What is the "Catholic Church" acording to Anglicanism? I recently attended a service of the Church of England. There, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was said. This creed contains the words

  I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I wonder what is the sense in which Anglican theology uses the word "Catholic". Naturally, it does not refer to the Catholic Church (as in the Latin Catholic Church and other churches which are in communion with the Pope). But does it include it? Or is the word Catholic simply taken to mean "universal", as in the original Nicene creed, and so it does not have a particular interpretation?

It is quite hard to find online material on this, because as soon as you search "anglican catholic" and related searches, million of sites appear on the issue of anglican-catholicism. Maybe someone acquainted with the topic can help out.

Modern versions of the Nicene Creed use catholic, not Catholic
The original 1662 Book of Common Prayer did use a capitalized "Catholic" in the Nicene Creed.

And I believe one Catholick and Apostolick Church

However, this is more a stylistic choice used at the time in which many important words were capitalized (as the German language still does today). Other words such as "Begotten", "Baptism", and "Sins" are all capitalized. Thus we shouldn't assume that just because it is capitalized that it refers to the Catholic Church.
Common Worship, the 21st century successor to Book of Common Prayer, uses a lower case "catholic" to reflect how the English language and its grammar rules have changed over the last several hundred years.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

The word "catholic" means "according to the whole"
To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism, distributed by the Anglican Church of North America, has this to say about the word in its extended catechism:

95. Why is the Church called “catholic?”
The term “catholic” means “according to the whole.” The Church is called “catholic” because it holds the whole faith once for all delivered to the saints, and maintains continuity with the apostolic Church throughout time and space.

Wikipedia reiterates this belief in the following way:

The term ["catholic"] is used also to mean those Christian churches that maintain that their episcopate can be traced unbrokenly back to the apostles and consider themselves part of a catholic (universal) body of believers. Among those who regard themselves as Catholic but not Roman Catholic are Anglicans and Lutherans, who stress that they are both Reformed and Catholic.

In other words, Anglicans have the same quality as both the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church in that they have continuity with the early Church, but they are also Reformed in that they follow the teachings espoused during the Reformation.


What is the meaning of 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice'? I've been reading through the book of Matthew, and in chapter 9 I came across verse 13. It's when Jesus was answering the Pharisees after they asked Him why He ate with the tax collectors and sinners:

  13: But go ye and learn what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.

I didn't give it much of a thought until I came to chapter 12 verse 7. Here again Jesus was answering the Pharisees too after they asked Him why His disciples were plucking and eating the ears of grains on a Sabbath.

  7: But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

And the first part really hit me - "if ye had known what this meaneth".

I did a Bible search for the phrase and found Hosea 6:6

  For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Can someone please explain to me in a very simple way what the phrase means "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice" and why Jesus was telling that to the pharisees.

Why does he use the specific word mercy?

Checking the meaning of the word at google it says:

  Compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm.

Jesus was with little doubt alluding to the passage in Hosea.

See also Isaiah 1:11-17 (21st Century KJV)

  11: To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
  12: When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
  13: Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
  14: Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
  15: And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
  16: Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
  17: Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

What Jesus was saying was if the Pharisees knew God and understood what really mattered to Him, they would not put such overemphasis on rules about such things as ritual cleanliness and restrictive Sabbath observance.


In the "Creed of Athanasius" does "before all things" mean "sooner" or "most important"? Please see this question for why I think the Creed claims to be the declaration of the catholic church rather than merely clarifying the catholic position regarding the doctrine of "Trinity":

The creed starts out like this:

  Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam
  fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque
  dubio in aeternum peribit. Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum
  Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. Neque
  confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes....

  Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
  hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole
  and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the
  catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and
  Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the
  Essence...

Athanasian Creed on Wikipedia

Is the creed saying that the Trinity dogma should be the first thing that one is taught? Or that believing this creed in its entirety is more important than any other matter of faith than anything else?

In particular are we to understand the creed as saying that "This is the body of truth of the catholic church and it is upon the belief and embrace of the contents of this creed that determine whether or not you will be saved."

According to Lewis & Short, on the entry for ante, the phrase ante omnia can mean “before all things,” but I believe the latter is more appropriate to the context of the creed, wherein it means “above all [things],” i.e., above all else; more than anything.

(α).  Before all things, first of all: “alvus ante omnia ducitur,” Cels. 7, 30: “oportet autem ante omnia os nudare,” id. 8, 2: “Ante omnia instituit, ut etc.,” Suet. Ner. 32; id. Calig. 21: “Ante omnia autem, fratres, etc.,” Vulg. Jac. 5, 12; ib. 1 Petr. 4, 8.—
(β).  Comparatively, above all, especially, chiefty: “publica maestitia eo ante omnia insignis, quia matronae annum, ut parentem, eum luxerunt,” Liv. 2, 7; 7, 4: “quae natura multis et ante omnia ursis,” Plin. 8, 35, 53, § 125: “dulces ante omnia Musae,” the Muses pleasing above all things, Verg. G. 2, 475; id. E. 2, 72: “deformem et taetrum ante omnia vultum,” Juv. 10, 191.—

In addition, on the entry for opus, the phrase opus est means “it is necessary.”

Opus est, it is needful, wanting; there is need of, use for: opus est mihi, tibi, etc., I (thou, etc.) have need of, need, want. It is contrasted with necesse est: emas non quod opus est, sed quod necesse est. Quod non opus est, asse carum est, Cato ap. Sen. Ep. 94, 28. Also with indigere: “ait (Chrysippus) sapien. tem nullā re indigere, et tamen multis illi rebus opus esse, contra stulto nullā re opus est, nullā re enim uti scit, sed omnibus eget,” Sen. Ep. 9, 12. The person who needs any thing is put in the dat., and the thing needed in the nom. or abl. (prop. abl. instrum.: opus est mihi, I have work with, i. e. I need), rarely in the gen., acc., inf., acc. and inf., or with ut.

Thus, the phrase ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem would mean “above all else, it is necessary to possess the Catholic belief (faith).”
@WoundedEgo wrote,

The astute will notice that there is no mention of the resurrection.

On the contrary, the astute would notice there is mention of the resurrection of the dead:

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully...rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies...

References
Lewis, Charlton T.; Short, Charles. Harper’s Latin Dictionary: A New Latin Dictionary Founded on the Translation of Freund’s Latin-German Lexicon. New York: American Book, 1879.


Where did Aquinas say that the "greatest penalty of sin is the loss of the sense of sin"? Can someone point to me where St. Thomas Aquinas said that the, "greatest penalty of sin is the loss of the sense of sin"?

I heard this from Catholic Answers Live last week.

The Summa Theologiae and in the third book of the Summa "Contra Gentiles"

CAtholic answers (I did not hear the program) may have been paraphrasing the concept of Aquinas's view of original justice and the effect it has on our inability to recognize sin.


Are there any conflicts between how Jesus is described in the Book of Mormon vs how He is described in the Bible? I'm interested in knowing if there are any conflicts between the Book of Mormon's Jesus and the Bible's Jesus. Are their natures different? Is what they commanded different? I'm looking for any supporting text that would reveal to me whether the the Book of Mormon does or does not speak about the same Jesus Christ that the Bible talks about.

Any denomination may answer.

By simply limiting this answer to the similarities of the Book of Mormon and the Bible here is what I've put together (note this is in no way a complete compilation of the similarities but rather a starting point):

|   Doctrine                |      Book of Mormon   |      Bible (KJV)      |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                           |                       |                       |
|1. Jesus was born of Virgin|       Alma 7:9-10     |       Matthew 1:16    |
|   Mary                    |                       |                       |
|                           |                       |                       |
|2. He institued the        |     3 Nephi 18        |       Matthew 26      |
|   Sacrament for His       |                       |                       |
|   followers               |                       |                       |
|                           |                       |                       |
|3. The resurected Christ   |    3 Nephi 11:14-15   |       John 20: 26-27  |
|   had scars he showed his |                       |                       |
|   believers               |                       |                       |
|                           |                       |                       |
|4. Christ taught similar   |    3 Nephi 12         |       Matthew 5       |
|   doctrines               |                       |                       |
|                           |                       |                       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I will try to update as I find more


If the Geneva Bible was the Bible of the English reformation, then why did the KJV become so widely used? If the Geneva Bible was the bible of the reformation, Why is the KJV used more widely than the Geneva Bible? And (if applicable) what would be the main differences between the two bibles (in terms of biblical content rather than the preferences of a presiding king)?

Wikipedia gives a summary of the history.

The Geneva Bible translation was produced about 50 years before the King James, and was used by most English-speaking Protestants for much of the Reformation. However the Geneva Bible incorporated "annotations which are an important part of the Geneva Bible [and] were Calvinist and Puritan in character, and as such they were disliked by the ruling pro-government Anglicans of the Church of England, as well as King James I".

King James therefore commissioned an alternative translation (which also did not include the notes). The KJV was adopted by the Church of England, which constituted by far the majority of English-speaking Protestants. This adoption caused the translation to be by far the most widely available English translation over the next 300 years, and accounts for its enduring popularity.


