Why don't many churches obey Paul's command that women must be silent in church? In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul says that women must be silent in churches and ask questions to their husbands when they get home:

  Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:34-35, NIV)

This is completely ignored in many churches today, with many women being leaders and singers on stage, and many women in the congregation not keeping silent.

This also seems to contradict the passages which say that we are made in the image of God and are equals.

How is this explained, and why do people seemingly pick and choose parts of the Bible to follow?

Was this just Paul's opinion rather than the word of God?

Also, what would unmarried women do?

I have heard two explanations for this. I tend to think the second one is much more sound in the context given but I will offer them both for reference.

First of all, the passage in question is 1 Corinthians 14:34.

The first explanation I've heard is that at the time, most women were poorly educated and had a difficult time participating in the discussions at the church and were holding the men back from delving into the teachings because of the amount of background that constantly had to be given and unrelated questions that had to be fielded. Paul was trying to encourage getting as much teaching out to the men as possible leaving the men to help communicate and teach all the needed background to their wives. I suppose there is some legitimacy to the idea. I've certainly been involved in meetings where some subset of the audience wasn't fully with the program and having to stop for off topic questions all the times really puts a damper on things. My historical knowledge is not good enough to know if this was an issue in the early church but I don't think this is what was going on in the passage.

The second explanation takes into account some other aspects of Scripture including the larger context of the passage at hand.

The immediate context is about orderly worship, but the larger scope of the passage in chapter 14 is talking about prophecy in the church. When someone in the church had a teaching or message to give to the church it was a word of prophecy. Any time some such message was given it had to be tested and evaluated against Scripture to make sure that it was valid. When it was validated it would be considered authoritative and in a sense binding to those who heard it.

The Bible explains in several places are marriages are to work in loving submission to each-other, but with the husband having the responsibility of headship. While a husband may consult his wife and reach a decision together, ultimately he has the burden of being responsible for the final choices made (see Why is Adam considered the original sinner?).

In the context of this church, this means that men have the responsibility of evaluating, approving and delivering teaching to the whole body. Since women do not bear the burden of responsibility in such matters, they are asked not to be the ones voicing concerns or pronouncing judgement when such matters came up.

One must also note that Paul did not restrict women from praying or even prophesying themselves. (See 3 chapters earlier in 1 Corinthians 11:5 and Acts 2:17) This is purely an issue of headship and authority, which the Law also spoke to rather than an edict against speaking in a church building and participating in other ways.

Unmarried women are still expected to have some sort of structure around them. This would primarily be the father who is responsible for daughters until they are given over to a husband, but a brother or other family relation could play a similar role.


What is the relationship between commandments and salvation in Roman Catholicism? Jesus during the conversation with the zealous youth, tells him:" You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’” (Mark 10:9)

One would notice that Jesus is not keeping the order of the commandments in tact, as would have been done by a lay Christian of these days. And, when He gives us a fore-glimpse of the Day of the Judgement, He does not even mention the commandments, but rather enforces the  embodiment of charity and compassion in oneself.

My question is: Is following of the commandments NOT a guaranteed path of attaining salvation? What is the Catholic view on this?

Mortal Sin is explicitly tied to the Ten Commandments in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Failure to resolve a grave breach of the commandments puts the person at risk of exclusion from God's kingdom.  I recommend a review of articles 1852 - 1864 to get the full flow of the sequential argument.

(I also recommend that you check out Matthew 221 to understand why Jesus didn't list all ten commandments in that discussion with the young man.  He was obviously summarizing).

In brief, the view of the Roman Catholic Church:

If you die with the stain of mortal sin upon your soul, salvation
will not be your reward.
Mortal sin is a grave transgression directly related to the Ten Commandments.

Being in a state of mortal sin vacates the hope for salvation unless admitted, confessed, and reconciled.

Thus, salvation (and its opposite, damnation) are directly related to the Ten Commandments.

Following the ten commandments will predispose a person to not fall
into sin
Failing to follow the ten commandments will    predispose a person to
fall into sin, and in some cases mortal sin.
Minor breaches are classified as venial sin, which is related to the
scripture that states that "there is sin that is not mortal." (1 John
5:17)

  from CCC 1852/1853: There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture
  provides several list ... {works of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing ... those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God."(Gal 5:19-21)

  Sins can be distinguished according to their objects ... or according
  to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the
  commandments they violate. ...

  CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met:
  "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also
  committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

  1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments,
  corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not
  kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness,
  Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."

  1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It
  presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its
  opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently
  deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of
  heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of
  a sin.

  1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love
  itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of
  sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not
  redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from
  Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has
  the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back.

From elsewhere in the Catechism ... a person receives the state of grace upon Baptism, wherein all sins are washed away.  Losing that state of grace is possible, and happens when mortal sin is committed.  Restoration of the state of baptismal grace requires the sacrament of penance and reconciliation (confession and penance). (There are books written on this subject; this is the short version).

1 If we review the "the greatest commandment" scene between Jesus and the Parisees (book of Matthew) the church's teachings fits cleanly with both general and more specific commandments.

  Matthew 22:35-40
    35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
  38 This is the first and great commandment.
  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
  40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


Did Mary die, or was she translated like Enoch and Elijah? According to the Bible, did Mary die?

From a comment on another question, it seems that at least some denominations (including the Roman Catholic Church) teach that, like Elijah and Enoch, Mary did not see death.

From where does this teaching arise?

According to the Bible, Mary is not explicitly mentioned after Acts. There is no record of her death or non-death. Further, since she was very young when she gave birth, it is conceivable that she would have outlived many of the original authors. Either way, any information about Mary after about 40 AD cannot rest on Biblical justification.

And I think that an important point to emphasize: There is no outright biblical justification that Mary did *anything* after Acts. Anyone who claims otherwise is presenting not scripture, but an interpretation of scripture.*

Strictly speaking the Church's teaching is ambiguous as to whether Mary was assumed into heaven in the manner of Elijah, or if her body was taken to heaven afterwards (as was the case with Moses). Neither opinion is excluded specifically, but the general thought in the West was that Mary was assumed just before she would have died normally.

This thought is based on several facts. One is the authority of the Church — while this is not something that was held to be official dogma until relatively recently, the consistent and near unanimous opinion of the church Fathers was that Mary's body is currently in heaven. This is no doubt supported by the fact that there is no tomb and no shrine which claims to hold the bone of Mary (this is conspicuous because all of the Apostles had such sepulchers). Further, it was promulgated as doctrine by the Pope resting on Papal authority. In addition, there is an ancient document which actually relates the death of Mary and the assumption of her body.

So you have several sources who agree:

Ancient legends

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0832.htm

Theological consensus
No physical tomb
Papal authority

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus_en.html

Now, while it is possible to disagree with one or more of these, it is beyond the scope of this question to address such issues.

* While it may be reasonable to believe that Mary breathed, ate, drank, and eventually died, there is no commentary on these in the Bible. If we exclude all evidences outside of the Bible, there is no way to say that she did not join the Judaizers or that she performed miracles as great as the signs in the Gospels.


What are some of the recent doctrinal controversial matters in the Eastern Orthodox Church? What are some of the recent doctrinal controversial matters in the Eastern Orthodox Church (say, within the last 10 years), that are yet to be solved? Are there any? Or, perhaps, there are no such ones at all? If not doctrinal, then some matters related to differences in practice would suffice. I heard that Russian Orthodox Church refused to participate in the latest all-Orthodox meeting. Was it due to some of such  differences?

I think the last great doctrinal "controversy" within the Orthodox Church was probably the Council of Florence of 1438-39, which was to have healed the Great Schism between the See of Rome and the other four ancient Sees and the jurisdictions that had grown out of them.  The controversy arose largely over the differences between the eastern and western doctrines on purgatory and the precession of the Holy Spirit, as well over the issue of papal authority.  In the end, the rift could not be resolved and the Orthodox Church remained separate from the west.

The Pan-Orthodox Meeting you refer to was rejected not only by the Russian Orthodox Church (by far the largest Orthodox jurisdiction in the world), but also the Patriarchs of Antioch, Bulgaria, and Georgia - mostly over the wording of some of the pronouncements favored by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.  Some of these same pronouncements were condemned within the Patriarchate of Constantinople itself, most notably by some conservative monks at Mt. Athos.  A common theme of those protesting the Council was what was perceived as an erosion of "Orthodox identify and self-understanding" and a dilution of Orthodox theology for the sake of "ecumenism".  One respected hierarch, Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Greece, for example, protested among other things a reference to Christian traditions outside the Orthodox Church as "Churches" and asked that they instead be referred to as "Christian Confessions".


What was the New Testament in the ancient Church of the East? Which books functioned as the New Testament in the ancient Church of the East? For example, what would they have been in Mongolia in the days of Genghis Khan?

