What was the dominant theory of atonement shown in the Apostolic Fathers's writings? Most articles I read about the theory of atonement in the early church say that Ransom Theory was the prevailing one, although some disagree.  This thinking was promoted by a landmark book on the topic: Christus Victor by Gustav Aulen (1879-1978).

When examining writings from a narrower period belonging to the Apostolic Fathers era (before Irenaeus) is there evidence one way or the other?

I think the clearest statement to explicitly deal with atonement would be this one from the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians:

  Through charity did the Lord join us unto himself; whilst, for the love that he bore towards us, our Lord Jesus Christ gave his own blood for us, by the will of God: his flesh for our flesh, his soul for our souls. [1 Clement, XLIX]

This notion is suggestive of a (not necessarily penal) substitutionary atonement ("join us unto himself", "his for ours"). I have not found anything else which addressed the issue with that kind of clarity, but there is a general tendency to consider Christ's death with reference to its efficacy in bringing life, forgiving sins, etc. Consider the Epistle of Barnabas, chapter VII:

  Understand then, my beloved children, that the good God hath before manifested all things unto us, that we might know to whom we ought always to give thanks and praise. If, therefore, the Son of God, who is the Lord of all, and shall come to judge both the quick and the dead, has suffered, that by his stripes we might live, let us believe that the Son of God could not have suffered but for us. But, being crucified, they gave him vinegar and gall to drink. Hear therefore, how the priests of the temple did foreshow this also: the Lord, by his command which was written, declared, that whosoever did not fast the appointed fast he should die the death: because he also was himself one day to offer up his body for our sins; so that the type of what was done in Isaac might be fulfilled, who was offered upon the altar.

He goes on to further consider a way Jesus could be typologically foreshadowed in the temple sacrificial system, and concludes:

  Wherefore you here again see a type of Jesus who was to suffer for us.

This focus on the the fact that the death of Christ is "for us" is perhaps very vaguely suggestive of a substitutionary atonement, but I wouldn't read too much into it, since after all, a Ransom or Victor theory is compatible with this kind of language, insofar as the benefits of Christ's death can indeed be considered to be "for" the Christian. For completeness though, we have the following:

  ... the root of the faith, which was preached from ancient times, remains firm in you to this day, and brings forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who suffered himself to be brought even to the death for our sins. [Polycarp, I]

  They abstain from the eucharist, and from the public offices, because they confess not the eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of his goodness, raised from the dead. [Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, VII]

  Let us, therefore, without ceasing, hold steadfastly to him who is our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, even Jesus Christ, "who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his
  mouth," but suffered all for us, that we might live through him. [Polycarp, VIII; quoting 1 Peter 2:24]

  For whereas you are subject to your Bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of Men, but according to Jesus Christ; who died for us, that for believing in his Death, you might escape Death. [Ignatius to the Trallians, II]

  He was also truly crucified by Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, being nailed for us in the flesh, by the fruits of which we are saved, even by the most blessed passion, that he might set up a token for all ages, through his resurrection, to all his holy and faithful servants, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, in one body of his church. Now all these things he suffered for us, that we might be saved. [Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, I-II]

  Let us look stedfastly to the blood of Christ, and see how precious his blood is in the sight of God; which, being shed for our salvation, has obtained the grace of repentance for all the world. [1 Clement, VII]

  Wherefore I exhort all of you that you obey the word of righteousness, and exercise all patience, which you have seen set forth before your eyes, not only in the blessed Ignatius, and Zozimus, and Rufus, but in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. Being confident of this, that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and are gone to the place that was due to them from the Lord, with whom also they suffered; for they loved not this present world, but him who died, and was raised again by God for us. [Polycarp, IX]

  All the ends of the world, and the kingdoms of it, will profit me nothing: I would rather die for Jesus Christ, than rule to the utmost ends of the earth. Him I seek who died for us; Him I desire who rose again for us. [Ignatius to the Romans, VI]

  Let us reverence our Lord Jesus Christ, whose blood was given for us; let us honour those who are set over us; let us respect the aged that are amongst us; and let us instruct the younger men in the discipline and fear of the Lord. [1 Clement, XXI]

On the other hand, there is this from the Epistle to Diognetus. Depending on when you date that document, it may or may not be before Iraneus. In it, there is a reference to Christ's Ransom:

  He hated us not, neither rejected us, nor bore us malice, but was long-suffering and patient, and in pity for us took upon Himself our sins, and Himself parted with His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy for the lawless, the guileless for the evil, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal. For what else but His righteousness would have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us lawless and ungodly men to have been justified, save only in the Son of God? O the sweet exchange, O the inscrutable creation, O the unexpected benefits; that the iniquity of many should be concealed in One Righteous Man, and the righteousness of One should justify many that are iniquitous! [Diognetus V]

Although the language of "ransom" is used, there is not a more developed notion of the ransom being paid to Satan characteristic of Origen's formulation, which is what we usually mean by "ransom theory". Instead, this is basically just in line with Matthew and Mark's notion of a ransom (Mark 10:45, Matthew 20:28), and there is considerable overlap between this idea and a subsitutionary atonement (the ransom-exchange being itself a kind of substitution.)

Conclusion

Unless I've missed something, there doesn't seem to be a focus of aspects of atonement that are not at least partially substitutionary. A discussion of Christ's victory or triumph seems to be absent.

Do bear in mind that Christus Victor atonement which Aulen advocates is rather distinct from ransom theory. The former emphasizes the conquering of death, and hence Christians' freedom. The latter has in view a kind of payment (usually to Satan), to retrieve Christians from Evil.

Also, note that subtitutionary atonement theories need not be penal. It doesn't seem like there's a notion of a penal substitution anywhere in these passages (that is, the idea that the cross served to appease the wrath of God on Christians' sin).


Who is being referred to in Isaiah 42:6? Today's first reading, Isaiah 42:1-4.6-7, contains the line:

"...I, the Lord, have called you to serve the cause of right;
I have taken you by the hand and formed you;
I have appointed you as covenant of the people and light of the nations..."

This wording is from the Jerusalem Bible, the translation used in the missal.

Is the speaker addressing and referring to Isaiah?  Did God make a covenant with Isaiah as light of the nations?  I'd have thought Jesus is the light of the nations. Yet the line in question can't be about Jesus since He is consubstantial with the Father and was not formed.  The title of the reading is: "Here is my servant in whom my soul delights" which clearly echoes today's gospel, Matthew 3:13-17 for the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord Year A.

I would be grateful for any insight into this.

First, a bit of context. Isaiah 40-55 was written during the Exile in Babylon, when the nation of Israel was in captivity. It was a period of profound re-imagination of God and of Israel's character and purpose. There are four purple passages in this portion of the book of Isaiah (often called Second Isaiah or Deutero-Isaiah):

Isaiah 42.1-7
Isaiah 49.1-6
Isaiah 50.4-9
Isaiah 52.13-53

They build up a picture of the servant, who suffers, is a light to the Gentiles, establishes justice, is a king, sustains the weary, trusts God, etc.

Precisely who this refers to is unclear. Does it refer to a specific king? (Some have suggested that it might refer to Zedekiah, or rather implausibly Uzziah.) Does it refer to the whole nation of Israel? Does it refer to a Messiah? Does it refer to a particular future king? Could it refer to King Cyrus of Persia, elsewhere in Deutero-Isaiah known as God's "anointed"?

It is impossible to know for certain, and in fact it isn't terribly important to know exactly what the author(s) of the text intended. The more important thing is that the prophecy of Deutero-Isaiah has been understood throughout the Christian tradition as prophetically pointing to Jesus.

For instance, the Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes the precise verse you mention in saying:

  In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but "upon the heart" of the Servant who becomes "a covenant to the people", because he will "faithfully bring forth justice".(CCC, §580)

The other servant songs are also cited:

  The Messiah's characteristics are revealed above all in the "Servant songs." These songs proclaim the meaning of Jesus' Passion and show how he will pour out the Holy Spirit to give life to the many: not as an outsider, but by embracing our "form as slave." Taking our death upon himself, he can communicate to us his own Spirit of life.(CCC, §713)

As to why it is the OT reading for today, the feast of the Baptism of the Lord... Well, you are quite right to pick up on the allusion to the verse in the Gospel passage. The words from Heaven are a combination of Psalm 2.7 and Isaiah 42.1 (especially clear when looking at the Septuagint version of these passages). It has traditionally been understood as demonstrating Jesus' identity as both King and Servant.


Different Lectionary Readings For Sundays According to The Episcopal Church, there are (for the most part) two sets of lectionary readings on a given Sunday. Ostensibly, one is for observance of The Daily Office and the other is for The Holy Eucharist.

Why is this so?

The traditional pattern of Anglican worship consists of three main public services: Holy Communion, Matins and Evensong; also called the Eucharist, Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer respectively.  Morning and Evening Prayer are together known as the Daily Office.

One of the great difficulties with choosing a suitable lectionary (i.e. schedule of readings), apart from selecting appropriate passages, is that some people attend church more often than others.

