What level of will-power do humans have according to Luther? Luther wrote a very forceful book about original sin and predestination called 'On the Bondage of the will'. In it Luther opposes the idea of free-will, defined as a person's power to do good without grace. However, I am asking something different than his opposition to free-will. I am asking, "While opposing 'free-will,' what degree of human will does Luther retain for the human experience?" In other words after restricting the will as either enslaved to sin or enslaved to the Spirit (thereby opposing independent free-will), what degree of human will is not completely subject to other forces?

For example, I am assuming that what we choose to eat Luther does not ascribe to either the influence of the flesh or the Spirit, but to a kind of limited power of human will. So what level of will-power do humans have according to Luther?

To what extent Luther thought human's have 'free will' is actually not fully disclosed in any of his writings.  In general Luther opposed all notions of free-will, as those espousing the term always implied some ability (no matter how insignificant) to perform some good work (even if qualified by a 'cooperation' with the Spirit). Luther firmly believed and taught that no man could do 'anything' good unless regenerate by the Spirit of God through faith apart from any work. So no man had free-will as humanity only had the ability to sin.
The background history to Luther's book, 'The Bondage of the Will', was in response to a criticism of his teaching which Erasmus of Rotterdam had published under the title of De libero arbitrio. Erasmus chose this subject, that is their clear difference in their views about human freedom, as a point of argument to publicly commit himself to a position opposed to Luther.  He had been pressured to make his position known and was previously reluctant to take a clear side. Now the gloves were off so to speak, and so Luther criticized Erasmus view of freedom in his book as a response. The fact that the book is a response, rather then a orderly thought out treatise of a subject Luther was proposing, is what leaves some things unclear, where not related to his opposition to Erasmus view.
Having this difficulty of determining Luther's view admitted, we may yet at least scope Luther's view under the envelop his own pen has left us.  To simplify things we can skip the whole book and start with the 'conclusions' that he presents at the end.
First, he declares there is no such thing as free-will (as suggested and understood by Erasmus and anyone supporting man's ability to do good prior to his being justified by faith):

For if we believe it to be true that God foreknows and predestines all things, that he can neither be mistaken in his foreknowledge nor hindered in his predestination, and that nothing takes place but as he wills it (as reason itself is forced to admit), then on the testimony of reason itself there cannot be any free choice in man or angel or any creature. (Luther's Works, Vol 33, Page 293).

Earlier in the book Luther explains the concept of foreknowledge as being not just a prediction of what men decide but a deterministic power, being also omnipotent and having care for what happens in his universe.  He uses cases such as Pharaoh and Judas to argue that they had limited freedom in that they could not but fulfill God's prophecies concerning their actions.

We know that the Father begets willingly, and that Judas betrayed Christ by an act of will; but we say this willing was certainly and infallibly going to occur in Judas himself if God foreknew it. Or if what I am saying is still not understood, let us have two sorts of necessity, one of force with reference to the work, the other of infallibility with reference to the time; and let anyone who listens to us understand that we are speaking of the latter, not of the former; that is to say, we are not discussing whether Judas became a traitor involuntarily or voluntarily, but whether at a time preordained by God it was bound infallibly to happen that Judas by an act of his will should betray Christ.
But see what Diatribe (Erasmus) says here: “If you look at the infallible foreknowledge of God, and his immutable will, Judas was necessarily going to turn traitor, and yet Judas could change his mind.” Do you really understand what you are saying, my dear Diatribe? Leaving aside the fact that the will can only will evil, as was proved above, how could Judas change his mind so long as the infallible foreknowledge of God remained? Could he change God’s foreknowledge and make it fallible? (Luther's Works, Vol 33, Page 192)

The point is that Luther says if God foreknew that Judas would betray Christ then it only stands to reason that Judas could not alter his destiny no matter what he did. Luther does not say it but the implication is sort of like Spielberg's 'Back to the Future' film. One small event in time might have numerous consequences upon the future, therefore God not only determines the way humanity is unfolded over time,  but anything specifically foreknown by God are fixed absolutes that can never be altered. The foreknowledge is deterministic not only spiritually but to some degree materially. For example, Judas could not have killed himself before the appointed time, otherwise the prophecy of God would fail. However Luther does not attempt at all to enter into the complexity of what God's foreknowledge and infinite power imply, he merely asserts that they exisit. Or in other words as already quoted, literally 'that nothing takes place but as he wills it'.
An important point to add, to avoid any misunderstanding is that Luther does not mean Judas had no free choice, rather that his choice to follow his desires were free, but that he had no ability to change his desire.  In other words free-choice is basically the ability to freely sin, if there is such a term as free-choice. Judas was not compelled by God to follow after his wicked desire. Only the circumstances surrounding his life were so disposed by God that his desire would be brought about, freely, into the eternal plan of God according to his eternal will.
So, without complicating things more, or changing the subject, let me become more direct in answering the original question. It is not my intention to fully explain Luther's book or his opinion overall about human freedom as that would be very difficult to do without writing another book.  Regarding to what degree men do have a kind of free choice there are very few quotations to chose from.  Possibly the best two are these that follow.
First, more or less still in his introductory remarks, Luther throws away the term free-will as something only God properly has, but allows some sense of it to be retained if that is what his readers prefer:

But if we are unwilling to let this term go altogether—though that would be the safest and most God-fearing thing to do—let us at least teach men to use it honestly, so that free choice is allowed to man only with respect to what is beneath him and not what is above him. That is to say, a man should know that with regard to his faculties and possessions he has the right to use, to do, or to leave undone, according to his own free choice, though even this is controlled by the free choice of God alone, who acts in whatever way he pleases. On the other hand in relation to God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or damnation, a man has no free choice, but is a captive, subject and slave either of the will of God or the will of Satan. (Luther's Works, Vol 33, Page 70)

His distinction about 'beneath him' and 'above him' can more or less be translated as spiritual versus natural. In other words Luther believes man has no spiritual free will. That is to say he, in the sinful state only has freedom to sin, and sin only within the circumstances that God has ordained for his life materially.  However is does allow some freedom in the natural world, while either under the dominion of sin as an unbeliever, or under the power of the Spirit as a believer. Regardless of how man's will (or desire) is created by the Devil, or God, wether an unbeliever, or not, Luther allows 'some' natural freedom within the confines of destiny.
Or to put it in simple terms, here is what Luther allows with respect to a human's ability to have free will:

We know there are things free choice does by nature, such as eating, drinking, begetting, ruling, so that Diatribe cannot laugh us out of court with her shrewdly idiotic remark that if we press the word “nothing,” it would not be possible even to sin without Christ, although Luther has admitted that free choice avails only for sinning. (Luther's Works, Vol 33, Page 240)

He really says nothing more about the existence of human freedom in the entire book as the whole things was meant to argue against Erasmus' view of free will.


Why does Jesus feel only certain people that come into physical contact with Him? Luke 8

  43 A woman was there who had been bleeding for twelve years. She had
  spent all her money on doctors, but no doctor was able to heal her.
  44 The woman came behind Jesus and touched the bottom of his coat. At
  that moment, her bleeding stopped. 45 Then Jesus said, “Who touched
  me?”

  They all said they had not touched him. And Peter said, “Master,
  people are all around you, pushing against you.”

  46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me. I felt power go out from me.”

In this passage I can only imagine all these people pushing and shoving against Jesus but this one small gentle touch - He feels so powerfully.

Can we concluded anything about the other people who touched Him, where He didn't feel anything like that?

Were they all not in need of any health that touching Him had no effect on them or Him, does it mean they were all unbelievers, incapable of understanding what Jesus was trying to tell them or something else?

Why does Jesus feel only certain people that come into physical contact with Him?

As Jesus Himself said Luke 8:46:

  I know that power has gone out from me.

So presumably He noticed the touch because at the same moment power had gone from Him.

So to answer the rest of your question, why only this person? Here it helps to notice that this story is also told in Matthew 9:18-26 and Mark 5:21-43, because they draw out different details. (By the way, the quote in your question ends before the relevant verse - the full story is in Luke 8:40-56.)

In Luke (v48) we read that Jesus said to her:

  “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace.”

And this faith is further detailed in the other Gospels, Matthew 9:21:

  She said to herself, “If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed.”

(See also Mark 5:28.)

Summary: her faith caused the power to go out from Jesus, which caused Him to notice the touch.

To answer your other questions:

Can we concluded anything about the other people who touched Him, where He didn't feel anything like that? Only that they did not touch Him in faith, expecting healing. Indeed, they were a crowd doing what crowds do - crowding (Mark 5:31).
Were they all not in need of any health that touching Him had no effect on them or Him, does it mean they were all unbelievers, incapable of understanding what Jesus was trying to tell them or something else? The text doesn't tell us. The fact that this woman alone (of the crowd) is mentioned as an example in the three Gospels implies that she was indeed an exception - the only one who touched Jesus in faith.


