Essenes' Beliefs in Comparison to Christianity Does anyone know (with sources) what the Essenes taught and believed in relation to what Christ taught? Sources are much appreciated.

Unlike the other ancient Jewish sects, some think the Essenes were celibate (unmarried), that Jesus Himself may have been associated with them, and that the early Christians were defected Essenes. See p. 18 fn 5 of Dyan 1993 for references.


Is it possible to avoid hell by self mutilation? Is it possible to avoid hell by self mutilation?
Jesus repeatedly, clearly and unambiguously directs us towards self mutilation to avoid hell,  Jesus does not qualify these words as a parable.  if we choose to dismiss these words of Jesus as untrue hyperbolic exaggeration can we also dismiss Jesus claim that hell exists as hyperbolic exaggeration?

Mark 9:47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell.
Matthew 5:30 if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Matthew 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into hell.

It is clearly a parable. How could one eye be the cause of sin? Or one hand? By actually mutilating oneself for whatever reason in the way Jesus describes, no temptation is removed. Also, since our body is resurrected whole, the whole "it is better to enter the kingdom of god with a member missing than to go to hell with the whole body" is obviously figurative. We enter into both whole body.

He is clearly saying to remove anything from our live that causes us to stumble (tempts us, cause us to sin). That could be people, habits, hobbies, a job, our smartphone, anything that we cherish but which ultimately is not good for us. You know already what that is, and it is not your eye or hand. Like a body part, it could be something that is not in and of itself bad, but bad for you in particular.

Jesus is using drastic words to make clear that there is nothing that is above being sacrificed in order to remove yourself from sin if it tempts you. Using the own body is a good picture because that is what is closest, and most valuable, to us. Calling Jesus words hyperbolic exaggeration doesn't do them justice. This might be the most concise way to get across what he is trying to get across.

Self-mutilation does not save us from sin, Jesus does. Please don't harm yourself. If you think about harming yourself, please get help.


In Christian dogma, can Satan and the fallen angels (his demons) get married and have progeny? All of us know that Satan and his demons (fallen angels) have a role in temptation of Adam and his progeny. The question is can Satan and his demons get marry and have progeny? In Islam, Satan (Iblis) has progeny as mentioned in Quran. If Satan can get marry and has progeny, so why not unfallen angels can get marry and have  progeny?.

In Christian dogma, can Satan and the fallen angels (his demons) get married and have progeny?

According to Catholic theology: no.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following about angels, both good and evil angels,in a general manner:

  The Angels

  The existence of angels - a truth of faith

  328 The existence of the spiritual, non-corporeal beings that Sacred Scripture usually calls "angels" is a truth of faith. The witness of Scripture is as clear as the unanimity of Tradition.

  Who are they?

  329 St. Augustine says: "'Angel' is the name of their office, not of their nature. If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; if you seek the name of their office, it is 'angel': from what they are, 'spirit', from what they do, 'angel.'"188 With their whole beings the angels are servants and messengers of God. Because they "always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven" they are the "mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word".189

  330 **As purely spiritual creatures angels have intelligence and will: they are personal and immortal creatures, surpassing in perfection all visible creatures, as the splendor of their glory bears witness.**190

Only God can create life! God created them as angels before their fall. As spiritual beings they can not marry or have progeny either amongst themselves or with man. Only God created the angels in a state of angelic goodness. Just because some fell due to their angelic sin does not change anything

According to Catholic theology, the Devil and all the other evil demons are pure Spirits and as such can not alter their spiritual substance in order to become a physical or corporal being.

First of all, let us see how the Church defines a few terms.

  Demon

  Originally a spirit between the gods and men. In the New Testament a demon is the same as an evil spirit, which may be translated as "devil." It consequently means a malevolent, invisible being, which the pre-Christian word "demon" did not imply.

  Devil

  A fallen angel or evil spirit, especially the chief of the rebellious angels, Lucifer or Satan (Matthew 25). Adorned at his creation with sanctifying grace, he sinned by pride and along with many other angelic beings was denied the beatific vision. His abode is hell and he does not enjoy the benefits of Christ's redemption. Yet the devil remains a rational spirit, confirmed in evil, who is allowed by God to exercise some influence on living and inanimate creatures.

  Man

  Latin homo, a human being, as distinct from vir, a male person. The term homo has no perfect English equivalent, but it is part of the Church's official vocabulary and occurs in every major document of the Catholic Church. A living substance, composed of a material body that dies and a spiritual soul that is immortal. Creature made by God to his image and likeness, to praise, reverence, and serve him in this life and thereby attain the eternal possession of God in the life to come. In philosophical terms, "man" is a rational animal, and collectively is the human species or the human race.

Now Satan and all the other devils or demons are spiritual being composed of spiritual matter. They are pure spirit! Man is composed of a body and an immortal souls. Thus man in the fullest sense is both physical and spiritual in his essence; the demons are not!

According to the Church the evil spirits can not change their substance. They are spiritual beings and spiritual beings they shall remain.

Here is how St. Thomas Aquinas explains it:

  Some assert that the angels are composed of matter and form; which opinion Avicebron endeavored to establish in his book of the Fount of Life. For he supposes that whatever things are distinguished by the intellect are really distinct. Now as regards incorporeal substance, the intellect apprehends that which distinguishes it from corporeal substance, and that which it has in common with it. Hence he concludes that what distinguishes incorporeal from corporeal substance is a kind of form to it, and whatever is subject to this distinguishing form, as it were something common, is its matter. Therefore, he asserts the universal matter of spiritual and corporeal things is the same; so that it must be understood that the form of incorporeal substance is impressed in the matter of spiritual things, in the same way as the form of quantity is impressed in the matter of corporeal things.

  But one glance is enough to show that there cannot be one matter of spiritual and of corporeal things. For it is not possible that a spiritual and a corporeal form should be received into the same part of matter, otherwise one and the same thing would be corporeal and spiritual. Hence it would follow that one part of matter receives the corporeal form, and another receives the spiritual form. Matter, however, is not divisible into parts except as regarded under quantity; and without quantity substance is indivisible, as Aristotle says (Phys. i, text 15). Therefore it would follow that the matter of spiritual things is subject to quantity; which cannot be. Therefore it is impossible that corporeal and spiritual things should have the same matter.

  It is, further, impossible for an intellectual substance to have any kind of matter. For the operation belonging to anything is according to the mode of its substance. Now to understand is an altogether immaterial operation, as appears from its object, whence any act receives its species and nature. For a thing is understood according to its degree of immateriality; because forms that exist in matter are individual forms which the intellect cannot apprehend as such. Hence it must be that every intellectual substance is altogether immaterial.

  But things distinguished by the intellect are not necessarily distinguished in reality; because the intellect does not apprehend things according to their mode, but according to its own mode. Hence material things which are below our intellect exist in our intellect in a simpler mode than they exist in themselves. Angelic substances, on the other hand, are above our intellect; and hence our intellect cannot attain to apprehend them, as they are in themselves, but by its own mode, according as it apprehends composite things; and in this way also it apprehends God (Article 3).

Let us also look into who the Nephilim of the Scripture may truly be:

  The Nephilim (Hebrew: נְפִילִים) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1-4.

  A similar or identical biblical Hebrew term, read as "Nephilim" by some scholars, or as the word "fallen" by others, appears in Ezekiel 32:27.1

  When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, "My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version

  The word is loosely translated as giants in some Bibles and left untranslated in others. The "sons of God" have been interpreted as fallen angels in some traditional Jewish explanations.

  According to Numbers 13:33, they later inhabited Canaan at the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

  The Lord said to Moses, "Send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the Israelites" ... So they went up and spied out the land ... And they told him: "... Yet the people who live in the land are strong, and the towns are fortified and very large; and besides, we saw the descendants of Anak there." ... So they brought to the Israelites an unfavorable report of the land that they had spied out, saying, "The land that we have gone through as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants; and all the people that we saw in it are of great size. There we saw the Nephilim (the Anakites come from the Nephilim); and to ourselves we seemed like grasshoppers, and so we seemed to them." — Numbers 13:1–2; 21; 27–28; 32–33. New Revised Standard Version.

And now let us look at what the Sons of God may mean:

  Sons of the God (Hebrew: בני האלהים) literally: "sons of the Gods") is a phrase used in the Hebrew Bible and apocrypha. The phrase is also used in Kabbalah where bene elohim are part of different Jewish angelic hierarchies.

  Hebrew Bible

  Genesis 6

  And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:1–4, KJV

  The first mention of "sons of God" in the Hebrew Bible occurs at Genesis 6:1–4. In terms of literary-historical origin, this phrase is typically associated with the Jahwist tradition.4

  This passage has had two interpretations in Judaism:

  Offspring of Seth: The first references to the offspring of Seth rebelling from God and mingling with the daughters of Cain are found in Christian and rabbinic literature from the second century CE onwards e.g. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Augustine of Hippo, Julius Africanus, and the Letters attributed to St. Clement. It is also the view expressed in the modern canonical Amharic Ethiopian Orthodox Bible. In Judaism "Sons of God" usually refers to the righteous, i.e. the children of Seth.
  Angels: All of the earliest sources interpret the "sons of God" as angels. From the third century BCE onwards, references are found in the Enochic literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls the (Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180), Jubilees, the Testament of Reuben, 2 Baruch, Josephus, and the book of Jude (compare with 2 Peter 2). This is also the meaning of the only two identical occurrences of bene ha elohim in the Hebrew Bible (Job 1:6 and 2:1), and of the most closely related expressions (refer to the list above). In the Septuagint, the interpretive reading "angels" is found in Codex Alexandrinus, one of four main witnesses to the Greek text.

