Is there any correlation between national prosperity and percentage of Christians? I have heard of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the proportion of Christians in a population directly (positively) impacts national prosperity. In other words, the more Christians in a nation, the richer the nation becomes.

Possible current examples include India and China which are apparently seeing both an increase in the proportion of Christians (India / China) and in prosperity (India / China).

This would seem to follow the Biblical pattern, see e.g. Haggai 1.

But is this a real phenomena? Can we see a genuine correlation? And if so, what is its cause?

Note: in light of comments and answers so far, this question is about Christianity, not religion generally.

Other resources:

Christianity by country
Christian population growth

Actually it's the other way round:

More studies:

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/02/18/poorest-countries-are-the-most-religious/
http://www.zahablog.com/?page_id=782


What was God the Father like, when he was a man? According to the LDS doctrine of exaltation, God the Father was born and lived and died, and then was exhalted to Godhood by his God, in the same way that Jesus was exalted by the Father.

Is there any passage in the Mormon Scriptures or writing by Mormon teachers that discusses the life and character of the Father before he was exalted?

No, and in fact it is explicitly stated in LDS scriptures that such a revelation does not pertain to us:

  Moses 1: 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.

Any history of beings from other worlds and their experiences in mortality falls outside the scope of "only an account of this earth and the inhabitants thereof."


A "version" of the bible with sentence structure written in English but retaining most of the original untranslated "nouns/verbs/adjectives"? Is there a "version" of the bible that has it's sentence structure written in English, yet retaining most of the original untranslated "nouns/verbs/adjectives" ?
Ok this is quite hard to explain, I'm not sure if anyone knows what I'm trying to say, but for example:

John 1:19 (NIV)
Now this was John’s testimony when the Jewish leaders[c] in Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was.
[c]: The Greek term traditionally translated the Jews (hoi Ioudaioi) refers here and elsewhere in John’s Gospel to those Jewish leaders who opposed Jesus
John 1:51 (NIV)
He then added, “Very truly I tell you,[i] you[j] will see ‘heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on’ the Son of Man.”
[i]: The Greek is plural.
[j]: The Greek is plural.
Luke 11:34 (NIV)
Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy,[g] your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy,[h] your body also is full of darkness.
[g]: The Greek for healthy here implies generous.
[h]: The Greek for unhealthy here implies stingy.

It is somewhat like the information in [c], [i], and [j]. But now only certain words are annotated. I believe this information is useful for in-dept Bible studying and I was wondering if there is a resource which shows more of these information.
In fact, if "hard-core" makes sense, I would like a "hard-core" resource.
++ Update: ++
To add to the answers, I've found a pretty good interlinear at http://www.phpbible.org/

If you want "hard-core", you might want to look into the Apostolic Bible:

It's a solid resource for the New Testament.

However, as @Ollie Jones mentioned, the Old Testament for this is based on the Septuagint--an ancient Greek translation--rather than the original Hebrew.  Because of that, it's not quite as reliable as going straight to the source.  (In some situations it can be quite a ways off.)

For the Old Testament, I like to use the Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible

It should be noted that there is a corresponding online version of the Greek for the New Testament, but I prefer the Apostolic Bible for the NT.


What was inside the Ark of the Covenant? 1 Kings 8:9 (NIV) There was nothing in the ark except the
  two stone tablets that Moses had placed in it at Horeb, where the Lord made a covenant with the Israelites after they came out of
  Egypt.

  Hebrews 9:3-4 (NIV) Behind the second curtain was a room called the
  Most Holy Place, which had the golden altar of incense and the
  gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold
  jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the
  stone tablets of the covenant.

1 Kings 8:9 says that inside the Ark of the Covenant there was only the two stone tablets of Moses. But Hebrews 9:3-4 mentions three things, the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.

Keeping in mind that the Ark of the Covenant was no more during the time of Jesus, the writer of Hebrews simply recalled from the Torah or from tradition about the contents of the Ark. In fact, even the writer never saw the Ark with his own eyes, let alone what was inside.

Regarding the pot of manna,

  Exodus 16:33-34 (KJV) And Moses said unto Aaron, Take a pot, and put
  an omer full of manna therein, and lay it up before the Lord, to
  be kept for your generations. As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron
  laid it up before the Testimony, to be kept.

This verse only says "before the Lord/Testimony" and not inside the Ark.

Regarding the staff of Aaron,

  Numbers 17:10 (NIV) The Lord said to Moses, “Put back Aaron’s staff
  in front of the ark of the covenant law, to be kept as a sign to the rebellious. This will put an end to their grumbling against me, so
  that they will not die.”

This verse also says that the staff of Aaron was placed in front of the Ark.

Questions:

Do these verses from the Old Testament contradict the Epistle to the Hebrews?
What exactly was kept inside the Ark of the Covenant?

In his commentary on Hebrews 9:4, John Gill notes,

  but how this pot, as well as Aaron's rod, can be said to be in the ark, when it is asserted, at the bringing of the ark into the temple, at the dedication of it by Solomon, that there was nothing in it but two tables of stone, (1 Kings 8:9; 2 Chr. 5:10) and both the pot of "manna," and Aaron's rod, are said to be before the testimony, (Exo. 16:34; Num. 17:10) and not in it, is a difficulty.

John Gill supposes that

  the preposition ἐν sometimes signifies "at," or "with," as in (Col. 3:1; John 1:28; Eph. 6:2) and so the sense is, that these were near unto it in the most holy place, and might be in the sides of it, though not within it; for there were places in the sides of the ark to put things into (Deut. 31:26; 1 Sam. 6:8) .

In 1 Sam. 6:8, the author writes that "vessels of gold" (כְּלֵי הַזָּהָב) were placed beside it (the Ark) (מִצִּדּוֹ). These vessels of God were "five golden hemorrhoids and five golden mice" (cp. 1 Sam. 6:4). We know without a doubt that the scriptures never mention any of these being present in the Ark itself. So, we may assume that there was some sort of storage space beside the Ark, yet the exact nature of this storage is unknown. Another possibility is that makeshift platforms were placed beside the Ark at various times to hold such things. Again, scripture is not clear.

Yet, one thing seems to be clear, and that is that there was nothing in the Ark except the two tables upon which were written the Ten Commandments (cp. 1 Kings 8:9). I would tend to agree with Gill's assertion that the Greek preposition ἐν can mean "with" (it is so translated in the A.V. 140 times). There are many examples of ἐν followed by a relative pronoun being translated as "with" (e.g., Matt. 7:2; Rev. 19:20).

Even if the pot of manna and Aharon's bud were located by the side of the Ark, they would still be considered "in the presence of YHVH" (לִפְנֵי יְהוָה; cp. Exo. 16:33) because YHVH dwelt between the kruvim (cp. 1 Sam. 4:4).

One more point to note. In Num. 17:7, it is written that Aharon's rod was to be brought "before the testimony"  or "in the presence of the testimony" (לִפְנֵי הָעֵדוּת). Some might assume that the "testimony" (or "witness) referred to here is the two tablets of the Ten Commandments (cp. Exo. 25:16). Thus, they may conclude that the rod and the pot of manna had to be in the immediate presence of the tablets contained inside the Ark itself. However, in his commentary on Exo. 16:34, Avraham ibn Ezra writes,

  לפני העדות שהוא הארון. ונקרא ארון העדות בעבור לוחות הברית שהיו שם

which is translated as,

  "Before the testimony," which is the Ark. And it was called "the Ark of the testimony" (cp. Exo. 25:22) on account of the tablets of the covenant that were there."

In summary, it's possible that there is no contradiction and that instead of being "in the Ark," the pot of manna and Aharon's rod were "with the Ark" inside the Temple and/ or Tabernacle.


What is the theological basis for readmitting a Protestant preacher to preaching after divorce? So, in my Baptist circles, a divorced pastor causes a lot of consternation.  It sort of went without saying that a minister in the midst of a divorce needed to resign, or at least take several years away from ministry.   In other words, there seems to be this idea that preachers who divorce are at least temporarily disqualified from ministry, and in some cases permanently so.
Andy Stanley picks up on this in his book "Deep and Wide," speaking of his father (Charles Stanley), who in 1992, underwent a very public divorce.  He writes:

While most of the congregants at First Baptist Atlanta (FBA) were willing to stand by my dad no matter what, there was a group that insisted he take some time off to work on his marriage. ... In addition to the take-some-time-off group, there was an element in the church that thought my dad should resign. It was their conviction that if my mom actually went through with the divorce, he would be disqualified to serve in his current capacity. As cruel as that may sound, you need to understand that until that time, First Baptist Atlanta had never had a divorced staff member or deacon. You couldn't be elected to the deacon board if you had been divorced. So, in the minds of the resign-now crowd, they were simply applying what they had been taught.
Stanley, Andy (2012-09-25). Deep & Wide: Creating Churches Unchurched People Love to Attend (p. 38). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

This seems related to the whole "deacons need to be the husband of one wife thing,"  but if this is the case, where does the chance at rehabilitation come from?
In short, what teachings would only temporarily disqualify a divorced pastor from preaching?

I hope the following does indeed contribute to the answer....

Paul writes that an elder must be above reproach, blameless, the husband of one wife, manage his own family well etc from 1 Timothy 3 and Titus.
A divorce is seen as causing serious question marks on these things for the man who has gone through such a tragedy.

Since the qualifications from Paul are not "ought to haves" but "must haves", then it has been the case in many Protestant denominations, that a divorce will disqualify a man from continuing to hold public office in the church.

