Where did the concept of separate races originate? I want to preface what I say with a statement saying this is not in any way related to any kind of Prejudice! I only want to ask how we got from the family of Noah to having so many so called races.

According to my Bible; which is the King James version, this is how the world was populated.

Genesis 11:1 and 2

  And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a  plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

Everyone seems to have been one happy family, but then pride crept in and:

  Genesis 11:4  And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

God didn't like that:

Genesis 11:6 through 9

  And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.  Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

Now as far as I have been able to determine God only mixed up their languages so they could no longer understand each other, but I find nothing that says he turned them into different races to be able to visually tell the difference between them.

So where did people become different races?

Historically, the answer to the race issue has been the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.
From Nigel Tomes:

The tradition that Ham was a black man developed much later. It is a Rabbinical elaboration,7 not explicitly formulated until the Babylonian Talmud of 500 AD. Hence this concept belongs in the category of Jewish “myths and unending genealogies” (1 Tim.1:4). In the Middle Ages, European scholars of the Bible picked up on the Jewish Talmud idea that the “sons of Ham” were “blackened” by their sins.8 These arguments became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th Centuries. A historian, Edith Sanders, concludes that the identification of Ham’s descendents as Black Africans,9 “gained currency in the sixteenth century.” Thereafter, it “persisted throughout the eighteenth century, [and] served as a rationale for slavery, using Biblical interpretations in support of its tenets. The image of the Negro deteriorated in direct proportion to the growth of the importance of slavery.” Benjamin Braude, Professor of history at Boston College, writes10 “in 18th and 19th century Euro-America, Genesis 9:18-27 became the curse of Ham, a foundation myth for collective degradation, conventionally trotted out as God’s reason for condemning generations of dark-skinned peoples from Africa to slavery.” Sadly this notion has been perpetuated through its uncritical repetition by Bible teachers and writers. However, today evangelical scholars reject this view as an out-dated remnant of folklore, masquerading as Scriptural truth. - Nigel Tomes

The text itself, as you point out only says:

Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. ... By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

Of Noah's descendents:

Japheth moved east and became the father of the Asian peoples

The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. ...

Shem moved west and became the father of the White European peoples

Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. ...

Ham moved South and became the father of the African peoples.

And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. ... And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan.

Whether or not this theory has any merit, it was historically understood to be the case.
The curses in Genesis 9 were thus seen to have been fulfilled:

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21 And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23 And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24 And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.
25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26 And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27 God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.


Is there any clue/hint in the Bible that tells us “why or how” we won't sin on heaven? Preferable denomination: Eastern Orthodox

So I have this (strange) question about heaven. Please bear with me.

When we die, we either go to hell or heaven. Let's assume (hopefully, God mercy us) that we go to heaven.

What entity of our being goes there? Since we leave our material body (flesh/bones) on earth, only our spirit/soul goes to heaven.
What stops our soul from sinning again in heaven? Could it be that our sins come only from our material world and since we no longer have this we can't sin?

Surely the majority of our sins are material based (ie lust, gluttony), even greed or envy can have its roots on our material world. But not entirely.
For example, we can envy someone because he's more intelligent than us, which has nothing to do with materialism.

So, clearly we can't blame completely our material world for the existence of sins.

Now, since a cornerstone of Christianity is free will, I guess God will not take this right from us on heaven. So I can't figure out why we'll stop sinning there.

We've also been there once, I mean Adam and Eve were there and sinned nonetheless. Sure, it was devil's work and he won't exist there, but devil didn't always existed (so evil can pop into existence without having any prior evil). I also don't think that just by being on heaven and experiencing God's power (ie via Holy Spirit) will make us unable to sin, because that's what happened with all those angels that betrayed Him and became demons due to the devil.

So this leaves me with two possibilities:

1) He returns and maintains our soul back to its most pure stage (ie baby child)

2) Adam's and Eve's heaven will be slightly different with this (new) heaven: Sin will no longer be possible, because there will be no evil seed (He will not allow this to happen ever again). By exiling devil, evil won't be allowed to work any more in His domain (the final heaven). After all the original sin (devil) happened only because He allowed it to happen, and He will not allow it any more.

Thank you for your time

Great metaphysical thinking here!  I like your reasoning that leads to the conclusions:

We can't blame the material world for the existence of sin.
Experiencing the presence/power in heaven or via the Holy Spirit makes us unable to sin.

Before proceeding, I must point out a number of assumptions made in this question, not all of which are accepted by various schools of Christianity.

Only the spirit/soul goes to heaven: a number of Christian denominations believe that while our present material bodies are left behind, we will be given a new physical body (Phi 3:20-21).  There is also a system of belief that everything physical is stained by evil is known as Gnosticism, which was pronounced heresy back in the early centuries of Christianity.
Free will is the cornerstone of Christianity: Actually, this is a hotly-debated issue by many Christian denominations.  I highly recommend you do some research on this issue before claiming it is a "cornerstone."
Adam and Eve sinned while in heaven: Yes, they sinned while in the Garden of Eden, but whether Eden = Heaven depends on your reading of Genesis.  Gen. 2 places this garden "in the east" and at the head of a river that splits into the rivers Pishon, Gihon, Trigris, and Euphrates.  If we take a literal interpretation of this passage, it seems to have been located in the middle east.  If we take a mythological interpretation, then Eden = Paradise = Heaven.
Evil can pop into existence: This is a statement of belief on the origin of evil, which is another hotly debated issue among Christians.  You probably want to do some research on this before making a claim.
Our "most pure stage" is a baby child: This relates to the issue of original sin and the sin nature, also hotly debated.  You seem to indicate that babies don't have a sin nature, which is at issue with Psa 51:5.

Now to answer your question for Biblical clues that sin will be gone in heaven, I first suggest you watch this YouTube video.  It explains a Biblical view of heaven, versus the common belief that it's a city where we sit on fluffy clouds and play harps.  It also gives a clue of why there won't be sin in heaven: the sacrifice of the Lamb of God takes away sin.

Next, consider these verses for your question why:

Rev. 21:4: There will be no more death in heaven (recall, death is the wage of sin per Rom 3:23).
Is. 35:8-9, Rev. 21:8, 21:27, 22:15: Sin and sinners are excluded from Heaven.
Phi. 1:6: God will complete his good work in us (i.e. sanctification) on that day (cf. 1Th 5:23, 1Jn 3:2)
Hab 1:13: God does not tolerate sin in his presence, but paradise involves communion with God (Gen 3:8, Rev. 21:1-4).

For your question of how, that depends on your understanding of free will.  You seem to believe in this doctrine, so I'll try to answer briefly within that system of belief (for an explanation of how from the contrarian belief system that there is no free-will, see this post by John Piper)

Why do we sin?  It is because of our sinful desires and enticement (Rom, 7:8, Jam 1:14), which is otherwise known as the sin nature.
The absence of sin nature does not violate free will, since God has free will (Rom 9:11, 15) but no sin nature (Jam 1:13)
Death destroys the sinful nature (Rom 6:7)

A fuller response from the free-will perspective is provided here.


Is "Worship Pastor" a new term? From Wikipedia article "Worship pastor"

  A Worship Pastor usually refers to a person in some Christian
  churches, largely in North America, who ministers within the church
  via music performance, as well as counseling and pastoring members of
  the church's music team.

  This is a distinct role within a church, that contains elements of,
  and overlaps with some of the roles of a church music director and
  pastor, while being neither. Usually a worship pastor will also be
  considered a worship leader of the church with the added
  responsibilities of caring for members of a team, including other
  worship leaders.

A prominent Worship Pastor that I know is Darlene Zschech, the former worship pastor of Hillsong Church, who composed one of the most well-known modern worship songs, "Shout to the Lord".

When did the term "Worship Pastor" originate?
Is this use of the term very recent?
Which denominations have Worship Pastors?

As "New" is a fairly relative term in terms of a religion with a history spanning nearly four thousand years, I will attempt to give an answer by dating the concept of a worship pastor and document the earliest references I was able to locate.

The term "Worship Pastor" appears to be a relatively new term. The Google Books search engine provides a convenient ability to filter based on copyright (publication) date which allows us to search based on year. While Google has indexed several libraries worth of works, it still represents a fraction of English literature ever written. Nonetheless, it is still useful in establishing and trending the rise and fall of certain vernacular in writings and can allow us to establish at least a rough era.

According to this measurement, the actual term "Worship Pastor" does not appear in literature until 1987 in a work titled Exploring Worship: A Practical Guide to Praise & Worship by Bob Sorge. In this Work, Jonathan Stockstill is designated as the Worship Pastor of the Bethany World Prayer Center located in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The concept of a worship pastor however, dates much earlier (according to the same measurement). Prior to this timeframe, the worship pastor was typically designated as the Musical Pastor. The concept of music as worship is well established and one need only look at the Psalms to see the connection, so I will not dwell on the point that a music pastor is a kind of worship pastor.

