Who is the prophet Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15? Who is the prophet Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:15 ?
I was thinking Moses was talking about Jesus, but Jesus is not considered a prophet is he ?

Deuteronomy 18:14-16 (NIV)
14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”

There are three key positions in ancient Israel, that of Prophet, Priest, and King.  A prophet would hear from God and speak to the people.  A priest would hear from the people and intercede for them to God.  A king would, of course, rule.
Jesus fulfills all of these positions.  He spoke of His own death and even of future events, like when He spoke of the destruction of Jerusalem (see Mark 13:2) and of end times.
He was most certainly a priest, though not of the Levitical (and especially not the Aaronic) priesthood, but the Melchizedek priesthood. (see, e.g., Hebrews 7)
He also is the King of Kings (Revelation 19:16), and heir to David's throne (2 Samuel 7:12-16, Mark 10:47, et. al.)
So, yes, this is speaking of Jesus.
To be more precise about how exactly Jesus was a prophet like Moses, note the following similarities from this article:

1 Both Moses and Jesus were born when Israel was under bondage (Moses in Egypt Ex.1:8,10, and Jesus during Israel's Roman bondage. Mt.2:1,Lk.2:1-2)
2 Edicts were issued by the gentile powers of both Pharaoh and Herod for their death at birth. (Ex.2:3, Mt.2:15)
3 Both were miraculously delivered from death during their infancy from their enemies of Israel (Ex.2:3, Lk.2:7;Mt 2:14,15)  and were preserved in childhood.
4 Both had been born and found in unusual places. Moses was found in the water floating in a basket of bulrushes (Ex.2:3) Jesus in a manger (cave) wrapped in burial cloths (Lk.2:7)
5 Both Moses and Jesus were protected and preserved by the faith of their parent. Moses was hidden by faith (Ex.2:2-3 and Heb.11:23) Jesus’ life was preserved by his parents obeying the message in a dream. (Mt.2:13-14)
6 Both Moses and Jesus stayed safely in Egypt for a time. Moses (Ex.2:10) Jesus dwelt safely in Egypt (Mt.2:14-15)
7 Both had their brethren and family speak against them. Moses had Mariam and Aaron speak against him taking a Cushite wife (Numb.12:1) Jesus had his family criticize and reject him (Mt.13:54-57, Jn.7:3)
8 Both Moses and Jesus were reared in the house that was not their natural parents. (Moses in the house of Pharaoh (Ex.2:10) Jesus by Mary the mother of his humanity and his stepfather Joseph.
9 Both predicted Israel's history (Deut.28:15-28; Mt.23:34,24:1,2,8,34)
10 Both spoke out against Israel's enemies and persecutors. (Deut.23:3-4; Mt.25:41-48)
11 Both were considered a snare to Israel (Ex10:7; 1Pt.2:8=Isa.8:14)
12 Both cleansed leprosy. From Moses’ time no one that was Jewish was cleansed until Jesus came (Numb.12:10-16, Mk.1:40-41). This is a very significant factor that proves Jesus was the prophet Moses spoke of, since no other cured one of the brethren of this disease from Moses' time.
13 Both were used of God to feed Israel miraculously, Moses with manna in the wilderness (Ex.16:14-17) Jesus with the five loaves and two fish fed four and five thousand two times. (Mt.14:19-21) Jesus also called himself the true manna that came from heaven in Jn.6, comparing himself to the miracle that sustained Israel alive through the desert.
14 Both had the forces of nature obey them (the seas) Moses (Ex.14:21-22) Jesus (Mt.8:26-27)
15 Each had seventy helpers Moses (Num.11:16-17) Jesus ( Lk.10:1).
16 Both fasted 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness to bring a covenant to Israel. Moses on the top of Mt. Sinai (Ex.24:18, 34:28, Deut.9:9) Jesus in the desert as the Son of God (Mt.4:2)
17 Both had a face to face relationship with God unlike any other person. Moses (Ex.33:9-11, Deut.34:10; Numb.12:7-8) Jesus was with God=face to face from eternity (Jn.1:1,18)
18 God spoke audibly and directly from heaven to both Moses and Jesus. Moses (Ex.20:22, 24:12-16) Jesus (Mt.3:17; Jn.12:28)
19 Both were God's spokesman to and for the people. Moses (Ex.9:35; Numb.12:2) Jesus (Heb.1:1-3). They Spoke as oracles of God (Moses Deut. 18:18) Jesus (Jn.14:24, 5:24)
20 Both Moses and Jesus reflected and shown the glory of God. Moses reflected his glory temporarily. (Ex.34:29-35; 2 Cor.3:7-14) Jesus at the transfiguration, his face shown brighter than the sun revealing his true nature (Mt.17:2; Jn.1:14)
21 Both were known for their humility and meekness as God's servants. Moses (Numb.12:3) Jesus (Mt.11:29; Phil.2:3-8)
22 Both contended with masters of deception and darkness Moses with Pharaohs magicians (Ex 7:11, 1 Tim.3:8) Jesus with the Devil (Mt 4:1).
23 Both prayed for the people intercessory prayers and were willing to bear the consequences of the people's sins. Moses asked to be blotted out of the book of life for the peoples sake (Ex.32:32-33).  Jesus asked for them to be kept from falling away (Jn. 17:9-17). Jesus asked for those to be forgiven while he bore the consequences in their stead. (Lk.23:34, 2 Cor.5:19, 1 Pt.2:21-24, Isa.53:8)
24 Both Moses and Jesus were rejected by their own brethren for a time and accepted by the gentiles. Moses (Ex.2:14-22, 32:1) Jesus was rejected by his own people and received by another who were not his own. (Isa.53:3; Mt.12:21; Mk.6:4; Lk.20:9-17, Rom.11:20)
25 Both Moses and Jesus established a priesthood. Moses began the Aaronic priesthood which was temporary under the law (Lev.9; Numb.8:20-26; Heb.9:19-22). Jesus established a eternal priesthood under the new covenant of grace which He alone functions as the high priest forever. (Heb.7:17,19,23,25-28; 9:12)
26 Both sprinkled the blood of the covenant on the altar and the people. Moses (Ex.24:7-8; Lev.8:19) Jesus (Heb.9,12:24; 1Pt.1:2)
27 Both were sent by God to reveal His name, person and law to the people. To Moses God said to tell them I Am sent you. (Ex.3:13-14) Jesus said God sent him as his exact representative revealing his name (I Am) and nature to the people. (Jn.8:42; 17:6,11-12; Col.2:9; Heb.1:3)
28 Both were involved in giving the covenant to the people Jn.1:17 the law came through Moses but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” At the feast of Pentecost Moses gave the law. At the feast (Pentecost) in the new covenant Jesus gave the Holy Spirit (Acts 2).
29 Both brought deliverance to the Jewish people. Those who followed Moses out of the bondage of slavery to Egypt. (Ex.3:7-8,10;12:31-33,42) Jesus brought people out of a greater bondage, slavery to sin. (Rom.3:24-25,6:6-7,8:2-4; Eph.1:7;Heb.9:26)
30 Both had an angel guard their graves. After Moses died Michael the Arch-angel guarded his body. (Jude 9) And when Jesus rose an angel guarded his tomb. (Mt.26:2-6)
31 Both re-appeared after they died, Moses ( Mt 17:3 with Jesus before his death) Jesus (Acts 1:3)


When, in recent Church history, do we see results from 'ministering to the Lord'? This is a question for Trinitarian Protestants regarding devotion to the Lord prior to evangelical activities.
After the persecution at the time of Stephen's martyrdom, Luke relates the gathering of those who were first called 'Christians' at Antioch and records Barnabus going to Tarsus to find Paul and tells us of the year that they spent there, teaching. Then we learn of the activity of certain :

As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. [Acts 13:2 KJV]

Only after a time of such ministration did the Holy Spirit move among that congregation to send out Barnabus and Paul, and subsequently Paul on further journeys, to carry the Gospel throughout the Mediterranean region.
Is there a time in recent Church History when we see such a period of 'ministering to the Lord' resulting in such an initiative ?

I have heard, anecdotally, of such times during the Primitive Brethren movement, during the early 1800s, when prayer meetings were held as Christians gathered out of dead congregations to 'minister to the Lord'. But I have not seen the record of this in print.
And I have heard, again anecdotally, of times of 'revival' in Wales, early in the 1900s, when similar experiences led to 'times of refreshing'.
Can anyone point me in the direction of such narratives reliably documented ?

I found an interesting comment in my NIV Study Bible with regard to Acts 13:2 which says that the prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch were worshipping the Lord and fasting prior to being led by the Holy Spirit.  The NIV notes that the missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas “did not result from a planning session but from the Spirit’s instruction”.
With regard to the Welsh Revival, the following extracts (which come from a seemingly reliable document) suggest that after prolonged study, worship and prayer, Evan Roberts was led by the Holy Spirit to evangelise to the people in his native land.  No mention is made of fasting, however.
The article begins by acknowledging that revival is a work of the Holy Spirit, not a work of man, something that God does to a believer in Jesus Christ.  Revival starts when God does a work in people to bring glory to God by growing his church through saving unbelievers.  Mention is made, in passing, of the Methodist revival in England which started when George Whitfield, John Wesley and others began preaching in the late 1730’s.  Here is a partial quote about the young Evan Roberts and how he was influenced:

Having been convinced of the call to preach, he set about preparing himself for ministry by reading spiritual books and seeking to be baptised with the Holy Spirit. This baptism happened in the spring of 1904, an experience that brought him into close communion with God. “I was taken up into divine fellowship for about four hours” [Evans, p.66]. This continued nightly for three months. He was a revived Christian.

