From an Orthodox perspective...how do we know the saints specifically hear an individuals prayers? I know the saints see our prayers ascending as incense (Rev 8:4), that they observe the glory of God and are close to his holy presence.  Where does the belief come from that they hear us? Or that they can make individual intersession for us? How do we know they do not do this collectively on behalf of all believers rather than on a case by case basis.

A good deal of the Orthodox theology of saints is expressed during the services for the first Sunday of Great Lent - called the Sunday of the Triumph Orthodoxy (it commemorates the anathemas declared in the Ecumenical Councils against the Iconoclasts).  The Epistle reading for that particular day comes from Hebrews (11:24-26,32-12:2), which goes toward answering your question, "Where does the belief come from that they hear us?"

  And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us. Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us

I am not sure there is a belief within Eastern Orthodoxy that the saints "make individual intersession for us" in the sense you might be thinking.  As Romanian Elder Cleopa wrote:

  No one except Christ is able to intercede before the Father since only He presents Himself as a sacrifice for the salvation of the world.  Accordingly, no one except for Christ is able to save man from sin.1

This does not mean, however, that the saints - as well as people we know on earth - cannot pray for our salvation.  This is the only  sense in which saints are understood to "intercede" for us.  Again, from Elder Cleopa:

  In honoring the saints we don't put them in the place of Christ, or even adjacent to Him.  When the saints pray for us, it is precisely our salvation that they seek from Christ.  They intercede with Him for our salvation.  From Christ they entreat our salvation.  This is what we mean when we say they intercede for us.

Regarding how we know that saints are not acting on our personal behalf at times and not on behalf of all "believers" in general, I don't think there is a very rigorous theological answer here.

First, when saints pray for people collectively, we believe that they are praying for all men, and not just "believers" - since God desires that all men be saved and not just believers (1 Tim 2:4), and since saints are saints by virtue of their wills being aligned with God's.

As far as how we know that saints often act on behalf of specific persons, the witness here is two millennia of synaxaria describing the lives of the saints - the Church's documentation of some of the greater things that have been done (John 14:12) since the time of the Apostles.  For some modern accounts, you might pick up a copy of Everyday Saints, a best-seller in Russia (in general, not just in religious books), recently translated into English.  Another good sampling can be found in the account of the life of Arseny Streltzof, a Communist intellectual who became an Orthodox priest.  A good book here would be Father Arseny: Priest, Prisoner, Spiritual Father.

1. The Truth of Our Faith (3rd ed.), Vol. I (Uncut Mountain Press, 2007), p.68
2. Ibid.


Daniel Chap 8 little Horn? Daniel Chap 8 always confused me. The last (4th) Beast was detailed in Chap 7 and the former 3rd beast detailed in Chap 8. Both detailed beasts had a little horn coming up later but from different scenarios of previous horns.
However Chap 8 explains the 3rd Empire (Chap 7 Leopard) instead as a Goat and in more detail. It's little horn rises out of 4 horns (Generals) taking over (per history) Alexander the Great's empire (at his death). But this little horn isn't said to subdue any previous horns but rather it waxed exceeding great to the south, east, and pleasant land. If one examines history the first sections of Chap 8 seems to be about the Seleucid Empire's Antiochus Epiphanes IV.

But the latter part of Chap 8 also seems to go beyond Seleucid's Epiphanes IV and details more in line with the timeline and happenstance of the 4th (final) beast of Chap 7(?). Other than this said implicit latter section expansion Chap 8 does not specifically mention the 4th beast empire included Daniel Chap 7.

The Seleucid Empire encompassed a good fraction of the same area as the Eastern Roman (4th beast) Empire. But it's confusing to see the little horn out of the 4 horns go on in the latter section of Chap 8 to sound synonymous with the little horn of the Chap 7's 4th beast which subdued 3 of it's previous 10 horns.
 Unless Chap 8 is not referring to the 4th beast at all (timeline or premise) and verse 11 is referencing Israel of Christ's earthly time. And verse 23's latter time is referencing the same? I.e. making Chap 7 more about the end of the times of the Gentiles and Chap 8 more about the cutting off of the messiah and Israel being scattered until the last days?

The beasts are distinct and each one is figuratively representing an different empire and period of history. The little horn of the third beast is often considered to have been Antiochus Epiphane, a historcal ruler if the Hellenic (Greek) period. His actions are related in the book of Maccabees.

The little horn of the fourth beast is related to the Roman Empire. Its interpretation is varied. Some link it to the antichrist, an singularly evil person who will appear near the end of the world. Others connect it to historical figures, including the papacy, napoleon, and Hitler. Interesting articles are available online on this topic:

  To clear up some known confusion: let us look at another horn
  mentioned in chapter 8. It will help you to read the whole chapter,
  but we are not going to now. We will start in verse 9, and read a few
  verses to get this horn. Daniel saw a goat which had a great horn
  between his eyes, and this he goat (Greece) was very great, but there
  came a time when his great horn was broken, and for it four notable
  ones came up, and out of one of them came forth a little horn, which
  waxed exceedingly great toward the south, and toward the east, and
  toward the pleasant land (ISRAEL). This little horn magnified himself,
  and by him the daily sacrifice of the Jews was taken away, and the
  truth was cast down to the ground, and the horn practiced and
  prospered. Go to verse 13, “Then I heard one saint speaking, and
  another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall
  be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of
  desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden
  under foot?” Now I know that sounds just like what we know about the
  Antichrist, what he will do in that seventieth week of Daniel, over in
  the great tribulation, but remember, the Antichrist only has 1,200
  days allotted to him to do this, and then notice the answer given here
  in verse 14, “And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred
  days; (2,300) then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” That is, without
  any doubt whatsoever, speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes, that horn of
  Syria which came out of the break up of the Grecian empire. But as you
  read on throughout this chapter, verses 24 & 25, which actually are
  speaking of the Antichrist, have caused some scholars to believe it is
  still referring to the horn of verse 9. That simply is a reference to
  show that this same spirit of Satan rested on those forerunning types
  of the wicked one who is yet to come. You will notice in verse 25,
  that this one stands up against the Prince of princes, which could be
  none other than Jesus Christ himself, and we know that Antiochus has
  never, and will never stand up against Jesus Christ in mortal flesh.
  It is only that the same spirit of destruction and desolation that was
  in Antiochus will also be in the Antichrist, the son of perdition.
  Some have looked at these verses and said, the Antichrist will come
  out of Syria. Others try to put these scriptures together, and they
  come up with the idea that he will be an apostle Jew. No! He will be a
  Roman. We will show you, in chapter 9, that the Antichrist must be a
  prince of the Romans. - https://www.fachurch.org/1980/07/21/publications/contenders/bro-raymond-jackson/the-abomination-that-maketh-desolate-part-1/


Can a devil use one prayer to prevent us from praying different one? (Catholic perspective) We all know the importance of praying the rosary. But I have also been praying The Twelve-year Prayer of S. Bridget of Sweden.

I noticed one very important thing. Anytime I got into a temptation it was difficult to stop thinking about the temptation and the attacks were constantly coming and wouldn't stop.

Anytime I prayed the rosary, it didn't help much. The temptation still kept coming after I prayed. A year ago I started to pray the prayer of St. Bridget and anytime I pray this prayer in time of temptation, the attacks completely stop. It's a little bit scary because it really resets my brain. It gives me no desire to follow thoughts of any temptation that I was facing before.

Now I feel like the rosary is not that powerful and maybe I shouldn't pay much attention to it. I still want to pray it because it helps me meditate on Christs life and stay focused but...

My question is, was there ever in the Catholic tradition a case where a saint or somebody struggled with a similar problem? Is it possible for Satan to use one prayer in order to distract us from a different one which is considered by the Church a prayer which is deemed to be more meritorious?

There is a set number of hours in a day and one cannot pray all the prayers.  I'd imagine it would be pretty hard for a Catholic layperson with a 40 hour work week to go to Mass, pray all the hours of the Divine Office, pray the rosary and do whatever seasonal novena or devotion comes up.
So, one has to choose which prayers to pray in order to get through life.  But, as St. John Vianney says "No prayer is ever wasted" *.
But, St. John Vianney also said

'Never forget that it is at the beginning of each day that God has the necessary grace for the day ready for us. He knows exactly what opportunities we shall have to sin, and will give us everything we need if we ask him then. That is why the devil does all he can to prevent us from saying our morning prayers or to make us say them badly.'

