How has the LDS Word of Wisdom changed since its introduction? In the LDS faith, they follow a law of health called the Word of Wisdom that teaches them to abstain from things like alcohol and tobacco and it encourages them to eat foods like grains, fruits, and vegetables.

How has the Word of Wisdom changed since its introduction compared to what it is today?

The revelation known as the Word of Wisdom is set forth in section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants.  It speaks of basic dietary and health principles, listing substances that are harmful and should be avoided (mainly addictive drugs) and positive things that should be observed (a healthy diet), and promises blessings of health, strength, knowledge and spiritual deliverance to those who observe its principles.

The only substantial change in doctrine between when the Word of Wisdom was first given and modern times is that it was originally given:

  2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by
  revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of
  God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

  3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the
  weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

whereas today it is considered a commandment to the members of the church.  This change was adopted in a general conference of the church in 1851, almost 20 years after the original revelation was given, under the reasoning that it would have been impractical to ask the general population of the church, many of whom were already accustomed to using substances known to be addictive, to give them up all at once, but that by this time they had had plenty of time to phase out the use of such things.

Today, observance of the Word of Wisdom is necessary before a person investigating the church can be baptized, and continued observance is required for a member to be considered worthy to go to the temple.


What do the woman and the man child from Rev.12 symbolize, for diferent traditions? In the book of Revelation, chapter 12, verses 1 to 6, we read a story about a Woman, a Dragon and a man child.

  And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the
  sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve
  stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained
  to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and
  behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven
  crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars
  of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before
  the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as
  soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to
  rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto
  God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where
  she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a
  thousand two hundred and threescore days.

  Revelation 12:1-6

Ok, at the verse 9, we are told that the Dragon is Satan, the Devil, the old Serpent. Therefore, no mistery about this character.

  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil,
  and Satan [...]

The question

Once we know that the Dragon is Satan, I would like to know an overview of interpretations held by diferent christian traditions.

A good answer will contain at least one commentary reference per view.

A good answer may contain a list of diferent traditions observing the following pattern:

Tradition or denomination name

Woman: meaning
Man child: meaning

Explanation and commentaries, if needed.

In orthodox traditions the Revelation is seen as a warning to be spiritually and morally ready for the end times, whenever they may come ("as a thief in the night"), but they will come at the time of God's choosing, not something that can be precipitated nor trivially deduced by mortals. This view is also held by many Catholics, although there is a diversity of opinion about the nature of the Apocalypse within Catholicism. Most denominations don't have an official interpretation of Revelation. Exceptions might be the Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and Jehovah's Wittnesses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

Popular interpretations focus on the identity of the Woman of the Apocalypse. She may be understood as:

The Virgin Mary

The Church

The Nation of Israel

Dispensational Premillennialists, and Amillennialists who believe in multiple valid interpretations will often identify the woman as the nation of Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_of_the_Apocalypse

The earliest Church Fathers understood the woman as the church.

Hippolytus (170-235)

  “And there was seen a great sign in heaven. A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. And being with child, she cried out travailing, and bearing torments that she might bring forth.”] The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people. Moreover, being clothed with the sun intimates the hope of resurrection and the glory of the promise. And the moon intimates the fall of the bodies of the saints under the obligation of death, which never can fail. For even as life is diminished, so also it is increased. Nor is the hope of those that sleep extinguished absolutely, as some think, but they have in their darkness a light such as the moon. And the crown of twelve stars signifies the choir of fathers, according to the fleshly birth, of whom Christ was to take flesh.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.vi.ii.xii.html

Victorinus (died 303 or 304)

  By the woman then clothed with the sun,” he meant most manifestly the Church, endued with the Father’s word, whose brightness is above the sun. And by the “moon under her feet” he referred to her being adorned, like the moon, with heavenly glory. And the words, “upon her head a crown of twelve stars,” refer to the twelve apostles by whom the Church was founded. And those, “she, being with child, cries, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered,” mean that the Church will not cease to bear from her heart the Word that is persecuted by the unbelieving in the world. “And she brought forth,” he says, “a man-child, who is to rule all the nations;” by which is meant that the Church, always bringing forth Christ, the perfect man-child of God, who is declared to be God and man, becomes the instructor of all the nations. And the words, “her child was caught up unto God and to His throne,” signify that he who is always born of her is a heavenly king, and not an earthly; even as David also declared of old when he said, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” (Ps. cx. 1.)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iii.iv.ii.i.html?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=12&scrV=1#iii.iv.ii.i-p204.1

Methodius (died 311) devoted several chapters to an extensive interpretation of Revelation 12.

Six brief points summarize his contribution concerning Revelation:

Woman of Revelation 12 is the Church; the Child Represents the Saints.
1260 Days Precede New Dispensation.
New Earth Follows Present Earth.
Contends Against Origen on the Resurrection.
Change of World to More Glorious Condition After the Conflagration.
Bodies Received in the Resurrection Never Die.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.xi.iii.ix.iv.html


Are Mormons Protestants? To my understanding, Mormons are neither Catholic nor Orthodox. I believe that they are Christians, but I'm not sure if they are Protestant or not.

Are Mormons Protestants, or are they just "Latter Day Saints"?

No, not really. While you sometimes find them lumped together they are not a subset of the class.

In popular usage such as among modern secular journalism, the term "Protestant" has come to mean anything that doesn't properly fall under the umbrella of either Catholicism or Orthodoxy. In this sense where there is no "Option D, none of the above", it sort of makes sense to lump in divergent sects with the rest of Protestantism.

There is, however, a fundamental difference: their theological roots are not the same. The LDS church is what is sometimes referred to as a "restorationist movement" — a reference to their theology's claim to be restoring something that was lost. While they agree with Protestants that the Catholic church lost its way, their proposed solution varies radically from that of Protestantism.

The basic tenets of Protestantism as a movement include rejection of a few Catholic doctrines and ultimately the Catholic church's claim to apostolic authority. In rejecting some of the core tenets of Catholicism, it based itself instead on a core set of doctrines (often loosely summarized in the "5 solas") that all require a certain reliance on the Scriptures as authoritative and uncorrupted.

The LDS church on the other hand is fundamentally based on the premise that Apostolic authority was lost (much earlier than even the rise of the Catholic church) and needed to be miraculously restored. This and other revelations are believed to have been given independently (and in opposition to) the existing claims of the Bible and historical Christian churches (whether Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox).

In other words, while they would also protest against Rome, their basis for doing so is entirely independent of the Protestant reformation and theologically they should be considered a sect (or cult depending on whose definitions you're using) outside of the theological umbrellas of Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant traditions.


How to contemplate without the urge to have to comprehend What makes people feel they have to figure it all out? How can someone strengthen their spirituality through contemplation while avoiding a desire to try to understand everything?

Note: This answer was written before the OP was edited. A more direct answer is marked below, the following is build-up.

The Psalms are a great place to go for this. Psalm 143:5 says

  I remember the days of old; I meditate on all that you have done; I
  ponder the work of your hands. (emphasis mine)

A few verses down David implores God:

  Teach me to do your will, for you are my God!

He's meditating on God's actions and word, but he's still asking God to teach him. He's marveling, wondering, thinking upon the truths of God's covenant with him and Israel, but he certainly doesn't have it figured out.

Also, by technical definition, contemplate does not mean comprehend

Additionally, the Bible talks numerous times of the mystery of God's nature and plan...

  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
  declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so
  are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
  Isaiah 55:8

  Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How
  unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who
  has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who
  has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" - Romans
  11:33-35

So don't worry! You don't have to figure it all out. It's quite mysterious and amazing, but, we can learn. After all, we've been given the entire Bible to study.

Also, we're going to be in heaven for eternity learning about God. If it takes an eternity to learn about God, don't worry that you don't understand it all right now.

How to stop trying to figure it all out

This borders on a pastoral concern, naturally, but I think we can take cues from the verses cited above. In my experience a good attitude is to

Try to remember I can't figure it out. This is hard, because it's a fundamentally different from the narcissistic mindset we naturally have. You have to start knowing that no matter how hard you or anyone else tries, you won't figure it all out.
Try to figure out as much as possible anyways. We're supposed to learn about God (how can you worship someone you don't even know?).
When you hit a paradox, stop. When you encounter something that the Bible doesn't explain, don't try to reason it out. The Bible leaves it alone for a reason. Don't try to compress the Trinity into the phases of water; the analogy fails miserably. (though it can be a helpful illustration). Paradoxes are there both because God is greater than us and to remind us of that.


