What was the stance of Arius on John 1:1? Introduction

Arius believed that Jesus was a creature, a created god. What did he write about John 1:1? Or if there is no such extant manuscript, how would he interpreted ''the Word was God'' in John 1:1 based on his Christology?

  Arius was was a Libyan presbyter and ascetic, and priest in Baucalis
  in Alexandria, Egypt. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in
  Christianity, which emphasized God's uniqueness and the Christ's
  subordination under the Father,and his opposition to what would become
  the dominant Christology, Homoousian Christology, made him a primary
  topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor
  Constantine the Great in 325.'' (Source).

  In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and
  the Word was God. John 1:1 (ESV)

Question

What was the stance of Arius on the third clause of John 1:1?

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses various errors of Arius and his followers in his Commentary on Chapter 1 of Gospel of John that are connected to Prologue of Gospel of John. If Arius had something to say on that part of Gospel of John it is very reasonable to believe that Aquinas would mention it. Aquinas does not mention Arius in commentary on John 1:1, however he mentions him in commentary on John 1:2.
Aquinas writes (in commentary on John 1:2):

The Arians were able to draw out another error from the above. They
think that the Son is less than the Father because it says below
(14:28): “The Father is greater than I” And they say the Father is
greater than the Son both as to eternity and as to divinity of nature.
And so to exclude this the Evangelist added: He was in the beginning
with God. For Arius admits the first clause, In the beginning was the
Word, but he will not admit that principium should be taken for the
Father, but rather for the beginning of creatures. So he says that the
Word was in the beginning of creatures, and consequently is in no
sense coeternal with the Father. But this is excluded, according to
Chrysostom, by this clause, He was in the beginning, not of creatures,
but in the beginning with God, i.e., whenever God existed. For the
Father was never alone without the Son or Word, but He, that is, the
Word, was always with God.
Again, Arius admits that the Word was God, but nevertheless inferior
to the Father. This is excluded by what follows. For there are two
attributes proper to the great God which Arius attributed solely to
God the Father, that is, eternity and omnipotence. So in whomever
these two attributes are found, he is the great God, than whom none is
greater. But the Evangelist attributes these two to the Word.
Therefore, the Word is the great God and not inferior. He says the
Word is eternal when he states, He was in the beginning with God,
i.e., the Word was with God from eternity, and not only in the
beginning of creatures (as Arius held) , but with God, receiving being
and divinity from him. Further, he attributes omnipotence to the Word
when he adds, Through him all things came into being.

Later Aquinas writes:

Eunomius declared that the Son is entirely unlike the Father. The
Evangelist rejects this when he says, and the Word was God. Finally,
Arius said that the Son was less than the Father. The Evangelist
excludes this by saying, He was in the beginning with God, as was
explained above.

Aquinas later continues:

The first clause, All things were made through him, is used to show
three things concerning the Word. First, according to Chrysostom, to
show the equality of the Word to the Father. For as stated earlier,
the error of Arius was rejected by the Evangelist when he showed the
coeternity of the Son with the Father by saying, “He was in the
beginning with God.” Here he excludes the same error when he shows the
omnipotence of the Son, saying, All things were made through him. For
to be the principle of all the things that are made is proper to the
great omnipotent God, as the Psalm (134:6) says, “Whatever the Lord
wills he does, in heaven and on earth.”Thus the Word, through whom all
things were made, is God, great and coequal to the Father.

He mentions him later in commentary (on the Prologue of Gospel of John), but for that you can just search "Arius" on the page here and see all places where Aquinas mentions him (in commentary on the Prologue of Gospel of John.)
I do not know whether this answers your question but I think it explains Arius stance on Prologue of Gospel of John.
Further Support
It seems that Arius would interpret words "and the Word was God" meaning that Christ was so perfect (yet inferior to God and not God himself) that he can reasonably be denoted as God. For Christ, in Arius stance, would be greater than inanimate matter, plants, animals, men and angels. It seems that for Arius, he would be so great as to be "almost" as true God (but as Aquinas says above, for Arius he lacks eternity and omnipotence and thefore would not be equal to God). Thefore, it seems that Arius would comment on the passage "and the Word was God" by saying that word "God" should here be understood not in the strict sense, but only to convey the point that he was most perfect creature of God and because he was most similar to God he himself was called God.
I think you could hardly make a better case for Arius. However, his heresy was refuted long time ago (you can find link to Aquinas's refutation of Arius arguments in my answer on this question).
I also found two works that touch upon our discussion.

St. Athanasius - Deposition of Arius

Now those who became apostates are these, Arius, Achilles, Aeithales,
Carpones, another Arius, and Sarmates, sometime Presbyters: Euzoïus,
Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, sometime Deacons: and
with them Secundus and Theonas, sometime called Bishops. And the
novelties they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures
are these following:— God was not always a Father , but there was a
time when God was not a Father. The Word of God was not always, but
originated from things that were not; for God that is, has made him
that was not, of that which was not; wherefore there was a time when
He was not; for the Son is a creature and a work. Neither is He like
in essence to the Father; neither is He the true and natural Word of
the Father; neither is He His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things
made and created, and is called the Word and Wisdom by an abuse of
terms, since He Himself originated by the proper Word of God, and by
the Wisdom that is in God, by which God has made not only all other
things but Him also. Wherefore He is by nature subject to change and
variation as are all rational creatures. And the Word is foreign from
the essence of the Father, and is alien and separated therefrom. And
the Father cannot be described by the Son, for the Word does not know
the Father perfectly and accurately, neither can He see Him perfectly.
Moreover, the Son knows not His own essence as it really is; for He is
made for us, that God might create us by Him, as by an instrument; and
He would not have existed, had not God wished to create us.
Accordingly, when some one asked them, whether the Word of God can
possibly change as the devil changed, they were not afraid to say that
He can; for being something made and created, His nature is subject to
change.
3 Now when Arius and his fellows made these assertions, and shamelessly avowed them, we being assembled with the Bishops of Egypt
and Libya, nearly a hundred in number, anathematized both them and
their followers. But Eusebius and his fellows admitted them to
communion, being desirous to mingle falsehood with the truth, and
impiety with piety. But they will not be able to do so, for the truth
must prevail; neither is there any communion of light with darkness,
nor any concord of Christ with Belial.  For who ever heard such
assertions before ? Or who that hears them now is not astonished and
does not stop his ears lest they should be defiled with such language?
Who that has heard the words of John, In the beginning was the Word
John 1:1, will not denounce the saying of these men, that there was a
time when He was not? Or who that has heard in the Gospel, the
Only-begotten Son, and by Him were all things made , will not detest
their declaration that He is one of the things that were made. For how
can He be one of those things which were made by Himself? Or how can
He be the Only-begotten, when, according to them, He is counted as one
among the rest, since He is Himself a creature and a work? And how can
He be made of things that were not, when the Father says, My heart has
uttered a good Word, and Out of the womb I have begotten You before
the morning star ? Or again, how is He unlike in substance to the
Father, seeing He is the perfect image and brightness Hebrews 1:3  of
the Father, and that He says, He that has seen Me has seen the Father
? And if the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God, how was there a time
when He was not? It is the same as if they should say that God was
once without Word and without Wisdom. And how is He subject to change
and variation, Who says, by Himself, I am in the Father, and the
Father in Me , and I and the Father are One ; and by the Prophet,
Behold Me, for I am, and I change not ? For although one may refer
this expression to the Father, yet it may now be more aptly spoken of
the Word, viz., that though He has been made man, He has not changed;
but as the Apostle has said, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
today, and forever. And who can have persuaded them to say, that He
was made for us, whereas Paul writes, for Whom are all things, and by
Whom are all things ?
4 As to their blasphemous position that the Son knows not the Father perfectly, we ought not to wonder at it; for having once set
themselves to fight against Christ, they contradict even His express
words, since He says, As the Father knows Me, even so know I the
Father John 10:15 . Now if the Father knows the Son but in part, then
it is evident that the Son does not know the Father perfectly; but if
it is not lawful to say this, but the Father does know the Son
perfectly, then it is evident that as the Father knows His own Word,
so also the Word knows His own Father Whose Word He is.

St. Alexander of Alexandria - Epistles on the Arian Heresy and the Deposition of Arius.

4 But that the Son of God was not made from things which are not, and
that there was no time when He was not, the evangelist John
sufficiently shows, when he thus writes concerning Him: The
only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father. John 1:18 For
since that divine teacher intended to show that the Father and the Son
are two things inseparable the one from the other, he spoke of Him as
being in the bosom of the Father. Now that also the Word of God is not
comprehended in the number of things that were created from things
which are not, the same John says, All things were made by Him. For he
set forth His proper personality, saying, In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were
made by Him; and with out Him was not anything made that was made.
John 1:1-3 For if all things were made by Him, how comes it that He
who gave to the things which are made their existence, at one time
Himself was not. For the Word which makes is not to be defined as
being of the same nature with the things which are made; since He
indeed was in the beginning, and all things were made by Him, and
fashioned from things which are not.Moreover, that which is seems to
be contrary to and far removed from those things which are made from
things which are not. For that indeed shows that there is no interval
between the Father and the Son, since not even in thought can the mind
imagine any distance between them.But that the world was created from
things which are not, indicates a more recent and a later origin of
substance, since the universe receives an essence of this sort from
the Father by the Son. When, therefore, the most pious John
contemplated the essence of the divine Word at a very great distance,
and as placed beyond all conception of those things that are begotten,
he thought it not meet to speak of His generation and creation; not
daring to designate the Creator in the same terms as the things that
are made. Not that the Word is unbegotten, for the Father alone is
unbegotten, but because the inexplicable subsistence of the
only-begotten Son transcends the acute comprehension of the
evangelists, and perhaps also of angels.

