Did Roman Catholic Church law ever condone (the contemporary practice of) incest? I may not be asking the right question, but I'm trying to figure out the context behind a quote from an Arthur Pink sermon:

  herein we may see the blasphemous impiety of the popes of Rome, who in the canons have dared to dispense with some of the laws of consanguinity in Leviticus 18

What's he talking about?

A little vocabulary help from Wikipedia:

  Consanguinity ("blood relation", from the Latin consanguinitas) is the property of being from the same kinship as another person. In that aspect, consanguinity is the quality of being descended from the same ancestor as another person

At the time Mr Pink (1886—1952, according to Wikipedia) was writing, this was decidedly not the case: not only were all these prohibitions included in canon law, but in fact canon law was a bit more restrictive, prohibiting marriage between first cousins as well.
The Church does currently allow marriage between a person and their sibling-in-law. This freedom is new since 1983, when the code of canon law was revised. Then again, though Leviticus doesn't permit such marriages, Deuteronomy does in at least one instance. None of the other prohibitions given in Leviticus 18 are, or apparently can be, overridden in the Church; nor, it seems, has this ever been possible.
Leviticus 18:7–18, with prohibitions extended to both sexes, forbids intercourse (and thus, in the eyes of the Church, marriage) with:

One's parents and step-parents (vv. 7–8)
Siblings, step-siblings, and half-siblings (vv. 9, 11)
Children and grandchildren (vv. 10, 17)
Aunts and uncles (vv. 12–14)
Children-in-law and siblings-in-law (vv. 15, 16, 18)

How does Church law respond, and how has it responded, to these prohibitions?
Canon law reckons consanguinity (blood relationship) and affinity (legal relationship by marriage) in lines and degrees.
The direct line of relationship is the direct parent-to-child (or parent-in-law to child-in-law) relationship. The collateral line of relationship involves siblings at some point.
The degree of relationship of two people is the sum of the numbers of people in the line to the last common ancestor, not counting the common ancestor. For example, my sister and I are related in the second degree of the collateral line (count 1 for her plus 1 for me; the parents—our common ancestors—aren't counted). My niece and I are related in the third degree (count one for me, one for my niece, and one for her father, my brother). And so on.
The current Code of Canon Law has the following in its discussion of impediments to marriage:

Canon 1091 §1 In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural.

This prohibits incestuous marriage between a person and their parents, children, or grandchildren (prohibitions 1 and 3).
Similarly, we have:

Canon 1091 §2 In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.

This prohibits marriage between siblings, including half-, step-, or adopted siblings (prohibition 2); aunt/uncle and nephew/niece (prohibition 4); first cousins; and great-aunt or -uncle and great-nephew or -niece.
Although some of the Church's restrictions on marriage (for example the restriction that you must marry a Catholic) may be overridden, or dispensed, for what is typically called "just cause", the restrictions on marrying parents, children, or siblings may not be dispensed:

Canon 1078 §3. A dispensation is never given from the impediment of consanguinity in the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line.

Canon lawyer Cathy Caridi, in her excellent article "Can Cousins Marry in the Church?", discusses the possibility of first cousins—relatives by consanguinity in the fourth degree—marrying (briefly, it is forbidden by canon law but for very significant reasons the bishop may dispense from the prohibition); she does not address the possibility of aunt/uncle and nephew/niece marrying (these are relatives in the third degree; the marriage is prohibited by canon law but it might be possible that a bishop would be able to dispense from the prohibition; however, I have not been able to find any instances in which this prohibition has been dispensed).
The remaining prohibition is number 5, prohibition from marrying one's children- or siblings-in-law. Importantly, the Old Testament itself makes an exception for marrying one's brother-in-law in certain cases:

When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband's brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her.

(Deuteronomy 25:5)
The older code of canon law, published in 1917 (and based on a reading of the many collections of writings which had constituted Church law until that point) included all the prohibitions discussed above, and did in fact prohibit marriage to either children-in-law or siblings-in-law:

Canon 1077 §1 Affinitas in linea recta dirimit matrimonium in quolibet gradu; in linea collaterali usque ad secundum gradum inclusive.
[Affinity in the direct line invalidates marriage in any degree whatsoever; in the collateral line up to and including the second degree.]

This prohibits marriage to parent- or child-in-law (affinity in the direct line) as well as to sibling-in-law (the collateral line in the second degree).
This code of canon law was completely replaced in 1983, and all canons in it nullified unless they were replaced by equivalent canons in the current code. In the current code, the prohibition of marriage to parent- or child-in-law is still in place:

Canon 1092. Affinity in the direct line in any degree invalidates a marriage.

But (especially, it appears, in consideration of the passage from Deuteronomy) the prohibition of marriage to sibling-in-law is not considered an absolute to which one must hold, and thus this sort of marriage is no longer prohibited; but it, and all the other prohibited marriages listed in Leviticus 18, were indeed prohibited at the time of Mr. Pink's sermon.


Are tongues a sign for believers or unbelievers? 1 Corinthians 14:22-25 confuses me. Verse 22 states:

  Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers.

So, tongues is a sign for unbelievers. But then, verses 22-25 go on:

  So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”

These two parts seem in contradiction. And this also applies (in reverse) to Paul's comments on prophecy.

Can anyone explain this?

The whole 14 chapter of 1 Corinthians is dedicated on how the Christian meeting must operate. It was good to talk in tongues in many cases but a problem may occured when "everyone speaks in tongues". Paul recommend an organized way for the operation of Christian meetings. He also recommended that the speaking in tongues “be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns.” However, if no one could translate, then the person speaking in a tongue was to remain silent in the congregation, speaking to himself and to God. (1 Corinthians 14:22-33)


Are Catholic Bishops the successors of the Apostles alone or the Elders too? In researching my answer for this question I started to think about the doctrine that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles as being a bit unfair to the other folks. For instance, if St. James who wrote the epistle wasn't the brother of John or Jude, but actually a third James or a fourth James who was the Bishop of Jerusalem, would his Episcopacy necessarily have been conferred on him by the Apostles or just by virtue of who he was. Or were the elders the first successors of the 12 apostles regardless of their functions as presbyters?

The answer you seek is here: Bishops Are Successors of the Apostles | General Audience of Pope St. John Paul II [the Great], 8 July 1992.

"Presbyters" (= elders cf. Priest | New Advent), first subordinate rank of the hierarchy, were among the "various helpers" who assisted the Apostles in their ministry.
From the article, that the Bishops are the successors to the Apostles, is in this sentence, quoting the Second Vatican Council:

  The Council says: "Thus, as St. Irenaeus testifies, through those who
  were appointed bishops by the apostles, and through their successors
  down in our own time, the apostolic tradition is manifested and
  preserved 1 " (LG 20).

  1. St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., III, 3, 1; cf. Tertullian, De
  Praescr., 20, 4-8: PL 2, 32; CC 1, 202


Take your cross, how do evangelicals do this in practice - Matthew 10:38 What does picking up your cross look like practically speaking for evangelicals? What does picking up your cross mean in every day life?

———————————

I’ve read the related questions to this verse

  “And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.”
  Matthew 10:38

But the responses are obscure and ambiguous and if applied practically I wouldn’t know what exactly to do. The answers are still relegated to the realm of abstract and conceptual theory.

What is a working definition, or a practical definition, or a practical application for take (up) your cross in the evangelical circles.

Please keep this a serious discussion, don’t include answers like getting married, the spouse being the cross, or being terminally ill, no one willingly takes on terminal illness, especially excruciatingly painful kinds. It needs to make sense to the text.

———————————————

Or in the same vein, if it won’t be misconstrued as a separate question, crucify the flesh. They both seem to be saying the same thing.

  Gal 5:24  And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires

The Lord Jesus Christ's teaching about taking up our cross is found in Matt 10:38; 16:24; Mark 8:34 and Luke 9:23. It is my belief that our Lord was addressing the subject of conversion, not discipleship. Meaning, that Jesus was teaching what was necessary to be saved, not what was required of us after conversion.

Jesus was not saying that we had to be merely willing to make the ultimate sacrifice or even to be a literal martyr upon a literal cross. He was teaching that in order to be saved we must be crucified with Him. Hence, Gal 5:24 does answer how to apply the truth of our conversion to our daily lives.

Paul the apostle does provide us with the understanding. He said in Gal 2:20 'I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.' Paul lived in the powerful truth of having been crucified with Christ and his answer for not fulfilling the desires of the flesh [Gal 5:16] was to 'hear with faith' [Gal. 3:1-5] what had happened to him in his conversion.

Notice Gal 6:14, where Paul says, 'But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.' Paul does not have his own cross that he can boast in, but rather, he only has the cross of Christ. Only the cross of Christ was Paul's answer for how to be an overcomer in this world.

Understanding Jesus' teaching as the application by faith in the all sufficient work of Christ, so that we can say that we have taken up our cross, by being crucified with Him is the only thing that will enable us to follow Him. We need a cross in which we die to sin [Rom 6] and to the Law [Rom 7], by which we are circumcised with a circumcision made without hands [Col. 2:11-15]. No cross of our own will accomplish this. What Jesus taught, Paul the apostle opened up for us.