The books of the Catholic and Protestant and Orthodox New Testament were fixed after the Church of the East split from the other branches of Christianity. So I wonder what became the set of the standard books for them.

Genghis Khan was the founder and emperor of the Mongol Empire around the year 1200. John of Montecorvino (1247–1328) an Italian Franciscan missionary was said to be possibly the first person to translate the New Testament and Psalms into Mongolian.

Therefore we can basically assume the New Testament was the Catholic New Testament (which is the same as the Protestant one):

-The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
-The Acts of the Apostles
-The Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon
-The Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude
-Revelation

Since poor Genghis died around 1227, he probably never got a chance to read it himself.

Yet the Catholic history does not reach the full answer because although Catholic missionaries may have been the first to translate a full New Testament into Mongolian, there were not the first Christian missionaries into the region.

This article says:

  Nestorianism was the first form of Christianity to be proselytized among the Mongols, in the 7th century, and several Mongol tribes became primarily Christian. During the rise of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century, the Great Khans, though mostly Shamanists and Buddhist, were religiously tolerant towards the Nestorian Christians, Muslims, and Manichaeans. Many of the khans had Nestorian Christian wives from the Kerait clan, who were extremely influential in the Mongol court. During the rule of Mongke Khan, Christianity was the primary religious influence. After the breakup of the Mongol Empire in the 14th century, Nestorian Christianity nearly disappeared from the region.

Nestorianism was an Eastern sect considered by the West as Heresy for its unique view of the nature of Christ as being two distinct persons.

According to this article, the Nestorian Canon "excludes the New Testament books of Revelation, Jude, Second John, Third John and Second Peter, because the use of those books was not attested in the churches of Persia early enough to have been woven into the canonical tradition. "


Why is the story of Joachim and Anne considered true in tradition but mentioned only in apocryphal works? Recently I have been reading about different Christian traditions that aren't neccesarily written in scripture but have been accepted by the RCC (and sometimes Orthodox Church) as tradition and true. The story of St. Joachim and St. Anne is only mentioned in the apocryphal Protoevangilium of James. How can the story of Joachim and Anna be true if it is written in a book that was made apocryphal by the church? Are there any other early sources that also affirm what the Gospel of James says about the parents of Mary or is that the only one?

Why is the story of Joachim and Anne considered true in tradition but mentioned only in apocryphal works?
The Apocrypha are not considered inspired revelation from God. But that does not mean that certain works may contain some truths within them. The Scriptures can not err, but the Apocrypha may hold some errs. This is where tradition comes in: it’s tradition!

Jesus, Disciples Never Quoted from Apocrypha: Jesus Christ and his inspired New Testament penmen quoted from, or alluded to, the writings and events of the Old Testament profusely. In fact, there are one thousand quotations or allusions from thirty-five of the thirty-nine Old Testament books are found in the New Testament record.
And yet, significantly, not once are any of these apocryphal books quoted or even explicitly referred to by the Lord or by any New Testament writer.
Noted scholar Emile Schurer argued that this is really remarkable since most of the New Testament habitually quoted from the LXX (1894, 99).

Despite the fact that New Testament writers quote largely from the Septuagint rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament, there is not a single clear-cut case of a citation from any of the fourteen apocryphal books .... The most that can be said is that the New Testament writers show acquaintance with these fourteen books and perhaps allude to them indirectly, but in no case do they quote them as inspired Scripture or cite them as authority (Unger 1951, 101).

Apocryphal Books Do Not Claim Inspiration: It must be observed that the apocryphal books, unlike the canonical books of the Old Testament, make no direct claims of being inspired of God.
Not once is there a, “thus says the Lord,” or language like, “the word of the Lord came unto me, saying ...” In fact, some of the documents actually confess non-inspiration! In the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, the writer states:

“Ye are intreated therefore to read with favour and attention, and to pardon us, if in any parts of what we have laboured to interpret, we may seem to fail in some of the phrases.”

It seems that the Golden Legend fixed this tradition in the minds of those who accept the story.
The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say about St. Joachim and St. Anne:

All our information concerning the names and lives of Sts. Joachim and Anne, the parents of Mary, is derived from apocryphal literature, the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and the Protoevangelium of James. Though the earliest form of the latter, on which directly or indirectly the other two seem to be based, goes back to about A.D. 150, we can hardly accept as beyond doubt its various statements on its sole authority. In the Orient the Protoevangelium had great authority and portions of it were read on the feasts of Mary by the Greeks, Syrians, Copts, and Arabians. In the Occident, however, it was rejected by the Fathers of the Church until its contents were incorporated by Jacobus de Voragine in his "Golden Legend" in the thirteenth century. From that time on the story of St. Anne spread over the West and was amply developed, until St. Anne became one of the most popular saints also of the Latin Church.
The Protoevangelium gives the following account: In Nazareth there lived a rich and pious couple, Joachim and Hannah. They were childless. When on a feast day Joachim presented himself to offer sacrifice in the temple, he was repulsed by a certain Ruben, under the pretext that men without offspring were unworthy to be admitted. Whereupon Joachim, bowed down with grief, did not return home, but went into the mountains to make his plaint to God in solitude. Also Hannah, having learned the reason of the prolonged absence of her husband, cried to the Lord to take away from her the curse of sterility, promising to dedicate her child to the service of God. Their prayers were heard; an angel came to Hannah and said: "Hannah, the Lord has looked upon thy tears; thou shalt conceive and give birth and the fruit of thy womb shall be blessed by all the world". The angel made the same promise to Joachim, who returned to his wife. Hannah gave birth to a daughter whom she called Miriam (Mary). Since this story is apparently a reproduction of the biblical account of the conception of Samuel, whose mother was also called Hannah, even the name of the mother of Mary seems to be doubtful.
The Greek Menaea (25 July) call the parents of St. Anne Mathan and Maria, and relate that Salome and Elizabeth, the mother of St. John the Baptist, were daughters of two sisters of St. Anne. According to Ephiphanius it was maintained even in the fourth century by some enthusiasts that St. Anne conceived without the action of man. This error was revived in the West in the fifteenth century. (Anna concepit per osculum Joachimi.) In 1677 the Holy See condemned the error of Imperiali who taught that St. Anne in the conception and birth of Mary remained virgin (Benedict XIV, De Festis, II, 9). In the Orient the cult of St. Anne can be traced to the fourth century. Justinian I (d. 565) had a church dedicated to her. The canon of the Greek Office of St. Anne was composed by St. Theophanes (d. 817), but older parts of the Office are ascribed to Anatolius of Byzantium (d. 458). Her feast is celebrated in the East on the 25th day of July, which may be the day of the dedication of her first church at Constantinople or the anniversary of the arrival of her supposed relics in Constantinople (710). It is found in the oldest liturgical document of the Greek Church, the Calendar of Constantinople (first half of the eighth century). The Greeks keep a collective feast of St. Joachim and St. Anne on the 9th of September. In the Latin Church St. Anne was not venerated, except, perhaps, in the south of France, before the thirteenth century. Her picture, painted in the eighth century, which was found lately in the church of Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome, owes its origin to Byzantine influence. Her feast, under the influence of the "Golden Legend", is first found (26 July) in the thirteenth century, e.g. at Douai (in 1291), where a foot of St. Anne was venerated (feast of translation, 16 September). It was introduced in England by Urban VI, 21 November, 1378, from which time it spread all over the Western Church. It was extended to the universal Latin Church in 1584.


What are the Journal of Discourses viewed as? So after reading the comments here. I got curious. I see non-mormons citing the Journal of discourses all the time, but have never heard a mormon cite them.

Wikipedia tells me where they come from and what they are, but why do modern mormons not use them and not consider them scripture?

The Wikipedia article actually covers the answer to this fairly well:

  It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early
  years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published.  ...
  Questions have been raised about the accuracy of some transcriptions.
  Modern technology and processes were not available for verifying the
  accuracy of transcriptions, and some significant mistakes have been
  documented.

For perspective, see the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article on Record Keeping.  Among Latter-Day Saints, anything that was not properly recorded is not considered "official", in order to prevent confusion resulting from inaccurate records.

The sermons from the Journal of Discourses were written down unofficially by people in attendance when they were given, and in the absence of modern recording technologies, they were generally transcribed while they were being delivered, in some form of shorthand.  Obviously, this is not an optimal set of conditions for preserving accuracy, especially as it was common practice during those days to throw away the shorthand notes once they had been "decompressed" into longhand.

This allows for two places in which transcription errors can enter the material, with no way to verify their accuracy later.  It's not surprising, then, that "some significant mistakes have been documented" in the final product.

Because of this, the works preserved in the volumes of the Journal of Discourses, as interesting and historically valuable as they may be, cannot be considered canonical by the Latter-Day Saints.


