Do Christians who view homosexuality as a sin believe that homosexuals can be freed from their sinful condition by the power of God? It should be common sense knowledge that many Christians condemn homosexuality as a sin. The following already asked questions should be more than enough to prove the point:

Why do some Christians believe it is moral to be a homosexual?
What is the Biblical argument that homosexual attraction is sinful by itself?
What is a Christian's justification for a legal prohibition of homosexual marriage?

That said, I'm not sure if I've ever heard Christians who claim that homosexuality is a sin also claim that homosexuals can be freed from their (claimed) sinful condition. Logic tells me that they should expect this to be the case, in light of passages such as:
Romans 8:12-17 (ESV):

12 So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. 15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

Galatians 5:16-24 (ESV):

16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21 envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

If homosexuality is a sinful desire of the flesh, as many Christians believe, does this mean that homosexuality, as any other sin, can be reversed by the power of God, through the Holy Spirit, as the passages above seem to indicate? Is this the standard view among Christians who condemn homosexuality as a sin?
An alternative way of phrasing the question: Can God heal homosexuality (according to those who view homosexuality as a sin)?

Jesus gave the only example of unforgivable sin : the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Therefore if a self-confessed Christian defines anything else (other than that specific blasphemy) as 'sin' they automatically define that behaviour, conduct or activity as 'forgivable', by very definition.
But then they also define it as something not to be continued in , for 'he that is born of God does not practice sin'.
This is all a matter, of course, of those who (primarily) define themselves as 'Christian' and who also (secondly) define (any specific) activity as 'sin'.

All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme, But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: [Mark 3:27,28 KJV]

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit [or, practice] sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. [1 John 3:9 KJV]

The question is asking about what is being defined as a 'desire' which is specifically dealt with in scripture, such as in Romans chapter 7.
But the specifics of Romans 7 require further treatment and further questions.
For 'desire' is not an outward action but an inward (and constitutional) instinct. Which Paul covers under the broad heading of 'coveting'.
In this respect it would have been more logical to have (first) asked the question as to whether self-identifying Christians perceive that 'sinful desires', generally (and indiscriminately) speaking, are 'reversed' by the influences of the Divine Spirit who is, personally, Holy.
Such as coveting other people's money, for example, something common to all humanity.


Is there a denomination which espouses hard-determinism? "all things are in His hand" John 3v35 yet the churches I have met seem to agree that human behaviour is not in His hand. So is there a part of the church which applies this without compromise?
  As I am a Christian and a divine/hard determinist I reject man as the first cause of man's behaviour. For me there is only One first cause, see Romans 11v36 "of Him.. all things" and Rev 21v6 one "Alpha.. Beginning". The focus of this question is not to justify such thinking, but to inquire if there is an organised group [denomination] with similar thinking in this diverse world.

John 3:35 says that God has placed everything in the hands of his Son.    After his resurrection and before Jesus ascended into heaven to return to his Father, Jesus said that all authority in heaven and on earth had been given to him (Matthew 28:18).  If these verses prove that human behaviour is also in the hands of Jesus, or that he controls human behaviour, then we must all be robots, incapable of exercising any form of free will.  Those verses do not support “hard determinism.”

  “Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist.”  Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_determinism

After spending a considerable amount of time looking for any denomination that supports “hard determinism” I drew a blank.  However, I am aware that a few Protestants support a form of hyper-Calvinism:

  “Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that God saves the elect through His sovereign will with little or no use of the methods of bringing about salvation (such as evangelism, preaching, and prayer for the lost). To an unbiblical fault, the hyper-Calvinist over-emphasizes God's sovereignty and under-emphasizes man's responsibility in the work of salvation... The gospel of the hyper-Calvinist is a declaration of God's salvation of the elect and His damnation of the lost... Hyper-Calvinism takes a biblical doctrine, God’s sovereignty, and pushes it to an unbiblical extreme. In doing so, the hyper-Calvinist downplays the love of God and the necessity of evangelism.”  Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/hyper-calvinism.html

Please be aware that hyper-Calvinists are not a denomination, and that very few Christians take this radical position with regard to election and free will.


Did Mosaic covenants follow Ancient Near East Suzerain Treaties or was it the other way around? I often heard theologians said that Mosaic covenant followed the structure of Ancient Near East (ANE) treaties that were there in Moses' time. For example, here is the view of Meredith Kline: Suzerain Treaties & The Covenant Documents the Bible.

Why do some theologians argue that the Mosaic covenant follows ANE treaties?

I'm rather inclined to think otherwise that ANE treaties were derived from Noahic covenant and Mosaic covenant followed the pattern of previous biblical covenants (Adamic, Abrahamaic, Noahic). The reason is as follows. All human in ANE region (if not the whole world) were derived from Noah (Gen. 9:19) and his sons because of the Great Flood. Right after the flood, God made a covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:1-17). After the covenant, the Scripture recounts the descendants of Noah's sons (Gen. 10). The knowledge of the covenant was passed down through them, even until Moses' time, who then wrote everything down. We also see that Laban and Jacob made a covenant. Jacob swore by YHWH., but Laban swore not by YHWH, but rather by the god of Nahor.  So, the concept of covenant lingers in both believers and unbelievers.

Hence, I would rather believe that ANE people had an understanding of a covenant (or treaty) from the covenant of Noah. Also, God who had previously made covenants with Adam, Abraham, and Noah followed the same pattern when He made another covenant with Moses.

What are some evidences against my argument?

Thank you.

A covenant is simply a binding agreement or treaty.  A suzerain covenant is a covenant between a sovereign king (suzerain), in effect an emperor, and a vassal king and thus with the vassal nation. The terms of such covenants are decided by the suzerain king, they are not negotiated between the two kings.

One of main issues of discussion amongst archaeologists (not theologians) is not where suzerain covenants per se orginated, but which covenant forms the covenants of the Pentateuch
are most similar to in structure.

So in the blue corner we have Professor Kenneth Kitchen with a lot about the different covenant forms over the centuries in the Ancient Near East (ANE).  In the red corner we have Dr Bryant Wood.

Both take the Bible seriously, both believe the Exodus actually happened, and both argue that the Pentateuch was written before 1200 BC: both are emphatic that the Pentateuch could not have been written after this date, and the match of covenant structure in the Pentateuch with covenants before 1200 BC is yet another piece of strong evidence against a late writing of the books.  This is what the evidence of the covenant forms from the Pentateuch compared to the covenant forms of the surrounding nations is telling them: and this is why the seeking of a match with the covenant forms of the surrounding nations is so valuable.

However, Kenneth Kitchen believes the Exodus happened about 1260 BC (Late Exodus) and Bryant Wood believes the Exodus happened 1446 BC (Early Exodus).  And the date of the Exodus obviously affects the date of the writing of the books of and by Moses.

Kenneth Kitchen gives a large amount of information about the changes to the suzerain covenant forms of the surrounding nations (during the era of the empires of those nations, such as the Hittite Empire, when they were producing Suzerain/Vassal covenants) in his book "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".  Since we know when those empires existed if we can see a distinct match between the Pentateuch covenants and those S/V covenants of other nations then a date can be placed on the writing of the Pent.  He then claims the best match of covenant puts the composition of the Pentateuch in the 13th century BC.

Bryant Wood claims that Professor Kitchen has been selective in his examination of the covenants in the Pentateuch and has resorted to a bit of special pleading.  Bryant Wood also counterclaims that the existence of oaths in the pentateuchal covenants place them in the 1600 to 1400 BC period.

Unfortuately I cannot give an article by Kenneth Kitchen on the issue since my source is his book "On the Reliability of the Old Testament".  Personally I think his date of the Exodus of about 1260 BC is wrong: he assumes that 1 Kings 6:1 is not to be taken literally, and this is a big mistake, in my opinion, but his book is still full of very valuable information for lovers of Scripture.

An article by Bryant Wood which touches on this subject can be found here:-

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/conquest-of-canaan/2579-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-13th-century-exodusconquest-theory?highlight=WyJraXRjaGVuIiwia2l0Y2hlbidzIl0=


How should other churches respond to a  pastor and congregation who live contrary to the Gospel? The news recently had a case of a pastor and two deacons who beat up the pastor's nephew and the nephew's boyfriend on church property in order to prevent the homosexual couple from entering. This pastor may or may not preach love (we're not told) but his actions demonstrate that hatred is what is in his heart. According my understanding of Matthew 18:16-20,  church members should now approach this minister, and the deacons, and probably ask them to leave. If the church doesn't do that, then it would imply the members agree with this pastor.

Besides the several NT verses from Jesus about loving others, here is one from the same OT book often quoted to attack homosexuality:

  Leviticus 19:18: Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

It would appear that this pastor may be case study for this principle:

  Matthew 7:15: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.”

It would seem that churches like this are damaging the body of Christ, as this minister will attract people that want to feel righteous about hatred toward others. Like a poison, it continues to spread to the world-wide church. Unfortunately this is not an isolated phenomena, but in many countries we can find examples where ministers are preaching and practicing such hatred, and so the members act on this, in the name of Christ.

