How has the ontological argument been used to explain the Trinity? The basis of an ontological argument is the existence of an idea of a great God, of whom none greater can be imagined.

However, we've heard many times that the human mind cannot comprehend the Trinity.

Have any trinitarian theologians expanded the ontological argument for God's existence to argue for God's existence as a Trinity?

Based on your comments, I understand that you are interested if any sort of ontological arguments  have been made for the existence of God in a Trinity; and not whether "The Ontological Argument" - usually assumed to mean the medieval argument of Anselm of Canterbury for the existence of God - has been used to prove that God exists in a Trinity.

Oxford dictionaries defines ontology as "the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being".  An argument comprises a series of premises intended to support one or more stated conclusions.

With these definitions in mind, an argument for the existence of God as Trinity that perhaps comes the closest to being ontological is that made by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware in his book, The Orthodox Way, where he claims that God's existence as Trinity logically follows from God's nature as being personal and being love.  "Both these notions," explains Met. Kallistos, "imply sharing and reciprocity":

  First, a “person” is not at all the same as an “individual”. Isolated,
  self-dependent, none of us is an authentic person but merely an
  individual, a bare unit as recorded in the census. Egocentricity is
  the death of true personhood. Each becomes a real person only through
  entering into relation with other persons, through living for them and
  in them. There can be no man, so it has been rightly said, until there
  are at least two men in communication.  The same is true,
  secondly, of love. Love cannot exist in isolation, but presupposes the
  other. Self-love is the negation of love. As Charles Williams shows to
  such devastating effect in his novel Descent into Hell, self-love is
  hell; for, carried to its ultimate conclusion, self-love signifies the
  end of all joy and all meaning. Hell is not other people; hell is
  myself, cut off from others in self-centeredness.

  (Kindle Locations 408-414)

"God is far better than the best we know in ourselves," he continues:

  If the most precious element in our human life is the relationship of
  “I and Thou”, then we cannot but ascribe this same relationship, in
  some sense, to the eternal being of God himself. And that is precisely
  what the doctrine of the Holy Trinity means. At the very heart of the
  divine life, from all eternity God knows himself as “I and Thou” in a
  threefold way, and he rejoices continually in this knowledge. All,
  then, that is implied in our limited understanding of the human person
  and of human love, this we affirm also of God the Trinity, while
  adding that in him these things mean infinitely more than we can ever
  imagine.

  (Kindle Locations 415-419)

I think Met. Kallistos makes a good philosophical argument for why God must exist in more than one person, but I am not sure we can close the argument that He exists in a Trinity from ontology alone.  Why, for example, could God not be a Duality or a Quadrinity?  He goes on to write that "the Trinity is not a philosophical theory but the living God whom we worship; and so there comes a point in our approach to the Trinity must give place to wordless prayer."  Other knowledge we have of the Trinity comes from truth that has been revealed to us, and is probably not something that we could induce or deduce.


Meaning of the expression "I cling to cross of Christ" What is meaning of the expression «I cling to cross of Christ»? (1) In the context of this expression, what does the act of clinging mean? Was it an expression or something similar used by early Christians?

Notes

For example, a fragment of the hymn Rock of Ages says:

  Simply to Thy cross I cling;

The type of clinging referred to is one in which the subject does not trust their footing to bear their own weight, but depends on the object to which they cleave to support it. It is a metaphor for trusting in the atoning work of the cross for salvation and standing with God, and completing repudiating any sense of merit in one's own character or works. It is an expression of sola fide which Protestants believe to be consistent with the views of early Christians in general and Pauline soteriology in particular. Although this particular phrase was most likely popularized post-Reformation, there is a sense of it's meaning in St Thomas a' Kempis's De Imitatione Christi:

In cruce salus, in cruce vita.
tr: In the cross is salvation, in the cross is life.


Why is Satan called the prince of the power of the air? And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Ephesians 2:1-3)

My understanding is that the apostle Paul is referring to Satan by "prince of the power of the air". Why would he be called that?

I would simply add to Mawia's anwer that the expression "the air" is a way of identifying the evil, sentient beings in the spiritual realm; namely, Satan and his minions, or demons.

The Hebrews believed in, and wrote about, three heavens, and in English we would call them "the firmament," "space," and "the home of God" (or "the highest heaven," as in "God resides in heaven," or "God is enthroned in heaven"; see Isaiah 6:1-7).

Interestingly, the New Testament phrase "in the heavenlies" (or "in the heavenly realms") describes the believers' position or standing IN Christ.  We are seated in the heavenlies with Him by faith at the right hand of God (see Hebrews 8:1; 12:2).  Positionally--that is, in a judicial sense--believers in the eyes of God are IN Christ (see Ephesians 1:3,20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12; and 2 Corinthians 5:17).

By contrast, Satan and his demonic forces, referred to variously in the New Testament as principalities, powers, rulers, authorities, world forces of darkness, and spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places (see Ro 8:38; Eph 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:15; 1 Pet 3:22) occupy, in a sense, the first heaven, although we see the evidence of their work vey clearly on earth, in and through people and perhaps even through some acts of nature (which we sometimes, perhaps mistakenly, call "acts of God"!).

This evidence takes many forms, and not just in obvious ways such as violence, wars, genocide, widespread injustice, and sexual immorality, but also in not-so-obvious ways, as in godless ideologies and worldviews, corrupt and repressive governments, and much more.

Fallen humankind has its own role in the creation and maintenance of wickedness, too.  We cannot claim as comedian Flip Wilson did years ago, "The devil made [us] do it"!  There is an expression "to be in league with the devil," which encapsulates quite well how both Satan (or the devil) and humankind each assumes a degree of culpability, though Satan assumes more, since he instigated the rebellion against God and exerts more influence than we do within the spiritual realm (see Matthew 18:7). Although Satan is a powerful enemy, we are not to fear him (2 Timothy 1:7; 1 John 4:4). We are also to resist him and even on occasions rebuke him in the name of Jesus (see 1 Pe 5:8,9; Jas 4:7; Jude 9).

Moreover, Satan is well organized and systematic in his assault on anything and everything God calls good.  Aided by a hierarchy of demons under his control, the hallmarks of his cosmos--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life (1 John 2:16)--are evident in every society and culture in the world:  from the blatant consumerism and materialism of the minority world, to the oppressive political and religious regimes in the majority world, the latter of which are manifested in atheistic communism and radical Islam, for example.

Satan is alive and well on planet Earth.  He is organized; his army of demons and unclean spirits is well staffed and well trained, with unwavering loyalty to their "prince; and his mission is clear:  to kill, to steal, and to destroy anything and everything that God has made or is in the process of building, including the universal church of His Son and of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (John 10:10).

Empowered both by Jesus' victory on the cross and by the Holy Spirit's empowering and channeling of the unwavering loyalty of God's ever-expanding family on earth, Satan is a defeated foe (see John 10:10; 1 John 3:8; and Revelation 12:10-12).

In conclusion, we thank God that Satan was dealt a death blow at the cross of Christ, which freed God to "wrap things up" by bringing history as we know it to a close in a way that is consistent with His eternal plan, the counsel of His will, and His holy, righteous, and just character.  In so doing, God will eradicate completely Satan's strongholds in the world and then usher in a new heaven and a new earth where righteousness will reign supreme, where sin will never again intrude, and where Satan will never again spoil what God has called good (see Revelation 20:10 and 21:1).


How do Baptists interpret the summoning of Samuel by the medium of Endor? Considering that Baptists generally believe that the soul of a faithful servant of God is immediately united with God upon death, how does the Baptist Church interpret 1 Samuel 28:8:

  8 So Saul disguised himself and put on other garments and went, he and two men with him. And they came to the woman by night. And he said, "Divine for me by a spirit and bring up for me whomever I shall name to you."
  9 The woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off the mediums and the necromancers from the land. Why then are you laying a trap for my life to bring about my death?"
  10 But Saul swore to her by the LORD, "As the LORD lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing."
  11 Then the woman said, "Whom shall I bring up for you?" He said, "Bring up Samuel for me."
  12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice. And the woman said to Saul, "Why have you deceived me? You are Saul."
  13 The king said to her, "Do not be afraid. What do you see?" And the woman said to Saul, "I see a god coming up out of the earth."
  14 He said to her, "What is his appearance?" And she said, "An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped in a robe." And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and paid homage. - 1 Samuel 28:8-14 ESV

From a Baptist perspective, was the medium actually summoning Samuel?  If so, was he summoned back from a heavenly dwelling?

  Then Samuel said to Saul, "Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?" Saul answered, "I am in great distress, for the Philistines are warring against me, and God has turned away from me and answers me no more, either by prophets or by dreams. Therefore I have summoned you to tell me what I shall do." - 1 Samuel 28:15 ESV

This question is almost impossible to answer, as stated. As Baptists (by definition) have no unifying system of doctrine, the denomination as a whole has not made any kind of statement about how they deal with particular items, with the notable exception of baptism. That is to say, you'd have to ask each Baptist individual to find out what they believe.

That being said, there are other denominations which believe similarly (that the faithful are immediately united with God upon death) and DO have a unified system of doctrine that you might be able to query.