Why does Satan collect souls that are subservient to him according to mainstream Christian scriptures? Pardon my ignorance, I'm by birth a non-christian and just trying to learn...keeping up with the philosophy of this stack-exchange forum.
According to Christian, Gnostic/Book of Q or other Abrahamic scriptures,
is there any description on Why Satan collects souls that are made subservient to him later on? To what purpose does it serve? Is it to fight with the Second coming of Jesus or to fight ultimately with the Father/God? Do they remain subservient to him after they are dead? Is there are reference to the number of souls he needs for that purpose?

A better question might be “Is there any biblical basis for thinking that Satan collects souls that are subservient to him?”  That’s because there is no such teaching according to mainstream Christianity.
The idea that Satan “collects souls” is neither biblical nor Christian.  The Bible tells us that every living soul belongs to God” (Ezekiel 18:4) and that only God has the power to kill the soul (Matthew 10:28).  Jesus also said that there is an eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41) and that Jesus has the keys of death and hades (Matthew 16:18).   Hebrews 9:27 informs us that “man is destined to die once and face judgment”.  This is God’s judgment, not Satan’s. Wherever the souls of persons who have physically died end up is entirely according to God’s will, not Satan’s.

Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight.  Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of Him to whom we must give account” (Hebrews 4:13).

There are some denominations, however, that appear to subscribe to the power of Satan and his demons with regard to having control over the souls of the dead:

‘Aerial toll houses’ refer to a teaching held by some Eastern Orthodox saints and Eastern Orthodox Christians about the immediate state of the soul after death. It holds that "following a person's death the soul leaves the body, and is escorted to God by angels. During this journey the soul passes through an aerial realm, which is inhabited by wicked spirits (Ephesians 6:12). The soul encounters these demons at various points referred to as toll-houses where the demons then attempt to accuse it of sin and, if possible, drag the soul into hell."[1]
In some forms, the teaching is taught in hagiographical and other spiritual texts from quite early in the history of the church, but it has never been formally promulgated by any ecumenical council.[1] A number of the Orthodox saints, modern elders and theologians have openly endorsed it, but some theologians and bishops, starting from the last century, have condemned it as heretical and gnostic in origin.[2] The content is somewhat similar to that propounded by John Climacus in The Ladder of Divine Ascent. Some say that given the amount of fear that comes along with the teaching, the love of Christ becomes misunderstood and is forgotten, but others suggest that fear is perfectly natural and salvific for Orthodox Christians.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_toll_house

Another source of “misinformation” comes from ‘The Divine Comedy’, written by Dante Alighieri between 1308 and 1321. It is written in the first person as Dante describes his imaginative journey through the three realms of the dead:
Inferno (hell); Purgatorio (Purgatory); and Paradiso (heaven).  Dante describes hell as comprised of nine concentric circles, representing an increase of wickedness, where sinners are punished in a fashion befitting their crimes.  At the bottom of hell, Satan waits to gorge on the miserable creatures who reach him.

Dante’s literary vision of hell is depicted by Botticelli in his painting Map of Hell as a subterranean funnel of suffering—a wretched underground landscape of fire, brimstone, sewage, and monsters, with Satan himself waiting at its core. It’s all very disturbing, and effective as a work of art, but it is based on the imaginations of men, not the Word of God.
In Dante's Inferno, Satan is portrayed as a giant demon, frozen mid-breast in ice at the center of Hell.  As opposed to the popular conception of the era, which viewed Satan as an all-dominating beast of Hell, Dante gives the portrayal of Satan as simply another victim of Hell's tortures. He places Satan trapped within the ice, stripped of voice and power and thus sets forth a new conception of who and what Satan is.  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante%27s_Satan

These views do not represent mainstream Christian beliefs about what happens to the soul at death.  Jesus said:

Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41).

God and Jesus are in control.  End of.


Sponge in water vs water in sponge how to understand St. Teresa properly? I've been reading on St. Teresa recently. She says:

  as water penetrates and is drunk in by the sponge, so, it seemed to me, did the Divinity fill my soul

Does that mean that God is present in the world as water is present in a sponge? (Because the world is present in St. Teresa as in any human being and God fills St. Teresa's soul therefore God is present in the world as water in a sponge)

That strikes me as a little bit non-Christian but rather and again demon-like Japanse style (see Totoro here). Does that mean that the mystics do not have Faith crystal clear but rather obscured by their mysticism and/or feelings? Because how a Lord can be water? How then can he come and judge and, more importantly, how can I then say I have no other gods but My Lord? Because water here is no different from water over there (or differences are not relevant).

Please help me understand.

The key understanding for this is that God is present everywhere (omnipresence) but He is not Present (capital intentional) everywhere. That is, God doesn't make His Presence manifest everywhere.

With that in mind, the quote becomes a bit clearer. At the outset, a sponge doesn't have any water. Put it in some water though, and the water will start seeping into the sponge. The water fills up the tiny voids present all throughout the sponge and at the end, the sponge is saturated. (Note also that the sponge expands a little; it doesn't drastically change size.) Similarly, most human souls (Christians included) are dry like a sponge, but if we spend time in the Presence of God, His Divinity will slowly fill us up until we are saturated.

There are many, many attributes of God that we don't have vocabulary for, so we say it is like this or like that, which typically implies that the two are not the same (nor do they even have to correspond fully). St. Teresa here uses "as" in the same function. She says God's Divinity filling up the soul is like water filling up a sponge, which is her intended comparison. She didn't intend to imply that God's Divinity had other characteristics of water or that God fills up the world like a sponge; both are out of the scope of this metaphor.


What is the biblical basis for the historicity of the Bible? That same professor who brought this question and this question is at it again. His claim is that the Bible doesn't claim to be a historical account because the thought that one can look to history as an accurate account of what happened doesn't come about until the Enlightenment.

The general argument is that the Bible is a vehicle for a theological message that may have used a historical detail here or there to make it more plausible. I'm investigating the specific claim that the Bible itself does not claim to be historically accurate. My question is what biblical basis there is to claim the Bible is an account of history. Does the Bible claim to be historically accurate (or is there something in the Bible that someone could reasonably interpret as a statement to that effect)?

A verse like 2 Timothy 3:16 would not work, as its claim isn't about anything more than theological and moral value:

  All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

This question seems to embody everything I've found on this topic so far. Rather than addressing whether the Bible itself explicitly claims to be historically accurate, they go right to defending the historicity of Scripture with outside sources and textual analysis of the stories. Is there a claim to historicity in the Bible?

EDIT: In response to many comments, I think it's necessary to clarify that I asked this question to provide a response to a specific claim. That claim was that the notion of the Bible giving a critical account of facts didn't originate until the Enlightenment. My goal isn't to prove the historicity of scripture by saying "for the Bible tells me so." My goal is to refute that specific claim with evidence from Scripture.

That professor hasn't read the Bible, apparently.
Eyewitness Account

Luke 1:1-4 (my translation)
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the things which have taken place among us, (even as it was handed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning, and those who tended to [the matter of preserving] an account), it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely from the beginning, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the verity of the things that have been told you.

Luke even uses the adjective ακριβως (accurately; closely; scrupulously). Luke claims his Gospel is an accurate history of Jesus.
Real Old Testament People
As for the Old Testament, it is confirmed by its affirmation in the New: by Jesus, and by the geneology listed by Luke.

Luke 3:23-38 (DRB)
And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat, 24 Who was of Levi, who was of Melchi, who was of Janne, who was of Joseph, 25 Who was of Mathathias, who was of Amos, who was of Nahum, who was of Hesli, who was of Nagge, 26 Who was of Mahath, who was of Mathathias, who was of Semei, who was of Joseph, who was of Juda, 27 Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, who was of Salathiel, who was of Neri, 28 Who was of Melchi, who was of Addi, who was of Cosan, who was of Helmadan, who was of Her, 29 Who was of Jesus, who was of Eliezer, who was of Jorim, who was of Mathat, who was of Levi, 30 Who was of Simeon, who was of Judas, who was of Joseph, who was of Jona, who was of Eliakim, 31 Who was of Melea, who was of Menna, who was of Mathatha, who was of Nathan, who was of David, 32 Who was of Jesse, who was of Obed, who was of Booz, who was of Salmon, who was of Naasson, 33 Who was of Aminadab, who was of Aram, who was of Esron, who was of Phares, who was of Judas, 34 Who was of Jacob, who was of Isaac, who was of Abraham, who was of Thare, who was of Nachor, 35 Who was of Sarug, who was of Ragau, who was of Phaleg, who was of Heber, who was of Sale, 36 Who was of Cainan, who was of Arphaxad, who was of Sem, who was of Noe, who was of Lamech, 37 Who was of Mathusale, who was of Henoch, who was of Jared, who was of Malaleel, who was of Cainan, 38 Who was of Henos, who was of Seth, who was of Adam, who was of God.

This is airtight. A genealogy back to the first man, beginning with Joseph. Ignoring the 'whose genealogy is it' question, it claims Joseph is literally a descendant of Adam, the first man created by God. Now unless Joseph is a literary device—an untenable joke—then the Old Testament descriptions of the patriarchs is literally true.
Likewise, we see in 1 Peter, for example, claims that those before the Deluge went to some spiritual prison (cf. Lk. 16:22; Heb. 11:40), where Jesus went to preach the Good News after He yielded up His spirit on the cross (Mt. 25:50).