Who may receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church? Who in the following groups may receive Holy Communion in a Catholic Church?

Among Catholics. (cf. the current debate on communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics).
Among non-Catholic Christians.
Among non-Christians (= non-baptized persons).

Please provide the supporting Church teaching, guidelines and reasoning, including any scriptural basis.

Related: As a protestant, may I participate in the Eucharist (Communion) when visiting a Catholic church?

Catholics

The main requirement for a Catholic who has received First Communion is that the person must be in a state of grace (the person has been to confession since committing a mortal sin). As for divorced and remarried persons, non-marital intercourse is a mortal sin and divorces are not recognized by the Catholic Church so...

The person must also believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. This is one of the major differences in Communion between the Catholic Church and Protestant churches, and the words used in the Communion Rite reflect it (the Eucharistic minister declares "The Body of Christ" as the host is given, and the person receiving it answers with an affirmative "Amen").

The person also must have observed the Eucharistic fast (only water and medicine within an hour before Communion).

Another important requirement that almost goes without saying is that the person must not be under an ecclesiastical censure (e.g. excommunicated). This might also apply to a divorced and remarried person.

Catholic children are admitted to Communion once they have received their First Communion.

Non-Catholic Christians

The person may be allowed to receive Communion depending on the Christian denomination the person belongs to. In the missals at a Catholic Church you will find a message like this one:

  We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us 'that they may all be one'. Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law...

If the Christian belongs to a denomination that the Catholic Church is considered "fully united" with then that Christian will be admitted to Communion. Otherwise, the person is generally not admitted, although there are exceptions. The Guidelines for the Reception of Communion from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) provides a list of the denominations whose members are permitted to receive Communion:

  Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3)

Non-Christians

Non-Christians are not admitted to Communion.

The message in the missals from above continues:

  We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith
  in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Communion, we ask them
  to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human
  family.

Scriptural Basis

The scriptural basis for the Catholic Church's teaching is mainly based on 1 Corinthians 11:27-29:

  So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

Clearly, these verses indicate that Catholics must be in a state of grace when receiving Communion. Also, non-Christians do not acknowledge Christ as Lord and would therefore receive it in an unworthy manner. Similarly, non-Catholic Christians who do not believe in transubstantiation would receive Communion in an unworthy manner according to Catholic teaching.

You can find more details, including exceptions, at Catholic Answers and the USCCB Guidelines for the Reception of Communion. The above missal quotes are derived from the USCCB guidelines.


When and who was the first disciple to truly believe Jesus' claims Same as title, the question came up in bible study looking for more information.

The phrasing of the question is a bit tricky because it assumes the first believer was a disciple.  It may also assume a certain gender.  So I have provided three answers, but in the apparent order of actual belief.  First are some guards at the tomb.  Second is Mary Magdalene and probably the other women.  Third is the male disciples.
FIRST GUARDS
If we look at the resurrection account in Matthew 28, we find that the first believers (Jesus is the Messiah, crucified, buried, resurrected) were the guards at the tomb.

And for fear of him [the Risen Lord] the keepers did shake, and became as dead men. Mat 28:4

The guards were certainly instructed about the circumstances of their watch.  A crucified man has been entombed, but some of his followers think he will rise from the dead alive on the third day.  They think he is the King of the Jews, the prophesied Messiah.  Watch carefully.
So when it happens as they were told, we read later in the chapter that only some of the guard go tell the chief priests.

Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.  Mat 28:11

Why some?  Why not all?  Because it would be evident that the others ended up believing.  The guards were not disciples, but I think a solid case can be made that some of the guards were the first believers.
SECOND WOMEN
What about actual disciples?  Do women count as disciples?  If so, then the next case would be Mary Magdalene.  She comes to the sepulchre to annoint Christ, but find his body gone.  She tells Peter and John who come see the body is indeed missing, but they don't believe in the resurrection at that time.

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.  John 20:1-2
Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. John 20:8

Believed what?  Believe the idea that the body had been stolen.

For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. John 20:9

They depart, but Mary stays.

Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. John 20:17

She tells the other disciples, but they are still in a state of denial.
THIRD MALE DISCIPLES
If one is asking about the first male disciple to believe that Jesus is Messiah, then we look at Luke 24 and the two travelers to Emmaus.  Unbeknown to them, it is Jesus who is explaining the scriptures to them, concluding with this question.

Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?  Luke 24:26

But not until the breaking of bread was revelation given.

And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. Luke 24:30-31


Can I go to church on the internet? Is it enough for me to watch a sermon online every Sunday? I have some Christian friends that I spend time with and we pray together sometimes. I study the Bible on my own and listen to my favorite preacher online every week. What need would I have to get up and go to a brick and mortar church every Sunday?

This depends on what your church services provide for you and your own life situation.

As a Catholic, I can't really do that because I cannot receive Eucharist at home, unless a priest comes over, in which case I could. But this doesn't lend itself well to internet services.

Another common reason people go to a service is because of fellowship and community worship. You may fellowship via the internet with others but you don't get the day-to-day interaction online that you may in person. The dynamic is different. Also, it is a different experience worshiping in a group vs. alone. It is very important for a Christian to build relationships with other Christians because it provides some support and an avenue for growth in your faith. Church services are a major way to fill that need.

I would say that if you don't have any better options, or you physically are unable to make it to your service on Sunday, having an online service may fill that void. Many elderly even watch church services on TV if they are homebound.

I personally do them in addition to going to a physical church. They can be worth it. But I would only replace a physical service with an online one out of necessity, myself.


What did Christians write about Muhammad during his life? Are there any records written by Christians about Muhammad that were written during his life? If so, what did they say about him? I would be very surprised if the Church of ~600-630 AD didn't have something to say about a man claiming to be the prophet of God.

The most notable early Christian writing that I am aware of was by John of Damascus (676-749).  In Heresies in Epitome: How They Began and Whence They Drew Their Origin he claims that the basis of Mohammed's fundamental teachings came from an Arian monk:

  There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day
  prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the
  Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham
  of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and
  Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from
  Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the
  angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’  These used to be idolaters
  and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own
  language they called Khabár, which means great.  And so down to the
  time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to
  the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their
  midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments
  and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk,  devised
  his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces
  of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain
  book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some
  ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as
  an object of veneration.

The rest of the text can be found here.

Some say that the iconoclast heresy in Byzantium arose because certain Christians were envious of the material success of surrounding Moslems and surmised that their practices - especially their rejection of depictions of human form - were earning them God's favor.  John of Damascus was one of the most vocal critics of the iconoclast Emperor Leo the Isaurian.  Ironically, John wrote his Apologetic Treatises against those Decrying the Holy Images while under the protection of a nearby moslem caliph.


What prophesies are people alluding to when they say "look at the Middle East"? I don't know where the Bible prophesies about the Middle East, and much less do I know if they're coming true in our day. I've heard people witnessing to others by saying "look at the Middle East", but I'm at a loss about it myself, even though I am a Christian too. Can anyone shed some light?

When I have heard people say "look at the Middle East", it is generally in regards to the formation of the Israelite state in 1948. For close to 2000 years there had been no Israelite state or temple, and for around 2500 years there had been no independent Israelite state. The establishment is seen as the beginning of the end - a necessary step before a temple can be built (which is frequently referred to in Revelation.)

There are a great many prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the re-establishment of an Israelite state, for example Isaiah 66:8. Many of these prophecies could also be interpreted as referring to the Province of Judah that was established after the Exile, or to the creation of the Church, but those who are saying to "look at the Middle East" would most likely interpret them as referring to the current Israelite state.


Why is the Bible divided into Old Testament and New Testament? All the Bible I have seen (Catholic and Protestant) have the books in the Bible divided into two groups - Old Testament and New Testament. There is always a dedicated page just before the Book of Genesis with the title "The Old Testament" which indicates that the books that follow after this page falls under this category. There is also a dedicated page just before the Gospel of Matthew with the title "The New Testament" indicating that the books after this page are categorized as New Testament. I have also seen some Christians holding a small Bible having only the New Testament with Psalms and Proverbs as an addition. I wonder why do we have this division. I'm also perplexed by the use of the terms "Old" and "New". I need some historical and theological background to help me understand this division.

When did this division happen?
Why did they make this division?
Does this division bear any significant importance?
Can we simply divide the Bible as "Books written before Christ" and "Books written after Christ"?
Was the use of the terms 'Old' and 'New' accidental or intentional?
Is this division necessary?
Is there any Bible that doesn't have this division?