Given the damaging/contrary witness this provides for the Gospel of love we claim to represent and...
Given the no-action tacit approval this church has shown towards the actions of it's leaders and...
Since we are all brothers and sisters in Christ and thus one Church under God...

Should all the members of this church be treated as we would treat tax collectors or lepers (ostracized)? Can/should church discipline be extended to an entire church by the larger body of Christ?

In the words of Jesus:

  Matthew 18:15-17 (NIV)
  15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

So, if they won't listen to your reproach, just treat them like any other pagan:

That is, pray for them and love them like you love everyone else.

  Matthew 5:43-48 (NIV)
  43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.


Is it true that early Christians were baptised naked? I was told that people were baptised naked in the early Christian church. Is this true? If so, could you provide references please?

Quick answer: Yes, nude baptism was practiced in Ancient times.

From A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities p 160 ed W Smith & S Cheetam (1875)

  A comparison of all the evidence leads to the conclusion that the catechumens entered the font in a state of absolute nakedness. See particularly St Cyril, Hieros. Myst. Catech. ii ad init; St Ambrose, Serm. xx (Opp. t.v. p. 153, Paris 1642)and Enarrat. in Ps lxi 32 (BB t.i.p. 966); St Chrysostom, ad Illum. Cat. i (Migne, tom. ii. p 268). Possibly a cincture of some kind (quo pudori consuleretur) may have been worn, as indicated in some medieval works of art.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century)

  Therefore, I shall necessarily lay before you the sequel of yesterday's Lecture, that ye may learn of what those things, which were done by you in the inner chamber(2), were symbolical. 2. As soon, then, as ye entered, ye put off your tunic; and this was an image of putting off the old man with his deeds(3). Having stripped yourselves, ye were naked; in this also imitating Christ, who was stripped naked on the Cross, and by His nakedness put off from Himself the principalities and powers, and openly triumphed over them on the tree(4). For since the adverse powers made their lair in your members, ye may no longer wear that old garment; I do not at all mean this visible one, but the old man, which waxeth corrupt in the lusts of deceit(5). May the soul which has once put him off, never again put him on, but say with the Spouse of Christ in the Song of Songs, I have put off my garment, how shall I put it on(6)? O wondrous thing! ye were naked in the sight of all, and were not ashamed(7); for truly ye bore the likeness of the first-formed Adam, who was naked in the garden, and was not ashamed. 3. Then, when ye were stripped, ye were anointed with exorcised oil(8), from the very hairs of your head to your feet, and were made partakers of the good olive-tree, Jesus Christ. For ye were cut off from the wild olive-tree(9), and grafted into the good one, and were made to share the fatness of the true olive-tree.

Bishop Hippolytus of Rome:

  21 1 At the hour in which the cock crows, they shall first pray over the water. 2 When  they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring  or a flowing body of water. 3 Then they shall take off all their clothes.The children shall be baptized first. All of the children who can answer for themselves, let them answer. If there are any children who cannot answer for themselves, let their parents answer for them, or  someone else from their family. 5 After this, the men will be baptized. Finally, the women, after they have unbound their hair, and removed their jewelry. No one shall take any  foreign object with themselves down into the water.
  ...

  9 When the elder takes hold of each of them who are to receive baptism, he shall tell each  of them to renounce, saying, "I renounce you Satan, all your service, and all your works."  10 After he has said this, he shall anoint each with the Oil of Exorcism, saying, "Let every  evil spirit depart from you." 11 Then, after these things, the bishop passes each of them on  nude to the elder who stands at the water. They shall stand in the water naked. A deacon,  likewise, will go down with them into the water. (Hippolytus. "Apostolic Traditions" of Hippolytus, 21:1-11. Translated by Edgecomb, Kevin P. Derived from Bernard Botte (La Tradition Apostolique. Sources Chretiennes, 11 bis. Paris, Editions du Cerf, 1984) and of Gregory Dix (The Treatise on the  Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus of Rome, Bishop and Martyr. London: Alban Press, 1992)

My understanding from seminary was that, for modesty, women were baptised in darkness. Eventually, for the same reason, the practice fell out of favor.


Miracles of the Bible versus the Qur'an A skeptic said it is intellectually dishonest for me to believe in miracles in the Bible but not in the Qur'an. Is it?

What are some Biblical basis for not believing in every miracle, or that every miracle is from God?

The magicians of Pharaoh performed miracles, copying Moses' works when Moses was sent to Egypt to deliver Israel.

  And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said. Exodus 7:22 [KJV]

Jesus warns that :

  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many miracles (δυναμεις) ? Matthew 7:22 [KJV]

But he shall say to them :

  I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:23 [KJV]

Paul also says :

  though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. I Corinthians 13:2. [KJV]

It is prophesied in the Apocalypse that in the last days that which is termed the second beast and the false prophet works miracles on earth in order to encourage worship towards an entity other than God :

  And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. Revelation 13:12,13 [KJV]

So, not every miracle is of God.


Is it possible to be a good Christian and be psychic at the same time? I've seen many conflicting biblical statements that have been interpreted as condemning psychics and others that promote using "gifts from God". How can a psychic reconcile such a gift without conflicting with biblical teachings?

For that matter, if one is psychic, how can you tell if it's a gift from God or somewhere else?

It depends what you mean by "psychic."  Do you mean a prophet - someone who sees the future just kinda unprovoked, as in "I had a dream that the plane would crash and it did?" Or do you mean a fortuneteller, as in crystal balls/Tarot cards? Or do you mean having other psychic kinds of powers like telekinesis or others? Those are three fundamentally different things, Biblically.

Small Medium At Large

The Bible is extremely against spiritists.  Here's a collection of verses about mediums, necromancers, sorcerers, etc. Probably most to the point:

  “A man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put
  to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon
  them.”
  Leviticus 20:27 (ESV)

This is because they are seeking answers not from God, but from other supernatural beings.  This is one of those basic "Ten Commandment no-no's."

The Prophecy, Starring Christopher Walken

A prophet is different. God has told them to go do something and/or carry some message to someone. They are sometimes (but less commonly) told of (e.g. Abraham re: Sodom)/granted visions of (e.g. Revelation) the future by God. Those who are posing as prophets but aren't (lying, or getting it from somewhere naughtier but in God's name) are false prophets. Needless to say, discerning between the two is a big deal in Scripture.

Ego Whip

What about a more sci-fi psychic, like Stephen King's Carrie or Firestarter?  Well, not that telepathy/telekinesis/etc. have been shown to exist, but if they do, I imagine Christian opinion would be split since it's not really spoken to in the Bible. If it was simply some physiological/scientific process, then it would be fine, or at least morally neutral, no different from being good at math. If it were truly supernatural power, then the question would become what its source is, and is that source good or evil from a Biblical perspective.


Protestant denominations that reject solas? Historically, the five Solae have been a divider between Catholic and Protestant theologies. Yet, I can't help but notice that most denominations do not believe in the "alone" taken in its fullest sense. For example, The Methodist church does not believe in sola scriptura, but instead prima scriptura.  Are there other Protestant denominations which reject some or all of the solae?

You're correct that Methodist don't accept sola scriptura, but instead prima scriptura. Not only that, they also reject sola fide. That is because they teach synergism. Now, I do know some Pentecostals also hold to synergism, and therefore reject sola fide. Also, if you consider Anglicanism to be Protestant (which most don't, but they are related) there are multiple opinions among them. They're seperated between high church, broad church and low church. Each tradition gets either more Protestant or Catholic in its theology. Now, rejecting all the solas would probably disqualify you as a Christian; sola gratia (grace alone) is something all Christian denominations teach regardless if they are Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthdox, etc. Ultimatly, with the 40,000 different kinds of Protestants out there, it can get really diverse.


What is the original explanation Christian Scholars gave for Jewish prophecies not being fulfilled? What is the original explanation Christian Scholars gave for these Jewish prophecies not being fulfilled?

  A. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

  B. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

  C. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression,
  suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword
  against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

  D. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite
  humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on
  that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). cite

This question of two advents or not has been raised for near 2,000 years.  Here are some original thoughts from scholars of the first 200 years from Christ's first advent.

Clement of Rome likened the second coming to the necessity of a maturing fruit tree.

  These things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us.”Ye foolish ones! compare yourselves to a tree: take [for instance] the vine. First of all, it sheds its leaves, then it buds, next it puts forth leaves, and then it flowers; after that comes the sour grape, and then follows the ripened fruit. Ye perceive how in a little time the fruit of a tree comes to maturity. Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, “Speedily will He come, and will not tarry;” and, “The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for whom ye look.”
  Clement of Rome

Justin Martyr explains it this way.

  And then, they [doubters of two comings of Messiah] say, the events mentioned in this passage shall happen, just as if there was no fruit as yet from the words of the prophecy. O unreasoning men! understanding not what has been proved by all these passages, that two advents of Christ have been announced: the one, in which He is set forth as suffering, inglorious, dishonoured, and crucified; but the other, in which He shall come from heaven with glory, when the man of apostasy, who speaks strange things against the Most High, shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians,
  Justin Martyr

And the same explained it this way.