At the Reformation the Church of England's original  plan was that the psalms were divided into sixty portions and each portion was allocated to be sung either at morning prayer or evening prayer on a particular day of the month (1 to 30).  Most of the rest of the Old Testament was allocated to be read once a year, with a different  Old Testament reading assigned to both Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer for each day of the year. Usually the readings were consecutive, so the reading at evensong would start where the reading  at matins finished, and the reading at matins the next day continue  from where evensong had left off.  The New Testament was assigned to be read three times in the year, again with a portion assigned to morning and evening prayer of each day of the year.  In addition smaller, more select,  passages were allocated  as the epistle and gospel readings for Holy Communion, in most cases following the pre-Reformation pattern.

So a person who attended both morning prayer and evening prayer ever day of the year would hear or sing the psalms twelve times, and hear most of the Old Testament once and the New Testament three times.

There were complications even then. In February the last few psalms were omitted and in long months the psalms for the 30th were repeated on the 31st. Special psalms (called   proper psalms) were assigned to Christmas Day, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Easter Day, Ascension Day and Whit Sunday which broke up the cycle. Proper readings were also assigned to some holy days. In the case of fixed holy days this was no problem as the standard calendar readings took account of these e.g. the old testament lesson on 26th December carried on from the one on the 24th, with  special ones on Christmas Day. In the case of movable feasts this meant that certain readings in the standard calendar  were simply omitted in the years they coincided with a movable feast.

The major problem though was that not everybody went to church twice a day, 365 days a year, and so for them the plan didn't really work. Someone who attended only evening service, for example,  would generally hear only every other  chapter and not know what had happened in between, like missing an episode of a soap opera today.  Worse, those who only went on Sundays, effectively heard only random chapters. A particular Old Testament passage fell on a Sunday on average only once in 7 years and sometimes it would be 11 years before a passage came round (due to the effect of leap years), and even then it might be omitted if it fell on Easter Day or Whit Sunday.

It was then decided that, to reflect the fact most people only  went on Sundays  (still to both morning and evening prayer), rather than have them hear effectively random chapters, the most important Old Testament passages should be selected  and assigned as proper lessons for Sundays. This meant that such people would hear every year the most important chapters (or what the authorities believed to be the most important chapters).  It also further disrupted the annual cycle though since  the passages assigned for a particular date would be omitted that year if the date fell on any  Sunday, not just a few movable feasts.

Since that time, both in England and in Anglican churches worldwide, there have been several changes, generally trying to reflect the contemporary churchgoing habits of the majority. It is not possible to suit everybody, from the person who attends one service a year, always  on Christmas Day,  and complains they never hear  what happened when Jesus grew up, to the person who attends every service there is and complains about hearing the same readings again and again.

In The Episcopal Church  (the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, or US branch of the Anglican Church, to be more specific for non-Americans) the most common pattern of  regular Sunday  worship today is to attend one service, Holy Communion i.e. Eucharist. The second most common is to attend a Eucharist and morning or evening prayer. It is less common to attend only morning or evening prayer and not a Eucharist.   For this reason different readings are provided for the Daily Office (morning or evening prayer) because it is assumed that, in most cases, people will already have heard the readings for the Eucharist and not want to hear them again.


Are there any churches that claim to be Sola Sciptura that also are pro gay-marriage? A friend of mine has posited that it is impossible to be Sola Scriptura and also be pro gay-marriage.

I think he is right in a traditional sense. However, I am curious to know if there any churches that claim to be 'Sola Sciptura' that also are pro gay-marriage?

And if so, do they have any doctrinal statement that addresses the concern that conflict might create for some people.

Answers:

Ben Miller below has answered that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America claims to be Sola Scriptura and also pro gay-marriage.

Of course, please keep coming with answers if there are other churches that do the same.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) elected an openly gay bishop earlier this year.  On their website, they claim to "hold to the basic principles of Luther’s theological teachings, such as Grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone."


Is a priest's sermon an explanation of bible? When a priest reads a gospel in mass he ends saying, "the gospel of the
Lord", then continues and says today's gospel is about, does this mean that the priest is explaining that part of the bible? Or in other words, the gospel is part of the Bible, and the priest is explaining it?

The Short Answer

In the homily the priest proclaims the mysteries of the faith and the standards of the Christian life by way of the scripture readings and the liturgical prayers.  He does this in a way that nourishes the Christian life of the listener.

Part of the priest's job in the homily is to explain the Bible, but he is supposed to be doing more than that.  The homily is an organic part of the liturgy, not some separate, detached sermon.  So the priest is interpreting the Bible in light of the liturgy, the mysteries of the faith, Christian living, and the particular lives of his congregation (cf. Homiletic Directory, 16).  Some days the priest may focus very heavily on the scripture readings.  Other days he may just touch on them while focusing on other matters.

At the end of the day the priest preaches to try to bring you closer to Jesus Christ.  Explaining the scriptures is a central part of that and an essential means, but it is not the only part.

The Long Answer

Here are some quotes from Catholic documents on the topic:

  [The homily] should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 65).

  Through the course of the liturgical year the homily sets forth the
  mysteries of faith and the standards of the Christian life on the
  basis of the sacred text. [...] The purpose of the homily at Mass is
  that the spoken word of God and the liturgy of the Eucharist may
  together become "a proclamation of God’s wonderful works in the
  history of salvation, the mystery of Christ" [SC 35, 2] (Introduction of the Lectionary for Mass, 24).

(Note here that the words 'sacred text' "refer to the biblical passages and the prayers used in a liturgical celebration" [Homiletic Directory, 11].)

  Whether the homily explains the text of the Sacred Scriptures
  proclaimed in the readings or some other text of the Liturgy, it must
  always lead the community of the faithful to celebrate the Eucharist
  actively, "so that they may hold fast in their lives to what they have
  grasped by faith" [SC 10] (Introduction of the Lectionary for Mass, 24).

  In sum, the homily is shaped by a very simple dynamic: it reflects on
  the meaning of the readings and prayers of a given celebration in
  light of the Paschal Mystery; and it leads the assembly to the
  Eucharistic celebration in which they have communion in the Paschal
  Mystery itself (Homiletic Directory, 15).

  Looking at this fundamental pattern of preaching in the Emmaus
  narrative illustrates the essential connection between Scripture, the
  homily, and the Eucharist; for it was in the “breaking of the bread”
  that the disciples ultimately recognized their Risen Lord, and it was
  then they realized that their hearts were burning within them “while
  he spoke to us on the way and opened the Scriptures to us” (Lk 24:32).
  This is why virtually every homily preached during the liturgy should
  make some connection between the Scriptures just heard and the
  Eucharist about to be celebrated (Preaching the Mystery of Faith: The Sunday Homily, pg. 20).

  The full scope of Jesus’ preaching reminds us that when we have the
  privilege of preaching the homily to a congregation at the Sunday
  Eucharist, we also have an invaluable opportunity to advance the
  Church’s catechetical ministry.38 This intrinsic relationship between
  preaching, doctrine, and catechesis is also reflected in the ministry
  of Paul the Apostle (Preaching the Mystery of Faith: The Sunday
  Homily, pg. 21).


Why is Origen considered a Church Father, but not a saint? I've heard and read in "Worlds Made by Words: Scholarship and Community in the Modern West" (book by Anthony Grafton, page 222) that Origen was considered a Church Father but not a Saint by either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church?  Why is this so?

Origen was a great teacher, but he also had some non-Orthodox positions on Scripture and the faith in general.  His teachings were specifically anathemitized by the Second Council of Constantinople in 1553, which inherently means you can't be a saint, since you are condemned, at least according to the Roman Catholic Church.
That said, he was also an ardent follower of Jesus, a prolific and influential teacher, and fighter of other heretics.

The only reason he didn't get martyred was because his mother hid his clothes to keep him from going out.
He literally castrated himself because he felt convicted by Scripture
He wrote vigorously against the Gnostics and other heretics, and even spurned his patron who supported other heretics.

From this article in Christianity Today, for example:

But Origen’s interpretations pushed the boundaries of orthodoxy.
He believed, for instance, in the pre-existence of souls and that eventually everyone, including the Devil, would be saved. In addition, he described the Trinity as a hierarchy, not as an equality of Father, Son, and Spirit. Though Origen attacked Gnosticism, in many ways, like the Gnostics, he rejected the goodness of the material creation. His critics have always complained that in many ways this teacher was “blinded by Greek culture.”

Between the pre-existence of souls and his unorthodox view of the Trinity, he was technically a heretic, albeit one with probably very good intentions.  The Coptic church, and his Alexandrian school of thought had many followers, but even they will admit his teachings were mixed.

Obligatory joke about Origien:  https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/6467/1039


Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that there are other Apostles? Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that there are other Apostles besides the first twelve Apostles, Apostle Paul and the Seventy Apostles?

The word "apostle" simply means "someone who has been appointed to deliver a message". The word "disciple" means "follower" or "student". English-speaking people today rarely use the word "apostle" other than to refer to "Jesus's Twelve Apostles", but it's common to talk about people today as "disciples", or to call followers of any religious leader his "disciples".