In September Roberts went away to ministry school at Newcastle Emlyn in Carmarthenshire. He was still putting aside at least half an hour every day for communion with God; the spiritual result of his “baptism” continuing in him. He very quickly realised that a revival was taking place nearby in Cardiganshire, and that many young people had received spiritual experiences similar to his own. However, they also had a passion to share the experience with others. This had a powerful effect on him: “We have come into contact with the young men and women of New Quay and the fire has taken hold of us.” [Evans, p.73]

Influenced by these revived Christians, Roberts again experienced the baptism of the Spirit, especially receiving the assurance of sins forgiven. He now came to believe that he and the others in this Cardiganshire revival were to take this message to the whole of Wales, and, following some visions, was convinced that God had promised 100,000 converts as a result. He was now an “enthusiast”, on fire and in the position to influence others.

The article goes on to describe the start of the revival in West Wales in 1903.  Two Cardiganshire Calvinistic Methodist ministers, Joseph Jenkins and John Thickens became burdened for the spiritual life of their churches.  Who influenced them?

At that time in Wales the teaching of the Keswick convention was beginning to have an influence due to a number of ministers sensing the lack of power in their ministry. Jenkins and Thickens came under the influence of such men, notably RB Jones and WW Lewis. Both Jones and Lewis were used as enthusiasts in the Welsh revival quite apart from Evan Roberts. It took more than one initial enthusiast to spread the revival! In turn the “Keswick” ministers, who became enthusiasts, were influenced by a Welsh minister, WS Jones, who received the baptism with the Spirit, while serving a congregation in Scranton Pennsylvania. He brought the fire back when he returned to minister in Carmarthen late in the 1890’s.

WS Jones received this baptism at the hands of people influenced by DL Moody. Likewise the British minister FB Meyer, also influenced by Moody, was active in urging people to seek the deeper life, and he was instrumental in the work of Keswick. Thus the Welsh revival can trace its line back to the work of Moody. Indeed no beginning can be found as each person was made an enthusiast through another enthusiast. Despite all these lines of influence, it will be shown that what took place after 31st October 1904 was on a completely different scale from the events in Cardiganshire described here. The effectiveness of the enthusiasts increased dramatically. As such this date is the best starting date for the national revival that has become so well known throughout the world.
Source: How Did The Welsh Revival of 1904-5 Start? John Hayward.  https://www.churchmodel.org.uk/Back04.pdf

Another source of information I found starts with a message from Evan Roberts who declares that the power behind the revival in South Wales was not of men, but entirely of God who “has been close to us and has shown us the way.”

I have been asked concerning my methods. I have none. I never prepare the words I shall speak.  I leave all that to Him.  I am not the source of this revival.  I am only one agent in what is growing to be a multitude.  I am not moving men’s hearts and changing men’s lives; not I, but “God worketh in me.”  I have found what is, in my belief, the highest kind of Christianity.  I desire to give my life, which is all I have to give, to helping others to find it also.  Many have already found it, thank God, and many more are finding it through them.

This is my work as He has pointed it out to me.  His Spirit came to me one night, when upon my knees I asked Him for guidance, and five months later I was baptised with the Spirit.  He has led me as He will lead all those who, conscious of their human weakness, lean upon Him as children upon a father.  I know that the work which has been done through me is not due to any human ability that I possess.  It is His work and to His Glory.

There follows ‘The Story of the Welsh Revival’ by Arthur Goodrich, but because it is copyright protected all I can do is leave you the link for you to read.  http://www.revival-library.org/index.php/catalogues-menu/1904/the-story-of-the-welsh-revival
Another article ‘The Legacy of the Welsh Revival 1904-1905by Patrick Slattery’ contains this interesting quote:

David Lloyd George in one of his speeches before 1904 said: 'The material conditions of this country will not improve until there comes a spiritual awakening, and I charge you ministers with the responsibility of promoting and fostering such a revival'.

The article concludes thus:

Perhaps one of the most important lessons we need to learn from the 1904 Revival is that, good as we are at arranging new strategies and structures for our churches, we cannot arrange a revival. We can and should be prepared for it, and when God sees the time is right we must respond by ensuring that it reaches out into society and is not confined to church buildings.  Source: https://www.methodistevangelicals.org.uk/Articles/523541/The_Legacy_of.aspx


What are the best ways to refute the position that Paul started Christianity? It is a position that many Christian scholars and thinkers have espoused over the years. I think that this link would provide a good exposition of the position I am referring to.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

Basically it says that Luke's writing isn't completely trustworthy and that Paul's epistles show much innovation from Jesus' teaching. The Jerusalem Church started by Jesus, led by Peter and James, believed in salvation through following the Law, as taught by Jesus in for example in Matthew 5:17-20 and Matthew 19:16-21 . Jesus never taught that the Law would be nailed to the cross, even when speaking in the Gospels about the Son of Man being given over to be crucified and rise on the third day.

Paul's background was in a limited Greek version of Judaism, and he bases all his scriptural quotes on the Septuagint. Since he never met Jesus in real life, and did not study with his disciples, Paul relied on his own visions and went on missions to Asia to convert various people to his cause. His encounters with the Jerusalem Church (from which Nazarenes / Ebionites came) are described briefly in his own epistles but also in Acts. Reading Acts 21 one sees that the Jerusalem Church that Jesus set up told Paul to dispel rumors he was teaching Jews not to follow the Law, and he acquiesced. In addition they sent a letter to all Gentile believers (Acts 15) apparently telling them to follow the Noahide laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah).

I am not sure how the standard arguments for Christianity address this possibility. After all, proving that the resurrection occurred does not at all prove that Paul's claims about personal revelation and authority accurate. Mohammad makes similar claims of personal revelation. One might say that Paul is the real deal because Acts says so, but Acts was written by Luke, his student. Luke accurately describing the names of places etc. doesn't mean that his claims about Paul's miracles are actually true. In short if you look at it as a graph, it seems that Paul and Luke are completely disconnected from Jesus and his followers in authority. Except in one place, 2 Peter 3:16, where in a passage that sounds a little suspicious, Paul is endorsed and his opponents are attacked. I thought that would be strong evidence, but looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter, it seems that there was always difficulty accepting this epistle and today the "vast majority of scholars consider it pseudoepigraphical."

So that kind of removes the last argument I know for the authority of Paul. Meaning, maybe Paul was the real deal and maybe not, but I don't know how to argue against the position in the link. It seems that Paul might be like Mohammad or Joseph Smith, and I don't understand the reasons for taking his writings or Luke's writings on faith, especially since his conception of Christianity contains many concepts Jesus did not teach.

What are the best ways to refute the position that Paul started Christianity?

If you read the book of Acts, you get the impression that the beginning talks about the Apostles and what is happening in Jerusalem and ends with the focus on Paul and what is happening outside of Jerusalem. Many people see in this a hijack of Christianity, a diversion of Christianity, and even a repackaging of Christianity to a new market by Paul.

Jesus told his disciples that he was giving them the new covenant.

  Mark 14:24  and he said to them, `This is my blood of the new
  covenant, which for many is being poured out;

Jesus told his disciples that they would be bringing the good news (gospel) of the Kingdom to the whole world.

  Mark 16:15-18  And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and
  preach the gospel to every creature.   He that believeth and is
  baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they
  cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;   They shall take
  up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt
  them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

The original plan was for Israel to receive her King and spread the gospel over the whole earth. However unlike the first covenant when the entire nation of Israel accepted the covenant, this covenant was not received by the nation.

Paul writes that one of the reasons salvation had come to the gentiles was to provoke the Jews to jealousy.

  Romans 11:11  I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall?
  God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the
  Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

One can also see that Paul was not instructed like the other Apostles. He himself calls himself the Apostle to the gentiles.

  1 Timothy 2:7  Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I
  speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in
  faith and verity.

Paul did perform an occasional baptism (cited in the commission of Jesus to his disciples), but it was not part of what he was called to do.

  1 Corinthians 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach
  the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should
  be made of none effect.

Paul had every hope and expectation that his ministry would be short lived and that the Kingdom would come to Israel. We can see his expectation in his use of the word "we".

  1 Thessalonians 4:17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be
  caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the
  air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

I think we can take from the words of Jesus in what is called the great commission that his kingdom was always intended to be worldwide.

Paul was called to go to the gentiles. The failure of Israel to receive the kingdom for the last 2,000 years makes the ministry of Paul seem larger. As a result, many make claims about Paul's work and motivation that are difficult to substantiate.