Later, we have:

3 Since those about Arius speak these things and shamelessly maintain
them, we, coming together with the Bishops of Egypt and the Libyas,
nearly a hundred in number, have anathematized them, together with
their followers. But those about Eusebius have received them,
earnestly endeavouring to mix up falsehood with truth, impiety with
piety. But they will not prevail; for the truth prevails, and there is
no communion between light and darkness, no concord between Christ and
Belial.2 Corinthians 6:14 For who ever heard such things? Or who, now
hearing them, is not astonished, and does not stop his ears that the
pollution of these words should not touch them? Who that hears John
saying, In the beginning was the Word, John 1:1 does not condemn those
who say there was a time when He was not? Who that hears these words
of the Gospel, the only-begotten Son;  John 1:18 and, by Him were all
things made, John 1:3 will not hate those who declare He is one of the
things made? For how can He be one of the things made by Him? Or how
shall He be the only-begotten who, as they say, is reckoned with all
the rest, if indeed He is a thing made and created? And how can He be
made of things which are not, when the Father says, My heart belched
forth a good Word;  and, From the womb, before the morning have I
begotten You?  Or how is He unlike to the substance of the Father, who
is the perfect image and brightness of the Father, and who says, He
that has seen Me has seen the Father?  John 14:9 And how, if the Son
is the Word or Wisdom and Reason of God, was there a time when He was
not? It is all one as if they said, that there was a time when God was
without reason and wisdom. How, also, can He be changeable and
mutable, who says indeed by Himself: I am in the Father, and the
Father in Me, John 14:10 and, I and My Father are one; John 10:30 and
by the prophet, I am the Lord, I change not?  Malachi 3:6 For even
though one saying may refer to the Father Himself, yet it would now be
more aptly spoken of the Word, because when He became man, He changed
not; but, as says the apostle, Jesus Christ, the same yesterday,
today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8 Who has induced them to say, that for
our sakes He was made; although Paul says, for whom are all things,
and by whom are all things?  Hebrews 11:10.

Edit 2.
We read on page 101 of Arius: Heresy and Tradition:

(vi) Again, he has presumed to say that the Word is not true God
(theos alithinos). "He may be called 'God' but he is not 'true God'.
It is only by participating in grace, like all others, that he too is
called by the name 'God'. All beings are, in respect of their
substance (kat' ousian), alien to God and unlike him (xenon kai
anomoion); and so too the Word is entirely different from and unlike
the Father's substance and property (idiotitos). He is 'proper' to
(idios) [the class of] made and created things and it is to this that
he belongs.


Perowne's quoting John Calvin in Psalm 56 In Perowne's commentary on the Psalms in one volume, he quotes Calvin  on page 445 in his treatment of Psalm 56.

  "Assuredly," says Calvin, "this is the true test and proof of our faith; when fears harass us, so far as our fleshly nature is concerned (pro sensu carnis), but do not overthrow and unsettle our minds. It seems, indeed, as if fear and hope were feelings too contrary the one to the other to dwell in the same heart; but experience shows that Hope there in fact really reigns where some portion of the heart is possessed by Fear. . . ."

He goes on for a few more sentences. Where in Calvin's writings did he in fact write this? Thanks!

This is from Calvin's treatment of Psalm 56:3.  The most common translation of this work, by James Anderson (published 1846), is available online for free, and the relevant section reads:

  The true proof of faith consists in this, that when we feel the solicitations of natural fear, we can resist them, and prevent them from obtaining an undue ascendancy. Fear and hope may seem opposite and incompatible affections, yet it is proved by observation, that the latter never comes into full sway unless there exists some measure of the former. (CCEL; cf. Google Books)

Comparing your quote to this one, it's easy to see how they differ only in translation.  Since his exact wording doesn't appear to predate his work, it seems likely that Perowne provides his own translation of Calvin's original text.


How many Christian denominations are there? I read that there are over 30,000 denominations. At the same time, I have read that this number is a gross exaggeration.

How many Christian denominations are there?

I'll restate the comment that this is a hard question to answer because it depends on the definition of denomination and it's hard to count/find every single denomination in the world.

The number you state (30,000+) probably comes from The World Christian Encyclopedia, specifically 2nd edition published in 2001. They use the following definition:

  A denomination is defined in this Encyclopedia as an organized aggregate of worship centers or congregations of similar ecclesiastical tradition within a specific country; i.e. as an organized Christian church or tradition or religious group or community of believers, within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same denominational name in different areas, regarding themselves as one autonomous Christian church distinct from other denominations, churches and traditions. As defined here, world Christianity consists of 6 major ecclesiastico-cultural blocs, divided into 300 major ecclesiastical traditions, composed of over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries, these denominations themselves being composed of over 3,400,000 worship centers, churches or congregations.”1

The Center for the Study of Global Christianity also has statistics that align closely to this number (see #41 in the link-34,200 denominations in 2000).

On a Christianity Statistics article, updated March 2017, states that there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations, but they also state:

  This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries, so there is overlapping of many denominations.

The World Christian Database represents over 9,000 Christian denominations. This number is quite lower than 30,000 but it also doesn't say what who exactly is represented or who isn't.

On Wikipedia they list about 1,100 denominations (according to my count) but Wikipedia isn't official.

For more details on the breakdown of (30,000+) read this article (not a primary source).

Based on the statistics from the above article (last link above) and the Christianity Statistics article I graphed the recorded denominations by year and the projected number of denominations in 2025.

All emphasis is added by me

1 https://books.google.com/books?id=FzAJe58A68oC&pg=PA555&lpg=PA555&dq=Barrett+et+al,+volume+1,+page+16,+Table+1-5,&source=bl&ots=WEIH1qILRr&sig=xE2094fUeTzL1MG_KgeA0gq0ZVA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHrZPa-vbSAhWIeCYKHRFLArEQ6AEIKzAC#v=onepage&q=Barrett%20et%20al%2C%20volume%201%2C%20page%2016%2C%20Table%201-5%2C&f=false


Why did God strike Herod down? There are many who go around blaspheming much worse and nothing happens to them. The reason I've heard is that God does not interfere and manipulate. He lets things run their course and has set aside a day for judgement.

  Acts 12:23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an
  angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

Then why did God strike Herod immediately? Why didn't he wait to judge him on judgement day like he does for others? Herod's sin seems trivial compared to what you can see at the 9 o'clock news.

The Bible does not anywhere indicate that the ‘most’ evil people are killed directly by God. God rather often, according to the purposes of his will, postpones the eternal judgment for sin a long while.  Even the very worst of criminals may live long and prosperous lives and we must not expect full justice in this world.  The injustice in the world is part of the judgment for Adam’s sin.  It is only in certain situation that God hastens judgment directly to bring attention to certain things that people might otherwise think God is not that concerned about, or for other mysterious reasons according to Him ‘who works out everything to the good to those that love him’. (Rom 8:28).  Things that everybody knows are evil God often overlooks as know special point needs to be made.

It might be asked ‘Why does not God kill more people, or even all people, like in the days of Noah? But God’s postponement of justice is not the absence of justice, which is what hell is for. It is only his mercy and intentions of grace in Christ (signified by the rainbow) that keeps God from killing more swiftly each new generation. Death itself is in a sense God killing mankind.

As it turns out on this earth, it sometimes almost seems ‘random’ who God directly causes to die and he alone knows his sovereign purposes. When God does miraculously step forward to execute sudden judgment he seems to be sending an important message in line with his purposes at that time of history.

For example in the Old Testament he killed Uzzah for Touching the Ark while trying to prevent it from tipping over (2 Samuel 6:6-7) which makes it seem singled out to be made an example. Meanwhile, while others did more wicked things God may have had no direct interest to intervene according to his own purpose.

In most cases however, it seems God takes direct actions when the people involved are committing public, almost symbolic sins, to put fear in the hearts of those observing and to therefore prevent similar sins by others.  For example, Ananias and Sapphira lying to the Holy Spirit in Acts 5:1-10.  In the case of Herod he was busy persecuting the newly founded church and allowing others to worship him as a god, all the while pretending to be a Jew and a king of Jews.  This was simply something, according to God's direct purposes for his church, that God wanted to publicly show as not acceptable.

Furthermore, just because the Bible does not mention God's involvement in killing other wicked men, history is filled with crazy dictators and especially vile public figures  that have all died sudden and horrific deaths at young ages or otherwise killed themselves such as Judas, Nero, Hitler, etc.

I am not aware of God directly killing (or other dramatic judgement) a person for private sins — it seems always related to 'scandalous public affairs' that if gone unpunished in the eyes of men might affront God's purposes among certain groups at certain times.


Do catholics do exorcism only at night? For the past four nights, Catholics have been doing exorcism in one of the families in my neighborhood. They would start at about 10PM and usually end early the next morning, sometimes till 3AM sharp. They would even light crackers at these hours. Demonic possession is a very serious thing, but why would they do exorcism only at night? I don't think exorcism should be taken as something that you can take a break from until its done.

Having personally aided exorcists in various ways, I can assure you that not all exorcisms are performed at night. Neither does the Rituale Romanum of 1614 or the revised one in 1998, states when an exorcism is to be perform.

That stated I will admit that many exorcism do occur at night. But this is more a question that those involved are entitled to their privacy. Most people are asleep at night and churches are thus empty and more available for priests to perform this Rite when possible (any other suitable dwelling may be used) in a more discreet atmosphere. A priest must never reveal the name of the possessed. This applies to those who assist the priest in their individual functions.