It in no way condemns the divorced people to not being christians any more, if there is repentance, but it does preclude a man from continuing in the office even if he is the innocent party.

That's how it works in the circles I have seen....

But for those circles that do allow Pastors to re-enter the teaching office, it is generally because of arguments like "Who are we to judge? If a man is innocent then it should not disqualify him. If he has repented then we should bring him back and welcome him as a brother."

Such reasoning though is contra the first set of principles.


What are the early Church Fathers' views on the veneration/honoring of Saints I recently watched a video from the youtube channel Ascension Presents and Fr. Mike Schmitz on whether or not Catholics worship the saints. He quoted St. Augustine who said that we give the saints honor, Mary higher honor, and God worship (or something similar). My question is where was quoted from and what were the other Church Fathers' and early Church views on the veneration or honoring of Saints?

The Catholic concept we're talking about is dulia:

a theological term signifying the honour paid to the saints, while latria means worship given to God alone, and hyperdulia the veneration offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary

With respect to Augustine, there are a couple of possible sources here:

We regard the martyrs with the same affectionate intimacy that we feel towards holy men of God in this life, when we know that their hearts are prepared to endure the same suffering for the truth of the gospel. [...] What is properly divine worship, which the Greeks call latria, and for which there is no word in Latin, both in doctrine and in practice, we give only to God. To this worship belongs the offering of sacrifices; as we see in the word idolatry, which means the giving of this worship to idols. Accordingly we never offer, or require any one to offer, sacrifice to a martyr, or to a holy soul, or to any angel. Any one falling into this error is instructed by doctrine, either in the way of correction or of caution.

From Against Faustus (Contra Faustum), book XX, chapter 21.
St. Augustine also talks about worship that is due to God alone in City of God (emphasis and transliterations mine):

[...] we must now, by God's help, ascertain what is thought about our religious worship and piety by those immortal and blessed spirits, who dwell in the heavenly places among dominations, principalities, powers, whom the Platonists call gods, and some either good demons, or, like us, angels — that is to say, to put it more plainly, whether the angels desire us to offer sacrifice and worship, and to consecrate our possessions and ourselves, to them or only to God, theirs and ours.
For this is the worship which is due to the Divinity, or, to speak more accurately, to the Deity; and, to express this worship in a single word as there does not occur to me any Latin term sufficiently exact, I shall avail myself, whenever necessary, of a Greek word. Λατρεία [latria], whenever it occurs in Scripture, is rendered by the word service. But that service which is due to men, and in reference to which the apostle writes that servants must be subject to their own masters, Ephesians 6:5 is usually designated by another word in Greek, whereas the service which is paid to God alone by worship, is always, or almost always, called λατρεία in the usage of those who wrote from the divine oracles.
[...] [λατρεία], we say, belongs only to that God who is the true God, and who makes His worshippers gods. And therefore, whoever these immortal and blessed inhabitants of heaven be, if they do not love us, and wish us to be blessed, then we ought not to worship them; and if they do love us and desire our happiness, they cannot wish us to be made happy by any other means than they themselves have enjoyed — for how could they wish our blessedness to flow from one source, theirs from another?

It's a bit trickier to find an Augustinian reference to Mary in this way. In On Nature and Grace he does imply that the Virgin Mary may have been sinless, unlike other saints:

Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin while they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer?  [...] I put it to you, whether, on having such a question submitted to them, however excellent might have been their sanctity in this body, they would not have exclaimed with one voice: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us? 1 John 1:8

Re: Other Church Fathers' and Mothers' views on the veneration, we have evidence for veneration-like practices at least as early as 155 AD, from the Church of Smyrna (transliterations mine):

Him indeed we adore (προσκυνουμεν) [proskinoumen] as the Son of God; but the martyrs we love as they deserve (αγαπωμεν αξιως) [agapomen axios], for their surpassing love to their King and Master, as we wish also to be their companions and fellow-disciples.

By the fourth century, this was well-established among some of the most famous saints of all time:

In one of his letters, St. Basil explicitly writes that he accepts the intercession of the apostles, prophets and martyrs, and he seeks their prayers to God (Letter 360). Then, speaking about the Forty Martyrs, who suffered martyrdom for Christ, he emphasizes that "they are common friends of the human race, strong ambassadors and collaborators in fervent prayers" (Chapter 8). St. Gregory of Nyssa asks St. Theodore the Martyr "to fervently pray to our Common King, our God, for the country and the people" (Encomium to Martyr Theodore). The same language is used by St. Gregory the Theologian in his encomium to St. Cyprian. St. John Chrysostom says that we should seek the intercession and the fervent prayers of the saints, because they have special "boldness" (parresia), before God. (Gen. 44:2 and Encomium to Julian, Iuventinus and Maximinus, 3).

Here's another bevy of quotations from a Catholic perspective about the intercession of saints.


Who created heaven and hell? I'm wondering if heaven and hell was created or it always existed.

If it was created obviously God created it right? Because He is the only one capable of creating something like that. If so why make a torture chamber for you "children" if they disobey you. Even most human parents won't do something like that to their children no matter how bad they become.

But if it always existed along with God, then he did not create everything. Maybe there more things that have always existed that we don't know yet.

What is the truth according to the Bible?

I think almost all branches of Christianity* agree that both heaven and hell are places specifically created by God. The justification for this is pretty simple: all things outside the being of God himself were created by God. There are no other eternally existing beings, things or places, and all the extant beings, things and places are explicitly identified as having been created by God:

  Colossians 1:16 (ESV)
  16  For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.

The exact meaning and scope of each of these items is sometimes debated, but it's generally agreed that this covers everything. Including heaven and hell.

In the case of heaven in particular we have another indication that it is a place created by God:

  John 14:3 (ESV)
  3  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.

Likewise for hell we have an indication that it is a place prepared for a purpose:

  Matthew 25:41 (ESV)
  41  “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

TL;DR: God created heaven and hell.

* The exceptions are of course a couple sects that don't believe hell even exists and a couple that postulate about it being a sort of less-than-fully-real place not created as hell per-se but that becomes that through acts of either man or the devil.


To what do the seven churches of Revelation refer? I have heard of the Seven Church Ages interpretation of the seven churches of Revelation, specifically that each church identified there also represents ages of the church since that time.  I've also heard people specify that we are now in the Laodicean church age, as we look around and see the church "rich, increased with goods, having need of nothing."

Yet, this appears to me to possibly be true of some elements of the church in America, but I can't see how the church in Iran or Vietnam would ever come to the same conclusion.

So, I see three possibilities, of which one or more may be true.

The churches in Revelation are just churches that existed at that time.
They not only refer to churches that existed then, but are symbolic of church ages
They not only refer to churches that existed then, but are representative of churches that have existed in different places since then.

Am I missing any possibilities?  What reasons are there to support each interpretation?

The seven churches are described in Revelation 2 and 3.  My opinion is that the seven churches not only refer to churches that existed then, but are representative of churches that have existed in different places since then.
Here's what Revelation Commentary says about the seven churches:

With two thousand years separating the seven churches of Asia and the modern churches of the world, the question of relevance is critical. What is the relationship between the seven churches mentioned in Revelation and modern churches? Some commentators have tried to make the case that the seven churches of Revelation depict seven periods of church history. This view is woefully inadequate. First, there is no explicit scriptural support for this view. Second, the seven periods of church history must be subjectively determined, which undermines credibility and fosters date setting. Third, such an approach deprives the first century churches of any application for their time.
However, the messages, themselves, yield the necessary clues to answer the question of relevancy. For believers of all ages the issue is the same in connection with the Son of Man: forgiveness or judgment. The Lord instructs six of the seven churches that there are both immediate and long-term consequences to their deeds. The threat of immediate discipline for a lack of repentance is given to the churches of Ephesus, Pergamum, Thyatira, and Laodicea. Equally, each church is also warned about the possible rewards and punishments to be experienced at the Lord’s coming (parousia). This indicates that the messages to the seven churches have both a "near" application and a "far" application--both a temporal and an eternal application. The fact that each message ends with the same trademark: "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches," is compelling. That the term church is plural extends the message and application to the church universal. Believers in two thousand AD can claim the same promises and fear the same warnings.

Here's a link to the contributors of Revelation Commentary.


Why is beating one's breast used to show sadness and guilt? According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus definition:

  Beat your breast/chestTo show how sad or guilty you feel in an obvious or public way

I understand what is meant by beating one's breast, but why is this the preferred way to express sadness and/or guilt? Apes beat their breasts also, but not with the same aim.

  Isaiah 32:12-13 (ESV)

  Beat your breasts for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine, for the soil of my people growing up in thorns and briers, yes, for all the joyous houses in the exultant city.

  Luke 18:13 (ESV)

  But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’

  Luke 23:48 (ESV)

  And all the crowds that had assembled for this spectacle, when they saw what had taken place, returned home beating their breasts.

(n.d.). Retrieved July 29, 2016, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/beat-your-breast-chest

The basic idea is that of "smiting oneself." As Howard Marshall puts it, commenting on Luke 18:13:

  The breast or heart is regarded as the seat of sin, and hence the act is one of grief or contrition.1

As alluded to here, in the Hebrew background of the expression lies the word for "heart" (Heb. leb or lebab). Nahum 2:7 is a good example:2

  ... her slave girls lamenting, moaning like doves, and beating their breasts (lit. hearts)

In the Old Testament, the leb is the affective, noetic, and ethical center of a person. Inflicting blows to it, then

  expresses a sense of diminution ... it is an act of self-abasement to influence the deity.3

Whereas leb has no specific anatomic referent,4 the reflex Greek translation for the abstract leb is kardia. Like leb, kardia is very frequently used metaphorically, but where there is a concrete referent, it is clearly the organ we know as the heart. It may be for this reason that in the Greek expression we find instead stēthos ("breast"), a part of the body more accessible for beating.