Why did Peter, James and John (all three) appear to Joseph Smith? Why did Peter, James and John, (all three) appear to Joseph
Smith?

If I understand your question to be why did all three need to appear to Joseph Smith then there is no precise answer out there that I can find, but there are several closely related answers.

The simple answer as to why they appeared to Joseph Smith can be found in D&C 27:12

  And also with Peter, and James, and John, whom I have sent unto you, by whom I have ordained you and confirmed you to be apostles, and especial witnesses of my name, and bear the keys of your ministry and of the same things which I revealed unto them;

Why all three and not just one. Part of it may be because all three are recognized as prominent apostles during Christ's ministry. Having just one or two would lead to questions like why didn't all three appear to him. And from 2 Cor 13:1

  This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Also, the LDS believe that Jesus Christ, Moses, and Elias gave the keys to Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration; so they (Peter, James, and John) are following the same pattern as they did anciently by having three members confer the keys. 1

The exact reasoning for having 3 apostles/prophets confer is not stated but 3 is a symbolic number for completeness or the Godhead (and the Priesthood is the power and authority of God and that power given to man to act in His name). 2

For more on Priesthood keys see this article that has select teachings by various LDS prophets/leaders.

1 http://scriptures.byu.edu/tpjs/STPJS.pdf pg 158

2 '3' sybmol meaning https://bible.org/question/what-significance-numbers-scripture and http://www.biblestudy.org/bibleref/meaning-of-numbers-in-bible/3.html and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/3944/22319


In Catholicism, does sin compound? If you are in a state of mortal sin (let's use living in sin as an example) and you commit more sins does that mean you're in an even more sinful state?

If you are in mortal sin and then skip mass and then take the name of the Lord in vain are you in triple mortal sin or does it just not matter anymore? Mortal is mortal?

One mortal sin forfeits all friendship with God, forfeits all sanctifying grace, and forfeits the ability to merit by performing good acts with the proper intentions.

Addressing whether the damned demerit, St. Thomas Aquinas writes (Summa Theologica suppl. q. 98 a. 6 c.):

  We must draw a distinction between the damned before the judgment day and after. For all are agreed that after the judgment day there will be neither merit nor demerit. The reason for this is because merit or demerit is directed to the attainment of some further good or evil: and after the day of judgment good and evil will have reached their ultimate consummation, so that there will be no further addition to good or evil. Consequently, good will in the blessed will not be a merit but a reward, and evil will in the damned will be not a demerit but a punishment only. For works of virtue belong especially to the state of happiness and their contraries to the state of unhappiness (Ethic. i, 9,10).

A person who commits adultery and murders certainly deserves more of a penalty than if he only committed adultery. In both cases, these are mortal sins (due to the grave matter and assuming they're committed freely and with the full knowledge of their sinfulness), which causes the supernatural death of his soul. It's not like his soul is less supernaturally dead in the former case and more dead in the latter.

Addressing whether every act of an unbeliever is a sin, St. Thomas Aquinas answers (Summa Theologica II-II q. 10 a. 4 c.):

  …mortal sin takes away sanctifying grace, but does not wholly corrupt the good of nature. Since therefore, unbelief is a mortal sin, unbelievers are without grace indeed, yet some good of nature remains in them. Consequently it is evident that unbelievers cannot do those good works which proceed from grace, viz. meritorious works; yet they can, to a certain extent, do those good works for which the good of nature suffices.

  Hence it does not follow that they sin in everything they do; but whenever they do anything out of their unbelief, then they sin. For even as one who has the faith, can commit an actual sin, venial or even mortal, which he does not refer to the end of faith, so too, an unbeliever can do a good deed in a matter which he does not refer to the end of his unbelief.


Why did Jesus physically throw out the money changers instead of winning the argument with reason? When Jesus cleared the money changers from the Temple, he drove them out by overturning their tables and (in John) even using a whip. Why did he not try to remove them with persuasion, by making a reasoned argument? He was certainly capable of winning arguments (eg story culminating in Luke 13:17).

Bible references for the story:

Matthew 21:12-13
Mark 11:15-19
Luke 19:45–48
John 2:13–16 (possibly a separate occasion to the above Synoptics)

It seems that there is an assumption in this question that suggests reason is preferable to judgment.  Reason is appropriate when the problem is merely a misunderstanding, but judgment is appropriate when the problem is willful disobedience.

It is likely that the place in the temple where the market had been set up was in the Court of the Gentiles.  Thus, occupying that particular place was in essence excluding the nations from the worship of the one true God.  As Rick noted, the Temple was intended to be a place of prayer for all nations--not just the Jews.

  These I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”  Isaiah 56:7

It seems unlikely that the people would not have known this, as it was called the Court of the Gentiles.  So, occupying that place was in direct violation to a command of God--not a misunderstanding.  Thus, it was wholly appropriate for Jesus to bring judgment rather than reason.


Was Mary’s appearance to St. James the Greater in year 40 AD an apparition or bilocation? Tradition has it that the Blessed Virgin Mary, sometime before  her bodily Assumption into heaven, appeared to the Apostle St. James the Elder while he was living and preaching in Spain.

After Pentecost, the 12 Apostles dispersed to preach the Gospel all over the world. St. James the Greater, on one of his apostolic journeys, preached in the Iberian Peninsula in modern-day Spain.

St. James was discouraged that the pagans of that land were not responding to the Gospel and converting to Christianity. He had only a handful of converts to show for his labors. In the face of what he thought was failure in his mission, he prayed with his disciples by the Ebro river in modern day Zaragoza.

The First Marian Apparition in Church History: Our Lady of the Pillar

ap·pa·ri·tion
ˌapəˈriSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: apparition; plural noun: apparitions

a ghost or ghostlike image of a person.

bi·lo·ca·tion
ˌbīlōˈkāSHən/
noun
noun: bilocation; noun: bi-location

the supposed phenomenon of being in two places simultaneously.

Understanding the meaning of an apparition, it implies that Mary appears like a"ghost or ghost like image of the person".

The year was 40 AD, how can Mary appear like a ghost if she still alive?

It would seem that a bilocation is the more acceptable word, like what happens to other well known saints like St.Padre Pio.

My question is according to Catholicism, how can Mary appears in a ghostform or like a spiritual being when She is actually still very much alive.

The story of the above article somehow implied Mary has a capability to travel in space not common to mortal bodies.

I'm looking for Catholic perspective and early Church Father explanation on Mary's apparition gifts while still alive.

This traditional event in the life of St. James the Apostle is called an apparition. It is most probable that the Virgin Mary was still alive at the time of this event, thus making it a bilocation.

  Venerable Maria of Agreda who was shown the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary in detail, writes in her Mystical City of God that St. James, brother of St. John, whom Our Lord called “Sons of Thunder”, had a special devotion to the Blessed Mother.

  Becoming the apostle of what today is Spain, Saint James was having a hard time evangelizing the northern region of Zaragoza. One night, as he prayed asking help for his plight, he suddenly beheld a great light in the midst of which he saw Our Lady surrounded by a multitude of angels.

  The interesting thing is that Mary was still living in Jerusalem at the time. But as queen of the Church, she was given to see all that concerned her Son’s work, and being shown the prayer of her devotee, had obtained from Jesus to help him in a special way. - The Marvelous Story of Our Lady of the Pillar

Many stories abound about this particular tradition. No Church Father speaks of it. and it is likewise not mentioned in the Scriptures, thus making it part of private revelation. No Catholic is under obligation to believe this legend, but many do, including myself.

  Several Christian saints, monks and Muslim sufis are said to have exhibited bilocation. Among the earliest is the apparition of Our Lady of the Pillar in the year 40. Other Christian figures said to have experienced bilocation include St. Alphonsus Marie De'Liguori (Founder of Redemptorist Congregation), St. Anthony of Padua, Ursula Micaela Morata, St. Gerard Majella, Charles of Mount Argus, Padre Pio,[13] St. Severus of Ravenna, St. Ambrose of Milan, María de Ágreda,[14] and St. Martin de Porres, María de León Bello y Delgado, as well as Pope Cyril VI of Alexandria. St Isidore the Laborer claimed to be praying or attending to Mass in Church while at the same time plowing in the fields. - Bilocation (Wikipedia)


Which, if any, Protestant bodies affirm punishment in the afterlife for the unrighteous prior to the general resurrection and the Day of the Lord? In the old testament, when people died they were said to descend to Sheol. It wasn't particularly spiritualized as much as it was just an understanding that dead people go to the grave and the grave swallows them up. There was an understanding that the spirit is not annihilated, but not a completely articulated theology of some division into those in punishment and those in paradise.