The book of Revelation describes a future where a faithful remnant of Israel will receive her King and the prophecies for Israel will be fulfilled.


What is the Mormon doctrine regarding becoming a god? Per the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, it seems that God was once a man.

Following this out just one step further leads me to the idea that it may be possible for other men to be come a god.

What is the Mormon doctrine regarding becoming a god?  (Or is my initial understanding wrong?)

The core idea behind this doctrine (usually referred to as "Exaltation") is that the LDS church teaches that our spirits are literal children of God.  Offspring are the same species as the parent, and can thus grow and develop to become like the parent.  The idea of God once being a man, or man becoming a god, are extensions of this doctrine.  This is often summarized (as @Narian quotes) via the quip "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."
However, there are requirements that must be met before this can happen.  They are:

having faith in Jesus Christ
repenting of your sins
being baptized by those holding His authority
receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost
(for men) receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood
being "sealed" to your spouse
adhering faithfully to the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the rest of your life (which includes paying tithing, etc)

If all those requirements are met, then the LDS church teaches that such people will inherit the highest degree of glory God can offer.  The Doctrine and Covenants (part of the LDS canon) describe this inheritance:
D&C 132:19-20:

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

(updated)
There are places where this doctrine is alluded to in the Bible.  For example:
Rev 3:21 KJV

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Here, Jesus Christ is saying that those who overcome the tribulations of the world will be seated with Him on His throne, just as He received that same blessing from the Father.  A throne here can be symbolic of kingship, government, godhood, power, etc.
Rom 8:16-17 KJV

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

As children of God, we have the potential to inherit everything that Jesus Christ inherited, namely godhood.

The idea of polygamy in Heaven was mentioned in another answer.  This is not official doctrine.  I'm not aware of anywhere it's taught in the LDS "Standard Works" (OT, NT, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price).  I do know that early church leaders (Joseph Smith? Brigham Young? perhaps others) may have taught this, but it is no longer taught and is no longer considered official doctrine (to my knowledge).  The primary answer given to questions like that is "we'll find out when we get there."


Nehemiah 9:2 were there foreigners in Israel at that time? Nehemiah 9:2 NIV reads: “Those of Israelite descent had separated themselves from all foreigners.”

Were there other people in Israel that didn’t have Israel descent at the time? And did they build the wall as well? Did they worship the same God?

Q. Were there other people in Israel that didn’t have Israel descent at the time?

Yes. While there were always foreigners  in Israel, the foreigners at this point of time included those whom Shalmaneser, the king of Assyria, settled in Israel.

Quoting from NASB,

  2 Kings 17:24 The king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and from Cuthah and from Avva and from Hamath and Sephar-vaim, and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the sons of Israel. So they possessed Samaria and lived in its cities.

  Q. And did they build the wall as well?

No. Nehemiah made it clear that foreigners (among whom were Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the Ammonite official, and Geshem the Arab) would not have any part in it.

Quoting from NASB,

  Nehemiah 2:20 So I answered them and said to them, "The God of heaven will give us success; therefore we His servants will arise and build, but you have no portion, right or memorial in Jerusalem."

  Q. Did they worship the same God?

They did not worship the God of Israel. They continued their earlier practices of worship. See 2 Kings 17:30-32.   They did seem to fear the LORD, the God of Israel.
But they continued to serve their own gods.

Quoting from NASB,

  2 Kings 17:33 They feared the LORD and served their own gods according to the custom of the nations from among whom they had been carried away into exile.


Can Patron Saints be "dethroned"? For instance lets say there's a patron saint of infants, but that a recently canonized saint is clearly superior to the previous one when it comes to infants.

Is it not then warrented to make the previous saint step down to leave the place of patron saint to someone who is holier?

Catholics, Orthodox, some Anglicans and some Lutherans believe in patron saints. But considering that Catholicism has the most well defined grasp this doctrine I would prefer an answer which agrees with Catholic theology.

Patron saints are not, in general, centrally designated by the Vatican. (St Thomas More is a notable exception. He was declared patron saint of statesmen and politicians by the motu proprio E Sancti Thomae Mori, issued by Pope St John Paul II in 2000.)

The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on patron saints discusses only patron saints of churches and locations. Nevertheless, what it says of these patron saints is true in general:

  A patron is one who has been assigned by a venerable tradition, or chosen by election, as a special intercessor with God.

In other words, a saint is  considered by the Church to be a patron saint of a particular cause, group of people, or situation simply because a sizable group of people, either in a single locality or more broadly through the Church, has decided to invoke their help for that purpose, and has done so for a long time. It's a very "organic" sort of process.

In the kind of situation you propose, what might happen is that a small group of people would venerate the second saint as the patron saint of infants, either along with or in place of the first. As the number of people invoking this saint's help grew, both saints might separately be considered the patron saint of infants. It isn't at all unusual to have multiple saints as patrons; for example, both St Valentine and St Dymphna are patron saints of people with epilepsy.

(There doesn't appear, by the way, to be a patron saint of infants, but there are three patron saints of children: St Nicholas of Myra, St Raymond Nonnatus, and St Nicholas of Tolentino.)

Finally, it's not necessarily the case, as you seem to imply, that saints who are invoked more often and produce many miracles are by that fact known to be "holier" in some sense. All saints are glad to intercede for us before God, Who chooses His responses at His Will. Even if a miracle, or the desired result, does not come about, God hears and responds. It is God, not the saint, who is responsible for any result, and it is God's decision, not the saint's holiness, that determines the response.


Does the divine name YHWH (יַהְוֶה) apply equally to all Persons of the Trinity? (Catholic/Nicene perspective) According to the Catholic Church (and other Nicene Churches), does the divine name YHWH (יַהְוֶה) apply equally to all Persons of the Sacred Trinity?

For the Catholic Church and other Nicene churches (the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Armenian Orthodox, the Assyrians; as well as the majority of Protestants), the divine name YHWH (which is closely linked to the expression “I am” or “I Am Who I Am” (see Ex. 3:14), applies to God in His divine nature—hence to all three Persons of the Trinity.

The attribution of YHWH begins with Jesus himself, who multiple times attributes to himself the divine name “I am.” The most straightforward example is John 8:58:

  Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

(His hearers certainly understood the reference to the divine name, because they attempted to stone him immediately afterwards.) Other examples include John 8:24 and 13:9.

Hence, Jesus, the Son, attributes the divine name YHWH to himself. It is less immediately clear from the Scriptures that the Holy Spirit can also be called YHWH, but it follows from our knowledge of Trinitiarian theology.

Each of the Persons of the Trinity is perfectly identical with the Divine Nature or Essence—in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, the Persons are not “parts” or “manifestations” of the Trinity, but strictly relations of opposition. (See for instance, St. Augustine, De trinitate I, 6, and V, 5.) In the words of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Son and Spirit are both consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. (The Creed does not explicitly say so with respect to the Holy Spirit, but that is the fully intentional implication of saying that the Holy Spirit is “worshiped and glorified” together with the Father and Son.)

The name YHWH, however, refers to the very essence of God: clearly, it pertains to all three Persons to “be” in the absolute sense. Hence, YHWH can be applied equally well to all three Persons, although it is frequently attributed to the Father, because He is the ultimate origin or monarch of the whole Trinity.

(The Creed actually implies this: in liturgical celebrations the divine name YHWH is traditionally not used—a holdover from the ancient Jewish reluctance to utter that name. That is why in most translations of the Old Testament, the name YHWH is generally translated as “the LORD”—translating the Hebrew “Adonai.” The Creed, however, calls the Holy Spirit the “Lord and giver of life,” hence the liturgical substitute for the divine name YHWH is used for the Holy Spirit, just as it is for the Son and the Father.)


How many non-decalogue commandments from the Old Testament are still morally binding for Christians? Many denominations believe that Christians should obey the ten commandments (also known as the decalogue), which can be found in Exodus 20:1-17. However, there are 613 commandments in the Old Testament, not just 10. Moreover, Jesus himself claimed in Matthew 22:36-40 that the two greatest commandments are not part of the decalogue. In other words, Jesus endorsed the observance of two non-decalogue commandments. This makes me wonder: how many of the 603 non-decalogue commandments are still morally binding for Christians today? I know that the two greatest commandments definitely are, but are there others?

Jesus affirmed the two greatest commandments because "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:40). Paul says similarly in Romans 13:8, "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law".
The Law, especially the Decalogue, was given as an expression of the two greatest commandments - to love God and neighbour.
The other 613 laws are more complicated. It's common to speak of the tripartate division of the law - moral, civil, and ceremonial. As that link shows there are complexities. Some commands are specifically abrogated in the New Testament (e.g. Mark 7:19). Jesus fulfilled the need for sacrifices to be made (Hebrews 7:18-19).
I would suggest a more nuanced approach than seeing it as a binary thing (commands we either do or do not need to obey). I think the commands are there to teach us how to live, but not to be obeyed in the Old Testament sense. This is because in the New Testament we need to walk in step with the Spirit, who alone can give us a deeper obedience to the Law. Galatians 3:24, "So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith."
Jesus came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17). This means that the righteous demands of the law can only be fulfilled in us through him, through his death and resurrection. We cannot obey perfectly, yet through Christ and the Holy Spirit working in us we can begin to love as God wants us to love. Rather than being an external obedience, God writes his law on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).
Therefore the law that needs to be obeyed is the law of love - the two greatest commandments. But the rest of the law we need to see through the lens of being fulfilled in Jesus Christ.