The fire crackers that you are hearing is nothing more than the Devil or Demons involved making noise in order to impress those within ear shot and work on our imaginations. The Devil is a master of making illusions.

Exorcisms may take a priest a couple of times of performing an exorcism in order to liberate a person from the clutches of the demons or may take several weeks or months and occasionally years. The now famous Vatican exorcist Gariele Amorth explains all this in his two books: An Exorcist Tells His Story and An Exorcist: More Stories.


What is the "remedy of concupiscence"? The "quieting of concupiscence" (remedium concupiscentiae) is one of the secondary ends of the sacrament of matrimony (cf. Casti Connubii §59), but what exactly is it? How does it "quiet" or "remedy" concupiscence?

St. Thomas describes how it works in Summa Theologica suppl. q. 42 a. 3 (on how matrimony confers grace) ad 4:

A remedy can be employed against concupiscence in two ways.

on the part of concupiscence by repressing it in its root, and thus matrimony affords a remedy by the grace given therein.
on the part of its act, and this in two ways:1. by depriving the act to which concupiscence inclines of its outward shamefulness, and this is done by the marriage blessings which justify carnal concupiscence;2.   by hindering the shameful act, which is done by the very nature of the act because concupiscence, being satisfied by the conjugal act, does not incline so much to other wickedness. For this reason the Apostle says (1 Cor. 7:9): "It is better to marry than to burn." For though the works congenial to concupiscence are in themselves of a nature to increase concupiscence,* yet in so far as they are directed according to reason they repress concupiscence, because like acts result in like dispositions and habits.*i.e., engaging in the act makes them want to engage in it more, like how eating makes one want to eat more (if not restrained by reason)

Summary:
Matrimony confers graces to allow one to practice

continence.
the marriage act without sin, because of the1. marriage goods (sacrament, children, fidelity)2. directing the act according to reason,

which honestant the marriage act (justify and dignify it).
St. Augustine says married couples use evil well; they use the concupiscence in the act (an evil) for a good purpose.


How are Romans 3:24 and James 2:17 reconciled? I mean. I want to put my faith in Jesus, and I try to make myself believe that he is my Savior.. But I find myself putting more faith in "My" actions instead of his. And according to these two scriptures, I don't know which way to turn. If this is a question for a pastor or a preacher, I apologize for the inconvenience. I'm just looking everywhere an anywhere for clarification.

Romans 3:24 NIV:

  and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

James 2:17 NIV:

  In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

In the passage in Romans, Paul has just finished condemning the whole world through their sin, and shows us that by the law, by following rules, no one can be made righteous before God (Rom. 3:20). But now by God's graciousness, He has prepared a way for us to be saved from our unrighteous state through faith alone in Jesus (Rom. 3:21, 24), apart from good deeds. Paul is noting the fact that our entrance into salvation is by faith alone.

But James is addressing our state after we have received God's salvation. The tendency of many Christians is to say, "Well, I'm saved and going to heaven," and forget that God is looking for fruit from that salvation, which is a relationship with God of trust and obedience. For instance, a wife would be frustrated if her new husband never has anything to do with her other than to say, "Well, I'm married now." No -- that's the time to learn to love his wife and do good for her.

In the same way, faith is dead if there are no steps of relating to God, of obeying Him, appreciating Him, wanting to submit to His wisdom, wanting to learn more about Him and wanting to imitate Him. Again, all this is after salvation by faith alone.

To put it practically, we, as unbelievers, realize that we have sinned and are due for an awful judgment before God. So we come to Christ by faith, submitting to him, since we can "do" nothing to save ourselves. Now, on the other side of salvation, we prove our faith by dealing with sin, cutting them off as the Spirit shows them to us. After all, if we believe that Jesus died for our sins, then it makes sense to renounce those sins and learn to live a holy life. These are the works James is advocating (as is Paul when he wrote us to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" in Philippians 2:12).


How are emendations to the Masoretic Text viewed within the doctrine of inerrancy? This was prompted by an answer to another question of mine which quoted a source that noted alternative vocalization of the Masoretic text as an example of liberal tendencies in the NRSV.

This question is aimed at understanding the viewpoint of those groups who endorse the doctrine of biblical inerrancy as outlined in the Chicago Statement. I understand that there are likely sub-groups under this umbrella, and this is intended as an overview question of perspectives within that group. From the statement:

  WE AFFIRM  that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy.

Clearly, neither the consonantal decisions of the Masoretic text nor vowels of any sort were part of the autographs, with the implication that these are, strictly speaking, outside the purview of the statement. However, as noted above and in the linked answer, people (myself included!) seem to feel uneasy when encountering emendations to the Masoretic text.

To what extent do various traditions under the umbrella of 'inerrancy' value the Masoretic text, both its vocalization and consonantal textual decisions? This may include the degree to which these decisions are considered inspired, instructive, illustrative of authorial intent, or whatever other facets of 'valuable' can be brought to bear.

Appendix:

A few examples of questions on Biblical Hermeneutics where we have discussed emendations to the MT that are understood by many Christian translations:   Psalm 22:16, Deut 32:8, Psalm 19:4, Obad 7, Ecc 7:27, Job 6:14, Hosea 11:12.

These include some examples where the emendations are purely conjectural and others where they are based on alternative witnesses, most prominently the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint.

Inerrantists do not view the Masoretic text as inerrant in itself, but they consider it highly reliable.  John Wenham, in Christ and the Bible (170ff.), outlines a variety of evidence for its faithful transmission of the original, all the while implying its imperfection:

It was well known that the copying of the Scriptures had been carried out with almost unimaginable care and reverence, with the result that the differences between existing Hebrew manuscripts were small. [...] Vowel pointing was not in use during the early centuries of our era, and these sources do not always corroborate the vowels that were later adopted and standardized by the Massoretes, but all the sources show a remarkable constancy in the transmission of the consonantal text.
But this dependence on indirect evidence to establish the fidelity of the transmission of the text gave place to direct proof with the amazing discoveries at Qumran [...] showing only very small differences from the Massoretic text.  Indeed, they appeared if anything to be slightly inferior in text to the Massoretic manuscripts that were written a thousand years later.

So how then do inerrantists view emendations to this Masoretic text?  Extremely cautiously, but not because of Masoretic inerrancy.  John MacArthur writes in The Inerrant Word, quoting Douglas Petrovich:

Is there really a high likelihood that a modern scholar (without any textual evidence for his emendation) might correctly impeach all extant ancient witnesses to the biblical text?  If "a reading found in only one single translation, without any corroborating witnesses or original-language manuscripts, has an extremely small chance of possessing the correct reading found in the autographa," what are the odds of a reading without support in any ancient translation?
Three observations concerning conjectural emendation help to identify their nature: (1) a conjectural emendation exhibits a high degree of subjectivity; (2) with increased knowledge and evidence, most such emendations later prove to be unnecessary; and (3) scholars should consider conjectural emendation only as a last resort.  In other words, as long as there is any moderately reasonable explanation for the text as it stands, that option ought always to be preferred.

MacArthur describes the mindset he sees as necessary to the inerrantist:

Adhering consistently to biblical inerrancy requires an admission of one's own ignorance and inability to resolve every problem. [...] Our first assumption should be that we are in error rather than applying the hermeneutic of doubt to the text.


Do we retain our gender in Heaven? The Bible tells us repeatedly that our earthly actions will impact our ability to enter the gates of Heaven. Some Biblical passages say that our earthly actions can improve or lessen our experience of Heaven if we are in fact lucky enough to reach it.

With that being said, I conclude that we must retain our earthly identities and our earthly experiences. But if that's the case, then I must ask:

Do we retain our gender in Heaven?

Reason for my question:

A person's gender shapes their experience on planet Earth. Gender is a quality that you simply cannot shake. It opens some doors and closes others (and I'm not talking about the rest rooms :/) On the other hand, the Bible describes Heaven as a state of perfection and a place without bounds. As I see it, gender creates bounds, or at least a lane within which to operate. Such a lane would seem to run contrary to the nature of Heaven.

St Augustine says we do and I might as well quote him at length since its way way in the public domain:

Whether the Bodies of Women Shall Retain Their Own Sex in the Resurrection.
From the words, Till we all come to a perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ, Ephesians 4:13 and from the words, Conformed to the image of the Son of God, Romans 8:29 some conclude that women shall not rise women, but that all shall be men, because God made man only of earth, and woman of the man. For my part, they seem to be wiser who make no doubt that both sexes shall rise. For there shall be no lust, which is now the cause of confusion. For before they sinned, the man and the woman were naked, and were not ashamed. From those bodies, then, vice shall be withdrawn, while nature shall be preserved. And the sex of woman is not a vice, but nature. It shall then indeed be superior to carnal intercourse and child-bearing; nevertheless the female members shall remain adapted not to the old uses, but to a new beauty, which, so far from provoking lust, now extinct, shall excite praise to the wisdom and clemency of God, who both made what was not and delivered from corruption what He made. For at the beginning of the human race the woman was made of a rib taken from the side of the man while he slept; for it seemed fit that even then Christ and His Church should be foreshadowed in this event. For that sleep of the man was the death of Christ, whose side, as He hung lifeless upon the cross, was pierced with a spear, and there flowed from it blood and water, and these we know to be the sacraments by which the Church is built up. For Scripture used this very word, not saying He formed or framed, but built her up into a woman; Genesis 2:22 whence also the apostle speaks of the edification of the body of Christ, Ephesians 4:12 which is the Church. The woman, therefore, is a creature of God even as the man; but by her creation from man unity is commended; and the manner of her creation prefigured, as has been said, Christ and the Church. He, then, who created both sexes will restore both. Jesus Himself also, when asked by the Sadducees, who denied the resurrection, which of the seven brothers should have to wife the woman whom all in succession had taken to raise up seed to their brother, as the law enjoined, says, You do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Matthew 22:29 And though it was a fit opportunity for His saying, She about whom you make inquiries shall herself be a man, and not a woman, He said nothing of the kind; but In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Matthew 22:30 They shall be equal to the angels in immortality and happiness, not in flesh, nor in resurrection, which the angels did not need, because they could not die. The Lord then denied that there would be in the resurrection, not women, but marriages; and He uttered this denial in circumstances in which the question mooted would have been more easily and speedily solved by denying that the female sex would exist, if this had in truth been foreknown by Him. But, indeed, He even affirmed that the sex should exist by saying, They shall not be given in marriage, which can only apply to females; Neither shall they marry, which applies to males. There shall therefore be those who are in this world accustomed to marry and be given in marriage, only they shall there make no such marriages.
St. Augustine - City of God - Book 22 chapter 17

So, to summarize, yes there are sexes, no there's no sex because:

There's nothing wrong with being a woman
Jesus would have made it more clear when saying folks aren't married in Heaven.