What is the biblical basis for Jeremiah and John the Baptist being born without original sin? I am reading The Life & Glories of Saint Joseph, by Edward Healy Thompson, which was first published in 1888. At the start of Chapter VII, in which the argument is made that Joseph was born without original sin (related, but not identical to how Mary was immaculately conceived), he says this:

  From Holy Scripture we also learn that some souls through divine predilection, as those of Jeremias [a.k.a. Jeremiah] and [John] the Baptist, were sanctified before they saw the light of day.

Unfortunately, Thompson doesn’t explain which parts of Holy Scripture he is referring to and seems to assume that the reader already knows.

What is the biblical basis that Jeremiah and John the Baptist were sanctified before birth (i.e. born without original sin)?

Is there a biblical basis for believing that the Prophet Jeremiah and St. John the Baptist were born without original sin?

Some Catholics do believe that the Prophet Jeremiah and St. John the Baptist were born without original sin. This pious belief, however has of yet not been raised to the level of a dogma.

First of let us consider St. John the Baptist.

As Catholics we believe that, by a divine prerogative from God, Mary was conceived with no stain of original sin. It is not impossible that St. John, although he was not conceived immaculately may have been purified while still in the womb of St Elizabeth! Although not dogma , the Church has not yet pronounced on this subject.

"There is a solid tradition in the Church that says St. John the Baptist was purified of original sin shortly after he was conceived, while still in the womb of St. Elizabeth. So, this episode of the Gospel referring to the child in the womb hearing Our Lady’s voice, understanding her words and loving her is completely credible." - Professor Plino Correa de Olivra

Here is how Wikipedia puts it:

  "Some Catholics have held to a belief that John the Baptist never sinned, though this has never been a point of doctrine and is not binding in belief upon any adherent as is the sinlessness of Mary. In her Treatise of Prayer, Saint Catherine of Siena includes a brief altercation with the Devil regarding her fight due to the Devil attempting to lure her with vanity and flattery. Speaking in the first person, Saint Catherine of Siena responds to the Devil with the following words:

  ...humiliation of yourself, and you answered the Devil with these words: 'Wretch that I am! John the Baptist never sinned and was sanctified in his mother's womb. And I have committed so many sins..." — Catherine of Siena, , A Treatise of Prayer, 1370.[85][86]"

St. Catherine of Sienna was declared a Doctor of the Church on October 3, 1970 by Pope Paul VI.

  "Now during the sixth month, the Annunciation had taken place, and, as Mary had heard from the angel the fact of her cousin's conceiving, she went "with haste" to congratulate her. "And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant" — filled, like the mother, with the Holy Ghost — "leaped for joy in her womb", as if to acknowledge the presence of his Lord. Then was accomplished the prophetic utterance of the angel that the child should "be filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb". Now, as the presence of any sin whatever is incompatible with the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the soul, it follows that at this moment John was cleansed from the stain of original sin. When "Elizabeth's full time of being delivered was come. . .she brought forth a son" (Luke 1:57); and "on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they called him by his father's name Zachary. And his mother answering, said: Not so, but he shall be called John. And they said to her: There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name. And they made sign to his father, how he would have him called. And demanding a writing table, he wrote, saying: John is his name. And they all wondered" (Luke 1:59-63). They were not aware that no better name could be applied (John, Hebrew; Jehohanan, i.e. "Jahweh hath mercy") to him who, as his father prophesied, was to "go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation to his people, unto remission of their sins: through the bowels of the mercy of our God" (Luke 1:76-78). Moreover, all these events, to wit, a child born to an aged couple, Zachary's sudden dumbness, his equally sudden recovery of speech, his astounding utterance, might justly strike with wonderment the assembled neighbours; these could hardly help asking: "What an one, think ye, shall this child be?" (Luke 1:66)." - Catholic Encyclopedia.

Now if St John was in fact purified while in the womb of his mother he would the greatest of those born of women (Matthew 11:11). Mary's immaculate conception still puts her above St John!

  "Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist; yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he."

As for the Prophet Jeremiah, the biblical references are seemingly limited to a single passage.

St. Joseph’s “confirmation in grace” makes perfect sense in light of the Holy Family’s role in the Incarnation, and St. John the Baptist’s similar confirmation is biblical. But, why does tradition single out Jeremiah, of all the prophets, for a similar honor?

Most sources point to a single passage:

  “Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5, D-R)

  [Cornelius] Lapide says that Jeremias was the one prophet of the OT who was sanctified in the womb for the reason that by his holiness he sustained Jerusalem and the assembly of Israel at the most difficult time in Old Testament history – the exile.

  Also, Jeremias was a prophet not only to the Jews but also the Gentiles:

    et antequam exires de vulva, sanctificavi te,

    et prophetam in gentibus dedi te. (Jer 1:4)

  So in this way, Jeremias belonged to the New Covenant in a mystical sense.

  I (Dr Tallor Marshall) would also add, though Lapide doesn’t say it, that Jeremias appears again in 2 Maccabees as the special advocate of Jerusalem.

  Why Was Jeremias Sanctified in His Mother’s Womb?

Here are a few helpful articles for those interested:

According to the Catholic Church, what did Jesus mean by saying that the least in the kingdom of heaven in greater than John the Baptist?
Who Was Born Without Original Sin?


What are the general categories of benefits of being part of a denomination? It seems most Protestant churches fall under one of two umbrellas: denominational or independent. What is the general rationale for a Protestant church to be part of a denomination rather than being independent? What general types of benefits are there in not being independent?

Pragmatic concerns

A denomination allows churches to cooperate and share the cost of many things which are needed to support the Gospel ministry of those churches, including: insurance, banking, and other financial services; HR and other personnel services; legal services; child safety; etc.

Doctrinal centering

With all the various theological debates among Christians, it helps to be able to identify yourself with like-minded Christians, and to be able to easily communicate the broad shape of what your church teaches to visitors and potential new members. No denomination specifies exactly everything their members believe, but there is usually enough that hearing that a church belongs to a denomination will give you a reliable idea of the core of their beliefs. For people who are needing to find a new church, it helps to be able to quickly get a good idea of what each church will be like, rather than spending months slowly uncovering each church's distinctives. Denominations don't reveal everything, but they help you form a shortlist to consider more.

But these denominational identities are not just taken from surveys of what their members believe. In a way they're aspirational. The churches of a denomination know that not all their members agree with everything, but together they believe they can put forward the best case for how they read the scriptures, and will in time strengthen the faith of their members as they grow in their understanding of the core of their doctrine. So I've labeled this section "Doctrinal centering" as I think this is more active than a mere doctrine classification and identification would be. For example, not everyone in a Baptist church will necessarily believe in Believer's Baptism, and that's okay. But the churches that join together as a Baptist denomination don't do so merely because the majority of their members are personally Baptists, but because they believe that their doctrines work to encourage aspects of faith outside of the immediate corollaries of baptism, and that drawing attention to Baptism as they do gives strength to the growth of the Gospel.

In the friendly debates within Christianity, denominations help give structure to our disagreements. As most denominations originated over major theological disagreements, when we want to revisit those debates the denominations remain relevant groupings. They help us work together to put forward the best possible arguments in the debates between camps (such as between Reformed and Arminian for example), as well as giving space for gifted theologians to debate the subtleties of each camp internally, as they consider questions which can be highly important to those within the denomination but may not even make sense to those outside.

I've seen this in regards to theological colleges. Some independent colleges value giving a balanced overview of what all Christians believe but end up not personally challenging their students as much as denominational or confessional colleges. From the perspective of formal academics this is a great strategy, but from the perspective of faith our colleges should be places which encourage the iron sharpening iron of deepening personal faith. I went to a college where I wasn't part of their denomination, but I believe my faith greatly benefited from being challenged by the more subtle arguments that wouldn't have been presented at an independent college even when I wasn't persuaded by all of them.

Mission strategy

Denominations help us plan, coordinate, and carry out our God given mission. At both the local and global level, they help us plan how to take the Gospel into every community, so that none are neglected, and so that we don't step on each other's toes unnecessarily. This is not to say that great Gospel work doesn't get carried out by non-denominational parachurch groups, and many of the largest mission agencies aren't denominational affiliated. But they help churches cooperate to run theological colleges and seminaries, to strategically plant new churches, and to share resources so that ministry work can happen in difficult unpleasant places, and not just beach towns and ski villages. Mission strategising can take place outside of denominational structures, but it's often easiest to work together when you know you're on the same page theologically.


If both the Orthodox and Catholic Church affirm salvation by grace through faith, why did the Protestant Reformation happen? I will often engage in dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox Christians who tell me that the doctrine of their churches affirms that salvation is by grace through faith.

If that is true, then what distinguishes Lutherans from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians?

Because the Catholic Church doesn't teach that we attain salvation only through the reception of God's grace by faith. That's why the Protestant teaching is called sola fide!

