imply in any sense that because someone does not receive their healing they are any less of a Christian. Sometimes, we are simply too close to our sickness to hold on in the way that we should, and in those most extreme cases that is why scripture implores us to pray for one another.

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
James 5:16


Do any denominations read Matthew 24:5 as meaning believers in Christ using his good name to deceive many? Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. (Matthew 24:5, KJV)

This statement when commented on is usually understood as others coming and convincing people that they themselves are Christ. I have found no other interpretation for this statement.

What irks me is that Christ states that many come in his name.  Another example of this is how we are baptized in his name (Acts 2:38).

To clarify my question I will use the method of explanation provided by Susan below.

Scripture: "So many have come in my name."

This can be taken two ways:

It can be taken as:

To come in Jesus' authority, in the same manner Peter suggests a person should be baptized (Acts 2:38).

Or as:

I (person speaking the first person) am the Christ (and shall deceive many).

In many Protestant eschatological systems, secret Rapture enthusiasts tend to associate this verse as a false Christ proclaiming to be in fact Christ.

However, it may indicate people who are believers coming with a presumed authority, perhaps or perhaps not recognized by God, and spreading a false Gospel that leads others into deception.

Are there any denominations that see this statement as referring not to someone claiming to be Christ, but coming as a believer in Christ and using his good name to deceive many?

For many will come in my name, saying, "I am the Christ," and they will lead many astray. (Matt 24:5, ESV)

In addition to the account of Jesus' words in Matthew, we have parallel accounts in both Luke (21:8) and Mark (13:6). These both lack "the Christ", and the meaning of the claim is therefore somewhat less certain. The Lukan passage has occasionally been interpreted along the lines of what I think you're getting at:

  ἐγώ εἰμι (lit. "I [emphatic] am") has most often been taken to mean "I am the Christ," but by some to mean "[that] I am here" (announcing Jesus’ secret presence), or as a mark of prophetic possession in which the speaker becomes the mouthpiece of the deity... The predominant view is the correct one. (Nolland).

Nolland does not explain here why "I am the Christ" is correct. (Here and elsewhere he refers us to his unpublished PhD dissertation, which apparently discusses at greater length the  incorrect interpretations.) However, in the Matthew passage this is clear from the Greek.

Absence of ὅτι (*hoti)
The identification of the referent of "I" (imposter vs. Jesus) in Matthew's report of Jesus's citation of the words of the imposter rests on the distinction between direct and indirect speech. You probably realize that there are no quotation marks or commas in the original Greek of the New Testament. Instead, Greek has other ways to mark off reported speech. Unlike English, the language itself is unambiguous here.

Most commonly, reported speech is introduced in Biblical Greek with a form of "to say", usually a participle ("saying..."). Direct speech may be introduced with or without hoti ("that"); however, in Koine Greek indirect speech requires this word.1,2  When it is absent (as here), the words immediately following the participle λεγοντες (legontes, "saying") are direct speech. The word legontes  may as well be translated (as it is in many modern versions): saying,"....".

Commentaries on the Matthew passage agreeing that this refers to the claims of the deceiver to be the messiah include Nolland himself, France, A.B. Bruce,  Hagner, Plummer, Blomberg. I did not find any in disagreement. This interpretation is supported not only by the grammar but also by the context, where the claimants are again mentioned in verse 24:

  For false christs (pseudochristoi) and false prophets pseudoprophetai) will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

It's hard to imagine that the pseudochristoi are envisioned as anything other than "bogus Messiahs" (BDAG).

OP:

  In many Protestant Eschatological systems, secret Rapture enthusiasts tend to associat[e] this verse as a false Christ proclaiming to be in fact Christ.

Although it is clear from the passage that affectations of messiahship are in view, several commentators point out that "Christ" here is likely not a name (= Jesus Christ, impersonated) but rather a title (= the m/Messiah).