  “If the prophets had not ceased, so that there were no more in your nation, Trypho, after this John, it is evident that what I say in reference to Jesus Christ might be regarded perhaps as ambiguous. But if John came first calling on men to repent, and Christ, while [John] still sat by the river Jordan, having come, put an end to his prophesying and baptizing, and preached also Himself, saying that the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and that He must suffer many things from the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again, and would appear again in Jerusalem, and would again eat and drink with His disciples; and foretold that in the interval between His [first and second] advent, as I previously said, priests and false prophets would arise in His name, which things do actually appear; then how can they be ambiguous, when you may be persuaded by the facts? Moreover, He referred to the fact that there would be no longer in your nation any prophet, and to the fact that men recognised how that the New Testament, which God formerly announced [His intention of] promulgating, was then present, i.e., Christ Himself; and in the following terms: ‘The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist; from that time the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. And if you can2110 receive it, he is Elijah, who was to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
  -ibid- chapter LI

Basically, Justin Martyr is arguing from Scripture about two advents.  The first was about Messiah inglorious, suffering death, generation not declared, but the second in glory with all looking on Him who was pierced.

  Then I [Justin Martyr] replied to him [Trypho], “If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was inglorious, and His generation not declared, and that for His death the rich would suffer death, and with His stripes we should be healed, and that He would be led away like a sheep; and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of His,—one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced, and your tribes shall mourn, each tribe by itself, the women apart, and the men apart,—then I must have been speaking dubious and obscure things.
  -ibid- chapter XXXII

Lastly, Tertullian will make the same arguments from Scripture.

  We [Christians] affirm that, as there are two conditions demonstrated by the prophets to belong to Christ, so these presignified the same number of advents; one, and that the first, was to be in lowliness, when He had to be led as a sheep to be slain as a victim, and to be as a lamb dumb before the shearer, not opening His mouth, and not fair to look upon. For, says (the prophet), we have announced concerning Him: “He is like a tender plant, like a root out of a thirsty ground; He hath no form nor comeliness; and we beheld Him, and He was without beauty:  His form was disfigured;” “marred more than the sons of men; a man stricken with sorrows, and knowing how to bear our infirmity;” “placed by the Father as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence;” “made by Him a little lower than the angels;” declaring Himself to be “a worm and not a man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people.” Now these signs of degradation quite suit His first coming, just as the tokens of His majesty do His second advent, when He shall no longer remain “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence,” but after His rejection become “the chief corner-stone,” accepted and elevated to the top place of the temple, even His church, being that very stone in Daniel, cut out of the mountain, which was to smite and crush the image of the secular kingdom. Of this advent the same prophet says: “Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days; and they brought Him before Him, and there was given Him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away; and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
  Tertullian

There are other people who explain the two advents in the same way.  The first is as the suffering servent and the second is as the King of Kings.  But this should suffice to answer the OP questions.

PS The temple is believers indwelt by the Spirit (born-again).


Did Jesus' disciples celebrate His birthday? Celebration of birthdays of some prominent persons was very much in vogue  at the time of Jesus, as we see at Mt 14:6.

Now that Christmas has come to be one of the greatest feasts of Christianity, one wonders whether Jesus' birthday was celebrated even as He walked the earth. My question is: Do the apocryphal teachings of Catholic Church tell of of any occasion on which the birthday of Jesus was celebrated by the disciples ?

Did Jesus' disciples celebrate His birthday?

A valid question to say the least, but the short answer seems to be simply: no.

The Catholic Church has no such tradition from the Early Church or Church Fathers. The known Apocrypha are equally silent on this issue.

The big problem with the Ancient Jews celebrating birthdays at the time of Christ is that the Jewish calendar was based on a lunar cycle and not a solar cycle like our present day calendar is based on. It is quite simple to understand this principle and the end result would be that Jesus’ actual birthday would vary from year to year according to the Jewish calendar.

The Disciples of Jesus were Jews and so was Jesus. They lived traditional Jewish lives and accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Their manner of worship changed after Jesus’ death. This question is asking about His birthday celebrations while Jesus was alive.

Even Josephus admits that the Hebrew people did not celebrate birthdays.

  The first century Judahite historian Josephus noted that Judahite families did not celebrate birthdays:

    "Nay, indeed, the law does not permit us to make festivals at the birth of our children, and thereby afford occasion of drinking to excess" (Josephus. Translated by W. Whiston. Against Apion, Book II, Chapter 26. Extracted from Josephus Complete Works, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids (MI), 14th printing, 1977, p. 632).

  There is no tradition in Judaism of celebrating birthdays, otherwise we would have a list of birthdays from Noah, Abraham to Moses, King David and many others, but no such thing exists. There are of course Sages who have suggested that certain individuals were born on Moedim or important days of Israel's history, however there are no "birthdays" within Judaism, Torah, Judahite Christians or the true Ecclesia of YEHOVAH God down through the ages.

  Now although there is no specific command against the celebration of birthdays in the Bible, the Judahite custom in those days was apparently based on the negative occurrences in the Bible surrounding birthdays, as well as the astrological implications of the celebration of birthdays (pagan practices, like astrology, were specifically prohibited in the law).

  Since nearly all of the first Christians were Judahites it's, this may partially explain why the celebration of the Messiah's birth would not be consistent with that early custom.

  In their essay titled "Birthdays, Jewishly," Lisa Farber Miller and Sandra Widener point out that the Encyclopedia Judaica is very blunt on this topic:

    "The celebration of birthdays is unknown in traditional Jewish ritual."

For the rest of my response, I am going to let Rabbi Mendy Kaminker finish with the subject of birthdays according to the Ancient Hebrew nation.

  The First Birthday

  The first individual to celebrate a birthday was Adam. Well, considering that he wasn't "born," the stickler will argue that he didn't really have a "birthday"; but nonetheless, his first day on earth was quite eventful.

  Adam was created on the first Friday, the sixth day of creation, after G‑d finished setting the cosmic birthday table with the heavens and earth; sun and moon; plants and trees; beasts, fowl and fish. Shortly after Adam's creation, still on the same Friday, G‑d formed and breathed life into Eve.

  The results were considerably worse than a bad stomach acheThough there is no record of them partaking of a birthday cake, they celebrated by partaking of another delicacy—the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The results were considerably worse than a bad stomach ache.

  We celebrate the birthdays of Adam and Eve every year. Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, isn't observed on the day when the world was created, but six days later, on the anniversary of the creation of Adam and Eve. That is the day when everything truly began; the day when the Creator's vision of dwelling in a human-crafted home went into motion.

  An Intimidating Guest

  "And Abraham made a great feast on the day that Isaac was weaned" (Genesis 21:8).

  According to one opinion expressed in the Midrash, this feast celebrated Isaac's thirteenth birthday; the day when he was "weaned" from childhood and assumed the responsibilities of a Jewish adult. According to another opinion, this feast occurred on his second birthday. Either way, it was a birthday celebration.

  According to tradition, Isaac was born on Passover. As such, the "great feast" must have featured matzah and kosher for Passover cuisine. But the cuisine wasn't the main attraction—it was the distinguished guest list that included all the who's who of the time.

  One of the VIPs was Og, the king of Bashan, a gargantuan man with superhuman strength. He condescendingly commented: "Why is everyone fussing over this child? With my pinky I can end his life!"

  G‑d wasn't too pleased with this hubris. "Just wait. You will live to see hundreds of thousands of this boy's descendants. In fact, your end will be at their hands..."

  And that's precisely what happened—years later when he was vanquished by the Moses-led Israelite armies

  A "Memorable" Birthday Party

  The first scriptural reference to a birthday party is in the Book of Genesis. Pharaoh hosted a grand birthday party for all his ministers. During the course of the party he remembered two of his chamberlains, his chief butler and baker, whom he had incarcerated because of their negligence while on duty. Exactly as a Hebrew youth, Joseph, had foretold three days earlier, Pharaoh pardoned the butler and restored him to his post. The baker, on the other hand, was sent to the gallows.

  Until 120 Years Old... Really!

  A common Jewish birthday wish is, "May you live until 120." In the Torah we find a personality who lived until 120—on the nose. We're talking about Moses, the greatest prophet of all time, who was born and passed away on the same date—the 7th of Adar.

  Centuries later, when Haman wished to exterminate the Jews, he threw a lottery to determine the most propitious month to implement his nefarious plan. Haman was elated when the lottery chose the month of Adar, "this is the month when Moses, the Jews' savior, died!"

  But Haman didn't know that Adar is also the month when Moses was born. And the auspiciousness of a birthday offsets any negative qualities associated with death. The rest is history...