Notes:

This question has also been asked on the English Language and Usage site. To me, the specific Biblical evidence is worthwhile considering in addition to the general conclusions stated there.

1. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC; (Eerdmans, 1978), p. 680.

2. The OP offers Isaiah 32:12, which may indeed carry a similar sense, but the Hebrew is a bit obscure: "mourning on breasts", so not actually an explicit example of "beating".

3. Heinz-Josef Fabry, "לֵב לֵבָב," TDOT, (Eerdmans, 1972) v.7, p. 411.

4. In the minority of usages (such as this) involving a concrete part of the body, it sees to be located in the area of the thoracic cage, but it is not clearly the heart. See Fabry, TDOT, for extended discussion.


Why haven't we revised the Bible in centuries? Possible Duplicate:
  What are the biblical arguments that the Bible canon is closed?

Preface: This question is not directed at a specific denomination.

Why haven't we revised the Bible in centuries?

Christians believe that God inspired humans to write the Bible.
But the fact is that humans have decided which writings should be included in the Bible and which should not.
So as society and civilization proceed, why haven't we shed some passages which aren't relevant anymore and why haven't we included some new writings which are particularly relevant to modern day Christianity?
For instance, I think many writings from St. Augustine and St. John Bosco should be included in the Bible.

Several reasons:

Historically, canonicity in the NT was restricted to the 12 apostles and direct relations of Jesus. (Mark = Peter, Luke=Paul*, Matthew & John were both disciples, Hebrews was errantly ascribed to Paul, James and Jude were brothers of Jesus // Paul was considered to be an apostle, since Jesus appeared directly to him.)
Later Councils (I forget if it was Chalcedon or Ephesus) also declared the canons closed, representing the consensus of the church that indeed, "It is finished"
Theologically, it is understood that Jesus was the last and ultimate sacrifice, and therefore no further revelation of God is necessary (something that would be at direct odds, with say, the Ba'hai)


Where did our spirit come from? (Overview) Where did our spirit come from? Did it exist before we were born? Or did it come into existence when we were born or later?

What is an overview of the major Christian answers to this question?

The discussion of the origin of the human soul/spirit (on this topic they are generally spoken of as one immaterial part) is a very old one in Christian history. There are many serious implications which the debate has commonly hinged on, particularly regarding the transmission of Adam's original sin and guilt. However varied those theories may be, a basic summary shows that most variations of views on this topic fall within a few categories:

Creationism

Creationism (of the soul) believes that God creates a soul for each body that is generated organically. [1][2]

History

Historically, Creationism has been the default explanation of the early church and is now still maintained by the Roman Catholic Church.

Jerome was clear in his support of it while opposing Traducianism (below). He is joined by Augustine, though he expressed doubts to Jerome later in his life as he debated with Pelagius on the topics of original sin, guilt and the human condition. 2

By the 13th century, creationism was solidified in the Roman Catholic Church by notables such as Thomas Aquinas.[3]

Scriptural Support

Creationism has many verses that would seem to support it:

Ecclesiastes 12:7 (ESV)

  and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Isaiah 42:5 (ESV)

  Thus says God, the Lord,
  who created the heavens and stretched them out,
  who spread out the earth and what comes from it,
  who gives breath to the people on it.

Zechariah 12:1 (ESV)

  The oracle of the word of the Lord concerning Israel: Thus declares the Lord, who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the spirit of man within him.

Common Criticisms

Means God may be creating a sinful or "dead" soul.
Makes the transmission of Original Sin and Federal Headship more difficult to explain.

Traducianism& Generationism

Traducianism posits that the immaterial and the material are generated through the organic process of generation, or conception. Though very similar, Generationism is sometimes distinguished from Traducianism in that it would say that the parents' souls are involved in the generation of the child's immaterial part while their bodies generate the organic, rather than the organic process being responsible for both. [3]

In both cases, neither of the two explanations traditionally maintains that God is not involved at all, which is a common criticism and misconception. Both explanations, however, insist the parents provide the substance while God provides the spark. [7]

History

Tertullian is one of the earliest theologians (ad 160?-230?) to argue strongly for Traducianism. Soon after the rise of the Pelagian heresy, many church fathers, such as Augustine, began to question this topic and Traducianism became a popular alternative. Gregory of Nyssa is another major early proponent of Traducianism.

Eastern Orthodoxy held to Traducianism, and it was popular with Lutherans after the Protestant Reformation.[3]

Scriptural Support

Psalm 51:3 (ESV)

  Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
  and in sin did my mother conceive me.

Hebrews 7:9-10

  9 One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham,
  10 for he was still in the loins of his ancestor when Melchizedek met him.

Common Criticisms

If the parents are regenerate believers, how can Original Sin be transmitted?
Man cannot determine his spiritual existence. If he can kill the body but not the soul, how then can he create it?
Seems to bind the material and immaterial, and some theologies have difficulty separating the two.

Pre-Existence

Others believe that God created souls either before he created Adam and Eve or along with the souls of Adam and Eve on the 6th day, and the souls are then breathed into their new bodies, as Creationism says, at conception.

There are some, however, who would not necessarily agree the soul was created at all but is already eternal, is waiting to be placed in a body, and the body and soul will one day be reunited in eternity.[6]

Christian Mortalism/Monism

Another solution is to avoid the question entirely. Christian Mortalism (Monism or Materialism), regardless of differing eschatological beliefs, would say the soul (or spirit) and the body are not separate but are united.
Accordingly, Christian Mortalism is similar to Traducianism in that a person's soul is created in the union of the parents without an immaterial part to create, but only one whole person.

However, that is not to say that all materialistic or monistic theologies hold to this belief. The 7th Day Adventists, for example, are primarily Creationists (either declared or undeclared) with strongly monist tendencies. [5]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism_%28soul%29
[2] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04475a.htm
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traducianism
[4] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15014a.htm
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anthropology#One_part_.28Monism.29
[6] http://www.reasons.org/articles/the-origin-of-the-human-soul-part-2-of-4
[7] http://www.str.org/blog/how-did-you-get-a-soul-creationism-versus-traducianism#.VoBKUlKYDeI


Why does the priest say the words of the consecration in a low tone in the EF when Jesus probably did not say it in a low tone? In the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (the so-called "Tridentine Mass" or "Latin Mass") the words of the consecration are said in a low tone. In the Ordinary Form they are said in what I think is called vulgar tone.
Why does the Priest say the words of the consecration in a low tone at the Extraordinary Form when Jesus probably did not say it in a low tone?

St. Robert Bellarmine, On the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, ch. 12 "Not everything in Mass must necessarily be said in a loud voice":

The next question is not much different from the previous one ["On the Kind of Language"], namely on the manner of voice. Our adversaries impugn the Latin Church because it bids many things in Mass to be said in a quiet voice, which was addressed in the Council of Trent, sess. 22 canon 9. There, from the beginning it must be observed that the question is not, “Whether it is licit per se to celebrate the whole Mass in a quiet voice”, for we are not unaware that the manner of voice does not pertain to the substance of the sacrifice, and these things can be changed according to the judgment of the Church. Thus, the whole question is placed in this: “Whether the custom of the Latin Church of pronouncing certain things in a quiet voice is opposed to the institution of Christ, and hence, is bad and necessarily must be corrected.”[…]2) The second objection: Christ did not institute the sacraments in such a way that the action would be visible and public, so the word, which is a special part of the sacraments, should be hidden and buried.I respond: The notion of a sacrament is one thing, and the notion of a sacrifice another; at the present we are arguing properly on the sacrifice. Moreover, the sacrifice does not consist in words, but in the oblation of a thing, words, however, are required in the sacrifice of the Mass, not to be themselves the sacrifice, or part of the sacrifice, but only to show the presence of the victim to us. By the words of consecration, as we showed above, it comes about that the Body of Christ is truly present on the altar; this is why the sacrifice will truly be outward and sensible, even if the words, whereby it comes about, cannot be heard. Add, that in the sacraments, to the essence of which the words chiefly pertain, it is not necessary that the words are perceived by those who receive the sacraments, provided they are perceived by those who minister them; otherwise baptism conferred upon infants, the insane, and the deaf would be invalid, which not even Chemnitz would admit. Consequently, we respond to the argument that Christ did not establish the words so they would be hidden and buried, that he also did not establish them in such a way that they must be pronounced to be heard by all who are present. Rather, he only established them to be really applied, and after him it was left to the liberty of the Church to constitute a manner of recitation. Not only do Catholics teach this, but even Chemnitz the teacher and Luther the prophet, in his book On the Formula of the Mass, where he permits the freedom to pronounce the words of the Supper in a loud or quiet voice.[…][To the objection that Eastern rites use a loud voice at consecration:]I respond: We do not deny that the words of consecration in the Eastern Church are customarily recited out loud, since it is quite certain from the liturgy of Chrysostom. Nor do we condemn this; for we do not contend that these words must necessarily be recited in a quiet voice, rather, that the Church is free to establish the rite, and hence neither the rite of the Greeks nor of the Latins can be condemned, nor should they. But although the words of consecration are uttered in a loud voice among the Greeks, nevertheless, certain others are pronounced in a quiet voice and clearly in secret, as we clearly showed from the same liturgy of Chrysostom. As a result, there is no need to respond to the testimony of Bessarion and Dionysius of Alexandria.