  The first "false alarm" is in the form of messianic claimants. A Christian reader, prompted by the specific mention of the parousia in v. 3, might think that those who will come "in Jesus’ name" claiming to be Messiah are claiming actually to be Jesus, returning at the end of the age. But the declaration "I am the Messiah" would not be the most natural way to make that claim; it sounds more like a would-be liberator presenting himself to the Jewish people for the first time. He would be coming "in Jesus’ name" not because he is impersonating Jesus but because he is claiming the role and title which properly belong to Jesus. (France)

And again,

  'In My Name' or 'on the basis of My Name'...means that a claim to the title of Messiah was the ground of their pretensions: it is not meant that they would call themselves 'Jesus.' (Plummer)

France and Plummer were both Anglican (the former ordained in the Church of England). It's not clear to me that any of the other commentators consulted would disagree with the quotes above, although it's true that many, particularly Carson, stress the eschatological nature of the claim in a way that France and Plummer do not. France does not deny that the claim is eschatological, but he does explicitly deny that this passage may be used as a pattern by which to work out eschatology, an idea which may resonate with the OP's concerns:

  It is remarkable how often occurrences such as those mentioned in these verses are appealed to by those who are trying to work out a pattern for eschatological events, whereas in fact they are mentioned here precisely in order to discourage such speculation and to assert that the events described are not part of an eschatological scenario, but rather routine events within world history which must not be given more weight than they deserve.

1. This is the converse situation as English, where direct speech is more flexible (hence the OP's quandary), presumably due to the additional clarity offered by quotation marks.

2. The rule as described here a bit oversimplified, following the linked introductory grammar. It's actually possible to put an infinitive in that position to represent indirect speech (e.g. Matt 22:23: "saying not to-be resurrection" = "saying that there is no resurrection"). In our passage, though, "I am he" is a finite verb and can not have a subject other than the reported speaker. Of note, the clarity of this participle + quote construction is owed to Matthew's Semitizing style; ancient Greek (and, in fact, the parallel passages in Luke and Mark) generally used ὅτι to introduce both indirect and direct speech, making the distinction more complicated.


If Jesus Christ is supposedly part of the trinity how come he didn't even know when the hour would come If Jesus Christ is supposedly part of the trinity how come he didn't even know when the hour would come?

Mark:13:32

"Jesus says, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

TLDR; Jesus is fully God, but decided to become fully human in order to save His people from sin, and to be an example for us. This limited Him, but did not cease to make Him God.

I believe the Bible answers this clearly.

  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
  was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made
  through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him
  was life, and the life was the light of men.

  John 1:1-4

Jesus is completely God.

  "In the beginning was the Word."

Jesus "was" when time began. Jesus is outside of time. He is God. He is also the co-Creator,

  "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made
  that was made."

He is part of the Elohim, He was there when God said,

  Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness...

  Genesis 1:26

Then Jesus took on the form of humanity to save us from our sin.

  And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory,
  the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and
  truth.

  John 1:14

He was equal with God, but He chose to take on a human form for you and me.

  Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being
  in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
  7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant,
  and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as
  a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death,
  even the death of the cross. 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted
  Him and given Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the
  name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those
  on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue
  should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
  Father.

  Philippians 2:5-11

A child was to be born who would be called "Everlasting Father".

  For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the
  government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called
  Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

  Isaiah 9:6

His name was Jesus, the name means Yahweh is Salvation or Yahweh the Savior. The Angel clearly points to Jesus as Yahweh, or God, the Savior for He shall save His people from their sins.

  But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord
  appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be
  afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in
  her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son,
  and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people
  from their sins.”

  Matthew 1:20-21

When He took on human form, He used the same power available to us. He prayed,

  Now in the morning, having risen a long while before daylight, He went
  out and departed to a solitary place; and there He prayed.

  Mark 1:35

He learned the Word from when He was a child,

  Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple,
  sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and
  asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His
  understanding and answers.

  Luke 2:46-47

and through His relationship with the Father, He did many miracles. Not of His own power, but with the power of the Father.

  6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one
  comes to the Father except through Me.

  7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from
  now on you know Him and have seen Him.”

  8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient
  for us.”

  9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have
  not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how
  can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in
  the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do
  not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does
  the works. 11 Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me,
  or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.

  John 14:6-11

He was fully man and fully God, though His divinity was mostly hidden by humanity for our sake. To show us how to live and show us that all that He did is within our reach.

  For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to
  you. 16 Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than
  his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If
  you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

  John 13:15-17

... and even greater things than He did.

  “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that
  I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because
  I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do,
  that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask[c] anything
  in My name, I will do it.

  John 14:12

Nevertheless, because He was human, not everything was revealed to Him, as you point out. This however, does not mean He is not fully God, as pointed out previously.


Where are the majority of Roman Catholic converts from today? The Roman Catholic Church is a massive organization, with members in nearly every country numbering over 1 Billion individuals. With such massive numbers and such extensive influence in the world, it is difficult to guess and estimate where tomorrow's Roman Catholics will come from.

