According to the LDS Church (Mormons), how specifically did Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon? As I understand it, the LDS Church teaches that the Book of Mormon was written on gold plates in a language called "Reformed Egyptian".  According to the LDS Church, what did Joseph Smith use and how exactly did he translate the Book of Mormon?

First, here's the simple version: Buried together with the golden plates was a device known as the Urim and Thummim, described by Joseph Smith as:

  two stones in silver bows—and these stones, fastened to a breastplate,
  constituted what is called the Urim and Thummim—deposited with the
  plates; and the possession and use of these stones were what
  constituted “seers” in ancient or former times; and ... God had
  prepared them for the purpose of translating the book.

Several revelations, including the translation of the plates, were received by the use of these stones, through a process that is not well-understood.

Answering the question well, however is a bit complicated.  By the time most people became aware of the Book of Mormon, the work of translation was in the past; both the translation and the publication of the Book of Mormon were completed before the organization of the Church or the missionary work that brought the book to so many people.  And Joseph Smith himself never had much to say on the subject; he considered the book to be the significant thing, not the process by which it was produced.

The clearest and most detailed quote regarding the translation process comes to us from David Whitmer, an associate of Joseph Smith's, but one who was never actually involved in the translation process, so its authenticity is questionable.  Whitmer stated:

  Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in
  the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and
  in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something
  resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing.
  One character at a time would appear, and under it was the
  interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English
  to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was
  written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct,
  then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation
  would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and
  power of God, and not by any power of man.

  An Address to All Believers in Christ (1887)

Again, this explanation may or may not be accurate, as David Whitmer was never present to witness the process.  Joseph's wife, Emma, who did serve briefly as a scribe during the translation process, gave a slightly different description:

  When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of
  it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to
  proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them
  out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling,
  he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible
  for him to see how I was writing them down at the time.

  When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he
  commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and
  one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a
  sheet, and said, ‘Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?’ When I
  answered, ‘Yes,’ he replied, ‘Oh! [I didn’t know.] I was afraid I had
  been deceived.’ He had such a limited knowledge of history at that
  time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.

  Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856” (1916)

Many years later, in an interview, she gave some more detail on the process:

  Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and
  well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon
  [by his own effort]. ...

  I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing
  of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his
  scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when
  returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin
  where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having
  any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do.
  It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and,
  for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.

  Last Testimony of Emma Smith (1879)

The only things that are clear from the historical record, (by looking at surviving newspaper articles, personal journals, and the like,) are that Joseph Smith was widely believed by his contemporaries--both friends and enemies--to be in possession of a set of golden plates in the late 1820s, that he claimed that these plates contained an ancient record, and that he had the means to translate it by means of the interpreters (Urim and Thummim) found with the plates.

At one point, Joseph Smith produced a transcription of several characters from the plates, plus a translation of the sample, which was shown to scholars by Martin Harris, Smith's scribe at the time.  He was skeptical of the work and wanted evidence.  The record is uncertain as to the details of what happened when he did so, with Harris claiming that he received a favorable response, and Professor Charles Anthon, the scholar he showed it to, denying the claim.  As Gordon B. Hinckley noted,

  Some years later when he was approached by an avowed detractor of
  Joseph Smith, Professor Anthon denied ever having commented with favor
  upon the characters or the translation. Yet the fact remains that
  Martin Harris was so impressed by the experience that he returned to
  Joseph Smith, and then immediately proceeded to Palmyra to put his
  affairs in order so that he might assist with the translation.

  Truth Restored (1979)

Unfortunately, while speculation abounds today, the actual concrete details of the process were never well-documented and have been lost to time, and all that remains are comments and recollections given years later.


From a "traditional", Trinitarian perspective, what is the effect of the doctrine of sin in the doctrine of creation? Really, I am looking for an answer from a "Trinitarian" perspective, but specifically whoever that Joy Ann McDougall is citing.

Source: McDougall, Joy Ann. "A Trinitarian Grammar Of Sin." Modern Theology 27.1 (2011): 55-71. Academic Search Premier. Web. 11 Aug. 2013.

Cited Source: David Kelsey, “Whatever Happened to the Doctrine of Sin?” Theology Today Vol. 50 (July 1993), pp. 169–178.

  Having lost its traditional moorings in the doctrine of creation, the
  doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some
  suspected.

I have checked Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

According to the OED, it means a place where a boat is moored or anchored, or it may refer to the things that moor the boat in place.

According to the MWD, it (especially when used in the plural) means an established practice or stabilizing influence.

So, the sentence could have been read as "Having lost its traditional established practice or stabilizing influence in the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some suspected," or "Having lost its traditional anchorage in the doctrine of creation, the doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some suspected." I noticed that anchorage might be the right metaphor, because the author McDougall seems to be using it metaphorically to refer to sin having an anchor in creation later in the text. I am still unsure what that metaphor is supposed to be, or what the "traditional" interpretations of sin and creation and their relationship are.

I am going to break this sentence into its constituent parts.

The conditional:

  [Sin], Having lost its traditional moorings in the doctrine of creation,

Here in the conditional, the author correctly states that sin is tied to creation.  Regardless of how creation happened, it is assumed that Creation was good, but something happened to make it bad.  That Creation is "Good" is attested to on every day of Creation, in the account of Genesis 1.  That the Creation "fell" is the story of Genesis 3, and expounded by Jews and Christians alike, most notably by Paul:

  12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— ...  14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

(The last part of "Creation, Fall, ..." is Redemption, which is taken up in Romans 5, and is called "The Big Story of Scripture" by many evangelicals.

The idea is simple: It was good, it got bad.  This is what Christians mean by "Fall" and the consequence of the Fall is "Sin."

The Effect:

  the doctrine of sin, Kelsey argued, had not disappeared from sight as some suspected.

The premise being attacked by "Kelsey" is thus:

If you disprove Creation, you disprove the idea of Sin.

The idea is that if the doctrine of sin has its origins in / is tied to (ergo is "anchored" or "tied to the moorings of") creation & fall, then ... if you can get rid of the idea that there was ever a single "creation" you would also take out the idea that sin exists at the same time.

The problem, is that sin, and hence the Fall, is empirically proven each day.  (e.g. JUST WATCH THE NEWS!!!).

The premise (that denying the creation denies sin) is thus demonstrably false.

At least some people don't believe in a literal creation
Even some of those still see that there is "a fall"

Candidly, many evangelicals think that "intellectuals" want to believe there is no such thing as sin. (Indeed, I remember arguing with a professor so "enlightened" that he simply called sin "too exclusive a concept".  I remembered thinking, "What an idiot".)  Thus rooted to the story of Creation, it might have been assumed that successfully attacking the idea of creation could also disprove the existence of sin.

The Analysis

Kelsey via McDougall is saying, "It didn't work."


Why do most churches meet on Sunday? Most protestant churches (and possibly Roman Catholic churches?) have their main public meetings on Sundays. Why Sunday?

Note: I'm not asking why do Christians celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday, but why do they meet for their main church services on Sunday. Maybe it is the same reason, but I think it's a different question

Christians meet on Sunday in remembrance of Jesus's resurrection, which was on the first day of the week.  Historical evidence shows that this has been Christian practice since early times, perhaps even since the very beginning of Christianity.  The 2nd century apologist Justin Martyr certainly believed so:

  But why is it, you ask, that we gather on the Lord's Day to celebrate
  our solemnities?  Because that was the way the Apostles also did.

  -- De Fuga in Persecutione, XIV: 11


What is the biblical basis for the belief that the soul/spirit continues after death? What scriptural support is used to defend the belief that the soul/spirit of man continues on after death?  And how does that work with the fact that God made man "from dust you are and dust you will return"?

If the question is seen as "too broad" I am mainly interested in the Catholic and/or Anglican understandings.

I think there is a biblical basis for believing that the soul/spirit is not extinguished when the physical body dies and is buried.  The words spirit and breath are translations of the Hebrew word ‘neshamah’ and the Greek word ‘pneuma’. The words mean “strong wind, blast, or inspiration.” Neshamah is the source of life that vitalizes humanity. “The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (Job 33:4). It is the intangible, unseen human spirit that governs man’s mental and emotional existence. The apostle Paul said, “Who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him?” (1 Corinthians 2:11). Upon death the “spirit returns back to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7; see also Job 34:14-15; Psalm 104:29-30).

All human beings possess both material (physical) and immaterial (spiritual) characteristics. Each person has a physical body. The New Living Translation Bible says that after God formed Adam from the dust of the ground “He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person” (Genesis 2:7).  The King James Versions says man was created as a “living soul.”

The word soul can refer to both the immaterial and material aspects of humanity. Unlike human beings having a spirit, human beings are souls.  The Bible nowhere says that God’s breath is imparted to other animals.  Only humans are “formed in God’s image” (Genesis 1:27) and have spiritual awareness and moral conscience (Job 32:8).

The soul and the spirit are the immaterial parts that the Bible ascribes to humanity.  Whenever the word spirit is used in the Bible, it refers to the immaterial part of humanity that “connects” with God, who is spirit (John 4:24). The soul and the spirit are connected, but separable: “For the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow.  It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires” (Hebrews 4:12).