Some focus on Samuel's words "brought me up" to argue that he was not "coming down from" Heaven, but was "coming up from" Sheol (they argue that Sheol was a common holding place for the general dead and part of Jesus' purpose in "descending into Hell" was to bring the faithful our of Sheol and into Heaven, to bring them into the reward they had anticipated in the longed-for Messiah). Consequently, Samuel wasn't removed from God's presence, but merely from Sheol.

Others (who believe that the faithful have always gone to Heaven) argue that Endor's surprise was because the summoning was genuine, implying that she was a charlatan, and that God performed a unique miracle in this one case. She didn't expect it to work, and was shocked when it did. In which case, there doesn't seem to be any difficulty in claiming that God miraculously a genuine apparition of Samuel to Saul for this one purpose. They focus on Samuel's words "why have you disturbed me" to imply that wherever he was, was a place of peace and rest from which he could be disturbed, which can be said of neither Hell, nor Sheol, nor Purgatory.

There are still others who make a distinction between Abraham's Bosom and Heaven, as well as between Sheol and Hell. They claim that Abraham's Bosom was like a pre-Heaven, and Sheol was like a pre-Hell, and that when Christ died those two passed away and were replaced by Heaven and Hell respectively. I don't understand enough about this idea to say much more, but it is out there.

John Calvin wrote in his commentary that it was Satan who was pretending to be Samuel. I find this difficult to reconcile with the prophetic truth of Samuel's words, so I'm inclined to believe that it was either genuinely Samuel, or it was an angel who Saul mistook for Samuel (note that he never claimed to be Samuel).


What can be deduced from the Gospel of John about prayer? I´m looking for resources for a seminar paper about prayer in the Gospel of John. Unlike other gospels, it does not use the words proseuche or proseuchomai. It contains no explicit instructions on prayer (like Matthew 6 does). But the Jesus of John does pray and also seems to refer to prayers of the disciples (like in John 14:13). I do not look for resources on the contents of prayers of Jesus, there are plenty of those. I am interested in the notion and understanding of prayer in the Johannine tradition, in how prayer can be understood based on the Gospel of John. If any resources on that come to your mind, I would be grateful for suggestions. Thanks!

I found a few studies on Jesus's prayers in the Gospel of John, especially about the Farewell Discourse (John 14-17).

2020 Journal Paper by Scott Lewis Adams Prayer in Johannine perspective : an analysis of prayer in the Farewell Discourse and 1 John.
From the Abstract:

... This work seeks to analyse ... the prayer passages located within the Farewell Discourse (14:12–14; 15:7–8, 16; 16:23) and 1 John (3:21–22; 5:14–18). This article begins by exploring how the Farewell Discourse prescribes prayer as the means by which greater works will be performed and much fruit produced in Jesus’s physical absence. Then attention is given to demonstrating that the author of 1 John, dissatisfied with the prayer tradition in the Farewell Discourse, provides a nuanced account that focuses on how confidence in prayer relates to real-life, ethical scenarios within the community he addresses (3:11–24; 5:14–17). Finally, this article concludes by arguing that the discussion of prayer in 1 John 5:14–17 is more concerned with the preservation of the believing community than its numerical growth. Attention will be given to analysing the prerequisites, privileges and purposes of prayer in both documents in order to provide a more complete, nuanced profile of Johannine prayer. ...

From the Conclusion:

In this brief analysis, I have sought to compare select prayer passages in the FD with those in 1 John for the purpose of offering a more complete, nuanced profile of Johannine prayer. While the Fourth Gospel contains five instances of Jesus praying to the Father, I have narrowly focused on the prayer passages in John 14–16, discussing their relationship to prayer in 1 John 3 and 5. Following Von Wahlde, I have argued that it is possible that the author of 1 John was not satisfied with the prayer tradition of the FD and therefore sought to provide an expanded, nuanced account concerning the conditions and outcomes of prayer. Notwithstanding, both documents highlight the assurance one can have in prayer—whether one prays for the numerical growth of the community or its ethical and confessional fidelity—and they do so in a complementary but differently nuanced manner. Whereas John 14:1, 12–14 and 15:1–7 put forward belief in Jesus, the efficacy of his name and abiding in him as the grounds of one’s assurance in prayer, 1 John embeds the topic of prayer in real-life, ethical scenarios that illustrate how such existential confidence in prayer is achieved. Obedience is not the ground of one’s confidence in prayer, but is rather the fruit of one’s union with Jesus, which is made possible by his atoning sacrifice. But the one who abides in the sphere of love will bear the fruit of love as he imitates Jesus’s character. While confidence in prayer is implied in John 14:13–14 and 15:7, it is explicitly stated in 1 John 3:21–22 by the author’s usage of παρρησία. Hence, the FD and 1 John employ slightly different vocabulary, but envisage the same optimistic outcomes for prayer. As far as 1 John is concerned, one can pray confidently for a brother (or sister) who is committing a sin that does not lead to death. While the nature of such sinning is not specified, the author of 1 John clearly indicates that the believer’s prayer is the means by which a brother (or sister) is restored to life.

2020 Book by the same author, Scott Lewis Adams, Prayer in John's Farewell Discourse: An Exegetical Investigation.
From a review:

... Adams surveys the practice of prayer in Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Christian contexts before turning to the Gospel. His analysis of John 14-16 demonstrates the importance of locating prayer in a 'relational space, ' i.e., prayer in Jesus' name. Adams establishes connections between prayer and important Johannine themes, especially friendship, knowledge, fruit-bearing, and frankness, and shows how these themes are rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures. ...

A 2018 Book by D.A. Carson: Farewell Discourse and Final Prayer of Jesus: An Evangelical Exposition of John 14 - 17 (Excerpt containing TOC and Prologue here).  From the back cover:

What can we learn from Jesus's final teachings before he went to the cross?
In this illuminating study of John 14-17, D. A. Carson unpacks Jesus's message to his disciples after the Last Supper, in which Jesus proclaims the coming of the Holy Spirit. Carson explains Jesus's teaching on the coming and the work of the Holy Spirit, as well as his commandment to love one another. He also offers insight into the high priestly prayer, in which Jesus prays for himself, for his followers, and, ultimately, for us.

A 2004 paper by Dorothy Lee In the Spirit of Truth: Worship and Prayer in the Gospel of John and the Early Fathers.
From the Abstract:

The Gospel of John had a powerful impact on the early Church
not only in its theological understanding of God but in its conviction of the centrality of worship. In the Fourth Gospel, worship is made possible through the Spirit who gives birth to believers, making them children of God and participants in Jesus’ own filiation. The Johannine Jesus, through the Spirit, becomes both the locus and object of worship, the source of worship as well as the true worshipper. This understanding is the ultimate source of the Nicene Creed’s assertion that all three Persons of the Trinity are to be ‘worshipped and glorified’.

From the Conclusion:

It would be anachronistic to employ uncritically the language of later
centuries to describe John’s theological reflections on worship and prayer.
Yet from the second century onwards, the language of liturgy, apologetics
and credal formulation in the early Church upheld the biblical witness to
the oneness yet plurality of the God revealed in Jesus. These centuries owe
perhaps more to the Gospel of John than any other New Testament theologian
(with the possible exception of Paul). In a forum such as this, honouring
the scholarly work of Eric Osborn, it is permissible to move freely
across canonical boundaries to the biblical and theological reflection of the early Church. Professor Osborn’s work, spanning several decades, interprets the writers of the second century in particular within such a biblical and theological framework. In one sense, therefore, we are free to speak of the Fourth Gospel as trinitarian in its understanding of worship,⁷² a Gospel that in any case “stresses the unity of three persons”,⁷³ even if the distinctions are not as fine or lucid as they become at Nicæa. In different ways, John’s Gospel expresses the unity and reciprocity of Father and Son who are the object of the believing community’s worship.⁷⁴
Yet the Nicene Creed declares that the Church worships and glorifies
all three Persons of the Trinity. The mutuality within the Johannine Father-
Son relationship includes, by extension, the “Spirit of truth” who in the
absence of Jesus leads the believing community “into all truth” (16:13). It
is through the Spirit, êllon parãklhton (“another Paraclete”, 14:16), operative in the life and death of Jesus, that human beings are empowered
and directed to offer authentic worship to the Father. The Spirit shares
with Jesus the task of both convicting the world of sin and revealing the
truth, thus making present the indwelling of God. True worship is possible
only in the power of the Spirit who gives birth to believers, making
them children of God, participants in Jesus’ own filiation. As revealed to
the receptive Samaritan woman, Jesus is the locus and object of worship,
the source of worship and the true worshipper, the bridge between heaven
and earth,⁷⁵ the one whose search for true worshippers is the expression
of the Father’s love and longing. Worship and prayer are to be offered
through Jesus but also, since he is the visible manifestation of God, to him.⁷⁶ In his flesh the worship he embodies is the symbolic enactment of both self-offering and mutual glorification, the source—through the abiding presence of the Spirit-Paraclete—of the believing community’s life and worship.


If humans are now genetically tainted by corruption, what was perfection like? I have frequently heard the argument that various human frailties, such as dying of old age, are the result of corruption after the original sin; less frequently, but often enough to get my attention, I hear the extended lifespans in Genesis were a result of reduced corruption.

If I take this literally, though, I end up puzzled by what this perfection could have looked like.