I can think of four distinct possibilities:

Most of today's converts are from the missionary work done in lands that have little Christian influence, such as many parts of Asia, those being mostly Hindu, Islam, and Buddhist.
Most of today's converts are from the missionary work done in lands that have much Christian influence, such as Europe or the Americas, which focus on persons not claiming to already be Christian.
Most of today's converts are from other Christian denominations.
Most of today's "converts" are the newborn children raised in the Faith who do not leave it when they become adults.

So I wonder if there are studies that show the numbers for the Roman Catholic Church. Are there studies that can show me how many people convert, and where they are from, and what they believed/followed previously? I would like to see a breakdown of conversion numbers by continent, or country if possible, and which category they fit into. A superb answer would include numbers for those who leave the Faith.

From 2000-2008:

  Over these nine years, the Catholic presence in the world has grown from 1.045 billion in 2000 to 1.166 billion in 2008, an increase of 11.54%. Considering the statistics in detail, numbers in Africa grew by 33%, in Europe they remained generally stable (an increase of 1.17%), while in Asia they increased by 15.61%, in Oceania by 11.39% and in America by 10.93%. As a percentage of the total population, European Catholics represented 26.8% in 2000 and 24.31% in 2008. In America and Oceania they have remained stable, and increased slightly in Asia.

Source: zenit.org (from the Statistical Yearbook of the Church)

Unfortunately this doesn't help identify the converts' previous religious beliefs, but possibly the Yearbook might have those sort of details.


Why is hell for a literal eternity if it does not have literal flames and worms? According to those that believe hell will be "eternal conscious torment" or "eternal separation", if the flames and worms are not literal, then why is it necessary that the word "eternal" be a literal duration? In other words, why must "eternal" be a quantity rather than a quality?

Biblical prophecies use symbols and analogies to convey truth. Very rare is the prophecy that is entirely literal. However, every symbol represents a concrete reality.

One commentator on prophecies (Ellis Skolfield) studied the context and the rest of scripture to understand the range of meanings that a time related word can hold. There are places where a day means a day, but in another place, it can mean a year. A week can mean seven days or seven years. Likewise a time can be a thousand years and a season can be one quarter of that, or 250 years. A month, being thirty days, can then mean thirty years, and an hour, being 1/24th of a day, is two weeks or so. But in every case, the prophecy takes a time period and applies a multiplier to it.

If you take the words eternity, forever, eternal, you are applying an infinite multiplier. No matter what you start with: minute, hour, day, week, year, century, millennium - if you multiply by an infinite value, you get an infinite time. BY this reasoning, eternity is not an analogy or a figure of speech or a symbol, it is literal.

There is another possibility. The King James renders one verse differently from modern translations. Revelation 10:6 says:

  6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven,
  and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that
  therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there
  should be time no longer:

Some people hold that this means time will actually stop. Time as a feature of reality will cease to exist. In this case, we enter eternity and an unchanging state. In that case, eternity means existence in an unchanging and unalterable state. In that case, Hell means existence in a timeless, unalterable state of separation from God.


The anointing of Jesus - one event or multiple events? The Anointing of Jesus is recorded in all four Gospels. A woman anoints Jesus' feet with expensive perfume and wipes the perfume with her hair.

Was this one event, or multiple events?

(I tend to think the former, since Jesus said that this story will be told wherever the gospel is preached (Mark 14:9). It may be a stretch, but I thought that would also apply to the four Biblical gospels.)

The four gospels record the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.  There are multiple events that are shared and reported among the four gospels.

This is one of those events.

Note that Wikipedia mentions that this could be two separate events, but it is commonly accepted to be one event, shared among the gospels.

Justification?

If we look at the four gospels, we see Jesus crucified, buried, and resurrected four separate times.  The events leading up to his death are similar including four last suppers, four records of trial, etc.

Now, we can presume that he did all of these events multiple times, or we can (rightly) move forward with the understanding that these records are four viewpoints of the same events.

In all four books, Jesus was anointed with expensive oil. Two books show he was anointed on his head, two show he was anointed on his feet.  More than likely, he was anointed on once on both his head and his feet.

Mark records the estimate of the oil at 300 denarii.  A denarius is valued at 10 asses.  A donkey, in modern currency, is worth around US$1000-$2500.  This makes the oil worth 3,000 asses, which is, in today's money, $3,000,000 - $7,500,000.

I don't know about you, but I rarely come across any single item that's worth multiple millions of dollars.