The New Covenant Foretold

The key to the division can be seen in Jeremiah, where God speaks of the old covenant and the new covenant.  Israel had broken the old covenant, so God spoke of a new covenant.

  31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord.

  33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”  Jeremiah 31:31-35 NASB

The Breaking of the Old Covenant

The enumeration of covenants includes those with Noah, Abraham, Moses and David, among others.  So, if we were being precise, we might say the "Old Testaments" (plural) and the "New Testament (singular).  However, the primary covenant that governed all of Israel was probably the Mosaic covenant, which the people broke.  The book of Hebrews affirms this:

  6 But now He [Jesus] has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.  7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,

  “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,
  When I will effect a new covenant
  With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
  9 Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers
  On the day when I took them by the hand
  To lead them out of the land of Egypt;
  For they did not continue in My covenant,
  And I did not care for them, says the Lord.
  10 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
  After those days, says the Lord:
  I will put My laws into their minds,
  And I will write them on their hearts.
  And I will be their God,
  And they shall be My people.
  11 “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen,
  And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
  For all will know Me,
  From the least to the greatest of them.
  12 “For I will be merciful to their iniquities,
  And I will remember their sins no more.”

  13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant

Jesus Christ is, thus, the mediator of the New Covenant, as Hebrews 12 affirms:

  But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.  Hebrews 12:22-24 NASB

The Inception of the New Covenant

This division is affirmed in several places. It was introduced by Jesus at the Last Supper.

  23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

Conclusion

So, everything does change with the coming of Jesus. The New Testament is the collection of all the books that being with the life of Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant.


Is there any Christian teaching as to where Adam and Eve were sent after their fall from the Garden of Eden? In Islamic teachings, it is said that, after the fall from the Garden of Eden, Adam found himself on Mount Safa and Eve on Mount Marwa. (Of course, these locations are near enough so they found each other easily.) There are other narratives which introduce various places but this is the most famous one.
My question is that; is there mentioned, in Christian sources, any exact location where Adam and eve have been sent immediately after their fall?
Any help is really appreciated. Thank you, all.

Is there mentioned any exact location where Adam and eve have been sent?

No. And for good reason; the Flood caused massive, catastrophic changes to the world, such that any such information would be meaningless post-Flood.
If one accepts Genesis, then, the question is pointless, because, while the answer might be interesting from a standpoint of pure curiosity for its own sake, it would not have any relevance beyond that.
Safa and Marwa are apparently real places in Saudia Arabia. These places would not have existed pre-Flood; not, at least, in any recognizable form (the land that now comprises them may have existed, but might have been scattered all over the place, or might have been deep beneath the surface of the Earth, or...). Therefore, according to Christians (at least ones that accept the accounts of the Bible), there is no connection between these post-Flood locations and any location that might have been known to Adam and/or Eve, and even claims that the names were recycled (as e.g. the Tigris and Euphrates rivers) are at best suspect because Arabic as a language did not exist until post-Babel.


What justification would make divorce worse than adultery? While I'm not talking salvation here (I understand grace) there is a sense in which some sins are more offensive to God then others.  Scripture is replete with examples of God's hatred for adultery (read pretty much any prophet!) and divorce (Malachi, Matthew, etc...).

Recently, I had a discussion with another pastor who was counseling a person who had created what I believe to be a false dichotomy - the counselee believed himself to be incapable fidelity to his wife, and so felt there were only two options - divorce or adultery.  (The counselee's justification was 1 Cor 7:9 "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion"). The thing that was interesting to me was that it was suggested that adultery was better than divorce.  The counselor suggested that if the counselee was incapable of being true to his wife, that it was better to have an affair than to terminate the marriage.

Now, leaving aside any personal specifics (this is not a pastoral advice question!), I'm wondering what is the logic of holding the sanctity of marriage over fidelity within it?  In other words, what is the biblical or extra-biblical justification for suggesting that adultery would be preferable to divorce.

I'm looking for either an exegesis of Scripture or Pontifical statement that would be the basis for making such a counsel. Appeals to the sources of tradition for any denomination are accepted - I'm just trying to understand what the justification is for stating that divorce is worse than adultery.

Barring that, the inverse - if someone would make the case that adultery is worse than divorce, I'd be interested in that exegesis as well.

Marriage is more than sex. When you enter a marriage you take on all sorts of other obligations - to love and support your spouse, to care for them in sickness, to provide for your mutual needs, and to act as parent to any children you might have. If you deliberately choose to leave a marriage you are abandoning all those obligations as well as the one to remain sexually faithful. Committing adultery is, well, just sex.

However you should probably avoid trying to read a theological point into a comment made during counselling. The counsellor may be exploring ideas rather than making a theological statement.


Is there any evidence to support Matthew's gospel account of the curtain in the Jerusalem Temple being torn in two? From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land... And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.  At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split" (Matthew 27:45, 50-51).

As a Christian of the Protestant persuasion, I do not doubt the truth of these words.  But how do I respond to detractors who claim there is no evidence of the curtain in the temple being torn in two?

I am interested in evidence from Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant sources.

It is desirable in any important matter to have strong testimony to a fact.
As a Protestant, my primary source is always the scripture and it is scripture itself which advises that one should have strong testimony in all important matters viz :

At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. [Deuteronomy 19:15 KJV.]
In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. [II Corinthians 13:1 KJV.]

In the case of the veil of the temple being ripped from the top to the bottom there are three witnesses to the fact. They are competent witnesses as their published writing demonstrates : intelligent men capable of presenting data in exceptional clarity and reporting matters in highly structured form.

Matthew 27:51

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

Mark 15:38

And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom.

Luke 23:46

And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst.

These are the facts of the case.
This is the three fold evidence and testimony.
And these are the very men who have 'turned the world upside down', Acts 17:6, whose words reverberate around the world to this very day.

One would not expect the Romans to document this fact since they were not permitted access to the inner precincts of the temple. Only priests could enter that part of the temple.
And one would not anticipate reliable testimony from the Jews (of the period) when one looks at the behaviour of the hierarchy - lying in order to murder Jesus of Nazareth, bribery in recruiting Judas to betray Jesus of Nazareth and coercion in forcing Pilate's hand to execute Jesus of Nazareth by Roman authority.
One would expect such people to hush this matter up and to secretly repair the damage and to carry on as if nothing had happened.
But the three faithful witnesses did testify honestly, and risked their lives to do so. Soon after the event, eleven men - Matthew among them - shut themselves indoors, for fear of the Jews, John 20:19. Mark was close to Peter, who was, himself, crucified. And both Mark and Luke were closely associated with Paul, who was executed by Nero.


What is the proper term for performing the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick on someone? If you perform the sacrament of Baptism on someone, you are "baptizing" them. If you do the sacrament of Holy Matrimony on a couple, you are "marrying" them, or alternatively "officiating the marriage".

What is the proper term for a priest performing the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick on someone? "Anointing" them? Or some other term?

What is the proper term for performing the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick on someone?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the following:

  1516 Only priests (bishops and presbyters) are ministers of the Anointing of the Sick. It is the duty of pastors to instruct the faithful on the benefits of this sacrament. The faithful should encourage the sick to call for a priest to receive this sacrament. The sick should prepare themselves to receive it with good dispositions, assisted by their pastor and the whole ecclesial community, which is invited to surround the sick in a special way through their prayers and fraternal attention.

Thus bishops and priests are the ministers of the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. And as such they are the ones to administer this sacrament.

The proper phrase you are looking for is: Administering the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.

  The Oil of the Sick

  The oil used in administering the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick is called Oil of the Sick. It is one of the three Holy oils blessed by the bishop of the diocese at his cathedral on Holy Thursday morning, the other two Holy Oils being Holy Chrism and the Oil of Catechumens, which is used in Baptism.

  Oil of the Sick is pure olive oil—nothing being added except the blessing of the bishop. Its appropriateness as part of the outward sign of Anointing of the Sick is evident from the healing and strengthening effects which are characteristic of olive oil.

  The essence of the sacrament lies in the actual anointing and the short prayer which accompanies the anointing.

  In giving the sacrament, the priest anoints the sick person on the forehead and hands. During this anointing, the priest says: “Through this holy anointing may the Lord in his love and mercy help you with the grace of the Holy Spirit. May the Lord who frees you from sin save you and raise you up.” - The Anointing of the Sick: Comfort and Healing

Canon Law states:

  Canon 1003

  §1. Every priest and a priest alone validly administers the anointing of the sick.