  Rabbinic Judaism traditionally adheres to the first interpretation, with some exceptions, and modern Jewish translations may translate bnei elohim as "sons of rulers" rather than "sons of God". Regardless, the second interpretation (sons of angels or other divine beings) is nonexistent in modern Judaism. This is reflected by the rejection of Enoch and other Apocrypha supporting the second interpretation from the Hebrew Bible Canon.

Using Scripture to interpret Scripture is a very common practice in our day and as such the New Testament in the person of St. Luke shows us that the Sons of God were the descendants of Adam.

According to Scripture “sons of God” means “persons who are begotten independently of any creature’s decision”. All angels can appropriately be called “sons of God”, but not all characters called “sons of God” in the Bible can appropriately be considered angels. The “sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4 are undoubtedly human, and it is fitting to consider that they were created directly by God through transformation of human-like animals into persons.

  Who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God. - Luke 3:38


Have any Catholics (e.g. Eastern Rite) ever followed the Old Calendar since the late 16th century? This question occurred to me after reading this question about the observance of Lent among Eastern Rite converts.

It is my understanding that since 1582, the Roman Catholic Church has followed the Gregorian calendar.

The calendar having been a product of the post-Schism Roman Church, Eastern Orthodox were loathe to accept it - some for 5 centuries.  Some majority Eastern Orthodox countries (e.g. Greece) were still subscribing to the Julian Calendar that had been in place during New Testament times as late as 1923.

While all Eastern Orthodox countries (as far as I know) today observe the Gregorian calendar for civil purposes, some Orthodox jurisdictions (e.g. Russia) still observe the Julian calendar for religious purposes.  Within the Eastern Orthodox Church we have the somewhat bizarre situation of virtually all (if not all) jurisdictions observing the Julian calendar with respect to the Triodion and the Pentecostarion - the periods leading up to and including Easter ("Pascha") and Pentecost, respectively - but some holding to the Gregorian calendar otherwise.

Given the affinity between Byzantine Rite Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church, I was wondering if there are any Byzantine Rite Catholics or other Rites that at any time during the year observer the old Julian calendar for some purpose; perhaps along the line of New Calendar Orthodox jurisdictions more or less holding to the Old Calendar during the Paschal season.

Have any Catholics (e.g. Eastern Rite) ever followed the Old Calendar since the late 16th century?

Since 1923 Eastern Rite Catholic follow a modified Gregorian calendar, while keeping some of the nuances of the Julian calendar.

  Traditionally, the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic churches use the Julian Calendar to calculate their feast days. Beginning in 1924 the Patriarchate of Constantinople made an adjustment to their liturgical year to bring the fixed cycle in conformity to the modern Gregorian Calendar. The Paschal cycle, however, continued to be calculated according to the Julian Calendar. This composite calendar is known as the Revised Julian Calendar. Constantinople's example was followed by the Church of Greece as well as a number of other autocephalous churches. Today, some churches continue to follow the Julian Calendar while others follow the Revised Julian Calendar.

  In 1923 the Eastern Rite Churches adopted a modified form of the Gregorian Calendar. October 1, 1923, in the Julian Calendar became October 14, 1923, in the Eastern calendar. From this we see the celebration of Christmas on January 7th and New Year's on January 14th.

  The date of Easter is determined by reference to modern lunar astronomy (in contrast to the more approximate lunar model of the Gregorian system). If you wish to see how these dates are calculated, the Astronomical Society of South Australia has an excellent page showing how it's done. - Український Католицький Собор Успення Пресвятої Богородиці

Wikipedia explains it this way:

  Traditionally, the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic churches used the Julian Calendar to calculate their feast days. Beginning in 1924 the Patriarchate of Constantinople made an adjustment to their liturgical year to bring the fixed cycle in conformity to the modern Gregorian Calendar. The Paschal cycle, however, continued to be calculated according to the Julian Calendar. This composite calendar is known as the Revised Julian Calendar. Constantinople's example was followed by the Church of Greece as well as a number of other autocephalous churches. Today, some churches continue to follow the Julian Calendar while others follow the Revised Julian Calendar. Only the Orthodox Church of Finland has adopted the Western calculation of the date of Pascha (see computus); all other Orthodox Churches, and a number of Eastern Catholic Churches, celebrate Pascha at the same time, according to the ancient rules. - Byzantine Rite

A Ukrainian Website site puts it this way:

  Outside of the U.S. and Western Canada, many Ukrainian Catholics, especially those in Ukraine, follow the Julian ("Old") Calendar as opposed to the Gregorian ("New") Calendar. The latter is used by the Western Churches — Catholic and Protestant — and in all civil societies. In these ways and others, Ukrainian Catholics may seem more Eastern Orthodox than Roman Catholic. - What is Ukrainian Catholic?


Did Martin Luther teach penal substitution? The Wikipedia article on Penal Substitution states (under the heading "Differing views"):

  Critics, however, argue that the theory of penal substitution is solely a later development, only forming part of orthodox Christian thought during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th-century, being advocated by Martin Luther and Calvin.

Under the heading "Anselm, the Reformers, and John Wesley," it goes into more detail on Luther's position:

  Broadly speaking, Martin Luther followed Anselm, thus remaining mainly in the "Latin" model identified by Gustaf Aulén. He held, however, that Christ's atoning work encompassed both his active and passive obedience to the law;: as the perfectly innocent God-man, he fulfilled the law perfectly during his life AND he, in his death on the cross, bore the eternal punishment that all men deserved for their breaking the law. Unlike Anselm, Luther thus combines both satisfaction and punishment.

(This is not the entire segment on Luther's views.)

However, footnote 10, on the earlier statement including Luther among those advocating penal substitution, reads:

  Gustaf Aulén, a critic of penal substitution theory, disputed in his 1931 book Christus Victor that Luther accepted penal substitution. 'Under Aulen's assessment, Martin Luther revitalized the Christus Victor paradigm. According to Aulen, however, beginning with Melanchthon himself, Luther's reappropriation of the classic theme was quickly lost within later Protestant circles as more objective, "Latin," theories were allowed to displace it.' (Paul R. Eddy and James Beilby, 'The Atonement: An Introduction', in P. R. Eddy and J. Beilby [eds], The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views [Downers Grove: IVP, 2006], p. 13)

Recognizing that there is some dissension on this point, my question is: Did Luther teach penal substitution?

Whatever other sources an answer may use, please provide direct quotations from Luther's own works to support the answer.

If I may crudely summarize, Gustaf Aulén's argument in Chapter 6 of Christus Victor is:

Martin Luther clearly valued the Christus Victor theme
The Christus Victor and substitutionary models of atonement are fundamentally contradictory
Therefore, any references to "satisfaction" or Christ bearing God's wrath on behalf of humanity must be understood in light of the Christus Victor paradigm.

No one disagrees with #1 – the idea that Christ is victorious over sin and death is not controversial and thus it's not surprising that not only the reformers but also modern-day Protestants recognize this theme as an important aspect of Christ's work.

Aulén gets in trouble with many critics, however, when he argues for #2 and #3.  They argue that the Christus Victor theme is not inherently at odds with substitutionary atonement, and therefore that Luther's language regarding satisfaction can be taken at face value.

Aulén on "satisfaction" in Luther

Luther's appreciation for the scriptural theme of Christ's victory over sin and death is obvious, so Aulén easily makes that portion of his case.  He must, however, deal with the places where Luther uses words like merit and satisfaction:

  Luther uses both these terms, Merit and Satisfaction, in direct relation to Christ's conflict and His victory over the 'tyrants.' (118)

Christ's merit, he says, is for Luther simply a way of talking about God's grace, and satisfaction similarly is meant to emphasize the "strength of the Divine Love, which could go in under the punishment that impended upon men."  With this understanding, Aulén feels that he can sufficiently explain Luther's use of language associated with substitutionary atonement, as in the following quote from Luther:

  We firmly believe that Christ, the Son of God, stood for us and took all our sins upon His neck, and is the eternal satisfaction for our sins, and made atonement for us to God the Father; he that believes this has a place also in this sacrament (Holy Communion), and neither the devil, hell, nor sin can harm him.  Wherefore?  Because God is his defence and his helper, and if I thus have believed, therefore I know surely that God fights for me, in spite of the devil, death, hell, and sin, which would harm me; this is the great inestimable treasure which is given to us in Christ. (119)

Thus, he says, Luther's view of the sacrifice of Christ is best expressed as follows:

  It is God's act of victory, when Christ goes in under the Divine wrath, and bears the burden of the punishment which on account of that wrath impends upon men.  Thus the Love of God breaks through the Wrath; in the vicarious act of redemption the Wrath is overcome by the Love. (115)

Aulén's critics

Aulén's analysis is, not surprisingly, widely challenged.  Critics argue that Aulén fails to recognize the compatibility of a Christus Victor theme with penal substitution, and point to numerous instances of Luther using the language of the latter.  On the first point, we have Timothy George in The Glory of the Atonement, 275:

  Many scholars have criticized Aulén for drawing too sharp a dichotomy between the idea of penal substitution and the motif of victory over the evil powers.  We need not accuse Luther of being inconsistent for having seen the truth—that is to say, the biblical basis—for both views of the atonement.  Indeed, this may well be Luther's major contribution to atonement theology: just as he brought together the ideas of satisfaction and punishment in the doctrine of penal substitution, so too he saw that the cross of Christ was at once the scene of Satan's definitive defeat and the objective basis of justification by faith alone.