The Catholic Catechism says:

  CCC 2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

And the Council of Trent declared:

  Canon xxiv. If any one shall say, that the justice received is not preserved, and also increased in the sight of God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification received, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

  Canon xxxii. If any one shall say, that the good works of a man that is justified are in such wise the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which are performed by him through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, if so be, however, that he depart in grace, and, moreover, an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

So while the Catholic Church affirms that we cannot merit "the initial grace of forgiveness and justification" it does teach that our good works merit the completion of our sanctification and our full attainment of salvation and eternal life. It also condemns the Protestant teachings that good works are only the gifts, fruit, and signs of justification but do not merit eternal life.

As to the Eastern Orthodox churches, I know much less about them, but I did find this catechism. If I'm understanding correctly, it teaches a rather sacramental understanding of salvation, in which participation in the sacraments is necessary. Protestants would say this too is not compatible with salvation by grace alone through faith alone, as well as the doctrine that Christ is our only mediator (ie, Christ alone).

  The Church is not a building, but a People who are filled with the Holy Spirit and who share in His life bringing His life into the world. It is through the
  sacraments of the Church that we are united to Christ. (p77)

Rather than the Protestant teaching that we are united to Christ by the Holy Spirit through faith.

  Since they [the sacraments] were initiated by Christ Himself, or by the implicit request
  of Christ, they are necessary for our salvation. They were instituted as a
  means of transmitting Grace based on the needs of the believers. This
  is not to limit the action of the Holy Spirit as it can surely act outside
  of these ceremonies. But, Grace can only be received through Baptism
  and the Eucharist which were directly established by Christ. (p92)

  Yet, no matter how great our repentance is, if it is not completed by
  the Mystery of Confession it does not give rise to salvation or reconcile
  us with God. It is only through Confession preceded by the sincere
  repentance that our sins can be cleansed and our soul be healed. Repentance alone is not sufficient. (p109)

  There is no doubt that God accepts the repentance of a sinner,
  but He forgives it only through the medium of the spiritual Father [a priest] and
  the Mystery of Confession. (p110)


Should praying the Liturgy of the Hours in private be out loud or silent? For the laity, when praying the Liturgy of the Hours in private, is it more in keeping with tradition to you pray out loud or silently or does it matter?

Also, do you change the way you repeat antiphons and responses when praying in private or praying silently as opposed to praying out loud or singing/chanting it?

Liturgy in the strict sense is a public activity, so as such it should be prayed out loud, either recited in less formal settings or chanted with a melody, as monastic communities still do, or somewhere in between.

When you are praying the hours privately it's enough to just read the prayers, psalms and collects to yourself, though of course you are free to do whatever helps you to pray more devoutly, so if that means whispering the words outwardly then so be it.


Biblical references telling us we should be angry Overheard on a Christian Radio station this morning:

  We all know that Jesus said if we are angry without cause, we are in
  danger of hellfire, and that the Bible tells us to be slow to anger.
  But did you know that there are situations in which the Bible says we
  are supposed to be angry?

Unfortunately, I couldn't listen to the program being advertised,  so I'll ask it here.  Where, in Scripture are we told to be angry, and about what is it OK to be angry?  What is the "cause" that is acceptable if we aren't supposed to be angry "without cause".  Please include Scripture references.  If applicable, links or comments from official/recognized teachings would be a good addition, particularly if the Scripture reference could be interpreted multiple ways.

Scripture gives several examples of righteous anger.  This is anger towards sin, or injustice.

Most of these show God being angry.  Since God is without sin, it follows that if we in agreement with God, we are safe being angry with the same things He is angry with.  Examples:

God the Father is angry with sin

All verses KJV

  Psalms 7:11 God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.

  1 Kings 11:9,10 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had
  appeared to him twice and had commanded him concerning this thing,
  that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the
  LORD commanded.

  2 Kings 17:18 Therefore the LORD was very angry with Israel and removed them out of his sight. None was left but the tribe of Judah
  only.

Likewise, Jesus displayed anger at unrighteousness.

  Mark 3:4,5 And he [Jesus] said to them, “Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?” But they
  were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at their
  hardness of heart, and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He
  stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

  John 2:13-16 The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.  In the temple he found those who were selling oxen
  and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And
  making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the
  sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and
  overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take
  these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”

One other passage speaks of being angry, and the context seems to say that it's O.K. to be angry, but not to let your anger provoke you to sin, and is followed immediately by a warning to not let your anger consume you - and to forgive as Christ forgives us.

From Ephesians 4

  26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

  27 Neither give place to the devil.

  28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour,
  working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to
  give to him that needeth.

  29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that
  which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto
  the hearers.

  30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto
  the day of redemption.

  31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil
  speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

  32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one
  another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.


What traditions hold that Satan is not actually a person? I heard somewhere (can't remember where) that Satan is more of a term than a person. In other words, Satan is not so much a fallen angel, person, or being, but rather a designation for evil.

Is this a standard position of any churches or denominations?

If so, please clarify where this idea comes from and what backing (if any) it has from Scripture.

The "Swedenborgian" or "New Church" denominations that accept the Christian theology of Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) do not see Satan, or the Devil, as a person, but as a personification of, or collective term for, evil and hell.
The following rather long (for this site) explanation of this position, and its Biblical basis, is extracted and slightly edited from my even longer article, "Is there Really a Devil? Why??"
The Devil in the Bible
First, it helps to understand the original meanings of the words that are commonly translated as "the Devil," "Satan," "demons," and so on.
Satan
The primary meaning of the Hebrew word שָׂטָן (satan) is "an adversary, an opponent." So in the Old Testament, satan is commonly used to mean "an enemy." For example, 1 Kings 11:14 says:

Then the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the royal house in Edom.

The word translated "adversary" in this verse is the Hebrew word satan. It is used the same way for another enemy of Solomon in 1 Kings 11:23-25.
In fact, outside of the book of Job, the Hebrew word satan is most often used to refer to human enemies, though it is also sometimes used of spiritual figures who stand as adversaries. In many of the places where it is traditionally translated "Satan," it should really be translated as "an enemy" or "an adversary."
There are no capital letters in the original texts of the Bible. Editors and translators must use their judgment in deciding whether or not words like satan in the original languages are meant to be proper names ("Satan") or just a description of something or someone ("an adversary, opponent").
The Greek word σατανᾶς  (satanas), comes from the Hebrew word satan, and has the same meaning: an adversary or enemy. In the New Testamant, Satan is more often used as a personification of evil, traditionally interpreted as a powerful evil angel who opposes God and tempts humans to sin and destruction.
However, even in the New Testament it is sometimes used to refer to human beings. Consider, for example, this passage from Matthew:

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"
Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." (Matthew 16:21-23 - see also Mark 8:31-33.)

Though the Greek word is usually translated "Satan" in this passage, it should probably be translated as, "you adversary!" In other words, Jesus uses the Greek word satanas to refer to a human being who is, at that time, opposing God’s will and God's truth.
So even though the Greek word satanas is commonly used in the New Testament to mean Satan, a figure who is the personification of evil, it still also retains its original meaning of an enemy or adversary—specifically, anyone or anything who stands in opposition to God.
If we keep this original meaning of the word satan in mind when we read about "Satan" in the Bible, it gives new meaning to many statements about this evil being, or force, in the Bible.
And it's clear from the Bible that "Satan" comes from a very human reality. Its original meaning was human enemies and adversaries.
The Devil
Although the word "devil" appears in a few places in traditional translations of the Old Testament such as the King James Version, the Hebrew words so translated are actually words for hairy goats, satyrs, idols, or perhaps demons. The idea of some evil overlord called the Devil doesn't appear until the New Testament.
In the Greek of the New Testament, there are two primary words commonly translated "devil."
One of them is διάβολος (diabolos). Most of the time, this word means a ruling evil figure, the Devil, which is also called Satan. This is the figure that led Jesus into the desert to be tested:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. The tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." (Matthew 4:1-3; read the full story in Matthew 4:1-11)

However, even this word is sometimes used to speak of individual human beings. For example:

Jesus answered them, "Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil." He was speaking of Judas son of Simon Iscariot, for he, though one of the twelve, was going to betray him. (John 6:70-71)