For example, if there were no diseases or parasites before sin, then we wouldn't really have needed immune systems.  However, our immune system is impressively complex, including specialized organs that randomly shuffle the genes in immune cells until they make antibodies that accurately recognize invaders (so they can be destroyed).  However, if there were diseases and parasites but we were supposed to be perfectly immune, our immune system's design cannot do the job: all the machinery devoted to random shuffling necessarily requires time, during which we are sick.

As another example, cancer always eventually kills everyone if they escape every other malady.  There is no way to escape this fate because potassium, which is an essential element, is also occasionally radioactive; this radioactivity damages our DNA, which eventually will cause enough mutations to make cells misbehave and become cancerous.

How should we think about the initial state of perfection, given the physical barriers to it, and the sophistication of our bodies in dealing with imperfection?

Genesis 1 never calls humans or human bodies "perfect", it does near the end of the chapter call all of creation "very good." We also have no indication from scripture about increasing amounts of genetic imperfections as humanity survived though the ages, so that might infer that we are trying to read into the scripture something it never set out for or was intended to answer, namely what human perfection was like (because it never existed in anyone except Jesus, who also died) and genetics (the bible was written in times when people had no concept for it).


What rationale do KJV-1611-Only give for not recognizing the apocryphal books of that version? For the first 274 years of the KJV (including most notably the 1611 version) the KJV included the apocryphal books. So if the 1611 version is inspired why don't the Protestant KJV-1611-Only crowd consider them canonical?

Interesting question (which gets an up-vote from me), and although I am not a “King James Version Only” Protestant, I was curious enough to go looking for a possible answer.  Here is part of what I found...

King James (VI of Scotland and I of England) authorised his translation in 1604 and it was completed in 1611, 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). In the preface to the 1611 edition, the translators of the Authorized Version, or King James Version, state that is was not their purpose “to make a new translation . . . but to make a good one better.”

While many people claim that the 1611 KJV is the only “true” translation, rarely are they actually in possession of the 1611 Authorized Version of the KJV.  Rather, they have the more readable 1769 Oxford version.  This version does not contain the Apocrypha.

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors.  However, it seems that the Apocrypha included in the 1611 version came from a different source:

  “Although the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text), the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.  In 1769, the Oxford edition, which excluded the Apocrypha, became the standard text and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/King-James-Version-KJV.html

It is worth noting that not all of the books of the Apocrypha are included in Catholic Bibles and that it was not until the Council of Trent in the mid-1500’s that they were officially added.  Here is a brief extract from an article on this subject:

  ”The books of the Apocrypha include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees, as well as additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. Not all of these books are included in Catholic Bibles.  The Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid 1500’s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

Two possible reasons, then, why the KJV Only movement may reject the Apocrypha even though it was included in the original 1611 version:

First, they may not be attributed to Erasmus and the Textus Receptus.    Second, it wasn’t until the mid-1500’s that the Roman Catholic Church officially added the Apocrypha to the canon.

However, since I am not a KJV Only advocate, I can’t speak for them.  All I can do is present some background information that may have a bearing on your question.


Which people in the Bible are antichrists? Mormons have the view that antichrist refers to anyone who lives to deny/replace Christ. Korihor, Sherem, and Nehor are examples from the Book of Mormon; are there specific people from the Bible?

I got this question after reading this related question, where the idea that antichrist refers to "The Antichrist" (specifically one of the beasts in Revelation) is debated. Looks like the Bible (1st John 2:22) says antichrist just means someone who denies Christ. I like to be able to recognize antichist teachings, and I'm grateful the Book of Mormon points out prevalent ones in our day. I think the bible and book of mormon support each other, so again my question is specifically who has been an antichrist in the Bible? any specific examples? Specifically an answer from either Mormon doctrine or just what the Bible says.

I'm thinking Cain, and his idea that he didn't have to be his brother's keeper.

I think the only antichrist specifically identified from the bible is Lucifer, the great antichrist, as is mentioned in the link you've provided.

You're right about Cain though, it is mentioned in the scriptures (Pearl of Great Price) that he loved Satan more than God (see Moses 5:13,18). This by definition makes him an antichrist.

The link you provided lists all of the references in the standard works to all the other individuals who were specifically identified as antichrists.

I imagine there could be more that fit the definition, but to my knowledge no one has yet put the work into identifying them all. I will speculate however that it could be debated that one other person who could be considered an antichrist is Judas Iscariot (see Luke 22:3). Judas is often regarded as a son of perdition, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest he was also an antichrist.


Why wasn't Solomon's polygamy sinful? I know that Solomon was a king, but why doesn't the Bible describe his polygamy as sinful? Was he allowed to commit sins others could not because he was a king? I thought God showed no partiality.

Although the narrator in Kings and Chronicles may not say so, Deuteronomy does say it was a sin, in Deuteronomy 17:15-17

  [15] you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God
  chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you;
  you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. [16] But
  he shall not multiply horses for himself, nor cause the people to
  return to Egypt to multiply horses, for the Lord has said to you, ‘You
  shall not return that way again.’ [17] Neither shall he multiply wives
  for himself, lest his heart turn away; nor shall he greatly multiply
  silver and gold for himself. (NKJV)

Solomon broke all these provisions, multiplying horses, wives, and gold and silver.

  All King Solomon’s drinking vessels were gold, and all the vessels of the House of the Forest of Lebanon were pure gold. Not one was silver, for this was accounted as nothing in the days of Solomon.  (1 Kings 10:21 NKJV)

Accounted as nothing because he had so much of it.


Can orthodox Trinitarians say, "God died on the cross"? In the council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) the question of whether or not Jesus' mother Mary should be referred to as the "Mother of God" or the "Mother of Christ" was debated. On the orthodox (Mother of God) side, they argued that Jesus' two natures were undivided in his person. On the Nestorian (mother of Christ) side they argued that Mary gave birth to the human nature of Jesus specifically and so it would be misleading to talk about her as the mother of God.

In neither case did they believe that Jesus was not God and in neither case did they believe that God derived his eternal existence from Mary. It was essentially a roundabout way to talk about the hypostatic union and the relationship of Christ's two natures to his person.

In light of this dispute, I wonder what an orthodox subscriber to the Council of Ephesus would say about the statement, "God died on the cross." Jesus is God and he did, in fact, die on the cross. Yet something feels off about it like it is suggesting something that happened to the other persons of the Trinity, rather than Jesus only.

Can we say God died? Just as much as we can say God was born and called God with us...

The Nestorian Heresy
The Nestorian heresy did not only amount to "essentially a roundabout way to talk about the hypostatic union and the relationship of Christ's two natures to his person," but rather, as the Council in question itself stated, divided Jesus Christ into two persons, not only two natures (God; man) united in the one divine Person. This is an inescapable conclusion of the misplaced concern about calling Mary 'Mother of God.'
When Elizabeth said that Mary was mother of her "Lord," (Lk 1:43) regardless of whether she understood lord or Lord, only persons are lords. Therefore, since the Word was made flesh, since the Word is this Lord, she is the mother of God. Unless we deny that "the Word was God."
It's that simple.
As Constantinople II said,

The holy synod of Ephesus… has pronounced sentence against the heresy of Nestorius… and all those who might later ... adopt the same opinions as he held ... They express these falsehoods against the true dogmas of the Church, offering worship to two Sons, trying to divide that which cannot be divided, and introducing to both heaven and earth the offense of worship of man. But the sacred band of heavenly spirits worship along with us only one Lord Jesus Christ.
—Second Council of Constantinople, Sentence against the Three Chapters of Nestorius, A.D. 553, sect. 9

The first two canons of Ephesus I, I think, capture the essence of the Nestorian heresy quite well, because their truth, in contradistinction to the heresy of Nestorius, is so obvious and incontravertable (emphasis mine):

Canon I. If anyone does not confess that God is truly Immanuel, and that consequently the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (inasmuch as according to the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh), let him be anathema.
Canon II. If anyone does not confess that the Word of God the Father is united, by bond of [His] Person, to flesh—so that Christ, being one with his own flesh, is thus at once both God and man—let him be anathema.

It's crystal clear:

"The Word [is] God" (Jn 1:1)
"The Word was made flesh" (Jn 1:14) in Mary (Gal 4:4; Lk 1:35)
Therefore Mary, mother of the Word who is God, is the mother of God (Lk 1:43)

Mothers give birth to persons, not 'whats.' Else we claim that 'sons' are things and not people—who would dare to say this of God's Son (Gal 4:4)?
Implications of the Orthodox Position
This means that the one Person, the Word, or Son, or Jesus Christ—the same Person with two natures—can be said to have proper to Him both that which is proper to men and that which is proper to God.
In other words, what is said of Christ can be said of either His divine or human nature, but always as belonging directly to the same, one, divine Person (to whom these two natures belong).
Thus Scripture can say (1 Cor 2:8) of those who crucified Jesus, that if they knew of the secret of God's plan:

..they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory

Or more strikingly, Jesus Himself can say (Rev 1:17-18):

Do not fear. I am the First and the Last, and the Living One: and I was before dead, and behold: I live forever ...