Rev. James Luke Meagher, How Christ Said the First Mass, p. 387:

The synagogue service was sung in a loud tone, while the table Seder was recited in a lower voice. The synagogue worship brought the Passover to the end of what we call the Preface of the Mass. During this first part of the Mass, the celebrant sings in a loud tone, while he recites the Canon in a low voice. Why is this? Some writers say the Canon is thus said in a low voice because of the persecutions of the Roman empire, and that then they said Mass in secret places and in a low voice lest enemies might hear them.But enemies would have heard the first part of the Mass which was always sung from the beginning when possible. The Orientals, not disturbed by Roman persecutions, sang the Mass from apostolic days, and therefore this does not seem a valid reason why the Canon is recited in a low tone. This Canon, found only in the Latin Liturgy, the Mass St. Peter established at Rome, is the most sacred part of the Mass, and corresponds to the sacred Seder of the Passover the Jews said at the table in a lower voice. St. Peter, leader of the apostolic band therefore established the Latin Liturgy with its Canon more according to the Jewish Passover Rite than the other apostles, who established Liturgies of the Mass indifferent languages.


Jesus got angry in the temple - should we do that too? I think we know the story.

  Matthew 21:12

  And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold
  and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the
  moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves

Can we emulate this as Christians? I mean, can we get as angry as this? I can say Jesus was fighting on behalf of God. If we do the same, are we also justified?

There's an interesting bit of detail about the event in Mark 11:11:

  Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the temple courts. He looked around at everything, but since it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.

He did not allow his anger to control him. This was not an act of rage.

There is another issue at play here, as well. Since Jesus is Himself part of God, the offense committed by the changers in the temple was towards him directly. An analogy is that if you see someone habitually blaspheme God, it's as if that person physically assaulted your mother. But from Jesus perspective, it was as if they were assaulting you directly, or perhaps even assaulting you and your mother at the same time.

While we are to use Jesus as the great example, we must be careful to remember that, as the creator, he sometimes sees things differently than we do, both through his power to understand people's hearts, and from the fact that he relates to people differently than we do.


Why do Catholics recite the phrase "Thanks be to God" during Mass? Why do Catholics recite the phrase "Thanks be to God" during Mass?

They say this many times too. After the priest speaks, the congregation follows in unison, "Thanks be to God."

It is the English translation of Deo Gratias, which is repeated “in thanksgiving for the graces received at Mass” (Catholic Encyclopedia).


How do churches (specifically WELS) proselytize while barring all forms of fellowship? So my question is about churches (or more specifically the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church) which bar all forms of fellowship (to include prayer) unless all points of doctrine are agreed upon.  For example, two Lutherans, one from WELS and one from LCMS, have very similar doctrines.  The LCMS Lutheran believes in limited fellowship, but will pray with non LCMS Lutherans.  The WELS Lutheran will not pray with the LCMS Lutheran however.

This makes me wonder: How is it possible to help someone grow in the faith when you cannot even pray with a person until you agree on all points of doctrine?  How can they even learn all points of expected doctrine without having a community they are in fellowship with?

Do they make an exception when someone is growing in the faith?  Do they not bring people to worship services until they're ready to be baptised - and agree to believe all points of doctrine?  (So do they discourage parishioners from bringing friends to church?)

I am a WELS Lutheran.  The idea that we refuse to pray with other Christians is a carricature of us.  It is not totally accurate.  My pastor says that public prayer is always off limits but private prayer is something that requires a bit of discretion.

I have a good example of something that happened in our church.  The parocial school that is attached to our church was getting ready to play a basketball game against a Baptist school.  The Baptist school asked us if we wanted to have a prayer before the game started.  We had to decline.  It is not that we think that the Baptist Church is not a Christian church.  It is that we are concerned that we would be giving a false appearance of unity with the Baptists (or whatever other church we are referring to).  There are doctrinal differences between Baptists and WELS.  We have great respect for our christian brethren in the Baptist church but we feel that they error in many different ways.  We feel that by praying with them we are sending them a signal that we are in doctrinal agreement with them.

Private prayers are a bit different.  Each situation has to be discerned.  My pastor says that if I am inviting my friend to my house and we are going to have a meal in my house that I should say to my friend "I like to pray before my meals.  If you want you are welcome to join me or if you do not want to you are not required to".  We leave it up to the individual.  In that situation I am in control of the situation.  It is my house and it is my prayer so I am controlling the message that goes to God.  Now if I go to my friend's house and my friend wants to pray then I am told that I should sit there quietly while my friend says his prayer.  I am to be very respectful and not cause a scene as I have a great deal of respect for my friend.  I just happen to have some differences with him.  It is an act of love because I am letting my friend know that he is in error in his ways.

We do not believe that other church bodies are not Christian or that we are better than anyone else.  We just believe that their beliefs are different and deserving of the same respect that ours are.  Like if a Charismatic Christian is praying I do not think that my Charismatic friend that is a Christian would appreciate his or her prayer to God being dilluted by a person like me that hold a cessationist theological position (this is an example).  My Charismatic friend has a right to have a pure prayer sent to God with a clear signal of what he wishes to pray to God for.  It would be very disrectful on my part to pray with him or her and dillute his or her message to God.

There are situations where this does not apply.  Like if I am praying for a family member that is not WELS who is sick and dying with some other non WELS family members.  Or like say if I am praying with someone that is hearing about Christ for the first time and is interested in learning more.  In those situations my praying with them would not be dilluting the message or giving a false impression of doctrinal unity.

As WELS Lutherans we are told to make our own judgment in each and every situation as to if it is appropriate or not to pray with someone else.  Not each and every WELS member is going to agree on each and every situation each and every time.  There are differences in practice but that is OK.  I have seen some WELS pastors that will say that it is OK to make the dinner prayer in every situation as they do not believe that blessing a meal is showing doctrinal agreement.  They disagree with some others but that is ok.  We do have the general concept in line.


Is Jesus depicted as dead or alive on a crucifix? According to Catholics, is Jesus depicted as dead or alive on a crucifix?

It depends upon the crucifix. The Christus Rex crucifix

has Jesus on the cross, reigning in either high priestly, or kingly robes. This is quite apparently the triumphant, risen, living Christ.

On the other hand, the figures on the crucifix with the suffering Christ,

always seem to include a spear wound in his side, and usually a bowed head. Since in John 19, Jesus death is reported in verse 30 ("... he said, 'It is finished'; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." [RSV]), and the report that his side was pierced happens in verse 34, the suffering corpus depicts a Jesus who has died.


Do Fetuses have souls? Is the aquisition of a soul instantenous or continuous? Christian fundamentalists argue against abortion on the grounds that fetuses have souls.  The argument starts with two premises: that people have souls while animals do not, and that the right to life goes with possession of a soul.

It proceeds by asserting that the developing fetus must acquire its soul at some instant; and because no point after conception is special enough to be that instant, it must happen at conception. (It takes hours for an egg and a sperm to unite, but they could choose some brief part of the process as the crucial "instant".)  Therefore, the argument concludes, the fetus has a soul and the same rights as a grown human.

The fetus at any given time either has a soul or it doesn't.  There is no intermediate state, no way to change gradually from soul-absent to soul-present, so the change must be instantaneous.

It is normal in quantum mechanics for an object to change gradually from state A to state B, even though there are no intermediate states between A and B.

Take for example, an electron's spin can either point up or down (along whichever axis you choose for the measurement); there is no possible intermediate value it can have.  Yet in the proper conditions can reliably and gradually convert spin-down electrons into the spin-up state, over a predictable length of time. What changes is the probability you will find State A vs State B moves gradually from 0% to 100%.

So my question is, When does the Fetus Acquire the soul and is it an instantaneous event or a continuous event.  Can someone explain this?

At the risk of making enemies from both sides of the war over abortion, I will merely provide my opinion.

There is no way of knowing when God breathes a soul into a fetus. At conception? Somewhere in the Middle?  Biblically we know it happens in the womb at some point because babies in the womb respond to God.

For example:

  When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. (NIV Luke 1:41)

It takes no forced exegesis to naturally assume John the Baptists, 'before he was born' was responding to God, in some way. this implies a living soul.

The prophecy concerning him also predicted it:

  for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. (ESV Luke 1:15)

Here I could not refer to the NIV as to be clear the word for womb is koy-lee'-ah in Greek and must mean womb. Some translations for ease of street-language just say 'from birth' but without any doubt  whatsoever it means 'before birth'.

Therefore it happens sometime in the womb and one can figure out how old the Baptist was and say definitely before then.  However I do not see the at conception argument made in scripture.  It might be? It might not be?

Therefore since we know the soul is in the womb, but do not know one way or another at exactly when, when a woman is thinking about having an abortion, if she believes the Bible, she must assume at a minimum it might be a living soul. But IMPORTANT if a woman has had an abortion and believes it was a sin, by believing in the Bible, her sin is no greater than the sins we have all committed and she can find perfect full forgiveness and cleansing from guilt, by simple faith in Christ apart from any good work she may want to do to atone for it on her own.

Regarding instantaneous or continuous, I would go with instantaneous as God gave Adam a soul instantaneously by breathing into his human body.


How long can the Catholic Church be without a pope? According to Wikipedia the longest papal election in the history of the Catholic Church was from November 1268 to September 1, 1271.

How long can the Catholic Church be without a pope so that we can say that the succession was broken?

If there is defined no length of time, then if simply we don't need a pope for three hundred years, we can wait that long to elect one and papal succession would remain unbroken.