And in support of Luther's acceptance of penal substitution, proponents point to a variety of passages, especially several in his Commentary on Galatians (Luther's Works, ed. Pelikan, v. 26):

  [Jesus] has and bears all the sins of all men in his body—not in the sense that he has committed them but in the sense that he took these sins, committed by us, upon his own body, in order to make satisfaction for them with his own blood. (LW, 26:277, quoted in Defending Substitution)

  [The Father] sent his Son into the world, heaped all the sins of all men upon him, and said to him: "Be Peter, the denier; Paul, the persecutor, blasphemer and assaulter; David, the adulterer; the sinner who ate the apple in Paradise; the thief on the cross.  In short, be the person of all men, the one who has committed the sins of all men.  And see to it that you pay and make satisfaction for them."  Now the Law comes and says: "I find him a sinner, who takes upon himself the sins of all men.  I do not see any other sins than those in him.  Therefore let him die on the Cross." (LW, 26:280, quoted in Defending Substitution)

  If the sins of the entire world are on that one man, Jesus Christ, then they are not on the world.  But if they are not on him, then they are still on the world.  Again, if Christ himself is made guilty of all the sins that we have all committed, then we are absolved from all sins [...].  But if he is innocent and does not carry our sins, then we carry them and shall die and be damned in them. (LW, 26:280, quoted in Defending Substitution)

  For you do not yet have Christ even though you know that He is God and man. You truly have Him only when you believe that this altogether pure and innocent Person has been granted to you by the Father as your High Priest and Redeemer, yes, as your slave. Putting off His innocence and holiness and putting on your sinful person, He bore your sin, death, and curse; He became a sacrifice and a curse for you, in order thus to set you free from the curse of the Law. (LW, 26:288; quoted in "Penal Substitution in Church History")

  But because an eternal, unchangeable sentence of condemnation has passed upon sin – for God cannot and will not regard sin with favor, but his wrath abides upon it eternally and irrevocably – redemption was not possible without a ransom of such precious worth as to atone for sin, to assume the guilt, pay the price of wrath and thus abolish sin.  This no creature was able to do. There was no remedy except for God's only Son to step into our distress and himself become man, to take upon himself the load of awful and eternal wrath and make his own body and blood a sacrifice for the sin. And so he did, out of his immeasurably great mercy and love towards us, giving himself up and bearing the sentence of unending wrath and death. ("24th Sunday after Trinity"; also quoted in Gregory Allison's Historical Theology)

Summary

The interaction with Gustaf Aulén's Christus Victor continues to this day, lending him credibility despite the criticism.  Some have followed in his tracks, like Phillip S. Watson in Let God be God.  Others have concluded that the traditional understanding should be retained, as expressed by Wolfhart Pannenberg, who said that Luther saw "with full clarity that Jesus' death in its geneuine sense is to be understood as vicarious penal suffering."  (Jesus: God and Man, 279)

Thus the answer to this question is perhaps not as simple as we might like.  Neither demonstrating that Luther completely rejected penal substitution, nor showing that he strongly preferred it over all other models, are easily accomplished.  Perhaps he did not express penal substitution as systematically as John Calvin or Charles Hodge (though that could be said about many of his teachings).  Perhaps his writings bear out a preference for Christus Victor over other models.  But, to me at least, Aulén's fails to convincingly prove the incompatibility of the two models in Luther's mind and thus his complete dismissmal of penal substitution in Luther seems excessive.


What sort of Christians are proponents of just war? Which sects of Christianity are support the idea of "Just War"? What are the arguments that they give that support this view? How do they see their views on this issue being related to the Bible?

The "Just War" is a concept very widely accepted by Christians - at least in the sense of acknowledging that there are conditions when Christians are called to fight. Catholics accept it, Anglicans do in principle (though some disagree), so do Lutherans, and many Baptists. They may not all agree on the conditions for fighting a 'just war', but they do generally agree that there are conditions when war might be legitimately fought. In fact it is much easier to list those churches that do not accept it.

Churches that believe it is wrong for a Christian to fight under any circumstances are mainly the historic Peace Churches. These are the Friends (Quakers), Brethren, and Anabaptists (which are comprised of Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites). There are other specifically pacifist groups also.


Who are "Communicators" according to Pope Francis? In Fratelli Tutti Pope Francis wrote, quoting his 2016 World Day of Peace Address that:

Communicators also have a responsibility for education and formation, especially nowadays, when the means of information and communication are so widespread. Their duty is first and foremost to serve the truth, and not particular interests.
Fratelli Tutti 114

By "Communicators" is he talking about journalists?  The media in general or is it broader to mean communication platforms such as Facebook and Twitter?  I was reading through Fratelli Tutti and that word "Communicators" struck me as odd, the link back to the Holy Father's other declaration showed me he was talking about the media, but given the context of Fratelli Tutti I'm thinking he's talking about something different.
So in general, when Pope Francis uses the vague term "Communicators" which may not be so vague in Italian, who is he talking about?

Who are “Communicators” according to Pope Francis?
The communicators that Pope Francis is referring to are parents and teachers of children. It is so explained in the whole 114th paragraph of his encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti::

The value of solidarity

I would like especially to mention solidarity, which, “as a moral virtue and social attitude born of personal conversion, calls for commitment on the part of those responsible for education and formation. I think first of families, called to a primary and vital mission of education. Families are the first place where the values of love and fraternity, togetherness and sharing, concern and care for others are lived out and handed on. They are also the privileged milieu for transmitting the faith, beginning with those first simple gestures of devotion which mothers teach their children. Teachers, who have the challenging task of training children and youth in schools or other settings, should be conscious that their responsibility extends also to the moral, spiritual and social aspects of life. The values of freedom, mutual respect and solidarity can be handed on from a tender age… Communicators also have a responsibility for education and formation, especially nowadays, when the means of information and communication are so widespread”.

Traditionally, teachers and parents have always been held as the primary communicators of divine truths to Catholic children!
However the text in Italian is somewhat more general as well as more encompassing in what Pope Francis sees as to whom these commentators seem to mean.
In lieu of the English word of commentators the text uses the phrase: Anche gli operatori culturali e dei mezzi di comunicazione sociale.
This implies that those in change of social media and those making use of social media are to ”commentators that are meant in the definition of Pope Francis in the original text of his encyclical letter Fratelli Tutti.
Here follows the Italian full text:

Il valore della solidarietà

Desidero mettere in risalto la solidarietà, che «come virtù morale e atteggiamento sociale, frutto della conversione personale, esige un impegno da parte di una molteplicità di soggetti, che hanno responsabilità di carattere educativo e formativo. Il mio primo pensiero va alle famiglie, chiamate a una missione educativa primaria e imprescindibile. Esse costituiscono il primo luogo in cui si vivono e si trasmettono i valori dell’amore e della fraternità, della convivenza e della condivisione, dell’attenzione e della cura dell’altro. Esse sono anche l’ambito privilegiato per la trasmissione della fede, cominciando da quei primi semplici gesti di devozione che le madri insegnano ai figli. Per quanto riguarda gli educatori e i formatori che, nella scuola o nei diversi centri di aggregazione infantile e giovanile, hanno l’impegnativo compito di educare i bambini e i giovani, sono chiamati ad essere consapevoli che la loro responsabilità riguarda le dimensioni morale, spirituale e sociale della persona. I valori della libertà, del rispetto reciproco e della solidarietà possono essere trasmessi fin dalla più tenera età. […] Anche gli operatori culturali e dei mezzi di comunicazione sociale hanno responsabilità nel campo dell’educazione e della formazione, specialmente nelle società contemporanee, in cui l’accesso a strumenti di informazione e di comunicazione è sempre più diffuso. “


Is it true that no post-apostolic theologians before St. Augustine believed in Eternal Security / Assurance of Salvation? According to Wikipedia in it's entry of 'perseverance of the saints', eternal security has its roots in Church Father St. Augustine of Hippo. Considering that Augustine lived centuries after the Apostolic Age, and the variety of theologians that have predated him (from Origen to Athanasius the Great, Polycarp to Ignatius of Antioch), were the Early Church Fathers really so uniform in thought concerning salvation?

I find it especially hard to believe because of the fractured and polemical nature of early Christianity, as it was full of controversy and wavering opinions surrounding essential doctrines (ie. Christology).