Notice that Jesus didn't say "one of you has a devil," but "one of you is a devil."
So even the Greek word most commonly used to mean "the Devil" can also be applied to an individual human being who is bent on evil.
And the underlying meaning of the Greek word διάβολος is "a false accuser, a slanderer." So once again, when we read "the Devil" in the New Testament, it refers to a very human reality: those who slander others and make false accusations.
Demons
The other Greek word commonly translated "devil" is δαιμόνιον (daimonion). This word is most commonly used to mean an individual demon, or devil, who possesses a person, and causes that person to harm self or others. When the Gospels speak of Jesus casting out devils, this is the Greek word used.
However, the New Testament also refers at times to "the prince of the devils," or "the ruler of the demons," who is synonymous with the Devil. For example, after Jesus had healed a mute man who was possessed by a demon, the Pharisees said, "By the ruler of the demons he casts out the demons" (Matthew 9:34).
The ancient Greek word δαιμόνιον originally meant simply a spirit or spiritual messenger, or even a deity (in early polytheistic Greek culture), whether good or evil. But in the New Testament, it is almost always used to mean evil spirits.
So the general picture that emerges is of a host of evil beings, or spirits, ruled over by a figure called Satan, the Devil, or the ruler of the demons. This is the usual picture painted in traditional Christianity.
And yet, the Bible also uses the words for "devil" and "satan" to refer to human beings who are evil and who speak falsehoods and lies.
Swedenborg on the Devil
This use of the original Hebrew and Greek words for Satan and the Devil to also mean not only individual evil spirits, but also human beings who oppose God, speak falsehood, and do evil things suggests that there is more to the Devil and Satan than meets the eye.
And according to Emanuel Swedenborg, that is precisely the case.
Contrary to all of the Christian teachings of his day—the teachings that still hold sway in most of Christianity—Swedenborg said that there is no such thing as a Devil, or Satan, who had been a powerful angel that fell away from God and became the ruler of hell. After all, that idea of Satan as a fallen angel isn’t in the Bible. It comes from non-Biblical books, and from various traditions that had grown up over the centuries. In fact, most "Christian" beliefs about the Devil and Satan come from various human traditions rather than from the Bible itself.
Swedenborg presented a very different reality—one that is more in line with the Bible’s use of these words to mean both evil spirits and evil human beings.
In fact, Swedenborg said that these are really one and the same thing.
Evil spirits, he said, are all human beings who have lived evil and selfish lives here on earth, and have gone on to live in hell after their death. According to Swedenborg, there is no separately created race of angels, nor are there fallen angels who have become devils instead. All angels and devils were once human beings living in the material world.
Then what about the Devil and Satan?
These, Swedenborg says, are really just personifications of hell.
You know how the United States is sometimes called Uncle Sam? Have you heard of the Russian Bear? Have you seen China depicted as a Panda?
Likewise, in the Bible hell is personified as the figure of the Devil and Satan. And hell is simply the combination of all human evil gathered together in one vast evil region of the spiritual world.
So when the Bible talks about Jesus or human beings being tempted by Satan or the Devil, it's really talking about the evil influence of hell working on us, and trying to drag us down into false beliefs and evil actions.
The figures of evil such as the Devil, Satan, and the ruler of the demons, that appear in the Bible were either individual evil spirits who were once humans, or they were whole communities of hell that banded together to attack Jesus, or to infest human beings.
These collective demons can be seen in the story of the Gerasene demoniac in Mark 5:1-20. In this story, Jesus confronts a demon-possessed man:

When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? In God’s name don’t torture me!" For Jesus had said to him, "Come out of this man, you impure spirit!"
Then Jesus asked him, "What is your name?"
"My name is Legion," he replied, "for we are many." And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area. (Mark 5:6-10, italics added)

Here the demon possessing the man speaks of himself in the singular, yet names himself "Legion," with the explanation, "for we are many."
The angels and the demons that appear in the Bible may be individual angels or evil spirits, or they may be whole communities of angels or evil spirits banded together and acting as one. This, according to Swedenborg, is a very common occurrence in the spiritual world. And it explains many seemingly strange things about the angels and evil spirits who appear throughout the Bible.
Further, according to Swedenborg, while we humans may be attacked by individual evil spirits and by whole crowds of evil spirits, Jesus Christ was attacked by all of hell together, meaning by the combined power of all human and spiritual evil. So when Jesus was tempted by the Devil, he was fighting not just individual evil spirits, nor merely communities of evil spirits, but against all of hell working together as a single vast Devil in a futile attempt to destroy him and derail his work of saving the human race from the power of evil, falsity, and hell.


What is the origin of vicars/priests wearing the white dog collar? What is the origin of vicars/priests wearing the white dog collar, and is there a scriptural basis for such an item?

First of all, let us deal with the origins of the term "dog Collar".

The term "Dog Collar" is a nickname of Anglican origin  for the neckband of a clerical shirt or a Roman Collar (of the Catholic Church) in the UK.

  Dog Collar

  An Anglican nickname for the collar that accompanies a neckband shirt—it actually does look something like a flea collar, when you think about it!

Wikipedia has this to say about the "dog Collar":

  In the United Kingdom (and other British-influenced countries, such as Canada), clerical collars have been informally referred to as "dog collars"since the mid-nineteenth century. The term Roman collar is equivalent to "clerical collar" and does not necessarily mean that the wearer is Roman Catholic.

The clerical collar seems to be of Protestant origin:

  Neckband Shirt

  Clergy shirts are Protestant in origin. The Rev. Dr. Donald McLeod of the Church of Scotland invented the neck-band style. (The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian.) Protestant clergy had been wearing white preaching bands for quite some time; McLeod combined them with the detachable collar that was in use at the time. The Roman Catholic Church did not adopt them as streetwear for clergy until later. They modified Rev. McLeod’s design into the tab-collar style.

This article is also interesting:

  Where did the clerical collar originate from?

  The collar has always been and still is the dress code for Protestant preachers and Lawyers in Europe. In days past, these individuals wore black and chose a white sweatband (cravat) to wear around their necks for the purpose of riding on horseback. This became personified in the UK by John Wesley, founder of the Methodists, who rode on horseback the length and breadth of England preaching the Bible. It was also the normal mode of dress for the Protestant Churches of Europe and it was not until the turn of the eighteenth century that the Catholic Church adopted it also. It was never a Roman Catholic style of clergy dress code before that time and not one picture of a Pope or member of the clergy can be seen wearing one. Sadly today most fundamentalist Protestants and particularly those from other nations erroneously think that the clerical collar is a Roman Catholic instituted style of dress code for their clergy and that Protestants should not wear it, because it represents the Roman Catholic Church, "religion" and "tradition". This type of thinking is wrong. The clerical collar is a Protestant clergy dress code.

Are there any scriptural basis for the use of a clerical collar? In this article, The true origins of  the Clerical Collar, it has a long section on the scriptural importance of the collar:

  Today, when you look at the clerical dress of the majority of religions, you will see that the leadership attire is very similar. The adaptations in headgear may be different but the style of robe and neckband are ostensibly the same. Because the Judeo-Christian faith is born out of middle eastern customs the origin of Christian clerical attire can be narrowed down to a very definite style.

  The thirty ninth chapter of the book of Exodus describes in detail how the Lord commanded Moses to make "the garments of ministry". Again in the book of Leviticus in the eight chapter and verse thirteen, tunics were brought for ministry. The most abominable thing to God is for someone to minister to Him in a secular dress code, using the system of the world's style of attire to flaunt in worship before Him. The spiritual significance of the garments, or covering, before God when conducting Worship, is of absolute importance and reverence in His presence and will affect His presence.

  For more information read the entire section on this subject: A distinct dress code is Scriptural!

A Catholic seminarian wearing a cassock with a clerical collar

  The terms “Roman collar” or “Roman shirt” refer to style, not origin. Clergy shirts are Protestant in origin. The Roman Catholic Church did not adopt them as streetwear for clergy until the 19th century.


What exactly was the purpose of the Council of Nicea? I heard recently in a bible study class on "How we got the Bible", that the Council of Nicea is not actually responsible for the compilation of the complete, canon biblical texts. I had always thought that the Council of Nicea had been responsible for this. So, my question is: what exactly was the purpose of the Council of Nicea?

Although many are of the opinion that the Council of Nicea was called to prep Christianity to become the official state religion, this is not accurate. This hypothesis does not fit with what we know about the mindset of the people of that time or Constantine. It should be remembered that Constantine was not yet a baptized Christian in 325 AD (the year the council was held); rather, his mother was. Although he took a great interest in the church (and would continue to do so with greater fervor as he grew older), Constantine was not baptized or fully accepted into the church until shortly before his repose.

The Edict of Milan also did not simply give freedom to Christians: it gave freedom to all religions. So, while Christianity certainly enjoyed the favor of the court, it did not become an official state religion, especially not to the exclusion of other religions. Even the Arian group that was cut off from the church existed peacefully in the empire for another several centuries.

Constantine also did not control the council, despite popular rhetoric to the contrary. In fact, everything we know about the council indicates the exact opposite. We have no official acts from the council, but we do have writings of many of the bishops and other clergy that attended it. Eusebius of Caesarea (not to be confused with Eusebius of Nicomedia) says that Constantine did not speak or understand Greek (the language used at the council) very well, so Bishop Hosios of Spain translated into Latin for him when he (Constantine) could find time to attend the council. It is estimated that the council took place over several months, and an emperor simply wouldn't have time to attend them all.