Now, I'll bet your wondering if women have beards in heaven? Well that's another question, but somewhere in there I belive he even answers that.


When was Good Friday first called "Good"? In my other question,  I discovered that special commemoration on Friday was held as early as the 3rd century.  I also discovered that there was not necessarily a connection to the title "Good" Friday.

When was the Friday Passion week day first called "Good"? This can be in any language as long as the title or description is using something that can be understood the same (Latin Bonum/Bene?)

But it needs to be as an actual title, not just someone writing that the Friday is good,  or that it will be a good Friday(this year).

When did Good Friday first get called “Good”?

To be honest, we do not know  for sure, but then possibly in 1290 if you accept "guode friday" as meaning Good Friday!

  We honestly don’t know. Linguists are unable to trace when and where and why Crucifixion Day came to be known as Good Friday. The word “good” is sometimes used in the Bible in the sense of “holy.” So the term Good Friday might be derived from some olden expression such as Holy Friday. The word good may also relate in its etymology to the word God. Our term goodbye is apparently a contraction of the phrase God Be With You. Perhaps Good Friday hails from a medieval phrase meaning God’s Friday. -  Why Is Good Friday Called Good Friday?

There are still some other possibilities of where this phrase may have originated, but as to when the term Good Friday was first used  is somewhat mysterious.

  There are two possible origins for the name "Good Friday". The first may have come from the Gallican Church in Gaul (modern-day France and Germany). The name "Gute Freitag" is Germanic in origin and literally means "good" or "holy" Friday. The second possibility is a variation on the name "God's Friday," where the word "good" was used to replace the word "God," which was often viewed as too holy to be spoken aloud. - Good Friday Origins

The following article has this to say about why Good Friday is Good?

  The origin of the term Good is not clear. Some say it is from "God's Friday" (Gottes Freitag); others maintain that it is from the German Gute Freitag, and not specially English. Sometimes, too, the day was called Long Friday by the Anglo-Saxons; so today in Denmark.

  If Good Friday were called good because English adopted the German phrase, then we would expect Gute Freitag to be the common German name for Good Friday, but it is not. Instead, Germans refer to Good Friday as Karfreitag—that is, Sorrowful or Suffering Friday—in German.

  So, in the end, the historical origins of why Good Friday is called Good Friday remain unclear, but the theological reason is very likely the one expressed by the Baltimore Catechism: Good Friday is good because the death of Christ, as terrible as it was, led to the Resurrection on Easter Sunday, which brought new life to those who believe.

When did Good in Good Friday become used as an expression? Magazine Monitor states the following:

  The earliest known use of "guode friday" is found in The South English Legendary, a text from around 1290, according to the dictionary.


Why is "fornication" used to describe the actions of "Babylon the Great" in Revelation 18? For because of the wine of the anger of her fornication all the nations have fallen [victim], and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the traveling merchants of the earth became rich due to the power of her shameless luxury.”—Revelation 18:3 (NWT)

I was wondering if anyone would be able to explain, in what way(s), "Babylon the Great" engaged in "Fornication"?

In layman's terms, fornication is often used as an allegory for idolatry. In the same way people are unfaithful to spouses by fornicating in the usual sense of the word, idolatry is "cheating on" God.

More at http://www.thewholetruthnow.com/2PORNEIA.htm and http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/doctrine/fornication_defined.htm

From the second link above:

  In Revelation, we again see a clear link between the act of
  fornication and idolatry:

  Revelation 2

  14   But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a
  stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
  unto idols, and to commit fornication....
  20   Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess,
  to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat
  things sacrificed unto idols.

  John is clearly speaking out against the practice of committing the
  sexual act of idolatry and then eating meat sacrificed to idols in
  that act of worship.

  If you do a word study on Fornication, you will see that it is
  condemned in context to Idolatry EVERY time.  100% of the references
  to fornication are in context to idolatry.

similarly, several times in Scripture, idolatry is described as "whoring after other gods" such as in

  Judges 2:17 KJV

  And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a
  whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned
  quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the
  commandments of the LORD; but they did not so.


What does Trinitarian Protestantism understand by salvation being in the name of 'Jesus Christ of Nazareth'? Peter had the following words to say to the rulers, elders and scribes in Jerusalem regarding the healing of the lame man at the temple :

... the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth ... neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
[Acts 4: 10, 12 KJV]

What is understood by Trinitarian Protestantism that salvation is by the 'name' of Jesus Christ and, more specifically, by the name 'Jesus Christ of Nazareth' ?
Do Protestants understand that this is a matter of 'identification' possibly, or a matter of 'location', that is to say identifying and locating God himself in his manifestation in the Person of the Son of God ?
Is this, according to Trinitarian Protestantism, a matter of identifying and locating the one true God that one might call upon him (and him only) for salvation ?
It is noticeable that the apostle does not say 'Jesus Christ of Bethlehem', but 'Jesus Christ of Nazareth'. Does Trinitarian Protestantism have any light to shed upon this ?

As a Trinitarian Christian of the Protestant persuasion, I understand that the conflict between the High Priest, rulers, elders and teachers of the law, and Peter was that the former equated the power to resurrect and perform miracles to the name in which it was done, yet Peter “preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead” (Acts 4:2).

And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? (Acts 4:7 KJAV)

Peter declared that the miracle had been done in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom they had crucified, but whom God had raised from the dead (Acts 4:10).  Here are some extracts from Calvin’s commentaries on Acts 4, taken from this source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/acts/4.htm

In what power: They do yet seem to have some zeal of God. For they feign that they are careful that the honor due unto God may not be given to any other. Name is taken in this place for authority. In sum, they deal as if they were most earnest defenders and maintainers of God's glory.

By declaring the power of the miracle was in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Peter equates Jesus of Nazareth with God.  No wonder the High Priest and his followers were horrified!  People from Nazareth were held in low esteem and they were despised and condemned.  Nathaniel asked Philip if any good thing can come out of Nazareth (John 1:45-46).  When Peter said Jesus of Nazareth rather than Jesus of Bethlehem (where he was born) he was making reference to where Jesus had grown up, a common tradition, as found in Luke 23:26 regarding Simon of Cyrene.

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene (Matthew 2:23).

The prophecies respecting the coming Messiah were that He was to be of humble origin and would be “despised and rejected” and men would esteem him not (Isaiah 53; Psalm 22). When Matthew says the prophecies were “fulfilled,” it suggests that the predictions that the Messiah would be of a low and despised condition and would be rejected, were fully accomplished because Jesus was identified as a citizen of Nazareth.
Back to Calvin who makes these comments regarding Acts 4:10 and then verse 12:

Be it known unto you. And, first he [Peter] maketh Christ the author of the miracle. Secondly, because it seemed to be an absurd and incredible thing, that a dead man should be endued with divine power, he testifieth that Christ is alive, because God hath raised him up from the dead, howsoever they had crucified him. So that the miracle giveth him occasion to preach the resurrection of Christ. And by this testimony Peter meant to prove that he was the true Messiah. He saith that they had crucified him, not only to the end he may upbraid this unto them, that they may acknowledge their fault; but also that they may understand that they have in vain striven against God; and so, consequently, cease to rage so unluckily and with such deadly success.

Neither is there salvation in any other. He passeth from the species [salvation] unto the genus, [or more particular,] and he goeth from the corporal benefit unto perfect health, [or general.] And assuredly Christ had showed this one token of his grace, to the end he might be known to be the only author of life. We must consider this in all the benefits of God, to wit, that he is the fountain of salvation. And he meant to prick and sting the priests with this sentence, when as he saith that there is salvation in none other save only in Christ, whom they went about to put quite out of remembrance. [210] As if he should say, that they are twice damned who did not only refuse the salvation offered them by God, but endeavor to bring the same to nought, and did take from all the people the fruit and use thereof. And although he seemeth to speak unto deaf men, yet doth he preach of the grace of Christ, if peradventure some can abide to hear; if not, that they may at least be deprived of all excuse by this testimony.