You would have the succession, since the Pope would be the valid successor to his predecessor. So there is no break in succession. But the Church would be limping, as it were, until its proper order is restored. You don't need a Pope to be Catholic; it's just that Christ instuted the Church with a Pope, and so it is definitional to the heirarchical structure of the Church that He wanted (it's therefore not negligible). A flock can only remain on course for so long before it scatters. cf. John 21:16; Matthew 26:31; Luke 22:32.

If you were born and died during Sede Vacante ('vacant Seat') period (meaning a valid Pope yet to be elected; and there is no current Pope), you are no less Catholic because of that, for example. All Popes, virtually without exception, die before there is a new Pope—it is the normative process of election. Pope Benedicts XVI's recent resignation is extremely, extremely rare.1

There were (disciplinary) rules put in place by Popes to minimize the amount of time it takes for the bishops (cardinals) to elect a new Pope. A striking instance was the Papal bull (or document) issued by Pope Gregory X called Ubi Periculum (papal documents are named after the beginning sentence or a beginning sentence in the Latin document—here, 'Where [there is] danger' ("...of a long vacancy"). But the stringent measures (deitary in nature) prescribed therein, to prevent long periods of sede vacante, were done away with by his successors (being a disciplinary matter, not a doctrinal one, Popes can, and do, undo what their successors judge to be right for the time).

We now have a working system, and trust that God will provide for His people in difficult situations for these, and rectify them before too long, just as He has in the past. He won't allow the gates of Hell to prevail against His Church. Matthew 16:18.

"If there is no time set up then simply we don't need a pope for let's say 300 years and elect one then and say we still have a succession of the popes"

This is just speculative, and not really realistic, nor productive. Not to mention that it would be true that succession is retained in such a scenario. If another valid Pope is elected, then he is Pope. It doesn't rely on the proximity to the last Pope's death or election.

It has more to do with the Church being without a head (earthly, I mean), contrary to the institution of the Church as such. Matthew 16:18-19b; Isaiah 22:22-23. A lengthy period in which there is no "a father to the inhabitants of" the Church, is indeed a danger or risk ("periculum") to the Church's health as a society. Much like a family can exist without a "father," but is severely detrimented if he is not there for whatever reason.

1  The last 'resignation' of a Pope was six centuries ago. It is estimated that only 10 or so (at most) Popes have ever done so, under quite different and varying circumstances.


How did the second Vatican council (aka Vatican II) address the concept of limbo? I've heard that the second Vatican council eliminated the concept of limbo. Or maybe that it never existed to begin with.

Was limbo part of "official" Catholicism before Vatican II? What changes were made at Vatican II regarding limbo?

If you look at this question, you will find references to statements by Benedict XVI regarding Limbo. Specifically he says:

  Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith. Personally - and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation - I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for the faith, namely, the importance of baptism. …. One should not hesitate to give up the idea of 'limbo' if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed 'limbo' also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for the faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be." - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

If Limbo was never a doctrine of the faith, then Vatican II cannot have 'eliminated' it. In short, Limbo was only ever a theory, and is less popular these days than it was.


Do any denominations have a positon on the doctrinal value of Job's friends? The book of Job is a beautiful and inspirational book of scripture with some of the clearest teachings on God's power, the nature of life, the beauty and worth of the Earth, and other important doctrines.

One thing I thought of recently, though, is that Job's friends say things that are more or less against Job, and at the end, God says that only Job spake right.

Are there any denominations that have officially marked the words of Job's friends as doctrinal or not doctrinal?

I've been taught (Reformed Presbyterian) that Job's first three friends did some things right (e.g., wait until Job spoke first), but mostly they did things wrong (applied generally good theology incorrectly to the situation at hand). Elihu was not commenting on the previous history and whether Job had sinned before all the catastrophe; Elihu was commenting on what was happening with all the talking that takes up most of the book. For, while Job did not sin initially, he did sin later: that is what Elihu condemned. Elihu also condemned the inability of the first three friends correctly to see what Job's problem was.


What denominations, besides JWs, hold that the Star of Bethlehem was sent by Satan? I looked up information about the Star of Bethlehem on Jehovah's Witnesses website and it looks like their point on it was that it was actually created by Satan in an attempt to kill Jesus.

Now of course as is known, this star and the story of the wise men has been a staple of Christmas celebrations for centuries.

So the question I would like to ask is: are there other Christian denominations that hold that the star was sent by Satan?

Here are the Jehovah's Witnesses arguments on it, from this article:

  First, who were those men? In the original Greek, the Bible calls them
  neither kings nor wise men. They were magi, or astrologers. They were
  evidently practicers of the pagan art of divination based on the
  stars. The Bible record reveals neither the names nor the number of
  those visitors.

  Second, when did those men visit? Not when Jesus was a baby in a
  manger. How do we know that? The Gospel writer Matthew says: “When
  they went into the house they saw the young child with Mary its
  mother.” (Matthew 2:11) Note that Jesus was no longer a newborn baby,
  but a “young child.” Mary and Joseph were no longer spending nights in
  a stable; rather, they were by then living in a house.

  Third, who sent that “star” to lead the astrologers? Religious leaders
  commonly teach that God sent the “star.” Did he really? Remember, the
  “star” did not first lead those astrologers to Bethlehem. Rather, it
  led them to King Herod in Jerusalem. They revealed Jesus’ existence to
  that jealous and powerful murderer and even gave him strong reason for
  hating the child who was to become “king of the Jews.” (Matthew 2:2)
  Craftily, Herod told them to report back to him on the precise
  location of this child, claiming that he wanted to honor it as well.
  The “star” then led the astrologers to Joseph and Mary. So the
  astrologers were on a course that would have doomed the young child
  had God not intervened. Happily, he did intervene. So enraged was
  Herod when the astrologers did not report back to him that he ordered
  all the male children two years of age and younger in and around
  Bethlehem to be killed.—Matthew 2:16.

  Jehovah later referred to Jesus as “my Son, the beloved, whom I have
  approved.” (Matthew 3:17) Consider: Would that loving, righteous
  Father select pagan astrologers—practicers of an occult art forbidden
  in his Law—as his messengers? (Deuteronomy 18:10) Would he use a star
  to lead them to the most dangerous and powerful murderer in the land,
  bearing a message sure to inflame Herod’s jealous hatred? Would God
  then use the same star and astrologers to reveal the spot where his
  helpless son lay?

  To illustrate: A good military commander sends his best soldier on a
  dangerous mission into enemy territory. Would he reveal to the enemy
  where to find that soldier? Of course not! Likewise, Jehovah sent his
  Son to this dangerous world. Would He reveal to wicked King Herod
  where His Son lay as a defenseless child? Never!

  Who, then, sent the “star,” or starlike object? Well, who had the greatest interest in seeing the child Jesus put to death, preventing
  him from growing up and fulfilling his mission on earth? Who seeks to
  mislead people and promotes lies, violence, and slaughter? Jesus
  himself identified the “liar and the father of the lie,” the one who
  “was a manslayer when he began”—Satan the Devil.—John 8:44.
  (emphasis added)

With this old question popping up again due to current interest in a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter about to happen in a few days’ time, I read the answers and comments here, noting that nobody has yet suggested any denomination apart from the Jehovah’s Witnesses claiming the Star of Bethlehem was satanic. Thus it is not surprising if there is no other religious group having a similar view. It is eyebrow-raising, though, that it seems that Satanists link the Pentagram to the Star of the Magi and to the Star of Bethlehem. As you quoted from a JW article giving JW beliefs about the star and the Magi, my answer links in with that, too.
I looked at related Stack questions on this, and found a later one, (Did the Wise Men see the Star of Bethlehem at the east?) to be relevant.  It shows various views about the Star of Bethlehem. As I answered it myself, I will just refer to that instead of repeating details about how a triple conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter three years before Herod the Great’s death was said by David Hughes, Professor of Astronomy at Sheffield University to possibly account for the Magi appearing some time after Mary gave birth to Jesus.  Another answerer gave this relevant link https://wagingwisdom.com/2018/12/21/re-enchanting-the-star-of-bethlehem/
What I want to add here is information from Wikipedia that shows how astronomy and astrology are bound up in the on-going matter of the Star of Bethlehem and, from a Christian point of view, the astrological ones are worrying. Yet, even if the Magi were ‘into’ astrology, it needs to be remembered that God would know that and use their amazing knowledge of periodic movements of the heavenly bodies to carry out his will. After all, it was God who set them all in motion and he knows every movement and every date, and that the timing of the Word of God becoming flesh as Mary’s child was utterly in his control, determined from before creation started.
From this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_conjunction#%E2%88%926

“When studying the great conjunction of 1603, Johannes Kepler thought
that the Star of Bethlehem might have been the occurrence of a great
conjunction. He calculated that a triple conjunction of Jupiter and
Saturn occurred in 7 BCE (astronomical year numbering -6).  A triple
conjunction is a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn at or near their
opposition to the Sun.  In this scenario, Jupiter and Saturn will
occupy the same position in right ascension (or ecliptic longitude) on
three occasions (due to apparent retrograde motion) over a period of a
few months. The most recent triple conjunction occurred in 1981, and
the next will occur in 2239…
As well as being a triple conjunction, the great conjunction of 7541
will feature two occultations of Saturn by Jupiter, the first since
6856 BC (although the accuracy of planetary positions this far into
the future cannot be calculated, and so sources differ as to the exact
nature of these occultations)…
Despite the inaccuracies and some disagreement about the beginning of
the cycle the belief in the significance of such events generated a
stream of publications which grew steadily up to the end of the 16th
century. As the great conjunction of 1583 was the last in the watery
trigon it was widely supposed to herald apocalyptic changes; a papal
bull against divinations was issued in 1586 and as nothing really
significant had happened by 1603 with the advent of a new trigon, the
public interest rapidly died.  [Diagram shown of Kepler’s trigon,
showing great conjunctions from his 1606 book ‘De Stella Nova’]”