Yes, Jesus might have been anointed twice or four times.  But if we use just the tiniest amount of common sense, it seems pretty obvious that being anointed with a $3million oil was not a common event.  Therefore, it's extremely safe to assume that this was really simply one event.


What is the origin among the Church of England of the Paschal Greeting? He is Risen!  So the Eastern Churches practice the paschal greeting as an Easter thing and I've picked up that tradition as a Roman Catholic because I think it's awesome.  One of my close friends who is a protestant just greeted me with it, which I thought was super cool, and it turns out she picked it up from an Anglican friend at a christian college she went to.  Sure enough, a wikipedia search turns the Church of England up as practicing this tradition, but since most Catholics don't I was wondering where the Church of England picked it up from.

Best I can make of it is that it began with the 1979 revision of the (Episcopalian) Book of Common Prayer, when the liturgists decided since Eucharist was replacing Morning Prayer as the standard Sunday worship service, there needed to be a more formal introductory rite.  In the 1928 Prayer Book (and in earlier books), the rubrics assume that Morning Prayer and its introductory rites would have preceded Eucharist in a similar fashion as older Catholic rubrics assume that Terce would have preceded Mass.  In both the 1928 and earlier Anglican Eucharist services and the Tridentine Mass, the priests do not formally greet the people, while in the preceding offices (Morning Prayer/Terce) there is a formal greeting ("O Lord open Thou our lips"/"Deus in audiutorium").  In order to make the service make sense when standing alone, the liturgists compiled 3 different greetings for the 1979 Prayer Book, and I do not know why the specific greetings were included because they are not found in any tradition related to the Anglican liturgy or any other Western rite that I am aware of.  Perhaps there is an explanation for it in Hatchett's exhaustive Commentary on the American Prayer Book, but I do not have a copy on hand right now.

The practice of using the Paschal greeting became more and more common over the years within the Anglican Communion and in other Protestant Churches as well, and even began to be used outside of the liturgy.


How Did Ussher Determine That the World Began on "Sunday Evening, October 23, 4004 B.C."? One of the more famous estimates of the age of the earth was given by James Ussher in 1656, who, based on a literal biblical interpretation, concluded that the world began on Sunday evening, October 23, 4004 B.C.
Incidentally, I know that John Lightfoot, a decade earlier, had determined that the world began on the morning of September 17, 3928 B.C.
Could somebody provide some details as to how Ussher (or Lightfoot) was able to conclude such a precise date?

How Did Ussher Determine That the World Began on “Sunday Evening, October 23, 4004 B.C.”?
There is probably no name more indelibly linked with rigid church fundamentalism than that of Bishop James Ussher (1581-1656), who today is almost exclusively known as “the man who fixed the time of Creation at midday on October 23, 4004 BC”.

Ussher's methods
The chronologies of Ussher and other biblical scholars corresponded so closely because they used much the same method to calculate key events recorded in the Bible. Establishing the chronologies is complicated by the fact that the Bible was compiled by different authors over several centuries with lengthy chronological gaps, making it difficult to do a simple totaling of Biblical ages and dates. In his article on Ussher's calendar, James Barr has identified three distinct periods that Ussher and others had to tackle:

"Creation to Abraham's migration." This section is fairly easy to calculate, using the chronological data in Genesis 5 and 11, which gives an unbroken male lineage, with numbers of years, from the creation to Abraham being called out of Ur of the Chaldeans. Ussher used the chronology found in the Masoretic text instead of the alternative chronologies found in the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch. Ussher fixed this period as 2082 years, from 4004 to 1922 BC.

"Abraham's migration to Solomon's temple." Ussher wrote that the time from Abraham leaving Haran to the Exodus was 430 years (based on Abraham's descendants suffering a period of 400 years of persecution, commencing 30 years after Abraham left Haran)[5] 1 Kings 6 states that 480 years elapsed from the Exodus to the beginning of construction of Solomon's temple in the fourth year of Solomon's reign. Thus the temple foundations were laid 910 years after Abraham left Haran; these 910 years spanned from 1922 to 1012 BC.

"Period of the temple laid to the Babylonian captivity." This period is the most difficult to calculate, due to repeated difficulties in correlating the regnal years of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. The simple addition of the reigns of Judah's kings results in a total of 430 years, but by positing a few overlapping reigns, Ussher shortened this to 424 years: 1012 to 588 BC.