In Calvinism, is there any correlation with the elect and the "blessed" in the Beatitudes of Matthew 5? (x-post from BH)

I ask this as blessed can mean many things. Eternal life, financial wealth, health, having kids, having a job, being happy, etc. Blessings seem to be very broad, so I'd like to see if anyone can narrow it down or define the word for better understanding of what Jesus was intending for his audience to understand.

Does the blessing that Jesus speaks of mean one specific blessing
or type of blessing? Also, does the word blessed point to the same
specific blessing in each new phrase?
Alternatively, does part b of each phrase define the blessing from
part a (e.g. the blessing in v.3 is inheriting the kingdom, the
blessing in v.4 is comfort)?

I guess I'd like to hear a Calvinistic interpretation. Do these words of our Lord indicate then, that all of the elect will be poor in spirit, mournful, meek, etc.? Anybody not demonstrating these qualities would therefore be seen as non-elect?

Thank you.

  Matthew 5:3–11 (NIV)
  3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn,
      for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek,
      for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
      for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful,
      for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
      for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
      for they will be called children of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
      for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

  11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely
  say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be
  glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they
  persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I'll handle these questions in two parts: first, the connection between the words blessed and elect (including, as you request, a definition of blessed), and second, if the qualities listed are somehow indications of whether someone is elect or not.
Connection between blessed and elect
It's very clear to Calvinists, and, I suspect, to at least most Christians, that Jesus here is referring to people who are saved, and to Calvinists, that means that they are elect.  There are a couple reasons for this:

The definition of "blessed"
The promises given, like "the kingdom of heaven" and "they shall see God"

Regarding the definition of "blessed," the Reformed Study Bible writes:

This means more than the emotional state represented by the word "happy." It includes spiritual well-being, having the approval of God, and thus a happier destiny (Ps. 1).

The "blessedness," then, is a single idea that the passage describes in several complementary ways.  Similarly, Calvin identifies the point of this passage to be "true happiness": not the happiness as understood by the world, but a happiness that looks to the promise.  Matthew Poole writes regarding verse 3:

true happiness lieth not in worldly possessions, but in the favour of God, and a right to the kingdom of heaven, and that these men have. (source)

The promises, then, are the spiritual blessings that are inherent in being "blessed," and are indicative of salvation. For example, Poole writes regarding those who mourn "their own sins" in verse 4:

They shall be comforted, either in this life, with the consolations of the Spirit, or with their Master’s joy in the life that is to come

Regarding verse 3's "poor in spirit," Calvin understands these to be those who rely on God alone:

It deserves our attention, that he only who is reduced to nothing in himself, and relies on the mercy of God, is poor in spirit. (source)

John Gill writes that for these, "[eternal glory] is prepared for them, and given to them; they are born heirs of it, have a right unto it, are making meet for it, and shall enjoy it." (source)
Qualities indicative of election?
Calvinists take two similar but distinct approaches on the universal applicability of the qualities listed in this passage.
Qualities are responses to affliction
The first approach, taken by Calvin, is to understand these qualities as primarily responses to affliction.  Thus, the poor in spirit and those that mourn are suffering under some trial, and the promise is that they will be blessed for it.  By extension, then, these qualities will not necessarily be visible at all times, since the life of the Christian is not constant suffering.  As Calvin explains:

But if, at any time, the Lord spares our weakness, and does not permit the ungodly to torment us as they would desire, yet, during the season of repose and leisure, it is proper for us to meditate on this doctrine, that we may be ready, whenever it shall be necessary, to enter the field, and may not engage in the contest till we have been well prepared. As the condition of the godly, during the whole course of this life, is very miserable, Christ properly calls them to the hope of the heavenly life. (source)

Thus, to Calvin, periods of respite from affliction are times when the opportunity to display some of the qualities listed here may be diminished.  That doesn't call into question one's election, rather, it serves as a time of preparation for future trials.
Qualities are universally applicable
Other Calvinists more universally apply many of the qualities listed in the passage.  For example, John Gill writes that those who mourn are mourning "for sin, for their own sins [...] the unbelief of their hearts [...] [and] the sins of the world" in addition to mourning "under afflictions." (source) Thus, the quality of being "mournful" more generally applies to all of the Christian life, not merely during trials.
Similarly, Charles Spurgeon understands the "poor in spirit" to be "not those who boast themselves of spiritual riches and personal goodness, but the lowly, the meek, the trembling, the humble." (source) Again, the qualities are not limited to trials.
Sanctification
It's worth mentioning that both groups of Calvinists recognize that Christians will continue to sin, and will not always display the qualities described in this and other passages.  Failing to have these qualities would thus not necessarily be an indication of not being elect, but growth in them would be expected.
Summary
Calvinists view Matthew 5 as referring to the elect and the qualities that they will develop more and more as they grow spiritually.  Some emphasize that these qualities will be visible primarily during periods of affliction, while others suggest that most of them apply generally to the entire Christian walk.


Is it possible to receive the full effects of the Catholic Spiritual Communion if one is being distanced from the Communion due to being gay? The liturgical practices during Covid-19 pandemic bring into spotlight the ancient Catholic practice of doing a Spiritual Communion in order to obtain graces.

My question is - there is man who is not Christened, who is gay (and in-and-out of the relevant relationships), who tries to bring into order his professional life and career, who has desire for God and for leading life of good man (he attends mass once a week, reads theological literature and journals, says daily prayers, including rosary), but of course, he can not go to the communion because of his private life. The talks with priest is out of question - priest can not do miracles and change the conditions of life. So - the Spiritual Communion is the only way to receive the Eucharist for him. Question is - is he receiving the full effect of Eucharist in the Act of Spiritual Communion? In everyday life and during the Covid-19 pandemic?

P.S. - I am reading the article entitled: Truly Human Sexual Acts: A Response to Patrick Lee and Robert George, from the Jesuit theological journal "Theological Studies" and I feel that the Church if live despite some others who is saying opposite.

Is it possible to receive the full effects of the Catholic Spiritual Communion if one is being distanced from the Communion due to being gay?

That will depend on the interior disposition of the individual at that time!

How to benefit from the in the fullest sense from making a Spiritual Communion.

When Catholics are properly disposed to receive Our Lord in the Sacred Host at Mass, but are impeded for one reason or another, they can always make a Spiritual Communion in it’s place. Thus receiving the same graces as going to actual Holy Communion.

Our souls must likewise be prepared as if going to Holy Communion at Mass. We must be in the State of Grace!

Any extramarital sexual activities thus must be confessed to a priest prior to receiving Holy Communion. If one is ill dispensed to receive the Sacrament of the Altar, then one is also ill dispense to receive any graces in a Spiritual Communion.

I am thinking that your quote from Wikipedia is in error as to what the Church clearly teaches on the subject on a Spiritual Communion. Here is what the CDF wrote about this subject matter in 1983:

  Individual faithful or communities who because of persecution or lack of priests are deprived of the holy Eucharist for either a short or longer period of time, do not thereby lack the grace of the Redeemer. If they are intimately animated by a desire for the sacrament and united in prayer with the whole Church, and call upon the Lord and raise their hearts to him, by virtue of the Holy Spirit they live in communion with the whole Church, the living body of Christ, and with the Lord himself. Through their desire for the sacrament in union with the Church, no matter how distant they may be physically, they are intimately and really united to her and therefore receive the fruits of the sacrament; whereas those who would wrongly attempt to take upon themselves the right to confect the Eucharistic Mystery end up by having their community closed in on itself. - Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on Certain Questions concerning the Minister of the Eucharist

Thus it is clear that in order to make a Spiritual Communion effective, Catholics must make it with the same interior dispositions as if going to receive Holy Communion.

Fish eaters explains the notion of Spiritual Communion in a very readable way:

  We are obliged to attend Mass each Sunday and on every other Holy Day of Obligation. Sometimes, though, we just can't be there. One's own sickness or the obligations to care for a sick person, having given birth within the past 6 weeks, dangerous weather (and other safety hazards), not being able to find a way there -- life happens. There is no guilt in missing Mass if the circumstances are out of one's control (mortal sin always requires not only grave matter and knowledge, but consent of the will).

  And sometimes, there is no Mass readily-enough available. The rule of thumb concerning Mass availability is that if one is required to travel more than an hour to reach a Mass, one is not guilty of sin by not attending.

  In all these instances, we are encouraged to make what is known as a "spiritual Communion," an act expressing what was described by St. Thomas Aquinas as "an ardent desire to receive Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament and in lovingly embracing Him." In a spiritual Communion, we, with contrite, humble hearts, ask our Lord to come to us in the same way He would if we were able to receive the Sacrament. This can be done as often as one likes, informally in one's own words or through one of the traditional prayers which appear below.