The answer seems to be NO.  It looks like that a lot of early church fathers taught the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.  Of course they may not call it by that name, or by "Once saved always saved" label (after we translated their writings from Latin / Greek into English), but according to Rev C. Matthew McMahon whose Th.D dissertation is titled Augustine's Calvinism: The Doctrines of Grace in Augustine's Writings, many church fathers taught the doctrine, as shown from a blog article he wrote Did the Early Church Believe the Doctrines of Grace? which contains nicely formatted quotes tagged with the related Calvinist Doctrine.
For example, you can easily see quotes related to the Perseverance of the Saints by doing a web page search for "(Per.)" which yield 15 matches such as:

Clemens Romanus, AD 69: (Per.) “Whereas it is the will of God, that all whom he loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent, he has established it by his almighty will.’ But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is his almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of his?” (Ep. 1, ad Cor. p. 20).
Irenaeus, AD 180: (Per.) Concerning Christians, “but the Spirit encompasses man within and without, as always abiding, and never leaves him,” (Iren. adv. Haeres. 1. 5, c. 12, p. 450; vide Fragm. Graec. ad Calcem Ireuaei.).
Tertullian, AD 200: (Per.) Tertullian asserts, that the work of God cannot be lost, extinguished, or cease; “for what is of God is not so extinguished, as it is overshadowed; for it may be overshadowed,, because it is not God;. it cannot be extinguished, because it is of God,” (de Anima, c. 4,1, p. 342.).
etc.

The quotes themselves came from Michael Horton's 2011 book Putting Amazing Back Into Grace: Embracing the Heart of the Gospel.


Do Unitarians believe in the same number of books? Do they reject certain verses? I'm trying to understand how Unitarians view the Bible and specifically the NT.

Do Unitarians generally believe in the same # of books as Catholics/Protestants?

Do they simply re-interpret verses in the NT or do they reject certain verses?

Is their view of Paul any different, or again re-interpreting his statements?

Do Unitarians generally believe in the same # of books as Catholics/Protestants?

Modern unitarians usually follow the Protestant bible, as modern Unitarianism is a branch of Protestantism from the Enlightenment period. However, it's roots go back much further than the 18th century. Here are some examples of various unitarian sects throughout the centuries, and their biblical canon:

The Ebionites and Nazarenes

The Ebionites are considered by secular historians to have been the first and original branch of Christianity. Their canon included the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as a Hebrew (or Aramaic) version of Matthew; believed by some to be the original gospel that Matthew wrote. Their copy of Matthew did not include the first two chapters, and it is unknown if they rejected the virgin birth, or if they just never heard of it. They also rejected any of Paul's letters, believing him to be a false apostle.

The Nazarenes were a similar sect of the same period. Some did accept a virgin birth, though it is often believed "Nazarenes" is just another name for the Ebionites. They were also unitarian and believed Yeshua was a spectacular man. Interestingly, some historians believe Yeshua was a prominent memeber of this sect. It's possible the Nazarenes were the same branch as the Nazarenes of the Judaic Essenes, seeing that there is no evidence of a city called Nazareth in the 1st century, and the Essenes are never mentioned in the gospels. Because of this, some scholars believe there was no "Jesus of Nazareth", but rather "Jesus the Nazarene".

The Early Church

Artemon and Theodotus of Byzantium were some of the earliest unitarians relevant to the early church. They taught that Yeshua was a man, and Eusebius says in one of his propaganda works: 1

  They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjective or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it. And as being of the earth and speaking of the earth, and as ignorant of him who cometh from above, they forsake the holy writings of God to devote themselves to geometry. Euclid is laboriously measured by some of them; and Aristotle and Theophrastus are admired; and Galen, perhaps, by some is even worshiped.

Paul of Samosata was a bishop in the late 200's AD. Although all his work has been destroyed, we know that he taught Yeshua was a man. It is unclear what his biblical canon was, but we know he believed in a virgin birth and accepted the letters of Paul.

The Reformation

During the Refmormation, many new and old idea were being presented. Although Michael Servetus may have believed in a form of Arianism rather than unitarianism, he is regarded by many Unitarian sects as their first martyr. Servetus was a polymath who studied the Scriptures in their original language. He accepted the virgin birth and the letters of Paul, but publicly denied the trinity, which led to his burning on a stake under the recommendation of John Calvin.

After Servestus there was a sect called Socinianism, named after their founder Fausto Sozzin. Sozzin accepted the Protestant canon, believed in the virgin birth, and accepted Paul's letters. However, unlikely Servetus, he denied any sort of "preexisting christ".

The Enlightenment

The Enlightenment, like the Reformation, saw many new ideas being presented. There was a fairly large unitarian movement happening during this time, and the first unitarian denomination was established by Theophilus Lindsey. With the help of polymath and chemist Joseph Priestley, the unitarian church spread throughout Europe. Priestley wrote many books during this period, including A History of the Corruptions of Christianity. Although Priestley accepted the letters of Paul, he denied the virgin birth and a preexistant Messiah. Thomas Jefferson, who is considered a unitarian deist and rejected the letters of Paul, wrote to John Adams: 2

  You are right in supposing, in one of yours, that I had not read much of Priestley’s Predestination, his No-soul system, or his controversy with Horsley. but I have read his Corruptions of Christianity, & Early opinions of Jesus, over and over again; and I rest on them, and on Middleton’s writings, especially his letters from Rome, and to Waterland, as the basis of my own faith. these writings have never been answered, nor can be answered, by quoting historical proofs, as they have done. for these facts therefore I cling to their learning, so much superior to my own.

Do they simply re-interpret verses in the NT or do they reject certain verses?

Unitarians do interpret many verses differently than triniatarians, modalist, and Arians, but the scope of this would be too large to cover here. If you have any questions about a verse, please ask a separate question so answers can deal with the specific problem.

Some unitarians reject the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, believing them to be inconsistent with the gospels, lacking archaeological evidence, and of a pagan origin. Some unitarians also deny Paul as an apostle or having any sort of authority, believeing his conversion to be inconsistent with the human Messiah and accusing Paul of docetism.

I can only think of two relevant verses that most unitarians outright reject. Quotes are from the KJV (a Protestant bible):

  "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." 1 John 5:7

The bolded area is generally rejected by all newer translations, and seems to have popped up sometime during the 1600's. It was also a reason for Issac Newton's rejection of the trinity after he read the original Greek manuscripts of his time.

  "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." Revealtion 1:11

Again, modern translations usually reject the bolded quote. This is the resurrected Yeshua speaking to John, and would definitely provide evidence that Yeshua was claiming to be God, but this verse is absent from all of the oldest manuscripts. 3

Unitarians find it suspicious that these words were added to the Greek manuscripts and accepted in English translations, and usually consider this further evidence that a lack of biblical support for trinitarianism has caused these verses to be included.

Conclusion

The biblical canon for unitarians has varied over the centuries. Most accept the Protestant canon and only reject those verses which mainstream Christian scholars have determined to be corruptions.

Sources:

Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History Book v. Chapter xxviii
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 22 August 1813
Commentaries on Revelation 1:11


How does the Filioque affect Reformed Protestant theology? In the past, extremely influential Eastern theologians (Photius the Great, Mark of Ephesus, etc.) have rejected the Filioque on important theological grounds.

Likewise, the Latin Catholic church insists on the insertion of "and the Son" into the Nicene creed.

What is the weight of importance for the Filioque   in Reformed theology...or is it somewhat of a non-factor in the grand scheme?

The Filioque is considered to be of extremely significant importance in Reformed Theology. Even in Reformed-flavored Protestantism (such as that found at The Gospel Coalition), it has implications for Scripture's authority, as well as preaching and discipleship. These implications include the authority of Scripture and the preaching and discipleship of the church: the Scriptures must be our final authority for deciding matters of faith and practice, rather than the councils of fallible men (which are useful insofar as they are in agreement with the Word of God) ; for preaching and discipleship--when Christians are commanded to live holy lives, they are enabled to do so by the Spirit of Christ in them.

For it's significance in specifically Reformed thinking, Richard Muller writes in his Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics,

  The Reformed exegetes, moreover, understood the issue to be one of exegesis, not merely an issue of the form of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, and found the biblical text to be entirely of one accord in favor of double procession.

Which is further confirmation of the Reformed view that Scripture is the ultimate authority for questions of faith and practice.

In a lecture delivered at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, Nov. 10, 1999, Robert Letham says,

  According to the West the Eastern repudiation of the filioque
  leaves no clear relation between the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is
  in odd contrast to the patristic teaching of perichoresis, whereby the
  persons of the Trinity indwell and interpenetrate one another. The
  West holds that this exhibits subordinationist tendencies reaching
  back as far as Origen, for in the East the Son and the Holy Spirit are
  commonly said to derive their deity from the Father. In contrast,
  the filioque affirms the intimate relation between the Son and the
  Spirit, and thus between the Word and Spirit. The East’s position,
  the West claims, has led to a gulf between theology and piety.
  Speculative theology, grounded on the Logos, has been separated
  from worship, mediated by the Holy Spirit. Thus Eastern piety, so
  Western observers like Bavinck claim, is unduly dominated by
  mysticism. 14

Although many historic Reformed theologians would disagree with him, Letham considers this argument to actually be flawed. So he offers what he considers a stronger argument:

  A third objection, however, carries much greater weight. Following John of Damascus, the East tends to consider that the essence of God is unknowable, only God’s energies or operations being revealed, the things around him (“all that we can affirm concerning God does not shew forth God’s nature, but only the qualities of his nature”-- τα περι την φυσιν). 17 This dichotomy is used to offset some of the Biblical evidence for the joint and coordinate involvement of the Son in relation to the Holy Spirit. As a sympathetic critic like T.F. Torrance argues, it drives a wedge between the inner life of God and his saving activity in history, ruling out any real access to knowing God in himself.18 It also departs from earlier Greek patristic thought, which rejected this distinction.19 Besides opening a yawning chasm between the economic and the ontological, the tendency seems to be towards a quarternity rather than a trinity—the unknowable divine essence plus the three revealed persons.