Note how speculations about much earlier conjunctions have been going on for centuries, waxing and waning – but now waxing once more. Also, that the conjunction of 21 December this year (2020) is not a triple conjunction. The next will be in 2239, and possibly thereafter in 7541. Note also the papal bull against divinations regarding such events. Christians should rightly be careful to distinguish between astronomy and astrology, and not merge the two. Astronomy explores the work and wonders of God’s creation in the universe and although rarely credits God, Christians do. This is not to relegate the Star of Bethlehem to mere ‘natural phenomena’, but to uphold God as the only one able to time every material object he made to fit in with the supernatural incarnation of Christ. After all, Numbers 24:17 foretold, “A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel”. And God used a wayward prophet who tried (in vain) to curse the people of Israel to make that prophecy about a future Messiah. The risen Christ himself says, “I Jesus… am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star.” (Revelation 22:16)
Just because some groups claim Satan caused the Star of Bethlehem to lead the astrological Magi to the house where Jesus, Mary and Joseph were, is no reason for Christians to give that evil one such undue honour. The Magi defeated Satan’s intentions by heeding God’s warning to them in a dream not to return to Herod (Matthew 2:12), though they knew it not. God knew all along.


What does John Calvin mean to imply by the "suffrage" of the church? In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin discusses the idea that the Biblical canon depends on the ratifying action of the Church (Book 1, Chapter 7). He thinks it does not, preferring to say that the Church formally recognized what everybody already knew. This is meant not only as a historical statement about prevailing opinions, but also speaks to the role of the Holy Spirit in testifying to the authenticity and authority of Scripture.
The Latin and French texts use the term suffragio or suffrage respectively to describe the approval of the Church:

Quare dum illam recipit, ac suffragio suo obsignat, non ex dubia aut alioqui controversa authenticam reddit : sed quia veritatem esse agnoscit Dei sui, pro pietatis officio, nihil cunctando veneratur. (1559 ed.)
Parqouy l'Eglise en recevant l'Escriture saincte et la signant par son suffrage, ne la rend pas authentique, comme si auparavant elle eust esté douteuse ou en different : mais pource qu'elle la cognoist estre la pure verité de son Dieu, elle la revere et honnore comme elle y est tenue par le devoir de pieté. (1560 ed.)

English translators have rendered this language in the same sorts of ways as one another:

When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but, acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. (Henry Beveridge)
Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures, it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial.  But because the church recognizes Scripture to be the truth of its own God, as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture. (Ford L. Battles)
For that reason, when the church receives and approves scripture it does not authenticate it, as if it has previously been doubtful or unsure. But since, according to its duty, the church recognizes scripture to be the truth of its Lord, it reveres scripture without delay. (Elsie Anne McKee)

The Latin suffragio can indeed mean a vote, seal, etc. - some notion of a formally recorded act of testimony. The accompanying obsignat matches that.
What I am wondering about is the intended connotation of the "seal"-type metaphor and the word suffragio / suffrage. Elsewhere, seal language is used for sacraments, and the concept of our assent to God in faith seems very similar to what is implied here (we put our trust in God, responding to him, but we don't make him do anything).
With reference to Calvin's concept of the church,

Is suffrage here intended to denote some communal expression of faith? Or is it just that many individuals independently put their trust in the authority of Scripture? Basically, I'm asking to what extent "the Church" is present here as a single entity.
Is there a meaningful concept of voting? Clearly, English "suffrage" today probably makes us think about aggregating everyone's opinions and picking the most popular. But does Calvin intend to suggest anything like that? I think he is pointing to a vaguer notion of informal universal consensus, especially given that there is only one correct choice, but I'm not fully sure, given that some people are convinced Calvin was some sort of pioneer of democracy.
Is the parallel with Calvin's sacrament language just a coincidence, or are the same concepts being invoked in both instances?

Answer for question 1: Suffrage

Suffragio also means intercession.So Suffragio can mean suffrage , vote, intercession or a combination.

With this understanding of suffrage, vote and intercession.
Lets take your posting and compare within a context that Calvin may be referring to.

"Thus, while the church receives and gives its seal of approval to the Scriptures,
 it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial.
 But because the church recognizes Scripture to be the truth of its own God,
 as a pious duty it unhesitatingly venerates Scripture."

According to the above statement, let's look at a perfect example. One of the first ancient councils where "Suffragio", intercession and vote was needed.

Example:

The First Council of Nicea, was a case where The Church was under attack from
 heresies, Arians denying the divinity of Christ.
 Similar to the statement above declares.
 "it does not thereby render authentic what is otherwise doubtful or controversial"

Likewise the Council of Nicea did not render authentication of what was doubtful or controversial. It was the opposite, that is to say
 The Church was defending Apostolic teaching, defending what had been passed down and always understood and believed. Defending what they already knew.
 No new theology came from this council.  Suffragio (intercession and vote) was needed because of outside heretical forces to defend the scripture.
 Thus the Nicene creed came into existence. Not creating anything new, but again defending what was already known, understood, believed and passed down
 form the Apostles. Everything being defending through suffrage,intercession and vote.

This example would also answer your question about a "communal expression of faith". The ancient Church believed that as long as the entire Church was united,
 and voted united, that the Holy Spirit was guiding them. This is very evident throughout the first seven ecumenical councils where "Suffragio" was required.
 In contrast, if any one part were to leave, there could no longer be ecumenical intercession or votes. A foot note that ever since the Great Schism, Rome being separated from
 the main body of the other four (Alexandria,Jerusalem,Antioch,Constantinople), there has never been another ecumenical council in the East, that included all.
 Rome continued with their own councils only effecting the West, for which eventually brought about Luther's and Calvin's writings..

You next inquiry is:
 "I'm asking to what extent "the Church" is present here as a single entity."
 This is a great question and a little complex depending on context. Most of Calvin's writings are against the Roman Church in some way or another.
 He may very well be making his statement in context of all other historical occurrences and examples before the Great Schism, in rebuttal to the Roman Church's changes
 in the West after the Schism. If he is writing in the context of Sola Scriptora, this would be a difficult position to defend, as other Protestant churches
 had already come into existence and there is no logical way he could pick from one of the many diverse entities who did not agree, claiming a single entity.
 The concept of an all encompassing invisible Church does not exist anywhere in Christian history before this. The Church is very visible and united for over a 1,000 years until the Great Schism.

Let's explore all possibilities he could be thinking.
 So "the Church" is present here as a single entity" would depend on context.

The original ancient Church that stood united for over 1,000 years is considered The Church.
After the Great Schism of 1054 AD, Rome claimed to be The Church.
Likewise The Church of the East, the Orthodox (Alexandria,Jerusalem,Antioch,Constantinople and Rome) claimed to be The Church and still claims this.
According to translation Calvin is using a present tense. "recognizes" which alludes to a more present understanding or what Calvin's understanding of "The Church".

If the case is option 4, this would allude to an understanding only by Calvin. Basically his own understanding.

Note: If the translation was in a past tense. "recognized",
ex:'But because the church recognized Scripture to be the truth of its own God'
I would say he would have been referring to past occurrences, when The Church was united. Maybe again as a rebuttal, to say Romes intercession's , votes were not in defense,
but rather they were changing things. He still could be meaning this in one form or another.

Answer for question 2:Is there a meaningful concept of voting?
   In accordance to Church history, Yes! However, only when The Church (ALL) is fully united. Thus the reason there were never more than
   the seven ecumenical councils. Rome being separated in 1054AD, to this day, no other ecumenical council has ever taken place. Not because Rome was more important,
   Each bishop whether from Rome or Jerusalem was allowed only a vote a piece, it's more along the lines of The Church has been separated.
   I would suggest looking at the Ante-Nicene collection and the councils specifically to help you understand the need for the councils and voting in ancient times.

I would not think at all that Calvin purposely intends "aggregating everyone's opinions and picking the most popular". That would not match anything in Christian history.
   However he is in a little bit of a dilemma, writing against the Roman Church, but not being united with the Church from the East.
   All Churches will say the are being lead by the Holy Spirit, but don't agree.I personally think Calvin has a deeper understanding, however the position that he is in, the era, his surroundings, no contact with the East, is indeed a difficult one.

Answer for question 3: Is the parallel with Calvin's sacrament language just a coincidence, or are the same concepts being invoked in both instances?
  The sacramental language is not a coincidence. Again, based on history, the seven ecumenical councils of the East are considered Holy occurrences of Suffragio and defense within The Church.  I'm very confident in my answer to say that Calvin, within his own understanding, is expressing a sacramental expression. I will simply express again, within his own understanding.


Why is it rare to combine Reformed/Calvinist doctrine and Dispensationalism? I've been told that it's rare to find someone who combines Dispensationalism and Reformed/Calvinistic doctrine (such as John MacArthur).  Why is this?  What ideas don't mesh well?