So he thinks that the Devil can use badly said prayers to distract us from saying our prayers with devotion and St. Theresa of Avila observes that

'Much more is accomplished by a single word of the Our Father said, now and then, from our heart, than by the whole prayer repeated many times in haste and without attention.'
St. Theresa of Avila

which is to say that an undistracted heart makes prayer better and we can only assume that the Devil wants prayer to be worse.  So, given the difficulties in praying certain prayers requiring hard work  + devotion, you have to balance it.   Prayer is a lot like lifting weights, it takes time to build up an appetite for it.   The rosary is like 53 reps on freeweights.  The Liturgy of the Hours is like a complicated squat machine, you might hurt yourself without a spotter.   I don't know about the Twelve Year Prayer of St. Bridget, but if it's complicated and you haven't prepared yourself to receive it, it might be a distraction unto itself.  Then again, it might be exactly what you need (this is where you go ask a priest and stop asking the Internet for this kind of advice :) )
*Couldn't find a citation for this on the Internet, it was in one of my kid's spelling books


Is the age of the earth in the Bible? Early scientists thought that the age of the earth is proven by the genealogical tables in the book of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John.  Other than this observation, is there any reference to the direct age of the earth noted anywhere in the Bible?

No.  The age of the earth is not clearly stated in the Bible.

However, according to young-earth creationists (like myself), it can be derived, assuming that the word "Day" in Genesis means a literal day, and that the genealogies are accurate.

Adding up the genealogies can give an age of about 6,000 years, but there are some gaps in the genealogies, and even among young-earth creationists, there is room for 6,000-10,000 years of history.  The most literal interpretation puts the age at about 6,000 years.

Of course, there are those that hold to the day-age theory (the days in Genesis can be interpreted as "time periods") and the Gap theory (there is a gap between the creation of the universe and the arrival of man).  These each throw age estimation out the window, and allow for a much older earth.  Also, there are those who believe in theistic evolution, or that the Genesis account is not to be taken literally.  These also throw the young earth idea out the window.

As far as other references in the Bible, again, nothing direct but Jesus did say:

  Mark 10:6 (KJV) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Young-earth Biblical literalists (such as myself) would say that this is indication that Jesus Himself considered Adam and Eve as having been created "at the beginning of creation", ruling out the gap and day-age theories.  Again, there is much disagreement on this.


What does John 3:16 mean according to Calvinism? John 3:16

  For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

I originally believed the sentence above is like an offer. It's "open" to anyone to accept. But now that I follow Calvinist theology, it is different.  The sentence is not an offer at all; it is simply information.

I now see it like this :
For God so loved His elected that He gave His one and only Son, in order that His elected shall not perish but have eternal life

Since I'm not originally a Calvinist, my question is this:
Do all Calvinists interpret John 3:16 as I do above? In other words, do Calvinists view John 3:16 as a plain statement of fact instead of Christ offering salvation? If not, how do Calvinists interpret this verse?

Thank you.

addition :

I would like to extend my "original" interpretation.
I do agree that the word "world" and "whoever" is not in the sense anyone ---> literally anyone (even babies, toddlers, etc) without condition, but anyone on a condition which is someone who is old enough, already able to understand and realize that he/she need a help from God as he/she realize that they can not help themselves.

My reason about this condition is because I compare the situation from the verse 14

  Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man
  must be lifted up,

My imagination, the situation in that time - it's the Israel who is bitten by the snake, realize that he/she needs a help, then there the offer which is to look at that snake pole.

In simple term, it's just like a doctor is for everyone - but of course this everyone is the one who realize that he/she needs help from the doctor.

But again, once I revert to Calvinist Theology - of course, the [realize that he/she needs a help from God] I will point it to "because they are elected, that's why God stir/control/make these elected ones (like on/off switch) to realize that they need a help" :).

From John Calvin's Commentary on John chapter 3

John Calvin made much about the love of God in John 3:16 arguing that the cause is the love of God for us, not any good in ourselves, or any quality that belongs to us, but the cause is God's love! Our believing then is a result of God's saving love being applied to our lives, through faith, which is itself a gift of God.

John Calvin also owned the world here and whosoever as terms that are universal arguing that they make it clear that despite the offer being open to all, though not all have believed and therefore stand justly condemned:

  He had employed the universal term whosoever both to invite all
  indiscriminately to partake in life, and to cut off every excuse from
  unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term world which he
  formally used, for though nothing will be found in the world that is
  worthy of the favour of God yet he shows himself to be reconciled to
  the whole world when he invites all men without exception to the faith
  of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life. Let us
  remember on the other hand that while life is promised universally to
  all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all, for
  Christ has held out to the view of all that the elect are those whose
  eyes are opened.

Some other Reformed writers would point out that the world is more an acknowledgement that salvation is given to people from every tribe and tongue rather than literally the whole world as in universalism or the world as in a potentially universal response. They have argued that the world, is qualified biblically by the fact that it is those who believe, it is further qualified by John 3:18 which indicates that those who disbelieve stand already condemned because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only son.

John Calvin would agree that it is only the elect whose eyes are ultimately  opened to the glory of God's one and only Son. Though he seems to allow for the offer being open to the world and whosoever if only to show that God is just in condemning them.


What is the biblical basis for a post-tribulation rapture? I am fairly well-versed in premillennial theology, however, I was challenged frequently while at Bible College on my point of view of a pre-tribulation rapture in favor of a post-tribulation rapture. I understand the principles of post-trib thought, but I fail to see any scriptural evidence for it. Can someone please point me to the scriptural evidence used to support a post-tribulation rapture?

I have read "Gospel of the Kingdom" by George Eldon Ladd and I enjoyed it, but I suppose that perhaps I did not properly understand it or his argument for a post-trib rapture.

Revelation 1:9

  I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and
  kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called
  Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

The "great tribulation" is not a future event, it is an ongoing event. The Apostle John speaks of himself as enduring the tribulation of Jesus Christ during his lifetime. This tribulation will continue straight up until Jesus returns. His return marks the end of the tribulation, and the immediate beginning of eternity.

Many scriptures speak of the last trumpet, the seventh trumpet, or the great trumpet.

Matthew 24:31

  And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they
  will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of
  heaven to the other.

1 Corinthians 15:52

  in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the
  trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we
  shall be changed.

1 Thessalonians 4:16

  For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the
  voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in
  Christ will rise first.

Revelation 11:15

  Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven,
  saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our
  Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”

My understanding of these scriptures is that they all describe the same event:

The Lord comes, raises the dead, and gathers the elect to bring them immediately to heaven. This is an apantesis, when a delegation leaves a city to escort in a dignitary and escorts that dignitary into the city. Examples in scripture are:

King David greeting the Ark of the Covenant when it was brought into his city
Jesus being greeted on Palm Sunday and escorted into Jerusalem.
Paul the Apostle being escorted into Rome for his visit.

Thus Jesus is leaving the heavenly city with a delegation of angels to welcome in his Church, only to quickly return to that heavenly city. It will not be secret, and when it happens, all wars will cease. There will be no more tribulation after Christ's appearance.


The inhabitants of Heaven will express love intimately through the use of their sex organs? I have often wondered on our relationships in the New Earth, after resurrection.

Men and women will enjoy each another in a physical sense? will we still have "sexual feelings", And sexual pleasure in Heaven?

If we look at the paradise lost, it gives you some inkling what paradise restored will be like.  In paradise lost there were flesh and sex, there were trees, it was a physical place. Paradise restored will be this universe minus death, disease, decay, and destruction.
Personally, I do not see any reason why there would not be a physical dimension to a gender based spiritual relationship. God made us male and female for eternity and for some reason.

The strong implication of Matthew 22:30* -

  For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. - NKJV

Is that no they won't.

*Given the overall context of what scripture says elsewhere about sex and marriage.


Why does the Litany of Saint Joseph call him "terror of demons"? A litany for Joseph, the husband of Mary, was approved by Pope St Pius X in 1909 (*). Most of the invocations are straightforward to understand, referring to his life (eg. "husband of the Mother of God", Dei Genetrice sponse), virtues ("most faithful", fidelissime), and traditional associations/patronage ("model of artisans", exemplar opificium). There is one bit which is surprising to me -

Hope of the sick, pray for us. Patron of the dying, pray for us. Terror of demons, pray for us. Protector of the Holy Church, pray for us.
Spes aegrotantium, ora pro nobis. Patrone morientium, ora pro nobis. Terror daemonum, ora pro nobis. Protector sanctae Ecclesiae, ora pro nobis.

I was not aware that St Joseph had anything in particular to do with demons. I can see the part about the sick and dying as an extension of his general image as a protector, especially in relation to the family. Is the demon reference the same sort of thing? Or is there a specific reason - perhaps a traditional story of some kind - why Joseph is called the terror of demons?
* Urbis et orbis: adprobantur litaniae in honorem S. Joseph sponsi B. Mariae V., eisque adnectitur indulgentia. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 March 1909. In Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1(6):290-292, 1909. OCR'd version with some errors.

St. Joseph is the terror of Demons because all of demons effort is nullified if one seeks refuge to St. Joseph  and also because he is pure, and demons cannot stand against his purity.

Even though there is no official dogmatic pronunciation in this regard by the Catholic church, numerous private revelationsexample and traditions have held that St. Joseph, after his conception, was, through the future merits of Jesus cleansed from the stain of original sin. And also Catholic tradition holds that St. Joseph did not sin all thru his life.ref Satan and his cohort of fallen angels had no success in seducing Joseph. These are not dogmas however and Catholics are not obliged to believe these traditions.

