Do any Christians sects have a Standing/Prostration Prayer like the Jewish 'Amidah' and Muslim 'Salat'? I was wondering if any Christians have a prayer that includes movement like bowing towards a certain place and praying like what Muslims and Jews do.

Do any Christians sects have a Standing/Prostration Prayer like the Jewish 'Amidah' and Muslim 'Salat'?

The short answer is yes.

The closest form of the standing /prostration combination together would be the Jesus Prayer tradition (See below).

  In Christianity, the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican and some Lutheran churches use full prostrations, lying flat on the floor face down, during the imposition of Holy Orders, Religious Profession and the Consecration of Virgins. Additionally, in the Roman Catholic Church at the beginning of the Good Friday Liturgy, the celebrating priest and the deacon prostrate themselves in front of the altar. Dominican practice on Good Friday services in priory churches includes prostration by all friars in the aisle of the church. In the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, partial prostrations ("profound bows") can be used in place of genuflections for those who are unable to genuflect. The prostration is always performed before God, and in the case of holy orders, profession or consecration the candidates prostrate themselves in front of the altar which is a symbol of Christ. - Prostration (Wikipedia)

Pope Francis lies in prayer during the Good Friday Passion of Christ Mass inside St Peter's Basilica (AP/Gregorio Borgia)

Pope St. John Paul II often prayed prostrate on the ground, according to Polish tradition.

  Throughout his life, from the first moment of each day to the last, John Paul kept a regimen of deep, fervent devotions that left those around him, even other religious leaders, in awe.

  As he said in the early days of his papacy: "Prayer, which in so many ways expresses our relationship to the living God, is the pope's first duty and his first message, the first condition of his service to the church and the world."

  During his Vatican years, health permitting, John Paul would spend as many as seven hours a day in prayer, adoration and contemplation. In "Great Souls: Six Who Saved the Century," journalist David Aikman described the routine during the pontiff's prime:

  "John Paul II is at prayer in his private chapel by 6:15 a.m., at times prostrate on the floor, at times actually groaning in the travail of intercession. During moments of down time' amid the panoply of solemn public appearances, he again and again closes his eyes, tightens his facial muscles in concentration, sometimes shades his eyes with his hand, and withdraws to that inner, sealed room of his soul where he communicates with God." - John Paul's fervent prayer inspired awe in others

Remember too that Jesus himself prayed in this position, just before his Passion.

  "And he (Jesus) went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt." - (Matthew 26:39)

Many of our Orthodox brethren pray the Jesus Prayer while in a prostrate position. It is traditional for some.

  Establish a Daily Rule for Prostrations and Bows

  The novice who is studying the Jesus Prayer will advance greatly by observing a daily rule comprising a certain number of full prostrations and bows from the waist, depending upon the strength of each individual. These are all to be performed without any hurry, with a repentant feeling in the soul and with the Jesus Prayer on the lips during each prostration…. Twelve prostrations suffice in the beginning. Depending upon one's strength, ability and circumstances, that number can be constantly increased. But when the number of prostrations increases, one should be careful to preserve the quality of one's prayer, so that one not be carried away by a preoccupation with the physical into fruitless, and even harmful, quantity. The bows warm up the body and somewhat exhaust it, and this condition facilitates attention and compunction. But let us be watchful, very watchful, lest the state pass into a bodily preoccupation which is foreign to spiritual sentiments and recalls our fallen nature! Quantity, useful as it is when accompanied by the proper frame of mind and the proper objective, can be just as harmful when it leads to a preoccupation with the physical. The latter is recognized by its fruits which also distinguish it from spiritual ardor. The fruits of physical preoccupation are conceit, self-assurance, intellectual arrogance: in a word, pride in its various forms, all of which are easy prey to spiritual deception. The fruits of spiritual ardor are repentance, humility, weeping and tears. The rule of prostrations is best observed before going to sleep: then, after the cares of the day have passed, it can be practiced longer and with greater concentration…. Prostrations stimulate a prayerful state of the mind and mortify the body as well as support and strengthen fervor in prayer. - On Practicing the Jesus Prayer

The faithful of the Early Church often prayed in the Orant Gesture in prayer.

  The word orant, or latin orans, is a noun form of the verb orare, to pray, and describes an early mode of prayer practiced by the first Christians ((http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/orant)). From Wikipedia we read:

  Orant is a type of gesture during prayer in which the hands are raised, set apart, and the palms face outward. It was once common in early Christianity, and can frequently be seen in early Christian art, but has since become quite rare. The gesture is more common in Catholic worship, esoteric sects, and in certain forms of exorcism ritual. It is commonly used in small group renewal weekend settings such as Cursillo. This renewal weekend is offered by Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopal churches. It is common in some charismatic churches during praiseful singing as well. Orant Gesture - Early Christian Orant Gesture in Prayer

Saint Apollinare in the orant position of prayer


Where did the "theology" behind the Cherry tree carol come from? I love playing this carol on the piano, but it makes me wonder if I'm not being the least bit heterodox.

Here are the assumptions that seem to me to be contrary to thriving tradition:

  When Joseph was an old man, an old man was he

Why is St. Joseph old in this carol?

  He married Virgin Mary, the Queen of Galilee

Why is Our Lady the Queen of Galilee? *

  There were cherries and berries, as thick as might be seen

Do they even have cherry trees in the Holy Land?

  Then Joseph flew in anger, in anger flew he,
  Let the father of the baby gather cherries for thee!

When did St. Joseph get a snarky and angry attitude?

  ‘And upon a Wednesday my vow I will make,

I thought it was a Thursday (at least recognized as such in the west), is the carol saying that the Passion started on Wednesday?

I did a little bit of research on the wikipedia and the googles but it's still a bit lacking, apparently there are 4 versions of this carol (the version quoted here comes from Wikisource).

* (not that I don't think the Queen of the Universe is also the Queen of Galilee)

The Cherry Tree Carol is thought to date to the 16th or 17th century.  The history of its development is murky, but it may be traced to a 15th century Coventry play1 and beyond that to the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, a 7th century apocryphal work describing the birth and childhood of Jesus.
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, which titles itself The Birth of the Blessed Mary and the Infancy of the Saviour, was "enormously successful" as a text, in the words of scholar Mary Clayton, citing its high number (135) of manuscripts.2  Old English translations of it exist, dating to the 11th century or possibly earlier.3 So we see that Pseudo-Matthew's gospel was available to early English speakers well before the appearance of the carol.
Turning now to your points, we can see the correspondence:
Joseph was an old man: In Pseudo-Matthew's gospel, Joseph is a grandfather who is selected by his peers to be the guardian of the 14-year-old Mary:

Thou hast been made blessed in thine old age, O father Joseph, seeing that God hath shown thee to be fit to receive Mary. And the priests having said to him, Take her, because of all the tribe of Judah thou alone hast been chosen by God; Joseph began bashfully to address them, saying: I am an old man, and have children; why do you hand over to me this infant, who is younger than my grandsons?

The Queen of Galilee: This exact phrase is not used in Pseudo-Matthew's gospel, but Mary's companions in Galilee derisively apply the title "queen" to her:

Since thou art the last, and humble, and younger than all, thou hast deserved to receive and obtain the purple. And thus saying, as it were in words of annoyance, they began to call her queen of virgins.

Cherry Tree: Pseudo-Matthew does not refer to cherries in his work, but he does tell of an episode very similar to the one in the song.  Joseph and Mary, with the infant Jesus, are traveling through the desert on their way to Egypt.  Mary sees not a cherry tree but a palm tree (presumably a date palm) bearing fruit:

Date palms do not grow in the English-speaking countries of the 16th century, so a different tree was needed for the song, and the resemblance between dates and cherries is perhaps not far-fetched.
Hungry, Mary says to Joseph:

I wish it were possible to get some of the fruit of this palm.

Joseph's anger: Pseudo-Matthew doesn't portray Joseph as poorly as the song, but the connection is clear.  Joseph responds to Mary, saying:

I wonder that thou sayest this, when thou seest how high the palm tree is; and that thou thinkest of eating of its fruit. I am thinking more of the want of water, because the skins are now empty, and we have none wherewith to refresh ourselves and our cattle.

So Joseph refuses her, choosing instead to focus on collecting water.  However, the infant Jesus then takes matters into his own hands:

Then the child Jesus, with a joyful countenance, reposing in the bosom of His mother, said to the palm: O tree, bend thy branches, and refresh my mother with thy fruit. And immediately at these words the palm bent its top down to the very feet of the blessed Mary; and they gathered from it fruit, with which they were all refreshed.

Wednesday: Of the things you mention, the reference to Wednesday is the most difficult to connect directly to Pseudo-Matthew.  It only appears in one of the four versions of the carol.  Perhaps it is nothing more than a mistaken reference to the "third day" (a repeated theme in Pseudo-Matthew's gospel), a reference to Ash Wednesday (since Christians make "vows" for Lent), or a reference to Holy Wednesday, on which Jesus predicted his death (Matthew 26:6–12).
Theology
The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is one of several infancy gospels that attempt to "fill in" the details of the childhood of Jesus.  It derives much of its content from two earlier works, the Gospel of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, though the source of the "flight to Egypt" portion is not known.
Pseudo-Matthew's story emphasizes the relationship between Mary and Jesus, to the relative exclusion of Joseph.  It also portrays Jesus as performing many dramatic miracles as a child, including the pacification of dragons who threaten the family in Egypt.  Not surprisingly, the story was very popular in the Middle Ages.
As far as serious theology goes, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and, by extension, the Cherry Tree Carol, doesn't contribute much.  But its origins are most likely found in popular curiosity and speculation about the childhood of Jesus.