1 Peter 3:18-20 (DRB) Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.

Cf. 2 Pet. 1:16.
Real people at the time of Noah, when the ark was being built.
Even Unto This Day
There is a recurring phrase in Old and New Testament: "even to this day." It means that whatever happened in some former time remains true "even to this day." A New Testament example is Matthew 28:8:

Matthew 28:8 (DRB) For this cause the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day.

There is a direct causal relationship between the event described (and fixed by its context at some explicit time in history) and the naming of a thing or person or place.
Interesting Old Testament examples, however, might include Genesis 22:13-14:

Genesis 22:13-14 (DRB) Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw behind his back a ram amongst the briers sticking fast by the horns, which he took and offered for a holocaust instead of his son. 14 And he called the name of that place, The Lord seeth. Whereupon even to this day it is said: In the mountain the Lord will see.

The author of Genesis, at least, is convinced that this place is treated this way because Abraham himself named it after a real experience he had. He's not ignorant that he has placed Abraham in a certain era.
Cf. Josh. 7:25-26.
Other instances of this abound. E.g.

Genesis 35:19-20 (DRB) So Rachel died, and was buried in the highway that leadeth to Ephrata, that is Bethlehem. 20 And Jacob erected a pillar over her sepulchre: this is the pillar of Rachel's monument, to this day.

Or,

2 Samuel 6:8 (DRB) And David was grieved because the Lord had struck Oza, and the name of that place was called: The striking of Oza, to this day.

Cf. Vulg. Judith 16:31.
These are just a few pieces of evidence that the Old Testament was considered by both the author and first century Jews (themselves partially an evidence) to be the actual history of the Jews.


Verse that says we should spend much or most of our money on food? I remember reading a verse that said something to the effect of it being good to spend much or most of our money on food. What is that verse?

Isaiah 55 says:

  “Come, all you who are thirsty,
      come to the waters;
  and you who have no money,
      come, buy and eat!
  Come, buy wine and milk
      without money and without cost.
  2 Why do spend money on what is not bread,
      and your labor on what does not satisfy?
  Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
      and you will delight in the richest of fare.
  3 Give ear and come to me;
      listen, that you may live.
  I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
      my faithful love promised to David.

It isn't a command, it is an observation. The Messiah that is coming will satisfy the poor and you more than you ever could.

The closest thing to an injunction would be 1 Timothy 6:

  6 But godliness with contentment is great gain. 7 For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. 8 But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that.

Again, the focus is on the contentment, not the actual spending though.


What is dispensationalism? Several years ago, I took a class on the book of Revelation and learned about dispensationalism.  It made sense to me then, but I can't seem to wrap my head around it now.

Also, I hear the term from time to time when discussions come up regarding the end times.

So, what is dispensationalism?

(Preferably in simple words.  Wikipedia made my head hurt when trying to read that.)

Dispensationalism basically suggests that at different ages (eras or dispensations) in human history, God has interacted with people in different ways, through various covenants:

Edenic (innocence)

Antedeluvian(consciousness - people did what they wanted)

Civil Government(After the flood, the rainbow covenant was for all people)

Patriarchic (Abraham and the particular family He called)

Mosaic Law (God makes a nation and puts his presence there)

The Church Era (The Holy Spirit dwells in His people)

Millenium/eternity. (Rest)

Note that there are seven dispensations. A perfect week, and the last dispensation corresponds with Rest. In each of the dispensation, God institutes different systems of relating to His people. He walks in the garden with Adam, He makes a covenant with all of creation, then one man, then a nation. He then establishes a throne, then a new covenant in Jesus. Today, we interact with the Holy Spirit in a way that other men and women of God did not before Pentacost. Soon we will see Him face to face.

Controversy around dispensationalism usually happens when dispensationalist take the different covenants and institutions of God and say that for each era, the people in that era are saved through the system of that era. For example, a follower of God during the Mosaic covenant is saved through the law. However, Paul reminds us in Galations 3 that even Abraham was saved through faith. All of God's people are saved through faith in Him, always through His Son.


According to Catholic doctrine, how can an angel be a saint? In Catholic doctrine, a saint has to (a) be “a dead person” and (b) be “in Heaven”.

  How is someone deemed a saint? The pope canonizes a dead person who has lived a life of heroic virtue and has performed a posthumous miracle in addition to the miracle required for beatification.
  Peter Turner

  Being in Heaven is the definition of a ‘capital-S’ Saint.
  Ethel Evans

Alternatively, a saint may be an angel, though this is a different “category” of saint.

  Angels, like Saint Michael, may be called Saints but aren’t in quite the same category as human believers.
  James T.

So, what is an angelic saint? Are all angels saints, or just some of them? How is this determined?

I can see one possible solution: All angels are in Heaven, and are therefore saints (per Ethel Evans), but they are not ‘deemed’ as saints (or, not canonized), because (per Peter Turner) they are not dead. They are therefore a different ‘category’ of saint (per James T.). This makes sense to me, but is it valid?

By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God's grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors.
CCC 828

Some angels have been recognized as saints because of their heroic virtue and fidelity to God's grace, and these angels can also fulfill the role of model and intercessor. One particular example is Saint Michael the Archangel, whom we know about from the book of Revelation.
Not all angels are saints because not all angels have heroic virtue and fidelity to God's grace. (Fallen angels are an example of this.) Also, while many angels are in heaven, there are few angels who are saints because we do not know enough about them to canonize them. Saint Michael is one of the few angels that we do know a lot about.
Also note that while we believe all saints are in heaven, simply being in heaven does not mean that a person is recognized as a saint.


Did the Jews use icons and images to help them worship as Catholics or Orthodox worshippers do? I understand that some worshippers use icons to 'lift up their minds from earthly things to the heavenly things'? I am not interested about those using them as stage-props for a play (in comparison), but in those who do it from a religious sense, of helping them in prayer or worship.

Did the Jews ever do this?

The remains of an ancient Jewish Synagogue have been found at a site known as Dura-Europos. Inside this Jewish Synagogue, all the walls are covered in frescoes of scenes from the Tanakh, which date to about 250 AD.


Why is our physical world so different from spiritual? I read this comment from one of the answers:

  As we are only mortal flesh, we are not capable of understanding the
  unique nature of God. Jesus also many times found it difficult to
  explain about God and Heavenly things. It's like trying to explain how
  a computer works to the elderly people who are not familiar with it.
  Once I tried to explain how a computer works to my father, it was
  impossible and I gave up.

My question is: According to the Roman Catholic Church why is our world so different from the spiritual one and how that difference servers Gods plan for us? Our life in this physical world should serve as a gateway to the spiritual realm after we die but if it's so different how that can serve the purpose.

Natural vs. Supernatural Orders

A human is composed of a body and a soul. Since the human soul is virtually infinite—just think of all that man desires, can know, and can do etc.—, it is not fulfilled by finite creation. Man was created for a higher, supernatural end, which he can attain by God's grace.

Your question is essentially asking about the distinction between the natural and supernatural orders—a distinction that is very frequently denied today, especially in the heresy of Modernism (the "synthesis of all heresies"), which Pope St. Pius X condemned in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis §10:

  There is no question now of the old error, by which a sort of right to the supernatural order was claimed for the human nature. We have gone far beyond that: we have reached the point when it is affirmed [by the Modernists] that our most holy religion, in the man Christ as in us, emanated from nature spontaneously and entirely. Than this there is surely nothing more destructive of the whole supernatural order. Wherefore the [First] Vatican Council most justly decreed: "If anyone says that man cannot be raised by God to a knowledge and perfection which surpasses nature, but that he can and should, by his own efforts and by a constant development, attain finally to the possession of all truth and good, let him be anathema" (De Revel., can. 3).[Those who believe that condemned statement are Pelagians.]

An Analogy

It's true that God is infinitely different and distinct from the created world, but we can certainly know God from the created world (cf. Rom. 1:20). Just as we can know an unseen cause (e.g., magnetism) by studying its effects (e.g., magnetic bodies attracting each together), so we can know God (creation's First Cause) by studying His effects (creation itself).

Think of a stop sign. It is octagonal, red, has some black markings that make sense to those who can see and read. A stop sign is infinitely different than the concept or action of stopping, yet the sign still signifies it.* Analogously, creation signifies or points to God, like smoke signifies a fire,** even though He and creation are infinitely distinct.*This is just an analogy because creation does not signify God by some conventional sign like a stop sign. **This is also an analogy because smoke and fire aren't infinitely distinct like creation and God are.

But there are some truths, necessary for his salvation, that man cannot know from nature alone—e.g., the Trinity. Hence, supernatural grace is required to raise man to the supernatural order.

The Natural & Supernatural Ends of Man

Man has a twofold end or purpose, which St. Thomas Aquinas describes in Summa Theologica I q. 23 a. 1 c.:

  The end towards which created things are directed by God is twofold; one which exceeds all proportion and faculty of created nature; and this end is life eternal, that consists in seeing God which is above the nature of every creature, as shown above (Question [12], Article [4] ["Whether any created intellect by its natural powers can see the Divine essence?"]). The other end, however, is proportionate to created nature, to which end created being can attain according to the power of its nature.