Catholic Online says about why St.Joseph is the Terror of demons:

  Those who turn to Saint Joseph for his powerful intercession and good example do much to keep Satan and the other wholly corrupt devils at bay. In this sense, Joseph is the Terror of Demons because when the friends of Jesus avail themselves of his salutary influence, Saint Joseph is for them a sure protection against the oppressive wiles of the Prince of Darkness. src

One more POV in this regard:

  But evil shrinks from Joseph for He is pure. ... The demons can't "see" Joseph because he is pure. Purity makes him invisible, just as pure water is perfectly clear. Evil spirits don't know when, how, or from which direction Joseph is going to hammer them. Joseph's job, when Christ was a child and up to this very day, is to protect the Holy Family, and through our baptisms, we are part of his family. src


Besides the writings of John, what is the biblical evidence Jesus Christ is the Only-begotten Son of God? Apart from John's writings, what is the Biblical evidence that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten son of God?

John makes it clear (such as in John 1:18, 3:18), but other parts of the Bible refer to many "sons of God", in both the Old Testament and the New.

Can anyone help me understand this?

The term "only begotten" is a translation of the Greek word "monogenes".  "Mono" indicates one and "genes" indicates kind.  So, the very word itself indicates a meaning of "one of a kind".

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), the word was actually used of Isaac.  It should be noted that Isaac was not, in fact, the only son of Abraham.  He was neither the first nor the last, as Ishmael preceded him and the sons of Keturah came from Abraham's second marriage that followed the death of Sarah.  (Abraham did, indeed, "have many sons".)

Still, Isaac's "sonship" was wholly unlike all the others ("one of a kind") in that he was the son of the promise and came from a miraculous birth from a woman who was well past the age of childbearing.

As @Mike noted, followers of Jesus are called "sons and daughters of God".  However, this is quite different from the "sonship" of Jesus.  His "sonship" is wholly unlike any other, in that it is eternal.  Indeed, His birth into this world was miraculous as well.

So, Jesus is not the only "son" of God, but His "sonship" is unique, one-of-a-kind, and distinct from all others who are called sons and daughters of God.  He is literally the Monogenes--the One-of-a Kind--eternal Son of God.


Do Catholics consider saying "Jeez(e)!" to be a violation of the Second Commandment? Is saying "Jeez(e)!" (also: Geez(e), Jese, Jez, and with lower-case initial) using God's name in vain?

According to the OED, the U.S. slang interjections Jeez(e and gee (from which comes gee whiz(z, a corruption geewhillikins, itself a corruption of "Jerusalem!") are corruptions of "Jesus!"

The term "using God's name in vain" comes from the Ten Commandments, which were given to Moses in the Old Testament:

  "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (Exodus 20:7, KJV).

The New International Version renders it as follows:

  "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God" (Exodus 20:7, NIV).

For there to be an incorrect way to use God's name, there must also be a correct way. God's power is manifested where his name is used appropriately. Some of the contexts where the use of God's name is appropriate are:

Praying (Matthew 6:9, John 14:13–14).
Doing God's work (Matthew 28:19, Acts 4:30, James 5:14).
Preaching the gospel (Acts 9:27, Acts 17:3).

Taking the name of the Lord in vain is a form of blasphemy. To use God's name in vain means to use it in a way that doesn't show proper respect – to use it out of context, or in a demeaning way. Some of the definitions of "vain" are "not yielding the desired outcome" or "lacking substance or worth." Using God's name without the desire to invoke Him; not really meaning it.

Therefore, to bring it back to your question, yes, using the slang term "Jeez" is taking God's name in vain because, as you stated, it is a corrupted form of the name Jesus, which is one of the names of God.

Imagine how annoyed you'd be if people kept using your name without looking to you – yelling out your name as if to call your attention but then turning their back on you; referring to you by a nickname you didn't like; using your name as a filler word or as an insult. I'm sure God doesn't get annoyed in exactly the same way we do, but it's something to think about.


Does the Catholic Church prohibit marriage between a woman and her God-father? Each child born in a Catholic family, receives the Sacrament of Baptism at an early age, and is escorted by its Godparents at the time of its baptism. Traditionally, a godparent must normally be an appropriate person, at least sixteen years of age, a confirmed Catholic who has received the Eucharist, not under any canonical penalty, and may not be the parent of the child.

Now, there could be a situation in which a Catholic girl grows up and develops an affinity for her Godfather in spite of the age-difference of say,  twenty years. They are not related  to the extend that their union is prohibited  on the basis of proximity of blood-relationship.   Does the fact that they are Godfather and God-daughter, stand against  their receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony ? In other words, does the Catholic Church prohibit marriage between a woman and her God-father ?

Marriage between baptized and sponsor was prohibited in the Latin Church till 1983 and is prohibited in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Latin Church

The CIC 1917 (Codex iuris canonici, code of canon law) states for the Latin Chuch:

  Can. 768. Ex baptismo spiritualem cognationem contrahunt tantum cum baptizato baptizans et patrinus.

  Can. 797. Etiam ex valida confirmatione oritur inter confirmatum et patrinum cognatio spiritualis, ex qua patrinus obligatione tenetur confirmatum perpetuo sibi commendatum habendi eiusque christianam educationem curandi.

  Can. 1079. Ea tantum spiritualis cognatio matrimonium irritat, de qua in can. 768.

Translation (can. 768 from Eward N. Peters; cann. 798 and 1079 my own, more free):

  can. 768 From baptism a spiritual relationship is contracted only between the baptizing, the one baptized, and the sponsor.

  can. 798 Also from a valid confirmation comes a spiritual relationship between the confirmed et the sponsor, from wich the obligation of the sponsor stays to hold ever a good relationship to the confirmed and to take care of his christian education.

  can. 1079 The spiritual relationship [maybe better: kinship] disturbs only the marriage of the ones named in can. 768.

Can. 1079 is in the chapter about diriment impediments, so a marriage against this canon is void. I intepret it as forbidding only the marriage of baptismal sponsor and baptized, not the marriage of confirmational sponsor and confirmed, but I am not totally sure. This impidiment is seen as of "minor grade" (can. 1042 § 2 n. 4) and can be dispensed from by the Apostolic See (but no other, can. 1040).

This rules were derogated in 1983 when the CIC 1983 came into force. The new code does not know spiritual kinship.

Eastern Catholic Churches

Since 1990 the older canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches are codified into the CCEO (Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium, Code of Canons of oriental churches, English here). This code says on this topic:

  Can. 811 - § 1. Ex baptismo oritur inter patrinum et baptizatum eiusque parentes cognatio spiritualis, quae matrimonium dirimit.

  § 2. Si iteratur baptismus sub condicione, cognatio spiritualis non oritur, nisi iterum idem patrinus adhibitus est.

Translation:

  Can. 811 § 1. From baptism there arises a spiritual relationship between a sponsor and the baptized person and the parents of the same that invalidates marriage.

  § 2. If a baptism is repeated under condition, a spiritual relationship does not arise, unless the same sponsor was employed for the second ceremony.

Again from this impediment can be dispensed. This time by the local hierarch (can. 795, bishop/eparch).

Practice

I would expect the dispense in the Eastern Churches to be given without problems, if there is no wrong in the relationship. But they might look closely for hardly imbalanced or even forced relationships. But I have no empirical basis for this claims.

I know of cases in the Latin Church when some married his/her sponsor. This were cases when the two were in a relationship, but only one Christian at the beginning, the other one came to faith (through the partner), got baptized with his/her partner as the sponsor and the two got married nearly afterwards.


When were "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" in Colossians 3 first argued to refer only to the Book of Psalms? Some groups of Christians hold to exclusive psalmody, that is, they believe that the only songs that may be sung in public worship must come from the canonical Book of Psalms.  These Christians have to deal with two passages in particular that on at least a cursory reading seem to command singing more than just the Psalms: Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16.  The latter of these reads:

  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. [ESV]

In response, the common argument made by exclusive psalmodists is that this entire phrase refers only to the Book of Psalms; for example, by Brian Schwertley.

  When we examine the Septuagint, we find that the terms psalm (psalmos), hymn
  (humnos), and song (odee) used by Paul clearly refers to the Old Testament book of Psalms and not ancient or modern uninspired hymns or songs. ("Exclusive Psalmody: A Biblical Defense," 10–14; see also Michael Bushell, The Songs of Zion)

Psalms have been used exclusively or primarily in worship by some groups since the early church, so I wonder – who was the first Christian writer to make the argument that Paul, in referring to "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs," was referring only to the Book of Psalms?

The earliest I know of is in the late 1500s, where several English Puritans took this position.