It's worth noting that Letham ultimately comes down somewhat in the middle on the Filioque, and suggests in his lecture that both West and East could come to agreement on the topic. Since Letham's work is relatively recent (1999), I'm not sure how widely this is accepted.

In this article Bojidar Marinov (a Bulgarian Reformed missionary leader) writes about the historical and cultural implications of the Filioque for the East and West. He concludes that the Filioque is the prime reason for the theological and cultural differences between the East and West.

  Faith has consequences. What started as an innocent difference in wording, by one word only, actually led over a long period of time to a huge and not so innocent difference in faith, then ideology, then social practice, then culture. The changes were not immediate, but even as early as the 9th and the 10th centuries it was visible. The Western Church was compiling the Canon Law; the Eastern Church was compiling the Lives of the Saints. The Western Church was fighting kings and emperors over the validity of the old royal/pagan laws; the Eastern Church was writing treatises on the emperors as divine legislators. The Western Church was developing the idea of practical imitation of Christ; the Eastern Church was developing the idea of the mystical imitation of Christ. Christ’s place in the representative work of the Spirit made the difference. The filioque made the difference.

So for the historical Reformed position, the Filioque not only develops from the text of Scripture and impacts how one understands who God is, but it also uniquely affects the history and piety of the church.

This is particularly evident in understanding how it was good for the church that Jesus went away physically. In John 16:7, ESV, Jesus said, "Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you." Though the disciples were disturbed that Jesus said he was going away, they didn't know what to make of his words. Jesus can't have been referring to his second coming because in John 14:19 ,using nearly identical language he says that "yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me." So the seeing wasn't going to be that of the world seeing him return whereby they would fall down in fear before him, nor was it going to be the world seeing him which resulted in them hating and killing him. Rather, the seeing was going to be the church having Jesus' real spiritual presence by His Spirit. Jesus rose and ascended bodily, but he sent the Spirit to the church to fulfill his promise that he would come again to them after he had left.

The Spirit reveals Christ. In Reformed theology, this is seen as the chief work of the Spirit. People sometimes divorce the work of the Spirit from that of making Christ known, but the Spirit hasn't spoken of himself as having a separate work besides that of making Christ known. This illuminating work of the Holy Spirit is what makes Christ known as more and more beautiful to the believer. If the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Father, then He can provide access to the Father apart from Christ. This goes against the biblical teaching that our access to the Father is through the Son, and by the Spirit. The Spirit reveals Christ to us, and through Christ we have access to the Father. The filioque affects the very core of the Christian life--union and communion with the Triune God.

Addendum, if anyone has a subscription to WTJ (perhaps also available through your theological library or even interlibrary loan), they could see more than the first page of this article which is specifically on the importance of the filioque for Reformed theology.


Burial of remains following medical research I have an friend whose great aunt donated her body to a university for medical research purposes.  At the end of their research the science department had the remains cremated.  My friend wants to know if the Catholic Church teaches that the remains be interred in a Catholic Cemetery and or can the remains be co-mingled with other research remains and buried together?

The Catholic Church issued new instructions for cremations back in 2016:

The Vatican said ashes and bone fragments cannot be kept at home, since that would deprive the Christian community as a whole from remembering the dead. Rather, Church authorities should designate a sacred place, such as a cemetery or church area, to hold them.
Only in extraordinary cases can a bishop allow ashes to be kept at home, it said.
The document said remains cannot be divided among family members or put in lockets or other mementoes. Nor can the ashes be scattered in the air, land or sea since doing so would give the appearance of “pantheism, naturalism or nihilism,” the guidelines said.

In particular, they require that the ashes be held in a sacred place, such as a Catholic Cemetery, and that the ashes kept whole.
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Secretariat of Divine Worship has said this about comingling of ashes:

Other practices such as commingling cremated remains or dividing up cremated remains among family members or friends are not acceptable for Catholics.

So, to answer your question, according to the Catholic church, your friend would have to have her great aunt's ashes kept separate from the rest, and interred in a Catholic cemetery in order for it to be a proper Catholic burial.


Is Thomas More's reading of "This is my body" a literal one by modern standards? Thomas More, whose birthday it is today (7 February),
was a strong defender of Catholic eucharistic theology.
In his Answer to a poisoned book (1533),
a reply to a Zwinglian
tract probably written
by George Joye,
he wrote:

  I shall, beside all such spiritual expositions
  as this man useth therein by way of allegories or parables,
  declare you the very literal sense of those words,
  "My flesh is verily meat, and my blood verily drink":
  so that that ye may see thereby
  that our saviour verily spake and meant,
  not only such a spiritual eating as Master Masker
  saith he only meant,
  but also the very bodily eating and drinking
  of his very flesh and blood indeed. 1

The basic dispute
depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is,
in the words of institution, and
in other passages
like the one quoted (John 6:55).
Zwingli and Joye thought it meant "signifies".
More asserts (among other arguments) that since Jesus had a body of flesh and blood,
"This is my body" admits a literal reading,
unlike when Jesus elsewhere says that he "is" a vine, a door, and so on.
He says that although there are also symbolic meanings,
a literal one cannot be wholly dismissed, since that would mean ignoring the plain words.
Moreover, although one has to go to some effort to explain how it's possible (how Christ's body can be present in the Eucharist, at many places and times, appear as bread, etc.), it's more acceptable to believe in miracles than to remove all literal meaning from "is".

At first glance this seems to be the same kind of argument
made by Biblical literalists today about many other passages. Does More's reasoning - that it is necessary to find some plain reading if at all possible - count as a "literal" argument, according to a modern understanding about what that means? What rules or safeguards are present in the modern approach, whereby self-described literalists today are generally not led to consider transubstantiation a viable option in this case, when supernatural explanations are accepted in other cases?

1. The answer to the first part of the poysoned booke
whych a nameles heretike hath named the supper of the Lord, 1.3. In The workes of Sir Thomas More ... in the Englysh tonge (London, 1557), p1042.
Spelling and punctuation modernised by me.

Hyper-Literalism

This seems to be a case of taking the Scriptures too literally when it is intended to be symbolic.

If Christians are the "light of the world", as Jesus said in John 8:12, then all we would need to do to see if someone is a Christian or not would be to turn out all the other lights and see if the person gives off any light himself.

All people who ever hated anyone would be convicted of murder (Matthew 5).  Jesus is a door to a sheep pen where he keeps his sheep and shepherds them, but He Himself was also a sheep who could talk, or at least half man, half sheep.  No, God became a Man--not a sheep.

The Bread and the Wine

The reason that most Protestants reject the notion that the elements of communion are literally the body and blood of Christ is that when Jesus said those words, He was referring to literal bread and literal wine, neither of which was His body or blood.

Also, Paul refers to Jesus as our Passover in 1 Corinthians:

  For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 1 Corinthians 5:7

It was the Passover celebration that Jesus was celebrating with His disciples when He spoke of His body and blood.  The bread was unleavened bread.  Leaven was symbolic of sin, so the unleavened bread represented the sinlessness of Christ.

So, there is ample evidence that this was always to be understood as symbolic.

Taking things as literal when they were mean to be symbolic is definitely problematic and distorts the Scriptures as much as those who symbolize things that were clearly intended to be literal.


Were any Biblical prophecies understood before they were fulfilled? In a recent discussion on this site, someone told me that the nature of Biblical Prophecy is such that it cannot be understood prior to its fulfillment; that this is essentially the point of a prophecy: to be understood only after the fact.

This was a new concept to me, and now I'm curious:

Are there any examples of Biblical prophecies which were understood (by anyone) before they were fulfilled?

Without doing too much digging and research I can think of one example.

In Matthew 2 the priests and teachers of the law knew that the Christ was to be born in Bethelehem as per their interpretation of the prophecy in Micah 5.

  Matthew 2:3-6 (ESV)
  3 When Herod the king heard this, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem
  with him; 4 and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the
  people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. 5 They
  told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet:

  6  “‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler
      who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

Also in the Old Testament, dreams foretelling the future were interpreted prior to the events taking place. (Examples in the stories of Joseph and Daniel) However I'm not sure this falls under the category of official prophecy.


Is there scriptural basis for spiritual 'growth'? In my denomination from time to time I hear about spiritual 'growth'.
I get quite confused about it. It seems to me that Jesus taught to love people, give what we have to the poor, pray for people, cast out unclean spirits, bless people who curse us, give the other cheek, do not call people things because words have a lot of power (physical wounds other people can see, but internal/psychological wounds generally go by without the knowledge of others even for decades or a lifetime), give to whoever asks, lend without asking back, do not serve money, do not be anxious, love God and others.