Man's earthly life is a prelude to life everlasting.* Thus, there is a continuity between this life and the next, just as there is a unity between the body and soul in a person.*cf. Life Everlasting by Fr. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (ebook; video of famous quote from it)


According to the Catholic Church is the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act an unjust law? After going off on HIPAA one of the kids brought up Barack Obama and said that, "he's going to make Catholic Hospitals perform abortions." I said that wasn't exactly true, for now, at least, but he was making Catholic Hospitals (and everyone) purchase coverage for something that would allow them to procure an abortion.

So, I know that part is just immoral and evil, but is mandating that families get Health Insurance just for existing something that conflicts with the principle of subsidiarity?  Has anything been published that indicates whether the Catholic position is for purchasing or not purchasing health insurance to be purely a matter of choice left up to the heads of families?

Subsidiarity requires that needs be addressed at the lowest, most local possible level. But, the principle lives in conflict, in a manner, with solidarity, which demands that our concern lie with all people and the common good of all. Hence, while subsidiarity insists that matters are best handled by those closest to the people involved, solidarity insists that we keep a somewhat universal view and readily recognize the need to "escalate" matters. And health care could be argued from either end.

The need for some health care is universal. Whether that need is the same everywhere, I'm not sure. Nor do I know whether enough of the nations needs are similar enough to warrant mixing everything together in the same system -- there's no authoritative Catholic statement that I'm aware of from that perspective.

However, there's plenty to be said about the justness of the Affordable Care Act in other regards. The USCCB has issued multiple statements regarding the infringement on justice and moral freedom that the law as-is currently imposes. One, issued on 6/28/12 highlights (again) the lack of protection for those who wish not to contribute, on religious or moral grounds, to plans including abortion and contraceptive coverage.

There are a fair number of publications from the USCCB to the same regard: See here.

Generally speaking, the attitude of the USSCB has shown that it's not the "universal" nature of the act that Catholics should necessarily oppose, but the nature of it which prevents moral and religious opt-outs. The need for "universal" health care is pretty-well recognized by the USCCB; but the lack of respect for religious freedoms and the explicit inclusion of items which are "not healthcare" is a distinct and highly important problem.


Why is Good Friday called "Good"? My coworker asked "Why is Good Friday called good?" when I mentioned that we have Good Friday off, and I unfortunately don't know the answer to the question.

Is there a very obvious way to explain to someone why Good Friday is so good when it would seem as though it should be called "very bad horrible no good awful Friday"?

Normally, I prefer to author my own answer, but in this instance, Johnny Hart (of B.C. comic strip) nailed it so well, that I'm just going to repost his answer to this question.

For those who cannot see the image, it reads:

  Now, who can call "Good Friday" good?,
  A term too oft misunderstood,
  You who were bought by the blood of His cross
  You can call "Good Friday" good.

Update, based on the nature of the individual.

There was nothing "Good" about Good Friday for Jesus. He was humiliated, hurt, abandoned, and killed in horrible fashion.
But he willingly chose this for one simple reason - He loved humanity with his entire heart.  As such, he choose to suffer these "indignities" in order to give mankind what it sought.
In some fashion that theologians are still debating (Atonement? Satisfaction? Expiation? Christus Victor?), Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection gave us the ability to become heirs with God.

Whether this was some legal impediment or moral ability, we don't know, but we do know this: Prior to the Crucifixion, man was unable to stand before God. Afterwards, we had Jesus to stand in our place, that we could be reconciled to him. To me, that's about as good as it gets!


How can I know that GOD really loves me? How can I know that GOD really loves me? Where in the Bible does it say that? I hear preachers always saying this but where can I go and read this and get a full understand that HE loves me and wants a relationship with me....

The basic premise that God loves everyone is found in John 3:16

  For God loved the world in this way: He gave his one and only Son, so
  that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal
  life.

Going deeper you will find this concept agreed on by everyone who knows Him.

Peter knew the Lord intimately and said,

  "God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. Humble
  yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, so that he may
  exalt you at the proper time, casting all your cares on him, because
  he cares about you." (1 Peter 5:6b-7)

These aren't just fuzzy feelings that the Heavenly Father has for us. He actually proves His love by humbling Himself and serving us in many ways.

In Acts 17:25 Paul said that God is not

  served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself
  gives everyone life and breath and all things.

Jesus said we will truly be like God when we love even our enemies

  For He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends
  rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Matthew 5:45)

I think my favorite quote from Paul is,

  But God proves his own love for us in that while we were still
  sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)

The Father of all Creation loves you enough to die for you so His righteousness can become your righteousness. He redeemed us so we can be adopted as sons and daughters. This is why we say He is worthy of all the glory and praise. He did the impossible because He loves us.

If you really want to see how God much loves you, simply look at the response of Jesus to everyone who comes to Him. He never turns anyone away who comes to Him humbly (willing to be corrected) and trusting His loving kindness, but heals and forgives every one. In John 5:19 Jesus said,

  Truly I tell you, the Son is not able to do anything on his own, but
  only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the
  Son likewise does these things,

meaning He is the very image of God. The gospel of John says that Jesus is the Word of God made flesh.

Look at Jesus. Search the scriptures and you will see that His sacrificial love and forgiveness is always front and center. Even though all people, even God's own people, have committed unspeakable sins, God made a way to forgive that sin by putting all of our punishment on His Son Jesus. That means He can legally dismiss your case!

Three days after He nailed our sin to that cross, He rose from the dead signaling victory over death, hell and the grave. Turn from your sin and put all of your trust in Jesus Christ who loves you and gave Himself for you, and His victory becomes your victory. He promises to give you a new heart and to renew your mind as you come to understand His word by the power of His Holy Spirit who is with everyone who believes. Remain in Him and He will keep His promise to give you everlasting life. Get to know Him through His word and prayer, and I pray that your eyes will be opened to see how much He already loves you!


What is the Evangelical Christian argument against Rob Bell? I was surprised to read the comments on this meta question1 about Rob Bell. I don't know much about him (except I watched some of the NOOMA films).

What is the Evangelical Christian problem with him? Why has he been called "heretical"?

1 I fully appreciate the irony of the question, in light of the meta question.

Rob Bell is identified with a Emergent Church despite not self identify as a member of the emergent movement. However, he tends to advocate many of the ideas of that group. Case in point, Love Wins, which came out last year, was hugely controversial, since it was putting forward a view on the nature of hell which is not held by many evangelical Christians. Many had accused him of being a universalist. Prior to the publication of this book, Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile, came out, which is many would classify as an extremely liberal gospel interpretation (he uses the gospel to criticize US foreign policy for instance). These types of views are extremely controversial to many evangelical Christians many of whom tend to (justly or not) fall on the conservative side of the political spectrum.

Also he wrote a book called, Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections Between Sexuality and Spirituality, which having read it, I can say is not nearly as scandalous as the title suggests. But, the point is, Bell meant to stir put feathers by publishing a Christian book with a title like that, and that tends to be his modus operandi.

Hope that helps.

Update, a little bit more on those that believe Bell to hold to heretical beliefs:

On February 26, 2011, John Piper tweeted "Farewell, Rob Bell" and linked to an article accusing Bell of being a universalist with his new book "Love Wins". The implication was that Bell had strayed so far from the Christian camp as it were, that he no longer considered Bell to be part of the Christian community (that's my personal take on the meaning of the tweet).

The real issue here is not whether or not Bell was enunciating universalism or not (Bell in a sermon the week after publication said "I am not a Universalist" and made the same statement to various members of the press, for what that is worth), but what does it mean to be heretic.

My take is that if you take a look at his main critics, especially Piper and Chan, they tend to fall into the Calvinist camps, that not to say they all do by any means. But I think if you look into the heart of the controversy about Bell, who is an arminian by any measure, it may have more to do with justification than anything else. For Bell, we choose God, for Reformed thinkers, God chooses us. Beyond the specific ways in which each sides is interpreting scripture, each side holds fundamentally opposing theological views.

For more info on Bell critics, see Francis Chan's Erasing Hell, Mark Galli's God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins.


In evangelicalism, how are Christians free from sin? The gist of Romans 6 is that as Christians, we are dead to sin, and thus free from it.  We are no longer slaves to sin, but are slaves to God and righteousness.

  Romans 6:16–18 (ESV)
  16  Do you not know that if you present yourselves  to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17  But  thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the  standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18  and,  having been set free from sin,  have become slaves of righteousness.

However, I don't think many Christians would say that they feel very free from sin.  In fact, Paul goes on in the next chapter to say that he is a slave to sin.

  Romans 7:18–19 (ESV)
  18  For I know that nothing good dwells  in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19   For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.

This kind of language doesn't sound very "free".  If he says that Christians are "slaves of the one whom you obey", and yet he finds himself obeying the flesh, doesn't that make him a slave to sin? In what way, then, are Christians "free" from sin?

Note: Adding the "evangelicalism" tag may have been too subtle, so to clarify, I am specifically looking for answers from an evangelical perspective.