In like manner, when Jesus says in Matt 10:37, "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me" - it is about our conversion. Certainly, we are not to literally hate our parents, just as we are not to literally take up a cross, in order to be saved. It is an expression by our Lord that speaks of our need to undergo a fundamental change in our very person. Only our conversion in Christ accomplishes this.

Read my book:'Take Up Your Cross: Our Only Power to Live and Walk by the Spirit'. Visit my site Take Up Your Cross for information.


What Is The Roman Catholic Church's View on Mohnism What does the Roman Catholic church have to say about monism (the idea that there is no difference between God and his creation)? Meaning creation in some sense is literally God (with or without a central conscience, and with the exception that God is comprised of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), or its part of God's body or form (I am aware that God showed his form to Moses, but perhaps in a different way or maybe its part of the form of one of God's [please excuse the terminology] components [the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit]).

It just so happens that the Catholic Encyclopedia has an article on this.  Their definition is much broader than the one you provided.  It actually has extensive notes on several meanings of the term.  the section in the term in the context of theology is as follows:

  The term Monism is not much used in theology because of the confusion
  to which its use would lead. Polytheism, the doctrine that there are
  many gods, has for its opposite Monotheism, the doctrine that there is
  but one God. If the term Monism is employed in place of Monotheism, it
  may, of course, mean Theism, which is a monotheistic doctrine, or it
  may mean Pantheism, which is opposed to theism. In this sense of the
  term, as a synonym for Pantheism, Monism maintains that there is no
  real distinction between God and the universe. Either God is
  indwelling in the universe as a part of it, not distinct from it
  (pantheistic Immanentism), or the universe does not exist at all as a
  reality (Acosmism), but only as a manifestation or phenomenon of God.
  These views are vigorously combated by Theism, not only on
  considerations of logic and philosophy, but also on considerations of
  human life and conduct. For the ethical implications of pantheism are
  as detrimental to it as its shortcomings from the point of view of
  consistency and reasonableness. Theism does not deny that God is
  indwelling in the universe; but it does deny that He is comprised in
  the universe. Theism does not deny that the universe is a
  manifestation of God; but it does deny that the universe has no
  reality of its own. Theism is, therefore, dualistic: it holds that God
  is a reality distinct from the universe and independent of it, and
  that the universe is a reality distinct from God, though not
  independent of Him. From another point of view, theism is monistic; it
  maintains that there is but One Supreme Reality and that all other
  reality is derived from Him. Monism is not then an adequate equivalent
  of the term Theism.

The key sentence in there is this:

  In this sense of the term, as a synonym for Pantheism, Monism
  maintains that there is no real distinction between God and the
  universe.

if you follow the link to their article on pantheism,  you get this clear statement:

  The Church has repeatedly condemned the errors of pantheism.

Therefore, the Catholic Church's official position is that monism is an erroneous view of God.


What is the origin of the moral-civil-ceremonial distinction of the Old Testament law? This distinction is often called tripartite division of the law.

I ran across this series of blog posts, which considers the division of the law into "moral", "civil", and "ceremonial" parts:

Introduction
Historical Overview
Analyzing Aquinas' arguments
Analyzing Calvins' arguments
Wrapping up with two more historical views
Entertain generic arguments for flaws in the tripartite assumption
Some final thoughts

The Westminster standards (and others), even go on to claim that the "moral" law is one and the same with the Ten Commandments. This sometimes becomes something of a hermeneutical key, e.g., when interpreting passages that point out that the law is overturned, asserting that the passage is referring to the ceremonial law.

That said, Confessional Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists are not typically considered Thomists, and yet find this principle as no minor point in their confessional documents. Aquinas's reasoning is usually rejected when directly addressed, but the essential division is held nonetheless. Is there some other supporting reasoning, or an alternative origin other than via Aquinas? Likewise, is there support for equating the "moral law" (which is said to remain on Christians) with the Decalogue?

You can look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church for more information about equating the moral law with the Ten Commandments.

Here you can read a nice summary of this section. But, to break it up into some parts to help explain, you may want to look at the definition of a moral law:

1950 The moral law is the work of divine Wisdom. Its biblical meaning
can be defined as fatherly instruction, God's pedagogy. It prescribes
for man the ways, the rules of conduct that lead to the promised
beatitude; it proscribes the ways of evil which turn him away from
God and his love. It is at once firm in its precepts and, in its
promises, worthy of love.
1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them
interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural
law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of
the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.
1953 The moral law finds its fullness and its unity in Christ. Jesus
Christ is in person the way of perfection. He is the end of the law,
for only he teaches and bestows the justice of God: "For Christ is
the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified."

So, the first stage of revealed law is the Ten Commandments, but these were perfected by the New Law (the grace of the Holy Spirit), so we can see by the CCC that moral law is more than just the Ten Commandments, but, also covers the New Law.

Now, as much as I am a huge fan of Aquinas, I tend to think that there can be problems with his divisions, but they can also be useful for explanation, but the problems should also be understood.

This article does a good job of explaining problems with dividing them.

We should not decide which is critical to obey and which can be ignored, safely.  I like this quote from the link above:

  If God says it, it is immoral to disobey. Morality is not a standard independent of God. God decides what is right and what is wrong.

Here is a likely reason for the three-part division, taken from this historical background:

  Why were the dogmatical terms of Moral, Civil and Ceremonial developed
  if there is no division in the Bible and the Jews never considered the
  Law as threefold? The division probably was developed because there
  are 3 natural parts to the Mosaic Law. It also makes for easier
  teaching when we study the Old Testament Law in a threefold sense. The
  Law of Moses is massive in scope.

So, you are correct that it appears to have started with Aquinas, as far as I can tell, but there does seem to be a natural split of the Law into two parts, a moral and ceremonial, as well.


How do the LDS interpret Matthew 19:12? From this verse in Matthew 19, it may appear that the Savior approved of celibacy or self-mutilation:

  "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s
  womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and
  there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom
  of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."
  (Matthew 19:12)

However, modern apostles and prophets have clarified “that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. … God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force” (“The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Ensign or Liahona, Nov. 2010, 129).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained that anciently some people held the false belief that a life of celibacy was to be sought after: “Apparently those who made themselves eunuchs were men who in false pagan worship had deliberately mutilated themselves in the apostate notion that such would further their salvation. It is clear that such was not a true gospel requirement of any sort. There is no such thing in the gospel as wilful emasculation; such a notion violates every true principle of procreation and celestial marriage” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3 vols. [1965–73], 1:549).

What did Christ mean when he said, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."?

I figure this website says it better than I can.

  "... there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for
  the kingdom of heaven's sake..." (Matt 19:12)

There are no known scriptural or historical accounts which tell us more about these particular eunuchs. So, how are we to understand this passage? Joseph Smith said,

  "I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I enquire, what
  was the question which drew out the answer." (Teachings, 276)

Jesus was responding to the disciples' statement that it would be better not to marry if the law was so strict.

Christ's response, in essence, declared,

  "You're right, for those who understand and receive the full meaning
  of the law of celestial marriage, it is better not to marry at all
  than to make the mistake of violating the covenants of your first
  marriage in marrying another. For example, there have been men who
  understood this doctrine and made themselves eunuchs rather than take
  the risk of violating this holy law."

This response was not meant to justify the mutilating act required to become a eunuch nor to condone a celibate lifestyle but to acknowledge their understanding of the supreme solemnity of the covenant of celestial marriage.

Those who have received a testimony of this principle are obligated to live by its precepts. For them, it would be better to live a celibate life than to violate this law, for 'he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation' (D&C 82:3). Therefore, 'He that is able to receive it, let him receive it'-for those who are not able to receive it are not obligated to abide such a strict law.

  "If our societies were on a higher plane, then, marriage covenants
  would be held in great, sacred trust; essentially, divorce would not
  exist or be considered except for truly serious reasons such as
  adultery. I would also suggest that in a higher system, with
  individuals living in harmony with all the Lord's teachings, there
  would be no such serious problems and thus no divorce.

  Unfortunately, our societies are less than ideal. Some persons do live
  in unbearably difficult marital circumstances, suffering as victims of
  spouse abuse, substance abuse, promiscuity, and other evils that are
  sometimes addressed through divorce as a last resort. In such cases,
  the Lord in his mercy 'permits his agents to exercise the power to
  loose [to authorize divorce] as well as the power to bind.' (Bruce R.
  McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 204)" (Jonathan M. Chamberlain, Ensign,
  Jan. 1993, p. 60)


Is it contrary to any Christian belief or doctrine to believe that Jesus deceives us in order to protect our souls? Jesus ultimately cares about the judgement of our eternal soul.

Is it contrary to any Christian belief or doctrine to believe in a Holy deception;  that the reason He made His return unknown and mysterious is to keep us in line or away from sin?