After reckoning the years from creation to the last kings of Judah, Ussher used 2 Kings 25:27 to establish the length of time from the creation to the accession of Babylonian king Amel-Marduk (also known as Evil-Merodach). He then used information from Babylonian, Greek, and Roman sources to fix the date of Amel-Marduk's enthronement at 562 BC (after Nebuchadnezzar's death), from which he was able to deduce a creation in 4004 BC.
In fixing the date of Jesus' birth, Ussher took account of an error perpetrated by Dionysius Exiguus, the founder of the Anno Domini numbering system. Ussher chose 5 BC as Christ's birth year[7] because Josephus indicated that the death of Herod the Great occurred in 4 BC.[8] Thus, for the Gospel of Matthew to be correct, Jesus could not have been born after that date.
The season in which Creation occurred was the subject of considerable theological debate in Ussher's time. Many scholars proposed it had taken place in the spring, the start of the Babylonian, Chaldean and other cultures' chronologies. Others, including Ussher, thought it more likely that it had occurred in the autumn, largely because that season marked the beginning of the Jewish year.
Ussher further narrowed down the date by using the Jewish calendar to establish the "first day" of creation as falling on a Sunday near the autumnal equinox. The day of the week was a backward calculation from the six days of creation with God resting on the seventh, which in the Jewish calendar is Saturday—hence, Creation began on a Sunday. The astronomical tables that Ussher probably used were Kepler's Tabulae Rudolphinae (Rudolphine Tables, 1627). Using them, he would have concluded that the equinox occurred on Tuesday, October 25, only one day earlier than the traditional day of its creation, on the fourth day of Creation week, Wednesday, along with the Sun, Moon, and stars Genesis 1:16. Modern equations place the autumnal equinox of 4004 BC on Sunday, October 23 (by the Julian calendar).
Ussher's understanding of creation placed the "first day" referred to in Genesis 1:5 on October 23, but with a "pre-creation" event, which he identified as the "beginning of time" occurring the previous night. Ussher referred to his dating of creation on the first page of Annales in Latin and on the first page of its English translation Annals of the World (1658). In the following extract from the English translation, the phrase "in the year of the Julian Calendar" refers to the Julian Period, of which year 1 is 4713 BC, and therefore year 710 is 4004 BC.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ge. 1:1 This beginning of time, according to our chronology, happened at the start of the evening preceding the 23rd day of October in the year of the Julian Calendar, 710.

Ussher provides a slightly different time in his "Epistle to the Reader" in his Latin and English works: "I deduce that the time from the creation until midnight, January 1, 1 AD was 4003 years, seventy days and six hours." Six hours before midnight would be 6 pm.

Others may agree with Usshers chronology, but many do not.

Modern geologists can use complex dating techniques to assess the age of a piece of rock. But transport them back to 1650 and they'd find that the only way to calculate an age for Earth was to follow Ussher's technique, treating the Bible, "God's truth", as an accurate historical record.
Ussher chose October 23rd for his moment of Creation as, under the old calendar, it was the autumn equinox, a traditional start to the year.
He believed the 23rd would have been a Sunday, as time would surely have begun on the first day of the week, and he specified the previous evening, as traditionally this was when each day began. Many scholars agreed with Ussher that Earth was about 5,650 years old.
The Venerable Bede, for example, believed the Creation had happened in 3952 BC; Isaac Newton plumped for 3998 BC. The date was still hotly disputed, however; John Lightfoot, an eminent Hebrew scholar at Cambridge, believed the Creation took place at 9 a.m. on the day of the equinox and not, as Ussher suggested, the previous evening.
When it came to printing English Bibles, however, and adding a chronology in the margins, Ussher's calculation was the one chosen, and in time his work was accorded the same respect as the scriptures themselves.
The work was still widely accepted in the late 19th century, but by then scientists were exploring other ways of calculating Earth's age, based on the amount of salt that had accumulated in the oceans, for example, or the time Earth took to cool from a molten mass to a solid planet. - How an archbishop calculated the Creation


Are there two different creation accounts in the bible? There are two seemingly contradictory accounts of creation in the Bible.
The first is in Genesis 1:1-2:3.
The second is in Genesis 2:4-25.
Why are there differences in the accounts?

After even more study of Genesis, I think I may understand why the original question may have been asked.

Yes, there are 2 different accounts here, but they are of the same creation event.  The first part is an account of God creating the universe and everything in it.  The second part begins with the creation of Adam (which was mentioned in the first account), but then continues on with the story of Adam.

What I did not understand earlier was why someone would say there were contradictions, but now I believe one thing which may be in question is Genesis 2:19.  I had been reading the NIV which says "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."  It says God had formed the animals, so it didn't seem contradictory.  Other translations do use verbiage which would suggest man was created before animals in this account.