In Greek Sheol is Hades, and in English, Hell. Within the New Testament, we are confirmed that the thief on the cross with Jesus would be with him in paradise "today", i.e. not on the last day in the resurrection. Paul also assures us that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, presumable, if you are saved.

So it's relatively clear that upon the resurrection there will be a resurrection unto life with a new heavens, a new earth, and a new Jerusalem. There will be a resurrection unto death with a lake of fire and the smoke of their torment rises forever. What is not completely clear to me is that presently dead individuals immediately enter into a state of torment while awaiting the resurrection.

The go-to proof for this is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. On the one hand, it seems to discussing Sheol, not the resurrection. On the other hand, it is after all a parable and might not be a good place to draw a complete theology of the afterlife. In addition, it would introduce a paradox. To be "absent from the body is to be present with the Lord", but the rich man apparently has a tongue which wants water, and his body is in anguish. He seems to have a body. This isn't a problem if it is indeed a parable, but it also would take away the legitimacy of using this parable to tell us something about the unbelieving dead, right now.

Jesus also spoke about "Hell", but as Gehenna, not Sheol/Hades. It is clear that this is a place that "soul and body" are destroyed in flames. The alternate of "entering life" is something that Jesus seems to say is something that it would better to "enter lame". Again, problematic. I thought the body is restored and glorified in life. Many people point to this passage as an example of hyperbole. Some (universalists) postulate that in these passages, Jesus is referring to the literal Gehenna where idolaters and idols perished with an allusion to the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans, as if to say that the immoral would literally die in this manner. There might be an implication this is true, but even so, it would be true in an apocalyptic sense as well, in which human events with spiritual meanings are said to take on a cosmic dimension. Thus it would make sense that Jesus is actually talking about the second death and might be foreshadowing their first death in the siege.

But so it's all quite confusing. What happens when the unbeliever dies before the resurrection? Do they suffer a bodily torment while absent from the body and prior to the verdict of their judgment? What then is even accomplished in the judgment? In Revelation, the martyrs seem eager for their blood to be avenged. If there is torment in the intermediate state, what's the difference between the lake of fire and torment after death?

I am going to answer your question as best I can even though someone will inevitably mark my answer as bogus and chime about my being on the site long enough to know not to answer truth questions. I do not understand your question as a truth question, but a basis for true confusion. That being said here goes and if the powers that be do not like my trying to help you they can throw me off the site, which is not a threat to me since they are of no help anymore anyway.

The thing which appears to be the main stumbling point for you is the Cross and the resurrection. The real key to understanding the difference is in understanding BC as compared to AD. The cross is not only a dividing line on our Earthly time line it is a significant happening in the Spiritual realm in that all things changed at that point.

Until Jesus death and resurrection there was no salvation. There was no way that man could be justified and gain access to the Kingdom of God. What that actually means is that there was no forgiveness for sin, and sin separates us from God.

Until Jesus provided an avenue for our return to purity man was prohibited from the presence of God, in much the same way as a child is not prepared for bed until after their bath. So is man unclean not ready for Heaven (the spiritual realm of God(; until he is washed in the blood of Christ. Therefore mankind from Adam to the sacrifice of Crist was not clean and not ready for the kingdom of God. And so those who had passed before were not eligible for heaven, and also not eligible for judgment since there was no standard for judgment until Jesus sacrifice.

Therefore not being eligible for any permanent disposition they were placed in what we often call a state of suspended animation. That is why Jesus himself spoke of people being asleep:

  John 11:11 through 15 NKJV  These things He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up." 12  Then His disciples said, "Lord, if he sleeps he will get well." 13  However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14  Then Jesus said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead. 15  And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, that you may believe. Nevertheless let us go to him."

His disciples, much as we today; did not realize that Jesus was referring to two differing forms of Lazarus. Even though Lazarus' physical body was dead, as is indicated by Mary's statement that by now he would stink. When Jesus spoke of awakening him he was referring to arousing Lazarus soul. The physical body was no more than a physical repository for that Spirit, which Jesus could heal at will.

There are two great lessons in these Scriptures:

There is a part of man which is in perpetuity; the Soul.
Jesus has powers which reach beyond the grave.

As far as your reference to Lazarus and the rich man parable; Jesus must have been referring to what would be after the cross, since the hot tongue, shows some sort of punishment is taking place, and until the cross there was no basis for judgment.

Just to deflect some of the arrows which must invariably come, my answer is based on my Southern Baptist belief which is Bible centered, and the belief that the Bible explains itself.


Have any critiques of Lindbeck's principles been offered by academics? George Lindbeck's principles for doing 'good' Christology are as follows:

Monotheism - There is only one God
Historic Specificity - Centred on Jesus of Nazareth
Christological Maximalism - all highest possible significance should be attributed to Him

If we use these principles when talking about Christ we will have a 'good Christology.'

Are there any known critiques of these principles as offered by other theologians?

Don't infer that I style myself a theologian or anything of the sort just because I am answering your question (I don't, and am not doing so), but I would suggest there are a few important things wrong with this set of criteria that I can see, and which ought to be considered.

In the first place, the criterion as such coming from George Lindbeck means that it will be at best the greatest way to be closest to George Lindbeck's idea of what Christianity ought to be, and what criteria it ought to meet, not what Christianity is as a matter of fact—if it is claimed to be much more, namely, if it is claimed to be an objective set of criteria, one has admitted they already know Christianity, and can thus affirm that it comports with George Lindbeck's criteria—and thus have no need to arrive at a Christology they already have. I need not point out the insufferable circularity here.

Second, the terms "centered on Jesus" are entirely subjective. What 'breaches' centered on Jesus? Who decides?

"All highest possible significance" is even more subjective.


How do the Dead Sea Scrolls impact modern apologetics? I understand that the 1946 discovery of almost a thousand ancient texts in caves on the West Bank has had a significant impact, I'm just trying to figure out what specific changes the discovery has had for apologetics. What do the Scrolls tell us about biblical authentication?

As someone who wants to be competent in apologetics, what should I know about the Dead Sea Scrolls?

From what I recall, the major impact of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it validated the accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament scriptures.  Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament were dated around 920 A.D.  The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to around 100 B.C.

With this gap of about a thousand years, some supposed there would be massive changes uncovered.  This was not true, however, as the variances were of no significance.

There have been opponents of Christianity that made allegations that Christians had perverted the Old Testament text, introducing and rewriting prophecies to make it appear that there were Messianic prophecies which Jesus fulfilled.  Prior to the discover of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians had a difficult time proving that this did not happen, even though the reality of such an undertaking would have been rejected by Jewish people everywhere and would likely be recorded in history.

Thus, the major significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it verifies the stability of the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts from well before the birth of Jesus and Christianity, and on through modern times.  We can be confident that the Old Testament we read today has been accurately transmitted throughout history from at least a hundred years before the birth of Jesus.

The prophecies of the Messiah that so accurately and specifically point to the time of Jesus and to the specific events in His life were not introduced after the birth of the church, but were there all along.


Do God and Satan Celebrate Earthly Triumphs? Many people talk about "A Never-Ending Battle Between Good and Evil".

The Bible mentions specific interventions by God and Satan to influence earthly events.

'The Binding of Issac' stands out in my mind as an example of God's intervention.
And 'The Temptation of Christ' stands out in my mind as an example of Satan's intervention.

My question:

Do God and Satan celebrate earthly triumphs?

For instance:

Did God celebrate after Abraham did as He commanded him to do after 'The Binding of Issac'?
Would Satan have celebrated if Jesus succumbed to his temptations in the desert?
Does either continue to celebrate as we live life on planet Earth?

As the word 'celebrate' implies satisfaction or joy, I don't think we can properly say the Devil 'celebrates' in any thing that he falsely perceives as accomplishing his hate. As the Devil in enraged by cruel ambitions, he can find no real satisfaction or joy. Rather all his efforts would be understood better as an energetic and powerful 'writhing in agony.' As the scriptures do not unveil the secret and loathsome works of darkness, any further speculation on how the Devil feels or perceives things falsely would be out of place. We only know he is suffering death.

God on the other hand can be said to rejoice in all his works, taking pleasure in all the good he accomplishes. It is the nature of good to take pleasure in Good and to the degree of that goodness achieved the more God, in a sense, 'celebrates it.' God's rejoicing is not only in Himself but even a believer's joy could be said to be God's joy in the heart of man. The kingdom of God includes joy because by entering it we have communion with God's celebration of all he does and all he is:

  For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. (NIV Romans 14:17)

This joy, when eminent with respect to a wonderful work where God takes special joy, is often accompanied by illustration in the celebration of angels:

  I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety- nine righteous persons who do not need to repent. (NIV Luke 15:7-8)


Is the God of Christianity a just God? What does the Bible say about the justice of God? Is He just?