If we are anxiously awaiting that he can return any moment, we are more likely to stick to His way and in result, preserve our soul?  I am not saying He is lying, but loves us so much that He will give us any impression possible to keep us away from the Devil or Hell.

Does this go against any other Christian belief or doctrine?

EDIT

Notice how Biblical passages can look like lies but are not. Please read this very good Christian writers article: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/october/26.56.html

  "He will rescue you from every trap and protect you from the fatal
  plague. … For he orders his angels to protect you wherever you go.
  They will hold you with their hands to keep you from striking your
  foot on a stone." [All Scripture citations from the New Living
  Translation.]

  At first blush it sounds really good, but that day I had to say what I
  really thought. Through tears I told the group, "I don't get how this
  is true. He did not rescue us from a fatal plague. He did not keep us
  from striking our feet on a stone but, in fact, allowed much worse
  than that."

I know I should probably reference these, but I'm going to appeal to common knowledge

Before answering, I just want to re-emphasize two central teachings that are common to the vast majority of Christianity:

It's safe to say that almost every denomination, and almost every major division within Christianity agrees that God does not and cannot lie.  I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule, and agnostics/atheists may balk at the idea, but for the most part that's accepted teaching for the vast majority of Christianity.
Most (but not all) Christian denominations and traditions accept the Diety of Jesus.  In other words, Jesus is God. (There are exceptions.)

If the second point is true, then to say that Jesus lies is to say then God lies.  And the first point flat out denies that.

So, according to Scripture, as understood by the overwhelming majority of Christianity, it is absolutely a heresy to say that Jesus would deceive us to protect our souls.

And most denominations that I am aware of state that Heresy is a sin.

So yes, to the overwhelming majority of Christianity,  it would be be accurate to say that it's a sin to believe that Jesus would lie to us to protect our souls.  Not only does it go against "any other Christian belief or doctrine" it goes against two central, almost universally held Christian beliefs/doctrines.  The doctrine of God's character and the doctrine of Christ's Diety.


How does one reconcile the changelessness of God with Jesus' incarnation? The Bible says that God "remains the same" (Ps 102:27), and that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Heb 13:8). This seems to mean that he is changeless.

However, Jesus was not always human. For eternity, he had only a divine nature, up till his physical incarnation, when he gained a human nature as well. He changed from being fully God to being both fully God and fully man (unless one believes that Jesus always had a human nature, even before humans were created).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for eternity prior to his incarnation, Jesus had no physical body, and then he gained one.

This sounds like a profound change to me.

How is this reconciled with his immutability?

This might be a hard one for us temporal creatures to get our head around, and it actually isn't just the incarnation that poses this problem. Viewed from a temporal perspective, we could just as well say: "Before creation, God wasn't a creator - after creation, he became one. How can this be consistent with the idea of God's immutability?"

The only logical solution to such dilemmas consistent with scripture that I am aware of is that God transcends time itself (ie God's eternity is timeless not everlasting time). From God's perspective in the eternal now, He has always been an incarnated God-man and will always be one. Change (not just in this matter, but in any respect) is something that only occurs within the temporal universe above which, God is transcendent:

  Concepts of eternity have developed in a way that is, as a matter of fact, closely connected to the development of the concept of God in Western thought, beginning with ancient Greek philosophers; particularly to the idea of God's relation to time, the idea of divine perfection, and the Creator-creature distinction. Eternity as timelessness, and eternity as everlastingness, have been distinguished. Following the work of Boethius and Augustine of Hippo divine timelessness became the dominant view. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [emphasis added]


What are Lutheran teachings on salutary effects of communion? A long time ago, I complained to some LC-MS Lutheran pastors that my own hometown congregation had been full of racists, as evidenced by their comfort in using the "N word" around children.  Years later I can now understand that this should not be too surprising, if we understand the church to be a "hospital for sinners."  However, the pastors' rebuttal pointed to communion. They said if the sacraments were rightly offered, and if we believe that the sacraments have salutary effects, then the congregation would be where God wants, and it was wrong to criticize it for being insufficient in any spiritual way.

This raises the question, what do Lutheran teachings say about the salutary effects of communion are?  Who has said that the effects are "descriptive" (God did his work) as opposed to merely "salutary" (God will continue to work to improve you)?

Answers from any Christian group that practices any sort of real presence (as opposed to using only the terms "symbol" or "reminder")  are very welcome here.

You should check into the Book of Concord as there are several sections (of which the Small/Large Catechism is a part) that address this specifically (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php - The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord).
"Did" is also implied to a degree, because without Christ having done his work, the sacrament wouldn't exist.
I'll extract some sections that pertain to your question:

[61] There is, therefore, a two-fold eating of the flesh of Christ, one spiritual, of which Christ treats especially John 6:54, which occurs in no other way than with the Spirit and faith, in the preaching and meditation of the Gospel, as well as in the Lord's Supper, and by itself is useful and salutary, and necessary at all times for salvation to all Christians; without which spiritual participation also the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not only not salutary, but even injurious and damning [a cause of condemnation].
[62] But this spiritual eating is nothing else than faith, namely, to hear God's Word (wherein Christ, true God and man, is presented to us, together with all benefits which He has purchased for us by His flesh given into death for us, and by His blood shed for us, namely, God's grace, the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life), to receive it with faith and appropriate it to ourselves, and in all troubles and temptations firmly to rely, with sure confidence and trust, and to abide in the consolation that we have a gracious God, and eternal salvation on account of the Lord Jesus Christ. [He who hears these things related from the Word of God, and in faith receives and applies; them to himself, and relies entirely upon this consolation (that we have God reconciled and life eternal on account of the Mediator, Jesus Christ),-he, I say, who with true confidence rests in the Word of the Gospel in all troubles and temptations, spiritually eats the body of Christ and drinks His blood.]
[63] The other eating of the body of Christ is oral or sacramental, when the true, essential body and blood of Christ are also orally received and partaken of in the Holy Supper, by all who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine in the Supper-by the believing as a certain pledge and assurance that their sins are surely forgiven them, and Christ dwells and is efficacious in them, but by the unbelieving for their judgment and condemnation, [64] as the words of the institution by Christ expressly declare, when at the table and during the Supper He offers His disciples natural bread and natural wine, which He calls His true body and true blood, at the same time saying: Eat and drink. For in view of the circumstances this command evidently cannot be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking, however, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way; [65] to which afterwards the other command adds still another and spiritual eating, when the Lord Christ says further: This do in remembrance of Me, where He requires faith [which is the spiritual partaking of Christ's body).

Then also Sections 73 and 74

[73] Since a misunderstanding and dissension among some teachers of the Augsburg Confession also has occurred concerning consecration and the common rule, that nothing is a sacrament without the appointed use [or divinely instituted act], we have made a fraternal and unanimous declaration to one another also concerning this matter to the following purport, [74] namely, that not the word or work of any man produces the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, whether it be the merit or recitation of the minister, or the eating and drinking or faith of the communicants; but all this should be ascribed alone to the power of Almighty God and the word, institution, and ordination of our Lord Jesus Christ.


Is there biblical evidence of seraphims being angels? I have heard angels and seraphim being used interchangeably. is there any biblical evidence that they are different or the same? The only verse I know off the top of my head is Isaiah 6:2

  Isaiah 6:2 Above it stood the seraphim: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. (KJV)

My question is whether angels and seraphim are the same thing or not, and why.

Bible Gateway (RSVCE)  - Quick Search: Seraphim return results that show that in the Bible, seraphim is only mentioned in Isaiah 6: A Vision of God in the Temple.

If angel is understood from

  Used in Scriptural translations for Hebrew mal'akh (yehowah)
  "messenger (of Jehovah)," from base l-'-k "to send."

Only the action of the one of the seraphim in Is 6:6-7 (RSVCE) can be that of a messenger.

  6 Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 And
  he touched my mouth, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips;
  your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven.”

Other than that the seraphim are above God's throne, one calling to another

  “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his
  glory.”

This appears to be their sole function and purpose in scripture.

  Meaning | SERAPHIM | Jewish Encyclopedia The passages cited
  furnish conclusive evidence against the idea, popular for a time, that
  the seraphim belong to the same category as angels. They have nothing
  whatever to do with the "messengers of God"; in the Jewish conception
  the two have always been distinguished.


Why did Jason attack Jerusalem? In 2 Maccabees 5:5, Jason attacks Jerusalem. Why does he do this? There is a false rumor that Antiochus has died, but Antiochus was attacking Egypt.

In 2 Maccabees 4, it says he becomes high priest and then loses it, but he does nothing. Is that the reason he attacks Jerusalem?

John Romer says, in  Testament: The Bible and History, page 129, under the Syrian kings, the position of High Priest was on sale to the highest bidder. The High Priest was the virtual ruler, under the Syrian king, of all Judah. It appears here that Jason had bought the position of High Priest and "received from Antiochus permission to convert Jerusalem into a Greek polis called Antioch". But then Menelaus bribed Antiochus and was appointed High Priest in place of Jason.