The soul is the essence of humanity’s being; it is who we are. The spirit is the immaterial part of humanity that connects with God.  The soul, as the life essence of the body, is removed at the time of physical death: “And as her soul was departing (for she was dying), she called his name Ben-oni; but his father called him Benjamin” (Genesis 35:18 KJV). The NLT says Rachel, who was about to die, named the baby with her last breath. The NIV says she breathed her last.

This begs the question, where was Rachel’s soul/breath/spirit departing to? Her body went into the ground to remain there until the resurrection, but what of her soul? Ecclesiastes 3:20-21 explains how the dead go to the same place (into the ground): “all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” Ecclesiastes 12:7 says that the “dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”

Elsewhere in the Bible, it speaks of the souls of those whose bodies have died, yet they live!  Revelation 6:9 speaks of “the souls of those who had been slain” who were under the altar in heaven.  Revelation 20:4 describes how “the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus” were seated on thrones in heaven.

Please note that the human soul it is not eternal in the same way that God is. God is the only truly eternal being in that he alone is without a beginning or end. God has always existed and will always continue to exist. All other sentient creatures, whether they are human or angelic, are finite in that they had a beginning. While I believe that human souls will live forever after they come into being, the Bible does not support the concept that our souls have always existed. Our souls are immortal, as that is how God created them, but they did have a beginning; there was a time they did not exist.

Not all Christians believe in the soul/spirit of man continuing to exist after the death of the body.  Some believe in “soul annihilation.”  However, whilst related to the question of the soul, it is outside the scope of this question and is for others to defend if that is what they believe.


What is the basis for the claim that the entire New Testament can be reconstructed apart from original and copied manuscripts? Bit of a mouthy title, but I remember reading a few years ago that the entire New Testament (perhaps with the exception of very few verses) and most of the Old Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers just because they had written so much about the Bible and referenced so many verses. To put it another way, if you took all of the writings of the early church fathers, pulled out every verse and reference, then put them together, you would have almost 100% of the New Testament and most of the Old Testament.

Is this a new claim, or does it have its origins in a more distant past (say, older than a century)? Is the claim accurate? What is the evidence for this claim?

(If the claim is technically false because the early church fathers didn't quote all that much, but technically true if a significantly longer time span is taken into account, then please say so.)

The claim is false...

Strictly speaking, the claim is easily proven false by searching a scripture index of the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers.  While this particular index seems imperfect, it does show that many verses (particularly from the shorter letters) are not quoted or even referenced.

We can also take advantage of the Philip Schaff translations of the Fathers, which are available online and use the KJV for scripture quotations.  John 3:16 turns up in a full-text search as does 1 John 3:16.  However, we wouldn't have any record of 3 John 3.  (Sadly the letter ends at verse 14 so I can't be consistent in my survey.)

There is a complete index of Biblical texts of the 10-volume Ante-Nicene Fathers, which shows a single verse from John's third epistle (3 John 11), which is found in volume IV, page 63.  Here, Tertullian writes that when it comes to marriage, we should not follow the examples of David and Solomon (who married many women), but to "follow the better things" (Joseph,  Moses, and Aaron who married just once).   But the quote fits just as well with 1 Peter 3:11 or Psalm 37:27 as it does with 3 John 11.

... but much of the Bible was quoted.

On the other hand, we find the early church did quote the New Testament extensively.  Augustine, for instance, gave extensive lectures on the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John, which were written down.  They serve as a very comprehensive commentary on the two books from which we can extract nearly the entire text (in Latin).  Even better, he preached the text in order, so we can follow along.  His other expository sermons on the gospels probably cover most of the text of those books.

Additionally, allusions to the New Testament permeates the earliest Christian writing (both Orthodox and Gnostic).  The index of New Testament references in  Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus shows they (as a group) were familiar with nearly every canonical work.  Not all of these are direct quotes, but demonstrate close familiarity with the texts.

Summary

One of the central principles of the Historical Method is the more independent sources that are available, the more confidence we have in the truth of a historical claim.  When it comes to the text of the New Testament, there is already a remarkable number of manuscript copies.  With the exception of variations, we know what the text said.  While we have no need of the early fathers to be confident in the content of the New Testament, their quotations of it give us information about its canonicity.


Why did the authors of the London Baptist Confession of 1689 callout the pope as being the antichrist? In chapter 26 paragraph 4 of the 1689 LBC, the authors called the pope the antichrist:

  neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming

What was the reasoning behind labeling a single man/office as The antichrist, when scripture itself does no such thing (and indeed says there will be more than one {1 John 2:18})?

An important note. This topic is surely filled with material that is horribly offensive. In the text below, I am trying to describe various beliefs which I do not  personally hold, and to which my denomination (regrettably, only since 1986) no longer subscribes.

One Antichrist or many?

The cited passage from 1 John does indeed talk about many antichrists; it also mentions a unique "the antichrist" who is to come. Several other Biblical passages have been interpreted in support of the existence of a single figure; see for example St Jerome's commentary on Daniel. Augustine (City of God 20.19) similarly says:

  As therefore there went out from the Church many heretics, whom John calls many antichrists, at that time prior to the end, and which John calls the last time, so in the end they shall go out who do not belong to Christ, but to that last Antichrist, and then he shall be revealed.

Robert Lerner (a historian of medieval heresies and millenarian movements) writes:

  Yet, since the author of 1 John drew a distinction in this very passage between the "many antichrists" who existed "even now" and a great Antichrist who "shall come", patristic authorities and medieval theologians concluded that the "many antichrists" were any members of the diabolically inspired human society of evil, all of whom helped to prepare the way for the true Antichrist's coming, but none of whom were to be confused with the Antichrist himself. 1

So, before the Reformation, there was a long tradition of belief in a single future great enemy, whose coming would be anticipated by many lesser antichrists. In the passage you quote, "man of sin" and "son of perdition" are taken from 2 Thessalonians 2:3, which is another prophetic warning about someone usurping the position of Christ - typically identified with the same unique Antichrist.

Popes and the Papacy

Reformation and earlier opponents of the papacy commonly associated the current Pope, the institution, or both, with capital-A Antichrist. There are a few mutually-supporting reasons, though in some cases this is mere name-calling. One view is influenced by the prophetic idea of Antichrist: he is believed to be a future occupant of the See of Peter, and the Popes until then (keeping his seat warm) could be identified with him since they were all thought to be working towards the same diabolical goal. Less eschatologically, the Popes were seen as representative of an ongoing system of oppression; they could each be called Antichrist since they were its leaders.

Some examples (from 1 and 2 Thessalonians through the centuries, Anthony C Thiselton, Wiley 2010):

Joachim of Fiore "is the first to associate [Antichrist] with a triumphal pope."
John Wycliffe (of the Lollards) "was still more emphatic about identifying the Antichrist with the pope or the papacy, or even with institutional church wealth and power"
John Huss "sees the Antichrist as the Pope himself as an individual man"
Martin Luther "insisted that the Antichrist was the Papacy". See his Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist, the reply to Leo X's bull of censure Exsurge Domine, in which he lashes out at those responsible for the letter, in pure invective. But his condemnation was less for the individual than for what he represented:

  "Luther held that every Pope was Antichrist even though personally exemplary, because Antichrist is collective: an institution, the papacy, a system which corrupts the truth of Christ. That was why Luther could repeatedly address Leo X in terms of personal respect only a week or so after blasting him as Antichrist." 2
  John Calvin also takes the institutional view, but with the Pope as representative of the corrupted universal church, therefore occupying "the seat of Antichrist" 3. Since the 1689 Baptist confession you cite is coming from the Calvinist tradition, this may be the most relevant line of interpretation. The key passage from the Institutes is 4.7.25:

  To some we seem slanderous and petulant, when we call the Roman Pontiff Antichrist. But those who think so perceive not that they are bringing a charge of intemperance against Paul, after whom we speak, nay, in whose very words we speak. But lest any one object that Paul's words have a different meaning, and are wrested by us against the Roman Pontiff, I will briefly show that they can only be understood of the Papacy. Paul says that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). In another passage, the Spirit, portraying him in the person of Antiochus, says that his reign would be with great swelling words of vanity (Dan. 7:25). Hence we infer that his tyranny is more over souls than bodies, a tyranny set up in opposition to the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Then his nature is such, that he abolishes not the name either of Christ or the Church, but rather uses the name of Christ as a pretext, and lurks under the name of Church as under a mask. But though all the heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul foretells that defection will come, he by the description intimates that that seat of abomination will be erected, when a kind of universal defection comes upon the Church, though many members of the Church scattered up and down should continue in the true unity of the faith. But when he adds, that in his own time, the mystery of iniquity, which was afterwards to be openly manifested, had begun to work in secret, we thereby understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate in one man (see Calv. in 2 Thess. 2:3; Dan. 7:9). Moreover, when the mark by which he distinguishes Antichrist is, that he would rob God of his honour and take it to himself, he gives the leading feature which we ought to follow in searching out Antichrist; especially when pride of this description proceeds to the open devastation of the Church. Seeing then it is certain that the Roman Pontiff has impudently transferred to himself the most peculiar properties of God and Christ, there cannot be a doubt that he is the leader and standard-bearer of an impious and abominable kingdom. 3

Jacobus Arminius, citing 2 Thessalonians 2, similarly wrote (Disputation 21: On the Roman Pontiff):

  The name of "The Antichrist" belongs to [the Pope] pre-eminently [...] for he is both a rival to Christ, and his adversary, when he boasts of himself as the spouse, the head, and the foundation of the church, endowed with plenitude of power; and yet he professes himself to be the vicegerent of Christ, and to perform his functions on earth, for the sake of his own private advantage, but to the manifest injury of the church of Christ.