YES
Basically what you're asking has been asked throughout history.

Job 8:3 NIV
Does God pervert justice? Does the Almighty pervert what is right?

The Saints defend God
Throughout the ages of biblical times, the saints have declared with trumpets the Justice of God.

Job 34:12 NIV
It is unthinkable that God would do wrong, that the Almighty would
pervert justice.
Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A
faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
2 Thessalonians 1:6
God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you
Isaiah 30:18
Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to
show you compassion. For the LORD is a God of justice. Blessed are all
who wait for him!
Isaiah 5:16
But the LORD Almighty will be exalted by his justice, and the holy God
will be proved holy by his righteous acts.

Why isn't God doing anything about the evil?
You may then ask, why is there evil in this world? Why are there murders and why are there evil people?
God declares that He will judge every deed.

Ecclesiastes 3:17
I said to myself, “God will bring into judgment both the righteous and
the wicked, for there will be a time for every activity, a time to
judge every deed.”
Revelation 20:13
The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up
the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to
what they had done.

How can God forgive us, if He is Just?
God has declared all people wicked, so how can He forgive anybody?

Romans 3:23 (NIV)
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Well.. isn't that what this entire story is about.

Romans 3:25-26 (NIV)
25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the
shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to
demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left
the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate
his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one
who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.


How do Catholics in Japan celebrate the Feast of the Discovery of the Hidden Christians? Most people know that March 17 is the Feast of St Patrick. But in Japan, the faithful celebrate the Feast of the Discovery of the Hidden Christians or Kakure Krishistans.

In 1614, all Catholic missionaries were expelled from Japanese soil. Fr. B. Petitjean arrived in Nagasaki, Japan in August 1864 and was able to construct a small Church. On March 17, 1865 he discovered that the Christian faith had survived in Japan for some 250 years without any missionaries (priests) to administer the sacraments!

Outside the celebration of the Mass for this feast, how do Japanese Catholics celebrate this feast?

We attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Altar, i.e. we "have Mass". I recall two or three years ago the priest gave a homily about it at Mass one night; apparently it was a Tuesday night.

It's not a big deal in my city, at least (which, with a population of more than 300,000, has only one Sunday sacrifice (in a church smaller than most American churches), that's how few Christians of the catholic faith there are).

"Having Mass" to celebrate perhaps shouldn't surprise you, since it is "the source and summit of our faith", the highest celebration, etc.

The Christians in Japan really need your prayers, by the way. The catechesis, evangelization, birth rate, and seminarians all appear to be really struggling, and there is still nationalism among the Japanese such that multiple times I have been told, "Of course I'm not Christian, because I am Japanese."


Are there aspects of the Imitation of Christ that are biased towards a Devotio Moderna perspective? What are some of them? I read that someone ascribes the Imitation of Christ to the Devotio Moderna movement. I'm quite incognizant about that, though. I fail to grasp what the Devotio Moderna entailed. So I would like to get what are some particular aspects of the Imitation of Christ that could be in accord with the Devotio Moderna (if there are any).

There's little information about the Devotio Moderna, in spite of its influence on several key figures of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. However, I managed to get a reference to a study published by the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science.
Translating the "Results" and "Conclusion" sections of the description, we have some information arrayed below, slightly edited for readability:

RESULTS:
The Imitation of Christ reaffirms themes which are dear to the Devotio, like humility, obedience, simplicity, devotion, piety, individual prayer and meditation, among others. Like the Devotio, it constantly emphasizes inner life, seeking to describe a life of disciplined devotion, centered in the meditation of following the life of the Christ.
Certain rites remained necessary in the Devotio Moderna like Mass and the Eucharist[sic]. There was a re-descovery of Sacred Scripture, of the Christ of the Gospels and of the writings of the Church Fathers, emphasizing a more intimist, less ritualist religion, but which did not exclude completely the priest on account of him being ordained to celebrate Mass and the only one who can consecrate the Body of Christ. In neither the Devotio Moderna movement nor the work The Imitation of Christ there is a contempt for the Sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, but also Matrimony and Penitence were valued.
The Saints are venerated both in the Devotio Moderna and in the Imitation and some are cited as models to be followed: St. Lawrence, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Agatha, not to mention the Apostles, etc., even though it is emphasized that Jesus Christ is the supreme model to be imitated in His perfection and piety...
CONCLUSION:
The reformers of the 16th Century — both Catholic and Protestant — were heirs of the Devotio Moderna, particularly in relation to a more interior religion, more centered on the individual and in reading Sacred Scripture. The Imitation of Christ, faithful to the movement which originated it, gave more emphasis to interior life and the spreading of a popular piety where charity, faith and humility became more important than the formalism of rites, without belittling the cult of Saints and Sacraments.
The Catholic mystics and reformers appropriated that; meanwhile, as F. Lau affirms: "It was from the ideal of piety of The Imitation of Christ (...) that Luther later distanced himself (Lau, 1980).
Thus, we can affirm that the Devotio Moderna is, after a fashion, in the root of Modern Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant; but Luther and his followers distanced themselves from the piety put forth in the work The Imitation of Christ. At the same time, Catholic mystics and reformers, particularly in the 16th and 17th Centuries, knew, read and possibly let themselves be guided by that work. Therefore, The Imitation of Christ had influence only on the Catholic mystics and reformers.

The researchers quoted above mention that the Devotio focused on a more inward-facing, contemplative spirituality, which is well represented by The Imitation of Christ. At the same time, devotion for the Sacraments (particularly the Eucharist, Penance and Matrimony) and  the Saints is emphasized by both. These themes are all present in The Imitation, as befits a work that was written by a member of that movement


Why are the same palms used on Palm Sunday used for Ash Wednesday services the next year? In the Episcopal church, the traditional source of ashes on Ash Wednesday comes from the burnt remains of the previous year's Palm Sunday fronds. How did this practice originate, and what is the theological significance of the sign?

Additionally, do other denominations practice this?

The BBC has quite a good critique on the subject. It is of course a convenient way of getting good quality ash, but there is a theological significance.

The Palm Sunday palms symbolise Christ's triumphant entry into Jerusalem, and converting them into ash is a reminder that defeat and crucifixion followed soon after.

The ashing is a mark of penitence, and using the palms is also a reminder that the same people who cried "Hosanna" were before long baying "Crucify!" just as the Palm Sunday liturgy recreates. It is a mark of our own penitence for our own concupiscence (Christ's sacrifice of himself was a propitiation once for all time, including for us in our time).

Ash on its own doesn't make much of a mark, and some kind of binding agent is needed to allow them to make their statement. The ashes may simply be mixed with water as they are blessed (which is usual in most situations), but they may also be mixed with oil as a reminder of the chrismation and signing with the cross at Baptism.

In the Palm Sunday liturgy, palms are blessed outside the church and a short gospel is read about the finding of the colt and the entry into Jerusalem. The people follow, rejoicing as on the first Palm Sunday. Once inside the church the mood of the liturgy changes abruptly, reaching its climax in the Passion Gospel. Generally this is semi-dramatised and the people have their own part to play again, shouting "Crucify! Crucify!" at that point in the narrative.

It's common in Episcopalian and other high-church circles; and universal in the Roman Catholic Church.


The Pope is resigning. How does a living pope confer his authority? I read that Pope Benedict XVI is resigning. I don't know much about Catholic/papal authority as it relates to leading the Church, but as far as I can remember, a pope dies before another one takes the reigns. Apparently, this has happened before, but how does the living pope confer that authority to a successor, since he's still alive? Since he resigned, is his authority to lead the Catholic church removed from him, or how does that work?

Yes, as the Pope said in his resignation speech, he gives up the office and it is for those whose duty it is to convoke the conclave and elect a successor — just as it would be if he had died.

As a cardinal, he's entitled to attend the conclave (but he probably won't) but he can't vote because he's over eighty.


Are there denominations which prefer using the name "Yeshu‘a" instead of "Jesus"? The original name for Jesus in Hebrew-Aramaic is yeshu‘a. This was translated into Greek as Iēsous and then via the Latin Iesus into German, and eventually into English as Jesus.

Since Christians believe that using the name of Jesus/Yeshua in prayer adds authority and power, it could be argued that Christians should be using his original name (Yeshua) or at least something closer to it, rather than the somewhat convoluted translation "Jesus".