See The Origins of Christmas, pages 58–60 for a general treatment of the gospel, carol, and the connection between them.  Mary Clayton's The Apocryphal Gospels of Mary in Anglo-Saxon England goes into significant detail on the origins of Pseudo-Matthew's gospel, particularly into Old English.

Samuel Burdett Hemingway, English Nativity Plays, page 257.  Coventry Nativity (IV) is shown to be based on Pseudo-Matthew and find a parallel in the carol.  The text for this play is dated to 1468 (page ii).
Clayton, page 18
Clayton, page 138


Did John Calvin observe Christmas? In some strands of Reformed theology, the regulative principle of worship is understood to mean that "church holidays," not specifically established in the Bible, should not be recognized in public worship.  Thus in some denominations, church services around Christmas and Easter make no special mention of the holidays.

John Calvin, of course, was a developer and proponent of the regulative principle of worship, but it's not clear to me how strictly he applied the rule to the case of Christmas.  There seems to be an ongoing debate over his beliefs which is a bit difficult to wade through (see, for example, quotes in favor and against).

Here, I'd like to suspend judgment on what he thought, and instead focus on what he did.  Did Calvin recognize or observe Christmas during public worship? Did he do so only in certain places or times in his career? And if so, in what way did he observe it?  Casual mention in an unrelated sermon, more hymns about Christ's birth than usual, or perhaps a sermon text like Micah 5 or Luke 2?

To be clear, I'm not interested in whether or not Calvin gave gifts on Christmas or otherwise celebrated the holiday outside public worship.  I'm only asking about his application of the regulative principle of worship, which applies only to public worship services.

In Calvin's sermon on Christmas Day (I believe it fell on a Friday) in 1551, he says the following:

In truth, as you have often been admonished, it is good to set aside one day out of the year in which we are reminded of all the good that has occurred because of Christ’s birth in the world, and in which we hear the story of his birth retold, which will be done Sunday.
Once we have understood that, we will no longer find it strange that Noel is not being observed today, but that on Sunday we will celebrate the Lord’s Supper and recite the story of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It appears that Calvin was opposed to celebrating the Lord's Supper and elevating the day on Christmas Day, but was not opposed to celebrating Christ's birth on a Lord's Day. Liturgically, it seems that the story of the nativity was recited specially on the Lord's Day closest to Christmas Day. His letters suggest that he was ambivalent towards having Christmas Day as a festival day.


Explain similarities and differences in "sinless from the womb " for James, John the Baptist and Mary My perusal of this site has enlightened me to these three cases where a person is spoken of as being sinless from the womb.

According Catholic Church were all three born sinless?

1) Mary according to the Church cleansed of all stain of sin from conception.

2) John the Baptist cleansed during the visit from Mary while he was in the womb.

3) Recently I read here Origin of the story that James had knees as hard as a camel's, because of praying
in a great answer that according to Eusibius quoting Hegesippus  that James brother of Jesus was sinless from his mothers womb.

As that was a new one on me I am asking if the Catholic Church states that all three were in fact born sinless and what similarities and differences are there among these.

I hadn't previously heard anything of this sort about James, but I'd like to explain the difference between the situations of Mary and John the Baptist.

In the case of Mary, we (Catholics) know, because the Church has infallibly declared it, that Mary was conceived without original sin.  As a consequence, of course, she was born sinless.

In the case of John the Baptist, there is no official dogma that I'm aware of, but there is a rather widespread belief that he was cleansed of original sin as a result of Jesus's presence when both Jesus and John were still in their mothers' wombs and Mary visited Elizabeth.  The basis for the belief is that John leaped with joy in the womb when Elizabeth heard Mary's salutation.  The idea is that someone under the dominion of sin would not leap for joy at the arrival of Mary and Jesus.  Although, as I said, the Church has no official dogma on this topic (as far as I know), she has given us a fairly strong hint.  There are only three persons whose earthly birth is commemorated by feasts of the church (in contrast to feasts of martyrs, which often commemorate their "birth" into heaven at the time of martyrdom). Those three are Jesus, Mary, and John the Baptist.  The first two of the three were certainly born without sin, so it is reasonable to extrapolate and suppose that John the Baptist's birth was similar.

EDIT: I should also have mentioned here Luke 1:15, where the angel Gabriel says of John the Baptist "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."


What happens if someone who is not elect tries to seek God? From the perspective of Reformed Theology, in relation to Unconditional Election:

What happens if someone who is not elect, tries to seek God? Does God reject them?

Or this an impossibility - does the mere act of seeking God mean that the person must be elect?

[...] does the mere act of seeking God mean that the person must be elect?

Yes.

Reformed theology must be understood wholesale. If you pick and choose some ideas and don't put them in the context of all the other ideas it stops making much sense. This has to do with the presuppositions involved.

From a Reformed perspective the answer to this question is really easy. If anyone seeks God, they are the elect. They will find him because it isn't dependent on them in the first place (this is where irresistible grace comes in). It is only those that God has first called that will seek him, and those he calls he will save (meaning they are elect).

  Romans 8:29-30 (ESV)
  For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Reformed theology finds no place in that continuum for half-way measures. Of course in this life all we ever see is snapshots somewhere short of "glorified", but those who seek God will find him because they only sought God in the first place because they had been called (and justified).

Of course you might have lots of people that say they seek God and don't find him, but if they do not find him this is only proof that the thing they were seeking was not God but a counterfeit. Many are those who think they are following God who actually are not. What they wanted and followed was a God of their own imagination, not the one true God. They will be surprised to learn that they never knew God.

  Isaiah 48:8a (ESV)
  You have never heard, you have never known, from of old your ear has not been opened.


What is the Alpha Course? The local Presbyterian Church has a sign outside offering an Alpha Course. I'm sure I've heard of the same course being offered by the Roman Catholic Church. So is the Alpha Course a very general Mere-Christianity-type thing, or is it customised to each denomination, or are the two Alpha courses completely unrelated?

The UK website for the Alpha Course can be found here. There are others for each country, so use Google to find yours. The Wikipedia entry can also be useful.

The Alpha course is extremely popular across the world and in many denominations. It originated in the Church of England, and it is exactly what you expect - an introduction to the core of Christian belief, Mere Christianity style. It is not specific to Anglican beliefs, and has been used by a huge number of churches of many denominations.

One of the key things about Alpha though is that it is intended to be more than a lecture series. It is key to the course (assuming it is being done properly) that it is done in a discussion framework. The lectures should be followed by a discussion in a small group, to which Christians and seekers are free to contribute. Ideally there should be food as well - the guidelines for running the course recommend it.

The only slightly controversial aspect of the course is that it does teach that the Holy Spirit may give supernatural gifts, such as speaking in tongues, to Christians. It doesn't claim that those gifts are essential, and it doesn't talk about more controversial gifts. Some churches choose to omit those parts of the course.

Some churches choose to modify the course in other ways, but the one you see is unlikely to be a different course. Ask whether it includes lectures by Nicky Gumbel - if so then you are getting the real deal. I would personally make sure that there is an opportunity for discussion as part of the course. In my experience omitting that misses the point.


Is interpreting Noah's flood as a civilization-wide event compatible with Roman Catholicism? I heard an idea a while back that perhaps the flood described in the Old Testament wasn't necessarily a global, worldwide flood, but that it was a worldwide flood in a human civilization sense. In other words, it wouldn't have been necessary to flood the whole world in order to accomplish God's purpose of destroying corrupt humanity because humanity hadn't yet covered the whole world.

Is such a view compatible with the Catholic Church's teachings on Genesis?

The Catechism divides Scripture, according to intent of the writers, in the following ways:

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.

The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".

The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.