  §2. All priests to whom the care of souls has been entrusted have the duty and right of administering the anointing of the sick for the faithful entrusted to their pastoral office. For a reasonable cause, any other priest can administer this sacrament with at least the presumed consent of the priest mentioned above.

  §3. Any priest is permitted to carry blessed oil with him so that he is able to administer the sacrament of the anointing of the sick in a case of necessity.


Who are the five brothers mentioned in the story of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:28)? Luke 16:27–28 (NIV) reads:

  27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,
  28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not
  also come to this place of torment.’

Who are the "five brothers" headed to the place the rich man is in?  I'm interested in both historical and symbolic explanations.

There are a number of views on these brothers and the specific meaning of this passage. We'll try to focus on just the brothers and not the passage, which has a long standing debate around whether it is even a parable or an actual account.

First, we shouldn't be focused on there being five brothers. There are six. The man in torment has five brothers, making a total of six brothers.

They are the brothers of Caiaphas.

One identification is that the man in torment is Caiaphus the High Priest. Josephus tells us that he had five brothers. So we are left the picture that innocent Lazarus is given unto Abraham's bosom, but the Pharisee, and his ilk, are given unto torment because they ignore the law. Considering Jesus attacked the Pharisee hypocrisy regularly, this explanation does make some sense.

They are the brothers of Judah.

Judah had five brothers from Leah, his mother, linking the five brothers reference to the Kingdom of Judah. Why the Kingdom of Judah would be singled out, I cannot say.

The number simply represents completeness.

Each culture has their own references to various things. In this case, five might have been a number that simply meant "whole." The parable of the ten virgins divides two groups into five and then they are judged corporately, not individually. This indicates in the same way that five represents the whole of that group. For the man in torment, "five brothers" represents his whole family, or even all those he loves. I personally find this the more reasonable answer.

The number is arbitrary.

Jesus is telling a story and needs to make a point, which is, that if you do not believe now while you have the law and the prophets, then even someone returning from the grave would not convince you. For this story to make sense, he needs the man in torment to have someone on the other side. Five sounds like a good round number and no one doubts that a man loves his brothers.

The author of this article deserves some credit for this post.


Were Catholics originally offended by the Sacred Heart? According to a comment by Mr. Hayword, the Sacred Heart was something which was originally opposed in Catholicism, but I have not found clear evidence of this, only a citation of an Anglican who cites Orthodox priests whose criticism are not undisputed (you might look at the comments here).

This does not provide analysis of WESTERN condemnation of the practice, though, or even Western censure. Does any such document exist?

By the 1796 Janenism, which disdained devotion to the Sacred Heart, was very roundly condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei one paragraph stated:

  The doctrine which rejects devotion to the most Sacred Heart of Jesus among the devotions which it notes as new, erroneous, or at least, dangerous; if the understanding of this devotion is of such a sort as has been approved by the Apostolic See,—false, rash, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Apostolic See.

So, prior to this, in the nearly 8 centuries of practicing the devotion in the Church, there may have been some who said made a big todo about those who over-did it.  Jansenists, who started as a movement within the Catholic Church, were certainly among them.  They'd say that it's inappropriate to worship a portion of Jesus, especially a wholly material and fleshy part.

But seriously, in reading through the Catholic Encyclopedia article and not finding one condemnation of suspicion of the authentic devotion.  I doubt that the cult was ever suppressed (if that's the right thing to say about Our Lord) like it might be for some saint of dubious origin or some aesthetic practice taken too far.


What was the purpose to animal sacrifices? I've never completely understood the purpose as to why God required that the Israelite's should kill an animal in order for God to forgive them.

There were two main meanings to this.  The first was as a symbol of Christ, whose blood makes it possible for everyone to have their sins forgiven.  The second is as a sacrifice in the more traditional sense: willingly giving up something important and valuable.  And when your animals are both your livelihood and the food on your family's table, giving the best of your flocks to the Lord (and the sacrifices were required to be the best, not just any old animal) is quite a sacrifice indeed!  By the Law of Sacrifice, the Lord teaches us to have faith and trust in him instead of getting too attached to material possessions and trusting in them to bring us happiness and success in life.


To what extent were original papyri used as sources in the translation of the NIV New Testament? I am wondering to what extent original papyri were used in the translation of the NIV New Testament? I know there are some large papyrus fragments such as p45 and p66 and I am wondering how much the translators of the NIV referenced them directly.

The editors of the 2011 NIV write:

  The Greek text used in translating the New Testament is an eclectic
  one, based on the latest editions of the Nestle-Aland/United Bible
  Societies’ Greek New Testament. The committee has made its choices
  among the variant readings in accordance with widely accepted
  principles of New Testament textual criticism. Footnotes call
  attention to places where uncertainty remains.

I believe that at this time the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament would have been the latest.  Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament lists the following papyri as the most important witness texts for this edition:

P20 - 3rd c.
P23 - 3rd c.
P29 - 3rd c.
P38 - c. 220
P45 - c. 250
P46 - c. 175-225
P48 - 3rd c.
P50 - c. 163-172
P66 - c. 200
P69 - 3rd c.
P75 - c. 175-225

Since the editors state that they based their translation on the Nestle-Aland text, they would have at least considered the above in their translation.  A full list of the available papyri can be found here.

You specifically asked about papyri, so I took your question literally.  All of the above texts are fragmentary and sometimes don't even include complete chapters.  The only complete Greek New Testament texts from antiquity (as far as I know) are the codices, listed here, the earliest of which date from the 4th century.

(There is, of course, no guarantee that the age of a text is any measure of its "authenticity" in the sense that it is faithful to some "autograph".  There is no way to know whether there are some still earlier texts that are lost.  The Nestle-Aland text makes educated guesses about what might be in the supposed "autographs" by considering all of the available manuscripts.  The actual text used by the Greek Orthodox Church today follows fairly closely what is found in the majority of the available manuscripts, which varies widely in places from the Nestle-Aland "Critical Text".  Some of the Orthodox readings are quite different from what is found in the NIV).


What influence did Greco-Roman philosophy have on the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo"? Background

Frequently, Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists will appeal to and debate/discuss the idea of "Creatio Ex Nihilo" (Latin for "creation from nothing") with some critiquing the concept and claiming that Genesis does not assume creatio ex nihilo.

These critics often assert that the concept arose out of Greco-Roman philosophy. According to Wikipedia,

  Some scholars[which?] have argued that Plethon viewed Plato as positing ex nihilo creation in his Timaeus ...
  [and] ... The School of Chartres understood the creation account in Plato's Timaeus to refer to creatio ex nihilo.

And this appeared to be a topic of interest and discussion amongst the philosophers.

Question

What, exactly were the arguments for the philosophical concept of Creatio Ex Nihilo made by the classical philosophers and what relationship (if any) does this have to Plato's Theory of Forms? How might these arguments have influenced the modern Christian doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo, and what relationship do these ancient philsopical arguments have (if any) with it?

It appears that there are a great number of similarities between the teachings of the secular Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo Judaeus of Alexandrea, a follower of stoicism and the teachings outlined in John (particularly John 1).

Stoicism

In response to Plato's explorations of whether abstract qualities (Such as justice and wisdom) have an independent existence (and his argument that these things do not truly "exist" by appealing to his Theory of Forms), Stoicism taught that these things did exist materially and in a corporeal form or "substance" (οὐσία).

  According to the Stoics, the universe is a material, reasoning substance, known as God or Nature, which the Stoics divided into two classes, the active and the passive. The passive substance is matter, which "lies sluggish, a substance ready for any use, but sure to remain unemployed if no one sets it in motion." The active substance, which can be called Fate, or Universal Reason (Logos), is an intelligent aether or primordial fire, which acts on the passive matter:

    The universe itself is God and the universal outpouring of its soul; it is this same world's guiding principle, operating in mind and reason, together with the common nature of things and the totality that embraces all existence; then the foreordained might and necessity of the future; then fire and the principle of aether; then those elements whose natural state is one of flux and transition, such as water, earth, and air; then the sun, the moon, the stars; and the universal existence in which all things are contained.

  — Chrysippus, in Cicero, De Natura Deorum, i. 39

Stoicism also taught that

  everything that exists depends on two first principles which can be neither created nor destroyed: matter, which is passive and inert, and the logos, or divine reason, which is active and organizing. The 3rd-century B.C. Stoic Chrysippus regarded pneuma as the vehicle of logos in structuring matter, both in animals and in the physical world. Pneuma in its purest form can thus be difficult to distinguish from logos or the "constructive fire" (pur technikon)

Philo's take

Perhaps by studying stoicism and noticing the Septuagint's use of pneuma (πνεῦμα),

  ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου καὶ πνεῦμα θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος

this led Philo to conclude that the πνεῦμα θεοῦ (pneuma theou - Spirit of God) was the Logos (The Reason, thought or word for the formation of the universe.)