2 Maccabees 4:27 tells us that Menelaus, a totally disreputable person, had not paid the money he had promised the king, but then (4:32) stole gold vessels from the temple.  After a period of turmoil, Menelaus managed to remain in office, increasing in wickedness:

  2 Maccabees 4:50: But Menelaus, thanks to the covetousness of the men in power, remained in office, where he grew in wickedness and became the chief plotter against his fellow citizens.

Whether bitter at having bought the office of High Priest and then losing it, or anxious to remove a person misusing the office, Jason could do nothing while Antiochus was alive. However, rumours of Antiochus' death encouraged Jason to attack Jerusalem and regain the lucrative position.

This account may be read with some caution because 2 Maccabees differs in some places from 1 Maccabees and can be regarded as a political document rather than a literal history.  Robert Eisenman says, in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, page 39, 2 Maccabees seems to have been written to correct the portrayal in 1 Maccabees of Judas Maccabee and of the Hassidaean movement he headed.


What was the Star of Bethlehem? I'm surprised this question hasn't been asked already.

  Matthew 2:1-2 (NIV)
  2 After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem 2 and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”

  9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.

This star is usually called the Star of Bethlehem, and there are many different theories as to what it was, including a supernova, a planet (such as Venus), or a comet. (An actual star is not among the options because stars don't move and then stop moving.) So, which one was it?

According to Fredrick A. Larson, this so-called 'Star of Bethlehem' is actually the planet Jupiter. He produced a video documentary called (appropriately enough) "The Star of Bethlehem" that can be found on YouTube (link) and his website. In this video documentary, Rick Larson lays out a detailed case for the Star of Bethlehem being Jupiter, which includes the following points:

These "wise men" were almost certainly astrologers.
"In the east" likely meant that the "star" rose in the east, like all stars do.
Jupiter, the King Planet, entered retrograde motion around Regulus, the King Star, crowning it.
Jupiter then coincided with Venus, resulting in the brightest star that had ever been seen.
Jupter entered retrograde motion again and appeared to stop over Bethlehem.

Larson then goes on to point out a great number of other significant astronomical events that occurred throughout Jesus' life, but they are not directly related to the Star of Bethlehem, so I won't talk about them here. The main difficulty with this is the fact that most historians place Herod's death in 4 B.C. whereas Larson's explanation depends on Herod's death being in 1 B.C. Larson does reference recent scholarship that support 1 B.C. as being the year of Herod's death.

The Wikipedia article on the subject has a section about astrological events that might be the Star of Bethlehem, and all of the suggestions in that section include Jupiter. Therefore, it's a safe bet to say that Jupiter is the most likely candidate for being the Star of Bethlehem.


Were some of Jesus' disciples more privileged than others? Mark 3:14 Then hit selected twelve of them to be his regular companions, calling them apostles.*He sent them out to preach, and gave them authority to cast out demons. NLT
Mark 5:37 Then Jesus stopped the crowd and wouldn't let anyone go in with him except Peter and James and John. NLT

And other occasions.

Mark 9:2 six days later Jesus took Peter, James an John to the top of the mountain. No one else was there. NLT
Mark 14:33 He took Peter, James and John with him, and he began to be filled with horror an deep distress.

Is there an sacred/specific reason why Christ only let three of them go in with him an not all twelve?
Why did he take just Peter, James an John to the top of the mountain? At the olive grove called Gethsemane. He told everyone else to sit here while I go pray....Seems to me he favored these three?

Did some disciples get treated differently from others?

You've pretty much answered your own question here. Jesus had many disciples. At least seventy, probably many more. And different groups were certainly treated differently. The best-known select group were the Twelve, called the Apostles. They were given more detailed explanations of some of Jesus' parables, and other insights not given to others. Within those, Peter John and James were selected to be present with Jesus at specific intimate occasions, including the Transfiguration and the raising of a little girl from the dead. Those three would go on to be leaders of the church.

Is this favouritism?

I think that's your implied question. To see that, you really have to look at what it means to be selected. The Twelve, and within that group the Three, were intended to be leaders of the church. If you look at what Jesus means by leadership it is "to become the servant of everyone". The Twelve suffered and were all persecuted, and tradition has it that all except John were martyred. You can consider that 'privileged' if you like, but it's not a privilege many of us would jump at.


What is the oldest surviving photograph of someone who was later canonized as a saint? Photography is a relatively recent invention, and as such, the appearances of the majority of saints have only been captured in portraits, icons, and other constructed media.

What is the oldest surviving photograph of someone who was later canonized as a saint?

St. Bernadette Soubirous (1844-1879), the Lourdes visionary, is the first saint of Ann Ball's Modern Saints: Their Lives and Faces to feature a photograph:

  Bernadette was photographed often and her pictures were sold everywhere; she joked, "I am on sale for [ten cents] at every street corner!"

The photograph above was taken at some point in the 1860s.


How do Calvinists understand "anyone" in 2 Peter 3:9? 2 Peter 3:9

  The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand
  slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to
  perish, but everyone to come to repentance

From a similar question in Christianity SE

  It's true that some Calvinists take a different approach and suggest
  that "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 refers only to Christians

So.... God speaks to the people whom He knows that they are Jesus believers :
I am patient with you.
I don't want anyone from you to perish.
I want everyone from you to come to repentance.

My question is: How come God doesn't want Jesus believers to perish and God wants Jesus believers to come to repentance? Aren't Jesus believers already a repented people (because elected) then impossible to perish?

As the answer you mentioned suggests, the majority of Calvinists and that which is taught by the reputable Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology and many others, is that, in 2 Peter 3:9, "all" means "all", and not just "Jesus believers." The verse is definitely referring to salvation, so it is not talking about the heart and mindset of continual repentance that we should all have about all sin.

It would not make sense for this verse if all was referring to Jesus believers. That seems superfluous, and like you said they are not in danger of perishing, so to speak.

However, Calvinists could say that verse is referring to the elect, prior to salvation. Because the elect, prior to salvation, would still need to repent and be saved from perishing, but they are the elect from eternity past, so the title of "elect" would be accurate. This is how that interpretation is at least coherent but doesn't adequately explain the use of the term "all" or "everyone" without hermeneutical gymnastics.


Are there current denominations that have doctrines stating that The Lord will return at a particular date? With a couple extreme examples highlighted by the media in recent years, I'm curious if there are doctrinal statements that have been made citing that Christ will return on a particular date?

There are almost always such groups. And since the term denomination is so ill-defined, and so broad that any group of united believers qualifies, the answer is most certainly, "yes, at any given time, there are several groups that could be called 'denominations' that have a predicted date for Christ's return".  Invariably, they backpedal when that date passes without said event.

To answer your specific question...  Currently, this group, for example, predicts  Yom Kippur 2017 (September 30th 2017) as the date.

Of course, most Christians believe what Jesus actually said, and reject the idea that the date can be predicted.


Is there any evidence to support the authenticity of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a paper on the subject: "The Ethics of Late Judaism as Evidenced in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs".

  The writings consist of the last words and exhortations of the twelve sons of Jacob to their Children. Each testament indicates the virtues inculcated or the vices condemned by each of these patriarchs in turn.

However, it seems the main text of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was written during the intertestamental period, and then subjected to heavy editing during the first and second centuries.

I would like to know what Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant denominations make of these writings and whether they are considered to be authentic and reliable.

I honestly don't know which tags to apply to this question, so I welcome any helpful suggestions.

Just from a cursory examination of the subject it appears that none of the bodies which gathered to consider the canon of scripture - the Catholic gathering at the Council of Trent in 1546, the Church of England's convocation resulting in the thirty-nine articles in 1563 and again resulting in the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647, and the Orthodox counsels at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 - none of these even considered, it would seem, the supposed 'testaments' of the twelve patriarchs.

This would indicate either that there was general agreement that the documents did not deserve consideration to be added to the canon of scripture, or else that the documents did not then exist (in whatever is their present form) until after the seventeenth century.

Since neither Jesus Christ nor any of the apostles' validated writings quote from the documents, or make reference to the documents as such (in the way in which evident reference is made to the Septuagint and to the 'law and the prophets' and to Isaiah and so forth) this would again point towards either rejection of their authenticity (or value) or to their non-existence at the time of the apostolic writings, in the form in which they have now been presented.


When did the Catholic Letters get called the Catholic Letters The Catholic Encyclopedia says which books are the Catholic Letters but doesn't say how long ago it was that they were called that.  I was wondering, because of another post asking for the oldest instance of the term Catholic.  Did St. Jerome or Eusebius ever call them that, was it written in the Codex Vaticanus or the Book of Kells or what?

The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou — throughout the whole, i.e., universal) cf. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Catholic

  The Catholic Letters  After the thirteen letters of St. Paul and the letter to the Hebrews come seven other letters (one by St.
  James, two by St. Peter, three by St. John, and one by St. Jude)
  which since the time of Origen, Eusebius and St. Jerome have been
  known as 'catholic' letters, letters to the Church at large, not
  directed to a particular church or individual: the second and third
  letters of St. John, even though they are addressed to a private
  individual are regarded as appendixes to his first letter and are also
  included in the 'catholic letters' category. cf. A GUIDE TO THE BIBLE
  | Antonio Fuentes


According to the Trinity doctrine was the Son created by the Father? According to the Trinity doctrine was the Son created by the Father at some point?

