According to mainline Protestant theology, why is Pentecost on Sunday and why did it lose its significance? Christian Pentecost

It is well known that the early Christians were Jews who accepted Jesus, who was also a Jew, as the messiah. These Christian Jews also observed Shavuot, a Jewish holiday but later changed the name to Pentecost (its Latin name). The New Testament Book of Acts 2 explains that the Holy Spirit descended upon the eleven apostles (since the twelfth, Judas', passing). Thus Pentecost is “the birthday of the church.” Interestingly enough, this is similar to the modern Jewish concept of Shavuot which commemorates the revelation of the Torah.[1]

Of course, the original meaning of Shavuot was not to celebrate the giving of the Torah at Sinai since the Torah never selected a date for the Sinai revelation. Nevertheless, this was the meaning or how Shavuot was practiced (and still is) during Second Temple times (ie the times of Jesus).

Leaving aside the fact that Shabbat was originally on Sunday and that the rabbis later changed it to Saturday and Christians back to Sunday, why don't Christians (who consider themselves to be spiritually chosen, in a sense, nevertheless, keep Pentecost on Saturday, “Sabbath” since this was the date chosen by the rabbis? And why don't Christian also celebrate it as the date of the giving of the Torah?

[1] Christians also have a tradition that the Apostles were dressed in white, thus calling Pentecost Whitsunday (white Sunday).

The count to Pentecost involves a start and an end requirement in order to reach 7 weeks of 7 plus 1 day to equal 50 days.  There's only one way to achieve that; start on a Sunday and end on a Sunday with 7 weeks of 7 between those two days.
THE START

And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. Lev. 23:11

THE COUNT

And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: Lev. 23:15

THE END

Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD. Lev. 23:16

If one starts on any other day, one cannot achieve the start, count, and end requirements.  The start is always after the weekly Sabbath, the count always requires 7 sabbaths, and then the day after the 7th sabbath or 49th day, which is always a Sunday.
So, this is the reason Pentecost always falls on the first day (aka Sunday).
SABBATH/7th DAY
Sabbath (Shabbat) is on the 7th day (aka Saturday) with day 1 (aka Sunday) per creation week (Gen. 2:2-3).
IMPORTANCE
A number of Christian denominations continue to honor Pentecost, including Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Lutheran, Evangelical, and many more.
PS To be sure, there are some groups who believe that Pentecost may fall on other days of the week besides Sunday, but anyone may do the count and find it must start and end on a Sunday with 7 weeks of Sabbaths plus 1 day to get 50 days.
In addition, THE END requirement details that the 50th day is the day after the Sabbath.  That must be the referring to the weekly Sabbath and not to a feast Sabbath because there are no feast Sabbaths at that time, let alone on the 49th day.  Thus that 49th day must needs be another weekly Sabbath.
OBSERVANCE
On the question about why Christians don't celebrate the giving of Torah on Pentecost, but rather focus on the giving of the Spirit on Pentecost, the answer is two fold about the old and the new.
The Law was given to Israel and it would be their righteousness to follow it.

And it [the testimonies, statutes, and judgments v20] shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us. Deut. 6:25

Romans and Galatians and Hebrews contrast the Law and the Spirit in numerous ways.

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom. 8:4
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.  Gal. 5:18

So, while Christians may understand that Torah was given at Mt. Sinai on Pentecost, we rather observe the giving of the Spirit to all who believe.

And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.... And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. Acts 2:1,4
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:... While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. Acts 10:34, 44


How universal are the "color" masses in the Catholic Church? In my diocese we have certain "color" masses:

Red for legal profession
Blue for Police and First Responders
White for health care professionals.

I also saw something about a Green mass for farmers, but I don't think that's official yet. Black mass would have a pretty bad connotation.  We do have a polka mass, it's not a polka-dot mass - that would be strange, although not a lot stranger than a polka mass.

But, my question is, are these "Color" masses celebrated in the entire Church or are they an American novelty (and if so why are the celebrated in the USA)?

How universal are the “colour” Masses in the Catholic Church?

It would seem that that the so called "Colour Masses" are not universally commemorated, but are somewhat popular in some countries and/or amongst those who are connected within certain spheres of employment that are subject to these Masses. The colours employed at Mass do not always correspond with the title in question. The liturgical colour of the Blue Mass is always white. Blue is the colour that often associated with police officers and that is why it is called the Blue Mass. The liturgical colours of these Votive Masses remain true to liturgical decorum.

An honor guard made up of emergency personnel process out of Ss. Simon and Jude Cathedral during the annual Blue Mass Nov. 5,2015

Many of these so called designated Masses are associated with certain saints, even when the Votive Mass is that of the Holy Spirit (red).

At present I have permission from my Local ordinary to publish a document entitled A Journey through the Year with the Church which is a collection of Catholic traditions at either a local and/or universal level. In chapter 15, on subject of Moveable Feasts, Practices and Traditions, I listed a number of votive Masses that could be celebrated on no fixed date within the liturgical year. Some of them concern these various Masses.

The Red Mass

The liturgical colour of the Votive Mass of the Holy Sprit is red

The first recorded Red Mass was held in Paris in 1245. In modern times each country has its own date in which to host the Red Mass if they choose to do so. Nevertheless each diocese or parish may hold its own Red Mass Day on any particular date that is liturgically free to do so. This is especially true if the parish church dedicated to St. Thomas More, patron saint of lawyers.

One of the better-known Red Masses in the USA is celebrated at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington D.C. Since the Supreme Court convenes on the first Monday of October, the Red Mass is celebrated on the Sunday before the first Monday of October. It is normally presided over by a cardinal.
In Ireland, the Red Mass is celebrated on the first Monday of October, which is the opening day of the Michaelmas Law Term.

The Red Mass is often associated wit St. Thomas More the patron saint of all statement, politicians, lawyers and people in public life. Even though it it the votive Mass of the Holy Spirit, it is precisely for invoking the guidance of the Holy Ghost on those in public office that this tradition has started.

Holy Spirit, guide us in all our ways.

St. Thomas More, pray for us.

The Gold Mass

The liturgical colour or the Gold Mass is white.

The Gold Mass is relatively new and is not yet very popular, but as time moves on it may increase in popular devotion.

The Gold Mass may celebrated annually in the Catholic Church since 2016 for Catholic scientists. The first "Gold Mass"  for Catholic scientists was held on November 15, 2016, in the chapel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in Cambridge, Massachusetts.  The sponsor is the Society of Catholic Scientists, which was incorporated in the summer of 2016 in the territory of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. The color gold was chosen because it represents the alchemy of science and it is the color that is worn at graduation ceremonies (on the hood of those who are being awarded bachelors, masters, or doctoral degrees in the academic discipline of science). The date of November 15 was chosen because it is the feast day of St. Albert the Great, a Dominican Doctor of the Church who is the patron of scientists.

Although on the Votive Mass in honour of St. Albert white vestments are to be used, one is free to use gold coloured vestments on this occasion. “Cloths of gold” can replace can replace the liturgical colours of white, green and red. This is permitted so due to its’ intrinsic value as a rare metal.

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science of idolatry and false absolutes.” - Pope St. John Paul II

  A Gold Mass is easy to arrange. One needs: (a) a church or chapel, (b) a celebrant and homilist, (c) a nearby hall to hold the reception, and (d) permission of the local bishop.  Such masses should be advertised several weeks in advance through local Catholic media and on local college campuses.  Information about upcoming Gold Masses will be posted on the SCS website.   Though the above elements are the only things required for a Gold Mass, it is also possible to make the Gold Mass a more eleborate event, with a public lecture afterwards. An example of this was the Gold Mass held at the University of Notre Dame in 2017. - Gold Masses

St. Albert the Great, pray for us.

The Blue Mass

The liturgical colour of the Blue Mass is white.