A search on the term "Music Pastor" reveals that this concept dates to the late 1800s with the term first appearing in the 39th volume of Dwight's Journal of Music in 1880.

In an article entitled "Reform of Church Music" attributed to a "Mr. Thayer" he opens by stating

  I cannot forego the opportunity of saying a words about organs and organists. Whether professed Christian or not I believe the organist's first duty is to consider his playing and all his acts in the sanctuary as worship.

Mr. Thayer goes on to state

  These most briefly stated are the organist's duties and responsibilities; and I believe that he should be fully prepared for them before he assumes the office of musical pastor, or attempts to lead others in the service of the sanctuary.

Still later, he says

  The true church organist is a musical pastor who must speak to the hearts of the people, Whoso among us does not feel this, is not yet worthy of his sacred calling.

This tends to indicate that the church organist (who most certainly predated this development by several hundred years, in addition to choral and musical directorship in the church setting) underwent a conversion to a more formal leadership and pastoral role at the end of the 1800s.

Indeed, the second reference I was able to locate of the organist-as-pastor in a paper titled "Church Music" by Albert J Blakesley (the Organist of the Second Congregational Church in Waterbury Connecticut) included with the minutes of the 23rd annual meeting of the General Conference of Congregational churches held at New Haven on June 18th-19th in 1890 supports this conclusion. In this paper, Blakesley states

  A church should no more think of having an unchristian man for an organist than such a man for a pastor and teacher. An organist has been rightly described as "the musical pastor" and the term ought to fit every man who sits at the organ desk in divine service... and he must be a good musician, just as good as can be had; but piety before technique and good taste rather than manual dexterity are the qualities to seek.

Taken together, these references indicate that while the office of Musical Pastor did exist in some locales, it was still relatively uncommon and novel idea. Research indicates that this changed relatively shortly thereafter with references being plentiful after turn of the 20th century.


How do protestants understand Jesus' statement that unless we eat the flesh of the Son of Man we will have no life? Catholics teach that they literally eat the body of Jesus during communion, a belief called Transubstantiation. Protestant churches mostly do not share this belief and there is no obligation to partake in the Holy Communion every Sunday.

  Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. (John 6:53, NKJV)

What common interpretations do protestants have of this verse?

Here is how I understand this verse.

Given

Jesus Christ = The Word of God (John 1:14)
The Word of God = Bible (2 Timothy 3:16)
Jesus Christ = Bread of Heaven (John 6:51)

Assuming read=intake=eat, we have

Reading Bible = Reading the Word of God
Reading the Word of God = Eating Bread of Heaven
Eating Bread of Heaven = Eating Jesus Christ

Therefore

Reading Bible = Eating Jesus Christ

  But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” (Matthew 4:4, NKJV)

This verse may imply that we need the Word of God every day. Therefore,

Reading Bible every day = Eating Jesus Christ every day

Is this a common understanding of "eating Jesus" by Protestant Christians?

I am aware of one protestant view that has not been brought up, so here it is for your consideration:

To interpret John 6:53 we examine the context, close to the beginning of the conversation, at John 6:35.

"He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." In this verse Jesus sets up the interpretation for the "eating" and "drinking" analogy.

We "eat" to satisfy our "hunger"; we "drink" to satisfy our thirst. We partake of the benefit of His flesh and blood by "coming to Him" and "believing on Him".

By this interpretation, John 6:53 is not talking at all about communion. Communion reminds us of the sacrifice of Christ which is the price paid for our salvation (in remembrance of me, Luke 22:19). We partake of His sacrifice ("eat His flesh" and "drink His blood"), not by communion, but by coming to Him and believing on Him (John 6:35).

I have encountered this interpretation in every protestant church I attended for any length of time including congregational, Baptist, Foursquare, and Assembly of God.


How did early childhood baptisms started in Catholicism? Jesus got baptized at an age old enough to decide for himself.

Today, I always see infants getting baptized. According to Catholicism, when, where and how did early childhood (infant) baptisms got started?

Was there a mandate from the Vatican that imposes infants need to be baptized as soon as possible?

The earliest recorded instance of child baptism is in the Acts of the Apostles when Lydia, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira was baptized along with her household (Acts 16:14).  Other instances of child baptism recorded in the New Testament are in Acts 16:33, Acts 18:8, and 1 Corinthians 1:16.

This is all in accordance with the commandment given by Peter that all, including children, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38-39).


What is the meaning of the stained glass above the altar at Votivkirche in Wien with the Portuguese Quinas on it? I would like to know more information on a glass painting I found in the church Votivkirche in Wien (Vienna, Austria).  Above the person with the shield there is the symbol of the Portuguese Quinas.

Is there a reason / story about this?

I was able to find a plan of the church (not sure if it is the same as today), on this website.

I think the location is the one on the left side that says "kapelle".

What is the meaning of the stained glass above the altar at Votivkirche in Wien with the Portuguese Quinas on it?

The Portuguese Quinas or Coat of arms of Portugal (1481-present)  can be seen in the Votive Church in Austria known as Votivkirche. It can be be seen in Vienna, Austria.

This is a votive church and as such was constructed in order to fulfill a vow or in gratitude for some grace(s) obtained or thanksgiving of some sort.

  The Votivkirche (Votive Church) is a neo-Gothic church located on the Ringstraße in Vienna, Austria. Following the attempted assassination of Emperor Franz Joseph in 1853, the Emperor's brother Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian inaugurated a campaign to create a church to thank God for saving the Emperor's life. Funds for construction were solicited from throughout the Empire. The church was dedicated in 1879 on the silver anniversary of Emperor Franz Joseph and his wife Empress Elisabeth.

  The origin of the Votivkirche derives from a failed assassination attempt on Emperor Franz Joseph by Hungarian nationalist János Libényi on 18 February 1853. During that time, when the Emperor was in residence at the Hofburg Palace, he took regular walks around the old fortifications for exercise in the afternoons. During one such stroll, while walking along one of the outer bastions with one of his officers, Count Maximilian Karl Lamoral O'Donnell von Tyrconnell, the twenty-one-year-old tailor's apprentice attacked the twenty-three-year-old Emperor from behind, stabbing him in the collar with a long knife. The blow was deflected by the heavy golden covering embroidered on the Emperor's stiff collar. Although his life was spared, the attack left him bleeding from a deep wound.

  A civilian passer-by, Dr. Joseph Ettenreich, came to the Emperor's assistance, and Count O'Donnell struck Libényi down with his sabre, holding him until the police guards arrived to take him into custody. As he was being led away, the failed assassin yelled in Magyar, "Long live Kossuth!" Franz Joseph insisted that his assailant not be mistreated. After Libényi's execution at Spinnerin am Kreuz in Favoriten for attempted regicide, the Emperor characteristically granted a small pension to the assassin's mother.

  Dr. Ettenreich, who quickly overwhelmed the attacker, was later elevated to nobility by Franz Joseph for his bravery, and became Joseph von Ettenreich. Count O'Donnell, who up until then was a count in the German nobility by virtue of his great-grandfather, was afterwards made a Count of the Habsburg Empire and received the Commander's Cross of the Royal Order of Leopold. His customary O'Donnell arms were augmented by the initials and shield of the ducal House of Austria and also the double-headed eagle of the Empire. These arms are emblazoned on the portico of No. 2 Mirabel Platz in Salzburg, where O'Donnell later built his residence.

  After the unsuccessful assassination attempt, the Emperor's brother, Maximilian — later Emperor of Mexico — called upon communities throughout the Austria-Hungary Empire for donations to a new church on the site of the attack. The church was to be a votive offering for the rescue of Franz Joseph and "a monument of patriotism and of devotion of the people to the Imperial House." - Votivkirche, Vienna

I do not believe there is a real story as to why the Portuguese Quinas is placed in one of the stained glass windows of this church.

The Portuguese nation simply made a substantial donation to the construction of the edifice and because of this act the Emperor permitted that the
Portuguese Quinas could be displayed in this church as an Ex-Voto.

I know this sounds too simple of an explication, but it a very traditional way of thanking donors. I have seen many plaques in churches displaying the names very important donors for their generosity, even at the bottom and within of some stained glass windows. The Portuguese Quinas is simply another way for the Austrian Emperor to thank the Portuguese nation.

Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus.

  Votive Church

  The neo-Gothic church is located on Vienna's Ringstrasse and was consecrated in 1879, on the Silver Jubilee of Emperor Franz Joseph and Empress Elisabeth. A failed assassination attempt on the Emperor was the inspiration for its construction. To finance the church, the Emperor’s brother, Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian, appealed for donations “in gratitude for the sparing of His Majesty”. The Votive Church, also called “Ringstrasse cathedral”, is one of the most significant buildings of the European Historicism period. It contains a museum displaying the “Antwerp Altar”. This church is of particular interest for visitors of Vienna, since the service is held in different languages each Sunday at 11:15 am. - 7 most impressive Churches in Vienna


A female demon name starting with the letter "S" Is there a female demon in christain or pagan mythology who's name starts with the letter "S". In a TV documentary titled "A haunting" on Discovery, I herd her name but have forgotten. I think its "sarah" or "sera" or "seri". I don't remember correctly.