After searching a bit for information on the contradictions, I found that the Hebrew used in this verse does not specify an order.  It can be translated as now or as in the past.  I would think that people reading this in the original Hebrew language would understand that it was meant that God had already created the animals, since that was the order presented in chapter 1.
Reference


Can the Pope speak ex cathedra about the return of Christ? Can the Pope speak ex cathedra about the return of Christ?

Specifically, if someone approached the Vatican, met with the Pope, and convinced him that he was the second coming of Christ, could the Pope then "certify" this person as Christ while speaking ex cathedra?

Answer

This question cannot be answered according to the criteria of this site as there is no current Church teaching or Church doctrine that can answer this hypothetical and specific scenario set in the future and at odds with the deposit of faith. And also no one knows what a future Pope will or will not do in a specific situation.

Here is why

Since the question is asking, 'could the Pope then "certify" this person as Christ [come the second time]  while speaking ex cathedra?' let's investigate what Popes have said on the second coming of Christ.

Second coming of Christ at the end of time | Pope St. JOHN PAUL II [The Great] | GENERAL AUDIENCE, Wednesday, 22 April 1998

  2 This twofold dimension, both present and future, of Christ's coming is apparent in his words. In the eschatological discourse which
  immediately precedes the paschal drama, Jesus predicts: "They will see
  the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then
  he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds,
  from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven" (Mk 13:26-27).

  In apocalyptic language clouds signify a theophany: they indicate
  that the second coming of the Son of Man will not take place in the
  weakness of flesh, but in divine power. These words of the discourse
  suggest the ultimate future that will bring history to an end.
  However, in the answer he gives to the high priest during his trial,
  Jesus repeats the eschatological prophecy, formulating it in terms of
  an imminent event: "I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of
  Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of
  heaven" (Mt 26:64).

Humanity's journey to the Father | Pope St. JOHN PAUL II [The Great] | GENERAL AUDIENCE, Wednesday 26 May 1999

  4 Christ's resurrection, ascension and the announcement of his second coming have opened new eschatological horizons. In the Last
  Supper discourse, Jesus says: “I go to prepare a place for you. And
  when I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take
  you to myself, that where I am you may be also” (Jn 14:2-3).
  Therefore, St Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: “For the Lord himself
  will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's
  call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ
  will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught
  up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and
  so we shall always be with the Lord” (1 Thes 4:16-17).

  We have not been told the date of this final event. We must wait patiently for the risen Jesus, who, when asked by the Apostles
  themselves to restore the kingdom of Israel, answered by inviting them
  to preach and to bear witness: “It is not for you to know times or
  seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you shall
  receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be
  my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end
  of the earth” (Acts 1:7-8).

The fact that the 'Christ' to be certified 'approached the Vatican, met with the Pope, and convinced him that he was the second coming of Christ' is at odds with what Pope St. John Paul II [the Great] quoting Scripture, has said on the second coming of Christ. For example, 'great power,' 'divine power,' 'in glory,' are absent in the scenario.

When the Pope is said to be infallible it is meant he cannot err when ... [please see below] and since the OP forces one to take into account as a fact a scenario at odds with Scripture and Papal teaching and the dogma of Papal Infallibility itself,

The possibility of making such an ex-cathedra 'certification'(sic) is wrought with problems because other than the Pope's subjective conviction, there aren't any bases in the deposit of faith to make such a declaration.
The Pope would not be infallible if he were to certify the 'Christ' as Christ come the second time and that contradicts the dogma of Papal infallibility. Subsequent questions would the arise about the Pope himself.
According to the dogma of Papal infallibility, even if the Pope were convinced, he would not be able to go ahead and make such a certification because he cannot err in such matters.

Hence there isn't a Church teaching or doctrinal answer for such a future scenario i.e. saying this is what the Pope will or will not do because the Church teaching or doctrine says he will do this or that in such a situation. It is also abundantly clear that no one knows what a future Pope will or will not do in such a scenario.1

1. "It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal." - Explanation of papal infallibility | Infallibility | New Advent.

Additional Note & Passages On the second coming of Christ

The note USCCB note on Matt 24:3 has in part

  Coming: this translates the Greek word parousia, which is used in the gospels only here and in Mt 24:27, 37, 39. It designated the
  official visit of a ruler to a city or the manifestation of a saving
  deity, and it was used by Christians to refer to the final coming of
  Jesus in glory, a term first found in the New Testament with that
  meaning in 1 Thes 2:19.