The Blue Mass is a Mass offered for the intentions of all first responders (police, fire fighters and paramedics). It gets it term of the Blue Mass from the fact that most first responder’s uniforms are blue. This Mass can be said any day of the year. In the USA, President John F. Kennedy, in 1962, declared May 15 as Peace officers Memorial Day and the week in which May 15 falls as Police Week. As a result, many places in the USA hold their annual Blue Mass sometime in early May. A more natural choice for other countries would be a votive Mass of St. Michael the Archangel, who is the patron saint of first responders. September 29 is the feast day of St. Michael the Archangel and seeing that the month of September has been traditionally dedicated to the Holy Angels a date within this month would be most appropriate.

St. Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

St. Florian, patron saint of firefighters, pray for us.

The White Mass and /or Rose Mass

The liturgical colour of the White or Rose Mass is white if the votive Mass is in honour of St. Raphael and it is the same colour if a Mass is said in St. Luke's honour.

The White or Rose Mass is a Mass said for the intentions of both doctors and nurses. The term the White Mass comes from the colour of both doctor’s and nurse’s uniforms. When a Mass is said for the intentions of nurses only, it is called a Rose Mass. Once again, this sort Mass may be celebrated on any day of the year which is liturgically free to do so. St Raphael the Archangel is the patron saint of both doctors and nurses. What has been said about St Michael the Archangel can apply to St Raphael the Archangel also! Some parishes celebrate this Mass on or around the Feast of St. Luke the Evangelist, who is also the patron saint of doctors.

  Since 1992 the John Carroll Society has sponsored a Rose Mass in the Archdiocese of Washington, to acknowledge medical, dental, nursing, and allied workers and volunteers and the many health care institutions in the Archdiocese of Washington. It takes place annually on the fourth Sunday of Lent (“Laetare Sunday”), a Sunday when the vestments worn by the celebrant are rose-colored. The color rose was chosen as the rose has come to symbolize “life,”[70] The Lansing Guild of the Catholic Medical Association hosts a Rose Mass in Ann Arbor, Michigan. - Rose Mass

St. Raphael, pray for us.

St. Luke, pray for us.

The Green Mass

The liturgical colour of the Green Mass is white.

The Green Mass is the newest arrival in the so called Coloured Masses that exist today and of yet not very well known at all. It is celebrated in connection with St. Francis of Assisi and inspired no doubt by Pope Francis' encyclical letter Laudato Si

  The Archdiocese of Atlanta will celebrate its third annual Green Mass for all who volunteer or work in “green jobs” or environmental sustainability, and for all those who love planet earth, on Thursday, October 4, the Feast of St. Francis, at 12:10 p.m.

  This Mass will be held at The Catholic Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, 48 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. Bishop Ned Shlesinger will be the celebrant.

  We invite you to join us for this special Mass, on the feast day of St. Francis, as we share in the beauty of God’s creation and pray for those who work diligently to protect our planet. You are also invited to join us for a luncheon following the Mass featuring Georgia grown produce.

St. Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

2018 Green Mass Invitation


What is the biblical basis for tithing money instead of agricultural produce or animals? To the best of my knowledge (which might be incomplete), pretty much all instances of tithing in the Bible involve agricultural produce or animals. Even in the time of Jesus, when money was commonplace in the Roman Empire, the Pharisees would tithe "mint, dill and cumin", as indicated by Matthew 23:23 (NIV):

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

What is the biblical basis for tithing money instead of agricultural produce or animals?

After the fall harvest, people would travel to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles.
People would reserve a tenth of their harvest for what, in addition to being a religious experience, was like an annual week-long holiday.
For those that lived far from the city, bringing a tenth of their harvest would be impractical, so they sold it locally and instead carried their tithe as cash.

“You shall truly tithe all the increase of your grain that the field produces year by year.
And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the LORD your God always.
But if the journey is too long for you, so that you are not able to carry the tithe, or if the place where the LORD your God chooses to put His name is too far from you, when the LORD your God has blessed you,
then you shall exchange it for money, take the money in your hand, and go to the place which the LORD your God chooses.
And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.
— Deuteronomy 14:22–26


Can the Word of God and God's wisdom be beneficial to an unbeliever? More specifically I'm wondering in the way that we go to the Bible and to God about concerns or issues that we are facing for instruction and wisdom, can we think biblically about another's concerns or issues that they are struggling with in order to help them, and in overall hopes of leading them to Christ?

I'd like to give a non-believing friend some Biblical advice, but I don't know if it will even benefit him (to be honest, I'm not quite sure what I would even say yet).

This is a two-part answer, because your question addresses two things:

I should also make it clear up front that I am one of those unbeliever types.

1) Yes, wisdom from the bible can be beneficial to an unbeliever.

Because wisdom from all sources is beneficial.  As an unbeliever, no book holds a special place.  This means that all sources can be analysed for wisdom.  The bible in particular contains many parables and thought experiments that can be useful regardless of their source; exercises to challenge one's sense of ethics and morality.

But equally, we could read Harry Potter and analyse some of their circumstances and come out with different, but equally valid, wisdom.  Stories of daring and heroism, and in particular those things that the heroes are willing to do or sacrifice in order to achieve that heroism, are always fun to break down and analyse.  Try to work out the ethics of Snape, for example.

But do be aware that, since unbelievers don't share the same foundational concepts, the stories and ethics can come out somewhat differently.  Many of the more foundational stories of the Old Testament -- The Binding of Isaac, Jonah and the Whale, The Testing of Job all being class examples -- and even the concepts from the New Testament -- the vicarious redemption of mankind by Jesus, Hell, etc. -- can be and are interpreted entirely differently.

2) Don't do that.

Even in the rare case that the story you're going to tell is actually appropriate, telling bible stories to a stressed-out unbeliever is going to come across as preachy and will stress your friendship equally if not more.  Feel free to suggest actions taken by those in the stories as possible routes out of their situation -- after all, this is distilled version of the wisdom that is actually imparted to you -- but just telling the story will just likely cause your message to be lost.


Is a testimony from devil about Jesus, good? Mark 1: 21-24
  They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came,
  Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. The people were
  amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had
  authority, not as the teachers of the law. Just then a man in their
  synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, “What do
  you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I
  know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

When Jesus was at Capernaum, a man who is possessed with demon came to him and spoke:

  "....I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"

But he shut him up.

  Mark 1:25
  “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” The impure spirit
  shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.

And again at evening he again drove away many demons but this time he didn't allow these demons to speak at all.

  Mark 1:32-34
  That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and
  demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed
  many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he
  would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.

Why did Jesus stop the first demon (mentioned here) to talk and not
the others mentioned later?

First demon, was so scared of Jesus and gave a testimony about Jesus(the Holy One of God) in front of everyone.

A testimony from devil about Jesus would have make the people
gathered around him to believe in Jesus more, right?

Rhoads, Dewey and Michie say, in Mark as Story, page 83 (third ed), the demons in Mark's Gospel seek 'to get power over Jesus by naming him as "the holy one of God" and "son of the most high God." These statement might be true, but we can see from that analysis that the were not intended to be "good".

Rhoads, Dewey and Michie (ibid, page 61) say the composer of Mark uses "considerable storytelling skills".  I see one example of those skills to be his ability to present to his first-century audience the portrayal of Jesus as son of God in such a way that early Christians could not be accused by Jews of blasphemy or by the Romans of mocking the emperor, who was regarded as the son of a god. In Mark's Gospel, only outsiders call Jesus the son of God.

So, when the demons refer to Jesus as "the holy one of God" and "son of the most high God", the Christians could not be faulted, because clearly the demons were opposed to Jesus. Even when Jesus does not allow the demons to speak "because they knew who he was", Mark's audience knew this was further, unspoken evidence that Jesus is truly the Son of God. When the High Priest raises this topic by asking (Mark 14:61), "Art thou the Son of the Blessed?" the Christians remain blameless. The centurion watching the crucifixion says, "Truly this man was the Son of God," a sign of approval from a Roman of some importance.  God himself describes Jesus as his beloved son (Mark 1:11; 9:7), and God is above criticism.