  What is the value of this practice? The graces received may be as great as -- or greater than -- those received by some people in the actual Sacrament. Though, of course, the Sacrament itself is inherently greater, our disposition toward the Sacrament affect whether and how we receive its fruits. For example, imagine a woman who is unable to be with her husband but who desires him as contrasted with a woman who has her husband's presence but doesn't care for him. Which husband would be more apt to pour out his love for his wiffe?

  How to Receive Spiritual Communion

  St. Leonard of Port-Maurice offers this advice for receiving Spiritual Communion:

    In order to facilitate a practice of such great excellence, ponder what I have to say. When the priest is about to give himself Communion in holy Mass, do you, keeping composed externally and internally, excite in your heart an act of true contrition, and humbly striking your breast, in token that you acknowledge yourself unworthy of so great a grace, make all those acts of love, of self-surrender, of humility, and the rest, which you are accustomed to make when you communicate sacramentally, and then desire with a lively longing to receive your good Jesus, veiled in the sacrament for your benefit. And to kindle your devotion, imagine that most holy Mary, or some saint, your holy advocate, is holding forth to you the sacred particle; figure yourself receiving it, and then, embracing Jesus in your heart, reply to Him, over and over again, with interior words prompted by love: “Come, Jesus, my Beloved, come within this my poor heart; come and satiate my desires; come and sanctify my soul; come, most sweet Jesus, come!” This said, be still; contemplate your good God within you, and, as if you really had communicated, adore Him, thank Him, and perform all those interior acts to which you are accustomed after sacramental Communion.

  Here is a choice of a few different formal prayers to pray while following St. Leonard's advice, though you can pray in your own words, if you prefer:

  Act of Spiritual Communion by St. Alphonsus Liguori (A.D. 1696-1787)

  My Jesus, I believe that Thou art present in the Blessed Sacrament. I love Thee above all things and I desire Thee in my soul. Since I cannot now receive Thee sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. As though thou wert already there, I embrace Thee and unite myself wholly to Thee; permit not that I should ever be separated from Thee.

  Act of Spiritual Communion

  O Immaculate Queen of Heaven and Earth, Mother of God and Mediatrix of every grace: I believe that Thy dearly beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, is truly, really, and substantially contained in the Most Blessed Sacrament. I love Him above all things and I long to receive Him into my heart. Since I cannot now receive Him sacramentally, be so good as to place Him spiritually in my soul.

  O my Jesus, I embrace Thee as One who has already come, and I unite myself entirely to Thee. Never permit me to be separated from Thee. Amen.

  Act of Spiritual Communion

  As I cannot this day enjoy the happiness of assisting at the holy Mysteries, O my God! I transport myself in spirit at the foot of Thine altar; I unite with the Church, which by the hands of the priest, offers Thee Thine adorable Son in the Holy Sacrifice; I offer myself with Him, by Him, and in His Name. I adore, I praise, and thank Thee, imploring Thy mercy, invoking Thine assistance, and presenting Thee the homage I owe Thee as my Creator, the love due to Thee as my Savior.

  Apply to my soul, I beseech Thee, O merciful Jesus, Thine infinite merits; apply them also to those for whom I particularly wish to pray. I desire to communicate spiritually, that Thy Blood may purify, Thy Flesh strengthen, and Thy Spirit sanctify me. May I never forget that Thou, my divine Redeemer, hast died for me; may I die to all that is not Thee, that hereafter I may live eternally with Thee. Amen.

  Missing Mass & Spiritual Communion

Only mortal sins that have not been sacramentally confessed and absolved in the sacrament of confession can keep one away from receiving Our Savour in Holy Communion. If we are ill disposed in the first, we will be ill disposed in the second.

Being gay does not inherently mean we can not receive Holy Communion; providing that one lives a pure and chaste life. For those who have fallen into serious sexual sin there is always confession. Humility is always the first step in the spiritual life.


Did Origen support the idealist view of Christian eschatology? I've seen it suggested that Origen was in line with the idealist understanding of Christian eschatology. Is anyone able to clarify this? What is the evidence that Origen was in support of the Idealist position?

(For example, this answer to a related but different question also uses Origen in support of a subset of the typical idealist position, without substantiating it.)

For those not familiar with Christian eschatological categories, usually in reference to how Revelation is interpreted, the general categories are Idealist, Futurist, Preterist, and Historical

One place where Orgien's belief in eschatological idealism can be found is in De Principiis, 2.11, where he criticizes those who literally interpret prophecies to mean that resurrected bodies will be like current bodies, the heavenly city will be made of precious stones and metals, and that Christians will rule like earthly kings do now.

On resurrected bodies:

  Certain persons, then, refusing the labour of thinking, and adopting a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfilment of the promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the resurrection, such bodily structures as may never be without the power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the resurrection of a spiritual body.

On heaven:

  [They imagine] to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be rebuilt, its foundations laid in precious stones, and its walls constructed of jasper, and its battlements of crystal; that it is to have a wall composed of many precious stones, as jasper, and sapphire, and chalcedony, and emerald, and sardonyx, and onyx, and chrysolite, and chrysoprase, and jacinth, and amethyst.

On rulers:

  Then, again, agreeably to the form of things in this life, and according to the gradations of the dignities or ranks in this world, or the greatness of their powers, they think they are to be kings and princes, like those earthly monarchs who now exist.

Summarizing his criticism, he says that these people, "while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine promises."

Instead of this, he argues that we should interpret Scripture "in conformity with the spiritual view of things."  Regarding eating by resurrected bodies, he writes:

  Those, however, who receive the representations of Scripture according to the understanding of the apostles, entertain the hope that the saints will eat indeed, but that it will be the bread of life.

Gregg R. Allison summarizes Origen's view this way:

  Moving beyond a literal interpretation, Origen approached Scripture to find its spiritual meaning.  [...] Christians could still hope for the fulfillment of the promises of the future, but the hope was not for physical goods but spiritual blessings. (Historical Theology, 687)


Is there a concept of Christian State in Christianity? In some of my other questions, I have read that State and church are kept separate in Christianity. I am curious to know, is there any concept of Christian state where Biblical laws and doctrines are enforced or facilitated? Or simply Christians are never supposed to strive for a Christian state?

Christianity does not hold a "church and state must be separate" view at all; that might be part of the US constitution, but : not universal - and to all intents and purposes it is not even correct in the US, since it is quietly acknowledged that you don't stand much chance of election if you are openly non-Christian (regardless of your actual views). Indeed, there are still several US states that have, as part of their state constitution, that you can't hold office unless you believe in God (to all intents and purposes, the Christian God). OK, that sounds like a technicality, until people actually try to enforce it.

Now, let's step away from the US, and look at Europe; there are plenty of places in Europe that have an established church. Which is to say: the church that is officially recognised and has power. In England, the Church of England held massive power, and it is only recently waning - but even so, the C of E has unelected bishops that have an automatic place in the highest assembly in the land. That does not sound like separation. This is mirrored in a number of other countries, where the church holds not just social influence, but genuine political power. Historically, this power was put to direct use, often to suppress and enforce the religious statutes of the time. Heresy and blasphemy have been beaten down with sticks and pyres.

My point: the premise of the question is incorrect. Whether Christianity "demands" a separation between church and state seems largely a point of interpretation; for many, the "render unto Caesar" view (i.e. separation) is adopted, but conversely Christians of various ilks have worked hard to try to bring about such a state.


Does transubstantiation apply to the Last Supper, which occurred prior to the crucifixion? The Roman Catholic church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation--that the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus.  It seems that the sacrament of taking the body and blood gives the partaker a special grace.

Jesus introduced this by saying, "This is my body which is broken for you" and "This is my blood which is shed for you" prior to His crucifixion.

So, my question is this.  Does the Catholic Church teach that the bread and wine taken by the disciples prior to the Crucifixion was all the literal body and blood of Jesus?  If so, did they also receive the grace of the sacrament at that time as well?

Yes, this is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.

The Eucharist according to Catholicism is not just a memorial or symbol, as many Protestants believe, but that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is truly and actually made present; it is not merely in the past.
In fact, the doctrines concerning the Eucharist seem to be known because of the offering at the Last Supper; if it had not been a real sacrifice, the teachings concerning transubstantiation would likely never have existed:

On that occasion He likewise made an unbloody food-offering, only that, as Antitype, He accomplished something more than a mere oblation of bread and wine, namely the sacrifice of His Body and Blood under the mere forms of bread and wine. Otherwise, the shadows cast before by the "good things to come" would have been more perfect than the things themselves, and the antitype at any rate no richer in reality than the type. Since the Mass is nothing else than a continual repetition, commanded by Christ Himself, of the Sacrifice accomplished at the Last Supper...
Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(also see Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20)

And again, Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the Real Presence of Christ:

The Church's Magna Charta, however, are the words of Institution, "This is my body — this is my blood", whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times. The Real Presence is evinced, positively, by showing the necessity of the literal sense of these words, and negatively, by refuting the figurative interpretations.
... [they did not claim the bread and blood to be signs of Christ's body, but] in the original text corpus (body) and sanguis (blood) are followed by significant appositional additions, the Body being designated as "given for you" and the Blood as "shed for you [many]"; hence the Body given to the Apostles was the self same Body that was crucified on Good Friday, and the Chalice drunk by them, the self same Blood that was shed on the Cross for our sins, Therefore the above-mentioned appositional phrases directly exclude every possibility of a figurative interpretation.