You probably mean a Succubus. Wikipedia defines them as:

  a Lilin-demon in female form, or supernatural entity in folklore (traced back to medieval legend) that appears in dreams and takes the form of a woman in order to seduce men, usually through sexual activity. The male counterpart is the incubus.

For example, this entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that one of the charges brought about against "witches" was that of "intercourse with incubi and succubi" (where succubi is the plural of succubus).


Was Jesus perfect his entire life? - Isaiah 7 Was Jesus perfect his entire life? This passage seems to suggest otherwise. I've never had a good answer to this question when referring to this passage.

  Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, “Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it
  be deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” But Ahaz said, “I will not ask,
  and I will not put the Lord to the test.” And he said, “Hear then, O
  house of David! Is it too little for you to weary men, that you weary
  my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold,
  the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name
  Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the
  evil and choose the good. For before the boy knows how to refuse the
  evil and choose the good, the land whose two kings you dread will be
  deserted. The Lord will bring upon you and upon your people and upon
  your father's house such days as have not come since the day that
  Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
  ~ Isaiah 7:10-17

In the passage you mention it never says Jesus sinned or did evil.  We can find the answer to that question in Hebrews 4:14-15

  Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through
  the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
  For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our
  weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

More info here - http://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/18/t/christs-human-nature.aspx


Were Prophets Moses and Aaron magicians? It is a well known fact that the Bible contains many verses where magick is forbidden. Some examples are Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:9-12. However, I find also in the Bible many verse that indicate Prophet Moses and his brother, Prophet Aaron, to have performed magic as well. The following verses are some of the examples:

Exodus 7:10-12:

  And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the Lord had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods.

Exodus 7:20:

  And Moses and Aaron did so, as the Lord commanded; and he lifted up the rod, and smote the waters that were in the river, in the sight of Pharaoh, and in the sight of his servants; and all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood.

Exodus 8:17:

  And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.

Exodus 9:23:

  And Moses stretched forth his rod toward heaven: and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and the fire ran along upon the ground; and the Lord rained hail upon the land of Egypt.

Exodus 10:13:

  And Moses stretched forth his rod over the land of Egypt, and the Lord brought an east wind upon the land all that day, and all that night; and when it was morning, the east wind brought the locusts.

Exodus 10:22:

  And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days.

Exodus 17:5-6

  And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people, and take with thee … thy rod, wherewith thou smotest the river, take in thine hand, and go. Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock in Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink. And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.

Exodus 17:9-11:

  And Moses said unto Joshua, Choose us out men, and go out, fight with Amalek: to morrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in mine hand. So Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and fought with Amalek: and Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill. And it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed: and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed.

Numbers 17:6-8:

  And Moses spake unto the children of Israel, and every one of their princes gave him a rod apiece, for each prince one, according to their fathers’ houses, even twelve rods: and the rod of Aaron was among their rods. And Moses laid up the rods before the Lord in the tabernacle of witness. And it came to pass, that on the morrow Moses went into the tabernacle of witness; and, behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi was budded, and brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds.

So did Prophets Moses and Aaron really performed magick or is this a mistranslation? If they did practice magick, why did they do it when it is forbidden or does it mean magick can be white?

Scott B. Noegel's article Moses and Magic: Notes on the Book of Exodus, published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society argues in great detail that Moses and Aaron's miracles are distinct from magic used by Pharaoh's magicians, and the nature of the miracles were challenges to the Egyptian understanding of magic.

In his conclusion, he writes:

  While Moses and Aaron do not employ magic of any kind, the miracles they perform do have Egyptian analogs, suggesting that the Exodus writer made a deliberate effort to allude to Egyptian magical praxis in order to polemicize against it. Such allusiveness bespeaks the literary and polemical sophistication of the ancient author.

Noegel has made the full article available online, which is worth reading for anyone who is interested in understanding how Moses' miracles would have been perceived by contemporary Egyptians.


Why is the use of certain common words offensive? Why does writing words such as "hell" and "damn" trigger internet filters that insert asterisks into my writing? What is it about these words that makes them offensive to the point that people use substitutes like "heck" and "darn", sometimes in situations that sound very childish? (Double hockey sticks, anyone?)

They're used in the bible as standard words.
They're not vulgar, sexual, or disgusting like other swear words.
They're not "using the Lord's name in vain".

I agree they're strong words when wielded and not nice when directed at someone ("damn you"; "go to hell"), but on what basis do Christians consider them "cussing" in casual speech ("I had a hell of a time", "my damned car won't start") when used passively?

For people who are sensitive to these words, are other forms like "hellish" or "damnable" acceptable, or is it just the four-letter format? Is it less acceptable in speech than in writing?

Maybe I just need to be educated about what is the actual Christian definition of cursing.

Edit: There are 3 votes to close this and a suggestion to move it to a language site. I don't want to presume but I'm guessing it's because some are offended: Even the title has been sanitized! This is exactly what I want to understand... And I'm not asking about "certain common words": I'm specifically asking about "HELL" and "DAMN" which are Christian terms, and I thought I was clear that I'm asking about it in the sense of regular usage, not when used as curses. Is there cause for offense in these words because they can be used as curses or is it something inherent in them? Please believe me, I'm not trying to be confrontational, I genuinely want to understand the nature of these words in our common culture.

Growing up in central Kansas in the 1980s, I was taught—both by my Sunday School teacher and by the english teacher in public school—that "damn" and "hell" were not obscene but vulgar, i.e., that they were only used by uneducated people. I remember being told that if we used them, people would think we weren't very smart. I can't remember ever hearing anyone say they were offensive. And plenty of people from church used these words in casual conversations.

Edit:

Also, I recall C.S. Lewis using both words in the Narnia series. So I'm thinking the offense is cultural, not religious.


Is God the Son's blood divine and infinite or human and finite (Protestant interpretation) Something I hear a lot is "Jesus has to be God because it took an infinite sacrifice to appease the infinite anger of an infinite God", or something like that.

My question concerns whether God the Son's blood is human or divine.

If human, then I don't understand how it was infinite enough to be an acceptable sacrifice, why he needed to be God, and how this is not an abomination.

If divine, then it must carry the supposed qualities of divinity (infinite, eternal, and unchangable) so that he is not a real human.

According to Protestant trinitarianism, when God the Son's blood was shed, was this a shedding of human, finite blood, or was it divine, infinite blood?

Jesus's blood is strictly part of his human nature

According to Chalcedonian Christians in the incarnation Jesus took on a complete human nature which was united to the divine nature of God. Jesus's body is part of his human nature and was created in the incarnation. The divine nature of God is spirit, uncreated, non-physical. The Chalcedonian definition says that the two natures of Christ are united without separation, but also without mixture or confusion. Jesus has two distinct natures, not one hybrid nature, which means that his blood is strictly human, not divine.

The infinite nature of sin

I think the infinite nature of sin could be better referred to as the total, complete, and unquantifiable nature of sin. Under the Jewish law there was a sense in which individual sins were to be atoned for by individual sacrifices, that certain sins needed certain sacrifices. But none of these sacrifices could actually deal with the sinful nature we possess (Hebrews 10).

Our sinful nature is all-encompassing - none of us are only partially sinful, we just are sinful. We don't need partial saving, we need complete saving. We aren't partially dead, we are dead, and Jesus doesn't make us partially alive, he makes us alive. So when we consider the atonement Jesus brings us, it's not like we count up our sins and subtract them from Jesus's sacrifice. Jesus brings us complete redemption, regeneration, and reconciliation.

If there is an "infinite anger" (a phrase I haven't heard before) then it would be in the same sense: as we are totally unquantifiably sinful, so God is totally unquantifiably angry at our sin. But God is not only angry at us. Though we may not be able to understand how, at the same time as God is unquantifiably angry with us, such that he can even call us his enemies, he loves us enough to die for us to save us (Romans 5:6-10).

The infinite nature of the atonement

While there is a debate within Protestantism over the scope of the atonement as it applies to humanity (the debate over so-called "limited" atonement), all would agree that Jesus's sacrificial atoning death was of infinite capacity, sufficient to cover every sin of every human who has ever existed.

While the blood of Jesus is important, because Jesus paid the blood debt we all owed (or the blood punishment for those who are okay with that terminology), we shouldn't think of the atonement being accomplished solely or even primarily by his blood. The 5 litres of his blood don't need to be distributed among humanity as if we need one red blood cell each. While we Western Christians like to think individually, and while it is necessary that we do each have a personal faith and receive salvation ourselves, the atonement was for the church as a group.