In his writings, Philo

  ...used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect Form, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God". Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated".

  Plato's Theory of Forms was located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world. In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe.

Relationship to Plato

Obviously, Philo believed that the Logos created and was manifest vis-à-vis Plato's theory of forms, but the connections run much deeper. For example, Zeno, the founder of Stoicism studied under the platonists Xenocrates and Polemon at the Platonic Academy.

But most importantly, the genesis (pun intended) of the doctrine of Creato ex nihilo can be seen in how Philo interacts with Plato's work and the purpose and nature of Philo's works - two works in particluar - Philo's  Quaestiones (or "Inquiries") and his Νόμων Ἱερῶν Ἀλληγορίαι - "Legum Allegoriæ," ( or "allegorical commentary") - both of which deal significantly or completely with interpretation of Genesis from Philo's Stoic perspective. In doing so, philo is attempting to sythesize Judaism and Stoicism

In another work, De Opificio Mundi (On Creation), Philo articulates the first known instance of creatio ex nihilo among the philosophers saying

  Moses says also; "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth:" taking the beginning to be, not as some men think, that which is according to time; for before the world time had no existence, but was created either simultaneously with it, or after it;

  ...

  In the first place therefore, from the model of the world, perceptible only by intellect, the Creator made an incorporeal heaven, and an invisible earth, and the form of air and of empty space: the former of which he called darkness, because the air is black by nature; and the other he called the abyss, for empty space is very deep and yawning with immense width. Then he created the incorporeal substance of water and of air, and above all he spread light, being the seventh thing made; and this again was incorporeal, and a model of the sun, perceptible only to intellect, and of all the lightgiving stars, which are destined to stand together in heaven.

  And air and light he considered worthy of the pre-eminence. For the one he called the breath of God, because it is air, which is the most life-giving of things, and of life the causer is God

So in other word, God created the pneuma which was then used by the Logos to create.

Of these descriptions, Dr. Austryn Wolfson, the foremost scholar on Philo's works wrote that

  all such expressions merely mean to convey the idea that God brought the world “out of non-existence into existence.”

Dr. David Runia, the penultimate authority on Philo agrees saying on pg 454 of "Philo of Alexandria and The 'Timaeus' of Plato"

  this view is in the final analysis a metaphysicalaly refined variant of the creatio ex nihilo thesis. Although Matter would be only indirectly created by God, it is still the result of divine activity.

And the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy claims that

  Before Philo there was no explicit theory of creation ex nihilo ever postulated in Jewish or Greek traditions.

Conclusion

From the writings of Philo, we can see three things. First, From the statement that,

  taking the beginning to be, not as some men think

Clearly, scholars believe "some men" is referring to Plato and to Jewish thought and Philo was responding to this and creating a different way to view Genesis.

Secondly, Philo is attempting to synthesize Jewish thought and Hellinistic Philosophy which indicates that Jewish Scholarship, like Plato, regarded matter as having always existed.

It seems then, that John 1, in claiming that

  In the beginning was the Logos and the Logos was with God" John was affirming the teachings of Philo and attempting to Join the Stoics philosophical dialogue. John goes on to affirm this Cosmogony, saying

  He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

But then John takes it a step further and refines Philo's teachings saying not just that the Logos was with God at the beginning but that "The Logos WAS God" and that

  He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

  ...

  The Logos became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

And of course, according to John that was Jesus and the embodiment of these abstract qualities did exist corporeally - in Jesus. So while it may seem that Jews did not understand Genesis 1 to speak of creatio ex nihilo, John did understand Genesis 1 this way. Ironically however, inasmuch as these doctrines echo the teachings of Philo's Legum Allegoriæ, this Makes John 1 the Allegorical reading of Genesis and the historic Jewish understanding (which differed according to Philo) and the associated cosmology the literal reading of Genesis.

Authors note: In mousing over a few of the inline citations, you will find that several reference other stack exchange questions - for example a discussion about the firstborn of God or the Theory of Forms. These links provide good background and foundation for this question, and I think as you begin to explore these you will get a fuller picture of how Hellenistic Philosophy intersects with New Testament theology. It will be well worth your time.


Why did the early Christian church stop building and worshiping in temples? The use of temples was central during the Old and New Testaments. Christ himself even cleansed the temple by throwing out the money changers who were defiling his Fathers house. John 2:16 Why did that practice stop?

  16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise.

The Temple was an extension of the concept of the Tabernacle which God instructed the Nation of Israel to build as a place for God to come and talk with them. That was the purpose of the Mercy seat, from which God talked to Moses.

The Temple was originally built by Solomon on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, It was enlarged and enhanced by King Herod. It was and still is a revered part of Judaism, which is a point of contention with Islamist since they have built a Mosque on the site. According to the Jews that Temple must be rebuilt on the original plot where it was originally built.

That having been said; The most probable reason that the Temple is not used for Christian worship is because Gentiles are not allowed to enter past the outer part of the compound. This is vividly shown in Acts where Paul is accused of denigrating the Temple by bringing a Gentile  into the Temple:

  Acts 21:28  KJV Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

There is only one Tabernacle and all that is currently left of it is the wailing wall.

The other places that the Jews congregated to worship were known as the Synagogue. These were in the Jewish communities.  When Christianity began to spread due to the persecution by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, and elsewhere. 'The people of the way'; which was what the first Christians were called, began to meet in secret in homes in order to not be taken back to Jerusalem for punishment. Paul was on his way to Damascus to capture and take them to Jerusalem when He was converted.

Christians were persecuted by Rome until Constantine was converted, and during that period did not meet openly.


Why did Daniel consider the allotment of food and wine to be wrong for him to eat? When Nebuchadnezzar conquered Israel and took Daniel and other Jewish men into his court, he assigned them food and wine from the king's table.

The king appointed for them a daily ration from the king’s choice food and from the wine which he drank, and appointed that they should be educated three years, at the end of which they were to enter the king’s personal service.  Daniel 1:5 NASB

However, Daniel seems to believe it would be wrong for him to eat this, but eating vegetables and water is, somehow, alright.

But Daniel made up his mind that he would not defile himself with the king’s choice food or with the wine which he drank; so he sought permission from the commander of the officials that he might not defile himself.  Daniel 1:8 NASB
“Please test your servants for ten days, and let us be given some vegetables to eat and water to drink.  Daniel 1:12 NASB

So, what was it about the food and what was it about the wine that made Daniel believe it was inappropriate to eat?

Some possibilities why Daniel refused the King's choice of food.

Unclean animals: According to this source, pork was the choice meat of Babylonians. If this is true, it is certain that Daniel was ready to die by not eating nor touching the food.

  Leviticus 11:7-8 (NIV) And the pig, though it has a divided hoof, does not
  chew the cud; it is unclean for you. You must not eat their meat or
  touch their carcasses; they are unclean for you.

Cooking method: According to  this source, ancient Babylonians were very advanced in cooking method unlike the ancient Jews who were eating food with simple recipes prepared in a simple way. The Babylonian food might have upset the stomach of Daniel. Eating food prepared in a way other than what we are used to is not easy.
Offered to idols: Ancient Babylon was highly influenced by idolatry. They were ready to annihilate any group who did not bow down in front of their idols. The three friends of Daniel were also the victim of this. Idol worshipers have the habit of offering their foods to their idols before they eat. This is still in practice today by Hindus as this source says. Daniel was probably suspicious about the source of the food or he saw that it was offered to idols first and refused to eat it. Sacrificing food to idols was also in practice during the first century.

  1 Corinthians 8:7 (NIV) But not everyone possesses this knowledge.
  Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat
  sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god,
  and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.

Daniel took a leap of faith towards his diet and God blessed him.


Has the Episcopal Church ever identified "patriarchy" as a sin? I was listening to a Minnesota Public Radio program entitled "Female faith leaders preach #SilenceIsNotSpiritual" (Feb 21, 2018). One of the guest speakers was author Rachel Held Evans, who is an Episcopal. During her discussion, she said this (emphasis mine):

Something that's been especially meaningful to me has been revisiting those stories of the women from scripture who were the victims of—what are sometimes called the "texts of terror"—the stories of rape or violence against women or, you know, assault against women.
And using those as a way to honor them and to honor the women who continue to be victims of patriarchy and violence against women. And to sort of memorialize them and also to let their stories be a reminder that we…for how long the sin of patriarchy and violence against women and the subjugation of women has been a part of our human story […]

Has the Episcopal church ever identified "patriarchy" as a sin?