Acts 1:10-11 (RSVCE)

  10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do
  you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you
  into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

Rev 1:7 (RSVCE)

  7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail
  on account of him. Even so. Amen.

The following is presented for information

It is important to clear up  a few things. Ex-Cathedra declarations are all limited to faith and morals as contained in the deposit of faith handed to the Church by the Apostles.

Simply, if it [faith + morals] wasn't with the Apostles and handed down to the Church, and by the Church from one generation to the next, it CANNOT be part of that which can be declared ex-cathedra as infallible teaching.

If the Pope were to sit on the Chair of Saint Peter and declare that Mr. Obama is the President of the United States of America, he would be telling the truth, and apart from doing a silly thing and misusing his office, he would not have made a infallible declaration, because Mr. Obama being or not being the President of United States of America does not belong to the deposit of the faith. The faithful need not believe that to save their souls.

Please note that Popes in the past have venerated the Shroud of Turin, a fact telling of their inner conviction. Yet even in this case, the said Popes have not declared the Shroud of Turin as the burial Shroud of Jesus. Why? It does not belong to the deposit of faith.

The same can be said of Church approved (because not contrary to the faith) private revelations after the death of the last Apostle.

Some definitions

  EX CATHEDRA The term commonly applied to the special and explicit
  exercise of papal infallibility. When the Pope speaks from the chair
  (cathedra) of authority, as visible head of all Christians, his
  teaching is not dependent on the consent of the Church and is
  irreformable. (Etym. Latin ex cathedra, from the chair.)

  Source: Dictionary: EX-CATHEDRA | Catholic Culture

What does the Pope teach infallibly?

For that we go to PENNY CATECHISM 92 and 93

  Q 92 Is the Pope infallible?

  A 92 The Pope is infallible.

  Q 93 What do you mean when you say that the Pope is infallible?

  A 93 When I say that the Pope is infallible, I mean that the Pope cannot err when, as Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines
  a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the whole
  Church.

Where do those faith and morals come from?

From the Sacred Deposit of the faith  = Sacred Scripture + Holy Tradition.

cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 890 and 891.


Can Catholic priests disclose the fact that someone has seen him for confession? I recently spoke to one of my (catholic) highschool teachers who was then not a priest but is now a priest.
We were talking, and he mentioned he knew one of my professors during my graduate studies.
I asked him how he knew my professor, and he told me 'confession'.
Q1. Is that allowed? Well obviously the contents of the confessions are confidential, but is the fact that this person goes to confession with a certain priest not held in confidence?
I asked him if it was allowed, and he said yes.

Q2. Follow-up question:
What's the difference between talking to priests and talking to, say, psychiatrists?

(I choose for this example, psychiatrists or psychologists, in re the stigma of mental health. I choose psychiatrists specifically, since, because psychiatrists are necessarily medical doctors, I can say 'patient' as in 'doctor-patient privilege' as analogous to 'penitent' as in 'Priest–penitent privilege'.)

Afaik, psychiatrists don't even disclose that a certain patient consults with them.

On the one hand, seeing psychiatrists isn't as common among humans as confession is among Catholics, and there isn't quite a stigma in a Catholic seeing or having seen a priest or a particular priest since well we're all sinners but don't necessarily have medical mental health problems.

On the other hand, priests seem to have stricter confidentiality laws than psychiatrists: They can't disclose death threats if it would break confidentiality.

It seems weird to me that death threats cannot be disclosed if it would break confidentiality but that someone goes to a certain priest for confession is not confidential.
Edit: Btw, I recently thought of the possibility that he could've said something like 'religious consultation (but not necessarily specifically confession)', in that Catholics could seek spiritual advice from priests without confessing anything.

Church law does not explicitly prohibit revealing that a given person has been to confession or not. Here are the relevant canons from the Code of Canon Law:

Can.  983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.
§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy [though not technically the seal; i.e., they would not fall under the latae sententiae excommunication of Can. 1388].
Can.  984 §1. A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded.
§2. A person who has been placed in authority cannot use in any manner for external governance the knowledge about sins which he has received in confession at any time.