Short answer: no he wasn't. That would be the heresy of Arianism.

In Trinitarian theology the Son is said to be "eternally begotten" by the Father. Admittedly this is conceptually sorta like being created by the father, with the additional caveat that there was never a time when the son did not exist (hence he is begotten "from eternity"), but metaphysically being begotten is completely different to being created because the son is not part of creation: he has always existed.

It's a hard topic to discuss though. Language starts to get very wonky and inexact when you start talking about transcendant stuff that fundamentally can't be talked about. God is ineffable after all

See the Nicene creed, which was formulated in the fourth century in order to condemn Arianism. It has the line

  [I believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

Where it says "begotten, not made" you can read that as saying "begotten, not created".


How do Anglicans interpret the great crowd (144,000) of Revelation 7? What is an overview of the Anglican understandings of who/what are the 144000 of Revelation 7?

  After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree. 2 Then I saw another angel coming up from the east, having the seal of the living God. He called out in a loud voice to the four angels who had been given power to harm the land and the sea: 3 “Do not harm the land or the sea or the trees until we put a seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.” 4 Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel. (Revelation 7, NIV)

From an Anglican Commentary on the whole Bible.  "The complete number of God's people....and that a large one (144,000 is the square of 12 a thousandfold) is being gathered together for everlasting safety.  The Church of Christ is spoken of in OT language....the tribe of Dan is not mentioned perhaps because of a Jewish tradition that Antichrist was to come from this tribe:   source:  A Commentary on the Holy Bible by Various Writers, edited by the Rev. J.R. Dummelow M.A., Queens' College, Cambridge


What's the name of the process by which the scriptures were written down? The word 'concoursis' was used by a Sunday school teacher to describe the process by which Scripture was revealed by the Spirit to the Apostles and then written down. However, I can't find the word used anywhere.

Is the word 'concoursis' used by any theologian to name that process, or is any other word used specifically as a name for the process?

To be clear, I'm asking for the name/word. While there are a variety of ideas about the specific manner in which the ministry of the Spirit moved men to effect the writing of Holy Scriptures. The word seemed to be used as an umbrella term for any process by which the ministry of the Spirit resulted in written Scripture.

Suppose the word is concoursis, to use it in a sentence. One might say "letter for letter, general dictation, and the divinely informed free hand are each held by different groups to be the means of concoursis."

Concursus is a Latin word which can be translated encounter or meeting. The late 19th–early 20th century Presbyterian theologian Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield used the word to describe his belief that

  the whole of Scripture is the product of the divine activities which enter it, not by superseding the activities of the human authors, but by working confluently with them, so that the Scriptures are the joint product of divine and human activities, both of which penetrate them at every point, working harmoniously together to the production of a writing which is not divine here and human there, but at once divine and human in every part, every word and every particular.

(source: B. B. Warfield, "The Divine and Human in the Bible," in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield (ed. John E . Meeter; Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970), page 57. Cited on a web page at The Biologos Forum. Here is a copy of the original essay, discussing concursus and its meaning.)

Thus, concursus doesn't describe "the process by which the Scriptures were written down" generally, but rather one theologian's view of the interaction between God and the humans who wrote down the Scriptures.


Did Rahab sin by hiding the Hebrew spies and lying to the leaders of Jericho? (Catholic/Protestant overview) In Joshua 2 we have a classic case of civil disobedience:

  3 Then the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, “Bring out the men who have come to you, who entered your house, for they have come to search out all the land.” 4 But the woman had taken the two men and hidden them. And she said, “True, the men came to me, but I did not know where they were from. 5 And when the gate was about to be closed at dark, the men went out. I do not know where the men went. Pursue them quickly, for you will overtake them.” 6 But she had brought them up to the roof and hid them with the stalks of flax that she had laid in order on the roof. (ESV)

What is an overview of how Catholics and Protestants (including Church fathers), have judged Rahab's actions?  Did she sin by hiding the spies?  Did she sin by lying?

Related: Did the midwives in Exodus 1 sin by disobeying and lying to Pharaoh? (Catholic/Protestant overview)

Summary: Rahab is widely praised for protecting the Hebrew spies, despite her betrayal of her countrymen, but opinion among both church fathers and modern commentators is divided with respect to her false report.

Hiding the spies

Church fathers such as Gregory of Elvira and Cassiodorus praise Rahab's protection of the spies and see in her an image of the church.1 Augustine in particular says that she was rewarded by God because she was "merciful to God's people" and that she ought to be praised for putting herself in peril to host and hide the men of God.

Reformer John Calvin sees Rahab's hiding of the spies as "treachery to her country," but that she was "set free from the common rule" through her adoption "into the body of the Church."  He finds proof that there was "no criminality in abandoning" her countrymen in the apostolic praise of her in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25.

Catholic commentator George Leo Haydock explains Rahab's actions by saying that "[s]he felt authorized by God on this occasion, to abandon those upon whom he had declared war."  Маtthew Henry likewise sees Rahab as betraying her country, but says that in this special case she is justified because "she knew the Lord had given Israel this land" (v. 9).

Lying to the king

The church fathers are split on the morality of Rahab's lie.  John Chrysostom goes so far as to praise Rahab's skill in lying, saying "O this good lie!  O this good fraud, which does not betray the divine but safeguards the sacred!"2  John Cassian says that "for her lie alone [...] she deserved to share an eternal blessing with the people of God."3

Augustine, on the other hand, pointedly questions the assumptions of those who claim that the lie was necessary to save the spies, asking,

  And where do we put the will and power of God? Or haply was He not able to keep both her, neither telling a lie to her own townsmen, nor betraying men of God, and them, being His, safe from all harm? For by Whom also after the woman's lie they were guarded, by Him could they, even if she had not lied, have in any wise been guarded.

Calvin follows Augustine, saying that those who excuse an officious lie "do not sufficiently consider how precious truth is in the sight of God."  But one successor of Calvin, Charles Hodge, suggests that in cases such as this, there is no "violation of some obligation," which he sees is a requirement for considering a falsehood a sin.

Methodist Adam Clarke says that there is "no excuse" for Rahab's lie, "for God could have saved his messengers independently of her falsity."  Jamieson et al. suggest that she might have "deem[ed] herself bound to do it by the laws of Eastern hospitality," but that ultimately, "her answer was a sinful expedient."  Haydock calls it an "officious lie, which is a venial sin," noting that she did not intend injury to anyone, and in fact protected her countrymen by preventing them from murdering the spies and thereby incurring God's wrath.

Matthew Henry particularly struggles with the extenuating circumstances of this case, not seeing how the spies could have been saved if Rahab had told the truth or kept silent.  He suggests that she "may be justified here" in the context of the impending judgment of Jericho, but nonetheless says that most theologians consider it a sin.

References:

1 Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament, IV, pp. 9-10

2 Chrysostom, Homilies on Repentance and Almsgiving 7.5.17; cited in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture

3 John Cassium, Conference 17.17.1-2; cited in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture

Augustine, Against Lying, 32 and 34
Calvin, Commentary on Joshua
Clarke, Bible Commentary
Haydock, Catholic Bible Commentary
Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible
Hodge, Systematic Theology, III-441
Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible


What is the purpose and meaning of the Christian Flag? Many of you have probably seen the Christian flag: a white flag with a red cross on a blue corner.

It's a staple of some churches and many Christian schools.

Do the colors have specific significance? How to the flag come to be and what purpose does it serve to the church?

The "Christian Flag" was conceived by Charles Overton, who in 1897 was superintendent of the Congregational Sunday School at Brighton Chapel, Coney Island, New York, USA.1 (That community was incorporated as St Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church of Coney Island in 1907, and it still exists today). On 26 September of that year, he gave a sermon musing about what kind of flag might represent the Christian faith, in the same way as the American flag represents the United States. Following on from that, he designed the emblem and formed a group (the Christian Flag Extension Society) to promote it. This included efforts to have the flag officially recognized by the US government, and adopted in its military chaplaincies. 2 The first flags made to his design were manufactured by the Annin company, which still makes them today. 3

According to Overton:

  It is truly symbolic. The ground, which is five-sixths of the whole, is white, the universal peace color, representing peace, purity, and innocence. In the upper corner is a blue square, the color of the unclouded sky, emblematic of heaven, the home of the Christian, also a symbol of faith and truth. In the center of the blue is the cross, the ensign and chosen symbol of Christianity. The cross is red, typical of Christ's blood. Every sect of Christ's followers can indorse the flag, and it is equally acceptable to all nations. It stands for no creed or denomination, but for Christianity.4

Additionally, "white is recognized as the flag of truce on every battlefield, and as soon as a flag of this color is seen the cannon's roar is silenced." 3 It may be that the red-white-blue combination of the Overton flag was chosen to echo the colors of the American flag.