1. Antichrists and Antichrist in Joachim of Fiore, Robert E. Lerner. Speculum 60:3, 1985.
2. Here I stand: A life of Martin Luther, Roland H. Bainton. Hendrickson Publishers 2009.
3. Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin. Translated by Henry Beveridge.


What is the mark placed on Cain? "And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who found him should attack him." Genesis 4:15 ESV

What is the mark placed on Cain?

It seems to have been a mark of warning, not of protection, to those who may think to harm him. The mark was a sign of God's mercy for this murderer. Unfortunately, others warped the meaning of the sign and applied it to themselves later in the same chapter:

Genesis 4:23-24

  Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives
  of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me,
  a young man for striking me.   If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then
  Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”

Mankind misconstrued God's mark of mercy to be a mark of license, and had no problem killing others who bothered them. To them it was a mark of "revenge" not mercy. Thus, mankind grew worse and worse, since there was no fear of God in them. So the Flood was necessary, and after the Flood, came God's clear command so we would not make the same mistake:

Genesis 9:6

  “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for
  God made man in his own image.

They did not seem to see the mark as a physical mark; it appears that they just applied it to themselves as a matter of principle: "I killed a man, so I am marked by God, too."


Where can I find an English translation of St. Augustine's Questions on Heptateuch? Where can I find an English translation for St. Augustine's Quaestiones in Heptateuchum VII (Seven Questions Concerning the Heptateuch)?
The passage I'm interested in has the following Latin:

Et cremabunt eam in conspectu eius. Puto quia concrematio ad signum pertinet resurrectionis. Natura est quippe ignis ut in superna moveatur, et in eum convertitur quod crematur. Nam et ipsum cremare de graeco in latinum ductum verbum est a suspensione. Quod vero additum est, in conspectu eius, id est in conspectu sacerdotis, hoc mihi insinuatum videtur, quia illis apparuit resurrectio Christi, qui futuri erant regale sacerdotium. Iam quod sequitur: Et pellis eius et carnes et sanguis eius cum stercore eius comburetur, id ipsum expositum est quomodo concremabitur: et significatum est quod non solum substantia mortalis corporis Christi, quae commemoratione pellis et carnium et sanguinis intimata est; verum etiam contumelia et abiectio plebis, quam nomine stercoris significatam puto, converteretur in gloriam, quam combustionis flamma significat

.

The passage can be found in Book 4 paragraph 33.5 of St. Augustine commentary on the Heptateuch (first seven books of the Hebrew Bible: Genesis to Judges) commonly referred to as Quaestiones in heptateuchum VII (Seven Questions Concerning the Heptateuch).  Book 4 is his commentary on the Book of Numbers.
The English translation of Seven Questions Concerning the Heptateuch is part of Volume 1/14 (Writings on the Old Testament) of "Works of Saint Augustine: A translation for the 21st Century" which can be purchased from New City Press (hard copy) or from Logos (digital version).  The translation is done by Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J.  From the publisher blurb:

In 1990, New City Press, in conjunction with the Augustinian Heritage Institute, began the project knows as The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century. The plan is to translate and publish all 132 works of Saint Augustine, his entire corpus, into modern English. This represents the first time in which the works of Saint Augustine will all be translated into English. Many existing translations were often archaic or faulty, and the scholarship was outdated. The Works of Saint Augustine, A Translation for the 21st Century will be translated into 49 published books. To date, the Complete Set includes 44 containing 93 of Augustine's works.

The Latin passage in question (Book 4 paragraph 33.5) is St. Augustine's commentary on Numbers 19:5 (ESV):

And the heifer shall be burned in his sight. Its skin, its flesh, and its blood, with its dung, shall be burned.

Numbers 19:5 in Latin (Vulgate):

comburetque eam cunctis videntibus, tam pelle et carnibus ejus quam sanguine et fimo flammae traditis.

The complete Latin of Quaestiones in heptateuchum VII can be found here (click "Liber 4" for the Book of Numbers).  Here's the quote you're looking for with italic text referring to the phrases he commented on:

Et cremabunt eam in conspectu eius. Puto quia concrematio ad signum pertinet resurrectionis. Natura est quippe ignis ut in superna moveatur, et in eum convertitur quod crematur. Nam et ipsum cremare de graeco in latinum ductum verbum est a suspensione. Quod vero additum est, in conspectu eius, id est in conspectu sacerdotis, hoc mihi insinuatum videtur, quia illis apparuit resurrectio Christi, qui futuri erant regale sacerdotium. Iam quod sequitur: Et pellis eius et carnes et sanguis eius cum stercore eius comburetur, id ipsum expositum est quomodo concremabitur: et significatum est quod non solum substantia mortalis corporis Christi, quae commemoratione pellis et carnium et sanguinis intimata est; verum etiam contumelia et abiectio plebis, quam nomine stercoris significatam puto, converteretur in gloriam, quam combustionis flamma significat.

I cannot yet find a freely available English translation online (will update this answer if I can find it), but the Google Translate result should give you some idea:

He burned it in front of him. I think that the signal belongs to the burning of the resurrection. Since the nature of the fire to move higher, and in turn it is burned. It is far different from the Greek word is derived from the floor. But what is added is to say, in the sight of her, that is, in the sight of the priest, is this to me was insinuated into the account, that he appeared to them came also the resurrection of Christ, who were going to be a royal priesthood. Now as to what there follows, And its skin and its flesh, and its dung, shall be burned up, and the blood was made like, that in itself has been explained in what way they concremabitur: mortal, and it hath been signified that it is not only the substance of the body of Christ, which is notified to the commemoration of the skin, and with the flesh and of the blood; but also the insult and the outcast of the people, as in the name signified 'dung, I think, would be changed into the glory, which is signified by the burning of a flame.


According to Catholicism what happens after Death on the General Judgment Day? At the General Judgment Day what happens?

Do we recognise each other in the same relationships as we had on earth?

I am very confused and have not been able to find a simple answer in Catholic teaching.

What have Catholic theologians written on this subject?

Particular & General Judgements
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, discussing Article 8 of the Creed ("From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead"), explains the difference between one's particular judgement and the general judgement:

The first [i.e., one's particular judgement] takes place when each one of us departs this life; for then he is instantly placed before the judgment seat of God, where all that he has ever done or spoken or thought during life shall be subjected to the most rigid scrutiny. This is called the particular judgment.
The second [i.e., general judgement] occurs when on the same day and in the same place all men shall stand together before the tribunal of their Judge, that in the presence and hearing of all human beings of all times each may know his final doom and sentence. The announcement of this judgment will constitute no small part of the pain and punishment of the wicked; whereas the good and just will derive great reward and consolation from the fact that it will then appear what each one was in life. This is called the general judgment.

Human Relationships

Do we recognise each other in the same relationships as we had on earth?

The marriage relationship ceases at death:

Matt 22:30For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.


Did Jesus consider OT events to be literal history? Did Jesus consider the historic references in the OT to be literal in the sense that people and events where historical as recorded or did he view them as symbolic/figurative or did he pick and choose? Can we construct what his view must have been on the literal historicity of the OT based on his own usage of it?

The short answer is "Yes."  Jesus quoted from the Old Testament scriptures as if they were authoritative, and as if they were the very words of God.  The passages of the OT that are historical were regarded by Him as historical.

Jesus affirmed the historical existence of Jonah (Matt. 12:40), Noah (Matt. 24:37-38), and Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4-6).


Does the Gospel imply that the victim in the Good Samaritan parable was a thief himself? The priest at our parish preached a twist on this parable this sunday.

The verse Luke 10:30 being (KJV)

  30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to
  Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment,
  and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

Using an interpretation of "fell among" to be "fell out with co-conspirators"

I'm not sure this English interpretation is correct - and  I can see other versions are totally different.

Contemporary English Version (CEV)

  As a man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, robbers attacked
  him and grabbed everything he had. They beat him up and ran off,
  leaving him half dead.

Is this a correct hypothesis or far-fetched?

His additional logic was that this could be why the Priest and the Levites did not want to rescue the man as he lay wounded.

By your own comparison of versions, you've shown it's not a good translation.

You are right at least that the victim has been viewed as a very bad man. Many commentators have viewed the parable as having two meanings. One, a law message that you are to care for the needs of those who are your enemies. Two, it is a Gospel message where Jesus is the Good Samaritan and comes to rescue the man ruined by his sins. Here is a quote from Martin Luther's Sermon for the Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity; Luke 10:23-37

  The man who here lies half dead, wounded and stripped of his clothing' is Adam and all mankind. The murderers are the devils who robbed and wounded us, and left us lying prostrate half dead. We still struggle a little for life; but there lies horse and man, we cannot help ourselves to our feet, and if we were left thus lying we would have to die by reason of our great anguish and lack of nourishment; maggots would grow in our wounds, followed by great misery and distress.
  The parable stands in bold relief, and pictures us perfectly, what we are and can do with our boasted reason and free will. If the poor wounded man had desired to help himself, it would only have been worse for him, he would only have done harm to himself and irritated his wounds, and only prepared more misery and distress for himself.