Testimony from demons is powerful, because they knew the truth about Jesus, even if they were the embodiment of first-century evil. Mark's author has made good use of their testimony to ensure that Jesus was properly recognised as the holy one of God, the Son of God.  The later gospels were less constrained, so we begin to see Jesus directly referred to as the Son of God.


Reconciliation of all things God unveiled to us through apostle Paul  His plan...

Colossians 1:20, NASB
to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven."

With what "things" did God reconcile in heaven through the blood of His cross?

At the very least, all of creation will be "reconciled" - ie, made right again - at Christ's second coming:

"For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." {Romans 8:20-22}

and

"But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells." {2 Peter 3:13}

and

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea." {Revelation 21:1}

More importantly, though, is the context in which Colossians 1:20 is found:

"For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven." {Colossians 1:13-20}

The greater context of the immediate passage, let alone the rest of the letter to Colossae, describes Christ's matchlessness, His supremity, etc.
Given that without Christ creation cannot exist, and given that Christ was sent to earth to save the elect of God, and given that eventually all will be made right at His second coming, the "all things" Paul references truly are "all things" (not all people, though, as some are not elected to be saved and are instead, like the Devil and his angels, condemned to eternal punishment).


Catholic Church's History Reflects The life of Christ? Background: A while back I had a very devout friend of mine explain to me that the life (or as I understood, the History) of the Catholic Church sort of paralleled the life of Jesus. That, like Jesus, the Gospel and the Church were accepted by many, and many believed. But then in the end the world would turn against the Church, and condemn it- just as Jesus was condemned. After this persecution, the Church would return, living in the same Resurrection that Christ received (And I presume, with Christ Himself).

My friend said he read this in a book while he was in Europe, but he couldn't remember its name or author.

My Question is this: Is this an idea that any theologians have had? Does the Catholic Church have any teachings out its History and Life that sound like this? I've googled it a handful of times but don't ever seem to find anything.

Edit & Clarification: I'm not insinuating that the Catholic Church never experienced corruption - and obviously, Jesus never sinned. What I am asking for is whether the Catholic Church has any teaching on its view of History and Salvation that sounds like the concept stated above.

So, the short answer is that the Church suffers as a participation in the redemptive suffering of Christ. As the Church is Christ's body, that means that she must suffer as he suffered. So if he meant that the Church suffers as Christ the answer is "yes, and many agree".

This provides us with some useful information, including the JPII quote:

  For, whoever suffers in union with Christ— just as the Apostle Paul bears his “tribulations” in union with Christ— not only receives from Christ that strength already referred to but also “completes” by his suffering “what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”

That combined with the fact that the sufferings of an individual are the sufferings of the corpus (If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it), we see confirmation of the summary above.

As to how the Church's sufferings will manifest over time, Revelation points out that the sufferings are not complete. However, a striking difference is that there is no point where the Church on earth can or will die. If the gates of hell cannot prevail, then there will most certainly never be a time when the Church is not present on the Earth until this Earth is no more.


When Jesus was nailed to the cross, did the nails go through his hands or through his wrists? I have heard some people say that the nails went into Jesus's hands and I have also read that in a crucifixion, the nails went into the wrist.

What really happened on the cross?

The word used in the Bible can mean any part of the hand or arm. People who study crucifixion in general found that the nails most often went through the wrist and that the weight of the body would cause the nail to tear through the flesh of the hand as is most commonly depicted in Christian art. Thus, a fairly common view is that the nails actually went through the wrist.

Crucifixion


What is the Church attitude to the belief that Jesus had a biological father? What is the Church attitude to the belief that Jesus had a biological father Josef or another man and that divin conception was only a metaphor?

Allegedly there was an ancient prophecy that the future king of Israel should be from the king David's lineage, so as I heard, there were some ancient Christian authors who claimed that Jesus descended from king David and even brought the genealogy.

I wonder what is the position of the Church and various Christian groups to those Jesus genealogies which trace Jesus' earthy ancestry towards king David?

All Christians that subscribe to the doctrine of the Virgin Birth believe that Joseph was Mary's husband and Jesus' guardian, but that he had no biological material from Joseph.  It is a very, very widely held belief - most Evangelicals (including myself), Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox subscribe to it, but it is not accepted by many more liberal denominations.

The idea is suggested by Isaiah, in which it was (posibly mis-)translated "Behold a Virgin shall conceive."  The famous phrasing of 7:14 is "Behold, a virgin shall conceive."  The immediate context, however, is a King who is being told that his enemies shall be defeated very, very soon - so soon in fact, that if a young girl gets pregnant, she will be "delievered" before the child is born.  That said, by the time of the early Christians, it was popularly accepted that this also spoke of the birth of the Messiah, who would be of a girl who had not had intercourse.  The Hebrew of the OT could be young maiden, but the Greek of the NT clearly presupposes a girl who had never lain with a man.

In any case, the narratives of Matthew (1:18) and Luke explicitly say that the child was put in her by the Holy Spirit, not Joseph.


Christian Literature In the format of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress I've recently started reading Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress

The format of:

two people talking
interspersed with Biblical verses

is absolutely amazing. I wish more books were written in this format.

Not that other Christian literature are dull; but this book is exciting: it's Christian literature that makes Avatar look boring

What other pieces of Christian literature is in this format? I'm particularly interested in "classical" literature -- works that have stood the test of time -- say written in Pre 1900 days. [Though great modern works are welcome too.]

Gregory of Nyssa's Life of Moses isn't exactly two characters talking, but as an expository allegory, you may find it right up the same alley.

What Nyssa does is to write a biography (a hagiography, really) of Moses, following him through the Exodus and Numbers' narratives, but expounding up the various symbols therein. These symbols are highly allegorical, but still interesting to ponder.  For example, in his Life of Moses, Gregory of Nyssa remarks on the fact that Moses was nursed by his own mother while growing up in Pharaoh's household:

  "This teaches, it seems to me, that if we should be involved with profane teachings during our education, we should not separate ourselves from the nourishment of the church's milk, which would be her laws and customs."

The idea is that every detail in the text is a symbol to be explored in some way.  Candidly, had Gregory written this in seminary, he would have gotten an "F," because allegory is highly out of favor - but the story and the symbolism is still interesting, if not the "way we do things" today.


Is veneration worship? I answered this question calling adoration and veneration honor given to God and the saints accordingly.

If you look at the edits for my answer, I think I had some confusion as to the terminology which is popping up again and I still don't know what to do about it.  I can repeat the old maxim, "we adore God, we venerate Our Lady and the saints." But then, if asked to define those terms I'd have to say, adoration is worship due only to God and veneration is worship due to those in Heaven who are not God.

If I couldn't call them both worship, then I couldn't accurately compare them and people would say that I couldn't pray to both.  If I call both worship, then I take a great step into the land of idolatry and ancestor worship.

This is a Catholic questioned aimed at answers that teenagers would be able to grasp, but all reasonable answers will be considered reasonably :)

"Veneration" and "worship" are imprecise terms.  The precise terms are:

Dulia: a theological term signifying the honor paid to the saints.

Hyperdulia: a theological term signifying the honour paid to Mary the mother of Jesus.

Latria: a theological term signifying the honour paid to God.

"Veneration" is commonly associated with dulia and hyperdulia; "worship" is commonly associated with latria, but to be technically precise, "veneration" and "worship" are not formally defined on their own.

Because the English language terms are imprecise, depending on the setting or context it would be best to disambiguate the terminology and use the Latin terms instead, mentioning that certain English words are commonly used in place of the Latin words, but the Latin terms are the precise ones (at least that's how my catechism and religion teachers handled the issue of word selection).