On the cross Jesus received the condemnation which the whole world deserved. He destroyed the power of sin and death, and he initiated the end of the time of Adam. In his resurrection he is like a new Adam (Romans 5, 1 Cor 15), bringing new life to a new humanity. His death is the end of the old and his resurrection the beginning of the new, although we are waiting for judgement day when the beginning will be completed. We receive this not through an individual gift or transfer but because we are united to Christ, we are "in Christ" as the NT frequently says. I think we can say that we are in effect one step removed from the blood of Jesus: Jesus sheds his blood in the judgement of the old humanity and destroys sin and death, and then receives vindication, new eternal life, and initiates the new humanity in his resurrection. We die and are raised in him (Romans 6), so that the death of one man can cover us all because we are united to him.


Help with Verse Identification -- 'Jesus has not yet returned because...' I have a particular verse in mind that I can't seem to remember. The gist is: 'Jesus has not yet returned for the sake of those who have yet to be added to his kingdom...'

It's something along those lines; if anyone knows what I am referencing I'd greatly appreciate a verse reference.

Thank you!

I believe these are the two main candidates for what you are after:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. - Matthew 24:14 NIV
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. - 2 Peter 3:9 NIV


Where Catholicism lost influence and property during the reformation,  what did Luther think should be done with the acquired assets? As a man protesting against the mass of wealth accumulated by the Pope I was wondering what Luther proposed to do with all the lands and endowments obtained in those regions where the Catholic church lost her influence and ownership of various assets. Also what about the nuns and monks still living in those properties formerly owned by the Catholic church? What did Luther think should be done with them?

Considering the intensity of the reformation one might possibly imagine some extreme idea like burning down the monasteries and tossing out the monks as heretics, or even burning them, but such is the opposite of what Luther was about at the personal level. Although Luther has said some of the most harsh language ever recorded against Catholic doctrine,  Luther had a very kind attitude towards Catholics themselves, in terms of their welfare.  As a matter of history, Luther in fact directly sought to ensure their protection and economic welfare.

With regard to rural monasteries, Luther did no suggest they be burned down, but instead to treat kindly those in error through Christian love, even to support them financially for the rest of their lives:

  Since no one is to be coerced into faith and the gospel, those who because of their age, their bellies, or their consciences elect to remain in the monastery should not be ejected or harshly dealt with, but should be supported for the rest of their days just as before. For the gospel teaches us to do good even to the unworthy, just as the heavenly Father sends rain and sunshine upon the good and the evil alike [Matt. 5:45]. We must remember, too, that these persons have drifted into this estate as a result of the blindness and error which prevailed generally, and have never learned a trade by which they could support themselves. (Luther's Works 45.171)

For those monasteries in the cities Luther thought they could be converted to Christian schools. I presume he meant any monks or nuns who wanted to stay would  be relocated to rural locations.

Luther had the same loving approach with respect to bishoprics, foundations, and chapters which have under their control lands, cities, and other possessions, etc. His aim was to build a community chest for the poor, 'for all who were needy among the Christians.'

Where the remaining family which originally endowed the properties to the church were now suffering poverty Luther thought it should be divided between the poor and the original family:

  If the heirs of the founder are impoverished and in want, however, it is fair and in harmony with Christian love that the foundation revert to them, at least a large portion of it, or the whole amount if their need be great enough to warrant it. It certainly was not the intention of their fathers—and should not have been—to take the bread out of the mouths of their children and heirs and bestow it elsewhere. And even if that was their intention, it is false and un-Christian, for fathers are in duty bound to provide for their own children first of all; that is the highest service they can render to God with their temporal goods. But if the heirs are not poor and in need of it, they should not take back their father’s bequest, but let it go into the common chest. (Luther's Works 45.173)

So we see that though Luther strongly condemned the beliefs of Catholics during the reformation his personal attitude to their persons (not their doctrine) was like a caring father desiring to take care of all involved.  This bit of history is somewhat of a surprising liberal and generous position, easily overlooked by the doctrinal passions and battle of the reformation.


Do we have no control over our flesh? This is from a Facebook fan page titled "Jesus Christ":

  We all struggle with sin, and at times it's so bad that we think" God has to hate me,I will never get into heaven, I am so awful!" Well Thats the devil talking to you and the truth is we have NO control at all over the lusts of the flesh. We have to have faith and trust in God, that He is going to get us through it by walking in the spirit! You know you can't say NO to what you feel inside or want to do, no matter how hard you try. I know I cant! So tell God you are sorry and ask God to take it for you and trust in Him! If we try and do it on our own like in Deuteronomy it will take us so much longer to accomplish what God wants because we didn't trust in Him. If we truly give it up, it's at that point God takes it and it's easy!He knows it's not easy but He tells us we just have to be willing to give it to Him and He will do the rest.And if it comes back up for you again give it right back to God!And just keep doing it and after a while you will be amazed what Happends!Don't be affraid! Walk in the spirit! We walk by faith not by sight!God can handle anything! Jennifer GSM

The emphasis is mine and is the inspiration for this question. When I read this, I kept thinking that that was so wrong. I myself can control and suppress certain fleshy desires and without any perceptible help from God...and so can others, including non-Christians. I could be wrong though. Hence, I'm wondering: is this view Biblical?

If we have no control over the lusts of the flesh, then all the commands in the Bible to refrain from sin are pretty absurd and waste of time and space.

Of course we have the ability to say no to temptations, as is cited in many passages of Scripture that urge us to do so.

  No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is
  faithful, and h*e will not let you be tempted beyond your ability*,
  but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that
  you may be able to endure it.  1 Corinthians 10:13 ESV

  For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people,
  12 training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to
  live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age.
  Titus 2:11-12 ESV

  As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your
  former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be
  holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy,
  for I am holy.”  1 Peter 1:14-16 ESV

If we really did not have the ability to overcome temptation, then the Bible would say much different things and give different instructions about responding to our inevitable failures.


What was Jesus' soul? In the following Scriptures Jesus refers to my soul:

Matthew 26:38  KJV

  Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

Mark 14:34  KJV

  And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.

John 12:27  KJV

  Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

In Genesis chapter 2 we are told that man became a living soul when God breathed the breath of life into his nostrils.

Genesis 2:7  KJV

  And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Succeeding generations apparently become living souls when their nostrils receive the breath of life.

In Genesis chapter 18 it appears that a pre-incarnate Jesus spoke with Abraham, since no Angel would be able to modify orders for the destruction of Sodom.

Genesis 18:26  KJV

  And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

Since Jesus the deity was there before creation Jesus the man certainly was not referring to that as his soul.

So I have wondered if a soul was formed for the human part of Jesus when he was born of Mary, or is there another Scripture I have overlooked, or some writings on this that I do not know about.

A body is animated by the soul. Jesus’ body was no different, except that it was both fully human and fully divine: there wasn’t a “human part” and a “divine part”. As his whole nature was fully human and fully divine, it follows that his soul was both fully human and fully divine as well, for he could not be the Word Incarnate without the Word being part of all of his incarnate nature.
This is attested by the Fathers, for example St John Damascene:

By the fact that at Christ's death his soul was separated from his flesh, his one person is not itself divided into two persons; for the human body and soul of Christ have existed in the same way from the beginning of his earthly existence, in the divine person of the Word; and in death, although separated from each other, both remained with one and the same person of the Word.
De fide orth. 3, 27: quoted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 626

While the Word was pre-existent, the soul of the Incarnate Word came into existence with the Incarnation, just as it does with any person: Christ was fully human.
See also this question.

I don’t understand your reference to Genesis 18. While it’s true that the three visitors are generally accepted as an allegory for the Trinity, there is no reason that one should be the Word Incarnate. With the exception of “behold, three men stood in front of him”, all the references are to “the LORD” in the singular, and it is the Lord who speaks. The three men Abraham met could just as easily — even more, likely — have been God, in the same form as he walked in the garden with Adam, accompanied by the two angels of Genesis 19:1.


What is the background of the words "notitia," "fiducia," and "assensus" and how do they relate to the biblical notion of "faith"? The book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (page 18) describes notitia, fiducia, and assensus as the three essential elements that make up the biblical notion of "faith."

notitia is defined as "understanding the content of the Christian faith"

fiducia is defined as "trust"

assensus is defined as "the assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition"

I am trying to determine what the background is for each of these three words along with what their origin, context, and usage is. Where did they first appear? What is their relationship to the New Testament or the Old Testament?

Origin - Loci Communes Theologici, 1521 A.D.

The words notitia, assensus, and fiducia applied to faith originates with the Reformers of the 16th Century. Martin Luther argued that saving faith or true faith is a fides viva, a vital or living faith (Sproul, 2010, pg.47). This concept was further explicated by one of Luther's contemporaries, Philip Melanchthon. In 1521 Melanchthon first published his work, "Loci Communes Theologici," which was the first systematic explanation of Protestant theology, and condensed the thoughts of the Reformers and defined notitia, assensus, and fiducia as the three essential elements of saving faith. It is he that codified what the scriptures had taught, and it was from Melanchthon's work that these words first appeared in the context of faith (Israel, 2007, pg.233).

Context and Usage

Rome feared that the doctrine of justification by faith alone or Sola Fide would encourage people to live immoral lives and to think that the casual acceptance of Jesus without any change in one’s life is the kind of faith that justifies.