Why was Martin Luther attempting to change the canon? While researching an answer to a different question, I found that Martin Luther attempted to remove Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the Bible.

What was his purpose in removing these four books? Was it a doctrinal stance against these four books? Do these four books contain doctrines that we should, per Martin Luther, not believe?

The key point of Luther's biblical exegesis was his conviction of Christ's being the rex scripturae.1 There is a famous passage from his preface to the "Epistel S. Jacobi und Judas" saying:

  This is the right touchstone to criticize all the books: See if they preach Christ or not. […] What Christ did not teach, that is not apostolic, may it have been taught by St. Peter or Paul. And what Christ did teach, that is apostolic, may it have been taught by Judas, Annas, Pilate or Herode.2

With this key exegetical principle, that the doctrine of justification is paramount,3 Luther found a critical standard for the individual biblical writings. The Epistle of James,4 Second Maccabees, Revelation, and Esther did not meet that standard in his eyes. He was so hostile to them that he wished they didn't even exist: he wanted to "almost put them out of the bible."5

1: 40 I, 421
2: "Auch ist das der rechte prufsteyn, alle bucher zu tadelln, wenn man sihet, ob sie Christum treyben odder nit. […] Was Christum nicht lehret, das ist noch nicht apostolisch, wenns gleich S. Petrus oder Paulus lehret. Wiederum, was Christum prediget, das wäre aposolisch, wenns gleich Judas, Hannas, Pilatus oder Herodes tät", WADB 7, 384
3: And mainly the things that are taught in the Gospel of John, the Epistle to the Romans, and the First Epistle of Peter.
4: There's a dinner speech where he once said: "I'm going to heat up the oven with Jeckel [=Jakob=James]." ("Ich werdem einmal mit dem Jeckel den Ofen heizen."), Ti. 5,382,17
5: "schier aus der Bibel stoßen", Ti. 5,414


What is the basis for the LDS (Mormon) teaching regarding Atonement in Gethsemane rather than at Calvary? I recently read the the LDS Church teaches that it was in Gethsemane while Jesus was praying where the atonement occurred rather than on the Cross of Calvary.

What is the biblical basis for this doctrine, and when did this teaching originate in the LDS Church?

It's both, not one or the other. It started in Gethsemane and was completed on Golgotha.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/05/the-purifying-power-of-gethsemane

  We do not know, we cannot tell, no mortal mind can conceive the full
  import of what Christ did in Gethsemane.

  We know he sweat great gouts of blood from every pore as he drained
  the dregs of that bitter cup his Father had given him.

  We know he suffered, both body and spirit, more than it is possible
  for man to suffer, except it be unto death.

  We know that in some way, incomprehensible to us, his suffering
  satisfied the demands of justice, ransomed penitent souls from the
  pains and penalties of sin, and made mercy available to those who
  believe in his holy name.

  We know that he lay prostrate upon the ground as the pains and agonies
  of an infinite burden caused him to tremble and would that he might
  not drink the bitter cup.

  We know that an angel came from the courts of glory to strengthen him
  in his ordeal, and we suppose it was mighty Michael, who foremost fell
  that mortal man might be.

  As near as we can judge, these infinite agonies—this suffering beyond
  compare—continued for some three or four hours.

  ...

  Finally, on a hill called Calvary—again, it was outside Jerusalem’s
  walls—while helpless disciples looked on and felt the agonies of near
  death in their own bodies, the Roman soldiers laid him upon the cross.

  With great mallets they drove spikes of iron through his feet and
  hands and wrists. Truly he was wounded for our transgressions and
  bruised for our iniquities.

Then Alma 7:11-12 in the Book of Mormon:

  11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and
  temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled
  which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his
  people.

  12 And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of
  death which bind his people; and he will take upon him their
  infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to
  the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his
  people according to their infirmities.

The suffering in Gethsemane was an important part of taking upon Him the pains and sicknesses of His people. Calvary was vital so He could take upon Him death.

The Bible refers to this suffering in Luke 22:

  39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of
  Olives; and his disciples also followed him.

  40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye
  enter not into temptation.

  41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled
  down, and prayed,

  42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me:
  nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

  43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening
  him.

  44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was
  as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Emphasis added, of course.

I'm still mobile but will get more Biblical references in a bit.

To answer your other question, this has been the teaching of the LDS Church since its organization in 1830.


How do Catholics defend the apparent errors found in the deuterocanonical books? How do Catholics defend the apparent errors found in the deuterocanonical books?

Errors in the Apocrypha

"Condones the use of magic"

Tobit is the subject of an extensive commentary by Venerable Bede, who is accepted as a Church Father by both east and west.  He explains that Tobit is to be understood in an allegorical sense and not a literal/historical sense.  Regarding things like smoke from a burnt entrails driving away evil spirits being "superstitious" and having "no place in the word of God", we might likewise expurgate the account of Jesus healing a blind man by spitting on dirt from the Gospels (John 9:6).  In Tobit, the passage regarding the fish entrails is not given as general advice, as one might find in Proverbs, but is specific direction given to Tobit by an angel for occasions specific to him.  There are many other examples in the Old Testament and New of men directed to use created matter for spiritual purposes.

"Salvation by works"

The two verses cited state that alms deliver one from sin and death.  They do not say that alms bring about forgiveness of sin. One might consult here:1

Proverbs 10:2

  Treasures of wickedness profit nothing: But righteousness delivereth from death.

The author of the article emphasizes 1 John 1:7 here (the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin), but fails to acknowledge the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:36-41) and completely ignores Revelation 20:12:

  And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

"Money as an offering for the sins of the dead"

The author attacks 2 Maccabees 12:43:

  And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin
  offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful
  of the resurrection

The author comments:

  Can anyone truly accept that money isn't offering for the sins of dead
  people?  Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in
  Scripture.

The concept can be considered as "having no place in Scripture" and "unbiblical" only if one chooses to exclude 2 Maccabees itself from Scripture.  This is a non sequitur.  2 Maccabees was designated for inclusion in the Old Testament canon in the 85th Apostolic Canon as well as by the Council of Carthage of 397 in the west (Canon XXXIII), later ratified in the east as well.

Augustine wrote an entire commentary on the passage attacked by the author as follows, with an acknowledgement that the teaching is unique.  His introduction reads:

  In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the
  dead. Howbeit, even if it were no where at all read in the Old
  Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear,
  of the whole Church, namely, that in the prayers of the priest which
  are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the dead
  hath also its place.  But then, whether there be some profit accruing
  unto the soul of the dead from the place of its body, requires a more
  careful inquiry. And first, whether it make any difference in causing
  or increasing of misery after this life to the spirits of men if their
  bodies be not buried, this must be looked into, not in the light of
  opinion however commonly received, but rather of the holy writ of our
  religion.2

The balance of the essay can be found here.

"Historical Errors"

The author cites "wrong historical facts" in three verses within the books of Judith and Baruch.  Eliminating these books on this basis alone would probably also lead to the elimination of:

The Gospel of Luke, which maintains that Arpachshad was the grandfather of Shelah (3:35-36), since Genesis teaches that Arpachsad was the father of Shelah
The Book of Numbers, which states that the Nephilim survived the flood (13:33), contrary to Genesis 7:21
1 Chronicles, which incorrectly lists Timna and Amalek as sons of Eliphaz, contradicting Genesis 36:11ff.
The Book of Revelation, which leaves out the tribe of Dan (7:4-8)
etc.

1 All of the Bible quotes - including 2 Maccabees 12:43 - are taken from the King James Version (which originally included the deuterocanonical books, or "Apocrypha")
2On Care to Be Had for the Dead


Does ‘palm branches’ in Palm Sunday draw meaning from Jewish culture, or Greco-Roman culture that the Jews adopted? Two verses connected two 'palm branches' are:

They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Blessed is the King of Israel!" (John 12:13, NIV)
After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. (Revelation 7:9, NIV)

It seems that this ‘palm waving’ is understood by everybody as a symbol of triumph and victory, but which culture did this practice come from? Was it a Jewish tradition, or was it only Jewish tradition as part of a wider cultural tradition at that time of world history?
Of course by asking the question I do not have any hidden agenda against Palm Sunday, its just a curiosity as I have not researched an answer.

This use of Palm branches was common among ancient Greeks, Romans and Hebrews. It seems from the Hebrew use, palm branches symbolized ’rejoicing’ during the Feast of Tabernacles. During the feast Hebrew people were commanded to take branches of palms, with other trees, and rejoice before God.(Leviticus 23:40) However this was just not palm branches, but other ‘leafy branches’ as well, along with fruits. Later on the specific use of palm branches also agrees closer to with the meaning used in Greece, for example in 142 BC, when Simon Maccabees liberated Jerusalem from the Greeks:

  On the twenty-third day of the second month, in the year 171,[c] there was a great celebration in the city because this terrible threat to the security of Israel had come to an end. Simon and his men entered the fort singing hymns of praise and thanksgiving, while carrying palm branches and playing harps, cymbals, and lyres. (1 Maccabees 13:51)

Before the time of the Maccabees, Greek Hellanodikai ( judges at the Olympics) awarded winners with ‘palm branches’ and crowns (source).