John Cotton (1584-1652), New England Congregationalist theologian:

  In both which places (Eph. 5:19, Col. 3:16), as the apostle exhorteth
  us to singing, so he instructeth us what the matter of our song should
  be, to wit, Psalmes, hymnes, and spirituall Songs. Now these three be
  the very titles of the Songs of David, as they are delivered to us by
  the Holy Ghost himself: some of them are called Mizmorim, that is
  Psalmes; some Tehillim, that is Hymnes; some Shirim, that is Songs,
  spirituall Songs.  Now what reason can be given why the apostle should
  direct us in our singing to the very titles of David’s Psalms, if it
  were not his meaning that we should sing them? … The words of David
  and Asaph, as they were the words of Christ in the mouth of David and
  Asaph: so they were the words of Christ also in the mouths of the
  sonnes of Corah, or any other singers in the Temple.

George Swinnock (1627-1673), English Puritan, commenting on Colossians 3:16:

  The Holy Ghost when he commandeth that the word should keep house with
  us, doth also enjoin us to ‘teach and admonish one another in psalms,
  and hymns, and spiritual songs.’ (which are the titles of David’s
  Psalms, and the known division of them, expressly answering to the
  Hebrew words, Shurim, Telhillim, and Mizinurim, by which his Psalms
  are distinguished and entitled, as the learned observe.) ‘singing and
  making melody with grace in our hearts to the Lord,’ Col. 3:16, Eph.
  5:19, Jam. 5:13.

I have heard that Jerome speaks in the matter but I don't have an English translation of his writings, so I cannot confirm it.


Could the thorn that was given to Paul be a mortal sin? In the 2 Cor 12:7-10 we read about Paul thorn:

  And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations,
  a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me,
  to keep me from being too elated. Three times I besought the Lord
  about this, that it should leave me; but he said to me, “My grace is
  sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will
  all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ
  may rest upon me. For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with
  weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when
  I am weak, then I am strong.

Angelic Doctor commenting on mentioned paragraph says (emphasis added):

  In regard to the first it should be noted that very often a wise
  physician procures and permits a lesser disease to come over a person
  in order to cure or avoid a greater one. Thus, to cure a spasm he
  procures a fever. This the Apostle shows was done to him by the
  physician of souls, our Lord Jesus Christ. For Christ, as the supreme
  physician of souls, in order to cure greater sins, permits them to
  fall into lesser, and even mortal sins.

I am having difficulty in understanding how is it prudent to permit someone to fall into mortal sin to save him from the sin of pride and how is it possible that thorn (that was given to Paul) could be a mortal sin?

Let me present my argument why it seems that the thorn that was given to Paul could not be mortal sin or more generally why it could not be held that God allows some to fall into mortal sin so to save them from the sin of pride:

A mortal sin involves putting some created thing as the final end of one's life.
That means that the human engaged in mortal sin distorts the order of himself in relation to God (ie. the human engaged in mortal sin does not put him in a proper position with respect of God).
Every disorder of one ordered in respect to God involves the sin of pride.
Therefore allowing one to commit mortal sin does not dimmish pride but rather increase it.

Also, it seems unfitting that God allows something so ugly as a mortal sin to prevent one from being prideful.

Question: Could the thorn that was given to Paul be a mortal sin?

As a Protestant, let me offer a different interpretation: the phrase "thorn in the flesh" should not be taken in isolation - it has meaning in an Old Testament context. In Numbers 33:55 the Israelites were warned concerning the heathen Canaanites:
But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, those you allow to remain will become barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides. They will give you trouble in the land where you will live.

Secondly, Paul goes on to clarify: the "thorn" was a messenger of Satan. In other words, it was an evil spirit. Exactly how it afflicted him is not explained, though the idea that it stirred up the persecutions Paul suffered is one interpretation.


What is the difference between Protestantism and Evangelicalism? What is the difference between Protestantism and Evangelicalism? Are all Protestants also Evangelicals? Are all Evangelicals also Protestants?

Evangelicalism is a kind of Protestantism.
From wikipedia:

Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great
Britain in the 1730s and gained popularity in the United States
during the series of Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th century.
Its key commitments are:

The need for personal conversion (or being "born again")

A high regard for biblical authority

An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son
of God, Jesus Christ

Actively expressing and sharing the gospel.

Contrast this with the traditional lutheran church that does not have the concept of being "born again" (1), also believes in the Tradition (2), don't know about (3) and traditionally being a part of the power mechanisms of its countries (4).


Does Jewish tradition predate Christian tradition in any meaningful way? Many people assume that because Judaism is the super ancient religion and Christianity relatively modern, although ancient by any standards, that if someone wants to dig up some meaningful bit of Jewish history or Jewish tradition, even as it relates to Christianity, then the best source would be a Jewish scholar.

In one way at least, I know that Christians have preserved Jewish traditions in a way that the Jews were incapable of doing, because of the diaspora and the splits in their culture and heritage. Public sacrifice is an instance where the Jews have essentially lost a central part of their religion with the desecration of the temple.  I understand some have traditions that supplant the sacrifices mentioned in the Torah, but it's Christianity which preserved sacrifice as the central aspect of her liturgy.

But would modern Jewish Scholars really have any reason for knowing how to pronounce (or translate) their own language any better than modern Christian Scholars and are Rabbinical interpretations of scripture more ancient or authoritative than Christian interpretations?

Judaism predates Christianity in one overwhelmingly important way:  Jesus was a Jew, and is considered (by Christians at any rate) to be the realization of at least a couple of thousand years of Jewish prophetic promises.

In another dimension, Judaism has a long-standing ethic of accurate copying of scripture that Christianity sorely lacks.  See Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus for some solid scholarship about the variation between ancient sources of the New Testament.  On the other hand, a scroll of Isaiah from around the time of Jesus that turned up among the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls is very close to the Masoretic orthographic one you'll find in your neighborhood synagogue today.  This is not so with the typical ancient Christian copy.

The chain of teaching of the language and the scriptural traditions is also continuous, in a very similar way that we Christian clergy types claim a commission from Peter.

Why would one ask a Jewish scholar about the meaning of a Hebrew Bible text rather than a Christian scholar?  Well, they learn Hebrew when young.  They're most likely steeped in the Hebrew traditions of studying scripture.  They know the ancient and Talmudic traditions well.

Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity both had the destruction of the second temple as a very early event in their development.  They share the idea that the Holy One may be addressed from anywhere.

Is Holy Communion a sacrifice? Well, yes, it can be interpreted that way, but it's a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. It is nothing at all like the temple sacrifices.

Sometime we'll get into Rene Girard's theological anthropology which makes a good case that the Resurrection was God's definitive statement "NO!" to sacrifice.  But that's a long story.

Direct blunt answer to your question: Yes!


How to know when a particular verse of the Bible have been or will be part of the Liturgy of the Word? (Catholic) Is there a way to know (perhaps through an online database) when a particular verse of the Bible have been or will be read in Mass (if ever)? It could be under any rite (ordinary, extraordinary, Maronite, etc).

There are plenty of websites where you can check the particular readings of a given day (e.g. here and here), but the format in which these are presented are not easy for searching, or they cover a short period. But clearly, these websites are being sourced from somewhere so there information, in principle, is out there.

The ideal resource would be one where you would input a verse, and obtain in return exact dates when that verse has been read or will be read.

PS: why would this be useful? Well, say you have a blog of biblical commentary and have reflections of a particular verse. You might want to publish the text when it coincides with the particular day it is read in Mass.

Divinum Officium (GitHub repository), written in Perl, can do this. It contains data files for the Mass in several languages. Bible verses begin with a "!" (e.g., "!Num 17:8"), so you can easily search those files for verses. Divinum Officium generates a liturgical calendar, too.


Where does the idea that you cannot conceive of light until you see it come from? A friend of mine is an atheist. I told him that his disbelief is an effect of his ignorance and gave him an example.

So I told him to imagine a person, who was born and lived all his life in a dark room. This person will not have an idea of the light until he or she will see it.

He enjoyed my argument and asked me to give him the book where I got this thought experiment. I think I must have read it before, because I couldn't invent it myself. Can you help me remember where I read it?

C S Lewis, apparently in Mere Christianity, does mention the concept of not knowing the concept of dark or light:

  My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such a violent reaction against it?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never have known it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

[I don't have a copy, and Google Books doesn't help with an authoritative source, probably because Lewis's writings are still in copyright.]


What does the Bible say about vegetarian diets? Is there any verse in Bible that says something about being a vegetarian or non-vegetarian? I know God set human beings above the other creatures, but what does it say about whether we can kill them?

There are a number of verses that talk about what you should or can eat and a few of them do concern vegetarian eating. There are a number of Christian sects that even have a "health message," where they prescribe a vegetarian diet. I think the most notable one is Seventh Day Adventists, but note that the diet is a suggestion in their mind, not Biblical law.

Starting from the beginning, there is a development of what God gives mankind to eat. In the garden, God first gives the fruit of the trees and any seed bearing plant (fruits).

  Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
  Genesis 1:29-30 (NIV)

When Creation was completed, God gave Adam any fruit he wanted as his food, and to all the other creatures, He gave any green plant. In Genesis 2:16-17 God gives Adam every tree in the Garden and forbids that Adam should eat from the Tree of Knowledge, but that is a theological/obedience issue rather than a practical, dietary issue.