Apologize for the length, the question is so good that I am answering not just for you but digging up worthy references for myself.
A good place to start for an evangelical answer is with two evangelical theologians famous for having an acute sense of the sinfulness of man and the nature of God's grace in the Christian.  John Owen and Jonathan Edwards both wrote extensively on the subject.
The main idea expressed by both of these writers is that a Christian is free from sin because in Christ they are translated from the rule of Law to the rule of Grace. Freedom from sin ultimately means freedom from Law because it is God's holy law that condemned man into a totally depraved sinful nature.  Unless this curse of the Law for Adam's sin is removed in Christ's death, on whom our sin is made to be Christ's, so that he both bears the guilt and penal wrath of God for it, then we are not free.  Therefore this freedom primarily means free from the consequences of sin from the legal standpoint under God's holy law.
However this freedom from the Law necessarily means new birth into the rule of grace, which means that inwardly the Christian is no longer under the dominion of law and sin but under grace leading to a more and more holy life. This 'holy life' is considered the life of the Spirit as contrasted with the life of the 'flesh' and although the Christian has this dual nature causing intense struggle with sin, the spiritual life is said to 'have dominion' over the flesh.
It is this subject of 'dominion' where evangelicals do not all agree, the split primarily resting between Calvinistic views and Arminian views of perfection. I will focus on Calvinistic views in my post as I consider Arminian views on this subject as a weakness of faith. As far as the final state in heaven, of course all Christians believe it is absolute freedom forever, so the question amounts to how much sin can we still have in our life and yet still claim to have faith in God and still claim that grace has dominion in our life. Put another way, 'How much freedom from sin can we experience on this side of heaven?' Or again, 'What does it mean that we are no longer under the dominion of sin but under the dominion of grace, when we have so much sin still in our lives?'
First let's look at typical thoughts by John Owen in his TREATISE
of THE DOMINION OF SIN AND GRACE; wherein sin’s reign is discovered, in whom it is, and in whom it is not; how the law supports it; how grace delivers from it, by setting up its dominion in the heart.
This treatise is based on:

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace. (Romans 6:14, NIV)

First we should take note that the Christian struggle with sin is not a proper cause for our faith to shrink but for it to take consolation for the fact that we have two natures warring with one another. This confirms we are a Christian and means we have the Spirit. The Spirit, accordion to Ephesians Ch 1 is a 'seal'. this seal that both proves we are God's children and is a down payment, or first fruit, guaranteeing the whole future glory of heaven.
Under this comforting aspect, Owen also provides similar comforting words:

Where men are engaged in a constant conflict against sin; where they look upon it and judge it their chiefest enemy, which contends with them for their souls and their eternal ruin; where they have experience of its power and deceit, and through the efficacy of them have been often shaken in their peace and comfort; where they have been ready to despond, and say they shall one day perish under their powers,—it is a gospel word, a word of good tidings, that gives them assurance that it shall never have dominion over them. The ground of this assurance is, that believers are “not under the law, but under grace.”  (John Owen's Works, Vol 7, P542)

But to now directly answer the question.  John Owen also asks:

But the inquiry hereon is, how it follows from hence that sin shall not have dominion over us, that sin cannot extend its territories and rule into that state, and in what sense this is affirmed. (P545)

He answers:

This, then, is the present case supposed and determined by the apostle: “You that are believers are all of you conflicting with sin. You find it always restless and disquieting, sometimes strong and powerful When it is in conjunction with any urgent temptation, you are afraid it will utterly prevail over you, to the ruin of your souls. Hence you are wearied with it, groan under it, and cry out for deliverance from it.” All these things the apostle at large insists on in this and the next chapter. “But now,” saith he, “be of good comfort; notwithstanding all these things, and all your fears upon them, sin shall not prevail, it shall not have the dominion, it shall never ruin your souls.” But what ground have we for this hope? what assurance of this success? “This you have,” saith the apostle, “ ‘Ye are not under the law, but under grace;’ or the rule of the grace of God in Christ Jesus, administered in the gospel.” But how doth this give relief? “Why, it is the ordinance, the instrument of God, which he will use unto this end,—namely, the communication of such supplies of grace and spiritual strength as shall eternally defeat the dominion of sin.” (P546)

Fine, we have said that a Christian has many sins, but they do not have dominion over him. In other words that is he is not really enslaved to sin as he once was before. What does this mean? A common confusion here is to think in terms of percentages.  A Christian is (some may think) someone whose heart is 80-90 percent pure, or at least more than fifty percent pure, otherwise he can never say Jesus is his 'Lord'.  Some may actually imagine that a Christian can be 100% without sin for maybe even a whole day, but this imagination is quite contrary to the truth of every Christian experience and this type of thinking is not held at all by great evangelical theologians such as John Owen, or Jonathan Edwards. In fact men who really know themselves would never claim to love God even one half as much as they ought to at any given moment, not even for a second.
Here is a good place to watch how Edwards handles the concept in his work on Original Sin. First he argues that even though a Christian is not under the dominion or Lordship of sin, the best of Christians have more of their heart still in a sinful state than a holy one:

The sum of our duty to God, required in his law, is love to God; taking love in a large sense, for the true regard of our hearts to God, implying esteem, honor, benevolence, gratitude, complacency, etc. ...It therefore appears from the premises, that whosoever withholds more of that love or respect of heart from God which his law requires, than he affords, has more sin than righteousness. Not only he that has less divine love, than passions and affections which are opposite; but also he that don't love God half so much as he ought, or has reason to do, has justly more wrong than right, imputed to him, according to the law of God, and the law of reason; he has more irregularity than rectitude, with regard to the law of love. The sinful disrespect or unrespectfulness of his heart to God, is greater than his respect to him.
But what considerate person is there, even among the more virtuous part of mankind, but what would be ashamed to say, and profess before God or men, that he loves God half so much as he ought to do; or that he exercises one half of that esteem, honor and gratitude towards God, which would be altogether becoming him; considering what God is, and what great manifestations he has made of his transcendent excellency and goodness, and what benefits he receives from him? And if few or none of the best of men can with reason and truth make even such a profession, how far from it must the generality of mankind be? (Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin, Page 140)

However when we look at Romans 8 we must feel that there needs some explanation to be made in Edward's assertion for how can the majority of our heart still be under sin, when we are no longer under its dominion? This seems so foolish to the carnal mind!  For example what about these verses:

1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:1-4, NIV)

and

Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.
14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. (Romans 8:12-14, NIV)

Edwards get very much into fine detail in his own answer: (I quote him in entirety for my own future reference as it was hard for me to find again and is really a rare gem that expresses the depths of authentic evangelical faith with unusual clarity of mind).

The Objection is this: That the argument seems to prove too much, that it will prove, that even good men themselves have more sin than holiness; which also has been supposed. But if this were true, it would follow, that sin is the prevalent principle even in good men, and that it is the principle which has the predominancy in the heart and practice of the truly pious; which is plainly contrary to the Word of God.
I answer, If it be indeed so, that there is more sin, consisting in defect of required holiness, than there is of holiness in good men in this world; yet it will not follow, that sin has the chief government of their heart and practice, for two reasons.

They may love God more than other things and yet there may not be so much love, as there is want of due love; or in other words, they may love God more than the world, and therefore the love of God may be predominant, and yet may not love God near half so much as they ought to do. This need not be esteemed a paradox: a person may love a father, or some great friend and benefactor, of a very excellent character, more than some other object, a thousand times less worthy of his esteem and affection, and yet love him ten times less than he ought; and so be chargeable, all things considered, with a deficiency in respect and gratitude, that is very unbecoming and hateful. If love to God prevails above the love of other things, then virtue will prevail above evil affections, or positive principles of sin; by which principles it is, that sin has a positive power and influence. For evil affections radically consist in inordinate love to other things besides God. And therefore, virtue prevailing beyond these, will have the governing influence. The predominancy of the love of God in the hearts of good men is more from the nature of the object loved, and the nature of the principle of true love, than the degree of the principle. The object is one of supreme loveliness; immensely above all other objects in worthiness of regard; and 'tis by such a transcendent excellency, that he is God, and worthy to be regarded and adored as God, and he that truly loves God, loves him as God. True love acknowledges him to be God, or to be divinely and supremely excellent, and must arise from some knowledge, sense and conviction of his worthiness of supreme respect. And though the sense and view of it may be very imperfect, and the love that arises from it in like manner imperfect; yet if there be any realizing view of such divine excellency, it must cause the heart to respect God above all.

Another reason, why a principle of holiness maintains the dominion in the hearts of good men, is the nature of the Covenant of Grace, and the promises of that covenant, on which true Christian virtue relies, and which engage God's strength and assistance to be on its side, and to help it against its enemy, that it may not be overcome. The just live by faith. Holiness in the Christian, or his spiritual life, is maintained, as it has respect by faith to its Author and Finisher, and derives strength and efficacy from the divine Fountain, and by this means overcomes. For, as the Apostle says, "This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith" [I John 5:4]. 'Tis our faith in him who has promised, never to leave nor forsake his people, and not to forsake the work of his own hands, nor suffer his people to be tempted above their ability, and that his grace shall be sufficient for them, and that his strength shall be made perfect in weakness, and that where he has begun a good work he will carry it on to the day of Christ.   (Jonathan Edwards on Original Sin, Page 145-146)

Conclusion: Only as Christians are we really aware of our many sins and have a mournful daily struggle against them, even to the occasional doubting of the very genuineness of our own faith. However as the Spirit has been given to us to give us comfort and assurance of our salvation, we, bumbling along in our many failures, are aware that we are actually being swept along powers of grace along an unbreakable mighty rule of Christ as our high priest, ensuring our absolute certain arrival into glory where we will forever be free of all effects of sin forever. Even as we doubt this grace as it is 'too good to be true' we are being formed into objects of grace meant to reveal this gracious quality of God to the praise of its excellence, which is the entire purpose of life and salvation. Death is no longer a fearful unknown answering our condemned conscience for the punishment of sin. Rather our daily struggle is a hopeful one, looking at the grave as a curtain behind which everlasting joys are waiting, even as we doubt it. Even in the midst of our doubts of God's grace, his grace will be a dominion that will overcome into everlasting praise.
Note: This is the second time I wrote this answer as just after my first version someone pickpocketed my iPhone which had my un-posted answer. Needless to say I was all the more determined to re-post this a few hours later as I was not willing that the Devil so easily take away the fruit of my effort ;)


What should a Catholic Religious Ed. class be taught about the Reformation? I'd like to incorporate some information from this site in my Religious Ed. class.