Further evidence that Constantine did not control the council is its result. It was precisely Constantine's best friends that were condemned by the council. I have in mind here in particular Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia (Eusebius later repented, was received by into the church, and went on to be the one to baptize Constantine).

As for the canon of scripture, it was necessary to establish at the beginning of the council which books were valid for argumentation. The question of authenticity was put to the Alexandrian party, as Alexandria was the center of learning in the world. The person generally credited as the lead researcher on the project is Athanasios the Great, whom I believe was a deacon at the time (if memory serves me). The selection of books was not, as Dan Brown might lead you to believe, done in either a conspiratorial or haphazard manner. The selections were quite reasonable, thoughtful, and well researched.

However, the selection of these books was not formally codified until the Second Oecumenical Council (381 AD). Part of the reason for this—and this is a major point missed by the majority of modern scholars—was the preference for and devotion to tradition on the part of the early church. Just as today, we argue over "what the Bible says," the early church argued over what had been handed down from the apostles and their successors. Oral tradition was considered sacred and the key to understanding the writings of any apostle or early church author. "Hold to the traditions you were taught, whether by word or our epistle," wrote the Apostle Paul. The early church believed this deeply and followed it closely. All councils, whether local, regional, or oecumenical, were considered valid only in so far as they did not deviate from the sacred tradition handed down. Nearly all arguments made at these early councils hung on whether a thing had been passed down from bishop to bishop or not.

The main arguments at the First Oecumenical Council centered precisely around oral tradition. This is very important to understand. The First Oecumenical Council DID NOT FORMULATE NEW THEOLOGY. The very idea of "formulating" new theology is a very western idea and didn't even appear in the west as a concept until much later. The early church fathers abhorred and shunned the very idea of innovation.

Then what did the council do? The council introduced new terminology to more accurately express what had already been handed down. All of the bishops but 5 agreed on what had been handed down, though it took them quite a while to decide on whether or not to use the term "homoousion" (as opposed to the Arians' preference for "homiousion"). They tip-toed around this term because it had been used in a heretical way by Paul of Samosata some years earlier.

Constantine certainly did want to see the church rid of divisions—don't get me wrong. But I hope you will consider reading PRIMARY sources on this topic rather than the opinions that are currently trending and regurgitating among modern christians.


How should a Christian respond to "Does this dress me look fat?"? If your wife asks, "Does this dress make me look fat?" And you think it does, but you tell her, "Of course not, honey!" Is that a sin?

A successful marriage relationship will need a full measure of agape love.  Here's how Paul defines it with particularly relevant words bolded:

  Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.—1st Corinthians 13:4-7 (ESV)

Let's take these in reverse order:

Rejoices with the truth

Presumably, the husband does not think he is telling the truth.  By this standard, lying to your wife is not loving.

It is not arrogant or rude

However, if the husband said exactly what he thought, that would be rude (and possibly arrogant):

  It makes you look like a pregnant cow.

Honestly, given the choice, it would be more loving to lie to your wive than to be rude.

Love is patient and kind

But there's another way.  The patient thing to do is to ask questions or let the wife down easy.  I've found that saying things like "I wonder if it would be a good idea to accessorize?" communicates that something is not quite right, without being rude.  (I don't know what accessorizing means exactly or how it could help, but it shows my wife that I care.)  Another thing that works for me is to spend "too long" appraising the outfit.  After a minute of looking and contemplating, my wife will get the hint: something isn't right.

If we are about to go out and I think there's a good chance she will be embarrassed if someone posts a picture of the outfit on Facebook.  The kindest thing I can do is let her know:

  Dearest, I know you spent the last hour and a half getting ready to go, but I really think you'd look better in some other dress.

Then I will (Lord willing) spend whatever time is needed helping her look her best.


Where did the idea of being "called to preach" come from? The church loves to use the idiom called to preach. It's the idea that (for the purposes of this question) God calls some people to preach or pastor and He doesn't call others. A person might say "...I felt God's call to preach"

I'm not talking about the general call to salvation or that God gives certain gifts to some and not others, but about the specific colloquialism of "...called from God to be/not be a pastor."

Where did this idea come from? 1 Timothy labels it a desire, not a calling.

  1 Timothy 3:1 KJV This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Most every other translation says aspire, not calling. Are these thing synonymous? When did it start being referred to as a calling and not a desire?

Why I ask: A "calling" from God is a highly debated thing, whereas a "desire" is something everyone knows the definition of. Some young believers may be becoming dissuaded from their desire to lead in their local church because they've been incorrectly convinced that they need some fantastical "clouds-parting-in-the-sky" experience from God.

In Latin the word vocare meaning "to call" gave us the English Word "vocation."  A vocation is synonymous with a career (Remember vocational guidance?) in many people's minds, and it betrays the roots why someone feels "called to ministry"  Both Protestants and Catholics would use these terms interchangeably.
Bibically, there is much precedence for this. Because of the terminology, I'm going to use KJV liberally:

1 Corinthians 7:20 20 Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
2 Timothy 1 8 Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; 9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Likewise, Paul often introduces himself as "called"

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

That said, you are entirely correct in saying that such a "calling" is something to which one can "earnestly aspire."
It is because "calling" has had both senses that it came to be seen as a cooperative effort between God and Man - a gift that one would want to manifest.  In practice, many churches use the terminology of "discerning a call to ministry" because of the confusion.


Is polyandry legal in the bible? Polygyny is practiced in the Bible with God's full knowledge.

What about polyandry?

Many say that Western values are based on Judeo-Christian principles.

One western value is that marriage is gender neutral.

Is marriage gender-neutral in the Bible? Polygyny was legal. What about polyandry? I mean if the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage is gender neutral, we would expect polyandry to be as legal as polygyny right? So what's the story?

The New Testament explicitly prohibits polyandry:

  Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he
  lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law
  concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress
  if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her
  husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another
  man, she is not an adulteress. (Romans 7:2–3)

The Old Testament does not have such a clear prohibition, but the laws against adultery are usually interpreted to mean that polyandry is prohibited. For example:

  If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his
  neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
  (Leviticus 20:10)

Practically speaking, there are no examples of polyandry in the Bible, whereas there are many examples of polygyny.

As for the broader question, it would be a stretch to argue that marriage is gender-neutral in the Bible.

However, there is a general arc starting with male/female equality in the creation of humans in the first creation story (Genesis 1:26–27), to increasing inequality from the second creation story in Genesis 2 in which woman is created out of man (Genesis 2:21–23), to the punishment of Eve in Genesis 3:16 in which she is made subject to man, to the first example of polygyny in in Genesis 4:19–24, after which women are considered subject to men for the rest of the Old Testament narrative, and polygyny is common. But in the New Testament there is a move back toward monogamy, and a general increase in the status of women—without, however, explicitly re-establishing full equality between the sexes or universally prohibiting polygyny.

Still, the trend was set. Within a few centuries Christianity adopted a strict monogamous position, and the position of women in relation to men generally improved over the centuries. The same developments have taken place in post-Biblical Judaism as well.

For an analysis of the first three chapters of Genesis from the perspective of gender equality or lack thereof, see my articles, Man, Woman, and the Two Creation Stories of Genesis and What are the Roles of Men and Women toward Each Other and in Society?


In the following Scriptures joy fills Heaven when a sinner repents, conversely is there great sorrow when an unsaved rejects salvation? Matthew 23:37  KJV

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how
often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings,
and ye would not!

Luke 15:7, 15:10,15:24, and 15:32

7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.
10  Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.
24  For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
32  It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Your question is mainly based on scripture, and I'm assuming you are looking for an answer also mainly from scripture.

There is no pleasure in the death of the wicked:

  Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? Ezekiel 18:23, ESV

  Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel? Ezekiel 33:11, ESV

There may be laughter however, but not the kind that indicates joy:

  He who sits in the heavens laughs;
  the Lord holds them in derision. Psalm 2:4, ESV


When was the actual Transfiguration of Christ? I can only find one reference online, which is before Lent. Is there multiple dates? or one definite one?

The actual Transfiguration according to this source took place in February or March: -

  Though the Transfiguration took place in February or March, it has
  always been celebrated later in the year.


What are non-ordained lay person powers? According to apostolic churches (those claiming  apostolicity), what powers do the lay people unordained have?

For example, both the Church of Rome and the Anglican church agree that a lay person can baptise in an emergency: Emergency Baptism.

1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate's head while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (CCC)

What are non-ordained lay person’s powers?

Seeing that this is essentially quite a broad topic, this answer is being made into a community wiki response answer.

Everyone who desires may add to the list. No one will receive points to this, not even myself.