Neither is there any other name. He expoundeth the sentence next going before. Salvation (saith he) is in Christ alone, because God hath decreed that it should be so. For by name he meaneth the cause or mean, as if he should have said, forasmuch as salvation is in God's power only, he will not have the same to be common to us by any other means than if we ask it of Christ alone. Whereas he saith under heaven, they do commonly refer it unto creatures, as if he should say, that the force and power to save is given to Christ alone. Notwithstanding, I do rather think that this was added, because men cannot ascend into heaven, that they may come unto God. Therefore, seeing we are so far from the kingdom of God, it is needful that God do not only invite us unto himself, but that reaching out his hand he offer salvation unto us, that we may enjoy the same. Peter teacheth in this place, that he hath done that in Christ, because he came down into the earth for this cause, that he might bring salvation with him, Neither is that contrary to this doctrine, that Christ is ascended above all heavens (Ephesians 4:10).  For he took upon him our flesh once for this cause, that he might be a continual pledge of our adoption...
But Peter calleth us back unto Christ alone. They dare not altogether deny that we have salvation given us by Christ; but whilst they feign so many helps, they leave him scarce the hundredth part of salvation. But they were to seek for salvation at the hands of Christ wholly; for when Peter excludeth plainly all other means, he placeth perfect salvation in Christ alone, and not some part thereof only.  Source: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/acts/4.htm

To sum up: Trinitarian Protestants believe that salvation is to be found in the name of Jesus alone.  Since salvation is in God’s power alone, for the Bible to declare that salvation is in none other than Jesus, is to confess that Jesus is God.  At the incarnation, the Word became flesh and dwelt with us (John 1:1, 14).  Jesus, prior to his incarnation, existed throughout eternity as the uncreated Word of God.  Jesus did not become the Son of God at his birth.
In John 10:30 Jesus declared “I and the Father are one.”  The Father is eternal.  The Son is eternal.  The relationship between Father and Son is eternal.   Salvation is from God.  Salvation is from Jesus the Son.  The Father is God.  Jesus is God.  Otherwise Peter, in the power of the Holy Spirit, could never have said there is no name under heaven except the name of Jesus of Nazareth whereby we must be saved.  The name is the authority.  If Jesus is not God then no person could ever be saved by calling upon the name of Jesus.  Since Jesus is God, and since he existed throughout eternity as part of the One Being of God, then (as Calvin declares) Peter calls us to Jesus Christ alone for salvation.
By calling upon the name of Jesus for salvation, one has identified and located the One True God.


Is there evidence that Isaiah 53 was viewed as a Messianic prophecy within Judaism, or is it an exclusively Christian interpretation? The modern Jewish interpretation of the so-called suffering servant song of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 is that it is a prophecy referring to the nation of Israel, not the Messiah.  As such, it is sometimes suggested that Christians invented the idea that this is a Messianic prophecy.

What evidence is there that (at least some) Jews saw the passage as having Messianic implications?  Do such interpretation predates the advent of Christianity?  When did the nation of Israel interpretation become common?

The existing answer provides a learned and fascinating discussion for tracing the interpretative history of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (often conveniently abbreviated to "Isaiah 53", the so-called "Fourth Servant Song") from roughly the 1st C. CE. Thus, the conclusion...

  We can ... be confident that first century converts to Christianity did not invent the idea that Isaiah 53 has Messianic tones.

...can be placed on a stronger footing if we also modify this claim:

  [w]e have no data at all on interpretations for the first 500+ years after the passage was written.

There are three, at least, sources of evidence for this period: (1) the Hebrew Bible itself; (2) the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible from the 3rd-2nd C. BCE); and (3) the Dead Sea Scrolls.

(1) Martin Hengel (towering scholar of late Second Temple Period and early Christianity) drew attention to later texts in the Hebrew Bible that, he argued, showed the influence of Isaiah 53 and pointed in a messianic direction.1 He argued for lines of connection and relationship between Isaiah 53 and (a) Zechariah 12:9-13:1 and 13:7-9, and 12:10 in particular; and (b) the book of Daniel 11:33-35 and 12:2-3. This is explored and stated with some care, especially the Zechariah connection, but for Daniel, Hengel points to the study of H.L. Ginsberg arguing that it is "the oldest interpretation of the suffering servant" (pp. 91-92).2

(2) The Septuagint actually doesn't offer much in this passage, but it does need to be mentioned. Its overall "messianism" has been much discussed,3 so it might be surprising (in light of later history) that any messianic overtones there might be in Isaiah 53 are subdued in the pre-Christian Greek translation.4

(3) The Dead Sea Scrolls give us more, especially in the "Great Isaiah Scroll", 1QIsaa. Among other considerations, Hengel draws attention to two variations in particular that point to a "messianic" understanding for this "Servant Song":1

52:14 includes an obscure hapax legomena מִשְׁחַת that appears in 1QIsaa as משׁחתי which pointed would be מְשַׁחְתִּי məšaḥtî, "I anointed". This, in conjunction with the added definite article on ʾadam, results in a text which Hengel translates: "I have anointed his appearance beyond that of any (other) man, and his form beyond that of the sons of humanity [the human]". This has other textual overtones bringing the passage into an explicit connection with "anointing".

53:10 in the MT includes what is widely regarded as a textual corruption, הֶחֱלִי "he made him sick". Here, the Isaiah Scroll has ויחללהו, "he pierced him" (and 1QIsab has a gap). Hengel notes and discusses the connections back to Isa 53:5 where "pierced" is also used, and the further connection to Zechariah 12:10 (see also above).

In summary, the OP's "self-learner" conclusion looks to be sound after all: there are indications that a pre-Christian understanding of Isaiah 53 included some sense of its association with an (or "the") "anointed one", i.e., mashiach. It is admittedly not pronounced, but neither is it absent. Further exploraton of this body of evidence would further reinforce this impression. (Anyone minded to follow-up the secondary literature cited will find more than enough to substantiate this claim.)

Finally, we must bear in mind Hengel's own caveat (p. 103):5

  [W]e must remember that in the second century B.C.E., we do not yet possess any fixed Jewish doctrine of the Messiah—there basically never was one—but must rather deal with various ideas of anointing and the Anointed One.

Notes

M. Hengel with D. Bailey, "The Effective History of Isaiah 53 in the PreChristian Period", in The Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 in Jewish and Christian Sources, ed. by Bernd Janowski & Peter Stuhlmacher (Eerdmans, 2004), pp. 75-146. This chapter should be read by anyone interested in the subject; other chapters in this volume also have relevance for this discussion.
H. L. Ginsberg, "The Oldest Interpretation of the Suffering Servant," Vetus Testamentum 3 (1953): 400-404.
See e.g. this review of R.F De Sousa, Eschatology and Messianism in LXX Isaiah 1–12 (2010) and the literature cited there. Also, substantially and recently, Abi T. Ngunga, Messianism in the Old Greek of Isaiah: An Intertextual Analysis (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012).
For details, see David A. Sapp, “The LXX, 1QIsa, and MT Versions of Isaiah 53 and the Christian doctrine of atonement,” in Jesus and the Suffering Servant: Isaiah 53 and Christian Origins, ed. by William H. Bellinger Jr. and  William R. Farmer (Trinity Press, 1998), pp. 170-192.
This with reference to the Great Isaiah Scroll in particular, but it is true of all the evidence for a pre-Christian understanding of the "messiah".


What do Christians mean by "Jesus took our illnesses upon himself on the cross" and why? Having a bit of holiday over Christmas and New Year I'm going over some notes I've made of topics I want to look at.

One such question regards the use of terminology such as "Jesus took our illnesses upon himself on the cross".

I've read a little and seen that there's a variety of perspectives (from perhaps "sickness is something that shouldn't affect Christians" to perhaps a focus on the full-application being in the future kingdom) that this statement could cover, but I'd be interested to see if anyone could give me the background texts to support such a statement (one would not have to agree with the exegesis to present the texts used to support the doctrine).

One commonly referenced text would be Isa 53:4-5 which concludes

  and with his wounds we are healed

I'm interested in seeing what is the range of ideas that "Jesus took our illnesses" covers and what key texts are used to build up that argument.

I hope that's reasonably clear!

In Isa 53, the word you are translating "illnesses" is more often translated as "transgressions" or "iniquities."  Both of those words highlight the fact that Jesus took our sins with him on the cross, and by the wounds he suffered, we were healed - from the iniquity of sin.

The basic idea of salvation in Christainity is often summarized as this -

We are sinners
Because of this sin, we deserve eternal death - separation from God
Jesus paid the penalty for that sin by dying on the cross, thus we are healed and given eternal life.

(For the purposes of this answer, lets not get into all the different ideas of atonement, etc... I'm going for the overview here!)

The point is "illness" is not a physical thing here, but a legal one. (Indeed, I've never seen that translation before - perhaps its just being confused with iniquities?  An iniquity is an evil, a cause of suffering and distress, not necessarily a bodily thing.)  We are "suffering" from sin, and the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 pays for that sin, so we are healed.

Beyond that, I've never seen a promise that Christians would never get sick.  Even the early church recognized that believers would still die.  The Good News, however, is that in our resurrected state, there would be no more corruption in our bodies - i.e. no sickness - but that's on the other side of the Jordan, not this one!


What does Acts 13:39 mean? Acts 13:39 (NIV) —

  Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.

If the law of Moses is not anymore valid, then why does the Catholic church still obey the ten commandments (which is the law of Moses)?

The Catholic Church still teaches the Ten Commandments. See the Catechism: Part Three, Section Two is enormous1. However, there is a helpful summary:

2075 "What good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" — "If you would enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:16–17).
2076 By his life and by his preaching Jesus attested to the permanent validity of the Decalogue.
2077 The gift of the Decalogue is bestowed from within the covenant concluded by God with his people. God's commandments take on their true meaning in and through this covenant.
2078 In fidelity to Scripture and in conformity with Jesus' example, the tradition of the Church has always acknowledged the primordial importance and significance of the Decalogue.
2079 The Decalogue forms an organic unity in which each "word" or "commandment" refers to all the others taken together. To transgress one commandment is to infringe the whole Law (cf Jas 2:10-11).
2080 The Decalogue contains a privileged expression of the natural law. It is made known to us by divine revelation and by human reason.
2081 The Ten Commandments, in their fundamental content, state grave obligations. However, obedience to these precepts also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light.
2082 What God commands he makes possible by his grace.