Or again, if Jesus, Mary's Son, were not at all times God, it would be false for Him to claim something like:

John 8:58 Jesus said to them, Amen, Amen I say to you: before Abraham was born, I am.
John 17:5 And now Father, glorify me, with yourself, with that glory I had with you before the world was.

And of course everyone is aware that Jesus thirsted and ate, whereas in His divine nature, He has no need of such: His human nature, which is real and not fake, did.

People can claim the Father or the Holy Spirit died on the cross when they become incarnate like the Word did!
Until then, the Word is God and He became flesh and died for us. Not the Father. Not the Holy Spirit.
It's worrying, theologically, if one thinks that each Person of the Trinity is not fully God without being the other Persons, as was suggested. The Trinity isn't a group of Gods. It is the one God. Such is to deny the Trinity. The Word became flesh, not the Father, or the Spirit, yet the Word wasn't 'not God because He isn't the Trinity.' He was "God." And thus the mother He chose is the Mother of God whether it's comfortable or not.


Are there any atheists in the Bible? Do any people in the Bible self identify as atheists?

Or are they all theists, differing in which god they follow?

Apparently at least some atheists existed, since David had heard of them:

  The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1.

Not exactly the answer you are looking for, but Paul clearly understands humanity to be functionally atheistic, if not in practice. From Romans 1:

  18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
   24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

In practice, to be a-theistic in the ancient world was to invite destruction upon the whole community. In Rome, in particular, for example, legally they didn't care which god you worshipped, as long as you worshipped one. I don't have the quote handy, but I remember David Bell in Many Mansions making the case that atheism was like "poor hygenie or a public health hazard," meaning that impiety would invite needless retribution from someone, so if everybody was worshipping what they thought, at the least the "true gods," would forgive them.


Who pays for Protestant seminary education for aspiring ministers? Not a tough question, just something I never knew or understood about Protestantism.  I'm a Catholic, and in my diocese post-baccalaureate seminary education is subsidized by collections taken.  It's one of the largest places we put our money.  I've heard that if you don't make it to the priesthood in seminary that you've got to pay back the expense of your education, but if you do, then it's all paid for (which makes sense because priestly vows more or less prohibit other means of paying it back).

But for Protestants, this doesn't seem to be the case and I'd like to know how an average pastor manages to pay off his or her debt.  I was surprised when a friend of mine told me that his pastor was fresh out of college, with just a bachelors degree, but it would seem to make a bit more sense to preach your way through graduate school, if you need to go to it at all since tuition has been crazy expensive for the last couple of decades.

If "Protestant" is too broad for this question, I can limit it to protestants similar to non-Evangelical Lutherans.

In Baptist circles, seminary is just like college for secular students. The student pays for his or her own tuition.  (O.K. for Pastors in conservative Baptist Churches I may as well just say "his own tuition".)

As an example... In my neck of the woods, most Baptist pastors-to-be attend Maranatha Bible College.  their tuition and costs page is found here, explaining what a student needs to know.

And just like secular schools, there are scholarship and financial aid options available.


Where in the Bible does Jesus refute that He is just a prophet? Unlike Christianity, other Abrahamic religions say that Jesus was only a great Prophet. Christians belief, however, is deeply rooted in Bible, where there are many references supporting the Divinity of Jesus and there are already many answers on this site quoting these verses from Bible about Jesus’ Divinity.

I am not particularly interested in the verses concerning Jesus' Divinity. I am more interested in the verses where Jesus refutes the claim that He is just a prophet.  Where in the Bible does Jesus refute that He is just a prophet?

Many places Bible tells us contrastingly that Jesus is not just a prophet.

Matt. 11:9-11

  What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ “I tell you the truth, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.

Here we find Jesus giving the highest honour to John the Baptist and that John is more than a prophet. This would mean that Jesus makes Himself smaller than John, which cannot be. Since John was someone who was more than a prophet, it only shows that Jesus was not just a prophet or someone more than that BUT someone much greater than that.

Then again in Matt. 13.17 Jesus says:

Matt. 13:17

  For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

Here Jesus shows that He is greater than all the prophets and righteous man, who longed to see His day.

Another place Jesus seeks to know what His disciples' view of Himself and in the process acknowledges that  He is not just a prophet by giving His affirmation to what Peter says.

Matt. 16:13-17

  When Jesus came to the area of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” They answered, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!

As per writings of all the previous prophets, no prophets was prophesised to come from Galilee

John: 7:52

  They replied, “You aren’t from Galilee too, are you? Investigate carefully and you will see that no prophet comes from Galilee!”

In His conversation with Judeans, Jesus declares who He is:

John 8:53-58

  You aren’t greater than our father Abraham who died, are you? And the prophets died too! Who do you claim to be?” Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory is worthless. The one who glorifies me is my Father, about whom you people say, ‘He is our God.’ Yet you do not know him, but I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you. But I do know him, and I obey his teaching. Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” Then the Judeans replied, “You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”


Is there a biblical basis for God's omnipotence or have we mistaken 'symbolism'? 'Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."'

There are many quotes of this kind in the Bible- but how do we know the above (and others like it) aren't just hyperbole and descriptive? He might mean a 'great many' things. How do these quotes justify a belief that god truly can do anything He wishes?
Or does a belief in this version of God arise from elsewhere?

Answers will of necessity be in regard to the Translation quoted.

From the King James translation; There are several Scriptures which tell us that God is Omnipotent, Not the least of which is creation itself.

Then the first time God brought rain upon the Earth He caused a flood which Killed all life except Those animals he saved and those eight people aboard the Ark.

Beyond that we see God parting the red sea, for Israel, and drowning Pharaoh's Army in it.

God stopped the Rain for three years, at the behest of Elijah.

He also caused wood soaked with massive amounts of water to burn when he sent fire from Heaven.

He took Elijah to Heaven in a whirlwind as Elisha watched.

He caused Elisha's mule to talk.

He caused the sun to retreat 10 hours.

And that is a few of the passages covered in only in the Old Testament.

So let's look at Jesus in the New Testament.

  Matthew 9:6  But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

Jesus not only claimed to have the power of God but he also demonstrated it, in that passage.

  Matthew 28:18  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

In the above passage Jesus is telling us His power is given to him by the Father.

  Mark 14:62  And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Here Jesus is telling us that one day we will see him sitting next to the Father who is Power.

  Luke 1:35  And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Here we find the Angel Gabriel telling Mary that It is God's power that will cause her to become pregnant yet remain a virgin.

I could go on citing Scriptures from both the Old and New Testaments attesting to God's omnipotence, but either you believe that the Bible is true or you do not, but in answer as to whether there is Biblical backup for God's omnipotence the answer is a resounding yes!


History of the age restrictions in the Priesthood in the LDS Church In the LDS Church, some offices in the Priesthood have minimum age requirements:

A deacon must be at least 12 years old
A teacher must be at least 14 years old
A priest must be at least 16 years old
An elder must be at least 18 years old

I am wondering, what is the history of these age requirements?

Originally there was no age requirements mentioned when Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood on May 15, 1829.1 Doctrine and Covenants also do not mention a specific age.2 It was a custom early on in the church to generally only ordain adult males, only allowing a small number of youths, but there was no specific doctrine or regulation.4

The first age requirements came about in 1909. At the request of President Joseph F. Smith a General Priesthood Committee was organized in 1906 (which lasted until 1922) to prepare lesson outlines for the various quorums.

  The committee initially included Rudger Clawson and David O. Mckay of
  the Council of the twelve, plus Charles W. Nibley, Orrin P. Miller, and
  David A. Smith of the Presiding Bishopric. It was soon enlarged to nearly
  twenty members, half of whom brought with them valuable experience
  as general board member of the Sunday school, the YMMIA(Young Men's Mutual Improvement Association...eliminated 1974), and religion
  classes.

  ...

  But before appropriate lessons could be written for each quorum, the
  Committee found it necessary to establish age groupings for the lesser
  priesthood. After 1877 it had been customary in the Church for boys at age
  twelve to be ordained deacons. But standard age practices for ordaining
  teachers or priests, or for advancing young men through the priesthood
  were lacking. The Committee therefore suggested specific ages at which
  specific Aaronic Priesthood ordinations should occur. Bishops were then
  instructed by the Presiding Bishopric to advance boys when worthy,

    and unless there are special reasons to the contrary they should be advanced
    in the priesthood from deacon to teacher and from teacher to priest. There
    can be no set age when persons should be ordained to the various offices in
    the Aaronic Priesthood, but we suggest that as near as circumstances will permit
    boys be ordained as follows: Deacons at twelve, Teachers at fifteen and
    Priests at eighteen years of age.3

Further age changes can be seen through 1970 where they have remained unchanged to present.4

            Table 1
Changes in Age of Ordination, 1908-70

Year Deacon Teacher Priest Elder
1908   12     15      18    21
1925   12     15      17    20
1934   12     15      17    19
1953   12     15      17    20
1954   12     14      16    20
1960   12     14      16    19
1970   12     14      16    18

--EDIT--

A slight change in age requirements starting in January 2019. This will allow someone to be ordained potentially up to eleven months earlier than they would have normally been ordained.