I teach a weekly class to 8th and 9th graders and none of them really understand what the difference is between us and Protestants.  I live in a small town in Wisconsin which is pretty much devoid of religious tension, so I don't want to stir the pot and tell them about the gruesome details 30 years war or the martyrs of Queen Elizabeth from a completely Catholic perspective, nor do I want to sugar coat the way Catholics have treated Protestants over the past 500 years (i.e. the Tudors).

Therefore, how does one present children with an accurate depiction of Reformation history without wavering (and losing all credibility) or covering up the truth while still maintaining the children's innocence and not instil any prejudices in them?

I have lead a middle school (6th, 7th, and 8th grade) Catholic religious education class for three years and this question often comes up:

  What's the difference between Christians and Catholics? My friends say they are Christian, but I thought we were too. What's the difference?

The reason for their question is because their friends simply say they are "christian", not "non-denominational christian", "baptist christian", or "protestant" for example. Often, they don't even know which denomination they belong to.

Introducing them to the Reformation is a good idea, but be careful not to overload them with more information than they care to know about. It's important to simplify the subject enough that they get the gist of it.

I usually take it as an opportunity to give a brief overview of church history, including a few interesting facts that you might not otherwise get a chance to talk about. I usually summarize it like this:

In the beginning, there was Judaism. The Jews were God's chosen people, but were awaiting a Messiah to save them.
Then God became human and died on a cross for the salvation of everyone.
Jesus organized a special group of 12 followers (the apostles) to lead his church, making Peter the first Pope. The other apostles became the first bishops.
The apostles went on to ordain priests. For the next 1,500 years there was only one church, the Catholic church.
Then in the 16th century, some people decided to "protest" the way the church was being run at the time, split off and start denominations of their own. Then over the next 500 years, more and more denominations have formed. Now there are thousands of denominations.

I'm simplifying a bit there, obviously, but this gets the point across. Then you'll be able to add in a few other factoids:

The word "Catholic" means "universal". The early christians used the word to describe the church because it is open to everyone (not just the Jews like Judaism was before).
This is why, in the creed, we say that "We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church" because we believe that Jesus started one church and that he wanted us to be one, it's holy because Jesus said he would protect it ("the gates of hell would not prevail against it"), it's Catholic because it's open to everyone, and it's apostolic because our priests can trace their succession back to the first apostles.

In summary, just use it as an opportunity to clear up some confusion and use it as a teaching moment. You don't need to go into the gritty details.


May Christians read self improvement books? We know the best Book we have is the Bible, which has everything for life that we need to live a perfect life. I would like to know should we stop with Bible and Books that are based on Bible, or may Christians read non-Bible based books that teach good things such as "The Power of positive thinking" etc. They seems harmless written by well known authors like Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale etc.

This is opinion only, but I'll throw my two cents in.  I'm also not going to add in supporting Bible verses as I'll stick to commonly accepted, cross-denominational concepts that any Christian should be familiar with.  (If comments ask for verses, I will come back and edit them in.)

Most of the self-help books that I've read personally are, in retrospect, based on very humanistic concepts, or the popular psychology of the day.    However, many of them contain very good ideas mixed in with the psychobabble.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing inherently wrong with reading self-help books, provided that you've got a solid foundation in Biblical doctrine, and are able to discern the good from the concepts that are anti-Biblical.

Many of these books have value, and follow along with Christian teachings.  Books on success often advocate following the golden rule - treating your peers, employees, customers, etc, as you'd like to be treated.  Or the teach the value of honesty, integrity, etc.  None of these are anti-Christian, and all are examples of how God would have us behave anyway.

The biggest pitfall that I an see with these books is that they can further the illusion among the unsaved that following the advice in the books makes them a "good person".  Of course, a person has to realize that he or she is lost before they can turn to the Savior for salvation.  We can all be better people, but we can never be good enough to earn our own salvation.  (If we could, the Cross would not have been necessary.)

Then there are the books that teach outright contradictions to the word of God.  Humanistic, or spiritual growth books that point to one new age theology or another.  Again, these can be dangerous for obvious reasons.  However, I still believe that someone with a grounding in doctrine with the gift of discernment can still read these books and use the knowledge for God's will. the people who fall for these lies need the Savior just as much as anyone else, and you can't refute something you don't know about.

As a parallel to this last once, many Christians study the beliefs of various cults and non-Christian religions in order to learn how to more effectively witness to those involved.  It helps to provide a common starting point.  Being aware of what's being taught in these "new-agey" books can be valuable for the same purpose.

The bottom line comes down to whether or not you're grounded enough in the Word to understand and discern the truth from the lie.


What does it mean to be clean in the context of the Old Law? In a large number of places, the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy mention cleanliness, saying that certain persons or things are clean or unclean. I won't mention any particular passage because I would like a general explanation of the idea.

What does it mean to be clean or unclean in the context of the Old Law?

(An answer might talk about modern practices similar to this "clean/unclean" distinction, or Christian tradition in general.)

My understanding of cleanliness vs uncleanliness had to do with ability to participate in Jewish religious ceremonies.  They were things which were not sinful, however when made unclean, would make one ineligible to participate in Holy ceremonies.  The level of purification needed also scaled with the closeness to God, with a very large amount of purification prior to a high priest entering the Holy of Hollies.  It is my understanding that this view does not differ greatly from traditional Jewish views of Levitical cleanliness.


What is the basis for believing that 40 lashes would be deadly (especially in Roman law or jurisprudence)? I have commonly heard that 40 lashes were thought to be deadly and thus 39 were issued. It seems as though neither 40 nor 39 lashes had anything to do with the deadliness of the punishment in Jewish law (see below). However, it is possible that deadliness was an issue in Roman law. It is claimed on a number of sites that this is the case (here, here, here, here, here). The problem is that I have yet to find any source to support these sketchy websites. Can anyone provide a trustworthy source to support the view that Romans believed that 40+ lashes would be deadly? Or that Roman law maximized flogging to be 40 or 39 lashes? (Ideally a primary/contemporary source or a more academic secondary source rather than a random blog).
Flogging in Jewish Law
Deuteronomy restricts lashes to be no more than 40

"but the judge must not impose more than forty lashes. If the guilty party is flogged more than that, your fellow Israelite will be degraded in your eyes." (Deut. 25:3 NIV)

The worry here for going above forty lashes is that "your fellow Israelite will be degraded in your eyes." It is about perception of the person in their brothers' eyes, not their physical degradation, as supporting by surveying various translations and commentaries. The idea being that one flogged 40+ times would be seen as a beast or animal or lesser rather than a treasured fellow human being.
As is typical in Rabbinic Judaism, they "built a fence around the Torah" by making the law be more strict than required in the Torah in order to ensure that they do not break the commandment. In this case, they made the maximum number of lashes be 39 to ensure that 40 would absolutely never be broken. Thus, the Talmud states

"How many lashes is he given? Forty less one" (Mishnah Makkot 3:10-11, Talmud Makkot 22a)

Now, that helps perfectly explain where Paul says that

"Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one." (2 Cor. 11:24, NIV)

So, the 39 lashes was the common punishment in Jewish law (See an extended discussion here). Paul was subjected to Jewish jurisprudence when he faced 39 lashes. Jesus, on the other hand, was subjected to Roman law under Pilate, not Jewish law. He did undergo additional trial in the Sanhedrin, but his flogging was under Pilate and the Romans (Mark 15:15, Matthew 27:26, John 19:1). Also, see Got Questions' Did the Romans give Jesus 39 lashes?
Back to the Question
I have yet to find any proof of any limit to the number of lashes that a Roman could or would place on a criminal, nor any mention of a limit being because of a concern for its deadliness. A paper published in JAMA, "On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ", states

"It is not known whether the number of lashes was limited to 39, in accordance with Jewish law." (citing "The legal and medical aspects of the trial and death of Christ" published in 1970).

I have also heard that Romans have killed people from scourging alone, which seems as though goes against this idea too. However, they could have had different legal practices for a crucifixion victim. Can anyone provide a trustworthy source to support the view that Romans believed that 40+ lashes would be deadly? Or that Roman law limited flogging to be 40 or 39 lashes?

What is the basis for believing that 40 lashes would be deadly (especially in Roman law or jurisprudence)?

This is a false assumption!

For one thing, the Romans were not limited in the number of strokes they could mete out.

True some died under the sentence of flagellation, but historians generally do not give the number of strokes applied.