1 "Your questions should be reasonably scoped. If you can imagine an entire book that answers your question, you’re asking too much." [Link]


How do those who believe the Son is not Almighty God interpret Revelation 2:23? To me, the deity of Christ is seen all throughout Revelation, and for that matter, the Gospels (e.g. John 1:1) and Epistles, and all of Scripture, but for the purposes of the question, how do those who do not believe in the deity of Christ ('that Jesus is God in the flesh') view such passages as Revelation 2:23?

  Revelation 2:18,20-23 ... These things says the Son of God, whose eyes are like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like refined bronze1 ... But I have this against you [i.e. the congregation at Thyatira]: that you put up with that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and teaches [falsely], and misleads my servants, seducing them into  sexual promiscuity and the eating of things sacrifices to idols. And I have given her time that she might repent, but she was unwilling to repent of her sexual sin. Behold, I will cast her onto a bed of sickness, and those that commit adultery with her into great affliction, if they do not repent of their deeds. And her children I will strike with death; then will all the churches know that I am he  who searches the minds and the hearts, and [that] I render to each of you according to your works.

In light of this being the perogative of YHVH, God Almighty:

  Jeremiah 17:10 I, YHVH, search the heart and examine the mind, to render to each according to his conduct—according to the fruit of his doings.2

IMPORTANT EDIT

As noted by another user 2 Chronicles 6:30 (cf. 1 Kings 8:39) teaches explicitly that YHVH alone knows the hearts of men:

  1 Chronicles 6:14, 30 O YHVH, God of Israel, ... So then, hear from heaven, your dwelling place, and forgive, and render to each one according to all his ways, [you] who know his heart: for you alone know the hearts of the sons of men.

Footnotes

1 Fresh translations throughout for reasons of consistency; largely irrelevant for the purposese of the question. | cf. 1:10-18; 2:8

2 cf. Jer 11:20; 20:12; Wis 1:6-7; Rom 8:27

3 cf. Nahum 1:3; Rev 3:19; Prov 3:12; Heb 12:6

Jehovah's Witnesses have not published an article specifically explaining this verse within the context of the Trinity, but the fundamental argument being presented is a common one: God's actions and Jesus' actions are the same, so they must be the same.
The Bible describes the relationship between God and His Son in great detail, and from this Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is not God, but that he imitates his Father and is given authority by his Father. For example, when the Jews were accusing Jesus of "making himself equal to God," Jesus responded by saying:

John 5:19-24
“Most truly I say to you, the Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son does also in like manner. For the Father has affection for the Son and shows him all the things he himself does, and he will show him works greater than these, so that you may marvel. For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes alive whomever he wants to. For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Most truly I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes the One who sent me has everlasting life, and he does not come into judgment but has passed over from death to life.

This verse shows that Jesus has been given the authority to judge and that Jesus acts like God, not because he is God, but because he sees God and imitates him. Jesus gave the ultimate example of how the rest of God's children should also imitate God.—Ephesians 5:1, 2.
There are many other verses which also describe how Jesus was given authority. Daniel spoke of it prophetically, and Jesus and Paul both attest to how it came true.

Daniel 7:13, 14
“I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed.

Matthew 28:18
Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.

Philippians 2:9-11
For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Therefore, Jesus has the authority and power to be the Judge of peoples' minds and hearts because God commissioned him with that responsibility. Prior to that, however, God dealt with Israel alone, functioning as the only reader of hearts in the Hebrew Scriptures. Some verses refer to Jesus as "the arm of Jehovah" because he accomplishes God's will.—Isaiah 40:10; 53:1; John 12:37, 38.


Can anyone explain Pope Paul VI's arguments in favor of Padre Pio? Saint Pio (Pius) of Pietrelcina, O.F.M. Cap. (May 25, 1887 – September 23, 1968) was a Capuchin Catholic priest from Italy who is venerated as a saint in the Catholic Church.

It is claimed that no more than Anecdotal evidence supports Pio’s alleged mystical abilities. Some of his bilocations are consistent with hallucinations and the supposed odor of sanctity was purported to be Eau de Cologne. He was never watched continually to ensure that chemicals like carbolic acid or iodine were not used to prevent wounds from healing, as has been claimed. Pio over many years wore fingerless gloves which concealed his wounds or prevented him having to tend to the wounds. Near his death Pio avoided covering his hands and there was no sign of injury.
The founder of Milan's Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, friar, physician and psychologist Agostino Gemelli, who met Padre Pio once, for a few minutes, but was unable to examine his stigmata, concluded Padre Pio was "an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity."[16] In short, he was accused of infractions against all three of his monastic vows: poverty, chastity and obedience.Agostino Gemelli also speculated that Padre Pio kept his wounds open with carbolic acid. As a result of the Gemelli assessment, the wounds were wrapped in cloth. According to believers, the bleeding continued for some 50 years until they closed within hours of his death.
On 29 July 1960, an Italian monsignore, Carlo Maccari, who later became the archbishop of Ancona, began yet another investigation on behalf of Pope John XXIII and the Holy Office. The 200-page report he compiled, though never published in full, is said to be devastatingly critical. Vatican gossip long had it that the “Maccari dossier” was an insuperable obstacle to Padre Pio’s sainthood. According to official Capuchin literature, however, Maccari later recanted and prayed to Padre Pio on his deathbed.
In 1940, Padre Pio began plans to open a hospital in San Giovanni Rotondo, to be named the Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza or "Home to Relieve Suffering". The hospital opened in 1956. Barbara Ward, a British humanitarian and journalist on assignment in Italy, played a major role in obtaining for this project a grant of $325,000 from the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). In order that Padre Pio might directly supervise this project, Pope Pius XII, in 1957 granted him dispensation from his vow of poverty. Padre Pio's detractors used this project as another weapon to attack him, charging him with misappropriation of funds.
Padre Pio was subject to numerous investigations. Fearing local riots, a plan to transfer Padre Pio to another friary was dropped and a second plan was aborted when a riot almost happened. In the period from 1924 to 1931 the Holy See made various statements denying that the happenings in the life of Padre Pio were due to any divine cause. At one point, he was prevented from publicly performing his priestly duties, such as hearing confessions and saying Mass.
By 1933, the tide began to turn, with Pope Pius XI ordering the Holy See to reverse its ban on Padre Pio’s public celebration of Mass. The Pope said, "I have not been badly disposed toward Padre Pio, but I have been badly informed."In 1934, he was again allowed to hear confessions. He was also given honorary permission to preach despite never having taken the exam for the preaching licence. Pope Pius XII, who assumed the papacy in 1939, encouraged devotees to visit Padre Pio. According to a recent book, Pope John XXIII (1958–1963) apparently did not espouse the outlook of his predecessors, and wrote in 1960 of Padre Pio’s “immense deception." However, it was John XXIII's successor, Pope Paul VI, who, in the mid-1960s, firmly dismissed all accusations against Padre Pio.
[Wikipedia]

My question is: Can anyone explain Pope Paul VI's arguments in favor of Padre Pio?

The article is incorrect on several points. For example it is true that Gemelli was critical of Padre Pio. It is also true that this was due to misunderstanding and from self inflated notions of his own importance in the Church. Gemelli evidence on the stigmata for example is fabricated and flies in the face of several medical physicians and properly adhered to as at least unexplainable if not of other than natural means. Gemelli did not really ever know Pio and his assumptions were based on views expressed by others such as Gagliardi whom disliked Pio for a variety of reasons that today or obscure as the Archbishop was so corrupt himself. The Stigmata lasted almost 50 years and show that notions of self inflicted ideas as simply absurd. Pio himself disliked it and it caused him great pain, physical and mental. Benedict 15 was a supporter of Pio whereas Pius 11 was swayed by men like Gemelli and Archbishop Gagliardi whom detested Pio but was himself later censored by the Church for improper behaviour. Pius 12 was a firm believer in Pio and John 23 was surrounded by men that held Pio in jealous eyes. Pope Paul 6 was a great believer in Pio and admired him very much. For this reason he fully backed Pio and supported him and accredited him on his death with true and heroic sanctity. John Paul 2 was also a great friend of Pio and would canonise him as Pio of Pietrelcina, Hope this all helps. Further reading on Pio will also add to knowledge in this matter.


How do those who believe or ascribe to Hypostatic Union interpret Philippians 2:7? When we read in Philippians 2:4-7

  4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the
  interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours
  in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not
  count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself,
  by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. (ESV)

what does it mean that Jesus "emptied himself" in light of the Hypostatic Union?  Does he mean God "puts aside" his divine attributes when he takes the form of Jesus?

As the Chalcedonian Creed states, his two natures are without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. Fully divine and fully human. So, in this context (and I guess in the grand scheme of things), what does the emptying of himself mean, entail, and cause?  I would like answers from being who subscribe to the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union.

"Does he mean God "puts aside" his divine attributes when he takes the form of Jesus?"

No.

This is much related to the glorification of Jesus in John 17. As opposed to Paul's alluding of the putting off of glory when he says that Christ "emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave, becoming in the likeness of men," and was "found in fashion as a man"(Phil. 2:7-8).

  And now, glorify Me along with Yourself, Father, with the glory which
  I had with You  before the world was. (17:5) I have glorified You on
  earth, finishing the work which You have given Me to do. (17:4)

Glory is ontologically the mode of the Divine Being in which God manifests Himself. In the Old Testament God's people could, at most, look upon the glory. The prophets introduced the notion that in the future the glory of God will be an enduring reality that will fill the earth, but even then the glory is only with God as the expression of His manifest Being dwelling among humankind.