Note: the Catholic encyclopedia's definition of latria is rather weak; pragraph 55 of Pope Paul 6th's encylical Mysterium Fidei implies that latria is worship meant for God alone (emphasis mine):

  Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the
  presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her
  teaching but in her life as well, since she has at all times paid this
  great Sacrament the worship known as "latria," which may be given to
  God alone.


Did the Apostles' Creed originate with the Apostles? The Apostles' Creed is perhaps the oldest statement of faith in the Christian tradition. Is there any evidence that it was used by Jesus' first followers? If not, when did it originate?

It was a creed that was developed by the early church.  It came into existence after the age of the apostles.  However, it finds its biblical basis in the apostles.

The Theopedia article says "its current form" is "more likely post-Nicene Creed in the early 4th Century AD."  The Wikipedia article indicates it was a later form of the Old Roman Creed.

The Nicene Creed (since that's the next question) was first formed at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, while the Old Roman Creed was probably formed before that (in the 2nd century).

However, having said all of this, it seems the exact origins are unknown.  But it seems that this was definitely not something directly from the apostles.


What is the context of the "unequally yoked" passage? 2 Corinthians 6:14 is the well known "unequally yoked" passage. While the common interpretation is that it is about marriage, the heading translators added in NIV is "Warning against Idolatry", and there was nothing about marriage.

Was it ever discussed what sort of event or situation that Corinthian church was in that inspired Paul to write such a passage?
What other interpretations exist of the "unequally yoked" passage that Bible scholars have proposed?
How did the idea that this verse refers to marriage come from, given that marriage was not mentioned in 2 Corinthians chapter 5, 6 or 7?

Paul is teaching about all close relationships between believers and non-believers, and while this could include marriage, it would also apply to other areas of life, for example a business partnership. The context of the passage (verses 15 to the end of the chapter) talk about how the beliefs of the unbeliever could lead the believer astray, and while I can see how the passage could be headed as a warning against idolatry, since the passage in question seems to be more than that I don't think the heading is the best possible choice. Both the RSV and NRSV group verse 7:1 with 6:14-18 in one section, which adds the verse

  Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God. [NRSV]

and the NRSV uses for the heading of the passage "The Temple of the Living God." [The RSV--or at least my copies of it--does not add section headings.


Why did not Jesus personally baptize anyone? We see Jesus telling Nicodemus in Jn 3: 5:

Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. - John 3:5

We also read at Jn 4: 1-2:

Now Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that he was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John (although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples).

One wonders why Jesus did not personally baptize anyone in spite of his having emphasized the importance of Baptism. My question therefore is: Why, according to Catholic Church, did not Jesus  personally baptize anyone?

Here are two Bible verses on the subject.  One suggests that perhaps Jesus did perform baptism:

After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptised (Matthew 3:22).

However, the following Bible verse says it was Jesus’ disciples who did the baptising:

The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptising more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptised, but his disciples (Matthew 4:1).

The Bible does not tell us if Jesus baptised anyone, or why he would not baptise anyone.  Perhaps it was to avoid a situation where a person baptised by Jesus would think they were superior to other believers based who had been baptised by a disciple.
An example of this is recorded in 1 Corinthians 1:12-15 where the apostle Paul had cause to rebuke believers who made a big thing out of who had baptised them.  Some were quarrelling over who had baptised them, saying they followed Apollos, or Cephas, or Christ.

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptised into the name of Paul?

The important point is not who does the baptising, but being baptised into the name of Christ.  Also, John the Baptist predicted that the Messiah would baptise with Holy Spirit and fire, not water:

I baptise you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and fire. (Matthew 3:11)

Neither Matthew 3:11 nor Matthew 3:14 say if Jesus himself baptised anyone, only that a time would come (after Jesus’ death and resurrection) when he would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, to empower his followers to spread the gospel message throughout the world.  First Corinthians 12:13 says:

We were all baptised by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.”


What kinds of Mormon missionaries are there? I'm used to seeing young missionaries travel in pairs, talking to people and visiting them, but I don't typically think of them as serving their missions online (as evidenced here) or doing other types of activities.

What kinds of missionaries (or missionary services) are there in the LDS Church and what do they do?

I am currently an LDS missionary so lets see if I can answer your question.

Elders: Two young men typically from age 18 to 25. Some rare cases are older. They travel from door to door, and teach those who are willing to listen.
Sisters: Two young women from age 19 to 25 who also go door to door and teach.
Service missionaries: Usually people who aren't capable of serving as elders for a variety of reasons. They are given specific jobs to help out where they can with the temples and humanitarian services.
Senior couples: A man and a wife whose children are all moved out from home. They don't go door to door, but teach those who are willing to listen who are found by other means. Usually online requests, or requests by members to teach their friends.
Senior sisters: Single sisters that don't have a husband to be companions with. They serve together and do the same things as senior couples.
Internet missionaries: People who cannot typically serve full time missions for various reasons, so they work online. Usually on LDS.org where people can request to talk with missionaries online. Recently missionaries have begun working on facebook as well, and that is becoming part of regular missionary service as well.

I hope that answers your question. If I find any more types of missionaries I will add them on.


What is the biblical basis for group prayer? Mathew 6:6 "But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and
  pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in
  secret will reward you."

I've been curious about this recently, how much prayer is done in public and in groups and how this verse can seem conflicting to that. I know there is some prayer done by churches, the apostles, and giving thanks for meals. But I couldn't find much evidence to say about how that group prayer was done, how private it was, and how much of it was aloud. For example, the following verse is a group is good but that doesn't mean they were even praying out loud?

  Acts 1:14"All these with one accord were devoting themselves to
  prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his
  brothers."

When Jesus said to go into your closet to pray, what he was saying is that your prayer is to be between you and your God. Please notice:

All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

  Matthew 6:1  Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

The long and the short of it is are you praying to God, or to be heard by man. By saying go into your closet, what Jesus was pointing out is that when you are in your closet the only one who can hear you is God himself.

  Matthew 6:5  And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

In Matthew 6:5 is an illustration of what Jesus was saying. Our prayers are a personal conversation between us and our Creator, anyone else who hears it is just eavesdropping.

That is not meant to say there is anything wrong with praying in public, but when you do make it between you and God, and not for the benefit of others who are listening.


Christianity certainty and other religions certainty The same certainty we have on the Bible and Jesus Christ, other people from other religions have on their gods and "holy books" (between commas because I'm one of those who have the certainty about Bible) and I have no explanation for that and I'd like one so I can answer some friends about it.

Thanks in advance.

This is an interesting question.  Many people are firmly convinced that their religious position is, indeed, true.  This includes atheistic positions as well.  Yet, the question is not with the level of certainty an individual has, but the validity of that certainty.  As on writer put it, "faith is only as strong as the object of that faith."

The illustration of ice is mentioned.  A traveler from the Arctic regions may visit a warmer climate in winter.  While in his home town, they drive cars on the lakes at this point, where he is visiting only seldom as ice thick enough to walk on.  Coming upon a lake, he may leap out onto it with all the certainty possible.  Yet the object of his faith does not hold up, and he gets very wet and very cold.

Another person from the mild climate may visit an arctic region, and with great timidity, gently step out onto a lake that is covered by two feet of ice.  His uncertainty is placed in an object that can well accommodate his act of faith, and he remains dry and on solid "ground".

So, again, faith is only as strong as the object of that faith.  As Spurgeon exhorted, "never make a Christ out of your faith."  It is not the strength of our faith that saves us, but the truthfulness of salvation that God offers to us through Christ.

So, the real question in this matter is which religious belief is true.  All religious beliefs which are false, including atheism, will not support our weight if we put our trust in them.  Christianity, however, will indeed support our weight as we put our trust in Jesus, despite the timidity or certainty of our faith.