The Overton design violates the heraldic rule of tincture by placing the red cross on the blue canton. This seems to be unintentional, though the arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem deliberately did the same (gold on white) as a mark of honor.

Some alternative flag designs were proposed in the same era, including the so-called "Crusader Flag", a red cross on a white field bearing the motto "In this sign conquer". Several individual churches or denominations have their own unique flags as well. Perhaps the flag of the Vatican is the only one of these that qualifies as intended to be universal, though of course non-Catholics are liable to disagree with the claim. Conversely, the "Christian Flag" is Protestant in origin and remains most popular among American Protestants.

1. Deruyter Gleaner, 18 August 1898, p8
2. American Sentinel, vol 14, no 17 of 27 April 1899, p262
3. Missionary Education in Home and School, R. E. Diffendorfer, NY: Abingdon Press, 1917, p183ff
4. The Epworth Era, 12 January 1919, p150


What was the first recorded near death experience of a Christian claiming to have one? What is the first recorded description of a Christian claiming to have what we would today call a near death experience? Did perhaps any of the early church fathers describe such an event that happened to themselves or others?

While near death experiences have become more common with modern resuscitation techniques, they were described in ancient times, such as with Plato describing Er  (c. 380 BC) and Plutarch describing Aridaeus of Soli (c. 560 AD). Both describe non-Christians claiming to have near-death experiences.

Note that I am interested in someone who nearly died and came back to life and then told their tale, thus I wouldn't count the Biblical accounts of Lazarus (the one Jesus resurrected) or the rich man associated with another Lazarus (the one of whom Jesus described his post-death experiences in one of his parables).

If there is an obvious one in the New Testament that I am forgetting, let me know so I can edit my question. I am interested in post-Biblical times.

The earliest such account I am aware of can be found in the Gerontikon, sayings and stories of the so-called Desert Fathers of Egypt, compiled - it is thought - sometime in the 2nd or 3rd centuries.  There is a summary of the story from the Gerontikon in the Evergetinos about a careless monk who became ill and approached death:

  In the midst of his illness, he lost consciousness and his soul left his body and was taken off to be judged.  There among the damned he found his mother.  On seeing him, she said with astonishment, "My child, are you, too, condemned to this place of the damned?  For what reason are you, who said to me, 'I wish to save my soul,' here?"  The brother, shamed by all that he had heard, was struck with gloom, unable to answer anything his mother had said.  Afterwards, he heard a voice that said: "At once, Out of here."  He immediately woke from this ecstasy and unconsciousness and related with fear to those around him all that he had seen and heard, glorifying God, Who in every way seeks the salvation of sinners.1

As I said, there are probably accounts that date earlier than this, but this is earliest one I can find.  There are many more such accounts in the Gerontikon and in the Orthodox Synaxaria.

1. Book I, Hypothesis VIII.F (from an English translation by the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2008; p.72)


Why is the sin of the fallen angels unforgivable? (Catholic catechism) Referring to the fall of Satan and his angels, according to the Catechism:

  393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."

Can someone please explain further why the angels who turned away from God cannot be forgiven, unlike man? What does irrevocable character of their choice mean?

Satan and all the fallen angels (demons) are completely consumed with evil and chose to do evil with all their intellect and sin against God, thus repentance is no longer possible for them.

  According to Canon 1 of the VI Lateran Council in 1215, the fallen angels were good. Does any goodness still exist within these demons and can they repent since God is merciful to sinful humans who repent of their evil? According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, no. There is not good left within Satan and his angels and they are completely consumed by evil. As a result of this and because they chose to sin against God with their full intellect and will. As Paragraph 393 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

  It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death." - The Catholic Teachings On The Angels - Part 2: The Fall Of Satan

Before the death of a human being, man is able to repent of past sins, but not after death.

Why does the soul become immutably fixed, in good or in evil, immediately after death can be read about here:  IMMUTABILITY AFTER DEATH.


Were the early Christians an apocalyptic sect? I saw a documentary with David Suchet about Paul the apostle. Suchet stated that Paul was convinced the world was about to end. Is this an accurate representation of the early church?

There are a variety of views. Modernists (e.g., Albert Schweitzer) have tended to see Paul (and Jesus!) as benignly delusional when it comes to end times, whereas conservatives have tended to see them as puzzles to figure out.

There was certainly a strain in Paul (and Jesus himself in the Olivet Discourse) of expecting an imminent consummation of all things. See for instance his letters to the Thessalonians, which are generally regarded as his earliest letters. But there is also a sense of preparing for the long-haul -- the appointing of elders and instructions for running the church, for instance.

Some, called partial preterists, think that much of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, taking care of the imminentness of some of the eschaton (or end times).

Regardless of one's view of partial preterism, many Christians subscribe to "innaugurated eschatology" where the Kingdom transformation has begun but is not yet complete -- the "now but not yet."


Why does God often permit his children to suffer in this world more than the wicked? Jesus said:

  Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. (Matthew 10:29-31, NIV)

If it is true that God even loves a sparrow and nothing can happen under his all powerful hand without his consent, why does God allow the great injustice of the wicked prospering while his dearly loved often suffer in this world?

How does the Christian view reconcile the sufferings of a Job with the gentle care of a sparrow?

I guess I'd question whether or not God's children really do suffer more than the wicked.  We all suffer in this world, and while some Christians suffer horrific things, so do non-believers.  But assuming the premise is true...

This is one of the great philosophical questions to which there are many answers given.  There are several possible reasons for any given instance of suffering, which all add up to suffering as a whole.  The final answer is "because it serves God's purpose", but since that seems unsatisfying, let's look at a few other things.

The first things to point out is that God never promised that Christians would not suffer.  In fact, He promises the exact opposite.  There's a tract that I like that expands on this concept here.

Small excerpt:

  It is true that God loves you, but you decide if His plan is
  "wonderful." If you have heard that happiness comes through Jesus
  Christ, you may like to think again. The first thing Jesus said of the
  Apostle Paul (who wrote most of the New Testament) was that He would
  show him "how great things he must suffer for (His) name's sake.1
  Three times Paul was beaten with rods, once he was stoned, three times
  he suffered shipwreck, a night and a day he spent in the sea. There
  were times when Paul was so unhappy, he wanted to die.2

  The Bible says, "All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer
  persecution."3 It says we enter the Kingdom of God through much
  distress,4 and that we were appointed to afflictions.5

  Jesus said if we followed Him we would be reviled, persecuted, hated,
  and all manner of evil would be said against us falsely, for His sake.
  He warned that we would have to take up our cross daily, deny
  ourselves and follow Him, saying, "In the world you shall have
  tribulation," and even that we may be called to die for our faith.6

So, what purpose could suffering possibly serve?

From many sermons I've heard on the subject, here are a few:

To teach us to rely more fully on God.
To correct wrong behavior.  He loves us and chastens us when necessary.
To test our faith
To prove our faith
To show us how He can overcome obstacles if we rely on him (strongly related to the first point)
To show non-believers that He can overcome all obstacles
To give us an opportunity to witness to others by showing them the peace and joy in Christ that survives through persecution
So that we can more effectively offer comfort to others going through the same thing - to make us better ministers and evangelists.
To refine us

I'm sure there are others, but this will do for a start, and again, remember that God didn't promise an easy life. He promised trials, suffering, and tribulation, and the one thing we can be sure of is that it serves a His perfect purpose, which isn't always apparent to us.

As for why Christians would suffer more than the unsaved, we can look to Hebrews 12:5-11

  5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as
  unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord,
  nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

  6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom
  he receiveth.

  7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what
  son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without
  chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not
  sons. 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected
  us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in
  subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they verily
  for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our
  profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. 11 Now no
  chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous:
  nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of
  righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

Just one final thought on the subject:

  Romans 8:28 (KJV) says

  And we know that all things work together for good to them that love
  God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

This does not mean that all things by themselves are good.  It means that He causes all things to result in a good end.  Kent Hovind uses an example to illustrate.  (Paraphrasing):

  Suppose you were hungry and I offered you a cup of lard.  No?  O.K.,
  How about a couple of cups of flour.  No?  Some raw eggs?  No?
  Supposed I mix them all together and make pancakes.

Suffering should not be something that destroys our faith in God.  If we are truly His, it will strengthen our faith and relationship with Him.