The Catholic teaching is that Christ did not claim the body and bread to be a metaphor for His body and blood; He did not say, "this bread is my body," but said "this is my body." He was crucified once for all time -- past, present, and future. Just as He provides salvation to people who lived prior to His sacrifice, so He can be present in the institution of the Eucharist prior to His crucifixion.

... so, when He said: "Take ye, and eat. This is my body", the Apostles received from the hand of the Lord His Sacred Body, which was already objectively present and did not first become so in the act of partaking. This non-dependence of the Real Presence upon the actual reception is manifested very clearly in the case of the Chalice, when Christ said: "Drink ye all of this. For [enim] this is my Blood." Here the act of drinking is evidently neither the cause nor the conditio sine qua non [necessary precondition] for the presence of Christ's Blood.


What is the basis of not following Halakha? What is the basis that allows Christians not to follow of Halakha?  Halakha/Jewish Law states that in the normal course of things we may not permit what Judaism has forbidden, nor may we repeal or abolish what is obligatory.
So, for Christians who do not keep Halakha, what is the basis of not following the law?  I get that Christians can add to the laws but to not follow all of the laws appears to be something that we cannot do.
Jesus said:
Matthew 5:17-18 New International Version (NIV)

The Fulfillment of the Law
“Do not think that I have come to
abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but
to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth
disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,
will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
accomplished.

Ketubah and Kiddushin (Jewish marriage) is an example of a law we don't keep but is part of Halakha.  This question is not limited to Ketubah and/or Kiddushin, I am just making an example.
There are questions on here that are similar.  There is even one about the 10 commandments.  However, Jewish Law (Halakha) has 613 commandments

Most Christians do not believe that they are changing or ignoring any law. However, there are many laws which certain Gentile Christians do not believe apply directly to them.

In the early days of the church, as chronicled in the book of Acts, there was some division on how Gentiles should respond to the various laws held by the Jews, such as the Kosher food laws. Paul and Peter initially disagreed, and there was a council held to consider the question. The decision was that Gentile converts would not have to become Jews and follow their laws, but instead were only bound by certain laws, which were very similar to those given to Noah. This is in the book of Acts in chapter 15. Outside of the Bible, this is often called the Council of Jerusalem.

Most Christian denominations would consider any law that is outside of the Torah itself to be extra-biblical, and therefore, only of interest to gain context on the law that is written in the Torah. When Jesus spoke, he pointed out several occasions where the current Jewish law of his day contradicted the actual Law of the Torah, or at the very least, was practiced in a way that was opposed to the original purpose. The reason that Jesus had to say that he was not breaking the law, as you quoted, was because many people believed he was doing just that when he challenged the traditions of the day. For instance, he picked corn and healed on the Sabbath, and he didn't necessarily keep the custom of washing before eating. In those cases, he would explain how the current practice was not actually part of the law given by God and cite the Scriptures in support.

With regards to the the laws directly in the Torah, some Christian denominations will divide those into categories of ceremonial, civil, and moral law. The ceremonial laws, like performing sacrifices, have already been fulfilled in Christ, and as such, doing so again would be equivalent to putting Christ on the cross again. Also, there is currently no proper temple for the performing of the sacrifices, and so these are impossible to properly fulfill. Civil law would be those portions of the law which were designed to create a framework for society within Israel. Many of these were never intended to apply to people outside of country Israel, and some only applied to Jews inside of Israel. Most of these laws would not work well without the framework that God setup for that state, and so could not be properly practiced elsewhere.

This would leave the moral laws, and there are a variety of opinions between denominations on how to approach these. One way some approach them is to say that the majority of the Levitical Law was given "because of the hardness of their hearts." In other words, they weren't actually intended for Gentiles, but to express the character of God and emphasize holiness and principles that the Jews could not understand otherwise, and function as pictures for the rest of us. Those groups tend to lean on Paul's teachings that salvation is by faith alone, and that the law does not save, but only shows that we need salvation. Other denominations claim that the 10 commandments are what were meant to apply to all people and follow them alone. There are some denominations which do try to follow all the laws.

Another point that is important to understand is that many Christians believe that passages like Isaiah 52:15, and many verses like the ones listed here: Are there Old Testament Scriptures that mention salvation for the Gentiles?, imply that God's intention was always to provide a method of salvation to the Gentiles, and that even though we are grafted into Israel, by Christ, we do not have to individually become Jews to experience salvation. Previously, those who desired salvation would convert, and then become bound by the law, where this is not the case after the promise was fulfilled.

I am not currently aware of any Christian denomination which would think they are actually changing laws. Generally, their goal is to do away with man-made laws, and then to understand God's Law as well as they can with the new understanding that the law has been completely fulfilled in Christ, and that because of the sins of Israel, God's grace has now been poured out on Gentiles also. The various disputes arise over how best one should correlate those truths.


Is the Catholic canonized Bible closed? Traditionally most Christians hold that the Biblical Canon has been closed because of the end of the Apostolic era. But if the Pope speaks from "Ex Cathedra", isn't that stating his teaching is similar/equal to the Apostolic authority keeping the Canon open?

Correction

  The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament
  existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no
  foundation in history. - Cf. Canon of the New Testament | New
  Advent.

A Primer on the Church's Infallibility

1) The Church's competency is faith [what we believe] and morals [how we are to act/behave in accordance with what we believe].

2) [Cf. Mt 28:20] All the Church was commanded to teach as to faith and morals by Jesus Christ is what is termed as the divinely revealed Sacred 'deposit of faith' (the depositum fidei) [= Holy Tradition + Sacred Scripture].

  [This] Divine  Revelation was given in its entirety to Our Lord and
  His Apostles. After the death of the last of the twelve it could
  receive no increment. - Cf. Revelation | New Advent.

3)  [Cf. CCC 2035] Christ's charism of infallibility to his Church extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed. What this simply means is that the Church cannot err in what she teaches as to faith or morals, for she is our infallible guide in both. [Cf. Penny Catechism 100].

4) [Cf. Infallibility | New Advent] The organs of infallibility in the Church are:

a) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;

b) ecumenical councils under the headship of the pope; and

c) the pope himself separately.

Some facts:

1) In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." This was before:

2) The Vatican Council [1869-1870] which defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra — that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

3) By promulgating the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, 1 November, 1950, Pope Pius XII declared infallibly that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was a dogma of the Catholic Faith.

Plain conclusions readily follow from above.

Clearing confusion in the question and answering it

When the Pope speaks ex cathedra according to the dogma of Vatican Council I, he can only do so only on those things that are already in the handed down deposit of divine Revelation which the Church in his generation has received through the ages from the Apostles or on all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.

Councils have already determined the Sacred Scripture part of the 'deposit of faith' (the depositum fidei), no future organs of infallibility in the Church, pope included, can undo this.

Endnote

Holy Scripture as the Church has held it and how the Church inteprets it is a matter of faith:

  I also accept the Holy Scripture according to that sense which holy
  mother the Church hath held, and doth hold, and to whom it belongeth
  to judge the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither
  will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the
  unanimous consent of the Fathers. - Professio fidei Tridentina,
  Creed of Pope Pius IV [from the link, one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Catholic Church].


What did salvation mean to the Israelite people of the OT? Modern Christians have various ideas of salvation since Jesus came (going to heaven when you die; free from the curse of the law; set free from the flesh, the devil and the world; adopted into God's family, etc.).

What did salvation mean to the Israelites of the OT?

Throughout the narrative parts of the Old Testament, there is very little mention of any afterlife. That idea arises mostly later on, in the books of the Prophets.

During the bulk of Old Testament times, salvation had little or nothing to do with:

Heaven or the afterlife, since there was little or no belief in such
a thing.
Being freed from the curse of the Law. The Law was seen as a blessing, not a curse.
Being set free from the flesh. Physical enjoyments were not
considered evil as long as they did not violate the law.
Being set free from the Devil. The Devil was not a well-developed concept
in Old Testament times.

And as for being set free from the world, it was just the opposite. As we will see, salvation meant being blessed in the world.

Of all the possibilities raised in the question, only being adopted into God's family has any real bearing on salvation as understood by the ancient Israelites. They saw themselves not exactly as God's family but as God's people. So in that sense, being God's specially chosen people does relate to their concept of salvation.

Now, if few to none of the common Christian understandings of salvation had any meaning to the ancient Israelites, what did salvation mean to the Israelite people of the Old Testament?

Quite simply, to them it meant literal, physical salvation from human enemies, and from material-world "enemies" such as poverty, disease, and death. And on the positive side, it meant having wealth, power, and victory over their enemies, all of which were seen as blessings from God.