  In addition, young men will be eligible for ordination to the appropriate priesthood office in January of the year they turn 12, 14, and 16.5

1 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1.68-73?lang=eng#p67 and https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/13?lang=eng

2 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/84 and https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107

3 The Priesthood Reform
Movement, 1908–1922
 https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/1889/download?token=iei-ow_X (pdf download)

4 From Men to Boys: LDS Aaronic Priesthood Offices, 1829-1996 https://www.jstor.org/stable/23287418 or https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=mormonhistory

5 https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedia/file/age-group-announcement-january-2019.pdf


How does one reconcile the idea that physical disability is the result of sin with Exodus 4:11? I believe that disability is a result of Adam and Chavva's sin.

Here's the logic behind my reasoning.

Adam and Chavva were not disabled according to scripture.
Adam and Chavva committed sin.
Disability occurred after their sin.
Therefore, disability was a result of the introduction of sin.

How does one reconcile the belief that disability is a result of sin, and sin affecting the world, with the following scripture (Exo. 4:11):

  And YHVH said to him, "Who made man's mouth? Or who makes the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, YHVH?"

In the post that you are referring to, it is possible that when the person says "disability is the sad result of sin in the world" they are referring to the perfect vs. post-perfect world in Genesis with Adam and Eve. God created Adam and Eve in His own image ( Genesis 1:27) and after the fall death entered the world through sin (Romans 5:12); therefore, physical disability must have come from sin eventually because sin entered through us all from Adam and Eve.

However, this might not be of what they were referring when they said "disability is the sad result of sin in the world." I do not think that disability is a direct result of your sin or the inherited sin of your fathers NECESSARILY. I will conclude with two points.

1 God does what He wants.

  For I know that the Lord is great,
      and that our Lord is above all gods.
  6 Whatever the Lord pleases, he does,
      in heaven and on earth,
      in the seas and all deeps.
  7 He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth,
      who makes lightnings for the rain
      and brings forth the wind from his storehouses. - Psalm 135:5-7

2 God is smarter than we are.

  For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
      neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord.
  9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
      so are my ways higher than your ways
      and my thoughts than your thoughts. - Isiah 55:8-9

That's why disability exists, plain and simple. Because God said it does. Because sometimes it brings Him Glory even if we can't see it.


Was anyone making a theological point by changing the ending of Jesus Christ Superstar? So, I'll admit, I love Andrew Lloyd Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar.  I've seen it many times, and I've often tried to compare the 1973 and 1999 versions.  Grant you, the acting is a heck of a lot less corny in the later version, but I'm struck by one major difference between the two.

In both versions, the climax of the film is Jesus being crucified.  The last words spoken in each are from Jesus, from the cross.  But after that, there's a huge difference.

In the 1973, let's film it in Israel version, the musical ends by the cast and crew getting in the bus, but all of them intently watching a sunrise.  A wordless song is played, but it is fairly easy to interpret this as an artistic decision to simply allow for the fact of the resurrection, but due to its ineffability, leaving the fact without comment.

In contrast, the 1999 remake affords no such reflection.  The cross is raised up, and the scene directly ends into the title and the credits.  While there is music, the ending is very definately at the last breath on the cross.

The question I have then is this - is there any record of the theology of the two producers that would validate this hypothesis? Are either Norman Jewison (1973 director), Gale Edwards (1999 remake director), or Andrew Lloyd Webber himself on record as having discussed the motivation behind this crucial change?

The original concept album (on which the stage and film versions are based) was deliberately ambiguous about whether Jesus was, in fact, anything other than a man. Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice came to the Gospel text with a humanistic premise.

"We approached the opera from the point of view of Christ the man, rather than Christ the God," Rice noted. "We had been well-coached in the mechanics of Christianity and its legends and beliefs. That was drummed into us at school. They treated the legends, so we decided to treat the bloke as a man. We read the gospels very carefully and that was it. What we did not read was eighty-three other people's interpretations of Christ because we didn't want to be affected by their views. We stuck to the text and our interpretation of what we think could have happened." [...] "We tried to humanize Christ, because, for me, I find Jesus as portrayed in the gospels as a God as a very unrealistic figure." 1
"We were basically trying to tell the story of Christ as a man," says Tim Rice. 2

Note that the title song Superstar, in which Judas questions Jesus about his actions and motives, was the first one to be written: the rest of the opera is built around it. That certainly comes through in the way that the two creators talk about the work - it's all about that central accusation.
Rice and Lloyd Webber could not agree about how to handle the resurrection:

Webber has been quoted as saying that he and Rice had arguments, "long arguments, in fact, about the basis of the opera and how it should be treated. We had to decide which events in the life of Jesus we were going to write about - and this was the most difficult area of all in which to find agreement. Eventually we chose the last seven days of His life. Even now, I don't go along with some of the things that Tim has written in the opera. The lyrics are extremely good for any composer to work with, but I don't necessarily agree with all of them. I would have liked to have included the resurrection, but it just wouldn't have been worthwhile. We disagree too much about it." 1

Accordingly, the ending of the opera was deliberately made to be open to multiple interpretations, which might be brought out differently in various stage or film versions. For example, regarding the 1971 Broadway production, Rice said:

"I think O'Horgan's production hints more strongly at the resurrection than the record does. The reaction of the crowd below [the cross] - going from hysteria to chaos to a beautiful sort of peace. O'Horgan is saying, 'This is not the end.'" 1

The fact that the stage version will invariably end with Jesus coming back for a curtain call - effectively a resurrection! - also changes the way in which the story is perceived, compared to a film adaptation.
For the 1973 film, director Norman Jewison broke with the two original creators, who had a different opinion about how the movie should be approached. The fact that his film does allow space for a resurrection may spring from his slightly different take on the original text, and the context in which it was made. His idea was to present the events on a human scale (no huge crowds), blurring temporal lines (neither modern dress nor period authenticity) so as to suggest parallels between attitudes then and now. He was also conscious of the possibility of religious offense, especially given that the picture was being filmed in Israel (actually at the same time as the massacre at the Munich Olympics) and previous versions of Superstar had been heavily criticized for anti-Semitism. All of this may lead to a slightly more sympathetic and open-ended view of the story, compared to the accusatory tone of the original libretto. 1
The Gale Edwards version (originally also a stage production in 1996) was made partly because Lloyd Webber himself was dissatisfied with the 1970s productions, and wanted to stage a show that was more true to his own image of what the opera text was about.3 By this time, he had a lot more clout than he did in the early 70s, when he was unable to stop the Broadway and film directors from doing their own thing. 1 Whereas the original album was a compromise between Lloyd Webber (agnostic) and Tim Rice (self-described as "slightly religious"), this version is a purer strain of Lloyd Webber. He is probably not making a particular theological point so much as a dramatic one, thinking the spectacle and the experience would be improved by presenting it in this way.3 A sudden stop is not necessarily saying that there is no more to the story, but it does perhaps startle the audience into thinking about it in a way that a tidier ending might not.
I did not find any direct reference from Jewison or Edwards about their artistic choices, but I do think that what they did was fairly subtle, within the range of interpretations supported by the ambiguous opera text. Essentially, being true to the original vision of what the opera is about means not coming down too firmly on one side or the other. That said, some productions - particularly those sponsored by churches - have added an explicit resurrection scene or song at the end, which certainly counts as making a theological point. 1
1. Rock Opera: the creation of Jesus Christ Superstar from record album to Broadway show and motion picture. Ellis Nassour and Richard Broderick. Hawthorn Books, 1973.
2. Life magazine. May 28, 1971.
3. Billboard magazine. Oct 19, 1996.


Are there any known Eastern Catholics who have received the stigmata? Just curious. I wonder whether there are any Eastern Catholics to whom God gave the grace of receiving the wounds of Christ (stigmata) or did only Latin Rite Catholics ever receive them? I know of Croatian priest Zlatko Sudac, but I think he's a Latin Rite Catholic too.

Are there any known Eastern Catholics who have received the stigmata?
There is at least one.
Saint Mariam Baouardy, known a in religion as Mary of Jesus Crucified. She is affectionately called by many as the Little Arab.

Mariam Baouardy was born on 5 January 1846 in Ibillin, a small village of Galilee, between Nazareth and Haifa, in a Greek-Melkite Catholic family. Before Mariam’s birth, her parents had seen twelve children die in infancy. In their deep sadness and confident in God, they had decided to make a pilgrimage to Bethlehem to pray at the manger and to ask for the grace of a daughter. Finally Mariam was born and one year later her brother Boulos arrived.
In 1865 she was in Marseille where she met the sisters of St Joseph of the Apparition. Although she was 19 years old, she looked only 12 or 13; she spoke very bad French and her health was also bad. But she was accepted into the noviciate and was very happy that she could finally give herself fully to the Lord. Always working hard, she spent most of her time in the kitchen or the laundry. But she relived every week the Passion of Jesus. She received the stigmata (but she was so simple that she believed it was an illness), and all kinds of extraordinary graces began to appear. Some sisters were quite disconcerted, and at the end of the two years of noviciate she was not admitted into the congregation. Eventually, she found her way to the Carmel of Pau, in south western France.
Mariam joined the Carmel of Pau in June 1867 and here she always found the love and understanding to sustain her in her sufferings. As a novice, she received the name of Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified. She asked to become a lay sister, because she wanted to serve others and also she had difficulties in reading the Divine Office. - St. Mary of Jesus Crucified

Although St. Mary of Jesus Crucified was of the Greek Melkite Catholic Rite, she made profession in the Carmelite Order within the Latin Rite because this Order did not exist within her Rite of origin. Nevertheless, she remained of Greek Melkite Rite all her life. Although she received the sacraments for the most part from priests of the Roman Rite, she never disowned her Eastern Catholic heritage and remained as such all her life.