It appears not, however they do list it as a "Central question" in sexual ethics:

  Central questions in sexual ethics now include the nature of sexuality, sexual orientation, sexual identity, and gender identity; the historic and social diversity of sexual practices and relationships; and the effects of patriarchy and the need for justice, equality, and intimacy.

So, they acknowledge that patriarchy does exist, and they mention it in the context of the need for justice and equality, but stop short of calling it a sin.


How does someone accidentally make an oath? Leviticus 5:4 How does someone accidentally make an oath (an oath that they are "unaware" they had made)? Does it mean basically all careless statements about taking a particular action are in effect an oath?

  ... or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned.

I'm interested primarily in the exegesis—what this passage literally meant—not the modern application. An oath made while drunk is a possible example, but I'm not even sure that fits. If that was the only case, wouldn't it just say "an oath made while drunk"? What other cases might there be?

If you want to know what the passage "literally meant," we should start with a literal translation. After all "unaware of it" is a paraphrase. This is literal:

  Leviticus 5:4 KJV Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.

In what way can his oath be "hid from him"?  The most obvious meaning to me is he forgot about the oath. So he violates it.  Then when he remembers about the oath, he is guilty. In other words, the idea is he is unaware of the oath when he breaks it, not when he makes it.

After all, the OT has nothing against oaths, only against breaking them, as Jesus points out in the Sermon on the Mount:

  Matthew 5:33-34 NKJV Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.  But I say to you, do not swear at all:...

So he can only be guilty according to the OT after breaking the oath, meaning that it must be that it was "hid from him" when he broke it, not when he made it.

Of course, swearing to do something that violates the Law would also make him guilty, either after violating the oath or keeping the oath and thus breaking the commandment in question. So the explanation of the passage could possibly also be that there is an elipsis, i.e. words that are left out that the author figured the reader would know were implied.  In which case it could be understood somewhat like this:

  Or if a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall pronounce with an oath, and it be hid from him [that what he is swearing is contrary to the Law]; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these.

The JPS (Jewish Publication Society) gives this translation:

  Or when a person utters an oath to bad or good purpose--whatever a man may utter in an oath--and, though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt in any of these matters--

I think that's far superior in clarity to the majority of the modern translations I've looked at.


What is the difference between Presbyterianism and Evangelicalism? I understand the main differences with Evangelicals vs. protestants are the strong beliefs in being "born again" and Biblical fundamentalism.

However, what are some of the main differences in theology, personal belief, politics, structure of leadership and interpretation - specifically speaking between Evangelicals and Presbyterians?

As you mention, evangelicalism refers to a movement that typically emphasizes salvation through faith in Christ, the authority of the Bible, evangelism, and a conversion experience.

On the other hand, presbyterianism refers primarily to a form of church government.  In this system, elders rule the church – a session of elders is responsible for leading individual congregations, and send elders to regional presbyteries that oversee the churches in their respective areas.  Presbyteries send representatives to the general assembly, which oversees and serves as the highest court of the denomination.

It should be clear, then, that evangelicalism and presbyterianism are, at root, independent of each other.  That is, only some evangelicals are presbyterians, and only some presbyterians are evangelicals.

Historically, presbyterianism is closely associated with Reformed theology, but this link is not absolute.  The Puritans, for example, preferred congregational church governance, though they shared beliefs in Reformed theology with their presbyterian friends.  The same is true of many evangelical "Reformed Baptists" today.

Within Presbyterianism, not all would be considered evangelical.  Though the borders of evangelicalism can be blurry, the more liberal members of the PCUSA, the mainline presbyterian denomination in the US, would usually be excluded from it due to their views on salvation and the Word of God.  US denominations like the PCA, EPC, OPC, and RPCNA, being more conservative, would often be considered evangelical.  Outside the US, many countries have "Evangelical Presbyterian" churches, such as Chile, Ghana, and the UK.


When did "he descended into hell" become part of the Apostles' Creed? There seems to be much more debate over one clause of the Apostles' Creed than the entire rest of it put together, and that is the "descent into hell" (or "hades") clause, also known as the "harrowing of hell."  I've noticed that some Protestants don't include it when reciting the creed.

Does the historical evidence indicate that the Apostles' Creed has always included this phrase?  If not, when did it become part of it?

Related question: Did the Apostles' Creed originate with the Apostles?

For the larger context of the authorship and development of the creed, please see my answer to this question: Did the Apostles' Creed originate with the Apostles?

Church historian Philip Schaff provides a summary of the development of the Apostles' Creed in his book, The Creeds of Christendom.  A helpful table, showing the creed's gradual formation in the West from AD 200 to 750, can't be reproduced in full here, but I'll quote the relevant part, listing each version of the creed, the year, and the wording of the "descent into hell" clause, if included:1

         Version                Year           Clause?
   St. Irenaeus                AD 200            --
   Tertullian                  AD 220            --
   St. Cyprian                 AD 250            --
   Novatian                    AD 260            --
   Marcellus                   AD 341            --
   Rufinus (Alquileja)         AD 390     DESCENDIT in INFERNA
   Rufinus (Rome)              AD 390            --
   St. Augustine               AD 400            --
   St. Nicetas                 AD 450            --
   Eusebius Gallus             AD 550            --
   Sacramentarius Gallicanum   AD 650     Descendit AD Inferna
   Pirminius (current)         AD 750     Descendit ad Inferna

It's not clear from my table, but if you look at the original, which shows all the clauses of the creed for each of these versions, you'll notice that this particular clause is one of the least-attributed of all of them.  Especially notable is that it only appears in one version of the creed before AD 600.2

With respect to the first orthodox version containing the phrase (AD 390), Scaff notes that Rufinus didn't actually interpret the phrase in the Alquileja version the normal way: he thought it meant the same thing as the previous clause, "buried."3  If that's the case, then the first intentional orthodox/Western use of "descent into hell" was in AD 650.

This history has encouraged some to call for removing the clause from the creed, such as Protestant theologian Wayne Grudem.4  Grudem and others, like John Piper,5 also dispute the clause with biblical arguments, so it's likely that Protestant churches that have removed the clause from their creeds are doing so only partially because of the clause's history.

References and notes:

Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Volume 2, p54 (Also on Google Books).
Schaff does not include in this list the versions produced by the Arians (Eastern heretics), but does briefly mention that Arian versions from AD 360 and AD 590 include the clause. (see following citation)
Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Volume 2, p46n2 and Volume 1, p21n4.
Grudem, "He Did Not Descend Into Hell." JETS vol. 34, no. 1, p103-13; also available in his Systematic Theology (582-594).
Piper, "Did Christ Ever Descend to Hell?" Interview, 2008-03-03.


How do nontrinitarians view Jesus? (overview) What is an overview of how nontrinitarians view Jesus?

Until the third century, the dichotomy of trinitarians and non-trinitarians just did not exist. Jesus was the Son of God, and that was as far as it went. The concept of the Trinity began to provide for the divinity of Jesus within a monotheistic framework. Around the beginning of the fourth century, a Libyan priest, Arius, began to teach that the Trinity was wrong - Jesus, the Son of God, was not co-eternal and consubstantial with his Father, but was rather a created being, subordinate to the Father. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria excommunicated Arius and had the Council of Nicaea declare for the Trinity.  However, the Christian world remained divided on the issue until Emperor Theodosius made belief in the Trinity mandatory for Christians at the end of the fourth century. Throughout much of the fourth century, it remained possible, in spite of successive ecumenical councils, that Arianism would win the day and that it would be Trinitarianism that would be declared heretical.

In terms of number of adherents, nontrinitarian denominations  comprise only a small minority of modern Christianity. By far the two largest nontrinitarian denominations are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormons") and the Jehovah's Witnesses. According to Wikipedia, other denominations include the Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International and the United Church of God. Nontrinitarian views differ widely on the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Some important nontrinitarian views are:

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that God the Father, Jehovah, is the one true almighty God, even over his Son, God's only direct creation, and the very first creation by God. They give relative "worship" or "obeisance" (homage, as to a king) to Christ, pray through him as God's only high priest, consider Jesus Christ to be Mediator and Messiah, but that only the Father is without beginning.
Mormons believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct beings that are not united in substance, a view sometimes called social trinitarianism. The three individual deities are 'one' in will or purpose, as Jesus was 'one' with his disciples, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute a single Godhead or a Divine Council, and are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. Mormons believe that God created Christ, who is subordinate to God the Father and that Christ created the universe.
Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that Jesus was 'Son' only when he became flesh on earth, but was the Father prior to his being made human.
Swedenborgianism holds that the Trinity exists in one person, the Lord God Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus Christ is the one God; the Father as to his soul, the Son as to his body, and the Holy Spirit as to his activity in the world.
Some traditions say that Christ the Son and God the Father are co-eternal, but do not teach that the Holy Spirit is a being or person. This teaching is characterised as Binitarianism.