Most vivid and powerful was the waving of palm branches by the Romans as they celebrated military successes with palm branches and most relevant to Palm Sunday, welcomed royalty by waving them.

Some times the best historical records are printed on coins as they do not deteriorate as much as paper. According to ancient coins:

  Palm fronds had been used for centuries before the Romans as an attribute of winged Νικη (Nike), the goddess whose name is the Greek for Victory. The Hellenic bronze coin on the near right is from Sinope, 120-63 BCE, and shows Nike carrying her palm frond over her shoulder. Her name has been anglicized into a well-known brand of sportswear. (source)

Waving and use of palm branches during the time of Christ was a multicultural symbol symbolizing victory, praise and the presence of royalty. It also shows us that although God speaks to any given people within their culture and that His word condescends into it, speaking in familiar ways, the culture itself does not have to have any ‘deeper meaning’ beyond what it meant at the time. With a basic understanding of historical culture, Christ’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem when greeted by throngs of people making a make-shift carpet for him out of the branches and coats,  or in Revelation where the saints are holding them before the throne. It simply meant he was being treated as the 'future King' in the gospels and as the 'present king' in revelation.


Who first compared the Trinity to a musical triad? Who first compared the Trinity to a musical triad (a three-note chord), where each Divine Person is analogous to a distinct note and the chord analogous to the Divine Substance?

Short Answer: Johannes Lippius (1585-1612), a German Protestant theologian, philosopher, composer, and music theorist, who also coined the term "harmonic triad" as a set of three notes stacked vertically in thirds.
Earliest use of the musical triad as a harmonic entity in Western music
The triad became common from 1300 onwards, but the triad functioning as a chord appeared only much later (toward the late 1400s).  The following 4 famous compositions between 1300-1600 should illustrate the progression of the use of triad from "juxtaposition" of the 3 notes to the 3 notes as "indivisible unit" (see quotes from Dr. Bertoglio and Dr. Elders below):

c. 1365 Guillaume de Machaut's Messe de Nostre Dame (sample performance): Triad appearing in Organum style compositions as juxtaposition of two consonant harmonic intervals but rarely in important places.
c. mid to late 1400s Johannes Ockeghem's Missa Prolationum (sample performance, score): Triad appearing much more frequently in end of phrase cadences in this Mensuration canon style composition, but still mostly as a side effect of polyphonic writing, not as a self-standing entity.
c. 1515 Josquin des Prez's Missa Pange Lingua (sample performance): Triad starts appearing in isolated homophonic section such as the "et incarnatus est" in the Credo (10:36-11:33) in an otherwise cantus firmus style composition featuring imitative voice pairings (less polyphonic).
c. 1562 Giovanni Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli (sample performance): Triad appearing in chordal harmony style similar to later chorale style compositions.

cited in this answer to the question "Who first compared the Trinity to a musical triad?"

Tri-unity represented by triad→monotone conversion

"et hi tres unum sunt" (based on: Isaias 6:1-4)

Monteverdi Duo seraphim @ 3:47
Guerrero's @ 1:55

Contrapuntal technique symbolizing generation
1 (dux)→2 (comes generated by dux, not created by composer!)→3 voices
Father→Son, Father+Son → Holy Ghost

“genitum, non factum”

Missa Ecce Ancilla Domini/Beata es Maria Credo, Guillaume Dufay @ 1:54
Missa Hercules Dux Ferrariæ Credo, Josquin Desprez @ 1:42

“genitum, non factum, [...] per quem omnia facta sunt”

canon in Credo of Bach's B-minor Mass @ 2:23

"Filium Dei unigenitum"

Missa Sine Nomine n. 2 Credo, Johannes Tinctoris @ 1:09

playlist of these in the above-listed order
source: PDF pp. 7-8, notes 5-7, of

Chiara Bertoglio, “A Perfect Chord: Trinity in Music, Music in the Trinity,” Religions 4, no. 4 (December 2013): 485–501

Earliest comparison of the chord and the Trinity
Musicologist Willem Elders in his book Symbolic Scores: Studies in the Music of the Renaissance wrote in the section "Symbols of the Trinity in Art and Music" of the chapter "Canon and Imitation as Musical Images of the Three Divine Persons" (emphasis mine):

The dogma 'one God in three Persons' can be musically represented in the following ways:
(a) the number three can be expressed in the rhythmic movement of the composition, viz. by means of perfect mensuration or proportio sesquialtera;
(b) the concept 'three-in-one' may be symbolized in the triad;
(c) the same concept can also be expressed by way of three canonic voices.
...
The occurrence of the triad as a possible symbol of the Trinity must clearly be approached with even more caution.  The thirteenth-century poet Pierre de Peckham, perhaps inspired by Augustine's interpretation of the ten strings of the psaltery as representing the Ten Commandments, remarks that three strings of the harp, vibrating 'in unity',

Sount par accord come la trinité
(Sound in accord as the Trinity).

...
Yet it is hard to give evidence of this particular use of the triad as an image of the Trinity in Renaissance composition.  Until the sixteenth century the theory of polyphonic composition considered triadic chords as complexes of two harmonic intervals.  Thus, though it is true that Walter Odington (fl. 1298-1316) already recognized the third as a consonant interval, and while it cannot be denied that the triad became a common phenomenon in three-part music from about 1300 onwards, the chord as an indivisible unit is only descried much later.  In his Synopsis musicae novae of 1612, Johannes Lippius says the following: "The simple harmonic triad is the true and three-in-one sounding root of all the most perfect and complete harmony found in the world ... and the image and shadow of that great divine mystery, which is to be adored, the Unitrinity."  If we further take into account that triads occur as often in settings of texts dealing with the Trinity as they do in settings of other texts, it becomes apparent that any possible symbolic purpose of the major and minor third will not be easy to prove.

Bradley Broadhead, a PhD in Theology from McMaster Divinity College, in his 2014 journal article The Triune Triad: A Musical Analogy Concerning the Trinity and Humanity published in Volume 3 of Imaginatio et Ratio: A Journal of Theology and the Arts attributed the same Johannes Lippius (1585-1612) to make the first definite connection between the musical triad to the Trinity:

From Bach to Messiaen, theologically minded composers have contemplated the Trinity from a musical perspective.² Part of this tradition is employing the major triad as an analogy for the Trinity. An early precursor³ is found in the autobiography of Ignatius of Loyola (1491—1556) which describes a moment when his “understanding began to be elevated so that he saw the Most Holy Trinity in the form of three keys.”⁴ What exactly his contemplations consisted of we can only speculate on, but his experience serves as a pretext for further exploration. A more definite connection between the major triad and the Trinity is found in the work of Johannas Lippius (1585–1612). He was a musical theorist and theologian whose theological insights impacted his conception of the major triad, contributing in turn to the theory of inversion “that stands as the foundation of the modern approach to music.”⁵

How properties of the Trinity are represented in the musical properties of a chord
One major aim of his paper is to

build my analogy on the (tantalizingly) brief remarks of Lippius in his work, Synopsis of New Music, that imply how each note of the major triad corresponds to a person of the Trinity.  This correspondence can easily be inferred by the way he uses the vocabulary of Trinitarian relations to describe how these notes relate to one another.⁸ I expand upon his remarks below in the sections on each person of the Trinity. The fruit of this investigation in turn aids an exploration of the economic Trinity⁹ in relation to salvation history by means of a musical thought experiment. Finally, this experiment culminates in a musical depiction of participation in the divine nature.

Quotes related to Lippius from the sections of Dr. Broadhead's paper:
The Father:

Turning to the major triad, Benito Rivera makes a convincing case that Lippius has Gregory’s conception of the Trinity in mind when Lippius describes the major triad in Synopsis of New Music.12 According to Rivera, “for him the basis [the root of the triad] is the source from which the chord arises.”¹³ At the source of the modern conception of the major triad as a single unit is also the notion of one note giving rise to the other notes of the triad in a way that parallels the Father’s place as the source of the Trinity.¹⁴

The Son:

According to Lippius, “the ultima or summa [the fifth of the triad] . . . is “begotten” by the prima [the root of the triad].¹⁹

The Spirit:

What has been said about the Son and the Father in no way diminishes the relations between them and the Spirit, but the relationship is different because the Father begets the Son, while the Spirit proceeds from the Father in a way that does not entail sonship. Eastern interpreters of the Trinity have been content to note that Scripture distinguishes between the Son and the Spirit,²⁶ while Western interpreters have argued that the Spirit proceeds from the Father
and the Son (i.e. filioque), making the procession of the Spirit unique.²⁷ Looking at the major triad through the lens of the Trinity, Lippius asserts that the root and the fifth “‘co-spirate’ in a perfect and masculine sonority, and then one media [the third] ‘proceeds’ from them and connects them with its milder sweetness. . .”,²⁸ in line with the Western understanding of the procession of the Spirit. What Lippius hears in a subjective sense (it is difficult to objectively determine “masculine sonority” and “milder sweetness”), I hope to affirm by means of a more concrete illustration.