During God's pronouncements of punishments for eating the forbidden fruit, Adam is told that his food will be plants in Genesis 3:18. It's a bit ambiguous, but we can assume that it means all plants, like the animals were first given.

After the fall we see an interesting development. The people became farmers and kept flocks.

  Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.
  Genesis 4:2 (NIV)

It also seems to have been permitted as well, that they should keep flocks, and, we assume, eat their meat, but that may be too hasty.

After Noah and his family survive the Flood, we see God allow animal flesh eating with only two prohibitions:

  Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
  Genesis 9:3-4 (NIV)

Now God has given everything to eat, except blood and other people (that is in following verses and I left it out because you don't usually need to convince people that cannibalism is wrong).

This leaves a few questions about the previous verses. The first is did they (the righteous) actually eat meat before the Flood? We know they tended flocks, but they also sacrificed. It is possible that they only tended flocks for the sacrifice. The second question is when exactly did God give them the green plants? The earliest hint at this is after the fall in Genesis 3:18 and Genesis 4:2. God says plants will be your food, then Cain worked the soil later, which we assume means farming fruit and vegetables.

Some sects use the following verses and logic to support that vegetarian eating is better for you. Though that may be true, I think you would be hard pressed to say that the Bible commands a vegetarian diet, and I have never heard of a group that says it does, though, I do know that the SDA say it is encouraged.

There is another interesting story concerning food and vegetarian diets. Daniel 1 details a story where Daniel, a young man, was taken captive because he was intelligent, young, and handsome, and was given food from the royal table. Daniel saw this as an abomination, likely because the meat of that table included animals sacrificed to idols and might also have included blood. So Daniel asks his overlord to give him and the other servants only vegetables and water for 10 days and see if they are not healthier than the others.

  At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food.
  Daniel 1:15 (NIV)

Some groups, like the SDA, point to this as factual and Biblical evidence that a vegetarian diet is better for you. Others say that it was the power of God that made them healthier because they wanted to avoid the royal table because it was defiled, not simply because it had meat on it; the objection was against meat that either had blood in it or was sacrificed to idol or both. They then develop ideas like a "Daniel fast," where you eat only vegetables and water for 10 days in an effort to increase your faith and the also tend to quote Mark 7:18-19, stating that no food can defile you. It's a bit of a red herring because Christians with the health message would agree.

Whatever any Christian decides, there is one verse that cannot be more clear on this subject:

  So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
  1 Corinthians 10:31 (NIV)


What is the origin of the Good Friday tradition? As suggested by this question and this answer, it seems possible that Jesus actually died on a Wednesday, not on a Friday.

In light of these competing theories, what is the origin of the Good Friday tradition?

The idea that Jesus died on a Wednesday is a fabrication. It is nothing more than an attempt to force a modernistic interpretation onto Matthew 12:40. In the early church the common understanding of "three days and three nights" did not require "three full days and also three full nights".
Fourth century scholar/priest St. Jerome explains in his Commentary on Jonah:

But we ask ourselves this: how was he three days and three nights in the belly of the earth. Some scholars take the view according to paraskeuen, because of the solar eclipse from the sixth to the ninth hour when night followed day, this would be two days and nights, and adding the Sabbath, believe that we should count this as three days and three nights. But I prefer to understand this by reason of synecdoche, seeing the whole as a part: where he is dead in paraskeuen, let us count one day and one night; two with the Sabbath; the third night which arises from the day of the Lord, let us take that as the beginning of the next day, for, in Genesis the night is not of the preceding day, but of the following day, that is to say the beginning of the next day, not the end of the previous. To understand this better I will say it more simply: if a man leaves his house at nine and the next day he arrives at his other house at three. And if I say that he has been two days in travelling, I will not be reprimanded as a liar, because he has not used all the hours of two days, but only a part for his journey. Nonetheless this seems to me to be the interpretation.

Sixteenth century reformer Martin Luther agrees in a sermon on the resurrection:

The question now arises: How can we say that he rose on the third day, since he lay in the grave only one day and two nights? According to the Jewish calculation it was only a day and a half; how shall we then persist in believing there were three days? To this we reply that be was in the state of death for at least a part of all three days. For he died at about two o'clock on Friday and consequently was dead for about two hours on the first day. After that night he lay in the grave all day, which is the true Sabbath. On the third day, which we commemorate now, he rose from the dead and so remained in the state of death a part of this day, just as if we say that something occurred on Easter-day, although it happens in the evening, only a portion of the day. In this sense Paul and the Evangelists say that he rose on the third day.

Furthermore, this view ignores the testimony of the rest of the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark, in fact, describes Jesus' activities every day of the week leading up to his arrest and crucifixion.

Day 1 (Mark 10:32) "They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem..."
Day 2 (Mark 11:12) "On the following day..."
Day 3 (Mark 11:20) "The next morning as they passed by the fig tree..."
Day 4 (Mark 14:1) "Two days before the Passover..."
Day 5 (Mark 14:12) "On the first day of Unleavened Bread..."
Day 6 (Mark 15:1) "As soon as it was morning..." >>This is the day of the crucifixion
Day 7 (not mentioned) >>This is the sabbath
Day 8 (Mark 16:1) "When the sabbath was over..."

Jesus was active on each day up to and including the day of the crucifixion. Jesus fulfilled the law; he did not violate the sabbath rest except to follow a higher law such as healing the blind, so none of these six days could have been a weekly sabbath. There is simply no way to squeeze six consecutive non-sabbath days into the calendar without the final one being a Friday, so that puts Palm Sunday on a Sunday, the crucifixion on a Friday, and the resurrection on the next Sunday.
Christian Tradition, going back to New Testament times, consistently testifies that Jesus would be raised, not "after three days", but "on the third day". Here are some examples from the New Testament:

Matthew 16:21 ...and on the third day be raised.
Matthew 17:32 ...and on the third day he will be raised.
Luke 9:22 ...and on the third day be raised.
Luke 18:33 ...and on the third day he will rise again.
Acts 10:40 ...but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear
1 Corinthians 15:4 ...and that he was raised on the third day

If the gospel consisted of nothing but Matthew 12:40, we might be able to interpret the "three days and three nights" differently, but against the weight of the rest of the New Testament and the history of Christianity, it's hard to argue for a Wednesday crucifixion.


What role does the Vatican play in marriage annulments? I've heard that every annulment must go through the Vatican in some capacity. Does every annulment get reviewed by some tribunal there or is it just a rubber stamp for the tribunal of the diocese from whence it came?

My understanding has always been that this is handled by a Diocese's Marriage Tribunal.

On looking it up, it appears that when you request a Declaration of Nullity in Canada, an investigation and judgement are made by the Diocesan Marriage Tribunal, then all decisions are reviewed by a Canadian Appeal Tribunal, which issues the final Declaration (or not.)

This pamphlet (pdf) from the Toronto Archdiocese has a good explanation.


Which doctrines are based solely on the apocrypha? What Roman Catholic doctrines are based only in the 7 books canonized by the Roman church, but not accepted by Protestants. (e.g., Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, the additions to Daniel and Esther, etc...)

There's a few notions, but no doctrine, as the domain of doctrine in the Catholic Church is encompassed entirely by the New Testament insofar as it is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament.

But, here's a sampling off the top of my head:

Tobit

Archangel Rapahel in the heavenly host
Respect for burying the dead as a corporal work of mercy

Maccabees

Understanding of the efficaciousness of praying for the dead.

Judith

Maybe a little to do with Just War Theory?

Wisdom

Deeper understanding of who Christ was/is and how He would be treated

Sirach

Love of wisdom personified (may have something to do with Mary's title "Seat of Wisdom")

Concerning the state of purgatory and Maccabees, Protestants wholly reject purgatory and they do so because they say it's only in Maccabees, which they also reject. But when Jesus says in His parable about repayment to the last penny, that also informs the Catholic understanding of what purgatory is.


God is eternal and everlasting; "omni" word for this? God is omnipotent, which is all powerful, and omniscient, all knowing. He is, of course, other things too; I just gave these as examples of omni- words. Omni, in Latin, I think, means all. Is there an established omni- term for "everlasting" or "eternal"?

Eternal is a Latin word

  late 14c., from Old French eternel "eternal," or directly from Late Latin aeternalis, from Latin aeternus "of an age, lasting, enduring, permanent, everlasting, endless," contraction of aeviternus "of great age," from aevum "age" (see eon). Used since Middle English both of things or conditions without beginning or end and things with a beginning only but no end. A parallel form, Middle English eterne, is from Old French eterne (cognate with Spanish eterno), directly from Latin aeternus. Related: Eternally. The Eternal (n.) for "God" is attested from 1580s.

If you are looking for a word that says "omni" you could try to coin "omnitemporal," but eternal has better usage. Sempiternal means "always", but again, not and "omni".