The reason these two are seldom found together seems to be primarily because of the difference of the view of the church between covenant theology and dispensationalism. Although some (like MacArthur) continue to maintain the distinction between the church and Israel (as in dispensationalism), most 5 point Calvinists follow covenant theology which denies this distinction - placing the beginning of the church at least back to Abraham, and logically back to Adam. Therefore, although dispensationalism maintains that everyone has always been saved by grace through faith, the specific object of that faith in Reformed theology is understood to be Christ - while dispensationalism would recognize the role of the progress of revelation such that the basis for salvation was the Cross, the object was not as clearly seen as the incarnate Son of God. Actually, it is even more complex than this, but this gets you going in the right direction.


Who can move Easter celebrations in the Orthodox Churches? I have come to understand that the autonomous Finnish Orthodox Church celebrates Easter at the same time as Western Churches.

Who made the decisions, and was the Ecumenical Patriarch involved?

Who made the decision that the autonomous Finnish Orthodox Church could celebrate Easter at the same time as Western Churches and was the Ecumenical Patriarch involved?

The decision for this extraordinary move on the part of the Orthodox Churches was primarily made by the Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow. Patriarch Tikhon granted permission for the Finnish Orthodox Church to celebrate Easter with the usage of the Gregorian calendar in October 1921. Although it was Patriarch Tikhon's decision, the Ecumenical Patriarch Germanos did have some input into to the decision.

As for the Orthodox Church in Estonia, it was the Ecumenical Patriarch Germanos who issued the tomos of autonomy on June 7, 1923. Similarly the Patriarch of Moscow was involved in this decicion as well.

The following article explains the situation for both Orthodox Churches quite well: The Date of Orthodox Easter in Finland and Estonia.

Finland and Estonia


Can a female Religious (a nun or sister) be expelled from her order after a hysterectomy? I wanted to ask if a female Religious (ie, a nun or sister) who has become sick and had a hysterectomy, can she be expelled and sent home before her perpetual vows and under which grounds?

Can a Religious (a nun) be expelled from her order after a hysterectomy?

The short answer is no.

No religious would be expelled from their Religious Order simple because they got sick and doctors had to perform an hysterectomy. If she developed cancer and the hysterectomy was deemed necessary, there would be no sin in having an hysterectomy. The surgery could  be necessary because cancer is a death sentence, if left untreated.

That said I have known religious to be sent home to their families in order to recuperate from surgery and illness, but returned after a time of convalescence and once their health had improved.

Not at all the same as a hysterectomy, but the amputation of a limb for example would not be a cause for expulsion from a Religious Order.

We see in the life of Brother Anthony Kowalczyk, OMI suffered a grievous accident that made it necessary for the doctor to amputate one of his hands while still a simply professed brother. He eventually went on to become a solemnly professed Oblate of Mary Immaculate.

Caveat:

Most Religious Orders ask that postulants, novices and simple vowed Religious must generally have good health in order to take perpetual vows. Having an hysterectomy in itself is not a reason for permission not to be granted the grace to pronounce solemn vows, but if the cause is of the hysterectomy was simply a bandaid in one’s health (terminal cancer) in order to prolong one’s life, the Religious in question could be asked to leave due to general poor health. Some communities, nevertheless, allow such persons to remain in the community as oblates or internal oblates.


What is the meaning of 'is' in the context of the Trinity? The Philosopher Gottlob Frege distinguishes between four different meaning behind the word 'is':

1) 'is' as in identity; Saul is Paul.

2) 'is' as in predicate; Paul is Christian.

3) 'is' as in subset; Paul is a Man. (Paul is a member of the class 'Men').

4) 'is' as in existence; God is.

As one not raised or well versed in the Christian faith, I would like to know, when Christians say

"The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God, and yet the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy spirit is not the Father."

what meaning they ascribe to the word 'is'. Please feel free to give the different answers according to the different branches of Christianity.

Addendum: If the answer is 1), identity, how do Christians get around the problem of the Transitivity of Identity' If A = B & B = C then A = C?

Divine Relations are depicted in green:

(original image source)

  The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God.

Here, "is" means "has the same essence as." (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica I q. 39 a. 1 question "Whether in God the essence is the same as the person?")

  the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy spirit is not the Father.

Understanding this relies on what is called "relative opposition." For example, there is a real opposition between the Father's relation to the Son (paternity) and the Son's relation to the Father (filiation). However, as Parente, Piolanti, & Garafolo say (Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology p. 240):

  Only active spiration is not in opposition to paternity and to filiation, and so it has as subject both Father and Son; but it is in opposition to passive spiration, which therefore demands a distinct terminus (the Holy Spirit).

  Of the four real relations in God, three are numerically distinct and, thus, constitute the three divine Persons: the Father, who is subsisting Paternity, the Son, who is subsisting Filiation, the Holy Spirit, who is subsisting Spiration of Love.

Think of a human example: a mother and daughter. No matter how united a mother and daughter may be, their relations are still opposed to one another; the mother→daughter and daughter→mother relationships can never meld into such a relationship where the daughter relates to her mother in the same way the mother does to her daughter (e.g., becomes her own mother, vice versa, or both!).

In God, each of the four Divine Relations is God, i.e., has the same Divine Essence (which is His existence). Three of these relations are opposed to each other: paternity, filiation, and passive spiration (cf. this).

In creatures, relations are extrinsic to the essence of the creature. For example, my essence* is humanness, but my relation to my father, mother, wife, friends, or even to God is not humanness; it's not my essence.

*Essence or quiddity is the answer to the question: "What is it?" ("Quid est?")

But in the Holy Trinity, the Divine Relations are the essence of God Himself. This is a consequence of the Trinity being supremely simple.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes, answering the question "Whether relation in God is the same as His essence?,"

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

cf. Fr. Gilles Emery, O.P.'s The Trinitarian Theology of St. Thomas Aquinas ch. 5 "Relations" (p. 78 f.)

Also, see St. Thomas's answer to the question "Whether essential names should be predicated in the singular of the three persons?" will shed some light on this. He writes (Summa Theologica I q. 39 a. 3 c.):

  Some essential names signify the essence after the manner of substantives; while others signify it after the manner of adjectives. Those which signify it as substantives are predicated of the three Persons in the singular only, and not in the plural. Those which signify the essence as adjectives are predicated of the three persons in the plural. The reason of this is that substantives signify something by way of substance, while adjectives signify something by way of accident, which adheres to a subject. Now just as substance has existence of itself, so also it has of itself unity or multitude; wherefore the singularity or plurality of a substantive name depends upon the form signified by the name. But as accidents have their existence in a subject, so they have unity or plurality from their subject; and therefore the singularity and plurality of adjectives depends upon their "supposita." In creatures, one form does not exist in several "supposita" except by unity of order, as the form of an ordered multitude. So if the names signifying such a form are substantives, they are predicated of many in the singular, but otherwise if they adjectives. For we say that many men are a college, or an army, or a people; but we say that many men are collegians. Now in God the divine essence is signified by way of a form, as above explained (a. 2), which, indeed, is simple and supremely one, as shown above (q. 3 a. 7; q. 11 a. 4). So, names which signify the divine essence in a substantive manner are predicated of the three persons in the singular, and not in the plural. This, then, is the reason why we say that Socrates, Plato, and Cicero are "three men"; whereas we do not say the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "three Gods," but "one God"; forasmuch as in the three "supposita" of human nature there are three humanities, whereas in the three divine Persons there is but one divine essence. On the other hand, the names which signify essence in an adjectival manner are predicated of the three persons plurally, by reason of the plurality of "supposita." For we say there are three "existent" or three "wise" beings, or three "eternal," "uncreated," and "immense" beings, if these terms are understood in an adjectival sense. But if taken in a substantive sense, we say "one uncreated, immense, eternal being," as Athanasius declares.

A suppositum is an individual substance.

And that the multiplicity of names applied to God does not contradict His supreme simplicity and oneness (Compendium Theologiæ cap. 24):

  This enables us to perceive the reason for the many names that are applied to God, even though in Himself He is absolutely simple. Since our intellect is unable to grasp His essence as it is in itself, we rise to a knowledge of that essence from the things that surround us. Various perfections are discerned in these things, the root and origin of them all being one in God, as has been shown. Since we cannot name an object except as we understand it (for names are signs of things understood), we cannot give names to God except in terms of perfections perceived in other things that have their origin in Him. And since these perfections are multiple in such things, we must assign many names to God. If we saw His essence as it is in itself, a multiplicity of names would not be required; our idea of it would be simple, just as His essence is simple. This vision we hope for in the day of our glory; for, according to Zacharias 14:9, “In that day there shall be one Lord, and His name shall be one.”


Is there any record of a visual method of prayer in the Bible? Some context: I am deaf, though I can hear because of cochlear implants. As I have been able to hear since I was about 6.5 years old, I have an internal voice like pretty much every single normally-hearing person. Hence, when I pray, I typically pray with words. However, recently, my former roommate came to Christ, and I found out that he communicates with God through images, because he doesn't have an internal voice. Rather, he thinks - and therefore prays - in a visual manner. Given that the books of the Bible were written entirely (presumably) by people who were hearing, I'm curious as to whether there is any record in the Bible of a person praying in a visual way.

Very interesting question! One thing you might want to think about specifically with regard to finding examples in the Bible is visions -- those are usually God communicating to us, but it's a similar type of thing -- what is often done with words is instead done with images. Ezekiel's vision of the valley of the dry bones, for example.

If you're comfortable going beyond "just in the Bible" I would suggest google searching "visio divina". It is based on lectio divina which is a very old technique of meditating on scripture verses, but it also incorporates visual prayer.