Trinity, Space, and Perichoresis:
Lippius's comparison of the major triad to the Trinity was further developed by
Dr. Broadhead and by Dr. Jeremy Begbie, a professionally trained musician and a professor of theology who wrote the award winning 2007 book Resounding Truth:

While visual representations of the Trinity are useful in some respects, a musical representation has a threefold advantage: first, it is invisible, second, it involves sound waves and air, which connotes the biblical ambiguity between wind and spirit ( רוח in the Old Testament and πνεύμα in the New Testament),³⁷ and third, it allows for distinction in a shared space without conflict or compromise. This third point in particular is useful in terms of understanding the unity and distinctions of the Trinity. Begbie asks,

What could be more apt than to speak of the Trinity as a three-note chord, a resonance of life; Father, Son, and Spirit mutually indwelling, without mutual exclusion, and yet without merger, each occupying the same space, “sounding through” one another, yet irreducibly distinct, reciprocally enhancing, and establishing one another as other?³⁸

Other sections:
Dr. Broadhead then continued his Trinitarian thought experiment by considering how the chords and their overtone series can further symbolize the following:

Fall and Redemption
Incarnation and Redemption
Participation in the Divine Nature

Conclusion:

The major triad is a rich resource for contemplating the nature of the Trinity and God’s interaction with humanity. The constructs created in this paper illustrate a wide range of the various doctrines concerning the Trinity and humanity, including the relations between members of the Trinity and aspects of the fall, redemption, and participation. As an analogy, it avoids Sabellianism by showing how the three persons interrelate with one another and it avoids Tritheism by affirming the Father as the source. Finally, the functions of the notes in the major triad provide a parallel for the unique operations of the persons of the Trinity.

Broader comparison of Trinity with music
Another extensively researched journal article A Perfect Chord: Trinity in Music, Music in the Trinity by Dr. Chiara Bertoglio (a classical pianist with a PhD in music performance practice as well as MA in Systematic and Philosophical Theology), published in a 2013 special issue of Religions, Music and Spirituality, surveys the history of Western music (including references to the Church Fathers) of how "music help us to “say” and to “understand” something of the ineffable and unattainable mystery of the Trinity" in various ways represented by the sections of her article:

2. The Liturgy of Trinitarian Love: how human participates in the liturgy of Trinitarian love (we as musical instrument)
3. The Harmony of Creation, the Harmony of the Creator: how the order and harmony of creation are expressed in music
4. God: the Lord of Time: Homage to the Trinity through the ternary rhythmic mensural notation
5. A "Polyphonic" God: Counterpoint between cantus firmus and the higher parts as an icon of the Trinity
6. A "Harmonious" God: Trinitarian analogies of the chord which is based on the Western tonal system, which in turn is based on the physical properties of sound in the first 6 harmonics.  This is OP's topic and she also  mentioned Lippius:

Already during the Ars-Nova period, the interval of third starts to appear among the allowed consonances, probably in consequence of the influence of British music: at first as passage note (i.e., as a non-consonant, or not totally consonant interval, which could be tolerated between two consonant notes), and later as an “imperfect” consonance ([36], p. 321). It was not before the 16th century, however, that the concept of “triad chord” was established⁹. It is perhaps interesting to consider here the German theorist Johannes Lippius (1585–1612), who perfectly summarized the concept of his time, as the result of the progressive intensifying of an awareness coming from the preceding centuries.¹⁰ For Lippius, the triad (“trias harmonica perfecta”) is “imago et umbra magni mysterii divinæ solum adorandæ Unitrinitatis” ([55]; cf. [56], pp. 40–49). This same concept has been developed in recent times by Paolo Venturino in a series of deep, fruitful and thought-provoking observations on the Trinitarian symbolism of the triad ([57], pp. 67ff; cf. [58]).¹¹
Footnotes:
⁹ Up until then, actually, the three notes forming the triad were not conceived as a self-standing “harmonic” entity proper,
but rather as the juxtaposition of two consonant harmonic intervals (cf. [54], p. 188).
¹⁰ He was the first to formalise the concept of chord inversion, according to which the chords “C-E-G”, “E-G-C” and “GC-
E” are three versions of the same triad.
¹¹ The argument maintained by Venturino is part of a wider discussion, aiming at demonstrating the presence and the
theological value of a particular temperament of keyboard instrument created by Johann Sebastian Bach. According to
Venturino, the composer ciphered his tuning system in the autograph title-page of the Well-Tempered Keyboard I (1722). We are omitting here, in a simplistic way, the complex acoustic/mathematical implications of Venturino’s argument; however, it is interesting to quote here some of his statements concerning the Trinitarian values of the triad.

Her treatment in section 6, the OP's topic, is consistent with and complements what Dr. Bradley Broadhead explored in his journal article referred to above.
Resources for further study

A 1977 English translation of Lippius's 1612 Synopsis musicae novae by Benito V. Rivera can be found in a book Synopsis of new music = Synopsis musicae novae published by Colorado College Music Press reviewed in the Journal of Music Theory here.

In contrast, for examples of how music had been used to portray evil, including the use of the tritone chord please see the notes of Dr. William Renwick's presentation The Portrayal of Evil in Music  in a 2001 symposium.

Book chapter Canon and Imitation as Musical Images of the Three Divine Persons of 1994 book Symbolic Scores: Studies in the Music of the Renaissance by Dutch musicologist Willem Elders.


What did Catholics do to ease the time and maintain hope during historical pestilences such as the Black Plague? What did Catholics (and other Christians, if applicable) do to ease the time of historical pestilences such as the Black Plague (1347 to 1351), especially in quarantine areas?

I can imagine that Christians prayed for the end of the pestilence, but did they do any other things to make the time pass by more easily?

Perhaps learning from the past, we can learn a few things for dealing with our present situation with the coronavirus-19!

Pope St. Gregory the Great started liturgical processions to combat the plague at Rome!

At the end of the 6th century, a severe plague ravaged the city of Rome, even claiming the life of Pope Pelagius II. It was a difficult time for the people of the city, and when Pope Gregory I was elected to lead the Church, he immediately set out to call upon the mercy of God.

St. Gregory the Great (as he would later be known) organized a massive procession around the city, inviting everyone to pray to God that the plague would be lifted. The Golden Legend narrates how the procession was led by an ancient image of the Virgin Mary, reportedly cleansing the air of disease.

  The Roman Plague of 590 a local plague that affected the city of Rome in the year 590. It followed from the great plague of Justinian that may have killed more than 100 million Europeans2 that began in the 540s and spread to other parts of the world.

  During the plague, the bishop of Rome Pelagius II died and Gregory the Great was elected his successor. Gregory had previously served as a kind of papal ambassador called an apocrisiarius to the Byzantine court where he had likely been influenced by Byzantine practices. Constantinople, which was consecrated to the protection of the Mother of God (Theotokos) had a practice whereby processions would be done through city streets of masses of the faithful that would chant psalms and kyrie eleison to console God's wrath. Gregory had likely seen these many times during his stay in Constantinople.

  When the plague was in Rome in 590 and Gregory was still a deacon, he organized such a procession to take place in Rome wherein seven groups would hold processions through the streets of the city and ending at the basilica of Mary Major to ask for the Virgin's Mary protection. This was perhaps unusual at the time, since Rome was traditionally associated with St Peter's protection, but it may have been a result of Byzantine influence, since Constantinople was often put under Mary's protection during times of crisis.

  The seven processional groups were: 1) clergy, 2) abbots and monks, 3) abbesses and nuns, 4) men 5) married women 6) widows and 7) children.(also perhaps including the poor of Rome)

  The processions took place on April 25, 590.

  The reason for the processions was because plagues and other national disasters were typically interpreted at the time as being the chastisement of God for sinfulness, and therefore to appease God's wrath, these measures were taken. Eighty people collapsed during the processions as a result of being infected by plague. St Michael the Archangel supposedly appeared with a flaming sword standing on top of Hadrian's Mausoluem (which is today known as Castel Sant'Angelo precisely because of this story) and he sheathed it when the procession approached, which was interpreted to signify that God's wrath had been turned back, and the plague supposedly stopped at that moment, following which the faithful thanked the Mother of God.

Up until 1967, the Processions on the Feast of St. Mark were held on April 25th each year! The Catholic Encyclopedia has the following to sat on Rogation Days

  The liturgical celebration now consists in the procession and the Rogation Mass. For 25 April the Roman Missal gives the rubric: "If the feast of St. Mark is transferred, the procession is not transferred. In the rare case of 25 April being Easter Sunday [1886, 1943], the procession is held not on Sunday but on the Tuesday following".

In the Golden Legend, Jacobus de Varagine pens the following about St. Gregory I and the Roman Plague of 540:

  And because the mortality ceased not, he ordained a procession, in the which he did do bear an image of our Lady, which, as is said, S. Luke the Evangelist made, which was a good painter, he had carved it and painted after the likeness of the glorious Virgin Mary. And anon the mortality ceased, and the air became pure and clear, and about the image was heard a voice of angels that sung this anthem: Regina cæli lætare, etc., and S. Gregory put thereto: Ora pro nobis, deum rogamus, alleluia. At the same time S. Gregory saw an angel upon a castle which made clean a sword all bloody, and put it into the sheath, and thereby S. Gregory understood that the pestilence of this mortality was passed, and after that it was called the Castle Angel.