Does Christianity recommend learning other languages or dealing with non-christians? In Islamic quran, we Muslims are asked to know people from other nations and following other religions, we are recommended to learn their languages.
Allah said: "O Mankind, We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes that you may know one another."
Is there any verses in the bible that tells the same? especially for laguages learning?

Most Christian denominations accept, at least in some part, the teaching of what we call The Great Commission. There are many proof verses for this, but one of the most common is this:

  Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Even apart from that, one of the central teachings of Christianity is that salvation is available to the Gentiles, as well as Jews. Paul, the author of the majority of the New Testament books, was very passionate about reaching the Gentiles. The book Acts of the Apostles chronicles the growth of the church after the Resurrection, and much of it deals with journeys abroad to bring the Gospel (good news) to all people.

In practice, much of Christianity has revolved around missionary journeys to far countries for the purpose of sharing the good news of salvation.

As for languages, in practice, many Christians have learned languages for the purpose of spreading the Gospel. However, there are no verses I am familiar with which specifically instruct people to learn other languages.

It may be of note that it was our God who created the language barrier at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). He did so because the natural man when working together only find wicked things to do.

However, our God has also given many the "gift of tongues", which allow believers to be able to speak in other languages. In the book of Acts chapter 2, God gives the believers the ability to speak so that when the people from various nations heard them, those people all heard in their own languages.

  6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

There is still a fair amount of debate among denominations on what exactly the gift of tongues is, but we know from that passage that at least God had given such a gift of languages to people.

Paul speaks highly of the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians chapter 12, but then in chapter 13, uses that as an example to say that even if he spoke very eloquently, the more valuable gift is love. Then, in chapter 14, he proceeds to explain how the gift should be used.

The point I gather from this is that God is very interested in people hearing the Gospel, and He is so interested that if people could hear no other way, he would provide the translation Himself. The main purpose is not simply to talk, but to show love, and more importantly, the good news of salvation from the death and resurrection of Christ. That is the most love we can show, and that is the motivation of so many Christians giving up their lives to not only visit other countries, but to give up their lives to live with the people to love them.

To quote Hudson Taylor, a famous missionary:

  If I had a thousand pounds China should have it—if I had a thousand lives, China should have them. No! Not China, but Christ. Can we do too much for Him? Can we do enough for such a precious Saviour?


Do non-Catholics ever have the priest visit the sick parishioners and deliver them communion? Do non-Catholics ever have the priest visit sick parishioners and deliver them communion?

I don't know, but I think it's pretty cool that Catholics have this sort of pastoral care built into their system, and I am wondering whether or not non-Catholics do a similar sort of thing where the priest/pastor/minister would visit the sick parishioners or congregants and give them communion because the sick individuals could not come to Mass but would nevertheless like to receive the Eucharist. What other denominations do this?

The Church of England does this.

It's an important part of the clergy's ministry to their little bit of the country — and they will go to anyone resident in the parish who would receive communion in the Church of England but can't (so it's not restricted to actual members of the Church of England).

Although the Church of England is the established Church in England, and each incumbent has a statutory role within his parish, it's highly likely that any Anglican minister would operate in the same way.


What is the scriptural evidence for Satan "taking hold" of Christians' minds or implanting/whispering thoughts? Just looking for some solid theology here.

There is a premise that I have seen repeated over and over in Christian circles and it typically revolves around the paradigm that Satan and demons have the supernatural ability to insert themselves into the mind of a believer, take them captive or at the very least “whisper” to them in a supernatural way new thoughts that seem like ones own.

Example:  “An idle mind is the devil’s workshop.” I assume this goes back to Proverbs 16:27, which states idle hands (physical).  And not the devil taking over or setting up shop in the mind of a believer.

Another example: “Satan has really been putting some bad thoughts in my mind lately.”

I have been researching this and have yet to find conclusive evidence based on scripture that the demonic realm has an active role in inserting thoughts into believers' brains, or the “whisper” theory.

Note: I do believe that a non believer can be possessed and thus have the mind and will controlled by demonic forces, but I have not found conclusive scriptural evidence that as a believer our minds can be infiltrated by the demonic realm.  I also want to stress that I believe in the “flesh” concept of our fallen will and sinful natures and that I can see that Satan and demons tempted others circumstantially.

2 questions:

What is the scriptural basis for saying that Satan or his demons have the ability to enter our brains and have the ability to “take hold” of our thoughts or to implant new thoughts?
I have also heard of the “Satan's whispers” model, where Satan/demons don’t supernaturally inject themselves into the brain/thought life of a believer but rather “whisper” thoughts into a believer's head. What is the scriptural basis for this?

I love Acts 5 (verse 3):

  Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your
  heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself
  some of the money you received for the land? ...

Peter clearly implies agency of Satan here, and apparently, Ananias and Sapphira, while not necessarily believers, were held in that esteem by the early church.  I would consider this an incidence of Satan directly prompting actions of believers.

This sounds to me like an instance of implanting new thoughts.  I believe this to be the most Biblical supported concept (no quotes as it's a holistic view).


What does it mean to "worship in truth"? In the early verses of this scripture, Jesus tells the woman that we wouldn't need to go to the mountains or Jerusalem to worship.

  ...God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:20-24)

The spirit part is pretty clear to me but what do we make of worshiping God in truth?

Do we focus on worship in truth as being about the right way of worship or having the right
mindset or perhaps it far
transcends the idea of correctness?

So to worship in spirit means to do so with full purpose of heart.

  (KJV) Matt 15:8-9 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9) But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

The Lord was speaking about the Pharisees here who outwardly followed all of the commandments of the law of Moses, but inwardly they were vile sinners. Later in the chapter Christ talks about how it is not what goes into us that defiles us (talking about the law of Moses restrictions on food and washing before eating) but what comes out of our hearts. So to worship in truth is to not only worship outwardly but to also worship in your spirit and heart because that is what truly defines a man's belief.


Difference between Augustinianism and Calvinism Is there a difference between Augustinianism and (Five Points) Calvinism as they relate to the doctrine of salvation?

If so, what is the difference?

Augustinianism is not nearly as specific as 5-points, Dordt Calvinism. For instance, I don't know of anyplace where Augustine specifically addresses limited atonement.

The largest difference is that Augustine held to single predestination (God chooses the elect, but does not actively reprobate anyone - he simply "passes over" them), while Calvin held to double predestination (God choose the elect to salvation, and the reprobate to damnation).

update

Here are some specific quotes of Augustine's, as they relate to some of the points of Calvinism:

Unconditional Election

On The Predestination of the Saints, ch. 11

  Therefore the election obtained what it obtained gratuitously; there
  preceded none of those things which they might first give, and it
  should be given to them again. He saved them for nothing. But to the
  rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in
  recompense.

On The Predestination of the Saints, ch. 16

  Faith, then, as well in its beginning as in its completion, is God’s
  gift; and let no one have any doubt whatever, unless he desires to
  resist the plainest sacred writings, that this gift is given to some,
  while to some it is not given. But why it is not given to all ought
  not to disturb the believer, who believes that from one all have gone
  into a condemnation, which undoubtedly is most righteous; so that even
  if none were delivered therefrom, there would be no just cause for
  finding fault with God.

Irresistable Grace

Enchuridion ch. 25

  Furthermore, who would be so impiously foolish as to say that God
  cannot turn the evil wills of men—as he willeth, when he willeth, and
  where he willeth—toward the good? But, when he acteth, he acteth
  through mercy; when he doth not act, it is through justice. For, "he
  hath mercy on whom he willeth; and whom he willeth, he hardeneth."

On The Predestination of the Saints, Ch. 13

  This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by
  the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for
  the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart.

Perseverence of the Saints

On The Predestination of the Saints, ch. 33

  For all who are teachable of God come to the Son because they have
  heard and learned from the Father through the Son, who most clearly
  says, “Every one who has heard of the Father, and has learned, cometh
  unto me.” But of such as these none perishes,
  because “of all that the Father hath given Him, He will lose
  none.” Whoever, therefore, is of these does
  not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these.

Single vs. Double Predestination
Look at the quotes under "unconditional election" above. Augustine speaks passively about the non-elect. God witholds the grace of election, but is not actively reprobating. Contrast this with Calvin on reprobation:

Institutes III.xxii.11:

  At last, he concludes that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy,
  and whom he will he hardeneth (Rom. 9:18). You see how he refers both
  to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason
  for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases
  him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his
  will.


What is the difference between Abraham's and Sarah's laugh after the LORD's promise? In the bible we can see two events,

In Genesis the LORD promised Abraham and Sarah a son, but we can see they both laughed.

case 1:

Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" -Genesis 17:17

Case 2:

Sarah laughed to herself,-Genesis 18:12
The LORD doesn't get angry'?' as Abraham fell facedown and laughed while Sarah laughed to herself.  Is the anger'?' of LORD because of Sarah's lie that She didn't laugh?

NB: '?' is used just because I'm not sure if it's real anger.