  In the Roman Empire, flagellation was often used as a prelude to crucifixion, and in this context is sometimes referred to as scourging. Most famously according to the gospel accounts, this occurred prior to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

  Whips with small pieces of metal or bone at the tips were commonly used. Such a device could easily cause disfigurement and serious trauma, such as ripping pieces of flesh from the body or loss of an eye. In addition to causing severe pain, the victim would approach a state of hypovolemic shock due to loss of blood.

  The Romans reserved this treatment for non-citizens, as stated in the lex Porcia and lex Sempronia, dating from 195 and 123 BC. The poet Horace refers to the horribile flagellum (horrible whip) in his Satires. Typically, the one to be punished was stripped naked and bound to a low pillar so that he could bend over it, or chained to an upright pillar so as to be stretched out. Two lictors (some reports indicate scourgings with four or six lictors) alternated blows from the bare shoulders down the body to the soles of the feet. There was no limit to the number of blows inflicted—this was left to the lictors to decide, though they were normally not supposed to kill the victim. Nonetheless, Livy, Suetonius and Josephus report cases of flagellation where victims died while still bound to the post. Flagellation was referred to as "half death" by some authors, as many victims died shortly thereafter. Cicero reports in In Verrem, "pro mortuo sublatus brevi postea mortuus" ("taken away for a dead man, shortly thereafter he was dead"). - Flagellation (Wikipedia)

The floggings used by Romans were by far more sever than the ones used by the Jewish people in ancient times. It wasn't uncommon for the victims of the Roman scourge to die from the ensuing blood loss and/or shock (See: here). The Centurion in charge would order the "lictors" to halt the flogging when the criminal was near death.

  Scourging, called verberatio by the Romans, was possibly the worst kind of flogging administered by ancient courts. While the Jews administered whippings in the synagogues for certain offenses, these were mild in comparison to scourging. Scourging was not normally a form of execution, but it certainly was brutal enough to be fatal in many cases. A person certainly could be beaten to death by the scourge if that was desired. Its purpose was not only to cause great pain, but to humiliate as well. To scourge a man was to beat him worse than one would beat a stupid animal. It was belittling, debasing, and demeaning. It was considered such a degrading form of punishment that, according to the Porcian (248 B.C.) and Sempronian (123 B.C.) laws, Roman citizens were exempt from it. It was, therefore, the punishment appropriate only for slaves and non-Romans, those who were viewed as the lesser elements in Roman society. To make it as humiliating as possible, scourging was carried out in public.

  The instrument used to deliver this form of punishment was called in Latin a flagellum or a flagrum. This was much different from the bull whip that is more common in our culture. It was instead more like the old British cat o’ nine tails, except that the flagellum was not designed merely to bruise or leave welts on the victim. The flagellum was a whip with several (at least three) thongs or strands, each perhaps as much as three feet long, and the strands were weighted with lead balls or pieces of bone. This instrument was designed to lacerate. The weighed thongs struck the skin so violently that it broke open. The church historian Eusebius of Caesarea recounts with vivid, horrible detail a scene of scourging. He says, “For they say that the bystanders were struck with amazement when they saw them lacerated with scourges even to the innermost veins and arteries, so that the hidden inward parts of the body, both their bowels and their members, were exposed to view” (Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, chap. 15).

  The victim of a scourging was bound to a post or frame, stripped of his clothing, and beaten with the flagellum from the shoulders to the loins. The beating left the victim bloody and weak, in unimaginable pain, and near the point of death. It is no doubt that weakness from his scourging was largely the reason Jesus was unable to carry his cross all the way to Golgotha (Matt. 27:32 and parallels).

  As noted above, the beating administered by synagogues was not nearly as drastic as a Roman scourging. First, the instrument used in the synagogues was a lighter whip and was not weighted with metal or bone. Second, according to the tradition recorded in the Mishnah (tractate Makkot), the judges would determine if the victim could survive the full measure of the beating required by the law (forty lashes). If he could not, the number of lashes was reduced. Third, the Law of Moses limited whippings to forty lashes (Deut. 25:3), which was a provision to prevent excessive humiliation. The Jews usually stopped at thirty-nine (lest they counted wrong and violated the law by giving more than forty; cf. Paul’s reference to “thirty-nine stripes” in 2 Cor. 11:24). Scourging, however, was much more traumatic, even to the point of being fatal. The flagellum was a much more torturous instrument, the lashes were delivered without any compassion or consideration for the victim’s health, and Roman law imposed no limit to the number of lashes inflicted at scourging. Roman law mandated scourging as part of capital sentences, but this probably had the effect of shortening the victim’s agony once on the cross. The victim would have been so weak from blood loss and pain that he would die more quickly than if he had not been scourged. This seems to have been the case with Jesus (although the scourging was probably not the only thing that caused him to die relatively quickly). - The Scourging of Jesus

Taking the above into consideration, we can see that Hebrew Law something quite different in how they dealt with criminal behaviour.

Not only had the ancient Hebrews had a mild form of whipping people, they also limited the number of strokes to 40. And later it was reduced to 39 in order to avoid giving more than 40 lashes by accident.

The Romans used a number of differ whips, when they chastised someone. Generally speaking the type of instrument used depended on the offence committed.

  Judges among the Romans, as has been just now mentioned, used a great variety of instruments for inflicting the punishment of whipping. Some consisted of a flat strap of leather, and were called Ferulae; and to be lashed with these Ferulæ, was considered as the mildest degree of punishment. Others were made of a number of cords of twisted parchment, and were called Scuticæ. These Scuticæ were considered as being a degree higher in point of severity than the Ferulæ, but were much inferior in that respect, to that kind of scourge which was called Flagellum, and sometimes the Terrible Flagellum, which was made of thongs of ox-leather, the same as carmen used for their horses. We find in the third satire of the first book of Horace, a clear and pretty singular account of the gradation in point of severity that obtained between the above-mentioned instruments of whipping. In this satire, Horace lays down 11 the rules which he thinks a judge ought to follow in the discharge of his office; and he addresses himself, somewhat ironically, to certain persons who, adopting the principles of the Stoics, affected much severity in their opinions, and pretended that all crimes whatever being equal, ought to be punished in the same manner. “Make such a rule of conduct to yourself (says Horace) that you may always proportion the chastisement you inflict to the magnitude of the offence; and when the offender only deserves to be chastised with the whip of twisted parchment, do not expose him to the lash of the horrid leather scourge, for that you should only inflict the punishment of the flat strap on him who deserves a more severe lashing, is what I am by no means afraid of.” - History of Flagellation

Flogging for the Jews was a discipline measures in order to correct their fellow Israelite. One was encumbered to discipline their fellow man and not to degrade him into an animal, to maim him or to take his life! They probably used some form of reed, just as the ancient Chinese used bamboo for the purpose of flagellation.

The Jews never used the Roman Flagellum as a instrument of torture, for in was without doubt reserved for extreme cases of criminal discipline, usually involving execution.

  Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee. - Deuteronomy 25:3 (KJV)

Although Scriptures tell us that Moses limited the Number of lashes to 40. The number often was reduced to 39.

  According to the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:1-3) and Rabbinic law lashes may be given for offenses that do not merit capital punishment, and may not exceed 40. However, in the absence of a Sanhedrin, corporal punishment is not practiced in Jewish law. Halakha specifies the lashes must be given in sets of three, so the total number cannot exceed 39. Also, the person whipped is first judged whether they can withstand the punishment, if not, the number of whips is decreased. Jewish law limited flagellation to forty strokes, and in practice delivered thirty-nine, so as to avoid any possibility of breaking this law due to a miscount.

In Talmudic Law the number was reduced by one in case of miscounting.

  Talmudic law not only made detailed provision for the manner in which floggings were to be carried out, but also altered the concept of the biblical punishment; the maximum of 40 lashes was reduced to 39 (Mak. 22a), so as to avoid the danger of exceeding 40 even by mistake; and the offenses which carried the punishment of flogging were exactly defined, depriving it of its character as a residuary and omnibus punishment. The number of 39 lashes became the standard rather than the maximum number; but in order to prevent death by flogging – which would amount to a violation of the biblical injunction of "not more" than flogging – the person to be flogged was first physically examined in order to determine the number of lashes that could safely be administered to him (Mak. 3:11). Where, as a result of such examination, less than 39 lashes were administered, and it then turned out that the offender could well bear more, the previous estimate would be allowed to stand and the offender discharged (Maim. Yad, Sanhedrin 17:2). But the offender would also be discharged where physical symptoms manifested themselves during the course of the flogging, so that he would not be able to stand any more lashes, even though on previous examination he had been found fit to stand more (ibid. 17:5). It also happened that as a result of such examination, floggings were postponed for another day or later, until the offender was fit to undergo them (ibid. 17:3).

Roman Falgrum

  Torture Methods

  Written evidence from the time of Jesus reveals that torture was not only carried out but actually regulated under the Roman state. A stone inscription found in the modern Italian town of Pozzuoli (ancient Puteoli), dating to the first century C.E., details regulations for the hiring of people to torture or execute slaves, whether by court order or in response to an owner’s request:

    [Members of t]he workforce which shall be provided for ... inflicting punishment ... None of them is to be over fifty years of age or under twenty, nor have any sores, be one-eyed, maimed, lame, blind, or branded. The contractor is to have no fewer than thirty-two operatives.