  A Mournful but Ultimately Joyous Birthday

  The redeemer was born the moment after the destructionThe saddest day on the Jewish calendar is the 9th of Av, the date when – among other tragedies – both holy temples were destroyed, leading to our nation's exile from the Holy Land. Nevertheless, our sages tell us that despite the sadness and pain, this is the birthday of Moshiach, our future redeemer:

  "On the day that the Holy Temple was destroyed, a Jew was plowing his field when his cow suddenly called out. An Arab was passing by and heard the low of the cow. Said the Arab: 'Jew, Jew! Unyoke your cow, free the stake of your plow, for your Holy Temple has now been destroyed.' The cow then lowed a second time. Said the Arab: 'Jew, Jew! Yoke your cow, reset the stake of your plow, for the Redeemer has now been born...'"

  The redeemer, and with him the potential for redemption, was born the moment after the destruction. - Birthdays in Jewish History

Whether Jesus celebrated his birthday or not is lost to history. Whether Mary or Joseph celebrated the Lord’s birthday is also lost to history. But the Church has resolved this issue with institution of the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ while placing this feast day on December 25th, now known as Christmas Day.

  But it was not till the fourth century that the Churches of the East began to keep the Feast of our Saviour’s Birth in the month of December. Up to that period they had kept it at one time on the sixth of January, thus uniting it, under the generic term of Epiphany, with the Manifestation of our Saviour made to the Magi, and in them to the Gentiles; at another time, as Clement of Alexandria tells us, they kept it on the 25th of the month Pachon (May 15), or on the 25th of the month Pharmuth (April 20). St John Chrysostom, in the Homily we have just cited, which he gave in 386, tells us that the Roman custom of celebrating the Birth of our Saviour on December 25 had then only been observed ten years in the Church of Antioch. It is probable that this change had been introduced in obedience to the wishes of the Apostolic See, wishes which received additional weight by the edict of the Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, which appeared towards the close of the fourth century, and decreed that the Nativity and Epiphany of our Lord should be made two distinct Festivals. The only Church that has maintained the custom of celebrating the two mysteries on January 6 is that of Armenia; owing, no doubt, to the circumstance of that country not being under the authority of the Emperors; as also because it was withdrawn at an early period from the influence of Rome by schism and heresy. - The History of Christmas (Dom Guéranger)


Are Job's seven sons and three daughters in Heaven? At the end of Job, God blessed him and gave him twice as much as he had in the first part of his life but he still has seven sons and three daughters.  Is it a common interpretation that his first seven sons and three daughters who were killed are alive in heaven? This would be twice as much--fourteen sons and six daughters. What are other interpretations from groups that would find the former interpretation unacceptable?

At Acts 2:34 we see that not even David, who was considered to be one of the righteous kings, ascended to heaven. The Bible indicates that Jesus was the first one to be resurrected to spirit life and ascend to heaven. (John 3:13) This would include Job and his sons and daughters. They are still potentially eligible for a resurrection to earthly life during the thousand year reign of Christ. (Job:14:14-15; Acts 24:15; Revelation 20:13)

This is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. You can read more about the condition of the dead and the hope for the dead in chapters 6 and 7 of the book "What Does the Bible Really Teach?", which you can read for free online.


St. Augustine's views on salvation through coercion This question goes out to any denomination.

Why was St. Augustine okay with using force to convert unbelievers to the faith, which also resulted in the eventual Roman Catholic Church's inspiration for the Crusades?

As mentioned by Bruce Shelley in his book "Church History in Plain Language":

  For Urban and the popes who followed him the Crusades were a new type
  of war, a Holy War. Augustine had laid down the principles of a “just
  war”: It was conducted by the state; its purpose was the vindication
  of justice, meaning the defense of life and property; and its code
  called for respect for noncombatants, hostages, and prisoners. All
  these evaporated in the heat of the holy cause. Urban appealed for
  crusaders in the name of the church; the purpose of the Crusades was
  the conquest of the infidels in the Holy Land; and this high calling
  excused somehow the total disregard for noncombatants and prisoners.

Also per this link:

  Urban pulled ideas from St. Augustine to justify the calling of a holy
  war to get rid of enemies of Christianity, and Urban had Pope Gregory
  VII to thank for already having a group loyal to the papacy so Urban’s
  work on power was already partially done (Asbridge, 25-28). Asbridge
  points out that “A central feature of Urban’s doctrine was the
  denigration and dehumanisation of Islam (33).”

As a follow up what caused him to be for that strategy when it came to conversion?

This is a highly controversial topic as there are many people that have a high view of Augustine. However, what He introduced in to the Church is nothing less than Gnosticism. The more I read the ante-Nicean (prior to the council) church writings, the more I see our view of scripture is not nearly as literal as there's was.

Augustine spent years as a disciple of Manichean Gnosticism. This group denied man's free will, man's ability to cease sinning, and that God has pre-determined some for hell and some for Heaven. When Pelagius debated Augustine, Pelagius largely quoted what Augustine believed before he became a disciple of Mani.

Here are a couple of quotes from Church leaders before Augustine;

  I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of
  his own will and power…For a law would not be imposed upon one who did
  not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law.
  Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a
  contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his
  will…Man is free, with a will either for obedience of resistance. (c.
  207, Vol. 3, pp. 300-301) (Tertullian)

  And again, who are they that have been saved, and received the
  inheritance? Those doubtless who do believe in God and who have
  continued in His love… and innocent children, who have had no sense of
  evil. (Irenaeus)

  There is set before us life upon our observance [of God’s precepts],
  but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to
  the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from
  death, and make choice of life. (Ignatius)

  We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice (c. 195, Vol. 2, p.
  217) (Clement of Alexandria)

  Thus although we are born neither good nor bad, we become on or the
  other and having formed habits, we are with difficulty drawn from
  them. Pg 273 vol.8 (Clement)

  Certain ones of those [Gnostic’s] who hold different opinions misuse
  these passages. They essentially destroy free will by introducing
  ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as
  being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost. (Origen)

This is a common theme in their writings - and all of these opinions of were formed through a plain literal reading of what scripture plainly says.

  Only this have I found: I have discovered that God made men upright,
  but they have sought out many schemes. - Ecclesiastes 7:29

  And the little ones, whom you said would become captives— your
  children who do not know good from evil, will enter the land I give
  them and possess it. - Deuteronomy 1:39

  But if it is unpleasing in your sight to serve the LORD, choose for
  yourselves this day whom you will serve - Joshua 24:15a

  “Why are you angry,” said the LORD to Cain, “and why is your face
  downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if
  you refuse to do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; you are
  its object of desire, but you must master it.” - Genesis 4:6-7

The use of force was precipitated because He denied mankind's God given free will. He denied our ability to choose, and put upon mankind a "ruined nature" that had to be baptized out with a sprinkling as a baby.

As some additional resources I highly recommend checking out the scroll publishing channel on YouTube, that has the majority of their audio CD's. I also recommend using the Early Christian Dictionary and comparing it to scripture and what is taught today.

Let God be true, and every man be a liar.


Was the Apostolic Tradition of rejecting soldiers from the church ‘permanent’, or was this ‘tradition' briefly enforced? In the Bible Jesus encounters Roman soldiers but does not tell them to 'quit their day job'. Jesus encountered a centurion with 'great faith' as recorded in Matthew 8. Peter as well baptized a centurion, named Cornelius. A centurion was a higher ranking soldier over a hundred strong experienced Roman army men underneath him. (One can only imagine what a man like that would have had to go through to be honored with such a rank especially in the brutal history of Rome). After preaching and praying the Holy Spirit 'fell upon' those they were gathered among Peter and Cornelius and Peter exclaimed in surprise and excitement;

  “Surely no one can stand in the way of their being baptized with water. They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. (NIV Acts 10:47-48).

Here we find Peter not only 'accepting the soldier', but calling for an 'immediate baptism' -- both against the 'Apostolic Tradition' handed down from Peter?!

Understandably, when Christians were on the ‘hit list’, a Christian soldier, faced with having to kill a Christian, would have had to switch sides and become a martyr.  In these same conditions, I assume that serving in the Roman army almost became synonymous with the ‘anti-Christian’ beast of Rome, so in the Apostolic Tradition, I can partly accept the rejection of soldiers from the church (actually rejection of soldiers, actors and others):

  If someone is an actor or does shows in the theater, either he shall cease or he shall be rejected. ... 11The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God. (Hippolytus, The Apostolic Tradition)

What I am wondering was, 'Is there any indication in this tradition by Hippolytus of Rome that the Church in Rome was supposed to have kept this Apostolic Tradition, or was this just a temporary measure of the church in Rome at that time?

This answer is based on the article Christians and the Roman Army AD173-337 by John Helgeland (Church History 43(2):149-163, 200; 1974). The start date of AD173 is the year when we have the first evidence (after the NT) of Christians in the military - in Legio XII Fulminata (the Lightning Legion) under Marcus Aurelius.