As to the specific intention of the story of the flood, and thus the mode of interpretation under which the story would fall, like most other accounts of specific descriptions and verses in the bible, there is no 'official' doctrine regarding such matters. What is ascertained is that in any case the stories and the details as they were intended to be are true in such capacities. This means that in any one of the previous ways one wishes to interpret the flood story, it must in any way be true, rather than partially true or false.
Much of the beginnings of Genesis have been traditionally allegorically interpreted. To name only one example, St. Augustine thought of the 'light' that God made and divided from the 'darkness' could be meaningfully interpreted as the creation of angels. The allegorical approach to Genesis has the benefit of avoiding some problems that come with the more literal interpretations seen in many Protestant groups (which invariably leads to conflict between what appear to be inherent contradictions, and contradictions in science). But what is more important is that this approach also seems to garner greater meaning. Instead of being concerned with the literalness of whether God created the stars before 'light' or 'light' before the stars, we can focus more so on the meaning of these events, not simply as events in themselves but as potential symbols or phrases that carry greater theological weight. At the same time, the nature of the interpretation in such matters is existentially neutral to the fact of its existence. So whether or not the flood truly occurred, as in a sequence of events, need not deter our understanding of the story's meaning in an allegorical interpretation. This applies to all modes of interpretation. The Church is clear however that there are specific cases (the New Testament for example) in which our mode of interpretation must necessarily include the literalness of the specific events described. This also applies to the monogenism present in the Adam and Eve story, where the Church states it is necessary to recognize all human life essentially originates in its nature in two persons, who were created with original justice but who fell into sin, and who thereafter transposed such a fallen nature to mankind.
Thus, to answer more specifically the question, as to whether or not your specific understanding of the flood is aligned with the Catholic Church's stance on the story is somewhat of an arbitrary desire (though by no means unwarranted). The answer is that there isn't necessarily an answer. At most we can state that your interpretation must not deny the essential truth of the story, which is that God is both merciful and just, and enacts both essences in the deprived and sinful state of humanity. Furthermore, your interpretation must not deny that God speaks and breathes in His human creation through a covenant language, in which He is perfectly loving and just. These are the essential and primary purposes for which the story has been written, and as such it is these details that must not be left to individual interpretation, lest the perfect spiritual wisdom of Scripture be tainted by individual failures. In any such case of interpreting Scripture, the essential meaning and primary purpose of such Scriptures must be referred to the Church's Apostolic ministry for greater wisdom and authority, be such wisdom found in the present members or members of the past (there is a reason St. Augustine is so popular, and it's not due only to his cool name). And it is under canon law and the living Spirit that such ministers must be guided into wisdom.


What would happen to somebody voting in opposition to a proposition at LDS General Conference? I'm watching the semi-annual LDS General Conference. One segment just went by that was some general business of voting to retain people in various roles or assign new ones. Several thousand people are present and voting.

The camera work going into the live broadcast was hard to see, but it looked like the entire audience voted on every issue instantly and unanimously. Having watched and participated in many similar events both secular and in various Christian traditions, this seems inconsistent with what inevitably crops up: human nature seems to dictate that given enough people, there is always some sub-set of nay-sayers.

What do these votes represent? Have these issues been vetted some other way first? What procedure would be followed in the event of some opposition votes? Is it an issue of needing a majority? What personal experiences would somebody expect if they were to vote against an issue like retaining a prophet or one of the other major leadership roles in the LDS church?

This originates from a revelation given to Joseph Smith, recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 26, and is known as the law of common consent. Note that this is different from congregationalism in that in common consent, a decision is already made through prayer and by inspiration, and the decisions are not made by democratic voting, per-se. Those affected by the decision or change then sustain it, not necessarily vote on what should or should not be.

Sustaining leaders is a regular occurrence in the church, even in local meetings. Raising the right hand may be understood, in some way, as a pledge or covenant to help and support whoever is being proposed.

If somebody opposes, it is generally done because of some first-hand knowledge the opposer has of the person in question. In local settings, that person will be asked why after the meeting (usually the reason must be for some grave sin, or unworthiness to serve in the position, which leaders usually know about anyway as they may help the person through the repentance process).

In general conference, there are about 21,000 people in a single session in the Conference Center. The conducting authority will generally conclude with "Insofar as I have been able to observe, the voting in the conference center has been unanimous in the affirmative."

If there is an opposition in general conference, the person is directed to speak with their stake president who takes the matter, if it merits attention, to higher authorities.

Update: I was in attendance when this happened today, on Saturday, April 4, 2015, during the afternoon session of General Conference. Some attendees opposed and the speaker simply remarked, "Thank you, the vote has been noted." Instead of saying that voting was unanimous at the end, he said, "The voting has been noted. We invite those who opposed any of the proposals to contact their stake presidents." [Video]


Abraham's Temptation: only a matter of Faith, or also of Hope? In Genesis 22 we read how God tested (or "put to the test", or "tempted" - the Hebrew verb נָסָה [nacah] bears all these meanings) Abraham, saying to him: "Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering [עֹלָה - `olah] on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you."
In the end, as we all know, God (or "the Lord’s angel") stopped Abraham, and provided a ram "caught in the bushes by its horns" in replacement of Isaac, and in the end the Lord (or "the Lord’s angel") praised Abraham "because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son" and renewed His promise to make hism "the father of a multitude of nations".
In the Letter to the Hebrews, Abraham strands out in the hall of fame of People Commended for Their Faith (Hebrews 11:17-19).
In his book Fear and Trembling, the Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote:

But what did Abraham do? He arrived neither too soon nor too late. He
mounted the ass, he rode slowly along the way. All that time he
believed - he  believed   that God would not require Isaac of him,
whereas he was willing nevertheless to sacrifice him if it was
required. He  believed   by virtue of the absurd; for there could be
no question of human calculation, and it was indeed the absurd that
God who required it of him should the next instant recall the
requirement. He climbed the mountain, even at the instant when the
knife glittered he  believed  ... that God would not require Isaac. He
was indeed astonished at the outcome, but by a double-movement he had
reached his first position, and therefore he received Isaac more
gladly than the first time. (Fear and Trembling, by Johannes De
Silentio, alias Søren Kierkegaard, 1843, tr. Walter Lowrie, 1941 (@
religion-online.org), Chapter 2: Preliminary Expectoration -
emphasis added)

Is faith really enough to explain Abraham's behaviour, or is it necessary to consider at least another "ingredient": hope?
P.S.   I reserve to try and answer my own question later on

Faith-Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Hope-a feeling of expectation and desire or a certain thing to happen. A feeling of trust.
God deals with Abraham starting at Genesis 12 when He ask Abraham to go forth from your country and from your relatives to the land which I will show you. (Genesis 12:1). At vs4 Abraham does what God told him.
At Genesis 13:1, "So Abram went up from Egypt to Negev, he and his wife and all that belonged to him, and Lot with him." At Genesis 15:1, After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision saying, Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great. At Genesis 15:18 the Lord made aa covenant with Abram, saying, To your descendants I have given you this land etc.
The Lord God deals further with Abram and his wife Sarah at Genesis 16, Genesis 17, Genesis 18-22 and beyond. Of course Genesis 22 is the sacrifice of Abraham's only son Isaac.
What I'm saying is the fact that both "faith and hope" directed Abraham and his actions. At Hebrews 11 (which is known as the "faith" book) Abraham is the center piece starting at vs8. "By faith Abraham when he was called obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, NOT KNOWING WHERE HE WAS GOING."
At vs17, "By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac; and he who had received the promises (plural) was offering up his only begotten son; vs18, it was he to whom it was said, In Isaac your descendants shall be called."
Hebrews 11:19, "He/Abraham considered that God is able to raise men even from the dead; from which he also received him back as a type." Going back to Romans 4 in which the Apostle Paul talks about Abraham in detail.
Romans 4:18, "In hope against hope he believed, in order that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, "So shall your descendants be."
Romans 4:19, "And without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body; now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb." Vs21, "and being fully assured that what He/God had promised, He was able also to perform."
In short both faith and hope go hand in hand where God held Abraham's hand all through His dealings with him by giving him confidence.


Why did Daniel feel the need to pray towards Jerusalem, even at the cost of his own life? After Darius signed a decree which said that anyone praying to any god but Darius should be thrown into the Lion's den, Daniel goes and prays anyway.

  Daniel 6:10-11 ESV When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber open toward Jerusalem. He got down on his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously. Then these men came by agreement and found Daniel making petition and plea before his God.

The author seems to go to great effort to show that Daniel didn't care about being caught, and that he may have even been encouraging it. Why else would the author state that Daniel knew the decree had been signed and that he went to a room that had windows opened towards Jerusalem, apparently to pray towards it.

What was the big deal about praying towards Jerusalem, and why was it so important that Daniel would be willing to die for it?

He could have prayed silently, or towards Jerusalem with the windows closed, or any other combination of non-law breaking things.

Daniel had been a fantastic rule follower up until that point, and he had proved himself to be smart to enough to work his way around the rules, and he certainly had the power and authority to do what he wanted. He seems to draw some sort of line here and state "I would rather die than pray in any way other than towards Jerusalem with the window open." Why?

To prevent this question from being opinion based I want to know what popular Christendom has had to say about this. Sole biblical basis is preferred.

I can think of at least one good reason why Daniel faced towards Jerusalem while praying.

Solomon made this prayer as part of the dedication of the temple -

  "And hearken thou to the supplication of thy servant and of thy people
  Israel, when they pray toward this place; yea, hear thou in heaven thy
  dwelling place; and when thou hearest, forgive" - 1 Kings 8:30


Why doesn't dispensationalism identify a dispensation focused on David? Dispensationalism is a broad family of theories, and different proponents identify different dispensations, including a different number of dispensations. Here is a typical diagram:

Through all the different versions of dispensationalism, I have however never seen any that identify a dispensation for David or the Israelite monarchy. This seems to me to be a huge gap in the model!

David is the beginning of the unending monarchy, the beginning of the branch that leads to Jesus. The monarchy represents a major shift from a judge/prophet-led and distributed nation to a centralised king-led nation, and from the priests being the people's sole representatives before God to the king also being their represenative. David's covenant is one of the few Biblical covenants, the others (Noah, Abraham, Moses and Phinehas, the New) are associated with the beginning of dispensations. David is a big deal!