What were the common exonyms of the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches leading up to and after the Great Schism (1054)? A common misconception I encounter among people interested in the history of Christianity is that the term "Catholic" refers solely to the Roman Catholic church and likewise "Orthodox" only to the Eastern Orthodox church (indeed, officially the Orthodox Catholic Church).

While these terms can serve as shorthands for those churches today in many contexts excluding formal ones, I don't know much of their history in this current use. One would think people who lived in the centuries leading to the Great Schism of 1054 wouldn't have used such positive terms of each other: to describe the other side of the ongoing disputes as catholic or orthodox would seem to undermine one's own side in the deepening controversy.

What terms did the Roman and Greek sides of the church use of each other, in the centuries leading to the Schism and immediately after it, until the "Catholic" and "Orthodox" terms became commonly associated with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, respectively?

I think it is correct to say that prior to the great schism there really weren't only two sides in exactly the sense you suggest.

Dating to at least the time of the 1st Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), those Churches which subscribed to the seven Ecumenical Councils were divided administratively into five (5) "Sees":  Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.  This can be seen, if not in the various ancient Church histories available, at least in the Canons of the earlier Ecumenical Councils.

Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council, for example, lays out the foundations of the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch (though the term "Patriarch" did not come into use, I think, until the time of Justinian I in the 6th century):

  Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that
  the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the
  like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and
  the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And
  this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop
  without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared
  that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three
  bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common
  suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the
  ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.1

The phrase "Let the ancient customs prevail" indicates that the organization indicated had existed for quite some time up to that point.

Canon VII of the same Council delineated the authority of the Bishop of Jerusalem:

  Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of
  Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due
  dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.2

The place of the last of the five was firmly established at the 2nd Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (381), in Canon III:

  The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of
  honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.3

That is not to say, however, that the eastern Sees did not see themselves as somehow distinct from the See of Rome, which encompassed geographically an enormous area of non-Christian pagans at the time of the earlier Councils.  (I have heard it said that at the time of the 1st Ecumenical Council there were about 1,800 bishops in the eastern Sees and only 1,000 bishops within the See of Rome.)  Canon V of the 2nd Ecumenical Council refers, for example, to the "Westerns", meaning "Western bishops":

  In regard to the tome of the Western [Bishops], we receive those in
  Antioch [i.e. the Synod of 378] also who confess the unity of the
  Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.4

So perhaps the best direct answer to the question, What terms did the Roman and Greek sides of the church use of each other, would be "Easterns" and "Westerns", or perhaps "Eastern Church" and "Western Church".

Although the schism of 1054 is best known, it should be noted perhaps that there were many "mini Schisms" among the five Sees during the first millennium in which one or more sided with Rome against Constantinople.  One good example might be the Monothelite controversy of the 7th century, during which both Rome and Jerusalem objected to an innovation led within the See of Constantinople regarding the relationship of the divine and human wills of Christ.  Pope Martin, who anathematized those following the doctrine, was eventually arrested by the eastern Emperor, brought to Constantinople, tortured (along with the Byzantine martyr Maximus the Confessor), and eventually exiled to the Crimea, where he was starved to death by barbarians. (The Patriarch of Jerusalem escaped persecution due to the dubious fortune of being under siege by Muslims).  It might be interesting to note that in the Synaxarion of the Eastern Orthodox monastery of Simonas Petra on Mt. Athos, the "Catholic" Pope Martin is referred to as a "pillar of Orthodoxy".

The "Great Schism" was primarily a schism between the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople, who mutually anathematized each other.  Subsequent to the Schism, however, the remaining three Sees elected to remain in communion with Constantinople rather than Rome.  Much of this may have been due to the divergence between the Latin west and Greek east that developed subsequent to the ascension of Charlemagne.  Metropolitan Kallistos Ware gives a concise overview of how this occurred in his book, The Orthodox Church:

  [In the century following the Apostles], the unity of the
  Mediterranean world gradually disappeared.  The political unity was
  the first to go.  From the end of the third century the Empire, while
  still theoretically one, was usually divided into two parts, an
  eastern and a western, each under its own Emperor.  Constantine
  furthered the process of separation by founding a second imperial
  capital in the east, alongside Old Rome in Italy.  Then came the
  barbarian invasions at the start of the fifth century: apart from
  Italy, much of which remained within the Empire for some time longer,
  the west was carved up among barbarian chiefs.  The Byzantines never
  forgot the ideals of Rome under Augustus and Trajan, and still
  regarded the Empire as in theory universal; but Justinian [I] was the
  last Emperor who seriously attempted to bridge the gulf between theory
  and fact, and his conquests in the west were soon abandoned.  The
  political unity of the Greek east and west was destroyed by the
  barbarian invasions, and never permanently restored.5

Metropolitan Kallistos goes on to describe other historical factors leading up to the schism, including:

Slav and Avar invasions of the Balkan peninsula in the late 6th and 7th centuries, creating a geographical barrier between Constantinople and Rome
The passage of the Mediterranean into largely Muslim control
The interim schism between Rome and Constantinople during the Iconoclast controversy in the 8th century, during which Rome took the "Orthodox" position in the matter and which led in part to Rome turning to the Franks for political and military support
The installation of Charlemagne as Emperor in the west, which was not recognized by the Byzantines.

Regarding the use of the terms "Orthodox" and "Catholic", the terms were used by both western and eastern Church Fathers to refer to the entirety of the Church - east and west.  The writings of Popes Leo the Great and Gregory the Great frequently make use of the term "orthodox" (e.g. "He has marked certain places as heretical which are catholicly expressed and entirely orthodox" - Gregory the Great, Epistle XIV6).  As an eastern example, Athanasius the Great, of Alexandria, refers to the "Catholic Church" in describing the deposition of Arius:

  Although you have already subscribed to the letter I addressed to
  Arius and his fellows, exhorting them to renounce his impiety, and to
  submit themselves to the sound Catholic Faith, and have shewn your
  right-mindedness and agreement in the doctrines of the Catholic Church7

I am not aware of a single instance nor could I find - at least in those writings preserved in the Nicene Fathers series -  any case prior to the Schism where Rome exclusively was referred to as "Catholic" and the eastern Sees (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) as "Orthodox".

1. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 14
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. p.44-45
6. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 12
7. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 4


What happens when a Protestant doesn't tithe? I heard in another question that some Protestants have to tithe. That is, they must give one-tenth of their salary, or more broadly, a specific amount or percentage. That seems a bit strange to me, since I've never had to tithe. I'm not saying it's a bad practice (after all, there was a time at which God ordained it). I just don't really have any proper conception of how it works among Protestants.

Are tithing Protestants supposed to submit proof of their salary? What happens if they don't meet the mark? Are they said to sin, and if so, how serious is the sin? Are they barred from entering their parish? Does the pastor frown at them or is some other form of social pressure applied? Are they asked to come in for a meeting to explain their financial circumstances? How does it work?

No Protestant churches that I know of ever require members to submit proof that they are tithing (though there certainly may be some).  Tithing is generally considered to be something that the members ought to do, but is between them and God.

This may flow out of the doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers.  Each person is directly accountable to God for his life and actions.

In 2 Corinthians 9:7 (as David Morton mentioned in his answer), the Scriptures teach us how to give:

  Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver  2 Corinthians 9:7

A key part of this is the phrase not reluctantly or under compulsion.  If someone is put under compulsion to give, but his heart is not in it, his giving is not considered to be a righteous act or a good deed in God's eyes.


Why does Jesus refer to serpents positively in Matthew 10:16? It seems that most places in the bible where serpents are referred to they are a reference to Satan/the devil. Yet in Matthew 10:16 Christ says

  "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (KJV)

Why does Christ ask us to derive inspiration of wisdom from something that typically represents the devil? I am confused and find this to be a bit contradictory.

The Bible has many metaphors for many things. Some of them use the same item in two different contexts in two different ways. Immediately, I can think of Christ's use of the word "sign" and how he would and would not provide one (John has seven signs which demonstrate Christ as Lord, but the Synoptics say that signs will not be given). The asp was something deadly and was a sign of wickedness, but when it was raised on a staff, it became a instrument of healing.

I think that "serpent" here is probably just a snake.


What common dog species were the ancient Jews familiar with? The Bible tends to put dogs in a negative light, which may be appropriate: but I'm wondering if dogs of Bible times existed differently than our highly trained obedient breeds of our time.