Abraham's laugh was a laugh of joy, while Sarah's laugh was a laugh of contempt.
God looks at the heart or that is to say he looks at the underlying cause.
The heart in Christianity is believed to be the place where one's loyalty, belief, dedication, and so on is lodged.
All Scripture is quoted from the King James translation.

Matthew 12:35  A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Matthew 13:15  For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Unless God understood the machinations of man's minds he would not be omniscient, and could not have known:

Genesis 15:4 through 6 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5  And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6  And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.


What is the difference between an Apostle and an Evangelist according to Charismatic Christianity? Consider the following passage from the letter to the Ephesians that lists a number of offices of ministry.

  Ephesians 4:11-14 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

It seems to me that the role of an Apostle is to establish the churches by traveling, proclaiming the Gospel as they went in order to fulfill the Great Commission. But isn't this also what an Evangelist does?

According to Charismatic traditions that teach that these offices of ministry and spiritual gifts are still distributed within the Body of Christ (i.e. that the office of Apostle was not just for the first disciples and/or NT authors), what is the difference between the office of Apostle and that of Evangelist?

From a Pentecostal perspective that believes in a restored five-fold office-gift ministry:
An apostle is a "Sent One" & and an apostle's "sentiness" manifests in the supernatural authority they bear in terms of enacting the mission that they have been entrusted with. Apostles are leaders par excellence, and are usually identified after they have pioneered the establishment of new networks of churches. They tend to be very focused on discipling and raising up effective leaders who can further multiply disciples and oversee congregations or ministries. They excel in imparting the vision they carry to others. While church planters and missionaries may be engaged in "apostolic work", they tend not to be recognized as apostles until they have successfully overseen the establishment of many individual congregations.
It could be argued that evangelists are also "sent ones" as they have received a burden from the Lord to go out and win souls at every opportunity. While apostles may also be effective soul winners, they are distinguished from evangelists by their grasp of the bigger picture - how the whole church can function effectively and grow in maturity; an evangelist on the other hand primarily concerns themself in conversion of the lost, content to leave ongoing discipleship and church governmental issues in the hands of others, although the most effective evangelists are usually actively involved in discipling, raising up and empowering more evangelists.
Examples of people regarded as modern day apostles are Chuck Smith and Phil Pringle.
Examples of people regarded as modern day (office-gift) evangelists are Billy Graham and Reinhard Bonnke
This perspective retrospectively applied to the interesting case of the two principal leaders in the (first) Methodist revival - George Whitfield, the greatest soul-winner of his generation is rightly acknowledged as an office-gift evangelist; whereas John Wesley although a very gifted soul-winner as well, possessed a superior organisational ability that marks him as the apostle of Methodism. While the two had significant theological differences (Calvinism vs Arminianism), the former acknowledged the wisdom of the latter's establishment of his "classes" (effectively small group discipleship meetings) in these terms:

Whitefield met an old friend, Mr John Pool and accosted him in the following manner:
“Well, John, art thou still a Wesleyan?”
Pool replied, “Yes, sir, and I thank God that I have the privilege of being in connection with him, and one of his preachers.”
“John,” said Whitefield, “thou art in the right place. My brother Wesley acted wisely—the souls that were awakened under his ministry he joined in class, and thus preserved the fruits of his labor. This I neglected, and my people are a rope of sand.” (source)


Are the people involved in killing Jesus innocent Are the people in the bible innocent of killing Jesus if the crucifiction was already prophisized. Would God need people to play certain roles like judas to help fulfill his prophesy. If judas was needed to help fulfill the crucifiction of Christ,wouldn't that make him a forced traitor?someone would have to play the role of a traitor. If there was no crucifiction there would be no salvation.

My take (Baptist - leaning toward free will) is that they are not innocent, and that they willingly made the choices they made.  In fact, we are all sinners in some respect, but can all be forgiven through Jesus:

[Romans 3:23 NKJV] 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
[Romans 6:23 NKJV] 23 For the wages of sin [is] death, but the gift of God [is] eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
[Romans 5:8 NKJV] 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
[Romans 10:9-10 NKJV] 9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

My understanding is that for the people involved in Jesus's crucifixion, God knew these people would choose to do the things they did, and He used it in His plan.  However, I do not believe God forced Judas to betray Jesus.  However, He did know what Judas was doing, used it in His plan:

[Matthew 26:31 NKJV] 31 Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: 'I will strike the Shepherd, And the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'
[John 13:26-27 NKJV] 26 Jesus answered, "It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped [it]." And having dipped the bread, He gave [it] to Judas Iscariot, [the son] of Simon. 27 Now after the piece of bread, Satan entered him. Then Jesus said to him, "What you do, do quickly."

Interestingly enough, Jesus even asked for forgiveness for the people who were against Him when He was on the cross!

[Luke 23:33-34 NKJV] 33 And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. 34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." And they divided His garments and cast lots.

In summary, it appears the people involved in Jesus's crucifixion were not innocent, but even they could be forgiven!


In Catholicism, in what sense is free will restored by baptism? The Second Council of Orange, Canon 13 states:

  Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

On the other hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it sound like baptism is totally unnecessary for free will (Paragraph 1705):

  By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an "outstanding manifestation of the divine image."

How are these teachings reconciled? Do the baptized have some sort of "premium grade" free will while the unbaptized have "mid-grade" free will?

The 2nd Council of Orange was assembled, as the document itself states, to address the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius.  In short, the Council was about whether original sin existed in new born or if they were born free from the stain of original sin.

If you read the first Canon you can get a better context of what the Council means by Free will.  If we are slaves to sin, we are not free.  Pelagius was teaching that a child was born in a state of innocence capable of Free will without the slavery of that sin.
Contrary to Pelagius, Augustine presented a case that a person was  “Good Enough” to exercise unredeemed free will (one bound to the sin imparted by the fall) and lay hold of the Grace provided by Christ.

  THE COUNCIL OF ORANGE (529)

  The Council of Orange was an outgrowth of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with degree to which a human being is responsible for his or her own salvation, and the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation. The Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is no such thing as a sinful nature or original sin. As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection was achievable in this life. The Council of Orange dealt with the Semi-Pelagian doctrine that the human race, though fallen and possessed of a sinful nature, is still "good" enough to able to lay hold of the grace of God through an act of unredeemed human will.
  The Canons Of The Council Of Orange

  Canon 1.

  If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:126); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

Paragraph 1705 (Provided), concerns the attributes given to a person made in the “IMAGE OF GOD” When we fell from the Garden, our first parents ate from the “Tree of GOOD and EVIL” not only the “Tree of Evil”.  Now, having an intellect and the ability to choose between Good and Evil, our redemption depends on our Free Choice.  The Baptized Christian, free from the stain of original sin, is totally free in his will, free from the Guilt and punishment of previous sins able to choose and through the Sacraments of the Church, maintain the family relationship they entered into.

In Apostolic tradition it is indeed a better free will after Baptism, it is a free will where even the damage caused by sin to a person’s soul has been removed, along with the guilt of any past sins.  They are truely Free, Not Slaves to Sin, but Slaves to God, and by living an obedience to that faith, perserveres to sactifiction and Glory.


What are Christians called who believe in a non-intervening God? Which branch(es) of Christianity takes the stance that there is a God who creates all things but once the creation is here on this earth, does not intervene?

I heard an argument between coworkers that the Christian founding fathers of the United States had similar beliefs but not sure as there is a lot of debate there.

Also heard this position in the scientific community and am wondering if there are Christian denominations that hold this view and how popular it really is ?

The idea of a God that set things in motion but does not, and has not intervened since is a concept central to Deism.

The view has a long history, and has had a few supporters, but is not by any means the predominant view within Christianity.  Deists also reject the notion of divine revelation, including Scripture.  It's not necessarily a Christian concept, but there are people who might self-define as Deists and also as Christians.  They would, however, be more likely to have more in common with "Christian Atheists" than with mainstream Christians.  Rather than seeing Christ as the Son of God, or as God Incarnate, they'd see him as a good moral teacher.

There are a few sites on Christian Deism in the 'net including this one,


What is the controversy/issue surrounding Jerusalem as Israel's capital? I was reading this article where representatives at the 2012 Democratic National Convention booed in disagreement over a platform position regarding Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

I'm not interested in a political debate in asking this question; rather I am interested in what is the thought process behind the position that would contest Jerusalem as Israel's capital?

This issue isn't really anything to do with Christianity, although it's an issue which Christians sometimes take sides on.

When the State of Israel was created in 1947-48 Jerusalem was given a special status, not a part of Israel proper:  "The City of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations." The Israeli capital was established as Tel Aviv

Israel took effective control of West Jerusalem in 1948 and the rest of it in 1967, and has retained it ever since, declaring it to be their capital. Many nations, including until now the US, retain their diplomatic missions in Tel Aviv and consider it to be the capital, avoiding the implied recognition of the legitimacy of Israel's control over Jerusalem.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem


Are Catholics allowed to drink coconut water during the hour before they take communion? I know they are not allowed to consume anything but water and medicine during the hour before they take communion.