So "the twelve apostles" or "the twelve disciples" were a specific group particularly close to Jesus, but they were not the only people who followed Jesus or to whom he assigned jobs. Luke 10:1 says "After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go." As Jesus gave these people a specific assignment, they were in the strictest sense "apostles".

So not just Orthodox but also Catholics and Protestants believe there were other apostles and disciples besides "the Twelve".


Does the Associate Reformed Presbyterian church believe in replacement theology? I belong to Associate Reformed Presbyterian church and would like to know if they believe in replacement theology .  Do they believe in the prophecy and the thousand year reign of Christ on the earth??

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARPC) holds to a somewhat modified version of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It can be found here: http://arpchurch.org/documents/confession-of-faith/

They also hold to the Westminster Shorter and Larger Catechisms, as evidenced here: http://arpchurch.org/documents/standards/

Replacement theology is a term usually used by those who hold to the eschatological position known as dispensational premillenialism. It is defined as the teaching that the Church has replaced Israel, hence, "replacement" theology. However, it is usually used as a mischaracterisation of covenant theology.

Covenant theology, in the context of the ARPC, is the teaching that God has dealt with humanity through two overarching covenants: the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. The Biblical covenants (e.g. Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic, New) fall within the categories of the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace. The ARPC subscribes to covenant theology, as defined in their doctrinal statements found in the Westminster Standards. For example, in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7 describes God's covenants with man.

Covenant theology teaches that the church is the new Israel, and that all of the elect throughout history are members of the church. This means that the believers during the Old (Mosaic) Covenant, who were citizens of the nation of Israel, are members of the church. As such, there is not a strong distinction between Israel and the church in covenant theology.

Dispensational premillenials typically miscategorise this as replacement theology, but covenant theology doesn't teach that the church replaced Israel, but that the church is Israel. This is supported by passages such as Romans 4:16-17, and Romans 9:6-7. This does depend on Israel being understood not as a physical nation primarily, but rather as a spiritual nation, comprised of the spiritual children of Abraham by faith, namely, the church.

So the ARPC does not subscribe to replacement theology, but many dispensational premillenials will say that it does based on their understanding of ARPC theology.

Your other two questions should probably be in another question, and I can answer them if you ask them as new questions.


Can you re-enter the catholic church after leaving? I was a Catholic. I did my sacraments according to the Catholic lifestyle. When I was born, I was baptized. Around age of 8 years, I got my First Holy Communion, and around 14 years of age, I went to confirmation classes and got confirmed.

Most of these things were done to live up to my parents expectations. I did not pay attention or go to church so when I was 20, I got myself excluded from the church by sending a formal letter to my parish. I think I filled in the form "Defectio ab Ecclesia catholica actu formali," or "Defection from the Catholic Church by a Formal Act" (the information can be found here).

I remember filling in the following information:

Name
Full address
Where I was baptised
Date of my baptism
Parish Church of my baptism
Date of birth

I did not fill in:

The name of my parents
The name of my godparents.

I got a confirmation letter back stating I had officially left the Roman Catholic church.

I have recently found peace with myself. In my search for meaning with life, I found myself back in the church. My questions are:

Can I re-join the catholic church after leaving it? I guess I got wiped-out from the registers. I believe I have the confirmation letter stating that I left the church, send by my parish when I wanted out.
Do I still have the right to a Catholic wedding & funeral in the future?
How does God see me after leaving the Catholic church?

I agree that my first thing would be to talk to my local priest. I do not have good relationship with my current priest. I find it somewhat embarrassing and am afraid of being judged for my previous actions by leaving the church. Should I bring the letter stating that I have left the church? Or do I need some other documentation with me?

I believe I have the confirmation letter stating that I left the church....

This is a serious issue. From what you say, I am assuming that you have formally defected from the Catholic Church. By law, this act would have been entered in your baptismal register.Actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica If this is true, then just going to confession would not be sufficient.

  I guess I got wiped-out from the registers.

This is impossible. They will still have your records. Please check with them. The actual details cannot be deleted from the Register. (Remembering the date of your baptism will help you a lot in rejoining the church)

  Can I re-join the catholic church after leaving it?

Yes you can. But to know how to do this you have to contact your parish priest. Preferably the one at the parish where you got baptized. The rules change from diocese to diocese.

If you meet the conditions of excommunication (automatic or otherwise - ie., apostasy, heresy, or schism, or some combination of those), then you would also need to have the excommunication remitted. But remember that even an excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic. You really need to talk to your parish priest about this.

But you don't have to go thru RCIA and you don't have to be baptized again.

  Do I still have the right to a catholic wedding & funeral in the future?

If you re-join, you will have those rights. But make sure that you have set the records straight and "regularize" your status with the Church. The records in your baptismal register should be amended to note your return.

  How does God see me after leaving the catholic church?

You are still a child of God. God still loves you and wants to have a relationship with you. Never forget the Father figure in the parable of prodigal son:

    But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him. - Luke 15:20

It is the father who saw the son first. Son was just walking, but the father ran towards his son with compassion for him.

[P.S: By the changes which came into effect by the motu proprio Omnium in mentem dated 26 October 2009, it is no longer possible to attempt a formal defection. But public defection (defected notoriously) is still possible]


Is there a Christology that states that Jesus inherited divinity? Is there a Christological doctrine that teaches that Jesus wasn't originally divine but inherited or became divine, being exalted into divinity by the Father as the result of an act or event?

Did Jesus inherit divinity?
...was Jesus originally without divinity and then as the consequence of an event or action
became exalted into divinity by the Father later [?]

No and No - according to scripture, Jesus has always been divine:

  1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

  ...

  14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. - John 1:1-3 & 14 NIV (emphasis added)

The 'Word' (who from the context is Jesus') 'was God' from 'the beginning'.

...or is Jesus divine as a consequence of his nature or identity?

Yes:

  5In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

  6Who, being in very nature God,
      did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; - Philippians 2:5-6 NIV (emphasis added)


Is "Love and Respect" consistent with Eph 5:33 The title is a bit broader than what I really intend to ask. More precisely, I am interested in whether Dr. Eggerichs's understanding of the terms "love" and "respect" in "Love and Respect" is consistent with the verse from which he argues, Eph 5:33 (ESV)

  However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

More specifically still, Dr. Eggerichs seems to assume that "love" and "respect" are "felt love" and "felt respect"; that is, that this verse is fulfilled if and only if the woman feels loved and the man feels respected.

I'm not a scholar and don't have all of the knowledge of the various uses of these words throughout scripture, but from the knowledge that I do have, this strikes me as off. Then again, scripture often does challenge my assumptions, so I am willing to hear what scripture says on the subject.

So the question is, can anyone show whether this is or is not what Paul (and God!) has in mind in this verse?

I would look at passages like Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 (where Jesus asked God "why have you forsaken me?") and the many psalms that speak of anguish or being forgotten as examples of situations where someone might not feel loved by God, but they are nonetheless very much loved by God. Psalm 13 expresses this sentiment nicely.

So I agree with you - love and respect don't have to be felt to be real and present, and the Bible seems to back up our view.


What is the historical origin of this hat [image] - worn by Pope Ratzinger Can anyone explain the origin — i.e., when it was first used, the Pope who wore it the first time and when, its name —  of that red hat worn by Pope Ratzinger?

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI (formerly known as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) is depicted above wearing what is known as a "cappello romano," which is Italian for "Roman hat."

It does not originate from papal attire, but was simply a fashionable hat worn by 17th century clergy.

From wikipedia:

  A cappello romano (literally Roman hat in Italian) or saturno (because
  its appearance is reminiscent of the ringed planet Saturn) is a hat
  with a wide, circular brim and a rounded crown worn outdoors in some
  countries by Catholic clergy, when dressed in a cassock. It is made of
  either beaver fur or felt, and lined in white silk. Unlike many other
  articles of ecclesiastical attire, it serves no ceremonial purpose,
  being primarily a practical item.  The cappello romano is not used in
  liturgical services. Since the general abandonment of the cassock as
  street dress, it is uncommon even in Rome today, though it was quite
  popular there and in some other countries with a Catholic majority
  population from the 17th century until around 1970.

  There are some, mostly minor, differences in the designs of cappelli,
  depending on the rank of the wearer. The pope wears a red cappello
  with gold cords. Cardinals formerly also had the privilege of wearing
  a red cappello, but this rule was overturned by Paul VI, and now
  Cardinals' cappelli are black, as are those of all other clerics.


What does "see" in "the Holy See" mean? The seat of the Bishop of Rome is called "the Holy See". What does "see" mean?

Does it mean “Holy Sea”, as the word “see” could be an archaic spelling of the word “sea”. It would make sense, because there is an unholy sea in the Bible also, called “Lake of fire”. It sure sounds like “Holy Sea”, because it makes most sense language-wise.

"See" comes from the Latin word sedes, which means "seat" or "chair".