So why don't dispensationists identify a dispensation starting with David? From a Biblical/theological perspective isn't David far more significant than the two chapters of narrative between the Fall and the Flood (Gen 4 & 6) or between the Flood and Abraham (Gen 9 & 11)?

Dispensation can be understood as "a distinctive arrangement or period in history that forms the framework through which God relates to mankind".  Under both the Judges and the monarchy period (including David's dynasty), the judges & kings are "state" authorities charged with secular implementation of the framework necessary for the priestly system and the constitutional (the Torah) system to operate.  David would then fall under the yellow "Human Government" box in your diagram.

I would compare Israel / Judah king's role at that time to how a Christian Roman emperor (like Constantine or Justinian) or the King of England see their role in giving the Church with proper secular support and secular powers to exert her spiritual authority, just like God expected the Israel / Judah kings to build and support the temple, to support the right judicial authorities, and to cry out only to Yahweh for help during times of invasions / famine, etc.  But we read in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles how with the exception of David the kings compromised their duties from little (like Josiah, Hezekiah) to huge (like Ahab).  They are supposed to destroy foreign god's temple and to implement justice (Torah) but INSTEAD they import foreign gods or by not going far enough to destroy foreign god worship erected by their predecessors.  So God responded in the same degrees: respectful burial for Josiah / Hezekiah, relatively minor troubles for them during their lifetime, but total humiliation and the end of his dynasty for Ahab, culminating in the 2 exiles under Assyria and Babylon.

After returning from exile under Persia, throughout the second temple period, some (most?) Jews expected two kinds of Messiah: a priestly one coming from the line of Moses (Levite), and a Davidic one.  Jesus was both, even though Jesus descended from David.  I think that is why the book of Hebrews justified Jesus's office as Priest by saying that his priesthood was from the order of Melchizedek (because He was not Levite by blood).  It is Jesus's Priesthood which is part of dispensation, hence the purple Grace box in the diagram.  But Jesus is also King, the King of Christendom until today, continuing until the second coming, but this authority falls under "Human Government" (yellow box).

So yes, David was a big deal, and so is Jesus's authority as King today!  All countries's supreme authorities dominating the news recently, whether it's US President, Canada Prime Minister, King of England, Japanese emperor, Saudi King, Thai King,  Chinese communist party, President of Russia, should all submit to Jesus's authority as King in the yellow box to give room and support for the Church, for example by defending her existential rights, her secular rights, her input to the country's laws, and police protection against violence.

But dispensation is essentially about our relationship with God, administered in the current dispensation through Grace (applied directly to individuals for Protestants, or through the sacraments of the church for Catholics), and I think that's why David didn't get a separate marker in the diagram but he definitely belonged to the yellow box and all authorities of the world today should look at David for role model.

Now to answer your specific points:

  The monarchy represents a major shift from a judge/prophet-led and distributed nation to a centralised king-led nation, and from the priests being the people's sole representatives before God to the king also being their represenative.

I would not call David as God's representative, but as God's choice (as in God chose David over Saul).  In the monarchical period I believe the King was supposed to be anointed and coronated by a priest, God's true representative.  When a king needs to seek God's help the king needed to go to the Temple, a precinct of the priesthood.  So a King didn't have inherent access to God, unlike a priest.  God also used prophets as official messenger, the "mouthpiece" of God, and the King was supposed to listen and obey.  But prophets do not have stable, permanent office like a priest, and anyone (non-Levite) can be called to serve as a prophet.  The Pharisees and Sadducees were fine with Jesus if he restricted his activity as a prophet, but Jesus made bigger claims.

  David's covenant is one of the few Biblical covenants, the others (Noah, Abraham, Moses and Phinehas, the New) are associated with the beginning of dispensations.

Remember that David's covenant is not the same as Mosaic / Sinai covenant, and is not the same as Abrahamic covenant.

David's covenant is personal (to David alone, the man after God's heart), and God fulfilled it in Jesus who now rules forever.  It's a done deal; there is no more to be expected.
But people are not saved by David's covenant, people are saved through the Mosaic covenant (the cyan "Law" box), also a done deal since Jesus fulfilled the Law.
Abrahamic covenant is also different in kind, having to do with "physical stuff": descendants, prosperity, and a means to lead Gentiles to God (some would say that's why God is preserving the Jewish people as a race).

So it's best not to confuse covenant with dispensation.


Who were the men of Siloam's tower? In the Gospel of Luke chapter 13, we hear of an episode that is not recounted in any of the other Gospels. It says eighteen men died because Siloam's tower fell on them.

  Luke 13:1-5

  New International Version (NIV)

  13 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the
  Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus
  answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than
  all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you,
  no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those
  eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think
  they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I
  tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
  ’”

Who were those men? Who wants to build that tower? Is there some historical information about this episode?

From the Tyndale Bible Dictionary:

SILOAM, TOWER OF Edifice that collapsed, killing 18 people. Jesus compared those killed by the fallen tower to the rest of the people living in Jerusalem (Lk 13:4–5). Though nothing is known of this tower, it seems reasonable to conclude that it was situated in Jerusalem. Perhaps it can be identified with the great tower built by Nehemiah on the wall of Ophel (2 Chr 27:3; Neh 3:26–27) or with one of the towers built on the wall of Jerusalem near the pool of Siloam.

According to each of the 10 commentaries I searched through (and based on what I remember as well), there is no external corroboration of this incident.  That said, the death of 18 people, while clearly significant to those involved, is not necessarily something that would be preserved in the historical record.  Hundreds of people were crucified each year, and yet no extant list exists of that either.
The facts of the case, however, aren't really all that relevant to the point which Jesus was trying to make.  It's a simple argument - God neither punishes or rewards based on man's merit.  This is highly consistent with a whole of teaching on grace, God's soveirgnity, impassability, and the popular axiom 'There is nothing you can do to make God love you more, there is nothing you could have done to make him love you less.'
Consistent with the notion in Isaiah 55:8-9 (that God is just way above us), Isaiah 64:6 (our righteousness is as filthy rags), 1 Sam 16:7 (that God looks on the heart), is the simple idea that sometimes Bad Things Happen to Good People and sometimes good things happen to bad people.
Indeed, as Jesus himself says in Matthew 5, God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike.  (Or, if he were using words today, he'd probably say, he makes the sun to shine on the just and the unjust alike).  And, as John records:

1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
3“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. 4As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. 5While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
6After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. 7“Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

The point is simple - not every bad thing is indicative of sin. But everybody is guilty of it, so everybody needs to repent.


How do Catholics interpret Romans 10:9-13? How does the Roman Catholic church interpret the simplicity of Romans 10:9-13?

  Romans 10:9-13
  9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

It would be hard, coming from outside the RCC to understand how the Church sees this passage.  The Church being universal and spanning the globe and all cultures empties itself from the subjective interpretations of specific cultures and the emphasis those cultures put on passages.  Emphasis, not necessarily intended by the inspired author.  This is especially noticeable in American Culture (outside and inside the Church), who seemingly but unknowingly, includes in their subjective interpretations those values that are important to them.  So, what am I suggesting here.  Primarily, as assumed in the question, that there is no “simplicity” of Romans 10:9-13.

The scriptures to Roman Catholics are not broken down into individual versus; they are looked at as a whole, with all of the Word taken into consideration.  So when it comes to Romans 10:9-13, a Catholic can say with full confidence that what is being stated is true within the context of the complete Word.

“There is no difference between Jew and Gentile” When the Lord Ascended into heaven leaving the Apostles to grow the kingdom, the remnants of the old Guard, the Jewish leaders through the Greco Roman world, were slowly brought into and evangelized into the Faith.  There was resistance, issues of genealogy and OT priesthood, food laws, 613 works of the Law that had to be addressed which was not addressed by Christ but left to his Church.  There was much Confusion.   Pharisaic Christians, Pagan Christians of many cultures were asked to come together to a banquet where previously no contact was allowed.  Customs and traditions, Valid ones especially like circumcision had to be addressed as you can imagine if you were older and had not been cut, the prospects of becoming a Christian with such requirements might seem gloomy.

Much of Paul’s writing echoes the Old Testament, Duet 30:14 for example comes to mind here.

As a Catholic, I simply have faith in God’s Word.  Guarded and Protected by the ministry instituted by Christ from inception, not influenced by my subjective understanding or the culture in which I live, but by the Church that spans the globe who has preserved and defined to the modern world those teachings based on Faith and Reason.


How do human rights and Christianity relate to each other? Now it is really getting interesting - this is the third question in a row (after this one and this one). So please make sure you read those two to understand this one in context.

Caleb wrote:

  human rights is another issue! That is another example of something
  that is not wrong for God but very much wrong for humans. I do believe
  in human rights (by virtue of being created in God's image AND being
  his property that man should not dare to trespass and abuse) but that
  might be the topic for another question in itself.

Continuing:

  However I would still assert that Christianity is not in conflict with
  undeniable human rights. In fact they are absolute in so far as they
  are granted by an absolute God.

My question is:

How is God allowed to breach these undeniable human rights for example by extensive torturing people?

Again: Please make sure you read the other questions and especially this and this answer and the comments to make sure that you understand the context of this question! Thank you!