The Protestant Reformers were therefore careful to outline the biblical definition of faith in their writings. They wanted to show that true saving faith would always produce the fruit of good works. Though the reformers believed that works played no part at all in justifying them before God (Rom 3:28; 4:4, 5; Eph. 2:8, 9) they justified or vindicated their claim to faith before a watching world. They believed that their lives should demonstrate that the faith professed was also faith possessed.

The words themselves are simply common Latin words used to describe the elements of faith. Literally translated, they are:

nōtitia: notice, acquaintance
assēnsus: agreed with, assented to, approved
fiducia: trust, faith, confidence, credit

An example of these elements found in scripture:

  13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God (i.e., notitia) which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men (i.e., assensus), but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (i.e., fiducia). (1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV, emphasis added)

Notitia refered to the content of faith, or those things that they believed. (example: To believe in Christ, you must first know something about him)

Assensus was their conviction that the content of their faith was true. You can know about the Christian faith and yet believe that it is not true. Genuine faith says that the content — the notitia taught by Holy Scripture — is true.

Fiducia referred to personal trust and reliance. Knowing and believing the content of the Christian faith was not enough, for even demons can do that (James 2:19). Faith was only effectual if, knowing about and assenting to the claims of Jesus, one personally trusted in Him alone for salvation.

 Israel, R. (2007). Glasow Road. ISBN-13: 978-1-60034-900-3.
Ligonier Ministries
Reformation Theology,
Sproul, R. C. (2010). Justified by Faith Alone: Wheaton, IL: Crossway Publishers.


Obtaining Wisdom in the Bible In James 1:5 it says that God gives Wisdom, whereas in Proverbs 4:7 it teaches to seek wisdom.

How would one reconcile these two verses.

Consider the following passages:

  Psalm 37:4 "Delight yourself in YHWH, and he will give you the desires of your heart.

  Deuteronomy 4:29 "But from there [among the world] you will seek YHWH your God, and you will find Him if you search for Him with all your heart and all your life."

  Jeremiah 29:11-14 "For I know the plans I have for you,” declares YHWH, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you,” declares the YHWH, “and bring you out of bondage."

  Proverbs 9:10-11 "The fear of YHWH is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. For through me your days will be many, and years will be added to your life."

  Psalm 63:1,5 "You, God, are my God, I earnestly I seek you; I thirst for you, my whole being longs for you,
  in a dry and parched land where there is no water. I will be fully satisfied as with the richest of foods; with singing lips my mouth will praise you."

  Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him."

YHWH gives wisdom to those who seek him. Those who earnestly seek him find him, because he reveals himself to them by his Spirit.

  2 Corinthians 2:6-7,10 "We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. These are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.


How does the Catholic Church explain the omission of identity of the young man referred to in Mk 14:51? In Mark 14:51, we read about a youth who flees, after he sees Jesus being arrested:

A certain young man was following him, wearing nothing but a linen cloth. They caught hold of him, but he left the linen cloth and ran off naked.

Many speculate that the young man was Mark himself. But then, having become one of the Evangelists later, he would not have referred to himself as a certain young man, unless of course, he had a terrible guilt feeling which he did not want to acknowledge.
My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the omission of identity of the young man referred to in Mk 14:51?

How does the Catholic Church explain the omission of identity of the young man referred to in Mk 14:51?
Yes there are several interpretations as to who this young man may have been. The Church offers no definitive answer to this equation.
Being a Catholic all my life and having been in a Catholic seminary for four years, I can confirm that the majority of Catholic theologians consider the young man to be St. Mark himself.

When one of Jesus’ followers (“a certain young man”) is captured at the same time Jesus is being arrested (in Mark 14:51-52), but then leaves his garment behind as he escapes naked, Pakaluk is able to make sense of the strange detail.
“It seems that this young man is Mark himself,” he writes. “It is a detail too small to include otherwise, and it seems unlikely that anyone else would have noticed it in the darkness and confusion. The telling of the incident has a humorous tone of self-congratulation, which is difficult to account for if it is someone other than Mark.”
Can you imagine if you had been the follower of Jesus who was apprehended at the same time as him, but then slipped away from your captors by wriggling free of your clothes? No doubt you would be wryly retelling that unique story for the rest of your life.
Pakaluk notes how the episode is only self-congratulatory for Mark in the same way that Peter ironically notes his own shortcomings: “The detail is humorous, and if written by Mark, self-depreciating.”  - St. Peter’s memoirs: a vivid take on a familiar Gospel (The BC Catholic)

The Betrayal of Christ, with a soldier in pursuit of Mark the Evangelist


Can pastors at Evangelical denominations teach that Jesus was resurrected with an invisible and immaterial body? Murray Harris has views of the resurrection body of Jesus which fall within the statement of faith for the Evangelical Free Church in spite of the fact that the body is not a human body.

  Another issue of doctrinal tolerance that received a great deal of attention in the Free Church 15-20 years ago was the view of TEDS Professor Murray J. Harris on the nature of the resurrection body. Since I was Chairman of the Ministerial Association at the time of that controversy, I was intimately involved in the controversy and had extensive correspondence with the principals– Harris, Geisler, Culver, and others. While Harris repeatedly affirmed the EFCA Statement of Faith "without mental reservation," he did espouse some unusual views on the nature of Christ's resurrection body and the resurrection body of the believer. Since our Statement of Faith speaks only of the "fact" of a bodily resurrection and does not describe the "nature" of that body, Dr. Harris was judged by Free Church leaders to be in compliance (and I think rightly so). But the controversy raised a legitimate question: just how unusual can a view be and still be acceptable? (Drawing Doctrinal Lines: Where? And How?, EFCA)

Harris teaches that the resurrection body of Jesus was invisible and immaterial.

Some evangelicals  take issue with Harris’ view.  That being said, do the statements of faiths in Evangelical denominations allow for Jesus to have been resurrected with an invisible and immaterial body?      Can those who hold this view teach it from the pulpit?

There's no authenticating body for evangelicalism, so who could stop an "evangelical" church preaching heresy if that's what they decided they wanted to do? But to teach an immaterial resurrection does go against the clear teaching of the Bible and many other statements of historic Christian, Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical teaching:

Luke 24:38-39 (NIV): He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
39 Articles, #4: Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.
WCF 8.4: This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, which, that he might discharge, he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it; endured most grievous torments immediately in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body; was crucified and died; was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day he arose from the dead, with the same body in which he suffered; with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father, making intercession; and shall return to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.
WCF 32.3: The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonour; the bodies of the just, by his Spirit, unto honour, and be made conformable to his own glorious body.
SBC The Baptist Faith and Message, IIB: He was raised from the dead with a glorified body and appeared to His disciples as the person who was with them before His crucifixion.
The Confessional Statement of the Gospel Coalition, #7, 13: He perfectly obeyed his heavenly Father, lived a sinless life, performed miraculous signs, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, arose bodily from the dead on the third day, and ascended into heaven. ... We believe in the personal, glorious, and bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ with his holy angels, when he will exercise his role as final Judge, and his kingdom will be consummated.
The IFES statement of belief: The bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead and his ascension to the right hand of God the Father.
National Association of Evangelicals Statement of Faith: We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

Many of these statements do only say the "bodily resurrection", but to conclude that they are compatible with an immaterial resurrection is to completely divorce these statements of faith from their historical contexts and originally intended meanings. These modern statements are much shorter than the reformation era statements of the 39 Articles and the Westminster Confession of Faith, and it is reasonable to read them in line with the more verbose statements that preceded them; if the modern statements were intended to contrast with the earlier statements they would have been explicit about it. As usual, we can trust the WCF to be precise in its verbosity: the resurrection of Jesus was not just in any body, but the same body in which he suffered.


What arguments do scholars present for historicity of the fall? What arguments and writings have been used to defend the Genesis account of the fall as a historical event? Is there evidence apart from the writings in Genesis that man was at one time not fallen?

I'm assuming, you're looking for evidence of a transition from unfallen-ness to fallen-ness, not merely evidence of fallen-ness.

If a satisfactory answer to your question requires, in a Young Earth view, something like an archeological artifact (say, a book  that Adam wrote in the few hours/days before he Fell), I think you'll be lacking.

In a philosophical sense, C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity tried to make a "logical" case for the necessity of evil being a corrupted good, rather than an eternally evil bad. But again, this may be more of a view of the "fall" of the devil moreso than mankind.