Ramm, in his book, "Them He Glorified: A Systematic Study of the Doctrine of Glorification", observes that "it is a kind of totality of qualities which make up His divine power," and he concludes:

  the glory of God is not...a particularized attribute like the wisdom
  of God but an attribute of the total nature of God, virtually an
  attribute of the attributes”.

It is in the person of Christ that the ontological and eschatological aspects of glory
meet, for in Him we behold the God of glory and in Him we shall be glorified. The
Gospel of John is especially concerned with this theme. In fact, we can easily define
the sub-theme of this Gospel as the incarnated Glory of God on the path to bringing
His believers into the divine glory through death and resurrection.

The opening words of both the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews refer to the Son in His eternal existence as glory. The Son eternally exists as the expression and glory of the Father, and the distinct function of the Son is to make the Father manifest.
The son is identified as the glory of the Only begotten of the Father (1:14). By this we should understand the hypostatic nature of glory in the Godhead—glory not merely as an attribute of God but as the unique hypostasis of the Logos as the expression of God.

We cannot construe this emptying - the so called kenosis (from the Greek verb for emptied here) as a putting off of His divinity in toto; otherwise, He would not have been God at all during His earthly life, and His death on the cross would have lost its redemptive efficacy.

Rather, in simple terms, after the Lord became flesh, He expressed God to some extent, but the glory of God, the glory of all His attributes, was hidden in His flesh. The glory of all God's fullness was covered, being clothed by His flesh [i.e. emptying]. It was revealed once on the Mount of Transfiguration.

Thus, Jesus told His disciples that He had to die and be resurrected. This is liken to the glory and beauty of the flower that are hidden in the seed are released by its death [c.f. John 12:24].

The "colorful beauty and the rich glory" are released through death and resurrection. This is glorification. After the Lord told His disciples about His impending death and resurrection, He offered a prayer to the Father, praying that the Father would glorify the Son that all the glory hidden within Him might be manifested through His death and resurrection. To glorify the Son means to bring forth all the glory hidden within His flesh, to release by means of death and resurrection all the divine glory concealed within the flesh of the Son.

Typologically, just as God’s shekinah glory was concealed within the tabernacle, His divine element was confined in His humanity.


Why do Mormons use the term "elder" for their missionaries? Most of the Mormon missionaries I've encountered are young men doing a couple year stint. They are typically identified as "elders", but my understanding is that this designation is only temporary during their time of service.

How is the LDS use of this term similar or different than the office of elder in mainstream Protestant circles? Does their designation as elders give them any ruling authority over the church body or is their role strictly to work with non members?

The term "Elder" actually has two (related) meanings among Latter-Day Saints: first, it's an office in the Priesthood, which all worthy male members can attain.  It doesn't imply any leadership, just certain duties, responsibilities, and privileges associated with being an Elder in the Priesthood.  All male missionaries must be found worthy to be ordained an Elder before leaving on their mission.

But not all members who have been ordained an Elder go by the title of "Elder".  That's used for people who are dedicated full-time to the ministry.  As the Latter-Day Saints have a lay clergy, this is a fairly small group.  It obviously includes the missionaries, and General Authorities of the Church (the Apostles and Seventies who preside over the Church as a whole) are also referred to as "Elder [last name]."

As for a missionary's authority in the Church, they have no inherent position of leadership as part of their calling, though missionaries assigned to areas where the Church is still small may find themselves called to serve in the leadership of the local branch while they're there.  But their primary calling is to teach the Gospel, not to administer in the affairs of the Church.


How do Orthodox Christians explain that the Father and the Son are not two different Gods? How do Orthodox Christians explain that the Father and the Son are not two different Gods?
Orthodox Christians had a different version of the Trinity in that for them the one God  is the Father as found in the Nicene Creed and 1 Cor 8:6 (this is in contrast with the Athanasian creed which affirms that the one God is the Trinity).
The Orthodox teaches that the one God is the Father in the sense that (a) everything came from him and (b) he himself came from no one else. That is, by being the "Father" ( = origin of all things), the first person of the Trinity is rightly ascribed the "Monarchy" (Greek: μοναρκια -  the sole rule). (cf. John 17:3, 1 Cor 8:6, 15:26-27).
In this case, there is a different definition of θεος for the Father that is not applicable to the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this sense, the Son and the Holy Spirit are unlike the Father. Neither the Son nor the Spirit is God (θεος) in the same sense as the Father in the aforementioned New Testament texts. How do Orthodox Christians explain that the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are not  different Gods?

This  question seeks an answer from Orthodox Christianity preferably with both scriptural and patristic sources.

The two Creeds are not different in respect of there being two/three Gods, because there is only one God, period. What's different is the "emphasis" of the two Creeds. The following explains it.
"The chief difference between the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed is one of emphasis. The Nicene Creed emphasized the full deity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and it only implies, rather than explicitly explains the oneness of God. The Athanasian Creed, leaving nothing to be assumed, brings in the idea of the inviolate Oneness of God (there is only one God, not three.) 8. The Athanasian Creed also deals with one additional error. At the time there were controversies being raised by some about the person and nature of Jesus Christ and whether or not He was both true God and true man. All of the rationalizations, in one way or another, either removed from Jesus his true humanity or his true divinity or the idea that there was just one Jesus who was both true God and true man. 9. The Church Year: Early Christians took the incarnation very seriously: They expected to follow the life example of Christ. They followed the church calendar through the various segments of Christ’s life. In the Western Churches, the Church Year was and remains to this day, divided into two almost-equal parts: the first some have called “The Life of Christ” while the second is “The Christian Life.” 10. The Year begins with Advent – a time of reflection in anticipation of the coming of Christ. Advent is followed by Epiphany, celebrating the revealing of Christ as God’s anointed one." https://www.coursehero.com/file/p5g865/The-chief-difference-between-the-Nicene-Creed-and-the-Athanasian-Creed-is-one/
You might find the following article informative as it relates to the "Patristic" fathers. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/patristics.html


According to Catholicism, does Welch’s Grape Juice constitute valid matter for the consecration of the Mass? According to Catholicism, does the usage of Welch’s Grape Juice constitute valid matter for the consecration of the Eucharist at a Catholic Mass?

Some priests who are alcoholics may obtain a dispensation to use Mustum at Mass.

The question of the validity of the use of “mustum,” or grape juice, for priests suffering from alcoholism or for some other medical reason was finally resolved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1994 in a letter signed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Among other things this letter stated:

  “A. The preferred solution continues to be communion ‘per intinctionem,’ or in concelebration under the species of bread alone.

  “B. Nevertheless, the permission to use ‘mustum’ can be granted by ordinaries to priests affected by alcoholism or other conditions which prevent the ingestion of even the smallest quantity of alcohol, after presentation of a medical certificate.

  “C. By ‘mustum’ is understood fresh juice from grapes or juice preserved by suspending its fermentation (by means of freezing or other methods which do not alter its nature).

  “D. In general, those who have received permission to use ‘mustum’ are prohibited from presiding at concelebrated Masses. There may be some exceptions however: in the case of a bishop or superior general; or, with prior approval of the ordinary, at the celebration of the anniversary of priestly ordination or other similar occasions. In these cases the one who presides is to communicate under both the species of bread and that of ‘mustum,’ while for the other concelebrants a chalice shall be provided in which normal wine is to be consecrated.” - Use of Mustum at Mass

Here is an interesting note on the subject of Welch’s Grape Juice and the Eucharist in the Methodist Church.

  The method of pasteurizing grape juice to halt the fermentation has been attributed to a British–American physician and dentist, Thomas Bramwell Welch (1825–1903) in 1869. Welch was an adherent to the Wesleyan Methodist Connexion which strongly opposed "manufacturing, buying, selling, or using intoxicating liquors" and advocated the use of unfermented grape juice instead of wine for administering the sacrament of the Eucharist, or communion, during the church service. A few years earlier, Welch had relocated to Vineland, New Jersey, a town started in 1861 by Philadelphia land developer Charles K. Landis (1833–1900) to create his own alcohol-free utopian society, a "Temperance Town" based on agriculture and progressive thinking. Landis declared that he was "about to build a city, and an agricultural and fruit-growing colony around it." The population reached 5,500 by 1865. Landis determined the potential in growing grapes and named the settlement "Vineland", and advertised to attract Italian grape growers to Vineland, offering 20 acres (81,000 m2) of land that had to be cleared and used to grow grapes. Welch had moved to the region following his sister who was one of Vineland's earliest residents and began to produce an "unfermented wine" (grape juice) from locally grown grapes that was marketed as "Dr. Welch's Unfermented Wine". This product became "Welch's Grape Juice" in 1893 when Welch and his son Charles E. Welch (also a practicing dentist) had decided to incorporate in 1893 as the Welch's Grape Juice Company at Westfield, New York. - History of Welch's Grape Juice

The reason I wish to bring this up is that I have come across priests using Welch’s Grape  Juice at Mass. The chalice was subsequently offered to the faithful present.

Has the Catholic Church pronounced on such a scenario as being valid or not?