I'll take a shot at answering this one.  Most of my answer will be taken from my readings of C.S. Lewis.
The short answer is that we are God's creation and He is allowed to do with us as He likes.  In the flood He wiped out all of humanity save for eight people, but since we are His creation this was OK.
Assume that you were an artist and you created a painting.  Now this painting is your creation; it belongs to you.  You may do with it what you choose.  You may display the painting for all to see, you can restrict who is allowed to see it.  You can alter it as you see fit, you can leave it alone, you can even wipe it out and start all over again.  You can turn it over to someone else so that they can do with it as they like.
All these things are acceptable, but no one else may touch your creation, at least not without your permission.  No one else may harm it or destroy it because it is not theirs, it is yours.
The same can be said about God, people, and human rights.  God may do with us as He chooses because we are His.  We as humans cannot do whatever we like to other humans because we do not own them.


GOD/JESUS - Greek - Yahuwah/Yashuah - Hebrew Growing up having a Christian background, I was taught to use God/Jesus to refer to the Creator and Son.

Recently, I've come across some information stating that our Creator has a Name and that we should use it, the name referring to Yahuah/Yahsuah, which would be in original Hebrew.

Given that Jesus was a Jew and the original text was written in ancient Hebrew, would it be fair to say that instead of the more commonly accepted Greek version of His Name, that should we use the Hebrew versions instead?

Also, if I'm misunderstanding anything in my post, I'm all ears, I'm just trying to figure out if we've been generalizing the Name and sort of not receiving the full effect of being able to state our Creators name and benefit from praising Him in that way.

This, along with knowing that throughout history, things can get sort of lost in translation as we switch from languages. On top of the knowing that devil will do whatever it takes to twist and take the opposite approach of whatever the Creator does.

  In the Bible, God declares:

    I am Jehovah. That is my name; I give my glory to no one else.

    Isaiah 42:8 - NWT

  “Jehovah” is an English translation of the four Hebrew consonants YHWH, which constitute the divine name. That name appears some 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures.  It is used more often than any title, such as “God,” “Almighty,” or “Lord,” and more frequently than any other name, such as Abraham, Moses, or David`

The Greek word, Tetragrammaton, simply means four letters. It refers to God’s holy name in the Hebrew Old Testament, namely, YHWH. As with all Hebrew words, it contains consonants only and no vowels. Thus, its pronunciation is unknown having been lost at the Babylonian captivity.

Since this word was regarded by the Jews as supremely sacred, they would not pronounce it. Therefore, a well-trained scribe would say, “Adonai” (= Lord) whenever he saw the word in the text. During the 8th and 9th centuries AD, when the Hebrew scribes started adding vowels to the Hebrew text, they used the vowels of “Adonai” for the Tetragrammaton. Thus, the Septuagint translators in about 250 BC translated the word as kyrios, Lord.

Unaware of this, the King James translators transliterated the “combination” word, “Jehovah” (only four times out of its hundreds of occurrences in the OT). However, they also adopted another tradition of translating YHWH by “LORD” – to continue the Hebrew scribal tradition.

Modern linguistic analysis has produced “Yahweh” as the best estimate of its original pronunciation.

The New Testament regularly quotes Old Testament passages containing the Tetragrammaton, and often attributes them to Jesus, especially in Hebrews, such as Heb 1:8-12, 2:12, 13, etc.

Thus, God has numerous titles including, Saviour (Isa 44:24), First and Last (Isa 41:4), "I AM" (Ex 3:13-16), Creator (Isa 44:24), the Rock (Isa 44:8), Shepherd (Ps 23), Bridegroom (Isa 49), etc.  Many of these are applied to Jesus in the NT along with more: "Son of God" and "Son of Man", "Immanuel", 'Resurrection and Life" and many more.


Mentioning of Prophets I was just curious, who are the prophets that are being mentioned in Lamentations 2:14, Jeremiah 23:33-40, and Zechariah 13:2-6? Why are these verses condemning the ability of prophecy but yet there are still prophets that are revered to a high extent. Lastly how long can a prophecy last? Ezekiel 12:27 indicates that prophecy seems to be short, and long term prophecies are looked down upon. How does this relate to long term prophecies by Daniel? Thanks.

God makes a distinction between your (the people to whom the prophecy is directed) prophets (e.g. 1 Ki 22:23, Jer 27:9, Jer 27:9, Ezek 13:1-7) and my (God's) prophets (e.g. 1 Chr 16:21-23).1 God's prophets are the only true prophets. The others are false prophets (e.g. De 13:1-5, 2 Ki 18:19, 1 Ki 22:1-28, Jer 2:8, Jer 5:31).

Regarding Ezekiel 12:27

  Ezekiel 12:27-28 (NASB)
  “Son of man, behold, the house of Israel is saying, ‘The vision that he sees is for many years from now, and he prophesies of times far off.’ Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “None of My words will be delayed any longer. Whatever word I speak will be performed,” ’ ” declares the Lord GOD.

There isn't sufficient reason to understand this as applying henceforth to all prophecies from all prophets. There were certainly prophets who came after Ezekiel (e.g. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, possibly Daniel), some of whom foretell things about John the Baptist and Jesus (who came 400+ years later).

It is sufficiently plausible to understand the words of this passage as being a specific description of how God will behave in the short term regarding these people who are skeptical of Ezekiel's message. The alternative would seem logically inconsistent within the context of the entire Bible.

1 More frequently, people speaking/praying to God refer to them as your prophets. (e.g. 1 Ki 19:10, Neh 9:30)


Were the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John common in the time of Jesus? Were the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John common names in the time of Jesus? If not, what were their real names and why were they changed?

The names of the authors of the Gospels have been adapted into English from the Greek of the New Testament.1 However, Hebrew and/or Aramaic were likely the mother tongue(s) of three of the evangelists (Matthew, Mark, and John), and their names reflect this background. Luke's name is Greek.

All of these are normal, common names, and there is no reason to think anyone's name was changed for the purpose of assigning him to a Gospel.

Matthew
Matthew's is a Hebrew name that comes awkwardly into Greek as Μαθθαῖος (Maththaios). When speaking Aramaic or Hebrew, his friends and family likely called him by the Semitic version, מַתִּתְיָ֫הוּ (Mattith-yahu) or several of the available shortned versions thereof (Mattaʾi, Mattiyaʾ, or Mattiyah). These are derived from the Hebrew nātan ("he gave") and mean something like "gift of God". This name and its variants were very common in Hebrew.2

Matthew appears to have also had a second name, Levi (see Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27). Levi (Λευὶ) is, of course, a Hebrew name for one of the twelve tribes: לֵוִי (lēwı̂). It is also a common male name from the OT. Why Matthew had two different Hebrew names and the nature of the relationship between them has been a matter of much scholarly discussion.

Mark (a.k.a. John Mark)
The full Greek names is Ἰοαν(ν)ες Μαρκος (Ioan(n)es Markos). This has two components. Markos is a Greek name (cf. Latin Marcus), one of the most common in both Greek and Latin speaking communities in the Hellenistic period.3

Ioannes is a Greek adaptation of the Hebrew name יוֹחָנָן (yôḥānān, "Yahweh has shown grace"). When speaking Hebrew or Aramaic, it is likely that yōhānān alone was used.4 Among the evangelists' names, only yōhānān ranks among the top six most common male names in Palestine at the time (#5).5

Luke
Luke's is a normal Greek name – Λουκας (Loukás) – by which he likely addressed. Luke was a Gentile whose command of Hebrew and/or Aramaic is unknown, but in any case we are not given a Semitic name.

John
As noted above for Mark's Semitic name, Ioannes is a Greek adaptation of the Hebrew name יוֹחָנָן yôḥānān ("Yahweh has shown grace"). Because this was a common name among Greek-speaking Jews (see above), John is often referred to with the patronymic τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου ("[son] of Zebedee").

1. Of course, the Gospels are technically anonymous. However, the traditional attributions of authorship were clearly identified with particular men who are known to us from within their pages (and Acts).

2. Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (citation below) finds at least ten mattaniah's, in addition to one or more each: mattatha, mattathiah, mattathias, mattattah, mattenai, matthat (all derived one way or another from "gift" and "yhwh") in the Old Testament and Inter-testamental literature, s.v..

3. Paul J. Achtemeier. "Mark, Gospel of" in Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, Ed. David Noel Freedman (Random House, 1992), 4:541.

4. Richard Bauckham Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans, 2006), p 67ff. The author points out that likely many more people than we realize had both Greek and Semitic names, but because only one was generally used in a specific setting, these are often difficult to trace based on the limited texts available.

5. Richard Bauckham, ibid.

Data on Greek-Semitic equivalences are from New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. Ed. Moises Silva (Zondervan, 2014).


What is joy? How is it different from happiness (or is it)? The bible talks all about joy.

  Romans 15:13 (NIV)
  May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

And it seems that joy is something we can attain by having the Holy Spirit in our lives:

  Galations 5:22-23 (NIV)
  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

However, if we look at the dictionary, joy seems to mean "happiness".

But, it sounds like we're not promised happiness:

  John 16:33 (NIV)
  I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.

  Matthew 16:24 (NIV)
  Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

What is being promised to us when the Bible speaks of joy?  And how is joy different from happiness?

Finally, is the word "joy" a bad translation of the original Greek there?  Or should we expect intense happiness (per the meaning of the word in English)?