"Holy See" is Sedes Apostolica (lit. "Apostolic Chair") in Latin.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives this etymology for see, n.1:

  Etymology: < Anglo-Norman see, sed, sied, siet, sez, siez, Anglo-Norman and Old French se, sie, Middle French sie, siet dwelling (c 1100), capital city (c 1100), cathedral city (1139 or earlier), cathedral (a 1175), diocese (12th cent.), throne (second half of the 12th cent.), seat (second half of the 13th cent. or earlier), the papacy (1360) < classical Latin sēdēs  seat (see sedes n.).

  Compare siege n.  and seat n.

  Compare Old Occitan ses, se, sea (12th cent.), Catalan seu (14th cent.), Spanish †sey, †sé, †seo (1266), Portuguese sé (13th cent.).

Also:

  [In patristic writers (e.g. Augustine, 5th cent.) post-classical Latin Sedes Apostolica ‘Apostolic See’ was applied more widely to any of the bishoprics founded by apostles; in medieval writers (e.g. in the 11th cent.) it occurs also in the general sense of ‘cathedral’.]

St. John Lateran's basilica is the Pope's cathedral (cathedra = chair), and this is his chair there:


What are the Roman Catholic pilgrimages in Northern America? In France there are several "formal" and organised catholic pilgrimage each year to Lourdes, Chartres, Vezelay for boy-scouts and other shrines that occures a few times, sometimes even once a year and are an occasion of gathering around faith. What are, if they exist, the organised pilgrimages equivalent in America? Is there a database of them?

I googled a bit and only found the Marian Days for the Vietnamese American Roman Catholics.

By catholic I mean the branch of the Christian Church that accepts the Pope as its leader and is based in the Vatican in Rome.

The Society of St. Pius X has been hosting annual U.S. pilgrimages for nearly two decades. From their site:

  Pascua Florida Pilgrimage to St. Augustine

  March 29-April 3, 2016   6-day, 100 miles (75 miles of walking and 25
  miles of canoeing) to St. Augustine, FL, the oldest
  continuously-settled city in the United States.   Discover more about
  this
  pilgrimage>

  Cataldo Pilgrimage to Sacred Heart Mission

  July 22-24, 2016   3-day, 50-mile to Sacred Heart Old Indian Mission
  in Cataldo, ID, the oldest Catholic church in Northwest U.S., founded
  by Fr. Pierre-Jean De Smet.   Discover more about this
  pilgrimage>

  Santa Fe Pilgrimage to Padilla Cross

  July 22-23, 2016   33-miles overnight (men and boys only) to the
  monument at Lyons, KS, erected to honor America's Protomartyr, Fr. Juan
  de Padilla (+1542).   Discover more about this
  pilgrimage>

There's also a Starkenburg Pilgrimage and an Auriesville, NY, pilgrimage, which honors "a group of Jesuit priests and religious [who] were martyred by the Iroquois Indians" "over 400 years ago".

The American branch of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP), a lay Catholic group, also does Marian pilgrimages.


Israel’s pronoun in the Old Testament? Is Israel referred to as the pronoun 'she' in the Old Testament?

There are several passages which employ the metaphor of marriage to describe the relationship between God and His people, and harlotry to describe the relationship between God' people and the false gods for whose sake they often left the worship of the Lord. In the Old Testament, Israel (the nation) is the wife and God is the husband. In these cases, Israel is referred to as she.

Addendum

Since references were politely solicited, I will offer up Jeremiah, chapter 3, and most (if not all) of Hosea.


Did God change from a wrathful God to a loving God between Old Testament and New Testament? This question is mainly to the evangelical Christians and Bible believing Christians, who believe that God doesn't change and His nature is Love.
The Old Testament is filled with accounts that describe how God poured out His wrath on people, including His chosen people, the Israelites. However, when we read the New Testament particularly the life, teachings and message of the Lord Jesus Christ we don't see the outpouring of God's wrath on people. Instead, we read about God's grace, mercy, and love. How do we square these two seemingly opposite manifestations of God's nature?

There was a gap of about 400 years between the two Testaments, with the OT covering a vast time span, from creation till then.  Taking the time from after the Flood, that alone has been variously calculated as 2,454 years to 2,518 years.  This means that the OT deals with about two and a half thousand years of history after the Flood, whereas the NT only covers less than seventy-five years of history! The NT does not detail the horrific destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in A.D. 70 as all but its last book was completed before then. (The last book named Revelation may have used coded language to infer that event but it deals a lot with future events where the wrath of God will be poured out on the nations.)
It is unbalanced to compare the historical dealings of God with his people and the nations over thousands of years, with a mere 75 years history in the NT. This is especially so when the NT does not hold back from warnings about the coming wrath of God, both on individuals who continue in rebellion against him, and the various “bowls of wrath” coming on the whole world before Christ returns in judgment.
The idea that God must have changed in nature between the two testaments may indicate some ignorance of what those two testaments state, on the matter of God’s nature and his dealings with mankind. In both testaments, the immense patience and love of God is demonstrated, yet without holding back from clear evidence of God’s holiness, righteousness and sovereign judgements. There may be a bit of ‘cherry-picking’ going on, selecting gruesome events in the OT (which tells things the way they were) while only citing nice sentiments expressed in the NT.
Finally, you addressed your question to evangelical, Bible believing Christians, “who believe that God doesn't change and His nature is Love.” As one such Christian I would point out that the Bible does not limit God’s nature to love, but that his love is perfectly balanced with his holiness, his righteousness and his justice. It’s imbalanced to focus only on God’s love, as if a loving God would sweep sin under the carpet without judging sin and sinners. In his love, God has done everything we could never do to spare repentant sinners the punishment due their sin, by pouring it out on the sinless Son of God instead. But if people disregard what God has lovingly done, they will have to bear that punishment. Then they will know the righteous wrath of God. That was the pattern in the OT because forgiveness and time to repent was always available to those seeking to please God, and that continues in the NT. No change there, God be praised!


Does the Bible provide any passages that might help in understanding how Satan became sinful? Although, I might already now have a provisional indirect answer to my original question ("What Caused Satan's Unbelief ...?") I have tried to reword that question, while simultaneously trying to maintain the original paragraph structure as much as possible.

I am a Christian, and I am aware of the grave theological dangers of "playing the Devil's Advocate" in the literal sense of the expression (and of attempting to defend sin and evil before God). However, I'm having difficulty avoiding perplexity about the cause of Satan's unbelief and pride. I know that it makes little sense to blame God (The Sovereign Creator) for the sins of His creatures (because sin is, by definition, disobedience of The Creator's [moral] Laws, and because there was no higher authority than God to overrule His decision to create anything). But Satan was originally created as a good (i.e., sinless) being who only entertained good thoughts. So, does the Bible offer any passages that might shed light on how we might discover the origin of Satan's unbelief in God's dictates?

By the way, I already read this question (posted at What could persuade a presumably otherwise-rational Satan to turn on God?) and the answers provided in that post don't address the issue that I am raising here in this post. I'm not asking why Satan (having already reached the point of indecision about whether it is rational to sin) would consider it prudent for him to proceed toward a state of actual sinfulness. My question goes further, and inquires about the origin of any deviation within Satan from his original state of sinlessness.

John

This seems like your main question:
"But if God created Satan (originally) as a good (i.e., sinless) being who only entertained good thoughts, what was the original cause of Satan's evil or sinful thoughts?"
That's tough to find a scriptural answer to because the first historically noted thing about Satan was that he was proud.

Isaiah 14:12,13 KJV How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
Luke 10:17-19 NIV The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.

There's no historical details given about him before he succumbed to pride. This passage from James seems to say that it's one's evil desires that produce sin:

James 1:13-15 NIV When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

One could argue that evil desire causes pride, but you could say also that pride causes evil desire. God's word is intentionally ambiguous on this so one can't be dogmatic. And this still doesn't answer the question of how a sinless Lucifer could have gotten evil desires/pride in the first place.
But here's what we DO know:

God created Satan
Satan was tempted by power and...
Satan did succumb to that temptation.

God must have therefore created Satan with this ability to succumb to temptation, whether Satan was created sinless or not. Maybe God did all this to prove that anything outside his nature can succumb to evil, even his most gloriously created angel.


What is the origin of "This is the Word of the Lord" and "Thanks be to God? In the past I attended a church where at the end of the Scripture reading, the reader would say:

This is the Word of the Lord

And the congregation would respond:

Thanks be to God

Does anyone know the origins of this tradition?

"Thanks be to God" is, in its Latin form "Deo gratias", used after the epistle reading in the traditional Catholic (Latin) mass, which was codified by Pope St. Pius V in the 16th century, but which actually goes back much farther.  I'm not sure how much older this particular usage is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it went back another thousand years or so.  In the traditional mass, this "Deo Gratias" is not said aloud by the whole congregation (though we may, and I do, "say" it mentally) but by the altar servers.

"This is the Word of the Lord", on the other hand, seems to have been introduced in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960's, though it may have been in use earlier in some Protestant denominations.