Are there any denominations or Christian groups that use "Yeshua" as opposed to "Jesus"?
Is there any evidence that other denominations have considered changing their usage from "Jesus" to "Yeshua" and are there any documented reasons why that suggestion was rejected?

Christians, in general, do not believe that Jesus' name is 'magic', in the sense that if you say the word your prayer is somehow more effective. The exact version of the name used is not therefore important. "In my name", as Jesus says, can mean a number of things including "with my authority" and "in accordance with my wishes".

It's true that Yeshua is probably a better rendition of the original name than Jesus. However the confusion of changing it - unless you have a good reason - would probably outweigh the advantages.

The only denomination that I know of that uses Yeshua on a regular basis are the Messianic Jews, particularly Jews for Jesus. That's because the name Yeshua is already familiar to many of them, so it isn't nearly as much of a disconnect. It also emphasizes Jesus' Jewishness.


Did God really create the world in six days? According to a well-known biblical tale from Genesis told to me when I was a child, God created the world in six days, then took a rest on the seventh day. Now that I am an adult, I can't help wondering what this six days even means. What does 'time' mean to someone like God? How long were those six days if there is no way for anyone to measure it? Also, time is defined in terms of physical processes which are regular, e.g. the current definition physicists use is

  The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

It seems to me that time not only can't be measured, but has no meaning before the universe was created. How should we interpret this tale of creation?

Accepting the creation tale as literal 6 days, here are some facts.

The Hebrew calendar is a  lunisolar calendar, meaning that months are based on lunar months, but years are based on solar years. A day in Hebrew calendar is counted from sunset to the next sunset. Sunset is the starting point for a new day but night time is considered as the transition period between the two days , therefore, morning (sunrise) is mostly called as the start of a day.

  Genesis 1:1-5 (NIV)  In the beginning God created the heavens and the
  earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the
  surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the
  waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
  God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the
  darkness. God called the light “day” and the darkness he called
  “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first
  day.

As we see in Genesis 1:3-5, light was the first thing that God created, which means that the sun was the first creation. This made it possible to start counting the time based on the sun. That is why the creation of the sun (light) was marked as the first day, and literally, the first day on this earth. Here we have to remember that the earth itself was already there but it was without light. The creation of light could also mean that the sun was already there but was not visible from earth. Therefore, the moment there was light on the surface of the earth, the counting of time based on the sun was also started. On the first day, the sun might not be clearly visible yet from the earth but the sunlight could penetrate the atmosphere and it was possible to start counting the days based on evening and morning. God is not controlled by any time measurement but since the book of Genesis was written for human and since it is about the creation of this world, it is more likely that human time measurement was used for narrating the creation story.

  Genesis 1:31 (NIV) God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.
  And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

After creating the sun, God continued to create land, animals and lastly, human. God finished his work on the sixth day, which is here again counted based on evening and morning.

If we take the scripture literally as it is, then we can say that God created the world in six days.


What was Satan's view on the authority of Scripture? Does the Bible give us any indication about what Satan's own view of the Scriptures and their authority as divine testimony is? Does the way he uses it or the way he responds to those who use it tell us anything about his understanding of their inspiration/authority?

While the oft-cited adage that "the Devil can quote scripture for his own purposes" is not, as some think, an actual Biblical quotation, support for the idea is definitely found in the Bible.  (See Matthew chapter 4, for example.)  This doesn't really demonstrate anything either way about Satan's willingness to accept the scriptures as authoritative or authentic, but simply a cynical tendency to use any rhetorical tool that he thinks will be effective.

We do know that "the devils believe [in God] and tremble", and that they acknowledge the power of his authorized servants but not his name alone (Acts 19: 13-16,) but very little is said of Satan or his servants and their relationship with the scriptures.


Is there a Christian response to dying in dignity or assisted suicide? There is a raging debate in the province of Quebec on the question "Does someone have the right to kill another because the first one is suffering?" There are more and more cases in the news that look like the following that arrived just yesterday.

Here is a video of an example : http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Canada/Montreal/1305551527/ID=2213970096

Does the Bible tackle the issue? From an evangelical perspective how do I answer this question/issue?

Edit :
I'm looking to a way to answer a fellow Christian with little knowledge of the Bible, and a non-Christian as well. The question is not simply assisted suicide, but it's implied therapeutic relentlessness as well.

From a general Christian perspective, I believe that assisted suicide is wrong.  I have multiple reasons for this.  The obvious, but too obvious, answer is that God commands that we shall not murder.  A common objection to this argument is that it's not murder if the person is suffering and wishes to die.  Perhaps so, so allow me to argue a separate point.

Ultimately, the main reason I believe that assisted suicide is wrong, falls more on the person committing the suicide, assisted or unassisted, than it does the person who aids in the suicide.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20

  Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who
  is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you
  were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Ultimately, I believe this is probably the strongest evidence against the argument.  For those who choose to commit suicide, they are implicitly stating that they are their own.  In the cultures that are discussing these situations, there is already an existing undercurrent that essentially claims that our bodies are our own.  You can see this argument when it comes to all sorts of things dealing with human life, most noticeably abortion and assisted suicide.  The argument can almost always be boiled down to: "It's my body, therefore I am allowed to do anything to it that I want to do."

If the scripture holds true here, which I believe it does, then our own comfort and enjoyment of life comes second to what it is that God would have done in our lives.  Assisted suicide denies loved ones the opportunity to learn patience and love towards someone who cannot repay.  It runs on the assumption that comfort, happiness, and productivity are the most important things in life, and once those things are gone, there is nothing more to live for.  It robs God of the opportunity to do great things, and possibly recuperate the person.

Sadly, I cannot think of any good way to convince a non-Christian of the moral bankruptcy of assisted suicide.  Their perspective is typically to say that their body is their own.  This has been the same argument used for years in regards to abortion, where the child is viewed as an unpleasant and inconvenient intrusion on the mother's well-being and happiness, and therefore must be eliminated.

It's really the same argument all over again, only this time, instead of killing another, we kill ourselves.

Regarding Therapeutic Relentlessness

I've been asked (at the end of the very long comments at the bottom) to update my answer to reflect my viewpoint on therapeutic relentlessness.  Obviously, this is a very sensitive subject, and I'm honestly less clear on what scripture has to say about "how much treatment is too much treatment" when it comes to sustaining a life.  There are plenty of other limitations in place, such as financial limitations, availability of technology, etc, that make for hard decisions in this area.  How do we balance the physical restrictions, with our moral obligation in this area?

To be honest, I can't think of any place where the Bible speaks directly to the issue of therapeutic relentlessness, mostly because the technology to do such things didn't exist at the time of Christ.  But I think it's important to remember that the Bible ultimately isn't designed as a "rule book" that we're to follow, but it's ultimate intent is that we become dependent upon God for our daily lives.  It gives us a framework on some clear issues, but sometimes, we'll be called upon to pray and ask God what he would have us do.  If the Bible clearly explained every moral dilemma we're bound to face, then there would be no need for wisdom, and quite frankly, it wouldn't drive us into relationship with God.  We'd be happy following rules, and that would be all we would do.

In the end, I think it comes down to stewardship, which is implicit in the verse above. We have been given our bodies not for our own purposes, but so that we might steward them properly. To steward something, it's necessary to have the recognition both that the object of our stewardship is not our own, and that we will answer to one greater than ourselves in regards to how we performed our stewardship duties.

A good example of this is in 2 Chronicles 16:12, Asa did not consult God, but rather, consulted the physicians.  I don't believe here that the problem was that he consulted the physicians, but rather that he never consulted God.  He was being a bad steward in not asking God what God would have for his foot malady.  God may have said, "go to the physicians, and they'll heal you", but he might have said to do something else.  We'll never know.  Asa died in the next verse.

As Christians, we are called to be dependent on God for all things, which means, that ultimately, what we do here isn't always a matter of black and white.  God may give us difficult situations for no other reason but that we might become more dependent on him.  It's a matter of godly submission.  When faced with difficulties like this, which I honestly hope I'm never faced with, our proper reaction should never be to lean in our own understanding, but rather to trust in the Lord.

Personal Viewpoint

I know it sounds like a cop-out answer, but I really don't think there's a hard and fast rule here.  From my personal perspective, something seems strange to me about artificially keeping a body of an unconscious person alive for years, when to remove the life support, the body would fail.  I see that as somehow different than actively killing the person, but again, that's my opinion on that, and I know some Christians who would probably disagree.  Another person, when faced with the same difficulty, may pray and ask God what God would like them to do, and he may lead them to sustain the body for a while.  They may view that as good stewardship of what God has given them.  Again, no hard and fast answer on that one, I'm afraid.