Christianity alone has overwhelming evidence to support its truthfulness, including hundreds of predictive prophecies fulfilled in Jesus, the inexplicable growth of Christianity in the face of severe and extensive persecution at its very birth, billions of transformed lives, and on and on and on and on...  but that's another question.


Do Calvinists rejoice in the destruction of sinners? I recently re-read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and I was struck by the pleasure Jonathan Edwards seemed to have taken in describing the imminent destruction of sinners:

  The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.

One can almost see Edwards "rubbing his hands together gleefully and cackling a little" over the plight of unbelievers.  Is this attitude toward the damned common among Calvinists?  Is it a necessary conclusion from their particular set of assumptions?

My Thesis

While you won't find many modern Calvinists preaching firebrand sermons of this sort, that has more to do with the change in American culture than with a change in theology.  The point of the sermon is not to rejoice in the suffering of sinners, but to warn of the very real danger (under Calvin's theology) of falling into hell.  Edwards was warning against a false sense of security based on striving for holiness rather than relying on the grace of God.

The Great Awakening

It's hard to emphasize the difference between the way sermons from the First Awakening  are viewed now compared to the way they were viewed at the time.  For one thing, unlike later revival movements, the target of Edwards' and Whitefield's sermons were very devote, conservative, religious, churchgoing Christians.  In other words, when Edwards says, "he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire" we need to picture folks who resemble Westboro Baptist Church1, not the people they attack.

Edwards was actually addressing a church that fit into the stereotype of intolerant Puritanism:

  How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in the danger of this great wrath and infinite misery! But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have. It may be they are now at ease, and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape.

The picture Edwards paints is not a crowd of Christians rejoicing over the destruction of evil, but a congregation that feels pretty self-righteous and confident that hell is the destination of other people.  The Great Awakening has sometimes been credited with breaking up the conservative hold on American and fueling (in part) the American Revolution.

The Danger of Hell

Calvinists tend to be more sympathetic to this sort of firebrand preaching since they believe a literal hell exists to punish sinners.  Warning people about the danger of hell is actually loving in this context.  If you happen to know that there's a speed trap ahead, it's a kindness to tell the driver that they might want to slow down.  At least part of the revulsion to hell-fire and damnation sermons comes from folks who don't believe hell exists or that sin carries any eternal consequences.2

Further, Calvinists are especially known for believing, along with Paul, that:

  For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,—Romans 3:22-23 (ESV)

and:

  But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.—Romans 2:5 (ESV)

A Gracious Solution

In our eagerness to read the shocking bits of sermons such as "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", we skip over or forget impassioned pleas for sinners to find salvation:

  And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?

The point wasn't to enjoy the suffering of others, but to wake people up to the problem and point them to the solution.  Whether or not we agree that the problem exists or agree with the proposed solution, we must not assume that Calvinists are pleased to see others suffer anymore than God is:

  But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice and does the same abominations that the wicked person does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds that he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, for them he shall die.—Ezekiel 18:21-24 (ESV)

Conclusion

Frankly, the idea that Calvinists enjoy talking about the damnation of sinners or feel good about themselves for being better/chosen/more-worthy than others is an unwarranted stereotype.  While there are certainly folks who live into that ugly picture, I find most Calvinists to be about the same as other folks in terms of pride, humility, kindness, and cruelty.  If anything, Calvinist theology should lead people to be more humble and kind than normal, though evaluating that statement is beyond our scope.

Footnotes:

These jerks are by no means the only group giving Calvinism a bad name.  They are, however the most "successful" at leading a compliant media to a juicy, but empty, story.
I was surprised to learn that the doctrine of universal salvation is among the beliefs circulating in Edwards' time.


Question for those who hold to the immortality of the soul These verses were used to teach conditionalism/ human souls are mortal. What is the “traditionalist” response to these verses.
(1 Timothy 6:16):
“who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever. Amen.”
(Ezekiel 18:20 ):
“The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.”

On the subject of the immortality of the soul, Martin Luther has this to say :

For since we call it a sleep, we know that we shall not remain in it, but be again awakened and live, and that the time during which we sleep, shall seem no longer than if we had just fallen asleep. Hence, we shall censure ourselves that we were surprised or alarmed at such a sleep in the hour of death, and suddenly come alive out of the grave and from decomposition, and entirely well, fresh, with a pure, clear, glorified life, meet our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the clouds.

Martin Luther and William Tyndale on the State of the Dead
John Calvin exhorts not to enquire into matters that are not revealed but what he does say is this :

Many greatly torment themselves with discussing what place they occupy, and whether or not they already enjoy celestial glory. It is foolish and rash to inquire into hidden things, farther than God permits us to know. Scripture, after telling that Christ is present with them, and receives them into paradise (John 12:32), and that they are comforted, while the souls of the reprobate suffer the torments which they have merited goes no farther. What teacher or doctor will reveal to us what God has concealed?

As to the place of abode, the question is not less futile and inept, since we know that the dimension of the soul is not the same as that of the body. When the abode of blessed spirits is designated as the bosom of Abraham, it is plain that, on quitting this pilgrimage, they are received by the common father of the faithful, who imparts to them the fruit of his faith. Still, since Scripture uniformly enjoins us to look with expectation to the advent of Christ, and delays the crown of glory till that period, let us be contented with the limits divinely prescribed to us--viz. that the souls of the righteous, after their warfare is ended, obtain blessed rest where in joy they wait for the fruition of promised glory, and that thus the final result is suspended till Christ the Redeemer appear.

There can be no doubt that the reprobate have the same doom as that which Jude assigns to the devils, they are "reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day," (Jude ver. 6).

Calvin's Institutes - Book 3 - Chapter 25
It is quite clear that neither Luther nor Calvin accepted the idea of the annihilation of the soul, in any way or for any reason, nor did they accept the possibility (whether temporarily or permanently) of the 'cessation of existence'.
A more clear text, regarding immortality, than the two quoted (the two quoted texts are not definitive in respect of the topic under inquiry) is the last verse of Isaiah, 66:24, which is quoted by Jesus and reported by Mark :

... to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [Mark 9:43,44 KJV]

Writing of this text Gill says the following in his commentary :

This will be always the case; conscience will be ever distressing, racking, and torturing them; it will never cease, nor cease doing this office, and so the Chaldee paraphrase of Isaiah 66:24 renders this phrase, , "their souls shall not die"; but shall ever continue in the dreadful torments and unspeakable horrors of a corroding conscience; and by "the fire" may be meant the fire of divine wrath let into their souls, which will never be extinguished; and so Jarchi interprets the phrase in Isaiah 66:24, "their fire", "in hell".

Gill's Commentary - Biblehub


Jesus on how seeds germinate Jesus tells us in John 12:24 that

  unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.

Today the process of germination is explained in a different way and certainly seeds do not have to 'die'.

Does Jesus use the word die in a different context?

Remember who he was talking to.  This was certainly not intended to be understood in the context of modern science, which hadn't been invented yet, but to be understood as his listeners understood it.  When the seed is still part of the living plant, it is alive, but when it is detached from the living plant (to fall into the ground) it is no longer connected to the life-giving roots, and therefore is thought of as being without life.


Do any groups of Quakers still disapprove of the fine arts? The family of the great painter Benjamin West belonged to a Society of Friends when West was a child, and according to his biography, in that environment his prodigious artistic talents were not viewed positively.  The boy's future occupation was the subject of a public meeting of the Society, since it held

  that things merely ornamental were not necessary to the well-being of man, and that all superfluous things should be excluded from the usages and manners of their society.

"The study of the fine arts" was therefore prohibited, and only after significant debate was Benjamin West permitted to develop his talent.

Now to my question: do any current branches of the Society of Friends (Quakers) still generally disapprove of the fine arts?  I'm aware of the existence of the Conservative Friends, but it's not clear to me if they would discourage or prohibit the creation of merely "ornamental" images.  Do all Friends now view the fine arts as a legitimate occupation, or do some groups still see it as something to be avoided?