Prohibitions on members of the (Roman) military becoming Christian were not universally enforced, and there was disagreement among the Fathers as to whether it was possible to be Christian and a soldier at the same time. Certainly Christians should not take part in persecutions. Torture and capital punishment (for which officers were responsible) were also identified as wrong. On the other hand, the ordinary work of the army was not necessarily considered to be bad. Clement of Alexandria (Protrepticus 10) sees it as just another profession, and Tertullian in his early writings urged Christians to pray for the Empire and her armies (Apology 30):

  Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Cæsar, an emperor would wish.

Origen believed (Contra Celsum 8) that while Christians should not personally serve as soldiers, they should still pray for Roman victory (in wars which were just). In this view, it's not that there's something inherently morally wrong about being a soldier - but only that it is problematic for a Christian to serve in a non-Christian army, for a non-Christian empire.

A related problem was that Roman military service was bound up with Roman religion; Tertullian's On idolatry identified the taking of an oath to the state to be un-Christian, and moreover, Roman military standards (signa militaria) were given special reverence, placed in a sanctuary in the camp so that soldiers could pay homage - these were signs of the gods-given authority of the emperor. Origen, similarly, said that since all authority comes from God, it is not right to give this honour to Caesar. Several Christian soldiers were martyred towards the end of the third century for refusal to perform army rites, objection to the idolatrous nature of the signa militaria, etc. This was intensified under the persecution of Diocletian, who issued edicts to require all soldiers to take part in sacrifices and other rites - the intention being to get rid of Christians in the army, which implies that there must have been a substantial number of Christians there to be purged. So any prohibition on military service, on the part of Christian leaders, was not being well enforced at this time.

After the conversion of Constantine to Christianity, the force of many of these objections was removed, and subsequent authors find little difficulty in commending Christians to military service. This is the case for Lactantius and Eusebius for example, who were both very pro-Constantine and regarded him as being on a divinely-approved mission. After Constantine we find many graves of soldiers whose inscriptions record their Christian faith in addition to their military service.

In summary, Helgeland argues that the prohibitions in Hippolytus and elsewhere should not be construed as objections to military service in general, but only to the specific idolatrous and persecuting nature of the contemporary Roman army. Moreover, Christian responses differed - some said that Christians should avoid military service entirely, while others would allow it, but on the assumption that the soldier should refuse to participate in evil activities (and accept the consequences).


Do Christian denominations vary in interpreting whether an act is sinful or not? I've noticed in some answers and comments the sentiment that whether an act is sinful or not is always cut-and-dried.

Does this mean that in all the ways the various denominations of Christianity differ that their interpretation of sins is not among them?

Or what would some examples be where something is not a sin in one branch of Christianity but is a sin in another?

There is a tremendous amount of agreement across all denominations that certain actions are always sinful: murder, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, etc.

There are also a number of actions that are viewed differently by the various Christian traditions.  (This list is nowhere near complete...)

Baptist denominations generally believe it is wrong to drink alcohol except for medicinal purposes.
The Roman Catholic church teaches that birth control is wrong.
I have heard some individual pastors teach that "rock music" is always sinful.
There's a song titled If Your Hair’s Too Long, There’s Sin in Your Heart.  While it's intended to be comedy, all good comedy is funny because it's based in truth (not that I personally think long hair is a sin, but I have known people who did).
Seventh Day Adventist hold church services on Saturday instead of Sunday.
Many Church of Christ churches do not use musical instruments.

I'm not sure all of those things are considered "sin" by the groups that avoid them, but if you look at the differences between traditions, you'll be able to find more areas where they differ on their understanding of what is considered sinful.


Is Matthew 26:32 and John 20:9 a mistake stating that Jesus told the disciples He would rise again then stating they didn't know after it happened? Matthew 26:32 Jesus tells the disciples that He will die and rise again.

  But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.

John 20:9 says that the disciples didn't know that Jesus would rise again?

  For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Is this a mistake?

The fact that someone is given information does not mean that they know nor understand, nor realise its significance.  This is a perfect example.

John chooses the verbs here rather carefully.  Koine Greek has two words (verbs) that are translated "know", namely, (a) ginosko, and (b) oida.  W E Vine (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words) comments on the difference in the shades of meaning between these two words:  "ginosko frequently suggest inception or progress in knowledge, while oida suggests fullness of knowledge".

In John 20:29, John uses the verb "oida" meaning that while the disciples may have known (been told), they did not fully realise the significance of what Jesus had said.  This is yet another reminder that the disciples were very human.


The Virgin Mary, "the perfect non-divine human being" In a response in another thread, one individual mentioned that the virgin Mary was “the perfect non-divine human being.”

Is this an accepted Catholic belief?

If it is, what need was there for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ? Jesus was born without the stain of Original Sin. According to Catholic belief, the Immaculate Conception also preserved Mary from the stain of Original Sin. Jesus was absolutely sinless. According to Catholic belief, Mary never sinned either (isn’t this what “perfect” implies?).

Why, then, didn’t Mary qualify to be our savior instead of Jesus? What need was there for God the Father to send His Son Jesus Christ when He could have asked Mary to offer herself for the sins of the world, since Mary was “the perfect non-divine human being”?

In a response in another thread, one individual mentioned that the virgin Mary was "the perfect non-divine human being."
I am that individual, and by perfect, I meant sinless. Which is perfect in God's eyes.Matthew 5:48
Is this an accepted Catholic belief?
Yes.

"If anyone shall say that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he who falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the contrary, that throughout his whole life he can avoid all sins even venial sins, except by a special privilege of God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin: let him be anathema." - The Council of Trent, Canon 23.

It was she (Mary), the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son. - Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, 110

In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life. - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott

Why then didn't Mary qualify to be our savior instead of Jesus?
Because Mary was not sinless on her own. Everything that is perfect in Mary comes from God. Mary would not be sinless if Christ did not die on the cross. In other words, God acts outside time, so at the moment of her conception, God used the grace of redemption merited on the cross to protect Mary from original sin by a single act of grace.

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. - Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus (1854)


How do parables communicate the inspired word of God? I'm curious as to know how parables can communicate the inspired word of God. Other literary forms in the bible such as myths and psalms are able to somehow communicate it but I want to know how parables can communicate it as well. I'd like to know specifically how the parable of the sower can communicate the inspired word of God.

The parables of Jesus do not 'communicate the inspired word of God'. They, themselves are the inspired word of God. For God - that is to say the Son of God - actually spoke them on earth from his own lips.
If when one hears (or reads) the parable, if one does not perceive and hear God speaking to one's own soul then there is an explanation :
Jesus said :

Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Mark 4: 11 and 12 [KJV]

Some (who are within) will understand, and believe and will obey the concept of the parable.
Some (who are without) will see, yet not perceive ; hear and not understand.
Jesus also said :

And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?
Mark 4:13 [KJV]

The parable he speaks of is the parable of the sower sowing seed. Some fell in fruitful ground and flourished. Some fell on the wayside, in stony ground, among thorns - and bore no fruit.
If one does not perceive the meaning of this, first parable, one will not appreciate any other parable.
This first parable is about receiving the word of God into the heart in such a way that it flourishes there.
But if the word of God does not penetrate, and flourish within the heart, then there will be no perception or understanding of any of the parables which Jesus spoke.


Term that means to commit a sin when you know it is a sin? I am drawing a blank here, I know that such a term exists but I cannot remember it and my Google Fu is failing me.
There is a term for a sin that means that the sinner who committed the sin did it willfully and knowing that the action was indeed a sin.
It could fill in the blank here:

Steve _____ (past tense verb) by lying, as he knew fully that lying was a sin.

Forgive me, Lord, for my sins and _____ (noun).

If a person sins and commits a trespass against the LORD by lying to his neighbor about what was delivered to him for safekeeping, or about a pledge, or about a robbery, or if he has extorted from his neighbor, Leviticus 6:2 NKJV

I know it has been brought up already, but here’s a verse for “trespass” that seems clear that the sin was intentional.


What is the basis for arguing that Paul should have been selected as the 12th apostle instead of Matthias? Commentators on the story of Acts 1:15–26, where the Apostles select Matthias to replace Judas as the 12th apostle, often say vague things like:

  Some have held that the choice of Matthias was unauthorized and that he was never accepted as an apostle. (People's New Testament)

There seems to be some biblical evidence that Paul was not considered (not even by himself) to be "one of the twelve," like Acts 2:14 and 1 Corinthians 15:5–9.  But some apparently either disagree with this assessment, or think that if Paul was not considered the 12th apostle, he should have been.

So, my question.  What are the arguments used by theologians who believe that the apostles erred in selecting Matthias to be the 12th apostle instead of Paul?

Related: Who was the 12th Apostle - Matthias or Paul? Unlike this closed question, my question focuses on one side of the debate.