What is the Biblical basis against inter-faith marriages? Setting aside marriages of couples from two different Christian denominations, what passages in the New Testament prohibit a Christian from marrying a non-Christian?

I believe that the Old Testament prohibits Jews from marrying non-Jews, but I am interested in answers relating to Christians specifically.

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 is often understood to prohibit the marriage of Christians with non-Christians:

  Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?


Why can't we boil down the three fonts of Catholic ethics to two? According to Catholic ethics, the three fonts of morality are intention, moral object and circumstance (reference). But why can't we explain the morality only using the intention and the moral object?
eg: Think you drive a car and someone holds a gun to your head till you drive over a person in the road. So due to this circumstance, the morality of the action is less evil. But still, we can explain the same with the 'intention'. Because you had no intention to kill the person but you were forced to do it by the person who holds the gun. Therefore the act is less evil.
My question is why is it necessary to have 'circumstance' in this equation?

Why can't we boil down the three fonts of morality to two?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the morality of human acts depends on three things:

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY
1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

the object chosen;

the end in view or the intention;

the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.
1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.
1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).
1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

Thus as we learn from the Catechism that the circumstances of our actions will determine whether or not we shall merit before God for our good moral actions or be more guilty or culpable before God in regards to our immoral or sinful actions.
The circumstances of our moral actions are the variables by which help to determine how guilty one is in regards to sinful acts. Even the courts of law admit that some crime may be committed by some individual, yet a prosecutor may be inclined to ask the courts for a lesser sentence (probation in lieu of jail time) due to extenuating circumstances.
The opposite is equally true for gaining merit before God, for doing good.
You can not take the circumstances out of the picture when describing the morality of human actions as they form a intricate part of morality.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains in his Summa Theologiae why circumstances are so necessary in regards to human acts:

Whether theologians should take note of the circumstances of human acts?
Circumstances come under the consideration of the theologian, for a threefold reason. First, because the theologian considers human acts, inasmuch as man is thereby directed to Happiness. Now, everything that is directed to an end should be proportionate to that end. But acts are made proportionate to an end by means of a certain commensurateness, which results from the due circumstances. Hence the theologian has to consider the circumstances. Secondly, because the theologian considers human acts according as they are found to be good or evil, better or worse: and this diversity depends on circumstances, as we shall see further on (I-II:18:10-11; I-II:73:7). Thirdly, because the theologian considers human acts under the aspect of merit and demerit, which is proper to human acts; and for this it is requisite that they be voluntary. Now a human act is deemed to be voluntary or involuntary, according to knowledge or ignorance of circumstances, as stated above (I-II:6:8). Therefore the theologian has to consider circumstances.


What is the scriptural basis for liberation theology? Gustavo Gutierrez is the theologian most associated with the concept of Liberation Theology, a theology that is highly popular amongst liberals and South Americans. Some of its main points include:

Jesus' "preference for the poor"
A call to social action
and a bias against all institutions, including the church

I can understand the "preference for the poor" by looking at the overall tone of Luke, but I'm having difficulty understanding the Scriptural basis that the Gospel as primarily a call for social action.  Where does this come from? (again, outside of Luke.  I do get the whole Magnificat thing)

What is the underlying scriptural basis of liberation theology?

First of all, Liberation Theology != Catholic Social Doctrine.

(source: wdtprs.com)
But, it is extruded by some process out of the latter of the two halves of "Catholic Economic Virtues" subsidiarity and solidarity.  Whereas subsidiarity is clearly in the Bible from Jethro's advice to Moses to divide up his duties down to one person judging for just a handful of families.  Solidarity is not so much in the bible, but certainly borne of it.
In the Catholic Catechism, which was compiled and published after most of this mess in the interval between Vatican II and the present, the whole of the expectations for economic activity is under the Seventh Commandment, "thou shalt not steal".

2434 A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice. 220 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good." Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.
2435 Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportionate benefit. It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly linked to working conditions or are contrary to the common good.  CCC 2434-2435

And specifically, with regard to the injustice between "capital" and "labor" the grave injustice mentioned above is referenced in:

"You shall not defraud or rob your neighbor. You shall not withhold overnight the wages of your day laborer. Lev 19:13
"You shall not defraud a poor and needy hired servant, whether he be one of your own countrymen or one of the aliens who live in your communities. Deut 24:14-15

and

Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. James 5:4

But, also the 10th commandment (and 1st beatitude) addresses and balances the disordered desire to envy the rich and gives consolation to the poor.

2547 The Lord grieves over the rich, because they find their consolation in the abundance of goods. "Let the proud seek and love earthly kingdoms, but blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven." Abandonment to the providence of the Father in heaven frees us from anxiety about tomorrow. Trust in God is a preparation for the blessedness of the poor. They shall see God. CCC 2547


With whom did Abel and Seth marry? Adam and Eve have two sons, Abel and Cain.
Cain slew Abel because of jealousy.
Then Genesis 4, Cain got married, but to whom?
Adam and eve were the first two persons in this world and that makes their sons the third and fourth person.

With whom did Abel and later his younger brother Seth got married.

The question assumes a literal young-earth, literal creation and Adam and Eve as the literal first and only people interpretation of Scripture, so this answer comes from that view.

The common response from pretty much every Apologetic YEC organization is that they married their sisters. There were no other women in the world. And besides that, there were no laws forbidding marriage between brothers and sisters, but had there been; only God was in authority at the time, and he already knew.

As explained on  ChristianAnswers.Net

  ...Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve
  had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of
  Adam and Eve—“And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were
  eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.” This does
  not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130
  years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born....

Also from biblestudy.org

  ANSWER: The debate over who became the wife of man's first two
  children has gone on for centuries. The short answer is that the
  brothers had to marry their sisters. Man was, at first, only two
  people, Adam and Eve. The couple's first three children were Cain,
  Abel and Seth: "After he begot Seth, were eight hundred years; and he
  had sons and daughters" (Genesis 5:4).

  How many sisters were potentially available for Cain and Abel to
  marry? The Bible does not reveal exactly how many children Adam and
  Eve produced. It is safe to assume, however, that since Adam lived 930
  years, he had PLENTY of time to take full advantage of God's command
  to procreate and fill the earth!

And the answer to the prohibition against Incest is consistent among apologetic groups.

For future research, I recommend a Bing or Google search on "Who did Cain marry".  You'll find that the answers that you find from those who hold the literal interpretation of Genesis, the answer is consistent.


What is the LDS line of authority should a Bishop be unavailable? I am seeking a complete and authoritative explanation of this issue.

Who presides at Sacrament meeting (common Sunday services) when the bishop of a ward (pastor of a local congregation) is unavailable?  There are several circumstances that should be considered when answering this question.  The best answer will cite both the handbook of instructions and scripture to justify the explanation.  Linking back to Church resources is appreciated.

When any higher authority is easily accessible and...

When the Bishop (perhaps due to illness) is suddenly unavailable.
When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was expected.
When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was unexpected.

When all higher authorities are also unavailable and...

When the Bishop (perhaps due to illness) is suddenly unavailable.
When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was expected.
When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was unexpected.

A bonus would be an explanation of what priesthood keys (or priesthood authority) is NOT available when any or all of these circumstances take place.  As an example (and as a hint), if the bishop and all higher authorities are unavailable, non-priesthood disciplinary councils cannot be convened.

The policy for who presides at sacrament meeting is found in Handbook 2, 18.2*:

  The bishop oversees ward meetings. He presides at these meetings
  unless a member of the stake presidency, an Area Seventy, or a General
  Authority attends. His counselors may conduct ward meetings and may
  preside if he is absent. Presiding authorities and visiting high
  councilors should be invited to sit on the stand. High councilors do
  not preside when attending ward meetings.

  If the bishop and his counselors are all absent, the stake president
  designates who presides at sacrament meeting. Normally he designates
  the elders quorum president, but he could authorize another
  priesthood holder instead.

So, if the bishop is absent, his counselors preside. In practice, this usually means the first counselor, and if he is absent, it is the second counselor. If neither the bishopric nor his counselors are present, whoever the stake president designates will preside.

If the entire bishopric is unexpectedly gone and the stake presidency is unreachable to designate who will preside, then circumstances are extraordinary and chances are that a normal sacrament meeting would not be held.