Lay persons may have the following ordinary privileges or positions within the Catholic Church:

Servers at the altar
Readers at Mass
Lay missionary
In modern times, ushers and readers are considered lay liturgical ministers
Catechists who teach Catholic Christian doctrine

Lay persons in modern times fulfill various positions due to circumstances that present themselves in our modern times, with ecclesiastical approval, such as:

Eucharist Ministers due to lack of priests

In times of necessity or in a genuine emergency or in extreme circumstances, a lay person may also do the following:

Baptize someone in an emergency (near death)
Baptize when no clergy is present in a region or country due to persecution and clergy or expelled from the area as in the persecution in Japan from 1614-1864.
Perform Catholic marriages when no catholic clergy is in the region or country (due to some possible persecution). This actually happened during a persecution in Japan from from 1614-1864.
Interpreters for a priest during confessions from one language into another. Such lay person’s actions carry the same obligations as a priest to guard to seal of confession forever.
Reading the Gospel and preaching in Catholic Churches and distribution of Holy Communion on Sundays in parishes, where there is a genuine lack of Catholic clergy to fulfill this need. This is not so uncommon in the “far north of Canada.” Lay persons are specially trained for this ministry. (The Sunday obligation in diverse regions is often transferred to another day due to particular circumstances and with Ecclesiastical approval.) This is common in the Diocese of Whitehorse (Yukon) for example.
Instituted Acolytes may function in the office of a Subdeacons (Extraordinary Form of the Mass) under certain conditions (lack of subdeacons). They shall however be denied the maniple. - Rome, June 7, 1997. Thus instituted acolytes of the Ordinary Form of the Mass may serve as subdeacons in Extraordinary Form of the Mass.


Is the Pope allowed to notarize various Vatican documents? The pope can do many things and certainly has much moral authority. Hence, it sounds reasonable for the pope to be able to notarize (certify) Vatican documents. Also in history, many notaries were appointed by the pope (according to the German Wikipedia).

However, in a discussion we were not able to find evidence supporting or contradicting the claim that the pope can notarially certify documents.

Even though for most people this question is only of theoretical relevance, we nevertheless had the impression that it is interesting.

Is the Pope allowed to notarize various Vatican documents?

As the Head of State of Holy See (Vatican), the pope can notarize various documents within the Vatican, especially Papal Documents written by the reigning pontiff. In such cases, the pope would use the Ring Of the Fisherman to confirm an official document written by himself.

  Originally, the Fisherman’s Ring was a signet which was used to seal official documents signed by the pope. The private correspondences of the pope were sealed by the use of the Fisherman’s Ring while the public documents were sealed by stamping a different papal seal onto the lead that was attached to the respective document. During the 15th century, the use of the Fisherman’s Ring changed and it started to be used for sealing official documents referred to as papal briefs. This practice ended in 1842, when the lead sealing was replaced with wax. - The Pope's Ring

The pope's signet ring is one of two papal seals used in documents. The other one is a leaden bull (bulla).

  The earliest mention of the Fisherman's Ring worn by the popes is in a letter of Clement IV written in 1265 to his nephew, Peter Grossi. The writer states that popes were then accustomed to seal their private letters with "the seal of the Fisherman", whereas public documents, he adds, were distinguished by the leaden "bulls" attached. From the fifteenth century, however, the Fisherman's ring has been used to seal the class of papal official documents known as Briefs. The Fisherman's Ring is placed, by the cardinal camerlengo on the finger of a newly elected pope. It is made of gold, with a representation of St. Peter in a boat, fishing, and the name of the reigning pope around it. - The Catholic Encyclopedia

Pope Benedict's signet ring will be destroyed using special silver papal hammer to ensure documents it was used to sign will not be forged.


What is the framework and concise definition of the New Perspective on Paul? Can you list a simple matrix of the old and new views on the Perspective on Paul from the viewpoint of vetted and at least modestly accepted details based on the New Perspective of Paul?

I'm not as interested at this time on the arguments for or against the New Perspective, but simply a list of the main topics (vetted to some extent) of what the new perspectives are and what the old perspective was.

I understand that the Old Perspectives probably have different viewpoints as well, please consider using the basic United States Protestant perspective (probably based on Martin Luther's work) or just leave the "Old Perspective" empty and I'll infer it from my own reading.

Conceptually what are the hinges of the NPP viewpoint on which the interpretation of the writings of Paul swings?

Define the hinges, ignore the position of the door so to speak.

The Hinge on the New Perspective of Paul Rests mainly on the new 15th century  understanding or reformers that Old Covenant Judaism was a “works based salvation.” The ‘New Perspective on Paul’, which is a protestant new prospective on how to understand the writings of the Evangelist Paul, who was a hightly learned Rabbi, understood the Old Covenant Judaism as one of Grace 1st, then Faith, through Circumcision and obedience to the ordinances of the Law to stay in that covenantal Relationship.

The works of E.P. Sanders "Paul and Palestinian Judaism" Comments of and relating to Covenantal Nomism. That Judaism
 Was a Grace based Covenant and that to enter into it one must be circumcised, pass on their faith to their heirs and do the works associated with the covenant to stay in covenant"

  E.P. Sanders “Covenantal nomism, in opposition to merit theology, is the belief that 1st century Jews in the land of Israel did not believe in works righteousness. Essentially, it is the belief that one is brought into the Abrahamic covenant through birth and stays in the covenant through works.”   Source wiki.  Also E.P. Sanders work  “Paul and Palestinian Judaism”

The realization that Paul was not speaking against all works but simply works of the Law is at the heart of New Pauline Perspective. It is plain (to those who fallow the new perspective) when understood in its historical context, that the reformers turned upside down the orthodox teachings of the church, reformers, who were rightly looking for reforms within the Catholic Church, made mistakes in their interpretations.  Abandoning the reality of who Saint Paul was, and the world he lived in, in unity by necessity of revolting, the sacred teachings preserved by the Church, and under the pressures of secular powers challenged and apposed by virtue of theses misconceptions, those sacred teachings were abandoned. Reforms were made within the church however that did not abandon the original interpretations.

  ling for reformation inside the Church
  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04437a.htm

The Framework of the New Perspective on Paul it that in opposition to the OLD Framework (Protestant) that Salvation in OLD Covenant Judaism was works based identifies that belief to be a false assumption and that Old Covenant Judaism is in fact and always has been, Grace Based, faith based and Obedience based.

In addition to this perspective which is a direct assault on precepts of the reformation, the new perspective on Paul suggests that Saint Paul, being a Jew with a 1st Century Jewish mentality, understood that you must enter into the New Covenant, Maintain your covenantal commitment, and remain in covenant in order to be Saved.


Why is vengeance for the Lord? God has said that vengeance should belong to Him alone, but why?

Romans 12:19 ESV Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
Deuteronomy 32:35 ESV Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.’

I take vengeance in this context to mean that God will intercede for a wronged person and give the other party their come-up-pance here on earth (distinct from His eternal judgement).
What is the biblical basis for God doing this?
I understand why we shouldn't take vengeance--because our judgement would almost certainly be faulty and out of an unloving intent. But it seems like God would be acting on the vengeance in our hearts if he were to do it himself.
I'm looking for scripture to support scripture and want a biblically cited reason in an answer.

First off, this bit of your question:

  I take vengeance in this context to mean that God will intercede for a wronged person and give the other party their come-up-pance here on earth

I'm sorry, but there is no reason to think that. I'm not saying it's wrong, but you can't assume it because there is nothing in the passage to support it.

The general theme of Romans 12 and Deuteronomy 32 is very much along the lines of "don't take the law into your own hands: rely on God and let him execute his judgement." That's what the phrase means. In particular, in Romans 12, the theme is about the paradoxical behaviour required of Christians. The following verses say,

  No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

The point Paul is making is not that vengeance is for the Lord per se, but that it is not for Christians to execute for themselves.


When is the first documented case of making a confession to a priest? When is the first documented case of a Christian making a confession of his sin to the priest/bishop/elder with a purpose of having it remitted?

The earliest confessions seem to have taken place in a communal setting, before both whoever was in authority and the wider group simultaneously. The first documented examples are probably the people who came to John the Baptist (first half of first century CE), confessing their sins publicly and being baptised for the purpose of "repentence", which implies remission of sins was the goal (Matthew 3:6, 11; Mark 1:5; cf. James 5:16). But you may not consider them "Christian" - if not, then I'd point to the new Christians of Ephesus. As a result of Paul's preaching, they gathered together publicly, confessed their sins and burned their books of sorcery in a demonstration of their repentance (Acts 19:18-19).

The earliest post-NT sources that discuss confession of sins to a human (as opposed to God) are also vague; two of the earliest appear to be by the Didache and Clement of Rome (written between the mid-1st century and mid-2nd century CE).