Castel Sant'Angelo

The liturgy for the Rogation Days, during which the priest is vested in purple, begins with Psalm 43:26 --"Arise, O Lord, help us and redeem us for Thy name's sake" -- which is followed by the Litany of the Saints. At the Litany's "Sancta Maria," all stand and a procession begins, which in older times was (and still is in rural areas) usually around the boundaries of the parish, giving to the procession the name of "beating the bounds."


Who shall not taste of death? Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27 Matthew 16:28 says:

  Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Mark 9:1 says:

  And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of GOD come with power.

Luke 9:27 says:

  But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of GOD.

These three verses have the same meaning, but I don't know who shall not taste of death. What is meaning of these verses? Is anyone still alive from above mentioned persons or is this mention people's spiritual life or disciple of Jesus?

The Answer of "who" is found by cross referencing John 8:51

  Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.”

The "how" is answered later in john 11:25-25

  25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. 26 And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

So i think this is one place where the specific wording is very important, Jesus promises the believer will not "Taste" death. or "see" death.
 Taste is used sometimes as a metaphor for "Intimate experience with".

So while Believers bodies will die, we will not "Taste" death. there will be no experience of "deadness" or "being dead". or as the old testament calls it, we will not be stuck "In the place of the dead". (sheol)

Just like the ancient Israelites we will be "Passed Over" by the Spirit of Death, having the Blood of the Lamb as our covering.

Also good to note that the Apostle Peter, in 2 Peter 1:16-17

  16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

So here, Peter, who knows he will die for Christ (John 21- a great reference for this topic.) Explains that he is an eye witness of the coming of Christ, he counts himself as already having seen the glory to come, because of the brief previews he got during the transfiguration, and the voice from heaven.


What is the earliest use of the phrase "the Lord's law of health" in reference to the LDS Word of Wisdom? Background

The modern Church uses the phrase "the Lord's law of health" to describe the Word of Wisdom.  For example, Chapter 29 of Gospel Principles is called "The Lord's Law of Health."  However, the Word of Wisdom itself states that it was given:

  In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days. (v4)

Suggesting that it has more to do with avoiding addiction (or, perhaps, choosing freedom) than actual health.  There are a great many valiant Church members who suffer from disability, terminal disease, and even chronic disease/pain to easily rationalize the simplicity of "obey the Word of Wisdom to be blessed with good health."1

I don't believe that the Church has ever taught that obedience to the Word of Wisdom guarantees perfect health — or even suggests that physiological tragedy (e.g., cancer, etc.) will be avoided because of said obedience.  The Word of Wisdom itself simply states that the following blessings will come due to obedience (v18-21):

shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;
And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;
And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.
And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them.

I believe (but do not know if it is doctrine) that (1) has the same context as Prov. 3:7-8 in that it's a spiritual blessing, not a physical blessing, (3) has the same context as Isa. 40:28-31 in that it's a blessing of enthusiasm and productivity rather than bodily health, and (4) uses the reference from the story of Moses to describe avoiding the Lord's vengeance during judgement.  (I skipped #2 because it doesn't appear to influence this question.)

Thus, whenever I hear the phrase used, I wonder that it's a bit of an oversimplification.  I am therefore studying the section and its history and would appreciate some help.

Question: What is the earliest use of the phrase "the Lord's law of health" in regard to the Word of Wisdom?

1 An example of the problem at its worst comes from my time as a Branch President when a member asked me why I hadn't excommunicated another member for violating the Word of Wisdom.  She was obese and had been for many years.  It was a long discussion that's summarized as, "the Word of Wisdom doesn't actually work that way."

Probably 1978 for the exact wording though phrases like 'law of health' have been used before.

No where can I find extensive or official reference to "the Lord's law of health" beyond

Brigham Young Journal of Discourses (referenced law of health)(1854-86)
Gospel Principles (1978)
The Lord Has Given Us a Law of Health (Ensign 2012)
The Lord Needs you Now (Ensign 2015)
Gospel Topics: Word of Wisdom (probably after 2000?)

As to why the Word of Wisdom is referred to in this way it has probably nothing to do with the promises you mention but rather the commands to:

Abstain from:

drinking wine or strong drink (v5)
tobacco (v8)
hot drinks (v9) (specifically tea and coffee1)

Good/ordained:

wholesome herbs (v10)
meat, sparingly (v12)
grain, fruit (v14, v16)

I'll also echo OP comment that this was given

  In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation

1 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/08702_eng.pdf?lang=eng 21.3.11


According to Ravi Zacharias's apologetic argument, how could love have existed prior to the fall? Ravi Zacharias explained in a Q&A (14:50) that for true love to exist between God and man, the current creation is the only possible way for it to exist. He gave four possible examples of creation, but knowing good from evil results in perfect freely chosen love between man and God.

According to Zacharias, how is it possible then for a loving relationship between man and God to have existed in the Garden of Eden? (man did not know good from evil)  Only when the serpent mislead man, good and evil was revealed. How could Adam and Eve have lived in a state of true love with God?

You appear to be slightly misunderstanding Zacharias's argument.  Here are his four options:

No world
Amoral world (no such thing as good and evil)
Constrained world (no possibility of choosing evil)
Free world (possibility of choosing evil)

Out of these options, he says that the fourth option, the actual Creation, is the only one in which love is possible.

Perhaps the root of your confusion is what is meant by the "knowledge of good and evil."  The Genesis account makes it clear that Adam and Eve had the option of disobeying from the very beginning; otherwise there would have been no need for God to give them a commandment (Genesis 2:17).  And of course the Fall is the ultimate demonstration of man's freedom to choose evil.

This awareness of the possibility of disobedience is different from the "knowledge of good and evil" associated with the forbidden fruit.  Zacharias explains that knowledge in these terms:

  Eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil basically gave humanity the power to redefine everything. God had given language, identification, and reality to humankind. He imparted to humans the power to name the animals. But essential to the created order was a moral framework that the creation was not to name or define. This was the prerogative of the Creator, not of the creation. I believe that this is what is at stake here. (source)

So the correct way to understand Zacharias's argument here is that Creation has always been "option #4," both before and after the Fall.


Proverbs 14:4 - What does this mean? Proverbs 14:4

  Where there are no oxen, the manger is empty,
      but from the strength of an ox come abundant harvests.

I've been reading proverbs lately, but I haven't been able to understand this verse! What is the context that this applies to? Is there some kind of metaphor? I can understand the second clause "from the strength of an ox come abundant harvests". This part seems somewhat easily understood. But for the first part, why would you not want oxen in the first place?

I usually take proverbs to be straightforward about earthly affairs. They often fall under the theme of Ecclesiastes:

  A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God (Ecclesiastes 2:24)

This proverb might be a word of wisdom to farmers, touching on laziness or reluctance to work in the grime of hard labor. A framer might not like working hard with oxen because of the mess they make in the barn. They would prefer the manger to be’ empty’ as indicating ‘cleanliness’ (or’ empty’ could signify poverty). I lean to the cleanliness aspect of the barn resulting in poverty from the lack of harvest.

Accordingly, not only having to feed oxen and getting dirty oneself, but all the dung and waste that they would have had to clean up. However, to really accept the work that we have been assigned by the ‘sweat of out brow’ and the kindness that God provisioned in man’s use of stronger animals, man can reap a good harvest.

A farmer, who just wants a tidy place to relax in, will have nothing but poverty.


Is a Catholic dogma that Moses (as the Exodus prophet) actually existed? "Modern scholars' consensus" is that:

there is no archaeological evidence that the events described in Exodus occurred.
Moses (as described in the Exodus and other books) is a legendary figure, and not a historical one.

However, in the key episode of the Transfiguration, as written in the synoptic gospels, it is recounted that Moses and Elijah appeared to Jesus, and they were conversing. Similarly, in many verses Jesus refers to Moses, indicating perhaps that he actually existed, as we would not expect Jesus to lie (although the argument could be made that he was talking to the Hebrews in their own terms, i.e. assuming the myth of the Exodus, if it is a myth).

All mentions of Moses in the Catechism seem not to discuss his historicity, treating events as if they happened. There is however the same treatment for Adam, which we know the Catholic Church does not dogmatically claim to be a historical figure. For instance, Adam's entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia (with Imprimatur) reads:

  To what extent these chapters should be considered as strictly historical is a much disputed question, the discussion of which does not come within the scope of the present article.

However, when it comes to Moses, the Encyclopedia states:

  To deny or to doubt the historic personality of Moses, is to undermine and render unintelligible the subsequent history of the Israelites.

This seems to be a more stronger case for historical reality. Thus, the question: does the Catholic Church declares as dogma of faith that Moses actually existed? I see that some christian denominations do not consider Moses to have been physically there in the Transfiguration event (whilst still not necessarily denying his historicity).

Yes, Catholics must believe in the historical reality of Christ, Moses, Adam & Eve, et al.