The sacrament can only be administered with authorization from the bishop (who holds priesthood keys for ordinances like baptism and the sacrament within his ward boundaries), or the stake president, who holds similar keys within his stake. The bishop may authorize a priesthood holder to administer the sacrament in his ward boundaries, outside of a formal sacrament meeting. Nobody presides per se at these informal sacrament services, but the person who the bishop designates conducts (see 18.2.2 in the Handbook chapter linked above).

*Prior to April 2019, when this answer was originally written, the quote from Handbook 2 referenced the "high priests group leader" instead of the elders quorum president. The high priests group leader position no longer exists as of April 2018, so the quote has been updated to reflect the newer wording in Handbook 2.


Did Mary know that her Baby Boy would "soon deliver her"? It's a little past Christmas, but I forgot to ask this question based on the song "Mary did you know", which really raises the question.  Did Mary know?

As a Catholic, there are lots of traditions around the Nativity of Mary, that she was brought up as a temple virgin, well versed in scripture, a humble, sinless and beautiful person with a timeless grace etc...  So, when I hear that song, "Mary, did you know?" I think she did know.

But, what do the saints and great Catholic writers, like St. Dominic or St. Alphonsus Ligouri say about the foreknowledge of Mary?

Also, is the line "the child that you delivered, will soon deliver you" heretical?

Not Heresy

That's a great line from a great song.  It's a play on words, using "deliver" in such completely different ways.  It is saying that Mary would deliver--give birth to--Jesus, the eternal Son of God who became a Man, and then that Jesus would one day deliver Mary, that is redeem her and all mankind from the power, penalty and presence of sin.

So, if it were suggesting that Mary was going to somehow be the savior of Jesus, that would certainly be heretical, but it's not.  It's simply using a nuance of the English language in a very poetic and powerful way.

Did Mary Know?

From a biblical perspective (and admittedly not from Catholic writers specifically), we do know what the angel told Mary.

  And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found
  favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear
  a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will
  be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him
  the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of
  Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

  34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a
  virgin?”

  35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
  and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the
  child to be born will be called holy— the Son of God. 36 And
  behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a
  son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37
  For nothing will be impossible with God.”   Luke 1:30-37 ESV

So, Mary was specifically told the name of the child would be Jesus.  She no doubt understand that this name meant literally, "The Lord saves".  She was also told that He would be called the Son of the Most High, that He Himself would reign forever (not just His lineage), and that His Kingdom would last forever.  She also knew that He would have no earthly father.

We can also consider the greeting Mary received from Elizabeth:

  And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her
  womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, 42 and she
  exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed
  is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted to me that the
  mother of my Lord should come to me? 44 For behold, when the sound of
  your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. 45
  And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of
  what was spoken to her from the Lord.”  Luke 1:41-45 ESV

Finally, we have what the angel told Joseph:

  Now the birth of Jesus Christ[e] took place in this way. When his
  mother Mary had been betrothed[f] to Joseph, before they came together
  she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her
  husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame,
  resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things,
  behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying,
  “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that
  which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a
  son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people
  from their sins.”

Joseph was given the specific reason why He would be named Jesus--because He would save His people from their sins.  This was pretty significant, and it is at least likely that Joseph shared this with Mary in explanation as to why he decided to go ahead and take her as his wife.

Mary was also part of a culture that had received the promises of a Deliverer.

So, from a biblical perspective, it is quite likely (at least) that Mary did have an understanding that Jesus would one day "deliver her" and the whole world from the power of sin.


How was the translation of the Book of Mormon shown through Joseph Smith's seer stones and hat? The Wikipedia article on the golden plates says that Joseph Smith translated the golden plates into the Book of Mormon with the help of "seer stones". Initially, he is said to have used two stones set in frames as glasses to see the new translation. Later, he switched to a different method with one seer stone inside a hat, but I'm confused as to how it was supposed to help in translation.

  After the loss of the first 116 manuscript pages, Smith translated with a single seer stone, which some sources say he had previously used in treasure-seeking. Smith placed the stone in a hat, buried his face in it to eliminate all outside light, and peered into the stone to see the words of the translation. […] Smith's translation did not require the use of the plates themselves. Though Smith himself said very little about the translation process, his friends and family said that as he looked into the stone, the written translation of the ancient script appeared to him in English.

Image from Wikipedia, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0

I'm confused about this process. Obviously, there is some sort of divine power assumed to be going on here, but I’m trying to understand how the miracle was said to have manifested, specifically where these letters appeared.

Was the stone projecting the words into the darkness? Were the words appearing upon the face of the stone, like the popular depiction of a crystal ball? Was the stone moving around and forming letters? How was the translation of the Book of Mormon shown through Joseph Smith's seer stones and hat?

In other words, how does hat + stone = words?

From LDS.org we read:

The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.” As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure. As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.
Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters. In ancient times, Israelite priests used the Urim and Thummim to assist in receiving divine communications. Although commentators differ on the nature of the instrument, several ancient sources state that the instrument involved stones that lit up or were divinely illumined. Latter-day Saints later understood the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer exclusively to the interpreters. Joseph Smith and others, however, seem to have understood the term more as a descriptive category of instruments for obtaining divine revelations and less as the name of a specific instrument.

Concerning the mechanics of how this took place, the same source reports:

the scribes and others who observed the translation left numerous accounts that give insight into the process. Some accounts indicate that Joseph studied the characters on the plates. Most of the accounts speak of Joseph’s use of the Urim and Thummim (either the interpreters or the seer stone), and many accounts refer to his use of a single stone. According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument. The process as described brings to mind a passage from the Book of Mormon that speaks of God preparing “a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light.”
The scribes who assisted with the translation unquestionably believed that Joseph translated by divine power. Joseph’s wife Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.” According to Emma, the plates “often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth.” When asked if Joseph had dictated from the Bible or from a manuscript he had prepared earlier, Emma flatly denied those possibilities: “He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.” Emma told her son Joseph Smith III, “The Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity—I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me for hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he would at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him.”
Another scribe, Martin Harris sat across the table from Joseph Smith and wrote down the words Joseph dictated. Harris later related that as Joseph used the seer stone to translate, sentences appeared. Joseph read those sentences aloud, and after penning the words, Harris would say, “Written.” An associate who interviewed Harris recorded him saying that Joseph “possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone.”

This is all that we know.  If you're looking for the physics behind these events, we don't have that to give you any more than we can the process of resurrection.


In what different ways is the word "cult" used as a label inside Christianity? The word "cult" gets bandied about quite a bit, but is there an official definition or some kind of formula which can be used to consistently identify whether a group is a cult or not? Baring an absolute standard, what are the various usages and who tends to use each possible meaning?

In particular, I am interested in focusing on the sense in which the word is able to adapt to apply to both one man whack jobs such as David Koresh as well as larger stable groups such as Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses but not for the major traditions such as Catholics or Protestants? What definition is used in Christian circles that makes this usages make sense?

Cult is not an easy word to define.

In popular culture usage, it is often used to refer to any "group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre"1. This easily explains the bulk of the general usage, particularly by media. It is an easy label to slap on any group small enough if their practices are abnormal or bizarre enough to attract attention.

However I would argue that this definition is roughly meaningless in the context of Christianity.

During the period the term was first established in English, it often carried the connotation of being "new". Any new religious movement, whatever their beliefs were, could be labeled as a cult. This partially explains why faiths new to the world scene (such as Mormonism) were easily qualified as Cults at first, but that label is disputed today. In popular usage, there seems to be some expectation that cults would eventually self-destruct (e.g. Waco, Jonestown, Heaven's Gate) whereas any set of beliefs that survived the second generation should be considered a religion (or sect of a religion as appropriate) as opposed to a cult.

In the context of established religions it can have a much more specific and meaningful connotation. This definition is based on the relationship of the Cult to some other religion. The term is used this way to describe cults of other religions as well. The definition I'd suggest as most meaningful goes something like this:

  A group of people who claim identity/membership with an established religion but who, because of their beliefs, are rejected by the members of that religion as being unorthodox.2

In this sense, the term is only useful when combined in reference to what religion they were originally related to. An Islamic Cult would be a group that claimed affiliation with Islam (or even claimed to be true Islam) who's views are divergent enough that are rejected by the larger main body of Islamic teaching. The same would be true for a Buddhist Cult.

Applied to Christianity, this definition would encompass any group of any size smaller than the whole who claimed to be "Christian" but were identified by more established or larger bodies as being divergent on enough core beliefs to actually make them a different religion. What beliefs qualify as core does vary depending on who you talk to, but not so much as to make it impossible to use this label in a general and meaningful way. The standard issues would be the nature of God, particularly in relation to the Trinity, and the fundamental nature of man and how salvation is accomplished.