If there is a difference, I'm seeking a mainline protestant viewpoint and exegesis of this text

"Joy" is not an ideal translation of the original Greek here because it doesn't quite cover the original meaning.

A better translation would be "rejoice" or "rejoicefullness" (if that were a word).

Let's take a look...

Greek

The Greek word used in these passages is chara (also transliterated khara).

If we look at Vines Expository Dictionary of the New Testament, we see that this word means "gladness".  While Strong's Concordance shows that this word is often translated (in the KJV) as "joy".

However, if we look at the root word, we see word chairō (or khiro).  Vines has this word meaning "rejoice, be glad".  Also, Strong's Concordance shows that (in the KJV) the word is usually translated as "rejoice".

English

The translation of this word as "joy" is not a poor choice, by any means.  However, the English definition falls short:

  joy
  1.
      a. Intense and especially ecstatic or exultant happiness.
      b. The expression or manifestation of such feeling.
  2. A source or an object of pleasure or satisfaction: their child was their pride and joy

This definition falls short of the original meaning of "rejoice, be glad".  A more accurate translation of this would be "gladness".

  glad
   1. a.  Experiencing or exhibiting joy and pleasure.
      b.  Appreciative

We can see that there is definitely a component of happiness here, but there's also a sense of appreciation.

If we compare this to the Greek root "rejoice", we can clearly see that a better translation would not be "joy" as in happiness, but "joy" as in appreciation, thanksgiving, and rejoicing (or more accurately, a combination of those words).  "Rejoicefullness", if that were a word, would be the best translation.

In context

We also see this word being used here:

  Matthew 5:11-12 (NIV)emphases added
  11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

In verse 12 there, we see the word translated as "Rejoice".

This very clearly shows that while we may not be happy, we can still rejoice.  The "joy" that God will give us is not entirely based on happiness, but it is based on rejoicing.

Summary

The original Greek word used here does not always mean that we will be happy.  Rather, it means that we will find appreciation and rejoicing.  "Rejoicefullness" would be a better, more accurate translation, if that were even a word.

Essentially, it means that the fruit of the spirit will be a spirit of rejoicing.


If unconditional election is true do we worship God in vain? According to the teaching of Unconditional Election, God has already chosen who is saved and who is condemned. If we have no control over whether we receive or reject grace, someone can never truly know if they are saved or condemned. Therefore why does a Calvinist continue to worship and serve God if they don't know if they will be saved? Aren't they worshiping God in vain?

If we have no control over whether we receive or reject grace, someone
  can never truly know if they are saved or condemned.

Reformed theology teaches the doctrine of assurance of salvation, in addition to the doctrine of unconditional election. This doctrine teaches that we CAN know if we are truly saved or condemned.

The basics of this doctrine can be found in the Canons of Dort:

Canons of Dort, I.12 and V.9.10.11.13

  The elect in due time, though in various degrees and in different measures, attain the assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable
  election, not by inquisitively prying into the secret and deep things
  of God, but by observing in themselves with a spiritual joy and holy
  pleasure the infallible fruits of election pointed out in the Word of
  God such as, a true faith in Christ, filial fear, a godly sorrow for
  sin, a hungering and thirsting after righteousness, etc.

It can also be found in the Heidelberg Catechism:

  Q21:  What is true faith?

  A21:  True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for
  truth all that God has revealed to us in His Word, but also a hearty
  trust, which the Holy Ghost works in me by the Gospel, that not only
  to others, but to me also, forgiveness of sins, everlasting
  righteousness, and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace,
  only for the sake of Christ's merits.

It can also be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, in Chapter XVIII: "Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation".

Essentially, by seeing in ourselves the signs of salvation, we can know that we are saved. Based on this knowledge, we can from there continue to follow the commandments of God in the assurance that our worship is not in vain.

It could be also argued that it is in every way preferable to continue to worship and obey God even when we doubt our own salvation.


Why would a Spanish Catholic priest disapprove of German Catholic texts for Gloria and Sanctus? I'm a church organist in a Catholic church in Southern Spain, and due to large numbers of German tourists, we have both German-language and Spanish-language services.

The words to the Spanish Gloria and Sanctus are always the same, but the words for the German Glorias and Sanctuses vary (if they're not the standardized ones, they are called Lied); but my priest considers this variation of the text practiced by German churches to be decadent / a corruption of the true text, and so we always do the same Gloria and Sanctus for the German-language services.

For example, Sanctus words that are OK (Gotteslob 193, old 481):

  Heilig, heilig, heilig Gott, Herr aller Mächte. Erfüllt sind Himmel und Erde von seiner Herrlichkeit. Hosanna in der Höhe. Gebenedeit sei, der da kommt im Namen des Herrn. Hosanna, hosanna in der Höhe.

and that are not OK (Gotteslob 196, old 491):

  Heilig, heilig, heilig Herr, Gott der Mächte Erd und Himmel sind deiner Ehre voll. Hosianna in der Höhe. Hochgelobt sei, der da kommt im Namen des Herren. Hosianna in der Höhe.

Both slightly different from what's listed on Wikipedia as the official Catholic text:

  Heilig, heilig, heilig, Gott, Herr aller Mächte und Gewalten. Erfüllt sind Himmel und Erde von deiner Herrlichkeit. Hosanna in der Höhe. Hochgelobt sei, der da kommt im Namen des Herrn. Hosanna in der Höhe

Could anyone help me understand why that is, and what are the two different philosophies apparently present in the German Catholic and Spanish Catholic churches?

In 2001 the Vatican published Liturgiam Authenticam.

This considered the experience of the Church since the Second Vatican Council encouraged the  celebration of Mass in the vernacular languages of the people,  rather than in Latin.  It expressed the view that some translations into vernacular languages had been too free and were, in parts, adaptions rather than strict translations.

For example,  section 6 includes the following:

  Nevertheless, it has been noted that translations of liturgical texts in various localities stand in need of improvement through correction or through a new draft. The omissions or errors which affect certain existing vernacular translations – especially in the case of certain languages – have impeded the progress of the inculturation that actually should have taken place.

The reference here to "certain languages" is widely taken to include both German and English.

Section Twenty goes on:

  it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts of the Roman Liturgy is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.

This emphasises the importance of sticking closely  to the original text. Original does not, here, mean the ancient text, it means the text on which the vernacular translation is supposed to be based, which will be the Latin text of the latest Roman Typical Edition.  It also says some variation in wording, syntax and style is permissible.

So there is a tension about how far or near a translation can legitimately be. This may explain why a Spanish Catholic priest might disapprove of some of the variations allowed in the German Mass.

One reason why the Spanish Mass sticks more closely to the Latin is that Spanish, like Portuguese, Italian and French, is a Romance language, which means it evolved from Latin in the first place. The common structure makes  translation from Latin to Spanish much simpler,  and more precise and natural, than translating Latin to a Germanic language, such as German or English.

A second reason is that Germany has a strong choral tradition. Musical settings of such texts as the Sanctus or Gloria, originally in Latin, can be sung in German but will require the choice of German words to be influenced by the number of syllables etc. needed to fit the music. While this will have been done, presumably, without significantly affecting the meaning, and will anyway have been accepted by Rome, this Spanish priest may feel strongly that such adaptations are essentially corruptions of the Latin.

Thirdly Germany, like England, has large numbers of liturgical Protestants. The Lutheran and Anglican services also have translations of the Sanctus and Gloria and the ecumenical  desire for a common text was perhaps a factor in German.  It was so in English, where Sabaoth was translated "power and might" rather than "hosts" in 1973 but "corrected" in 2011. (Even St Paul did not translate the Hebrew word sabaoth into Greek e.g.Romans 9 29). Linking back to the second point, musical settings originally written for Lutheran worship, and therefore in the German language, may be suitable to Catholic worship (or not, as the view of your Spanish priest may be).

The German Catholic bishops have taken a more robust  line in resisting changes following Liturgiam Authenticam, than the English-speaking bishops did. (See here.) Also here is an article about the refusal of the German and Austrian bishops, in 2018, to change the "lead us not into temptation" line in the Lord's Prayer. The Spanish version is more "do not let us fall into temptation".

So this Spanish priest may well fell that the variations in the German mass are "corrupt and depraved" because they do not as precisely match the Latin as the Spanish ones, and as some German variants, do.

It is also possible that the Spanish priest is constrained to use a particular form of the German Mass. The Spanish Bishops Conference could have decided on an approved German text for use at German-speaking services in Spain. If they have not then the priest could use any version permitted in Germany or Austria etc.

In 2017 Pope Benedict authorised a review of Liturgum Authenticam, and there are suggestions the pendulum may be swinging back towards encouraging national adaptations.


What is the Biblical basis of the idea that a deceased person has "entered into eternal rest"? The obituary page becomes a more frequent read for me as I age.

Sometimes I see the phrase "So-and-So entered into eternal rest on such-and-such day."

I am aware of the various beliefs on the nature of the condition of those who have died. So I often wonder what, if any, is the biblical basis for saying a dead person has entered into eternal rest.

Among Christians the concept of eternal rest for the deceased comes especially from several statements in the New Testament, but it does also draw on Old Testament themes and passages.