In the Hebrew Bible, aside from a poetic use Genesis 49:18, the first use of the word "salvation" (יְשׁוּעָה, yĕshuw`ah) occurs in Exodus 14:13-14:

  And Moses said to the people, "Fear not, stand firm, and see the
  salvation of the Lord, which he will work for you today. For the
  Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again. The Lord
  will fight for you, and you have only to keep still."

The scene is the Israelites camping by the Red Sea, and the Egyptian army pursuing them with horses and chariots.

The salvation of the Lord was the Lord's drying up the sea so that the Israelites could pass over on dry ground and escape from the Egyptian army, and then the Lord's closing the waters back over the pursuing Egyptian army, drowning and destroying them, and thus saving the Israelites from their power.

So here in the first narrative use of the word "salvation" in the Old Testament, it means God saving the people from literal, physical, human enemies who were bent on recapturing and carrying them back to slavery in Egypt.

This use of "salvation" as being physically saved from human enemies is common throughout the Old Testament. For a few more examples, see Judges 7 (note the word "saved" in verse 2); 1 Samuel 11 (note "salvation" in verse 13); 2 Samuel 23:8-12 (the word "victory" is a translation of the Hebrew word for "salvation").

When speaking of the people as a whole, then, for the ancient Israelites "salvation" meant especially being saved from enemies who wished to kill, conquer, and enslave them. "Salvation" was synonymous with victory in battle against enemies.

Less commonly, "salvation" was used of individuals who were saved from sickness, enslavement, loss of property, death, or other material calamity.

For example, the prayer of Hannah, the mother of Samuel, in 1 Samuel 2:1-11, which celebrates the Lord's salvation of her from the terrible condition (for an ancient Israelite woman) of barrenness, opens with these words:

And Hannah prayed and said,

"My heart exults in the Lord;
    my horn is exalted in the Lord.
My mouth derides my enemies,
    because I rejoice in your salvation."

And David's song of praise in 2 Samuel 22 similarly speaks of the Lord's salvation (mentioned specifically in verses 3, 36, 47, & 51) not only of his people and his army from their enemies, but of himself (David) personally from Saul's attempts to kill him because he was rival aspirant to the throne.

So whether it is speaking of the nation as a whole or of individual people, "salvation" in the narrative of the Old Testament most commonly means salvation from and victory over physical, human enemies and over material-world sufferings and setbacks.

By extension, the Lord's threats and promises to the Israelites almost invariably involved physical and material ruin, defeat, and death on the one hand, vs. victory, health, prosperity, and long life on the other.

The narrative of Deuteronomy 26:16-30:20 is a long series of physical and material curses, defeats, and calamities that would befall the Israelites if they disobeyed God's commandments, and of blessings of victory, health, and prosperity that they would enjoy if they obeyed God's commandments. It concludes with these famous words:

  See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you
  obey the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you today,
  by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping
  his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live
  and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land that
  you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns
  away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods
  and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish.
  You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan
  to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you
  today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse.
  Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live, loving
  the Lord your God, obeying his voice and holding fast to him, for he
  is your life and length of days, that you may dwell in the land that
  the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to
  give them. (Deuteronomy 30:15-20)

As shown in the entire narrative sequence that concludes with these words, the life and death, good and evil that the Lord set before them was physical and material life and death, good and evil.

For the ancient Israelites, then:

Salvation meant being physically saved from their human enemies, and enjoying peace, prosperity, fruitfulness, and long life in their own sovereign nation, as well as having many descendants to carry on an individual's name, and the long-term flourishing of the Israelite nation as a whole.
Being cursed, or to use a later term, damned, meant being physically killed, captured, and enslaved by their human enemies, and suffering loss of property, crop failure, infertility, disease, and early death, along with the dying out of an individual's family lineage, and the cutting off and destruction of the Israelite nation as a whole.

The more abstract versions of salvation and damnation that came later, in the Prophets and especially in the New Testament, used these earlier pragmatic and earthly meanings of salvation and damnation as symbols and representatives that foreshadowed and depicted spiritual salvation and damnation.


Did church fathers ever deal with "Bible requires brutality" critics? A recent question here caused some confusion, and increases my curiosity about this topic. Someone asked why people say Christians have disdain for the handicapped. (Apparent) practicing Christians responded with incredulity: who says that? The point is that such an idea doesn't appear to be taught anywhere today within circles of practicing Christians. Interestingly enough, the internet is full of claims made by non-Christians that Christianity necessarily requires disdain for the handicapped, or various cruelties or brutality. That's because activists have picked up a handful of verses that by themselves could point to some kind of "ethic" for cruelty.

My question is whether the church fathers (or any more recent prominent theologians) have specifically dealt with such criticism. For example, could I find an apologetic for this question, in say, a chapter of St. Augustine's City of God? A sermon by someone like Martin Luther that advocates feeding the poor is not what I'm looking for. I want to see rebuttals of the practice of objecting to Christianity on the basis of picking a handful of tough passages.

My recollection of the section in Confessions where Augustine discusses the Bible with Ambrose was that they took most of the Old Testament far more figuratively than we do today (it should be noted that one of Augustine's primary objections to Christianity, when he was Manichean, was that the OT is inconsistent and often poorly written). Approaching the desert monastics, I see a very similar approach to the texts — they took things as relating to spiritual warfare and far less as a literal account of history (and it can be argued that they couldn't care less about the literal account anyhow).

I guess that my impression is that if you complained to one of the Fathers, "the Old Testament is so barbaric" the response would be:

You're not reading it right
It is tame compared to what other philosophies and religions have taught.


According to the Catholic Church, did Jesus fulfil the prophesy of Isaiah by being buried in a tomb hewn in rock? As per the Gospels of Matthew (27:60), Mark (15:46 ) and Luke (23:53) , the Body of Jesus, after his crucifixion was laid in a tomb 'hewn in the rock'. That all the evangelists except John mention the make of the tomb, suggests that there is some significance to it. I hope that this was written to indicate that Jesus had, in his burial, fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah at 53:9 (RSVCE):

  And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death...

Clearly, only a rich man could afford to construct a grave hewn in rock. And, Matthew 27:57 in deed depicts Joseph of Arimathe'a in whose new tomb the body of Jesus was laid,  as  a rich man !

My question is: are there any official teachings from the side of Catholic Church confirming that Jesus was in deed fulfilling the prophesy of Isaiah by being buried in a tomb hewn in the rock ?

The Catholic Church has very few dogmatic interpretations of Scripture. This means that as in the case of most texts, there is the possibility for various explanations within the realm of acceptable Catholic exegesis in this situation.

There is not an official dogmatic interpretation of Isaiah 53:9 in the Catholic Church that explicitly makes the connection between the type of grave Jesus was laid in and the wording of the prophecy. There is a general consensus among Catholic exegetes that since Joseph of Aramathea was comparatively rich, the point that Jesus made his grave with the 'rich' is fulfilled in the manner you mention (but it does not necessarily require or refuse the fact that the particular grave was hewn in rock).

However, the Hebrew word for "rich" in Isaiah 53:9 can also be read as "evil doers" or the "wickedly rich," and in some contexts the words "rich" and "evil doer" were somewhat synonymous in ancient Hebrew culture. The Church recognizes that the text can also be read that Jesus was sent to death among the "wicked and the evil doers," with the expression "evil doers" a reference to morally corrupt persons, not merely wealthy. In this sense Jesus still fulfills the prophecy as he was crucified among two criminals.

Both interpretations and translations are acceptable, but neither demands that the Messiah necessarily be buried in a tomb hewn in stone.


Did Ignatius believe in the doctrine of Eternal Generation of the Son? Ignatius wrote in A.D. 110 that Jesus was gennetos kai agennetos, meaning “begotten and not begotten.”

Did Ignatius believe in the doctrine of Eternal Generation of the Son? Why did he say that Jesus is not begotten in his divinity?

This "begotten and unbegotten" quote comes from Ignatius's Epistle to the Ephesians, chapter 7.2.  One source for the Greek is The Loeb Classical Library, Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1, page 180.  English translations of the text differ somewhat, but here are two popular ones:

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible,—even Jesus Christ our Lord. (ANF)
There is one Physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and yet not born, who is God in man, true life in death, both of Mary and of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord. (Loeb, 181)

Quoting this section, J. N. D. Kelly, in Early Christian Doctrines, 92, indicates that the word agennetos is "the technical term reserved to distinguish the increate God from creatures."  Thus the emphasis can be understood to be more on Christ's distinction from his creatures than between Him and the Father.
Still, this is an attribute typically associated with God the Father, and this isn't the only place where Ignatius closely connects the Son and Father – Kelly provides several other quotes along similar lines, and describes how this language has sometimes been interpreted:

In view of this language the conclusion has sometimes been drawn that [...] Ignatius was really an 'economic trinitarian', i.e. regarded God as an undifferentiated monad in His essential being, the Son and the Spirit being merely forms or modes of the Father's self-revelation, only distinguishable from
Him in the process of revelation. (93)

However, Kelly disagrees with this conclusion, and contends that Ignatius did believe in the pre-existence of the Son – not that he only became an expression of God in the incarnation – as well as his independence from the Father:

[The thought of Ignatius] was steeped in the Fourth Gospel, and its strong emphasis on the oneness of Christ with the Father reflects such Johannine texts as 1:1f.; 10:30; 14:9; 17:5. [...]
[Ignatius] definitely states that He 'existed with the Father before the ages', and that He 'came forth from the unique Father, was with Him and has returned to Him'. Phrases like these imply a real distinction, as do the passages in which he compares the relation of deacons to the bishop, or of the church to the bishop, to that of Christ to the Father.
Numerous other contexts suggest that His independence vis-a-vis the Father was not limited to His earthly sojourn, such as (a) the formulae of greeting and farewell affixed to the letters, and (b) Ignatius's requests to his correspondents to address their prayers to Jesus Christ. (93)

So it's fair to conclude that while Ignatius did closely associate the Father and the Son, this use of "unbegotten" can be understood as referring to Christ as compared to his creatures, and that Ignatius did believe in the eternal generation of the Son.