An ecstasy and the first appearance of the stigmata
Her fellow sisters were always amused by her broken French, but they were most impressed by her remarkable virtues and piety. Fortuneately for Mariam, two women of great virtue were directing the Capelette at that time, the Superior General, Mother Emily Julien, and Mistress of novices, Mother Honorine Piques. They were excellent spiritual guides for Mariam and to their surprise they soon began to notice some strange phenomena in little Arab. The ecstasies of the church of St. Nicholas were multiplied, with some disturbing peculiarities. Thus it happened that in January 1866 - the postulant was twenty years of age - Mother Honorine came upon Mariam in the dormitory, prostrate, with her face to the floor and her left hand covered with blood. From Wednesday evening to Friday morning each week, to the ecstasies there soon was added another remarkable phenomenon, the stigmata.
The stigmata of the heart was the first to be manifested. She was twenty years of age, and it happened in August, 1866 at Marseille. She was praying in the chapel one evening, when, in the tabernacle she saw Jesus, who appeared to her with His five wounds and the crown of thorns. It seemed to her she saw coals of wrath in His hands. She heard Jesus say to His Mother prostrate at His feet: "Oh, how My Father is offended!" The little postulant then sprang toward Jesus, she put her hand on the wound of His Heart, exclaiming: "My God, give me, please, all these sufferings, but have mercy on sinners." Coming out of the ecstasy, she saw her hand covered with blood, and she experienced a severe pain in her left side: the latter would bleed every Friday.
On March 27, 1867, the other stigmata appeared. The privileged one of the Crucified confided to the mistress of novices: "It seemed to me that I was gathering roses to decorate Mary´s altar: these roses appeared to have thorns on both sides, and the thorns were thrust in my hands and into my feet. When I came to myself, my mouth was very bitter, my feet and hands swollen: in the middle of my hands and on my feet there were black bumps." The following day, Thursday, the sufferings continued to increase until Friday. It was the Feast of the five wounds of Christ. In the morning, about ten o'clock, the black scabs fell off, the crown of thorns appeared on her forehead, blood flowed from her head and feet. The prodigy was renewed during the months of April and the first two weeks of May. It ceased upon an order of the mistress of novices. This latter, in order to put an end to the rumors that were circulating in the community, asked the postulant to obtain from God that nothing would appear exteriorly. To the great joy of the stigmatist, the wounds closed and healed up.
Faced with such facts, Mother Honorine acted with as much prudence as understanding in regards to both the ecstasies and also the stigmata. Obedience being, in such cases, the litmus test of the Church, she thus forbade Mariam to have ecstasies during the day and in the presence of the religious. Even during the night she was not to get up, and she was not to attract attention. Mariam obeyed, and God, Whom loves obedience, seconded and approved of her actions . The Mistress of novices, seeing that she was dealing with a person extraordinarily fashioned by the Holy Spirit, asked the child to relate for her what she remembered of her childhood and adolescence. Everything was put in writing. One copy would later be sent to the Carmel of Pau with this note of Mother Honorine, "I am sending you copy of what I myself have gathered together from what she related to me, not without much resistance, but complying solely through obedience. She asked of me the greatest secrecy which I have guarded until this day... I have omitted everything I did not entirely understand, because of the difficulty this dear child experienced in explaining herself in French."
Mother Honorine fell ill, and was replaced in the novitiate by Mother Veronica. This religious was to hold a large place in the life and heart of Mariam. She was English and a convert from Anglicanism. After seventeen years of religious life with the Sisters of St. Joseph, she was later to enter the Carmel of Pau with Mariam, and it was in her arms that “the little Arab” would die, at the Carmel of Bethlehem. Mariam, had foretold that, contrary to all expectations, Sister Veronica would become mistress of novices at the Capelette. She held this office for one month, until the reception of the Indult permitting her to enter Carmel. And it was at Mother Veronica’s wish that Mariam`s stigmata disappeared at Marseille, and in accordance with Mariam’s prophecy at that time, the stigmata would not reappear until the following Lent, at Pau. - Saint Mariam Baouardy (St. Mariam of Jesus Crucified) -The Lily of Palestine

The cause of canonization started on 18 May 1927 and would culminate with the decree of heroic virtue on 27 November 1981. Baouardy was beatified by Pope John Paul II on 13 November 1983 and was canonized on 17 May 2015 by Pope Francis. She became the second Greek Catholic to be canonized a saint of the Catholic Church. Her feast day is August 26 and she is the parron saint of peace in the Holy Land.

Saint Mariam of Jesus Crucified
We all have favourite saints and St Mary of Jesus Crucified is my favourite saint.


Is it possible (intellectually honest) to 'contextualise' the 'anti-divorce' passages, but not the 'anti-homosexual' ones? (Disclaimer: This is an honest question, I'm not trying to be inflammatory. Also I confess to not having done a great deal of research on this one)

I'm not familiar with the positions of all denominations on the matter, but generally it seems that those who allow remarriage after divorce treat the "clear word of the Lord" with some measure of 'contextualisation/reinterpretation'.

I don't know all of the arguments involved, but I wonder if they aren't the same, or similar, to the ones advanced in defence of skirting the 'plain meaning' of texts condemning homosexuality.

Obviously, the for/against arguments in both cases are extensive, so I'm not asking for a comprehensive review of them: I just want to know if there is a substantive difference in the 'techniques' used to justify both.

In short, I don't believe there is a plausible way to reinterpret divorce regulations without opening the gate to reinterpreting homosexuality in similar fashion. This point is not lost on all prominent evangelical leaders (e.g., Albert Mohler, John Piper, Tim Keller, John Frame, etc.), even if it seems lost on some (the old school Moral Majority, perhaps). There's not total hypocrisy on this front, though it sometimes seems that way.

Divorce (and hence remarriage after divorce) and homosexuality, according to the evangelicals I have in mind, are both outside of God's desired plan, though not out of his sovereign will. The difference is that the law regulates divorce, permitting it due to our hardness of heart, but not approving of it. The same cannot be said of homosexuality, according to any historico-grammatical exegesis that I am aware of. It is always and everywhere forbidden. There's at least a little more wiggle room in divorce regulation.

Incidentally, I asked a related question that, alas, got deleted: Have any denominations modeled their positions on gay marriage after OT regulatory structures? That is, have any denominations applied the hermeneutic they apply to slavery, polygamy, and divorce -- each of which we could characterize as suboptimal but regulatable rather than being proscribed outright -- to homosexuality. I don't have an answer to that question, which is why I asked it, but I thought it would be a potentially interesting approach to consider.


What is Catholic Church's view on capital punishment? Human rights activists in many countries where capital punishment is in vogue, have been advocating repeal of the punishment stating inter alia that that only God is empowered to take a human life. I wish to know what the Catholic Church's official views – both for and against – on capital punishment especially in the form of a deterrent against prospective criminals, are.

The Catholic Church does not forbid capital punishment.

See the section on the 5th Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") of the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

  Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord. (Ps. 100:8).

See also:

By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment by Edward Feser & Joseph Bessette (2017)


Who Were Mark and Luke? From Luke 6:13–16 (NIV):

  When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of
  them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter),
  his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew,
  Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas
  son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

John and Matthew were included, but the remaining two authors of the Gospel – Mark and Luke – were not.  Why is this, and how did they come to know Jesus so closely as to later write his Gospel?

Historically, Mark is seen as one of Peter's disciples.  The historian Papias in the 2nd Century refers to him as such.  Likewise, the evidence in the narrative, for example, indicates that Peter was a significant source for most of the material, and most theologians accept Mark as "Peter's" Gospel.  Also, its seeming indication that the Temple is still standing marks it as an early Gospel.

Luke was Paul's travelling companion.  From very early on, this is what the church has taught. Luke and Acts were clearly written by the same individual (See Acts 1), and Luke is the traditional author.


Why did Mary and Joseph look for an inn? Luke 2:7 says:

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

This implies that they first looked for an inn (maybe a guest room). I can understand the significance of the Christ child being born into humble circumstances, but why would an expectant couple seek an inn?
And really, would an inn have given them more privacy (which the account clearly shows is something Joseph wanted for Mary)? Joseph and Mary must have known the prophecy that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, so I doubt the birth was a surprise while they were there.
The only other instance of inn in the KJV New Testament is Luke 10:34, the parable of the good Samaritan:

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

In this case, the host provided care to the person (in return for payment). If innkeepers sometimes provided care to their guests, was it common for women to give birth in inns?

Perhaps, it seems that you might think there were other options available to them. There simply were not.

In those times, and until very recently actually, women birthed their children at home (or where ever they were comfortable (ie. by the river, a relative's home, etc.)). Also, the idea and treatment of pregnancy and birthing as a medical condition is very modern and very western.

Women also didn't really have the choice to go to the hospital. Most cities worldwide did not even have them! And Bethlehem was a little backyard town.