Two prominent advocates of this view are Rudolf Stier (1800–62) and Lloyd John Ogilvie (1930–).  They argue both that the apostles erred, and that ultimately the evidence points to Paul being the true 12th apostle.  They make several arguments:

The method of selection, particularly the casting of lots, was improper
The selection was unnecessarily hasty
The biblical record shows Paul as being "chosen," and Matthias is never heard from again

Improper method of selection
Stier says that the apostles were "justified generally" for casting lots, considering biblical support for the practice (Proverbs 16:33), and the fact that the Holy Spirit had not yet indwelt them.  However, he considers it a "deficiency" that Peter did not mention the imminent coming of the Holy Spirit in his speech (v. 16–22), as promised by Jesus (v. 8).  Ogilvie calls the casting of lots "crude" and suggests that Luke is pointing out that casting lots "was a poor substitute for the guidance of the Holy Spirit."
Stier also questions the propriety of the qualification that Peter specifies in verses 21 and 22 ("one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us"), particularly in light of the apostleship of Paul despite him not meeting this qualification.
Hasty selection
Stier points to the context of the chapter, particularly verses 7 and 8, and argues that the apostles were instructed to wait for the coming of the Holy Spirit.  Given this, he suggests that Peter's statement and the casting of lots was not "consistent with the prescribed 'waiting.'"  Furthermore, the passage Peter quoted, Psalm 109:8, does not prescribe any action, but merely says "let another take his office."
Ogilvie suggests that Luke's motive in this passage is to cast doubt on the proceedings: he argues that Luke's "extensive review of Peter's explanation" suggests that,

perhaps Luke is pointing out that the apostles, prior to the gift of the Holy Spirit, were precipitous in replacing Judas when the Lord already was planning ahead for a Pharisee named Saul of Tarsus to fill that position.

Other biblical evidence
Stier finds Luke's language relating to the selection of Matthias to be significant.  He wonders why Luke in verse 26 merely states, "the lot fell on Matthias," rather than, "the Lord chose Matthias."  Similarly, he notes that the chapter ends with "he was numbered with the eleven apostles," rather than explicitly calling Matthias the twelfth.  And why, he asks, does Luke not use the expression "twelve apostles" in the rest of his book?
Stier argues further that language referring to the apostleship of Paul throughout the New Testament is evidence that Paul should have been the twelfth.  For example, he quotes Acts 9:15, where Jesus is talking to Ananias about Paul:

But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. [ESV]

This and other passages, like Galatians 1:1, 1:15–17, 2:6–9; Acts 9:15, 13:31, and 26:16, Stier believes, should lead us to conclude that "the Lord had decreed to do something special" in the case of selecting Judas's replacement. To those who argue that Paul is an apostle in addition to the twelve (making for a total of thirteen), Stier cites Revelation 21:14:

And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. [ESV]

In contrast to Paul's prestige as a "chosen instrument" and the author of numerous books of the New Testament, both Stier and Ogilvie point to the Bible's lack of reference to Matthias after his selection.  Ogilvie refers to this as "strange," and while not suggestive of Matthias defecting, is still an indication that "the position was filled by Paul."
Summary
Champions of Paul's place as the twelfth apostle, like Stier and Ogilvie, point to the biblical record in their attempt to demonstrate that the apostles improperly and hastily selected Matthias, and that Paul was the apostle selected by God to replace Judas.

Ogilvie, The Preacher's Commentary, v28 (Acts).
Stier, The Words of the Apostles, p12–14.


Why doesn't God remit everyone of original sin in Catholicism? I know that in Catholicism, Mary didn't have the original sin. If God had the power to do this, why didn't he do this with other people?

I know that in Catholicism, Mary didn't have the original sin. If God had the power to do this, why didn't he do this with other people?

The crux of this question lies in Man's purpose "to know and to love God, to do good according to [H]is will, and to go someday to heaven" (CCC 1-3, 358)

In Baptism, we "become members of the Body of Christ, sisters and brothers of our Redeemer, and children of God. We are freed from sin, snatched from death and destined from then on for a life in the joy of the redeemed" (CCC 1262-1274, 1279-1280)

However, to receive the benefits of Baptism, one typically must receive it Sacramentally, (cf. YouCat 199, Baptism of Blood and Baptism of Desire are beyond the scope of this discussion), and in a sense approach God, or open oneself to His presence.
   Now, if Original Sin was forgiven unilaterally, what need would there be to approach God, and to come to know and love Him?


How many books of the bible agreed on any Christian denomination? How many books of the bible (includes the new testament) considered to be agreed on all denominations / movements? What are the basic books that considered holy for all?

For historical background information on the Bible canon, please refer to this article: https://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html    It explains how by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament).  Jewish rabbis and scholars had agreed upon the authenticity and acceptance of the writings of the prophets before Jesus was born.  Jesus himself read from accepted Scripture such as from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah and constantly referred to the writings of Moses (the Law.)  With regard to the Greek Scriptures the article says this:

  The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in AD 170. The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. In AD 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with one book of the Apocrypha) and 26 books of the New Testament (everything but Revelation) were canonical and to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (AD 393) and the Council of Carthage (AD 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.   https://www.gotquestions.org/Muratorian-Canon.html

This article https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-authors.html  gives the names of all the authors of the books of the Bible (Old and New Testaments) and the approximate dates when they were written as agreed upon by Protestants.

As others have pointed out, the Catholic Bible canon has more books than the Protestant Bible canon.  These books (collectively referred to as the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals) were officially added to their Bible at the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s A.D., primarily in response to the Protestant Reformation.   Here are the relevant books:

  Roman Catholic Bibles have several more books in the Old Testament than Protestant Bibles. These books are referred to as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books. The word apocrypha means “hidden,” while the word deuterocanonical means “second canon.” The Apocrypha/Deuterocanonicals were written primarily in the time between the Old and New Testaments. The books of the Apocrypha include 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees, as well as additions to the books of Esther and Daniel. Not all of these books are included in Catholic Bibles.  https://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

I hope this information helps to answer your question as to which books of the Bible (Old and New Testaments) are accepted by Protestants, and which books are accepted by Catholics.


Is the nature of God the father like that of Abraham the father of Isaac? Abraham sacrificed his child Isaac not himself because he loved God so much.

Similarly God the father loved his creation so much that he sacrificed his son instead of himself.

Does that mean they are of similar nature?

Was Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac a precursor to God's sacrifice of Jesus Christ?

Saint John Chrysostom (349 - 407) confirms your opinion in "Homilies on the Gospel of John", 55, 2:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56)
My day, seems to me to mean the day of the Crucifixion, which Abraham foreshowed typically by the offering of the ram and of Isaac. ...
He saw My day, and was glad. He shows, that not unwillingly He came to His Passion, since He praises him who was gladdened at the Cross. For this was the salvation of the world.


What is the Biblical basis and support for and against the view of predestination? Simple and easy. I am looking for Biblical support (not opinion) for and against the view of predestination. Predestination is the view that all events are willed by God. I'm looking for both sides of the view, not just one side. What Biblical evidence exists for/against predestination?

In Support

Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

Even the dice fall according to God's plan.

Ephesians 1:11 In [Christ] we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things
according to the counsel of his will

God works everything according to his will.

Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there were none of them.

God has written down (in other words, planned to the letter!) every day of our life before they even come to pass.

Matthew 10:30-31a But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; therefore

God knows how many hairs you have. He's counted them.
And now allow me to quote at length Louis Berkof, Systematic Theology, pg. 168, quoted in the Reformation Study Bible

The Bible clearly teaches God's providential control

over the universe at large, Ps. 103:19; Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11;
over the physical world, Job 37; Ps. 104:14; 135:6; Matt. 5:45;
over the brute creation, Ps. 104:21, 28; Mt. 6:26; 10:29;
over the affairs of nations, Job 12:23; Ps. 22:28; 66:7; Acts 17:26
over man's birth and lot in life, 1 Sam. 16:1; Ps. 139:16; Isa. 45:5; Gal. 1:15-16
over the outward successes and failures of men's lives, Ps. 75:6-7, Lk. 1:52
over things seemingly accidental or insignificant, Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:30
in protection of the righteous, Ps. 4:8; 5:12; 63:8; 121:3; Rom. 8:28
in supplying the wants of God's people, Gn. 22:8, 14; Deut. 8:3; Phil. 4:19
in giving answers to prayer, 1 Sam. 1:19; Isa. 20:5-6; 2 Chron. 33:13; Ps. 65:2 Mt. 7:7; Lk. 18:7-8
in the exposure and punishment of the wicket, Ps. 7:12-13; 11:6

Against
I'm not very familiar with verses against Predestination, but as I understand it, a lot of the argument against it is an interpretive argument; and those who are opposed to the doctrine would say the verses above are more general in nature and are simply talking about his omnipotence, not his nitty-gritty control over the details.  I'll leave it to someone more versed in this position to answer for the against side.


In Catholic understanding, did Paul speak/write ex cathedra while Peter was serving as Pope? Catholic doctrine teaches that Peter was the first Pope and that Popes may speak "ex cathedra".  When they do, that is considered infallible.

However, while Peter was alive and presumably serving as the first Pope, Paul, John, and James all wrote books that are considered to be Scripture.  In fact, Peter himself refers to Paul's letters as Scripture:

  and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our
  beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
  16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in
  which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and
  unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their
  own destruction.  2 Peter 3:15-16 NAS

Were other people besides the Pope, then, able to speak/write ex cathedra while not serving as Pope?  If so, can others besides the Pope speak/write ex cathedra today?  What is the Catholic understanding of this?