Why would a loving God prefer one nation over another? Deuteronomy 14:2

  "For you are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has
  chosen you to be a people for His own possession out of all the
  peoples who are on the face of the earth. "

First, this sounds like God is a racist or nationalist, that he prefers one nation over another.  But I came to my own understanding of why God chose Jewish people to be "his" nation: He had to choose one nation where His son would be born, and Jewish people happened to meet all the requirements, or they responded in a right way.

I'd like to ask, though, what is the stand of the Roman Catholic church as to why God chose Jews and not Celts or other nations? And do other Christian groups share the same view as Catholics?

The official position of the Catholic Church is that the Church is synonymous with the "chosen nation," and that the Church in Christ is the continuation of the righteous nation that God has set apart for himself since the beginning. Through the Catechism, the Church states that while God chose Abraham and his descendants through the promise the be his nation, he does not exclude other nations, but indeeds welcomes the people of all nations into this holy nation through faith, which is the Church. From the Cathechism, (emphasis is this author's)

  60) The people descended from Abraham would be the trustee of the promise made to the patriarchs, the chosen people, called to prepare for that day when God would gather all his children into the unity of the Church. They would be the root on to which the Gentiles would be grafted, once they came to believe.

  201) To Israel, his chosen, God revealed himself as the only One: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." Through the prophets, God calls Israel and all nations to turn to him, the one and only God: "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.. . To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 'Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength.'"

  759) "The eternal Father, in accordance with the utterly gratuitous and mysterious design of his wisdom and goodness, created the whole universe and chose to raise up men to share in his own divine life," to which he calls all men in his Son. "The Father . . . determined to call together in a holy Church those who should believe in Christ." This "family of God" is gradually formed and takes shape during the stages of human history, in keeping with the Father's plan. In fact, "already present in figure at the beginning of the world, this Church was prepared in marvelous fashion in the history of the people of Israel and the old Advance. Established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit, it will be brought to glorious completion at the end of time."

  762) The remote preparation for this gathering together of the People of God begins when he calls Abraham and promises that he will become the father of a great people. Its immediate preparation begins with Israel's election as the People of God. By this election, Israel is to be the sign of the future gathering of All [sic] nations. But the prophets accuse Israel of breaking the covenant and behaving like a prostitute. They announce a new and eternal covenant. "Christ instituted this New Covenant."

In summary of these paragraphs, God chose Abraham to be the progenitor of this holy nation as it existed under the old covenant, though all people are called into it. As Christ instituted the New Covenant, all  people are similarly called to enter into this holy nation, which is and has been his Church.

As for why Abraham was chosen from among the nations, the Catechism quotes Paul in romans 4:18 to say that, just as those who are included in the holy nation in Christ are such by faith, Abraham believed, and it was because of this belief that he was chosen.

  1819) Christian hope takes up and fulfills the hope of the chosen people which has its origin and model in the hope of Abraham, who was blessed abundantly by the promises of God fulfilled in Isaac, and who was purified by the test of the sacrifice. "Hoping against hope, he believed, and thus became the father of many nations."


How do Catholics describe "eternal generation"? It seems to me that "eternal generation" is an oxymoron:

  "a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel
  kindness); broadly :  something (as a concept) that is made up of
  contradictory or incongruous elements"

It seems to me that "generation" requires at least a single step:

  a :  the action or process of producing offspring :  procreation b :
  the process of coming or bringing into being  c
  :  origination by a generating process :  production; especially :
  formation of a geometric figure by motion of another

Do they say:

God and Jesus both existed eternally with Jesus "describable" as a son, begotten, etc. but with no actual, literal birthing having occurred?
the begetting of Jesus occurred so long ago as to be for all intents and purposes to still be considered "eternally so"?
it is a "mystery beyond human comprehension" (as the Trinity in general is often described)?

Or do they simply use the term without explanation of the contradiction?

The English word “generation” is derived from the Latin word generatio, which is used in the Latin Vulgate to translate the Greek word γένεσις that occurs in the Greek New Testament.
For example, in Matt. 1:1–2, it is written,

1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2 Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren;  KJV, 1769
Α Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, υἱοῦ Δαβὶδ, υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ Β Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ Ἰσαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ TR, 1550

Not only did I embolden generation and γενέσεως, but also begat and ἐγέννησεν. One must note that ἐγέννησεν, a conjugation of the lemma γεννῶ (contraction of γεννάω), is related to the noun γένεσις (and thus the genitive case, singular number declension γενέσεως) by the stem γεν-. While the KJV translates ἐγέννησεν as “begat,” it could also be translated as “engendered,” thus retaining the gen- stem in English.
To beget or engender someone is simply to father them. We understand this temporal generation according to our own human nature. During human generation and subsequent birth, a human is made and comes into existence.
In endeavoring to understand the eternal generation of God the Son, some erroneously transfer those same human processes to the Holy Trinity. They reason that, if we were made and came into existence by our own generation by our own parents, then God the Son must have also been made and come into existence by his eternal generation by God the Father.
The problem with this reasoning is that our parents, being human, are mutable creatures, while God the Father is the immutable Creator. Whenever human parents conceive a fetus, the fetus can never be an exact image and representation of its parents—a perfect clone, if you will. Not only are there two parents, and the fetus cannot receive the entire genetic material of each parent, but each parent’s genetic material has endured decay and mutation during the parent’s lifetime. It is absolutely impossible (zero probability) for a child to be an exact “twin” (clone) of its parents.
On the other hand, God the Son is “the image of the invisible God.”1 This is not merely analogous to someone taking a photograph of someone else and looking at the photograph saying, “This is really a nice photo of you!” First, the photograph is not living. Secondly, it is corruptible and can be destroyed. On the other hand, God the Son who is the image of the invisible God is eternal and immutable, “the same yesterday, today, and forever.”2 Only God is immutable since He alone is uncreated. All else that is created is mutable.
In Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Justin Martyr wrote,3

For those things which exist after God, or shall exist at some time, these have a corruptible nature, and are such as may be both utterly destroyed and no longer exist; for God alone is unoriginated and incorruptible, and therefore, He is God, but all other things after Him are originated and corruptible.
ὅσα γάρ ἐστι μετὰ τὸν θεὸν ἢ ἔσται ποτέ, ταῦτα φύσιν φθαρτὴν ἔχειν, καὶ οἷά τε ἐξαφανισθῆναι καὶ μὴ εἶναι ἔτι· μόνος γὰρ ἀγέννητος καὶ ἄφθαρτος ὁ θεὸς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο θεός ἐστι, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ πάντα μετὰ τοῦτον γεννητὰ καὶ φθαρτά.

The eternal generation of the Lord Jesus Christ is alluded to in scripture in John 8:42, wherein the Lord Jesus Christ states, «ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον»—“I came out of God.” This particular phrase consisting of the verb ἐξέρχομαι in combination with the preposition ἐκ suggests being born or generated.4
Henry Alford wrote,5

ἥκω conveys the result of ἐξῆλθον, as Meyer; who also remarks that mere sending will not exhaust ἐξῆλθον, which must be taken metaphysically, of the proceeding forth of the Eternal Son from the essence of the Father.

As far as how this eternal generation and procession occurred in eternity, there is no possible way for any human to conceive of such thoughts. It is beyond our understanding, for as we do not even understand the complex physiological processes and operations of our own bodies, how could we possibly understand something supernatural and extraordinary as the eternal generation?
The best means we have of understanding the eternal generation is limited to analogies.6 As we do not truly comprehend the very essence or existence of God, we certainly cannot comprehend His operations, including the creation of the universe, and especially, the eternal generation of His Son.

References
Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. Vol. 1. Boston: Lee, 1878.
S. Justinus Philosophus et Martyr. Πρὸς Τρύφωνα Ἰουδαῖον Διάλογος (“Dialogue with Trypho the Jew”). Patrologiæ Cursus Completus: Series Græca. Ed. Migne, Jacques Paul. Vol. 6. Petit-Montrouge: Imprimerie Catholique, 1857.
Footnotes
1 Col. 1:15
2 Heb. 13:8
3 Ch. V, p. 488
4 cp. Gen. 15:4, 35:11
5 p. 797
6 Justin Martyr used the analogy of a fire kindling another fire yet not being diminished in intensity. See his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Ch. LXI and CXXVIII.


Are the images of Jesus drawn with blond hair and blue eyes correct? Lately I heard that, as an inhabitant of ancient Israel, it is more likely that Jesus had dark skin and probably had hair that was a little curly.

Why is it that illustrations always show him with blond hair and blue eyes, and how did he really look? Also, I know that, for believing in him, his appearance doesn't really matter, but it still interests me.

There was an interesting show years ago to find out what Jesus looked like, and he would be darker skinned than he is depicted for a couple of obvious reasons, one being that due to his origin from a group that lived in a desert-like region, and the fact that he was a carpenter meant that he worked outside a great deal, so he would be tanned.

But, the fact that we show Jesus as white is due to our familiarity with it, I remember visiting a black friend when I was a child and he had pictures of a black Jesus and a black Santa, and that struck me as wrong (I was probably 7 at the time).