The Didache (14) instructs its readers to confess their sins in the congregation (ecclesia) when they meet on "the Lord's Day". It doesn't explicity mention confession for remission of sins, but the purpose of confession is so that the confessor may be "pure" when breaking bread (called the "sacrifice", i.e. the eucharist), so forgiveness of sins as a result of confessing to the congregation is implied.
Clement of Rome (Corinthians  57) instructs the wicked to repent and submit to "the presbyters" and receive "correction." Again, confession is not explictly mentioned as a part of this process, but is implied.

More detail on other patristic sources on the issue, see the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the sacrament of penance.

If you're asking for a specific individual, that's a bit more difficult, since examples of individuals are rarely given (unless they are members of a heretical movement). The earliest is probably the nameless "young man" cited by Clement of Alexandria in "Who is the Rich Man That Shall Be Saved?" (written early third century CE). In his tale, which may be purely legendary, the apostle John, after the Emperor Domitian's death (96 CE), left his exile on the island of Patmos and returned to Ephesus. A young man who had been baptised fell in with a bad crowd and became a highway robber, and tried to rob John before he recognised the apostle and fled. John pursued and cried out,

  “Why, my son, do you flee from me, your father, unarmed, old? Son,
  pity me. Fear not; you have still hope of life. I will give account to
  Christ for you. If need be, I will willingly endure your death, as the
  Lord did death for us. For you I will surrender my life. Stand,
  believe; Christ has sent me.”

  And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his
  arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching,
  he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could,
  and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand.
  The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find
  forgiveness for himself from the Saviour, beseeching and falling on
  his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by
  repentance, led him back to the church. Then by supplicating with
  copious prayers, and striving along with him in continual fastings,
  and subduing his mind by various utterances  of words, did not depart,
  as they say, till he restored him to the Church, presenting in him a
  great example of true repentance and a great token of regeneration, a
  trophy of the resurrection for which we hope... For he who in this world welcomes the angel of penitence will not repent at the time that he leaves the body, nor be ashamed when he sees the Saviour approaching in His glory and with His army.

The event involves weeping, declamations, lamentations, prayer, fasting, repentance and forgiveness, between the penitent and the apostle. This is of course a far cry from the medieval or modern practices of confession, repentance and penance under the auspices of church authorities, but those practices evolved over centuries to the familiar model we see today.


Is there any tradition that informs us of how old Mary was when she gave birth to Jesus? I have heard that the legal age of marriage was quite young in Jewish culture at the time of Christ. I believe young girls at the age of twelve could marry. However, I find it difficult to imagine Mary as young as thirteen years years old around the time of her giving birth, because of the maturity of her words that are found in the gospels.

Is there any tradition that would place a more realistic age of Mary? Or is this just completely unknown even when guessing?

She was probably between 13 and 14 years old according to the Catholic Encyclopedia in the section entitled "Mary's pregnancy becomes known to Joseph":

  From the age at which Hebrew maidens became marriageable, it is possible that Mary gave birth to her Son when she was about thirteen or fourteen years of age. No historical document tells us how old she actually was at the time of the Nativity.


Did the Jews waiting for their Messiah associate him with the creation of the world? Often when discussing the Trinity, Christians refer to Genesis Chapter 1, where 'the Father' says 'let there be', while 'the Son' is that word, and 'the Spirit' brings creation into perfection.  Sure this seems easy to us with an understand of the trinity in retrospect under the light of the gospel, but my question is did the 'pre-Christian church' ever see this?  In particular, I am wondering about the very creation of the world, was this ever though of in connection with the promised Messiah?

Somewhat related question:

Were the Jews expecting the Messiah to suffer at all?

Surprisingly some ancient rabbis did actually draw the connection of the Messiah to the creation of the world. Under this classical Messianic text, a connection was made:

  There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse,
  and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
   And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him,
  the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
  the Spirit of counsel and might,
  the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord. (Isaiah 11:1-2, ESV)

Accordingly there is an ancient rabbinic reference recorded by the Jewish historian Alfred Edersheim that understands this Spirit, to be the Spirit of the Messiah in the creation of the world.

  In Gen. 1:2, the expression, ‘Spirit of God,’ is explained of ‘the Spirit of the King Messiah,’ with reference to Is. 11:2, and the ‘moving on the face of the deep’ of ‘repentance,’ according to Lam. 2:19. So in Ber. R. 2, and in regard to the first point also in Ber. R. 8, in Vayyik. R. 14, and in other places. (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, by Alfred Edersheim)

Although it is found in scripture that Messiah is also God, it was not commonly understood that the Messiah was God by the Jews until it became evident during Christ's life on earth.  Yet this does not mean that the Messiah was not believed to be pre-existing before his physical appearance.  The idea that he was preexisting and associated with the Spirit of Jehovah was quite commonly understood. Although they did not see things clearly they did see enough to recognize the truth when they finally saw it in Christ manifested in the flesh.  Why else do we suppose so many Jews first put their faith in him as their Messiah and God?


Are there exactly 12 resurrections in the Bible? During a sermon I heard the pastor saying that there are 12 resurrections in the Bible.

Are there more than 12, less or exactly 12 resurrections in the Bible?

At the moment I can remember the following ones:

The resurrection of the son of Zarephath's widow
The resurrection of the son of the great Shunammite woman
The man that comes to live touching the Elisha's bones
Lazarus's resurrection
The Jesus's resurrection
The people that came to life when Jesus died.

I am sure that there are other resurrections. Which are them?

Elijah resurrected the son of a widow in Zarephath (1 Kings 17:7-24).
Elisha resurrected the son of the Shunammite woman (2 Kings 4:8-35).
A dead man came back to life when he touches Elisha's bones (2 Kings 13:21).
Jesus resurrected the widow's son at Nain (Luke 7:11-15).
Jesus raised the daughter of Jairus, a Synagogue leader from the dead (Matthew 9:18-25, Mark 5:21-43, Luke 8:40-56).
Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead (John 11:43-44).
Many saints were resurrected at the death of Jesus Christ (Matthew 27:50-53).
The resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:5-7).
Peter raised a female disciple named Tabitha from the dead at Joppa (Acts 9:36-42).
Paul raised Eutychus from the dead at Troas (Acts 20:6-12).
Paul was revived from a near death condition. There is some possibility that Paul was actually dead for a short time (Acts 14:19-20).
Abraham received back his one and only son Isaac, who was to be sacrificed on the altar. It is possible that Isaac was already dead in the heart of his father, Abraham. There is a strong connection between this story and the death and resurrection of Jesus.  (Genesis 22).


Hebrew translation for the Deuterocanonical books? Is there a Hebrew translation for the Deuterocanonical books (including 1,2 Maccabees)?  Any available online?

Per Wikipedia:

Two major annotated Hebrew translations of the apocrypha were published in the 20th century. Both editions include commentaries by the editors, both are vowelized, and both of them incorporate parts of the original Hebrew for Ben Sira that were found in the Cairo Geniza and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Avraham Kahana, ed. and trans., Ha-Sefarim ha-Hitsonim. Tel-Aviv: Hotsaat Meqorot, 1937 (2 vols.), most recently reissued in 2006.
Eliyah Shemuel Hartom (aka. Elia Samuele Artom), ed. and trans., Ha-Sefarim ha-Hitsonim. Tel-Aviv: Yavneh, 1965-69.

The Kahana translations are scanned here.


Are there any Christian denominations that do not believe in Exorcisms? I was recently reading "Hostage to the Devil" by Malachi Martin, and starting thinking about demonic possession and exorcisms. Naturally, when I thought about exorcisms the movie "The Exorcist" popped up. And then it struck me that "The Exorcist" and the book I was reading were both based on Catholic Exorcisms.

In Catholicism, we believe that during an exorcism, the exorcist (highly trained priest specifically for exorcisms) is actually battling the demon. There are certain prayers that go with it and there is a structure to it.

My questions is basically, are there any Christian denominations that do not believe in possessions/exorcisms, if not, then are there some that take it only as a very lose possession (a demon made me do it, but it's gone now)?

I am personally unaware of any denominations that would specifically deny as part of their creed demon possessions or exorcisms.  However there are many denominations that by ignoring this area of practical theology do about the same.  Many of the "liberal" denominations tend to deny the spiritual nature of things and think of things more in terms of mental issues than spiritual bondage, this attitude would also constitute a practical denial of exorcisms.


On the which council did Joseph of Arimathea sit? Mark 15:43
Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body.

Of which council was Joseph of Arimathea a member?

It's commonly thought to be the (Great) Sanhedrin, Luke certainly implies it to be the same Council that sat in judgment on Jesus:

  50 Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea, and he himself was waiting for the kingdom of God. - Luke 23:50-51 NIV

He earlier describes it as "...the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law..." (Luke 22:66)