Ex cathedra means from the chair literally. It refers to the power of the reigning Pope to speak infallibly on doctrinal or moral issues. And although, in my understanding, the power of speaking "from the chair" in general is not a concept necessarily new to Catholicism (think of any leader speaking officially from their official seat), in Catholicism it refers specifically to the Pope's authority to make infallible proclamations.

Regarding the letters of Paul, John, and James, we believe that they're inspired writings. But, they're authoritative, per se -- at least not in the same manner of the authority granted by speaking ex cathedra. They're authoritative, if at all, in an unordinary manner. That is, their authority doesn't flow from a natural seat of authority, but from a supernatural infusion of God's grace. I think it's also accurate to say that their authority within the Church flowed from Peter. Their words were binding on Christians only to the extent than Peter bound them.

The authority of speaking ex cathedra, though infused with grace, is an ordinary authority. That is, it is in the nature of the office of Pope to be able to speak ex cathedra. The ability isn't absent until God inspires the Pope to speak ex cathedra; it's always there, regardless of whether the Pope actually is speaking ex cathedra (which is almost never).


According to the Catholic Church in her recent pronouncements, what is the order of truths to which the believer adheres? This @PeterTurner's answer to What is the difference between a dogma, a doctrine, an infallible statement, an ex cathedra statement, etc.? opined

  There are a few levels of Magisterial Teaching. Some people say there
  are 3 some people 4 and Wikipedia says there's 7, but I'll go with 5,
  the first two are infallible the last 3 aren't so much.

From her very beginning and through the centuries, the Church has had symbols of faith.1 One such symbol is the Apostles' Creed, rightly considered to be a faithful summary of the Apostles' teaching.2

Perhaps "levels of Magisterial Teaching" meant to say that there is a “hierarchy of truths” to which the believer adheres.3

Understanding it this way, the question is, according to the Catholic Church in her recent pronouncements, what is the order of truths to which the the believer adheres? Does this order correspond a new symbol of faith, a new Profession of faith?

Note, the best answer will be the one that references official documents.

1. cf. CCC 192.
2. cf. CCC 194.
3. cf. Since you asked, Walter, no, you are not a heretic, but | In the Light of the Law, A Canon Lawyers blog.

Since this question has gone unanswered for some time, I will take a stab at it.

Levels of Magisterial Teaching is not the same thing as a hierarchy of truths.

Levels of Magisterial Teaching refers to the level of authority of the person or group giving the teaching and the circumstances under which it is given. So, for instance, the pope issuing a solemn ex cathedra document is accorded an infallible level of Magisterial Teaching. From elsewhere on the web:

  The three levels of teaching are:

  1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine
  and Catholic faith.

  2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial
  faith, to be "firmly embraced and held".

  3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual
  assent ("loyal submission of the will and intellect", Vatican II, (Lumen
  Gentium 25), not an assent of faith.

The phrase a "hierarchy" of truths (quotes in the original) occurs in the second chapter of the document UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, otherwise known as the DECREE ON ECUMENISM, a Vatican II document, in the following paragraph:

  Moreover, in ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast
  by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries
  with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with
  charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another,
  they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a
  "hierarchy" of truths, since they vary in their relation to the
  fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which
  through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper
  understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of
  Christ.(34)

It's clear from the context that a "hierarchy" of truths is referring to the centrality of the content of a teaching to the Catholic faith. Doctrines related to the person of Jesus Christ are more central to the faith than doctrines related to church discipline, for example.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church starting at paragraph 80 makes clear that there is only one source of divine revelation, and we are obliged to adhere to everything that comes to us from the apostles without any order of importance or consideration of authority:

  II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

  One common source. . .

  80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely
  together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them,
  flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some
  fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal."40 Each of
  them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ,
  who promised to remain with his own "always, to the close of the
  age".41

  . . . two distinct modes of transmission

  81 "Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing
  under the breath of the Holy Spirit."42

  "And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which
  has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy
  Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that,
  enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve,
  expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."43

  82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation
  of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all
  revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and
  Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of
  devotion and reverence."44

  Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions

  83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on
  what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they
  learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did
  not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself
  demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

  Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological,
  disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local
  churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to
  different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed.
  In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified
  or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's Magisterium.


Why was Jesus crucified in the middle? We read at Mark 15:27

"And with him they crucified two bandits, one on his right and one on his left.""

One wishes to know as to whether it had been pre-determined by the authority say, Pilate, that Jesus be crucified in between two thieves, or was it by sheer chance that the soldiers gave him the middle slot. Does the Catholic Church elaborate on the position of the Cross of Jesus at Calvary, in order to attribute the fulfillment of prophesies ?

Why was Jesus crucified in the middle?

It was a decision made by either the the Roman Governor Pilate or the Roman executioners.

The Catholic Church has no official stand as to why Jesus was crucified in the middle. However, it does make sense in a logical point of view that the Romans would have placed a criminal who was deemed more dangerous or guilty in the middle. (The place of honour so to speak.) The Catholic Encyclopedia makes an allusion to this possibility:

  The cross on which Jesus Christ was nailed was of the kind known as immensa, which means that the vertical trunk extended a certain height above the transverse beam; it was thus higher than the crosses of the two thieves, his crime being judged a graver one, according to St. John Chrysostom (Homil. v, c. i., on I Corinth.). The earliest Christian Fathers who speak of the Cross describe it as thus constructed. We gather as much from St. Matthew (27:37), where he tells us that the titulus, or inscription containing the cause of His death, was placed, "over", the head of Jesus Christ (cf. Luke 23:38; John 19:19). St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., II, xxiv) says that the Cross had five extremities: two in its length, two in its breadth, and the fifth a projection (habitus) in the middle — "Fines et summitates habet quinque, duas in longitudine, duas in latitudine, unam in medio". St. Augustine agrees with him: "Erat latitudo in qua porrectæ sunt manus longitudo a terrâ surgens, in quâ erat corpus infixum; altitudo ab illo divexo ligno sursum quod imminet" (Enarration on Psalm 103; Serm. i, 44) and in other passages quoted by Zöckler (Das Kreuz, 1875, pp. 430, 431).

  The historical narrative of the Passion and Crucifixion of Jesus Christ, as found in the Four Gospels, agrees exactly with all we have set down above concerning this form of punishment. Jesus Christ was condemned for the crime of sedition and tumult, as were also some of the Apostles (Malalas, "Chronogr.", X, p. 256). His Crucifixion was preceded by the Scourging. - Archæology of the Cross and Crucifix

This question is somewhat explored by Jimmy Akin’s (Catholic Answers) in the YouTube video: Why Was Jesus Crucified in Between the Two Thieves?


Do Catholics believe that everyone should convert to Christianity for their own salvation? From my understanding it is the Catholic view that all people should be baptized and converted to the Christian faith for their own salvation.

So, for me it follows logically, that Christians envision a world where Christianity is the only religion and all other religions are eliminated. I'm especially referring to non-abrahamic religions like Buddhism and Hinduism. In other words: Do Christians believe that they have to work for a world where there are no more Buddhist practicioners or followers of Hinduism and Christianity is the only religion?

I'm interested in the Roman Catholic point of view.

EDIT: My question targets towards the implicit cultural imperialism and the implicit goal of destruction of the religious cultures in Buddhist countries and India by the absolutist doctrine of Christianity as the only "right" religion. From my personal perspective, I cannot imagine that it would be God's or Jesus' will to destruct the incredible rich and deep religious cultures of these non-abrahamic religions.

I see many of the other answers here seem a little out of focus. The OP is asking for some Roman Catholic points of view, and while the history lessons are pretty neat, I would rather provide an answer to the OP.

Do Catholics believe that everyone should convert to Christianity for their own salvation?
Yes. Catholics believe that it is better for people to convert and, therefore, gain access to the sacraments. A Catholic believes that his salvation is assured with the sacraments, without sacraments there is no assurance of salvation.

From the point brought by Geremia. There is only one sacrament required for salvation: Baptism. Baptism is required as it is the only sacrament that removes Original Sin. Original Sin impedes communion with God, which is salvation. Note that a person without moral agency (a baby or small child) would be under Original Sin, so even that person needs to be baptized to achieve salvation upon death. So yes, Geremia is right when he says that you must be baptized, this is not an error as somebody implied. Geremia seems to ignore that the Church teaches three kinds of baptisms: sacramental, blood and desire. This last kind of baptism allows for salvation for non-Catholics; in this case, the term "implicit baptism of desire" is usually used. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

  CCC 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit
  desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and
  charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive
  through the sacrament.