Modernist heretics dispute their historicity, but magisterial teaching (DZ 1997) unequivocally says that Moses authored the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament), by answering the following question in the negative:

  Question 1. Whether the arguments accumulated by critics to impugn the Mosaic authenticity of the Sacred Books, which are designated by the name Pentateuch, are of such weight that, in spite of the very many indications of both Testaments taken together, the continuous conviction of the Jewish people, also the unbroken tradition of the Church in addition to the internal evidences drawn from the text itself, they justify affirming that these books were not written by Moses, but were composed for the most part from sources later than the time of Moses?

  Reply: No.

The same Pontifical Biblical Commission affirmed that at least

  The first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives that correspond to objectively real and historically true events (rerum vere gestarum narrationes quae scilicet obiectivae realitati et historicae veritati respondeant), no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends.

If Moses were fictional, how could a fictional character author anything, let alone something that contains "historically true events"?

Also, the Catholic Encyclopedia isn't a magisterial document. Imprimatur simply means "let it be published," and nihil obstat means "nothing prevents [it from being published]." It doesn't make the publication an official magisterial pronouncement of the bishop(s) who gave the imprimatur and nihil obstat.


What is the scope of God's will? Assuming that Protestant Christians believe that some outcomes and events in life are not necessarily God's will (correct me if this is an invalid assumption), what are some alternate explanations for an outcome if not God's will? Does the scripture give us instructions on how to determine (after the fact) if a particular outcome was God's will or not?

For example, in the discussion on this site regarding global warming, someone suggests that either God's will is that global warming should happen and therefore it must, or it is God's will that it must not happen, and therefore it won't - in either case, it is God's will and thus unavoidable regardless of what we do.

The above example seems to be a false dichotomy - what are the other alternatives that a Protestant Christian would allow in this situation?

These sorts of questions are always difficult to answer as they often require an understanding of God's sovereignty which in many ways is incomprehensible. What a wise being with infinite wisdom, knowledge of all and unlimited power can orchestrate, manipulate, foresee and advert etc. is impossible for us to ponder. In this sense virtually any external event may be used for some higher good as part of the divine 'emergency recovery operations' of a fallen world, even a global catastrophe like a global flood can have its purpose. Yet none of this is 'God's will' in the sense that we benefit from knowing if it is, or not.

However I think your specific question can side step the regular difficulties as you seem to be asking about God's direct will which can be determined to some degree. This is 'God's will' in the sense that he wants us to know it and that knowledge would be beneficial to us. Well from this standpoint his will is that we do not sin.  This really is God's will in the main sense.  We often get lost thinking philosophically about his hidden will, but we only need to concern ourselves with his clear will.  His will is that we love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves, and these we can only do by faith in Christ as the atoning sacrifice for our sin.

So the question to ask is did an event come about by sin, or by love.  In whatever sense global warming has or will come about by greed it would not be God's will.  If it partially comes about because of attempts to secure shelter, safety and general prosperity for the poor, by faith in Christ it is God's will.

Unfortunately when we limit God's will to this clear scope most everything that happens in the world every day is not God's direct will.  It therefore makes the question less relevant as the answer is almost always no.

God's will will be followed in heaven.  Until then to whatever degree we rely on the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and so in gratitude to his grace love and delight in God and become generous and kind to our neighbor, being also gracious to them by enjoying them in any way we can while publishing Christ's dying love, we are growing more and more in line with God's will.  But even then everything we do, wether eating or drinking has mixed motives in it, so part of our loyalty to our boss may be God's will and part fleshly and not his will.

You see it is all about the heart so we will only know in heaven what was God's will and what was not because our hearts are deceitful.  Most likely whatever seemed most like God's will on earth, as viewed by the world, we may find was not. It is by faith we see his will and by faith that we do it.


Which denominations believe that John 19 indicates that the crucifixion had the date of Nisan 14? According to Wikipedia:

  The modern Jewish Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread is seven days, starting with the sunset at the beginning of Nisan 15.

and

  According to some interpretations, the Gospel of John (e.g., 19:14, 19:31, 19:42) implies that Nisan 14 was the day that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

The article mentions that this was the first Easter controversy which petered out around the 4th century and that "Jehovah's Witnesses continue to celebrate the memorial of Christ's death on Nisan 14."

Recently, an answer on Biblical Hermeneutics asserted that Jesus was crucified on Nisan 14.  This indicates the interpretation is still supported in some modern traditions.

Are there any denominations that interpret John 19 as placing the crucifixion on Nisan 14?  Do the Jehovah's Witnesses base their memorial on John 19?

All denominations, as far as I'm aware, agree that John 19 places the crucifixion on Nisan 14. John 19:14 is clear that this was "the day of Preparation for the Passover," that is, the day the sacrificial lambs were slain before the Passover feast officially began (see Exodus 12:5-6). Since Passover begins on Nisan 15, Preparation Day is the 14th.

The Quartodecimian controversy was whether Christians should celebrate essentially a "Christian Passover" on the 14th every year, or whether they should celebrate the resurrection day, the first day of the new week following the Passover.

The practice of celebrating Easter Sunday was soon adopted by the majority of Christians, though some churches continued the Quartodecimian practice for centuries.

Today many churches celebrate a Passover or Seder meal on Thursday evening before Good Friday, but as far as I'm aware only the Jehovah's Witnesses celebrate as the Quartodecimians did, with a meal on the 14th and no special celebration on the following Sunday.


According to the Catholic Church, when did the Church begin? I would love to have an official document that says that the Church began on such and such a date but more importantly, scripturally speaking, what scriptural event describes the birth?

The Catholic Church believes the Church (catholic Church) began at Pentecost.  Here are references from its Catechism.

2617 ... at Pentecost, for the formation of the Church, his Body.
1076 The Church was made manifest to the world on the day of Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The gift of the Spirit ushers in a new era in the "dispensation of the mystery" the age of the Church, during which Christ manifests, makes present, and communicates his work of salvation through the liturgy of his Church, "until he comes." In this age of the Church Christ now lives and acts in and with his Church, in a new way appropriate to this new age
731 On the day of Pentecost when the seven weeks of Easter had come to an end, Christ's Passover is fulfilled in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, manifested, given, and communicated as a divine person: of his fullness, Christ, the Lord, pours out the Spirit in abundance.122
732 On that day [Pentecost], the Holy Trinity is fully revealed. Since that day, the Kingdom announced by Christ has been open to those who believe in him: in the humility of the flesh and in faith, they already share in the communion of the Holy Trinity. By his coming, which never ceases, the Holy Spirit causes the world to enter into the "last days," the time of the Church, the Kingdom already inherited though not yet consummated.
830 The word "catholic" means "universal," in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole." ...  The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

To add scripture.

Acts 2:1-4, 33 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. ... Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.


Questions about Eastern Orthodox infant baptism practices Recently I saw this video in which infants have their head immersed in water, are flipped over and have their feet then  immersed. This cycle is repeated 3 times for a total of 6 immersions.

Is this something that is practiced only locally in Georgia (the country) or is this something which is done in all of Eastern Orthodoxy?

Why are both the head and feet immersed (as opposed to the whole
child, or just the head or just the feet) and
why is it repeated 3 times? (Is the 3 times to signify the 3 persons of the godhead?)

This seems to be only the practice in Georgia by the Patriarch there.

Both are immersed because that is how Ilia II decided to baptize them.

Ilia II, recognised as the Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church, carried out the baptisms of 780 babies at the Trinity Cathedral last Friday ...
The baptism sees each baby's head dipped in holy water, before being spun 180 degrees so its feet can be dipped immediately after. That process is repeated three times.
Ilia II is one of the country's most powerful public figures, and came up with the routine himself.1

Baptism is normally performed by the three-fold immersion of a person in the name of the Holy Trinity; in other words, a person is immersed "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," with one immersion at the mention of each person of the Holy Trinity. 2

1 http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2017/01/georgian-priest-s-acrobatic-baptism-technique.html
2 https://orthodoxwiki.org/Baptism#Infant_Baptism and http://www.orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Baptism.htm


Into how many languages has the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants been translated? The Bible is by far the most translated book in the world at over 470 languages.  Another question asks specifically about the Book of Mormon, which has apparently been translated into 82 languages.

The LDS Church recognizes the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrines and Covenants as Scripture as well.  In fact, they seem to contain the primary basis for many of the doctrines that are exclusive to the LDS.

So, what are the translation statistics for these works?

I was going to make this a comment, but it's much too long. I couldn't find official statistics, but I think this is enough to offer as an answer:

Based upon what is currently available, the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants can be purchased separately in the following 11 languages:

Afrikaans
Arabic
Armenian West
Catalan
Croatian
English Braille
Fijian
Greek
Polish
Rarotongan
Tahitian

However, the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants are much more typically combined with The Book of Mormon as the Triple Combination available in the following 33 languages:

Albanian
Armenian East
Bulgarian
Cebuano
Chinese
Chinese (Simplified)
Danish
Dutch
English
Fante
Finnish
French
German
Haitian
Hungarian
Icelandic
Igbo
Ilokano
Indonesian
Italian
Latvian
Lithuanian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Pangasinan
Portuguese
Romanian
Shona
Spanish
Swedish
Tagalog
Ukrainian
Vietnamese

By addition, (there are no exact duplicates) both books are currently available from LDS Distribution in 44 languages. By no means does this mean it is not available at least in part in other languages (LDS.org now serves content in your choice of 100 languages, most of which I do not understand).