Old Testament themes

The very first mention of "rest" in the Bible occurs on the seventh day of creation:

  Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation. (Genesis 2:1–3, italics added)

This passage sets the tone throughout the Bible for the idea of rest after labors.

Though there is very little in the Old Testament about any afterlife, the concept of the deceased being "at rest" is present there.

The Old Testament commonly speaks of death as "sleeping with one's ancestors." Here are just a few examples:

  Then David slept with his ancestors, and was buried in the city of David. (1 Kings 2:10)

  Solomon slept with his ancestors and was buried in the city of his father David; and his son Rehoboam succeeded him. (1 Kings 11:43)

  The time that Jeroboam reigned was twenty-two years; then he slept with his ancestors, and his son Nadab succeeded him. (1 Kings 14:20)

  Rehoboam slept with his ancestors and was buried with his ancestors in the city of David. His mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonite. His son Abijam succeeded him. (1 Kings 14:31)

And Job poetically speaks of the dead as being at rest:

Why did I not die at birth,
    come forth from the womb and expire?
Why were there knees to receive me,
    or breasts for me to suck?
Now I would be lying down and quiet;
    I would be asleep; then I would be at rest
with kings and counselors of the earth
    who rebuild ruins for themselves,
or with princes who have gold,
    who fill their houses with silver.
Or why was I not buried like a stillborn child,
    like an infant that never sees the light?
There the wicked cease from troubling,
    and there the weary are at rest.
There the prisoners are at ease together;
    they do not hear the voice of the taskmaster.
The small and the great are there,
    and the slaves are free from their masters.
                                    (Job 3:11–19)

And the Psalms speak of the faithless and disobedient Israelites whom God had miraculously brought out of slavery from Egypt not entering into God's rest:

O that today you would listen to his voice!
    Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah,
    as on the day at Massah in the wilderness,
when your ancestors tested me,
    and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work.
For forty years I loathed that generation
    and said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray,
    and they do not regard my ways."
Therefore in my anger I swore,
    "They shall not enter my rest."
                                           (Psalm 95:8–11)

Though the original meaning of "not entering my rest" here was not being allowed to enter the Holy Land, where the Children of Israel would settle down and be at "rest" from their long wanderings, in the New Testament this passage is given a deeper meaning related to God's promised spiritual rest (see the quotation from Hebrews just below).

New Testament themes

The New Testament also speaks of those who have died having followed the Lord during their lifetimes as being "at rest."

The Letter to the Hebrews ties together Old Testament themes of rest with the inner rest that the faithful will experience:

  Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest is still open, let us take care that none of you should seem to have failed to reach it. For indeed the good news came to us just as to them; but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. For we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,

"As in my anger I swore,
'They shall not enter my rest.'"

  though his works were finished at the foundation of the world. For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." And again in this place it says, "They shall not enter my rest." Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he sets a certain day—"today"—saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,

"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts."

  For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day. So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.

  Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account. (Hebrews 4:1–13)

Though this passage does not explicitly connect God's promised rest with death, the theme of judgment and of rendering accounts in the final two verses suggests a connection with God's eternal judgment of human souls after death.

That connection is made explicit in the Book of Revelation:

  And I heard a voice from heaven saying, "Write this: Blessed are the dead who from now on die in the Lord." "Yes," says the Spirit, "they will rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them." (Revelation 13:14)

And one more reference, from the Gospel of Luke, in which Jesus is speaking of entering through the narrow door (Luke 13:22–30), here in a very literal translation:

  and they shall come from east and west, and from north and south, and shall recline in the reign of God (Luke 13:19, Young's Literal Translation, italics added)

The Greek word for "recline" here, commonly translated "sit down," is ἀνακλίνω, (anaklinō), "to lay down, to bid recline." This refers to the ancient custom of reclining on couches to eat. Luke's imagery is of people who have entered the kingdom of God reclining, or resting, at the metaphorical banquet of God's kingdom.

These are some of the Bible passages on which the idea that the deceased have "entered into eternal rest" is based.


Is there any Ethiopian ancient source about the eunuch who was evangelized by Philip? We all know that passage from Acts 8, where Philip preached and baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch.

I've read in an article that Ethiopian Christian tradition talks about this Eunuch, who came from Jerusalem with the message of Jesus.

But are there any early Ethiopian records of that story? I've searched and found nothing.

Around 180 CE, Irenaeus summarises the account in Acts 8, then writes:

  Against Heresies III.12.8: This man was also sent into the regions of Ethiopia, to preach what he had himself believed...

The account in Against Heresies does not prove the existence of an earlier Ethiopian record, given that, while he was familiar with Acts of the Apostles, Irenaeus did not visit Ethiopia. It is even possible the account by Irenaeus may be the earliest reference to the Ethiopian eunuch preaching in Ethiopia.

So many doubtful Christian and Jewish traditions are held in Ethiopia, that caution is required when accepting any Ethiopian Christian tradition unless verified by ancient records of known provenance. According to one story, Ethiopian Queen Makeda travelled to Jerusalem in the tenth century BCE, to learn from King Solomon how to be a good ruler; she was so impressed with Solomon that she converted to Judaism. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church also claims to house the Biblical Ark of the Covenant, given to Mekeda's son by King Solomon.

Christianity became the state religion of Ethiopia in 330 CE. There may have been Christians in the region even before this date, but Wikipedia says that pinpointing a date as to when Christianity emerged in Ethiopia is uncertain. In order to eliminate any risk of contamination by Ethiopian nationalism, the earliest Ethiopian accounts of the eunuch ought to be supported by extant physical records that can be dated before the fourth century.

The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: Acts-Philemon, Volume 2 (page 65) says there is no record of the influence of Christianity in that regions before the fourth century, from which we can infer that there is no early Ethiopian record of the eunuch, dating from before the fourth century. The most reliable information about the eunuch preaching in Ethiopia comes from Irenaeus, followed by the fourth-century Christian historian, Eusebius.


Does the Catholic Church consider the 40 year trek in the wilderness an allegory? Much of the story about the Israelites 40 year wandering in the desert wilderness is as hard to believe as the flood in Noah's day and the allegorical creation account in Genesis.

Does the Catholic Church take all of the events in the account of the wilderness trek (manna, quail, copper serpent, sandals and clothes that don't wear out etc...) as literal or is it another allegory that is meant to teach us that we must rely on God for salvation?

If taken as literal were they made ignorant by God so as not to be able to find their way? In 40 years walking in a straight line how many times could one circle the globe? Walking 20 miles a day one could theoretically walk around the globe in 3.5 years in 40 years nearly 12 laps around the equator

The Catholic Church teaches that [a]ccording to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. [Cf. CCC 115]. The next point CCC 116 goes on to say that [t]he literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal." [St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 1, 10, ad I.]. Cf. also this @Geremia's answer.

Therefore according to the Church's rules for biblical interpretation, one always starts with the literal sense and all the other senses are based on it.

I haven't seen anything in Catholic circles that considers the 40 year trek in the wilderness [as] an allegory. Of course the Church considers the Old as a type of the New in which the Old is revealed and fulfilled. Cf. This answer for a Catholic understanding of the Temptation of Jesus in Mt 4:1-11 as contrasted with Israel: Matthew uses this episode of the temptations in the wilderness to depict Jesus as the new Israel, in contrast to the old. Jesus is tempted, as Moses and the chosen people were in their forty-year pilgrimage in the wilderness. The Israelite yielded to temptation [while Jesus did not]. [...]. And from this article Lesson Four: On the Way to the Promised Land | St. Paul Center in the section III. The Making of the Old Covenant B. Testing in the Wilderness:

  Paul also said that we should read the account of Israel’s testing in
  the wilderness "as an example…written down as a warning to us, upon
  whom the end of the ages has come" (1 Corinthians 10:11).

Further Reading

Pontifical Biblical Commission - Documents.


What is appropriate age group for an altar call? I was in an evangelical setting with some young kids and one of the helpers/ leaders basically did a sort of altar call with the kids. It actually surprised the other helpers/ leaders.

What is the appropriate age for such an event / rite?  If that is too much of a Truth question, then what specific advice or training has been given on the age appropriateness of "altar calls" among denominations or groups that practice them?

There is no age restriction. All are welcomed.

The Catholic church never restrict salvation and baptism to adults alone. The Catholic church believes in Infant Baptism, this site explains it. A passage from the site -

  More detail is given in Luke’s account of this event, which reads:
  "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them;
  and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called
  them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder
  them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).

Altar Call is practiced by many churches, especially in Evangelical churches. Christianity in general welcomes every one to Christ, young or old, rich or poor, black or white. During the Altar Call, the preacher would invite the audience to repent and give their life to Jesus and proclaim publicly by coming forward. Many times, there are situations where children would come forward with sincere heart and with tears. The people usually responded to this by giving thanks to God.

As an example, I have seen children below 10 years who received Jesus Christ during the Altar Call in Assemblies of God Church.


A promise in Acts 16:31? In the book of Acts, chapter 16, verse 31, reads as follows:

  They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household." (NET)
  They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, along with everyone in your household." (NLT)

Some say that this verse is a promise. If a relative is saved, the whole family will also be in some future. How true is this?