So Mary and Joseph had only a few options really:

Relative's or friend's home
Inn
Wilderness

The first two were apparently unavailable and the third seems less comfortable and safe than the manger.

Source:

The History of Hospitals
"The shift to hospital births started in the 20th century."
"At the time, Bethlehem’s population was between five and six hundred people." (Not a bad size for an ancient town, but certainly not big enough to spend the resources for a hospital)
AiG makes the claim that Jesus was born in a peasant's home, which looked a lot like today's barns.


What Scripture passages do Latter-day Saints use to refute the Trinity? If I am not mistaken (but do correct me if I am), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings, i.e. three separate Gods. What Scripture passages do Latter-day Saints use to refute the “three persons in one God” view of trinitarianism?

Joseph Smith History 1:17

  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

In this event, God the Father appeared as one individual introducing Jesus Christ as another separate being. There is no mention of the Holy Ghost but we can be sure he is there. (2 distinct individuals + Holy Ghost)

The Church’s first Article of Faith is:

  “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.”

(3 distinct individuals)

Acts 7:55

  But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Holy Ghost within Stephen, Jesus Standing next to God. (3 distinct individuals)

Matthew 3:13-17

  Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
  But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
  And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
  And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
  And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Jesus Christ in the River Jordan, Heavenly Father's voice from Heaven, Holy Ghost descends as a dove (3 distinct individuals)

Other Resources:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/03/comparing-lds-beliefs-with-first-century-christianity?lang=eng

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/godhead


What is the justification for reciting creeds in public worship according to the regulative principle? Some churches which hold to the regulative principle of worship (RPW) insist that recitation of creeds or portions of confessions or catechisms by the congregation is an important act in the public worship of God. Other churches who hold that principle do not consider such recitation lawful. Given that the principle has a "guilty until proven innocent" structure, how do those who hold to the principle and believe in confessional recitation demonstrate that God requires confessional recitation (since that is the condition demanded by that principle)?

Note: this question is about a disagreement among those who hold to the RPW. I'm not interested in this question in hearing about why the RPW is wrong, or why confessional recitation ought to be done in some other worship paradigm. Please refrain from answering unless you understand the RPW.

Those who hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship and recite creeds in public worship typically base this practice on two types of biblical evidence:

Biblical commands to confess one's faith
New Testament evidence that creeds were used liturgically in the apostolic age

Biblical commands to confess
Proponents of reciting creeds often point to biblical passages that teach that God's people are to confess their faith publicly and together.  Some of the passages cited along these lines include:

the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. [1 Timothy 6:12]1
that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. [Romans 15:6]2

Other cited passages, perhaps less obviously related, include 1 Corinthians 1:10, 1 Peter 3:21, and Hebrews 13:15.1,2 To some, these passages and others like them are sufficient evidence to justify the corporate use of creeds in worship.  Others, however, emphasize more indirect New Testament evidence.
Evidence for creeds in apostolic liturgies
Many Reformed thinkers find evidence for the apostolic practice of reciting creeds in worship.  The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, for example, writes:

1 Timothy 3:16 leaves the impression that creeds were uttered in the worship of the early Church.3

That verse is often rendered as poetry in English bibles, reflecting its rhythmic meter:

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness:
  He was manifested in the flesh,
     vindicated by the Spirit,
        seen by angels,
  proclaimed among the nations,
     believed on in the world,
        taken up in glory. [ESV]

Robert Rayburn points to several other passages in his defense of creeds:

Whether creedal statements of liturgical origin and usage can likewise be detected in the New Testament is probable, though less certain (cf. 1 Cor. 12:3). The Shema was in use as a liturgical creed in the synagogue by the time of the New Testament. In any case, psalms which functioned as confessions of faith (e.g. 33; 97; 136) provide biblical justification for the liturgical use of creeds.4

1 Corinthians 12:3 is also cited as evidence for the use of creeds in the apostolic church by J. N. D. Kelly, though he did not subscribe to the Regulative Principle:

no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit. [ESV]

He furthermore argues that passages like 1 Corinthians 15:3–7, Romans 1:3–5, Romans 8:34, 2 Timothy 2:8, and 1 Peter 3:18–22 are examples of "apostolic kerygma," that is, summaries of apostolic teaching used for teaching, preaching, and confessing.5
"The most impressive example," he says, is Philippians 2:6–11, a creedal statement that was "almost certainly an ancient Christian hymn, probably of Palestinian derivation, which was already arranged in rhythmic strophes by the time it fell into St. Paul's hands."  Similarly, behind 1 Timothy 6:13–15 he sees "a formal confession of belief" associated with "doctrinal preparation for baptism."5
Another scholar, Jerome H. Neyrey, summarizes the scholarship on worship in the early church:

[David] Aune, following Delling, Cullmann, and Martin, identifies a variety of activities that fall under the genus "worship": (1) prayers, creeds and confessions, doxologies, hymns, songs, and psalms; (2) prophecy [...]; (3) sermons and homilies; and (4) public reading of Scripture.6 [emphasis added]

Summary
Of course, proponents of the RPW and the recitation of creeds also point to the practical value of creeds. Some, attempting to locate this practice in the Westminster Standards, categorize them as "oaths," as shown in another answer.  But for RPW advocates, the primary defenses of this practice are found in the biblical commands to confess one's faith and the New Testament evidence that creeds made up a part of the apostolic liturgy.

References:

Edmund Clowney, "Presbyterian Worship," in Worship: Adoration and Action, D. A. Carson, ed., 117.  Quoted (approvingly) in D. A. Carson, Worship by the Book, 48.  Clowney cites three verses that command confession, and one that is evidence of the use of creeds in the apostolic church.
"A Plea for Creeds," British Reformed Journal, No. 21, 1998. (WebCite)
"The Doxology, Gloria Patri and the Regulative Principle of Worship." (WebCite)
Robert S. Rayburn, "Biblical and Pastoral Basis for Creeds and Confessions," in The Practice of Confessional Subscription (1995). (WebCite)
Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 15–23.
Neyrey, Give God the Glory, 170.


What is Martin Luther's approach to liturgical services in light of Paul Tillich? This article has a line that reads:

  We would call Luther's approach an evangelical-catholic one.

It cites Paul Tillich's use of "catholic substance" or "protestant principle". Can someone briefly summarize this concept in regards to Luther's approach to conducting liturgies or ceremonial worship? In what ways did Luther criticize the Roman Mass?

Is it trying to talk about Luther's protestant principle in regards to the catholic substance of the Catholic church during Luther's time?

I realize that the following resource may be helpful.

  Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther's Reformation. By Jaroslav Pelikan.

  Dr. Pelikan both deepens our understanding of the Lutheran Reformation
  and contributes greatly to modern ecumenical dialogue. He describes
  "Catholic substance" as ". . . the body of tradition, liturgy, dogma,
  and churchmanship developed chiefly by the ancient church and embodied
  (but not exhausted) for Luther in the Roman Catholic Church of his
  day." "Protestant Principle" is understood as "the criticism and
  reconstruction of this Catholic substance . . . carried out in the
  name of the Christian gospel and with the authority of the Bible." For
  this union of "Catholic Substance" and "Protestant Principle" resulted
  the Protestant Reformation.

I think the answer can be found in the article you have linked.

On Page 129 for example, there's a description of how Luther broke up the unity of the eucharistic prayer:

  Luther's recension of the Canon of the Mass is more controversial.
  How much Luther can be held responsible for  breaking up the unity of
  the eucharistic prayer and how much  late medieval additions had
  already destroyed its unity is  debatable. Luther admitted there were
  sacrificial aspects of the  Eucharist. However, he judges Roman
  Catholicism's stress on  the Eucharist as "a good work we offer to God"
  to be totally wrong. In his Treatise on the New Testament, Luther
  states: "It  is not we who offer Christ, but Christ who offers us. . .
  . We  offer ourselves as a sacrifice along with Christ . . . he takes
  up  our cause . . . and offers himself for us in heaven. . . . We
  offer  our whole selves, our need, praise and thanks in Christ and
  through Christ; and thereby (through faith) we offer Christ to  God,
  that is, we move Christ and give him occasion to offer  himself for us
  and to offer us with himself." Because it was offered silently,
  Luther could omit most of the Canon of the Mass without upsetting the
  people.

The rest of the paragraph you've quoted from page 127 I think gives us further context:

  We would call Luther's approach an evangelical-catholic one. He
  believes that unless God should provide a  better liturgy, the Church
  must stick as closely as is  evangelically possible to the liturgies
  of its past. Worship can and must express some continuity with the
  Church of the past,  since the Gospel had never completely vanished
  from it. In  short, Luther always remained closer to Rome than to the
  more  radical reformers who wanted to discard the historic church:
  "Sooner than mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with  the pope
  that there is only blood."

Luther wanted to return the church to the way he believed it existed anciently. His greatest criticism of Catholic mass was obviously the way it had changed from the Church of the past, which is largely contained in his famous 95 theses.

In short, Luther preached the way he believed the Church of the past practiced. He took the tradition, liturgy, dogma, etc, of the Church (catholic substance)  criticized it (95 theses) and reconstructed it (protestant principle) then preached his reconstructions, which he believed to be what the Church preached anciently.