Using this definition, it is usually accepted that the major branches that comprise mainline Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) each share enough common ground to be called sects or traditions (even if we massively disagree on important issues) while many other groups get labeled as cults by having divergent views such as:

denying the trinity (e.g. Oneness Pentecostals)
having a radically different view of heaven and hell where a limited number of human souls have eternal existence (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses)
or ascribing to God a physical body and making Jesus and Satan out to be brothers (e.g. Mormons)

In this definition, it is also necessary to distinguish between a full blown Cult of another religion and just a "cult" in a generic sense. For example, Heaven's Gate mixed some aspects of Christian doctrine in the formulation of their beliefs, but they did not claim to be Christian and therefore are not properly a "Christian cult", just a "cult". On the other hand, Westboro Baptist Church could easily qualify as a Christian Cult.

Using this definition, it is also possible to note that other religions are not "cults", they are other religions. For example, even if Islam borrowed from both Judaism and Christianity, today it makes no claims of belonging to those religions. Instead it claims to be a true religion in it's own right and should be identified as such. On the other hand, even very large groups (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses) that could easily claim independence as a unique religions choose not to do so and continue to be labeled as Christian Cults because they continue to claim affiliation but are rejected because of their beliefs. In fact some of these cults have cults of there own. There are several LDS Cults that claim to be the true LDS church but are rejected by it because of errant beliefs.

Interestingly, Christianity was originally considered to be a cult of Judaism by the Roman Empire. The earliest people to bear the name "Christian" were a sect or subset of Jews whose beliefs were rejected as being unorthodox by the Jewish religious leaders. In time, as the movement grew and the disparity between the beliefs became more pronounced as Jews rejected the more and more established Christian beliefs, Christianity came to be recognized as an independent religion.

There are of course alternate definitions. It is not uncommon to see Christians (particularly Fundamentalists) who use the term Cult to describe any and every religion apart from their own sect. There are reams of articles on the web expounding on how Islam is a cult, Protestantism is a cult, etc. Other definitions provide long lists of attributes, suggesting that you might be a cult if you match enough of them. These list usually include things like dominating leadership, strict adherence to rules, abuse of dropouts, pressure on members to conform, the existence of secret rituals, etc. While many of these are helpful things to understand about cults they are really not a good way to identify them. Everybody has a different list and these are really more of common factors than defining factors.

TL;DR: While it is possible to be used in a meaningful way, the variety of uses mean you should always check what the speakers definition is. The usage of the term will often tell you more about the beliefs of the person using it than those being described by it.

It might be worth mentioning that the scope of this particular site is Christianity and all its heresies, so heterodox teaching is just as much on topic as orthodox, meaning Christian Cults have just as much place here as Christianity itself. Generic cults that do not identify as primarily Christian or other religions maybe off topic.

Footnotes:

See Wikipedia on Cults.
I got this from student handout notes from an Apologetics class by a seminary professor, which I think he in turn had based on The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin.


What is an overview of non-literal methods of interpreting the Bible in Christianity? Following my viewing of this superb discussion between the previous Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins:

Dialogue with Richard Dawkins, Rowan Williams and Anthony Kenny (YouTube)

. . . I understood that Archbishop Rowan Williams interpreted the Genesis creation account not perhaps as literal but to be understood as a theme: God created everything and created man in His image.

What is an overview of Christian approaches to the Bible that utilize a non-literal method of interpreting the various texts of the Bible?

Here are two examples of what I might mean by "non-literal interpretation" in particular stories in the Bible:

Noah's ark: not perhaps to be read as a literal historical account, but rather as a story in which God offers salvation to all those who will "come aboard the ship of faith"
Samson and Delilah: Samson's power was "cut off" through the temptation of a woman

A comprehensive overview of sorts is attempted on the Wikipedia page on Biblical Hermeneutics, but it is so comprehensive that it is incomprehensible (at least to me).

I think an abridged overview of sorts can be constructed by looking at what hermeneutic principles were applied within the Church during its first few hundred years.

Justin Martyr (100-165), relied heavily on typology in the interpretation of the Old Testament that he presented to Trypho, a Jew (Dialog with the Jew Trypho).  His typological interpretation of the flood comes close to what you posted in your question.

Irenaeus of Lyon (130-202) relied heavily on a hermeneutic principle of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.  This means that (John Breck, Scripture in Tradition, p.53):

  a.  Every interpretation must be in harmony with other passages of
  Scripture

  b. Obscure passages can be interpreted by those that are clear and
  evident

Following Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, hermeneutics took the form of an Alexandrian "school" and an Antioch (or Antiochene) "school".  Exegesis within the Alexandrian school was generally allegorical, whereas exegesis within the Antiochene school relied on a more literal reading of Scripture.  The most prominent exegetes within each of these schools within the Church were probably the contemporaries Cyril of Alexandria (376-444) and John Chrysostom (349-407).  Although each are classified as belonging to their respective school, neither was strictly allegorical or strictly literal in their exegesis.  Both Cyril and Chrysostom employed all of the aforementioned methods, but employed certain techniques more than others.

I think that any hermeneutic principle that developed after the late 4th/early 5th century can probably be analyzed in terms of how much it employs each of the early methods discussed above:

Typology
Using Scripture to interpret Scripture
Allegory
Historical/factual reading


Did Arminius believe Adam's actual guilt was imputed against all humanity? All early reformers believed in the imputation of 'actual guilt' as far as I know. I am fairly certain, however, that Arminians of the 16th century did not believe in the 'imputation of guilt' as there are books that show Calvinist leaders arguing against them on this issue at this time. For example, John Owen argued against their views in 'Display of Arminianism' and quotes, in many places, their denial of the 'imputation of guilt.'

Does anybody have historic quotes from Arminius that shows if he also did NOT believe in the 'imputation of guilt'?

I ask the question because my answer in this post assumed Arminius did not believe in the 'imputation of guilt' but that Wesley did. Now I am not 100% certain as I find clear direct quotes from Arminius hard to find.

Being impatient for answer I looked up the works of Arminias and found right away in Volume 1 - ARTICLES XIII AND XIV,  P228 that he argues against the imputation of guilt on infants.

For example, among many other statements against the imputation of guilt on infants, he says (in the words of his friend)

  "When Adam sinned in his own person and with his free will, God pardoned that transgression. There is no reason then why it was the will of God to impute this sin to infants, who are said to have sinned in Adam, before they had any personal existence, and therefore, before they could possibly sin at their own will and pleasure." (Arminias, Volume 1 - ARTICLES XIII AND XIV)

He also makes his sentiments known in a very indirect way, attributing these ideas ONLY to his friend Borrius whom his intention is merely 'to defend.' Borrius 'denies having ever publicly taught' them but only 'thinks them' and 'discusses them' and 'he considers that it was not unlawful for him so to do' and 'still beleives them unless proved wrong', etc.  If Arminias admits that these are bad ideas, or that shame is associated with them so as to 'deny that they are taught', why does he argue their merits in such detail as one who 'loves them', without ever opposing the folishness of them (if he actually opposed them) -- and thus -- famously teaches them?!

As Arminias seems to be very hard to pin down on this question, I will add two more quotes on the subject to further prove: ‘Arminias opposed the idea of actual guilt being imputed on all humanity, making every human creature no longer innocent but guilty.’

Arminias does not seem like to mention the ‘imputation of guilt’ so common among Calvinists, even as he argues against them, because he opposes it. But the declaration of ‘innocence’ which is just the same thing in reverse, he does do on a couple of occasions. In fact it is central to his thinking that those born innocent can’t be predestined to hell as this would be unjust.  The idea that a man is born innocent is what my question is trying to determine. ‘Did Arminias believe babies were born guilty of sin, or born innocent?

For example in arguing against the doctrine of predestination he says:

  If creation be the way and means through which God willed the execution of the decree of his reprobation, he was more inclined to will the act of reprobation than that of creation; and he consequently derived greater satisfaction from the act of condemning certain of his innocent creatures, than in the act of their creation. (THE WORKS OF
  JAMES ARMINIUS VOL. 1, P195)

Or again, he repeats his sentiments:

  It is far worse to predestinate a just man to sin than to predestinate an innocent man to death. Of this we have also, previously, spoken. (THE WORKS OF
  JAMES ARMINIUS VOL. 3, P369)

Please note, I was not asking if Arminias believed in original sin, in some other sense than that which is attributed by the ‘imputation of guilt’. I was only wondering about this one question.  My determination that he did not believe it is not meant to be a criticism against Arminians, or great men like Wesley who did believe it.