  CCC 1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact
  called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that
  the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers,
  in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”[...] Every man who is
  ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the
  truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of
  it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have
  desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Do Christians believe that they have to work for a world where there are no more Buddhist practitioners or followers of Hinduism and Christianity is the only religion? Yes. A Catholic believes that there is only one true religion; and all other religions, although containing stints of truth, may be used by the devil to damn the souls of men. The Catholic also believes in tolerance, and that means that he will put up with other religions, despite their flaws. Something that I believe is much more important for your point of view, is that Catholics firmly believe in the separation of the Church and the State[1]. So a Catholic would never endorse that a state, say a police force, mitigate any kind of religious activity. It should be noted that some religious activity is dangerous, and may be dangerous for society, intervention, in this case, would be endorsed by a Catholic; not for the sake of religious intolerance (i.e. not for the religious activity itself), but for the protection of the weak and vulnerable.

Regarding your point on the destruction of cultural heritage, it should be noted that Catholicism doesn't replace culture. It entwines and mingles, exalting the best aspects of a people's cultural practices and elevating them to a new meaning. You might want to take as an example the work of Franciscan friars to not only preserve, but also promote the Navajo culture through the production of English-Navajo dictionaries and books.

Regarding that God does not will destruction, well you have the wrong religion. The whole point of Catholicism is the destruction of the old man, that is addicted to the world and it's temptations, and the creation of a new man, whose life is directed towards love, and only love. So yes, destruction of habits, customs, and old religions is part of Catholicism. For the Catholics, these things are at a personal level, not at a national or societal level. It is you, a single person the one that must destroy his old self.

It would be good to remember when dealing with Catholics that it began with the destruction of a single life, and through that death, we may not die.

[1] I've heard this is a recent development, and it might as well be, the oldest reference that I can remember comes from the conquest of the Americas by the Spanish Empire.


Can a Catholic married to an Orthodox in an Orthodox church re-celebrate her wedding in a Catholic church? My Catholic daughter will marry an Orthodox boy in an Orthodox church in Macedonia. After this ceremony we will go to Slovakia to continue the celebration. Can we celebrate a Mass in a Catholic church (not a wedding) and repeat the promise to God to validate the wedding?

According to the Catholic Church, your daughter's marriage to a non-Catholic, without her bishop's permission, is invalid; so she would absolutely need to marry in the Catholic Church.

From the section "Mixed Marriages" of the Code of Canon Law:

  Can.  1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church considers any Eastern Orthodox "not in full communion with the Catholic Church;" they are schismatics.

Your daughter can get permission to marry a non-Catholic from her Catholic bishop. Your daughter would have to

  [Can. 1125 §1] …declare that…she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church.

And her fiancé

  [§2] …is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party [your daughter] is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he…is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party [your daughter].

Both your daughter and her fiancé

  [§3] …are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.


What is the precise manner of expressing the relationship of the humanity (human nature) to the divine person of the Son? For example, are any of the following statements correct?

The humanity subsists in the Divine Person of the Son.
The humanity substands the Divine Person of the Son.
The divine person of the Son substands the humanity.
The divine person of the Son subsists in the humanity.

Note: "Humanity" (Latin humanitate or Greek ανθρωπότης is synonymous with "human nature." It does not mean "human person."

Or, are none of them? If not, what is the precise way to express the relationship using the English verb "subsist" and/ or "substand"?

Clarification: The English verb "substand" and its related conjugations would be a precise translation of the Latin verb substare and its related conjugations and the Greek verb ὑφίστασθαι and its related conjugations. "Substand," like substare and ὑφίστασθαι, simply means "to stand under." A ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) is technically something that stands under or is the basis of accidents.

Boethius, in Book III of his Liber de Persona et Duabus Naturis Contra Eutychen et Nestorium, wrote,

  "For what the Greeks say as οὐσίωσις and οὐσιῶσθαι are what we call subsistentia and subsistere. What they [say as] ὑπόστασις and ὑφίστασθαι are what we translate as substantia  and substare."

It's a rare word, and probably one constructed to convey the meaning of substare and ὑφίστασθαι as accurately and precisely as possible into English in the realm of philosophy.

The Fathers of the English Dominican Province use it in their English translation of the Summa Theologica.

For example, Part I, Question 29, Second Article, Response to Objection 5:

  Reply to Objection 5: The individual composed of matter and form substands in relation to accident from the very nature of matter.

When we say God is one essence with three persons, the Greeks would say that God is one essence with three substances (hypostasis).

  In the Latin church, substantia was employed to translate hypostasis and together with essentia to translate ousia: “That which must be understood of persons, according to our usage, is to be understood of substances, according to the Greek usage: for they say three substances (hypostaseis), one essence, in the same way as we say three persons, one essence or substance (essentiam vel substantiam)” (Augustine, On the Trinity 7.4)

‘Substance’ means ‘that which stands under’ that is, in the sense of an underlying substratum. The idea is that God is one in the essential divine attributes but the three persons are spiritually 'differing personalities' of which their persons, or hypostatic character, is incommunicable to each other.

  hypostasis - term employed in trinitarian and christological discussions. The Greek hypostasis can have a range of meaning. In keeping with its etymological signification, it means “to stand under,” hence its usage as equivalent to the Latin substantia (substance) and essentia (essence), or to the Greek ousia. It appears to mean “substance” or “essence” in its use in Heb. 1:3 (though not all translators agree). Likewise, the Nicene Creed of 325 uses it as synonymous with ousia when it condemns those who say that the Son is a different hypostasis or ousia from the Father. On the other hand, the word can also be used to designate an individual instance of an essence, that is, a person in a trinitarian or christological context. This range of meaning occasioned confusion in the earlier trinitarian debates, exacerbated when translating between Greek and Latin. Thanks in part to the work of the Cappadocian fathers in the fourth century, the term came to be restricted to the personal distinctions in the Godhead, rather than being used to designate the essence itself. Hence, the final Greek form of the trinitarian formula became “one ousia, three hypostases,” equivalent to the Latin-based formula “one substance/essence, three persons.” The expression hypostatic union is used in christological discussions. See also essentia and hypostatic union and monophysitism and subsistantia. (Shedd, W. G. T. (2003). Dogmatic theology (A. W. Gomes, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (956). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.)

When applying the concept of essence and substance to the Incarnation, Christ’s person is the Unity or Essence and his two natures (divine and human) are substances of his person. Just as we could say ‘the nature of essence of God subsists in three persons’, so we could say:

  ’The humanity subsists in the Divine Person of the Son’, or ‘Christ subsists in both a human and divine nature’.

On the other hand, ‘The divine person of the Son subsists in the humanity’ can’t be true at all. This statement would make the humanity of Christ analogous to the essence of the Trinity and making the divine nature a distinct expression of humanity! This therefore has no theological meaning that makes sense.

Something to be careful about is that these terms are just used to express different distinctions of one person. In the Trinity it refers to the distinction of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in One person. In the Incarnation the Divine and Human nature are distinguished in the Christ after the incarnation. However, we must remember that although the Divine nature is a sense a hypostasis of Christ, it is not in anyway really ‘standing under’ anything. It is only used in this way to say these natures stand under the Christ as a person logically. However, clearly it is the divine nature and not the human that is the root of Christ’s person, or ‘standing over’ it as it were before the incarnation. The second person of the Trinity is the root into which the human nature was grafted, not the other way around. Therefore the person of Christ is in itself kind of a hypostasis of God for he is still the Eternal Son, even though his divinity could be said to be a ‘hypostasis’ on account of his person taking upon humanity through the Incarnation. In this way both the Trinity and the Incantation use hypostasis or subsistence in a non-contradictory way.


Matthew 26:24, is God Omnibenevolent? I'm really interested about Matthew 26:24 in which Jesus said that

  The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Since this verse is talking about the betrayal of Judas, it seems that Jesus is affirming the eternal fate that awaits Judas by saying that it is better if Judas is had not been born.

Why is God who is Omnibenevolent knows that Judas will be better of if he had not been born let Judas to be born?

or

How can we say that God is Omnibenevolent if He made a decision (creating Judas) in which He fully knows that His decision will made one of His creation fate much-much worse in the end?

PS: This question is for all of you although I have special interest for answer from christian universalism point of view, hope u guys can chip in :) Thanks!

You are basically asking why God allows people to sin, without taking their lives beforehand, or even allowing them to live at all. Or how about "Why does God create people that will end up in hell?", because it would be better for anyone to not be born than to turn from their creator.

God created us and gave us free will, knowing we would turn to our own ways. He perfectly chose Adam and Eve to represent you and I. He also knew that some would repent and yearn for Him. Now I do not recall if it's mentioned that Adam (or Eve) find redemption, but if not and God had not allowed them to live long enough to sin, then mankind would not exist. It would be wrong for God to take every man's life that would not be saved through faith and repentance before they had sinned. God offers salvation to every sinful man (Matt 7:7-8). If all of these people had died so soon, or before they were even born, then how many souls would not even come to be? How many would not even be offered life and salvation?

Obviously if Judas ends up in hell, then it would be better if he had died before he sinned. I think Jesus is giving us a metaphor or simile in plain terms of the pain and suffering he would endure from his conviction for betrayal to his suicide, or perhaps in hell, or both.