For more information you can look at this article, as they have an approximate picture and more details as to how it was decided that how Jesus may have looked: The Real Face Of Jesus - Advances in forensic science reveal the most famous face in history.


Why has Mary Magdalene been portrayed as a prostitute? A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to watch ‘Jesus Christ Superstar’.  It wasn't all that great and yes I found it a bit offensive, however it did get me thinking.  Why does it seem as if Mary Magdalene was portrayed as a prostitute? She appears to have been a supportive force for Jesus, and not in any sexually immoral way at that.  Could it be that during that time period women were seen as less than men, and those who were supportive were seen merely as prostitutes if they were not married?  There seem to be several women throughout the Bible that were followers of Christ, and made a difference but were not seen as prostitutes, such as Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2. So why portray Magdalene as such?

Traditionally Roman Catholics have identified St. Mary Magdalen with the "woman in the town who was a sinner" of Luke 7:36ff -- that's the Gospel reading for her feast day in the older form of the Roman liturgy. It's true that at face value the Gospel does not identify the nature of her sin but it seems clear that her sin is well-known, at least locally:

  Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner." (Luke 7:39, RSV)

And it also appears to go beyond being ritually unclean, for the Lord himself seems to consider it fairly serious:

  And Jesus said to him, "... her sins, which were many, have been forgiven" (Luke 7:43 & 7:47)

So the Gospel text may not establish for certain that she was a prostitute but it's at least a reasonable reading.

Her importance, of course, has less to do with her sin, whatever it was exactly, than with her conversion. Most female saints in the traditional liturgical calendar are identified as virgins or widows, but Mary Magdalen has the unique title of "penitent".


In LDS teaching, do gods and goddesses produce spiritual offspring forever? I understand that the LDS Church teaches that some men will progress to godhood in the afterlife, have a wife or wives, and produce spiritual children with spirit bodies, which later must inhabit physical bodies as people on their planet reproduce.  This is apparently how it is on this planet as well.

My question is regarding how long the god of a planet and his wife or wives produce spiritual children.  If it is eternally, then is it only one planet.  It seems that a planet will not last forever.  Does the reproduction in heaven cease after the planet is no longer inhabitable.  Does the god create a new planet or a new universe and then continue to produce spiritual children forever?

So, basically, is reproduction by a god of a particular planet and his wife or wives temporary or eternal?  Do all their children inhabit bodies on a single planet?  Do LDS believe that planets last forever or do they believe new planets are created?

There is actually very little LDS doctrine on the subject of the specific details of how Exaltation will work.  (Most of the doctrine is devoted to the weightier matter of how to attain it in the first place.)  But it is explicitly said that it will be a life of the same kind that God enjoys, so answers can be inferred by examining LDS cosmology on the current state of the universe.

From Doctrine and Covenants section 76:

  22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, [Jesus Christ,]
  this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he
  lives!

  23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the
  voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

  24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were
  created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters
  unto God.

Verse 24 specifically speaks of a multiplicity of worlds, each home to children of God as ours is.  And again in verse 112, speaking of the destiny of people who have not lived as they should:

  112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they
  cannot come, worlds without end.

This concept is also mentioned in the Pearl of Great Price.  From Moses chapter 1:

  27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast
  his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not
  a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the Spirit
  of God.

  28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a
  soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God;
  and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea
  shore.

  29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and
  there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

  30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I
  pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?

  31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses
  stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And
  the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these
  things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.

  32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine
  Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

  33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them
  for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine
  Only Begotten.

  34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

  35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof,
  give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed
  away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and
  innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me,
  for they are mine and I know them.

  36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be
  merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth,
  and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy
  servant will be content.

  37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are
  many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto
  me, for they are mine.

  38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so
  shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my
  words.

The important points here are that God does create multiple worlds, each of which is inhabited by his children, and that it is an ongoing process, that worlds reach the end of their existence and new ones are created, throughout eternity.  It's reasonable to assume that the same will be true for those who reach exaltation.


What contemporary criticism was given to Belloc's claim that the Protestant Reformation was the work of a few oligarchs? I've just returned from the 33rd Conference of the American Chesterton Society with exciting news,  apparently Protestantism is a sham inflicted upon us by the corporate elite!

Hehehe, well who knows... But I've been on this site as long as anyone and I found it very surprising to hear Hilare Belloc's thesis on the over-arching cause of the reformation.  I knew from reading the Servile State that after the Reformation it was apparent that the lords looted the monasteries.

  "What! this large national movement to be
  interpreted as the work of such minorities? A few thousand squires and
  merchants backing a few more thousand enthusiasts, changed utterly the mass
  of England?" Yes; to interpret it otherwise is to read history backwards.
  It is to think that England then was what England later became. There
  is no more fatal fault in the reading of history, nor any illusion to
  which the human mind is more prone. To read the remote past in the light
  of the recent past; to think the process of the one towards the other
  "inevitable;" to regard the whole matter as a slow inexorable process,
  independent of the human will, still suits the materialist pantheism of our
  time. There is an inherent tendency in all men to this fallacy of reading
  themselves into the past, and of thinking their own mood a consummation
  at once excellent and necessary: and most men who write of these things
  imagine a vaguely Protestant Tudor England growing consciously Protestant
  in the England of the Stuarts.

  Hilaire Belloc - Europe and the Faith

But, does anyone have any evidence against the notion that it was what would become the aristocracy who started the reformation in Britain?  Did people take Belloc seriously.  I've read recently that he's been found correct time and time again, but always seen as a heavy handed Catholic reactionary in his day (which makes him quite a hero to me) who no one took seriously because he wrote in a vulgar manner and not only for scholars.

What a fascinating question -

Was the Protestant Reformation a bottom-up or top-down reformation?

It would seem the only reasonable answer is - Yes! (i.e. both)

The progress of the Reformation in Scotland showed all the hallmarks of the former - cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_knox :

  John Knox (c. 1514 – 24 November 1572) was a Scottish clergyman, writer and a leader of the Protestant Reformation...

While it's genesis in England showed distinct signs of the latter - cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_viii#Reformation :

  Henry is generally credited with initiating the English Reformation – the process of transforming England from a Catholic country to a Protestant one...

Of course, the crux of the matter is - what was the situation in Continental Europe and in particular, what were the circumstances surrounding Martin Luther and the very beginning of the Reformation?  Was Protestantism really birthed out of the objections a Theology professor had to the 'Indulgance Industry', or were there dark forces at work behind the scenes - worldly potentates plotting to appropriate ecclesiastical booty for their own aggrandizement - pulling Luther's strings?  Well according to most accounts (at least the ones that don't have a specific axe to grind), the evidence points very much to the former (cf The Economist's article How Luther went viral).  While the nascent Reformation did catch the eye of at least some Princes relatively early on, it wasn't until some years later that this translated into official breaks with recognized Church (and in the case of the member states of the Holy Roman Empire, temporal) authority which admittedly bore some prospect of enrichment at the expense of the church, but also the high likelihood of war with states loyal to Rome - it was no light undertaking, and it least in the case of the German states, was far more likely to be the result of conviction than opportunism. (cf. source 1,source 2 & source 3)

Is there more evidence that there was actually something in Reformed
Christianity that appealed to the peasant?

Absolutely: The Reformation all started with preaching against (purchaseable) indulgances - which amounted to enabling the rich to buy their way out of purgatory. Of course to the extant that a peasant was aware of the practice, he was aware of an injustice - perceiving the church favoring the rich;  In contrast the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone - the free gift of God through Christ - would have been the very breath of heaven on his soul.  Although Luther himself criticized what he saw as the excesses of the Peasant's rights movement that lead to the German Peasant's war, and there were many factors that precipitated that conflict, adoption of Protestant doctrines (especially those that pertain to choosing revealed truth ahead of obedience to earthly authority) were a definite part of the mix.

Summary: Although there was a measure of top-down influence on the development of the Reformation (especially in England), the dominant characteristic was actually bottom-up and Belloc's thesis is not well supported by a comprehensive overview of the genesis of Protestantism.


Which is more important to the Roman Catholic Church today: Church unity or the actual text of scripture? I recently did some study on the fact that Augustine objected to Jerome translating the OT into Latin from the Hebrew instead of the Greek because there were significant differences in the texts. Augustine argued that the Greek versions were already wide spread and the differences might cause fracture between the Latin and Greek churches. He therefore, urged Jerome to only translate from the Greek. Clearly Augustine thought it was vitally important that the Church remain unified even at the cost of the exactness of Scripture.

I know that Augustine is highly esteemed in the Catholic Church and I wonder if the Roman Catholic Church officially takes a position like this. If not then are there historical events that indicate an implied position like this (other then this particular one)? Or from the reverse perspective, is there an official position and/or historical events that indicate the Scripture is more valued than unity?

An anecdote for further explanation
Years ago while talking to a priest he told me that he believed that many Protestants would return to the Catholic Church if they would read Augustine's writings and take it to heart. I think this shows, at least in his mind, how much the RCC esteems Augustine.