Here, some observations should be made: the confessor may never break the seal of confession. To “break the seal” means to make a third party understand that a given penitent has committed a certain sin.
Hence, while revealing that someone has been to confession generally does not violate the seal, common sense says that it is best not to provide information that could inadvertently reveal a person’s sins—and revealing whether a person has been to confession or not could potentially do this.
(For example, suppose that there is someone whom a lot of people suspect has committed a grave sin—say, adultery or something like that. If I reveal that he has gone to confession, many people will likely conclude, rightly or wrongly, that this person has, in fact, committed the sin. That is the sort of thing that needs to be avoided.)
If I were asked point blank whether someone has gone to confession or not, I would simply reply the way witnesses are trained to do: “I don’t recall.”


Have Jehovah's Witnesses' top leadership made a "vow of poverty"? This question is about the leadership in the Jehovah's Witnesses organization, such as the Directors of Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, that are named in this Wikipedia article.

In this article at wol.jw.org, I read about the "Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witnesses". About this, the article says the following in paragraph 19 (emphasis mine):

  Currently, there are some 67,000 members of the Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some perform
  Bethel service, others engage in construction or in circuit work,
  serve as field instructors or special pioneers or missionaries or as
  Assembly Hall or Bible school facility servants. They are all bound
  by a “Vow of Obedience and Poverty,” with which they agree to do
  whatever is assigned to them in the advancement of Kingdom interests,
  to live a simple lifestyle, and to abstain from secular employment
  without permission. It is not the people but their assignments that
  are viewed as special. They realize the seriousness of humbly living
  up to their solemn vow for as long as they remain in special full-time
  service.

I realize that "poverty" in this context does not need to refer to living in a clay hut that has no proper floor, running water, or electricity. Admittedly these people will have some "benefits" (room and board and health care and maybe transportation) because their role is related to the function that they serve in.

But I am more interested of anything beyond that, especially for the top directors or the "governing body" in Jehovah's Witness organization.

The question I wanted to ask is, are the top directors and the governing body in Jehovah's Witness organization also bound by this "Vow of Obedience and Poverty"? Or do they get some kind of market-based compensation (e.g. some CEO-level compensation) for their services?

(I would prefer an answer from JWs on this question)

Yes, everyone working at Bethel facilities has the same vow of poverty, including committee directors and the members of the Governing Body.
The Watch Tower Society is a nonprofit organization, and there are no salaries. The vow of poverty has both a legal and organizational purpose, as it affords tax exceptions as well as allows individuals to have the freedom to accept whatever assignment they may be given in the worldwide organization. Bethel facilities provide most, if not all, of the things needed in order to live at the facility, but a small set monthly allowance is also provided for any out-of-pocket personal expenses.
Here's a direct answer from a Q&A article on page 24 of the December 1, 1990 Watchtower.

Do any of the Watch Tower Society’s officers or members make money
from your extensive printing activities?
Emphatically, no! By law, the Society is a nonprofit corporation. There are no stockholders, no
dividends, not even salaries. Each minister at headquarters, including
the Society’s president and directors, has taken a legal vow of
poverty. He receives food, shelter, and necessary medical care, as
well as a small reimbursement of money for out-of-pocket expenses. If
a Witness travels on Society business, his travel expenses are usually
covered.
In addition, nowhere in the world do our ministers charge for
performing weddings, baptisms, or funerals. And there are no admission
charges or collections at public lectures or conventions.

Even Brother Russell, the first president of the organization (before the Governing Body was instituted), received only a small monthly sum of money.
This is from the book, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom (emphasis mine):

Instead of using religious activity to acquire material wealth for
himself, Brother Russell spent all his resources in the Lord’s work.
After his death it was reported in The Watch Tower: “He devoted his
private fortune entirely to the cause to which he gave his life. He
received the nominal sum of $11.00 per month for his personal
expenses. He died, leaving no estate whatsoever.”
With regard to those who would carry on the work of the Society, Brother Russell stipulated
in his will: “As for compensation, I think it wise to maintain the
Society’s course of the past in respect to salaries—that none be paid;
that merely reasonable expenses be allowed to those who serve the
Society or its work in any manner.” Those who would serve at the
Society’s Bethel homes, offices, and factories, as well as its
traveling representatives, were to be provided merely food, shelter,
and a moderate amount for expenses—enough for immediate needs but “no
provision . . . for the laying up of money.” That same standard
applies today.
Those who are accepted for special full-time service at
the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses all subscribe to a vow
of poverty, as have all the members of the Governing Body and all the
other members of the Bethel family there. This does not mean that they
live a drab life, without any comforts. But it does mean that they
share, without partiality, the modest provisions of food, shelter, and
expense reimbursement that are made for all in such service.

If you factor in inflation since 1916 (which was the year he died), $11 was worth around $260.