According to Catholicism, who is the Wisdom being described in Proverbs 8:22–36? Proverbs 8:22–36 states the following:

  22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,before his deeds of old;

  23 I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be.

  24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth, when there were no springs overflowing with water;

  25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,

  26 before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth.

  27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

  28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

  29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

  30 Then I was constantly at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,

  31 rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.

  32 “Now then, my children, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways.

  33 Listen to my instruction and be wise; do not disregard it.

  34 Blessed are those who listen to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at my doorway.

  35 For those who find me find life and receive favor from the LORD.

  36 But those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate me love death.”

My question is, who is the Wisdom described here? It seems that God created this being and it was present with Him before creation time began?

I'm looking for a Catholic perspective.

Catholic theologians have consistently identified "Wisdom" in Proverbs 8 as the Christ.  For example, we find a recent example in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

The personification of Wisdom in the OT prepares for the revelation of the Trinity in the NT.  In particular, this theme reaches its full development when Jesus is revealed as the eternal Son of God.  Not only is Christ the incarnation of God's wisdom (1 Cor 1:24), but he was present with God before the foundation of the world. (commentary on 8:22–31)

And again:

The passage is a prophecy of the Incarnation, meaning the Lord Jesus was created of the Virgin for the purpose of redeeming the works of the Father.  Thus, the flesh of Christ is for the sake of created things, yet his divinity existed before them. (commentary on 8:22)

This understanding goes back to the early church.  Justin Martyr connects Wisdom in Proverbs 8:22–24 to Christ in his Dialogue with Trypho, 129, and the Apostolic Constitutions connects the creation of wisdom with the incarnation of Christ:

Thou hast also appointed festivals for the rejoicing of our souls, that we might come into the remembrance of that wisdom which was created by Thee; how He submitted to be made of a woman on our account (7.2.36)

Ambrose is pretty unequivocal:

Hereby we are brought to understand that the prophecy of the Incarnation, The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works, (Proverbs 8:22) means that the Lord Jesus was created of the Virgin for the redeeming of the Father's works. Truly, we cannot doubt that this is spoken of the mystery of the Incarnation. (Exposition of the Christian Faith, 3.7.46)

This text was a key battleground in the Arian controversy, so we find Athanasius repeatedly making the connection between Wisdom and Christ:

For nothing new was created in woman, save the Lord's body, born of the Virgin Mary without intercourse, as also it says in the Proverbs in the person of Jesus: 'The Lord created me, a beginning of His ways for His works' (Proverbs 8:22). (Statement of Faith 3.4)

Bede writes in his commentary on Proverbs:

In another translation, this passage begins, "The Lord created me at the beginning of his ways in his works." The fathers understand this saying to be about the Lord's incarnation. (1.8.22–30 (Latin only))

We can also point to the implicit connection made between Proverbs 8 and Christ in Aquinas, Summa, First Part, 46.1.
Returning to the 20th century, we find a helpful collection/summary of this tradition in Haydock's commentary:

Some explain this [Proverbs 8:1] of the light which is communicated to men; but the Fathers apply it to Jesus Christ, some of the expressions regarding his divinity, and others his human nature. [...]
As Christ was with God, equal to him in eternity.  Jo. i.  Sept. "created," which many of the Fathers explain of the word incarnate, (see Corn. a Lapide.  Bossuet) or he hath "placed me," (S. Athan. iii. con. Arian.  Euseb.) a pattern of all virtues. [...]
Wisdom, or Jesus Christ, is our salvation, happiness, and life. (Commentary on Proverbs 8)

Thus we see that, in addition to other ancient and modern thinkers, some of the most respected theologians in Catholicism (Ambrose, Athanasius, Bede, and Aquinas are all Doctors of the Church), considered "Wisdom" of Proverbs 8:22ff. as referring to Christ.


If Jehovah's Witnesses believe they should use Jehovah to be accurate why don't they use Jesus' real Hebrew name? I think everyone knows that the name Jesus is Greek, but why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses use his Hebrew name, which is closer to Joshua than to Jesus?

There's a problem with one of your assumptions: Jehovah's Witnesses don't use Jehovah "to be accurate". They use Jehovah because they think it's important to call God by name, and because Jehovah is the traditional rendering in English. They accept that the original pronunciation has been lost, and argue that were it important, Jehovah God would not have allowed it to be lost. They do make linguistic arguments in favour of a trisyllabic pronunciation, but these are lesser considerations.
They also remark that many names contain elements of the divine name: Jeremiah and Jehoshaphat, for example. They argue that if you were to change Jehovah to Yahweh, you should, for the sake of consistency, change these names too.
For more information, see their official publication The Divine Name That Will Endure Forever.


What is meant by the expression that Jesus came in the fullness of time? What do they mean when they say "in the fullness of time Jesus came"? I want to know what the fullness of time means in this scriptural context.

Galatians 4:1-3 gives us a clue as to what verse 4 means.  I’m quoting from the New Living Translation Study Bible because it makes it very easy to understand:

  Think of it this way.  If a father dies and leaves an inheritance for his young children, those children are not much better off than slaves until they grow up, even though they actually own everything their father had. They have to obey their guardians until they reach whatever age their father set.  And that’s the way it was with us before Christ came.  We were like children; we were slaves to the basic spiritual principles of this world.

Turning now to verses 4 to 7 it explains that Jesus came at exactly the right moment in time, the time ordained by his heavenly Father, to free humanity from slavery (to the law) and to open up the way for believers to become sons of god, heirs to the promise.  Here are the relevant verses:

  But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law.  God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children.  And because we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out “Abba, Father”.  Now you are no longer a slave but God’s own child. And since you are his child, God has made you his heir.

Why, then was this the right time?  I found an article that gives one Protestant view about the meaning of God sending his Son “in the fullness of time”.  It gives six reasons why the right time was 2,000 years ago.  The article also explains the significance of Daniel’s prophecy about the promised Messiah:

  Christ came when He did in fulfillment of specific prophecy. Daniel 9:24-27 speaks of the “seventy weeks” or the seventy “sevens.” From the context, these “weeks” or “sevens” refer to groups of seven years, not seven days. We can examine history and line up the details of the first sixty-nine weeks (the seventieth week will take place at a future point). The countdown of the seventy weeks begins with “the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem” (verse 25). This command was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus in 445 B.C. (see Nehemiah 2:5). After seven “sevens” plus 62 “sevens,” or 69 x 7 years, the prophecy states, “the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” and that the “end will come like a flood” (meaning major destruction) (v. 26). Here we have an unmistakable reference to the Savior’s death on the cross. A century ago in his book The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson gave detailed calculations of the sixty-nine weeks, using ‘prophetic years,’ allowing for leap years, errors in the calendar, the change from B.C. to A.D., etc., and figured that the sixty-nine weeks ended on the very day of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, five days before His death. Whether one uses this timetable or not, the point is that the timing of Christ’s incarnation ties in with this detailed prophecy recorded by Daniel over five hundred years beforehand.  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/fullness-of-time.html

The article concludes that the timing of Christ’s incarnation was such that the people of that time were prepared for His coming.  World events had brought the Jews to a point in history where they were living in expectation of the promised Messiah.


Catholic's view on artificial self-enhancement I am writing a story wherein a pill to increase empathy and awareness of your fellow human being is invented. I was wondering what the view of the Catholic church is on self-enhancement. I went to a catholic school all of my life and have read large parts of the Bible, but the most I got out of my limited education on the subject was that one should be cautious when adopting new technologies.

I did see a few questions on medication and seeking medical treatment, where the general consensus was that it depended on personal beliefs. I was wondering if there were any passages of the bible relevant to this or if the Catholic church has made any statement. I think this question is plausibly answerable considering the Catholic church has made statements about various other sci-fi phenomenon, such as the possibility of extra-terrestrials.

As far as I know, the Church has no official policy on "self-enhancement". Medicine, even psychoactive medicine, in areas other than fertility and euthanasia is largely a secular issue. If your fictional drug appeared miraculous (read: unexplainable by science), then that might be a different matter. The power to perform miracles is, in Catholic doctrine, granted by God, and the Church might declare that such a drug is heretical or magical, and therefore sinful to use.