I don't believe that St Augustine was talking about unity at the cost of scripture. In those times, it was much more difficult to obtain original-language manuscripts, and much more difficult to find people who were competent enough to analyze them (as St Jerome was).

Translation necessarily involves at least some change in meaning, and both men recognized that this was just a consequence of translation. We acknowledge this ourselves today when we say "well, let's just look at what the word meant in the original language".

St Augustine seems to have been worried that, in cases where such discrepancies between translations would be subjected to close examination, a schism might result over something minor because "just looking at the original language" simply wasn't an option in those times. This was a very legitimate practical concern. St Augustine would surely have been livid at the idea of changing the meaning of any biblical text for the sake of unity.

  For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version ... For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended.

The Church wants unity, it wants absolutely everyone to be a Catholic, but being true to scripture is much more important. Catholics get their Truth from the infallible Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium. "Consensus derived for the sake of unity" is not one of those three. The Church is not going to say "well, I guess we can let that slide, some people just interpret things in radically different ways that will lead them into sin and separation from Christ, but we should just respect their views, in opposition to what we know to be infallible, and they'll be more likely to join the Church". This is actually exactly why the Catholic Church has been so adamant in its views on abortion, contraception, homosexuality, female priests, and so on.


What Bible passage does this $1,000,000 dollar bill reference? Got this neat dollar bill on a trip to D.C.. Turns out it was an advertisement for a church. The back of the bill is a story about Jesus and something about becoming a Christian. But I digress:

What I am curious about is the upper left. I am not Christian at all, but I love to read through the Bible because of the stories inside.  The code reads: JN316 D0UB3L13V3.

I know the first part translates to "Genesis", literally read "Jeneisix", but I'm curious about the last part, something I have no idea of.

Some guesses I had was that it was "Double Eve", but I don't get how that would make sense in the context of a passage from the book (Genesis Double:Eve?). Or I thought it was Double Leave, but still I have no idea what it means.

Could anyone help me out here? I can post the back if anyone would like, but I prefer not to give publicity to the organization in question.

The first part is short for John 3:16 which reads (KJV):

  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The second part is short for Do You Believe, with 3 in the place of E, and is asked in reference to the aforementioned verse.

The second part is referring to the invitation to believe on Jesus for eternal life, asking, "Do you believe?"


What is the significance of the names of the 4 rivers in the Garden of Eden? What is the significance of the names of the 4 rivers in the Garden of Eden, mentioned in Genesis (English Standard Version Bible)? Do they all correspond to actual rivers today? I know the 3rd, Tigris River, and 4th, Euphrates River both exist, but what of the first two rivers mentioned?

Gn 2:10-14 (RSVCE)

  10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it
  divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is
  Pishon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Hav′ilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good;
  bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is
  Gihon; it is the one which flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Tigris, which flows
  east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphra′tes.

I'm not sure that there is any real profound significance.  The names do have meanings as follows:

Pishon: increase
Gihon: bursting forth
Tigris - rapid
Euphrates - fruitfulness.

One thing that may be of note is that Adam may very well have given them these names. God specifically had Adam name the animals.  This seems to be inherent in the dominion which God gave to man over all the earth.  God Himself named things in Genesis 1, calling the light "day", the darkness "night", the expanse "heaven", the dry land "earth", and the waters "seas".  (Genesis 1:5, 8, 10)  In Genesis 2, it is the man who gives names to things:

  Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. Genesis 2:19 NASB

So, while we are not specifically told that man named the rivers, it is certainly possible.  If so, it would be another demonstration of man's dominion over the earth.

Furthermore, the very fact that specific rivers are named and described with specific details strongly suggests that the account is not merely a story but an actual historical event and that Adam was, indeed, an actual historical figure.  The genealogy of Adam to Abraham, Moses and David is similar in that fictitious characters cannot trace their lineage to real people.

If the account were, in fact, just a story of creation, the fact that one of the rivers flowed around the entire land of a certain region would be quite odd, as would be the mentioning of gold, bdellium and onyx stones being present in a particular region.  The story is written as if it were a real place where real events occurred and where people could visit if they so chose.

In conclusion, the significance would be to possibly illustrate mankind's dominion over the earth and also that the story is actually a historical event.


Did the conversion of Paul occur before or after the Ascension? According to the Bible, the conversion of Paul occurs when he is walking on the road to Damascus and suddenly has an encounter with the resurrected Jesus.  My question is, did this encounter occur before or after the Ascension? The Ascension is where Jesus is said to have ascended bodily into Heaven 40 days after the Resurrection?

If it happened after the Ascension, how would it have happened?  I thought Christians believe that Jesus won't come back to Earth after the Ascension until the Second Coming.  Am I wrong about that?  Did Paul just have a vision of Jesus rather than having a physical encounter with Jesus' resurrected body?

Have you considered what the narrative in Acts, 9:1-9, records?

The Conversion of Saul [NRSV]
1 Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 He asked, “Who are you, Lord?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 For three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Paul, and those in whose company he was traveling, heard the Lord, but, as verse 7 makes clear, they saw no one. So it was not so much a vision, as it was like divine interactions with others of the prophets, such as those prophets in the Old Testament, and John in the new, who testified, "The word of the Lord came to me ...".
Further, we know that Saul journeyed to Damascus after the stoning of Stephen the Martyred Deacon, who was elected after the election of Matthias, who which was after the appearance of Peter and John in the temple, all of which was after the Ascension of Our Lord, narrated at the close of the Gospel of St. Luke.


What are the differences between Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Nestorianism? In another question, @Daи excellently explained the differences between Western and Eastern Christianity. But what are the differences between the Eastern Christianity itself, particularly between Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and Nestorianism?

One difference is that they have different stance on Christology. But do they have other differences? Maybe like different rituals, or different theology?

As pointed out in that question, the differences were originally in Christology. Generally the fourth-century Christological debates were about how the relationship between the nature(s) of Christ and the person of Christ.

The "Nestorian" party held that there were two natures in Christ, the divine and the human, with very little relationship between them. Essentially there were two hypostases ("persons"), the human and the divine.

The "monophysite" party (which became the Oriental Orthodox) held that there was one nature in Jesus Christ, in which the human and the divine were brought together. Monophysitism was essentially a reaction against Nestorianism.

The remaining party is best known as the "Chalcedonian" party after the Council of Chalcedon: the Eastern Orthodox and all Western churches derive from this party. It held a view between the two: there were two natures in Christ and one person. The famous definition is the Chalcedonian definition:

  in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ

It is frequently argued that there is no substantial difference between the Chalcedonian and Monophysite positions. (It's worth noting, BTW, that the Oriental Orthodox prefer the term "Miaphysite", which essentially means the same but lacks the connotations of heresy.)

As to other theological and liturgical differences? Well, they have been divided for 1700 years or thereabouts and they grew up separately, often regarding the others as heretical. It should be no surprise, then, that they have substantial differences in liturgy and theology. All three traditions are very tradition-centred and give a special place in their theology to great theologians of the past. So the Eastern Orthodox will quote Maximus the Confessor, while the Oriental Orthodox might quote Gregory the Illuminator. But again, it's not so simple: the Armenian Orthodox (an Oriental Orthodox church) are very different from the Coptic Church (another Oriental Orthodox church) and are not in communion with one another.

The differences are complex and very old: too many to mention in this context. But if I may give an opinion as an ecumenist: the Christological differences started the divisions and dominate in ecumenical dialogue between the churches, yet they are not the reason for the modern-day division. The Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox agreed a common statement on Christology a few years ago, but they are not in full communion because the cultural and theological divisions are too great to bridge in so short a period of time.


What is the SBC's stance on what/how salvation is/works? What is the Southern Baptist Convention's stance on what salvation is and how it works?

Is there an official doctrine?

Is it challenged by prominent members?

Straight from the source, at http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#iv
This is challenged by followers of liberal theology, who deride the leaders of the SBC as fundamentalists.

Salvation involves the redemption of the whole man, and is offered freely to all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who by His own blood obtained eternal redemption for the believer. In its broadest sense salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification. There is no salvation apart from personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord.
A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God's grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.
Repentance is a genuine turning from sin toward God. Faith is the acceptance of Jesus Christ and commitment of the entire personality to Him as Lord and Saviour.
B. Justification is God's gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ. Justification brings the believer unto a relationship of peace and favor with God.
C. Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God's purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him. Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person's life.
D. Glorification is the culmination of salvation and is the final blessed and abiding state of the redeemed.


Provenance of Novena of Abandonment I came across the "Novena of Abandonment" prayer, first via a friend, then saw it on many blogs online etc, for example here: Jesus, You take over and the Rosary of Abandonment. It reads like a very soothing and reassuring prayer, directly quoting Jesus' words.
What I am trying to establish is, what is the provenance of this prayer? Mostly I find it on blogs, not any kind of authoritative websites. The prayer is ascribed to Fr. Dolindo Ruotolo, but I cannot find any information on how it came to be. The prayer is not quoting the scriptures, and rather reads like direct quotations from a private revelation - is there any authoritative source that describes this? The link above quotes an Imprimatur, but I couldn't check it online.
Does anyone know of any more authoritative confirmation of provenance for this prayer? My fundamental reason for asking is, since it appears to be direct quotations of Jesus, I don't want to, so to speak, be putting words in His mouth. The prayer makes strong assertions of Jesus' will, and it doesn't feel right to pray with such assertions without having confidence that it really comes from Jesus. For example, "There is no better novena than this".