It is clear that the verse cited, Acts 16:31, is a promise. The question is, to whom does the promise apply? Taken in context, it is a promise to a particular individual in a specific instance. This verse is lifted from the narrative of Paul and Silas in jail in Phillipi, to which they had been delivered by the owners of a slave girl from whom they had driven an unclean spirit. In the narrative, there was an earthquake during which the doors of the jail came open, and the jailer was about to kill himself, believing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul told the jailer that the prisoners were all accounted for, and in response to the jailer's question, "what must I do to be saved", Paul responds as quoted. The jailer took Paul to his house, and the jailer and his whole household were baptized.

So yes, the statement of Paul is a promise, and contains, in my view, a bit of prophecy about immediately following events. The jailer believed, and the whole household was baptized. However, it is less clear that this a generalized promise to all mankind, that upon believing, the whole household of the believer will be saved. Were this true, it would put Paul against the prophet Micah, and Jesus, who taught about  intra-familial discord between sons and fathers, daughters and mothers, daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law, etc. (cf. Micah 7:6, Matthew 10:21, Matthew 12:34ff, and Luke 12:52-53).


Historically, how did Protestantism first arrive at a consensus? Paul urges the Corinthian church :

  Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. I Corinthians 1:10 KJV.

In order for Protestantism to exist at all, initially, there had to be a consensus among some regarding the Reformation, and, particularly, regarding doctrine.

How was that consensus arrived at, historically, and what lessons does this have for the present situation of Protestantism being divided into contradictory denominations?

How did the original Reformers arrive at agreements of doctrine and how could this be reiterated now, or in the near future?

The Reformation beginning in the 16th century was actually three different movements consisting of: (a) Calvinism (b) Lutheranism (c) Anabaptists.  There were conferences between these groups but the only things they were united upon were:

Opposition to the authority of the Catholic church largely due to its excesses and abuses
Salvation by faith alone (the five "solas" actually came later)
Doctrine based on Scripture

However, there were numerous fights between these groups.  For example, Calvin persecuted Lutherans and Anabaptists by having some executed, etc.  Conferences between Luther and Zwingli ended in stalemates.  There were on-going debates particularly about how communion should be practiced and what it meant, which persist today.

As time progressed, further subdivisions emerged such as "enthusiasm" (the basis of the charismatic movement) and many more.  Thus, the reformation was never truly united.

Good overall summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformation as well as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptism


Is "God damn it" blasphemy? Non-Christian here. I have heard that "God damn it" or "God damn [that person]" is blasphemy because you are telling God what to do. But other interpretations are that it's only blasphemy to misrepresent what God told you to do, like "God told me to hurt that person".

Is “God damn it” blasphemy?
The short answer is yes.
The fourth commandment prohibits taking God's name in vain, that is to say using his name in a light or frivolous manner rather than giving proper respect to Whom He is.
It is definitely below the dignity of a Christian to wish someone damned for eternity. God desires the conversion of sinners and not their condemnation to Hell forever.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. His name, according to the commandment, is both “Lord” and “God”. Those who address him in prayer (see the Psalms as reference) call him “Lord” and “God”!

In general, the Second Commandment governs this area: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (Ex 20:7; Dt 5:11). Specifically, a person must have respect for God's name. Throughout Sacred Scripture, God's name is held sacred. He reveals His name to those who believe, and through this revelation, invites them to an intimate and personal relationship.
For example, in the story of the call of Moses, he asked God, "...If they ask me, 'What is His name?' what am I to tell them? God replied, 'I am who am.' Then He added, 'This is what you shall tell the Israelites, 'I AM sent me to you.' God spoke further to Moses, 'Thus shall you say to the Israelites: 'The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is my name forever; this is my title for all generations'" (Cf Ex 3).
Therefore, we rightfully use God's name in prayer or in other ways to bless, praise, and glorify Him. The respect for God's name reflects the respect a person owes to God Himself (See Catechism, No. 4142ff.).
Given this foundation, certain forms of abusive language are sinful. First, to abuse God's name, whether the word God, Jesus, or in some other form, is objectively mortally sinful. The same rule applies to abusing the name of the Blessed Mother or the saints. One has to ask oneself, "Why would someone use the name Jesus as an expletive when angry or impatient? Would not such an action show an arrogant and disrespectful attitude toward God, whom we should love above all things?" I often wonder what a Moslem must think when he hears a Christian use God's name in such an irreverent and improper way.
Second, blasphemy is also a sin. Blasphemy is contempt for God, expressed in thought, word or action. To use words either vocally or mentally against God which show hatred, reproach, disrespect or defiance is sinful. This prohibition also applies to the Blessed Mother and the saints as well as sacred things or Church related practices. Moreover, blasphemy includes invoking God's name to legitimize crimes or harmful actions against others. The Catechism notes that blasphemy is a grave sin.
Third, cursing is to call down evil from God, and usually involves specifically invoking God's name, not just His power. For instance, all of us have heard someone say, "God damn it," or even "God damn you". Here a person is commanding God, who is all powerful, all good, and all just, to damn someone (or something) in Hell for all eternity. Who are we to ask God to damn anyone or to bestow some evil upon them? Objectively, this act is a mortal sin.
Finally, profanity itself is wrong, even though such words may not specifically involve the name of God. God gave mankind the gift of language which should be used positively. Language should build good relationships with other individuals, and enable people to share their lives intimately with each other. Sadly, more and more, we hear in normal conversation profanity especially those four letter words, like s*** and f***. We also hear people speak profanely about good and holy topics; for example, they profane human sexuality or the act of marital love. Such language is not only negative, vulgar, impolite and offensive, but also debases the dignity of each human being. Moreover, this language reveals not only a person's bad attitude and lack of respect for others, but also his own immaturity and insecurity in dealing with others. In using these words, the person builds barriers rather than bridges with another person.
Each of us needs to be careful in our use of language. Objectively, using God's name in vain, cursing and blasphemy are mortally sinful, although lack of due reflection or habit can diminish culpability. Profanity too can be mortally sinful when done with great anger or viciousness against another person. Each of us needs to control our tongues, and prevent a bad language habit from becoming part of our person. St. James wisely admonished, "Every form of life, four-footed or winged, crawling or swimming, can be tamed, and has been tamed, by mankind; the tongue no man can tame. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. We use it to say, 'Praised be the Lord and Father'; then we use it to curse men, though they are made in the likeness of God. Blessing and curse come out of the same mouth. This ought not to be, my brothers!" (Jas 3:7-10). - Why is bad language a sin?

Be careful what you say, it may come true!


Where in Scripture is the Holy Spirit said to be speaking directly? God the Son speaks in Luke 5:31-32:

  Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”

God the Father speaks in Mark 1:10-11:

  On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

Paul tells, in 1Timothy 4:1-2, of what the Spirit says:

  Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.

...another example of this sort of speaking, in Acts 8:29:

  The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”

I do not have much of an issue thinking of either the Father or the Son as speaking, but I do not seem to have that same attitude towards the Holy Spirit. Obviously, the Holy Spirit speaks directly at any chosen time, that certainly is not at issue; and any differences that I see between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not true differences in any merely-human sense in a way that is an absolute and glorious mystery, and all that I might confidently say now is that they are three distinct and divine persons. So I have the following question:

I'm not exactly looking for quotation marks like in the first two passages above, but where are the places in Scripture where the Holy Spirit is said to be speaking directly?

To clarify, when we say the Nicene Creed, we say: "He has spoken through the Prophets". I confess this, but here I am looking for something different. What are the verses that mention the "Holy Spirit" and then mark a passage of text as His words? I expect that there are a number of such verses.

I would like a pretty dry answer that looks like the first half of this question. If something is unsure or controversial, saying "might be" is fine, but please nothing too contrived, and I would not like any commentary. I would just like to know where in Scripture I may look if I would like to reflect on the manner in which the Holy Spirit speaks.

Of course there are many specific occurrences of the Spirit speaking in the Bible. All prophecy and scripture is the Spirit speaking. Thus says the Lord, is the same as thus says the Spirit.

And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, ‘This is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’ ” (Acts 21:11, ESV)
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. (Rev 2:2, ESV)
Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, if you hear his voice (Heb 3:7)

And many other similar references could be tallied.
With regard to the specific verse you mention, the Spirit is to ‘explicitly say’ this seems to imply more then the general inspiration of scripture but particular prophecies that speak directly to a specific situation, i.e. a horrible apostasy from the gospel in the ‘last times’.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, conveniently identifies a few verses, the Spirit has spoken about on this particular subject.

the Spirit-speaking by the prophets in the Church (whose prophecies rested on those of the Old Testament, Da 7:25; 8:23, &c.; 11:30, as also on those of Jesus in the New Testament, Mt 24:11-24), and also by Paul himself, 2Th 2:3 (with whom accord 2Pe 3:3; 1Jo 2:18; Jude 18).
expressly-"in plain words." This shows that he refers to prophecies of the Spirit then lying before him.

The Apostles all seemed to have a clear vision of this ‘future event’ as it shows up in various locations in the Bible. ‘The Spirit speaking explicitly’ the apostle understands not a revelation made to him alone, but that the infallible Spirit of God and the Spirit of prophecy guided he and the rest of the apostles to instruct the church and prepare it for this specific future danger. This Spirit of prophecy is the Spirit speaking.