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Praying-with-Art-Visio-Divina.html

http://www.seeingtheword.org


What is the Biblical and Traditional basis for doing Penance for others? I know we can do penance for ourselves, but how is it possible to do so for others? And also, it seems we can do penance even for non-believers, how does that work?

In Catholicism such people who take on penances for others are called victim souls. Victim Souls are someone who offers their life, their will and their intense sufferings to God for the salvation of immortal souls.

  To speak of certain holy individuals whom we collectively call "victim souls" takes us into territory that many Christians often fail to understand: the redemptive power of human suffering.

  A victim soul is an individual who has been chosen by God to undergo physical, and sometimes spiritual, suffering beyond that of normal human experience. The victim soul willingly accepts this unique and difficult mission of offering up his or her pains for the salvation of others.

  Although Jesus Christ accomplished our redemption once and for all by suffering torture and crucifixion for our sins, Scripture also affirms the value of human suffering. Christ points to this value himself when He says, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me" (Mk 8:34).

  Perhaps more pointedly, St. Paul writes that we are "heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if only we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him" (Rom 8:17).

  St. Paul's own example gives clear witness to the possibility of "offering up" our suffering for the benefit of others when he declares, "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church" (Col 1:24).

  Our own suffering takes on a redemptive dimension when we unite it with the passion of Christ.

  "To be a victim necessarily implies immolation, and as a rule, atonement for another.

  "Although strictly speaking one can offer oneself as a victim to give God joy and glory by voluntary sacrifice, yet for the most part God leads souls by that path only when He intends them to act as mediators: they have to suffer and expiate for those for whom their immolation will be profitable; either by drawing down graces of forgiveness on them, or by acting as a cloak to cover their sins in the face of divine justice.

  "It stands to reason that no one will on his own initiative take such a role on himself. Divine consent is required before a soul dares to intervene between God and His creature. There would be no value in such an offering if God refused to hear the prayer." - Sister Josefa (What is a Victim Soul?)

Victim souls are co-redeemers with Christ and there are several individuals in the history of the Church that are considered Victim Souls.

St Faustina Kowalska, St (Padre) Pio of Pietrelcina, Therese Neumann, Blessed Alexandrina Maria da Costa, Marie Rose Ferron, Marthe Robin and St Gemma Galgani are a just a few examples of Victim Souls.

  A “victim soul” is someone who offers their life, their will and their intense sufferings to God for the salvation of immortal souls. By uniting their sufferings to Jesus’ sufferings, they bring down torrents of graces upon souls. Bl. Alexandrina was told by Our Lord: “Thousands have been saved by your terrible sufferings.” Many victim souls received revelations about God’s love and mercy. Here is one touching example: “I want to make known in writing the intense love with which My Heart burns for souls; I want to complain that I am forgotten, rebuffed; I want to plead for love as a beggar pleads for a crust of bread; I love souls so much, yet very often I am not understood and not loved.” – Jesus to Bl. Dina

  We are not all called to be “victim souls”. St. Padre Pio said to one of his spiritual daughters that relatively few are called to be victim souls. - What We Can Learn From Victim Souls

The Vicitim Soul?

  The Catholic Church does not officially designate anyone as a victim soul. The term stems, rather, from the testimony of those who have encountered Christians who seem to undergo the kind of redemptive suffering we have described.

  The victim-soul status, even when it is genuine, is a matter of private revelation. Consequently, the Church teaches us that we are not obliged to accept, as part of the Catholic faith, the legitimacy of any particular person for whom such a claim is made, nor the genuineness of any mystical or miraculous claims that have been made in connection with such a person.

  This includes even those people whose private revelations have been approved by the Church. (See the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this subject, No. 67).

  Nevertheless, the fundamental spiritual truth -- illustrated so vividly by the notion of a victim soul -- still remains: We can accept the pain and suffering of this life with patience and love for the intentions and benefit of ourselves and others in the Communion of Saints. - Are We Obliged to Believe?

Outside this particular aspect of there are some of the faithful who performed penances for others as a sort of "proxy penances". An example of this can be found in the life of St. John Vianney (Cure d'Ars). It is described in the Biography of  St. Jean-Marie Vianney by Francis Trochu. We all know the penances of this man of God performed on himself!

  His diet was a self-inflicted penance: boiled potatoes, usually days old, never more than two in a day. If someone gave him a loaf of bread, he would exchange it for a crust from a beggar. To his penitents, on the other hand, he gave easy penances, saying "I give them a light penance and perform the rest myself." - St. John Marie Vianney, Patron of Parish Priests

Doing proxy penances are not something new in the history of the Church. It is known that some penitents have asked of to do hard penances, like making a long pilgrim in one's place because of ill health in the Middle Ages.

  This article investigates the religious practice of suffering for others in the early Middle Ages. In proxy penance, one person completed a penitential work for another, who received the spiritual benefit. This practice was based on the idea that one person could stand in for another to bear his burden. Using penitential, conciliar, liturgical, and epistolary sources, I uncover two types of proxy penance. First, priests shared in the penance of those who confessed to them. Liturgical texts include Masses in which the priest completes the penance for someone who could not complete it himself. Penitential texts admonish the priest to “share in the foulness” with the sinner in order to bring about the remission of his sin. Second, there was both a promotion and a criticism of proxy fasting among the laity. This sic et non rhythm shows that early medieval penitential culture could not control the demand for proxy penance. Some attention is also paid to the practice of proxy penance in the eleventh-century monastic milieu of Peter Damian. This article broadens the scope of current scholarship on penance by focusing on its substitutionary ability. Also, this article explores the changing notions of and metaphors about sin in this period—from medical to economic—that fueled proxy activity. - Penitents and Their Proxies: Penance for Others in Early Medieval Europe


Does Christianity have any other books besides the Bible that the disciples use for following? Does Christianity have any other book beside Bible which narrate stories of the Jesus and Moses and is considered auspicious or sacred? Are there any other such books other than Bible which kind of augments/completes the Bible? In Islam there is the Quran (Bible) and then hadith books which narrates stories of the prophets.

It really depends on which branch of Christianity you're asking about.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) recognize the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants.  They also believe in continuing revelation.

Jehovah's Witnesses use the periodic publications of the Watchtower as authoritative.

The Catholic Church recognizes the Deuterocanon as part of the Bible, which most other Christian faiths do not.

The Community of Christ, formerly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, recognizes the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Revised Common Lectionary.

Seventh Day Adventists use the writings of Ellen White.

For a more comprehensive summary, see this article on Wikipedia


According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was Jesus Christ ordained to the Priesthood? This may seem like a stupid question (ie. why would someone need to be ordained to their own priesthood order?). However, I can't seem to find reference to Him being ordained or to Him not needing to be ordained.

I know He had the Priesthood - many references call Him a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec. I'm wondering though if He went through any sort of ordinance where He became ordained (ie. He wasn't ordained before the ordinance). I know that the Priesthood is eternal, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus was born automatically ordained to the order of Melchizedek.

Like I've said in a comment on one of the answers, what I'm envisioning is Jesus as a teenager or young adult being ordained to the priesthood the same as any other boy/man of his time. Whether or not that ordination was as meaningful or needful for him as it was for his contemporaries isn't the point of this question, the question is - do we have evidence that an ordination ceremony of some sort happened during his mortal life, or do we have evidence that whoever would have ordained him understood that Jesus didn't need to be ordained?

For the sake of my question, I'm interested in an LDS perspective. However, if the answer to the question isn't necessarily an LDS one and I just totally missed something obvious (ie. He was ordained and here's the Bible reference), I'd accept that too.

EDIT: As I'm studying more and seeing some answers that are coming in (which have been really helpful - just not quite what I was looking for), I'm realizing that this question is not as simple as I was thinking. So, first of all, moving forward I'm only interested in the LDS perspective. Second, here's some background on why I'm asking (which I hadn't thought was relevant initially):

Alma 13:2 says:

  And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption

Verse 16 mentions something similar:

  Now these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on th Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord.

There doesn't seem to be any interpretation available to what this means. I got to both of the same conclusions that this article's section on verse 2 got to (writing it out would take too much space here). Referring to that article, in my mind the first suggestion seemed right (but too easy of an answer), and the second suggestion felt really interesting to pursue whether or not it has any ground to stand on. In my mind, the first question to ask in determining whether or not the second suggestion could possibly hold any water is "Was Jesus ordained?". If not, then the second suggestion can't possibly be correct.

I couldn't think of a time in the New Testament where Jesus gets ordained - but I also couldn't think of any mention in any of the LDS Standard Works suggesting that he didn't need to be ordained. He needed to be baptized, so maybe he also needed to be ordained.

Like one of the commenters below suggested, I considered the Transfiguration, but Jesus was using the Priesthood before the Transfiguration. I've also been reading that some other Christian denominations consider Jesus' baptism to be the moment he was "ordained" (ex. the 'When was Jesus ordained' section of this article on a Catholic website). That idea makes sense to me, but I haven't seen any LDS writings suggesting that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees or disagrees with that.

This is not an LDS perspective, but a Biblical one. Hebrews 5:6 states (quoting Psalm 110):

You are a priest forever,
    in the order of Melchizedek.

Then in 7:15-16:

  15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like
  Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis
  of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an
  indestructible life.

Jesus' priesthood was not based on ancestry (he descended from Judah, not Levi or Aaron). And because his priesthood is eternal, it has no beginning. If it has no beginning, there is no need for ordination. Jesus was circumsized, presented to the temple, baptized, transfigured, sacrificed on the cross, and resurrected. His sacrifice is the flipside of what a priest does, and that occurred in time. Any sort of ordination happened outside of time, in eternity.