If one holds to a literalist-old-earth Creation view, there could be some evidence in extinction rates. Reasons to Believe, an old-earth think tank, says:

  Roughly half the bird species alive on Earth when humans appeared no longer exist, and more than a tenth of those that remain face imminent extinction. While evolutionary theory offers no explanation for this change from proliferation of bird species to diminution, the Bible does ....

http://www.reasons.org/articles/extinction-risks-for-birds


Why aren't all unbelievers given a "Road to Damascus" moment, according to Catholicism? As described in the book of Acts, and in lesser detail within the Pauline Epistles, Saul was a Jew who was actively persecuting Christians, notably taking responsibility for the stoning of Stephen. But on the road to Damascus, he had a dramatic religious experience:

Acts 9:3-6 (NIV)
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
“Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.
“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

He was struck blind by the experience. After God told Ananias to meet Saul and fill him with the Holy Spirit, he could see again. Ultimately, Saul flipped his views (changing his name to Paul to reflect this) and was baptized. He went on to became the most influential person in the early Christian church.
According to Catholicism, why doesn't God give all unbelievers, especially vehement anti-Christians similar to Paul, such a powerful religious experience?* It would bring more people towards Christ, likely spurring them to do great works of faith as happened here (not to mention severely weaken, if not outright eliminate, the argument from nonbelief against the existence of God). I don't think that this would be an issue of free will, since the person still needs to decide how to react like Paul.

* A similar, less dramatic religious experience for an unbeliever is that of Doubting Thomas. He did not believe that Christ had risen, but then Jesus appeared to him and the other disciples and let him touch his wounds, erasing his doubt. Tradition is that after this, he was spurred to preach about Jesus in India.

TL;DR (1) Because He doesn't need to, and (2) it's not His style.

1 Samuel 3:18

  What is pleasing in the LORD’s sight, the LORD will do.

If you look at how well the Apostle Paul spread the Faith, particularly among the gentiles, how he (and all of the Apostles and Church Fathers) spread the Good News (of Jesus), and if you consider that the Faith remains alive and well 2000 years later then God chose his servant(s) well.  The Good News is now available all over the world, for those who will listen, which it wasn't when Paul had that experience on the way to Damascus.

Demanding that one receive a special message identical to Paul's from God is to deeply misunderstand the relationship between man and God, and in so doing step smartly into the deadly sin of pride.

Paul didn't demand this message; the message Paul got was a gift from God (possibly "undeserved" given Paul's previous opposition to Christians) that fulfilled God's purpose.

  1996  Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives
  us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons,
  partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

If you, or I, or an unbeliever tries to demand a particular form of grace from Him ... good luck with that.  What your question amounts to is: "If I were God, I'd have done it this way..."
You're not God and God does it His way.  We are called to open our hearts and trust God.  Doubting Thomas was chastised for having the wrong attitude. (See John 20:25-29, below).

Catechism Reference on the relationship between God and Mankind

  CCC 42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify
  our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or
  imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God--"the
  inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the
  ungraspable1"--with our human representations. Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God. 43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity.  Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no
  similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude"; and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."

God communicated with Saul of Tarsus (Paul) in a particular way for His own reasons.  God will speak to others in other ways to fulfill His purposes.  Whether or not we are open to, or will listen to, the message is a different matter.   Pride often gets in the way of listening to God.

God's method, shown in Scripture, is to pick certain servants to get His word out to others

There's a whole world full of Christians (Catholic and otherwise) striving to get the Good News of Jesus to the non-believer.  The Great Commission called to the faithful during the Apostolic age, and 2000 years later still calls all Christians to do likewise(CCC 1-3).  Even before the Apostolic age God called certain individuals to go forth and get His words out to others: the prophets.  The Old Testament shows that God's "style" is to pick someone to go forth and do what He needs done.

Entire books of the bible are devoted to the prophets.  One example (often used in homilies and teachings by Catholic clergy) is Samuel (From 1 Samuel 3)

  9... When Samuel went to sleep in his place, 10  the LORD came and stood there, calling out as before: Samuel, Samuel! Samuel answered,
  “Speak, for your servant is listening.” 11  The LORD said to Samuel: I
  am about to do something in Israel that will make the ears of everyone
  who hears it ring.   12  On that day I will carry out against Eli
  everything I have said about his house, beginning to end.   13  I
  announce to him that I am condemning his house once and for all,
  because of this crime: though he knew his sons were blaspheming God,
  he did not reprove them. 14  Therefore, I swear to Eli’s house: No
  sacrifice or offering will ever expiate its crime.*   15 Samuel then
  slept until morning, when he got up early and opened the doors of the
  temple of the LORD. He was afraid to tell Eli the vision, 16  but Eli
  called to him, “Samuel, my son!” He replied, “Here I am.”   17  Then
  Eli asked, “What did he say to you? Hide nothing from me! May God do
  thus to you, and more,* if you hide from me a single thing he told
  you.” 18  So Samuel told him everything, and held nothing back. Eli
  answered, “It is the LORD. What is pleasing in the LORD’s sight, the
  LORD will do.”

Samuel listened.  Samuel was open to God's word.   So have been people of all sorts for the past two thousand years. (The list of Christian mystics is too long to get into here ...)

For a more recent example, Saint Francis of Assisi didn't require a Pauline experience to go forth, change his life, and then do God's work.  Why does anyone else need or require it?

Why didn't He give you, or me, or an unbeliever Paul's experience?

Two ways to answer that question.

You and I don't know that he didn't and that someone completely missed the message.  A variety of people over the years have reported profound spiritual experiences, some of whom are mystics, others of whom have shared or experienced a more basic conversion experience.  How do you or I know that such an experience wasn't the divine message (like the message to Paul) for that person?  We don't know.

The core of the answer you've already touched on: Jesus explains the call to believe, even if you haven't seen, in John 20: 25-29 via doubting Thomas.

  25 So the other disciples said to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he
  said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put
  my finger into the nail marks and put my hand into his side, I will not
  believe.” 26 Now a week later his disciples were again inside and
  Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and
  stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.”  27 Then he said
  to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand
  and put it into my side, and do not be unbelieving, but believe.” 28
  Thomas answered and said to him, “My Lord and my God!” 29
  Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me?  Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”

He didn't need to. He's provided the entire Church (in terms of all of the Faithful, the entire (mystical) Body of Christ) to get His word out and to witness to Him.  All of those who have answered the call to Faith, to be in a state of communion with God (CCC 1-10) are like Samuel (or should be).  Speak Lord, for your servant is listening.

Beyond the Great Commission in Matthew -- which the Catholic Church accepts regardless of secular criticisms of that passage in Scripture -- the spreading of the Good News is the spreading of God's word.  Going forth from the Apostolic age, anyone receiving the Good News is asked to make the leap of Faith, to trust God, to believe.  The vignette about doubting Thomas emphasizes this, and it should be given due weight given that Jesus is the one issuing the rebuke to Thomas ... and through Thomas to any who doubt.

Graces given repaid by the sins of pride and envy

Paul was given a particular Grace, a Gift from God, that took a particular form.  Others are given graces that take other forms.  Among the graces given to us is the people that we know and meet who bring God's word to us, in both word and deed.  If we reject them -- nope, I'm not buying it until Jesus strikes me blind for three days -- how do we know that we have not just rejected God's grace?  We don't.

Parent moment: "You gave Johnny that, why didn't you give me that?" What's that parent's answer?  Because that's what Johnny needed, and you'll get something else that you need.

Issuing Ultimatums to God

The question as asked infers a particular attitude vis a vis the relationship between man and God.

  I won't believe unless you give me a message the way you gave Paul the message

The sin of Pride fairly leaps off of the page.

  Charity  2093 Faith in God's love encompasses the call and the obligation to respond with sincere love to divine charity. The first commandment enjoins us to love God above everything and all creatures for him and because of him.

  CCC 2094 One can sin against God's love in various ways:
  - indifference neglects or refuses to reflect on divine charity; it fails to consider its prevenient goodness and denies its power.
  - ingratitude fails or refuses to acknowledge divine charity and to return him love for love.
  - lukewarmness is hesitation or negligence in responding to divine love; it can imply refusal to give oneself over to the prompting of charity.
  - acedia or spiritual sloth goes so far as to refuse the joy that comes from God and to be repelled by divine goodness.
  - hatred of God comes from pride. It is contrary to love of God, whose goodness it denies, and whom it presumes to curse as the one who forbids sins and inflicts punishments.

    CCC 1866 Vices can be classified according to the virtues they oppose, or also be linked to the capital sins which Christian experience has
    distinguished, following St. John Cassian and St. Gregory the Great.
    They are called "capital" because they engender other sins, other
    vices. They are pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and
    sloth or acedia.

The willful decision to ignore the message sent via doubting Thomas in Scripture -- Scripture is God's word to us -- via the Faith handed down to us from the Apostolic age to now = Pride and Arrogance.

Who are you, or who am I, or who is an unbeliever to tell God how to talk to speak to us?  He speaks to us in His own time and choosing, for His own purposes.  We are called to have faith, and to trust in Him.
Jeremiah 29:11

  For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Why didn't I get the same gift/message Paul got?

Because He has other gifts for you, manifestations of His grace.

  The seven capital sins:
   1. Pride ; 2. Covetousness; 3. Lust;  4. Anger;  5. Gluttony;  6. **Envy; 7. Sloth

Aside: the question is lacking in form

The "why didn't someone do something" question form is difficult enough when we are dealing with humans.  It typically requires making a guess or an inference, and is often unknowable. (Personal experience from fatal aircraft accident investigations: why didn't (the pilot) do X?).