2 Peter: 5.For this very reason, make every effort to add to your
faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge,
self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance,
godliness; 7and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual
affection, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing
measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in
your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It seems to me that God does indeed cleanse people inward. People who come to Jesus stops cursing,  cheating, being immoral, starts loving God, etc. I believe this is the work of the Holy Spirit.
Also there are spiritual gifts that God gives to people (word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, gifts of healings, miracles, prophecy, distinguishing between spirits, tongues and interpretation of tongues) which it seems are all for serving one another.
And finally the fruits of the spirit:
Charity (or love), joy, peace, patience, benignity (or kindness), goodness, long-suffering, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control.
Is there such a thing as spiritual growth, if so, what is it and what is the scriptural basis for it?

Spiritual growth, or growing spiritually, is the core of our Christian walk, where the Spirit works in us and transforms us as we understand more of His Word and live according to the Word, and as a result we become more and more like Jesus.
Here is a good article on spiritual growth:
https://biblereasons.com/spiritual-growth/
Often, different spiritual life stages are used to summarize/categorize where people are in their Spiritual journey:
5 Stages of Spiritual Growth
Stage 1, The Spiritually Dead
Stage 2, The Spiritual Infant
Stage 3, The Spiritual Child
Stage 4, The Spiritual Young Adult
Stage 5, The Spiritual Parent
One example is in 1 Corinthians, where Paul called the Corinthians infants in Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:1-3
Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as
people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly–mere
infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still
worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you
not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans?

And there are many other verses talking about the spiritual growth -

2 Peter 1:6 and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your
self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
2 Peter 3:18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of
eternity. Amen.


Is Ecclesiastes 2:24 advice for Christians or non-Christians Not everything written in the Bible is biblical for a Christian to follow. For example, David took Bathesheba and had her husband murdered.

Now, I'm reading Ecclesiastes 2:24 and I see:

  24 There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God.

I'm a bit confused -- is this line written as Christian advice, or is this "the best someone who does not follow Christ can do"?

I am confused on this for the following reasons:

I consider Proverbs a book of Biblical advice.
I consider Ecclesiastes similar to Proverbs

However, this verse appears to ignore Christ (and takes on a rather atheist view -- i.e. eat, drink, work hard, be happy.)

Furthermore, I'm not sure what stage of Solomon's life this verse was written in? (I.e. was this when the 300 wives + 700 concubines were leading him to worship idols?)

In short, summary of question: is Ecclesiastes 2:24 written as advice for Christians or non-Christians?

The advice is not to "eat, drink, work hard and be merry". The advice is more similar to Jesus' "See the lilies,...". In this chapter, Ecclesiastes says (attention, context coming ;-) ):

It is vain to work hard and amass earthly riches, they won't go with you. It is even more vain that you work hard and don't even enjoy the outcome.

Instead, we should enjoy the things God has given us.

I don't think that's bad advice, so long as you don't interpret it to mean "eat, drink, work hard, and be merry".

Ecclesiastes 2:26

  26 For God giveth to a man that is good in his sight wisdom, and
  knowledge, and joy: but to the sinner he giveth travail, to gather and
  to heap up, that he may give to him that is good before God. This also
  is vanity and vexation of spirit.

=> The good man gets everything from God, the sinner works for vain goals


How does King James-only-ism apply to other languages? How does King-James-only-ism apply to other languages?

As far as I know, the King-James is an English specific bible, and the King-James-Only standard is an English specific subject, which if I am not mistaken might even make a claim of divine inspiration on behalf of the translators.

Clarification

In the comments it was suggested I clarify the question:

The King James version is an English Translation. King James proponents elevate the KJV over all other translations, saying it was given by God at that time, and often it is asserted (and this typifies the KJO movement) that to date there is no other bible translation that is of the same validity as the KJV.

I've made a sincere assessment of the King James Only view, and a very important question manifests (the question of this post) how does this view apply to other languages?

Obviously God has not called only English speaking people. Not all languages are equal, or have the same capacity or way of expression. Hence, one would think that a convert would have to learn English (older English, in this case) to properly understand the bible. But there is the rare case of those who need no other translations, those being able to read the original languages - one might think they too should read the KJV, by the modern standard of KJO.

On a related note, modern translations (Such as my NET) exist not merely for reasons of "profit" but range of use, besides the necessity to update the language for the benefit of the user. Some KJO proponents assert that all other translations are from the devil, obscuring doctrine - but considering that languages (or language variants) cannot be sharply classified, a translation that exists for a language or language variant is asserted,by default, to be "from the devil" by some KJO proponents.

The entire issue, really, reduces to this simple question: How does KJO apply to other languages? Even an evolved language (such as our English) can be to some extent called "another language".

One acceptable approach to KJV-Onlyists is to make a foreign translation based on the English text of the KJV.

For example, this is from Peter Ruckman:

  The only LIVING BIBLE on earth today is the AV (1611), or translations
  made from it.

And from Brian Donovan, writing in Peter Ruckman's publication:

  Any effort to translate the Bible into other languages will be right
  if it comes from the KJV, and wrong when it does not. It is that
  simple.

And Gail Riplinger:

  Because the KJV is a precise and contextual accurate translation,
  thousands of foreign language translations were subsequently made
  directly from it.

And Roy Branson:

  From the KJV the Bible had been translated into a multitude of other
  languages, thus making it the Bible God had used to reach the world.

I (happily) cannot speak for any of them, but I would suspect that KJV-Onlyists would view the translation of the KJV a necessary, though unfortunate, accommodation to non-English readers.  The translation would of course only be considered accurate insofar as it accurately translated the KJV.

That said, there are some KJV-Onlyists who do not believe it is possible to have a fully-trustworthy translation of the Bible in any other language besides English.  For example, Sam Gipp:

  QUESTION: If there is a perfect Bible in English, doesn’t there also
  have to be a perfect Bible in French, and German, and Japanese, etc?

  ANSWER: No. God has always given His word to one people in one
  language to do one job; convert the world. The supposition that there
  must be a perfect translation in every language is erroneous and
  inconsistent with God’s proven practice...

and again:

  When in Mexico I tell people that the Word of God is preserved in
  English as the KJV 1611. The best bet would be to learn English if
  they want the WHOLE pure word.. a translation of the KJV into Spanish
  would be great but would be subject to those who learned English
  returning to the English to clarify the Spanish... because the Spanish
  KJV would only be a translation of the preserved text.

See http://www.ruckmanism.org/danger for more examples.  And more from Roy Branson (if you really want to know) is at http://www.biblebelievers.com/Branson_KJV1.html


What is the Christian perspective on deceptive brain messages? What is the Christian perspective on deceptive brain messages?

Modern science now shows us proof that we can rewire our brains, so that it works in more beneficial ways. The concepts in a new book by Doctor Jeffery M. Schwartz (an Evangelical Christian), You Are Not Your Brain, demonstrates some of the latest experiments and findings of the scientific community, having to do with the brain and the mind.

Please see videos from the author to understand the book:

Using Jesus as your impartial spectator to help you realize your brain is sending you a false message: http://suprememastertv.com/ss/?wr_id=97
Interviews: http://www.jeffreymschwartz.com/resources.htm
Collection of his links:  http://westallen.typepad.com/brains_on_purpose/about_jeffrey_m_schwartz_.html
http://www.youarenotyourbrain.com/appearances/

details and reviews:

B&N details
Amazon details
Psychology Today Article on the book
review

Example from the book:

  Nothing is more confusing or painful than when your brain takes over
  your thoughts, attacks your self-worth, questions your abilities,
  overpowers you with cravings, or attempts to dictate your actions.
  Have you ever felt that something is compelling you to “go” places...

The author, Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D. is an Evangelical Christian.

Now with some people they say this is God telling them something or sending them an affliction etc.

Where do we draw the line between medical condition inspired actions vs. God inspired actions?

For example, maybe someone with ODC in the year 200AD  thought it was God making him go back and make sure he put the lid back on the well. Today if someone keeps checking if they turned off the sink, it is considered a medical issue.

Does Christianity address the difference between our mind (higher self as it is called in the book, he even says some patients also call it the Jesus in them) and the brain?

For example, here is something in general that support the concept:

  Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your
  reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be
  anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication
  with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the
  peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your
  hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is
  true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure,
  whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any
  excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these
  things. ... - Philippians 4:4-9

I believe the Bible is the most modern and futuristic book we have and that it has a dimension that addresses this. I have concepts from my own summarizing of the Bible but if was asked to back it up, could not at this point. So any thoughts, passages, studies or ideas are welcomed.

Thanks.

Review:
"Operating on the highly rational perspective that we are not our brains, but rather, substantial free agents who exercise control over our brains, Schwartz and Gladding develop a simple, yet profoundly insightful approach for developing a flourishing life.  The result will bring healing and hope to all who read it."
--J. P. Moreland, author of The God Question (Christian apologist).

EDIT :
Just found out the author of the book, Jeffery M. Schwartz is an Evangelical Christian:
Please see the first video here.  I believe that makes this question a bit more relevant.