Perfect relationship between Trinity and other relationships in heaven - Catholic My question can sound like a question out of blue, but I am going to ask it anyway.

We can come up with many different descriptions of so called "perfect relationship", but for Christians the best example of perfect relationship (or the most "ideal" relationship) would be the relationship within the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

Will every relationship that takes place in heaven (which includes heavenly relationship between God's creations, for example, a relationship between two heavenly human beings) as perfect and complete as the relationship of the Trinity?

On one hand, my logic says it is impossible for God's creatures to have such perfect and complete relationship with some other God's creation, since we as a finite and inferior being do not have capacity to receive love or to give love as much as our infinite God.
On the other hand, my logic says that because heaven is "the perfect" place, the strength of relationship/union that occurs throughout heavenly community should be equally perfect, powerful, and strong to the utmost extreme. If the heavenly relationship between God's creation are not as perfect and complete as that of the Trinity, that means unity in heaven is in a sense can be fragile.

Will every heavenly relationship (including relationship between a heavenly human and some other heavenly human) be as perfect and complete as the relationship that Trinity has? Please answer according to Catholic understanding.

Thank you,

In creatures, relations are extrinsic to the essence of the creature. For example, my essence* is humanness, but my relation to my father, mother, wife, friends, or even to God is not humanness; it's not my essence. However, in the Holy Trinity, the Divine Relations are the essence of God Himself. This is a consequence of the Trinity being supremely simple.
*Essence or quiddity is the answer to the question: "What is it?" ("Quid est?")
St. Thomas Aquinas writes, answering the question "Whether relation in God is the same as His essence?,"

…in God relation and essence do not differ from each other, but are one and the same.

cf. Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P.'s The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas ch. 5 "Relations" (p. 78 f.)
Thus, it is clear that since God is infinitely perfect, and He is His Trinitarian relations, these relations are infinitely perfect.
When we behold the Beatific Vision in heaven, we do not become God; we maintain our individuality. We will know God as perfectly as His grace enables us us know him,* but not as perfectly as He knows Himself.
*There are hierarchies in heaven; not all saints (i.e., those in heaven) are equally close to God. The Blessed Virgin Mother is closest in her relation to her Son.
St. Thomas Aquinas writes in his Compendium Theologiæ cap. 106 ("Fruition of Natural Desire in the Beatific Vision [in Heaven]"):

…the most perfect way of attaining likeness with God: to know God in the way He knows Himself, by His own essence.
Of course, we shall never comprehend Him as He comprehends Himself. This does not mean that we shall be unaware of some part of Him, for He has no parts. It means that we shall not know Him as perfectly as He can be known, since the capacity of our intellect for knowing cannot equal His truth, and so cannot exhaust His knowability. God’s knowability or truth is infinite, whereas our intellect is finite. But His intellect is infinite, just as His truth is; and so He alone knows Himself to the full extent that He is knowable; just as a person comprehends a demonstrable conclusion if he knows it through demonstration, but not if he knows it only in an imperfect way, on merely probable grounds.
This ultimate end of man we call beatitude. For a man’s happiness or beatitude consists in the vision whereby he sees God in His essence. Of course, man is far below God in the perfection of his beatitude. For God has this beatitude by His very nature, whereas man attains beatitude by being admitted to a share in the divine light, as we said in the previous chapter.

Also, the classic work on how there are hierarchies in heaven is Dionysius the Areopagite's On the Heavenly Hierarchy.


According to the LDS Church (Mormons), what role do secret handshakes and passwords play into a person's entrance into heaven? I have heard or read that in the Mormon Temple Ceremony, each person learns certain secret handshakes and passwords that are necessary for them to enter into heaven.  I've also heard that a woman has to enter through her husband.

My question is, according to LDS teaching, when does a person have to use the secret handshakes and passwords?  Are there different levels for different handshakes?  What if a person forgets them?  Do wives have to wait to enter heaven until their husbands die?  If a person later abandons the LDS church, can he still get into heaven, since he already knows the secrets?

I will risk an answer, though I too hold these things to be very sacred.  I will also offer this disclaimer:  This is my understanding, having been a life-long member of the LDS church.  If a lack of references and citations means this answer needs to be deleted, I fully understand.

  My question is, according to LDS teaching, when does a person have to use the secret handshakes and passwords? Are there different levels for different handshakes? What if a person forgets them?

Even though I am a devout member of the Latter-Day Saint church and fully believe its teachings and doctrines, I must admit that I have a difficult time understanding why an omnipotent God needs to have "angels who stand as sentinels" as if someone could sneak in. So my current level of understanding is less literal, and this is based on what I have been taught about the temple and in the temple.

Specifically (and here I might be digressing from your question.  I apologize), in the temple the ceremonies are highly symbolic.  The things we see, hear, say, and do are intended to help us learn by the Spirit what the Lord would have us know.  On the surface, each person in attendance has the same experience.  But the amazing thing about symbols is that each person will understand them differently.  The more we attend the temple and become familiar with the symbols used, the more easily we can quietly listen to the Spirit who brings into our minds and hearts different connections, insights, and understandings.  Sometimes these are in direct answers to prayers and concerns we've brought before the Lord.  Sometimes these are things we are now ready to learn.

Do we need to worry about remembering specific actions and words?  Maybe.  But I think it is much more likely that these things are symbols through which we can be taught and prepared for what the Lord has in store for us.

  Do wives have to wait to enter heaven until their husbands die?

As mentioned above, we believe that entrance to Heaven happens after the resurrection.  So wives and husbands get to go together.  If the symbolism in the temple is a literal precursor of future events, there is one point at which the husband goes first, but it is very much (in my mind) on the order of a husband carrying his bride across the threshold.  Another way to think of it is, in my culture, men will sometimes go first for the privilege of then extending a helping or loving hand to his beloved.  We hold the door for them, or we climb up the rock, and then offer a hand to her.  It is loving, kind and thoughtful.  How wonderful to enter Heaven together, being in love, holding hands.

Thanks for giving me the chance to express myself. I've never put down in words how I felt about these things.


What did the Early Christians Believe About the Trinity Before the Gospel of John? I think Christianity today is extremely Johannine, meaning very dependent on the teachings of the Gospel of John.
In my studies, I came across the fact that most Christian communities of the late first and early second centuries only had one gospel to listen to during meetings (not read, since few knew how to read).
This raised a problem for me, since without the Gospel of John, the rest of the gospels and the Pauline epistles are not sufficient to teach the Trinity.
Does this mean that the early Christians did not believe in the Trinity? I have been reading the other gospels and do not find the concept of Trinity being taught in them.

1) First to establish a date for the Gospel of John
Papyrus p52 puts the date in the first century.  The traditional date is in the 90's, but these is a tendency to date the Gospel in the 70's before the fall of Jerusalem, but after Peter's death.
Here is more evidence for the authenticity of the Gospel of John.  The two words for love in John 21:15 has long been debated.  The second word that Peter used is the verb whose noun form means friend.  Sometimes people bring up that Jesus most likely spoke these words in an Aramaic influenced Hebrew rather than Greek, followed by dismissing the difference.  However, Samuel Olyan wrote in Friendship in the Hebrew Bible:

Although the biblical text has no word for “friendship,” there are a number of words for “friend.” Most common is rēaʿ and related nouns such as rēʿâ, raʿyâ, rēʿeh, and mērēaʿ, each apparently derived either from a root r ʿ h or a root r ʿʿ, both meaning something like “to associate with” or “to affiliate with,” suggesting a voluntary dimension to friendship." (Olyan, S. M. (2017). Friendship in the Hebrew Bible. (J. J. Collins, Ed.) (p. 4). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.)

What is interesting about this root is one of it's homonyms means to feed sheep, and is the verb used to translate such in John 21:15 in the Syriac (Aramaic) Peshitta and Hebrew translations of the New Testament.  Thus, Jesus made a play on Peter's words.  This play on words is too striking to be coincidence.  Not only does it substantiate the authenticity of the account, but also the historicity of the resurrected Jesus.
Here's more evidence that Jesus uses play on wordsa:

... (Lk 16:11, my translation). This text exhibits a play on words in Aramaic, which was the language Jesus spoke at home. He says:

If you have not been amin [faithful]
in the unrighteous mammon [your material possessions]
the amuna [the truth]
who will ja’min ith kun [entrust to you].

The root amn, which appears in the word amen, is used here four times.
--
Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (p. 379). Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.

It was a tool to help his disciples remember.
2) Christian belief before the Gospel of John
Paul's letter to the Galatians and 1 Corinthians, as well as Acts 15, show that theology among the church was not well established in the first century.  In Galatian Paul struggled with those who taught Christians must keep the Law of Moses.  This was settled in the Jerusalem conference in Acts 15.  In 1 Corinthians Paul confronted divisions in the church at Corinth.  In 1 Corinthians 15 he dealt with Greek philosophy of the spirit being set free from the body at death creeping into the church so that they did not accept the bodily resurrection.
Many of the letters in the New Testament show the church's struggle for orthodoxy.
Part 1 established the authenticity of the teachings of Christ.  The early church believed the teachings of Christ.  There was variation of belief in the early church, but because John based his gospel strongly on the Christ's teachings, which he quoted extensively, there is no reason to believe the the Apostles and the core of the church didn't believe what John's gospel contains.