    If anyone wishes to have a slave – male or female – punished privately, he who wishes to have the punishment inflicted shall do so as follows. If he wants to put the slave on the cross or fork, the contractor must supply the posts, chains, ropes for flog- gers, and the floggers themselves. ... The magistrate shall give orders for such punish- ments as he exacts in his public capacity, and when orders are given (the contractor) is to be ready to exact the punishment. He is to set up crosses and supply without charge nails, pitch, wax, tapers, and anything else that is necessary for this in order to deal with the condemned man ...(The Roman World: A Sourcebook, David Cherry, editor, Blackwell Publishers 2001, pp. 26-27; text translation from J. F. Gardiner and T. Wiedemann, The Roman Household: A Sourcebook, London 1991, pp. 24-26).

The linked video in the article states that according to the Shroud of Turin, the man in the image received over 120 lashes.

The following article(s) May be of interest:

Scourging and Crucifixion In Roman Tradition
The Roman Scourge


Is there a name for The God Who Hears? I was wondering if there is a name meaning God Who Hears me.

El Roi speaks of The God Who Sees me.  From Genesis 16:13 (ESV):

13 So she called the name of the LORD [El-Roi] who spoke to her, "You are a God of seeing," for she said, "Truly here I have seen him who looks after me."

Googling God Who Hears turned up one site that (incorrectly?) said Jehovah-Shammah (usually translated The Lord Who Is Present or The Lord Is There) meant God Who Hears me.  Their given verse was Psalm 17:6 (ESV):

6 I call upon you, for you will answer me, O God; incline your ear to me; hear [shama`] my words.

I don't know Hebrew at all, but checking Strong's online out of curiosity, [shama`] and [shammah] seem (to me) to be unrelated words.

Does anyone know of a name that meant God Who Hears me?

You are close: 'El Shama is what you are looking for.  Shama means "to hear" (Strong's) and is found in Psalm 17:6, as you mention.  Furthermore, the name Ishmael is derived from these two words:

  And the angel of the Lord said to her, “Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son.
  You shall call his name Ishmael, because the Lord has listened to your affliction. (Genesis 16:11 (ESV))

The ESV note specifically says, "Ishmael means God hears," and so does Strong's Concordance.

There's also the name "Elishama," meaning "God has heard," which belongs to several Israelites listed in the genealogies of the OT (e.g., Numbers 1:10 and 1 Chronicles 2:41).

The "Shammah" rendering you saw may be due to the pronunciation; Strong's gives the phonetic spelling of Shama as "shaw-mah."


When was the festival of the see of Peter in the 6th Century? I've been researching the Decrees of the second Council of Tours (AD 567), specifically Canon XXI:

  Some still hold fast the old error, that they should honour the 1st of January. Others, on the festival of the See of Peter, present
  meat offerings to the dead, and partake of meats which have been
  offered to demons. Others reverence certain rocks, or trees, or
  fountains, etc. The priests should root out these heathenish
  superstitions. (1)

I understand the 1st of January to have been when Consuls entered office and citizens would renew vows, make offerings to chief deities such as Jupiter and Juno, and take auspice.

But when was the festival of the see of Peter in the 6th Century?

Does it correspond to the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul or some other feast in honor of St. Peter?

Personally, I'm not familiar with the calendrical history and the changes the calendar went through.

(1) A History Of The Councils Of The Church Volumes 1 to 5 by Charles Joseph Hefele D.D. Chapter I, The synods until the end of the sixth century.

When was the festival of the See of Peter in the 6th Century?

It would seem that the festival in question would be the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter. But the date of this feast was January 18 and not February 22, as noted in Sempaiscuba's answer on the History SE site.

In the modern liturgy of the Roman Rite, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter is the 22nd of February. But prior to 1969, this feast was in fact on January the 18th. Wikipedia backs this up.

  In the Roman Rite, the feast of the Chair of Saint Peter is celebrated on 22 February.

  Before Pope John XXIII's revision in 1960, the Roman Calendar also included on 18 January another feast of the Chair of Saint Peter (denominated the Chair of Saint Peter in Rome, while the February feast was then called that of the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch).

The Catholic Encyclopedia is still clearer:

  From the earliest times the Church at Rome celebrated on 18 January the memory of the day when the Apostle held his first service with the faithful of the Eternal City. According to Duchesne and de Rossi, the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" (Weissenburg manuscript) reads as follows: "XV KL. FEBO. Dedicatio cathedræ sci petri apostoli qua primo Rome petrus apostolus sedit" (fifteenth day before the calends of February, the dedication of the Chair of St. Peter the Apostle in which Peter the Apostle first sat at Rome). The Epternach manuscript (Codex Epternacensis) of the same work, says briefly: "cath. petri in roma" (the Chair of Peter in Rome).

  In its present (ninth-century) form the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" gives a second feast of the Chair of St. Peter for 22 February, but all the manuscripts assign it to Antioch, not to Rome. Thus the oldest manuscript, that of Berne, says: "VIII kal. mar. cathedræ sci petri apostoli qua sedit apud antiochiam". The Weissenburg manuscript says: "Natl [natale] sci petri apostoli cathedræ qua sedit apud antiocia." However, the words qua sedit apud antiochiam are seen at once to be a later addition. Both feasts are Roman; indeed, that of 22 February was originally the more important. This is clear from the Calendar of Philocalus drawn up in the year 354, and going back to the year 311; it makes no mention of the January feast but speaks thus of 22 February: "VIII Kl. Martias: natale Petri de cathedra" (eighth day before the Calends of March, the birthday [i.e. feast] of the Chair of Peter). It was not until after the insertion of Antioch in the copies of the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" that the feast of February gave way in importance to that of January. The Roman Church, therefore, at an early date celebrated a first and a second assumption of the episcopal office in Rome by St. Peter. - Chair of Peter

The Church of St. Peter of Antakya (Antioch) is locally believed to be the Church founded by the apostle St. Peter. This is the first see founded by this Prince of Apostles. With the reform of the liturgical calendar, the feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Rome is celebrated on February 22. The feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch was suppressed. Notwithstanding this fact, the local church at Antioch celebrates its' own particular Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch nowadays on February 21st instead of February 22nd.

Facade of the Church of St. Peter, originally built ca. 1100 by Crusaders and rebuilt in the 19th century


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

I can't understand how one can conclude that a single star is pointing at a specific location. Even if I draw some lines by joining some stars, I don't think I can point at a specific location on earth. Even if I think that it points to a particular place, when I reached that place, the same line will point again somewhere ahead from that location.

The wise men were from the east, indicating that they were not Jews, I presume. They simply saw an unusual star and are able to calculate or know that a new king of the Jews is born in Israel. From the appearance of the star, I believe it is possible to conclude that a new king is born, provided the observer truly believe in star signs. However, I still can't understand how the star provided some clue where the new born king is. Moreover, the wise men were very specific when they asked king Herod. They said "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews?".

Why did the wise men stop at Jerusalem and asked "Where is the king of the Jews"? They could have gone up to Egypt or Greece, or even further. From their question, it sounds like they were searching in Israel only. It appears as though they knew that the king was born in Israel and hence they went straight to Jerusalem, the city of the king of Israel.

How did the Magi know the country where the new king was born by simply looking at a distant star in the sky?

I think what you're looking for is detailed in Matthew 2:1-12:

  After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.’

  When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Messiah was to be born. ‘In Bethlehem in Judea,’ they replied, ‘for this is what the prophet has written:

  ‘“But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
      are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
  for out of you will come a ruler
      who will shepherd my people Israel.”’

  Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, ‘Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.’

  After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshipped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

So, they headed first West (because of the sign of the star), then to the capital of the country they found themselves (Jerusalem), then zoomed in further by heading for Bethlehem (on the advice of Herod's staff) and finally to the exact house, because the star was above it.

(Perhaps they should simply have followed the star all the way, instead of detouring via Jerusalem?)


What is the name of a film about three brothers saying the Jesus prayer? I recently learned about a short film featuring three brothers who live on an island. They are (Russian?) Orthodox Christians and practice the Jesus prayer. Eventually, word of their holiness spreads and they are visited by some clergy. Does anyone know the name of this short film?

Found it!

From:

What is Augustine's original of Tolstoy's "Three Hermits" story?


Who told Cain and Abel of Sacrificial rituals or offerings? In Genesis 4 Cain and Abel gave offerings (or sacrifice). Who instructed them to give this offering or sacrifice? Was it a burnt offering?

The Church Fathers tell us that the idea of offering sacrifice to God was placed in the conscience of man from the beginning:

  In the course of time Cain brought an offering of the fruits of the earth to the Lord

  Consider how the Lord of nature added knowledge to conscience.  After
  all, who brought this to our understanding?  It was none other than
  knowledge associated with our conscience.  The text says, He brought
  an offering of the fruits of the earth to the Lord [Genesis 4:3].  He knew and
  understood that he should offer from his own possessions some produce
  to God as to his master, not because God needs them, but for the
  purpose of demonstrating his gratitude as being himself a beneficiary
  of such kindness.  God, you see, is proof against need, and depends on
  nothing we have to offer; but in his ineffable love he shows
  considerateness for us, and for the sake of our salvation he allows
  these things to happen so that the knowledge of the Lord may be for
  the human race a school of virtue.

  John Chrysostom (4th c.), Homilies on Genesis, Homily XVIII