Novena of Abandonment is definitely from the mystic written works of Father Dolindo Ruotolo.
Unfortunately, his works are no yet completely known in the English world to know which works we need to deal with.

Father Dolindo Ruotolo
These instructions comes to us through contemporary scholar-mystic, Father Don Dolindo Ruotolo, a Neapolitan priest (1882-1970), stigmatized miracle worker and "mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit".
Father Ruotolo had extraordinary communications with Jesus throughout his heroic life, a life that was totally devoted to God and Holy Mother Mary. He referred to himself as "the Madonna's little old man" and the Rosary was his constant companion.
While the writing may be that of Father Ruotolo the words are unmistakably from Jesus.
It is Jesus teaching us how to find peace and happiness in these uncertain and anxious times.
Jesus tell us what he wants from us and how in turn he "swears on his love" he will care for us spiritually and materially.
As you can see much of what our Lord wants flies in the face of normal human inclination and reason. We can only rise to this level of thinking through the grace of God and the help of the Holy Spirit.
We must let go of our problems, stop thinking about them and trying to resolve them ourselves. We must believe, trust and allow our Lord to rescue us from ourselves and supply our wants, needs and resolve our problems as only He can.
According to Saint Faustina, a Roman Catholic nun and mystic from Poland (1905 - 1938). We give Jesus pleasure when we give Him our troubles. Jesus speaking - " You will give Me pleasure if you hand over to Me all your troubles and griefs.  I shall heap upon you the treasures of My grace."
Therefore, Jesus, I abandon myself to you, you take over, should be the first words that come to mind and flows from our lips. After all, we have tried to do things our way and look where it has gotten us.
Just do as the instructions from Jesus say, open our hearts and minds in love and close our eyes in trust and ask Jesus to take care of it and as he promises, He absolutely will.

Some of Father Ruotolo’s writings were published in 1949 in the book Come Holy Spirit, which combines theology with meditations to deepen the presence of the Holy Spirit in souls.  It has become a classic in Italy as an explanation of the role of the Holy Spirit as bestowed in Confirmation. Your source of information may be contained within this book.

Jesus said there is no better novena than this one, and it has only 11 words
Ordained at the age of 23, Don Dolindo spent his life in prayer, sacrifice and service. He heard confession, gave spiritual guidance and cared for those in need. Don Dolindo was a contemporary of the more widely known saint, Padre Pio. When some pilgrims from Naples, where Don Dolindo resided, went to Padre Pio in Pietrelcina, Padre Pio responded: “Why do you come here, if you have Don Dolindo in Naples? Go to him, he’s a saint!”
Don Dolindo wrote what Our Lord revealed to him about divine abandonment from the perspective of Jesus addressing the soul. The prayer of surrender can be read in its entirety, or prayed in nine shorter segments as a daily novena.

Interesting is also to note that Fr. Dolindo Ruotolo may have been the initial inspiration of Glorious Mysteries of the Rosary that Pope John Paul II added to the Most Holy Rosary in 2002!


Are any writings of the Apostles non-Canonical? Do we have any writings that are reasonably likely to be written by Apostles, but are not included in the Bible?

One of the closest examples would be Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans.  Scholarship is divided about the authorship, whether it is Paul or a Marcionite forgery - but the point is that at the time, when canonization was occurring, it was not accepted as such.

Most everything else (Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, etc...) was pretty much rejected even at the time as being inauthentic.

Oddly, Hebrews was often ascribed to Paul, but not universally.  Still, that was its reason for inclusion.

At this point, even if we could authenticate a new work, that would not automatically make it scripture, however.  Canonization was often supported by apostolic authorship, but it was cemented by common concurrence.  At this point, the canon is closed, by consensus.

*P.S.  I've walked through Laodecia, and seen the place on the picture.  It's an amazing place!


Who were the intended audience in the Epistle to Romans? Romans 1:7 (ESV)

  To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:

  Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Who were the members of the Church in Rome? Where they

Jewish Christians?
Slaves?
Freedmen(slaves who gained freedom)?
Roman citizens(by birth or by paying the price)?

If the church in Rome was a compound of all kinds of people, who were the majority?

Here are some excerpts from some study materials I have on this subject, you may find other sources, but this seems to be the most reliable I have found, There is also some information in the Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, which you might wish to check out.

When Paul wrote his letter to Christians at Rome towards the end of his third missionary journey, he was communicating with what appears to be a firmly established collection of believers in that city.
Based on a study of relevant biblical and extra-biblical documents, it is generally agreed that non-apostolic Jewish Christians brought the faith of Christ to Rome in the early decades of the church.
After generating both interest and controversy within the synagogues, Christianity was forced to reorganize in the wake of Claudius’s edict against the Jews. The resulting Gentile-dominated church that received Paul’s letter in the late 50’s met in small groups around the city of Rome but maintained communication and held onto a common identity and mission.

apparently Peter was instrumental in the formation of the church in Rome and became the first Pope in that branch of the Orthodox Church which split in 1055 from the Orthodox church in Jerusalem.

Paul and Peter leave their mark on these believers, though they merely strengthen the work that had already begun to flourish in the capital city.
Beyond these main points, scholars still differ on the exact timeline of the birth and growth of the Christian community, as well as on to what degree Roman reactions against Jewish instability stem from disagreements about Christ.
When all is said though, the overall picture of the emergence of Christianity in Rome constitutes yet another significant example of God’s extraordinary work in the early church during the decades following Christ’s death and resurrection.


Should a Baptist marry a Jehovah's witness? My fiancee is a Jehovah's witness.  We're supposed to be married in three weeks and I'm just now finding out about the mechanics of his religion. With my being a Baptist I can't help but think it's wrong but I won't judge him. I'd like to work past it  but I'm afraid of how this will work with our future children. I love him. I'm just worried. What should I do?

Should a Baptist marry a Jehovah's Witness?

That is a decision only you can take. You must ask yourself how important your Christian faith is to you and whether you are prepared to compromise your religious beliefs.

The U.K. Baptist church I became a member of (when I first became a Christian) is Trinitarian, unlike Jehovah's Witnesses who say the Trinity is pagan.  In 2015 they published an article in the Watchtower magazine saying that all Trinitarian churches are part of the antichrist. Does your fiancée go along with this view?  You need to ask him.  (Source)

You also need to ask yourself how important Christ Jesus is to you and whether your fiancée is prepared to respect your religious convictions and attend your church with a view to learning who Jesus Christ REALLY is - that He is not a created spirit called Michael the Archangel.

Please read this Christianity Stack question: What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Michael is not Jesus?  Asked by Curiousdannii January 2020 – Biblical Basis for the belief that Michael is NOT Jesus

Choices we make in the here-and-now will have eternal consequences in the here-and-after.


How non-trinitarians explain Jacob wrestled with God I want to know how different churches that does not believe in Jesus diety or pre-existence the verses from the OT:

  Genesis 32:24-30
  Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)

  24 Jacob was left alone, and a man came and wrestled with him. The man fought with him until the sun came up. 25 When the man saw that he could not defeat Jacob, he touched Jacob’s leg and put it out of joint.

  26 Then the man said to Jacob, “Let me go. The sun is coming up.”

  But Jacob said, “I will not let you go. You must bless me.”

  27 And the man said to him, “What is your name?”

  And Jacob said, “My name is Jacob.”

  28 Then the man said, “Your name will not be Jacob. Your name will now be Israel.[a] I give you this name because you have fought with God and with men, and you have won.”

  29 Then Jacob asked him, “Please tell me your name.”

  But the man said, “Why do you ask my name?” Then the man blessed Jacob at that place.

  30 So Jacob named that place Peniel.[b] He said, “At this place, I saw God face to face, but my life was spared.”

And specifically how do they explain Jacob asking for the blessing from the man (verse 26), and the man blessing Jacob (verse 29)

Nontrinitarians disagree with the mainstream Christian understanding of the Trinity summarized by the Nicean council.

That does not preclude the existance of Jesus before the first century AD.

For example, Jehovah Witnesses believe Jesus was (and is) Michael the Archangel.

And Mormons believe that God the Father exists in the form of a man and that Jesus existed in the form of a man, even before his birth (Ether 3, Book of Mormon).

This is an interesting (confusing) scripture for several reasons, for example, in reconciling it with Exodus 33:20

  Thou canst not see my [God's] face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

but I don't see how Nontrinitarianism would of itself make this story more difficult to explain.

FYI, if you are looking for general interpretations, see

Why did God wrestle with Jacob?
Why did God wrestle with Jacob and why did this appearance not become a "big deal"?