In the article "Why Grape Wine?", written for the website catholic.com, David Lang quotes from a clarification to the CDF document you mention:

  THE CONSEQUENCE OF MATTER

  So, how does the Church address the possible problem of alcoholism? Could grape juice from a supermarket shelf be sacramentally adequate? No: A process of maturation or a “time-element” appears necessary from Scripture. After all, Christ came to earth and underwent his Passion in the “fullness of time” (D-R), or the “right time” and “proper time” (RSV), or the “fitting time” (NAB)—see Ecclesiastes 3:1, 8:6; Wisdom 18:14-15; Romans 5:6; Galatians 4:4; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 1:1-2.The

  The prefect [of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] at the time, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, issued a more precise clarification of mustum in a circular letter (June 19, 1995) addressed to presidents of episcopal conferences. He elaborated that for grape juice to qualify as mustum, there must be no interference with its inherent tendency to ferment, even if the actual fermentation process is “arrested at an early stage.” This restriction would, for instance, exclude pasteurization, which entails enzymatic destruction. (So much for supermarket grape juice.)

Thus the priests you saw were not confecting a valid Eucharist, and were possibly committing a sin. (If they had found grape juice bottled straight off the vine they would have been fine.)


Why does God not show Himself beyond reasonable doubt? In this answer I commented that Christians believe that "God does not show himself as this would take away free will", to which I was answered "The only reason he would not show himself is that it would utterly destroy us to behold him."

Which one is correct (if any)?

Examples of proof without doubt:

He could encode the Bible in the digits of π (making it a statistical, logical and mathematical miracle).
Put His "trademark" in the rules of logic, or in our DNA.
Write Schroendiger's law in the Bible.
Make an exact, impossible to forge, prediction or series of predictions, which are then correct, but impossible to make for a non omniscient human.

Because God decided faith was an absolute requirement in His kingdom:

  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is Hebrews 11:6 KJV

Actually, Jesus is apparently frustrated with those who desire the type of "sign" you suggest:

  And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. Mark 8:12 KJV


What do we know about the Council of Nicaea's ban of celebrating the Lord's Supper on the day before Passover? I was reading the wiki on Constantine the Great and was struck by this passage:

More significantly, in 325 he summoned the First Council of Nicaea, most known for its dealing with Arianism and for instituting the Nicene Creed. He enforced the council's prohibition against celebrating the Lord's Supper on the day before the Jewish Passover, which marked a definite break of Christianity from the Judaic tradition. From then on, the solar Julian Calendar was given precedence over the lunisolar Hebrew Calendar among the Christian churches of the Roman Empire.[232]

The footnote points to this source but it seems not to say anything about the "Lord's Supper" or Passover at all:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25023.htm
Was there such an edict and if so, where might it be documented?

We know there was a conflict in the very early church about the 3-day observance of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.  Some wanted to observe the 14th (Passover), which came to be called the Last Supper.  Others wanted to observe the resurrection, which came to be determined about Sunday sunrise.  The Council of Nicea met to discuss the issue, among other issues.  They decided that overlapping observances was to be avoided.  Constantine was the guarantee.  Here is his letter to the churches.

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner?  It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded.  In rejecting their custom,113 we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour’s Passion to the present day [according to the day of the week].
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.vii.x.html

So again, their goal was to observe a resurrection feast for all the churches on the same day.  At the same time, the goal was to avoid said feast on the same day as Passover or Unleavened Bread.  The difference would be to observe the feast on a day of the week (Sunday), rather than on a date as determined from Scripture (the 14th Passover).  The decision was made therefore to observe Easter on the first Sunday following the first full moon (the full moon was typically the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread) after the Spring Equinox.


When are souls "received"? (I'd prefer a Biblically-based answer, but if an early-church author or someone like C.S. Lewis needs to be referenced, that's fine.)

Few Christians will dispute that we humans have souls, but the question is when we get it. Do we get it at conception? If so, what about twins? Surely the have different souls. Or perhaps we get our soul at some later point. In that case, is abortion okay (especially in the case of medical necessity) before that point?

Heh, is there even a widely-accepted authoritative source that answers this question?

I don't know of any official position other than at conception (i know individuals who disagree though), but I haven't heard any body defend that position in detail. Before you asked this, I didn't really think I needed a reason to accept that other than the fact that when a human egg is fertilized the result is always going to be human and not some other animal. So interfering in a pregnancy that will otherwise continue as normal is always the same as murdering a human being, because it's not going to be something else. Now interfering in a pregnancy that definitely(and not just possibly) would lead to death for mother and/or child may be a different matter. However given some of my other resent research, I just couldn't sleep until I had the answer to this fundamental question of when a soul comes into being. So this is my opinion on defending at conception.

First of all Genesis 2:7 (KJV + Strong's numbers) says:

  And the LORD<03068> God<0430> formed<03335> man<0120> of the dust<06083> of<04480> the ground<0127>, and breathed<05301> into his nostrils<0639> the breath<05397> of life<02416>; and man<0120> became a living<02416> soul<05315>.

Now some take this to mean that the soul enteres when a babe is born and takes his first breath. However we have to remember this is hebrew, not english, the second breath<05397> here is actually nshamah , wich also means spirit. So a better understanding may be that the spirit of life was what was breathed into him. Now that was talking about Adam who was not born by a woman but was formed out of the dust by God. So he was getting a soul at his conception, but to find out about the soul of anyone else we may need to look elsewhere. I point you t'ward Genesis 9:4:

  But<0389> flesh<01320> with the life<05315> thereof, which is the blood<01818> thereof, shall ye not eat<0398>.
  I realize this is talking about animals, but you may have noticed this already that the world life there is the same word as soul (nephesh) in the first verse. So here we see that the life/soul is in the blood.
  It also states this in Leviticus 17:11:
  For the life<05315> of the flesh<01320> is in the blood<01818>: and I have given<05414> it to you upon the altar<04196> to make an atonement<03722> for your souls<05315>: for it is the blood<01818> that maketh an atonement<03722> for the soul<05315>.

So the while my original statement, about interrupting a pregnancy at any point is human murder, still stands. The question now becomes if the life = soul and the life is in the blood; when does a fertilized human egg have blood? Well I'm no medical doctor, but if I'm reading this correcting according to wikipedia there is a type of hemoglobin(blood) present at the very first week of pregnancy.

So while I'm sure you'll find people who would disagree, I wouldn't say it's much of a stretch to say the soul is present no latter than the first week of pregnancy if not at conception itself. Of course the people, who want to believe babies don't have souls until a specific date, will usually not take the bible literally anyway; so this isn't likely to be of any value to them.


Why did the Catholic Church decide to have a Bible? As far as I know, the Catholic Church considers God's revealed truth in Sacred Scripture to be part of, but by no means the sum total of Divine Revelation.  Sacred Scripture is the written part of our Traditions, but it is entirely possible to have a Catholic Church without Biblical literacy (or literacy at all).

So, why did the Church decide on having a canon of scripture in the first place?  Did the Church Fathers (Augustine and prior) consider that having a set of writings that resides somehow outside the authority of the Church would eventually cause fractures due to private interpretation?  Or was it necessary to prevent further errors owing confusion coming from  the existence of the many gnostic and apocryphal later writings?

Why a canon?

Why not a potato gun?
Even before John died in Patmos there started to be other books which claimed to come from the Apostles or otherwise claimed to have been inspired by God. While in some cases this was not a terrible thing (some of them are quite dull, actually) others of these were wild departures from the teachings of Christ and were arguably destructive to the soul. As a response the Church started to gather together lists of what documents were known to have been of Apostolic origin. I believe the first such (or the first that we know about) list dates back to the end of the second century. It actually took the better part of three centuries for a genuine consensus to exist and when it was finally agreed upon that was more-or-less a gentleman's agreement: no ecumenical council decided the fact, everyone simply agreed.

It was over a millennium later that someone presented a serious challenge to the canon. One of the less talked about points which was a bi-product of the reformation was the fact that people started to call into question which books actually belonged in the Bible and which did not. In a response to this, the Council of Trent officially (and bindingly) defined the canon.

What benefit is there to a canon?

Among others:

What benefit is there to have a creed? What benefit is there in having a Catechism? One of the chief benefits of a canon is that it functions as a point of reference. You can deny Augustine, but you can't deny Paul.
It also served liturgical purposes. Even from the road to Emmaus, the Church has associated the breaking of the bread with the reading of scripture. Setting a defined list of scripture guarantees that what is read is something worth reading.

You may want to check out this article on the process.


Who resurrected Jesus - the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit In John 2:19-22 Jesus tells the Jews that he will perform a miraculous sign by raising the temple of his body in three days.
In John 10:18 Jesus says he has authority to lay down his life and authority to take it up again.
Yet in Acts 2:24 it says that God raised Jesus from the dead.
This is confirmed in Romans 6:4 which says Jesus was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father.
Yet Romans 1:4 says that Jesus, who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.
And 1 Peter 3:18 says Jesus was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.
How do Trinitarian Christians explain this to people who neither understand nor believe the Trinity?

Discussing "Whether Christ was the cause of His own Resurrection?" (Summa Theologica III q. 53 a. 4), St. Thomas Aquinas writes (co.):

in consequence of death Christ's Godhead was not separated from His soul, nor from His flesh. Consequently, both the soul and the flesh of the dead Christ can be considered in two respects: (1) in respect of His Godhead; (2) in respect of His created nature. Therefore,

according to the virtue of the Godhead united to it, the body took back again the soul which it had laid aside, and the soul took back again the body which it had abandoned: and thus Christ rose by His own power. And this is precisely what is written (2 Cor. 13:4): "For although He was crucified through" our "weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God."
But if we consider the body and soul of the dead Christ according to the power of created nature, they could not thus be reunited, but it was necessary for Christ to be raised up by God.

Responding to the objection that Christ was raised by another (e.g., by the Father or the Holy Ghost), St. Thomas writes (ibid. ad 1):

The Divine power is the same thing as the operation of the Father and the Son; accordingly these two things are mutually consequent, that Christ was raised up by the Divine power of the Father, and by His own power.