Meaning of "Confirmatio" in relation to the Sacrament of Confirmation (Sacramentum Confirmationis) Of the seven sacraments of the Christian faith (as held by the Roman Catholic Church), one is "confirmation." This is derived from the Latin word confirmatio, as seen in the Latin text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

I. Confirmatio in Oeconomia salutis

The Lewis & Short lexicon defines the Latin word confirmatio as:

I.a securing, establishing, confirming (in good prose, but only in trop. signif.; most freq. in Cic., Caes., and Quint.). *
I. In gen.: “perpetuae libertatis,” Cic. Fam. 12, 8, 1.—
II. Esp.
A. A confirming, fortifying, quieting of a wavering, fearful mind; encouragement, consolation: “animi,” Caes. B. C. 1, 21; Cic. Fam. 6, 6, 1: “Ciceronis,” id. Att. 14, 13, 4: “neque enim confirmatione nostrā egebat virtus tua,” id. Fam. 6, 3, 1.—
B. A confirming, verifying of a fact, assertion, etc.: “perfugae,” Caes. B. G. 3, 18; Cic. Inv. 1, 30, 48; Quint. 2, 17, 12.—Hence,

In rhet., an adducing of proofs, Cic. Inv. 1, 24, 34; id. Part. Or. 8, 27; Quint. 4, 3, 1; 4, 4, 1; 4, 2, 79; 5, 14, 6 Spald. al.

When is the Latin word confirmatio first used in the writings of the early Church fathers to refer to this specific sacrament?

Based on the definition of the word provided by Lewis & Short's lexicon, how should we understand the meaning of confirmatio in the context of this sacrament? Does it mean that someone is confirmed to be a Christian upon the administration of this sacrament?

If so, if one has not yet performed the sacrament of confirmation, are they not considered a Christian (Catholic)?

I am an amateur in this subject and out of interest compiled these notes from references to which I have access. Therefore I am sure that there may be many inaccuracies lurking in them. Reader beware! Corrections would be appreciated.

The sacrament of Confirmation confirms and perfects the vow of faithfulness to Christ and his Gospel made by or on behalf of a recipient at his/her baptism, and confers on the recipient the gift of the Holy Spirit.

The Roman Catholic Church believes that the sacrament of Confirmation should be received after the person has reached the age of reason, having sufficient maturity to receive the Holy Spirit, which, according to Acts 8:14-17, is not conferred at Baptism.  It also provides an opportunity for the bishop of a church community to become personally acquainted with the new members of his flock when they reach the age of reason.

Following the  renewal of baptismal promises and the profession of faith by the confirmands, the bishop prays that the confirmands may be blessed with the gift of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts 8:14-17 and anoints them with the chrism (scented ointment), and lays his hands on them as described in Acts 8:14-17. In the Eastern Orthodox Church the Sacraments of Initiation, namely Baptism, Confirmation, and First Communion are usually celebrated together.

  Acts 8:14-17Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

  14 Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that
  Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and
  John. 15 Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might
  receive the Holy Ghost. 16 For he was not as yet come upon any of
  them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
  17 Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy
  Ghost.

Traditionally a Catholic should have received the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation (and Confession) before being allowed to receive First Communion, though relaxation of this order was subsequently authorised.

A clear overview of Confirmation is given in

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/ritesrituals/confirmation_1.shtml

The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives a detailed description of the Catholic sacrament of Confirmation. Since the Catholic Church considers the sacrament of Eucharist to be essential for the Catholic  Christian, and requires that it be received at least once a year, and given that the Catholic Christian is required to have received Baptism and Confirmation before receiving First Communion, it may be deduced that a Catholic Christian is required to be have received Confirmation in order to continue practicing his faith.

Regarding the history of the sacrament of Confirmation, the following seems to be a good starting point:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm

In this it appears that St Ambrose of Milan was one of the first to use the term “Confirmation”. It is likely that before this term entered into usage the term “Chrism” as still used in the Eastern Orthodox Church and in the Catholic Church in some countries. In Italian the "Confirmation" sacrament is known as "Cresima", a word which is obviously derived from the Greek root of the word "Chrism".

  St. Ambrose addressing the catechumens who had already been baptized
  and anointed, says: "Thou hast received the spiritual seal, the Spirit
  of wisdom and of understanding . . . . Keep what thou hast received.
  God the Father has sealed thee; Christ the Lord has confirmed thee;
  and the Spirit has given the pledge in thy heart, as thou hast learned
  from what is read in the Apostle" (On the Mysteries 7.42).


How do Christians explain commonalities between their religion, other major faiths and obscure isolated tribal belief systems? Many belief systems share common themes; an afterlife, rebirth, bodily mutilation and sacrifice.

To me this suggests a shared origin either in history or storytelling (Abrahamic faiths) or that they were all "made up" to appease basic human fears or death and to cope with grief.

Taking these similarities into account how do Christians dismiss other beliefs and accept their own as the one true religion?

Occam's Razor states that the simplest solution is likely to be the correct one, and such commonalities are generally explained by Christians by appealing to the simplest solution: when two separate entities share several common traits, it's generally because they derive from a shared origin.

The Old Testament gives a few tantalizing glimpses of things that make a lot more sense in the context of Christianity, especially in the account of events that predate the Law of Moses, but the record is rather sketchy, and mostly limited in scope to the people of Israel and their predecessors.  But from extrabliblical historical and religious works of similar antiquity we get a picture of the rest of the world, and of striking similarities in the details of their worship customs, and the further back you go, the more things converge.

To give just one example, we typically think of ancient Greece as the birthplace of Western thought, but religiously they were anything but!  If you were to mention to an ancient Israelite the notion of a God of thunder and lightning and fertility, who is the leader of the pantheon and lives on top of a mystical mountain, he would immediately recognize the concept: you're talking about Baal, the chief god of the Caananites!  (And in fact Zeus's consort's name is only one syllable different from Baal's Asherah.)

Now the name Baal is a Hebraicized version of the Babylonian Bel, and Babylon was built at the site of Babel, where humanity was once gathered together before dispersing from that point.  (There's been some very interesting research into ancient Babylonian history that identifies the legendary Tower of Babel with the Ziggurat of Babylon, for example.)  And one of the high points of Baal's legend was a resurrection tale involving him being murdered by his enemies and coming back to life a few days later, imagery that should be immediately familiar to any Christian.  Where did this notion come from?  From when a good portion (all?) of humanity, including true worshipers of the Lord, lived in and around the land of Babel, of course.

These sorts of convergences show up all over the place when you start looking at the details of ancient religious systems, and they only really make sense if you assume a common origin.


What scripture is used to support a "Pre-Tribulation Rapture"? CLARIFICATION:  For those who believe there will be an event in the "end times" in which believers will be "taken up" to meet Jesus "in the clouds", and that there is yet to be a "Great Tribulation", I am curious which scriptures (primarily) are used to support the view that the rapture will happen prior to the tribulation, as opposed to after the tribulation.
REASON FOR THE QUESTION:  I am studying Matthew 24 in preparation for a sermon next Sunday, and came across the following passages (from the NASB):

"...the disciples came to Him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? And Jesus answered and said to them...'  (from v.3-4)
"'...they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you... At that time many will fall away...'"  (from v.9-10)
"'For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.'"  (v.21)
"'But immediately after the tribulation of those days... they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds... And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.'"  (from v.29-31)

Based on these passages, it sounds like the disciples asked what signs would indicate the "end of the age", and in response, Jesus described a "great tribulation" after which He would "come on the clouds" and "gather His elect".  I am assuming that both "camps" (Pre-Trib. and Post-Trib.) would have an interpretation of this passage, but it got me thinking... if there was a "Rapture" before the great tribulation, why wouldn't Jesus just say something like "when you notice people disappearing, you'll know the end is here!"  In other words, Jesus is answering their question, but seems to be glossing over the most obvious "sign of the end of the age", which happens before everything else (in the Pre-Trib view.)
I haven't studied the Pre-Trib. vs. Post-Trib. debate extensively, and was wondering if someone could summarize the arguments from scripture in favor of the "Pre-Trib" view.  (I am aware that any passage can be interpreted any number of ways, but I am specifically looking for the most clear and convincing passages that support this doctrine.)  Thanks!

It's a combination of a couple of things.

First, there's a passage in Matthew 24:38-41:

  For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking,
  marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
  and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and
  took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of
  Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other
  left.  Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken
  and the other left.

Dispensationalists take this to mean that the Christian will be taken, and the non-Christian will be left.  This passage from Matthew is taken to refer to the same incident that will happen according to 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

  For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command,
  with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of
  God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.  Then we who are alive,
  who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to
  meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

According to this viewpoint, this is the same incident referred to in the "rescuing" in Jeremiah 30:7:

  Alas, what a terrible time of trouble it is! There has never been any
  like it. It is a time of trouble for the descendants of Jacob, but
  some of them will be rescued out of it.

That is, they'll be saved from the tribulation.  Revelation 3:10 echoes this:

  Because you have kept my admonition to endure steadfastly, I will also
  keep you from the hour of testing that is about to come on the whole
  world to test those who live on the earth.

Thessalonians 1:10 is also taken to refer to this time:

  and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead,
  Jesus our deliverer from the coming wrath.

So these verses are all taken to mean the same time period, namely, the saving of the elect from having to go through the tribulation. All of these verses feed into the idea that we will be saved from the tribulation before it happens.

Incidentally, this interpretation was first systematized by John Nelson Darby in the 1800's.  The reason it's such a popular viewpoint in America today, is because of Darby's work on the Scofield Study Bible, which was the first study Bible to be published in the United States.  Since it's Darby's interpretation of Revelation that is present within the study Bible, many people viewed this interpretation as the "de-facto" interpretation of Revelation and eschatology in general.