  In addition to the fasts mentioned above, Roman Catholics must also observe the Eucharistic Fast, which involves taking nothing but water and medicines into the body for some time before receiving the Eucharist. - Eucharistic Fast (Wikipedia)

But my question is: Is coconut water considered water? Or does it have to be pure Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Have you heard of any catechism lesson FORBIDDING ...

I think your whole question is based on some massive misconception:

As I already wrote in a comment, your question seems to based on the assumption that religion exercise can be done by observing a set of unambiguous rules.

I have often read questions similar to yours in some internet forums where Muslims were discussing. In that religion many faithful seem to have the belief that God wants them to follow a set of unambiguous rules.

In Christian religion (this does not only apply to the Catholics) this is however not the case:

You don't do something because there is some stupid rule somewhere in the canon law or in the catechism. You do something because you love God and you are convinced that God wants you to do something.

So you are convinced that God wants you not to drink anything but water in the hour before the communion?

I think in this case everyone knows that "jelly beans" are not beans, "guinea pigs" are not pigs, ... and "coconut water" is not water.

Why should the catechism explicitly write that? Everyone knows.
You believe the same as the people mentioned in my comment (breakfast before the mass)?

In this case you will deliberately violate Can. 919 CIC because you believe that this rule is not wanted by God.

Why should the church release any kind of text (catechism, CIC rule, ...) intended for that people? They will claim that the text is wrong anyway.

So in none of the two cases a clarification saying that coconut water is something different than water would make any sense.

Why should this clarification be written by anyone?

Because of this reason I doubt that you will find any written text that clarifies that coconut water is not water.


How do soul sleep adherents explain Lk 23:43? Luke 23:43 says:

  And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Jesus told the thief on the cross beside him that he'll be in paradise with Jesus that day. Being in paradise amounts to some kind of conscious experience. And as per soul-sleep doctrine, there is no conscious experience after death until resurrection.

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the soul dies when the body dies.
The condition of the dead is like sleep.
Without a resurrection there would be no hope for a soul to live again.
That may be enough to qualify us as soul sleepers. At any rate we do have an explanation for why Luke 23:43 is not in conflict with our view on what happened to the repentant evildoer upon his death.
The Insight on the Scriptures book
Vol 2 on the subject of Paradise talks about this very topic

Luke’s account shows that an evildoer, being executed alongside Jesus Christ, spoke words in Jesus’ defense and requested that Jesus remember him when he ‘got into his kingdom.’ Jesus’ reply was: “Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” (Lu 23:39-43) The punctuation shown in the rendering of these words must, of course, depend on the translator’s understanding of the sense of Jesus’ words, since no punctuation was used in the original Greek text. Punctuation in the modern style did not become common until about the ninth century C.E. Whereas many translations place a comma before the word “today” and thereby give the impression that the evildoer entered Paradise that same day, there is nothing in the rest of the Scriptures to support this. Jesus himself was dead and in the tomb until the third day and was then resurrected as “the firstfruits” of the resurrection. (Ac 10:40; 1Co 15:20; Col 1:18) He ascended to heaven 40 days later.—Joh 20:17; Ac 1:1-3, 9.
The evidence is, therefore, that Jesus’ use of the word “today” was not to give the time of the evildoer’s being in Paradise but, rather, to call attention to the time in which the promise was being made and during which the evildoer had shown a measure of faith in Jesus. It was a day when Jesus had been rejected and condemned by the highest-ranking religious leaders of his own people and was thereafter sentenced to die by Roman authority. He had become an object of scorn and ridicule. So the wrongdoer alongside him had shown a notable quality and commendable heart attitude in not going along with the crowd but, rather, speaking out in Jesus’ behalf and expressing belief in his coming Kingship. Recognizing that the emphasis is correctly placed on the time of the promise’s being made rather than on the time of its fulfillment, other translations, such as those in English by Rotherham and Lamsa, those in German by Reinhardt and W. Michaelis, as well as the Curetonian Syriac of the fifth century C.E., rendered the text in a form similar to the reading of the New World Translation, quoted herein.

So our belief is that the evil doer did not go to heaven on the day he died but his soul died. His hopes for living again rested on God’s power and promise to resurrect humans back to the living. Jesus’ promise was to resurrect him to life in paradise at some future date. The same unknown date spoken of in Acts 24:15 .


Is there a name for someone who believes in Jesus as God and Savior, yet follows no sect? Do not know if I worded that right.  But was wondering what you call someone who does not believe in organized religion at all.  They may go to church but never as a member or follower of any particular group.

I believe the word you are looking for is 'nondenominational', as in 'nondenominational Christian'. It refers to people who don't adhere to any of the subdivisions of Christianity, such as Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed etc.

The answer is made slightly confusing because there are now churches that refer to themselves as 'nondenominational', since they do not adhere to any of the larger groupings. However some of those churches are now grouping together, thus effectively creating a 'nondenominational' denomination. But in principle 'nondenominational' is a good description.


If we had to make distinction, which is greater, faith or hope? [Catholic Perspective] I assume the existence of God a priori.

I am looking for an answer from a Catholic perspective.

According to the well respected Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas faith is greater than hope in a number of ways:

Faith makes God present to the intellect; hope makes God present to the will.  Since the inclination of the will follows upon the apprehension of the intellect, faith precedes hope (ST IIae IIae, Q 4, A 7).
Faith makes hope possible (ST IIae IIae, Q 17, A 7).
Given Thomas' argumentation in ST IIae IIae, Q 17, A 8 it is possible to infer that faith precedes hope in the order of perfection (given the fact that he does not make the same two-fold distinction in article 7 that he does in article 8).

Hopefully this is helpful to you.  The question is difficult because faith and hope are closely connected and both are important.


According to the Gospel of John, on which day of the week was Jesus crucified? John 19:14-16:

  "Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover; it was about the
  sixth hour. And he said to the Jews, “Behold, your King!” So they
  cried out, “Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate *said
  to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We
  have no king but Caesar.”

  So he then handed Him over to them to be crucified."

Which day of the week was the 'day of preparation for the Passover'?

A good answer will give a day of the week, or explain why it is not possible to give one.

There are some difficulties with the chronology of Christ's trial and crucifixion, so I definitely cannot give you a specific day of the week and say it's certain. John 19:14 (EMTV) says, "Now it was the Preparation [Day] of the Passover ...". The other gospels do not state what day it was before the crucifixion, but all four gospels do mention it later, when Jesus' body is removed from the cross.

John 19:31 says  "it was the preparation [day]" and "that Sabbath was a high day", presumably meaning it was the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Mark 15:42 and Luke 23:54 both mention the preparation day. Matt 27:62 uses the rather odd expression, "the next day, which is after the Preparation [Day]" to refer to the feast day itself.

It is clear that Jesus was crucified the day before the feast of Unleavened bread. Traditionally it has been believed that it was Friday, since Saturday is always a Sabbath. The gospels are consistent with this, assuming John was pointing out that the next day was not only a Sabbath, but also the day of the Feast, which is kept as a Sabbath regardless of the day it falls on.

The gospels are also consistent with the Feast falling on a different day of the week, since it would still be appropiate to call the day before a "preparation day". Some Christians have proposed either Wednesday or Thursday as the day of crucifixion, but the gospels do not explicitly tell us what day it was.

Apparently the Jews in the first century thought of the three spring feasts as parts of a single celebration, which it sort of is (Passover, killing of the lamb in the afternoon; Unleavened bread, begun with eating the Passover lamb right after sundown; and Firstfruits on the Sunday within the week.

Argument for Friday only

Since I originally wrote this, I found a book by Samuele Bacchiocchi, "The Time of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection". This online chapter claims the Greek word for "preparation" always meant Friday, and would not have been used for a Special Sabbath on another day. If Greek language studies support his viewpoint, then the traditional Friday date becomes more probable. I am not qualified to evalute this.

My original conclusion

The traditional idea of a Friday crucifixion assumes that the Sabbath they were preparing for was the weekly Sabbath, and presumably also the first day of the Unleavened Bread feast. While that is possible, it is also true that the first day of the Unleavened Bread is always a Sabbath, regardless of which day it falls on. The passage you quote from John's gospel is therefore consistent with the named Sabbath being any day of the week.

Presumably Christ was crucified on Nissan 14, the day originally specified as God's Passover day, the day the Passover lamb was to be killed. The Feast of Unleavened bread began right after sundown, which would be the beginning of Nissan 15.

Theoretically, Nissan 14 could have fallen on any day of the week. There is a historical tradition that it was Friday, and that should not be ignored. If Nissan 14 fell on Thursday, then the 15th would be the special Sabbath and the 16th would have been the regular weekly Sabbath. In this case, we would expect the women to wait two days before returning to the tomb. If the 14th were earlier in the week, it is not clear why the women wouldn't have returned to the tomb on the 16th.