Galt, John, The Life, Studies, and Works of Benjamin West, Part 1, Chapter 3

There are a lot of different groups of Quakers in the world, see the Friends World Committee for Consultation.

The core values of the Quaker tradition is based are:

Peace
Equality and justice
Truth and integrity
Simplicity and sustainability

So I would say that it's possible that there are groups of Quakers who do not see fine arts as a legitimate occupation. I think it would be more common to find individuals who question whether it is a good use of someone's time and that there might well be a better way to contribute to a better world.


Why did Jesus tell His disciples to buy a sword? At the Last Supper, Luke records this dialogue:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” he replied.

Luke 22:36-38
Why did Jesus tell them to buy a sword? And what should we make of His reply, "That is enough" when they produce two swords? Did He mean, "that is enough talk" or "those are enough swords"?

Up until this point, the disciples had operated under the aegis of both Roman and Jewish law.  They were seen as just another group of disciples of some charismatic Rabbi.  If he had some strange ideas he was teaching, well, so did plenty of others.

But now, all that was about to change.  He was going to be taken by the Jews, tried and convicted and put to death by the Romans.  Suddenly their Master's public status was about to go from "eccentric Rabbi" to "criminal condemned for stirring up trouble with the Romans," which would turn those who supported him into fugitives, at least temporarily.

Here, he was trying to explain to them that they would need to be prepared to stay mobile (side note: the word fugitive comes from a Latin root meaning "to flee"): they would  need to always have a purse (for money) and a bag (to carry basic supplies) ready, and that a sword (for protection against other men) was to be more important to them than a cloak (for protection against the elements) in the days to come.

But as we see repeatedly throughout the Gospels, the disciples never really "got" the whole "Jesus is going to die and then be resurrected" thing until after it was all accomplished.  Here, they hear him talking about swords, and someone says "yeah, we've got a couple here already."  They just don't understand what he's trying to explain, and you can almost hear the Master's resigned sigh.  "Sure, that'll be fine."


What is christomonism? The term christomonism has sometimes been leveled against Karl Barth, John MacArthur, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  But there doesn't seem to be a canonical definition; most mentions of the term are followed immediately by an attempt by the author to explain it.  What is "christomonism" and how is it meant as a criticism?

Christomonism is the heresy of identifying Christ as the singular representation of God.  It is a heresy because it denies the Trinity, which has been the traditional foundation of orthodoxy.

Douglas John Hall writes:

Christomonism and the exclusivity that attends it represents, I believe, a failure of trinitarian theology. For a triune understanding of God, the western tradition especially was always tempted to substitute an undialectical monotheism heavily informed by a christology emphasizing the divinity principle and downplaying Jesus' true humanity. The result, in the hands of the simplifiers, is what H. Richard Niebuhr rightly named "a new unitarianism of the second person of the trinity"—or, in the plain and oft-repeated slogan of popular evangelicalism, the simple declaration: "Jesus is God." If all we can say of Jesus and of God is that Jesus is God—all the God of God there is—then we have effectively ruled out all other attempts of the human spirit to glimpse the mystery of the ultimate; and this is all the more conspicuously the case when our understanding of "Jesus," in the first place, is really a dogmatic reduction of his person, his "thou-ness," to the "it-ness" of christological propositions that, most of them, enshrine little more than our own religious bid for authority.

Barth responded to the criticism thusly:

Question: "In what specific way, Professor Barth, does your theology avoid being Christomonistic?"
Answer: "Sound theology cannot be either dualistic or monistic. The Gospel defies all isms,' including dualism and monism. Sound theology can only be 'unionistic,' uniting God and man. Christomonism (that's an awful catchword!) was invented by an old friend of mine whose name I will not mention. Christomonism would mean that Christ alone is real and that all other men are only apparently real. But that would be in contradiction with what the name of Jesus-Christ means, namely, union between God and man. This union between God and man has not been made only in Jesus Christ but in him as our representative for the benefit of all men. Jesus Christ as God's servant is true God and true man, but at the same time also our servant and the servant of all men. Christomonism is excluded by the very meaning and goal of God's and man's union in Jesus Christ."

Personally, I find most examples of supposed christomonism to be off-the-mark.  It seems to me that a deep understanding of Jesus as Christ is required to have a deep understanding of the Triune God.  Jesus put Himself at the center of God's plan to reconcile with humanity, but also predicted the Holy Spirit will continue the plan when Jesus ascended to heaven.  (See John 14.)  When I seek out what Barth, MacArthur, and Bonhoeffer actually wrote or said, I find a heavy emphasis on the idea that "Jesus is God", but no denial of the idea that the other persons of the Trinity are also God.  It would be remarkable if I did, since the New Testament, and Jesus Himself, had a thoroughly trinitarian theology.


In the Angelus, which is theologically correct, "conceived of" or "conceived by"? In the Angelus, which is a short practice of devotion in honour of the Incarnation repeated three times each day, morning, noon, and evening, at the sound of the bell [cf. Angelus | New Advent], I have seen two renderings of the first response:

  V. The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary;
  R. And she conceived of the Holy Spirit. - Cf. Angelus - http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Cotidiana/Angelus.html

And

  The Angel of the Lord declared unto Mary.
  And she conceived by
  [the power of] the Holy Spirit. - Cf. Dictionary: ANGELUS - Catholic
  Culture.

Which of these renderings is correct according to Catholic theology?

Related question: Why is the Holy Spirit never spoken of as the Father of Jesus? [Because of my understanding of "conceived of"]

The Angelus is composed of three versicle-response prayers, alternating with Hail Marys. The phrase in question is from the beginning. In Latin:

  V: Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae.
  R: Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.

I learned this in English as

  V: The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary.
  R: And she conceived of the Holy Ghost.

If I were translating it into English de novo, I might come up with something like

  V: An angel of the Lord made an announcement to Mary.
  R: And she conceived by [the power of] the Holy Spirit.

The Latin de is a very common preposition that can mean "from", "of", "away from", "concerning", and sometimes other things. Here it is translated "of" and "by" in the two translations.

Note: The preposition "de" is used in the Latin translations of the Apostle's and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creeds to describe the conception of Jesus; in both cases, the preposition is used to translate the Greek ἐκ. A standard Greek dictionary, Liddell-Scott-Jones, has a vast number of possible translations or usages for the word—the most relevant ones are probably those having to do with describing place or person of origin (III. (4) and (6) in the LSJ definition list).

The English translation I learned probably dates back to the 19th century or before. Its use of "of" to mean "by" was customary in early modern English through at least the 18th century:

  Was it well done of rash Virginius
  To slay his daughter ...

(Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus, Act V, Scene 3)

  For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.

(Ephesians 5:12, King James Version)

Note here that for example the New American Bible Revised Edition translates this verse

  for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret

(emphasis added)

The phrasing appears later, in Biblical commentary:

  ...not that either the law of God, or Gospel of Christ, require this to be done of all men ...

(Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible [written mid-1740s], commentary on Matthew 19:21)

Note that Gill in the same chapter uses "done by":

  ...Mark adds, "but not with God; for with God all things are possible"; to be done by him...

At the very least, however, this was not an uncommon usage; and I see it persisting even into the 19th century.

My conclusion, then, is that the two phrases mean the same thing—there is no theological difference between them—but one is characteristic of an older variety of English.


Why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical? A short section of 1 Enoch (1 En 1:9) is quoted in the New Testament
  (Letter of Jude 1:14-15), and is there attributed to "Enoch the
  Seventh from Adam" (1 En 60:8). It is argued that all the writers of
  the New Testament were familiar with it and were influenced by it in
  thought and diction. — Wikipedia

So why is the Book of Enoch not regarded as canonical by major Christian denominations?