Let me begin with the disclaimer that I have not read this book, I have never heard of this book, and so all I know about it is what you say here. So most of what I say here is about the general idea and not the specifics of this book.

I think two key points should be born in mind:

I would be very cautious about saying that "science has proven" something based on claims of one writer in one, let us admit, obscure book. There have been many books written over the centuries claiming to have "proof" of this or that, from cold fusion to people being kidnapped by aliens, and further investigation proves them to be inconclusive or flat wrong. (I'd be especially careful about concluding that the Bible must be wrong or must be "re-interpreted" based on such claims. The scientific and historical accuracy of the Bible has withstood endless attacks over thousands of years. If a claimed new scientific discovery contradicts the Bible, the safe bet is that the Bible will turn out to be right. But maybe that's a tangent: I gather that you are not saying that this book "proves" the Bible wrong, but simply that you want to fit this into your understanding of spiritual truth.)
That said, at least the general idea as you describe it is nothing new. The Bible makes numerous mentions of at least one case where a physical stimulus can affect the mind: Proverbs 20:1 "Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise." There are warnings thoughout the Bible that excessive alcohol consumption interferes with good judgement. While I can't think of a Bible verse mentioning this, surely the Bible writers were aware that physical injury can hurt the mind. That is, they must have known cases where someone sufferred a head wound and was mentally impaired either temporarily or permeanently.

So nowhere does the Bible teach that the soul or mind is completely separate from and unaffected by the body, and indeed specifically talks about the counter-example of drunkenness on numerous occasions.

As the Bible of course teaches that the soul outlives the body, and that sould embodies the same mind you had when alive, the mind must be something more than the electrochemical processes of the brain.

So what exactly is the relationship between the brain, i.e. the physical organ, and the mind, i.e. the personality? I can give a complete and accurate answer to that question: I don't know.

Clearly the brain affects the mind, but the mind is not the same thing as the brain. There is an interrelationship.

It certainly brings up difficult moral and spiritual questions. If a person accidentally ingests a chemical that messes with his mind and causes him to become violent, does God hold him accountable for the acts committed while under the influence of this chemical? Could a drug or electrical stimulus or whatever interfere with the functioning of a person's mind in a way that causes him to reject God, while without this stimulus he would have turned to God and been saved?

It sounds very tricky, but a little thought will show that it's not different in principle from other human or natural events that could interfere with a person's salvation. Like, what if a person was on his way to visit a friend and tell him about God, and on the way he is killed in an automobile accident? What about people who, because of historical circumstances beyond their control, live in a place where the Gospel has never been heard? Etc etc. There are many natural events that can affect your spiritual life. Things that interfere with the functioning of the brain are more insidious -- "creepier" perhaps -- but not different in kind.


Which, according to Catholic Church, is the writing in Old Testament that Jesus is referring to in Jn 7:38? We read in Jn 7: 37-38:

"On the last day of the festival, the great day, while Jesus was standing there, he cried out, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me,  and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water.’”

Going back to Old Testament, we read at Isaiah 58:11:

"And the Lord will guide you continually and satisfy your desire in scorched places and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail.”

See that the verses of Isaiah make a good match for Jn 7:38, not a perfect match though, in that the words `living water' are missing from Isaiah.
My question therefore is: Which, according to the Catholic Church, is the writing in the Old Testament that Jesus is referring to in Jn 7:38?

The Catholic Bible on NewAdvent.org says that there is no exact match in known scripture.
HOLY BIBLE: John 7 says this:

On the last and greatest day of the feast Jesus stood there and cried aloud, If any man is thirsty, let him come to me, and drink;
yes, if a man believes in me, as the scripture says, Fountains of living water shall flow from his bosom.[5]
He was speaking here of the Spirit, which was to be received by those who learned to believe in him; the Spirit which had not yet been given to men, because Jesus had not yet been raised to glory.
…
[5] ‘His bosom’; it is not clear whether this refers to the believer, or to our Lord himself; the old commentators are not agreed. In either case, it is impossible to trace these exact words in any passage of scripture as we have it; cf. however Is. 44.3, Zach. 13.1. Some would punctuate differently, with a full stop, instead of a comma, after ‘believes in me’.

That Jesus was paraphrasing the scriptural imagery is a reasonable conclusion, regardless of one's denomination.


What is the specific meaning of "die" in Genesis 2? Genesis 2:16-17 (NIV):

  16And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

KJV says:

  for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

It seems clear that Adam and Eve did not die on the day they ate from the tree. And even without the word "day" there, it seems they didn't die "when" they ate from the tree, either, but many many years later.

What gives?

The death promised and that Adam experienced the moment he chose to sin was not a ceasing to exist or a physical stopping to breathe, it was a separation: a rending apart of two things that were once closely joined. On the day that Adam ate the fruit, he died1. He was separated from God. The fellowship between them was broken.

The reverse of this death happens when we are 'born again'. The fellowship is restored, and we are born into new life -- the power of the cross is that it reverses death!

The alternative, for those who are not born again into a new life, is that they will experience a 'second death'. This is partly a contrast between physical and spiritual death. It happens sequentially after physical death (making it second) but is also the point at which spiritual separation  becomes permanent (having died once with Adam, they will be judged to permanent death). The reverse is true for believers: we will be raised into life even though we die.

This is an important doctrine to understand in light of many popular culture understandings of death as some kind of annihilation or ceasing to exist. Never in Scripture do we find an indications that any humans well cease to exist, but we do find lots of information about the change in our relationship before God.

This understanding of death as a separation or rending apart of two things once joined is also the sense of 'death' that Romans and 1st Peter use when they speak of believers being dead to sin. We are no longer bound to it as a slave is to his master. Believers relationship with sin has been severed and we have been cleaved to a new master.

When we physically die, our spirits are separated from the bodies that we have been one with2. Our bodies don't cease to exist nor do our spirits, but they part ways3. Our bodies then decay and return to dust, but even the material in this world doesn't cease to exist. Our spirits meanwhile continue, either in eternal life (unity with Christ) or eternal death (separation from Him).

  Genesis 2:17 (ESV)
  but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat1 of it you shall surely die.”

  Genesis 35:18 (ESV)
  And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin.
  James 2:26 (ESV)
  For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

  Ecclesiastes 12:7 (ESV)
  and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.


Why did God accept Abel's offering and not Cain's? In Genesis 4, we read the following account of Cain and Abel:

  So it came about in the course of time that Cain brought an offering to the Lord of the fruit of the ground. Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portions. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angry and his countenance fell.  Genesis 4:3-5

The story continues that Cain continued in anger and ended up murdering Abel.

So, Cain's offering was not accepted by God, while Abel's offering was.  Why was this so?  What was it about Cain's offering that made it unacceptable, what was it about Abel's offering that made it acceptable?

One interpretation is that Cain's offering was not selective but Abel's offering was of the best ("fat portions") of the special ("firstlings").  Under this interpretation, Abel considered God well worthy of special honor (which tends to be associated with love), while Cain may have viewed the sacrifice more as something to be done, an expected action that was satisfied (perhaps indicating a legalistic inclination, perhaps something like the older brother in the Parable of the Prodigal Son).  Abel's offering of "firstlings" may also have indicated his understanding that the produce of his flock was a gift from God.

Another interpretation--which I do not believe to be accurate--is that Abel's offering involved blood, indicating a recognition of his need for atonement.  This interpretation seems not to account for the special aspects of Abel's sacrifice (and the context gives no indication that the "offering" was one for sins, though likewise it does not specifically indicate thanksgiving).

Even if one views the passage as not clearly giving the reason for God's favor to Abel, the general message of Scripture is that God "looks at the heart" (1 Sam. 16:7) and so one can assume that God's favor coincided with Abel's loving and faithful heart.  In fact, assuming that the type of sacrifice itself is what wins God's favor would be wrong-thinking because he does not benefit from such sacrifices (e.g., Psalm 50:9 [NIV]: "I have no need of a bull from your stall or of goats from your pens,") but seeks a heart-sacrifice (e.g., Psalm 51:17 [NIV]: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.") of which outward sacrifice is to be a fruit.

In addition, Hebrews 11:4 indicates that the offering came from faith, a trait of the heart without which "it is impossible to please God" (11:6) [NIV]:

  By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did.  By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings.


Is communion service at the rail vs. in the pews a function of denomination or church size? In the small baptist churches I've been a part of, (and the LDS service I attended), the communion elements are served to worshippers in the pews. In my Episcopal church, everybody comes up to the rail.  I'm wondering a bit about how this variation in practice arose (Anyone know which came first?) and if there is a way of predicting how any given church will practice it.

In Catholic churches, Communion is required by the Holy See to be distributed by a minister (priest, bishop, deacon, etc) and may only be done so by a lay person if there are not enough ministers to do the job. This, and the requirements about how the congregants receive the Eucharist from the minister, suggests that in Catholic churches, altar distribution is the way it goes. This is one of the many Catholic practices that originated in the Catholic Churches need to control its congregants. The ministers have control over whether you receive the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Episcopal/Anglican churches also practice this distribution by ministers, although I'm not certain about requirements as I know less about the Anglican church hierarchy. Lutheran churches do too, sometimes referring to it as The Sacrament of the Altar. Both of these come from their close ties to Catholicism back in the day.