When dealing with the Almighty, it's even more difficult to discern if that is even possible.  (See above, CCC ref, about God being "ingraspable" and otherwise mysterious to humans).

You can sometimes work your way back to "why did someone do something?" and so we learn that God did send Paul the message that way for a particular purpose: to get him to apply his considerable energy and talent for Christ.  It worked.  God did pass his instructions to Samuel (and all of the other prophets ...)

1 Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Anaphora.


Does the New Testament have any mention of Kolob and if not, how come? Kolob is a star or planet from the Book of Abraham - originally described in an ancient egyptian scroll - translated by Joseph Smith.  Kolob is near the throne of God (in outer space to my understanding).

Is Kolob mentioned in the New Testament and if not, how come?

It's not in the New Testament, but I would be more surprised if it was found in the New Testament.

The compilers of the New Testament were obviously not concerned with revealing the deepest mysteries of God (see comment for clarification), but rather, were focused on documenting the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

Most of the New Testament's purpose is to show that Jesus is the Christ. This was done by the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The epistles, then, mainly declare His doctrine and document the ministry of the apostles.

Abraham was shown much about the sky in vision. His communion with God as recorded in Abraham 3 is highly personal to him. It's not something that would be written in an epistle to somebody else. It's not a direct account of the life and ministry of Christ or His apostles.

As the Book of Abraham is more like a personal journal rather than a letter or biographical account, I don't see why, even if the compilers of the Bible had Abraham's manuscripts, they would choose to include it with the New Testament.

Of course, any number of answers -- mainly guesses -- could be given for why anything else isn't in the New Testament, either. Or the Old Testament. Mormons would say that because these things aren't revealed in the Bible, it validates the need for a restoration.


Did JWs believe in trinity and immortality of the soul before they got their own Bible? This is a question about the Bible translation called the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (NWT) that was produced by Jehovah's Witnesses as a complete Bible first in 1961, and about its effects on doctrinal parts that in my opinion are more "foundational" (i.e. they have an effect on other doctrines).

In particular I wanted to ask about the concept of trinity and the immortality of the soul.

Did Jehovah's Witnesses believe in trinity and immortality of the soul before they got the New World Translation?

The very early Jehovah's Witnesses (then called Bible Students) already believed that trinity and immortality of the soul were unscriptural.
As the book God’s Kingdom Rules! on page 24 says:

For centuries, the world of Christendom had been enveloped in spiritual darkness; many of its teachings were rooted in paganism. A prime example is the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. During the 1800’s, though, a few sincere students of the Bible scrutinized that teaching and saw that it had no support in God’s Word. Henry Grew, George Stetson, and George Storrs wrote and lectured boldly, exposing that satanic lie. Their work, in turn, had a profound impact on C. T. Russell and his close associates.
The little group of Bible Students found that other doctrines linked to the immortality of the soul were likewise confusing and false—for example, the teaching that all good people go to heaven or that God torments the immortal souls of the wicked in eternal hellfire. Russell and his close associates boldly exposed those lies in numerous articles, books, pamphlets, tracts, and published sermons.

Russell started his work in the late 19th century, so what was decades before.
Their stance on the trinity doctrine was already very clear in that period too as this article writes:

Through the pages of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence, Russell and his associates courageously denounced false religious doctrines that misrepresented God. They discerned that—contrary to popular religious opinion—the soul is mortal, that at death we go to the grave, and that Jehovah is the only true God and therefore not part of a Trinity.


According to the Catholic Church, how did Paul become a saint? In the eyes of the Catholic Church how did Saint Paul become a saint?
Was it the encounter with Jesus that made him a saint? Or was it something different?
Please answer exactly where he became one, or what the process was.

The Catholic Church honors the Apostle St Paul as a Pillar of the Church and as a martyr.

The Church celebrates two  major events in the life of the Apostle. On January 25, Catholics celebrate the Conversion of St Paul. The martyrdoms of both Saints Peter and Paul is commemorated on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29.

The moment that changed the persecutor Saul into Paul, the follower of Jesus was when he encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus. This was the life altering moment of Saul into the person we know as St Paul!

  Paul’s entire life can be explained in terms of one experience—his meeting with Jesus on the road to Damascus. In an instant, he saw that all the zeal of his dynamic personality was being wasted, like the strength of a boxer swinging wildly. Perhaps he had never seen Jesus, who was only a few years older. But he had acquired a zealot’s hatred of all Jesus stood for, as he began to harass the Church: “...entering house after house and dragging out men and women, he handed them over for imprisonment” (Acts 8:3b). Now he himself was “entered,” possessed, all his energy harnessed to one goal—being a slave of Christ in the ministry of reconciliation, an instrument to help others experience the one Savior.

  One sentence determined his theology: “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting” (Acts 9:5b). Jesus was mysteriously identified with people—the loving group of people Saul had been running down like criminals. Jesus, he saw, was the mysterious fulfillment of all he had been blindly pursuing.

  From then on, his only work was to “present everyone perfect in Christ. For this I labor and struggle, in accord with the exercise of his power working within me” (Colossians 1:28b-29). “For our gospel did not come to you in word alone, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and [with] much conviction” (1 Thessalonians 1:5a). - American Catholic .Org.

As for the title of saint goes, the Early Church only recognized martyrs as saints. St Paul made the ultimate witness of his faith when he was martyred in Rome some time around 66 AD.

  The early Church understood that only the Christian who followed Christ perfectly would go immediately into the heavenly Jerusalem. Others would enter the purifying fires of purgatory "to be made perfect," from which they would not depart until they had "paid the last penny" (Mt 5:26, 1 Cor 3:13, 15). Since perfection was conformity to Christ in His death, a process begun at baptism, the martyr (literally, witness) for Christ was seen to have achieved the goal. Thus, during the age of persecution (from Pentecost to 311 AD) esteem for those Christians who had been killed in hatred of the faith (in odium fidei) lead Christians to extol their example of heroic witness to Christ, to guard and preserve their relics (the trophies of victory over death), and to celebrate the anniversary of their birthday into eternal life. The Circular Letter of the Church of Smyrna on the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (155 AD) illustrates this esteem perfectly. - The History of Canonization.


Is there such a thing as a Catholic commentary on the Bible? In the Protestant world there are endless commentaries on Biblical books, or series of commentaries that cover either the whole Bible or at least the New Testament.  Does the same exist in the Catholic world?  (Modern, I mean, not patristic commentaries.) If so, what would be considered basically the most authoritative commentary on the Bible to a Catholic?

PS: I'm really asking about like a commentary set, not a Bible with footnotes or a "Study Bible."  The reason being, study Bibles have a few comments on a few selected verses they want to highlight, but a commentary set really goes in depth with every verse. You can't skip inconvenient verses that way, and if you want to know, for instance, what the Catholic position is on a verse that might be inconvenient to Catholic orthodoxy, you're not likely to find an answer to that in a study Bible because it will just skip that verse.

Here is an incomplete list of some Catholic commentaries:

•  St Thomas Aquinas, “Catena Aurea” (Golden Chain) (English
   translation by J H Newman), Baronius Press (online: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John)

•    Father George Haydock , “Haydock’s Commentary”, 1859

•    “Navarre Bible”, under development in Spain

•    Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, “Ignatius Catholic Study Bible” (Based
   on RSV-2nd CE)

•    Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy,
   Ed.,“Jerome Biblical Commentary”, 1968

•    Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy, “Jerome
   Biblical Commentary”, Ed., “The New Jerome Biblical Commentary”, 1990

•    “The Catholic Bible Personal Study Edition (NAB)” published by the
   Oxford Press.

•    Dom Bernard Orchard, “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture”,
   1953, Nelson Publishers

•    “Christian Community Bible”

•    Fr. Cornelius à Lapide, SJ's commentary on the Gospels

I understand that the Christian Community Bible originally produced in the Philippines is an amended English translation of the Biblia Latinoamericana. A French translation was also produced (along with translations into several other languages) but it seems that this was subsequently banned in France because some complained that some comments were excessively anti-Semitic. I haven't read the Christian Community Bible myself, but I understand that the commentary is also perceived as having a Liberation Theology ideological bias. I would be most surprised if it is the official Catholic Bible commentary.


When in the development of trinitarian doctrine was the word "persons" first applied to God? In the Bible, the word "persons" is not used in reference to God, nor are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit called "persons."

When, in early Christian writings and creeds, was the word "persons" (plural) first used in reference to God as part of the developing doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in God?

My hypothesis is that it doesn't occur before Tertullian in the early third century. Tertullian uses the Latin word personae ("persons") in his formulation of a Trinity in God. In the pre-Nicene Greek Fathers, the word to look for would be prosopon in a plural form, applied to God or to the Father, Son/Word, and Spirit/Holy Spirit collectively.