Revelation 22:15

2 Kings 8:13

Matthew 15:27

Some dogs of our day actually perform some duties of a shepherd, being highly bred and refined. They are amazingly loyal and have a lot of empathy that most animals lack. In many ways they can be superior to sheep in domestic qualities (I'm not a sheep-herder, so I speculate).

So I ask a question based on the bible settings:

Were the dogs of biblical civilizations more wild or different than our highly refined ones of our day?

The only thing remaining in terms of the symbolism of the animal is it's extreme unclean habits.

What dog breeds and species (even non-domestic) were common among the Jews between the time of the exodus (which would include the Egyptian dogs) and the Christian era, where the 'little dogs' are seen in a positive light. What did a dog mean to an ancient Jew or ancient Christian?

Today, as well as in ancient times, it depends on where you are.

A grave example is Romania. Under Ceaucescu the country underwent a forced industrialization that resulted in people flooding the cities. To make room they tore down houses and built high-rises. But as apartments (generally) was small etc. dogs were left on the streets where they was left to breed. Today it is close to an epidemic.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/attack-prompts-romania-to-euthanize-unwanted-stray-dogs-a-922103.html
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Romania-Is-Dog-Hell-2801741.php

There are also a lot of other places around the world that has similar issues. Wild dogs, and half-wild etc. are generally sick ridden, full of flees, can be really dangerous, etc.

From what I have read one had the same issues back in the day. Dogs roamed around outside (and surely inside) the cities. (They licked the wounds of Lazarus.)

And let's face it. Dogs are scavengers as well as predators. There are even several passages where dogs eat the flesh of man.

They also kept domesticated dogs as we for example read in Job (one of the oldest books):

  Job 30:1: But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock. (sheepdogs.)

In Mark we are presented with a verse that tells us dogs were also allowed in house (pets?):

  Mark 7:28: And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.

Dogs are lovely animals, but they can surely also be grim. Especially dogs that are not domesticated living from trash, carcasses, etc. There is also a reason we have expressions like dog-fights etc.

Even today it is common to use dogs as a way of low word. Bitch and "dog of a man".

Update

Actually the word dog in GT has (mostly?) the strongs definition:

3611 keleb keh'-leb
from an unused root means. to yelp, or else to attack; a dog;
hence (by euphemism) a male prostitute:--dog.

Not the most positive one.

At the same time the Hebrew word for dog is "kelev" and from what I have read Caleb (with Moses) actually comes from "dog". We know Caleb was faithful, has a big heart etc. but if this has any linkage is pure speculation on my part. The 16th century rabbi Maharal wrote that a dog is called "kelev" in Hebrew as it comes from "“k’lev," which means "like the heart" ... ;)

The first passage I can find is Exodus 11:7

  But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the Lord doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

As such it is worth mentioning Egypt. Dogs was wholly for the Egyptians and the Abuwtiyuw is one of the earliest documented domesticated animals we know of. It is believed to have been a guard dog. There are also paintings like this one:

Generally dogs were used both as guard dogs, hunting dogs etc. in Egypt.

Find it difficult to say anything concrete about how dogs was used beyond as sheepdogs and (perhaps) some kind of house dog, but the verses about "throwing meat to the dogs" indicate that they might had dogs around beyond sheepdogs. If so the case of giving them unclean meat would also mean they acted like disposal animals. If not they would have had to get rid of unclean meat by other means.

Even though the word "dog" often are used in a negative setting the overall treatment of animals is very strict in the Bible. One shall treat them with respect and work animals are to be allowed to rest on Sabbath etc. In general: respect for the creation.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.jewfaq.org/animals.htm

Small addendum. Not that much on species. Have not found any good source on that topic, but came across this paper while searching that I guess you find interesting:

Geoffrey David Miller, Attitudes toward Dogs in Ancient Israel: A reassessment

The article also list quite a few resources that might shed some light on the topic of species.


Are Anabaptists' re-baptisms really conditional baptisms? Are Anabaptists' re-baptisms really conditional baptisms? By "conditional baptism" I mean one whose formula is something like: "If you are not baptized, I baptize thee… etc."

In other words: Do Anabaptists really accept two valid baptisms per person, or are their re-baptisms conditional on whether the first one validly occurred or not?

If so, does this tradition continue among any of the traditions descended from Anabaptist roots?

No, they are not.

Present day Anabaptist baptisms are not phrased in any way conditionally. Nor are they considered 'rebaptisms'. Conditional baptism is used only when there is uncertainty about whether someone has been baptised before or not. This is extremely rare in Anabaptist circles, because in their view valid baptism can only be performed on someone of an age to understand it. A person almost always knows whether they have been baptised as an adult. (It's more common with a denomination that admits infant baptism, because someone might have been baptised when they are too young to remember).


Where can I find Patristic Commentary on the Golden Calf incident? Is there any extant pre-Schism (i.e. Before 1054 AD, when the Eastern and Western chueches anathematized each other) commentary on the golden calf incident of Exodus 32:1--6, and if so, where?

The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ANF) volumes are all freely available online, along with many other Patristics. I got over 300 hits with a search for "golden calf." and found several notable quotes. Keep in mind that the Fathers often allegorized/spiritualized scripture while discussing living for/in Christ. You can also study the passage and select works that reference it.

  During the Roman period and long after, the golden calf episode was a source of embarrassment to the Jews in their relations with the increasingly aggressive Church, which fully exploited the story in its polemics with the Synagogue. Even Josephus, who was concerned only with pagan antisemitism, was evidently afraid that the biblical account might be employed by Alexandrian antisemites to lend credence to their allegation that the Jews worshiped an ass's head in the Temple (cf. Apion 2:80, 114, 120; Tacitus, Histories 5:4). Josephus accordingly omits the entire golden calf episode from his account of the Israelite migrations in the desert. Instead, he graphically depicts the deep anxiety of the Israelites concerning Moses and their joy when at last he came down from Mount Sinai (Ant. 3:95–99). Not only did Moses not break the tablets, but he actually displayed them to the rejoicing people (3:101–2). Josephus also omits any reference to Aaron, and the same is true of Philo who does not, however, completely suppress the golden calf narrative (Mos. 2:161–74, 271).

  As early as the immediate post-crucifixion era, Stephen, the first Christian martyr, sharply denounced the Jews (but not Aaron who was held in veneration by the Church) for having made the golden calf, which became the fountain-head of Jewish crimes throughout their history, culminating in the crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 7:41–52). For the Church the golden calf episode served as proof that the divine covenant with Israel had never been consummated, so that the Jewish claim to a special relationship with the Almighty was unacceptable (see Smolar in bibl., p. 91). By worshiping the golden calf, the Jews had revealed their foolish, stubborn, unrepentant, and immoral character (ibid., 100). Augustine also associated the calf cult with the worship of the devil, and the Jews who had drunk the water into which the powder of the golden calf had been cast with the body of the devil (ibid., 100–1). The medieval identification of the Jew with the devil was no doubt influenced by this extreme patristic interpretation (ibid., 101, n. 12). Source

You might also find this article interesting. I apologize for the hurried and scattered response, I am very busy this evening but wanted to point you in the right direction.


In the Latin Catholic Church, would clerics administer the last rites if the sick person's illness is contagious and deadly? In the Latin Catholic Church, would clerics administer the last rites if the sick person's illness is contagious and deadly?

Diseases can be deadly and can spread by water, air, and/or bodily fluids. How would the last rites be modified to allow them to be performed while keeping the clerics safe from disease?

In short, the answer is “yes,” if that is at all possible.

By “last rites” is usually meant the administration of the Sacraments to the dying: namely, the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession), the Annointing of the Sick, and the Eucharist, commonly called the Viaticum (the “food for the journey”). (Evidently, Reconciliation and the Eucharist are given only if the patient is conscious and still capable of receiving food or drink.) Have a look at http://www.ibreviary.com/m2/preghiere.php?tipo=Rito&id=229&b=1 for a short form of these rites.

In reality, none of these sacraments poses a significant risk to the priest who administers them, no more than it does for the doctors and nurses who take care of the patients.

In an extreme case, such as with Ebola, the priest would be expected to take the same precautions as the doctors and nurses (such as full body suits, disinfection, and so on).

Note that only the Annointing of the Sick actually involves bodily contact—it entails an annointing of the hands and forehead—and it could be done with appropriate protection, such as gloves, if that were necessary. (See the Code of Canon Law 1000§2. Confession involves no bodily contact at all, and the Eucharist could be given to the patient with gloves, using an instrument, or in a receptacle that could be purified and sterlized afterwards. Any gloves or other clothing that come in contact with the sacred oil or the Eucharist would have to be disposed of reverently, most likely by burning.)