In the various other Protestant persuasions, the desire to draw away from the rules and rituals of the more orthodox denominations and the belief that God connects directly with all people, not just through the ministers, lead to a significant de-formalization of the communion rite. Also, since most Protestants do not hold the that communion is a sacrament, but rather a remembrance of Christ's death for Christians on the cross, the formal ritual became unnecessary.

Also because of the lower importance that Protestants place on the Eucharist, it is not celebrated weekly at all churches, including Lutheran and Anglican churches. Catholics, however, are required to take communion weekly.

As to whether you can tell, at Protestant churches, there is not a sweeping generalization to be made based on denomination or size. That said, you could probably tell by when you walk in if you see a communion table set up with those communion cup-holders stacked on top of each other or if you see somewhere to kneel at the front of the church.


Did everything Christ did perfectly match what was required for salvation? I was thinking about Christ's suffering for sinners and am wondering, 'Since everything he did as a man on earth was a form of suffering for the eternal son, did everything he do perfectly match what was required for salvation?' Did his grasp for food and his sleep as a child, required for our salvation? Was everything perfectly matched with what was required, or were some things neutral, or not required?

Interesting.

Yes.

Salvation required the sacrifice of a perfect and immaculate victim. This means that it was required of Christ to do everything in accordance with God's will. There is of course no question that He could and did carry out this obligation. He was perfectly obedient. If He was not, He could not serve as an appropriate sacrifice. But then, if He was not perfectly obedient, He wouldn't be Jesus, either.

Does this include all of his intentional actions? Yes. This is because all actions can be done for God (related). Here is one reference, dealing with the use of material things: "There is scarcely any proper use of material things which cannot be thus directed toward the sanctification of men and the praise of God" (from the Catechism section 1670). And here is another, from 1 Corinthians 10:

  31 So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God.

We can be sure that Jesus did do everything, absolutely everything, for the glory of God; and doing so was required for salvation, because salvation required the sacrifice of a perfect and immaculate victim.


Did Jonah think that God exists only in Israel? The word of the Lord came to Jonah son of Amittai: “Go to the great
  city of Nineveh and preach against it, because its wickedness has come
  up before me.” But Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for
  Tarshish. He went down to Joppa, where he found a ship bound for that
  port. After paying the fare, he went aboard and sailed for Tarshish to
  flee from the Lord. (Jonah 1:3 , NIV)

Was Jonah stupid enough to think that God(YHWH) doesn't exist beyond the boundaries of Israel?

What exactly was Jonah trying to do when he sailed away from Israel?

A large part of the purpose of the Book of Jonah is to describe the universal power and sovereignty of God.

Israel was not always monotheistic in her beliefs. Much of the early history of Israelite religion, as it can be seen in the Hebrew Bible, was actually what is called monolatrist, that is to say, she worshipped only one God but her religion did not deny the existence of other gods. This is a position very widely accepted in modern biblical scholarship. A good summary of the case is in John Day's Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Continuum, 2002).

Israel's religion was very much bound up in the land. There was considered to be a tight link between the God of Israel (YHWH) and the land of Israel. In a sense, YHWH's power was considered to be limited to the land of Israel.

The most significant turning point in this history was the Exile in Babylon. At this point, Israel was uprooted from the land. This appeared to show YHWH's impotence. What it ultimately did, however, was cause Israel to reappraise her theology. Instead of "YHWH is our God, connected to our land", it was now "YHWH is the God, connected to every land". The kings of other nations (most famously Cyrus of Persia in Isaiah 45, but even to some extent Nebuchadnezzar) are portrayed as tools of YHWH. Joseph Blenkinsopp's commentary on Isaiah 40-55 (Yale, 2002) is a good summary here.

The Book of Jonah was probably written in the post-exilic period (see e.g. the USCCB commentary). It reflects some of these ideas. Many interpreters take it as a rebuttal of the conservative Israel-only movement epitomised by Ezra and Nehemiah.

The whole narrative satirises the idea that God is concerned only with Israel. We see this, for instance, in the episode with the bush. Jonah gets angry about the death of the bush, but YHWH points out that he is far more concerned with the great city of Nineveh:

  Then the Lord said, ‘You are concerned about the bush, for which you did not labour and which you did not grow; it came into being in a night and perished in a night. And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?’ (Jonah 4.10f., NRSV)

Nineveh is, of course, of great symbolic significance, since it is the capital of the Assyrian Empire that destroyed the Northern Kingdom of Israel. In many ways, it is an analogue of Babylon. The fact that YHWH's prophet would be sent there in itself makes a radical theological point.

Jonah's attempt to flee to Tarshish must be understood in this context, reading it as related to the wider theological purpose of the book. It's a joke, really: Jonah says, "No, I'm not going there, I'm running away where you can't get me." YHWH (and the writer of the book) mocks this idea, saying "You think you can get away from me? My power extends even to Tarshish, even to Nineveh."

A similar point is made by YHWH's power over the sea. Typically, in ancient Middle-Eastern religions, the sea is seen as the place of chaos and uncontrollable power, the place where the gods have no power. In asserting YHWH's power over the sea, the author asserts his power over everything. (A similar point is made by the continued references to the sea in Deutero-Isaiah, Isaiah 40-55.)

So this, then, is why the Book of Jonah sees him attempt to flee. It is precisely making the point that, even though he thought he could escape YHWH's power, he could not, because the whole of the earth is under his dominion.


What was Pelagius' view of Hell? It is probably impossible to determine what his view was for certain, but what evidence is there that he believed eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, or universalism?

Evidence ranging from his words, to what his opponents, or even to the Christian school of thought he grew up in said is welcomed.

The only document assigned to Pelagius that I could find is his letter to Demetrias, a fourteen year old girl of wealthy family who shunned riches and made enquiries regarding her own religious desires.

The letter is presented online but the two presentations I have found (herein linked) are very different and there is some question about the accuracy of translation from the original Latin.

In one presentation I found the words :

  But the joy of heaven, which is the reward for making good and wise choices on earth, lasts for all eternity. And the agony of hell, which is the punishment for making bad choices on earth, also lasts for all eternity. The day of judgement, when God will decide where to send us, is imminent; even if a person is young, and destined to live for a hundred years, the day is still imminent.

But the tone of the second presentation is different, the document is much longer and I am unable to find the above quoted words within it, so there is doubt about the accuracy of the documentation available.

The second link provides a copy of the original Latin written by Pelagius.

Grateful thanks to @Joseph Hinkle for providing the second link.


Who do Catholics say the Mary in Matthew 27:56 is? Roman Catholics believe that Mary the mother of Jesus remained a virgin for her whole life. Mary the mother of Jesus is sometimes seen in the gospels with men referred to as Jesus' brothers, with names including James and Joseph. Then there's this verse:

Matthew 27:56 (NIV):

  Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and
  Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

Who does the Roman Catholic Church say this Mary (mother of James and Joseph) was? Were James and Joseph step-children (and therefore Jesus' step-brothers) or perhaps this is a different Mary altogether?

Different Mary, although James and Joseph were considered especially close to Jesus. They were called "brothers of Jesus" in the same vein as the word "brother" is used figuratively today: a bond of friendship close to that of family.
On Mary's perpetual virginity, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states (emphasis mine):

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.
501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."


What is the Biblical basis for the belief that the Jews rejected their king? Jews are persecuted and harassed for rejecting their king, yet, Jesus was never anointed by a prophet and set up as a king, and slipped through the crowds not allowing the Jews to make him their king when they wanted to. What is the Biblical basis for the belief that the Jews rejected their king?

Why do Christians consider Jesus to be the king of the Jews?

Jesus is the heir of David:

  And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end. (Luke 1:31-33)

Jesus often spoke about his kingdom

  Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)

  Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

In this last verse Jesus is not denying that he is the king of the Jews, but explaining that he was not reigning as king in an earthly political fashion in this life. But he will reign in that fashion after the second coming in the new earth.
Jesus is in fact not just the king of the Jews, but the king of the whole world

  Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.” (Revelation 11:15)

Why do Christians think that the Jews rejected Jesus as their king?

Verses such as this show this directly:

  Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him. But you have a custom that I should release one man for you at the Passover. So do you want me to release to you the King of the Jews?” They cried out again, “Not this man, but Barabbas!” Now Barabbas was a robber. (John 18:38-40)

Because they didn't refute Pilate's statement that Jesus was their king, this is seen as tacit approval of that truth. Of course almost all of them wouldn't have actually believed that he was their king, but this kind of public statement would have some legal force. All four gospels record the crowd's demand for Jesus to be killed.
The Sanhedrin heard the gospel preached to them by Stephen, in Acts 7. This included the claim that Jesus was the "Righteous One", the messiah, who stands at the right hand of God. Because Stephen mentions David and Solomon Jesus's kingship can be understood as clearly implied. But despite having over 500 witnesses of the resurrected Jesus, they refused to believe, and stoned Stephen.

So both the people and the nation's leadership rejected Jesus, both before and after his resurrection, and many of these verses show that they did so in the context of claims that he was their king.