Personally, I tend not to agree with these points (I'm an amillenialist), but having had grown up with this viewpoint, I figured I'm somewhat qualified to answer.


Nature of the Church in 1st Corinthians In 1 Corinthians 1:10-12 - (“10   I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.””)

Paul begins talking about the divisions within the church at Corinth.  Were these divisions each a "house church" or were they divisions within a single church that met together?

• Follow up question 1 - Reading 1 Corinthians 11:17-18 (instructions on the Lord's Supper) it seems that it was one church that gathered together and not house churches. If the church of Corinth was a church that met in a single location - where did they meet?  Would a home be large enough?

• Follow up question 2 - If the church in Corinth is a collection of house churches, then the divisions clearly represent a fragmentation of the early church.  How was this fragmentation halted?  Was it to move towards a single meeting location - as evidenced by early church structures that begin to appear around 200/300 AD?(https://archive.archaeology.org/0709/abstracts/churches.html)
https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/november/why-and-when-did-christians-start-constructing-special.html

It really doesn't matter where they were meeting.  Paul addresses the letter to the church.

  Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
  1 Cor. 1:2

He could just as well be speaking directly to us as them.

To your question though, at that time they very likely would have been meeting in one house, but given the nature of the contentions (I am of Apollos, I am of Paul, I am of Christ, etc; IOW, my lineage is better than yours, naynaynay), it is not impossible that they were already meetings in different houses.

Perhaps they were meeting in the woman Chloe's house.  There is lots of speculation about who she was, but obviously she had the Apostle Paul's ear.  He trusted, he listened to her.  She was important.  Like with Christ's ministry, it was supported by very important, well-to-do women.

  And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.
  Luke 8:3

If, however, they were meeting in different houses, which is very doubtful, how was the division stopped?  Clearly it wasn't.  See the letter of Clement to the Corinthians.  See also the history of Christianity.

Point is that distance, time, heritage, location is not as important as what is believed.

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


What's the difference between a psalm, a hymn, and a spiritual song? Is the difference between a psalm, a hymn, and a spiritual song/song from the Spirit defined anywhere in scripture or church tradition?

Paul said this to the Ephesians:

  Ephesians 5:18-20 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. (NIV)

Paul's Greek was ψαλμοις, υμνοις and ωδαις πνευματικαις.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon (via Blue Letter Bible) has

  ύμνος, -ου, ο, in Greek writing from Homer down, a song in praise of gods, heroes, conquerors, [cf. Trench as below, p297], but in the Scriptures of God; a sacred song, hymn.

Thayer quotes Richard Chevinix Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament:

  ύμνος, ψαλμός, ωδή: ωδή is the generic term; ψαλμός and ύμνος are specific, the former designating a song which took its general character from the Old Testament "Psalms" (although not restricted to them, see 1 Cor 14:15, 26), the latter a song of praise. "While the leading idea of ψαλμός is a musical accompaniment, and that of ύμνος praise the God, ωδή is the general word for a song, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, whether of praise or on any other subject. Thus it was quite possible for the same song to be at once ψαλμός, ύμνος, and ωδή" (Bishop Lightfoot on Col 3:16). The words occur together in Colossians 3:16 and Ephesians 5:19. See Trench, Synonyms §78.

Psalm: a song from the Book of Psalms, often accompanied
Hymn: a song of praise, often unaccompanied
Song: any song


Does the Eastern orthodox church prohibit Christian meditation? There is already a question on whether or not yoga and other non-Christian meditative practices are permissible according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, however I was wondering if all forms of meditative practice are discouraged or whether things like lectio divina, Taize prayer or christian meditation are smiled upon?

The current usage of the word meditation is strongly linked to buddhist/zen/hindu practices of sitting in a certain position, breathing in a certain way, focusing on emptying the mind and ultimately altering one's consciousness.

That kind of meditation and any other spiritual practices from other religions are strictly forbidden by the Orthodox Church for obvious reasons: being a christian and meditating is like being a buddhist and praying to God.

However, the word meditation itself is not imported from asian languages, like samsara, nirvana, chakra, karma etc. It comes from the latin meditatio meaning to contemplate, to ponder. So its original meaning was different, not linked to asian spiritual practices.

One of my friends started his conversion to Orthodox Christianity after reading a book called "Orthodox meditation". He picked it up with exactly your question in mind: Do the orthodox christians also meditate? thinking of course, about the current connotations of the word. In this book, he found out that orthodox meditation has nothing to do with the asian spiritual practice.

The Philokalia, a collection of eastern orthodox writings about the hesychast tradition, abounds in the use of the word meditation, which is used, of course, with its original meaning e.g. in order to attain humbleness, one should meditate on God's infinite powers as often as possible (not a direct quote, just an example I made up).

As another user advised, it's better if you talk to your confessor priest about this, he will tell you whether doing this is beneficial to you or not and give you the proper instructions on how to do it right.


According to the doctrine of Trinity, was Jesus always co-equal to the Father? So I'm trying to understand the Trinity.

I always thought of it like this: Jesus was 100% divine when he was with the Father. In other words, he was fully co-equal to the Father. Then, when he became a human being (on earth), he wasn't 100% divine, so he was not co-equal to the Father. In other words, he was part divine, part human (inferior to the father). And when he rose into the heavens (after the crucifixion and resurrection and everything), he became fully 100% divine again. So basically he's co-equal to the Father once again.

But that's how I always understood it. Does the Trinity support this view? According to the doctrine of Trinity, was Jesus always co-equal to the Father? Even during his lifetime on earth?

The Chalcedonian Definition (AD 451) was a key christological statement of the early church, and is respected throughout trinitarianism.  The first portion of the part relevant to this question emphasizes that Jesus is "truly God and truly man":

  Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man.

But perhaps his divinity was reduced?  The creed continues:

  [Jesus is] acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.

So no, your understanding is decidedly not trinitarian – Jesus was simultaneously 100% God and 100% man while on earth; his divinity was not compromised.


What is the reason to genuflect when the Incarnation is mentioned? At Mass during the recitation of the Nicene Creed and when praying the Angelus, it is common (or required?) for the congregation to bow or genuflect (bend one knee) during these lines:

For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven: By the power of the Holy Spirit, He was incarnate (born) of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us

Why do we genuflect during those lines and not do anything special when other very important aspects of our faith are mentioned?

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was) wrote about this article of the creed for the Mariological Congress in March 1995. The essay is reprinted in Mary: the church at the source by him and  Hans Urs von Balthasar (Ignatius Press, 2005). He speaks about the centrality of the incarnation to Christian faith:

  In manifesting himself, God shows that he is our Lord, not just our idea. His self-manifestation is rightly at the heart of the Creed. The confession of God's history in the heart of man's history is not a departure from the simple profession of faith in God: rather, it is its intrinsic condition. For this reason, the center of all our creeds is a Yes to Jesus Christ: "By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man." At this article of the Creed we genuflect, because now heaven, the veil surrounding the hidden God, is torn open, and the Mystery comes into immediate contact with us. The distant God becomes our God, Emmanuel - "God with us".

I would imagine that there is also some link with genuflecting to the consecrated Host, for the same reason.

Hugh Latimer expressed a similar opinion in a sermon of 26 December 1552, though in more "English Reformation" terms:

  We read a story, (take it as you will, though it be not a true story:) The devil came once into the church whilst the priest was saying mass; and when he was at these words, Et homo factus est, the devil looked about him, and seeing no man kneel down, or bow his knees, he strake one of them in the face, saying, "What! will you not reverence him for this great benefit which he hath done unto you? I tell you, if he had taken upon him our nature, as he hath taken upon him yours, we would more reverence him than ye do." This story is prettily devised; for we should reverence him; we should honour him, and shew ourselves thankful for his inestimable benefits that he hath shewed upon us miserable wretched sinners, in taking upon him our nature.

The footnote says that the story appears in the Vita Christi by Ludolph of Saxony. This was written in 1374, so there is some history to the idea that it is particularly important to show reverence at this point.


Why do some Christians use a period instead of a colon in verse references? In the same way some countries write $1,000, some write $1.000, what do we learn when someone uses this alternative way of writing out verse references?

I have one lecturer that prefers this. i.e. They will write Jonah 1.5 instead of Jonah 1:5. I am wondering if anyone can enlighten me as to where this tradition comes from? i.e Who made it popular, does it reflect this person comes from a particular background?

There's probably no general explanation for the different reference styles. Both are just as easy to understand, but using the colon is the more common.

Wikipedia says that the Chicago Manual of Style specifies a colon while MLA style specifies a period, but only a tiny fraction of Bible verse references would be from people strictly following either style. More relevant to Biblical studies and theology, the SBL Handbook of Style uses colons.

In recent years the period has probably become more common because on most mobile phone keyboards it's faster to type than a colon, which usually requires switching keyboard mode.