Tertullian: Earliest extant use of term

Tertullian (155 - 240) was, famously, the first Latin writer to use the word "trinity" in his anti-Sabellian treatise Against Praxeas. It also contains the earliest known uses (16 total) of the word "persons" in reference to the Godhead.

  The mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God.

Valentinus: Alleged earlier use of term

Marcellus of Ancyra (d. 374) claimed in his own treatise On the Holy Church (paywall) that Valentinus the Gnostic (100 - 160) was the first to propose three persons in the Godhead:

  These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him On the Three Natures. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.

There are significant reasons to doubt Marcellus' assertion:

On the Three Natures has not survived in any manuscripts or fragments, and we have no way of knowing whether Valentinus used the words "hypostases" or "persons" or if one or both was an interpretive flourish by Marcellus.
If it's specifically the word "hypostases" that Marcellus objects to, then it would seem to be an anachronistic reading of On the Three Natures, which was written centuries before the word was first used as a synonym of "persons."
Marcellus wrote this specifically to discredit the orthodoxy of the term "persons" by linking it back to a despised heretic, which lends credence to the "interpretive flourish" hypothesis.

It is also exceedingly unlikely that Tertullian borrowed the terminology from Valentinus, since he himself was a fierce critic of Valentinianism, even dedicating a whole book to it, Against the Valentinians.

Conclusion

We have no surviving writings from anyone prior to Tertullian using the word "persons" in a trinitarian fashion.

Whether Tertullian was or wasn't the very first to use the term cannot be proved. He has a reputation as an innovative theologian, but whether he was innovative in service of defense of orthodoxy or in service of inventing new heresies is a matter left to the reader. Of course, even if the concept was orthodox, that doesn't automatically mean that his use of the word had any precedent. In the absence of other evidence, we have no cause to say that anyone else was the originator of the use of the word.


For how long did the early Christians share all their possessions? According to Acts 4:32-37, the early Christians pooled all their possessions and had no private ownership. Is there any record of how long this lasted, and why it ended?

There is an excellent written words in this page on "No one that lacked..." section.

Edit: I took down the link above, as it now redirects to a potential scam site. I do apologize for this. For those who know how to access older versions of sites that has robot.txt, here is the link. To the author of this question: I completely understand if you wish to accept another answer.

  Acts 4:34 says that “there was not a needy person among them” due to distribution of the proceeds of the sale of houses and land.

Now, as stated above, we don’t know how long this arrangement continued. However, by the end of the eleventh chapter, there were certainly many needy believers, many who lacked. In fact the church in Judea had become so impoverished due to a worldwide famine that the Christians in Antioch took a collection to help them.


Why is the feast of the Visitation not transferred when impeded by Corpus Christi? When a feast falls on a Sunday, it is transferred to the Monday.

This year, the feast of the Visitation (31 May) was impeded by the solemnity of Corpus Christi (in most places). However, today, 1 June, is kept as the memoria of Justin Martyr, and the feast of the Visitation is omitted.

Why is the Visitation not transferred to 1 June when impeded by Corpus Christi?

(I am, obviously, talking about the ordinary form Catholic calendar.)

The Visitation, celebrating the vist of Mary to Elizabeth while expecting Jesus and John respectively, is classed as a feast rather than a solemnity. Only the most important celebrations count as solemnities.

Paragraph 60 of the General Norms for the Liturgical Year http://www.romcal.net/norms.html says what happens when days coincide.

  If several celebrations fall on the same day the one that has the highest rank ... is observed. But a solemnity impeded by a liturgical day that takes precedence over it should be transferred... Other celebrations are omitted that year.

Because the Visitation is not a solemnity it is never transferred. If May 31 is a Sunday,  Ascension Day or Corpus Christi then the celebration of the Visitation is omitted that year.

Other feasts omitted this year include Mary Magdalene (22 July) and Simon and Jude (28 October). These both fall on Sundays.

If a solemnity falls on a Sunday then the solemnity usually takes precedence over the Sunday. The Nativity of John the Baptist is a solemnity on June 24 which this year (2018) is a Sunday. It is not transferred, or omitted,  but will be observed on the Sunday.

However if a solemnity falls on a Sunday in Advent, Lent or Easter season, or a weekday in Holy Week or Easter week, in that case the solemnity is transfered.

In the ordinary general calendar, ignoring local propers, only the Conception of Mary (8 December), St Joseph (19 March) and the Annunciation (25 March) are transferred if they fall on Sundays, usually to the following day, if that is not in Holy Week or Easter Week. Only these are transferred because they are the only ones that can fall on Sundays in Advent, Lent or Easter. In Ireland St Patrick (March 17) is a solemnity and is transferred if it falls on a Sunday.

This year the Annunciation fell on Palm Sunday and so it was transferred 15 days, past  Holy Week and Easter Week to the Monday April 9th.

This link, from OP, corroborates: http://www.universalis.com/general/100/calendar.htm

In 2038 Corpus Christi is on June 24th and so two solemnities would fall on the same weekday. John the Baptist will be transferred to Friday June 25th.

But the Visitation,  being a mere feast and not a solemnity,  is never transferred but simply omitted if impeded by a Sunday or a solemnity.


What is meant by "men have been raised up from the fall to far greater heights?" In Catholic theology it is said that "men have been raised up from the fall to far greater heights."1

What is meant by this and how are the "heights" of a different degree than our first parents' state in the Garden of Eden?

A fuller answer will also include the Orthodox meaning should they have the same theology.

1. E.g. Francisca Javiera del valle in "ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT".

  [...] because the mercy of the divine Word decided to raise him up from
  his fall to even greater heights.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  CCC 412 But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ's inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon's envy had taken away." and St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature's being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, 'Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more'; and the Exsultet sings, 'O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!'".

In brief, in Eden we had no Saviour, the Grace had not been shown to the fullest, and our "greater good" was out of reach.


According to the Bible, do animals have souls? Randy Alcorn claims in his book Heaven (page 374) that animals have souls, though not necessarily like humans. Is there any Biblical support for this?

In the Bible, the word for "spirit" is the same as "breathe." But there is ultimately a difference between the life of humans and the life in animals.

In Genesis 2:7, God breathes into the nostrils of man and gives him life, but all land animals have this same breath as well. "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life." (Genesis 7:15 (KJV))

However, the distinction between the two types of spirits is apparent in the following verses:

  Nevertheless man being in honour abideth not: he is like the beasts
  that perish.This their way is their folly: yet their posterity approve
  their sayings. Selah.Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death
  shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in
  the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their
  dwelling. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for
  he shall receive me. Selah.
   Psa 49:12-15 (KJV)

  Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?
  Ecc. 3:21 (KJV)

It is clear that God does care for the animals. In many passages, God shows compassion for the beast or bird, whether by the law, or other means. Though they do not have eternal souls, they are part of God's creation, and they give Him His due worship.


What arguments have been offered as to how Christianity is incompatible with a system of forced collectivism? Communism, as formulated by Karl Marx, incorporates several ideas including state mandated atheism, a removal of social classes, and a collective economic system.  Of these, the first is obviously incompatible with Christianity.  However, it is sometimes said that the second two are similar to Christianity.  This question focuses only on the last idea - a collective economic system where private property no longer exists in any meaningful way.

The first-century church, as described in Acts, does seem to embrace this idea in some ways.  For example, Acts 2:45:

  And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. (ESV)

However, this was a voluntary act.  While voluntary collectivism is thus encouraged, this is perhaps different than forced collectivism, as practiced under communism.  Even in the story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) where the couple die not for failing to share their property, Peter implies that it would be morally acceptable to keep some property ("And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?") - the couple died for their deception, not their lack of complete generosity.

Among Christian theologians or denominations who view (forced) collectivism as incompatible with Christianity, what theological/moral arguments against it have been offered?

Here are some of the reasons I've heard:

In her book Seeking God, Esther de Waal summarizes an aspect of Benedictine (communal) life: the community fundamentally exists for the benefit of the individual, and not the other way around. Yes, the individual contributes to the community, and yes, the individual serves other members of the community, but if these did not serve the purpose of increasing an individual's holiness, there would be no point.

Christians, based on Genesis, consider all people to be made in God's image and thus worthy of certain things for their own sake. The idea of individual dignity seems to be absent from communism - instead the emphasis is on the workers as a group.

I heard a talk from (now Bishop) Robert Barron (can't find the mp3 online anymore unfortunately) where he discusses the Catholic Church's teaching on social justice. He discusses the works Rerum Novarum and Centisimus Annus and in particular he cites this passage from St John Paul:

Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative.

On a related note to the above, it is often pointed out that Christian communities, whether the ones depicted in Acts or later Monastic communities or any other since, while all is held in common, all is held in common with a local community. As an example, there is a sense that a piece of land belongs to a Benedictine monastery specifically and not "Christians in general." (Note that this is one of the things that made the Franciscans shocking at the time - they actually didn't own any property, the Pope "owned" it for them.) In many implementations of communism, however, the state is free to re-allocate resources between groups or regions in order to increase overall utility.

There are probably others, but the above are a few common ones.