Short Answer: The Book of Enoch is not Scripture.  As such, the Holy Spirit did not lead the church to include it in the canon of Scripture.

The Controversy

Jude 1:14-15 says this:

  It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”

This quote from Enoch is not contained in the Bible, which has led many to wonder where Jude got this information.

In 1956, during the excavation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a book called "1 Enoch" (a.k.a. The Book of Enoch) was discovered.  (NOTE: The excavation uncovered a variety of texts, many of which were not Scriptural.)

Enoch 1:9 says this:

  And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of holy ones to execute judgement upon all, and to destroy [all] the ungodly: and to convict all flesh of all the works [of their ungodliness] which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners [have spoken] against Him.

Clearly this is very similar to Jude 1:14-15.  The question is: Why?

Was Jude quoting The Book of Enoch?

If so, does this mean the Book of Enoch should be considered Scripture?

Were The Book of Enoch and Jude both quoting from an earlier text (i.e. the actual account of Enoch)?
Was the author of The Book of Enoch actually quoting from Jude to make their book look more credible?

What we don't know is when The Book of Enoch was written, who the author was, or what Jude was quoting.  :)  (The best I can tell, the Biblical figure Enoch was not the author, but rather, someone who lived closer to the time of Christ, or possibly even after, based on some of the references.)  There are many arguments on all sides of this debate, but the real question in the back of many Christian minds is:

Is it Scripture?

Is this the Holy-Spirit inspired word of God?  This is where we can pretty confidently say "no".  If it were Scripture, we would expect it to be free of false doctrine.  What we find instead is that false doctrine is one of the most prevalent themes in the book!

Taking a cursory look at the text up through Chapter 59, I found the following false doctrines.  (I may be off on one here or there, but it should be sufficient to get my point across.)

1:1  Implies restoration during tribulation - not congruent with scriptures.
1:8  In conflict with the doctrine that peace was made at the cross.  Also, in the last days tribulation will increase for the righteous - this "verse" seems to dispute that.
2:2-3  Appears to contradict 2 Pet 3:3-7
5:4  Is an admonition to some unknown party - this is very irregular relative to the scriptures (i.e. authentic ancient writings by God-fearing Jews)
6:3  Semjaza seems to be listed as the leader of the angels, which is not scriptural
6:3,8  None of these angels are mentioned in the Bible
8:1  Azazel isn't even listed in 6:8 as one of the angels that fornicated with women
8:3  Araqiel and Shamsiel aren't listed in 6:8 either
10:2  Enoch allegedly wrote about Noah, even though the Bible teaches that Enoch was taken up to heaven years before Noah was born.
10:4-6,12  Implies angels can be bound & hid in holes under rocks.  This is contrary to scripture.
10:8  Ascribes all the sin of the fallen angels to one named Azazel - not scriptural.
10:15-11:2  Seems to imply that permanent restoration took place after the flood - clearly not true.  It seems the true author of this book confused scriptures pertaining to the future restoration.
13:5-6,14:4-5,7  Implies fallen angels can't talk to God - this contradicts Job.  Also implies that angels were repentant, but weren't received back by God - very strange doctrine.
14  Gives a very strange description of Heaven that conflicts with many scriptures
15:8-10  Very strange doctrine about "evil spirits" proceeding from unredeemable giants
17-18,21,23  Gives a very strange description of the earth & universe which is clearly not true.  Also alludes to the ancient model of astronomy that held that there were 7 stars (the closest planets) which burned like the sun (they don't.)
19:3  Discredits all other prophecy about the consumation of the ages.
20  Lists strange angels not in scripture, and incorrectly assigns the roles of Michael (the warrior) and Gabriel (the messenger)
21:7-10  Seems to contradict Biblical descriptions of the present & final judgement places for the fallen angels
22  Contradicts the Biblical descriptions of past, present & future dwelling places for the righteous who die
32:2-6  Seems to imply the Garden of Eden was still in existance after the Flood
33:1-2  Says Heaven rests on a foundation that is at the Eastern edge of the earth
33:3  He claims he counted the stars & individually mapped them, which is impossible scripturally (& scientifically)
34  Says the winds come out of a "portal" at the Northern edge of the earth
36:3  Says the stars come out of portals at the Eastern edge of the earth & move West
38:5-6  Contradicts Daniel & other prophecies about the Mellinial Reign
39:1-2  Very strange implications here about the "seed" of angels dwelling with men at the end... this contradicts the scriptures
40:7  Talks about the "Satans" - plural, different than the Bible, who gives that name to only one fallen angel.  Also, implies Satan can't stand in God's presence, contrary to Job.
40:9  Once again mixes up the roles of the 2 Archangels & adds more names in.  Michael's role in scripture is related to conquoring nations & fighting spiritual wars, while Gabriel's relates to bringing messages & visions to people.
41:1-2  Says the Kingdom of God is divided - it's not & can't be scripturally.  Also describes sinners being repelled from a mansion, which is also not scriptural, unless you look at a parable Jesus told, which was not intended to be literal.
41:4-5  Says the sun, moon, winds, etc. are stored in chambers & released at appointed times.
41:6-7  Implies the sun & moon move opposite of each other
43:1-3,44  Very weird model of the nature of stars & lightning
47:4  Says God requires the blood of the saints... very strange
51:1  Says Sheol & Hell will give back to the earth, which isn't scriptural - also Hell is a NT term, not OT
51:2  Disputes the Biblical doctrine that we are chosen.  (We don't have to wait until Christ's return to be chosen.)  This isn't scriptural.
General:  Seems to imply Enoch came back down to earth after being taken up to Heaven, which is not scriptural.

Summary

I think Paul's words are very pertinent here:

  As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.


How can one say the Novena to St. Michael? I want to start a novena to St Michael. Found one at Novena in honor of St. Michael the Archangel and in honour of the nine angelic choirs .

How can I say it as there is no specific guide on the page?

Novenas are an ancient part of the the Church’s devotional life. Many trace the structure back to the nine days between Jesus’ ascension and the feast of Pentecost. A novena (meaning “nine days”) is a special time of prayer, typically for a specific intention.

In the treasury of Catholic prayers there exists many novenas to St. Michael the Archangel that may be prayed during any time of the year, but is a most fitting preparation for his feast day on September 29.

Unfortunately the website you noted in your question is rather poorly done and makes it somewhat confusing to those who wish to pray a true novena by simply listing various prayers to St. Michael the Archangel without any clarification. The website seems to list different possible novenas on its' page.

For example the Chaplet of St. Michael the Archangel is used by many of the faithful as a novena in itself, just as others use the Litany of St. Michael as a novena. I myself have done both of these, but not together.

For a novena to St. Michael, I would suggest that you perhaps pray one of the traditional ones such as the following:

  Saint Michael the Archangel, loyal champion of God and His People. I turn to you with confidence and seek your powerful intercession. For the love of God, Who made you so glorious in grace and power, and for the love of the Mother of Jesus, the Queen of the Angels, be pleased to hear our prayer. You know the value of our souls in the eyes of God. May no stain of evil ever disfigure its beauty. Help us to conquer the evil spirit who tempts us. We desire to imitate your loyalty to God and Holy Mother and your great love for God and people. And since you are God’s messenger for the care of His people, we entrust to you these special intentions:...specific intentions are stated here....Lord, hear and grant our special intentions for this Novena. Amen.


Why do I sing, "Here I raise my Ebenezer?" In "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing," the second verse, says, "Here I raise my Ebenezer, hither by thy help I've come."

I have heard that an Ebenezer is a monument of some kind, but even armed with that knowledge, I really don't understand what I'm singing. What is going in that verse?

This has always been a favorite line of mine. As you may know, the word Ebenezer comes from 1 Samuel 7:12. Israel had just screwed up with the ark (the Philistines had captured it) and gotten it back (only because God has freaked the Philistines out by knocking their precious Dagon over), and Samuel was talking to Israel.

  Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen and
  called its name Ebenezer; for he said, "till now the LORD has helped
  us."

Ebenezer is "Eben ha-`ezer" which means "stone of help." God was a rock of salvation to Israel; Samuel was setting up a monument of God's rock-ness (which is all throughout the bible) and salvation. God had, once again, helped Israel where they had messed up.

This is especially emphasized by the irony that "Ebenezer" was the name of the place that the Israelites had lost the ark to the Philistines. Aren't the literary connections in Scripture cool?

The first two lines in Come Thou Fount that contain Ebenezer go (at least according to The Trinity Hymnal)

  Here I raise my Ebenezer; Hither by Thy help I'm come

The hymnist is, like Samuel, raising his stone of help as a tribute to God's salvation and grace. By thy help I've come this far; I praise you for it.

It's a great line because it captures the grace of God and the praise of Him for it in one succinct quote.


Why do those who take Matthew 23:9 literally not emphasize 23:8 and 23:10 similarly? This could be seen as a follow-up question for "Is there any Christian group that takes Matthew 23:8-10 literally?".
There are some groups (usually evangelical) who emphasize Matthew 23:9, especially as an attack against the Roman Catholic church and other churches where clergy is sometimes called "father", but I have never seen anyone forbid calling anyone "master", "mister", "teacher" or "doctor" (which originally meant "teacher").
How is this inconsistency explained by those who take this position?

Matthew 23:8-10 (ESV):

(8) But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.
(9)  And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
(10)  Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.

Mat 23:8  But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

    G4461
    ῥαββί
    rhabbi
    hrab-bee'

    Of Hebrew origin [H7227] with pronominal suffix; my master, that is, Rabbi, as an official title of honor: - Master, Rabbi.

  Mat 23:9  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

  Mat 23:10  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

    G2519
    καθηγητής
    kathēgētēs
    kath-ayg-ay-tace'

    From a compound of G2596 and G2233; a guide, that is, (figuratively) a teacher: - master.

  1Co 4:15  For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
  16  Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

  Eph 4:11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
  12  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

    G1320
    διδάσκαλος
    didaskalos
    did-as'-kal-os

    From G1321; an instructor (generally or specifically): - doctor, master, teacher.

  1Co 1:1  Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

  Mat 23:5  But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
  6  And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
  7  And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.

  1Th 5:12  And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;

As you requested this is from an evangelical perspective. Though my specific group of Word of Faith is split on this issue I will explain it from the side which I take.

In Christianity we have spiritual fathers in Christ. People who taught us the gospel. We can acknowledge their contribution to our spiritual development but we should not refer to them as "father" because Jesus said not to. It's apparently ok to say I birth you in Christ but it is not ok to say You are my spiritual father (this would be ignoring the work of Father through Christ). In Christianity we likewise do not have rabbis, spiritual guides or masters. We have the Holy Spirit instead. We do have a different set of gifts given by Christ Himself to help us work in the ministry: apostles; prophets; and evangelists; and pastors and teachers. These gifts are expressions of the Holy Spirit in our lives. It's ok to say I'm called to be an apostle or any other ministry gift. It's also ok to use that as a title however it's not ok to use that title to gain reverence or some special honor. Ministry gifts should be honored but they should not be revered. If you become annoyed when someone does not acknowledge you as a ministry gift it's a good time to stop using the title.


Does the indwelling of the Holy Spirit encompass a person's body, soul and spirit? The Bible affirms in more than one place that the Holy Spirit indwells the believer.

  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,  1 Corinthians 6:19 ESV

A prominent understanding of mankind is that we have a body, soul and spirit.  So, my question is to understand in what sense does the Holy Spirit indwell the believer.  Is it in all three aspects?  The body, soul and spirit?  Or is it just perhaps the soul and spirit or just the spirit?

The body still seems to be under the curse at this point, since it will die, yet the verse immediately after the one above uses the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as an exhortation for the believer to glorify God with his or her body.

I understand that this question should be targeted to a specific tradition.  I am most interested in an evangelical perspective.  I don't even know, though, if this has ever been addressed in the Catholic or Orthodox traditions.  If so, perhaps a separate question targeted at those traditions would be appropriate.

Tripartite? Sometimes.

Scripture does imply a "body, soul, and spirit" (3 parts) in some places. However, in other places it's "heart, soul, mind, and strength" (4 parts). In other places it is simply "body and soul" or "body and spirit" (2 parts), though "spirit and soul" are distinguished in other places. Of course there are also many places that simply refer to the man as a single entity.

The key of course is context. What is the author talking about in the passage you're examining? Here are a few passages that may help you along in your study:

Relationship between the Holy Spirit and...

Body - as you noticed, your body is a "temple" of the Holy Spirit. This is similar to the picture we have of our bodies being a "tent" or "dwelling" for us (i.e. our non-physical self.)

Mind - The Scriptures seem to exhort believers to "set their minds on the Spirit." (I'm thinking here about Romans 8:5-6 and 1 Cor. 14:14-15.) This leads me to believe the mind is perhaps the "attention" of the person, and not a location where the Spirit dwells.

Soul - In Luke 2:35 it would seem that the soul is where the "thoughts of the heart" are found.

Spirit - Romans 8:16 seems to paint a picture of the Spirit at work alongside our spirit, rather than "from within."

...again, it is crucial to study each passage carefully and determine what the author is trying to communicate, but hopefully I have given you enough material to help you study and explore the topic more for yourself.


Did Hosea love Gomer the prostitute? Hosea (NLT)

  1:2-3 When the LORD first began speaking to Israel through Hosea, he
  said to him, "Go and marry a prostitute, so that some of her children
  will be conceived in prostitution. This will illustrate how Israel has
  acted like a prostitute by turning against the LORD and worshiping
  other gods." So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and
  bore him a son.

  3:1 Then the LORD said to me, "Go and love your wife again, even
  though she commits adultery with another lover. This will illustrate
  that the LORD still loves Israel, even though the people have turned
  to other gods and love to worship them."

Did Hosea fall in love with the prostitute or he was simply forced to marry her?

Was God forcing Hosea to love her? Is it even possible?

Did Hosea really fall in love with her ultimately?

First off, we can't interpret "love" in the mushy Valentine's-Day sitcom sense we imagine today. "Love" here is a lot more significant and difficult than that.

Love in the Old Testament sense is not divorced from actions. Loving actions don't spring from love; they are an inherent aspect of love. As wax eagle points out in the comments above, sexual intercourse was the central way that a man loved a woman. There were other ways, such as giving gifts, favouring her sons, etc.

It seems to me that in this case it does not mean sexual intercourse. Let's look at the whole of chapter 3:

  The Lord said to me again, ‘Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress, just as the Lord loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.’ So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer of barley and a measure of wine. And I said to her, ‘You must remain as mine for many days; you shall not play the whore, you shall not have intercourse with a man, nor I with you.’ For the Israelites shall remain many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterwards the Israelites shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king; they shall come in awe to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days. (Hosea 3, NRSV)

It seems to me that what Hosea did was a kind of love that didn't involve sex, but was about his redeeming her (i.e. buying her back) and dwelling with her and keeping her from playing the whore.

Now, let's look at the book of Hosea and why this passage exists. The book was written as a denunciation of the cultic practices of the Northern Kingdom. It is an extended metaphor, where the prophet Hosea represents God and Gomer his wife represents the faithless people of Israel, who had been "playing the whore" by worshipping foreign gods. (Whether Hosea and Gomer were real people is entirely beside the point.)

Hosea's loving action in buying back Gomer represents God's loving action in buying back Israel despite her unfaithfulness. So Hosea's purer, less physical way of loving his wife is a promise of a time when Israel and God would once again live together in a pure form of love.